Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1991/08/14 - Agenda Packet
0701 -02 o AUGUST 145 1991 P.C. AGENDA,, ( 1 of 7 � y GLICAMO CITY OF e , RANMO CUCAMOr,KjA o " _ o FLANKING COI ISSUN (3 AGENDA, 1977 WA,DNESDAY XUGUST 14, 1991 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER i 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE t, ktANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of A1167iance II.. Roll call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy - Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Vallette Conml }ssioner Melcher 'III. Announc m6a s s IV. Approval of Kinc'tes f ,Tune 26, 1991 July 10, 1991 Adjourned Meeting of July 18, 1991 Adjourned Meeting of August 1, 1-91 V. Consent Calendar ,i The following Consent Calendar ite,,�s are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted on '.y the Commission at one time without discussion. if anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion., A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565 (PHASES 6. 7 AND 8) - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request for an extension of a Previously approved design review of building djevations and dbtailed site plan for Pha #es 6., 7, and 8, (consisting of 125 single family lots on 55,7 acre... %-f land) of a previously County - s approved map no3'th•of Summit Avenue 4nd east of Wardidsn Bullock ----Road - APN: 226- 082 -16 17, and 27. , B. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVITiW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 135f,5 (Pfi aSES 5. 9. AND 191 - STANDARD PACIFIC ;'/ A request for an extension of a previously approved design revietw of building elevations and detailed site plan]for Phases ,5, 9, and 10 (consisting of 108 �*+ctio,l.Famil Tats on 54.5 acres of land) of a pf �'`-_ fy County- approved map north of Summit Avenrac ,3 east of Wa..:t'3mar. - Bullock Road - APN: 221 -Or `--16, 17, and 27. C. VACATION OF A PORTION OF 25TH SIRE / ��_ANSON DEVELOPMENTS . INC- - A ;request vacate a portion of 25th Streett;, locate,-- of Etiwanda Avenue and nortk;%. of 24th Street - aPN: 225- 082 -01+ V1. Public Hearings The fcllow:ig items are public hear rigs 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 for each pxofect Please sign in after.speak�,_q. D. WIVIj�ONs"!E►'. ASSESSXENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMEN ,FNT 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A regr_as`c to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact parking spaces. Staff 'recommends issuance.of.a NegativefDeclaration. (Continued'•' ., . from June '2 %i, 1991. ) E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND __INDUSTRIAL.. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request }o amend Part.,Ill of the Industrial Area Specific Plan toeliminate, compact parking spaces. Staff stecommends issuance Of a Negative DeclaratR)n. (Continued from June 20, 1991.) Z'- ENVIRONMENTAL _ ASSESSMENT AND DEVE'LfSPM+I , CODE AMENDMENT 91- 02.CITY OF,,. RAN"_HO CUC NIONGA - A request to amend various development star0ards and design guidelines for multi - family residential districts.,' Staff recommends issuance'.yf a Negative Declaration. ( Conttinued from July 10, 1991.) y` G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETI14 A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT^ 91 -02A CITY` OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA., - A request to amend various t development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends Fz issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991..) H. ENVIR014MENTAL : ASz-', MENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMgNDMENT 93-02 CITE OF RANCHO CUCAMONrg�& - =A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts w7,thin tithe Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative ` Declaration. (Continued from July 10 1992.) i. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -•02 - CITY OY' RANCHO CUghMONGA' - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts within 'the Victoria PlannP� Community area. Staff recommends ance of a Negative Declaration .(coi.tinued from July 10, 1991.) J. ENIMRTAINMENT ERY IT 92 -02 -• SAWS PLACR' - A request to conduct Live music in conjunction with a restvarant ` and bar ,.,located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620, Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th an&' Carnelian Streets: APN; 201- 811 -56 throu n 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) R. CONDITIONAL USE rrt'YIT 78 -03 - SAX'S PLACE - P review of compliance with conditions o,' Z approval and consideration of suspension. o revocation of the Conditional use Perm t for ,3_,_ restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets APN: 201- 811-56 through 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) - I L. AMENDAT'ENT TO' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - SAM'S ' PACE - A request to extend the hours of operation and amend the condition of approval 1 I' prohibiting live entertainment for an existing ' restaurant and bar located in t:ae hTeighborhood ! j I Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, ~. " northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets APN: ,-201- 811 -56 through 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFTs PLAN 90 -01) LAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -03B - CITY ' OF !�ANCHO CUCAMON_GA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the`'Etiwanda North Specific Plan dial_ General Plan Amendment 90 -03B 'do prezone,_i%+pgroximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere -of- influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling unit; on 2,473 acres cf vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial uses' 4 schools, 5 .parks, an equestrian center, and preservation 4,112 acres of open space generally'lWated :t ne:.th of Highland Avenue (. -tate Route 34 ), south of the San Bernardino National Fo,::.`st, west of. the City of Fontana, and east` of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) (To BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 11, 1991,.) N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PT-W- 90-01 - CYTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to : recommend approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezon=n` approximately 6,840 acres of territory in iLhe Rancho Cucamonga spt,i >xe of influence to pr.� vide for 3,613 oingle : , famiiy dwelling units on,J 4, 473 acres of vacant C� land, ::8 acres of neighbhood comifiercial usg., 4 schools,, 5.,parks, an equestrian center - and preser•,ration of 4,1%2 acres of open space generally located north 'of Yighland Ave'aue (State Route 30) , south of. 0.e San Bernardino National Forest, 'west of the City of Fontana, , and east of Milliken Av3nne. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) (To BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 1Z, 1991.) O. 1FN . 'IRONMEP :TAL ., ASaESSMENT AND ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -plB CIT_Y0 F RA'dCH.i CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft EtiwLnda North Specific' Plan, ',prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territir!ry in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influencel.o provide for 3,6!3 single family dwelling us'cvila., on '2,473' acres of vacant land, 28 _acres of neitghbo;rhood ,, +a t�mmercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks 4, an equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space generally located north, of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of' '''the San Bernardino National Forest, weft of he City of Montana, and east of Milliken P;va ue. (Continued from July 24, 1941. )i (T!a' BE Cot- PINUEB TO SEPTMMER 11, 1991.) t6 a� i Adlk P:. ENVIRON- M —FRTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE 1p PERMIT 91 -08 -�', MACIAS - A request to allow retail Sales in 'conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foot building in the Industrial, Park District (Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on' the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: '209- 144 -42. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) ' Q, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT" 91 -25 - HAFIS HA14IU „,- The request to establish 'a convenience market” in a leased space of 1,907 square feet within an existing shopping center on 1.34 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community' Plan, located at `the . northwest corner of Basz -Line toad and Victoria Park Lane '' APN: 227- 111-41. R. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TE?vTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU - A, residw.itial subdivision and design review of 30 sincQ4- family lots on 23.45 acres of land in the�rVery Low !!Residenti.11 District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located north of Manzanita Drive, east of Beryl Street, and west' of Hellman Avenue - APN: 1062- 111 -03 through 06, 1061- 761 -03, and 1062- 061 -01 and 02. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Associated With the project is Tree Removal Permit 91 -28. S. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PMNTIT 91 -10 - LIEN WEST - The request to allow auto sales and truck rentals within a leased space: of 360 square feet in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9797 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208- 282 -05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. T. ENVIRONMENAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 13755 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - The creation of one 14.,27 acr_ parcel for the development of a junior high school within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located between Terra vista Parkway and Spruce Avenues north of Church Street - APN: 1077- 091 -29 and 31.- Staff , recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. AMk U. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE -TRACT 14139 AHMANSON - A request to modiZy a condition of approval requiring the, removal of a Flood Insurance Rate Map "D" Zone designation for a previously approves'. tentative ::fact map consisting of 114 single family lots on 54 acres of land in'� the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest, corner of ytiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225-082 -01. V. MODIFICATION TO THE DESIGN RMTIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 14379. 14380. 14381, AND 14382 (4 PHASES OF TRACT 13527) - 'WATT II'LAND -EMPIRE A request to mod.?,fy a_ condition of .;upproval requiring the removal of a Flood Insurance Rate Map "D" Zone designation for a: previously approved design review of a-�:tentative tract map consisting of 152 single family lots on 51.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District ( , -4 dwelling units »e7� acre), located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Streeic -?!PN: 225- 071 -65. Viz. Direc ores Reports W aHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS X , USE DETERMINATION 91 -u1 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS -� \A request to consider adding Animal Care ,Facilities as a permitted or conditio Tally kermittE,d use in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria. Community Plan. Y. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE A SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW WOM MENT SIGNS FOR EE- RTANDING_PADS_WI`£HI SHOPPING CENTFRS Z. CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL RESPONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /. ENVIRONMENTAL 114PACT STUDY (EIR /EIg Vill. Commission Business ?A. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF'BICYCLE TRAIL FUNDING IS. Public Comments This is the time and place for the .aeneral' public to address the Commission. Items t6 -'be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. vicinity mad 113 CITY Off' RANCHO CUCAM�jONGA STAFF REPORT DATE. August i4, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM; Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT s - ult, FL N 7, 6, 7, AND 8) - STANDARD PACIFIC - A' request for an;kxtension o2 a , previously; approved design review of building ',`elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 6, 7, and 8, (consisting of 125 single family lots on 55.7 acres of land) of a previously County- approved map uorth of Summit Avenue, and east of Wardman %;Bullock Road - APN: 22L7C82 -16, 17, and 27. BACKGROUND: Tract °73555 was approved by the County of San' - nardino and includes 10 phases-,'on 159 acres. Phases 1 through 4 are, •,r_ady under construction with,building permits having been issued by the ,,junty of San Bernardino. An Annexation and Develc_:.ment Agreement for Tract .13565 was approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 16 and December 7, 1988, respectively. The Design Review for Phases 6, 7, and 8 of Tentative- Tract 13565 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 81 1989, and is due to expire or, November 8, 1991. The applicant rs currently requesting a one - year time extension to expire on November 8, 1992. Prw3.sions of the Development Code allow for time extensions in twelve -month increments, not to exceed five years from the original date of aparoval. ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the propo =ad time e:,eension and compared the proposal with thu current development criteria outlined in the Development Agreement and the Development Code. Based on this review, staff determined that the tract meets all applicable development standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one- year Time Extension for the ;Design Review of- Phases 6, 7, and 8 for Tract 13565 through adoption of the attached Reselnttion. City (tanner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "C" Tract Map Exhibit "D" - Resolution No. 89 -141 Resolution of Approval ITEM A STANDARD PACIFIC OF �,, ORANGE COUNTY MQNGA June 4, 1991 6i �'18t�l�l�t�1�•t21��g1��� A Ms. Beverly Nissen Ciiy of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonita, CA 91729 Re: DRC Extension for 13565 (5, 9, 10) Estates and 13565 (6, 7, 8) Highlands Dear ?'•everly - The follo«ing is a request f >r a DRC extension for the above- melttioned projects. As you now, Standard Pacific received DRC and Planning Crommission appyc val for both l projects on September 27, 1989 and November 8, 2959, resp'c:ctively. Due tcl the current economic conditions, we have delayed pulling building permits for these projects. In order to avoid a re- submittal to DRC, Standard Pacific is requet zing its first one -year e;tension to our c>rrrent DRC approvals. Should you have any questions, or need fufther clarification, please do not hesitate to calla j Also, please notify me of any scheduled public hearings for extension agreements. Sincerely, vV K/ sv'j chael Yhite Pxoject Manager M`d I /cw ce: Bob Shiota Ray Allard, FWLS I l; 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92626,7141668-4300 CITY CF PLANNM D ;.M A 6XI41 DIT "C�" ff A O r SEE OEI Nr JTM's ___v_ ___ % NORTH CITY OF MEM, RANCHO CLEAMaNCA TME. PLANNING DIVISM EXHiBrr. SCALE f5)(H i t5 i r �C RESOLUTIGN NO. 89 -141 n QESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMOf7A PLANNING COMMiSS29N A.� AOVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT-NO. 13565 (PHASES 6, 7, AIM S), CONSISTING OF 125 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 55.7 ACRES OF LAND NORTH OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND EAST OF WARGMAN BULLOCK`ROAD, AND MAKIN3 FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 226- 082 -16, 17, AND 27. A. Recitals. (17 Standard Pacific has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 13565 (Phases 6, 7 and 8) as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application". r (ii) On November 8, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho 'Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that al? of the facts ;-!t 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 November 8, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby s ecificall y finds sasfollows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectiirEi of the Generai Pl'dn; 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 is 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 design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity,. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions snt forth in paragraphs i 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. e,i rr It rt PLANNING 90MMISSIr RESOLUTION NR. 89 -141 TT 135651,E STANDA PACIFIC November 8, 1989 Page 2 Planning Division: 1. Corner side yard landscaping shall include irrigation, street trees and either groundcover or turf. 2. View fencing shall be black in color. 3. Corner side yard lots shall be provided with eight (8) 15- gallon trees, 4. Paseo walkways sh all be landscaped with six (6) 24" box size trees. An easement should be provided on each side of the sidewalk (approximately 101 on eil „her side) allowing the City the right to prohibit fencing in this area. S. All river rack shall be of native stone. 6. The following modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior U the issuance of building permits.- a. On Plan 4, rock ahail be added to the chimneys of the i California Rarrh elevation. b. Plan 2 shall be. revised to provide consistent material on the trim and chimneys`. c. Wrought iron shall be added to the Santa Barbara elevations of Plan 4. d. Balconies shall be added to the Santa Barbara Revival elevations. 7. View fencing "pickets” shall be 4" can center. 8. Fence material shall be consistent between tiers of lots, i.e., it shall either be all masonry or all 'open-view. Rancho Cucamonga Fire District: 1. The applicant shall contact the Raincho Cucamonga Fire District regvding Wildland interface Areas for specific requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. Engineering Division: 1. A Consent and Waiver form shall be filed with the City Engineer, agreeing to form and/or annex to the appropriate Lighting and Landscaping Districts, prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMI' SI^"' RESOI— Ijl:DN 1I0, 59 -L;i TT 13565 - STANDF PACIFIC November 8, 1989 Page 3 2. Landscape and irrigation plans Tor all public landscape areas shall ` be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Where lots front onto the inside of Cresi;ine Place and Arcadia Way, t'1e entire parkway shall be a "Limitedriuse Area ", with landscaping saibject to City Traffic Engineer approval. 4. All driveways shall bp. perpendicular at the street right -of -way line. 5 Driveways on the following corner lots shall be loc`t�ed as far from the intersection as possible to reduce conflicts with blind right t;wn moveRsnts (50 feet from the 8CR preferred) a. In Tract 13565 -6: Lot 19; b. In Tract 13565 -7: Lots 8 and 32; and c) In Tract 13565 -8: Lots 1, 15 and 28: 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I, 'Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning, Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamorga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of tie Planning Commission held on the 8th day of Noventer, 1989, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMMIONERS: NONE ABSENT": COMMISSIONERS: NONE A—,7 IL � CC 9 Yy am yyyy � e yY� d�C40�e i1V O�. °.y � ■ O� b® :gap_ °�HOY C a8 SK C ,tt i Y .2 k6kk tig USA r a ZZ tiM Y6c°+rS '� ` YM1 N ii 12Z ���yge 6�Ms 2 sills= six W�ypp 1 _ " a ,fLI 3 �x 11—t VIC lei gi �San g 4 ra limi— ]Q M 1I' ;a a \i. y��Y� pg ■c 0.i ILY lot 1 tl.. jYt ByMy v9 s., s `L p� NM MAu a�yy( �V1 YY ' C1 W ao s HE °'� T ®� yMAyr it 312E za.°rs= �. AUM 6*CY P1. . a�Z. a amPj. CX VL '� C6YYy E` g _ h__ �t ®qY �i.R ysy SRN _ CC4 ° � six &A y 4 p �SY C • 6 ® o CR a_a: y y Y �a YC yq �y.A4.p� "b gY MAO- ilia �� 6 • gsuMSTL _. <r sa all jig ve ° ,e.. aw. m ST s3 =Z3 12 lit �-�I _$ _�'� S •° � m •o a 2 p @�� Hp e{�q m ® ail a.�!�:Y 4i � x°31: Y �3= �l°➢h°� °= call FIJI 2 all: E°x�: °a WY.2 «+gip aV 353 :9�� '��. k. ci N l ee yn QnO YRRO yL Bu a_8 Ofd ��[,CiLQ�Q.Y S'"V �.s "y,,8E$t3 Y C # 8 a « {{ E ,1, Y b N U q V y Ci q Cam` DD1 y• ,'bG 1 Y0 ya CY�Y�V _C�� +S a.. NryV Q + Ltgo Y c` �yppTY .p. $ yN �q iayi tlQY MryOp. ®,.�p yYb 36 N. �N .�ez bM wY— Y pM00 �NN�Y 'fis. O� wYYC ovo =CMVt N ,w Ii, a 1 Zia E i M6O+� w ww y C i .Q ° 1 "P3 p 9»�rOY N E 3� io Ise .9�CV ✓P� w, Nom• VS�i O�lpeb`mq�,�0 ��YyM, (off ff1 MI a� Hwy ��Nt°� �g3$.Y. Y �� Mil O6LQ 4 oM Irt.~ iq. N•` �t.�M V �1Cbq��. vgy �Po bpa�Q°. 9^ .2—Lz p Fb,pp� S b Y G Y p C Q n Y yy�� M O G` Os V 9$$yj�� V$ m oj\ ^ w tlg i i •,i N .nw »eN -C s» 'aNa 4 w.2 i,iiu 2)1. Yi &U-14 at XLd `2 _ ZST gx� a mss To OF =i:� V— _ itt N ` si � Sr M M MM AL g `a F p y 'g b Vale all- 5� 13 lit al »$ • YI i Dye ! of Off. M q® .N 6 � e i3a m � Aga. �» 21,1 it �Q - � -;Sr*. w «— S te... --I . _ I� � a w b Y .� M b y� r•� �w V+ •w L a'sr r.be�. au c$ ®a -Z o,a s%i too itwilS9 O • A • W 1D 'V .# M �i i s ri ~1 !o A' �I ! I I� 1 { W .y \U1, v\ 0 2 CX 6 Ll Y Ly y ! ° iii��� � � g.� S g 0 IL c 31.3 ��''a P 1 y A ap q Y i f six $ e� Him !'f�' 7i �'!� fig; �Iy l S �, n ®�� � pi � lga0 `�� � •mss ��_�® Y `�. Q BE C yes �°.� all IMF V e ptlLs s Q�. ci ygea� vx 31 u 6c =nom u�uc gy$ �ie. ■ C CG A _.Z� 4y7 m jy$ N.OI � S 3W 1! o a +� O.r Y .S B n Sy O s • rd��0mn�t rQO VL L• U Y 2�✓ '• sits 'Y�tl u Y we Yw$ S V!!.=. L =$ ® �Y O N O IL O gova rCC°� y O O C�� Lea V 40Y aM• Votl =o'A gel Q I q x. Mw e i y� •«Ui� y u�B'A °L VML� rH is "�L8 F= !pp® i9:� a xy ® A w X4 I ,� Y Ly y ! ° iii��� � � g.� S g 0 IL c 31.3 ��''a P 1 y A ap q Y i f six $ e� Him !'f�' 7i �'!� fig; �Iy l S �, n ®�� � pi � lga0 `�� � •mss ��_�® Y `�. Q BE C yes �°.� all IMF V e ptlLs s r- . vx 31 au= 6c =nom u�uc gy$ i� ■ C CG A _.Z� 4y7 m jy$ N.OI � S 3W 1! o a +� O.r Y .S B n Sy O s • rd��0mn�t tl .`0- •� sits 'Y�tl u Y we Yw$ S V!!.=. L =$ ® �Y O N O IL O gova y• Y e ya b y® 8S tl 01 aM• Votl =o'A aCY pp Qg I q x. b EE 66 ¢� Mw e i y� a »� i !pp® i9:� a xy ® A w X4 I ,� Y Ly y ! ° iii��� � � g.� S g 0 IL c 31.3 ��''a P 1 y A ap q Y i f six $ e� Him !'f�' 7i �'!� fig; �Iy l S �, n ®�� � pi � lga0 `�� � •mss ��_�® Y `�. Q BE C yes �°.� all IMF V e ptlLs s r- . vx 31 all IL a y C Q � S 1! o a .S B n • tl gY: •� Wig fil 2 sit; ^111 yy �� I tlyy s{��M aM• ZZ xye atly °$tl•_ e i y� ®� »� i !pp® i9:� a xy ® A tls� `.6= a V 4 i �I - �� Z 8 n \ mow. 6etl��0 tZ8 ! V •:'. Y. L� CS.. nor 'N »e `� 'g i 2 V �.k Y L y- .. y ■� = - g ye` "t S a �e .. 4 i o w Z V. fwY Ow ON�La Y•yO C Ng wa qy S II '•Y" s moo® .N", °u ■ ^$a o Ag�� S'�ai.�b �g CA Or ® 21 °�° 3�3 s4� Zb Y� � � IOC, 11� q —V • Ski 1 a HIS be as ® q Q M y I W tk Iso ilk Lill 2 521 A rig M i « °s -,sto gy -'� I d = fir - K R W OI V ya- p wa p O =p Y V L ^w\ �4g��s •L ec1 o..CM q N — S. o SSE :s� uj -ate a x" " 7_zbY O u�i� Y� _ ` "L Pyp 2N 4Y S.�{ yy_ +a�3 gs a q +u _ vr4p 4 s.VYN O O M or v i e `. qq z� 4 pp L °a06 CL 6_1• D A 9 @ a • �v 4r •Y � p�Y O €g Ssi bz-C ti ` ; da.pOu yi �� ��p� -6 IPA d_= S —2 tZ «_W M M� Vr uui. �. M± Y— i` O q ! yj YVM ■ Mr. �w Yi sa— 9`5 YqL +� is -.'S. Ei `S° 'y'�L V. O�y Z— �d b •� Lu Op�� �w� v'a� I.r `sy4� .. a.N `a =�•aqi r'y $y 1. ti �OS1�r Gi M N Du R> ilk T Iva it in S � � V O q• r � 4 Y � V � ® Y `� St4i M� •OY a i s s;$ Itl '• a b_Y Y ® � f 7!b s _ � 1 1 s� S�f a �o GGY uu Y I V I `I 1 a " + ` AV+� q 6 1 SIM g i.� •. � � Fi 2 d Y `w �mul � ►. ` w V —w MM iP w Q �.dVi Me4.1 _ � o RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIC- -; Oi�,(1HE CITY `61— RANCHO cur- amONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING'', THE TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13665 (PHASES 6, 7, AND 8), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR PHASEZ•• 6, 7, AND 8,, CONSISTING OF 125 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON SS.,7� ACRES OF LAND OF A PREVIOUSLY COUNTY- APPROVED MAP NORTH"?' OF SUMMIT AVENUE, AND EAST OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD, AND MAILING FINDINGS IN riUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 226 - 082 -16, 17, AND 27 WHEREAS „I a request has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project; and WHEREAS, ,'the. Planning Commission conditionally approved the above- described Design Review.' SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for development of the project. B. That current economic, marketing„ � and, -' inventory conditions make it unreasonable iievelop the project at thl°s time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval �nruing expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development erode. D. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION Tho Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grant' a time extension foil: Proinct Applicant Ezoiration \ . DR for TT 13565 Standard November 8, 1992 ('Phases 6, 7, & 8) Pacific \ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. a TE FOR DR FOR TT 13565 (PHASES 6, 7, fi &) — STANDARD PACIFIC Augubt 14, 1491 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH'DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PL.D.NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: - Larry T. McNiel, Chairman \t r ATTEST: 1� Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning CQ .. so an of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that tha fori'.7oi%)g Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted bydtite Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meet ing;w :f the! Planning Commission held on the 14th day of Aumst 1981, by the follow ing7,ote -to -wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS- - ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: t I 1 I i i .y � D n� DATE• TO: FRUd: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUC AMONGA STAFF REPORT Aug. dt 14, 1991 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner OR 5, 9, AND 10) - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request`,for an extension of a previously approved,: design review of builh.Tng elevations and detailed site plan for Phases 5, 9, and 10, (consisting of 108 single family lots on 54.5 acres of land) of a previously County - approved map north of Summit Avenue and east of Wardxan Bullock Road - APN; - <- 226- 0P2 -16, 17, and 27. BACKGROUND: Tract 13565 was approved by the County of San Bernardino a%xd Includes 10 phases on 159 acres. Phases 1 through 4 are alzeady under construction with building permits having been 11iaued by the County of San Bernardino. An Annexation and Development Agreement for the Tract was approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 16 and December 7, 1988, respectively. The Design Review for Phases 5, 9, and 10 of Tentative Tract 13565 was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1989, and is due to expire on September 27, 1991. The applicant is currently requesting a one-year time extension to expire on September 27, 1992. Provisions of the Development Code allow for time extensions in twelve- month increments, not to exceed five years from the original;. -:date of approval. li ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the ',roposed time extension and compared the proposal with the current development criteria outlined?in the Development Agreement and the Development Code. Based on this review, staff determined that the tract meets all applicable development standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one- year Time Extension for the Design Review of Phases 5, 9, and 10 for Tract 13565 through adoption of the attached Resolution. B 1 CityFPlanner At ;hments. Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Mip Exhibit "C" - Tract Map Exhibit "D" - Resolution No. 89 -116 Resolution of Approval ITEM B J" STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY �i d =ri r T • ^ o? CUCAMONGA JUN June 4, 1991 I Z Ms. Beverly Nissen City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 I. Re: DRC Extension for 13565 (5, 9, 10) Estates and 13565 (6, 7,8) iYighlands Dear Beverly: The following is a request for a DRC extension for the above mentioned projects. As you know, Standard Pacific recr:ived DRC and Planning Commission approval for both projects on September 27, 1989 and November 8, 1989, respectively, Due to the current economic conditions, we have delayed pulling building permits for these projects. In order to avoid a re- submittal to DRC, Standard Pacific is requesting its first one-year extension, to our current DRC approvals. Should you have any questions, or need further clarification, please do not hesitate to call. Also, please notify me of any scheduled public hearings for extension agreements. Sincerely, / ,f ichael ite Project Manager MW /cw cc: Bob Shiota Ray Allard,'FWLS 15'5 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92626,7141668-4300 c E CITY CF RAN UM C CAMKj PF._AINNING DTMN 5x fl Drr ;' 9)r` NK)KrH Em "our to s[t0 10 s ,`.� '� T-.1• a ,1 LOT SEE m PERp ( .T. � ��1 � � s`� X •�' L � � .10� sasz' op 0 14101, R NIT .o z �►� `��/''"" • `a� �. r 4 \�\ a 8 nir •� { d� \a �e�° plc+' yN� � all! a / 5000' 24 th ". ' a n�� Ad C '°-� �-i. �• '�^�• ! ' tT on 4 X; i[a .... we III 1't: y1! NOUH CITY CF JDA 130W R CUCANKY!'CA ., . Afier PLANNM DIVISION - )- PtiIBtT- ScAL:E. em I?ij �i 19 Gli RESOLUTION NO. 89 -116 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMOf,GA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 13565 (PHASES 5, 9, AND 10 OF A PREVIOUSLY COUNTY- APPROVED MAP CONSISTING OF 108 SINGLE FAMIJ -7 LOTS ON 54.5 ACRES OF :%.5ND NORTH OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND EAST OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS -IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 226- 082 -L;i; 17, AND 27. A. Recitals. (i) Standard Pacific has filed an application for the Desgn R;view of Tract No. 13565 (Phases 5,- 9, and 10) as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as, "the application ". (ii) On September 27, 1989, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meet;ng to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution `nave occurred. B. Resolution. jl NOW, THEREFORE,. it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of ..he City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This tummission,hereby specifically finds that all of the facts !t set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.` 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission ciiring the above - referenced meeting on September 217, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically rinds as follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and `('3) That the proposed design is in accord with the objective o '4 Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and (c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicably provisions of the Developmnt Code; and (d) That the proposed design, together with the .`conditions applicable thereto, will nGt be detrimental to the public health, sa'e:ty, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements ?, the . vicinity. ). PLANNING COMMISSIO'RESOLUTION NO, 89 -116 T 13565 - STANDARD IFIC J ' September 27, 1985 j Page 2 t Ask 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application aject ' to each and every condition set forth below and in the at ^ached Standard Conditions, attachedhereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division: 1. Walls shall be located 5 feet minimum from the back 1 of sidewa'ks. 2. The number of courtyard walls /entries on all Santa Barbara Revival style footprints shall be increased. 3. Decorative masonry. walls shall be provided for al-1 retur,. walls at ,corner .side yards: -,and between dael iings.; - 4. Corner side yards shall be provided with permanent irrigation systems and either turf or groundcover. Groundcover may be located on slopes and turf may be located on flat areas. 5. All corner lots shall be provided w.th a minimum of eight (8) 15- gallon trees. 6. Color of the view fencing_ shall be reviewed and approved by-the City Planner prior 'to the issuance; of bullding permits. The color, shall not be cbtrusive or noticable and -shall fade into the distance. 7. 63tes within the return walls between houses shall be pain':ed or stained to match the wall. Size of the members of the gates shall be more substantial. 8. Shutters shall be added to the front and right side windows (first story) on the 3A elevation. 9. The brick chimrey on the QA elevation shall not bo painted, but nonstrjjcted of a r.-_terial similar in color to the siding. 10. The landscape plan for the San Sevaine Wash area shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall consent' to, or participate in, yne establishment of 8 Mello -Roos Coamnity Facilities' District pertaining to the project site to provide PLANNING COMMISSIO" RESOLUTION NO. 89 -11fi T 13565 - STANDARC .CIFIC September 27, 1989 Page 3 in conjunction with the applicable Fchool District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any S -ehool 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 issuance of building. permits. Further, if the affected School DistS 1�t ` has not formed a N9e1lo -Roos Comm,�nity Fa�°ilities`. District within twelve months of the date of approval of the ;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. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Districts 1. The' applicant shall contact the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District regarding Wildland interface Areas for specific requirements prior to the _ issuance of building permits. Engineering Division: 1. The design for flood, protection* facilities- along the north project boundary'shal l be approved, by the City Engineer and the necessary easements recorded prior to the issuance of buildins permits. At a minimum, provide a trapezoidal channel and 3 foot high flood wall within 11 feet of dedication. 2. All drainage facilities- shall be installed, to the satisfaction of the.,City'Engineer. 3. Landscape and irriglt,on plains for all public landscape areas shall be approved by the 'Lity Engineer prior to the issuance cif building permits. 4. A Consent and Waiver form shall be filed with the City Engineer, agreeing to form and /or annex to the appropriate Lighting and Landscapirg District, prior` to the issuance of building permits. 5. On all corner lots, structures shall oe located outside the intersection linen of sight C satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. All I mounding, and slope d,wcroachment withiii PLANNING COMMISS16P RESOLUTION NO. 89-1.18 T 13565 - SIANDARO . CIFIG September 27, 1989 Page 4 the Limited Use Areas shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Lots 13 and 27 in Tract 13565 -9 require specific approval. 6. The driveway on Lot 12 in Tract shall be located as close to thIL11 west lot' line as.,possible, per the "Alternative Unit Plotting" plan. 7. Where lot, •�ront onto the inside of the curve in RidgelinelCrtir,tline' Place,, the entire Parkway shall be a "Limi'�ed Use Area ", with landscaping, subject -y to City Traffic Engineer appfioval. 4. [he Secretary to this Commission shalt certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED *0 ADOPTED THIS 27TH D4Y OF SEPTEMBEk, 1989. PLANNING CO ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: % arry c ' Cl airman ATTEST: - ra Bu ecr ary h I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Ranch j Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning .Commission "6f the j City of Rancho Cueamenga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of September, 1989, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COWISSIOMERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COKMISSIONERS: NOME ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY I g°Y ..u. old car cE iItffiq gig 4S. x �•°��«3�yyYws�a ^VY`�wYWp`t rd Da.�'�'' ^ 'Illf wi a��+ pup ®� ayA ii J;ij jil Az ` Y x y s� o p Y = a' ����cppp _fir � °g,,�e� /wa�� �." %� •�_ °P� •.,off ^� ffi L � �11 spy p�s0 tl� Y N"i� Ylw° M.B .q , RVA IN tag � I �1 ti ,p w F-1 11 71 Lj ledID1Yy V' M l43 4JI :q3 w V Y p w W Milli ► «�'1' ; s.�N b L ^ R O O Y S iss %. a�� g L a 6N. y V p �. ■ } IY y�y S:yyyy 'a6�gS fie. NON i 5. �. g� Em „�•Etyy QY.y. a. pg�tJl W�•.�=.�.. !HS. a i"SL° Nc gaff�^ x p age • O yg g' —iY wg= P� Q`r, f IN Y �. • � r g • "!it yyY Y X•X i' Ow i��� gs �. Y•� ■~ b21 it pi• �S: S Yb °* �w u A l' l ai , so -o la ge- .� s - d m r` r 021 i= lit ; oin pi g i^ � r =i,, g cup $S� Y m • == ®„ i= r11 in m - Syi�6•g ri ,o gar • r1l., .S s Or s,Qy I ' 1 L, gr It mS • r d ; fit a 5 ms Z ° Vie. s �• - afl9 A l' l ai , so -o la ge- .� s - d m r` r 021 i= lit ; oin pi g i^ � r =i,, g cup $S� Y m • == ®„ i= r11 in m - Syi�6•g ri ,o gar • r1l., .S s Or s,Qy I ' 1 L, n} LOpOP Cy O p S"R C}LLY 0p0 C°O q�41.Y 7 °$ —Y�� C •1 V ``yq'_ ►. . —ea/�p � uw Ltlp LyN i� G� �O �y}pLS�v`VwL 8i��tl � ■T�e p 9�� y} }• tl � 10O�. ' • � � Y� O`P'�O.°s G E�9.b a 'ytla LAJ J �•� pup �� 0. Y}G-2 It Y �Y 9 Q xDf' e� p��iyy" �A °QrLJ� g � ■■� Lip nn! qE �BS� =NLI CCC n, I.�tl TYO �NH Lie ate}^ "w.QO ���+y. fl L ■��� �I,6.� �Y «rs tea= e'��g�$�.�Z�„$ g,g_gai �� u NPR Ja 1° 17: l � <.l p�• �` 0� • Tk P p®v 'IQ xO IsL'� o�rg V 1 p� • IL r$ 1s i lD�ps. 13 1 Imo tail Y ' Saw »s: `qx sf -mo a ges s 062- L„°?: v s xYe ga j sii °°�,s r`y fi`r HI �4L. a dpi .r �.�5 i �e 7f..L 1. a •�O yYy�OY SIR C -6 C yyi.Y I.X �C rill }} • Y _ NI �q$ t-Ai- Xa. C ski C i `C� • Ya. `YY j =`. O Lt0 Gy V V r^'1 =&I-.1 M 1L53 a• H` Y w Z - Y O u uC M C Ci ^YY Aass^ � 3j- fi «g � •.St ' € "_ ag rr� Mix S S ( iy� •S�O NPY L���� Nab r ��r° $m�0�° pp�r��� aYS� tl0�. syY ALL DTVI .VVV f ■� 4a Y ++�t■ Y Tt 14M 1. � � N p�� e O xI MI >,,-I •ib• 11 1 € if 1 S a0 S A� L� p d O z r •�a�y b sus; � tl 1'.- v f Y6 � 1�yy M � • w r sP �� 91ss 3% .:ts sw° $i11 51 CHI i N Y a r ski = _ �s rg JAB _ OR /�ry1t PO ri - LL Y V Y r° x g� • all ss sale Lt 13" "ate ar_ JI �grt t XXp ms was sm� Iffi N � +-iy.T - v AOL qp J.' 7d Is ra �$S.9 _� c tlYY 3 N 3 9M�e um 1�g� "_;s,$$ W -� "Z oa rr ai u Y ° a q zz �. s av c w 1°2 m {s�_$ a ^.7 Z en s i Y�^^•� "! ix �oa.co a Z :a b` esa S —lei b2 ��.oa tl of ONO.. •w ^ 3W Vtl.D I b CIA SIT= tl 3 va 3 rat gill V s N ` i y � wg • ` w° + n G °a `P Y a se ink g n W. N i v^, T u a M �n �• �sj V Y H `Mr° 6B wi C r_g O � 'S g ° dss �° v Its Is � °y„ W N g s °g 6e � N -w3 _ y 1� ^ g r» _ P_� ° N N 4py Yw Eta a %3- a' t« H- 2 91 rye N. f.3 sOOO �tl ®� axi° 27 61 Fj aR yva �pCi UE s+ar 4W�. . 0 t gj vat ' g-`8t' i0 f1b w i •a ' +o • fJY m = r ~ ITS W tl iqi 2 B yC Cz O Or r✓• b v � if Y tea` H p i a 4V W2w H �O f�A �i Z M o ea y r w w Co �q a � 6 «C Fa M a �� aN r � 6 yy a f E" v N.� _M OO 3 � 9 t Mai din 6i 9k jj °poi :3 Sw- Z 1+'+i4p Y `• • Si }.. Y Vim « K YY Y L6 11 ®q ° fs r ILI x $ sN 01 UZI -11 wr W= 11 Em T u a M f �sj V Y H 'il Y i i dss �° r iA W ~ g i 4 P_� N Yw %3- a' t« M o ea y r w w Co �q a � 6 «C Fa M a �� aN r � 6 yy a f E" v N.� _M OO 3 � 9 t Mai din 6i 9k jj °poi :3 Sw- Z 1+'+i4p Y `• • Si }.. Y Vim « K YY Y L6 11 ®q ° fs r ILI x $ sN 01 UZI -11 wr W= 11 Em 0 SM ., lr G$ t V N v r 3�0 �= Yom. °Sf yc Ya�a In r ti 1 I f 1 y! as` O JS a �w s III Qt e _ 13 _ Is lei �I QY V6. Np. � �. � � �• � Y�� �tr• rY e !_ �+� = $ 3$ UZ ` `° • tr. V. ,� N • F U E tf 1 RESOLUTION NO.' ^� A RESOLUTION OF THE PLK, -JING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 'SIVZ EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565, (PHVIS 5, 9, AND 10), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN' REVILl OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND :)t_AILED SI" PLAN FOR PHASES 5, 9, AND 10, CONSISTING OF 108 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 5$.5 ACRES OF LAND OF A PREVIOUSLY C0UNT1_- APPROVED MAP NORTH OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND EAST OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TAEREOF - APN: 226 - 082 -16, 17, AND 27 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above- described Design Review. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have causes.-& distressed market Climate for development of the project. B. 'I..at ciiarent economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to develop the project at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding `' expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. D. That the granting of said time extenoion will not`' 6a detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious. to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning commission hereby grants a time extension for: Proiect Applicant �xnirati'oIl DR for TT 13565 Standard September 27, 1992 (Phases 5, 9, a 10) Pacific nl f U E tf 1 RESOLUTION NO.' ^� A RESOLUTION OF THE PLK, -JING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 'SIVZ EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13565, (PHVIS 5, 9, AND 10), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN' REVILl OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND :)t_AILED SI" PLAN FOR PHASES 5, 9, AND 10, CONSISTING OF 108 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 5$.5 ACRES OF LAND OF A PREVIOUSLY C0UNT1_- APPROVED MAP NORTH OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND EAST OF WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT TAEREOF - APN: 226 - 082 -16, 17, AND 27 WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above- described Design Review. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. That prevailing economic conditions have causes.-& distressed market Climate for development of the project. B. 'I..at ciiarent economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to develop the project at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding `' expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. D. That the granting of said time extenoion will not`' 6a detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious. to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning commission hereby grants a time extension for: Proiect Applicant �xnirati'oIl DR for TT 13565 Standard September 27, 1992 (Phases 5, 9, a 10) Pacific nl PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,_ TE FOR DR FOR TT 13565 (PHASES_S, 9. & 10) = STANDARD PACIFIC August 14, 1991 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED 7ZIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 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 reg%,,4ar meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by she fo11cuing vote -to -wit: MAYES: C6.'%ISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS- 4 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: D G TY OF RANCHO CUC A.VIONGA STAFF REP OI7 T DATE: August 14, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Joe Stofa Jr., Associate Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF 25TH STREET 'REF. TRAC L . request to vacate a pi trees, ocate wes a$'iwanda Avenue and north of APN: 225- 082 -01. soml; Z Leo Oleo NO. 24th Street - I. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On July 12, 1989, Planning Commission approved Tract No. 14139, which is located on the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street (Exhibit "A ") and consists of 119 - single family Pots on 54 dcres of land in the Low Density Residential District. The Condition of Approval for said Tract requires the vacation of the south half of r,h Street. The subject portion of street to be vacated is 30 -feet wide and runs from Etlwanda Avenue wosterV approximately 1,160 feet along the norther"., tract boundary (Exhbit "B ). 25th Street is owned in fee title by ttte City and upon vacation of the street easementp appropriate proceedings will a_r-ur for disposition of excess property. Through these proceedings the boveloper will 6ytain the land and use it as part of his lots and a drainage fac.ility. This vacation is consistent with the adopted City General Plan and the draft Etiwanda North Specific Plan. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the findings through minute action that the subject proposed vacation conforms with_ the City General Plan. This finding will be forwarded t4, the City Council for further processing and final approval of both the vacation of the street easement and disposition of excess property. Respectfully submitted, Dan James Senior Civil Engineer DJ:JS :jh Attachments: Exhibit "A" .. Vicinity Map ITEM Fvhfltit "B" - site Map A.. - - - I A- Lf p 24% U I I 4i TN-lf- MY OF rmL. v-,,,1-6 rrR 14.'3.9J RANCHO CTTr AMONGA Tma ►fwy MW ENGDiXT-7ING DrVMON 1 q. C Hppj s �. *e c � ,YC•iifL . -3 .it ,LaS W _Kos <��°.0 25:fh STiPEE� • D �C4 A R5,4 - .a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ITER v i/-6 i THE SITE aI7lEEF�I �3li/I C I J 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: August 14, 1991 vty TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Techh3:iian SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A`ID DEVELOMENT CODE AMENDM_-NT 91 -01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A req: est to amend;!/Title 17, Chapter 17.12, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to eliminate compact :parking spaces., Staff recommends issuance of a Negative DeciL,'ation. (Continued from June 20, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL PECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01 'CITY OF RANCHO 'CUCAMONGA +.' A request to amend Part III of the Industrial ?Area Specific Pla,, to eliminate compact parking spaces. staff reco.mmends- issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 20, 1991.) ABSTR&Cllc This report presents amendments to the Development Code and Industrial Specific Plain to eliminate compact parking standards by creating a standard size space of 8 1/2 feet by 18 feet.. BACKGROUND: The City's current parking regttlw:lons provide for two sizes of parking spaces: a 9 -foot by 19 -felt "Standard° space and an 8-foot by 16 -foot " Compact" space. According to the Development Code, all developments (existing or proposed) which have 25 or more parking spaces may devote up to 35 percent of i.ta total parking to compact spaces. Further, the Industrial Specific Plan requiras that 20 -35' percent of all parking spaces shall be compact size. On April 10, 1991, the Planning Commission heard public testimony regarding the City's proposed Development Code and Industrial Specific Plan amendments to eliminate compact parking spaces and use only 9 -for,-, by 19 -foot standard spares. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held a workshop on June 20, 1991, to discuss alternatives to this proposal. It was the concensus of the Planning Coumissioners that attended that an 8 1/2 -foot by, 18 -foot parking space would be adequate to accommodate the major'�ty of automobiles. The attached Staff Reports and Minutes provide ' deta -led analysis conc6rn�L..,,'thi- issue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has coizxpleted Parts I and II of the Initial Study and did ir,ot identify any advexle environmental impacts which could result from this amendment. Therexore, the issuance of a N-- lgative Declaration is recommended. ITEMS D & E- _j 'ti\ t <i PLANNING COMMtOr -7_4 STAFF F."F.,'PORT DCA 91 -01 & ISPA 91 -01 - CITY OF A.C. August 14, 1991 Page 2 Ask CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as public hearings on an 1f8 page ad in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adppt the attached Resolutions recommending ap;Rroval of the Development Zoade and j Industrial Specific Plan amendmerts to eliminate compact spaces and down -size the standard space to 8 feet, 5 inches by 18 teet to the City Council. Respe Ife y s abm r� ` o Brad aer City lanner BB:BBJjfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" ,- Planning Commission Workshop Staff Report and Minutes dated June 20, 1991 Ei:hihit "B" - Existing Development Code Parking Regulations Alk Exhibit "C" - Existing Industrial Specific Plan Parking Regulations Resolution Recommending Approval of DCA 91 -01 City Council Ordinance for DCA91 -01 Resolution Recommending Approval of ISPA 91 -01 City Council Ordinance for ISPA91 -01 �.1 j' y , M I � CITY OF RANCHO (jUCAMONQA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 20, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, city Planner BY: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician Lan SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMXS!4"ION WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING A� ABSTRACT: The purpose of tonight's 'workshop is to review the data and alternatives regarding compact parking. I B. BACKGROUND: on April 10, 1991, the Planning Commission heard public testimony regarding the City's proposed Development Code and Industrial Specific Plan Amendments to eliminate compact parki'jg spaces. At the reqaest of several developers and the Rancho Cucamonqa Chamber of" Co=erce, the Planning Commission gave the parties the opportunity to sabmit possible alternatives an or before may 15, 1991. The Planning Commission then agreed to hold a subseT�,znt workshop to,.,discuss these alternatives further. C. SUMMARY OF SUBMITTED DATA: Lewis Homes Managemehu Corporation, Hughes Investment and the Economic Development Committee of the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce have jointly submitted several studies and articles regarding parking, wh!;,h were previously distributed. Based on this information, they have concluded the following. 0 Approximately 80 percent of all cars currently in use are 5 9" wide x 151 7" long or less. These are defined as small. to mid-siz-a cars. 0 AIV roximately 20 percent of all cars are,, large cars." Most or fh xh. (85 percent of this category) at, 1E no larger than 6' 1" viae x 171 21 loa4. 0 Varking space widths are generally determinwt,d by adding 21" for long term parking and 2S" for high t�7n-over parking areas. The most commonly used is 24". 0 Parking space°lengths are generally determined),jby adding 6" to 9* to the length. The most commonly used is.9t1. txff/011 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORt_._.' WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING June 20, 1991 Page 2 Therefore, they conclude that approximately 97 percent (i.e., 80 percent + (20 percent by 85 percent)) of all vehicles on the road today could fit into a parking space 8' 5" wide (6' 1" plus 28 ") x 17' 11" long (17' 2" plus 9 ") . Thus, they propose a "one size fits all" parking space of S' 6" wide by 18' long. (The above conclusions are based on 'Exhibits "A " - "D" and Attachmnts 3, 4, 5, and 8.) To further support the parking spade alternative of 8" 6" wide x 18' long, a survey was conducted to determine vehicle size in multi - family reaidentiai projects within six apartment complexes within Terra Vista. The information was based on lease/rental applications of existing tenants. TABLE 1 CONFIRMED POSSIBLY; 61,1" wide x 1712" long Oversize ,c or smaller Evergreen Apts. 96% 4% Mountainview AptS. - '94% 6% AOL Parkview Place P.pts. 97% 3% Sycamore Terrace Apts. 90% 10% Montecito Apts. 94% 69 Del Mar Apts. 93 %. 7s * Due to the lack cif specific vehicle descriptions for trucks and vans (i.e., "ford'- -,truck ") the possibly over- sized percentage represents all vehicles over 6" 11 wide x 17' 2" long and all vehicles in which the size could not be determined. Lewis Homes co ^.eluded that resident! who park for the entire day and /or night are more likely to take the time to park in the appropriate parking space since they are familiar with the parking arrangements. Therefore, they feel that tha/ roposed alternative parking space of 80 61° x 18' long,, in a commercial setting applies even stronger to residential projects. A second survey was perforried by,Kunzman Associates to determine the percentage of th6 small% medium (51 9" x 15' 7" or less), large' (6' 1" x 17 1/2" or lesO and oversized vehicles in comsiercial centers within the City. The survey was conducted at the following times: Thursday, N,ay 23, 1991, 12 noon to 3,:00 p.m. ,(all sites), Thursday, May 23, 1991, 500 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (sites 1 and 3), and Saturday, t3 25, 1991, 12 noon to 3;00 p.m. (all sites). The. following table provides a summary of vehicle sizes at the four centers: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKIUG June 20, 1991 Page 3 TABLE II Vehicles Small/ Sites Medium Large Oversize Motorcycle TotaYs Lucky Center 518 80 8 609 Sunrise Centor 284 81 15 1 381 Terra Vista 1,017 194 5 e 1,224 _ Village Terra Vista 997 216 5 1 1,219 Town Canter" TOTALS 2,816 571 33 13 3,433 They concluded only 1 percent of vehicles were larger than 6' 1" wide x 17' 2" long. Therefore, based on this survey, Ranches Cucamonga sloes not appear to have a greater number of oversized vehicles than the national average. D. ANALYSIS,, 1. One size fits all. The benefits of a "one size fits all" parking space are as follows: o Site planning is simplified. :Dilemmas such as where to locate comps t, parking spaces are eliminated. o Conflicts are minimized. Over 90 percent of cars /trucks will be accommodated. o Availability,imill be equal for i11 vehicles. There will ' be no segregation based on vehilcle size. The disadvantages are that there Will be less room to maneuvtc' vehicles into /out of stalls, lesF room to open car ebors, and le,'13 room for shopping carts. This will also exacerbate the problefof over -size vehicles protruding into circulation aisles. 2. Park ag apace width and length. The space bsJ,ween cars for high turn over areas of 28" in width and 9" iii length appears to he commonly used among several parking xparts. However, r4 scientific data was submitted to substantiate these numbers. Zn addition, none of the informati(a submitted is based on driver preference for ease of parking.,, 's. Area used for parking. The issue of parking area has been discussed in the past. The following table provides a Brea ?:down of the total square footage for 100 parking spaces assuming landscaping and aisle size are fixed: PLANNING COMMISSION'STAFF REPORT WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING June 20, 1991 Page 4 II TABLE III ti Stall Size Tatar Square Footage 8.5' x 18' 15,30 %1 9' x 18' 16,200 9' x 1Q', 17,100 8' x 16° (208) + 9' x 19' (808) 16,240 8' x 16' (35B) + 9' x 19' (658) 15,595 Simply eliminating compact parking altogether would increase I the size of parking lots (assuming building area remained the same). Whereas, the proposed -'8.51 x 18' parking space would decrease the size of parking lots. It does not appear,, based on Table TIT,;' that a Larger parking area would be necessary when compared to the curssnt standards, %'' using a mix of 65 percent standard and 3S percent compac, spaces. A. Are cars getting smaller /lamer_? Based on data submitted (Exhibits "A" and "C "), the percentage of shall cars (classes 5 -7) sold in each class has remained stable from 1980 to 1588 while the percentage of large cars (classes 8 -11) sold in each class has shifted. Vehicles in classes B and 9 have increased, subsequently shrinking sales from classes 10 and 11 (over- sized, v64cles). These vehicles (classes 10 and 11? accounted for Bess then 7 percent of auto sales in 1988. Though it seems these over -sized vehicles will always have a small segment of the market, the general trend is that vehicles are being down - sized. 5. Parking Space Sizes in other Cities: The following cities have odcpted the 8.5' wide x 18' long parking stall: Anaheim, Oceanside; Santa Ana, Long Beach, Escondido and Los Angeles. Exhibit "E1 -2"- also lists several local cities and their current standards. Based on this information, there appears to be no consensus as to what parking size works best. E. OPTIONS: The Planning Com ds�ionj. may wish to consider the following alternatives to a ccmj' %ete elimination of compact parking spaces City wide: 1. Reduce the maximum percentage of allowable cowiact spaces. 2. Allow com�)aot spaces only for larger employers in the industrial area which require over 100 epaces., The allowable percentage could remain up to 35 percent or reduced to a smaller percentage. This could be 'considered since employees coming to woit every day are more fam#kiar with the parking arrangements wR9reasi customers frequenting a commercial D9L� —�a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT WORKSHOP ON COMPACT PARKING, ^ June 20, 1991 Page 5 center are unfamiliar with the locations of Lie appropriate parking stalls. Further, employees who odrk for the entire day are more likely to take the time to park in the appropriate size parking space. 3. Do not allow compact parking spaces to-.satisfy minimum parking requirements for the use. In other '\}words, covnact spaces could only be provided in addition to those spaces;;c'` .'fired by , Code... 4. Down -size parking spaces to 'a universal size of 8.5' wide x id' long. 5. niwn -size parking spaces to n universal size of 9' wide x 18' long, Respe ly s itted, \ Br 11 O City Planner BB:BB:mlq c Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Classification i _of Vehicle Si4ns Exhibit "B" - Annual Automotva Sales Exhibit "C" - Annual Automotive Sales by Class Exhibit "D" Design Vehicles Annual Sales Exhibit "E" - Parking Stall Size Survey tr D q,,.2 <. AOL The fbunda2an upo , which this dI �sion of paNng geometries is btised is l6 deftnPdon of a smra cz» In comparison tp the standard or large car. " 11 For purposes of #hie _repoM wW to establish ai unbrm and readily adaptable terrminology, all MOM- Was and light trucits YAR be grouped i�:'o ,wo es seed and Uno. This basic itomendature is intended to simplify the process of vej" � assification a satbsp- (` quent parking fat Ry design. Meensive constd ®ration has been g W;i to that dassiradionof automobBegacedRghtm xftsd�rcUrQt® their footprint -the ground am o ver ed by ex:b veftidle basedoni sngihtirstesWidthexpressedlf�j m3of3uare feet (2F) or aqueaa meters (SM. The sjssat teams to sss�runentofvettfnies� €tneofsa�n ,basedan ,' the vehicle aroa in metrom Seem= tits =29st catra eo ere-namactno lmthanSffmt*mftsmdI9chm � t'�S �. daicewise, ilia �7aaty aye in 11v SMALL CW Chu S • LOO t9 5.99 SM MW to 640 C&ju 6.Om to 6.99 S&el 64.SO to MU „n Gail T • 1.00 to 7.99 SM um t3 .10 SF LAWCAM Chn 3 UO to 11.0 & &IIto 96.78 SF Om 9 • 9.00 fa US V S6,7710 10 AS SF Ckm 10.10.00 b310.99 SM 107A4 IS iiL39 SF Clan IV- 11.00 to11.99 WA 1IL40 W 1213.06 8F �1- R SqLwo SM t""ead from s� GQ " fo �aenw�s". MMIT A, August, ' 1989; *tfocal . �p_y,_ Parkin Associacicist 1 c'17b Parsing Consultsats Couc KII One scures "twz cfiafted *malt caritIMS cp; $was In each calendar year since 19", bawd on a boundary vf14- i1�xS -9� en*.►ms�ii a "i�'� Sman car Was bounced amund In a between 1, gibe's aid 254% hom 1973 to IM, as Shown Ingo F– AW42dy , rise ifitmali carsales oarurred through 1981, SWWRd09 then, with arc averager of SM sma tars sold each year from i � thtu 1988. Using dada from M . Polk Gam• parry on'Vi.,hicle saist—.cna:1Me SIM9 reference ear mates that 4410 Of the vahides Cm the rv��d as of 'i January 1,1889 are W- 11 "xF-V OrSflIali`ll: Presurn- ing that the pe=Rtagc of *anal! CW* sold each par mmaifisgenerallystabls,thpn ntROesftmaRears03 the load wttt corgnue to GI V, - stlrnate! fall of obOut 2%peryear rr, ■n to weo IM ON xonq!rr IM to :-,'To�e gem Im gas Mw UA► a�! .• �' `` • t*Me06'-!!vila9a; 6V0y144 1L F gLtm 9 ftmommied fiuUaline9 for �xEicta� p,�noe38taonlParkic 1`sasetltaazs C fuaeil - � Annual Automobile Sales 1 I I ere t�t --t•-t : f�-E�fi°i Ir 4. 4: t4 1 1 ,1� -- � -�-1 -- •lam- 1 ®�-- i— t•- �-- I— E- ®r.�M -1- rr, ■n to weo IM ON xonq!rr IM to :-,'To�e gem Im gas Mw UA► a�! .• �' `` • t*Me06'-!!vila9a; 6V0y144 1L F gLtm 9 ftmommied fiuUaline9 for �xEicta� p,�noe38taonlParkic 1`sasetltaazs C fuaeil - � t�t --t•-t : f�-E�fi°i ,1� -- � -�-1 -- •lam- 1 ®�-- i— t•- �-- I— E- ®r.�M -1- rr, ■n to weo IM ON xonq!rr IM to :-,'To�e gem Im gas Mw UA► a�! .• �' `` • t*Me06'-!!vila9a; 6V0y144 1L F gLtm 9 ftmommied fiuUaline9 for �xEicta� p,�noe38taonlParkic 1`sasetltaazs C fuaeil - � l t °ach ,p&mngw car model ae MPOTttlo, ' by Automotive Mews ainco 198 , have be ®n twwtaled by 09 uses previously deigned i; fi F?• Msi 10 and ' Class 11 "hides, Wtkh are fenerwly ever 174r In,-- length and /V- rinwidtig. have dedned Rom as much as 14° 16ofaprivalsalesin1882 ,to7%ofthemattin 1988. AINMAL Airy® SUM BY CLASS _J csr Larmot s At UA "'e s ° - a9.e Ari0163 teegt ssr wee Zs t o1s, s; tee tetsca o ttr�c .zeta laic II AS q•.ats,e++ ten tf�17g talt,7s€ ;toaiRt 4;t;i7,ittl 1,tKtts t�etu NUTT e� p95 c t7.t�c srnc 112% 7Jlt6.ti0. f3C4 {it 4 tr.Qtti19 4^ao 1 t,6lregQ t ".lager Yr7Y�3i$ 14 reset ieT3f8 � 9RteG \ 3i'!i • •..+ mslnutsrc�l�re i�md � pn�du':a Vie" v+es fotlhe . HWWW. the FqMW {uVe jaal=es@ M wlp � be iris d' x 9i. '�► wo�t9 DAB ttlarlt 111 L J ire hm nded the rAftd UM"Wa In > Ate, / i Vw i Was Of lly_ "M "t This! hatr�lla�b�rlh�i dadi�ti3t� *Pa - i _ .. sscf��taY frotas , • ,` ., � e�s�alA�s� fort Y 1'arkts* GOMMU 1959; Carlonal tarklni`eg EMn= C larksa=, Cauffultants Caunr i' i� , (h a studya2ssnual vehicie.safgs, the 85th p ®fin" Via vehicle among Classes 5 to 7 has beers stable snce 1980 at simiiarto a1985%erd'' 'ampo - while the Ot h percentile vehicl9.among Classy 8 to 11 has declined fmm, 1 & -2' x V -S°to 1r -rx V -1" (F9ure H)• While this data does not include pro-1988 model ve- hicles, it is reasonably consistent N� pre +.I studies. The previously referenwd study m which used vehicle registrifions nationv ideasoNanuary 1, 1983, foundtho 85th percentile vohiclesto be l v:,.fr x 5' T forbmall cars and 18' -9 x 6' -T for large cars, The design vehicles for the national mix of auto - - moblies on the road as of January 1, 1989. nave been conservatively estimated to to as follows: Small Cars x S-8" Largo Cars t:��� x V-5` It is Interesting o to j , ote that. daring this period , (1983- 1988), the de5fgr�--y*:7>cia for smag rs ha~ m- mained quite stablii. bid thatthe r3es;gn vehicle for large cars has declined, (lspecially, in lowitha DESIGN VOICLFS eY CALENDAR YEAR 9AV-5 • amaecaetcsx+r.a•T} , ; �p,t�eN -11l Yew ' URVIh WfdRt Ast LMO IMldpt R»a i, 18D0 14.7 V am 178 83 it:.G 1811 14.7 17 8" 17.7 i.6 1143 1lti 14.7 ST na1 162 Ea 11516 1883 14.6 `-'' S2 SZ7 13� 54 1156 rs" 14.7 5.7 6>v!', 17.7 L5 10 173 6.2 5 IS" 18.1 {086 te.! 01t7 8?.9 173 92 t0i5 188T 14.7 ST f$.7 IV 6A 0" 18/t 14.5 47 St 2 17.1 Ll 104 7 Lfngit�dcx�m9F +er!. "I�tssminsiq`:sshet. FIGURE H I� ' , -, EYCerpCt3 Erom: "$e commended Guidelines -for Parking Ge.1metrics ", Avgasc.,y EXHIBIT D 1989; Harional Parking Ass— Parking Consultants Council CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES F.djourned Meeting June 20, .1991 Vice Chairman Lli €tie+ called the adjourned meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Coma',ssion to order at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Cali :braia. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: _RESENT: Snzanna Chitlea, Jean Melchor, Wendy Vallette ASSENT: Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstn.,, Si -.FF PRESENT: BYUCe Fuikingham, Planning Techniciav:; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Otto Rroutil, Deputy City Planners Joe O'Neil, City Engiiaer; Walt Stickn.y, Associate Engineer I. PRESENTATION OF ENGINEERING DIVISIC015 SISCAL YEAR 91/92 rJAPITATt IMPROtT MENT BUDGET Joe O'Neil, City Engineer., presentel the 91192 Capip�a Improvement Budget. The report was recelvad and filed. II. ENVIRONMSNTAT. ASSESSMENT ANA DEE L0VME--; COLE AnNDME.IT 9 -01 - CITY Or. PiNCHO CUCAMO,`;jd - A request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cade to alim note compact VAvkIng spaces. Staff recommends issunzee of a Iiegative Declaration. (Gont-,n:.ad from June is., 1991.) I?? A�1R - hb NTAL At3SESS?.. -fT INDUSTRIAL SPECIFX�`.. ZT 1N AHBNgMENT 91 -01 CITY OF AANCHO__CnCAM% :c:A - A rvquss t.c amend P irL III t+`_ !.he Ind +ss ri alt Specific Plan to eliminate compact parkins{ spaces. staff recommends issuance of s Neyative Peclart_tion. (Continued from Ju:,y 12, 1991.) Vice Chairman Chitiea stated that the workshop for bota items would be taken together. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, indicated the. tha._purpose 6 'the k:irkshop was to provide an opportunity to revives the informar f ha development community a +!d Chamber cf Cowmeroo and review they.._ regarding the compact parking tesua. Thi. --kshop had been sp► noted by the developers and tae Clamber to ;.ow foi: discussion ot' issue. Zn addition, the developers d raised a sec nd issue r.�� �a parking hs requirements for shopping ceatary< Bruce Buckingham, Flesnina Technician, gava an oral strff report. ��� John porter, Iiughes Investments, asked if there could be discussion raga.iding the secondary issue of parking ratios for shopping centers. Mr. Coleman indicated that, if the Commission desired, this issue could be added to the Plauning Div.IsLUn work program. Vice Chairman Chittea stated that this issue would be discussud after the compact parking issue. Rance ':louse, Chamber of Commerce representative, questioned now the new packing !agairements would affect existing devr-lopment. Mr. Coleman re-ponded that gtafils" intention would be to apply only the new standards to new develop'aent; they would not apply to restrLiiing or repaving of existing pad,kina lots nor would they cue applied to additions. He maid property owners could tsavL the option of using the, new standard when reetriping their parking lots. JGe olvasor, Irewis Homes, indicateu thmt they hired a traffic engineering consultant to survey vehicle sizes at actual pr2jeits within,Ranrho Cucamonga. He stated that the survey data provided for '.h..r.immission sl,bwed that the City is comparable to the national averages. Zommisrioner Velch2r stated that the vniversal size parkinq'vtall seemed to be the oyt seal nolu'-; on. He supported the developmRnt community's recommendation of down - sizing all parking spaces to a universal size of 8 1/:. feet wide by 18 J =ches long. Commissioner Valletta agreed. Vies Chairman Chitiea indicat &d that, in her observation, tha trend adems to be toward bigger cars, truc`cs,° and vans in Rancho Cucamonga becaueS of the young families. She stated that although a uni --rsal 'size parking spaca had its advantages, she pxaferrod eithrr decreasing the langth, but not the Width, or redwing tha percentilge of compact skate allowed. The pudic "miring was closed. otto Mroutil, Deputy City Planner, rtated that tha consensus appeared to be c "one- size - fits -al?" parking apace a..nu the only outs-vsanding issue was the size of the stall. He indicated that staff would bring this .item back on August 14, 1991 for Zommission decision. in addition, he stated that the secondary issue of shopping center pazkinq ratios would also be placed on Us sates agenda for consideration on whether to plade them an the work program. ' Mae . was g)journed at 900 p. �6 Otto Froutil �f Deputy Zf,c'rotary Planning Commission Minutes 3 11 AM 'ctioh 17.12.030 ]Design Standards Design Standirds_are estabiii,hed by this section to set basic minimum dimensions and guidelines for.` esign, ;cocutruction, "r;.1d maintenance of parking within both the residential ante ;ommercial districts, A. General: /']the following standards shall`` apply to both the residential and rrr--- ���co,smercias`districts. I 1. Standard stall size: � Each standard parking space shall consist of a sl,: I rectar gular area not less than g.o feet wide by 19.0 feet long. All parking spaces sco lld have a vertical ciearanco of not less than 7.5 feet. fo i i r 1 '?_, e• ° 2. Campact stall size: Stalls d"ignated for, use comgct cars may be reduced in size to A �ainirrin. of eight l8D fit in width a.d siRte n (16) fee: „ in length. 3. Handicapped stall size: Sach parking . sp€+ca 4,'Asl riated for us. by the handicapped shaR emalst of a rectaraPkr ore& net lass * ran 14 61- wide by 19 feet long, and shall be iocated in an area not exceeding 2 W. eent slope. A13 spaces sl-,r l be located near c ; convenient to R level or ramped entrance, not exeagdeq & ,5 parciint slope, to that facjUty served by the parking. space. , ftrking maces Sor 'the, handicapped shall be signed uid're5iridted fat use Cry the handicapped only. keF'3 —R+ lLP i.vj�' Nei Section 17.12.030 13. ' Maneuvering: Parking and maneuvering areas shall be arranged, that any vehicle entering a public right -of -way on a major or secondary street can do so traveling in a forward direction. B. ? Residential: The following design standards shall apply to the residential, districts dnd developments: 1. Covered off - street parking spaces in a garage or carport shall be a ml-'mum of nine (9) feet in width And nineteen (19) feet in depth of unobstructed area J�! provided for parking purposes. The required minimum measurements may not include the exterior walls or supports of the structure. 2.1 ., Driveways providing access t:,garages, carports and parking areas serving three (3) or less dwelling units shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width for one -way traffic;, and twenty (20) feet for two -way traffic. % 3. Driveways providing access to garages, carports; and open parkirg spaces serving four (4) or more dwelling units shall be a minimum of twelve UZ feet in width for one -way traffic, and twenty4our (24) feet for two -way traffic, 4. Driveways serving multiple dwelling units with garages or carports on either or both sides shalt be increased a minimum of five (5) feet on one side only, thus providing a twenty -nine (29) foot wide acar;;ssway between garage or cc: ,cor:t-spaees for two -way traffic. 5. No property owner shall sublease, subrent or otherwise make available to residents of other properties, the off - street erkin required b ttis � g aces sP � Y section, 6. All required covered off- street parking spaces shall be located conveniently accessible to the dwelling unitzerved by such parking space. 7. Residential developments which provide private streets, shall be planned, designed and constru =eted to meet the minimum City Engineering requirements forpriva'ie streets. 8. Any secondary paved driveway or extension of the primary driveway shall not be used for parking unless: (1) it connects the primary driveway access to a second access point with the street or publie right -of -way 0-6i circular driveway) with a continuous pavement width not exc:eekiing twelve (12) :. feet; (2) it is an extension of the primary driveway toward the nearest side or rear yard area; or (3) is constructad pursuant to an approved Minor Development B,'e«iew. C. Commercial, Institutional, Community Facilities: The following design standards shall apply to commercial, institutional, and community facility i ses. 1. Those areas designated for use by motorcycles shall consis�. "° s minimum usable area of fifty -six X50 square feet. { -122 Revised 8/5/88 '. P ba y wid:.�=sn u be _computed according to the specificatiQns iet, - a� ng for r lfi in Table 17.12,030 -D. Two -way access driveways with no,,, perking shall be a minimum of twenty -four (24) feet. One -way accew driveways with no perking shall be a minimum of t;veive (12) feet. D. Parking Facility Design. Following are charts and diagi�xms to which all parking acilities shall be designed. —1. Parking Bay Widths. Each parking fac ill 'y is /designed with parking tray -T6 units. The size or width of this unit is dependent on one or two -way traffic and single or double loaded aisles. Jse)ths, following charL.'to determine the Sep overall width ;:Z thj parking bay design wtq.ah is being used. The dimensions listed are the amount necessary to eontdin parking stall;;depth and aisle width. Parrsllei`orking may be 'permitted; hcwever, they must not be counted as part of time required driveway width and must maintain four (4) feet between spaces. Table 17.12.030 -D - Ovl jmmlt Parldng noVq Width Parking Angle (in degrees) 30 46 oC' rt 90 1. Parking by widths for one-way traffic and double haderl aisles: a. compact stall 40' 44' 49' 56' r� -.. -A...A esen 43,' 49' 65' 63' Adak AM 2. Parking bay width for os[e-any traffic and single loaded aisles: 261 2 28' 3 32' 39' a. c 2V 3 30' i is, 43' 3. Parking bay, widths for -twc -way traffic and I _ruble loaded aisl+":: a. compact stall 5 52' 5 54' S6' ` b. standard stall 1 551, S S3' 3 39' 62' 4. Parc:ir-, bay widths for twdr^Nay traffic and single loaded aisles: - - 3� ° "�;'r a. compact stall 3 34' 3 361 3 41' 43' g-123- 1" Section 1TA2.030 i� 2. Planter Design. All parking lot planters shell be designed to meet the following minimum requirements. , (a) Planters shall be separated from maneuvering and parking areas b� a:, 6" rl.sed concrete curb or equivalent. (b) Tree planting wells located at the front of parking stalls shall contain s minimum of 25 square feet and the smallest outside dimension shall not be less than 5 feet. A a�COP1B� �tC��$i7�.L 15 �Tr�IA. (c) Landscape planters along the sides of parking stalls &hall contain a minimum of 90 square f,-,-t and the ::mallst outside dimension Shell not be less than 6 f0et. (d) Pedestrian walks shall be provided �n landscape planters along the sides of parking stalls as shown below. l2 shall consist of a minimum 12 -inch concrete paver, adjacent to the' curb (including curb width). �3. Parkinz Lot Striving and Markings. Parking stall striping, directional arrows and parking stall identification shall meet the following standards. (a) All parking stalls shall be painted with double or hairpin 4 -inch wide Conti ,uous lines with the two (2) lines located. an equal nine (9) inches on either side of the ; tall sidelines. (b) All aisles, entrances, and .exits shall be clearly marksid with .o� directional arrows pa;n:ed on the parking auface. �i (c) All compact pe<kitq stalls shall be individualif%�labeled with the words "compact car" painted on the parking surface of each sta`1. (d) All handicapped puking stalls shall be individually labeled and signed in accordance with Uniform Building Cade and California Vehicle ,ode ssandards. Section 17.12.040 Parkins lkuirewents 'The following sections list the eequired a ovnt of parking for each category of uses, special requirements and optional requiremP,nts. A. Residential I. Sing le- family „detached dwellings (convzi! ^tonal). IN* (2) parking spaces within a 6'rage. 2. Cluster development (condaninium, townhams, etc.) semi - detached single family (zero lot line, patio hares, axplexes, etc.) and nubile ham parks (a) Studio: ' 1.3 of.. ".- street parking space per unit of which one ' space shall be in a garage or carport. (b) One (1) bedroom: 1.5 off - street parking spaces per unit of which one space shall be in a garage or earport. _ i (c) 7Wo (2) badroans: 1.8 off- street parking spaces per unit of which one space shall be in a garage or carport. (d) 'three (3) or rare bedposts:: 7Wc off - street,rtrking spaces Eer unit of which two spaces shall be in a garage or carport.. (e) Four (4) or more bedrom : 2.3 off - street parking spaces per unit of which two spaces shall be In -a garage or •arport. AUk (f) In addlzion to the required susttier of parking spaces for each unit, cane tiff- street uncovered parking space shall bs: provided for eacr foi- r'units for visitor parkin. For single family zero lot., `line, patio hsmes, and duplexes', on- street parking may be 3ubstitutetd for visitor perking, where sufficient street pavenenr width and distance between dri- teways has been provided. (g) Fifty percent (50) of the total reeg4ired covered spaces shall be within enclosed garage structures. - (h) For dQVelaprsents containing t rive or =re units, up to thirty - five (35) perce irf the required, uncovered spaces may be compact ear size. (1) The use of carports requires approval fray the Design Review OMMI tun. B. Cwmercial /Office 1. Cmrt arcial, retail 8nd seejice uneL3, AML n (g) Churches and other places of zssembiy not sbe -ified aoove: One €zr each four (4) fixed seats within the main fv dltoii -Im tr one for eacz thirty -five (35) square feet of seating area wt hin the main auditorium whEre there are no fixed seats; eighteen (18) linear inches of bench. Fl shall be considered a fixed= seat. 7. y� Other uses: (a) Day nurseries, including preschools and nursery scW Is: One ctall for ea:h Usff member,.piuz one for each five (5) children 1, C. Soecial Re uirements. The following parking requirements are applicable to all commercial and of ice land uses These special stalls shall be closest to the facility for which they are designated in order to encourage their use. 1. Handicapped: Those tacit lies with twenty -five (25) or more spaces,5na11 designate two (2) percent or one (1) space, whi -haver is greater, of thfAotal number of stalls for use by the h%,ndicapped. The desigmhtion and/(design shall conform to state standards. = 2. &latorcycie: Facilities with twenty -five (25) or more parking spaces shail provide at least ona designated parking area for use by moforcycies. Developments with over one hundred (100) spaces shall provide motorcycle parking at the rats: of one percent. Areas delineated for use by motorcycles. shall med,atandards set forth in subseetion',17.12.030 -C -1. aTo 3. Compact cars,, Facilities with twenty -five 1125) or more parking spaces may provide up t6 thirty -five (':5) percent of its parking for use by compact cars. Spaces delineated for compact ,car use shall meet standards set forth AM In subsection 17.12.030 .S -2. 4. "cycles: All commercial and office areas shall provide adequate loc. ing raciifties for bicycle parking at fay location convenient to the facility for which they are designated. Wherieves passible, weatherproofing or facility covering should kle dsed. S. Car owls: Off -str® parking provided for commk*.rcialloffice fac pities shall. provide aft least ten (0) percent of the t0al parking area as desi%Tia:ed for use by ceAr pools. 6. rive -T`ru Facilities: brive -thru facilities regaire special consideration as these designs can rigniticantly impact the v ehicular circulation on a 6twe. The folowing requirements eprry fio any use with`veive -thru facilities. (a) Each drivs -thru tine smil be separated from the circulation routes ne,essacy for ingress ar egreass from the pro�Zrty, or access to parking space. { (b) raga drive -thru lane shad be striped, marked, or otherwise distinctly aelineated. ti =21 -129 - -129- aQ ,� ia� �i i c. Research and Development: 1 space per 350 square feet (r - search services only 1. d. Office and Administration: 1 space per 250 *quare feet: e. Multi -use tenant buildiiligs where office use does not oxceed 35% of building area: 1 % spade per 400 square feet. !. f. Folawing interlor building areas can be deducted from the overall parking requirements: electrical /mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, ,stairwells, and multi- Bicycle and Other Two story l obbi.o,,,-. Wheel Vehicular Facilities F.4. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided within all development and relate to planned and existi►;g bicycle routes. F.S. Required on -site parking may be reduced at a rate of one ,automobile parkimp space per 4 spaces of bicycle or )ther two wheel vehicular parking up to three automobile parking spaces or 5s of total required on-site parking, whichever is less. iampact Spaces F.6. 20% to 35% of all required parking stalls shall i be devoted to compact car use. Minimum s0,11', dimension shall be ii' in width and 1 °.t; Ym length and marked for compact cars. �s F.7. All Parking areas shall be scroened from public view through Ne use of berms, landscaping material and low walls. Loading Facilities F.S. All loading facilities and maneuvering areas must be on site with the use. F.Q. All loading facilities shall be permitted only ."amt n in the rear and interior side yard areas except `within the Heavy Industrial category and rail f served buildings. .p0. F..10.. Aisle width to loading docks shall be a minimum - .� of 50' widttt plus additional width for truck parking (typically 4J to 50 feet). F.11. Loading docks shall' set back a mini ►um of 70` from Street property line., �� F.12.` Parking stalls for trailers shall be 50' x 14' and provided at ratio of 1 stall per truck - 1aiding dock door.- j, III -43 C RESOLUTION NO: 11 A RESOLUTIOV C;F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY- RANCHO CUCP*40NGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AVF.NDMENT 91 -01 AMENDING "TITLE. 17, CHAPTER 17.12 OF TH$, RANCHO CUCAt ONG. MUNICIPAL CODE TO ! ELIMINATE COMPACT PARKING SPACES AND REDUCE THE STANDARD SIZE PARKING SPACE_., TO ,8.5 FEET BY 18 FEET, AND YAXING FINAINGS IN SUPPORT Tt.t;REOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application for Development Code Amendment No. 91 -01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in Chic. Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 10th day of April 1991, and cortinued to the 7,2t` day of June; the 20th day of June, and the 14th day of AuvRast, X941, the Pia[ining Commission of the City. ') of Rancho 'Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application and concluded said hearings on chat date. (iii) All W-gal preraquisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. R. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and.reso,'Vad by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This C,..mmission hereby specifically finds that a]' ,,bf the facto set forth is the Recitals, Part A, of this,Resolution. are true -,,id correct. 2. Based upon aubstantial evidence presented to thi. Commission during the above - referenced public hearings on April 10, June 11, June 20, ?nd August 14, 1991, including writtan and oral Staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby epee :'...;ally finds as follows- (a) The applicatlon applies leo all properties located within` the City; and (b) she proposed amend.aents will n ?t have a significant impact on the environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of th%'. Initial Ltudy, Farts I and II; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence preeented to this Commiesic during the above- referenced public hearings and upon ths_4pec3iic findings of facto set forth in paragraphs 1 ar_d 2 above, this Commission /hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan sad wil* provide for development within the distract in .a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related developmentt and PLANNING CO,'sMISSION RESOLUTION NO. dCA 91 -01 -`aSTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGP� August 14, 1991 Page 2 Allk (b) That the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectiva.v of the Devslopment Code, and (c) That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materally injurious to properties or improvemants in the vicinity; and 3) That tha „proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan :r the - Development Code. 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, thle Commission hst'eby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, thin Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) That the Planning Commission of the City of Ranc” Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment f,1 -01 to modify the Municipal Code per the attachad ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of -eis Resolution. APPROVED AND,ADOPTED TSIS ;X4Tfl DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO C'UCAMON'GA BY: Tarry T. MCNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary EA I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Psncho'- Cucamonga, do hereby certify that' the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and •dopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, :dt a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of Augl,!.c 1941, by the following vote -to -wit: I AYES: i:_iMdISSIONERS- NOEa: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Y I� ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVE1 PMENT CODE AMENDMENT 9141, AMENDING TITLE '17, CHAPTER 17.12, OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ELIMINATING COMPAC.i PARKING SPACES AND REDUCING THE STANDA = °Z SIZE YARKINCL SPACE TO 8.$ PELIP- SY IS FEET,.AND MAKING FINDINGS IN`SUPPOY:r'THEREOF v THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOE& HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS- SECTION 1: Section "7.,12.030.A.1. of Chapter 17.12 is hereby amended to , read in words and figures as follows: 1. Standard stall size: Each parking space shall consist of rectangular area not le;*s than 8.5 feet, wide by 18.0 feet long. la measuring the length of paving required f'cr a parking space, allowance may be made for up to a 1 -foot vehicle projection beyond the bumper or tire stop if such projection does not interfere with Landscaping or pedestrian use. All parking spaces shall have a vertxcaI, clearance of not less than 7.5 feet. lea 1 SECTION 2: Section 17.12.030.A.2. of Chapter 17.12 ss'hereby- ;mended to real in words and'figcres as follows: 2. when a side of any parking space abuts a, building, wall, support column, or other' obstruction which interferes in eny way with access to a motor shall be a minimum d 2 ftaet wider than otherwise required by.,this ;section. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE-'-."J. ✓ DCa 91 -01 - CITY of ;:.ANCxo L'tTCAidQNG,,!l ' August 14, 1991 ` - �• Page 2 SECTIIN 3: S^ction 17,12.430 -C.3. of Chapter -17.12 is hereby amended to read in _ words and figures as follows: 3. TAo -yay access driveways wit), no parking shall be s minimum of 24 feet, except- 26 feet shall. be provided where necessary ioj .mergency -- vehicle access. One -way access driveways with no _narking shall be a minimum of 12 feet. _Si'CTION 4: $notion 17.12.030.D.1. of Chapter 17.12 is hereby amended to rea8 in words and figares_as.-- fgTlews:- ' 1. Each parking Sacility is designed with parking bay units. The size or width of this unit is dependent on one- or two -way rai is and single - )r double - loaded aisles. Use the fallowing table to determine the overall width of the parking bay design which is being- -,sed. The dimensions listed are the aunt neve4isary to contain rxrking stall depth and aisle: w }dth, without overhang. 2arallel Par,`xi I cay be permittcdz howeverr_ bey must not be counted as part of the required drivbxay width and must maintain 4 feet between spaces. Table 17.12,.030.A = Oweta',j Parking Day Width (sea Reference Figure) Parking Angle. (ii,?dagceea) 30 45 60 90 1. One -Way Trafi`ic (Wall -to- Wall). 1 a. Double- loaded aisles 44le 51 6" 57'8'%- 60 0 b. Single - loaded aisles 2814` 3;19" 37110" 4x'0" 2. Two-Way Traffic (Wall-to -Wall/ Werlapl a. Double- loaded aisles »!8 "/45+4" 5816- /52 °5- 61'8- /57'5" 60'ii�,',yi�s'• b. Single- loaded aisles 104-/40(W 3949"/4209" 41' 10 "/4 ' 0" 42' 0001 ti, 0701 -02 �, AUGUST 14, 1991 P.C. AGENDA of 7` � CITY COUNCIL ORDMANCE NO. DCA 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 Page 3 E A = ANGLE 2 = STALL LENGTH 11 C - BAY WIDTH (DOUBLE LOADSDt D = MAY WIDTH (SINGLE. LOADED) A E - SAY WIDTH (OVERLAP) A C SECTION 5: Section 17.12.030,D.3. of Chapter -17.12 is hereby deleted In its entirety and all subsequent sections renumbered accordingly. SECTION 6: Section 17.12.040.A.2.(h) of Chapter 0'.12 ;r hereby deleted in its entirety and all subsequent sections renumbered accor+3,,Igl.,V. SECTION 7: Section 17.12.040.0,3. is hereby dr..'eted in its entirety and all subsequent sections renumbered accordingly. C? SECTION 8: r is Council finds thvdt this amendment will C,'_t adversely affect the environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 9: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section'-,' paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or 8{clared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, of' by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.. SECTION 10: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance - and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least, once in tl.,, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of ;rancho Cucamonga, California. ii RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLil*ING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO cucAMOA7GA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROY?'L OF INDUSTRI.AL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01, ELIM- INhTING COMPACT PARKING SPACES, AND MAKING FINDINGS III - 7 -iPGVr THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an a' ,ation for Industrial Specific Plan Amendment No. 911 -01 as descr;.bed in thi ..le of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the suxject Industrial Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 10th day of April 1991, and continued to the 12th day of Jrne, the 20th day of June, and the 14th day of August, 1991, the Planning Ocimmission of the City of R ^ncho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public n ;.rings on the application an.i concluded said hearings on that date. 4111) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 3. Resolution. Aft NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City c.` Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commisson 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 rresented to this Commission during the above- referenced public -- aarings on April 10, June 12, June 20, and August 14, 1991, ,including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to all properties located within the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and 1 (b) The proposed amendments will not have a signifi - ant impact on the environment as evidenr.ed by the conclusions and findinSis od tihe Initial Study, Part II; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearings and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby 'find} and concludes as follows: (a) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan sad will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the Genoral Plana and with related development; and $ -� PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 91 -01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 Page 2 (b) That the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Industrlal Area Specific Plan; and (c) That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements ki the vicinity; and (d) That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to tta objectives of the General Plan or the Industrial, Area Specific Plan. 4. Tbis 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 idegative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby revolves as followsx (a) That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Industrial Specific Plan Amendmerc 9'. -01 amending Part III, Section F.6 per the.rttached ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Coir -aeca shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission hole) on the 14th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: rl AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF T&,,CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHn CUGAMOtiGA, CALIFORNIA,, APPROVING'INDUSZkIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -01, ELIMIGr_TING COMPACT PARKING SPACES,'A?s? MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ZANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: _. SECTION 1: ,Viart III, Section F.5 is hereby deleted in its e�Mi -,- and all subsequent sedtions renumbered accordingly. SECTION 2- This Coun ^,il finds that this amendment will not advei, ely affect tt7 environment and hereby issues 'a Negative 'Declaration- ( SECTION 3: The City Council declares .that, should any provision, , l seetic;i, paragraph, sentence, or worn }of this Ordinance be ren;'ered or declar:d invalid by_any final court action in a court of comj.�tent jurisdiction, or by; reason of any preemptive legislation,,the remaining provisions, sectio�4, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full ford, '.and effect. y 4 SECTION 4: The '3Ity Clerk shall certify to, the adoption of thia Ordinance and shall, „pause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage .mot least otce in the inland Valley Daily Bul;etin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City,;of Ontario' California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. i I J AUG- 08 -191 THJ 14:35 ID:HUGHES INIJESTMENTS TEL N0:714- 759 -0128 #167 P ©1 RECEIVED - CITY OF RANCHO CUCCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION m AUG 4 31991 �t�t9t�it11t12tZt�±SO�t� HUGHES INVESTMENTS g Tyr® COAPM11 PLAM • SUITE 250 . NEWPORT 5EACH. CA 92MI929 P.O. BOX E700 o NEWPOAT MW CA 926S84700 (710 739 -ml FAX ® (R) 7694128 ier..v Sheoi DATE: e;Mguj- r g5, `��: _PYOt(.i '✓1 I jP�r � s'i�lG� ck ;h^eon COMPANY: afV 2f {gran, emem mmgo TELECOPIER N JMBER AUG- 02 -191 14J 14:36 ID:HUGHES INVESTMENTS TEL N0:714 - ?59 -0128 #167 P02 I 0 JOUN 35. POTTINIM 111a HBIS INV338WX331TT8 bEVELOPM WIT & ACQUINTION OC COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES August 7, 1991 Mr. Brad Buller CITY OP RANCHO CUCAWN&4 10500 Civic center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: COMPACT PARKING City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Brad: At the planning Commir2ion workshop hold on Thursday, June 20th:, to discuss the proposed revision to the City's parking ordinavicla as It relates to compact. parking, the majority of the Commissioners present at the workmhop with the exception of Commissioner Chiti.ao felt that our proposed "one size fits alto concept of 8 112 x 18 was are acceptable pt'aposal. At that meetin , Commissioner Ch3tiea expressed some concern for the "one size flta sell ° bsaCause of veer concern for clearance batwaen cars such as the Chevrolet suburban, which wan the exaLV2e Suzanne cited. since that meeting, we have had Kunsman Associates, the traffic engineer who prepared the parking surrey dated May 28, 1991 which was part of our package submitted to Cho city, categorise specifically the suburban vehicle An it relates to the overall categorization of vehicle sizes cited In the report. Muntzman Associates has Informed us that the Suburban falls within the oversize category which represents something slightly less than 9% of the 3,433 vehicles surveyed at the various shopping centers .indicated In the report (we have attached Another copy of the guntzman Associates report for your reference). Zn addition, we have also enclosed a ccapact parking diagram showing the clearances between an overe lze vehicle and a small and large vehicle respectively. As indurated in our May 13, 1991 proposed parking ordinance revision presented earlier to the city, a 24• clearance is that which is most commonly used. Thee enclosed diagram depicts that even though the incident of oversize vehicles In rather small, again slightly less than 9t, that the most commonly used clearance of approximately 24" is accommodated. V 4.t 'Ba, Two CORpo"TC PLAZA • GUIiG 290• NCWPC3RT ®EACH. CA 92660.7029 0 0 MOW 0700- NIFWPOR7. ®EACH CA Q20ESS -8700 RUG- 09 -'91 THU 14:37 ID:HLr*ES INVJEESTMTJT9 � „TEIL NO. ?14 -759 -0126 #167 P03 °;ti !!t. Brad Buller August 7, 3991 Page WO X would appreciate if you could please ensure that copies of "th® enclosed are inserted into the Planning Commission packet prior to the August 14th ?Ianning Commission hearing Mate at which the caVact parking issue will be heard so that the Planning Commissioners know that we have proper3y and adequately addressed those concerns rased at the Planning C atmission workfmhcp. Please let me knew if you have any questions. we will see you on August 14th. very truly yo a HUGHES s' S NiS Alk ohrt 'E�., Potter. .7Rp /nyc ancloaures cc: Bruce Buckingham, City of Raficho Cucamonga - wlenal. Rick :stager, ZM P Dames HLInageAment 6✓ 9L.1� �j� , ' AU6- 08 -'91 THU 15:24 ID :HLG4ES INVESTMENTS TEL N0:714- 759 =0128 #171 P02; - -roved - .' ' CY 1t5PAan LA990e1ates TroraDartwCion PIar%nimg •Traffic Engira&Onp May 38, 5991 P Mr. ace Clsoon Lewin Eons= 1156 North Mountain Avenue upland, Ch 91785-0670 Dear Mr. olaseon: we are transmitting the riiit,aults of our parking ,away at the several commercial sited in the city of Etancho Cucamonga. A survey of parked vehicles was conducted at the following locations: 1. Imcky Center Haven Avenu® /Highland ,; v4mus 2. Sunrise Center - Baseline Road /Carnelian Street 3. Terra Vista Village - Ravcn Avenue/Baseline Road 4. Terra Vista Town Center o May' -i3► Avenue/Foothill Boulesvaxd Surveys were conducted an thr. Zollovi%ig days and times: Thursday, May 23, 1991 - it N ®on to 3:00 PM Gall sites Thursday, s".oy 23, 1991 5%tQ PM to 700 PM (sites 1 and 3) Saturday, Hay 25, Jet 11:00 AM to 2:00 PH (all sites) Vehicles were counted iri the following categoriOM: 1. Small/k adium (019" x 1307") 2. lairgs (611- X 1712-) le a. Oversize 4. Motorcycles 4650 ®a rraece Parkway o Irvine, CA 92714 • PAX t714: 559-0280 s re"Phona (714) 059 -41231 PLO-M -'?S THU 15:25 ID: Rr -+iES wjEsTmEmTs TEL t o: "14- 759 -m28 #111 FES Ip Tablas 1 3 �Prasent theirsfear�mt�sa <! "collected during l; each survey pariod� Table 4 lists the cu Suiativa totals. Z tmet that this information will be of imsadliateM use to you. a will be cut Of the Officeir until June 3, 1991, but available aftor that data it there are questions. sincerely, ":StItdZMAX A SSOCIAT89 Gary 1 mmenp P. E *,.. #192^4 r _ C-� io El RJG -M-'91 THU 15 2 S I STMENTS TEL AO, 714-75--R-0128 #171 P$4. Thbie i SUMM OF PAW= VEHia 5 MAY 23, 2991 -23 NOW TO 300 94 site Vehicl" Iamo Oft=isu i'at=cycle TmTd►I,B uwjw Oaf 146 22 2 192 surw ma cwrtar 229 39 6 1 175 farm Vista Vim 374 W, 3 3 438 VlAtA Town O ''367 68 O 1 436 'U!'M 3,016 3$7 11 7 1: 21 AUG -W -191 THU 15:26 ID:KSG S' IRASTN,�MTS TEL N0:714 - ?59-0129 #1';t1 F05 y • T&1a 2 ,'OF PAMIMD V=C= I+iAY 2J/1991-530. PH TO Sao P33 Vabicl!9s sit& I,M L=w &mgize motorcycls TES 167 28 3 0 191E amrias conur ° Vista Vinage 303 51 1 2 5'"7 Tama Vis=ta Tom 13Ka'Cear 470 79 6 3 355 ,�-- A0 ,A i! PUG- 08 -'91 THJ 15:26 IA-HUGHES INVESTIENTS TEL N0: ?14- 759 -012F3 #171 P06 o..� M'f9K1i OF.FAMW yERii T= M 25, 1991-32 2iC9Gii TO 300 FM r a t%Sbam ,. . y %tww cwitw 205` 30 3 1 239 Surw sum cuntar 155 42 9 0 206 7*=a V.i k-ts vb aaaga 340 46 1 3 439 T* ="ea Vista Timm Cantar 630 148 5 0 783 '1OMW 3.330 305 la 1657 SW 06 -'7l iHL, la;cr 17::MWU Z ;MVa..WJ49a tn- ,u; 4 tl - Tat" 4 SURD at or NOW vEHIcTZS GRM TOT= E } Veitciew M sift VA Luvo ovwuiz* Moborvicle =WA Wow caw,.-W 528 SO 8 3 ?607 m mz-u m Ctat 294 61 16 1 381 Tw= Vista Ville '1017 L_ W4 5 8 1224 To= Vista Tram c "7 216 S 1 169 i 281� 671 33 13 3433 E } G 11 F] BACRGF9UND: On Juiy 10, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the above - described am°ndments and receive public input.- The Commission raised concerns over several proposed development standards, specifically, the minimum lot width, the requirements of recreational area /facilities, the building separation and setbacks standards, the requirements of lockable storage space, and laundry facilities. The Commission cor`.inued the public hearing to this regular meeting so that they could conduct workshops to further review these identified items. Two workshops were held on July 18 and August 1, 1991. Representatives from Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Company an? design profession?:ls attended the workshops and participated in the discussions. Draft minutes of the July 10, 1991 public hearing and the minutes from the workshops of Tuly 18 and August 1, 1991, are included in this report for your reference. ITEMS F,G,H,I -- - Cl'1'Y Ur' HANUHU UMAMUNCrA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 14, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Plinning romrission FROM: F.cad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amFmd various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts. Staff recommends issuance of a NL_.ative L•iclaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) ENVIROI:MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWNDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANi.AGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1::31.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENIDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF 12ANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi - family residential districts within the Terra Vista Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration: (Continued from July 10, 199.x';) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUrAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards anm design guidelines for multi- family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) BACRGF9UND: On Juiy 10, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the above - described am°ndments and receive public input.- The Commission raised concerns over several proposed development standards, specifically, the minimum lot width, the requirements of recreational area /facilities, the building separation and setbacks standards, the requirements of lockable storage space, and laundry facilities. The Commission cor`.inued the public hearing to this regular meeting so that they could conduct workshops to further review these identified items. Two workshops were held on July 18 and August 1, 1991. Representatives from Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Company an? design profession?:ls attended the workshops and participated in the discussions. Draft minutes of the July 10, 1991 public hearing and the minutes from the workshops of Tuly 18 and August 1, 1991, are included in this report for your reference. ITEMS F,G,H,I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT. DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 page 2 ANALYSIS: This section of the report focuses on the changth and refinements of the prc-iosed development standards based on the July 18 and August 1, 1991, works, }ops. The July 10, 1991, Staff Report has been attached to this report''for ad,�itional reference material. A. Minimum Lot Width, Minimum Frontage, and Flag Li)t Frontage Under the Basic Development Standards. The Commission was concerned with the proposed standard of a 100 -foot minimum lot width and a 50 -foot minimum corner lot as the standard implied that multi- family projects would have to I'rovide a 100 -foot lot width. Another concern raised by the Commission was whether the parcels that do not meet this standard would be allowed to be developed. The intent of this proposed standard was to insure multi - family projects comply with the design criteria of a_ visually pleasing streetscape. Therefore, the proposed standari. could *be better reflected under the category of minimum street frontage and flat lot street frontage. For parcels that do not meet the minimum street frontage, staff recommended that Footnote "L" be refined so that these substandard parcels can be developed at -the lowest end of the permitted density range. The proposed changes are inclu&- -d in the attached ordinance. S. Recreational Areas/Facilities. Concerns were raised at the July- 10, 19911" , scaring twat the recreational amenities requirements could be restrictive. For example, the proposed minimum width dimension of SG feet and 100 feet for large open lawn area and the required number of recreational amenities for development consisting of 31 -100 units z,;peared to be too restrictive. At the workshop of July 18, 1991, the Commission reviewed the identified concerns as well as the modification to the standard suggested by staff. The Commission recommended the following changes as e - Bussed in that workshri,: 1. Development consisting of 31 -1Pn units should provide two sets of recreational amenities. Staff also refined the criteria by adding language to allow fiexibilif- for the designer to provide the eclui• ,a,jnt of two sets of recreational amenities. For example, a development could be equipped with one large spg ,double the size) instead of _ providing two smaller spas, subj -act to Planning Co:tmiasleh review and approval. 2., The -ainimut =i, t'1 dimension of 50 feet and 100 feet for large lawn areas Wat' Pied to state that at least one of the dimensions shall-bb t, at for developments of 30 units or less and 100 feet for developments consisting of 101 to 200 units. F Cr, �" it 0 I a, _y f PLANNTdG COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TRPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91-02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 Y,age 3 3. Water tap requirements were deleted from the barbecue facility. 4. For development consisting of 101 -200 units, language was added to allow flexibility to provide the equivalent of the recreational amenities subject to Planning Commi�--!,on review and approval. S. The criteria for maintenance of r'! national amenities was revised to include property owners. i according to the C.,ty Attorney, the private assessment district al ",ernative should be retained in the criteria. C. Amenities 1. The requirement of 125 cubic feet of storage space "w _refined as shot in the '',o —ached Ordinance. The word "lockable" was deleted. At ti brk,9hop, the Commissior, also clarified that the storage space 11 , 4, w thin the fully enclosed garage may overhang into the park' pace as long as it did ,not interfere with vehicle paryJ 2. Laundry Faoil t,* The proposed standards allowed a pf°oject to AM develop with a common laundry facility instead of providing each unit with a washing machine and clothes dryer.. The Commission felt that rental pt'ojects should provits a minimum percentacXa of the total number of units with ti washing machine and clothes dryer and the remainder percentage with the flexibility of providing either washing machine and clothes dryer hook - ups -'With those units or common Uundry facilities at the rate of one washing machine j and clothes dryer per 5 units. The following alternative standards are provided for your consideration: (a) Alternative' A ": Etach unit shall be provided with a hook -up for a washing machine and clothes dryssr in the interior of the dwelling. Where washing machines and clothes dryers are not progided, common laundry facilities shall be required at a rate, of 1 washing machine and clothes csryer per 5 units. common laundry facilities should be can renicutly located for all residents within the Complex. Commtn laundry facilities can be within free - standing baildinge, attached to dwelling units, or within; the recreation, room. The design cif the common laundry facilities shall be architecturally Compatible to the dwellings. (b) Alternative "B ": For Mon - rental development, each unit shall be provided with a hook -up for a washing machine =4 clothes dryer in the,__intzrior of the dwelling. For rental development, 50 percent of the ,total number of units'shall be provided with a washing machine and clothes dryer in the dwelling unit, and the remaining So percent shah: -be provided PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 VW Page 4 with a washing machi.ne,ard clothes dryer hook -up in the interior of the dwelling unit or common laundry facilities at a rate of 1 washing machine and clothes dryer per 5 units. 3n addition to these alternatives, the Commission could also direct staff to prepare an amendment to the Condominiwi Conversion Ordinance requiring each unit to be equipped with a washing machine and clothes :dryer hook -up prior to conversion. This new requirement would prohibit those develnpments that have been provided with common laundry facilities, to be later converted to condominiums. D. Building Separations and Setbacks. Concerns were raised by Lewis Homes and the,Will.lam iyon Company that the proposed ,standards were too restrict 4e. The Planning- Gomni.ssion reviewed these standards again at tb% 'August 1, 1991, workshop. The Commission directed staff ,, radify the proposed standards as summarized below: 1. For development consisting of one- and two -story product type, in Medium, Medium -High, and High Residential alstricts, the front -to- Ahi front building separation- should be•as follows: am (a) A minimum of 30 feet separation between buildings where there is no patio fence or with rece6sed .�ia.lvony,, (b) A minimum of 10 feet between two patio fences that are, less than 5 feet in height (c) A minimum of 20 feet between two patio fences that are more than 5 feet in height and between balconies. (d) A minimum of 20 feet between a patio fence and la building wall. (e) A minimum of 30 feet between two building walls wit.i a common patio fence or wall. 2. Development consisting of three stories or more product type, in Medium, Medium -High, or High Residential districts, requires an additional 10 -foot separation between the two building walls for each floor or story above the second story, 3. The building to one -story detached garage and accessory structures separation for High Residential District, was reduced from the proposed 20 feet to 15 feet. }�r� �-T7 E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPii 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 Page 5 4. The building to curb 'separation for the High Residential district was reduced from the proposed 20 feet to 15 feet for development consisting of two -sto f,',' product types. An additional 5 -foot setback is required for' each floor or story above the second story up to a maximum of 25 feet. The above changes are reflected in Table 17.08.040(Q) as shown in the attached Ordinance. E. Related Items as Discussed at the August 1, 1991 Workshop. The ComL^issioners also discvtssed insS.xes of location and maintenance problems created by downspout, the placement of meters /utility housing, and the maintenance problems for the pection of walls between garages. Staff recommends the following design guidelines to address these issues: I. Downspouts should be architecturally integrated into the building design. Where,,,dowhspouts end at a landscaped arso, s,71ash guards should be provided. Preferably, downspouts should be piped to a paved surface or into the 'landscaped area.. 2. Landscaped areas between garage doors should be designed for tree or vertical shrub planting. Meters and other, ground- mounted equipment should not be located within the landscaped area. 3. The location and placement of meters /utility housing should be oriented away from the dwelling unit entry. The meter /utility housing should be architecturally integrated into the tii,uilding. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Comm3&!sion must make the following findings in order to approve, all or in part,- the proposed amendments: A. Development Code Amendment 91 -02. 1. The proposed amend-,ent does '.. 'in'lict with tie land use policy of the General Plana 2. The proposed amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 3. Th':' proposed amendment would not be - materially injurious or detrimental -to adjacent properties or have a significant impact on ttr 'environment. B. Victoria Plannea Community Amendment 91 -02. 1. The�'iproposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of i'he Specific Plan and the General Plan. FJ q s PLANNING COMMIS SION STArF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91- 02,.VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 Page 6 2. The propnsed amendment would not have significant'fmpacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties- C. Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91 -02. 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and the General Plan. 2. The proposed amendment will not have: significant impacts on the environment, nor the surrounding properties. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to review.'` the proposed amendm,.mts and to consider public input. The following actl, ns are requested from the Planning Commission; y, A. Recommend approval of Development Code Amendment 91 -02 and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. B. Recommend approval of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 and issuance . of a Negative Declarsition to the City Council- C. Recommend approval of Terra Vista Planned Community i'mendment 91- 02'and issuance of a Negative Declaration tot;the City Council- D. Table the Etawanda Specific Plan Amendment '91 -02.'N through minute action. E. Adoption of a .Resolution amending Resrlution'No. 88 -161. Res a lly ted, ii f� Bra e City lanner BB:NF: jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - July 10�, 1991, Staff Report Exhibit "B" - Approvl.9 Minutes of April 4, April 11, April 115, and May 8,:1991 Adjourned Meetings Exhibit "C" - Draft 1,9inutes of July 10, July 18, and _ August 1, 1991 Meetings Exhibit "D" - Supplemental Questionnaire Exhibit "E" - Draft''Chapter of-Design Guidebook Proposed Resolution Amending .w volution No. 88 -161 Proposed Resolution Recommending Approval of DCA 91 -02 Proposed Ordinance for DCA X31 -02 Proposed Resolution Recommending Approval of TVPCA 91 -02 Proposed Ordinance for TVPCA 91 -02 Proposed Resolution Recommending Approval of GPCA 91 -02 Proposed Ordinance for VPCA 91 -02 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATE' REPORT DATE: July 1991 (��} TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bgad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ',i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91 -02 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi - family residential dist:icts. Staff recommends- issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -02A - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts within the F-'wanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a,4negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 19Si.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMhUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi - family residential, districts within the Terra vista Planned Community - area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ( ontinued from June 12, 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSW&NT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02 - C721Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A request to &:, -ztd various development standards and design guidelines for multi - family residential districts within the victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration." (Continued from June 12, 1991.) 1. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is for `:he Planning Commission to review and consider action on-various code changes relating to multi - family development. The goal for these code changes is to enhance the community character and the quality of life for residents in multi - family projects. The following actions are requested from the Planning Commission. A. Recommend approval of Development Code Amendment 91 -02 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. B. Recommend approval of Terra vista. Planned Community AWL Amendment 91 -02 and the issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 1?CA 91 -02, TNPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; July 10, 1991 Page 2 C. Recommend approval of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 and the issuance of a Negative Decla *ation tca the City Council. D. Staff recommends tabling Etiwanda specific Plan Amendment 91 -02A '(see discussion in the Analysis section of this report). E. staff recommends approval of a resolution amending Resolution Ho. se -161 regarding the landscape policy. II. &ACRCROUND: on February 26 1991, the City Council adopted a resolution chargingi.the comLission with the responsibility to modify the City's development standards and design guidelines to ensure high quality multi-family' To ,assist the Commission in this responsibility; stat spared a study with recommendations for changes to various development standards and design guidelines. The study and the proposed changes were based on staff analyzing the current development standards contained in the Development Code, comparing then to the Terra Vista Planned Community, the Victoria Planned Community, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan, as well as reviewing them with the past , practices and policies of the Commission. The proposed changes focused on various site dev loprent standards ensuring steps for proper transition of density „and "compatibility of use, upgrading the open space requirements and the related recreational amenities, upgrading the architectural requirements, visitor parking and other°' '. project amenities. The Commission :onducted a series of workshops to review the various proposed changes. Representatives from the property owners of the two planned communities, Lewis Homes and William Lyon Company, as well other developers and design professionals attended the workshops and provided input to the 'Commission and staff. Attached for your reference is the summary and action of the Planning Commission workshops of April 4, 11, and 25 and May S, 1991 (Exhibit ^A "). In the concluding workshop, the Commission provided specific direction to staff to preiArs the attached Development Code amendments and Pl&n'Aed Community Amendments as discussed in the Analysis section of this report. A 111. ANALYSIS. This section of the report focuses on describing, discussing, and analyzing the various proposed changes to the development standards and design guidelines relating to multi -family projects within the citywida area, the two planned communities area and the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The format consists of listing the existing codes, the proposed changes or the proposed new codes, followed by an analysis of the changes. F, , — PLANNING COMKISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CDCAMONGA July 10, 1991 Page 3 i A. Development Code. 1. Development Standards. I a. Establish a minimum net lot-'a,ea under Basic and Optionai Standards.. Existing: No minimum net lot \area or acreage required. Proposed: 3 acres minimum for Bads` Standards and S acres for optional- Stan4ar" . Analysis: Requiring a mini= ,lit area would encourage lot consolidation and V"" 11 provide a greater opportunity for a more" site design. Under the Basic Standards; lots of legal record but less than 3 acres would be allowed to develop at the lowest end (e.g., under 9 dwelling units pc:r acre for the Medium Residential District) of the permitted density range. The reasons are two fold. First, staff recognized that there are approximately 70+ lots which are under 3 acres' and currently designated as Medium Residential with no development proposals. Tk�is proviaion would allow for development of these parcels if the applicant )Ar developer is unable to assemble enouci lots to 2e0-t the minimum lot area. Second, the limitation of the allowable density would increase the chances that the site design would comply with all the development standards, design gui PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AEk 'JCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91-02 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 10, 1991 Page 4 Proposed: 'M - 100 -foot lot width - 50 -foot corner lot width MH - Same as above H - Same as above Analysis: At one of the Commission wcrk,,%�bps, members of the Commission brought up the issue of minimum lot width as a result- of reviewing a couple ot...rArrow lot multi- family projects. The concern* were with the design of the entry_ to the project and the strestscape Establishing a minimum lot width of 100 feet would facilitate mare spaciove site plans and t comply w to =cneminiaam site design�� criteria. These design criteria could include an estimated 40 -foot entry driveway, a 40 -foot estimated building footprint, and an approximate 15 -20 foot setback from the property line. This new sta�Aard could impact some of the lots on 19th Street and 7sirow Highway. C. Modify and establish new standards for building separations and setbacks from property line for Basic and Optional Standards. Analysis: The. distances between buildings and the setbacks from property line are established to provide for an element of openness and human scale. 'Unfortunately, the minimum standards become the design maximum in many prtcCts. The Commission saw a need to improve the standards that will be consistent with the policies in the ~:.immunity Design 81a�,ent of the General Plan. Under the Basic Standards for the Medium Residential District, the building separation is 30 feet for front to front and 15 feet for other situations. in most cases, the buildings have patios encroached into the 30 feet separation distance leaving perhaps S -10 feet for landscaping and pedestrian walkways. Thus, the separation between the buildings appears to be closer. The new - standards, as shown in Exhibit "F," indicate that the building separation under the Medium Residential District appears to be decreased. However, staff added a provision that will require all building separations or setbacks to be measured from any enclosed balcony or enclosg3 patio 3 feet or more in height. This,` in effect. will increase the distances between buildings. For Medium High and High Residential Districts, the building separations are l half the combined height of the two buildings. Staff expected that any development within these two �� ld —T— I 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ' DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02 VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Juiy 10, 1991 Page 5 districts may include a mix of two -, three -, or four - story buildings. B � using this formula to determine the distances for! building separation, it would' achieve the goal 6f providing openness within the project. For example, a three -story building _of 35 faet in height and a two -story building of 25 feet in height wq' d require a dittance separation of 30 feet. Again, the distances are measured from any enclosed balcony or pwti.u. In addition to the building separation, other new standards are l established, as shown in Exhibit "F,' to achieve the objectives of - visually softening the buildnnc bulk, the builiing edges, and the density. illus'.rative graphics for these new standards are developed to reiterate and support them. Staff would like to acknowledge the assistance of Lewis Homes who assisted in the development of these graphic illustrations. d. Recreational Area /Facility. Existing: Required recreational amenities such as pools, spas, courts, and recreation rooms within common open space. Proposed: Require specific types of amenities for projects under 30 units, projects 31 -100 units, are, projects over 100 units, as shown in Exhibit "G." analysis: Although the code currently rsquires recreational amenities, as described above, within the common open space, there a 4 no provisions regulating the amount of amenities provided *,o the size, of the multi- family project. The Commission saw a need to improve the existing codes by establishing new standards for, requiring amenities. The new codes set minimum standards for providing recreational amenities by the size 'of the project while also providin�j. flexibility to the devaloper an to the types of amenities offered. Provisions are added to require proper and lorical dispersal of recreational amenities. This) provision is added to avoid the concentration of all of the amenities within any one common open space area. e. Establish new ;standards for project amenities to include exterior lockable storage space and laundry facilities as shown in Exhibit "H," and as follows: 1. Exterior lockable storage space of 125 cubic feet. v 0 Ll PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91.02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF :MNCHO CUCAMONGA July 1D, 1991 Page' 6 2. Each unit shall be furnished with washers /dryers in the .interior or common facility provided at a rate of one washer /dryer per five units. Analysis: The purpose of establishing the new standard is to enhance the quality of life for the residents (homec'wners or renters alike) within multi- family projects. Further, this new standard would be consistent with the requirements as contained in the current Condominium Conversion Ordinance. f. Establish new standards requiring proper signage to identify visitor parking as shown in Exhibit ".T." Analysis: The concern is that i,:�aitor parking;, spaces are not properly identified where visitors may g:zd it hard trying to locrte them. Also, visitor par]ra:i�q spaces are often used by residents if they are not properly signed.. The new standards require the developer or the applicant to submit a aignage.package for visitor parking to the City Planner -sor riiiew and approval. Signa.ge may include individual signs labeled on the pavement, directory signs, etc. 2. Absolute Policies The Development Code has ',bsolute Policies that are intended deal with the issues of neighborhood compatibility, mitigate land use conflicts through buffering, duality site plan, circulation, and architectural compatibility, etc., as shown in Exhibit "J." At these workshops, the Commission reviewed the language rnd found it adequate. The only mod ification that the Commission proposed is to change the word "can" to "shall" for one of the land use mitigation measures as identified in Exhibit "J." The purpose is to strengthen the requirements for transition of density. 3. Design Guidelines The Development Code has Design Guidelines which establish a high quality standard for building ansl site design. These guidelines are based on the community design goals as expressed in the General Plan. The Commission, has reviewedi these guidelines and, in general, agreed that they are adequate in ensuring high quality design. However, Ask several areas should be strengthened and upgraded to be more reflective of the commmity design goals as stated in the General Flan. The proposed changes are as shown in yExhibit "K" and are in bold print. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 10, 199' Page 7 A. a. Buildin orientation: Language added to encourage a variety of building design.. b. Parking: Language added to require solid stalls for separation between individual single, double, or 'multi garage units assigned to that unit. Also, the inside dimension of the single garage unit increcI?ad to 10 feet by 20 feet. C. Landscaping /Open Space: Language added to st;rongthen the requirement for large masses of open space consistent with the policies as stated in the Community Design Element of the General Plan. d. Architecture: The language was modified to,c{tplicitly state that multi- family projects should nave upgraded architecture. e. Scala: Language was added to require proportionate mass and scale of buildings bath horizontally and vertically. This language is consistent with the policies as_�stated in the Community Design Eleme=�.t of the General plan. f. Materials and Colors Langr -►ge added to strengthen the need for choice 67.materials and color that compliment the architecture and building character. Related items not part of the Development Code Amendment. At the workshops, the Commission raised concern with how to ensure high quality design for multi- family projects reflects -o of the City's desire, box to inform tho development community of high standards of design, and how to ensure quality of landscape materials. To address the Commiss»'s con-- ..a, staff recoamends that a supplemeAtal questionnaire 'be develr ed requiring the developer to submit information supporting the merits of the development proposal. Staff also indicated an interim draft chapter of the design guidebook for multi- .family projects coull be prepared to assist the development community in designing projects consistent with the City's design goals. -Staff also prepared a Resolution amending the praviouc one by strengthening the policy to require landscape architect's to inspect the quality of the landscape materials prior to planting. These requirements and procedures are described beloa, 0-1, u Ll El iJ FLAMING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT , DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Tuly 10, +991 Page 8 a. .J Supplemental Questionnaire. The format for this suplslement ?1 requirement is as shown in Exhibil� "L." The burden of proof is on the `�3veloper and his designer to articulate in written form, graphic illustra tons, or a combination of bot1l, how the proposed development meets each one of the. Absolute Policies and Design Guidelines. The Development Code specifically requires thit all residential projects must satisfy the Absolute Policies and Design Guidelines before approval, can be granted. staff would ' review the supplemental questionnaire `zor :- completeness and adequacy.> Upon completeness of the ,. supplemental questionnaire, the City Planner or his designee would make determination if the development proposals meet and satisfy each one of the rolicies and guidelines prior to forwarding the project for, Planning Commission consideration. This new requirement and procedure would hopefully achieve the objective of ensuring'Iiinh quality design. c; b. Draft chapter of Design Guidebook for multi - family project. The Design Guidebook is on the planning work program, hmwaver, it is behind in schedule. In ordsr to a?'eess the Commission I s'concerns on informing the develcpment community of quality design, staff prcp.i7ed a draft chapter of the Zealgn Guidebook for multi- family projects as an interim solutiuua- The format of the Design Guidebook is as shown in Exhibit "M." Section 1 clearly states the design goals of the City. Section 3 lists the - design objectives or design goals as expressed in the Genei;al Plan followed by more specific criteria it cludng' graphic illustrations. The graphic illustrations provided are . simple and rough. This draft chapter. of the Design Guidebook is not complete- Staff will continse to prepare and add to the Guidwook pertinent design ." criteria with the accompanying graphics. Eventually wl;.,n staff is ready to prepare, the entire design gv-dohook this d aaptcr- will be incorpk,irated. c. Proposed amendment to Resolution No. 85 -161. The Commission on August 10, 1985, adopted a formal policy requiring registered Landscape Arcaitects to prapar�-;, certify, and $Aspect the installation of landscape materials 'and irrigation systems. At the workshcp; the Commission raiseO: concerns with the quality la..ecape aaterials, specifically trees, shrubs,}'and ground cover. To address the concern, ii;Lf£ recommends that tW axisting policy be strengtheni,l to ,� require the Landscape Architect to inspect and cer;�ify' the quality of tho landscape materials grid% to planting. ���. PLANNINr,, COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91-02, ESPA ,91 -02 CITY OF RANCHO CDCKMONGA July 10, 1991 'a4e 9 B. Planned Communities. At the workshops, the Commission rEQ,iewed the comparison of development standards among; the Development Code. the two planned communities (Victoria and Terra Vista), and I the Etiwanda Specific Plan (see Exhibit "C "). The comparison showed that there are discrepancies and differences in the development standards, specifically the street setbacks, building separations, and building setbacks from the property G -line. Also, the community plan text lacked general design guidelines and criteria for transition of density.` The Commission .recognized that at the time of establishing the two planned communities, additional open space and open tiiace linkages were set aside in exchange, for :flexibility in the street eetback� The 'Cumm, lion directed sta f to bring the standards of the two plsnaed communities into consistency with one another. Representatives from both property owners, Lewis Homes and Pulliam Lyon Company, agreed. The following sections describe and discuss the proposed changes to the two community plan texts. 1. Victoria Planned Community. a. Modify street setbacks for ;Medium, Medium', High, and High Residential Districts as shown in E'& bit "ip." The modification -reflects the setback" as measured from the ultimate curb faco consistent with the Terra Vi!3ta Plann--d Community and citywide area. The street setback for arterial streets, except for Victoria Parkway, have been increased from 32 to 38 feet. b. Cstablish a new standard requiring the addition of a 10-fool,; setback when tho project is adjacent to Very Low or Low Residential Districts. This new standard would be consistent with the Development Code Standards. The purtose is to allow for a proper buffer zone between conflicting .lazi uses. C. Establish nes building separations and setback standards from the property li..s by referencing the standards as contained in the Development Code. d. Establish nea- _,provisions by adding language requiring cluster dsva- -?=ent or multi - family projects to comply* with the Design Guidelines as contained in the Development Coda. a. Add new provisions reg4ring transition of density as contained in the Development Code. IP G,', -�a) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91-02 - CITY OF RANChO CUCAMONG3 July 10, 1991 L.. .,e 10 2. Terra Vista Planned Community_ a. Mudify the street setback for local, collector, and oecondary streets by increasing the standards to be consistent with Victoria Planned Community and as c, shownin Exhibit "P." b. Establish a new standard requiring the addition of -a 10 -foot setback when the project is adjaceat to Very Low or Low Residential Districts consistent with the standards in the Development Code. C. Establish new building separations and setback standards from the ''property line by adding languages referencing the standards- as contained in the , Development Code. d. Establish new provisions by adding language requiring multi- family projects to comply with the Design Guidelines as contained in the Development Code. AUL e. Add new provisions requiring the tra..sita�r. of density to as conta +,ned in the Development erode. Copies of the proposed changes to the two planned co mmities were distributed to the two properly owners, Lewis Homes and William Lyon Company. staff has met with them to review the proposed amendments. They have agreed to most of the proposed amendments. C. Etiwanda Specific Plan: In reviewing and comparing the multi- family development standards between the Development Codo and the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the Commission determined that the Specific Plan has adequate pr-)visions.. to guide mpiiti- family projects. Therefore, amendments are not necessary. D. Environmental Assessment: The propose~ amendment consists of changing dsvel o Amen t standards and design guideline9 which would. III not create a significant impact to the environment. Staff recommends issuance o! Negative Declarations:. _ IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following findings in order-to approve, in all or in part, the .proposed amendments: A. Developca.t Code dmcndment 91 -02. Aft 9. The proposed amendment does not conflict with the ,land use policy of the General Plan. I� i I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UZ-A 91 -02, TVPCA 91 -02, VPCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 10, 1997 Page 11 2, The proposed amendment promotes: the goals and objectives of the General Plan. j 3: The proposed amendment would not be materiall,,' injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties or have a significant impact on the environment. B. Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91 -02. 1. The proposed aweriment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the specific Elfin and the General Plan. 2. The proposed auendm;ent would not have significant impacts on the •environment nor the surrounding properties.. C. Terra Vista Planned Ccmmunity Amendment 91 -02. 1. The proposed . mendment is consistent with the goals and 'objectives ef. the. Specific Plan and the General Plana 2. The proposed amendment will not have significant impacts on. the environment, nor the surrounding properties. V. CORP'"iFANDENC£: The above described proposed amendments hava been acv .tired in the Inland Valley Dail Bulletin newspaper as s public hearing under an 1 /8th ps4e ad. in addition, public hearing notices ; were sent to all property tuners that have land designated as Medium, Medium High, ov -High Residential Districts and without a development proposal. VI. RECOKWE;DATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to review the proposed amendments and to consider public input. The following actions, are requested from the Planning Commissions A. Approval of Development Code P.merdment 91 -02 and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. B. Approval of Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. a. Approval Terra. Vista Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 and issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council. D. Table the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 91 -02A. E. Adoption of a Rassoltticn amending Reesolutioon No. 89 -161. i r _ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DCA 91- 02,,TVPCA 91- 02,'VDCA 91 -02, ESPA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCGO CUCAMONGA July 10, 1991 _ Page 12 i Respect4ully submitted, /Bra ler City Planner BB :NF: jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Summary and Actions of April 4, April 11, April 25, and MAX 8, 1991 Workshops Exhibit "B" - Approved Minutes 6.1 April 4, and Unapproved Minutes of April 11r April 2_5, and May 8, 1991 Adjourned Meetings Exhibit "C" -- Table I Comparison of Street Setbacks Exhibit "D" -- Table 17 .68.040 -13 - Basic Development Standards Exhibit "E" - Table 17.08.046-C - Optional Development Standards Exhibit "F "'- Table 17.08.040 -Q - Building Separations and Setbacks Exhibit "G" Section 17.08.040 -G - Recreation!I+acility Exhibit "H" - Se:ction 17.08.040 -R - Project Amenities Exhibit "I" - Section 17Jr08.040 -1C - Visitor Parking Exhibit` ".;" - Section 17.08.050 Absolute Policies Exhibit "R" Section 17.08.090 - 'Design Guidelines Exhibit "L" - Stlplemental Questionnaire Exhibit "M" Draft Chapter of,Desigr. Guidebook Exhibit "NO.- Amendments to Resolution 88-16 Exhibit "O" -• Amendments to Victoria Planned Community Exhibit "P00 - Amendments to Terra Vista fanned Ca- ..unity Proposed Resolution Amending Resolution Ho. 88 -161A Propused Resolution Recommending Approval.of DCA 91 -02 Proposed Resolution Recommending Approval of TVPCA 91 -02 - Proposed Resolution Recommending Approval of VPCA 91 -02 Proposed Ordinance for DCA 91 -02 Proposed Ordinance for TVPCA 91 -02 Proposed Ordinance for VPCA 91 -02 AM I r� 12. CONpITI(1NAL 135E PERMIT 88-12 WESTrRH PROPERTIES - Review of'an interim design solution in lieu of the construction of Major 4 and Ilding M within Phase 111. Rice Mauer, representing Lewis Homes, gave a T,lrief overview the Town CeW.ler project. Mr. Mager indicated that the potential tenant r.Major 4 (Chi1�'s World) had t= -rninated their expansion planr,'ind Lewis H s was working witlL a Pew tenant for the building. He reported the new t ant requires a slightly different building, which necessitates a change * the plans. As a result, Lewis Homes wished to pursue the temporary barri da to allow Montgomery Wards to open prior to the Construction of Major 4 Building M. 'Lie propo "d that the pedestrian access across the front of a building pad would be installed prior to Wards' opening and will be main ined during construction of Major 4 and Building M. The Commissioners disvissed the I ue and recommended approval subject to they following conditions: 1. The barricade ould, Ma installed prior to the occupancy of Montgomery W Z. Z. the beer ads should be maintained 74 hours a day. 3. The graphies and lettering usst an the barricade should be sistent with the existing graphite and lettering of Town Center. If the construction of Major 4 and BuildinV M does not cnmmence within 180 days of the Installation of the barricade, the barricade would be removed and the area should be planted and irrigated. 5. any modifications to Major 4 and /or Building M should be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. III. MULTI- FAMILY STA1dDA Of STUDY - CITX G* Tie qUO CUCAMp2gA - The review and discussion of various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family projects. Brad Buller, City Plawar, stated, that the format of this workshop was to go over the topics of discussion, one by rune, as outlined in the staff report. Thera was consensus freer the Commission to require, the developer to explain in writing hoer they designed the project to most the City's policies, guidelines, and standards. Commissioner Melchor preferred not to coo cookie - cutter type standards. Commissioner Tolstcy stated the City needs to sat minimum standards. Stan Bell, Lewis H=ee, stated he would like to know the minimum standards. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 4, 1451 r-,it —,u,T z�a 'J Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, stated that current cod's for open spew® and recreational amenities are adequate. Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, stated that the type of amenitiea would afftct the ,cost of the Homeowner Association (HOA) fees. Stan Bell, Lewis. Homau, r1 d that if the HOA fees are too jxigh, ehora will not be any buyers. i i Commissioner Tolstow with Lewis .;Hoops with 'regard to the recreational amenities tieing market- driven. i Commissioner Valletta stated that the community desires quality projects and providing amenities beyond what the market indicates is important. Mr. Buller stated that the direction from the City ,Council was to have come new standards in place before the next multi- family pFpjsct. The cons=sns of the Commission was that they mead ire tip to review the staff report and provide th+ direction. Another w rkshop was scheduled for April 11, 1991, at 300 p.m. in the Mains Room at the Rancbc Cucamonga Civic'Canter, 10S00 Civic Center Drive, Rancho i Cucamonga, California.' VW r♦ a m w The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ' Brad Sul)efer SOCra)tary Planning Commission Hinutes -5- April 6, 1991 r� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 11, 1991 V:,ca Chairman Chitiea called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 3:40 p.m. Thy; meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, franchn Cucamonga, California. } ROLL CALK COMMISSIONERS: PRS,SFNT: Suzanne Chitiea Larry McNiel, John Malcher, Peter To:Latoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESEYT. Brad Buller, City Planners Nancy Fong, Senior Planner I MULTI - FAMILY STANDARDS STUDY CITY OF RANCHO CUCA130NGA The review and discussion of various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family projects J Brad Buller, Ci lanner, stated that the purpose of this meeting was to pick up where we half lf,ft off from the last workshop on April 4, 1991. i Joe Olesen, Lewis Homes, submitted to Mr. Buller at the meeting a written response to the April 4, 1991 Staff Report. Chairman McNiel arrived at 3:50 p.m. i I. TRANSITION OF DENSITY AND SUFFERING A. Development Code There was no consensus from the Commission regarding the adef 'y of the current setback standards for multi- gamily projects when cdjaoen, o single family residents. Tmpresentatives of Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. indicated that they fount the current standards adequate. There was a coneensus_from the Commission to develop new standards r*_quir, ,�ng two -story buildings to setback further than the current standards of 100 ffit. i, Both Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. stated that the current standards are adequate. I a Consensus prom the Commission to require developers to articulate in writing how they have designed their projects to meet the City's policies, guidelines, and standards. Both Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. agreed. /J Commissioners McNiel, Tolstoy, and vallett, stated that they agreed with the. existing design policy as outlined in the staff report with one modification, i.e., to change "can" to "sh&.A." Let:;.; Homes and the William Lyon Co. stated that the current language ii Piae. s� S. Planned Community There was no consensus from the Commission whether to amend the two Planned Communities to add ,design guidelines and policies to be consistene with the Development Code. C. Etiwanda Specific Flan Concensus from the Commission that curie ^_t design policies are adequate. No changes will be needed. II. OPEN SPACE A. Development Coda Concensus iroa the Commission that the percentage of open space ie adequate. Concensus from the Commission to develop neW standards requiring a minimum amount of recreational amenities. Commissioner Melcher disagreed stating that the recreational amenities are market driven. Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co, agreed that recreational amenities are market driven and that the current codes are asioquate. B. Planned Community Concensus from this Commission that the practice of applying the Development Code standards of open space to the two Planned Ccr=unities is adequate. III. SITE DESIGN ?. A. Streetscape Concensus from the Commission trust the current s.. ` %rds are adequate.. Plannin<< Commission Minutes -2- April 11, 1991 4� Coacensus from the Commission that the setback standards f,..)r the two Planned Communities should be increased to be as close to the Development Code as possible. B. Building Orientation Concensus frcm the Commission that the proposed language as outlined in the Staff Report is acceptable as a broad general statement. Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. agreed. C. Building Separation and Si;�tback frors,Properf.,Y Line Concensus from the Commission to develop new standards and add to them into the two Planned Communities. Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co- agreed. D. Driveway) -rculation The Commission disagreed with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Vallette stated that the project should have an entry statement. Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. agreed with the Commission..�, E. Minimum Lot Area Concensus from the Commission to develop now standards. Commissioner Tolatoy stated that smaller lots should develop at the lower end of the density range. IV. ARCHITECTURE Concensus from the Commission to add language am suggested in the Staff Report to the Development Code as general design guidelines. For items� , B, C, D, and Er Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission considered them in the future. The Commission agreed. V. LANDSCAPING The Commission was concerned with the quality of material and the maintenance. CoL::—,Issioner Tolstoy suggested that we establish standards for the tree spread, i.e., the height to the size of the tress. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 11, 1991' j 1 ! Mr. Buller suggested that staff Could look into strengthening the ,Misting policy to require the Landscape Architect to inspect the material a!,id certify them prior to releasing the project. The commission agreed. The commission ,Further agreed with staff's recommendations in developing new standards for ' -Andscaped areas such as building to c, pt- eking, building to driveway, etc. " VI. PARKING There was no consensus from the Commission whether th-2 current`,, parking standards for multi— family projects are adequate. kr Buller ~suggested that this subject be pushed for further study and discussion. '- The commission agreed. VII. PROJECT AMENITIES There was not consensus from the Commission as to developing new standards requiring iV parking spaces in multi - family projectes. _ ` Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. stated that they disagreed with this proposed requirement. Concensua from t:._ Comm: -ssion to develop new standards for providing lockable storage space. Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. agreed. Consensus from the Commission to' develop new standards for requiring washer /dryer and recycling facilities. * * e • T ADJOQRNMM 6:00 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on May 25, 1991- Respectfully submitted, Brad .Bul er _ Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 11, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting - April 25, 1991 Vice Chairman Chitiea called the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONEE:S: PRESENT: Suzanr,t Chitiea, John Melcher, Larry McNiel, Petcr Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner= Nancy Fong, Senior Planner II. MUL�T;.rF2JlILY STANDARDS STUDY - CITY OF RANC:"I CUCAMONGA, - The review, and discussion of various development standards and design guidelines for multi - family projects, Nancy Fong, Senior PlanasL, presented the staff report. The Commission had several, questions on the current setback standarde for multi- family projects when adjacent to single family residences. Nancy Fong clarified how_ the current standards are applied to those projects'. The Commission then decided that the current standards are adequate. The Commission further discussed the adequacy of 'the current standard requiring 2 -story buildings to be setback 190 feet from the single family residences. Nancy Fong clarified that the setback is measured from the property line and/or the development district line and not from the single family house. Brad Buller, City Planner, arrived at the meeting. He suggested that the Commission review those items which appear to have clear direction and agreement from the Commission fivat. Then, when time permits, the Commission could further discuss :'hose items for v.:ich more discussion and direction is needed. Chairmen _McNiey arrived at 4:30 p.m. On the topic of minimum lot area, Commissioner Tolstfly asked how many lots in the City would be impacted by the new standard. Brad Huller stated that staff could do some additional work to find out the total number of lots that would be substandard. The Commission clarified that lockable storage space is to be located on the exterior of the unit with direct access from the outside and the design is to be architecturally integrated. Also, lockable storage space should only be within the enclosed garage and not carpdrt. The Commission then moved on to those items that have clear direction . but need additional work. With regards to the current standard requiring, 2-story buildings to be 100 feet away from the single family residencef's, Brad Buller suggested that the Commission table this topic. The Commission %greed. The - ^omm'ssion had further discussion regarding requirements of recreation amenities. Pete Pitassi, Pete Pitassi & Associates, suggested that staff look into the park credit Ordinance for additional resources. With regards to mending the two Planned Communities increasing the street setbacks as close to the Lavelopt Code as possible, the Commission suggested that Lewis Homes and William Lyon Company submit new standards for str-- review. Lewis Homes and William Lygn Compt , -,greed. As fcx the item concerning building sepal.., -{ona and setback from property lines, staff will prepare additional graphics for the Commission to review. Brad Buller recommended that the meeting be adjourned to the May 8, 1991 regular Commission meeting. e t i a t ADJOURNMENT 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- Apri_ 25, 1991 v �:z A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AlMk PLANNINGG COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting May 8, 1991 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:00 :p. =. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic, Center, SJ500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIC-NERS: !PRESENT% Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, Jo _ Melcher, Peter Tolstoy,;4iendy Vallette ABSENT: None f' STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planners Nancy Fong, Senior Planner MULTI- FAMILY STANDARDS STUDY - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA The review aid discussion of various development standards and design guidelines for r=lti- family projects. Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended that the Commission review the items that still have an unclear direction ar -'!sd in the staff repo _-tic Commissioner Melcher asked if there is a difference in the quality of development between the city -wide area and the two planned communities. He also stated that if we have been applying th% `Same standards from the Development Code to the two planned communities`, then, the quality of design should be the same. Joe Olsen, Lewis Homes, stated that at the time of the Community Plan development, a c Al. was stir ck with the negotiation of the Central Park in exchange for some flexibility of the street setbacks. Mr. Buller stated that the two planne4 communities have aywhole network of open space. The Commission raised concerns with the building setbacks being too close to the street. On too of that, the buildings have stairwells and patios encroached into the wetback areas which made it worse. Mr. Buller suggested that an alternative to increasing the street setback for the two planned communities is to bring the setback in consistency with one another. Representatives from Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Co. agreed to this alternative. Commissioner Vailette stated that;a design guidebook should be made available' to the development community to assist them in designing projects. Mr. Buller stated that staff will ' prepare, a draft chapter of theJdesign guidebook ;for'. lti- family projects as an interim solution. He also`Stated that the graphics in the guidebook wV,,, be simple and rough The Commission reviewed the 14- fg�Aage for the new standard requiF 57ti"-solid walls between garage units. Th,, majority of the Commission agreed with the language. /( Pete Pitassi, Pitassi /Dalmau Architects, stated that this new standard would require addition ventilation for the garage buildings and increased building size as each sepata', ca wall would add .5 inches'." ,i Commissioner Tolstoy rased roncera.`s that visitor parking areau are hard to find in mule. - family yrojecty as they are not properly signed. ''he consensus of the Commission was to add new standards requitaing directory signs and individual signs to identify -visitor par atng areas. Mr. Buller clarified for the Commission that the new standards for laundry facilities require anterior hasher /dryer facilities for'each unit or common laundry facilities at a rate of one washer /dryer for each five units. ' ADJOUW,wZ :tT AOL 10:30 T�.m. — Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop on May 16, 1991, £ol.lcv ng Dcsign Review at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center regarding the Foothill Market Placer Respectfully submitted, A ® Brad Sulfer Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 7117RIPOSES ON FO: LY : x • a e M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMfsNT COME AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts. Staff recommends issuanceftof a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 5 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development - standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) O. FINVIROtiMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMD TEZRA;7J.4T4 PLANNED CJMMUNTTY AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY. OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential. districts within the Terre Vista Flanned Community area. StmU ratommenws issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Con:i.nued from June 12, 1991.) P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORTA VICTORIA PLANNED- N 9 -n' - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - , - request to amend various development standards and design guidelined-._,Eor multi - family residential districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuanc* of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Nancy Bong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. AMIL Commissioner Melcher asked if the lot widta requirement should be considered in the same,way as the proposed minimum lot size of 3 acres for development at the low end of the density range and 5 acres for parmitting development under optional Standards at the higher and of the density range. He suggested that if the proposed required lot width could not then be met, development could then take place at the low and of the density range. Us. Fong suggested adoption of the proposed lot widths, as a developer with a substandard lot .an apply forea variance to develop the property. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated 'in existing parcel has the right, to build and if a project site wants to develop under the now standards but is unable to meet the now standards for of width or size, the developer may have to apply for a variance for the project. Commissioner Mblcher stated that with respect to lot area, the conditions have been laid out indicating development can occur at the low and of the density range. He asked if such a proviaion'should not be made for lot width as well to limit the development to the low and of the range. Mr. Buller indicated the Commission could wake a statement of direction or intent. He suggested a statement could be added -hat development would he allowed only at the lower and of a range if a W.wcel is substandard in any way. A deb. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 10, __1991 ,T Chairman McNiel complimented Ms. Fong on a good job on an arduous project. He ' opened the public heaving. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi DaLnau Architects, 926-7,--` ,Aven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, suggesteC, that lots not meeting the minimum size requirement should not have to comply tsith the dimensions. He thanked the Planning Commieuion for permitting the owners to be present at the workshops and for considering .their comments. He requested that building height be defined as the height of tho building at the plate line where the separation is taking place, not the highest point c:f the roof line. He felt the distance between buildings would be excessive if the top of the roof were included when m�asuring from patio walls. Mr. Pitassi stated that the requirements call hior another set of recrnationsl amenitita for each 100 units above the first hundred units. He asked if that meant that 105 unite would require two sets of amenities.'', j Chairman McNiel rezponded thzt the second set could not-,":e required until the number of units reaches 2pn. Commissioner Melchor felt the 'wording should be clarified to indicate that intent. Mr. Pitassi questioned the need for a lockable storage space if the storage space is located within an enclosed garage. i� Chairman McNiol` replied that lockable storage could be located outaide of a garage. Commissioner Holeher felt that if the storage area is located within a secured garage provided. for an individual unit, it may not be necessary to have the storage ar ©a ldikable. Chairman McNiel stated the intent was to provide lockable storage for securing ) a barbecue kettle, lawn chairs, etc. Be thought storage within a lockable 1 garage area would not need to be separately locked. He suggested the wording be expanded. Commissioner Melchor asked ii it was the intent to require that the storage area be located at floor level. nan Coleman, Principal Planner, repliel that wail not intended as a requirement. Commissioner Aslraer asked if storage located above th ®;,hood of a car would then meet the provision. Mr. Coleman rocpor:ded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel felt that may not accomplish what the Con-mission wished to Tarovide. - Commissioner Tolstoy agreed it would be difficult to storti a barbecue in an . over- the -hood storage area. low Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1991 f vim Mr. Pitassi requested the addition of "reasonably" in the Acknowledgment form . signed by the applicant regarding familiarity with all the pertinent Codes, Laws, Ordinances, Policies, etc. He asked that skewing of buildings be permissible rather than mandatory, as shown in Section III Site and Landscape Design. Chairman McNiel thanked Mr.. Pitassi for his participation. Joe Oleson Lewis Homes, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, thanked the Commission and staff for allowing input. He requested flexibility in the requirement to provide additional recreational facilities for larger projects. He caked that the developer have the option of providing one large aecreation building or pool equivalent to two or mole smaller such facilities. He &eked that the building separation requirement be reduced and submitted a proposal fcr various setbacks. He felt that increasing the setback from the curb of a driveway or a parking space and a building or between garages and the driveways would take away from the usable open space provided in the interior of the project. He proposed an additional category in the building separation and setback standards to require the distance from an enclosed patio /balcony <to an enclosed patio /balcony or garage / carporc to be 10 feet in the Medium or Medium -High designation or 15 feet in the High designation. He felt it is a benefit to maximize the exterior recreational areas available to the inhabitants including the private ,areas of a balcony or patio. Commiss:aner Melchor thanked. Lewin Homes for their contribution in providinq the graphics. Gary Luque, William Lyon Company, 7270 Victoria Park Lanei1Rancho Cucamonga, appreciated the team approach between the development community and staff. He felt that the majority of the issues had been worked out. He agreed that the wording should be revised to allow £or skewing of buildings instead of rbquiring it. He felt the site would dictate tha most appropriate layout and the Design Review process would permit the skewing of buildings to be required. He said that in conversations with staff it was indicated that if patio walls are 3 feet or lower, the building separation would be measured from the building instead of from the patio. He requested that patio walls be permitted up to 5 feet high to, allow privacy without triggering the' iuiasurement from the patio., wall. Ms. Fong showed graphics of the building separation as contained in the current code, as exists in current practice, as proposed by staff, and as proposed by Lewis Homes. She said the current code requires 30 feet, but in practice ':coat buildings have patios which encroach into the buil&.ng separation with an actual separation of only 10 to 15 foot-,for landscapinS :and walkway, making the buildings, appear mach closer than iari 30 feet. She said the proposal from Lewis Homes calling 1:or a minimum 10 -foot separation frrm an enclosed patio /balcony to enclosed patio /balcony or garage /carport is the same as the existing code in the Terra Vista Planned Community. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiol closed the public hearing. J'aly 10, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes -8- is Fa r°i. R Z:� j -S 1 '.i_.Y Commissioner Melcher felt the Commission had received valuable input at this e evening's meeting. He thought the matter to be enormous aeui which will effect the rest of the multiz!4amily development within the City and suggested the matter be continued to allow further discussions. Commissioner Tolatoy felt the issues regarding recreational facilities, building height, and building separation are extremely important. He preferred additional discussions in a workshop setting. Commissioner Valletta agreed. Otto Rroutil, Deputy City Planner, suggested the item be continued to August 14, 1991, with a workshop to be scheduled prior to that time. Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing. Motion: Moved by MelcLer, seconded by Tolstoy, to continue Environmental .Assessment and DevelopmenVL Code Amendment 91 -02, Environmental Assessment and Etiwanda Spec;;.fic Plan Amendment 91 -02A, Environmental Assessment and Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91 -02, and Environmental Assessment and Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 to August 14, 1991. Motion carried by the following voter AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MMEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA - carried Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Ah-..,DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request `:= -;add Section 17.08.040 -P and Section 17.08.070 -E to the Development Code establishing property maintenance standards and ongoing maintenanco requirements for 'multiple family dwellingo. Richard Tlcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor, presented the staff report. Commissioner Valletta asked what recourse the City would have if maintenan a standards are not mat. 5' vir. Alcorn vaplied that as the standards are written it would yo a misdamitnor infraction of the law. He said that would permit the City to glx,se-_ute for a violation. He said for a major problem, the City could' usvj;'the abatement proceadinga. He indicated that typically the City wkzrks t. >obtain voluntary compliance. Chairman McNiel felt the adoption of maintenance standards would be an opportunity to put the property owners on notice. Planning Commission 71inutas -9- July 19, 1991 ��-. 6` h:LY CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MATTES Adjourned Meeting July Is, 1991 . Motion: Moved by Melchor, seconded by Vallette, to appoint Tolstoy as Temporary Chairman. Carried 3 -0 -2 (Chiti.ea, McNiel absent). Temporary Chairman Toletoy called the adjourned meeting _ :o order at 3:42 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic, Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Californii►. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNiel (rrrtved at 4:00 p.m.) John Melchor, Peter Tolstoy, Handy V'aJlette ABSENT: Suzanne Chitiea' STUFF PRESENT; Brad 3uller, City Planner; Dan;,, Coleman, .Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING''STANDWM_S A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AM- DEVELOPMENT COBS DHENT 91-02--- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various development standards and design guidelines fog multi- family residential districts. Gaff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration'. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) B. ENVIRANMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-02A - CITY OR RANCHB CUCAMONGA - 'A tegt:snt to amend various development standards and design guidelines for multi- family residential districts within the Etivwad.a Specific Plan area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from Jun* 12, 1991.) C. ENVIRONMEHTAL ASSESSMSNT AND TpRRA VISTA P:,ANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend various deveiopment standards and design guidelines for, --multi-family residential. districts within the Terra Vista Planned Comsunity area. Staff recommends issuance of a. Negative Declaration. (Contlnu 3 from June 12, 1991.) D. ENViRONMENTRL A3S SSIA'a AM VIC4,',gIA PLANN$D COMMUNITY AMENDMENT A1d02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A request to amend verious development standarde and des,L7n guidelines for multi- gamily residential' districts within the Victoria Planned Community area. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from June 12, 1991.) Nancy Fong, Senior,Planner, gave a brief raport. F,,G , FOB i5CUS-`.= ION PURPOSES ONLY Chairman McNiel arrived at`.,00 p.m. The Commission agreed with staff's suggestion that the proposed minimum lot width standards be changed to minimum frontage at the front property ling, However, the Ctx mission was concerned with how it would impact arcele that do not meet this proposed standard. Brad Buller, City planner, suggested that language be added to thm footnote "L" whereby parcels that do not meet the minimum street frontage could also be developed under the lowest and of the permitted density range. The Commission agreed to the suggested language. The ComM.a '4n also clarified that the lowest end of the permitted density range would ZL,,In the lowest number of that density range within that zoning district. Lewis Homes commw•ted that they found the criteria to require a minimum width for the open lawn area too restrictive. - Brad Buller suggested that the language could be modified to read "one of the dimensions shall be blank feet" instead of "the minimum width shall be blank feet." The Commission agreed to the change. Lewis Homes and Lyon Company agreed to the change. Lewis Homes also brought up the issue of water taps and questioned the need for this requirement. They felt that this requirement could add plumbing costs to the project. They also thought the language "large open lawn area" conflicts with the requirements of the Xeriscape ordinance. . Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that the ,language does: not conflict with the Xeriscape ordinance. He said lawn areas-'are allowed and the "large open lawn area" would be the place where one should use turf and drought tolerant ground covers should be used for other areas in ,lieu of turf. The consensus of the Commission was to leave the word "lawn" as proposed and to sliminat.e "water tap" from the requirements for the barbecue facility,. Comni'ssioner Melchor questioned the meaning of "private assessment district" as contained in Stem No. 8 of the Recreational Area /Facility. Mw. Buller stated that the requirement is currently in the Code. He thought the purpose of the language was perhaps to ensure that the developer understands the maintenance of any common area is to be by private means or by the property owner. He indicated staff would check with the City -Attorney regarding this. The Commission reviewed the revised language for the "Lockable Storage Space" anJ found 3.t acceptable with the modifi.ca::ion that the word ".,ockable" be eliminated and the ward "fully" be added in front of "enclosed garages . 1991 Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 18, F, 37 4 z, ,r D� .. r C...1...Sivl vr Commissinn6r Valletta suggested that "washing machines' clothes dryer" be used instead of "washer /dryer ". The Commission also suggested that language be included to erasure that the laundry space is big enough to accoanodate most standard mode,a, r Mr. Buller suggested staff add language to require adequate, space for laundry ._ facilities in each dwelling unit; however, he felt it would behest to avofcd specifying the square footage. Commissioner Valletta asked whether the City should require 50 percent of the units in a r9ntel product be equipped with a washer / dryer and the remainir_g 50 percent be provided with a common laundry facility at 'a rate of 1 washer /dryer pnr 5 emits. Lewis Homes thought a better way to deal with this issue would bo to revise I the Condo Conversion ordinance so that multi- family housing with common laundry facilities can::ot be converted to condos. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission continue thr Meeting to another special workshop because the Design Review Comm?ttee meeting was scheduled to begin shortly and building separations had not yet been discussed. The Commission agreed and continued the mooting 1,? - August 1, 1991,, at 3:30 p.m.' r ADJOURNMEWT At 5:00 p.m. the Planning Commission adliaurned to a workshop following the.' Design Review Committee meeting. chairman HcNiel called th,s adjourned meeting of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Canter, 105b0 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMTSSIONERSs PRESENT: Larry HcNiel, John Melchor, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Valletta i ABSENT:Suzanne Ct!.ties STAFF PRESENT: Brad Huller, City Planner; pan Coleman, Prince pal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Betty Miller,' AFsociate Engineer Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 18, 1991 Fs v FOR DJSC U S..::YI T T,;, S IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He indicated that the purpose of the workshop was to review the Preliminary Cost` Estimates and Financing Plan prepared by the City's consultants. He reported that the total cost of the full trail system is approxir'dtoly $75 million. He also indicated that ntaff woiid be presenting two .jther options to the city Counci!., including the elimination of underF:�ssea, which could lower the total cos;: to approximatehy $17 million. Staff ''s; commended that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval to tns City Council. Commissioner Tolstcy stated that since incorporation the City har_'emphasized development of the equestrian/hiking trail system. He falt that he waar not unsympathetic to the horse community, but thought that it was now time to emphasize bicycle trails. He indicated that there ax only SOO horses in th;, City compared to tiv%usands of bicycles. He concluded tha � bic:cicj trails should rice '- top p iority, but not to the exclusion of sTitsttrian /hiking trails. Brad Buller, City ylanner; %stated that until now the City did not have the street infrastructure in to make installation of the bicycle trail _plane system feasible. Ha suggested that the commission adopt a resolution stating their concern to th&'Oity Council. Commissionea•',VallettR "inquiieid whether the development impact Yee funds described in` he FIr,%re -ing Plan would be spent within the tract that generated the fee or used elsewhere. Betty Miller, Associate )3ngineat, stated that the fees cou d'ba citywide or "zoned" depending on hair the nexus study is prepared. Mr. Buller stated that the Financing Plan paints the picture for the City Council to enable them to decide how much they -want to invest in the trails system. Motion: Moved by Melchor, 'Seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0 - -1 (Chitiea absent), to adcipt the resolution recommending approval to the City Council and directing staff to prepare a sepi_ate reesolvtion stating that any additional capital funds should bo made available for baaycle trail improvements. 8:00 - 8:15 p.m. - Planning;Commiasion recessed. Chan) :ki;n MCNiel left tha meeting at 80S p.w. Motion: Moved by Heft her, seconded by vallette, carried 3 -0 -2 (Chitiea, McNiel absent) to appoint Tolstay as Temporary Chairman. Planning Commission Minutes r'\ -4- July 18, 1991 'yam RAFT T FOR Amh CONDITIONAL USE PE1--dIT 88 -12 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to amend " the appror,:: Sign Program by adding sign criteria for the Foodcourt, the major users co, §isting oY Montgcmery Ward and Service Merchandise, and site directory signs, located within the Terra vista Town Center located at the northeast corner of Haven, Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 1077 - 421 -05, 06 and 18. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented a brief staff report. Norm Abplanalp, Montgomery Wards, showed slides of Wart.,.' signage. He explained to the Commission the concept and the marketing behind the "specialty shops." Commissioner Keleher questioned Mr. Abplanalp on how the signs are constructed. Mr. Abplanalp explained the construction details to the commission. Commissioner Tolatoy asked Mr. Abplanalp what he had heard from the Commission throughout the entire review process for M ^gomery Wards. Mr. Abplanalp stated that all the signs including the specialty store signs are registered trademarks. He said the mass and scale of the building were designed to accommodate the size of the proposed signs. Convisuloner Melchor stated he would like tn see overall elevations of the Auto Express building in order to assess the proper meals and proportion of the sign. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked the Commission if they would like to review the signs one by one. The Commission naceed. Sian Type T -1 - Montgomery Wards Mr. Buller asked the Commission whatl�er they had any concerns with the proposed wall sign at the east side of the auuth elevation. _ The consensus of the Commission (3 -0 -2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) w.0 to approve the Wards sign. qn. Sian Tune T -2 - RIMctric Ara Commissioner To7mtoy was concernsd about the black and turquoise stripes of the graphic logo for "Electric Ave -" y Commissioner Melchor state$ that the Town renter is a unique center and not a neig• rrhood center. He had no concerns with the Concept of the specialty atorf.,u.,, 's like "Electric Ave" or "Auto Express." His concerns were with the raper r zle and proportions of th' `specialty store signs to the buildLags and the grt rc underscores. He fell .,he colors with the grarhic design crer a congusi Planner- vCommissi minutes -5- Judy Is, 1991 V, G�`� i \ Commissioner Valletta asked staff if the approval of this sign would set a yrecedent. Mr. Buller stated that in the past Commission policy has been not to accept stripes and checkerboard designa. Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the underscore would be acceptable if it were :codified to a plain line with the words " Montgomery Wards." Mr. Abplanalp stated that the design of the underscore is non - negotiable. The consensus of the Commission (3 -0 -2 with Chitiea and McNiel absent) was to allow the "Electric Ave" sign under the secondary entry major sign. The sign shall be 60 percent of the allotted sign area, length of copy, and letter height of the Major Sign Type D. The issue of the black and turquoise striped underscore for the "Electric Ave" sign was tabled to be discussed with the Auto Expresa underscore. Sion Tvee T -3 - Latos Wall Sion for WarS4 at the North Elevation Mr. Abplanalp stated that the service *ntr;�,in the back is also another entry into the store. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could make the justification to allow a sign at the north elevation since there are residents to the north. The, eonsensca of the Commission (3 -0 -2 -.11th Chitiea and McNial aaLssnt) was to allow a wall sign at the north elevation under the secondary entry major sign. The sign shall be 60 percent of the allotted sign area, length of copy, and lattr height of the Sign Type D (Major user);',, LS an Tvya T -4 - Service Entry stem The consensus of the Commission 13 -0 -2 with Chitiea and MCNisl absent) was to approve the sign as submitted. a The consensus of the Commission was to keep this sign under the submajor sign criteria and to accept the colors and grsplhic logo of Mack and white checkerboard. The Commission also determined the colors and graphics of the und- ;score for the Electric Ave sign was acapratle. Abplanalp stated that he was also willing to reduce the size of the signs for "Electric Ave" and "Auto Express," including the graphic underscore. Mr. Buller recapped the action of the Commission as follows$ approval c', :the Montgomery Wards wall sign, including the underscore- of the south *levat.Wn as submitted; approval of the same Montgo= -�-.y Wards ;fall sign at the north elevatiori aes a secondary entry major siga'wtth 60 percent of the allotted sign area, length of sign copy, and letter height of the Major User Sign Type Dt Planhi.g Commission M$�nmtes -6- July 18, 19,)1 T i �A approval of the Specialty store sign of "Eleetri: Ave" including the black and ' turquoise stripes graphic underscore as a secondary entry sign with 60 percent of the sign area, length of sign copy, and 19tter heigi.t of the Sign Type D; approval the service entry sign as submitted; and approval of the specialty__ store sign of "Auto Exp.ess," including the black ano white checkerboard graphic underscore at the north and east elevations, as a eubmajor user sign. The Commission movwd on to review the Service Merchandise signs. The Commission redesignated Service Merchandisr, as -a major user permitting signage to be under the major user sign criteria. The Commission approved the proposed wall sign at the mouth elev?,t,,'ion as submit,:e�1, with the 6 foot letter "S." The Commission dia.!not approve the large wall sign at the north elevation above the loading area. Mike Ramon. %L, Service Merchandise, stated the': he vould propose a smaller s`gn to identify the loading area-for Service Merchandi -I*. The Commission accepted--,the proposal with the condition that the applicant work with staff regarding size and sale of the small identification sign for the loading area of,the store. The Commission reviewed the various projwaed -ign changes to the Town Centa;.r. The Commission approved the a,_Atiou o`f "Plaza de cafcW to the whopping center identification sign. They also approved tics -`two directory signs at the main drive aimle off Foothill Boulev -rd and the t,,o directory signs off Town IV center Drive with the conditions that th.i names on these signs be specified and the signs oft Town Center be set back 60 feet from the curia, Ia addltlan, they approved the small wall - mounted directory signs , 'tha columns with conditions that the number and location of these signs ba specified.. The applicant agreed to the cnaditions of approval ` The Commission did nee approve the pylon sign. Ths consensus of the commission was that this typo of sign would detract from the plaza area. The Commission did not object to the concept of providing r.1ditiopul identity to the Foodcourt. AADJOVRt MENT The meeti_.g adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary Planning Commission ':*utea -7- EQ - July IL, :991 El CITY OF RANCHO %;fjCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Keating August 1, 1991 Chairman McUiel called the Adjourned xiseting,.,49 the city of Raniho Cucamonga Planning commission to order at 3z40 'p.m. Tly� resting was hal:1 L, L the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga's :ivic Center, IOSOO Civic Center Drive, Rancho c•1camonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the.pledge of allegianc(A, RQ7fL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESEvI-t, Larry NcNiel, Suzanne Chitisa, John Melvher Teter TQlstoye Wendy Valletta STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Principal Plqnfiox; . Na,,cy Fong, Senior Plannex; Anna -Liss Hernandez-,,Aaaistant Planner &T.1-FAMILY HOUSING STAHQARDS _ DS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES3140T AND PREVE 'Jff4Tr CODE U%N= kT 91-02 - CITY--()? RANCHO _CUg?4igNGA - A request to amend varirjua dsieltment standards and design guidelines for multi-family residential districts. Staff •.ec==sr-+d_ issuance of a Nagativo Declaration. (Continued from Jine 18, id. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSk5SK,,NT AKD__ETIWANDh S.RSCIE1._" ?L-AN AMENUM 4i -1-02 - CITY __PL_BN1g-!L CUCP4LCM - A request to amend various development standards and design quidellmrs for multi-fanrIly residential districts within the Etiw&nda anscific PI ' an area. Staff recommende issuanco of a Negat-fvc Declarftion. (Continued from June 18, 1991.) C. ENVIRON COQ WffJ1=L AMENDMENT 91-02 UQXXONGA - A rtr 4,e) amend various development standards and design guidelines for wasidantial tAistricto within the Ts =a Vista Planned Community,,,Wea. Staff raccmsnds issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued ftom Juno 18, 1991.) D. Ej7VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WM, VICTMa CO N 91 -02 CIZ, 91 RANCHO-_ (MQMQM - A request to amend various davftlqpment standards and design guLdelines for multi-family resiaert-tal. districts within Who Victoria Planned Community arse. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (continued frow June IS, 1991.) Dzn columan, Principal Planner, stated that this was' as sixt1t workshap,3n. the subject and the remaining topics% were building scparatil,;�s and astback requirements. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, gavr a brief staff report. . FOR D".rJt..uss'.0m i-,U, a"iSt_J 4,..�JLY Stan grall, Lewis Homes, raised concerns with ho°.g then limildlaag separations are ru--'.. Led. He felt the 20 -foot separation, taken from a patio fence more than 3 f'' high, is too r.istrictllve. Joe oleson. ✓ -ewia Homes, showed pictures of existing Terra `list& praieci.s to illustrate ','sir concerns with the proposed codes. He thought an increase in hui.,2ing or oration w.uld not increase the quality of life. Commissioner 71alCi.er agreed. Commiseioner Valletta disagreed and coamc:r }tad that the pictures shown by Lewis Homes cor4 rmsd the neel- to increase the building separation, as she felt the picturee of existing grojecte- showed overcrowding of buildings. e` Chairman KrNi*O stated that -one of the rsaso,a the building separations need amendmes,t ins that applicants typically subwit designs thet ara at the mt-simum standards, Kr. olason show -ad eXaGQlen of existing projects in an attempt to illustrate that the proposed ct indard of 15 feet from building to Garb is too restrictive. Gary Luque, 'William- Lyon Company, commented thar. this is the iusue he would raise too. Commissioner Tolstoy skated that he had vi+tited a number of multi- family / projects, including some in Terra Vista. and wa-. °encar nod with the closeness and tunnel effect creates: by tho buildings.;r-lz.g 'pl'aced too close to one another. _ Mr. Ball states that the.proorie3 satandards for both the building beparation and the buillirig -to -curb measurement. aculd effect ?thn density yivad. He thought the nuts "r of units allowed would ba decreased, which he fait is inconsistent Uth the Davelcpment Agreement for the Zv;.va Vista rlvnnrad Commur_ity. Chairman McNiel staked that the p'a Woe oil the proposed am.W iYai.t is to achieve the quality of `ifs n stated in the Caner#' P%an policies.- Mr. Oleson again showed pictures to illustrate and expL•tn why be felt the proposed building separation ss.andards art too restrictit.. 1 . Both Chairman HcViel and C- vanissioner Valletta :salt the piaturesa shown' ` depicted clear exaimplos of the need to increase the building sopar,ation. Chairman HcNiel reiterated that the majc ctp: of the prof "e —s s.:bmittod to the i City are t icall desi ned at minimum st Y typically 9 - i' ` i:>an.: -this: is the reason for raising the minimum. 8?tinning Commission Minutes August 1, 1951;-. -2a 1 Commissioner Melcher stated that the increase in building separation at the Medium -High end High density district =ould compound the problem of not achieving thm allowable density. Commissioner Valletta stated that the Higher density projects have bigger and talle.. bu.ld',ngs which cre.. se'csed for more laniscaring in order to softea them. Chairman McNiel agreed and commented that tyuically they would have three or four storied buildings: The architectural projections, such as enclosed stairwells and balconies, tend to close ir;the buildings and create a t;tnnel. effect. As. Fong asked the commission what). ar the building separation should be increased. and if so, by how much. Thz wajo2ity of the „commission agreed that the building separation should be increased. '. Commissioner Melcher felt that the building separatian stanr:ard should decrease for higher density districts ` Both Chairman McNiel and Commissioner Valletta disagreed and commented that the higher density project should crovide f'r more landscaping. Mir. Ball suggested that a ?a -foot asparation be required for iitios that are less than 5 feet in height and a 20 -foM: 1 eeparation be required for patios that are aver S feet in height, The Commis•+.oners agreed! on the f.'11M LVI atan -ards: the building separation for :tedium Residential district shall be "-AO feet for tuilding`to building with no patios; for patios 5 teat in height or less, the.eeparation between patios shall be 10 feet; for patios 5 feet or more, tha separation between patios Ahall he 20 feet; the aeparation ?or patios (any height) on one sid6 And the . building wall shall ha 20 feet; the separation "twesan buildings .rith common patio fvncaa shall be 30 feet. Both Lewis Homes and the William Lyon Company agreed to the proposed , standards. The majority of the Commir -ion recommended that staff develop a sliding scale sts.ndard fo building separation, under the Medium -High, and High Residential districts for a min of two ani urea storied buildings. Mr. Luque islt the propowed standards of 15 feet between building and curb is too restrictive, especially when the measurement is taken from patio tenons that are 3 feat in height oc mo:.e. The consensus of the Comeission was to retaia trIel propoetd 15 -foot separation between building and curb- commission also stated that the sidewalk and Planning Commissinn Minutes -?.- Aur3ttst`1, 1951 ,G;,; LJY patio may encroach within the 151 feet distance with the condltior', \that a - , minimum, 0- fo'ct. area be maintained free and clear for landscaping. Lewis N a" rained the issue that tia building to detached garage separation under °c a High, Residential district should not be increased to 20 feet ag a detached gat ,.i is normally one - story. The coneet } of the Commission .was to al`P)w the High Residential district to have the same /15 -foot separation as the Medium and Medium -High Residential district. Thai 1Commist ®ion ajs6 stated that sidewalk and- patios, may =encroach - within the building separation distance provided that a minimum of 10 fast be maintained free and clear for landscaping. Both Lewis Hown and the William Lyon' company, askod if the building = 'o -curb separation under' the High Residential district can be reduced from the proposed 20 feet to 15 feet. " The consensus of'ths c -,mise!'_n was to develop a sliding - scale standard whgra each additional floor would require ;:additional,,:sstba;`•'for building -to -curb separation. Commissioner ivallette asked if the Commission had resolved the issue of the requirsmarts`for laundry „facilitLea' between "for salfe" and "rental" type of projaate. Me. Fong suggested that,,,, staff prepays alternr was for the CommiNjion's . consideration at the Aug"",, 24 1991, meeting. The Commission agreed. e s At a -_ I :1D - OURNM$LTC The Commission adjourned the meeting at 6:(k0 p.m. t.3 a epecial workshop on August 8,,,19914, foll"ing the regular Design Review Cor+mittsa meeting.. Respectfully submitted, j� I Dan Coleman = Acting Deputy Saare:ary Planning Commission hf.nute ®., =,6- c Augy3t 1, 1991 i+' ry . —== ANIL r `C1d Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUPPLWff ¢t'-AL APPVCATION 7OR RMMEWMALL DEVi:WP39= RESMENTLAL APPLICATION ZVALiTAT70N A. Generale AR new residenUal developpm. n are subject to the Evaluation as described in Section Mn 60.030 , except for theffoilowlrs: K New residential; development 4 units or less M New residential zubdivision 4 lots os less in Individual single fimifiy construction 0 Oti #s as deternsi�1 ed by the City Planner 33 Purpome :The Intent of the' Sn.+ppl mental Res.4dentirs Evaluation Is to,•snsure that t %e development will meet 2nd,-3atisfy,the City's goals asnO objectives : This review is based upon community objectives expressed ti the General Plan . Cuteria used If- the evaluation of a residential project and in conjunction with the Development /Design Rev ew considerations are described in Section, 17.060.010 . Thcse criteria are paned as follows: i ® Absolute PoWes- Section 17.08.050 a Development Stanauords - 5ectim 17.09.040 2 Design Guidelines - Section 17.08.000 C: Ap licaton proce�iurc c The submittal of the Sup lemeant:l Questionnaire is far required residential development. The A.pplicittion sha be submitted to the City Planner for .:valuation on Mc—completeness and accuracies of the Information. submitted. The City Planner sliali determine If "she project cemplies with each of tine Absolute Policies and Design. Guidelines prior scheduling the project for Panning Commission considerattmm _ i J J J i (((! / l f'f 11 S leLaeutal upP $ndiftnnairp' - L Acknowledgement of the City's requirements. I, the applicant., (Name) J ,,e (Title) (Firm's Name), reprecentingithe developer, property owner and members of the professional team am reasonably familiar with all the pertinent Codes. Laws, Ord n3nc% , Yollc ies etc., that apply to tile development of this proposed project, It ; Check the documents that apply to the project (3 Development Code O General Plan o EUvnmda Specific Plan i i o Terra Visaa Planned Community= 6 Foothill Blvd SneciQe Plan 13 Victoria Planned Commuiaty a other. Please specify I i ( Signature ) 2 el�luxe P ;lieies. These are absolute requirements each project must satisfy before approval can be grsnttd. The Absolute policies Nava been developed in itspponse to the most critical issues associated wl t. residential development. These include assuring neighborhood compatibility. �ompliiLnce with adopted plans, j adequacy of publ +c, facilitlts and services, and protection tof the put i!c environment and public health: These Msolute Policies ace contained in Section 17.080.050 Describe in written form, illustrated graphics or a combination of both , how; this proposed p-Mject has been designed to meet each of the criteria as stated in Section 17.080.050 rr (Attached additional sheets as necessary) g. Development Stammdarft,These are the development standards dealing with ` minimurl requirements for setback, lot area, iauilding he t, open space, etc. The s ecific develo meat standards arbich a ppm ect must sates yarc deperrsient u on We base developm�t distri.t . Tifase stands are containeed fn SacLion 17.0 04Q of the Development Code. Projects witlxira Slxecifie , ?lane and Planned Comreunities areas must satisfy the dwelopment standards contain in that v,cifie Plan and Community Plan. A Describe , in written form, illustrated graphics or a combination of both ,how this project has been designed to meet and exceed the minimum requirements of the developii:ent standards ( Attached addidonai sheets as necessary ) r, 4 Design C<nideiiaes, The guidelines are based u,--n community design goals as expressed in tine General Plan .and encourage the ordErlp and harmoniots appearance of structures axzdp;�+)ieriy including weq;hborhood compatibilityy site pllanning, architture and landd ^�waring. The gutdeliries are in #e>zded to hz flexdbie enoug�hlr to allow individual epsession and innovaiioil within a i,~ework of an estabTLshed hf�g standard far design quaHt;. 1Chs desigta guidelines are contained iri Stctdgn 17.08tS.090 . Describe , in written form. iiluetrated graphite or a'combMaMn of hot;:_ :low this project has been designed to meat each of the,4 "ign guidelines. i,3 F4 j E���77PPTT��yyI LS.A IBT �1 E tt DRAFT CHAPTER Desl Guideboo ' 4' DC:A91 -02 P.C. 7-10-91 1VMA 91 -02 8 -14-91 VPCA 91 -02 ESPA 91 -02A jt f r t i ® General Design Principles 'lie wtamunity's expectations for development are influenced by a strong desire for "quality design." The principles which influence r, s direction for developments are as follows: Inn6 vi4 _° design, r6g4 less of its style, in more important to the achievement of ) "quality" than the use of any predetermined theme. Innovative design promotmte uK,of novel variations to solve cote anon and uni, one problems in urban development. - High quality is the msUt of extensive consideration in .providing innovative and appropriate solutions to all aspects of the design. - Developments should be designed to serve the community's residents and visum' and reflect the community's aesthetic v dueo. - Designers are ex,=ted to recognize and wark in conce Z with community goals as well as addressing requests of their clients. - Designers should not view their projects singly, but as apart of a larger master;ran area in which they are responsible for design cortinuity and compatibility. - Standardized design solutions, "off the shelf" model buildings which may be siccepted e'sewhere, are not necessarily the acceptable mzasure of qualitydesign in this community, l - Aclw9wledge the positive aspects of nearby existing buildings by incorporating compatible features in the new developments. - "3600" design concept is expected in all site and architecamal. planning. In this concept, all sides and portions of a design are expected to receive the same attention to detail and wterest in design formulation. (GP pg. III -75) Tlsege general principles are the community's expectations and assumptions in the review of develop - mentproposalsandshouldbe incot? oratediatothaindividualdesigners' formulationofdesignsolutions. III site And Landscape De "* -. � . O A. Structures ( n sip ential) should be sited to -retain outward vkms k n-`,ach unit. III 100; 1. Buildings in multi4hray prei.cts 4 t3 be skewed in relafthship to each other to., create a variety of view orientation for increased visual. intetos %,1P pgs IlI 103) - preferable - -less preferable - preferable - s -less preferable- Tf 0701 -02 0 AUGUST 14, 1991 P . C. {AGENDA o 3 of 7 } rt -less pmfemable- Products must be L,exible in interior & c©nstructior. design to accommodate these design criteria F, 8' - El- I= R C. Orient buildings around common facility .J• � -� t _•Fr s y preferable - r - l-ass preferable - F,Q, ,.cod LiJ RESOLUTION NO. 88 -161A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ESTABLISHED POLICIES REGARDING LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DRAWINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on Augast 10, 1988, adopted R solution No. 88 -161 establishing certain policies regarding land,'jcape and irrigation drawings to implement the City's goals and objectives. WHEREAS, the Plauning Commission determined that there is a need to add a policy to ensure the quality of the landscape materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I1 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby amend their policy to read: 1. The developer is responsible for the proper installation and completion of all required landscaping. 2. The developer shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for, review and approval to the Planning Division in a manner prescribed by the City Planner. Said plans shall be prepared by a registered Landscape Architect whose stamp shall be con3picuously affixed to slid plans. 3. The deveioper shall retain the services of a- registered Landscape Architect to provide inspection of the installation of the landscape and irrigation systems. It shall be the Landscape Architect's responsibility to inspect or direct inspection of the installation of plants, materials, and irrigation system' in compliance with the approved plans and with City Standards requirements and Conditions of Approval. A. The developer's Landscape Architect Shall inspect and certify the quality and health of the landscape materials. Such certification shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to installation of the landscape materials. S. The developer's Landscape Architect shall notify the Planning Division immediately upon the installation of any material or equipment other than shown on the approved plans. All changes are subject to.approval by the Planning Division. 6. Upon completion of the project, the developer's Landscape Architect shall submit a written report to the Planning Division including: a. A certification in a form prescribed by "the City Planner that the work was completed in accordance with the approved plans and with City standards, except as listed in (b) below. b. A listing of any deviations from the approved plans or from City standards and the date of approval and by whom, in the Planning Division, approval was granted fod said deviation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88 -161A DCA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 Page 2 C. An "as built" set of landscape and irrigation plans. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. fBY: -_, {I Larry T. Mchiel, Chairman I ATTEST: _ f Brad Buller, Secretary I r, I, 3rad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and readopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a re,3i:iar meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991. AINk AYES: COMbSISSIONERS: ,r NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:, COMHSSSTONERS: I tt T !9' i x RESOLUTION NO. ASh A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT .;CODE AMENDMENT 91-02, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND, DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPOI.T THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed" an application for Development Code Amendment 91 -02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter In this Resolution, the subject Development ristrict Amendment request is referred to as the application., (ii) On April 24, and continued to May 8, June 12, July 10, and August 14, 1 ?91, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. On August 14, 1991, the Commission conc1nded said hearings. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, - determined, >and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: I 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. I 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public`, hearing on April 24, May 8, June 12, July SO and August 14, 1991, itc+luding written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as j follows: a) That the Amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively planned urban community within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and i j) That the Ame;,dmant will provide for devel6Xent within the i District in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission , during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the speelfic findings of i facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: r f PLANNI G COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 Page 2 i a) The Amendment is in conformance with the General `rlan. b) The Amendment will not create a significant adverse effect '( on tha environment. This Commission hereby finds and certifies tbL- the project has been rr .ewed and considered in iomplianco with the California Environmental Qualify Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that a Negative Declaration be issued. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, -, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: a) That pursuant to Section 6S8SO to 65855 of the_California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Ranc1' Cucamonga hereby recommend! approval of Development Code Amendment 91 -02. } b) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Development Code - Amendment 91 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. c) That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related ' material hereby adopted by that Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of thin Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAr7,GA 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 tha+r the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regul�xr meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f ORDINANCE NO. �' AN ORDXNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVEMOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91 -02, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND IIAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) on April 24 and continued to Mry 8, June 12, July 10, and August 14, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above - referenced Development Cone Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public hearing on August 14, 1991, the Planning Ccmm.,,ssion adopted Resolution No. , thereby recommending that the City'Council adopt Development Code Amendment No. 91 -02. (ii) On , 19 , the Cite City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public - hearinj' and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this ordinance. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior „to the adoption of this ;Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cuc %nonga ordains as follows: Section is This Council hereby specifies "and finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of the Ordinance are true and correct. Section 2: This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. Section 3: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds as follows; a) The proposed Amendment would not have significant adverse impacts on -the environment nor the surrounding properties; and b) The proposed Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. Section 4: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Development Code Amendment 91 -02 as follows: F, "�t� CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. DCA 91 -02 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM014GA 1` age 2 a) Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Table 17.08.040E - Basic Development Standards, and Table 17.08.040C - Optional Development Standards, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. b) Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Section 17.08.0400 - Recreation Area /Facility, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference. c) Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby ame:,led by modifying Section 17.08.040K - Visitor Parking, attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. d) Title 17 o,,F the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Section 17.09.040E, and Table 17.08.040(E) - Building Separations Standards, attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by this reference, and all subsequent sections renumbered accordingly. e) Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 17.08.040R - Amenities, attached horeto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by td- ' reference. f) Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Section 17.08.050FUt(3) }Absolute Policies, to read as follows: An entire site plan shall be oriented so that the activities and functions are align?• hierarchically placing those least compatible furthest from ;the common boundary between land uses and those most compatible near that boundary (i.e., single story adjacent to Tingle story). O ii g3 Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Section 17.08.090C.4. - Design Giiidelines, attac]iad hereto ac Exhibit "G" and incorporated herein by this reference. ,I Section 5: The City 'Clerk shall certify'to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same t; be publlshed within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Vag .ey Daily '8u7letin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California;' and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. G-tiKT.67 TABLE 17.08.040 - B BASIC DEW ; OPMENT STANDARDS (MR a Not Required) V!. L LM M MH H �1 225W 8000 '- -x000 TABLE 17.08.040 - B BASIC DEW ; OPMENT STANDARDS (MR a Not Required) V!. L LM M MH H LOTAREA: 225W 8000 '- -x000 3AC 3AC 3AC Minimum Not Acerage (L) (L) (L) MINIMUM NET 20009 7200 5000 3AC 3AC 3AC (L) (L) (L) NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS (A) Permitted par acre UPT02 UpTo4 1Up To 6 tupTZ11 �- 1UpTb19 UpTo27 MINIMUM DWELLING UN! SIZE. (Q Singie Family Attached and Single 1.000 SOFT. (H) Regardless Of District Detached Dwelling MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 'J) EFFICIENCY1,W °.;DiO 550 SOFT. Regardless Of District ONE BEDROOM 650 SOFT. Regardless OFDstrict TWO BEDROOM 800 SOFT. Regardless Ot. District THREE OR MORE BEDROOMS 950 -SO. . Regardless Of strict LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum width (0 Required 90 Avg. 65 Avg MR MR MR From Setbadt) Varyal -1 Vary+l- 5 rSOAvg. MINIMUM CORNER LOT WIDTH 100 70 MR M MR MINIMUM DEPTH 159 100 :4IR M W MINIMUM FRONTAGE 50 40 30 100 100 100 (@ From Fmperty Line) MINIMUM FLAG LOT FRONTAGE 30 20 20 50 50 50 (@ From Property Une) SETBACKS: (8) From Yard (C,E) 42 Avg. 37 Avg. 32 Avg. 37 Avg MR MR VARY41.5 VARY+1.5 VARY+1-5 VARY 41.5 CORNER SIDE YARD 27 27 22 27 MR MR INTERIOR SIDE YARD 1015 5110 5110 1Q r� EAR' A—RD 30 20 15 10 "- WR MR AT INTERIOR SITS BWNDAAY 3015 2015 156 15151 i 1515 1515 ( Dwelling UnIVAacessory 6kdi.) ( ®) '',t (D) (D) E-iIBIT 't A a t' i I TABLE 17.08.040 - B BASIC DEVELOP T STANDARDS (Continued) (NIR Not Pequlred) RESIDENTIAL 8UILDIkE%, PARATIONS L LM M RAH H N/R N/R RegU:ed Per Section 17,08.040-0 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 35 35 35 35 (F) 40 (F) 55 (F) LOT COVERAGE ( maximum %) 25% 40% `190% 5096.:; 50%J 50% OPEN SPACE REQUIRED Private Open Space (Ground Floor /Upper Story Unit) 2,000/ 1.000 / N/F 3001150 22rJ15o 15o /1o0 150/100 COMMON OPEN SPACE (A) (Minimum O6) N/R N/R N/R 30% 30% 30% USEABLE OPEN SPACE (A) (Private and Common) 65% 60% 40% 35% 35% 35% t CREATION AREAIFACILITY AE N/R NIR N/R Required Per Section 17.08.040 -G LANDSCAPING (G) (G)- (G} Required Per Section 17.0$.040 -F AMENITIES NIR N/R N/R Rewired Per Section 17.08., 40•R A EXCUJCkG LAND NECESSARY FOR SECONDARYSTREETS AND ARTERIALS AND IN HILLSIDE AREAS SMALL BE DEPENDENT CF41M SLOPEICAPhZI Y FACTOR CONTAINED IN SECTIOP 17- Won010 -.S , B. AS MEASURM FROM TM ULTIMATE CURS FACE ON PUMM AM PRIVATE Sf%ET&REFERTOTABLE 17.011.040 - D FOR ADDITIONAL SEIBACX C. '.rARL -A.E F- WYARIDSALLOWEOFURSUANTTOSECTIOH I?Zaoto -H. D. ADO TEN (10) FEET F ADUF.CENiTO VL. L OR LMA DWRiGT . E LESS THAN EIGHTEEN (19) FEET FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK REQUKS AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR OPENERS, F. LIMIT CNEV) STORY WITHIN ONE HUNORED( 100) FEET OFVLORLDISTRICT FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELIMG, G. PERIMETER LANDSCAPING ADD INTERIOR STREETTAEES . H. A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND (10M)SOWREFME MAY 13E Aun4OR9MD WHEN ADEVELOPMEW EXHIBITS rmvATNE OUALmES IN TRACT . PLOT AND ARCHRECTURAL DESIGN ?SiROL M THE APPROVALOF A CONDITICNALUSE PERMIT . L SENIOR CITIMNS PROJECTS ARE EXEMPTED FROM TMREDLIFaff J. TO ASSURETHAT SMALLER LINTS ARE NOTCONCENTRATED id.^NY ONE AREAOR PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING PERCENTAGE LAATATDNS.OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MM SHALL APPLY: TEN (10) PEA FOR EFFICIENCYATWp ANDTHRTY FIVE () PERCENT FOR ONE BEDROOM OR UPTOTH W FNVE (W PERCENT MIGIED . SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT . THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY AUTNOROM A GREATER RATIO OF EFFIC6ICYORONE (1) BEDROOM UNITS WHEN A DEVELOPMENT E)MITIS NNOVATIVEOESKTN DUALITIES AND A BALANCE MIX OF UNIT SM AND TYM . X WHILLSDEAR£AS.FEIG+ltESH MBELNREDT07MW MFMASSPEGFEDINWCTDNt7..'1 CM -D.1 L ONEXISTWGLOTSOFREX MPARCELSLESSTNAN7NR EFM ACE StN oMaTHANTHEE EOLMEDMWE@WFAONTAGEMAYOKYBE DEVELOPED ATTHE LOWEST END OFTHE PERMfTTFA DENSITY RANGE . . O E TABLE 17.08.040 - C OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NIR = Not Required) L Lt4 M MH H MINIMUM71fEARFEA (Gross) SAC SAC SAC SAC SAC LOTAREA Variation Variation (IwNnwm Not Average) Required (l) Required SAC SAC UM LL Wi 47 (Permitted per Acre) UP Ta 4 Up To 8 Up To 14 Up To 24 Up To 30 MINIMUM W LLIN UN ffMM (J) Single Family Attached and 1.000 SOFT. (G) Regardless Of District Detached Dwelling MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (K) EFFICIENCYISTUDIO NIA 550 SOFT. Regardless O(Dhsttict ONE BEDROOM MR 650 SOFT. Regardless Of District TWO BEDROOM W e00 SQ.FT. Atganfless OP Disakt THREE OR MORE SEDR MR 950 50 .Fr. Regardless OP District LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum width (0 Requiter( Variation: (0 Vadm2on WR MR Front Setback) RegUmd Ragnired MINIMUM DEPTH Val "Wr n M M Single Family Subdtvisi" SMACKS: ( ) Local Street 42 AVG. 42 AVM 42 AVQ 47 AVG. VARY+1.5 VARY+1.5 VARY+1 -5 VARY+1.5 PRIVATE STREET OR DRI AY 32 AVM 15 AVG 5 5 5 VARY+/ -5 VARY+1 -S �E) (E) (E) (E) CORNER SIDE YARD 17 10 5 MR N/R (E) (E) (E) INTERIOR SID • YARD SHO (1) 10 N/R NtW ` (� (D.H) AT iNTER-55ITsme BOUNDARY 2015 1515 2015 2015 20/S (DwaUirg Urtit / Accessory 814) (p) (D) (D) i EVUBIT C 15 i' n 76 V, TABLE 17.08.040 - C OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Continued) (N/R a Not Required) L LM M MH H RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SEPERATIONS , 25 25 Required Per Section 17.08.040-0 OTHER 10 10 Required Per Section 1.7.1;8.040-0 5 40 55 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 35 35 OPEN SPACE REQUIRED Private Open Spans (Ground Floor /Upper Stogy Unit? 1,000 / N/R 300/150 22&150 150/100 150/100 COMMON OPEN 3PACEE (A) (Minimum %) 5% 10% 35% 35% 35% USEABLE OPEN SPACE (A) (Private and Common) 60% 45% 40% 4096 40% RECREATION AREA/FACILITY N/R" Required Pursuant To Section 17.08.040 -G LANDSCAPING (F) Required Pursuant To Section 17.08.040 -F FRONT YARD LAi ,nSCAPING Required Pursuant To Section 17.08.040 -'e ENERGY CONSERVATION N/R Required PursuantTa Beckon 17.05;040 -H AMENITIES N!R N/R Required Per.:."tion 17.08.040 -R v A. F, XCLUDNG LAND NECESSARY FOR SECONDARY STREETS AMMff M4LSAW*iM SDEAREASSWLLSEDWe rrONTHE SLOPHCAPACITY FACTOR CONTAINED N SEv -TION 17.2 =040.9 . B. AS MEASURED FROM THE ULTIMATE CURB FACE CEI PUBLIC M8) PRIVATE STREET& REFER TO`rABLE 17 24ASA70 - D FOR ADwnoNAL SETPACKINFORMATION. C. LIMITONE V) STORY WITHIN ONE HUNDRED( 100) FEETOFVLORLDISTRICTRMWJLTIPLEFAMLYOWEL NCs. D. ADOTEN 00)FEET FADJACENTTOW.L.CRLUMTRICT .. E. LESS THAN EIGHTEEN ( 18) FEET FROM t ,CKOFNDEWALKWITHNCONDOMNUM,TOMrti OMORAPAMWXTRE0UMAUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOROPEW -ft GARAGE SETBACXIGTEN(1D) FEET MNI UMFSIDSENTRYGARAGEAMUSEDPURSUANTTOSECTIONI7WZW •L WHIN SW3LE FAMILY DETA I/tOETACHMDEVELOPMENT. F. PERIMETE, LANDSCAPpXi AND iNTMii STREET TREES . C, ASNGLE FAMILY OETACHEDOWELLNG LESS THAN NINE HI D(O MSQUAREr- ETW81RE0UIRETHE APPROVALOFACCHDITKNAL USE PFJWrr PURSUANTT^SECTION I7.OLM . H. ZERO LOTUivOWELL MPERMITTEDPURSUANTTOSECTION17 .08.040.0. L REFER TO TAME 17 Afl010- CA AND TABLE :I7J=040 -C2.. J. SENIOR CITIZENS PROJECTS ARE EXEMFRED FRO47HE RE tT . K. TO ASSURE THATSMALLER UNTS ARE NOT CONCENTHATED N ANY ONE AREA OR PROJECT. TWE FOLLOWM PERCENTAGE LWITATIONS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS SHALL APPLY: TEN (10) PE4,'SNT FOR EFFICENCYWUDIO AND THIRTY FIVE OM PERCENT FOR GIVE fSEDROOM OR UP TOT14MV FNG (36) PERCF3iT D . SWJECT TO A CONDITIONAL WE POW . THE PLANNING CWHSSION MAY AUTHORIZE A GREATER RATIO OF EFriCSIOYCR ONE (1) BEDROOM UNITS WHEN A DEVELOPMENT EX48ITS INNOVATIVE DEWA OUALRES AND A BALANCE MIX W UNIT SIM AND TYPES L NHILSWE ARM . FgEOM SMALL BELWITEDTOTItRT pM FEET As SPECIFIED *1=Tm1724.om o.1 . i EM BI1. 14 BX1 I F, 71 ii Section 17.08.040 - G G R=reat real Arcs rci (y Vihere required in Table 17.08.040 - C , r'eveloper shall provide recreational amenities in conjunction with common open space as follows : I.' Development consisting of 30 units or less shall provide three of the following recreational amenities (a) Large open larva area. one of the dimension shall be a minimum of 50 feet. (b) Enclosed tat lot with multiple play equipment. (c) Spa or pool . (d) BEQ facility eq*a peed with grill , picnic benches et , 2. Development consisting of 31 units to 100 units shall provi&f ,another set of recreational amenities as described in Section 17 08.940 - G1 , or equivalent , as approved by the Planning Commission . 3. Development consisting of 101 units to 203 units shall provide five of the ' following. recreational amenities , or equivalent as approved by the Planning Commission (a) Large open lawn . one of the dimension s" ,,,be a minimum of 100 ' feet. (b) Multiple enclosed tot lots with multiple play equipment line tot lots be located throughout the site. The number of tot shall conveniently lots and their location shall be subject to Planning Comm soton review and approval. (c) Pool and spa. (d) Community multi - purpose room equipped ' with kitchep �:cfined Gress for ggames, cx rises . etc. benches. The (e) BEQ facilities equipped with multiple ,?*ills. picnic etc. BBg facilities be 14 A throughout the site. The shall conventently number of BBQ facilities and they} horn ;shall be subject to Planning Ceamitssion review and ap p'a ` (fi Court facilities (e.g teavrt]a. vollevha3l,' its etc.). (g) Jogging /wallairrg trails w]tir exercis*. sttdiYv 4. For each 204 obits above the &first 200 grits. smAher set of recreational amenities as dveribed in Section 17.08.040 - 03 shn:4 be provided. 5. Other recreatioriU amenities not listed above may be,considered subject to Planning Commission review and approval. Related recreational ac "::vitles -way be grouped together and located at any one ranee of the coz=en open space. 7. Dispersal of recreational facilitie throughout the site shall be required for development with multiple recreatio�naall facilities. S. All recreation areas or facilities required by this section shall be nmantained by private horrieowrneea; associatior.' .'property owner or private assessment disiLAts. EBIT C n ` F��N,� Section 17.0$.040 -1C. ' K %st"n Park", For projects with private streets or driveways , vi hor parking required by Section 17.12.040 shall be provided in off street visitor parking bays within 150 feet of all dwelling units . Visitor parking shall be clearly delineated through pro pper a to the..,satisfaetion of. the City Planner. Signsge may include , liut is not P1 'pavement marking free standing sign designating the stalls as visit -; p 'g , ayd directory sigrm gL:Wing visitors to the visitor parking area J S1 EXHIBIT to ve a Section 17.08.040`- E E ) i)rjyp S parattons. Where required in Table 17.08.040 - B and C . this section sees forth minimum requirements for building separations and setbacks standards. TABLE 17.08.040 - E BUILDING SEPARATION AND SETBACK STANDARDS BUILDING SHALL MEAN DWELLING UNrrS. DISTRICTS 1,80ALZING SEPARATION AND SETBACK (A) M MH (C) H (C) ( in feet) PRODUCT. EACH FLOOR/SWRY ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR /STORY SHALL SEIWZV- BUILDING TO BUILDING (B) (D) FOR DEVEIOPMENI! CONSISTING OF A PMX. OF 7WO AND THREE OR MORE STORY 1. FRONT TO FRONT AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET UP TO A MAXIMUTA OF TWEPMi —FTVE FEET. (E) a. No patio or recessed patio i� 30 30 b. Between patio fencelwall lass than 5 $. in height 10 10 10 c. Between patio fence/wall more than 5 i4. in height r and between balcanys 20 20 20 d. Between a patio fence/wall and a buildsho iMl 20 20 20 e. With common patio fenccelwal( 30 30 30 2. OTHER 15" 15 15 BUILDING TO ONE -STORY DETACHED GARAGE/CARPORT OR OTHER ACCESSORY 15 15 ` i5 STRUCTURES(E) BUILDING TO CURB (E) 15 15 (D) 15 (D) BUILDING TO CURB AT PR MECT ENTRY 20 20 25 (A) BUILDING SHALL MEAN DWELLING UNrrS. (B) BUILDING SEPARATION STANDARDS FOR BUILDING TO BUILDING SHALL BE FOR TWO -STORY DEVELOP &]EATr ONLY. (C) , FOR DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF A MDC OF TWO AND THREE OR MORE STORY PRODUCT. EACH FLOOR/SWRY ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR /STORY SHALL SEIWZV- AN ADDITIONAL TEN FELT. (D) FOR DEVEIOPMENI! CONSISTING OF A PMX. OF 7WO AND THREE OR MORE STORY PRODUCT. EACH F=R/siow ABOVE nm SECOND nooi/STIDRY SHALL SETBACK AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET UP TO A MAXIMUTA OF TWEPMi —FTVE FEET. (E) PATIO WALL /FENCE AND PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY MAY ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK AREA PROVIDED A MINIMUM 10 FC*Ofr AREA SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE AND CLEAR FOR LANDSCAPING. r „� ':' _ 1” ,; t' ma }� " SPi Section 17.08.040 - i2 R aeni .it ,C&To enhance quality of life for mule- family development, additional amenities shall be required as follows: 1. Storage space. Each unit shall be provided with a minimum of 125 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage space. The storage space shall be dwelling floor level easily accessible lorrated outside of the at grade or anal if by the residents, Tht design of the exterior storage space shall he 7 architecturally integrated and /or compatible to the dwellings. The individual storage space units can be l.-icated within the fully inclosed ti garages designated for that dwelling unit. 2. Laundry facility. Each unit shall be provided with a hook- up for washing machine and clothes dryer in the interior`-�'A,he dwcfling. Where washing machine and clothes dryer hook- ups are niA provided. common laim facilities shall be requited at4 sate of one washing machine and clothes . dryer per five units'. Common laundry facilities should be converdently located for all residents within the complm Common laundry facilities can be within iieestanding buildings , attached to dwelling units or within The design the common laundry facilities shall be the recreation room of architecturally compatible to the dwellings. ZR 2. Laundry Facility. For nen rental development . each unit shaU be provided with a hook - up for crashing machine and clothes dryer in the interior of dwelling For devalopmerit fifty of the total number of I the rental . percent units shall be provided with a washing miachine and a clothes dryer in the `ihe interior of the dwelling " and the remainder fitly percent of total nua+*- -r of units shall be provided vWft washing r6achlne and clothes dryer hoc, �u}s in the interior of the dour' -u-n-g or�pmmon laundry facilities at a five Common ratO of one washing machine and clothes cAyw per units » laundry facilities should be co. .Vently =:orated for all residents within the complex. Common latmt * facilities can be located within free - :n buildings , attach Q to dwelling units or within the recreation rroomt . `ilee des%n oUt`• 4�srisnnn laundry faciliries sbaA be architecturally cmpatible to the dwellings EMUBI a ii �r Section 17.08.090 J. Air Quality. No operation or activity shall cause the emission of any smoke, fly as , dust, flumes, vapors, gases or other farms of air pollution which can cau�!- damage f'. ' Ith, animals, vegetation, or other forms of property, or whic can cause exc, a soiling on any other lot. No emission shall be permitted which exceeds the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District or the requirements of any Air Quality Plan adopted by the City of Rancho C uca in onga. K. Fire and Explosion Hazards. An operation or activity involvirn - *.he storage of am mao a or explosive in rials shall be provided with adequa, :'safety devices against the hazard of fire and explosion and adequate fire- fighting and fire suppivssion equipment and devices in accordance with the requirements of the Foothill Fire District !Uniform Building Code, and Uniform Fire Code. Burning of waste materials in open fire is prohibited at any point. L. Fissionable or Radioactive Materials. No operation or activities shall be permitted Which result at any time n the Fe ease oremission of any fissionable or radioactive materials into the atmosphere, the ground, orsewerage systems. M. Liquid or Solid Waste. Fla operation or action shall discharge at any poini' into any public street, public sewer, private sewage disposal system, stream, body of water or into the ground, of any materials of such nature or temn' �rature as can contaminate any water supply, interfere with bacterial proi.esses i.n sewage treatment, or otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or offensive elements,., except in accord with standards approved by the California Department of Public Health or such other governmental agency as shall have jurisdiction. Section 17.08.090 General Design GuideBnes A. Intent The intent of the guidelines is to assist the developer in understanding and complying with the City's standirds for building and site design. The guidelines are based upon community design g6als as expressed in the Oeneral Plan, and encourage the orderly and harmonious ;appearance of structures and property along with associated facilities, such aF signs, landscaping, parking areas, and streets. The guide',' -!s establish a high standard for design quality but are flexible enough to allow individual expression and imaginative solutions. B. Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to all development within ail resideff5al districts, unless otherwise specified herein. Any addition, remodeling, relocation or construction requiring a building permit within any residential district subject to Development/Or-logn Review pursuant to Chapter 17.06 shall adhere to these guidelines where applicable. C. Site Plan Design 1. Existing Site Conditions. Natural features should be used to an advantage as e gn a eme M-c as, mature vegetation, iandforms, drainage courses, grading, rock outcroppings and views. Conversely, undesirable site features can be minimized through proper site planning and building orientation. 2. Building Orlentatton* Placement of the buildings shall be done in a manner do—m—platiole witn surrounding existing and planned uses and buildings. The setbeck from streets and adjacent properties should relate to the scale of the proposed building. Larger buildings require more setback area for a balance F -07 g EXHIBIT of G to `Section 17.08.090 of scale and compatibility with adjacent uses. Buildings should be orien`ued ' along a north -south axis, as much as possible, to encourage energy conservation. For multi - family development, attached dwellings should be provided with relief and a sense of varieiar._ This could ite achieved by staggering the units. The placement of bull ngs should relates tip one another and create a variety of view orientation for increased interesi and openness. This could be achieved by skewing or angling the limIdings.; Buildings should be cluster around con son facilities, 3. Access/Circulation. The access and circulation should be designed to 'provide a sae and a cent system for vehicles and pedestrians. Points of access shall comply with city access regulations and shall not conflict with other planned or existing acOss points. Two points of access shall be provided for all but the smallest residential developments. The circulation system should be designed to reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, minimize �impacts an adjacent properties, combine access when- ;,asslbie, and provide �16quate maneuvering areas. Curvilinear streets are encouraged whenever*ssible. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall be separated, to the extent poi,`sible, through the use of a continuous system of public and private sidewalks: 4. Parking Areas. Parking areas should be designed to minimize visual sruption 57 the overall project design. Parking areas should be screened from streets through combinations of mounding, landscaping, low profile walls and grade separations. The design of parking areas should also minimize auto noise, glare, and 'increases in ambient air temperature. This can be accomplished through sound walls, screening with fences or hedges, trees, and separation of parking space$ and driveways from re i oi J�es. (a) Site Design; Openness, reduced strvk4tu ass and convenience uf- - :, use should be characteristics of Parking area design asimplemei� e� by the following; o ParkinR ='reas (open and covered) shalt be designed to provide pares spaces conveniently located to the units they are intended to serve. o Long, unbroken lines of opposing garages/carports on each side of a drive aisle should be avoided. This type of design resultsin a "constricted alley' atmosphere. \; ;o Free standing garages/carports should be located nod`, to disrupt the primary view of residential structures. o views to landscaped areas should be M; intaired at the ends drive aisles. Vistas should not be obscured by facing garages;•, or carports. A Planter breaks and special paving should be included along the parking aisles, These features add interesting patterns to the driveway /parkway area rhythm. ARM MF �a 7V T c -103- Section 17.08.090 o In order to open up more of the harking area to adjacent landscaped areas and reduce the "alley" effect along the drive aisle, offset facing garages /carports are encouraged on lengthy drive aisles. (b) Arci,itecture: Garage and carport structures should exhibit designs which are compatible, supportive and fully integrated into the overall architectural theme as Implemented through the following provisions: o Long structures present difficulties in keeping proportions appropriate with the original design intent on the main structures, and therefore, the garage /carport structures should be limited to 8-12 cars.!, :o Recognize garage doors as`i, ?n element of design rhythm and use to create varying`patterr'A. c7xtensive use of single width garage doors should be avoii,,� d.�'The perception of increased density can result from a pa,.ij�ng area with large numbers of garage doors. An overly repettttous pattern of doors can be monotonous and should be avoided. o "Flimsy ", "stick like" carport designs which portray an add- on, non- permanent perception are ot desirable characteristics of a parking area. Substantial design elements should be Integrated into the structure to convey a more permanent concept for the carports. o Storage units should be designed as an integral part of the carport structure. R, o Within ;multiple space garage structures, each car space shall be separated with a solid wall except where two or more spaces are designated to a single dwelling unit. For single ggarage untie, the inside dimension shall be Increased to a minimum of tort fees by, twenty test for convenience of use. 5. Landscaping/Open Space. Landscaping and open spaces rau4t be designed as an integral pa o pp —tact design and enhance the be.—...�ng design, enhance public views and spaces and provide buffers and transitions where needed, with emphasis on complementing grading and softening slope banks. Landscaping must provide for solar access and shade to facilitate energy conservation. Open space should be provided in eoncentnited areas 'large er4agh to provide oppoMnMes for active uses by groups. fi. Fencing/Screening. Fences and walls are discouraged unless needed for;' a specific screening or safety purpose. Where they are needed, color, matsrlal and variation of the vertical and horizontal planes are needed to blend with the site and building design. The use of any fencing or walls should be consistent with;the overall design thecae. F C-�" fib -104- Section 17.08.090 7. Lighting. Adequate on -site lighting should be provided to ensure a safe enronment while at the same time not cause areas of intense light or glare. r4xtures and poles shall be designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with the overall site and building design character. 8. l ?rlities and Ancillary Equipment. On -site utilities and equipment shall be located in inconsp cuous areas, away from public view. Where they are located in public view, they shall be screened with a combination of material that best suits the overall design theme. 9. Grading. Development should relate to the natural serroundings and minimize gran firing by following the natural contours as much as'p'ossibie. Graded slopas should be rounded and contoured to blend with the exisIng terrain. Split- level pads,_built-up foundaJons, stepped footings, etc.,'ican be used in areas of moderate to steep gradient. Above all, grading shall be designed to complement the project's orientation, scale, height, design and transitions with surrounding areas. 10. Fire Safety. Development should be designed in accordance with Fire 7Tss5Tcrequirements for two points of safe and ready access. Areas designated as high fire hazard areas should minimize fuel buildup around residences through greenbelts or cultivated fue'.breaks. 11. Transition of Density. The site plan should consider compatibility with surrounding neighbornood through providing proper transition of density, particularly on infill sites adjacent to lower densities. Comparable densities, op_m space buffer zones, increased setbacks and architectural compatibility are encouraged along common boundaries to provide proper transition of density. Clustering units can provide large open space areas as a buffer. 12. Street Design. Vary street pattern to reduce streetscape monotony. Curvilinear streets, cul-de -sacs, front yard landscaping, and single-loaded streets are encouraged to pm -vide streetscape variety and visual interest, particularly in the Lox- MedjL1-,qt District. 13. House Plotting. Ciusbertng\ houses around common4pace, zero lot line, reverse plotcIng, angling house to the street, and side entry garages may be permitted if they provide stmetseape variety and visual interest, particularly in the Low - Medium DisbIcIL D. Building Design 1. Design Theme. A recognizable design theme shall be established which is compatiole with surrounding planned or existing developments and should be based upon prominent design features in the immediate area (e.g.. trees, landforms, historic landmarks). Subtle variations are encouraged which provide visual interest but do not create abrupt changes causing discord in the overall character of the immediate neighborhood. it is not intended that one s%fle of architecture should be dominant but that individual structures shall create and enhance a high quality and harr.�nious core munity appearance. -10r n Section 17.08.090 Z. Architecture. The architecture should consider compatibility with surrounding eharactPr, including harmonious building style, form, size, color, material and roof line. Individual dwelling units shouIC he distinguishable from one another and have separate entrances: Shadow katterns created by architectural. elements such as overhangs, projection or recession of stories, balconies, reveals, and awnfi)igs contribute to a building's character while aiding in climate control. Further, changes in the roof level or planes provide architectural interest. In particular, Low- Medium density and multi- family residential development should be designed with upgraded architecture through increase � delineation of surface treatment and architectural details. The arc►dtecturs.i concept should also complement the grading and topography of the site. 3. SeRe. The mass and scale of the building sh�uid be proportionate to the:.site, ep�n spaces, stt�eet locations and surrounding developments. Setbacks and ovaFdil heights should provide an element of openness e4 human scale. Multiple family product type (i.e., apartment, condominium, townhouse) is discouraged immediately adjacent to lower density single family areas. Ail attached projects adjacent to existing one -story single family developments shall be one story, unless the iripact of two -story structures on the existing one -story neighborhood is fully' mitigat d h emphasis on privacy, views, and general compatibility. Buiidh mphesize horizontal as wen as vertical affiance. 'iWs could be achieved by the me of projections or recessions of sto 'es, balconies, windows and doors, and changes in roof levels and planes. 201prticular for multiple family product type, buildings over 3 stories shall step back. 4. Materials and Colors. Colors, textures and materials shall be coordinated to achieve total compatibility of design. The materials and colors chosen should complement the building character. S. Signing. Every building shall be designed with a precise concept for adequate signing. Provisions for sign placement; sign scale in relationship with building II' and readability shall be considered in d.xeloping the signing concept. While providing the most effective signing; i6shadl also be highly compatible with the building and site design relative t;, color, material and placement. S. 'Squipment ScreeruU. Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of building, or ground, shall be screened. The method of screening shall be architecturally compa;',ible in terms of material� -alor, shape, and size. The screening design shall blend with the building design. Where individual equipment is provided, a continuous- Screen is desirable. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02, AMENDING VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals (i) The City of Ranabo Cucamonga has filed an application for Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment request is referred to as "the application." (a) On April 24 and continued to May 81 June 12,, -;uly' 10, and August 14, 1991, the Planning Commission of .+1e. City of Ratncho Cucamonga conductsn a duly noticed public hearing on the application. On August 14, 1991, the Commission con.,luded said hearing. (iii) All legal prerequis''tes to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, ,determined, snd resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Sac- iuonga as follows: 1. This P-Tnission hereby al- .cifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Rer _,'Ie, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public )tearing on April 24, May 8, June 12, July 10, and August 14, 1991, including written and oral staff' reports, together with publ_s testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a) That the Amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively planned urban community within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and b) That the Amendment will provide for development within the District in a manner consistent with the General `Plan and with related development and growth management policies of the City. 3. Basted upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings," facts sat forth in paragraphs l and 2 above, that Commission hereby finds end concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVXION NO. TVPCA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1991 Page 2 El a) That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the envi'-onment nor the surrounding properties; and b) That the proposed amendment is in confork4nce wita the General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that t%e project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that a Negative Declaration be issued. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this commission hereby resolves as follows: a) That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the Citi_t_'of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 91 -02.. b) The Planning._'. _'ommission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Terra Vista Community Plan Amendment 91 -02 per the attached Ordinance. 6. The Secrrw ry to this Commission shall certify to the adoption o: this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED 13IS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF UTE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Plannnirg Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution'-"a dely and regularly introduc+ad, passed, and adopted by the Planning commission. of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERSt ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE N0= AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TERRA VISTiL PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT x`91 -02, AMENDING VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR - idLTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) On April 24 and continued to May S, June 12, July 10, and August 14, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Cosiducte3 a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above- referenced Terra Vista Planned Community Amendments. Following the conclusion of said public hearing on August 14, 1991, the Planning Comnissi:u adopted Resolution No. , thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Terra Vista Plan ed Community - "` Amendment No. 91 -02. On , 19 , the City Council of the City df Rztncho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing ,and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Ordinance. (iii) All legal prerP_--,.# sites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ordains as.followsz, Section 1: This Council hereby specifies and finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of we ordinance are true and correct. Section 2: This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and further, this Council hereby issues a Negative D,;:claration. Section 3: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds as follows: a) That the Planning Commission of she City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing helm: in the time and manner prescribed by law, recommended approval of the Community Plan text amendment hereinafter described', --o the City .Council. This City Council has held s public hearing ,in the time and wanner prescribed by law and duly heard and considered said recommendation. b) That this Community Plan text amendment is consistlent with the General Plan of t-Ne City of Rancho Cucamonga.�� ;� i CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO, TVPCA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANL''HO CUCAMONGA Page 2 c)` That this Community Plan text amer:3ment -is consistent with the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucaw -.;ga. - d) That this Community Plan text amendment will have no significant environmental impact as provided in the �5 Negative Declaration filed herein. Section 4: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby r arnroves Terra Vista Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 as follows: a) The Terra Vista Community Plan text, Part IV, Design Guidelines, Subsection "Residential Design Guidelines,," commencing on page IV -35 -is hereby amended, in kart, to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. b) The Terra, Vista Community Plan text, Part IV, Design Guidelines, Subsection "Residential Design Guidelines," commencing on page IV -38 is hereby amended in part, to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. c) The Terra Vista Community Plan text, Part V, Community Development Standards, subsection "Residential Development Standards," Table V -3, Building Setbacks for Cluster and Lanovative Development (LM and M used) is hereby amended, in part -, to read as attached'Ihereto and incorporated herein by this reference. d) The Terra Vista Community Plan text, Part V, Community Development Standards, subsection " Pesidential Development Standards for Medium and Medium High Density," commencing on page -V-14 and ending on page V -15 is hereby amended, in part, to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. e) Th8 Terra Vista Community Plan taxt, Part V, Community Development Standards, subsection " Ntsidential Development Standards," Table V -4, Building Setbacks for multi- family development (MH and H uses) is h --eby amended, in part, to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. f) The Terra- Vista Community Plan text, Part V, Community Development Standards, subsection "'Residential Development Standards for High Density," commencing on page V -18 is r; hereby amended, in part,: w rSad as attached hereto and incerporated herein by reference.'' i F,G,j gam CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE: Nn. T`FCA 91 -32 CITY'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I Page 3 section 5;:, The city Clerk shall certify' -to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall causi f the same to be published within 15 'days after its passage at least once i,i the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general , circulation milk.i.shed ivi the City of Ontario, Californian and circulated in the City of'Rancho Cucamonga, California. AMML , � h' �'7 M .a m SO Y H � = p�O 0) O .0 C .G V v Y• .n L U m C d y Q N Q d L Ai J N LA d Q N c to O .6 yN -- c mtn m ro V U j L °„' t p �' w 0 N a E 3 CF- u N to Q e E LL to M C E v C>.� O•"-• Q O d E u tQ C1 O FC as Z C D a N V 0 O v U .a t'a 3 m Ln >.'L -, .c C c C s row N X 0; d+O+>. O cn aim ®.3 d A m 4 v =; aL «+ Lc w0u0)w a) Q1c L N ro A m tit ea CL tn CQSwOi.0 7U5'NaQ. F 0 r � y N O C N C v a•.0 r. `Q 0 p w Li •— y n ro 6w> —• w C 8. "o u L CL R 3 a C.- o ai o 0 CIE= c— O N A O c3E V N O > m U V L c u •�+ � a) at L L C�7L'O M rz M> dLp.- 6.O U cU0 � L•± u N N L Q C di '✓ > QCU p°L9 °vE aaimC`a"a'L° V C���«r 0i 0 Ot >�c.3"" >. C CL c m c �y x m$�s. 9tcm0CL 'yEC�ai- C e >Cs_� w� C. tr, C U} m� � v Q' N ,L N L Q .c tva wO.. L « tVp m 4- O ..o v � ti- y e� E N yNj aO+ C N a7 C Y7 �HOLi L a1 N. N y„.Q:,ro O IA C T N '-' C ar 11 E • L O L .— cC 4) Q^ Q w a a M 0-0 .r O bur `c t _ L vaN L;p V QQ N. y Of t.°+ C =d N u tj p cN.... Ne3N� d • m 0 p L N Nm C to L Ul L y }. N Np o Q y= a7 L Z7 ..Qr1 C..�O L N�4•c'Jt> EO N Q y"Q, N C >.. Q. Of L U. L 6? >• O R 10 N >• L j p CC �A � to a- w+L Q 4) Y C m N p. 'p N L �b l V a1 Oro��3U�0OL'u 5 C c > a la y 4 >, v ar.. L L iG L y�ro ;c4n3Ca'��� c o a� ul Q jX C to ya+ Q Ct7 aFM �o 0 as -i0a 'cc Rom o c c�Naa� L fti ai N M C C.0 cCO M f;°pv 4)) C •�Ai+tmRtn F O6C)uoit��3 6Ct;anOC$tA is u c u ,mot C a is O .boa �3,ga ,qu$ ° a = 0 M V an =0 C6 u aa� too .o J $ Q o � o 1 y W V wq. ;ov a� �s:C�AC V J a) C C I I M N 0 N V aoaroov w w cn C N [sue++ c ca o to OU�dC� C wiyNCO j Lr 4n 4) C to tl M ='U 0 ve t� « O N C u, ^�rtyo'.%Qi pN N al - o u .. a� to N oa yr al to 3 '- .�. N ar � a - O c e c to E >.. �•�' y r L. O L 16 M u tA w 3 3 C M C rw C aCTO�CiaO7 10 th C1 N 0 o -roco - .. u �3 y � fO O G N 0 Nom N> m m u o a- a� 0 n ro C7 i L d O 07 i y L m L G m C O _ N U 07 0 0 - _ °_ 'p V C y N` k' O in e m 3 .0 '.�� y a" G spa cu E ..' •L- G.� 7 ai G `. E L C CA O ... N �• 5. :Q L w � O. W m m U d U CL cc 'L '� 'N � N ro .. « c o 0 o v� o7c u N C c•- t6 is N C7 �� d Ta ro N A.9 Y E .G L .� a' ._ 01 CLmOm ,L �Nr�Cn1rNCN O BOO roa7a 07QL N�+N V� °�9A E .N+ ul _N Ejj 0 U E .� L C �. G N C« U 07.: ,.• aL. N 6 >'. `• E 7 r ro 'a. ^ N Ar'. ro O. N ,w C7 > CAU7 C r m L r d G N N 7 O > w 'O L .�' .+ Cn.07 7 c N m d L .ea -> - o to c Cal °� c. E ro •� Q. c vLi ~ O N L 6 L 7 C a C °> •3 '°'' 07 m. U.0 N N r C 0) E 'O 07 m 'in O u M n LLC7C�dLo v�c�md co_«.ccm�oa =m >ou� y ._ .0 >_ V N O N L M >, CL r r V> ....N > A d aa- m p c 4)- d m u �3:.ro C c N L I- ro�roMC,, 3., aacvvCL°or L— C m Eu°' u dCLNc m N O u_. c o� aN G N c M m o,_ N o m� - d d Le o 3 o° m > 61 o asc - `0'm_°�L�o °�md'aa «wcodtn :3 ° -tNCa" m °�> C w to a o r m a aLi ai c�+r as c t >,_ � f0,� �''v > a cc N �;; a.c v •p. rs 3 lu E (I C u° N m m mw« d .' y Q.+ C a- C7 u 07 �Y °c a cNE..Ecc -Nro.�+ a C .,L a- cC.m °o> ;;Mo =90 4) r N m 07 «; C7 U .O7 O C• C m a.+ -a+ 07 N L G° 07 m ..� N d E. 0) > m O L CL L m w S 7 '2 3 a+ > CL C E 07 ° w 7° •O +�' m E C> O C _Q' m ,� >, m 07 E cu ° �. . N. O CL c L•- cu m w r coa Na, r j- N° O N# L 07 •{3 O L C +�+ E N CL «+. Q7 ++ E. N 'C w. L E 29 CL O7 = N G 07 r L L C Vy N'� Ca- >i OyOm V •t,L L - c� m> V A d N._ CL B I y� a c- C C G ro 0 a O A G A-a ul ru C m ;+ m U O a Of C r m ;;, C' G •a : 'C: •y V C. L 7 o c N E •o c m e L y> N .' 03= o o m o S. - c'_ L ai- - .,u+'c'- m cLm� a,?LmE lrn m d c�, o .�aa•L> Cfl E o v d c .+ o °' CLa m• c c � N m ai �; N to M a=- .. c. « c Q v o L °_ s c , a o u ° u m c .� d a ?'- �. >>�. L o •� U •O �; .� N L C �+ 'N L N m Q1 .-Q.. 07. O 'O A rr+ .0 E w d Q '° ,.! C N m C aL.0c L L_ -Od a;mN'jv ;�- >OOL a Q E�•_m•- :ta.+Cf E..E CD Lv O T m. -7 aZZL7._ OC:. �.O N.L CLw O�.-L X.3 O.+._ OmQ V N w °> Z 3 E r «. H •o E •e c ._ .w- C c. m to U. o a CL o u a� a d a �n - c F- w- u, C'vi Ask {' Lm Ncd++ L Cr ..r�au"�m'••w a urn L cr as d m o aLi c 0-0 o- rn u mod G o m A> 7 L 01 •> V •o E 'L L r- �•' E L '0 «+ 'N p m O Q m co Q O y V C ym3 C,_C 07GCa, ga,52_swC., �•oCr dL'�L moNm`� � 3a EC0 ci� ceais a CD L� d G C j ydj lu d V y j O C7 0X7 .0-0 ® -0 to C d° 7 fiord m CML_aLR7d �c a o:Utu`y'Q �vo m 0 ; a m :ia be °gym- dCL p>.mECTa mar n c®. =v°.. t aG E O V _ G Q 0 G L m C ° pA y 4! w N g C:. M 'E V- L � 7° Q da �' C a.. d - LCac>a�® 3y Lm9rwinr01p 9 oC a®9 °WVo A ;ov ,�w� ��rno03�G",7aa7 npwuN�a IJ , 6 N •- Q7 M CS C L L C7•° L ^. �'1. a 'a Q •f' b•.'s c E,�a -- Er L;�;amc °a �u.a�aa ,;;c"� (� ,,; o� e c o,tn ° a�i E'!' m `".N .•o u ELO 3 C o��m C Cn�"� �cj,LL Rd.O,w3 OaiaiA o� �w i•S.+m o G •�v c -o� m >cdL gcn ara °' a.a;$taa°1i U ueL m.. O,w�..a a7 dov °mw i >mtn a °v V. •C to O -° 07 m •D 3 V N� t Yi N U m y d Mc9 C. >rNH >.G='Cam 07m07 a.rmd .OQC CL (p 4993 `g �a D��"'.. coE3 «�a L tCA� v a �Q 13 ae a;,a c rc r,r 0 � �i a sG o�oaa °O m L w U. c C.. C •$ C =- � =.gyp � v m c a7rn G a, Lmw+ a� r L :�m� o °y =2® mom• V cp L O7 VIYI t0wy Hw m u 0 L. 4' 3 3: E H y M.- V � uT�s `a w N z ¢ F- z w C O J w w D w F- Z z M t } W J m ¢ F- �w Y U d N L d U re d N aI TT N Y V to W N b L LL LL N C ¢ O e+ W C N O (.7 U C •a LO d z C m E E W N � e S� •L C o an o - at o: CL m m *w iS' CL �..11d�� A N A O C Bj 41 � L b g� C te, ED M .7 fr1 Vl fY �. t Cf LL N u E O m M V C «+ L L L c u V L L C ¢CIO a F•- F N c; m e Cl C e L O@ O $ d ;F ?j ,* L L i^ CL cn0 J I t U N 21 1 1 J LL¢ 0 I d Im M i7 6wj N M �y Q' m tm MC ►+C i�l S3 mfnMemo us P. d z C m E E W N � e S� •L an w CL *w iS' .0 �..11d�� A N A O C Bj 41 L b g� C te, t LL N u E O m M V C «+ L L L c u V L L C ¢CIO a F•- F N c; m e E e L O@ O $ d ;F ?j ,* L L i^ CL LL J I t U N 21 1 1 J LL¢ 0 d z C m E E W N � e S� r � z� W E n III z Q A E o -0 o > to Nat .. ;B« U ¢. ri E i A O7 z W i H m a E J cy 41 w== r W • "' E ` 4. d C r.i U N U N y N y C =. N m .7 (, c .C8 d a ' =E a iE c IUCJ Tai.iJ vwo� y4°.� > .d) C d P II u,p u ej en > W N N O h O P. ut1 m aAai N G ®y V r q (3 .'Ou `. > .. o o �e O tt A. ;9 Ed cao LU r_ C .2 N "'. 8 N CL i U'Wt � J o 4. M H = " ay+ 9 0 X16 0� p U N R I O ;y: y L > i Z C i y-0 m a y alb: v X U Qt ; H cc .a .a� a U9 i_ i F r. !9p �. � C U y m @ C N n N L �. N c m a�ro uN}ar+5 1p LM 41 ul Q z " W i t/1 $ C� C °1 ri a G] Q < i t O ns t0 E wLU tJJ � >P ui 6> Ul E '� A N y, N ro d ar cs le,0 H R R.O >� b •E . N CC �a J+.N C7 Q. 01 �� � C r�°C 7 C C � y i N. C�tl s Q. gig. �r O C 0 •0 >• L � � u d '►. N 6 C •C a, �- B N Op s1 E N...r > N •o j«a L d C V C. a' fw0. Nr_d Q K > •a. R C 'am fC0 R O R 0 R 41> C L O -- O V O Dy UE i 0 f7 0 'L. E N C Nom. C1V= R K.0 R. a m CL LE w m C w 0 C N >-p yENCN q �,. R •� O i y. ' 6 m U Oy Q> L•� ~ p O V L N•U O N N 0 R . •- "1 6 9 N y R^,�. 6" R 0 R 0 �..w 0 i m '.', ;R,C Q •. 41 C N V y �M .. . •y N R C L w 0 5. > O 000yfl U Cy .' 'p t fl 0 E p, C CN "a � UO CL CL C « SCR �rF.. eE+ �cc��� 0 ~ y � •� � •� •� •S TI > •� N C i .w d 0 0 Q C 0 C > O N U > ai a o m ca In g. d 7 y ,i O ;M _ .. 0 >O L. n R ... f0 0 RNNROn•G 6Y tB U Sc O. C 0 0 U N ► -3'O3u ��w�3AV s = L N C A.lC i+w C pC psy+G.��y�bGi Of d .0r A C •t 1° «y0E��Qto�g 61 m •E �. N.� i C � ICH G .��= a �r .. �- G 0 g,H N rigid 0 ff,,��. 6 y g L w •-° w ®'0 L. C.° o%9 0 C 0'O• •E O d O L . cr ca -Y m 0'p lL9LC W Lou C.'®_1 R � �i1 y � W L.�yi �� y E O .8C jQqCf,±1N�wsE[l CL Q�•� t9 °O 97 en 16 Rte L.i S"'J vp �.y. wyyl9 u�.fL�J V�� �- = Ln. ,� v .0 a '3� CQi �' •= j y Ct.°', A�� s �_Y : CL d� .0 N« C 19. t9. v t07 $ LE. N•m Y.C7w�M �f„' 3y� V p ®ii 41 ..7i1®1C0.3L C.F.° y N Ca aw O`pC_ 4 •z Cc, .� S Ix E•� �� y0i 0 U�L�G����i�� Ig1YE �a61 m O ;e �� 17pqp Cp �� �a�L .0=UAdUW 2 O'Uw �? B 9v i m �• U..S;. m A 0 k- °d L p p19 a1 � 4, V ®Q sa �o. to N SA. V N a Q L ' N�Vo �° 6 0 f V a y 7 s. L C�. 0. A GI E wLU tJJ � >P ui 6> Ul E '� A O aim O. 01 d -o C 01 .0 d to Lt.) d C? w 001 a A -0 ED E OroC E.aNrni V c A � � 3 iJ.a A L "~O O A •L t0 61 .+ Q L. X E � '"A «� >N «aLO d w c m E ,°� o C C Z M 0 Cu � 07a a > N ANs- s. 0101. OC a O W cr m C N. O y' M .0 ca a O.> Cw C N p U 0.7 a s � p .E+ o e ° -p ML. C- -0 A.c `r° d c > wj�,a =OwL�L alp O m'C+ O a 13 G E.0 f'• C CL ca w m a �+ IA M'- ° C w w d C ai �E o c 16 ;;3oEo.eLOEaciid« «a N Q C11 Q a0 C 0� O N w'O y Car cl tn a1 O Q�4 01 M A w ul w w C �� ww+ u 41. 61 41 rL-!2 U gh0� o wMW « m o a :a to O1 tnC 0 C0)>Yfw 010 NT 01 '0 CJ1 (L 4) L A u 000rO O. 0.:11~ C :+O$ EC°aLwoj�.O+ °wo a>.amra-c .,G C70Ia moo. $ A ad�O «EarL 4c„ »y r y. A >F - >WO °t =L.t �. -a .9 ai E C o> Ln -0 "O ._•'0 w a>i c O >1-.0 C - C~ C O !° 01 0 0 E a1 as �. .0 A U •9 N p �M C U U AS w C 01 C Q v '� •E V Af- C w Z'a L d L a Oi 07 -. •0 CL. y U O 3 b d Q7 w L. C •C -0 l0 i E W ii A Ip u C M* :+ U •�.+ C 01..E t0 N ;;, ai O w w lw9 a1 �� A w ro W O tit M C.0 O AC O 10 O �a7 C aCi = 01 0 O1aui a t N w C 4) CL cu w .0. « .+ U w R N1:0 Ol Q w 2-0 G1 G •L N .. � A C al % L.'O ..0.i w.� C 0 Cw• •� L 01 OI. f0 L a >. W 01 N l0 m C:C > U L. O A «•=+'O d •w.. m d y �C7 C Cc �` w 7 aw+ art O1 j r°' >E y E�� =EtoI E L a N° y3ai°- •ECG °N�OA m y.yIIla «_ tiiLOa w �o E, c c ei -o .0 o - alt 8 d o •w d N O 0 w b't «. - ® A L e R •E M U E d O '0 �' A. mCL.�•,O, 0C L CL L '0 E u 0 '}L��pA •w C .M N. C. > M Vf E •_ 7 2 $ = d w 01 t- A A« M N i C lCII O tan°OO a JC v i • • Tli W N r fC Z Q Z ua a O w L J C13 < " J � I L to Ci F•^ V i Z fn i a �Y > cU N ve+ U L �a CL ; d m HN U v f7f Ofa 0 Mm P u �I mi C O a U C. C C L s � � YL _ U m �' aNr r> 13 m to NM�g, '� w In f" GMCt�fl fi n b C L 20 r' tr' 220 ` L C L >.2U2 �� �� O Q O C>O O O M.L ml '® N c ► �.q ..�Z as w 'l► 6 UD C'm T w o C,to >.,*, A C. 0 U. 'Q.LL C C c C -. f3. 0 q I..LL i1 2 . I--LL d w eo 00 p� 3� a 3G a� „Q, bo�yy c3 3 �n ,C,,. 3 yr E> 1 L :.ate L L 3 h �s c YjI W I �JN r C.�M V! r t`°�. e. a c. t lA E E LJM. t� LJM (— r C. O O > W N a w. r N j"J Ili iy KN Mf Z, N M D, Ill r4 M . Cil e .5. sC�r Cc 0C L i i M P7 N' M N m •3 r}a 31 3 3 R� k L s � � YL _ aNr CM "C •1e LaMC NM�g, '� w In f" GMCt�fl fi n b C L 20 r' tr' 220 ` L C L >.2U2 V Ld ara .' p L M.L ml '® N c 1. fit w i N w w 'l► 6 UD C'm T w o C,to >.,*, A C. 0 U. 'Q.LL LL •�iL1 G q V. LL �► f3. 0 q I..LL i1 2 . I--LL d w m E p� 3� a 3G a� „Q, bo�yy c3 3 �n ,C,,. 3 yr E> a 3 in 3 h 4) d w. YjI W I �JN r C.�M V! r Y L.CJM:�M �1f v r i ai r t t lA L ', .Z LJM. t� LJM (— r C. O O > j"J Ili iy ti r L L M � E Q `pC B ci M p 0 Of N w C Y CA7 uui Cam. C A '`O uuli vu 0 ue r m $ L 0 ul a p ++ y N p ` ,% p is •a N d A 'A Q G C N d � {ca C. i ilk Q1 N C L 3 2_ ¢? �y,1.�r� li O tD w ° y m O t ro .G. Z o+ �. L 0% C O r cue C C uo�M6 c m i a L G c °`•7 ° 0 �_ C1 c m U 1 ore _ = c c m fl. o.0 a -.e° Q `Y° E u E °�° � i a.>.2 0 a a�04p1 C i N L= O V Zi. O +9 ci Yw4, rL i u CD 0 im . i Q l0 Y e$i S. y,�� 4 V ♦♦I (� w� �C C.5 Q ���� a .0r CL lO Y 7 a L 9 i v u C v �. aYw► G 3 SZIG'c° ��a�� a ? Y Yi Y N C A V Y Ye A ; m `° d� ue 0 w C E 0 V m C« O A° $ y� G C1 m a7 M m C i C g M u �Y� u �C u F- 4X� n IV U. tj CD r to t4 d Ye V d' u L Lam„ M C C N Z M v O r y ie1 7 o C o p �� a m E O U ¢ n i 07m Ua Z' r N tef T N. 'r • f'o �, �,�y�Q fJ ^ 11 E r i O d Gl O 1 • N C 47 0. 1 Ol aN'fl CZ c N> c 1 a 1 c� L G m ,.- �� u... E... Ja)CU O G c Nm N+mGw�L - E 3 C.� 13 >.� j C tAw N _ N _✓ . `0tmcm V m 9 O CL Ccn -ru � 3 alQ NOE,mO17NO = °NG dV U m W tAm ~ r. to m a '$ `� I N r.. aa+. O m 0.2 L w _ 61 y.. m> . aw y 10 [ C u Q�.> > d m p. tf1 'O d+t+ �1 N V d L y (�. - O O c O QM 0 cu O N �+ m 61. N R C C E c m c L c c CL O> pfd m m p N C V V 31 y _`z.EaW C o w m L. w,> 0 6to no— >=a CL put.�O .v dm s- V NH rn x a �3o"Da� t•M cu m E_ pp _ CM CL co COr �Nda CE~-NA C > >N m I a L y iu qA m o m= G ai.°: a piH C ai «: � � z L7tpL— OmCmL0 2 mu h o0Lm�LIE'00 0 a u ..- O. 7pa+ � C �p N ELL y•pN Y u aimm G E 0 m C; w > a m A M Lh G I- c m y� H m p+ Z d c m o «N., m a m N c� G a aai d yr I. a 0 d d C o> a. y C.. U m m L V � v N av m m .. ac >s t� ,. 20 a>i ° c1 c O u�i L N R Sp v> c > O.. ��m>- C4� y m N 3C7 z7y —y rS M C C 41 L U VI m L V O N fm d c tn MG ' C N N s. m i C w� NL NO >-mm y O. G ° C a u V M C, Cam+) 'dam CL rn w E �d�ui- E t7 O �A m`� u H C y L 4 g E p -VW. c� _ ODD m > 0 a v1 m 0 rc � •� N� Ct 11 E r i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF x�M PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02, AMENDING VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DYSTRICTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Revolution, the subject Victoria Planned Community Amendment request is referred to ac "the application." (ii) On April 24, and continued to May 8, June 12, July 10, and August 14, 1991, the Planning, Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed p`iblic hearing on the application. On August 14, 1991, the Commission concluded said hearing. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occuried. H. ea glut o *. 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 durinS the above - referenced public hearing on April 24, May 8, June 12, July 10 and August 14, 1991, including w•citten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a) That the Amendment will provides for development of a. comprehensively planned urban community within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and b) That tho Amendment will provide for development within the District in s manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth manayement pclicies of the City. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission duving the above- referenced public hearing and upon the - specific findings of facts out forth in paragraphs Sand 2 above, thi+: Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: r �i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VPCA 91 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 14, 1491 ' Page 2 t ii a) That the "proposed amendment would not 'have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and b) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California. Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends to the city Council that a Negative Declaration be issued. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby rasolves as follows: a) That pursuant to Section 65850 ,o 6585E of the California Gctsrnmrat Code, that the Plsnntng Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91 -02. b) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Victoria Community Plan Amendment 91 -C2 per the attached Ordinance. 6. The Secretary to thi. Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED T3""'R 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CqCAMONGA BY:_ Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Huller, Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Comaissicti of the City of Rancho i Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly.?hroducea, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular mebting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COHHISOIONERS: NOES:. COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSr i ORDINANCE: NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91 -02, AMENDING VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND MArl -rZ FINDINGS IN SUPFORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. W On April 24 acid continued to May S, June 13, July 10, and August,.. 14, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a' 1 duly noticed public hearing with. respect to the above- ref@Yenced Victoria*_, Planned 4ommunity Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public heariiu, on Augu.?c 14, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Ng.. _, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Victoria Planned Community Amendment No. 91 -02. (ii) On _ 19__, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly, noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this Ordinance. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. - B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ordains as follows: Section 1: This Council hereby specifies atit,finds that all of the -facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of th6 Ordinance are true and correct. Section 2: This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewer and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Qualiil Act of 1970, and further, this Council hereby -ssues a Negative Declaration. Section 3: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds as follows: a) That the Plannxt3 ,Commission of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time and;; manner prescribed by law, recommended approval of the Community Plan text , mendment hereinafter described to the City Council. This Gty Council has held a public hearing in the time and manner'prescribed by law and duly heard and considered said recommendation. b) That this Community- Plan text amendment is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Ly _, CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. VPCA 91-02 - CITY OF „RANCHO CUC71KONGA Page 2 t c) That this Community Plan text amendment is consistent with cne Develcps�:ent Code of -the City of Rancho Cucamonga' r d) That this Community Plan text amendment will: have nr:' significant envy.: nnmental impact as providad ix.�__the Negative Declarative filed herein. 1 Section 4: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Victoria Planned Community Amendment 91 -02 as follows: a) The-Victoria Communi;p_v Plan tex:, :2Art III, Section, 1, Regulation and St4idrrds for' Development,” enbsection "Residential Lat ign Guiielines Medium Density Residential" commencing on page 224, is hereby amended, in part, to read as attached hereto ani- Inca. ,porated herein by this reference. b) The Victoria Community Plan text, Part III, Section I, Regulations and Standards for _ Development, subsection "Cluster and Innovative Housing Setbacks," commencing on page 225, is hereby amended in part.; to read as attached hereto and.,ir_curporated herein by this reference.,'- cI The Victoria Community Plan text, Part TII, Section I, Auk Regulations and Standards for Development, subsection "Residential Development Standards Medium High Density Residential," commencing on page 229, is hereby amended, in part, to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. ;% d) The Victoria Community Plan text, Part -III, Section I, Regulations and Standards for Development Standards, subsection "Cluster Housing Setbacks," commencing on paw " 231 is hereby amended to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. e) The Victoria. Community Plan to -t, Part III, Section I, Reaullations and Standards for uevelopment; subsection "Residential Development Standards High Density Residential," commencing on page 232, is hereby amended, iti part, to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. f) The Victoria Community Plat,' text, Part III, Section I, Regulations and Standards for Development, subsection "Cluster Housing Setbacks," commencing on page 233, is 'hereby amended to read as attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. VPCA-- -4-02 — CITY OF P CHO CUCAMONGA Page ' _ Affilk Sections 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and uhall, cause the same to be published within 15 days after Its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation publiHhed in the City of Ontario, California, and I circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. P I, RESIDENTIAL: D!T%EU3PMENT STANDARDS ( continued ) 4. Medium Density Residential ( M " Land Use Plan Designation) Land designated as Medium Density Residential is intended for residential development that ranges from 8 to 14 dwelling units per adjusted grosi"a=. The !ollnwing regulations are applicable for these areas: a Use Permitted:detached or attached residential dwellr'.N not exceeding fourteen dwellings per adjusted gross acre, includfiig`:;hut not limited to 1. Single famfly dwellings - attached or detached , including, but not limited to townhouses, hiplexes. fourplexes, and condominiums. `2. Cluster housing. 3. Community facilities. page 241 h Sits ; zvelopment Standards 1. Cluster housing. (a) Building site area -. 3 acres minimum, (b) Building site ,� ";,verage As permitted by required setbacks f and private open space (c) Building -setbacks :,,See building setback diagrams on the Fiilowing page for typIcal setbacks. (d) Building separation and setbacks • The standards from the Rancho Cucamonga D:velopment Code shall apply. (e) Building height 40 feet maximum. (0 $setbacks. site width and depth : As permitted by required i (g) Private opens space : SW sq. ft. minimum (h) Trans[tion of density : The site plan should consider comp.tibility with surrounding neighborhood through providing proper transition of density, particularly on infiil sites ad aceui to lower densities. Compua -ble densities, open space Buffer zones, increased setbacks and arcNitecturai compatibMty are encouraged along common boundaries to provide r aoper transition of density,. Clustering of units can provide large open space areas as a bbuffer. (1) All cluster housing development and multi - family - development within the Planned Community area must e:�mpIy with s the Design Guidelines as outlined in the Residential S&Zon of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. 224 2. Innovative single f amtly housing. (a) Building site area : 3.500 sq. ft.. minimum. 4,000 sq. ft.. average. (b) 'Building site coverage : As permitted by required setbacks" and private open space. (c) Building setbacks : See building setback diagrams on the following page for typical setbacks. -' (d) Building separation See Building setback diagrav4s on the following Page for typical setbacks. (e) Building height: 35 feet maidmum. (f) Building: sits width and depth : As permitted by requir setbacl (g) Private open space: 300 sq. ft. minimu*' The above site development standards apply Vs projects which are daemed innovative. Innovation in single family development means providing creative design solutious which address the critical concerns of neighborhood .eoen atibility, density transition, and design quality: Innovative projects are characterized by an attractive streetscape which is not monotonous, nor is the street scene dominated by asphalt /concrete. garages. and cars. innovative design means finding creative ways to + create well- designed space. particularly usable yard space. !j AML , t �{ 1 { I r: it J If C i j 224- i f Al �0� I -%\ rL vo y � Q v y+ 411 4 uyy d 5 ap ra dap Y 1 "Um 4c. 0- %;_* 0 MH C'' RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ( continued ) 5. Medium High Density Residential f " MH" Land Use Plan Designation) Land designated as Medium Hipp Density Residential housing is intended for residential development that ranges from 14 to 24 dwelling units per adjusted gross acre. The following regdL-Ations are applicable for these areas: a Use Permitted: 1. Multiple - family dwellings , including, but not limited to apartment projects, condorainium projects, and cooperative apartment projects, - 2. ' Accessory buildings, structures and uses where related and incidental to a permitted use. 3. Community facilities. page 242 h Site DevelopmexIt Standards 1. Building site area: 3 acres minimum. 2; Building setbacks : See buildtr;,_Qetback diagrams on the following page for typical setbacks. 3. Building separation and setbacks ° The standards from the Rancho Cucamonga Developmmt Code shall apply. 4. Building height: 40,1bei saxiniurm. dft C. Transition of density The site plan should consider compatibility with surrounding neighborhood through providing proper transition of r density particularly an IniiII sites adtaeent to lower densities , Comparable densities, open space buffer zones , increased setbacks and architectural - compatibility are encouraged alonp� common boundaries to provid- ,proper transition of density . Clustering of units can provide large opc:_;space areas as a buffer. d. All cluster, housing development and multi - family development within the Planned Community area must comply with the Design GuideiMes as outlined in the Residential Section of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. rr w 229' 16_5� t r � , g �� � ��� S E • �9y u ID Nu IL rbv rc a� ?Q � , a •� w acv i A M oU � .'� b o cu tv tcc-- .20 jQ _ W " ® ; is `"► Q �' .+ cam_ 'e►i� 'C�1`uq�m ='go to 16 a ti �Y . 7 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (continued ) ✓ 6. High Density Residential (" H" Land Use Plan Designation Land designated as High Density Residential is intended f r residential development that ranges from 24 to 30 dwellft units per adjusted gross acre. The following regulations 'rre applicable for tfiese areas: a Use Permitted: 1. Multiple- family dwellings , including;\ but not limited to apartment projects, condominium projects, and nerative apartment projects. 2.. Accessory buildings, structures and uses where related �amd inekientai to a permitted use. _ 3. Community facilities, page 241 h SKc- Development Standards 1. Building site area, 3 acres minimum 2. Building site coverage : 60 \ 3. Building setbacks See building setback diagrams on the fot ")wing page for, t1fpicai setbacks. 4. Building separation and setbacks The standards from the Rancho Cucamongi ,Development Code shall apply, 3. Building height : 50 feet maximum. a Transition of density The site plan should consider compatibility with surrounding Tieighboiiiood through providing paper transition of densityarticulariy on 1nS11 sYtes adjacerit to lower densities . Comparawc- densities, open space bufftn zones , increased setbacks and architectural compatibility are `encaurged alo common boundaries to provide proper transition of density . Clus #eying of units can provide large open space areas as a buffer. d. All cluster housing development and multi- family development within the Planned Community area must comply with the Design Guidelines as outlined in the Residential Section of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code. t; 232 1 5� 's $,fi. ti us.pC c ti. ul 106 E m t r owI.C. �, ago 1 ID CA °o0 CU irk 0 Hill , 4 C.! `: .51 >w ' S a 49 .. ����1m�C2CL �.i ul O C 3 4 a :G �+oir3•r �J KI C, A. Emphasize horizontal over vertical features to reduce the overall appearance of height _ _ 1. Projection -less preferable - i 61- 10 ;l -prefdable- 17.1 Ij-13 tl-; . B. Change in roof level `or planes provide architectural interest. (DC I7.08.WOD.2) to be avoided: roof shapes complicated wod indiscriminately mixed creates rest - j ( less, chaotic appearance.(NOW leas preferable: all roofs simple and uniform provide quiet outline, but tending toward monotony if number of units is very large. (MMA) preferable: groups articulated by distinct shapes can achieve unity with variety.. (MMA) f� TABLE 17,08.040 - C OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Continued) I it Not Required) L LM M MH H RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SEPERATIONS 25 25 Required Per Section 17.08.040 -E Required Per Section 17.08.040 -E OTHER 10 10 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 35 35 35 (C) 40 (C) 55 (G) OPEN SPACE REQUIRED Private Open Space (Ground Floor /Upper Story Unit) 1,000 / N/R 300/150 225/150 150/100 150/100 COMMON OPEN SPACE (A) (Minimum 0/6) - 5% 100/0 35% 35% 35% USEABLE OPEN SPACE (A) (Private and Common) 60% 45% 40% 40% 40% RECREATION AREA/FACILITY N/R F,ggairee Pursuant To S3cGon 17.08.040 -H LANDSCAPING -kr7 ROkVfrea Pursuant To Section 17,0S.040 -G FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING Rec ,.iced PursuadtTo Sectiof* i7.08.040 -F E! 1ERGY CONSERV"TION N/R Required Pursuant To Sectj, 17 dS 40 -1 AMENITIES N/R N/R Required Per Section 17 .08.040 -R A. EXCUJr-'NG LAND NECESSARY FOR SECONDARYSTREETS AND ARTERIALS AND IN HILLSIDE ARM SHALL6.:DEPEWENT0 &THE SLOPFJCAPACITY FACTOR CONTAINED W SECTION 172410M040- B . B. AS MEASURED FROM THE ULTIMATE CURB FACE ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS REFER TO TABLE',..24.0aM4 D FOR AnDITTIONAL SEI RACK INFORMATION. C. LIMIT ONE (1) STORY ='NffNIN ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET OF VL OR DISTRICT FOR MULTiFtt FAMILY DV;E UNG... D. ADD TENT 00) FEET IF ADJACENT TO VL. L OR LM DISTRICT E LESS THAN EIGHTEEN (18) FEET F ;'OM BACK OFSkN-WALL.YMR, CONOOMWUM .TO YNHOUSE Oil ! 0ARTMENT REKARES AU7,)MATIC G. IRAGE DOOR OPENERS. GARAGE SETBr'.CKIS TEN (10) FEET MINIMUM F SIDE . ENTRYGAAAGEAR $ USED PURSUANTTOSECT04- 17.08.1W, -M WITHIN SLVGLE FAMLY DETACHEDfBEMU DETACHED DEVELOPMENT.':, F. PERIMETER LANDSWING AND WTMIORSTREETTR .cES. . G. A SINGLE FAMLY DETACHED DWELLD , trSS THAN NINE HUNDRED (900) SQUARE FEET WILL REOURETHE APPROVALOF A I:T MITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUAWTO SECTION .17.00.030 . H. ZERO LOT LINE DWELUNGS PERMITTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 17.081,040 - P . L REFER TO TABLE D .MG40•C1 AND TABLE 17.000.040 -C.2° J. SENIOR CITIZENS PROJECTS ARE EXEMPTED FROM.TNIS REI'UIREMENT . IL TO ASSURE THATSMALLER UNTS ARE NOT COWENWIED w4 ANYONIS AREA OR PROJECT. THE FOLLOWM PERCENTAGE LIMITATIONS OF �.:. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS SHILLL.'.P PLY . TEN (10)PFKENT FOR EFFICjENCyjT0V OANDTWRYFIVE(ApERCcNTFCRONE BEDROOMC UPTOTHIRTYF .NE(35)PERCENTCDMI?A4Ei3 .SUBJECTTO ACONDITIONALUSEPIcRMR .?F.FtMMM00MMISSIONa1.Y AUTHORIZE A GREATER RATIO OF EFFICIENCY OR 01AE (1) BEmoc*AL urns WHEN A DEVELOWENY EXHIBITS NNOVATWEDESIGN QUALITIES AND A BALANCE MIX OF UNIT SIZES AM.J?YPES . L INHILLSIDEAREAS , HEIGHTS SH NIBEUMf frOTOTNHTY( 3M FEET ASSpEC FFDNseanON1724.070 -D.t PIC, If TABLE 117.08.040 B BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Con *'r. 'ed) (MIR = Not Required) LM M MTi H -. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING EEPAWIONS HEIGHT LIMITATIONS N/R 35 N/R 35 Required Per SecBoi117 .08040 -E� a5 3b( 40 55 _ (F.' (F) ' (F) LOT COVERAGE (maxirlum %) 25 %° 2,000 / N/S ."1/H 40% R 1,000 / N/ NI" ;. 50% 50% 50°!, 50% OPEN SPACE RF,OLI ED Private Open Space (Grourd Floor/Upper Story Unit) 4' ,SOP /150, N/R ``~ 2251150 30% " 150/100 30 % 150/100 30% COMMON CPEN SPACE (A) (Minimum %) USEABLE OPEN SPACE (A) (Private and Common) 650/6 60% 40,0 05'_ 35% 35 %° RECREATION ARF VFACILITY N/Rr, N/R N/R Required For Section 77.08.040 -H LANDSCAPING (G) (G) (G) Required Per Section 17.08.040 -G AMENITIES N/R WR N /FI RettUir -6 Per Section 1'.;08.040 -R A. EXCLUDING LAND NECESSARY FOR SECONDARY STREETS AND ARTERIALS AND IN HILLSIDE AREAS SHALL BE DEPENDENT ON THE SLOPE /CIPACITYF,4CTC " ". MTAINEDWSECTION17.24.oS0 -e, - B. AS 1/ AtSUPED FROM-,. - ULTIMATE CUk8 FACE ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS.REFER,TOTABE 17.08.00 -0 FORADOITIONAL ,FTBACK, C. V,RIAELE FRONT YARDS ALLOWED PU.RSUANTTO SECTION 17.CA060. H. - D. ') TEN( 10) FEET FAOJA .CENTTbVL.LORLM. DISTRICT . E. LESS-THAN EIGHTEEN (18) FEET FROM e46ICOF'SIDEWALK REMARESAUTOMATIt GARAGE bode- F'ENERS, F. LIMIT ONE(1) STORY WITHIN ONE: _-NDRED( 100) FEETOFVLORLO ISTRICTFORMULT.PLEFAMILi 16WELLWG.. G. PERIMETEir. LANDSCAPING AND INTERIOR STREr_TTREES . H. A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED D'NELUIIGLI SS THAN ONE THOUSAND ( 1000) SQUARE FEET MAY &EAUTHORQED WHEN ADEVELOPMENT EXHIBITS :INNOVATIVE QUALITIES IN TRACT. PLOT AND ARCHnECTUR& DESIGNTHROUGH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL: USE PERMIT . L SENIOR CITEM NSFRCJECTSARE.EXFMPTEDFROM.THI: REQUIREMENT. J. TO ASSURST14AT SMALLER UNTS ARE NOTCQNCENTRATED It. ANY ONE AREA OR PROJECT, THE FOLLOV9,43 PERCEPTPAGE t.'.'AITATPONS OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS SHALL APPLY.TEN (10) PFRCENT FOR F---FICENCYISTUDIQANDTHIRiY FM_ M PERCENT FOR ONE BEDROOM OR UP TOTHIRTY FIVE (35) PEF.CENT%OMBNED . SUEUECTTO A CONOITLwA. W.- PERMIT . TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY AUTHORIZE A GREATER RATIO OF EFFICIENCY oR OW= (1) WDROOM UNITS MEN A DEVESOPMENT EXIIIBRS NA'OVATIVFDESIGN QUALITIES AND A BALANCE MO (OF- '7NICSrrzSFNDTYPES _ - - K. IN 14ILLSIDE ARM. HEIGHTS SHALLBe L7AITEOTOTHIRTY (37) FEET AS VE;IFIED IN SECTION 17.24.070 -D.1 . - L ON EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD, PARCELS LESSTHAN. THREE (3) ACRES ANDLESS THAN THE REQUIRED OINTMUM FRONTAGE MAY ONLY Be DE�ZLOPED AT THE LOWEST END OFTHE PERMITTED DENSITY RANGE. r 1 �r- t1 l '7•ection 17.08.040 Building senara ions. _Where required in Table 17.08.040 B and C'; this section sets 10�-th minimum requirements for builder to separation and setbaci< standards. i E 17.C3.040 E BUILDING SEPARATION AND SETBAi. SETANDARDS DISTRICTS BUILDIt' .G SEPARATION AND SETBACK (A) M ft1H (C) H (C) Lin fee BUILDING TO, BttLUINGf(s} 1. FRONT TO FRONT a. No patio or recessed patio 30 30 f � 30 b. Between. patio fend&wAl less than 5 ft. in height 10 10 10 c. Betweer,patio fsnce<wall more than 5 . in height and between balconys 20 20 20 d. Between a patio fzmalwalb and a building wall 20 20 20 e. Wish common polio fencelwall 30 30 30 2. OTHER 1� 15 15 EUILDINGT0 CAE -STORY DETACHED � GARAGE/CARPORT OR OT44EP. ACi C'SSOrRY 15 15 1.5 STRUCTURES(G) BUILDING TO CURB (E) 15 IIS D) ' IS (D) BUILDING TO CURB AT 1OJE,'-i ENTRY : ^. 20 L� iABL `V � (P_) bUI1.DING SHALL MEAN DWELLING U Ji'I'S. (B) BUILDING SEPARATION S1.4NDARI)5 FOR BUILDING T-1 R'eSIi.I?1NG SHP.LL HE FOR TWO-STORY !DEVELOPMENT 7NLY. (CI ADD TEN FEET F'qR EACH FLOOR/STORY 1W- THE SP,00ND FLOOR/-'TORY FOR THREE OR MORE STORY BUILDINGS. (D) ADD FIVE FEET FOR EACH FI. C) ORfSTnRY '.�BG*vr:'4'fiE;SECOI+Ii� FsAtiFtiaTORY UP TO A MAXIMUM OF TWENIY -FIVE FEET FOR T%:P' _-- 1�IOR.: 9tF BUILDINGS. (E) PATIO WALL/FENCE AND PEDESTRIAN WALK.. v�tYY THE SETBACK AREA PROVIDED A *" `ytUM 10 FOOT AREA'. °'YE:D FREE AND ci,>w. �FOI:cANDSCa . w i �Q '.. C o a) 3�aa) i CD d C [ Ea+m�coz aa)i =d tK ti 0J -=11_ V fat N L •., ai L N O C '_ M D. m N a,. �. > �.+ .+ O. • aJ ,� �. 01 u.'o Gl L s.. . 7 E .'Ci C _ -0 �+ -J f0 N a <D 0 L N L a L ^. 4 L p rn ` d m N y cm D �i v_ Q' 7 m c a i C 7 N t J -O a+ d t) N 'C .c y[ Y a) N O ay+ N C; ZT C C m m o '> m L C «+ .N L. N �: W a N «. •a �WM.0 E3 y mL o NQcci E S. L aJ�m E cI..w•- ..N.«- `° ,� CL s— ;?- Noo m O.y U U 7 :+t ^Ay� m.•L a) 0•ye .L L O. C� C I- u� o y y. tmn 7 «V w O 3 C .°. a1- N '� °� L:+ Em 1 . to Nt o u a N„ � Q ° ° c E� N m - aE d mw m 040.- N�+t"�a _ c L `" c [ >. aJ N m C) C O a w O O •. N C o ?. Q Ol tv N o n:. Z3 . � > C 3. >, � L . A � m m to N L �3 .i� E C QJ 9 "' W tn tU 19 V ••' a w •_ N r N .1 N U C c• aJ cr N C QJ �+ N to ._ tn 'L Ql O a_ c- m y p O t L N QJ Uam sm AL--c C w.a OC pL. aJAmULL ,,, y.tn 1 > u NrJd«.oi.._, oy u tomes i3 v_-N uo.. L ._. A`y Q. a) •- t aJ tT E a V > > aJ 'a- A yda mL AyrL+'Z'OP0 CL Ny.a+ rE Cmm >aV= tn�d0.- 3 Ql N> 3 N m u: U ^' •L •a T C m '0 11 4) N V ? ro ttA } n 0 [ 4- V d aJ V C N O a1 a s ON += = C: -C ., L C aJ O m t. aJ , L a) C M a` V c m +, C aNiwaci �s s0 c t y c m(X (D c$�Nd cc °E aJ3 al.?d>, �y m� Lai ;? ^pEyd ctln mco I` V cM s 2a E� E" t� d° °1 tm0s E3rwroEc� .,Nm �a> °� i- >uw3vJ° E-3 u•hc� t-o: hnE3sm °v °c3in `ai m y N O L• a0+ N N L �� �• C. C 1 1• a+ _ a3 d O W 3 cLw Q.cacaT y u ca . (n ,j�a? o e oy uv > @mac m - aDy�A yr � �3N °�� Q -C cmE maa C r. 3 �a C m �w 9 aJ pj.pa m O m U o- O aJ [ m s+ L O aJ ._ O 6 C! ° .G �-+ > > L cm 3 U O m L °� 3 9 ° C C) 3 R C C v d m O C w�Ccm. 4; wIi+m �u a aciM tj � «tcm.� - p m m QJ U U a N N .•'� C ._ y 'y m >, 47 y. a) IN 4- E c_ ..�, -^ tnv 3, >t:L w °N_ 4- ,i p y ._ V• Ct E aq. V y m f7 OlW $ U t] A C a a+ •�+ t1 N 3 Q �~ a>J c C 2 " a �; cau-U E� m t, v m to t'y °� j «=o o co y Ac E o'ov `J o E NY. a a�'- o C„ > u C m m m 4 io O C, N C C ! c C l$. '•E7 C C L A O u O` O fl, d :�� O o C U',O -�. �. L d 3 •N . U m C Qv '� 1y. p 47 U >. 0-0 V .O •� C C (: D).. C t:0 N •w O ° W i. tU d Mm- m C N N d _ 7.� O Oa y, L. Z9w d!� o L " Ct C. L ip 3'-._ to cD C �1C 3 G•C �� C o n� $,u y `!_ o j:C c aci,o,� u c tOj� �> N al aJ ®.- O V O. °a as a u C L C 3 C L C C E u _ V U O tU E C w L a '. :7 -4 C a+ m QJ 4. C1.- •- a 4) 0 C4 C 11'- N> w 7 � C. C > E d L m. c a o m p8oc ° «aJ�+c0 cmi >M aCi GUi o + ! aJ aJ y.o a A o E N L'C �.�. N'- v «" �.t A °�. otnQ M - _06>i.s+7M� 0 U'��o C >MA�tur mN3 x C ( 'C L> 'O :J. C1N G r u L7 y t C ?' N d C 't'' C ® L C C 7 .n a, w G' i}, u m ►: R7 Q u ay, O j ..� -C 'O N V W al tU aJ O .m 'N E. D. > tp. N IC N. .p e; U-50 �. to N aJ .0 aii L fi, o {p. ;0 y p O L a Q1 0:2 _:= i. 7. t6 W � = VL^• C N � � y � C 1�/f �S'. m N i71 CI N {$i - tJ +�'� :u .0 U N stn 0.. p ti . 1 Gh «+ to .m USLG�CG o L 2 _ N O m O C N O o ✓w 0 m - �� ro m° r oaac+mF- 'GO`^ro•QC >3uQ °a . U O) ro N A.SZ Y E ro O rn,,_ L- ro ro L C N O yE «N N�roaUE.'mLCEct� mud L. w ro C) . N C O m c L > 'C y 0 C L Vim.. w p -. >. N L N C L. w Q )- +L,, O0 a 71- Qpro', MC- raOa CL= N > ry O N E C Q y N O •- N m .M Q ro i .q 7 QJ C O) N. u L w C ro O C a Q. y m d m oO y C U R 't N ro - W ) Q O C c G (o. ° v C E I E-0 L s En oN L7 R .a- Lc� E Np�+- r - Cw >L OyORU 'L L. L� CC C N E -O LC-. Qj � 'm— C y> N O �N 7 C' O L C: CL O O) a iS) A U O) C ++ - p O3 . R E d� > :,tom -0Y c c O40- i m L ° c� .0 ©u �Na��y ..y LENN LNroy^ O) ro L L aL. 7 O ' O C u O Da L) aL+ >> 3 E C..1 -a E:8 c._._, a am N A v O SR.. t°. U- J] C U C y E ' U J) 0 C 1 M +O+ Vy C'u,0 .:UyCL. y•a c>i C•s y ° N ca �� N (n L. U E a7+ a L'.. C >)pain3�f0 �u O) ,C M.0 � E•o �m.3ou >c CL(A� -'' . C d E +•.. O •- u o W u y is v Oa.fn],�O, 0 M m a1� 0. 0 d.4. > E >LC0)4- a) a_ ) ° U) N >-'m - E m E C 0 ro E 0 17 u O� 4) Cam..? m-Z cC CB Ca+C�N ro G1 4 -3 ouaac.a�a >.. m O) O N C t 4- 0 4- i '( '� 7 LL 7¢ CL u w 0..IV a•N: - c i d r d a L NQ1NEm ro Y L U O) ro N . .1 o � to Y r 6• �N O) N ;' a E a� CtA 4) cc ONCCO.`a� CL C \N O .CCNN\iy .r vi C O S:", I- > °a° E OS N .- �a U C �9 > C� L tA VW 's 7 'a •L ?•w 0 m0 TE.+E"'CD th to CN roA.f a r.) a) a0)(U 3 O) UM y N`J.>.NLdNCN+•�" N L ro - O L.++ p4u C O) t c ro C= a1 m w u A% c* OY toO t O )o > ro 7 > O .Q. L C L y > O) r'• = O) O) m E. 6) (0 U a L s- -C �+ ! E U C.. Q) R. 3 C •- CL U-- L a ++ N. O) C. M N Q .i9 v O W ro a- d .y tn. - %.: t9 t. y. ,a t O) L '� L ro °. y L 4 O) L �' O E m U 'a 'A - 0 p .a �. p, e� �. C F _oar +' Lo CL du R ac4 N° E X 0 UC�R •aawi'- ro,.N..C)htL+r�,rO3.:�. cc: EO .V a C E O p ?_• C O O) _ C L O) G V _. d° ro - N L 0.W C -' Ow L N) c .� T. 0.� R y �W _ ro R;fl — L„-. 41 �� Ea V L > L moo. t'a o d C•6 R >. Ub v CL 4) ��� �`�rn�O3 aJC'«- n7y N C L N to O) a+ 7Vw O C )- L M._ L s- - P J,OC w0v L Cv� O) y .fl ° 3) b ,= p fi SSw�p,� �O-, d ati °) C C p u7` G.ro E ro N.N+'a E y y 3 V ~ f.: 7 C&�O.y c U EVLL OED. aO+yNj3�uQOj Op)) Ouw.. �',� J v Cro 04=4°_ c Lc� c '9 a v o �;� >a 'u O y s- o ) N N u O O) a m C , — .3 a Vs •U ro R ro d. N �' .Ni ro a >. O S a L. U y d.. U R .F] C ii N ' C: w 0 o N 0 w cE3�, cC a E" Nto °'ui '- « '0 L. �_ `-" a ®�o mss? �) a ro` c O O E L =�" Q7 :+ y R L O )L, C '�• >.- p V a O «+ ._ L j C 2 O -o o q •'� C ya) C cd m d LR� rn• °7° c) «�? JM L �+ro3 uL. ° C -aa) o ro a aE. ti °ai�H� .� �... L u cccj of > , u 7cQmo rnd a c a.s- =t- p >�_c) °CR> N ro a x ul •E o° H HG�: �Ha .52 m— V R. L Ol fl to 'a R: �i :e.• ''A 1 R u cp L Lr a 3 N O. aG �'C tpi CJ b ® ® i► .t1� { W_ � c o G 01 D1 0 i Q X .r u 10 � m M 6H � Ytf N d. N fir► t+ �� c�C w�s� LU CL o J tY - Q L 6>tl i > > .;.. lD CO M D, N D, d Q w ` 4 t ♦ G C E FL 3a N M M 1 � • A fa 6T m m t`o m A 1 y CL a � cn � � eq c c C M s c s e = g =as I!! CI Z O lD>Z C Cj 1 N tn 61 LU • •C N z N CI 's U z ;j t �' aLi ci a tr 3�� L A of > o 0 CL m OJ 1_ "c U C X p .p, t°n T G L L ?. 7, o E o o.p a•� E ' <. � U 7 J � io 0 � ,. ? U N N IL Q F^ }� uj f It ,s o LU Vi �> 61 0toE ° v I, D d � SE 41 `° u LU �. LLI f 24 ii C y w su ° o m c l� C L C .e > aii a 6 ai s2 p s D a GGGG,i777 vo arm dv uN N e+ cC s p •Op z p Z eLi °p p O . cn Q, d ►. R1 0. U Z cif v rm .°ate' 7u� i N C X lu . o O nw U. 41 M L l0 41 O G O LU S. N p ♦e �� W U .Q'j O,r a o m c, �uco N 43 Of w Q u Gi p w. b- m ° ad 0 L M 0 0 42 L LL c To R s. "0 gn c i p Y W pR Z v c c R v- � W E Na o , tr W ° x, d gyp - y Ca �, 6/r 1 •L' a 7 O'R d. d L N R L 7 •L a. 51 R Al y >• N ��a CT RCN C C] = a Q �c N C•N � C •O C � a� 17 R � j i7 y.. L � •O (+ N Ma E N O v � J M a .O •a. O �7 aa+ N .7 •� .a Q a $ N N 'OR�CC R R N apUC RV d O �U R E R a •x R R R o W L C o V p� �R CN y. Ci M y •s Rpt aL1 � ,�Cp O CCeL CC i�Oi c w V rn as a O M .0 aC >�L tO AdCC;�. UC�'O�OC � C fO aN pN L N (yV UU qU 90 C> L L~ • m w >.00 R N in R O C O.. U r *a+ v •N N N O •ao�aRi`�-0 0 rc 3�a 00 E O cd c� c °= .., � a E E LL3 �, a a-0 - 4)Mai = as a aa•- CG L v-p > a 9 u �7 as m fA L i j OOx- fli�w N R.« � y w �aOa C m m m � 10..E R V G7u� p as UN•a �R+ .4) to .� .v E ou C. L L M -E m L'8 a C l'-15, >•d''Q i` Q1 a e E o E 1C y v co LC Qaaar°Eo��c�'� E in N ®� cT 3 Iv In w .f m .a ;] z] �..� N W R O C7. i i i r L G. > N Q .d. N� N U, O L E �� u Q E tn •L tn to 61 N E L77. � a� tu •� O � _ •7'� U d•a !a L. R C 4 E N N k ... H Ya w N Ln M ffl OU N d X « y y u y.L L y N y -O I m 5.Q � Ci O y j R' 'An N C> R> R a .. Cy N. -'LI a t° w •e •. raj =�0 �S U GNU a .N • G. •u 0TL '{73Cq N tNJ10�n '� c E VyI t CL 6 O � fr CN v L ;= N fi� cis Ot•®�+ �'�a M-40 Ci In C :O Oa a+R CfW LUEC��IR�O'>A s �• w I •a � R E C (U 'Q C 6Y. low _' 1 4,:,9 Cy. •� 0 kl C>? W. -� �I° O R u 4 R cn.bwa..,. d L mLNN O >� cc b Uf m C m E W w s 0Cd3.wW=a 0 n.•�' mro °Las C C WE CL aCL ro aCL dS. :'.r 'Oa,w roN�.,.�sw >to ~=mv .>+ to o y 0 CD r p,,.y � c� C to CL +°•?c`�CiW"'_�ctyy 'm CER °vd N 61 W: O t �V ro C �+ M� � Na •O l9 avt in tva N Gm G «QG7 pi'Oj- DICE -2 'Q E >, °, C JQ_ U pj rL ' ¢ O V NNN'DOfl rA ''OCR L vt+a ro C aroi� a row s: m tv u tsa O:C a� ar yt'n�Qc w 'c o E CD at at x C C N :t N ro C 3-3: •` IL~ 6} ,,. c z= ro E ro v t71 E 41 '� ro to c,'tn s o t3 «• cvi c �a a, y j X c z w$V o O.G y C L at rj C++ ..a a7: w _ N L a 4t Q 2 CJ ~ 44> y C C u MWS_ Moai°p« roC.0i a J pr � � � 15 o arroLi6�v"OCa�Cw:. n N,.. . _. O• �+ a3�aEm czC CL ro L M V L �' u L to 0J L �, � to C Y E 'X E 7 G7 CL S ,UN ,�+ d 0 a @ oy F s � � C W °o_ta L O. CL m E m '%Eaass,LCUi moot +��� > •a, -0-0 ©M� ms,•.yC d L a) C '_ 7 tea. 47 N? %. CL a N 'd a7 L2 C C ,✓ O R. «. yyU O tl }^ L b aJ •Ol ? u. � RAJ CLa�+ O Lai. aJ al M o �'tJ _ L > u > C M. X.0 �w s to C °O 'C a ,om A «t N m S. uau N Q.a'4WI: •fl .�. �.' N N N N �� c £. eO C ro M CL 3oE LN« >.Q Vi Q iA a CS] LJ Oa "'. ? to N 41 t N �+ OZ CL N to N _:. O�ray to NNta .0 C t,tt Q h .Y> s �N tn aCi in 0 m II B b Uf m C m E W w s 0Cd3.wW=a 0 n.•�' mro °Las C C WE CL aCL ro aCL dS. :'.r 'Oa,w roN�.,.�sw >to ~=mv .>+ to o y 0 CD r p,,.y � c� C to CL +°•?c`�CiW"'_�ctyy 'm CER °vd N 61 W: O t �V ro C �+ M� � Na •O l9 avt in tva N Gm G «QG7 pi'Oj- DICE -2 'Q E >, °, C JQ_ U pj rL ' ¢ O V NNN'DOfl rA ''OCR L vt+a ro C aroi� a row s: m tv u tsa O:C a� ar yt'n�Qc w 'c o E CD at at x C C N :t N ro C 3-3: •` IL~ 6} ,,. c z= ro E ro v t71 E 41 '� ro to c,'tn s o t3 «• cvi c �a a, y j X c z w$V o O.G y C L at rj C++ ..a a7: w _ N L a 4t Q 2 CJ ~ 44> y C C u MWS_ Moai°p« roC.0i a J pr � � � 15 IM o . RCN 0 00 00 o a W -TZ. M T- = r Y CL L m o La N m W V) v? d 4) wvl V) C4 N M N M V Q1 W �¢ m m 3 c U m03 MM O W W C 00 `Q o LLI EQg a LL i� m V ~C C �► N N O. C LL E E m w (4 n F S3 N(� a y►• umi .t C 'a Osoi °� m Cs rC C 3 3 3 3 W °tea y��hNi� 'Fri+ o 'o is Maio a o C Q C3 F- W To N y ? HO1 °' pfOf �dt p,, u mNO1 OmIM +ia -� p i U D mm o mmo � o �mc CLM mmL p d L. U c U L. i L. ma« s, L G. i S. pNA mQ d Qa }- i L' mo, -�_-L i. s o En idS .o C mQw o t3 0 w (yq �"te a> •1. ro® � o y T? 4 i. u. l9 J N i L Ul Q C O Ot aoi 2 n7 V . .2 tn IS ad d u N N C1 J Im C ID m a d 1. m Lw S. C �� n m ° E o 3 am y m c c a C a ai E t .+ m d r to »U ywL TO y ow C 0! L O CL— O co u, p ° fo 1-02 >. E 44,0 W ' 1Gyf u .. H o mo 23ricl 'a y r N u 'E ° ? N= Y O °wU f u o f 3 E E" °. a d d t dr c L u c ° a c m :� d w'd rn L. .`' c 0 acct L' .. n fl° c �, n .-a 0 5�u°A � r s. m u C '0 O Q C o e' : O R F E y L Q? o � `ao .- L W ti O E O C .0 O L _ N t! a V L L W E aui o= Y 3 C tj w u O C L O E'C m .� L U '=900 0 Y 0 -0 d H •- -0. � 0� i G w d U 3 '� •_. N .74. b Y ''° N _ '" E `� 0 A O c L R° O O CC c cuo`"t� co f0 i w m Q1 a C C L. W M w d i l C 0-1 .� — C. I O .7 •d tj +O. Ln 7 Ci H C .3+ N C 61 w ,0, 0 C o M v s E�O� °,42 ai �v=Uo. N lu 0 Cl IV I • tn E w 0 CX th "a 0 C W > C, dU 0 " C 0 0 0 .— U L. rj) V 0 f= CL W m o 3 CL tn (a • 3 tn — > co m m 0.— tm cx m C L- e �c ce (D a 0 X 13.0 w c COm E V3 CL�- c m U) "a— Z) 0 M r 41 CL fA > tA w m a)— S- d N cu CL ,E C C> p r (D cu C 'a A m E c 'c & - 0 C: - c CL tn > tn (v m .,Z;= m a do r E a —__ W M C 0 0 M > U — — S- 7. Ep CLv 0 N M CL m CL CL V. o(l) M-0 c I .—,a 0 m c 0) (L) 4) C x m CD >- CD r- , = C E CL W M :E cn cx 4) 3 c o CL, 0 0 CL 0` W-Gaa=.0 a (U C tn — = M dl tn tn --c > > o v o m mE 143) = CD — m o t- w con '00 tcu con E w u 0 CL — n> Q E 4) ac in tj 0 a) aci 75 .0 0 c c m r = L. CL Va O C; > d) 0 Z.Q) C (A m t� M w u to CL ul c CL CL > (D >� U) U; ;5 c CD — u 0 -0 Ul O W 4) > t- Lq u .14 'a c o (1) (D u CL M M CL (n zn I E MC CL 0 ul • '0 V> C tn > 0. tA (M— 4) w m E m to =Z tj c O wo 0 a C CL CL 01 L. X U B > c c tn 3: m m a 4M- 0) CL (A tn ma 0 Q.< t- tn a) c c �20 c tn a) V) *0 4) E cn tA tA 13 m 1; -75 E C o -0 U. CL c c a; -Y u 0 � vim c m r- C m E 0 — — V) -6 E L3 cn m m to *0 4) 040- 0 _4 U o u > '00 4) a) :3 C P CL4 u < -0 ca cc > N to S (n E co (n as c E tA Ln 0 CO c C) jo 4L-- 0 r i RESIDENTIAL DLtMLOPMENT STANDARDS( continued ) j 4. Medium Density Residential (" M " Land Use flan Designation) Land designated, as Medium 7Dens:iy Residential is intended for residential development that ranges from 8 to 14 dweVirg units per nidjusted gross acre. ' The following regulations are appl%zabie for these areas: r% a Ilse Permitted :detat hedJ or attached _ residentlan' ;dwellings _ nrA exceedirg fourteen dwellings per adjusted gross acre, '4ncluding , bi t not limited to - 1. Single family dwellings - attached or detached , including, u•-t;not iim : -4 to townhouses, triplexes, fourplexes, and condominiums, ,1 2. Clursterhousing, 3. Communityfacilities, page 241 b. Site Development Standards 1. Cluster housing. (a) Building site area: 3 acres minimum, _ (b) Building site coverage : As permitted b r required setbacks anti private open space (c) Building setbacks : Sex building s<-,jack diagrams ox the following page for typical setbacks. ,v). Building separation -The standards from the Rancho Cucamonga Dtivelol�nent Code all apply: (e) BtWding height : 40 feet waximum. () Building site width and depth : As permitted by required tt 1I setbacks. [ - Transition of d -nsity `-:Ie site plan should consider compatibllify surrounding n0ghborhood through transition providing proper of density, particularly on "M sites adjacent to lower densities. _4' ornparabie densities, open srne buffer aoi t�s, lncrrssad Abacks and architectural compatibility are =encouraged . 1• ng common boundaries to provide proper transition of do Aty. ClurUering of units can provide large open space arres < a bbuffer. .1W All cluster housing _developments. and multi- family development within the ; ?lanned Ca nmunity area must comply with the Desi.u; Guidelinti as outlined in tine Residential Section '? of Ofe Rancho Vucamo,s Devs:ttpm_%t Code 224 1 rC�W r, ro 2. El E:i CITTOF RANCH,3;CUCAM0NGA STAFF RVET N DATE:. F «gust 14, 1991 TO: Chairm —*L and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy rang, Senior Planner .,OBJECT: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91 -02 - SAM'S L?LACE - A request �.n conduct live`muba�',�n conjunc_ ion with a restaurant and bar located in the N6ighborhood Commercial District at 662'x' Carnelian Street,, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian SCrsets - APN: 201- 811 -56 through 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - S.a.M'S PL310E - A revipo of compliance with conditions of approval and considenatioa ri suspenslon or revocation of the Condition? Use Permit for restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201- 811 -56 t. tough 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) , AAENDr!SNT T-0 CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT 78 -03 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to extend the hours of operstiour arJ amend ttn osndition of approval prohibiting live entertairaient for an existinc.restaurznt and bar locate& in the Neighboncciori t Awerciai DistricE at 6620 Carn±'_ian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Catneliar'Streets - APN: 201 - 311 -56 through 60. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) BACKGROUND: tike above described Items were Contlm—A from the July 24, 1991 meeting to this one be. :i be of a lack of quoinm. . j clarification, the live entertainment being pm%,sded now (without an approw.,d Entertainment Permit) consists of a one p6rson acoustical guitarist. The applicant is requesting an Entertainment Permit for n duet. Attached for your review is the July 24, . 1991 Staff Peport. Wiye BB•NF:sp Attachments: Exhibit "A" - July 241 1991 Planning Commission' -Staff Report Resc_.:tion cf Denial :5oir Entertainment permit 91 -02 Resolution of Denial for nmerdmentii to CUP 78 -03 ITEMS J,k,t'-,, � 7 U7G1 -G 0 0 AUGUST 14, 1991 P.G. AGENDA ( 4 of 7` ) �1`11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 24, 1991 TO Chairuan and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONDIT! AT. TTAR p.RMTT 78 -03 - SAM'S PLACE - A review of compliance w °.th conditions of approval and consideration of suspension, rtvocation, or modification' of the Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201- 811 -56 through 60. (Continued from July 10,1991.) ENTERTAINMRNT PF.RMiT 91 -02 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to conduct live music in conjunction with a .restaurant and bar located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201- 811-56 through 60. ( Continued from July 10, 1991.) AMENDMENT TO QQNDTTIONAL US . P". MIT 78 -03 - S M' S 21AM - A request to extend the hours or operation and amend the Conditoxi of Approval prohibiting live entertainment f::;: �n existing Da;: and restaurant located in the Neighborhood Cnmmez!lal District at 6620 Carneliar. Street, northwest corner of 19th zaad Carnelian Streets - APN; 201.- 811 -56 through 60. (Continued from July 10, 1991.) I. ABSTRACT, The purpose of this report .y thrFe -fold. It is as follows: A. C2ndi ionaT UQe Pgrmit o. 78-1;; 'Review of compliance with the Conditions of Approval for Sams Macey specifically the hours of operation, and consideration of evidence for modification, suspension, or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. B. ertains nt P- it No_ 91 -02 Review and consideration of action on the Entertainment, Permit request for Sam's Place to conduct live music consisting of a -duet (singer & guitar player) from Tue..day through Sunday, 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. C. Conditional Una ; No. 78 -03 Amendment Review of the requests to extend the hours of operation and to eliminate the condition of approval prohibiting live entertainment. II. BACKGROUND: The compliance review, the Entertainment Permit application, and the amendments to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) were continued from July 10, 1991 to this regular meeting at the request of the applicant. The compliance review comes about because of a complaint received by the City regarding the hours of operation. A routine inspection of the subject business, Sam's Place,.validated the complaint. To date, and as verified by the attorney, Mr. John Mannerino, representing Swt's Place, the business is operating beyond the 11 p.m. limitation until l or 2.a.m. In violation of the Conditict -.6 Approval and live entertainment is being offered from 9 p.m, to 1 a.ln.- ,without the benefit: of an - approved Entertainment Permit. Attached for your reference is the May 8, 1991, Investigative Report by the City's Code Enforcement staff (Exhibit D). F PI'AMING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP '78 -03 & EP 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE JULY 24, 199E Page 2 Ask In order for the Commission to`assess' the CUP's compliance review and the Entertainment Permit, lit is important to review the history of this business location, whloh is briefly outlined belo.7,._ For more detailed information„ pleasb refer to Exhibit "E," a._chrono..ogS of the tistory of ' the business location. In 1985 the Commission madified the CUP by limiting-":, `merating hours to - 11 p.m. and eliminating the live entertainment u:, s a result of complaints regeived from the surrounding residents' (s, 4, Exhibit -C- Planning Comerljsion r«�s! >lution No 83- 117A). This dead on was appealed to , and upheld by, yAe City Council. In May of 1990 / applicant, who bought the business, recraested the extension of the op' Ong hours. The Commission reviewed the request in August of 1990,an(' ;iberated on the issue of whether the hours of operation sho 1d be -xt i and if_ so, 'for how many days of the week. TUB CSrrcpission ,Finally app _, the amendment midnight, allowing the extension of the hours of ope�a; ion from 11 p.m, to Sunday through Thursday, and from 11 p.rc. to 2,, a.m. on Friday and • Saturday: T:,c Commission, also agreed that tht'approval was for a period of % six months subject to their review for any extension.. The deci3ion of the Commission was timely appealed by two members of the ' Council. At the NoS;'mber 1, 1990, appeal hearing, thc.Council deliberated on the issue of coi.,patibility with the surrounding residences. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing on December 19, 1990, the Council determined that extending the hours of operation would not be appropriate and upheld the appeal. It was determined the hours of operation should remain from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. for this business_ III. ANA!,YST , This section of the report will focus on the compliance review with options for the Commission to consider, the meri't' review of thf, proposed Entertainment Permit, and the related amendments to the Conditional Use Permit,', Staff suggests that the Commission address these issues in the fol!s-wing` order: A. QIP 78 -03_.r 1. Review of .ompt ; ancp with C.ondj,t-1ona of Angzovga .. eased on the Investigative Report'; Sam's Place is now in non - compliance "-7th the Conditions of Approval limiting the hours. Staff believes that the routine inspection, Investigative Report, and applicant's admission of violation are substantial evidencz to warrant setting a hearing' to consider the suspension, revocation, Or modification to the CUP. 2. Op ionn for t7ae Commission to -on 3:d r. ; The Planning Commission, after conducting a hearing +, may ,,take one of the following actions: a. Hind that the CUP is not bein< �'conencted in as appropriate manner and that - modifications to conditions are necessary.. - RESULTS This option would allow the Commisslon to impose such reasonable conditions to correct" %problems regarding the operation of the business activity. Howei ter, the applicant has ,already demonstrated a disregard for conditions. Therefore, staff would recommend monitorin g the use for six-months and - reporting back to the Commission at that time. AOL PLANNING COMMIS:IION STAFF REPORT CUP 78 -03 & EP 91 -02 - SAM'S PLACE JULY 24, 1991 Page 3 b. Find that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and, therefore, suspend or revoke the. permit which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Commission. RESULTS: Sho + *',d the Commission choose'to suspend the CUP, a time period for the suspension should be specified. If the Commission chooses to re=!oke the CUP, a minimum tine period to reconsider' "'any new application for the CUP should be specified. Jr. either case, Sam's Place could continue to operate as a; restaurant without entertainment or bar (incidental;( sale of beer and wine ,'only) because what is a use'."._- - >' permitted by right for %.his zone, S. Amendment_ to CUP 78 -03 ext_nei4ng the hours of ftgrat4on- On may 13, 1991, the applicant submitted a request to extend the hours of operation. In reviewing this application, staff found that the previous request was denied by the City Council on January 2, 1991 (formal adoption of a resolution of denial). The Development Code has a provision stating that no new application for a CUP for the same or substantiall-t.the same request on the same site shall be filed within one year_; ,—,Ihe date of denial. Staff contacted the applicant to inform hiicof is Code provision and suggested that he withdraw the application.. The applicant wished to pursue the application as submitted (see June 27, 1991 Setter from tho.. attorney representing Sam's Place). Based on the above described Code provision, the Planning Commission' cannot consider the request legally. Therefore, staff has no alternative but to recommend that the Planning Commission deny the request. The following are,options for the applicant: a. Withdraw the application, that is, the request to extend the hours of operation, at the public hearing. RESULTS: No action will be needed from the Commission. This option allows the applicant to refile after January ,2, 1992. b. Denial by the Planning Commission of the new application. RESULTS: The action will be consistent with the provision as contained in the Development Code. This option prohibits' the applicant from refiiing the same application untill after July 24, 1992. C. Enterta;nmont Perm' i -0 In reviewing the merits of the Enterta`nment Permit application, staff found that the related CUP has a specific condition of Approval prohibiting live entertainment (Exhibit C - Resolution No 83- 117A). Therefore, the applicant has requested an amendment to the CUP to eliminate this condition. i.- Provoaed £n rtai +ran n +;.,;t;o.• Vhe applicant proposes to have live music consisting of a duet (singer & guitar player;; in his ber and restaurant. The live entertainment Starts from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m., Tuesday through Sunday. The primary PIMINING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78 -03 & EP 9102 - SAWS PLACE r` JULY 24, 1992 page 4 issue %3 reviewing the Entertainment permit -'is the ` compatx ility the of use to the surrounding residents. -= :cnedia<ely to the west of the business location are existing single fa.t.ily homes. It was the combination of live enterta nm6xt and long hours of operation into the morning 4 hours by previous owners of previous bu3inesses that led to the disturbances and problems identified :n the past, The City had responded by imposing an 11 closing time p.m. and eliminat,mg the live entertainment back-In 1985. Following the imposition of the 11 p.m. closing time, the r`ity no longer receiv,O complaints from surrounding residents. However, the Ci.:y recently received a complaint from one of the residents to the west of the business. The resident i:bjeoted to the loud music disturbances noise and and the ti�at occurred in the parking lot. 2. F, +� ands +�� nQazxi^P;ti a• Hotk` the Fire and Sheriff's Departments have been contacted for comments. 4.e Fire Department' indicated that they foresee no problems`t,ith the Entertainment Permit. The Sheriff's Department stated that they have no record of calls for service to the business location since'.�989. 3.1:: Fi ndi n-= To Consider the Enterta:�'nment Permit, the Commission must hear and determine all the facts and evidence relevant to the applicant and supervisory employees, as well ' as the entertainment proposed, including the nature and Ic ^,ation of the proposed entertainment. The Commission may < <, de.V the permit if it Vends ' anti determines any one of the following. 1 �t a• The conduct of the estO V.shment or the granting rf f2le application , would be fontrary to the public health, '. safety, morals, or welfare. b. The premises or establisl=ent is likely, to be operated in an illegal, improper, orUsorderly manner, C. The applicant, or any other person associated with hin, as principal or partner or in a positron or capacity involving partial or total control over Vhe conduct of the bus' a4,9 for which such permit is �eught to be issued, has "been convicted in any ,court of competent juriudicti,on`of any ''offense iuzolving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of. -any obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or ':as had any approval, peimi;tr or license issued in conjunction with the salo of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked witrin the preceding S years. d. That the granting of the application would create a public nuisance. e. That the normal operation of the premises would" interfere with the Poace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood. f. The applicant has .made any ,false, `misleading, or fraudulent statement of material tact in the required application. E 1� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT vJ CUP 78- 03.'`a EP 91 -02 SAM'S PLACE JULY 24, 1991 i Page 5 AIL 4. .on .i aR=o'n: Based on thu above analysis, staff concluded that the business has been operated in an illegal manner, inconsistent with the conoations of approval contained in the CUP, including entertainment without a, proper permit. Further, staff found that the proposed live entertainment together with_ttk° extended hours 'of operation would be incompatible with the surrounding residents, in that, it interferes with the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Therefore,,sta£f cannot recommend approval of Entertainment Permit No. 91 -02, nor the Conditional Use permit amendment to eli;ninate the Condition of Approval prohibiting live entertainment. IV. CORRESPONaENCG: This item has been advertised , the Inland 'ja11AY Daly BuLle in newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 900 feet of the project site. V. R`EC Staff recommends that the Commission review, the,:evidence and set a hearing to consider suspension or revocations of Conditional Use Permit No. 78 -03. Further. staff recoranends denial of the amendment to Conditions of Approval, for Conditional Use Permit No. 7 &-03 and Entertainment Permit No,�''91 -02. If the Commission disagrees with staff, other options are available as outlined previously in this report. Respectfully scbmitted. Brad BuLleer City Planner BB:NE' /jfs P_ttachments; Letter from Applicant dated June 27, 1991 Letter from neighboring resident Exhibit "A" - City 'Council Resolution No. 91 -007 Exhibit "B" 12/19/90 and 11/7/90 City Council Minutes Exhibit "CR - P.C. Resolution No. 83 -117 A Exhibit "D" - 5/8191 Code Enforcement Investigative Report Exhibit "E" Chronology of the History'of the Business' Location Exhibit "F" - Entertainment Permit 91 -02 ,application Exhibit "G^ Location Map Exhibit "H" - Floor Plan Resolution o'_ %Denial for Entertainment Permit No. 91 -02" Resolution of Denial for Amendments to Conditional Use Permit No. 78 -03 ac,- JOHN C. MANNBRINO SAL BRIQUGLIO June 27, 1-491 VIA F,iCSY M I LE TRANS14ISSION Mr. Brad Buller Planning Department CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Sam's Place Dear Brad: When first we applied for an Entertainment Permit, on or before May 28, 1991, in regards to the above - captioned matter, it was only then that we were advised that the Commission wished to review thm Conditional Use Permit. We requested that both be heard at the sami time, which request was granted. When I inquired concerning the feasibility of re- applying to modify the hours of operation of Sam's Place, I was told that there were no limitations. We filed the application, paid the filing fee and incurred the expense of obtaining mailing labels. Subsequently thereto, we were advised that (1) we were, unable to apply for the modification= and (2) that it was necessary„ to modify the original Conditional Use Permit to obtain permissioft for lave entertainment. At each juncture, we ha.yie followed the instructions of the City implicitly. All. we request is that these matters be held simultaneously before the Planning Commission. Y have been recently informed that, because of the continued changes in instruction from staff, the application for live entertainment and the application to modify the Conditional Use Permit to allow for live enterta:,ament will be held on July 11, 1991 and July 24, 1991, respectively. The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request that the hearing on &U. these matter be held simultaneously on the 24th of July, 1991. t-Thia is not only for the sake of convenience, but because of ny present unavailability on July 19, 1991 for the represent ion of my client. i Very tr y yours, MANNERI BRICUGLIO By: NNERINO JDM /dr y -'7 cv,a s. ellegrino 9333 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE 1101 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 917301 TEL(714) 980 -1100 /FAX (714) 941-8610 11 M, 1. /�il�X � 1 /r�%j . ni � !1/ � �%i',� _. �_ -- J 1 i i r� �;� !r,.i RESOIIIFIQN NO. 91 -007 A RESOLUMN OF UM MY COUNCIL OF ME CnY OF RANCHO aKAm iGA, QuTEORt a, DEimm vE MWQIMM 7Ci CONDITIfNAL USE PER W NO. 78--03 IOR AN EXISTM E WRESTA MWr SAM °S PLACE, LOCATED AT 90 NMMIMI! CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNMM SIREEPS IN THE NEIGHBORH= CMIE MAL DISIMM, - AND i MCM FINGINGs IN amnoia `IHEPEOF - AM 201-811-56, 58, 59, AND 60. A. Reci (i) Sam's Place, ILm nee it. Pellegrino, has filed an aWlication for the almermdment to Conditional, Use Permit No. 78-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Mminafter in this Resolution, the subject` Conditional Use Permit mist is, referred to as m'Phe application'm. (ii) On the 22nd day of Ault 5990, the PIWming Commission of the City of Rancho Ox=wjga aarducted a, duly noticed..rublic hearing on the application ?.rd concluded said hearsg on September '1 1990. The Ca mussicn conditionally adopted its Resolution No. 90 -111, apLat,, ':ng ttA anent and extending t1w hours of operatic n. (iii) The decision rem - vented by said Planning Canmission Resolution was timely appealed to thi.- 0ouncil.. (iv) On tNmvmbw 7, 3994, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed Public Heariw, and continued it to December 5, 1990. -the City Council concluded said hearingm December 19, 1990. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. E4, Resolution. NOW, nOMM, the City -Ot=il of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, deter-amine, and rnsolwt as fc_lews: 1. This cmvrzil hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in teas Recitals, Part A, of this - Rsolution are tries w-0. correct. 2. Based 14= substantial evid,.smce presented to this Ca=il during the above-- imferenced pjbiic hearings including written and. oral staff reports, together with public testiiu=j, this Council hereby specifically fine as follows: (a) The &Mlicaticn applies to property located;at the north- west canner of 19th Scat and Carnelian with a street frontage of 1,037 feet and and lot depth of 240 feet and is nt y ia4arowed with a shcTpir g center; ; t -watt �Cf�7�C� �t FIM-501uti.on No. 91-007 Page 2 (b) The property to the',north Of the subject sitm -is a future freeway, thi ,'prcperty to the soup ,;z *n ex s 1rKj shopping center, the property to Vhe east is an Odsting shop Ing center, and the property to the west is existing single family residences. (c) The proposed amendment: ccnterplates extending the hours of operation to coincide with those established by the applicants alod=lic beverage control license; that is, from the current closing has of 11 :00 p.m. to a new closing hour of 2 :00 a.m., Monday through Saturday. (d) The o=ent l mstatim on hours of operation to 11:00 P.M. was established as a direct result of a history o€ public safety and public n=ance I-problems associated with this location. (e) The former problems have not occurred since the curtailment of the hours to 11:00 p.m. and the elimination of related emtertairm ent. (f) The extension of hays of operation may be detrimental to the surrounding si% le family residmx)es because of their close prcxuaty and because of the nature of bar facilities. (g) The' �x sicn of hors of *,:fit ] sr a bar facility would be inczapatibile with the surrounding r�idenril area. 3. Based upon ens�e3 substantial evideauce pz nted to this CbunciI dosing the abcBa Public he=Ju -qs arxi upon the gxcJfic findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this 0mmissur hereby finds and car.ludes as follows: ;t f (a) That the proposed use is not in accord with tha General Plmn, the objecti%va of the Develq=ent Coft, .Td the pmTcsw of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the prq=ed use, together with the conditions applic- able thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to go operties or uprcveswnr z in the vicinity- 4. Based upon 1, 2, and 3 above, This Came findings h and conclusi Resolution No. 91-007 Page 3 PASSED, APPAW D, and ADOPTED {lis 2nd day oe January, 1991. AYES: Alemnder, Djgmt, Stout, Williams, ' Aright NOES` Node ABSENT: None Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ATBMT: J ,City Clerlc !' L, DE M J. ALIT, CITY C EM of the City of Poncho Cum, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly Pte, anproved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Co=il held cn the 2nd day of January, 2991. Mmcuted this 3rd day of January, 1991 at Rancho Oi ta, Califc; -4a J. _, qty Clerk� City Council Hinuten Decem�' T 19, 199 4; Page 11 NO Items Submittet. S. CONSENT ORDINANQIS s : -4 • , • 2d` • + . 7 u 4 Fl. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL Or CONDITIONBjj L *ex pZRMIT 78 -03 y,M"MENT SAM-S PLASM - An appeal of the Planning Commission's deciaion to extend the hours of operation for an existing bar and <zvii.aurant located at the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street in the Neignborhood Commercial District - APN: 201- 811 -56, 58, 59, 60. (Continued from December 5, 1990) Mayor Stout stated this_ item had been continued from December s,, 1990 it the request of the appellant and re- opened the meeting for pi:clic hearing. Addressing the 'ity Council was: John Mannerino, 9333 base Line, Suite 3.10, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he had researched to sere if there were any aerial photos in the possession of the City for this area and stated there were not, but thrt he had taken the liberty to have a survoy done of this areas of she caaibrcial centers in the vicinity of 19th and Carnelian, 19th and`Archibald Carnelian and Base Line, and Base Line- -ind Archibald rwpressntinq commercial activity north of Foothill and want of Haven, and reported the information We had obtained ,►bout these centers. He stated he did not think Sam's Place was in the middle of a residential area, that it was in a commercial area. He added that since the Pellegrino's had taken over this business in March, there have not been complaints filed against this aatablishment. There being no further reopoase, the public hearing was closed. Ccuncilmsmber Williams stated she was present the first time this matter came nefore the City Council and had heard all the comments made. She Commented she had spoke with the residwats on Topaz Street and that they were in favcz,of this establishment. She added. she felt Sam's Place deserved a six month trial period with extended hours, though she did not fool it was an appropriate use for the neighborhoadjcoamercial area, but stated that was not the question. MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Wright to grant the appeal, denying the extension of hours. Councilmember Alexander asked for Mayor Stout to give details of what had occurred with this business while he was on the Planning Commission. Mayor Stout proceeded informing the Coune" 4iith thiJ% information and added he has not changed his mind about this isrue.s Councilmember Wright stated the business could be mold to, someone else, and it might not be the.good place that Sams Place is. 6JP 78 --03 t--- P CIE City Council :Jinutes December 19, 1990 Page 10 Mayor Sr-out stated he did not feel this kind of establishment, should be loco *ad in this? -,,1pe of center for this particular area. John Mannerino asked if he could address the Council again, stating that previou:.Iy it was the previous owner of the business that created the problem and that they did not cara, enough to control the, crowd, that their only concern was to generate revalue. Councilmemoer Huquet stated he felt it would be fair to grant Mr. Pellegrino the opportunity for the six month trial basis as long as the owner met the conditions of the Planning Cormission and conducted this axtension in good faith. Mayor Stout stated that Mr. Pellegrino know`phen he bought the business what the hm,irs were and that he is requesting that the restriction be lifted. Motion carried, 3 -2 (Williams, Suquet no) which would grann tho appeal. Ralph Hanson, assistant City Attorney, stated a Resolution would come back at the next meeting in order for the Council to make this action official. F3. CONSIDERATION OF TIMES MIRROR'S APPLXGU12E rnn A CAR t rvTCIO1t FRANCHISE (Continued from Decawber 3, 1990) Jack Lam, City Manager, stated staff is requesting an Executive Session. Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the Council will recess pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(b)i concerning a matter whether this is significant oxposure to potential litigation. He stated this would be memorialized to a confidential memorandum to be, given t -; the City Clerk, and would become public after the exposure to litigation has.�4jsad. f0**** The Council recessed to 9"Cuti" session at 1139 p.m. and reconvened at 807 P.M. ♦�serw Jack Lam, City Manager, introduced Carl Pilnick, the City's cable consultant. Carl pilnick presented an introduction to Times Mirror's application for cable television franchise. Mayor Stout stated he was in receipt of correspondence from one or more attorneys who arc questioning the legality of what the City is doinq, who were stating they era a 'it prepared tonight and were requesting that this item be continued, and were making allegations regarding the noticing process. He asked for Ralph Hanson, Assistant City Attorney, to cm-ent on this. City council minutes Novonber 7f 1990 Paged 10 Couna lmember Alexander stated he felt it was the city,a intent to d ha under- :ding. flick Gomez, unity D..alopm�nt Director, stated that Mr. Hix u ' ees tondo the main undergrou ng, that it was only the part outside developer was app ing,t)ix'traet that the Councilmember Buquet ated he would -like to some of the additional also. rounding, but woul like to see some rgidibursement to Mix Development d18p. Councilmember Wright felt the un gro" ding was a good idea,.but did not agree with the 320 feet becaysa it was ov and abnve what the City normally would ask a developer to be real4nslble f Councilmember Alexander fe ull undergro ding should occur, but did not think it should necessarily bq a responsibility this developer to have to pay for everything. councilmember a at stated he felt the 460 feet ditional was a little too much. He add a would li)us to see some type of re sament agreement worked out on thi nurtpN• Moved by Buquat, seconded by Alexander for a Rcsol ion to come back at t next meeting which would state that Hellman should be dened, delete th 460 fact of undergroundinq to the south, accept t Mignonette r onstruction as Submitted by etaff, and with regards to the Am! at Street eeonstruction, that this be deleted and condition No. 4 be modified add the language on page 115 of the staff report. Motion carried unanieouely, 4 -0 -1 (Brown absent). • w • • s • E2. CON52DER�T20N O* JUipg,1� C8 LONDIT *OHA? IIC9' p t, 03 at S_ extend PLACE s request An appeal of the Planning +Commissions decision to extend the hours of at for an abating bar and restaurant located at the northwest corner 'Of Carnelian and 19th 8treat in the Neighborhood commercial District - ApNI 201- 811 -551 38, 59, 60. Staff report Presented by Nancy Fong, Senior Planner. Mayor Stout stated he is the appellant on this item. He stated this restaurant location was approved in 1979. and that alcohol was allowed to be earvad. He continued by ayating that shortly after the problem BOar started at the Sow's Head in 1985, cdrtain conditions were placed on the restaurant and that a " would not be served after 11:00 P.M. because the restaurant was in a rasidentisl area, that this type of activity would only be allowed in a com ercial area. councilmomber Wright stated she was appealing this for the same reasons as Mayor Stout. she stated she was appealing the use, hot the user. C ri City Council Minutes Bove er ,_. . Page 11 Mayor Stout asked if a new buyer; coming in would have any previous conditions continued to be in effect. James Markman, City Attorney, stated yes. Mayor Stout ojaned the meeting for public hearing. %,dgressing the City Council were: i John 21annerino, 9333 Base Line, Suite 110, stated he felt the types of activic:.y that went on prior _o 1985 ware what caused the 11:00 p.m. time limit to be placed on this location. He felt the lounge was an important part of the kusiness to make money. He added he did nor r.Nej this was in a total roe lential area and clarified this is a restaurant /lounge in a residential /commercial shopping center and felt the appeal should be denied. Councilp,.ember Buquet asked it the property a - - -,er has any problem with this use. Mr. Mannerino stated no. Mike Mitchell, President of the Cham.oer of Commerce and business owner, and a' resident at 5271 T squoise, stated he is present in defense of the Pellegrinos because he did not feel problems existed. He felt this wts an - opportunity for the City Council to show they supported small businesses. He stated this situation is what is giving Rancho Cucamonga the image of being difficult to do btainess hero. Rance Clouse, 5634 Drerden, real satate broker, ane - erairman of the Ecenomic Development Committee for the Chamber of CoQUmirce, felt the appeal was unfair and should be denied. There being no further response, the public heari.iq was closed. ouncilmember Alexander stated he felt inconsistency was the issue, and that if this is allowed in other locations, it should also be allowed in this instance. Councilwember Buquet stated that he felt Councilmember Wright and Mayor Stout's appeal was valid, but did not see this business as being like the Boar's :;cad. He suggested the following conditions be added to those in the glanning Commission Resolutions 6. No live entertainment. 7. That the Conditional Use Permit amendment be revoked upon transfer of ownership. John Manh�jrino stated that No. 6 is a moot point ,tkocause live entertnina+ent is already not allowed. City Council Minutes November 7, 1990 Page 12 Councilmember Buquet felt No. 7 should be added. He felt a trial perioe -of six months should be given and then have it come bacA to the City Council for review. Councilmember Wright asked if this could be done legally. James Markman, City Attorney, stated he could not advise the Council that this could be done. He thought it would be worth a try, but was not sure it would work legally. Councilmember Wright stated she felt Sam's Place has good intentiona, but felt the appeal should be upheld. Mayor Stout stated he did not like the Chamber's insinuation that the City is anti - business because they are not. He stated that the owner, when he bought the business knew of the conditions, and wanted that point made. He stated no matter what type of use was wanting to stay open until 2:00 a.m., he would not approve it. James Markman, City At.orney, stated if there was a tie 'Jte, it would need the full City Council to break the appeal, and added that Councilmember-Elect Diane Williams was in the audience, and if this matter could wait until she is sworn in, it could be decided then. MOTION: Moved by Stout, seconded by Wright to grant the appeal. Motion tied, is 2 -2 -1 ( Buquet, Alexander not Brown absent). Councilmember Alexander suggested they be allowed., me epen until 12:00 a.m. which would give the owners the opportunity to pC homsslves. Councilmember Wright stated she did no% 49ree with z, acause it is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. 140TION: Moved by Alexandet seconded by Buquet to extend t1,3 hours of operation by one hour and that the Z anuing Commission standards would still apply with this exception. Motica tied, 2 -2 -1 (Stout, Wright nol Brown absent). Mayor Stt,-"- suggested that the pv' is hearing be continued to December 5 and re- opened for any further discussion or questions by Councilmombsr -Elect Diane Williams. MOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by F,quet to continue the public hearing to December 5, 199n. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0 -1 (Storm absent). ' e : ♦ a z • F3. _� - - - A request to amend Zoneral Pe u map from Flood control /Utility Corridor to Lwv mis ial (2, eIErS�c►� nits per acre) for 1.92 acres contained within twv located notW south of an extension Highland Avenue, ad` to the east and west side th2 CucamongR dre®r ' \J.— 1 r- . ? ESOLUTION NO. 83 -117 -A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODTFYING CONDITIOr`% USE PERMIT 78 -03 FOR THE BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT FAuILITIES WITHIN THE BOARS iiEAD ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED IN THE RANCHO PLAZA, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND CARNELIAN WHEREAS, on the 10th day of July" _A5, the Planning Commission determined a need to modify Conditional Use.'.;r:rmit 78 -03; and, WHEREAS, on the 10th day of July, 1985, the Planning Commission held I a public hearing to consider the above item. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ,Planning Commission of the City oT Rancho Cucamonga resolves as follows: SECTIuR 1: Addi1' 61- conditions and changes ar; found to be needed for Conditional Use Per,e ')78� -03 in order to comply with the intent and purposes of the neighbor- t dommercial shopping district. Therefore, the following conditions a� 'd to those conditions already in effect per Resolutions 78 -40, 824 a. 13 -117: 1. The hours of operation shall be from 11 :00 a.m.. to 11:00 P.M. 2. That er`sc;,tainmL-at uses in conjunction with this business shall be eliminated. 3. This Canditiorlal Use Permit shall be reviewed j annually by the Planning Commission.` 4. This approval ' is granted for a restaurant with the incident -W s� `ing of alcoholic beverages. A lunch and dinner menu shall be served to maintain the primary restaurant use. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24th DAY OF JULY, 1965. PLANN G MMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Dennis L. tout, Cha rman ATTE°.T: A Awl. AwAk --Jack Lam, Secretary - 9 { I, Jack Lam, ;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 24th day of duly, 1985, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, BARKER, STOUT hJtt COMMISSIONERS: NONE PBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL I� -1 i ►Jig t�-� V MY FOR YOUR . ? 1 INFORMATION CITY OF RANC110 CUCAMONGA CODE ENU RCEMENT BUREAU CASE ACTIVITY REPORT FIELD I [ I OFFICE I [ I PHONE INSPECTION 1 [ I WARNING i [ I INFORMATION Ci'�/yy �G�/� S'A/YJ "3 FILL LOC4TIO/N� 9ANDLED BY /� . LC c& 4th DAY GJ�Ij DATE / /__?/ TIMEO_j REGARDING: L-We �iJi f✓/�Y�4 /nlrY1 Eitl% �• G�. P n/prTiUn/5 u.J ifriu,25_ NAME Sir» iJF� l_ �s2 /n ► ("77,- - %: J,��rl PHONE PCLIBOr; L NAMATI VZ - -� 1,d ._' � C1,�1D[,lGT %�1C ,4 SCiYF4uL �IJ /2�-.�i✓�E"C:Tic'i✓ O� T"lf /S OiJ T' /0e . alS..✓E55. s' - l�SnJT /f = /G�L1 /j?`1S�G�= 7Z� 77,1 l�J[.tJ J 2 ,4n. ►1� ,f1c r,�/di TF.s /t�� /nlTO .�fr�_�1cC � � /$GU5 5 77f � Si 7a- ,4 770n/. — 91rI-2LAri✓ c s3 Yf A T G/ def ¢. JTE2 r� 4i si(1/YiE�vT 1 b-/-r Fs; �rs/tryi rnlr- , Gt �.0 ►�gb r4,c / A.�,o20✓ �nJ. .2.: s�i� l-L cddniYl T,� F_ Cl T" �G��✓n /hF�r�i� /rlsi. O rU i�t�i,¢ �.�-in �/S �- �-P- ��,P�✓�� uJ.¢5 cu,���u'r��' r�/dUGv'�'O 1�/ D.B1�it/i/VC- %0 &-X7- gFryr� t/ �� °' /./trT.7� i /f1 Titers- u/A SST= i�v'S' C ' .�/ ��}S➢- Tits F -2eg2 7-V Z4iyJ 4W 4� 12 6--a Aft �' � 5 cuPria- . �rl 7�,<fJT' _, !/oc�-tc9s�/ oG Y. F_ G�.✓Di n.NS 0,,C- rff� G• c,f, /� l,,�::22� G/lo -N.fl S �2 /��'dOC.¢ -.`� BS/ TffC' �- l�r'.r/��v ' Ccmm /j 5. �/ r "ears �. -Esc rtt� ��✓ / _2 1,3 ? � �C< -- 77NU r •F 6,- ,/T� -c'7 T� ON: t� /ScaSS NILTL- DIBTAIDVTIOK VA&I.ow -rS6t uuZG ucmeo lye AMEMAN VJVNMFORMS vzNC— orrlorh —�J CUP 78 -03 CHRONOI �30Y FOR THE HISTORY OF THE BUSINESS LOCATION SAM'S PLACE On December 21, 1978. the Planning Commission conditionally a °proved the Boars Head restaurant with bar and entertainment. Due to consistent eon faints relating'to noise, loud music, fights, and loitering, the Planning Commission ad reviewed the to Conditional Use Permit several times and modified the conditions of approval mitigate these problems. Some of the mitigation measures added were limited hours of operation to 2 a.m., structural changes to buffer noise, and installation of speed bumps within the shopping center. In 1983, the Planning Commission again. previewed this Conditional Use Permit due to complaints received and modified tht conditions of approval through more restrictive hours of operation ( 11 p.m, closing ), additional noise attenuating - materials to reduce eatsrior and interior noise and required implementation of a dinner menu. In 1985, the Planning Commission further modifVd the Conditional Use Permit by keeping the operating hours to 11 p.m., and eliminating the live entertainment use.On September 6, 19E5. the City Council heard an appeal by the applicant and upheld the decision of this Plam ing Commission. In April of 1988, the Boars Head closed due to fire damage The business was reopened as Stratton under different ownership. No complaints during were received the period that Strattons was open In Match of 1990, the applicant, Sam &Luanne Pellegrino, took over the business of Stratton and renamed it San's Place. On M,1y 22, 1990, the applicant submitted a request to extend the hours of operation. On August 22, 1990, the Commission reviewed the request. The Commission deliberated on the issue of whether the hours of operation should be extended and if so, for how many days of the week. The Commission finally approved the m nendment allowing th e extension of hours of operation r`rom ii p.m. to midnight Sunday through Thur3day .and from 11 g.m to 2 s. m. Friday and Saturday. The Comn,ion also agreed that the approval was for a period of sh: months. subject to their review for air extension. The approval was fornnali�ed at the September 12, 1930 meeting. The decis.nn of the Commission was tip ;ely appealed b1� two members of the Council. the On November 7, 1990, the Co uneil h a'cd the appeal. c Council deliberated on deadlocked 2:2 tie issue of compatibility with the surYlaurdtrg residences. Due to a vote, the Council continued the hex sing to December 5th regular meeting On the 19, 1990 December 5, 1990, the Council.ogainjcimunued hearing to December the the t.n December 19, 1990. the Council the at request of applicant. concluded hearing and determined that exte nding the hours of operation wou!d not be appropriate. The Council formalize i�he decision by adopting a resoluti'n upholding the appeal on January 2, 1991. 1 On Ma3j ' S. 1991, Code Enforcemsnt Staff conducted a routine inspection of the business for compliance review. The business is operating beyond the 11 p.m. limitation to 1 or 2 a.m. on regubir basis and live entertainment is offered from 9 a..m. to Lam a On May 13. 1991, the applicant Submitted .J)' —, Entertainment Permit application (EP 91 -02). i I j —1�-- CHRONOLOGY •• SAWS PLACE ( Con"; ) i On May 24, 1991. Stan send a letter to the applicant informing him of the incompleteness status.. On May 28, 1991, additional information were submitted. Staff determined the application to be complete . , On June 10. 1991, the applicant submitted the :amendment to the CUP to request for an extension of hours of operation. (This same day, staff set the 7 -10 -91 Commission agenda). On Jame 17, 1991. staff verbally informed one of the staff member at the attorney's efice for the applicant that tho amendment to the CUP to extend the hours of operation cannot he refiled within one year of denial, which i3 the case for Sam s Place. Staff su ested that the app�ieant withdraw from the amendment application and a full refund would be returned. �� One June 24, 1991, staff again contacted the attcMey's office to find out If the applicant desired to withdraw .Staff aidso informed I -: '°,that an amendment to the , CUP to eliminate the condition of appn -val prohibiting'ltve entertainment would be needed In order for the ConiLiission to consider the Entertainment Permit 91 -02, The Commission has 2 options, either deny the EP 91 -02 or continue it to the same date that the amendment to CUP was being advertised for. ink j/ 1� Il ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATIOPJ Applicants for - entertainment permits shall complete the following questionaire; - -; PLEASE PRh,. _ JR T YPE A. The name and permanent address of applicant: Luanne_ R. Pellegrino dame---------- - - --------------------- ------------------- 6331 5emillon Place, Alta Loma, CA 91701 --------------------------------------------------------- Pi-.nanent Address B. The name, proposed and current, if any, and business address of the applicant: Luanne R. _ Pell_egrino dba_Sam`s Mace - _dame (Current and Proposed) - ' -- -- - 6620 Carnelian Street Business Address 1-------------------- -- - - - - -- - ------ - - - - -- C. A detailed description of the proposed entertainment, including type of , -, entertainment, and number of persons engaged in the entertainment (play attach seperate sheets if necessary): Guitar player - duet ----------------------- 7 - -- ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ------ �- - - -- D. The date or day -of- week, hours and location�?f entertainment (attach floorplan), and the admission fee, if any, to be charged: Tuesday through Sunday ----- - - - - - -- No admission fee --------------------------------------------- -- -- EP 9 -04 �' E. `i'be name(s) of the person(s) responsible for the management or supervision of Aft ap'plicant's business and of any entertainment;' VF Salvatore N. Pellegrino ------------ ----- ---- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - - - -- ----- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -\ - -- F. A statement of the nature and character of applicants business, if any, to be . carried on in conjunction with such entertainment, including whether or not alcohol will be served as part of such business: Restaurant /Lounge, has full liquor -license ----------------------------------------- --- - - - - -- - - - -- _ -- -- - - - - - -- - - - -- G. Whether or not the itpplfcant or any person responsible for the management or supervision or applicant's business have been, within the previous ten years, convicted of a crime, the nature of such offense, and the sentence received therefor including conditions of parole or probation, if any; Not applicable --------------------------------------------- f -,_ - - -- -- f f� --------------------------------------- L=- -- - - - - -- H. Whether or not applicant_has- -; bad any permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of -alcohol or provision of entertainment revoked, including the date thereof and name of the revoking agency: Not applicable ----------------------------------------------------- Any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact the required application shall be grounds for denial of the application for an entertainment permit, .s� 0 SS 7 ic ' W 10 ` ^� Iltll 111111 ;�- � �� Z s • 19 `^ c am • _��i i �T �` 1ITt l J a e h S $:W x3 I 1211 ri +� +�j: 1•'ll�:a I �_�•— gy=p- rtTv.ace_.•- .'; t i `J��`,�J.'� r� sc'� _ i�.f ! i . r:t {�;E:.t ;�.� ; r "!•�%t t•'JR, ->rc�' ' �� f C�11 I IL ( �5'fl;C . L'G�i!.i %Esc• .cam: f'-r;� --- --, ILU L - ~�` •`' - 'K, ��� � L��•,. 'mot C /�.l,•� j �• at-11 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CT?TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING" ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 91 -02,. A REQUEST TO CONDUCT LIVE ENTERTAINMENT ' IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BARsIiAND RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT THE (` NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH! AND CARNELIAN STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN* 201 - 811 -56, THROUGH 60. A. RecLtals.. (1) Sam's Place, Sam a:1d Luanne R. Pellegrino, has filed an application,'ifor an Entertainment Permit No. 91 -02 as described in the title of this Reeolu�.ion. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject; Entertainment Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 10th day of July 1991 and continued to the 24th day of July 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued that hearing to the August 14, 1991 meeting because of a lack of quorum. (iii) on 14th day of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga received public testimony and concluded said hearing on that date. (iv) All prerequisites legal rere g p qu prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City or Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this lZesolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearings includiri 1written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as followwt (a) The application applies to property located at the northwest corner of 19th and C "rnelian Streets with a street frontage of 1,037 feet and lot depth of 240 feet and is presently improved with a shopping center; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a future freeway, the property to the south is an existing shopping center, the property to the east is an existing shopping center, and the property to the west is exi►tinq single family residences. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 91 -02 - SAM'S PLACE August 14,1991 Page 2 (c) The applicwit has been operating the business beyond the 11:00 p.m. limitation and offered live entertainment in violation of the vonditions of approval 'as contained in Resolution Nos. 83 -117 and 93 -007 for Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 and Ordinance No. 290 pertaining to Entertainment Permits. (d) The City received a written complaint in June of 1991 objecting to the lateness of the hours of operation and the live entertainment. G (e) The current limitation on hours of operation to 11.00 p.m. _ and tho elimination of live entertainment were established as a direct result of a history of public safety and public nuisance problems, associated with this location. (f) The former problems have not occurred since the curtailment of the hours to 11:00 p.m. and the elimination of live entertainment. (g) The extension of hours of operation togeth! .\with live entertainment may be detrimental to -the surrounding single family 'residences because of their close proximity and because of the nature of bar facilities. (h) The extension of hours of operation together with live -: entertainment for a bar facility would ae incompati,bl:�- with the surrounding residential area. 3. Based upon Substantial eviderce'presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearings hni_--`vpon the ormcific findings of facts set fort),L in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:. (a) The conduct of the establishment or the granting of tits application would be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; (b) Thy, premises or establishment is likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner; (c) That granting the application would create a public nuisance; (d) That the normal operation of the premises would interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding residential neighborhood; 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions net forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies Entertainment Permit No. 91 -02. 1 ' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,. EP 9102 - SAM'S PLACE .\ August 14,1991 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OR AUC+UST 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION OF,THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Suzanne R. Chitiea, Vtce 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 Resolut =on was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the PlanninF dommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, :,k, "he following Vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:' RESOLUTION NO. Aft A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI"ON OF THE -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78 -03 TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF Cis. ^RATION AND TO .,�LIMINI�TE THE CONDITIOIf -r OF APPROVAL PROHIBITING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT FOR AN EXISTING BAR AND 2ESTAURANT,: LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19"H AND CARNELIAN STREET -,-1'N THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF = APR: 201- 811 -56 THROUGH 60. A. Recitals, (i) Sam's Place, Sam and Luanne R. Pellegrino, has filed an application for the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit No. '78 -03 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 10th day of July 1991 and continued to the 24th day of `- �uly 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued that hearing to the August 14, 1991 meetino because of a lack of quorum, (t (iii) On the 14th. of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recel-ed public testimony and concluded said hearing on that date. j (iv) All legal prerequisites pvior 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.— Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth =n the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantia7i evidence preigented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hiarings including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application . applies to property located- at 'she northwest corner of 19th and-Carnelian Streets with a street frontage of +:,337 feet and lot depth of 240 feet and is presently improved with a shagp.'ng center; and I PLANNING COMMISSION RESRLUTIC:I NO. GUP 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE August 14, 1997 Page 2 (b),.% -The property to the north of the subject site is a future freeway, the property to the south is an existing shopping center, the property to the east is an existing shopping center, and the proper y to the west is exisIALng single family residences. r; Vic) The proposed amendment contemplates extending the hours of operation to coincide with thoso established by the applicant's alcoholic - beverage control license, that is, from the current ' closing hours of .1 :00 p.m, to a new closing hour of 2:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday; and 311.- inating the conditions of approval prohibiting live entertainment. (d) The applicant filed the name application to extend the hours of operation on May 22, 1990, and the application was denied on appeal by City Council on January 2, 1991. (e) The nevelopmen` Code, Section 17.04,030fY, states that following the denial or revocation �f L conditional Use Permit application, no application for a Conditional Use Permit for the same or substantially the Pape use of the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year from the date of denial or revocation. (f) The applicant has been operating the business beyond the 11:00 p.m. limitation and offered live entertainment in violation of the conditions of approval and in violation of ordinance No. 290 pertaining to Entertainment Permits. (g) The current limitation on hours of operation to 11:00 p.m. was established as a direct result of a history of public safety and public nuisance problems associated with this location. th) The former problems have not occurred since the curtailment of the hours to 11:00 p.m. and the elimination of related live entertainment. (i) The extension of hours of operation together with the live entertainment may be detrimental to the surrounding single family residences because of their close proximity and because of the nature of bar facilities. (j) The extension of hours of operation together with the live entertainmoalt would be in€ompatible; with tho surrounding residential area. '. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission _ during the above - referenced public hearings 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 proposed use is not in accord with the General - Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, -ud t.d purpoxes of the district' in which the site is loeWted. ..r PLANNING COMMISSION PXSO?,QTION NO. CUP 78 -09 - SAM'S PLACE August 14, 1941 I' Page 3 (b) That the proposed use will be detrimental to the pudic' aalth, safety, or . >elfare,,or materially lnjurioc� to properties or, improvements in the vicinity,",,' 4. Based upon\�,k fliidingi and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the amendment to- the Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 for the entension of hours of operation and the elimination of the conditions of, approval prohibiting live, er_teri:ainment. 5 S. The Secretary to this Commission shell certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 1i h APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TV DAY OP. AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCAb CUCAMONGA BY: Suzanne R. Chitiea, Vice Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Serretary 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 14th day of August 1991, by the following rote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: y AIL LAND LAN DESIGN GROUP Planning /Lands peArchitecture August 14, 1991 Chairman McNeil and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Cen!er Drive P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 92729 RZ City of Rancho Cucamonga, Job No.: NES 875 Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 90 -01 and General Plan Amendment 90 -03B, Environmental 4ssessmeut and Specific Plan 90 -01 Environmental Assessment and General Plan Amendment 90 -03B Dear Chairman McNiel: Four MonthContinua„ce: The Caryn Company, University of California, and Etiwanda Highlands LTD. agree that an extension of time is necessary to allow completion of C:-:QA documents and adequate time for public review. however, The Caryn Company, University of California, and Edwatida Highlands LTD. request that the Planning Commission consider a significantly longer continuance, until January 1992, to also r resolution of the CEQA lawsuit filed by the City against the County of San Bernardino and the owners of the University/ciest property before considering this planning approval. We believe there are important legal and practical reasons fr :his continuance. It is obvious from the draft documents already released by the City that the University/Crest Project is an important, if not cenhal, element of the Specific Plan. As it currently stands, the County has already determined that the Project will be developed according to County standards and with County - approved mitigations. The only way for the City to control development of this territory would be to win the pending lawsuit challenging the County's approvals -- and ultimately, to annex the property. Therefore, development of what we would call the "centerpiece' of the Specific Plan will necessarily be inconsistent with the City's atrrent plans unless the lawsuit is successful it only makes good economic and planning sense to wait until the lawsuit is decided before continuing the preparation and consideration of two very expensive -- and complex -- documents. By these comments we do not mean to suggest that the County's University /Crept project approval is likely to be overtamed. In fact, if the City does not wait, we believe that the more likely result is that the Specific Plan and EIR will be completed on the basis of project criteria which are inaccurate and inapplicable by the time the Flan is adopted. Under these circumstances, completion of the Specific Plan at this time serves no purpose other than heightening the conflict between the City, the County &�td the University Crest project property owners. /1/— 0 —14761 Plaza Drive, Sure A. Tustin, Califomla 92680 • (714) 832 -4300 • FAX: (714) 832 -2025 S \� Chaimtan:.McNiei 0 fY OF RANCHO CUCAMOiVG. .lob No.: NES 8 7 August 14, 1991 Paget We therefore urge the Planning Commission to defer any further consideration of the Etiwanda Ncrth Specific Plan until after the mandate hearing in the City's CEQA lawsuit. These are cases entitled to preference so a hearing is likely before the end of the year. If the City is unwilling to grant an indefinite continuance forthese purposes, we suggest #fiat this hearing be continued -- not to September, but to, mid- Ia?tuary 1992. r, - Six -Week Continuance: It, despite- the comp fling reasons for a longer continuance, the Planning Commission wishes to proceed, we request that this matter be continued until at least three weeks after completion and public distribution of the Emil EIR for the project. The current schedule calls for less than four working days between distribution of the Final EIR and revised Specific Plan and the scheduled public hearing. This is not enough nme for any meaningful review of the documents including the City's response to comments wVX;h we have not yet seen. While it may meet the minimum legal,mquirements for public review, it does not allow an, opportunity for us to make substantive ;,nd -- we would hope -- helpful comments on the planu rig documents. As the final documents are not cunently scheduled to be available until September S, 1991, we ask that the matter be continued to September 25> 1991 if the Planning Commission rejects our request for a longer continuance. Sincerely, to Trevino McZeal Associate ATM-lw i chron Corr j lip DAVE: TO. FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 14, 1991 Chairman and Membets of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACP REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN g0 -01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -03A �, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to comment on the draft environmental impact 'report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific .Plan and General Plan Amendment 90 -0311 to - prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere -of- influence to provide for 3,r,,i3 single family dwelling inits..on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use,.4 F cools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservat3,on 40112 acres of open space csnerally located nort'r' of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), ::south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from July 24 1991.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90 0I - CI1`Y OF - RANCHO CUCA: x1GA - A raq:rest to recommend approval of the Etiwanda Nor$liJ Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 15 parks, an equestrian centers and Fxeservation of 4,112ilacres of open space generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and'. east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from July 24, 1991,) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENEPV- PLAN AMENDMENT 90 -03B CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - ;( requesc to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda 14orth Specific Plan prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres r?f vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use,, Ai 5 parks, an equestrian center, and preservat3;on of 4,112;., acres of open space generally located northti'of Highland' Avenue (State Route 30), south of thn San Bernardino: National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from July 24, 1991.) ITEMS M,11,0 �t f �� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS ENSP AME- MMENT,. August 14. 1997 `\ Page 2 t These items were heire' by the Planning Sonmission on June 26, 1991j continued to July 24, 1991, and continued again to this date. On July,' r, 241 1991, Landmark Land Company requested a copy of draft EIR.comment le'.;ters sent by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fieh and Wildlife service. Staff forwarded copies of- 'requested letters to Landmark on July 26,'1991. Staff request? an additional continuance to September 11, 1991. S The purpose of the continuance is to complete the draft Final Environmental Espact Report and to' complete revisions to the draft Etiwanda Forth Specific Plan. These documents should`be mailable for public review on, or "before, September 5, 1991. 1espec fully su tt , ler Cit Pla v BB:MB:js CITY OF' RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 14, 1.91 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buh ty Planner BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -08 MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution use within an existing 17,384 square foc``, building in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6) ' - <$f the Industrial Area - Specific Plan, locr-Pd on the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209 - 144 -42. Staff recommend$ issuance of a Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND: At its meeting on July 24, 1991, the Commission held a public hearing to discuss modifications which had been proposed by the applicant to address the Commission's previous concerns. During that meeting, the applicant proposed a new revision-'to the site plan which attempted to more completely address the Planning Commission's concerns. After reviewing the new revision, staff stated ti.at a solution to the site design could probably be worked out and the Commission directed staff to go over the site design in greater detail. After reviewing staff's )roposal fob_ revised site plan, and discussing the,land use issue rs a whole, the Commission voted to continue the item uni,il August 14, 1991, to allow the two absent Commissioners (Chitien, Tolstoy) to participate in the Jiscussion and vote on the proposal. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal and found that the constiuction of a new loading ramp to serve the existing roll -up door on the building's north side would conflict with an emergency turn- around area required by the Eire District. The applicant feels that a loading ramp is vital to the operation of the warehouse. A ramp could be located west of the required turn - around area, but it would eliminate ret,,xired parking. This could also increase the potential pedos%rian /truck conflicts and also be more - visible tn the street. Staff is continuing to work .Ith the applicant regarding the site plan design and will give the Commission as oral update at the August 14, 1991, meeting. AM ITEM P PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF �tEPORT CUP 91t -D8 - MACIAS August 14, 1991 Page 2 (< RECOMMENDATION: If the Commission feels that the Tppl- cation could be approved with the incorporation of the proposed modifications,; the `} Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a Resolution of ,l Approval which incorporates all of the necessary Conditions of Approval. However, if the Commission feels the proposed use is not acceptable', staff should be directed to prepare a Resolution of Denial. � Resp e i Bra r i Ci'ty P anner BB:SR: }s _ Attachments: Exhibit "A" ° Revised Loading Area Applicant's Proposal 7/24/91 Exhibit "B" - July 24, 1991 Staff Report Exhibit "C "C,1 April 24, 1991 Staff Report Exhbi -t "D" - April 24, 1991 Minutes Ext±' it "E" - May 8, 1991 ,Staff Report E't ait "F" _ May 8, 9991 Minutes � y I " i., 12 E } Wtp, -% 1 PAO An GwIMW t ✓os [Ty OF RA OlJCA%IONCA MM: P Q t Zo LANNIMG DIVISION '1TIY : &LAC,g % ,« 7h vA EXHIB'"` SCALE: P.A . S, DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT July 24, 1991 Chairman and Members of the Planning Cowission Brad Baller, City Flamer r Steven Ross, Assista,t; Plan er ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT 91 -08 - MACiAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale,. storage, and distribution use with' an existing 17,384 square foot building in the in, atrial Park District (subarea F,-) of the Industrial P.ea Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe -ourt, north of Jersey Boulevard - APN: 209- 144 -42. I. BACKGROUND: The planning Commission held its first public hearl.ng for Conditional Use Permit 91 -08 on April 24, 1W9 ,At" that meeting, the Commission stated that the proposed retail sales operation was not appropriate for the site and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for the following meeting- On May 8, 1991, the Commission reopened the public hearing at the request of the applicant and decided to give the applicant additional time to work with staff in addressing CIA Commission's concerns. II. ANALYSIS: A. General: At its meeting on April 24, 1991, the Commission raised several issues related to retail sales from the site. Although the Industrial Specific Plan does not limit the amount of retail allowed in conjunction with a Light Wholesale, Storage and Distribution use, several Commissioners felt that,! the intent was to allow only "incidental" retail operations. It was generally agreed that; the square footage of retail space then proposed could not be considered "incidental." The Commission also stated, that the site was not designed to accommodate retail uses, which tend to have larger volumes of automotive and pedestrian traffic than industrial uses. Because most of the parking is located on the north side of the building, customers would have to cross in front of the loading doz't;,area to enter the store. Additionally, the Commission indicated that additional landscaping would be necessary to improve the character of the building to make it Eonsistent with other retail sites. y r r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -08 - MACIAS J �1 duly 24, 1991 Page 2 B. Specific:_ Since the May ti, 1991 Commission meeting, ntaff has met with the applicants a number of times to attempt to resolve the issues raised by the Commission. Interim safety measures have zieen installed to the satisfaction of the building official, but permanent improvements, will be iequired if the application is approved. The applicants have proposed the following modifications wsi:ch attempt to address the Commission's concerns: _ 1. Reduce the amount of floor space devoted to retail sales from 5,461 to 3,330 square feet, thus reducing the retail portion from 31 percent to 19 percent of the total .square footage. This would be accomplished by erecting a new wall to Create a training room and storage area where retail space currently exists. 2. Limit retail sales from noon to -8 p.m. and restrict the use of the loading ramp to before noon. This would reduce potential conflicts between loading riu -`s and customers. 3. Install a gate at the,-mop of the loading ramp to guide customers to the entrance during the retail hours. (see �xhibis "A "). 4. Install small, raised planters in the loading dock area to help soften the front elevation. S. The applicant has 'also submitted data comparing the Rancho Cucamongas warehouse and store to its other retail outlets in Corona and Walnut. This data shows that the Rancho Cucamonga store has substantially less. >!ustomer traffic per day than its counterparts. This may be _ attributed, in part, to its recent opening in this City, and its location in an industrial cone (see Exhibit "S "). C. Conclusion: The applicant has attempted to address' the Planning Comaissi,`n °s concerns by offering to make several modifications to the site. In staff's opinion, tho proposed . changes do not %ally address the concerns identified by t1,j commissiou. it is suggested that the following additional changes be required in order to meet the intent of the Plannin4 Commission's direction. AWL j'^ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -08 - MACIAS July 24, 1991 Page 3 11 1. Discontinue the use of the loading dock area on the west side of the building. This area should be filled in and landscaped, and two additional parking spaces provided at grade. (See Exhibit "D"). (Note: the existing overhead door on the nor4b side of the building would be used for loading and unloading.) 2. Replace the existing roll -up doors with an architecturally integrated panel of a material and color consistent with the building's design. 3. Provide an enriched pavement" walkway connecting the, northerly parking area to the main entrance. D. Environmental Assessment: Upon review of Part I of the Initial Study and completion of Part II of the Environmental Checklist, staff hao found no significant impacts related to the proposed use. III. CORRESPONDENCL•^: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the InlahCZ Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been, posted, and notices have been sent to th* adjacent property owns', within 300 feet of the project. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the Planning Commission's direction of April 24, 1991, adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial would be appropriate. However, if the Commission feels that the application could be approved with the incorporation of the moW.fications as recommenled by staff, then it would be appropriate to adopt the attached. Resolution of Approval. Respe y t , Brad City lanner BB :SR :js Attachments: - 3xhibit "A" - Revised Loading Area (Applicant's R;oposal) Exhibit "B Store Comparison Exhibit "C" - Latter from Applicant: Exhibit "D" - 'Revised Loading Area (Staff's Proposal) April 24, 1991 Staff Report: April 24, 1991 Minutes May 8, 1991 Staff Report May 8, 1991 Minutes ' Resolution of Denial r: Resolution of Approval with Conditions y WP.P,V.AovS6 y 'Tcx "D WA lef e�p.uaQl',s' ��vi�Sty r r b. 1•ockr. # . .Tl Q F Gt Doi - 11' OF-C= To 58 sev PLa.v -r_ `AJAL Cway Ta 1Ztco Nooti Y( ia^s.14 �r3G La 5• �: oo PM rc, deway To -FtC It 1L i i r M. o:,4. Ro E.. G o K rrEm: CU P q% -0A Are. nY OF A�TCFf¢ ^�UCAMONGA Tom: , PLANNING E)kVISION � � V ` r�EXHIBIT A SCALE: I, ' i 1 DEL REY TENNIS SHOE WAREHOUSE AVERAGE TRAFFIC REPORT PERIOD 0- 91--91 TO E -26 -91 '. LOCATION TOTAL ft AVERAGE # AVERAGE S OF INVOICES OF CUSTOMERS PER INVOICE PER DAY RANCHO CUCAMONGA RETAIL S'i,,RE 2198 19.8 A 1 CORONA 5484 48.02 43.48 WALNUT 9284 80.03 43.70 RANCHO CUCAMONGA WAREHOUSE 1007 13.13 1097.88 i UEM• GuP at -c�i3 CITY OF RANCHO., UCAiVIOI�iGA 't't'rLE PLANN'NCv DMI ®N STORS o,.wac�sou N g EXHM17.- SCALE; NTRODU-TION Del Rey Tennis Shoe Warehouse is a minority owned business with stores irk Walnut, Corona, and with a warehouse distribution center in Ran-ho C.ur;smontla. Del Rey entereri into the purchase of the Rancho Cucamonga location in,January 1991 and closed escrow in June.1991 with the inten- of usi,7g the building for general offices,warehousing, distribution and as a retail sales outlet- sales training facility for the other stores and future franchise . operations. On January 18,1391 prior to purchasing the building the owners of. Del Rey went to the,, Git; of Rane-.io Cucamonga and secured a business license in order to operate the business. At the time this permit was issued the cities personnel chec!,ed w th the necessary departments for proper moping for the opr- -ation (exhibit A). After this permit wa,. ssued'Del Rey proceeded to conduct,_- ..ifiess beleiving th2t since a business license had been I issued and that the planning department had approved the permit application that it was ok to proceed with ";both purchasing the building and conduct business. On March 6,1991 a city inspector issued a correction notice (file # 060391 exhibit R) notifying Del Rey that they were required to have a conditional use permit in order to operate a retail business. to ordvr'to resolve'•the problems with the city Del Rey applied for a conditional use permit on March 11, 1391 as required by city code. On April - 15,191 a city fire inspector visited the facility and left a construction report (# GOS3) along with a correction notice (exhibit C). On April 24,19gl the planning commission voted to have staff prepare a resolution to deny the conditionri use permit for adoption in the ray 8,13t'3 meeting At the May 8,1331 meeting Mr Alan Kaitz representing Del Rey appeared before the commission and was abler. "i:o have the commission hold the issue for a rehearing can the matter, it is with this repo *aring that we will i attempt to, clear up tt:ra many questions"that Loth Del Rey and the City of Rancho Cucamoaga have concerning this matter. INTEPM STEPS i Several meetings have taken ,place between var.aus departments of the City in order to resolve bath 'the immediate and the long range concerns of the 'City. i On May 27,1331 a meeting was held with took place with Jerry Grant of the city and Nelson Flack representing Del Pey. In this meeting it was agreed that 4 correc+,ions were required for temporary usage of the store and that these would be adequate on i a safety basis until this issue could be brought tc a final conclusion .inhibit D >. In additiori it was determined what additional Btiilding and Saf =ty corrL-ctions will be necessary if the CUP Permit is granted. 'All of the temporary mf`easur es have been completed as of this date with the exception of the fire " alarm mot:ifications'and which are now in the permit stage with - i7 i• { the proper city departments.. CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES At the time of the original hearing by`the _issi_n many issues were brought up.: during , discussion that seem to misrepresent the actual operation and intent of Del Fey -,;in regards to the operaticnal scope of tha company. We will attempt t&' bring out the areas which we feel are misrepresented as far as operation on a one by one basis and passible solutions for the concerns. 1. Retail sales being much greater than the iAcidental usage permitted by city. Retail sales volume is less than ilk% of warehouse sales and ware house sales are having a growth rate 5 times >faster than retail. About 22% of ,the total building is_ taken up by a combination of retail sales and training (approx. 4,<000 sq'). Del Fey would reduce retail floor space to a little under 3,000 sq' 2. Heavy volume of retail business ;poses both, safety and parking problems. Average daily count of customers on a per day basis is 1:3.9 sales per day in the retail store. Parking on Monroe by employees of the adjacent car wash tends to give the appearance of many more customers than there area Hours of retail operation would be adjusted to 12:00 noon to { 8:00pm with, the hours Qf loading ramp usage resbrittsd to use prior to 12:00 noon. I � �t _ 3. =_ust c -men's 'being forced to cross leading deck in order to enter I the store. , L-� th oading dick entran.e to be closed af'F by gates during e retail store flours, , ,1 4. Additional landscaping of site necessary in. to conduct retail sales. Loadina dock: would be reworked along with additional landscaping in deck area. 5. Building' and safety issues to be corrected. Mtge iings have taken place with thp -- ,_,Terry Grai +t of the Building and Safety Department and tenative plans have< been discussed and agreed upon depending upon, -;he outcome of the CUP process. i We have attached drawings of our 4roposed changes to the site ard look 'forward to discussion with th"a commission and staff on this issu6k. it Ank TEL REY'TENNIS SHOE WAREHOUSE AVERAGE TRAFFIC REPORT PERIOD 3 -01 -91 TO 6 -26 -91 !` LOCATION TOTAL # AVERAGE # AVERAGE $ OF INVOICES OF CUSTOMERS PER !NVOICE PER DAY j RANCHO CUCA(,ONGA RETAIL STORE 2138 19.8 42.36 CORONA 5464 48.02 43.48 WALNUT 9284 80.03 43.70 RANCHO CUCAMONGA WAREHOUSE 1007 13.13 1097.68 f � �.� 2 Q � § \ ƒ)_ :l #■ �■!iJ § B�fs2 aa�a &§t2a j k § . . ) \ ) S ) \ 7 r d � § � 3 �7. { �ul .07. ( �wj \$k �k �E }t§ ■ � \k k3 � ®§ § f �<$ .�■ is K r \\ 2 LO rnn \ � ��. |D \\ ;A r E [ � §$ ) � . � I � ;2k§ 7 aaO� E E2 L_`l ct .,JF RANCEid CUCA ,�, r• CORRECTION NOTICE o 0 e Px ANNM :DlVLSKXN S F \ \22 MW Project Flle No.i 6 4 v Location: E t r 1', J - i ROeat Usk& CorreeUorm and G® for Raingwdlon ., Inspector's - Office Hours l� &00 to 5:00 pm. 4:*Oector CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '• 1)3404ASM INS'. ( 4) 989 -1831 0 LA ui 12 10 Z 0 o uj 44 l ��ln� ®r' XTION REPORT.""' I-C w - I "-a [A LA - LO DI; G Bo6F�� �_ ►_ ! .: } �� ��- i� � i ___i_ -fir_ ! � r If j r � �1 C� - __ -- IL ri CL 9C Z U4 CC - r -._ mk I :fir/ AL7 _ . t Owl t C U R R FNI . ETA t L L. d4lt i � s 17 4t'a U t � t t i rl 10. Ell t �' S`ct'nr-- .°� La+ty: tU .,, 1� C44 � T 1 i �� • .. I �. - ' 4 °svEU nL • FAVING ' w•. UEW GRRXIN4? tQ ® t RP = 4 4 , �w NT R'� �P � 6TR1t %- �,► rl I•TY of RANCHO- CI:TCAMONr.A rrEm..cuf g1-08 JWLANNING DIV- :7SION Tram R SE or tic+, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA t STAFF REPO RT ,. DATE: April 24, 1991 z TO: Chairran and Members of the;Tlanning Coanission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Stevan Ross, Assistant Plantar SUBJECT: ENVIROVMENTAL.ASSESSMErT AND CONDnicZ NAL USE PERMIT 91 -08 - MACIAS - A request to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholeaa1P, ctorage, antl <dlstr�.butlon ::se within -_ an -existing 37,384 square font building in the Industt,A Park Dist -'t (Subarea .6) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located oti... the east' side, of Monroe Court, north of Jersey Boulevard - Anitc 209- 144 -42. I. P ?7JECT AND SITE DESCPLPTION_ A. Action Reggestedr Issuances of a Neq%tive Declaration and approval -of a Conditional Ueer Permit to allow retail sales in conjunction with --a an existing Light *ho'asale, Storags, and Distribution Usa. C "- Surroundina_Land Use and,:"nina: North - Vacant; Industrial Park ( Industrial, Amts"Specific Plan, Subarea 6) South - Light Distribntion Bui?ding (attached) x industr`,ai Park (Industrial Area Spec'-2ic Plan, Subarea 6) East - Vacant; Industrial Psrx, (Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 6) Wait - Vacant; Haven Overlay District (Industrial Area Specific Plan, Pubarea 6) C. General Plan geuionatlons2 Project Site - Industrial Park Ncxth - Industrial Park South - Industrial Park it East - Industrial Park { West - Industrial Park D. Site Chmrcteri J%kg1 :, The sits is improvvi writh AA existing " - - --- warehouse building, parking axe., and Sandseaping. To tht,� south, the building shared a common wall with a building on_ the adjacent property. O -1 PLAMING (:- :41SSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -0,8 - WMAS April 24, 1942, Page 2 jj E. Plrkt=C4l,.ula t2 s: - Number of Number of TypS r-uare Parking Spaces Spaces of Use ,.atv0a Ratio Required Provided Warehouse 32,000 111000 12 ? 13 i ztail 4,000 11290 3,6 16 Office 1,000 1/250 .. _4 _4 Total 32 33 IL. ANAV, S " S A. General: `ens Industrial Area Spacifin 12lan pern:3ts retail sales in conjunction with Light, Wholesale, 'Stoi;aga, and Distribution operations with the apttova? o,: r. Conditional UGG Perm -, +hu primary issues to be concerned with .would be compatibility of uses and traffic conflicts. Retail sales are normally diacoura-,ad within the industrial arij:t because the uses typically create morkl. traffic. Also more, signage is ga"zrally preferred than office and industrial usua.. Other .Corms of retail are permitted with Cond£tional Use Permits, ?^_ . i,luding Automitive Sales, Convenience Sales and services, and Food and Beverage Sales. B. fa%gific: The applicant to use approximately 4,000 square feet of his 1"j w wquare foot building for flee retail sale of show` and ucceszor es. The building primarily I serves ze a w"ahouse and light distribution center for the owner's two other stor,�:3 which ara located in the cities of - -Walnut and Corona. The warehouse operates between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., while the retail busyness, wiii::2S is alroady in operation, is open from 10'a.m. to 7 p.m. ualiveries are made an average of twice per week. The buildimS( Is ias_ ^.ed on its owa parzel and has its e-ns driveway and; - .sar.'Ung lot; there... ,)re, '.t does' not appear that . traffic or Par,.,ing problems will L:usult from t::e •ddiriona: ra+Eic .which is tyxiically created by retail uses. The BUildis:g and Safety and. Tire Divisions 'Eae conducted Inspections and determined than aGndral modific,.ationts dealing wit% fire separationu ani groper exiting aru 'necessary it order to meet the occsx.%.. ' ram:frs�s. zta for a retail u3s. Prior to allowing the Mail uzeje',these:aodit'ications will be regained to bJ completed,' �� ea iia£t�t_tias of the Building and Safetj and Fire Divis:.�, Three ta. ? ,ng spaces are locater1.1.. �a entrance, one of which is' "a handicapped space. 4f - iof the parking is louated on the nortt* -ii4a of the ..nd is , esparated from the entranza by a below -8rade truck loading ramp. A �� ,,:: 1, PLMMING COMMISSION STArp REpoAT VP 91 -06 - MACIAS , April 24, 1991 Page 3 sthall; carcrate path through 'ths landscaping allow* pedestrians access from the northerly parkirg area to the entrance by way Of the loading axa. Lew '- `the building van constrr,Cted in 1980 at:d, in staff's Opinion, could use some itainterance. .'When the site was visited in March, several itome were 'notOd. staff recoinaend,.that t�-_= Planning =,:mlgsion require the - applicant ' to correct the fallowing items- 1. Storage Of lumMor and pipes on north t<Wft of building; i p Z. Painted signago on w'�stern w ndowsf:; 3. Unpainted rol' -up door on north aide of building, 4. Accsse door should sae r_�ted to match building, 5. Pink heon paint crarh pales at the luildtnnq entrance; 6. Hand painted "6tcre Parking, directiunal sign; 7. Ducts on roof of buildings; 8. Peeling, flaking paint on the building,walls. A nu« `+es of suggested cLzdi, -Ions have been Inca Oed with the attacia3 Reaelutian Of ApproVal to address tbeae'inasep. D. Conclues3�gn: Recmuse of :the large proportiojh of floor Area devoted oo storags and the use :•af the building as a distribution point for ocher' stores, it appears that the Indust-vial area iar an n +propriate location for this type of mixed use. If -,hi tschnical and maintenance insdes :an 13e res0lv4ci, staff has n o serious concerns with the proposed land use. E, nviranamentq,� Agee —.4- Upon review of Part I of the Initial Study and u mplstion of Part ii Of the Environmental Checklist, .staff has found no significant irV&cts - elated to the proposed unv,. ZII. PACTS FOR Fx b�Z tom_ The CommLisicn must i -sake .all of the following findings in order to a,prova this applfoations A. That the proposed use I,$ t accord with the General Plan, the object$ '7e8 oK the DOV01Opmant _Code, aad the- pu poa a of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Stdz&rsa in wrhich, the sit'% is la�atad. PLANNING COW11SSiCI; STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -08 - MACIAS Apri).' 24, `?941 , Pagel 1 ' B. Tl�at the proposed .zze will n.�t be dathrimental to the public \ health,aj safety or welfare "or materially injurious to properties or irnprovementa in the vicinity.. C. That the.;pr6pc)aed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. IV. CJRRESPO?DENCE: Ths.,item hda been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to the adjacent property c9nare within 300 feet of the project. V. RMIMUDATION, Staff -recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing to determine wt.stber the land, use is ap ropria`q. , -f the commission can support the ii @ceesary findings, conditional approval may be gr( - -.ed through r1option of the attached Resolution. Fiowevet, ats'ai would reco•,bend that approval of the Use Permit be defernad pending resolution os tl;a Building and safety issues by the applicant. j Respe 1y /submitt ✓e�d, Bra, ulle Cit-, Planner BB: s7 rip Attachments: Exhibit °A° -,Letter from Applicrnt Exhibit "g" - Vocation Map. Exhibit "c :! - Floor Plan Exhibit "o- Site Plan Resolution of Arpro ai i i i ,I SUJFX.T PROPERTY: 8711 Monroe Ct Rancho Cucamonga, CC 91730 ;, APPLICANT: De! :-4-y Tennis Shoes Warehouse � 8711 Munroe Ct \ Rancho Cucamonga,CA 9173) - The intended use of this building is primarily warehousing and light distribution of tennis shoes. The total square footage of this building is 18,536 sq ft. Apprcx- imately 13,000 sq ft will be used as warehouse 'and offices. Approximately 4,000 sq ft is intended for use of retail sales for the tennis shoes. Fusiness hours for our distribution are from 8am to 5pm. The retail store W LI -be from l0am to 7pm. The number of employees at this location would be approximately 10. Ow Del. Rey*- Tennis Shoes has two other retail outlt-ts one in the city of Walnut and another in Corona. These stores need to be res aoked-)&2 ost daily, so this is where our distribution comes in . The reason we are requesting CUP:at this location, is that the retail business would help out in our lease payment. In checking the area we see no other footwear business that we would be;.interrupting. We also �7vv ample parking ispaoes - a total of 32 including 1 handicap parking space and 2 trLrk delivery wells. C1TY �;F � lip UGANd�I�'GA TTEM: LkL - 'D1VI,SI �q TU.E: E,a. AL PLANN1'i r- ®N ` 6.GyW � warm r• A scALE: i El !TI ME, -. 11 2.986 AC. 7 �� ff _- 1n.71a Dr E pa.(+a t .245AG !f 9.21 A C.M MY OF I iC f; �ICUCANiON ads` pup III 'i=: Lnc m it to IMaP N JPIdANNING I38° SIGN . .,� 21 W t — Zia ( 2� �l U tO sw � aG t� .� fills N �� ,o' 2 .r r tea. R,•- g J ���a� M�v_�1�. � (!® `�e�1 N•� per' �V jai � L4r nt L! t ,* is a� 2 t<NY�K _ c ` "qcC C m CiJ -SS c� LOIN010Cr Ur1JORS oQ b 2n�G. P OoeC 4 T • hI f. a i 10 Iv GgY.4 OF AAj� c UCAMO GA PLC►, PLANK NG- DWIS O1tT t _ Farr: scauzz.r -. iF.j ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL 0 PE ?!j TL 991 -08 - MACTAS - A request to allow rst_il hales in conjunction 4+i r. a light wholecala, storage, and distributional use within an exi <eing 17,384 square foot building in the ;ndustrial Park District (Subaroa 6) of the Industrial;.- Avem Specific Plan, located on. the east side of Monroe Court, north of Jersey BDUI%Vard APUZ 2C9- i44 -42. Staff receimmende issuance of Negative "sclaratior £zeva Rosa, Aoaistant Planner, presented thu staff report., _He sugge'ted that if the Commission wished to approve the project, that thrwy? `4wfar action until May 8 to allow the applicant time to mast firs code requiremer-ts. .Commissioner Valletta asked if the retail use would cease until `the building and fire code issuee were resolved. Dan Colaman, Principal Planner, stated the applicant did not have par- A"sion to operate because there was no 'approved conditional use permit. Commissioner Valletta asked if there its a way the City could !an.orfmm closing of the operation. lj Chairman HcNiel opened tihe public hearing. Sandra Salcedo, 8?11 Monroe Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she was tr:a daughter of the Rpplierint. She said they had been working with Mr. Rosa and had already corrected some of the items on tAo list. She reported they 1-1 contracted to modify the fire sprinklers and paint the building. A indicated thsy cuszantly lease the building but hope to close escrow shortly. She reported they had ieeeivod a business licsnre from the City and received approval trom Planning Division for the use. She stated nothing had boan 4-zdicated an the business license that a Conditional Use Permft would be rsqux; At. Mr. Ar%sd stated that when the businits license was approved, it was believed tna use was permitted without a conditional uae permit. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about the position of the parking lot because cuntomera would `.^ass to cross a loading dock to vst to the main entrance. Otto Rrcutil, !Wpaty City Planner, stated that staff originally recommended approval of the eonditicual use parait with conditions, but when the building department and fire dsgarf -Aw t noted enitLva peltlaws, staff then recommended a aontinucice to allow time to dit =mine if the applicant will be able to most building and fire code issuer,,, Robert Jimenez, lo317 Hally St:raet, Rancho Cucamonga, .:tatsd he was the r ®dl " estate broker on the property". Ho saU! they had hoped to bas able to approve all of the pape7dark ahead of time to be Sure they could meat all raquirem*nts. lic *aid the ;applieant had been working rith staff and, had spent a lot of money trying to meet the re uuir--aents. _ti` :Jia*nen stated the Planning Commission Minutso -13- yLL, April 24, 1991 -- ,Q 11 building is located on a t:%l -de -sae street, ou he did not feel there would be problems with traffic. commissioner Meluher thought the intent of the Industrial Area Specific Plarc- was to permit only incidental retail sales in connection with the industrial use. He,did not feet 4,000 square feet of retail spate in a 17, 000 square foot building should be classified as incidental. He felt the use should not as permitted in the industrial ar a when there is so =ch unleased commercial space in the City. He felt granCing of the conditional use permit would be unfair to storekeepe a who lease the higher priced commercial space. C,a-anissioner Tolstoy agreed that he had the same concerns. He also ialt the building was not designed for retail uz6 beaaute the parking layout was not oriented •properly and customers would have to inter through a loading dock area. He opposed the conditional use permit. Commissioner Valletta, concurred. Chairman MCNisl agreed, but said there were other warehouse operati,na in the City with some retail. He did not object to the use as defined. Commissioner Chitiea felt that a small amount of retail use is Conjunction with a warehouse is appropriate. She felt that if the main function is to be sales, then appropriate amenities and parking wc±!ld need.to be provided. She f4t! the site in question would require axtendivo mitigation measures. AdInk Commissioner Malcher did not object to the particular use on its own amorlts. MWEN Howrver, he thought that if the use were approved, there would be no basis for MF excluding other users. He felt that a large amount of retail use in the industrial. area would negatively impact the commercial area. Corns' sioner Chitiea agreed that a largo amount would change,, OAA4 divttlro Industrial Specific Plan area. ' Commltesiones Tolstoy commented that Archibald Avenue was not designed as a retail center, but it has turned into one. Mr. Kroutil stated that the Industrial Area Specific Plan currently allows retail in conjunction with warehousing or distribution. He said that up to 20 percent retail is permitted in conjunction with office apace in the in the W atrict across the street from this site. 8s suggested that it the Commission felt the use could workout, they could continue the it= to allow the project to be conditioned with certain improvement require Mta. Brad Duller# City Planner, stated the Commission has not met through previcuo action or diseua.Aon a policy interpretation of what is a reasonable ratio for retail use. He suggested the applicant may be willing to rauce the square footage to comply with the Commission's dasire2 if size is the Issue. commissioner- 4elcher felt the waggested type i'1f use ;danages the integrity of development in a town designed for retailing. He felt retailing in the industrial arcs, should be lim'.ted to incidental. _ Planning Commission Minutes -14 April 24, ',91 G. ENVIRQNMti'Cr& ASSESSMEMT AND IMII MI ° Si+ 1212. _£�.i1� AMERH U 4kU d! t2MCHO C' L MOlMQA- A request to asand the Ind,., trial Area Specit.:c Plan by adding swap swat and mutensive impact comc.arciai use and their development criteria with" the speciff.t plan area.'' Xta2f recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration, Anna -Lisa Us"andes, Assistate Planner, r� scented ha staff ra er?.. Chairman Mciliel asked if any cities pri aibit swag ', a nsts, Ms. Hernandez replied affirmativ.�ly. Chairman McMiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, !swim Homes, 2138 north Mountain, Upland* stated that *_� Cit} of Rancho Cucamonga expects development to be a cat abria' other cities. He felt swap assts - either indoor or outdoor - would be see incompatible use for Planning Commission minutes April 24, 1391 Commissioner Valletta felt incidental retailing in the industrial area coald by successful, but it needs to be site specific. She was oppoegd to requ ;sing customers to cross through a loading "area. I Commissioner Tolatoy thought retail, should be conductax „Z.a building daeoigned f for retail use, fie did not want to turn the indusctrinl' ilea into -a roi. Ll area. Mr. Buller mated the ;provision cogdit�.onally permit';inq retail has riwsys been in the Induatrial Area sHaciflc Plan, and there have not been ,many - applications. He did not feel it would be a common use. He suggeste%43 tine applicant be permitted V.- invesr:igato with staff to ,yr it a better layout Cnuld 1'a provided. Commissioner Chitiea stated that 20 porcenz ct office /professional buildings are permitted to be retail in the Haven Avenue Overlay District, but she felt the permitted percentage of retail uhould be ltuch lAve in a warehouse building. She felt that the application should only be approved if is included lose floor arr.w, a total reorganization LLf the parking lot, and additional landscaping. She "felt retail use should "only be'i.,tcidental. Motion• ?Moved by Melchor, seconded by Tolstoy, to dirmat eta •.,to prepaaa a solution of denial for Environmental AssesomgJit any. ;,londitionid Use Yormit j 91 -Oa for adoption on the .-nsant Calendar ii the May 8, 1991, maating. Xotion carried by the following vats: j AXES: COMMISSION-"nit CHITIEA, MCNIEL, mELCH3k, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE COMMISSIONERS: NONE NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON3 - earr;9d i G. ENVIRQNMti'Cr& ASSESSMEMT AND IMII MI ° Si+ 1212. _£�.i1� AMERH U 4kU d! t2MCHO C' L MOlMQA- A request to asand the Ind,., trial Area Specit.:c Plan by adding swap swat and mutensive impact comc.arciai use and their development criteria with" the speciff.t plan area.'' Xta2f recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration, Anna -Lisa Us"andes, Assistate Planner, r� scented ha staff ra er?.. Chairman Mciliel asked if any cities pri aibit swag ', a nsts, Ms. Hernandez replied affirmativ.�ly. Chairman McMiel opened the public hearing. Richard Mager, !swim Homes, 2138 north Mountain, Upland* stated that *_� Cit} of Rancho Cucamonga expects development to be a cat abria' other cities. He felt swap assts - either indoor or outdoor - would be see incompatible use for Planning Commission minutes April 24, 1391 j CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �'kAFF REPORT DATE: May 3, 1991 TO ", Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM,: Lrad Buller, City Plann�,r BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner I SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR CONDITIONAL -USE PiPFMIT 91 -08 - MACIAS I. ABSTRACT: The attached letters from the applicant were received after the agenda was distributed. The applicant requests that the <- item be continued in order to be allowed to present additional testimony. Staff is prepared to discuss the issues raised in the letters. II. OPTIONS: The public hearing was closed on April 24; therefore, the Planning Commission has the following options: -! 1. Deny the Conditional Use Permit through adoption of the attached Resolution conk4i.stent with your motion on April 24, 1991; or I i' 2. Pull Vhe item :rom" the consent calendar and direct staff to advw,tise a new public hearing on June 12 to allow the applicant an additional opportunity to adduess the Commission= Respe submitt , j Bra er City P annex BB•DC:sp Attachment: Uhibit.'A' - Letter from the Applicant Resol +!eion of Denial _1 3;3 J- CRANOR i�SOBTRR " 18= VON KARMAN AVENUE 81'0 `I^PANOR I. PJCHTER IRVINE, CALIEOSURE RNIA 92715 A E , J ,. THE ►HONE At-AN B. KAt rz TO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (71A)Mu 3686 May 7,.,1991 s WAY 03 A PA Planning Commission for "the CITY OF RANCHO CUCARONGA != 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Conditional Use Permit 92-08 MACIAS f Dean commissioner-'= This is a follow -up to my lettdr of May 2, 1991, since that timed have discussed the conc:rns of the Commission with Brad Buller of the Planning Department, as to the following: a) Percentage of the total everatin devoted to retail` sales; b) Type and si ^e of signage used; c. The resent uflic entryway r,, es the loading p P ryway as it ,toss dock; and d) Compliance with all health and safety codec including but not limited to appropriate number of exits for the facility. After having discussed the concerns with my client I feel very strongly that while tite Commission concerns are well taken the Macias should bE., entitled _to an opportunity to addrer: t_ _e concerns, along with any others the Commission ;might ,-have, and propose solutions zcceptable to the Commission+` 2 therefore make thie ''fo lowing gropoeml, the commission continua the matter until a later date for the purpose of allotting the Macias adequate time to meet .with staff- n order to address the Commissions concerns such that Macias fas- Aty and operation will meet the ob °:pctives as set forth by the C auaissinn. Sincerily, LAW OFF4CES OF ,:' CRANAR .RICHt2R ., �J o Alan B. �aitz ABR:cc L Z. CR NOR i21CRT13 IMVON KARMANAVENUE SURE dw RANOR RecHTE2 UiVINE, CALIFOnN1A 92715 TELEPHONE ALAN B. ICArrz 955•uees 1;rrV (i'CAhIONGA May 2, 1991 , MAY 47 Planning Commission for the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Conditional Use Permit 91 -08 MACIAS Dear Gentlemen: I I This argument is suLmitted in support of Applicants' request for a coitinuancs, which - request is based upon the following reasons 1) that this Commission was unduly prejudiced b*t the fact Applicant was conducting business withou the required conditional use permit and was without knowledge of .',All facts surrour1:' : ng such cc-iduct; 2) Applicant understood that thei_ CUP would be, pproved as staff had :eca?nmended its approval, therefore the Macias's were unprepared to argue on their own behalf; and 3) to allow sufficient time for further public opinion. The undera . hed' is the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. RAYMUNDO MACIAS, the applicant s for Conditional Use Pe:mit 91 -08, which would allow the retail sale of tennis shoes in conjunction with their wholesale and di-tribution operation located at 8.711 Munroe, in the City of Ranvh . €. camonga, and which was one of the subje6!:s cof ycur April 24, 1. s` hearing. HISTORY. Previous '; =a the openipg of the Rancho Cucamonga fat,ility the Macias's creed and operated a small family rta business known as DEL RAY TENNIS SHOE WAREHOUSE: with locations in the Cities U_f Walnut and Corona. A few yearn ago as overhead costs began to skyrocket the Macias's decid^ that one way to meet "?Iese ever increas;:ng costs would be to opet, within their wholesale operat2ons, small stores offering wholesale prices of tennis shoes to the public. 0`701 -02 AUGUST 14, 1991 P #C, AGENDA o ( 5 of 7 � Planning Commission May 2, 1P91 Page 2 As their wholesale operation expanded a larger warehouse became necessary. In late 19Sa Mr. Macias engaged the services of Coldwell Bank-er, Real Estate Services to assist in locating and purchasing a new warehouse. In early 1991, a site was located at 8711 Monroe, and on or about January 7, 1991, the parties came to an agreement as to the purchase =of the site by the Macias °s. Thereafter,; the Macias Is started preparing for the opening of this new facility. On or about January 18, 1991, in preparation for the opening, Mr. Macias daughter Sandra went to Rancho Cucamonga City Hall in order to obtain tl,ja required business license. When Ms. Macias went to apply for a business license she was handed an application; was instructed.' -to complete it; and was informed that the location would need to ba approved by the City Planning Department Ms. tlacias filled out the application and Sscceeded to the Planning Department counter wherc,�,,,? she was greeted by the Planning Department clerk who revie*ied '.,he application and then went into the back to confer with anotb r person in regards to the Maci7sss application. When the c1fik returned she marked the application approved and informed Ms. °::azc a that the location had been approved by the Planning Departm**av :. A true and correct copy of the Business License Application is rntt.ached hereto as Exhibit 01A ". Ms. Macias then proceeded back to the licensing section where the clerk took the application along with a payment- in the requested amount and issued the license. The application clearly indicated that the Macias's identified the type of business to be operated at the location as a wholesale and retail business. It further clearly indicates that the business location was in fact approved for bo h a wholesale and retail business. Upon receipt of the business license and in reliance upon the approval of the location by the Planning Department the Macias's expended thousands of dollars readying the facility for opening. On or about March 6, 1991, an inspector from the Planning Division had occasion to visit the Macias'ls business at which time they were informed that the ret,,il operation was in violetion of city code as a conditional use permit was required in order sell to E- L �1 Planning Commission May 2, 1991 Page 3 Thereafter, t'he Macias's with the assistance of the Planning Department prepared all necessary dacume ;station and on or about April 24, 1991, the matter was heard''w >this commission. LEGAL ANALYSIS: It is well settled law that a city hat' he right and obligation to enact valid zoning ordinances to pr' cie the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of tht 6unity by its - general plan or methods of c3assificaticn and did. icting. Miller v. Board of Public Works 195 C 477. ioWever, in its operation the application of the general plan must be t %dated to the individual property involved. Specifically, it mus'.: be free from arbitrary and unreasonable conception and application and hence fair and impartial. Robinson vs. Los Angeles, 146 CA2d 810. Whether a zoning ordinance is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory is related to its application to a particular parcel of property, and each case must be determined on its own facts. Spindlere Realty Corp. Vs. Manning 243 CA2d 255. The rules and considerations set forth above apply with equal force to all zoning regulation. Kissinger vk:i Los Pngelea 161 CA2d 454. The thepty in zoning is that each district is an appropriate area for this location of the uses which the zoning plan permits therein, ai that the existence or entrance of other uses would tend to impa'_r the development and stability of the area for appropriate uses, In other words, the purpose of zoning and planniag are accomplished by dividing,,the community into districts, or zones wherein certain uses are p6rmitted and from which uses incompatible with those permitted are excluded., Los Angeles vs. Gage 127 CA2d 442. CURRENT SITUATION: The Macias's property is currently designated as an Industrial Park within subarea 6 and as such use o%` the property includes 0 °LIGHT WHOLESALE, STORAGE, AND DISTRIBUTIOU, pursuant to this use the code further allows "Retail sales 'froa the premises may occur when approved as a Conditional Uses'. The property immediately north of the subject property, (see attached Exhibit "B "), is within the same zoning district and is of similar type and use, as such the use should be similarly regulated. However; the. property houses six businesses City Planning May 2, 1991 Page 4 all of which cater exclusively to the retail public. While it is true that 3 of these business are specifically provided for within this zoning district the remaining 3 -must have been granted conditional use permits. The first being a flc.;.r covering sales business, the seeonei being a retail printing business, and the third, which is now closed, was a retailer of wood moldings. It should be additionally noted that the above mentioned businesses occupy dar more of their total facility for retail sales then does Macias's. Macias's use of the facility is incidental to their permitted business enterprise as more than 80% of its facility is devoted exclusively for use in their wholesale and distribution business, which also includes office space. By this point it should be unquestionably clear that the Macias's request for a conditional use permit for retail sales of tennis shoes in conjunction with its wholesale and distribution business is within the permit -q use pursuant to the code. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: r' As it would be within the power of the CommR sion to grant Macias's a conditional use permit the Commission also should consider the current situation of the Applicant created mainly by misrepresentations made or caused by the anbiguous information contained within the Application and the representation made by both the Planning Department and the Business License Department. The first misrepresentation was made by the Business License Department when the clerk informed the Macias's that upon the issuance of the business license they were authorized` to commence business; and The second misrepresentation is the Application itself. In the lower left hand corner there appears to be approval of the Planning Department as to Macias Is business location being approved for the type of business applied for in the application, that being wholesale and retail tennis shoe sales. The Macias's run a small business run largely by family members. As a result of the above described misrepresentation thousands of dollars and considerable time has been spent in making the necessary improvement to the business location with additional expenditures expected. Should the Macias's not be granted a CUP the Rancho Cucamonga business location would no I. Planning Commission May 2, 1992 Page 5 1i longer be feasible, bosh economically and geographically resulting- in the likely closure of the business at a tremendous financial,', loss. The Macias's business is a well run proftssionai operatiat, that any City hould be proud to have within,, its jurisdiction. The busines'o' will add to the tax revenues of the City and will benefit all surrounding properly owners. For these reasons the April 29, 1991, hearing was met with no opposition by the public no:, surrounding property owners Addi- on ily, as previously state.? the staff recommended the t�proval of tlicICUP in this matter. As this commission has been trusted to act with the best interests of the community at large, to deny the Macias'.s CUP w♦thout further consideration would not onl "; be unfair and prejudicial to the Macias's but would be a' violation of te. authority grgnted to this Commission. It Fo_ the Commissions review pictures or DEh REY TENNIS SHOE WAREHOULZ is attached hereto as Ekiibit "C" dab CONCLUSION: For the reasons stated above'ihe Macias's respzctfully requests that this Commission grant F continuance in this matter. t1 Sincerely, s- -YA Alan; B. 'Kaitz, Esq. ABK:cc 'J _ U W 2 ui Q m S �3 irm O i C N F q -c,» d a d m p ova �SxN Oj m.S1 NP a � a�c :� 4.am C2 q �a1°in d G O Z 9 O K O l D a 2 `I z z w W N � {7 4 H Z w _ l Q � Q W w !aa- u 5 w Y N O w N 0 w � w y s i V ? LL z z 2 N ❑ fD i O g US S2 C 1 w Uc LL J a w W Q > S Z � ❑ F Incc cc m � A in U LLLL R n 7 r i t i 3g W J AR d i4 i t ®y H U 6 E �a 4 �EL .REY 5H0)= WAE?EHbI?SE " ro jb f I 4 1 f t I 4 t is �r emu• Lo a( J. CRANORRI08•PER - - 1MMYONKARMANAVEMIE RANOR RTCHTMZ ��m IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 TELEPHONE!' Ai; 1N B. KAITZ 1711) 955 -38BB <• !• to . 1 6 .j o.. '.; May 1, 1991 uiH1 •+ P RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9340 Baseline Rancho Cucamonga, California 91`129 Subj: Hearing on Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91--08 Macias Dear Sir: 0 The undersigned hereby- requests that the. Planning' Commission continue this matter in order that Applicant, Raymundo 0. Macias, be allowed to present additional argument as to the impropriety of the commission discission:of April 24, 1991. Your courtesy and consideration is this matter is greatly appreciated. sincerely, Alan B. Kaitz, Esq. SO--REQUESTED: „ e RA DO 0. MACIAS, Applicant A. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -48 - CTAS - A requssL to allow retail sales in conjunction with a light wholesale, storage, and distribution rrte within an existing' 17,384 squaLrrfoot Lailding,in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 6), of the Industrial Rrea Specific Plan, located on the east side of Monroe ,court, north a! Jersey Boulevard - APN 209- 344 -42. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88 -42 - PITASSI DALMAU - A request to develop a 45,150 square foot YMCA facility on 4.83 acres of land within the Recreational Commercial District of the Terra Vista' Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, north of Church Street - A ?N: 227- 151 -13. C. VACATION OF A PORTION OF VINCEt AVENUE TNCLUDINGRJACL"NT 10 -FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK EASEMENT A request to vacate a Portion of Vincent Avenue including - the adjacent 10 -foot wide sidewalk easement, located north of Jersey Boulevard, east of Red Oak Street - APNs 209 - 144 -27_ Otto Kroutil, veput12 City Planner, tnnounced that staff had r I -hived a request to pull item A from the Consent Calendar in order to allow the attorney for the applicant to address the Commission. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Valletta, unarsiro ly carried, to adopt Items B and C of the Conant Calendar. A. RE50=TON OE DENIAL FOR 15NVIRaNi F7TAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL PERIRIT 91 -08 Fir. Xxautil Stated the applicant would like to address issues which they felt the Planning Commission did not allow them to pror.rly address. He indicated the item would need to be advertised for p0lic heising if tho Commission decided to consider the project. Chairman McNial invited public- commont aa_.Zv %hather the Commission should roconsider the application. Alan Raitz, Attorney, 18300 'Von Xazhwm Avenue, Suite S20, Irvine, stated the applicant felt he had not been able to psoparly address the concerns of the Planning Commission. He indicated the applicant thought the desires of the Planning Comission could be accommodated. He asked that the Commission give direction to staff to Further work with the applicant. He reported that the applicant had thought the project would lr7 automs�,ically approved, so he was not prepared to address the objections raised by the Planning Commission at the April 24, 1981, Planning Commission meeting. He felt the project could be a benefit to the community at large. There were no further public comments. Planning Commission Minutes -2 May Ir j91 6A r'.7-311 ,1 Chairman 9cNiel stated the., Commission had alreadk` gone through a full public hearing. Commission Hal rer stated he was in favG,r of directing staff to aavertise a new public hsaiing to allow the applicant c at' option of fufcther addressing the Planning Commission. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to direct staff to readvertise a public hearing for Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 91 -08. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, HELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ENVIRONNENTALiSSUSSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03 - CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA- A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan by adding swap meet and extensive impact comxnr��l+l _use and their development criteria within the Specific Plan .`rea. tSiaff recommends isouance of a Na4ative Declaration. (Continued from April 24, 1991.) Anna -Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner, prasent&A the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. James Page, 15643 Sharman Way, Van Nuys, concurred with the staff deport. He indicated that at the last meeting a referene, had been made to the swap most in Santa Ana and the fact that they have ex;bnienced parking problems even though their requirements call for one space per 150 square Feat. He reported that the swap meat is located at the corner of Warner Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, both six -lane streets, and that there is an access problem. He felt, the parking lot it more than adequate for the 160,000 square foot facility. He commented that the facility is run six days per week (closed an Tuesdays). He said the four driveways all secure access from a 60 -foot wide street. He indicated that because the swap most operates the same hours as the surrounding industrial uses, large trucks park on the 60 -foot street making it difficult to exit the parking lot. He thought 4wlley Indoor Swap Meet in Woodland Hills to be closer to their use. He said that particular swap most jenerates 363 trips during peak house. He reported his traffic study projects 313 trips during peak hour. He indicated that if they project 400 public cars plus 100 vendor cars, that would only account for 500 vehicles, while the site they arm interested in has over 700 spaces. He requested that the use be approved at one space per 150 square feet .rather than one space per 100 square feet. He also requested that the square footage calculation b�.based on only actual sales space. He suggested that on a Planning Commission Hinutaa -3- May 8, 1991 `�` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 14IEI' dRANDUN1 v DATE: FROM: s ✓E Als Assr. ,v.✓�,z SUBJECT. Ame rss.w�rSJ4,, Ax'A 9w/��4 Ci�ta� Dl�rrlr .z i'�iarslta! /r , t9± +r (%N %�tn Ylnxfi She useflLtS¢ l/ /Yl{�. �i, C!!i2 �iF /K� N.(h r ✓tHSr.Yt Fl.(:+� ei �W � ,�AJP /�G LinLK R/�lBltt.(P�( I , ;3 �l r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFV REPORT DATE: August 1" 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the�'Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner SUBJECT_* CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -25 - F_nRu.HAMID - The request to establish a convenience market in a leased space of 1,907 square feet within an existing shopping center on 1.64 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria;---, Community Plan„ locdted at the northwest corner of Basq, Line'-' Road And Victoria Park bane - APN: 227- 111 -41. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested_: Approval of a non- cons-Iruction Condit q��l Use Permit to establish a mini - market in the Victoria` Village sopping center. - B. Applicable ReT!Iations: The Victoria Community Plan allows convenience markets in the Village Commercial zone subject to the approval of a Conditional Us°a Permit. C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Nort`: - Vacant, Village Commercial; Victoria Planned Community South - Vacant, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre); Victoria Planned Community East Nursery, Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), Victoria Planned Community West - Can Station, Village Commercials Victoria Planned Community D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units per acre) North - Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling units per acre) South - Neighborhood Commercial East - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwell ng units;,ppr acre) West - Medium -Nigh Residential (14- 2f, .,dwelling units per acre) E. Site Characteristics: The site is the first Chase of a two -phase master planned shopping center- ITEM Q PMNNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-25 - HARIS HAMID August 14, 1991 l '' Page 2 _ F. Parking Calculations: Number of ' Number of. Type,' Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Re fired Provided} Mini -Mart 1,907 1/250 e B Hair Salon 813 J /station 12 12 Restaurants 2,536 1/100 25 25 Office 916 1/250 4 4 Retail 3,462 1/250 14 14 Service Station 2,187 3 spaces .. 9 9 +2 per bay Unoccupied" 3,390 1/250 14 3 Subtotal 15,211 86 75 Parking Addition" 70 20TAL 15,211 86 145 ** Hughes Development is currently processing Minor Development Review 91 -25 to construct a portion of the Phase SI parking lot consistent with the approved Master Plan for the shopping center in order to provide sufficient parking for existing and future users, such as restaurants and beauty salons. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to operate a 1,907 square foot convenience market in the existing Victoria Village' shopping center, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Victoria Park Lane. In his letter, the applicant states that he will sell standard grocery items and also plans to sell beer and wine in the future. No more than two employees will be at the store at any one time.. Proposed operating hours are from 6 a.m.. to 11 p.m. daily. B. Conclusion: The proposed convenience market will be located within an existing shopping center designed for retail use. The mini -mart is consistent with the intent of the Village Commercial District, which is designed to serve the daily needs of the local community. The mini -mart and the entire shopping center a -e sufficiently buffered from the nearby homes of the Victoria Yindrows Community by a Eucalyptus windrow and Victoria Park Lane; therefore, no land use compatibility problems are anticipated. Finally, no parking problems are anticipated in conjunction with this use; the required parking ratios for convenience markets do not exceed the base parking ratio required for neigAborhood Commercial centers. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT C0,1 91-25 - HARIS HAMID Au4ust 14' 1991 Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDINGS: 1.s That the proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of toe Development Code, and the purposes of the Village Commercial :District of the Victoria Community Plan.: 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public *_+palth, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties- or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable- provisiong-of the Development Code and -the Victoria Coa?Nnity Plan, CORRESPONDEN'=-. This item her- been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and noticed were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff rezommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 91 -25 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. Respec 1y su tad, ):4 /Brad tier City Planner BB:SR/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from the Applicant Exhibit "B" - Local-ion Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval at a, &/ V� 40W t V�l &40 az�.fit .4� alt A-m // t' CI'I"Y OF TWb y, , UCAMONGA PLAN" DSION 76 C�suA �' Z� ski Z�srli _I CAW UPW L.,4NDr , BLOCK J p►� TFNrlm#,E T6 ACT lifer 13r.13 rem+m► Yr AW LOT ZZ 13 & 14 40 C.1•1! r'i. 4-OW.0 comw8c pr L. SME EASTNG WHERV ZONE -tfAf. e � c J ti LOT 4 4� LOT 3 BLOCK E'jMA MA COLONY LANDS ma 2 4 rrEm: c u R g ° - IIY oF 1 ;,' �"C} -ucAAioNGA TITL$r ZocAT .►eu Mprf PLANTh i.r t SION V rr.;-g SC,4LE- '-3l-'' t z" a r a a '!mild r •.j :'i is �i3 � s� i=., t,� d , y�3 §• JI r� �y,Y � b �_ d6y v K Q N F' Z I W - Y - I u r cz s M' " ITEM: G.RJP 81-25 CITY OF I CIHO ,CUOAMONGA rr.E: IPLMR R N PLANNING DIVISION _ EXHIBIT: D SCALE --- i 4 RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-25 FOR A CONVENIENCE MARKET IN A LEASED .�' SPACE OF 1,907 SQUARE FEET WITHIN, AN EXISTINCr SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LING ROAD' AND VICTORIA PI:1T,.!'ANE IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE VICTORIA- 6iiMMUNITY PLAN, AND MAILING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 227- 111 -41 A. Recitals. (i) Haris Hamid has filed an application for the issuanco of Conditional Use Permit No. 91 -25 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Ilse " Permit request is referred to as "tile application." (ii) On the 14th day of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamona t ^,onducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and con:lud- � -seid hearing on that dater (iii) All ), =gal prerequisites prior to the adnpticn 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 as;e true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commissi��)n during the above- referenced public hearing on August 14, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows. (a) The application applies to property located at 7270 Victoria Park Lane, U.,%its 2A & Z s northwest Corner of Base Line Road and Victoria Park Lane and is presentiy improved with an existing shopping center and 86 parking upaces; and (h) The properties to the north and south of the subject site are vaca.it, the proparty tq�the east is a commercial nursery, and the property to the:want is a service station; and (c) The applicant plans to occupy 1,907 square feet within a i 13,024 A,;uare foot building; and J (d) The hours of operation will be from 6 a.m. "'to 11 p.m. daily; imd 1 �i i PLANNING, COFBiISSION RESOLUTION NO.- i` I CUP 91 -25 - HARIS MU41D August 14, 1391 Page 2 ,�. . (e) The agp,ication contemplated .ra r-- slienience market, including the sale of beer and wine for off -site con;- pmption. if 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 proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Bevelopaieat Code, the Victoria Community Plan, and the purposes of the district in :which the smote is located; and (b) That, the proposed use, together with tr:a conditions applicable thereto,, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to proprties or improvements in the vicinity; and " (c): Thati"the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Cade and the victoria Community Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, Z and 3 "above, this (,1, ,4mmission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. 1) Approval of This request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Victoria Ccriunity Plan and all other City. ordinances. 2) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon ad4,acent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brouC t before the planning Commission for the consider&tio and possible termination oil the use. 3) Occupancy (!f the facility shall not commence until suchlttime as all Uniform Building Code and Stvtte i'kire Marshal's regulations have been ccmpliwd #itt., prior to occupancy, plans `shall be submi ',cted to the Rancho CucamonQ3' Fire Prctecti<jn.District to show compliancd. The building be inspected for compliance ,'shall prior tokoccupancy:' 4) Any sigiis proposes for the facility shall be'� designed] in conformance. wit': the Comprehensive Sign Orliinance and,.any uniform Sign Prcgrem for the complex require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation. PLANNING COMHI0ION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91 °25 HAZ_,S BAMID August 14, 1941 Page 3 Ask 5) This Condit.onal' -'se Permit is approved for a maximum of tNo employees at any given time. 6) Hours of operation shall be limited to 6,00 a.m. through llzCO p.m. daily. 7) No consumption of food or beverages shall be permitted on the premises. S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY JOF.AUGUST 1991. �1. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY.OF RANCHO CC{MONGA J, BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary _t 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 14th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: f"'COMMISSIO'XMRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: - - f ,f - i l k City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive' P.O. Box aol Rancho Cu nga, Calif. 91729 August 9, 1991 ATTN: Larry McNiel Chairman - Planning Commission Dear Mr. McNiel: We are writing today to express our concerns regarding the proposed development 413951, the Wilson Court Development, located on North Reryl Street, in Alta Loma, California. I am a current homeowner directly South of the proposed development. My address is 5819 Beryl. It is our understanding that there will be two different site plr:a proposals under consideration for approval. We understand that the developer would be satisfied with the approval of either s'J e plan. The first site plan is the plan that was submitted about one year ago. The second, or "Alternate plan" was sub%itted fairly recently. We would strongly urge the consideration awl adoption . of the "Alternate Site Plan" because of the reasons developed below. The "Original Site Plan" proposes to develop "Manaani *_a Street" from Beryl St. to the intersection of the proposed "B" Street. This development would parallel the full length of my property. The road would open up the full extent of my property to excessive amounts of traffic, noise, aad people. We purchased this property some 20 years ago for the etpressed purpose of using it for horses. This road would increase the noise, traffic, and secuixty problems to such a point that horses could not safely be maintained on my property. The "Alt-rnate Site Plan" moves this road North and places the rear yards of several homes as well as a bridle path a3 a buffer between my property and any potential problems. This solution was proposed by the developers as a possible solution to these problems and we believe that it will accomplish this purpose. The second major problem concerns the R•;ter flowing down proposed A" and "B" Streeter. G`urrently there is a substantial drainage problem from the development area to my property, to the property to the rear of ny land and to property.South of my property. One property owner that lives on Falling Tree Lane has his swimming pool filled with mud and dirt almost everytime it rains because of the drainage problems. Keep in mind, these drainage problems occur with the land completely free of development. With development, more water will flow down due to roofs, streets, sidewalks, and other water shedding improvements. The situation is BAD now, with development the situation will possibly be IMPOSSIBLE! The "AIternate Site Plan" offers greater protection from this flooding situation. A small ditch or pipe could be installed in the bridle trail, as has been done in many other locations, to 1 � provide adequate drainage for the rear portions of the lots facing my property and the property South and East of my location. our third concern centers around the fact that our home was built with the bedrooms on the North side of our home facing the proposed new street. The house was constructed 20 years ago -with no-plans-for having a street so close to the home. As such, Ahis str� . , with all of its traffic, noise, and people would be oM y 40 feet, from our bedrooms. This would make sleeping difficult'`. The "Alternate Site Flan ", by moving the street 'Borth, would nt have this problem. Finally, I would like to address the question of diversity of property use. It has been pointed out to us that by using the Alternate Site Flan" it would be very hard to develop my property in the future. We would ask, why must all property be developed to the maximumm potential? Would it not be appropriate for ;suture citizens of Rancho- Cucamonga to have a selections of propety types with vaeionis potential uses, rather than all property plastered with wail to wail homes? As we previously slated we purchased this property for a 2 1/2 acre horse ranch. We ff_•�! -_3ure that some future citizens xouH like the same choice. With a major ,street, increased traffic and noise, plus security concerns, this property would be dirticu.it to use j as we have used it. 11 The selection of the "Alternate Site Plan" will not decrease the number of potential building sites for this developr)7nt. We helve been told by the developer that they would be hapfp Nith either site plan. _• f t Since the developer will not be adversely impacted by the Alternate Site Plan" and because it favorably addresses many or our concerns about this development we strongly urge that j the "Alternate Site Plan" _h^-:_dopted for this development. If you have any questions of me, please feel free to contact we at any time at Either of the following locations. Clive & Nancy Warner 5849 Beryl St. Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91701 (714) 0¢7 -3626 or during the day (714) 984 -4111. Sincerely, Clive W. garner { t, DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 14, 1991 Chaff >mar and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND T residential subdivision and dei lots on 23.45 acres of land District (less than 2 dwelling of Manzanita Drive, east oR Be: Avenue - APN: 1062 - 111 -L3 1062 - 061 -01 and 02. Staff rec Negative Declarations Associ Removal Permit 91 -28. EVE TRACT 13951- CHOD. A -eview of 30 single family the Very Low Residential o per acre);. located north ;reet, and west of Hellman jh 06, 1061 - 761 -03, and is issuance of a mitigated with.;the project is Tree PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action ested: Approval of the subdivision design, conceptual grading plan, building elevations, plot plans, Tree Removal Permit 91 -28, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. 8. Project Density: 1.3 dwelling units per Svcs C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Flood Control, Church and Single Family Residential.; Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). South - Single Fand -ly Residential) very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per aere)1•- East - Vacant (approved Tentative Tract 13930); Very Low Residential District :(less than 2 dwelling units per acre). West - vacant (approved_ Tentative Tract 14207)1 Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (loss than 2 dwelling units per acree ) North - Opeh Space and Very Low Residential (less tnan 2 dwelling units per acre) ITEM R PLANNING' COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 2 South Very how Residential (Less than 2 dwelling units per acre) East - :Very Low Residential (les's than 2 dwelling units per acre) Vest - Very how Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) :c E. Site Characteristics: The property is ==e`,%tly undeveloped. l Vegetation on -site consists of approximately 7Y<.4eeritage trees anZl „ an abandoned grape vineyard. The Demens Creels runs along the westerly property line and connects to Beryl Stre�;:J. The site is surrounded on the north and south by existing single family development, on the east by Hellman Avenue and on the northwest by a church. �\ ANALYSIS° A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop 30 single family , lots on 23 acres of land. The lots rouge in size from 20,000 square feet to 35,600 square feet with,,,- average lot size of 22,982 square feet. Four floor plans are being provided ranging in size from 2,578 to 3,147 square feet. Each floor plan has 2 elevations. B. Design Review Committee: The Design 'Review Committee (Cbitiea, Blakesley, Kroutil) originally reviewed the project on January 19, 1989, and recommended that plans and elevations be revised. The applicant revised the plans and returned to the Design Review Committee (Chitied, Tolstoy, Coleman) on March 2, 1989. The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the proposed tract subject to plans being resubmitted, I -to staff for review and Approval with the following revisions and subject to resolutior;of the types and final placement of traila by'tae Trails Advisory Cc�mittee prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Architecture: 1. Chimneys should receive detail that will provide variation between the four unit types. 2. Multi -pane windows should be utilized at the sides and rear of residences where large amounts of glass are not currently proposed, especially the large - windows on the right elevation of Plan 2 and the windows on the left elevation of Plan 1. - 3.. The half round window detail on the right elevation of Plan 2 should be removed. i_ 77 IN IE E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13957 - CH%'- August 14, 1991 fj Page 3 4. The arch detail in the gables of the left elevation of Plan 1 and the rear elevation of Plan 3 should be :moved. 5. Reveals should continue across elevations where possible. 6. Roof tile with more tonal variation should be used. 7. The 45 decree angle at the roof corners of Plan 3 and 4 should be .,eplacea with 90 degree corners. Site Plan: 1. The final alignment or terminus of Manzanita Drive should be indicated on the site plan and other related plans as resolved through a Neighborhood meeting and long range traffic planning goals. 2. The final lot arrangement and sizes should be indicated on the site plan and other related plans as resolved through final placement of the trails and Manzanita Drive. 3. The 5 -foot wall setback from the back of sidewalk on Manzanita Drive should be dimensioned on the site plan and should be drawn at a corresponding scaled distance of 5 feet from the back of sidewalk. 4. Walls at the corner side yargs on the east end of Wilson Avenue should return to the sides of houses. Landscaping: 1. Landscaping on Wilson, Hellman and Beryl should emulate landscaping en adjacent traces. l� 2. The design of the Wilson parkways should utilize the approved street trees. 3. The Manzanite Drive parkway should:iincorporate approved trees or an approved alternate street tree which ties in with existing trees. At this point in the review process, a period of approximately one year elapsed while the Oveloper was in negotiations with the Sac Bernardino County Flood Control District regarding release of their easements north-of Wilson. Additionally, during this time a Neighborhood Meeting was held on September 27, 1990, where neighboring residents expressed concern regarding the alignment of the southerly street in the tract. At thin meeting, the applicant agreed to redesign the southern portion PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 4 1. of the site in order to address the residents' concerns regarding the possibility.of through traffic along their street (Cottonwood Way) between Beryl and Hellman. The alternative proposed by the applicant resulted in Alternate A (see Exhibit "H "). The Design Review Committee (Tolstoy, Coleman) reviewed the new Alternate A on March 21, 1991, but recommended Approval of the original alternative with the southerlymost street located directly adjacent to the south .tract boundary. The Committee recommended this alternative since they did not feel that the resultant cross lot drainage with alternate "A" would be desirable. The Committee also recommended the following conditions: 1. The southerly most street (Manzanita) should be shifted slightly northward at the eastern side and should be designed with a knuckle. 2. The tier of 4 lots along "B" Sti"t should be, *egraded to provide drainage out to the street rather than cztq.71ot. 3. A 12 -foot parkway /community trail should be provided on the north side of W;.Ascn Avenue adjacent to the church property. This issue should be re- reviev.3 hy_the Trails Advisory Committee since it is it tonflic- with their recommendation. 4. Any man 'hole covers located,,Lwithin private local trail easements should be either buried underground or covered with wood or neoprene for equestrian safety. It was then `r quested by the Engineering Division that a sidewalk be located on the north side of Wilson Avenue adjacent to the church property. This issue was reviewed au a consent item by the Design Review Committee (McNiel, Tolstoy, Coleman) on July 188 1991. The Committee approved the :sidewalk location as follows- The Committee supported the continuation of a sidewalk on the north side of Wilson to Beryl Avenue. 'The Comnsi.ttee approved a section which provided a 26 -foot right -of -way which accommodates both a community trail and asidewalk. The remainder of the originally proposed Lot A should be deeded to the church property to the north, if possible. C. Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee originally reviewed the project on January 18, 1989, and March 15, 1989. The trail locations, Alternate "A ", and the original design, !? were api loved by the Committee on March 20, 1991, with the .. following conditions- I{ R —L/ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 MOU August 14, 1991 Page 5 original Proposal: 1. The drive approach for the local trail on Lot 30 should be delete.. and a step- through detail should be provided. 2. A local equestrian trail should.:be provided between Lots 2A and 29 (15 feet wide). If thls location is not desired, an alternative would be the provision of a local trail on the south side of Lot 30 extending far enough to the east to allow safe vehicular access to the trails the tr:.il design (i.e., corner cut -offs) should be revi.�wed to provide adequate turning radii. 3. 'frail crossings should be provided wi;ere trails gross tiie public streets, including the connections across Beryl Street. 4. The right -of -way area on the north side of -,the "C" Street cul -de -sac betweei. Lots 5 and 8 should be Veit open to allow equestrian access ,I)ehweer, tug local 'trails for these two lots. In ad& , -5n s disclosure statement should be provided to the buyer of Lot 5 indicating that this area is to remain open and should not be landscaped or blocked off in any way. 5. A textures, standard trail crossing should be provided across Beryl. Street on both the north and south sides of Wilson Avenue. A simil -'i crossing should also be provided across Wilson Ai. nue on the east side of Beryl Street. Alternate "A ": 1. A step- through detail should be provided at the intsxsect;ion of the community trail and the local equestrian trail adjacent to Lots 10 and 22. 2. A standard gate (Detail 1008A) should be provided from Lots 24 and 25 to the adjacent community trail- 3. Sections P -P and ;,s'-Q should accurately reflect the cormunity trail standard of a 5 foot parkway, 12 -foot trail and 3 -foot landscaped area. 4. The area on the north side of the "C" Street -cul-de-sac between ruts 5 and 8 should be left cpen to allow equestrian . access between the locale trails for these two lots. In addition, a disclosure statement should to provided to the buyer of sot 5 indicating that this area -*a to remain open and should not be landsenped or blocked off in any way. PhAM*TING COMFSISSION STIFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT' 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 6 dish Naw it �ossin should be provided S. A textured, standard trail q across Beryl Street on both the north and soith Aides of- Wilson Avenue. A 'similar crossing should also be provided across Wils <in Avenue on the east side of Beryl Street.. 6. The local trail at the northwest corner of Lot 24 should be - eliminat+ since a local trail directly, '`adjacent to a Community Trail is undesirable. Rather, a standard gate from Lots 23 and 24 to the Community Trail is undesirable. D. Tree Removal L The applicant has submitted a Tree Ramoval _Permit: Permit application requesting the removal of 49 heritage trees .(as 'in defined by the Trea Preservation Ordinance Chapter 19.08) conjunction with development of this tract. An arborist report'haa I been provided as part of the request. The arborist identified 67 heritage trees on the proposed project site with 10 heritage trees located off -site which may be affected by the development of the site. various typep,- of trees have been identified on the site and are noted in Exhibit "M." Each tree was evaluated as to currek"t health and structure in terms of the potential for preservation�,- The arborist made recommendations to preserve in place, transplant, or remove specific trees as noted in Exhibit "M" and below: Stand "H': italian Cypress (10)- Nerium Oleander (1) Unidentified Deciduous tree (1) Fraxinus (Ash) (3) Eucalyptus (1) Five of these trees (all of the Ash, oleander and the Eucalyptus) recommended for removal and the rema:-der are r commended to be are transplanted or preserved in place. Stand Eucalyptus Windrow (34) peven are proposed to bG preserved in place and 27 are recommen•',d for removal. Stand °C". I Pine Windrow (9) These trees are located off site and all are recommended- for preservation iac place or relocation if preservation is,. +not j feasible, . 1. rI ! PLANNING COMMISSION S-AF-i REPORT { TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 a CHOCT August 14, 1991 Page t Stand "D ". Eucalyptus Globulus (14) All of these trees are recommended for removal. These`crees were 411 identified as being in poor health. . Stand "13"- - - Coast Live oak (1) Recommended for,,?reservation in place. ,I Stand "F ": Eucalyptus Globulus (3) All are recommended for removal by the arborist since they w`ll be in conflict with Hellman Avenue improvements., - Most of the trees (45) proposed for removal are Slue Gum Eucalyptus and part of a windrow in the southern portion of the site. Based on the information provided in the arborist report, staff recommends that replacement planting be required per the criteria outlined in the Tree ?reservation Ordinance (Section 19.08.100). The remaining four.trees proposed for removal are 3 Fraxinus (Ash) and 1 NeEium Oleander. These shall be replaced 'per the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Section 19.08.100). E. Discussion of Alternatives: As indicated in earlier sea` +ons of the staff report, there is neighborhood concern regareling the alignment of the southerly most street of the proposed tract. The applicant has proposed two alternatives (the original proposal and Alternate A) in response to-'concerns of the neighboring residents. Alternate "e has been provided in response to ^oncerns raised at the two neighborhood meetings. The developer does not have a preference between his original, proposal and Alternate "A ". The neighbors prefer Alternate "A" for several reasons.. Property owners irmediat:3ly south and east of the ,proposed tract do not wish to have streets adjacent to their, property. Residents of Cottonwood Way, which was recently designated a private street, do j not feel the offset between "D" Street and Cottonwood Way is sufficient to protect them from a future redesignation_as a through street. 1 f In response to the concerns of the Cottonwood Way residents, both streets "S" and "D" have been located entirely on -site. The conditions of approval require full width construction for both streets, including a knuckle inter -s4ction between the two. i I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13951.`- CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 8 Staff has the following concerns with Alternate "A ": 1. It -reatea the need for a private drainage facility to drain the `iv3 lots south of "D" Streit (i.e., cross lot drainag,,i. This is not unusual along a local trail, but the opportunity for blockage affecting one's neighbors is greater with an east -west facility than with a north -south one. 2. From a master planning perspective, a street along the south project boundary would allow for future development of two 2.5 acre parcels south of the project site. Without the street, the only way to sub- divide those parcels would be with flag lots off, of Beryl Street, However, the property` immediately to the south is currently used sor boarding horses and the present owners have indicated that they do not intend to subdivide. The Planning Commission must select which alternative to act upon. A complete set of plans has been prepared for each alternative and two separate resolutions have been prepared, one for etch alternati,�a. F. Technical Review _ Committee: The Techui.:al Review Committtee reviewed the project on January 17, 1989, April 17, 1990, and May 5, 1990. The project was ,;approved on March 11, 1991, subject to the conditions listed on the attached Resolution.' G. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on January 15, 1999 iud on April 16, 1994, The project was approved on March 19, 1991, subjeot to the condition listed in the attached Resolu`a_on of Approval- Ill. ENVIRONMENR'AI ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed the Environmental Assessment. A mated pair of fled Tailed Hawks inhabit the site. Yn addition, it is proposed that- the existing channel be filled to construct a storm drain pipe. ?litigation measure rr,:,rding this i ssr,e have been added to the Resolution of Approval. Staff has found that although the project could z"ult in significant adverse environmental impacts, there will not be a significant adverse impact in this case because of the mitigation measures included as conditions of approval. If the Commission concurs, the issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the Gencral Plan and Development Code. The project, with the aoARd.mitigati.on moasures, will not. be detrimental to the public iieixr. 45` safety, or cause nuisances or significant adverse environmental impacts. � -g PLANNING COMUSyION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14„ 1991 Page 9 In addition, the proposed use and site plan, _together with the recommen3ed'' conditions of , approval, are ,in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Code, and City standards. V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in The Inland valley Daily Bulletin newspaper as a public hearing, the pi.iperty has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners- within 300 feet of the project site. Two Neighborhood Meetings have been conducted on this project. The first was held nn September 27, 1990. At that meeting several . neighboring renide_nts expressed concern regarding the alignment of hanzanita Avenue (the. .southerly street in the tract) in relation to the existing Cottonwood -gay. The original alternative contained a local street along the south tract boundary which was set up to align with Cottonwood Way. At this meeting, the applicant agreed to provide an alternative street design, moving the street further to the north. The alternative design was reviewed (and subsequently rejected) by the Deign Review Cosmittee on March 21, 1991 (See Section B) The alternate ; "A" design was ieviewed by concerned residents at a sec ^nd Neighborned Meetina on May 30, 1991. The residents again AWL voiced concerns of opposition to the original - alternative since they f. ,-3.t it would be disruptive to their exin ting neighi'.orhood. They would prefer that Alternate "A" be constructed, which would realiq,r the street to the north. (See attached Letters from residents and Neighborhood Mearsg notes)• Additional concerns voiced by the residents regarding the original alternative were expressed regarding the re(raest for a curb between Cottonwood and Manzanita and the inclusion of a wall along the south side of the Jj street. The residents would also like to see a perimeter wa3'.1 located on the east side of "B" Street. These two items have been listed as conditions of Approval in the Resolution for the original alternative. The provisions of a wall along the east side of "B" Street has been included on both Resolutions `TI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff: recommends that the Planning Commission review both the original proposal and Alternate "A" for Tentative Tract 13951 and approve one of them through adoption of the appropriate Resolution, approve Tree Removal Permit 91 -28, and issue a mitigated Negative Dec2aratci. r, i r 1. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT J TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU Asgust 14, 1991 Page 10 AIML Respect s ed. Brad B ler City lanner EB:BN: js J JAI Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map (Original Alternative) Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tr:ct Map (Original Alternative) Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan ',Jriginal Alternative) Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Ulan (Original Alternative) Exhibit "E" — Equestrian Overlay Plan (Original,Alternative) Exhibit "F" - Conceptual 'Landscape Plan (Origin&& Alternative) Exhibit "G" - Site Utilization Map (Alternate "A") Exhibit "S" - Tentati•e TYact Map (Alternate, "A ") . Exhibit "I" - Detailed Site Plan (Alternate "A ") Exhibit "J" - Conceptual Grading Plan (Alternate "A ") Exhibit "K" - Conceptual Landscape Plan (Alternate "A ") Exhibit "L" - Equestrian Overlay Plan ('Alternate "A ") Exhibit "M" - Tree Locations Exhibit "N" - Building Elevations Exhibit "O" - Neighborhood Meeting Notes Exhibit "P" - Letters from Residents Resolution of Approval with Conditions (Original Alternative } Resolution of Approval with Conditions (Alternate "A ") _ Resolu..zon of Approval with Conditions for Design Review t i 9 a _ ..- 31, ! I L! l � IKA TTT_.... t i3 a z WVWA CM A C? -•11 \ 1111 L). •� a L' T rlEM: CITY OF T UCAMONGA PLEiNI1TtN�r 113 TON rrrLE: 2 OGL'f.} EXIMIT: SCALE: J, r ..gym .ne.w.e . rwo Ivy OF , UCAMON'G� ITEMc PLAIT S114�rw;,�3�V'I�ION TPTLE: 51 f'ia �Uf� t e"a. Ac►,- EXHIBrr:Cl— SCALE: 1 II criy OF AA' WlC�f f!0,.-,,,UCAMONGA M. PLAN&INd-. b - SION I.= AKIY OF FtL . , ,,. w UCAMONGA ?`T is�35 � VWW TI�i7.E: EN�,�OL'lFa. ej PLANNING- I�.T ,ION r) \^ EXiiIBYT :°. SCALE: MY OF �. YC UCAMONGA PITATNreiIN D :w ION rwv�rn. STFW WAu Q El . �:.= ,.r -- t � 4 tj �g f z1 cn a a n�f z U� w G�., .vo . .......... r Ng- 12e- T?tjwpop-i��y rrEm.. MY OF UCAMONGA TrrL.E:Sgwr. n-Ar- (Avl- N Pr�IN EXMBrr." SCALE: b fs1 y Ul jj C? i - � of I C pl. m 4 0 9 j SI 1 aroeur MY OF CAM ONG� rmm. TT PN TM-E. trA P �ALT. A' N R F5ICN x�srr: _T•2. scA.E: AYENuE 4LSON sr SWM Wut i Y OF UCAMONGA CIT PLANNiNts- IylISIOI�T 'r�rc- rr ,A) ° "j E3:'1�iIBTI':� SCALE: c4 cn LU D 0 ,06 ! U) W rn OF I O 04 y f +`y✓`y^ ITEIV[: C.-Ll Y OF C UCAMONGA TrrLE + PLANI�fiNOT -D ION Eat. `yEt.np�%ru- t� EXHEBrr: l• SCALE: El I lu l OF kcAMONGA y TrrLF,:_j •- F3 aSICIN EXHIBM �AETrhlui;M WA)e SCALE: I' I Neighborhood Meeting Notes Tentative Tract'_. '3951 May 30, 1991 7 p.m. Dean Murray, the representative for the app'_icantr gave a brief description on the background of the project thus far and then opened the meeting for discussion. The residents generally had the following concerns: 1. The lots on the southeast corner of the Alternate "A" layouti will be provided with a perimeter wall along the south boundary and local trail fencing along the north of the tram,. = - -1 2. The engineer for the project indicated that the surface drainage would be directed to Beryl Street through the proposed local streets in the project. The drainage for the southern tier of lots in the Alternate "A" layout would be concentrated in a tiTditch along the south tract boundary „_ (north of the perimetez_ wall), and routed out to Beryl: Street.?( 3. A curb will be located 1��tween Cottonwood and Manzanita tt_' prevent through traffic;:: '60 wall has "n proposed but this could be added as a con`di'tion of appt:6val if the Planning Commission feels it .ts necessary. 4. The project engineer indicated that Beryl Street would` be l � widened to Manzanita, or the south tract boundiiry. 5. The residents indicated that- -;they would like to see a perimeter wall constructed along the south side of "A” Street and the east side of "B" Street if the originaS',Ilternative is chosen. The residents are concerned with through traffic in close proximity to their homes if the original alternative is 1 chosen. 54 The residents expressed concern over the original alternative and generally `Ilt it would be disruptive to their neighborhood. I BN:mlg Attacbments: Original Tract Alternative Alternative "A" List of Attendees? f� I t t I 1 iPLAN � j t JL Lyle-- air Z� 9 aul Fi f `NG EY d?s ? t ate• ? 4 & � � • Ir ,` rrn a ¢ �, c� �-r riot- .� " '�'3 �.�.J� {a►�,�n �� GI �7 °�1 �� `� �'� i Al SEPT. 22 1)120 ➢EAIk mil, '�i'r + � LC_, ,� " , _ _ RE: LITLSON COURT PROJECT - .''TRACT I AM WRITING\ TO YOU` -WITH THE CONCERNS I" HAVE AS;,,$ llomF OWNER OF 15 YEARS. WHIT 7 I BOUGHT MY HOME 15 YEARS ,AGO. .1 i:JOK n ; FOR OVER A YEAR TO FIND JUST THE RIGHT LOCATION WITH ALli ; ,THR REOUTR.EMENTS I y_Ab W MIND. I FOUND THESE AT 9245 COTTONWCO➢ : 4Y ALTA LOMA . 1 1/4. ACRES HORSE PROPER7.Y DESIREAHLE GEOGREIPRICAL WATER FLOW` BRIDLE V-DTH �I SECLUSION ;. LOW TO NIL TPAFFrC RURAL ATMOSPHIRi WITHIN A CITY SETTING THL' :.ONTINUED APPRECIATED DOLLAR 'iALUIE OF THIS ST:T1 l+IC VANDALISM HA 3r � ;��T AT 0 ° DUE T(r THIS,; 'SECLUSION. ,AI,T.. PEOPLE OR BARS ON THIS STRF.I::T 3RE EITHER.RS:SIDKNTS OR GUESTS;" r1? NOT. ALL 117EIGHBORS ARE ON THE ALERT TO S- MANGERS. WE HAVE HAD &�!' TRAFFIC 7kCCIDE9TS OR. INJURIF,S ON TII1'S STREET DUE 'TO THE LOW TRAFFIC. NJW I pa`AVE ,BEEN fiUTIF .F.D Ol< THE WILSON TRACT PROJECT.. I AM IN COMPLETE OPPOSITION!" THE OPENING OF COTT02WWOOD TATAY EAST OF BERYL WILL DRASTICLY _DHANGE ALL OF THE ABOV6 MENTIONED CHARACTERISTICS Cis' MY STREET AXb NEIGHBORHOOD. THE INr,L)RPORATION t"jF THIS CITi°Y 'WAS TO ,.- .- gNEFIT THE RESIDENTS, .EXISTING , AS WELL AS NEW. IT S'REM.S TO` I+;,,` _ TFIr ONLY BE10FITS HERE ARE FOR JAMES CHOW AND CITY REVENUE:, WliTf.E OVERLOOKING THE 15 PLUS YEARS MYSELF AND ' THE OTHMI _- FESIiiENTS n;3 THIS BLOCK ,DAVE SUPPORTED THE UNINCORPORA` °ED AS WFLL TNCORPORATED's` WHERE IS OUR SUPPORT NOW? KATHLEUN...FAI3 9245. Cc- LTOLdWOOD WAY' ` ", ALTA LOMA , CA.' '93 7 (1 SEPT- 22. 1990 D {jAR RE: WILSON COURT PROJECT` - TRACT #13951 I AM WRITING Tf: YOU WITH THE CONCERNS I HAVE. AS A HOME OWNER OF 15 YEARS. 4T,IEN' T BOUGHT MY HOME 15 YFARS AGO, I LOOKF..D FOR OVER A YEAR TO FIND JUST THE FIGHT LOCATION WITH ALL THI . REQUIREMENTS T ,HAD IN MIND. I FOUND THESE AT 924:.' COTTONWOOD WAY ALTA LON. ,- i ACRES HORSE PROPERTY DESIREABLE GEOGRAPHICAL- WATER FLOW BRIDLE PATH SECLUSION LOW TO 9IL- TRAFFIC gURAL ATMOSPHIRF. VITFIN A CITY SETTING 2LIE CONTINUED APPRP'ALATED DOLLAR VALUE OF 'PHIS SETTING VANDALISM HA'S BEEN AT 0 1W DUE TO THIS SECLUSION. ALL PEOPLE OR CARS ON THIS STREET ;iRF 1•ST° "M RESIDENTS OR GUEESTS. TF NOT, ALL NEIGHBORS ARE ON THE ALERT ;_, "STRANGFP.S. WA HAVE HAD NO TRAFFIC P:,LIDENTS OR INJURIES ON THT:; ' STREET DUE TO THE LOW TRAFFIC. NOWT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE WILSON TRACT PROJECT. I -AM IN COUPLET E OPPOSITIONI THE OFFNING OF COTTONWOOD WAY Et�S'F' Or BERYL WILL' DRAST:CLY CHANGE ALL OF THE _,ABOVE MENTIONED CHARACTERIS''ICS OF MY STREET AND B.i LGHBJRhOOD. TIDE INr3RPORATION OF THIS CITY WAS TO BF.k.FI'T' THE RESIDEN'T'S, EXILZING AS WELL AS NEV., IT SEF14S TO ME -r THE ONLY BENEFITS HERE ARE FOR JAMES CHO*4 AM CITY RLViRJE. WHILF OVERLOOKING THE 15'`P US YEARS..I`TYSELF AND THE rS`ti R RESIDENTS ()N THIS BLOCK HAVE, SUPPORTED THE, UNINCORPORW 7,D AS WFLI. „ AS INCORPORATED!, IS OUR SUPPORT NOW. IZA-THLEEN FAIR 9245 COTTONWOOD WAY ALTA TAMA, CA. 9170 -�, fir •. .l L��� 111 rn ry +. ~nn SEPT. Zzr 2'4 1`990 DEAR zzet . THIS LETTEk IS IN REGARDS TO THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED TRACT.. #13951, THE. "WILSON COURT PROJECT ". I AM OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, 1. THE CONVERSION OF COTTONWOOD WAY INTO1R PUBLIC STREET. 2. POOR, INADEQUATE DRAINAGE. t' 3. OVER- CROWDED CONDI''; I OL3S ON SI, RFACE STREETS . 4. HE OVER - BUILDING 41WDO "RAPE" OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. 5. LACK OF " OVER -ALL" Ul,!IBAN PLANNING. PLEASE RECONSIDER ANY i:;AND ALL) P ROrZSED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA. RANCHO CUCAMONGA :HAS ALREADY SUFR.ERF:D A GLUT OF OVER BUILDING, AND EXTENDED`DEVEIOPb0lT`WITHOUT REGUARD TO THE QUALITY OF PROPERTY OWNEIw, LIVING HERE PRIOR TO BECOMING A "CITY ". I URGE YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER YOUR DECISIONS. i {f lr SINCERELY, 1 SC ;-'IA J. DUNLAP 5255 COTTONWOOD WAY ALTA, LOMA,- CA= 91701 C t: Jf y G _ y, ::P • �n.thl2a�.a�E�.� / �Jl 1✓ 1, i Y _ SEPT.22,1990 DEAR THIS "'LETTEP ES IN REGARDS TO THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED TRA ^T #1395t, THE "WIL;.30N COURT.' PROJECTt °. I AM OPPOSED,= THIS ?ROJ,ECT FOR THE FOLyOWING,REASONS. I;' THE CONVERSION OF COTT,01,VOOD WhY. I11'M`O A PUBLIC STREET. 2. POOR, lriADEQTaTE DRAINAGE , 3. OVER-CItOWDED CONDIT ,ONS ON SURFACt is TREETS. 4. THE COVER:- BUILDING AND "RAPE" OF RANCHO CUCAMON GA. 1p 5. LACK OF," OVER -ALL" URBAN PLAX —RING, PLEASE RECONSIDER ANY (AND`ALL) PROPOSED D9VELOPA!ENT IN THIS AREA. RANCHO GvwA1K'WGA HAS ALREADY SUFF'EVED A GLUT OF OVER BUILDING. AND EXTENDED DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT REGUARD TO THE QUP.LITY OF PROPERTY OWNERS, TJVING HER : PRIOR TO BECOMING A M OTTY ". I URGE YOU ALL TO RECO14SIDER YOUR DE'CISIONS., SINCE11ELY , ���� "T" CYNTHIA J. tD- (��` AP 9255 COTT0146OD WAY ALIFi; 1--OMA, CA. 41701 ` ? r SEPT.22.1490 DEAF{' THIS LETT R IS IN RF ARDS TO TH� FOI-LOG YN = PROPOSED TRACT 013951, THE "WILSON COURT PROJECT ". I.,XX OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT Ft,R THE _FOLLOWING REASONS. 1. THE CONVERSION OF COTTONWOOD WAY INTO A PUBLIC," STREET., 2. POOR, INADEQUATE DRAINAGE. 3. OVER- CROWDED CONDITIONS ON SUR_YACE STREETS. (( 4. THE OVER -HU?LD NC-' Ate`. Y'RAPE" OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 5 LAUK OF OVER -ALL" URBAN PLnNNING qw PLEASE RECONSIDER ANY MIT, ALL) PROPOSED DEVELOPME -NT IN THIS . AREA. RANCHO CUC&ACiNGA ' HAS ALREADY SUFFERED A GLUT OF OVER BUILDING:' J;ND EXTENDED DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT 22EGTJARD TO THE QIIAC�tT.Y OF PROPERTY ,OWNERS' LIVING HERE PRIOR TO BECOMING A "CIT.X" \ I URGE YOU ALL TO RECONSIDER YOUR DECISTONS, SINCEP.ELY. C .. IA J. LkP 4255 COTTONWOOD WAY ALTA, 'LOMA, CA. 91.701 N SEP %41�4,9�"� September 23ti 1990 Ms. Subject: Wilson Court proiect - Tract #13951 I am writing this letter to state my opposition to the current plena for the Wilson Court Project. This tract is located on the.''so�:th -east corner of Wilson and Beryl.. The current plans call for the east /west road on -c he south boundary of the tract to be developed to Hellman, which is far beyond the boundaries of the tract. The part ctf this proposed public street,beyond the boundaries.of the tract is a private street ; --alled Cottonwood Way. I am a homeowner on Cottonwood Way and I am opposed to the conversian of this,street into _a public thoroughfare. Cottonwood Way has been a privatEl street since, its creation i fifteen years ago and all the homeowners invoived prefer that it remains a private street. There are already six streets above 19th Street that are open between Hellman and Beryl, and there certainly is not a'r_eed'for another one.. The reason the Nilson Court Tract plans call for converting Ccionwood Way snto a public street is obviously developer greed. mhroi,gh,. access to Hellman cou],d possibly make the homes more attractive. This is certainly not a good reason � to 'take land and valuable improvements trom the residents of Cottonwood Way. Another reason-,why I am opposed to the current plan for the Wilson Court Project is the flood control plans are grossly inadequate.: I am certain in the event of a major rainstorm I well be underwater. There is no place else for the water.-` from the east side oA the Wilson Court Tract to go but on 'cc) Cottonwood Way. I urge you to assist us in having the plans for the Wilson Court Project changed so Cottonwood Way remains a private - street and flood control will not-be a problem. Ask Daniel C. Dunlap 9255,Cottonwood Way 987`i469., t r ,,, September 23, 1994 Mr. Bruce Abbott ;J Subject: WilsrA Court Pro7e.ct - Tract 413951 I am writing this letter to state my opposition to the current plans for the Wilson Court Pro'Ject. This tract is located on the south -ea"t corner of Wilson and Beryl. 47the the south ` The current plans call. sastArest ,road on boundary of the tract to be developed to t3ellman. Fhich f( is far beyond the boundaries of the tract.`' The pai`rt _of VL. proposed public street beyond the boundaries of the tracill is a private street called Cottonwood Way. /l I am a homeowner on Cottonwood Way and I am opposed to �Ihe conversion of this street into a public thoroughfare. Cottonwood Way has -been a, private street since -ite creation - f_ifteen'yeara,`,ago and all the homeowners involved prefer that it remains a private street. There are already six streets above'19,r -h Street that are open betwean Hellman and Beryl, and there'' certaini'y, is not aneed for mother .one. ". The reason the Wilson C.iurt Tract plans call for converting CottG�vood Way into a public street is obviously developer. 1 greed`.. Through access to Hellman could possibly mace the homes more attractive. This is` certainly not a good reason to rake land and valuable improvement's from the residents, -f C ,ttonwood Way. J to the plan for((the Another reason why I rr opposed current Wilson Court Project is-'the flood cont ~ol plans are gros41Y -, inadequate. I am certain in the event of a major rairistotm I will be underwater. There is no place else for the water from the sass: side of the Wilson Court Tract to go but on, to Cottonwood Way. I urge you to assist us i'n E-aving the plans for the Wilson Court Project changed so'iCottonwood Way r6mzins a private street and flood control',will not be a pr blem;. = "` G' Daniel C. Dunlap 9255 Cottonwood Way 987-2469 �'" _i ci %y of Rancho 10000 Civic Center Dr.` Ranehr, Cucamonga, Ca. ATTN.' Srut e Abbott Planning Department Re: Pr ^poaad Development 413951 'tear Sir: -lie purp�„� of this letter is to inform the City of Ra -to Cucamonga of several potential problems that we have noticed due to the proposed development h, 13951 on North Beryl Avenue. Our address is 581a,N. Beryl. We are located on the southern boundry of this proposed development. First, the proposed development 94aPoses to develop an extension of Manzanita Street from Beryl to Hellman'_ It should be noted that the portion of this street that now con,ects with Hellman is a- private street and is currently in the process of being declared a Private Street by action of the local property owners. This fact has not been addressed by current plans. - 'vi -ond, the western portion of Manzanita, as now proposed, narrows from 2 lanes to one lane at a blind intersection. This situation just has to be considered an accident waiting to hap,.-en". The downhill slope of proposed "B" street would make the possibly of an accident even more likely. A vehicle failing to make a safe turn from "B" WAst onto Manzanita would wind up it my pasture, eyeball to eyeball with my pet Llama., When w at, the Llama will snit! Third, water flow down proposed "A" and "B" streets, due to the slope of the land will he flowing very swiftly. Measures to slow the water so that it can be controlled and directed into storm catch basins must be included into any development plan. Failure to do so, will result in serious flooding to our property and to the property to the South. Severe water dammage, resulting from the speed of flowing storm water was seen several years ago in Beryl Avenue. A hole some 20 feet deep and 50 to 60 feet long was created in Beryl Avenue when storm water went over existing street curbs. Fourth, the proposed development of Manzanita, as now proposed, will extremely impact the current use of our property. We have used this 2 1/2 acre parcel.as a horse ranch for about 2C years-, We raise and train registered quarter horses. We have used Tile back half of our Property' for training and pasture and continue to use it today for these purposes. A major road, with its necessary traffic and noise, will destroy this function. Training of young horses cannot be safely done next to a busy street. Persons walking along this street, especially children, will be tempted to trespass and or disturb the horses causing Potential severe liability and injurep[ptaiems for the children, to n and for my wife ;nd I. Fifth, this de,,eiopmertt , it ,pox +t- + will e_•._,+t in thi, t i � , •a nr Avuntre in front of ,his cle.,r4cpm.rt. ,Tht. wilt -rtng will ult in the portion of the i iaht of wav in t �u- hcrrn and the homa of mw neitihm�c�r to the iavi1b to i 4* ..),,?,:t into E?T ..1 Avenue ,:rt>ating a traffic- It iS '?ur urtderst,anding that cit•r policy states�ihat when such a : :onditio i *feveloos t,nat the city -ill cause this, type `rte `ia:z�rd to be removed:' This:- ;•em�val will creat'`tremendous _ Problems to both our property and our neighbors property- %1 Th,� current gradfig and elevation of our property will require that current driveway approaches to be removed and redesigned.` Because of tr -a e?.evation differences between the road and our building lots, the driveways are ,lust barely negotiable. By widening Beryl Avenue the existing driveways would not be passable with either cars, truc,%s, or horse trailers. If the driveway were to be relocated, this woulo. require the existing homes to be hooked up to sewer lines. the'..haneing -` of existing water and natural gas lines,`and thy` placing underground of electric sr•vice and cable zervice. The c:-,wst of the abov6 mentioned improvements will be of great concern to me and my neighbor.. Sixth, it has been pointed out to us that this proposed l development will include the filling in and rerouting the existing storm drain, It should be noted that th -:s storm drain has carried huge volumes of water in the past. We are aware that Army Corps of Engineer Projects in the area have remover; sorie of the water that used to use this channel., No�,jk\ver, , with the recent development and this new davalopment` Add ; tional water volumes.taill be generated:" A review of the general sio'pe -of the-land wi.i show that if this new drain: were to fail, the potential for tlery severe flooding could be very high. This flooding would not only affect our property by the property of .almost everyone SQutn - and East of this proposed project. This storm drain 'BUST bR er;gineered with great care. We have personal.',, witnessed the volumes of water that has come through tht channel. The e -xisting channel is LARGE FOR A VERY GOOD REASON! As you can see, due to the above mentioned reasons, this proposed project, as now designed, places potentially large financial, and liability burdens upon our property and us. This project. if approved and completed as designed, will cause my wife and I to change _the us%N of our, proper_t-y, subject us to potential water and auto dammage, and "subitict us to the constant traffic noise just 52 feet from our bedroom window. We feel that this''is far too, much to ask of an existing property owner. We as concerned property owners strongly urge that the Planning departmtp not approve th" " "d @ve'opment asi currently presented. We WZll1l be happy to Taos w!v'h the deve tiler, the city staff or anyone else to correct,the above mentioned We would al 6 reque -t that our <,�imF� alp- .i c•n any m.a11inq LL•_ts to be Lnformad �.* any and ;1' . evelooments rpgardiny I.hiz proposed development.' f -)ur >-istance in -this matter wi,',1 be _ireatly appreciated. " 51 nt_eral . clive.,Wl W arner roPert Y Owner f. _819 N. ee- Y1 all, , Rancho Cucamonga, Calif::- 91701 �- - n " ll I l r �, ... O RANCO CUC�il`x ..,. .; (. PM1.it11Si'R TJO SEP 2 G 1990 9258 Cottonwood Way W, tR Alta Lama, California 0•41ti1�1i121�1�• Sept. c4, 1990 - ri city of Rancho Cucamcnge 1050P Civic Center .Drive ? Rancho Cucamonga, Calif 91730 - Subject; Froprxsed Tract No. 13951 This letter'is in ree,Ziect to subject matter. I am quite concerned with the tiavel.cement and would like the Following impact questions answered. Subject tract has my street biting re -named from ,f Cottonwood Way to Hanzanita Street. A. The Following facts are Yeirg submitted For your review. - 1. The Cottonwood Way in front of IyW_ bwse was named, by Alice Lard with instructions- 'il -cm Chet San Bernardino Read Dept., Engineering Section. The reason was quite Functional.;-It lined upl_rith the then present Cottonwood Way at the approximate corner of Beryl and where this new Cottonwood Way will -cuma out. Mpnaanita is approxmrtely one 'city block south of this.,present Cottonwood Way. With this new neme°superceding the prarIjent Cottonwood Way, it will contrl'bute to the ever present delema aF one (1) street with B different namee. a. The present name should not be chsraed� Ay impecr From a name change, will be approXimately Two Thousand Gcllars for now let4,erheads, R. and other stationery that I hmve env�'on had fc:9- `the past IS years. a. Cottonwood Way is a private road and I was assured that this road,wculd stay arivate. I had the present improvements built with •. own physcial labor as well as my money. I par ad the road private IS years ago, and ouch a your I z,ase the road IoFF to all people and vehicles, just to solidify my ownership. 3. Subject land that thils tract,-is being built -:on was designated in preliminary p snnira_6'y tha San Bernardino Co. Punning Dept ae, l sore lots. 'Ay property was therefore subdivided to {�aese Ypecifications. Now this person is trying to build *4 acre lots (more or lesa), then in my opinior. eaten an.� every lot should not''be less then % acre- `lest' , Thn ';raFh�c. snd noise by this new dewd±'lopment on : then 3i acres lots is just: contributing to the e.iar G' increasing. dema,ids of the small -`H' -llmsn Ave. carridor running south from this tract. Just how many square feet does such 'and every lot have? Lots must have a minimum of BQ,000 Square fear, in order to keep the traffic count duwe:. for atract bui}dar. no exceptions should be given. 4. Water Flow From the Demans Char2nel must as diverted all t%e way to th->i main flood zontrol. channel, and not unto present Surface streets. if ;ct >planned correctly, Beryl Avenue will once again be fLoo'ad as it was cnc�;.before, a-z Hellriiarr ra,e - vtill me .,t the same Fate down, by foothill Blvd. Lives ware lost then, and liveta will be los.L.'agsin by the improper planning of this critical tract locdt;.anz that In _ a tremendous watershed at the present with its+ grape, vines in place. S. The bridll 'oath through the tract must be gipbronta_d -., by the tract developer. I der.' went to secs zna' homeowner blo ^,k his part of the bridle path, and make the rest of the path non functional. S. The proporne bottleneck at approximately 100 yards east of Beryl and Cottonwood will cause havoc on night:ims drivers, and w:,ll certainly put the develops :, arui the CIU -, ci_� Rancho Cucamonga liabler for any and',,/all, accidents th�k certainly will 5e caused becs;Lse of tho pres6it )proper design �ICF the bot• :lenec'k road. This can and should be alleviated by invurtisig the 1 section that hQs the cul do sac located in "tr;,, south west section of the tract that butts up to %tee presaent Cottonwoid ' Way. Instead o`'" '�umpXng all the touffi,_ ,ind water to the present Cot oMW4- . j way, Jost have the cut -,do sac empty to the north. 7. WXII the util!ties be underground? S. Drainage ch-" is muczG be properly used to drain this Watershed. a. Will roofs; be til =.d For fire protection? These and -ither quastiores are what are my cancer►1s about the impsc ,!�, that this tract is hr+vjaing t -p" my naighhcrhood. I � Christine "' . lung ' 0701 -02 o AUGUST 14 5 1991 P. C. AGENDA o 6 of 7 � "- e city of Rancho Cucamonga at r. Planning Commissi-= Mer:hers P.O. Box 307 Raa.z.._ ^%__amouga, Ca 91729 Oear Mr.John Melcher: k'EChla;� " Ctty OF RA ",G,.9 c.uCar +ONG< +9 JUN19 in P4 �0�1gt���►��3[��3°�°5 s June 1 °. 19a' I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma) since 1957. I have seen many changes in our community; some good, and some not -so -good. We are trying to preserve our little bit of paradise; by not stopping grpwth, but making it more considerate for the ones who are already living there. The majority of the people in the City engineering Dept. do not LIVE in Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma). They live elsewhere in the Inland Valley, yet they are making recommendations and .dictating the way the residences of Alta Loma should live. The engineering Dept. has made a proposal to the Planning Commission r,:h ?ch is solely in the interest of the Engir.�ering department, and has nothing to do with t:a people who live there. I am talking about the Proposed Wilson Coau:t Development Tr?.ct #13951. The Engineering Dept. has scommended one plan, and t~1.9 residences of the surrounding �•*ea ai:e DEMANDING the alternate plan. The .Engineering Dept. dares i:ot LIVE here. They don't have a CLUE as to the water flow, r.oita, pollution, and other city functions in our area ... they 4an't live here'.!! Unfortunately, I think there has been enough RAPE of what was once, a wonderful, lively, small town community known as Alta Loma. It's time that our city officials listen to the people who he and not be lean or persuaded by a bunch o book worm Deng neers, who care nothing about the original hilosophy of our community—and who DON'T live there. Please creep ine advised as to any decision made during your "Review Design Committee" meetings. It seems to -ie, that those "closed" meetings are making 3 lot of decisions about my li-e, and my lifestyle. I should at least, have a say -so in the out come. PY.gi4 E M"Wr THE ALTEMTE PLAN FOR THE WILSON COURT PROJECT TRAM 13551: �- Sinncerely, i4J 'u Q &� �� tr AlK6tuftX 6� % QQ• �� Cyn. -ia. J,. lap. M.= A 1 • t. 0 l `-- f L.J 11 The City of Rancho Cucamon =n atrn: Planning Commission V embers P.g'. Bex 9:)7 Ra.1chT C_:^amcnga, ',a 91739 Jun, -L9. 190', Dear Ms. Suzanne Chi + -ea: I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga (alta Lop since 1957. I have seen many changes in our community; soma'good, and some not -so -good. We are trying to preservo our little bit of paradise; by not s'.Opping growth, but making it more considerate for the ones who are already living there. The majority of the people in the City engineering Dept. c'o not LIVE in Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma). They live elsewhere is the Inland Valley, _et they are making recomn:sndations and dictating the way the residences of Alta Loma should live. The engineering Dept. has made a proposal to the Planning Commission which is solely in the interest of the Engineering department, and has nothing to do with the people who live there. I am talkiig about the proposed Wilson Court Development Tract #13951. The Engineering Dept. has recommended ons plan, and the residences cf tie surrounding area are DEMANDING the alternate plan. The Engineering Dept. does not LIVE here. They don't have a CLUE as t' the water flow, noise, pollution, and other city functions 4.n our area ... they don't live here!!! Unfortunately, I think there has been enough RAPE of what was once, a wonderful, lively, small town community known as Alta Loma. It's time that our city,;officials listen to the people who have to live then , and not be lead or persuaded by a bunch of book worm engineers, who care nothing about the original philosophy of our community—and who DON'T live there. Please keep me advised as to any decision made during your "Review Design Committee" meetings. It seems to me, that thoze "closed" meetings are making a lot of decisions abo,it my life. and my lifestyle. I should at least, have a say -so in the out come, THE AiTEi3NA,TE PLAN FOR THE WILSON COURT PROJECT M°$3952. P° 13 Sincerely, C t unlap, M ,, c CHQ CUCAay..,.. JUN19 CITY t^.r =a.• - A JUNI. , r The City. of Rancho C:;cs:nc -n =1 attn: Planning Commis -__:: Remh•ers P.O. Box 907 Ranch-: Cucamonga, ^_a 91%29 ?ure 19, 19,11 Dear Mr.McNiel: I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma) since 1967. I have seen many changes in our community; some good, and some not -so- good. We are trying to preserve our little bit of paradise; by not stopping growth, but making it more considerate for thy: ones who are already living there. The majority of the people in the City engineering Dept. do not LIVE in Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma). They live elsewhere in the Inland Valley, yet they are making recommendations and dictating the way the residences of .Alta Loma should live. The engineering Dept. has made a proposal to the Plariing Commission which is solely in t . interest of the Engineering department, and has nothing to do '.tip the people who live there. I am talking about the proposed WI -ion Court Development Tract 513951. The Engineering Dept. has recommended one pL n, and the residences of the surrounding area are DEMANDING the alternate plan. The Engineering Dept. does not LIVE here. They don't have a CLUE as to the water flow, noise, pollution, and other city functions in our area ... they don't live here!!! Unfortunately, I think there has been enough RAPE of what was once, a wonderful, lively, small town community known as Alta Loma. It's time that our city officials listen tv the people who have to live there, and not be lead or persuaded by a bunch of book wore: engineers, who care nothing about the origi;_al philosophy of our community ... and who DON'T live there. Please ke;:p me advised as to any decision made during your "Review Design Committee" meetings. It seems to me, that those "closed" meetings are making a lot of decisions about my life. and my 1' tylo. I should at least, have a say -so in the out come. AWMfift THE ALTERNATE PLAN FOR THE WILSON COURT 1)4 IE74eA 74 Ab,,E �3 11 q S'ncerely, Cy Ilia J. D lap, M. Ed! a 1 -D W AvOfeg *t;l IIJ& Koen��, b The City of Rancho Cuc:,n•s 9a 3ttn; Planning Commissioa Members P.O. Box 807 Ranch Cu 7amonga , Ca 91729 Dear Ms. Betsy Weinberger: A At .Tune 18, 1991 ; I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma) since 1967. I have seen many changes in our community; some good, a-td some not -4o -good. We are trying to preserve our little bit •if paradise; by not stopping growth, but making it more considerate For the ones who are already Jiving there. The majority of the people in the City engineering Dept. do not LIVE in Rancho Cucamonga' (Alta Loma). They live elsewhere in the Inland Valley, yet they are making recommendations and dictating the wait the residences of Alta Loma should wive. The engineering Dept. has made a proposal to the Planning Commission which is solely in the interest cif the Engineering department, and has nothing to do with the teople who live therm. I am talking about they proposed Wilson Court Development Tract #13951. The Engineering Dept, has recc.mmended one plan. and the residences of the surroun4ing area ere DEMANDING the alternate plan. The Engineering Dept. does'not LIVE here. They don't have a CLUE as to the water flow, noise, pollution, and other city functions in our area...they don't V ve here!!! Unfortunately, I think there has been enough RAPE of what was once, a wonderful, lively, small town community known as Alta Loma. It's time that our city officials listen to the people who have to live there, and not be lead or persuade3 by a bunrh of book wozm engineers, who care nothing abot,t tare original philosophy of our community... and wbo DON'T live there. Please keep mG advised as to arty decision made during your "Review Design Comittee" meetings. It seems to me, that those "closed" meetings are making a lot of decisions about my life, and my lifest Phould at least, havo a say -so in the __. come. ALTZE97M PLW I= 9.ft WILSON COURT T. Gt•�� �Zc�i`'GlJ = ..�sys'L incerely. TJ �..� nthia Dunlap , �, The City of Rancho Cucam , .ga attn: Planning Commissicn : ?rbers P.O. Box 807 qW Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 9172 June 18, 1991 Dear Mr. Tol ztoy: I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma) since 2957. I have seen many changes in our community; some good, and some not so good. I Zruw up in the old "Dunromin Ranch" on Amethyst and then later on bought, (and still own) the Alen house on Lomita Drive. My children went to s;hool here and my first husband died here. You, were my Chaffey College counselor and your wife Ann, taught me at the PDC in Upland. As you can see, I still line in Alta Loma, only this time I live on a little street known as "Cottonwood Way ". We are trying to preservo our little bit of paradise; by not stopping growth, but making it more considerate for the ones who are already living there. The majority of the pe`.ple in the City engineering Dept. do not LIVE in Rancho Cucamonga (Alta Loma). They live elsewhere in the Inland Valley, yet they are making recommendations and dictating the way the residences of Alta Loma should live. The engineering Dept, has made a pr?osal to the Planning Commission which is solely in the interest of the Engineering departnant, and has nothing to do with the people who live there. I am talking about the .proposed Wilson Court Development Tract #13551. The Engineering Dept. has recommended one plan, and the residences of the surrounding area are DEMANDING-the alternate plan. The Engineering Dept. does not LIVE here. They don't have a GLUE as to the water flow, noise, pollution, and other city functions in our asea ... they don't live here!!! Unfortunately, I think there has been enough RAPE of what was once, a wonderful, lively, small town community known as Alta Loma. It's t.,Lme that our city officials listen to the people who have to live there, and not be lead or persuaded by a bunch of book worm engineers, who care nothing about the original philosophy of our community ... and who DON'T live there. Please keep me advised as to any decision made during your "Review Design Committee" meetings. It seems to me, that those "closed" meetings are making a lot of decisions about my life, and my lifestyle. I should,at least, have a say -so in the out come. PIS, M THE ALTM►TE PLAN FOR THE WILSON COURT PROJECT TRACT# 13951. o RECEIVED — - CITY OK V oil pJy�U`N29 ��@ +Nat291A MW a • Sincerely t�XIIIIIIIIII gthia J. Dunlap , M. Wk It r 71 L RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF 2HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13951, A RESIDENTIAL SUDDIVISION 07 30 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND RELATED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 51 -28, ON 23.45 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNIT /5 PER ACRE), LOCATED NORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE;; EAST OF BERYL STREET, AND WEST' OF HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1062- 111 -03 THPsjUGH 06, 1061 - 761 -03, AND 1062- 061 -01 AND 02. (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL) A. Recitals (i) George Chou has filed an Lppl£ cation for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13951 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 14th of August 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. B. Resolution. r NOW, THEREFOREy� it iw 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 tru3 and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 14th, 1991, includinn written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows (a) The application applies to property located east of Beryl street, want of Hallman Avenue, and on either side of the proposed Wilson Avenue extension with a street frontage of 420 feet on Hellman Avenue and 670 feet on Beryl Street an4 a street frontage of 1,300 feet along the proposed Wilson Avenue, and is presently vacant. (b) The property to the north and went of thc- subject site is developed with an existing church facility, the property to the south of the site consists of existing single family residences, the property to the east is vacant but approved for single family residential ('Tract 1 7-'10), and the property to the west is existing single family residential to the south of proposed Wilson Avenue, and vacant but approved for single family residential (Tract 14207) to the worth of proposed Wilson Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 1.^.951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 3 (c) The project, with the recommended conditions of approval, ` complies with all minimum development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and (d) The development of 30 single family units on 23.45_acrea of land is consistent with the very Low Residential land use designation of the General Plan; and (e) The proposal, with the Community Trail along Wilson Avenue is in compliance with the Master Plan of Trails and the objectives of the Equestrian Overlay District, and (f) The vacation of an existing offer of dedication for Mustang Road and its replacament with Wilson Avenue is consistent with the General Plan; and (g) The subject site has 77 heritage trees„ 49 of which the applicant has proposed to removes. (h) The property is bordered on-'the west by the Demens Craek drainage channel. (i) The subject'site iii inhabited by a mated pair of Ped- Tailed Hawks. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the speclfic findings o' facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development code, and specific plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General `_an, Development code, and specific plans; and (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision in not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife' or their habitat; and (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and - (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. '1 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RES:'rOTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 `CHOU Augunt 14, 1991 Page 3 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been 'reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a mitigated I.egative Declaration. S. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 abo", this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Staxicsrd Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Engineering Division- 1 ) The existing ,overhead utilities ( telecomrunications) on the project side of Hellman Avenue shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontages extendino'to the first pole off -site (north and south) prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. In addition, an in -lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of, the utilities on the opposite side of Hellman Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the Final map. The fee shall be one h4lf the difference between 'the undergrounding cost of, the utilities (electrical) on the opposite side of the street minus these (telecommunications) on the project side times the length of the project frontage. 2) The existing overhead _ utilities (telsc:=unications and electrical) on the project side of Beryl Street shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage to the first pole, .,off site (north and mouth) prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may request -a reimbursement agreement to -- ,recover one -half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. 3) Construct Community Trails on the south side of Wilson Avenue, ,and on the east side of Meryl Street. 4) Sidewalks shall be constructed on one side of the interior public *treats as follows: is PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, TENTAT -'VE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 4 a) North'side of Wilson Avenue, b) North side of "D" Street, c) °West side of "B" Street, south' of Wilson Avenue, d) East aide of "S" Street, north cf Wilson Avenue; and E) South side of "C" Street. S) Both a standard parkway with street trees and sidewalks and a local trail within Lot "A" adjacent to the parkway, shall be:.provided an the north side of Wilson Avenue between Beryl Street and tPee west boundary of Lot 17. Provide a 12 -foot parkway,, trail surfacing and;, fencii?g, and a ground cover buffer between thM'� two, Co the satisfaction of the City Engineeji. and City Planner. Provide a eeparmte irrigation system for interim City maintenance which can be turned ovit to the s cent property vsmer upon development.. 6) A good faith effort shall be mzde to grant Lit "A" to the owner of 'A.pN 1061 - 76101 to the north. If successful, a bat line adjustment to merge Lot "A" with APN 1061- 761 -01, shall b� ' recorded prior to or concurrent with the Final Map. If not su4'cQSsful, Lot "A" shall be dedicated to the City in fee. 7)' Construct: ",B" Street along the east tract boundary south of Wilson Avenue and "A" Street along thm south tracc bo,''?dary full width, including street lit jets. - ' Off -site parkway improvements on the'`,outh and east sides of those streets may be deferred until development of the adjacent propsrty.;_,The developer may request a teimbursament agreement for improvements south and :taut of the centerline of those streets from future development on the adjaeeat properties. 8) Beryl Street shall be widened, to 22 feet measured from - the centerline, from the project's north boundary to Manzanita Avenue. The - developer may request reimbursement agreements for off -site improvements from future redavelopment as it occurs south of the south project boundary. �� t� n PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. TENTATIVE. TRACT 13951 CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 5 l " 9) Thyfdeveloper shall be eligib'kw;15or the cseditte against anC' reimbursement from the Transportation Development Fee Fcr the middle 38 feet of Wilson Avenue and for the ultimate intersection geometrice at Wilson /Beryl and Wilson /Hellman in conformance with Ordinance No. 445. 10) If the easterly leg of the Wilson/Hallman" and /or the westerly leg o£. the Wilson /Beryl intersection exists or in under construction upon Final Map approval, the developer shall 'Install adequate traffic signaiization and %or signage to make Wilson Avenue the through street, to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 11) There zhail be no cross gutters across Wilson Avenue. , Provide an intersection drain in Hellman Avenue, and a lateral to tie stc,m drain in Beryl Street. 12) Construct Master Plan Storm Drain Tine 2F as' follows: t a) If a plan check for Tentative Tract 14207 has been initiated to divert.�Master Plan flows from a line 2E to line -t*, then line 2F sh!�ll be upcized to acct :,nnodate the additional tributary area and ;;Cite 2F shall be installed in Beryl Street from Sunflower Street to Wilson Avenue, then east on Wilson Avwnua, then north along the west project boundary to connect with the existing 48 -inch RCP near the north project boundary. The developer shall be eligible for fee credits and reimbursements for the cost of the portion designated a City's Master Plan facility in accordance with the City•e Storm Drain Master Plan policy. b) Otherwise, line 2F shall be installed in Beryl Street from Manzanita Drive to Wilson Avenue, then east on Wilson Avenue, then north along the west project boundary to connect with.the existing 48 -inch RCP near the north project boundary. The developer shall be eligible for fee credits and reimbursements for the cost of the portion designated a City Master Plan in accordance with the City's Storm Drain Master Plan policy. } kLANNING COMMISSION TENTATM TRACT 1395]; - CNOU �\ '- August 14, 1991 �( \ Pat e b 13) Storm drainage facility plans, inc'iuding t" spillway and overflow route design, shall be prepared by a Registered civil Engineer ar,d' approved by the City Engineer and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 14) The existing storm drainage facilities north of the project site shall be inspected by the City prior to approval of the storm drain plans. Unnecessary structures shall be removed and facilities which ds not meet City Standards shall be replaced. 15) Pro.':sions shall be made to accept drainage from all areas currently draining to the existing earth channel along the west project boundary. 16) Right -of -entry easements shall be obtained for the construction of off -site drainage facilities prior to Grading Permit issuance. 17) Provide a flood wall on the south side of Wilson avenue opposite the overflow path for the public storm drain north of Wilson Avenue. 18) Provide. an overflow path within the public storm drain easement and private trail easement along the want tract boundary of--Wilson Avenue to conduct 8100 overflows in the event of blockage of the pipe inlet north of Lot 12. 19) The existing San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) easement within and south of Wilson !.venue shall be purchased: from thu SBCFCDt prior to Final Map approval. The porvion of that easement north of Wilson Avenue shall be reduced to what is necessary for a pipe system, as ;allows, prior to Final Hap approval: aj The easement to be retained shall be purchased from FCD and deeded to the City; b) The surplus easement on -site shall be purchased from FCD; c) The surplus easems— on the property to the west shall be purchased frcm F=-, and deeded the and Aft to underlying property owner; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 — CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 7 i �l d) SBCFCD a,; the City shall enter into an agreeme,' ; regarding the operation and mainteiince of Xhe storm drain between Demons Basin No. 2 and Wi {?on Avenue. 20) Driveways on corner Lots 3, 7, s, 10, and 22 shall be located as far from the intersection as possible to reduce conflicts with traffic turning right. 21) All drive approaches for local traY'Te- `rheall be located on local streets. 22) All trail crossing of public streets shall be located at intersections. Plannijs Division:` 1) The equestrian trait in the ncrthweet section of the tract shall include a public overflow easem3nt which shall be maintained by -the City in the event of an actual overflow occurrence.:. 2) The drive approach for ,zhd local trail '.n Lot 30 should be deleted and a `step- through detail shall be provided. 3) A local equestrian trail shall be provided between Lots 28 and 29 (15 feet wide). if this location is not desired, an alternative would be the provision of a local trail on the south aide of Lot 30 extending far enough to the east to _allow safe vehicular access to the trail. The trail design (i.e., corner cut -offs) shall be reviewed to provide adequate turning radii. 4) Trail crossing& shnil be provided where trails crams the public streets, including the connections across Beryl Street. 5) The right -of -way area on the north side of the "C" Street cul -de -sac between. Lots 5 and 8 shall be left open to allow equestrian access between the local trails for these two ';lots. in addition, a disclosure statement shall lie provided to the buyer of hot 5 indi±ating thnlft- this area is to remain open and ii All not be landscaped or blocked off in any way. if 1 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CROU August 14, 1991 Page 8 Ft A textured, standard trail crossing shall be provided across Beryl Street "'on both the north wne, south sides of Wilson Avenue. A similar crossing shall also be provided across Nilson Arsnue on the east: side of Beryl Street. 7) Any manhole eovers located.jLthin private local trail easements shall be either 'buried underground or covered with wood or neoprene for equestrian safety. 8) Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishrant of a Mello - Roos Community Facilities District pertaining to the project site to provide in conjunction with applicable school district for the construction 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 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, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello -Roos community Facilities District within twelve months of the date of approval of the 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. 9) Pursuant to arovisions 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 (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and ,osted with the Clerk of 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, togaath. r with any required handling chrrges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with L stamped and conformed copy of the NOD together with m receipt showing that all fees have been paid. g' � b O LI pLANNXNG COW(ISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 1395I - CHOU August 14,��1991 Page 9 10) Tree Removal Permit No. 91-28 is hereby approved subject to the following: a) The Coast Live Oak true shall be preserved in place in accordance with the recommendations of the arbariat's riport. of February 27, 1989, which include filling the Demens Crank chauntA with sandy loam or loamy sand, removal of deadwood by an arborist, and removal of the treehouss. The applicant shall -xstain ar- arborist who shall conduct periodic on-site inspections, the preservation of the Oak tree. Tho arborist shall review the grading plan, prior to issuance of permits, and shall report to the Planning Division their findings and recommendations. Further, the arborist shall re-lospect the health and condition of the Oak true prior to issuance of any grading or building permits and one year after completion of the tract, and shall prepare a report to the Planning Division of their findings and recommendations. b) The following 28 trees shall be preserved In place or transplanted in accordance with the recommendations of the arborist's report of February 27, 1984: 1, 2; 3, 4, S, 6,, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 29# 36, 37, 38, 44, 54, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, and 77. c) Trees to be preserved in place shall be enclosed vith a construction barrier an required by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cod* Section 19.08.110, and clearly noted an any grading plans. d) Infested wood shall k-1 chipped, removed and buried at a dump site or tarped to the ground for minimum six months, sealing the tarp edges with soil, to prevent emerging borer bustles from rainfunting other trees or wood. e) The win-drown within the site (45 trass) shall be removed and --replaced with 15-gallor. Eucalyptus waculata at 8 feet an center. The location of replacement truer. fe PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. n TBh7ATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 10 shall follow the ez3sting alignment, whenever possible, and shall be shown on the final landscape plan, which is subject to review ;,nd approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. £)' The four remaining trees proposed for removal shall be replaced with the largoet grown nursery stock available, And hair locations shall be shown on the final - landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by •tbr-�Icity Planner, 11) night -of -entry shall be obtained 5or the tree preservation work associated with tho Oak trP.o prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.' 12) A curb shall be located betwoen the terminus of Cottonwood way and Manzanita - and -- .- 3e4orat ve masonry wall shall he constructed along the south side of Manzanita subject i6 review and approval by the City Engineer and City Planner. 13) A decorative masonry wall• shali be located along the east side of lb- Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and City P1,, nner. 14) Prior to the issuance of any pe:-mits and prior to the removal of any "roan, a biologist or crithologist shall be retained by the applicant. The consultant shall verify thh location of the birds and their nesting i patterns and prepare a raport in&icating the impacts this project will, have on`,ths birds' habitat. Mitigation Mtasure4 anti a` monitoring progra�a shall be developed. to address this Issue. The applicant shall bear the full cost of this condition of approvai. 6. The Pecretary to this - Omminsion shall certify to the adoption of this Resolutloa. ;i ''PY•A& 11 i COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. '3ENTATSVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU A;agust 14, 199& t, Page 11 APPROW D AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY O$' AUGUST 1991.. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIT °',OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ` ATTEST., Brad Buller, Secr,-stary I, Brad Buller, Secretary if the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cer.iiy that the foregoing Reeolut£:dF"yas duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Pla ning Cc mnis7s, on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by the following vote - {o -wit: AYES: COMI MIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT; COMMISSIONERSx L4 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOIUTION OF THE PLM''NINS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAY.NGL, CALIvORNIA, APP," PING ',LENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 130SI. A RESIDENTIAL SUBDi..'ISION OF 30. SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 23.45 ACRES OF LA:i'r IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN' 2 DTA- LLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED NORTH OF MANYANITA DRIVE, EAST OF BERYL STREET, AND WEST OF HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS N SUPPORT THEREOF - APR: 1062- 111 -03 THRourH 06„ 1- 61 -03, AND 1062- 061 -01 AND 02•_.(ALTERNAI'R "A "), A. Recitals. (i) George Chou has filed ern application for tLe app,oval of Tentative Tract Map No. 1391 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in thln. Resolution, the subject 'Penn viva Tract Map re'vest is referred to as "the applcsrtion, (ii) On the 14th of August 1991, the Planning Commission of --he 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 Resolutiona 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 nereby specifically findo that all of the facts sat forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidenca presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing en August 14, 1991, including written and oral staff roports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as £ollaus: (a) Thr application applies to property located east of Beryl Street, west of tallman Avenua, and on either side of the proposedk Wilson Avenue extension w:th a street frontage of 420 feet on Hellman Avenue and 670_ feet on Beryl Street and a street frontage of 1,:x']0 feet along the p 000sed Wilson Avenas and is presently vacant. (b) The property to the north of the subject site is developed with an existing church facility, the property to the mouth of the site consists of existing single family residences, the property to the east is vacant but approved for single family residential (Tract 13930), and the property to the west is ezisttng single family reAdential to the south of proposed Wilson Avenue and vacant but approved for Jingle family residential (Tract 16207) to the north of proposed Wilson Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIOA NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 2i�: (c) Tho project, with the recommended conditions of approval, complies with all minimum development standards of the City. of Rancho Cuc,monga; and (d) The development of 30 single family snits on 23.45 acres of land is consistent with the Vary Low Residential. land use designation of the General Plan; and (e) The propoeal, with the Community Trail along Wilson Avenue is in compliance with the Master Plan of trails and the objectives of the Equestrian Overlay District; and (f) The vacation of an existing offer of dedication for Mustang Road and its replarzment with Wilson Avenue is consistent with the General Plan; and !g) the subjcct siti has 77 heritage trees, 49 of which the applicarz has proposed to remove. 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 Comanissioa hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (b) The dssigti or improvementu of the tentative tract is consistent with the General P1al, Development Code, and specific plans; - and (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environman::al lamage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat= and (e) The tentative tract. is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through cr use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and 2 considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a mitigated Negatives Declaration. s� r LJ 171 PLANNING COMMISSION AESO=( ',NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 — CHCy - August 14, 1991 1,;ige 3 5. 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 condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Engineering Division: 1) The eaiating overhead utilities (telecommunications) on the project side of Hellman Avenue shall be undergrounded along, the entire project frontage extending to the first Pole off -site (north and south) prior �o public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. In addition, an in -lieu fee as contritution to the future undergroundinq of the utilities on the opposite side of Heilman Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the Final Map. Tti fee shall be j one half the difference between the !l undergroundinq coat of the utilities (el*:-ctrical) on the opposite side of the street minus those (telecommunications) on the project side tines the length of the project frontage. i 2) The existing overhead utilities, ( telecommunications and electrical) on the project `side of Beryl Street shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage extending to the first pole off-eite (north and south) prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever; occurs first. The developer may request a,�;eimbursement agreement to recover one -half tbr2 City; <adopted cost for undergroundinq from future development as it occurs on the opposite aide of the street. 3) Construct Community Trails on the south side of Wilson Avenue and on the east side of Beryl Street. 4) Sidewalks shall be constructed on one..iside of the interior public streets as follows: a) North side of Wilson Avenue, bl North side of "D" Street, c) West side of "B" Street, south of Wilson Avenue d) East si .' "B" Street, north of Wilson Avenue, and e) South side of "C" Street PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 ti Page 4 r: J111 5) Botk= a sw. ncard parkway with street trees and sidewalks and local trail within Lot "A" ad -,.icent to the parkway shall be provided on the. north side of Wilson Avenue between Beryl Street and the west boundary of Lot 17. Provide a 12 -foot parkway, trail :surfacing and fencing, and a ground cover buffer between the two, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner. Provide a separate irrigation system for interim City maintenance which can be turned over ,-moo the adjacent property owner upon development. 6) A good faith effort shall be made to grant Lot "A" to the owner of APN 1061 - 761 -01 to the north_ If successful, a lot line adjustment f to merge'Lot "A" with APN 1061- 761 -01 shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the Final Map. If not successful, Lot "A "- all -be dedicated to the City, in fee. 7) Construct B Street along the eaxt tract boundary south ( of Wilson Avenue full width, Including street lights. • Off -site parkway improvements on the east side of that street may be deferred until development of the adjacent property. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement for improvements east of the centerline of "B" Street from future development on the adjacent properties. 8) .,,Beryl Street shall be widened to 22 teat measured from the centerline from the project's north boundary to Manz nits Avenue.' The developer may request reimbursement agreements for off -rite improvements from future redevelopment as it occurs south of the south project boundary. 9) The developer shall be eligible for fee credits against '- and reimbursement from the Transportation Developmeat Fee for the middle 38 feet of Wilson Avenue and for the ultimate intersection geometries at Wilson /Beryl and Wilson /Hellman in conformance with Ordinance NO. 445. 10) If the easterly leg of the Wilson /Hellman and /or the wester °y leg of the Wilson /Br_vyl intersection exists or is under construction E PLANNING comissiON'REsop=6N No'. TENTr,1'IVE TRACT 13451 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 5 upon Final Map approval, the developer shall install adequate traffic signalization and /or signage to make Wilson Avenue the through street, to the satisfaction of the'City Traffic Engineer. 11), There shall be ro cross gutters across Wilson Avenue. Provide an intersection drain in Hellman Avenue and a lateral to the storm drain in Beryl Street. 12) Construct Master P1'rl Storm Drain line 2F as follows; a) If a plan check V r Tentative Tract 14207 has beer. initiate! to divert Master Plan flows from a line 2E to line 2F, then line 2F shall be upsized to accommodate the additional tributary area and line 2F shall be installed in BeT *yl Street from Sunflower Street to Wilson Avenue, then east on Wilson Avenue, then north along the west project boundary to connect with the existing 48 -inch RCP near the north project boundary. The developer shall be '21igible for fee credits and reimbursements for the cost of the portion designated a City J Master Plan facility in accordance with tLre City's Storm Drain Master Plan ;policy.. b) Otherwise, line 2F shall be installed in Beryl Street from Manzanita Drive to'ailson Avenue, then East on Wilson Avenue, then north along the west project boundary to connect with the existing 48 -inch RCP near the north project boundary. The developer shall be eligible for fee credits and reimbursements for the cost of the portion designated a City Master Plan facility in accordance with the City's Storm Drain Master Plan policy. 13) Storm drainage facility plans, including the spillway and overflow route design, shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 14) The existing storm drainage facilities north of . the project site shall be inspected by the City prior to approval of the storm drain plans. PLANNING CO)MISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATYVE TRACT 13951 - C$OU,,, August 14, 1991 Page 6 Unnecessary struct yes sham, be removed and facilities which 'do not meiat City standards shall be replaced. 15) Provisions shall be made to accept drainage - from all are €z currently draining to the existing earth channel along the west project boundary. 16) Right -of -entry easements shall be attained for the construction of off -site drainage facilities prior to Grading Permit issuance. - 17) :Provide a flood wall ou the south side of Wilson Avenue opposite the overflow path for the public storm drair' "north of Wilson Avenue. 18) Provide an overflow path within the public . storm drain easement and private trail easement along th-. w tract boundary north of Wilson " Avenue �to'cond:uct Q10D overflows in the event of bloc"ye of'the pipe4nlet north of Lot 12. 19) The existing San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) easement within and south of Wilson Avenue shall be purchased from zhe ;sBCFCD prior to Final Map approval. The portion of that easement north of Wil—n Avenue shall be reduced to what is necesa0i6,f for a pipe system, as follows, prior to Final Map approval: a) The easement to be retained shall be purchased from FCD and deeded to the City; b) The surplus easement on -site shall be purchased from FCD; C) The surplus easement an the property to the west shall be purchased from FCD and deeded to the underlying property owner; and d) SBCFCD and the City shall enter into an agreement regarding the operation and maintenance of the storm drain between Demons Basin No. 2 and Wilson Avenue. 20) Driveways on corner Lots 3, 7, 9, 21, and 26 shall be located as far from the intersection as possible to reduce conflicts with traffic turning right'. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 CHOU August 14, 1931 Pag3 7 21) All drive approaches for local trails shall be incated on local streets. o' 22) All'trail crossings of public streets shall be located at intersections. Planning Divisio 1) The equestrian trail in the north west section of the tract shall include a public overflow easement which shall be maintained by the City In the event of an actual overflow occurrence. 2) A step - through -- detail shall be provideo:at the intersection of the community trail and the local equestrian trail to Lots 18 and 22. 3) A standard gate (Detail 1008A) shall be provided from Lots 24 and 25 to the adjacent community trail. 4) Sections R -P and Q -Q shall accurately refliect the community trail standard of a 5 -foot AM parkway, 12 -foot trail and 3 -foot landscaped area. 5) The �arrja on the north side. of the "c" Street 4u-t a -sac between Lots, Fi s nd 8 shall be left open to allow equestr `ra�, access between the local trails for these two lots.- In addition,'' a disclosure statement shall be provided to the buyer of Lot 5 indicating that this area is to remain open and shall not be landscaped or blocked off in any way. 6) A textured, standard trail crossing shall be provided across Beryl .Street on both the north and south sides of Wi;ison Avenue. A similar crossing shall also be, \provided across Wilson Avenue on the east side a�f Beryl Street. 7) The local trail at the northwest corner of Lot 24 shill be eliminated '.lace a local trail directly adjacent to -a G,mmunity Trail is undesirable. Rather, a star t Ord gate from Lots 23 and 24 to the Communitp. '� Trail shall be provided. �\ 8) The southerly vier of lots shall be provided with a perimeter wall along the south boun$ary and local trail fencing along the north of the trail. 70 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 8 9) Any manhole covers located within private local trail easements shall be either buried underground or covered with wood or neoprene for equestrian safety. 10) Prior to the 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 district pertaining to tho project site to provide in conjunction with applicable school district fore the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. Hotaever if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the Annexation of the pru'�sct site into the territory of such existing district prior to the recordation of the final map or tha Issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has nbt formed a Mello -Rocs Community Facilities District within twelve months of the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map ;fir issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. 11) 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 (i,) the N: ?tics of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmer`al action is filed and posted with the Gierk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Came 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 provida the - Planning Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD together with a receipt showing that all loss have been paid. Cl 21 12) Tree Removal Permit No. 91 -28 is hereby approved subject to the following: VW X47 tj „ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 9 a) The Coast Live Oak tree shall be preserved in place in accordance with'' the recommendations of the arborist's report of February 27, 1989, which include filling the Demens Creek channel with sandy loam or loamy $and, removal of deadwood by an "` arborist, and removal of he treehouse. ' The applicant shall retain an-`arborist who ';shall conduct periodic on- site' inspections _ to super*ise the == preservation ��Of the Oak tree. The arborist shall= review the 6A'ding plans prior to isr�ance of permits and shall report their findings and recommendations to the Planning Division. Further, the arborist shall re- inspect the health and condition of the Oak tree prior _ to issuance of any grading or building permits and one yerr after completion of the tract and shall'prepa_e a report to the Planning Division of their findings and recommendations. b) The following 28 trees shall be preserved in place,or transplanted in accordance with the recommendations of the arborist's report of February 27, 1989: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,. 8, 13, 14, 15,, 16, 27, 29, 36, 37, 38, 44, 54, 69, 70, 72, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, and 77. c) Trees to be preserved in place shall be enclosed with a construction barrier as required by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and clearly st8ted on any grading plans. d) Infested wood shall be chipped, removed and buried at x dump site or tarped to the ground for minimum e,,ix months, searing the tarp edges with soil, to prevent emerging barer beetles from reinfeating other 'trees or wood. e) The windrows within the site (45 trees) shall be removed and replaced with 15- gallon Eucalyptus Maculata at 8 feet on center. The location of replacement trees shall follow the existing alignment, '\ whenever possible, and shall be shown or 'Aft the final landscape plan, which is subject to review and; - ",approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Fr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 - CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 10 f) The four remaining trees proposed for removal shall be replaced with the largest grown nursery stock available and their location shall be shown on the final Landscape Plan to be reviewed and approveu by the City Planner. 13) Right -of -entry shall be obtained f-�, the tree preservation work associated with the Oak tree prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 14) Prior to the issuance of any permits and prior to the removal of any trees, a biologist or ornithologint shall be retained by the applicant. The consultant shall verify the location of the birds and their nesting.. patterns and prepare a report indicating the impacts this project will have on the birds, habitat. Mitigation measures and a monitoring program shall be developed to address this Issue. The applicant shall bear the full cost of this condition of approval. 15) A decorative masonry waiil shall be located ^a3" ink along the east side of Street subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and City Planner. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RP.NCHO 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 aSopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regplar meeting of the Planding Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by tha following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: �73 COTT ®R DEPARTMENT OF r9AMCNO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VTUM NO W �1 6 W - ,An' MUTT I I *t PROJECT #: �1t 15 615 ( SUBJECT: f 41e- 4u.At,_w 5tc$ctt lt4s'm / �•iGn f'�(�uJ APPLICANT: PSG Ot, LOCATION: N(D lleryl tG ma-i i Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING WIMION , (714) 989 -1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOi.LOWING CONDITIONS: A, Time UmIts 1. Approval shall expire, un>azz extend A by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued orapproved use has riot commenced within 24 monthstromthe date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review sha;f be approved prior to / t . 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of _ V 4. The developershallcommence, participate in,andconsurtmateorcausetobecommenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District (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 speciiirations of the Rancho Cummonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the Distric a property upon completions. The equipment shag be selected by the District in a—cordance with its needs. In any tuildirlg of a station, the developer sW1 comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shalt be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. _ z S. E Prior to recordation of the final map or the Issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or par icipate in, the establlshmar;t cf a_ Mlelrs -P-4:. Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, N arvy school district has previously established such a C�.%mnx;n'rty Facilities District, the applicant shall, In the alternative, consent to the Lnnexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District priorto the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes fit i. Further, it the affected school district has not formed, Mello- Ror►sCommunity Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the 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. 77 SC -2191 1of12 compledco _.J—J, P.,. ,— :. 1 i -3QS) C.omdedai Date; This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreeme nt to privately accu,nmodaie any and all school imparts as a result of this project. 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of wilding permits when no map is involved, written certiiicatan from the affected water ill hat adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposes project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such tatter must have been issued by the water district -within 90 days priorto final map approval Inthe case ofsubdivisionorpriortoissuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. S. Site Development _ 1. The site shall be developed and maintx'ned in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architecture -elevations, exterior materials and actors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the condiPors contained herein, Development Code regulationserO 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. Occupancyof the facility shall not commence until suchtime as all Uniform Building Code anc State Fire Marshall's regulations have been compiled with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safet3 Div :skm to show compliance. The building shall be inspectted for compliance prior tc / o=pancy. ✓ 4. Revised site plans and building elevations Incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall br submitted for Cltj Planner review and approval prior to dssuance of building permits. 5. Ail site. Urading, landscape. drrigaiion, and street improvement plans shall! becoordinatedfo consistency prior to issuance of any permb(such as grading, tree removal,encroachmerl building , etc.), or prior to final map approval In the case at m custom lot subdivision, o approved use has commended, whichever comes fkst. 6. Approval of this request strati not waive compliance with ail sections of the Developmer Code, all other applicable City Ordinarma, and applicable Community Plans or Specifl Plans in effect at the tune of Building Permit issuance. 7. A detailed on -site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Sheriffs Department (989 -&611) prior to the Issuance of building pemft. Such plan shalt ;ndicate s:, le. Illumination, bca wn, height, and method of shieidong so as not to adversely affect adjwfim properties. V 8. it no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pi(* -up shall be forindfAclual units with all receptacles shiWed from public view. 9. Trash receptacles) are required and shall meet Ctty starxfatds. The final design, lorutoor.-, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Plarxter review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 10. All grouno•�,rlounted utility apiridenances such as transformers. AC condensers; etc., shalt be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, atKVor landscaping to the satisfaction of the Cry Planner. �_7S SC - 2/91 2 of!2 11 _J--I J_J Jol —1 —Is —J_J _L_/ _J--J— J-1 Y C. Building D9slgtn 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hal water for all dwelling ur. s J� and for heating any swinlrring pool a spa, unless other alternative energy systems age demonstrated to be ofequivalsn ' capacity and efficiency. A9l swimming pools Installed attra time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall t"n included in the buii(*.V plans and shalt be submitted for City Planner review and ap,,tuval prior to the issuance of building permits. i 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with arcWvturaf' — 1---�— treatment, detailing and increased delineation of Surface treal►nent subject to City t4lanner review and approval prior to issuance of buIL , ar its. 6 SC - 2/91 3 of 12 all \O.: 1 1 iSI.J 4 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with COMPdsdon Drte the adoated Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be Identi,; in a clear and Cone?:;e manner, _J —J including proper Wumination. 13. A detailed plea indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, *hall be submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior toapprova►of street improu4Rment and grading plans, Developer shall upgra+'.e and construct all trails, including fencinu and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. / V 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( CC& R3) shalinotprohWd the keeping ofequine _J—/— animals where zoning requirements forthe 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 homeowner' associations for amendments it, the CC &Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) and Andes of Incorporation of the _I—J Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map cr pub: to the issuance of buiidinC permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 16. All parkways, open areas, and iandscapingshall be permanentlymainfnlned bythe property _J^1 ----�L 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 aixd approval prior to issuance of F-!ilding permits. S/ 17. Solar access eassmerr=.; shall be dedicatsd for the purpose of assuming that each lot or — I ---F -- dwelling unit shati havr, the right to recerve sunlight across ad,►acerd lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration V. Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded cencarrentiy with the recorftlon of the final :nap or issuance of permits, whichever Comes fiat. The easements shall prohttdit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to DsveMxnent Code Section 117.03.116D -G-2. _ 10. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. . Any further modifications to the site it duding, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or ire- loraiterationswhich affectthe extedorof the buildingsGr1ructures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstnlctlon of buildinlgs or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Woric Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Kstc is I Preservation Comrr'•zslon review and approval. C. Building D9slgtn 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hal water for all dwelling ur. s J� and for heating any swinlrring pool a spa, unless other alternative energy systems age demonstrated to be ofequivalsn ' capacity and efficiency. A9l swimming pools Installed attra time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall t"n included in the buii(*.V plans and shalt be submitted for City Planner review and ap,,tuval prior to the issuance of building permits. i 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with arcWvturaf' — 1---�— treatment, detailing and increased delineation of Surface treal►nent subject to City t4lanner review and approval prior to issuance of buIL , ar its. 6 SC - 2/91 3 of 12 �� �o:Ti"i3R5'1 Qm lnon Dam 3. Standard patio cover plans for use ty the Homeowners, Association shall be submitted 'or City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issLance of building permits. 4. All root appurtenances. inciuding air conditioners and other roof mounted squip -lent andfor projectiTns, shall be shieldedfrom view and the sound buffered f rom adjacent roperties arrd streets as required by the Planning Division. Such s::reening shall be architecturally if–Ograted with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the ^tty Planner. netaiis shalt be included in building plans. 0. Parking an,? Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) l 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain 2.12 -inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including cu7b). 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shag be -J—J— provided throughout the develoement to connr, rtdweilingstuniisibuildingswith open spazest INplazasvrecreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. All units shall be pro%,;Spd with garage door openers if driveways are less than 1g feet in --�- -� depth from back of sidewalk, S. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrictthestorageolmcreationalvehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for tare owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than In designated visitor parking areas. AUN B. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and JJ Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prlarto Issuance of Wilding permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landse:ape areas, refer to Siction N.) 1. Adeta. Iied landscape and irriL-ationplan, Including slope planting and model home landscap- --�- -1 Ing in the case of residential development„ shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuanceof funding permits or prior Anal map approval in the case of a custom lot sub livision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved In place shall be protected with a construction barrier J__.1_ inaco:i darmwiththeMu rkWCodaSectim19.08. Ito ,aredsonotedonthegradingplans. The location of those aces to be preserved in place and now locations for transplanted trees s hall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. Theahplici int shall follow all offfmarborisCs recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of_ ireespergrossacre, cornprisedol,thetol lowiingsizes,shallbepmvided - Jam— within the project: % - 48- Inch box or larger, % 36- Inch box or larger, %- 24- inch box or larger, %- 115- gallon, and %- 6 gallon. 4. A minimum of % of trees plarrit d within the protect shall be specimen size trees - 24 -inch box or larger. i S. Within parking lots, trees shall be plante(I at a rate of one tSalbn tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 5l.' °„ of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. -7-t SC -2191 4 af12 i 6. Trees shall ba planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 (!near feet of building. Adh _7. All private slope banks 5 feet or less In vertical height and of 5:1 or greaterslope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, in•igated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover fer erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall Includa a permanent Irrigation sysk,.In to be i :stallerr 1)y the developer prior to occupancy. V 3. All private sbp & ine :cessof5feet,butlessihan8fect invertiral height and of2 :1orgreater' slope shall be Iarx:% aped and iniggatod for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15 -galk n of larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub ner each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. in addition, slope banks in excess of B feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall al,o include one 5 -gallon or larger size tree per each 230 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shag 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 the developer prior to occupancy. 9. For single family residential devekrpment, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- ously maintained in aheafthy ardthrivingoondition bythe deveksperuniri each individual unit Is sold and occupied by the buyer. PrOrto releasing occupancy for those units, an 46spection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to deterr!ne that they are in satisfactory condition. 10. For multi - family residential and non- residentiat Jsvelopment, property owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of aft landscaped areas on -site, as well as contiguous pfam sd areas within the public right -of -way. All landscaped areas shall be kept tree from weeds and debris and awintafned in a healthy and thriving condition, and sha :I receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Arty caged, dead, diseased, er decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the U� i c' 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 panting. 12. The final design of the xrimeter parkways, walls, Wndscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shalt be subject to City. Planner review and approval : d coordinated iorconsistemy with any patkwway landscaping planwhich maybe required by the Enginee&...g Division. 13. Special landscaie features such as mounding, alluvial rods, specimen sits trees, meander Ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), ar.J Intensil[W. landscaping, Is required along 14. Landscapl% and lrrigaf6on "emsettWWWtobeirlstOadwih. inthepublic vigtt- of-way 4n the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintalned by the developer. _ 15. All walls shall be provided WthdeclowJvetreatment. M located in public maintenance areas, / t' is design shall be coordinated with t.4 Engineering Division. d 16. Tree maintenance criteft shah be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These armleria shall via the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 17. Landscaping and iffig;ation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles o' Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Curargnga Municipal Code. x_79 5C - 2/91 5 or 12 _..J —/, .J —/ ._ Yl_J JJ F. Signs .�TSl�3g51 Gm�eaon Oat' 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plar cs are conceptual only and not apart of thisapproval. �--/- Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by tr* Planning Division priorto installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and �--� approval prior to issuance of Wiiding permits. 3. Directory monumertc sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes I �� prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning iI Division prior to issuance of building permits. C. Environmental 1. The developersha9 pmvkia each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project ir, 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 Special Studies Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by ft City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on arry property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospect-I've buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project In a standard torrrat as determined by the City Planner, ,"r to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. A final rr..vsticai report shalt be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shad discuss the %yet of interim: noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and If app.` p-Jate, ve* the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation ,..4sures contained to the final report. H. Other Agencies OrY, ,. Emergency secondary access shall be provided In accordance with Rancfto Cucamonga -ire �--� Protection DisIft Standa -rds. 2. En* rgewy access shallbe provided, maintenance free andctear ,aminimumot26teatwide --�- -� at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. 3. Prior to ktsuance of building permits for comiruatible constriction, evidence shall be 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 aWicant shall contact the U. S. Postal Service to detormine the; appropriate type and location of trail boxes.:4tuR4- (amity residential developments shalt provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes annul the design of the overhead structura shawl be subject to City Planner review and approval prior . to the issuance of building permits. v� S. For projects using septic tarn facilities, written certification of ptability, inr,!uding all --1—� supportive imormation, shall be obtz:,nedlrom the S°an Bernardino t'•ourdy Department of Erraironmental Haafth and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of ilding perrrats. sc -1/91 &of 12 APPL ►.CANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 969 -1863, FOR OMPL[AN E VATH THE FOLLOWINC CONDITIONS: 1. Site Developmom t. The applicant shall complyWiththa latestadopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- cal 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. Prior to issuance of building permi'.s for a new residents. ^.1 dwelling unft(s) or major addition to existing unit( s) ,the applicant ahlJlpaydeveioprmer ; feesattheestablishedrate .Suchfees may include, but are not limitedto: City Beautdicatio • 'Be, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, 'Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are nrt lir9ted to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. *_ 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertracttparcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. PLQJ.= Vo.: 1 TI �I Comnletion'Nte, _I —/ 4. Exis'..ig StruMurea 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Coda for the property line clearances _!_J considering use, area, and fire - resistiveness of existing buildings. —2. Existing buildings shall be made to coq* with correct building and zoning regulations for --�—J— the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, fHI6d arxiforcapped to comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. A. Underground on -site utilities we to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform wilding Code, City J—�— Grading Standards, and accepted gr Ing practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. r 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundarles; a $ol Disturbance Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardino County DeparVnent of Agffculfttre at (714) 387 -2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of rough grading permit. 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at —�—J- thR time of application for grading plan check. S. Thefinall grading plans shall becompkied and approved pdorto Issuance of Wilding permits. JJ- f, 20 SC - 2/91 7 of 12 L3151 6. As a custom -lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on -she —J—J- drainage faciliies necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfacWn of the Building and Safety Division priorto final map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal at drainag9 .ater that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to E delineated and recorded to the satisiacttol ',,of thr, ' Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and Wilding permits. - c. On -site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdiviaed — J—�-- properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows ordering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit Is requested. d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be s ibn:ittted to the SuP ing and Safety --�—� — Division forapprovaf priorto issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an incremental or convnosite basis.? e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted planted with ground coverforemsion control upon completion of grading irsome other aftsmativc arethod of erosion ccmrol s4ialf be completedto the satislaction of the Building Official. in addition a permanent irrigation system shall be pro' ` �d. This requirement does rat release the applicantldeveloper from cemplirnce viah the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Developmen!'i'.ode. %PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (714) 589.3862, FOR COMPLIANCE dVITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L Dedication i W Vehicular Access t. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for ad interior public streets, rl_J- community trails, public pasnos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage facliftfes as shown on the plans andfor tentative trap. Private easements for ran -public facilities (cross -lot drainage, local feedertra4. etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans arniror tentative map. 2. DediraWn shall be made of the fo§*Ang rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centedne): 3 3 tatal foot on total feet on 11a 11 trio §!A ''Ave. total feet on total feet on 3. An irrevocable offerdtdedicationfor foatwideroadwayease ierdmnallbemaea �—�— for adl private streets or drives. _� 4. Non-vehicular access shat loo ed to 4ha Clt)r iar the tokowlr�g Sireot8: —1_J U ; %Sgr A do rn u� . f 5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided eniffuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs —a _ or by deeds and shall be recorded ooncurmtritly with the map or prior to the issuance of i building perrrlils, where no snap is involved. c7 i SC -2191 9of12 _V/ 6. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be provided andshallbe delineated or noted on the final map. __J_' J_ AWL qW 7. The final map Shall clearly delineate a 10 -toot minimum building restriction area on the _JJ neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language: 'IIWe hereby dedicate to the City of Ranc4 Cucamonga the right to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or otllerstructures) within those areas design{ tied on the map as building restriction areas.' A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the CO&R's. 4¢ 0. All existing easements tying within future rights -et -way shall be quitclaimed or del heated on the final map. V/___ 9. Easements for public sidawas:s and/or street trees placed outside the public right -of -way __J _.J— shall bd dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Additional street right -of -way shall be dedicated alongrlght turn lanes. to provide a minimum _I --- - of 7 feet measured from the face. of curbs. H curb adjacent sidewalk Is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easemerr, shall be provided. 11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required otf- stfe property interests necessary to construct the required public Improvements, and H he/she should fail to do so, tho developer shall, at least 120 days prior tol ubmittat of the final aW for approval, enter into an agreement to corrplete the irnpnovemerts pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such little asti e City acquires the property irnerestsrequirPdfortheimprovements. Such agreement shall provicia for payment by the developerof au costtr incurred by the City to acquire the off -site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the format a cash deposri In the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developeet; -cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of ft appraise!. M. SUM impirmi meats 11. t. All public improvements (interior streets, drakWe faS aft, community trails. paseos, _J__J.- landscaped areas, etc.) shown on" plans and/or iettativee map shad/ to constuuc ted to City Standards. Interior street improvemer2s shag include, but are not limited to, curb and flutter. AC pavement. :!rive approaches. skkMaM, street liflttts, and Streit trees. 2. A minimum of 26- toot wide pavament, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated rVhi- of-way shall be constructed for all hag -sWk)n staeats. _],! 3. Construct the foitowiftg perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: I __J_ j_ se SC - 2/91 .�'7T 12 Canpleea Dtie Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, side- walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) if so mari(ed, an in-lieu of construction ize shall be provided for this Item. 4. Improvement plans and- rmnstruction: a. Street improvemarit plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- —I ---- l- tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted ar+d ;m agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improve- mends, prior to final map approval orthe issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public Vght- of•way, fees shall be paid and a _ construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office In addition to any other permits required. C. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit _JI__J-_ shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduftwith pull boxes shall be installed on any new construction or reconstruction of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major secondary or collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR orarry other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: r1.J (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless ottterwiss epecittad by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3 -inch galvanized steel with pullrgW. e. Wheel chair ramps shag be installed on all four comers of frttnrsecdfons per City —��- Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roach requkifg cottstnxM*n shall remain open to traffic at all times with --J --- J- adequatedgtoursduringconstruc�b a. Ast atclosurapemlitmaybe required. Aush deposit shall be provided to cover the cool of g'g and paving, which shall bd refunded upon oofiVleti n ol the dD Wruct)on to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drain "ofiows shag not cross sidowaks. Undersidewatkdrains shag be _J--/_ installed to City StarKWds, except for shVW tan* lots. In. HandlM access ramp design shag be as specified by the City Engineer. I. Street names shall W approved by the City Planner prior to sLdxrwaal for first plan check. ._/_J— � a. Street irnproverneint ptana per City Standards for all private stresu shall be provided for J—J_ review and approval by the P lly Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pri- vate streets, fees shag be paid and constnxxlon permits shait be *Weed from the City Engineer's Office at addition lo any other permits required. 6. Street trees, a minimum of 1"allon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in ' a=rdance with the City's street tree program. e"3a 10 or 12 N. Public Maintenance Amu t. A separate set of landscape arui irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards --�—J shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map �nnmval or issuarwe of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: , le,ils®-A Rve_wM1 T r `) Stu 6phorew 2. A signed consent ape aaiverfor i to join and/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be f' - sith the City Engineer pdortof trial map approval or issuance of building permits whichever, ccurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. X3. All required public landscaping and Irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until ampted tt4 the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall contort to the results of the respective ! _ Seautitfcation Master Plan: 0. Drainage and Flood Control V✓ t. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Kuard Zone: therefore, `d I --�— t protection measures shalt be provided as certified by a registered CM Engineer "a approved by the city Engineer. I ✓ 2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone I _ ��- designation removed from the project area. The devoloWs iwgir"r shall prepare ai1 necessary reports, plans, and hyckobgiclhydrautic cali-mulations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to dial trap approval or issuance of building permlte, whichever oomirs first. A Litter of Map Revision (LOMB) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or Improvement acceptance. whichever occurs first 49 �_ 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 9`, c8' 7 SC - 2/91 it or 12 7. Icaersection line of site desgns shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with ; Cumolef:.x+ cafe adopted policy. a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted toy all project irdersections, —�-�- 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 noticeabildy improved, usually by moving the 2 +/-closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street tree easement.. 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the fotbwing right -of -way: — 9. All public improvements on the following streets shalt be operationua::j complete pour to the —�—�— issuance of building permits: N. Public Maintenance Amu t. A separate set of landscape arui irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards --�—J shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map �nnmval or issuarwe of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: , le,ils®-A Rve_wM1 T r `) Stu 6phorew 2. A signed consent ape aaiverfor i to join and/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be f' - sith the City Engineer pdortof trial map approval or issuance of building permits whichever, ccurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. X3. All required public landscaping and Irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until ampted tt4 the City. 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall contort to the results of the respective ! _ Seautitfcation Master Plan: 0. Drainage and Flood Control V✓ t. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Kuard Zone: therefore, `d I --�— t protection measures shalt be provided as certified by a registered CM Engineer "a approved by the city Engineer. I ✓ 2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone I _ ��- designation removed from the project area. The devoloWs iwgir"r shall prepare ai1 necessary reports, plans, and hyckobgiclhydrautic cali-mulations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to dial trap approval or issuance of building permlte, whichever oomirs first. A Litter of Map Revision (LOMB) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or Improvement acceptance. whichever occurs first 49 �_ 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 9`, c8' 7 SC - 2/91 it or 12 E�95e 4. A permit from the County Flood. Control District is required for work within its right -of -way. 5. Trees 5 feet of the outside diameter of any stone drain pipe Awb are piohibited within public measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. —�— 1 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 separate utility service3 to &, "ch parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, -electric power, telephone. and cable TV (ati underground) In accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be ;7,sponsible for the relocatlori of existing utilities as necessary. 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constricted to meet the requirements c. the —1--! Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bentardino. A letter of compliance from the COWD is required priortotinal map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q. General Requiromants and Approvals 1.The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into —J—� one aarc3t prior to issuance of buitSing permits. 2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or _J__j- Issuance Pf building pertttuts, whichever occurs first, for: 3. Prior to approval of the fins: map a depose shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of appoktlonicg the assessments under Assessment i3is#rict among the newly created parcels. �d. EtiwandaASan Sevaine Area Regkmal Mainline, Eftcondafy Regional. and Master Plan _J-1 -- Drainage Fees shall be Raid prior to tins! map approval or pftr to buWng permit issua.°tce no map is involved. I 5. Permits shall be obtakwd from the toftwing spric es tvrle!etk within tf+sek right -ot way: S. A signed consent and waly r fort to join andim forth the Law Enforcement Community --�—�— Facilities Dfaltici shy ,be fib wNh the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of bullding p`:�tmfits, whichever occurs first. Formation shall be borne by the Develaper. 7. Prior to firializat on of any deveta", n! phase, sufficient movement plans Shag be cem- pleted beyond the phase bwWarles to assure sgeonddaaty aw, and drainage protection to the satisfacWn of the City Engineer. Ohale boded. des shafi'ca�respond to lot fines shown on the approved tantative nmp. SC - 2/91 12 of 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTIONiOF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT' NO. 13951, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DESIGN REVIEW OF 30 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 23.45 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED �7ORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE, EAST OF BERYL STREET, AND WES; OF HELLM&a P_VENfIE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THERKOF - .�N: iG627-111 -03 through 06, 1061- 761 -03, and 1062 - 061 -01 and 02. A, Recitals, = \' (i' George Chou has filed an app)ication for the Design Review of_ Tract Nr. 13951 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter,; the subysct Design Review request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On August 14, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga bald a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the ad�iptton Cif 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 ail of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are t2_`a and corzect. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on August 14, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifics ly-finds as fellows: 1. That the, proposed project is consistent with,!) the objectives of the General Plan; and . I 2. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and 1 3. That the proposed design is in compliance w2th each of the applicable provisions of the Development Coda; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13952 CHOU August 24, 1931 Page 2 4. That the n roposed design, together wit'h 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. 3. Based upon the findings anA conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above,"this Commission hereby approves the application ;subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Stand•trd Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division: 1) chimneys shall receive detail that will provide variation between the four unit types. 2) Multi-pans windows shall be utilized at the sides and rear .of residences where large amounts of r-,lass arc not currently proposed, especially the large windows on the right elevation of Plan 2 cnd the window4i the left elevation of Plan 1. 3) The balf rot window detail at the right elevation of Plan 2 shall be removed. 4) The arch detail in the gables of the left elevation of Plan I and the rear elevation of Plan 3 shall be removed. 5) Rwireals; shr'll continue across elevations where lx)xsib`,e. 6) Roof tile with more tonal variation sq4lall be used. 7) The 4S degree angle at the roof corners of Plan 3 and 4 shall be replaced with 90 degree coxtiers. 8) Th,,LIA S-foot wall setback from the back of sidewalk on Hanzanita, Drive shall be dimensioned an the site plan and shall be drawn at a carrespondir.4 scaled distance of S f"et from the back of sidewalk. 9) Walls,at the corner side yards an the cast end a! Wilson Avenue shall return to the sides of houses. fr 27 El 11 J pq PLANNING COMHXSSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 13951 — CHOU August 14, 1991 Page 3 10) Landscaping on Wilson to Hellman and Beryl shal;;iamuiate landscaping on adjacent tracts.. 11) The design of the Wilson parkways shall utilise the approved street trees. 12) The Manzanita Drive parkway shall incorporate approved trees or an approved alternate street tree which ties in with existing tress. 13) All pertinent conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 13971 -shall apply. 4. The Secretary to this` Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED MIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING 662VIIMON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Setretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the PlanninSi Commission of the city of Rancho Cu ^amonga, do herW— certify that the foregoing Resolution Was duly and -- regd;:,krly introduced,' passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regil3r meeting of the :Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by the following voter-to-,wit'- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONMRS: t�`gR r DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT T41� " PROJECT #: -rT 13615 SUBJECT: 3O I o h1�Mw'G w��td: )(44ICA ri Ae2if ri i'PlJ(GG� APPLICANT: _ GO • Li{1 DU LOCATION: Q im GL�?�n i ►LiL :5 -In a:{�i �Q += Those items che_ked Ire Conditions of Approval. rPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 489.1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WiTK THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Umfts 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, d building permits are riot issued crapproved a':. has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. DevelopmentlDesign Review shall be ap; --d prior to 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. Is grali'�st,subjectto the approval of 4. The 4evelopershall commerce, partkAute In. and consurnrnate orcause to be oomrnonced. participated in, or consummated, a Melt -Roos Community Facilities District (CFO) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction andlor maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be 1='9d, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distrld, and shag become the DistrieYs propetty upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any bugdirq of a station, the deveicpar shat( comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shah be forted by the DWrk^t and the dove"_ r by the time recordation of the final map occurs. V5. Prior to recordatgn of the final map or the Issuance of *uNding permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall 0I to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mefio -Roos Community Facilities District for the constructiun and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Comrre,nity Facilities District, the appkAnt shag, in the alernative, oorrent to the annexation of the Project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the rwordatio^ of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes kst. FurMr, if the affected cctaol district has not formed a Mello -Roos Commrndy Faculties District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the Enai map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shag be deemed root and void. SC - 2/91 1 of 12 silstc 1_ , This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected scl-ml distric have entered ho ?n agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. 6. Prior to recordation of the final map cr prior to issuance of building p, .nits when no trap is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be avdilable to serve the proposed project shall be submWed to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water districtwithin90 days priortofinal map approval inthe case of subdWisionorpriorto Issuance of permits in the case of ail other residenl'at projects. S. Site Development � z t. 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 gradiry on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Developmetd Cade regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or bust ;wss activity being commenced thereon, oft _J_._./_._ Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 9. Occupancy of the facility shall not commanc e until such timeas all Uniform Building Code ard State Fire Marshall's regulations have bsen complied wRh. Priorto occupancy. plans shall 1 be submitted to the Rancho Ccscarnonga Fire Protectioa Disi.i and ft 3uUng and Safety Division to shout compliance. The butidi:-Nq shall be limpeLied for compliance prior to otxafpancy. 1/ / 4. Revised site plans and building elevations Incorporating all Cmidiieans of Approval shall be --J___1 submitted for City Planner review and aporevta ,prier to issuance of bui!dl- g pmots. V S. Ali site. grading, landscape, irrigation, and streetitrprwiement plans shall becoordinatedtor _- --f- -- consistency priortorssmanceof any perrrits (such as graiding.tree removal,ettcroachment, building , etc.). or prior tj� final map approval to the cars 1, a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever corner fast, J6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development _l _J— Code. all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific Plans in eft at the ti ne of RuiiOng Perm* Issuance. 7. A detailed On -side ti IIV p4iat elt9lt be revieywed 8W,appsoved iN OW Airy Planner and Sheff5 Department (S"I1) prior to the issuance of bulidina Obta ts. Such plan stuill indicate style. ttlumitration, fecation, height. and mothad of shielding so as not to advet .-ely / affect adjacent propertles. y S. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick -up shall be for individual units wilt+ -all receptacles shielded`fmm public view. S. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shr.1 meet City dandards. The Rnall design, iocatlons, --J--J- and the number of trash receptacles shat be subject to City PtW=f review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 10. All ground - mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers. AC condowrs, etc., shall_ - J--J be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a coaw- ation of corxr ar msonry walls, bermh -q, andlor landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Prang .. SC -7191 2of12 Mi -,,, a.No -rT'I3°t54 C ^nim- 11. Street names shalt 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 / 14. _3_ __l A detailw plan indicating trail widths, ma -cimum slopes, physical conditions, fendn -, and _./ 1 weed control, in accordarK -, with City W.. -ster Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval priortoapp roval and recordation at the FinalTract ?Asp atidprio. to approval of street improvement a M grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and cc aMruct all traits, Including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners hi subs'^ lsionsshall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to '.cards of directors or homeowners' at~sociplions for amendments tc the I Ct,&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCBRs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners, Association are sub* -t to th,9 Vlomvri of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded con wfferdly with the Final Map or prior to the isfnance of building permits: whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. v/ fu. All parkways, opei i areas, and Qndsca;Ang,,haN be pormariantly maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means aaeptahls to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall �)e submihed for City Planner aW City Engines review and Ailk approval prior to issuance of beruding permits. 17. ':;otar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuring that eac i lot or al—J dwelling unit shall have the sight to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or !Inits for use of d solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be moorded cor4ulrently with the recordation of the final map or, isrvance of permits, whichever comes first. The 9aseeme, °3 shall pmhth''W, the casting of shadcws by vegetation, stntctures, fixtures or any other objeet, exceat for utility wires and similar objects, !pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060 -G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The eke shall be developed and mairrained in accordance' ,Alt the Histo t Landmark Alteration Permit No. . Any further modific3ikm to the site including, but rrA limited to, exterior alterations andler interior afierations which af'fectthe exteriorof the buildin(- orstnfcturvs, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, re=strucdon of buildings;: s<„uctures, or tdrtngestoths site, shall require a fr edification to the Historic Landmark Aftidation Permit eubject to Historic Preservraeri Commission renew and apprwiw. C. Building Design 1. An r1emative energy system is required to provide domestic hot watei'or all dwelling units J �l and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless otheraltemative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency, All swimming pools installeS Vhe time of initial developmera ahali be supplemented with solar heatirq. Details shall be included in the txfilding piarts and shall be submitted for City Planar review and approval prior to the issuance Of buimirwg permits. 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations v,4aded %Wh architectural irealmertt, chiailing and increased delineation of surN a treatment subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of buiding permits. SC -2/91 3or12 C_ .TT13ri5 l C.xRnicurn n,�: —2. atandaM patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners, Association shall be submitted to City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All r4 of appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof vaunted equipment and/or _J-.1— projections, shall be sh13lded 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. I Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and vehicular Access (indicate details an building plans) 1. All p :Thing lot landscape islands shall Have a fnin.-um outside dimension of ti teat and shall contain a 12 -inch walk adjacent to the parking stall t'ncluding cui+a). - 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and texture ' pavement across c«culatlon aisles shall be J--/— provided throughout the developmerrttocone "actdwellings: initsliwiidings with c9enspaces/ plazas/recreaWnal uses. 3. Ail parking spaces shall be de.i Q suiped per City standards and Sit driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. g 4. All unit shall tv- 7vided with garage door openers if driveways are ' ;ss than IS feet in depth from from bL— irsidswalk. 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restr. A the storage of recreational vshicies J- -/-- -- on this site unless they are the princitral source of t1argrrtgt9on for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles (Aber than in designated visitor parking areas. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be subme!sd for the City Planner, dity Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protectio+t iaistrictreviow and approval priorto issuance otbuilding permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintalead laratteaps areas, retor to SoXon N ) 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, t.-clu ling slope planting and model home landscap- ing in the case of residential devek msrw, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submittedfor'City Planner review and approval pftto thelssuanceofbuiidirg permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subd6ision. _V 2. ExistingiressmquiredtobeptegefvOdi npt aceshanbeprntectedwkhaconstmo tOnbafrier in accordance with the Wnic pal Code Section 15.08. 110, and so rioted onthe grading plans.' The location of thosa trees to be preserved in place and now lo; ions for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans.. The applis anit shale follow all of tt!e arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods. 3. Aminlmumof tresapergroaaa cre. oomprisedotthefoliawingsizes ,shallbeprovided within the pro ar - E6- rxfi taox orlarger, % -36- Intl box or larger, % - 24 irrh box or larger, % - 15- gatbn, and % - 5 gallon. 4. A rninimum m, % of trees plan ft to ttltin the project shat( be specinnein size trees - 24-inch box or Iafger. S. Within parkirj lots, trees shall be planted at a rails of one 15 -0lon tree for every three _J_! parking stalls, suffic:�era to shade 50e1. of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. _ SC - 2/91 4 of 12 C�Ympkum Dace 5. Trees shalt be plarded in areas pl public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. --J --- r- 7. All private slope banks 5 feet orless in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated all landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. / V/ 8. All private slopes inexcessof6 feet, but less than 8feet in vertical height and of 2:1orgreater —�--�- siope strali be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and "o soften their appearance as follows: one 15- gallon or le.rger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of sfopa area l -gallon ,;urger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addWri, singe banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of skVs area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary sky)e plane.: Slope planting required by this section shat include a permanent irrigaWn system to be installed by the developer prior to occupar —y. irrigation be -l_ !- 9. 1,' or single family residential dovelopment, all Slope platting and shall continu- vislymaintained in a heafthyand thriving condition bythe developeruntil each isdividuall sdividualunit is sold and occupied hy the buyer. Prior to releasing oocugancy forthose units. aninspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 19. For multi- family residential and nose -residential devetspment, propertli owners are rosporr- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on -site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right -of -way. All landscapes areas shall be Mpt free from weeds and debris arty malrita?_^sd in a heatlhy and M&Ang condition, and shall reroaive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant materal shall be replaced withim 30 days from the date of damage. 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required par the Deveioprmnt Code and /or____,__ . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 12. The final dasgn of the perimeter parkways, waft.:, landscaping, and oldewalks shall be included In the required landscape plans and shall be sublet! to City Plattner review and approval and coordinated forconsistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the EngineerW Division. 13. Special Undscape features such a» mounding, alkwW rock, specimen size trees, meander- ---� —� ing sidewafi z (with horizontal change), and irdensdied tandiscaping, is required :long 14. Landscaping and iffigMion systems required to be Instalied within the public right -of -way on the perimeser of this pmjW area shall be cottlttuou* maintained by the developer. _V 13. Ali walls shall be provided wkhdocor We treatment. B located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with tits Engk*aiinq Division. d 18. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and sLtnifeed for City Piannor review and i approval prior to issuance of building permils. These crNo:da shall encourage the natural growth characteristice of the selected tree specieu. V/ 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be des, ned to ocnsetva Water through the principles of Xerisr ape as defined in Chapter 19:18 of late Rancho Cuter rwriga Municipal Code. SC•2 /9t 's12 0Z. • - -r-r_i595i F. Signs t. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and notapartof thisapproval. —�--J— Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division priorto installation of any signs. 2. A UnfformSlgn Program for this development shall be submitted forCity Planner reviewand - 4; 3roval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes �J 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 Sir% 'odc JJ- Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City P m9, rier, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. The developer shall provide each prospsctive toyer written notice of the City Adopted -- J---J— Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior W accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice, of the Foothill Freeway _J. —I project in a standard format 2s det(Inttined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a dish deposit on any property.. 4. A final acc5ustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the ,J_ _ / issuance of building permits. The final wpoll shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuationto below 45CNEL , the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if vpf ,iopriete, verify the adsquacy of the mitigation m3asures. The building plans will be checked Tor conformance with the mitigation measures c ofi:rin`�!n the final report. H. father Agencies 1. Emergency secondary amass shailbepmvkWinaccoVdar =W— .ihRan taCucarnongaFire — j---f— Prote*ion District Standards. 2. Emergency accessshafibeprovided, nWrttenartcefreeandcieer ,atitirtilnumof26feetwide at all all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cuca=rtga Fire Protection I District reequiremgnts. V 3. Prior to 'Issuance of buiWq pm is for combusts constr;ictan, evidence shall be, ssubmih'eni.►twa Rancho CCui; monga Fire ProtadlanDistrictthait rarywatersupplyfor fire protectim III avallable, perms con"tion of required fire po,'Wlon systsm. 4. The appdcaitt shall contac l: the U. S. Postal Service to astennine (fat appropriate type and IoMion ar tail boxea. Muhl -laff ft residential developments shall p;dvide a solid overhead structure frr mail boxes with adequ21e itghtktp. The final location of tht) mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be &&act to cry Piafaser reviaty and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. V 5. For pmjects using septic tank 0.3ciGties, wrren cortidicatktn of acceptability, including all -1-- -� supportive information, shall be obtained from ttt0 San Bernardino C^., attty Depaflrnent of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tarn Permits, and prior to issuance of buikft pemtits. SC - 2/91 S of 12 APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) s8s -1863, FOR O:LIArtCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1.51te Developmient 1. The applicant shall oomplywhhthe latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, aril 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 time Code Adoption Ordinance and /! applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwsliing unh(s) or major addition to existing unk(s). the applicant shallpay development fees at the established rate. Suchleas may include, but are not limitedto: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems DevefopmeM Fee, Permit and Man Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Prior to issuance of (wilding permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established. rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. J_.._J 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcei map eecordation _/l- and prior to issuance of building perrnits. J. Existing Structures ,. Provide compliance with the. Uniform Building Code for the property line Clearances considering use, area, and fire -resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shalt be made to comply with correct building and;rtoning regulations for —1- -- the intended use or the building sham be demolished. —3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filed and/orcapp^d to comply with the --1-1— Uniform. Plumbing Code and Uniform Buii ft Code. 4. Underground on -site utilities ire to be located and shown on building plans Submitted for building permit application. K. Grading 1. Grading of the subs (ooperty shall be in accordance with the UWfttrn Building Code, City –�--� — Grading StArKkmlds, and accepted gradietg practices. The final gradft plan shall be in substantial corkomtanw with the approved grading plan. j V 2. A ivft report shall be prepared by a qualified englneer licensed by the Statn of California to —��-- perform such walk. 3. The development is located within this Will arorifan control boundaries; a Sol Dislurbam m Permit is required.Pleasecontact San Bo ItardMCountyyDeparttnantofAgdoultureat (714) 387-2111 forpemat application. Documentation of such pem* steal be submitted to the City prior to the issuance 0 rough grading permit. 4. A geological report rhall fie prepared by a qualsled ellginw of geologist and submhted at -- �—�— the time of application for grading plan check. f e/ 3. The f inal grading pWns shall be completed and approved priorto issuance of building permits. J--J— -- 9cr Sc - 2/01 7 iii 12L 6. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shalt be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on- site -J--1— drainage facilities necessary?or dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Suilding aryl Safety Division priorto final asap approval and priorto the issuaxe of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water hat are conducted onto — J ---� —, 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 building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d. Final gradirn plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety __J J-- Division for approval priorto issuance of building and grad na pern ts. (This my be on an Incremental orcompovte besis.) e. All slope, banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shah be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon corWAtion of grading or some other a9temarive method of erosion control shall beooriv,,ke-tedtutnesatisfaction otthe Building Official. In addition a parmanent irrigation syi ern shall be provided. This requirement doses riot release the applicaMdeveloper from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.0401 of the Development Code. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER140 DIVISIOA'< (714) 9N-ttff32, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 111E FOLLOWING CONDPP NS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights -of -way and easements shall be dedicated lo the City for all Interior public streets. community trails. public pasros, publw _4w4scaps areas, street tw, surd public drainage facilities as shown on the plans andlor tentative map. Private oasem.,Xo for non - public facilities (cross -lot drasnage, local feeder trails, ate.) shall be rmried as fShQwn on the plans ,O andlior tentative map. Y 2. Dedication shall be made of ft foli6Mng d"-of-way on this perimeter streets (measured from street cientedne): torsi feet on tote) feet on dO Vbt saws �J� . total feet on total toot on 3. An Irrevoeal* offer of dedication for -foot aside roadway ealeiriert" shall be made for all private streeft or drives. a. Non-vehicuiar acasa shall be ad to the City for the fobo ift stivalis: _J—J S. Reciprocal access easements shat! be provided emrifq access 90 all parcels by CC &Rs --j— or by deeds and shall bs recorded corwrently with the map or prior to the issuance of buiidine permits, where no map is involved. � _ fit. SC•2191 acr12 6. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. — Am 7. The final map shall clearty delineate a 10 -foot minimum building restriction area on the neighboring lot adjoining the zero tot line wall and contain the following language: 9/We hereby dedicate ;o the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas design on the map as building restriction areas.' A maintenance agreement shalt also be granted from ecch lot to the adjacent tot through the CC &R's. All existing easementslyi- ;Within future rights -of -way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the final map. V11, 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outsidq the public right- of -wray shall P^e dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Additioaat street right -of -way shalt be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the Pace of curbs. if crab adjacent sidewalk is used along ;he right turn terse, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall tre provided. 11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the requiredoff- siteProperty interests necessary to consitic2 the required public improvements, and if he/she should tail to do so, the developer shag, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final r tap for approval, enter' into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section wU62 at such tim as tho C4 acquires the propery interests required forthe improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the -Q veloperof all costs intstrred by the Ctty AOL to acquire the off -site property Interests required in connec4ionwith the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall bs in the fonn of a cash deposit try tttr amours given in an appraisal report obtained by the devOoper, at developers cost. life appraiser shag have Usen approved by the City pelor to-commancernertt of tfte appra". —I —J_ --/--J— _/_ /_ 'I AA. Straat 1111prov6ments 1. An public improvements (interior streets, drainage fardl in, eorfrr nity traps, paseos, lardscaped areas, eta) shown on W plans asrdlor tents vs map snag its constucted to City Standards. Interior street impnovtimeras sahaG inck4e, blot are ry gmited to, curb and gutter. AC pavement, ftv approWleg, sidew&M, strut fights, and street trees. –2. A minimum of 26- foot while pavement, wgftin to 4t) -toot Solis dedicated right- of-way shall be constructed for 0 half -scion streets. __ 3. Constrttd the following perimeter street Improvements including, btit not Vmtted to: sC - _ /_ /_ --J--/— __./._ /_ SC -1/91 FD -z Notes: (a) Median island tne,udes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlar will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, side- walk shall be curvilinear pe ,TO.304, (d) If so marked, an in -lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 4. Improvement plans and construction: a. Street improvement plans including strew 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 satisfactioiz,of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private sttaeG--irove- ments, priorto final map approval orthe issuance of building permits, whichaver.— li= firzt. b. C. d. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of -way, fees shalt be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Er•.gfneers Off lee In addition to any other permits reclired. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, sheet name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the sattifaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit witrA dull boxes shall be instatled on any newconstnxXicnos reconstmvilion of major, secondary or collector streets whirh Intersect with other major, second-/ or collector streets for ft' are traffic signals. Oul boxes shah be placed on both sides br the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR oranyotheriocations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: (1) All puff boxes shall be fib. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Catdult shnl be 3-inch gatvanizcl steel with pulraps. e. Whoul Chair ramps shag be Installed on al four corners of initetsectlons oar City Standards or as d f*amd by the City Engineer. __J—J_ I— JJ_ J—/ JJ— I t. Existing City naafis reWkkq cortstnWimn shag remi n open to traffic at al times with JJ- adequate detoura during construction. A street dowtro pemlit maybe required. A cash deposit shall be pro>_Aded to cover Ow cost of grading aril paving, which shat be refunded upon completion of the eonatnuction to the sielaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shat not pose sfdewalss. finder skiewalc drains s`.al be _JeJ— installed tub City Standards, except for single family lots, In. Handicap access ramp design shag be as ttpet Tod by the Cly Engkiser. _ I. Street names SW be approved by the City Plarxter pdarto &&Mal tux lust plan cttecic. J /_ S. Street kriprovernant plans per City Standwds for all private streets s Wl be provided for _J_J— revierar and approv i by the City Engineer. Prior tL my work being parfrmed on the pri- vate streets, fees shat be paid and con8inxtion pera tte s Wt its obtained Ilmm the City Engines Wee in atklition to any other pem*s roWkW. 1 6. Streef trees, a t;,'vgmurn of 1S-ga)bn size or tatpar. shall be invaled per City Standards in _ — accordarxe with the City's street tree pirogmat. lobo/ D� 7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the C y Engineer for conformance won adopted policy. a. Jn collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for ai :.project intersections. —J-1— including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within t ~e lines of sight shall be a, 9roved by the City Engineer. b. Local residential street intersections shalt have their noticeability improved, usually by moving the 2 +/• closest street trees on each side awayfrom the street and placer, in a street tree easement. 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: —/_J- 9. All public improvements an the following streets shall bo operatioUly complete prior to the — issuance of building permits: N. Public Mafntcnance Areas 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public W ^dcs Standards —j—�- shall be submitter' 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, pasecs, easements, trails, or other areas are required io be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: Jai 1)Sor Ave" a . Sersi I f St. 6piwee,% WrI�Le it g3t1 Is+. 2. A signed consent and waiver form to;oin andlorform the appropriate Landscapa and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prlorto final map approval or Issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Fomsntion 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. t. Parkway landscaping on the following streets) shah conform to the results of the respective Bee 01ticatlon Master flan: j 0. Drainage and Flood Control t. The project (or ponk+ns thersof) Is located within a Flood Hazard Zone: "ierefore, !food ' J—J-- protection measures shat be provided as certftied by a registered CM Enpinesr and approved by 1-i Cloy Engineer. / I V- 2. It shaft be the davek)pers responsibift to have the current FIRM Zone designation MMOved from the project area. The dwetoWs anginear shall prepare aN nft@ssary reports. plans, and hydnologisfiydrauMc calculations. A Conditional letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA r4or to fkW map approval or issuance of build psm*s, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMB) shalt be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or imprnwement aaceRtance, whichever occurs first 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. -cq sC.a191 it or 12 !� 4. A permit from the County 1-40d Control District is required for work within dsngh, -ot way, S. Trees are prohibited within 5 tae, of the outside diameter of any put.-4c storm drain pipe - easured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 6. Public storm drain easements shall ba graded to convey overflows in the event of a —�--�- blockage in a sump catch basin on the, public street. P. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each p`n;el including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, efE ;trio power, telephone, and cSble TV' ;Halt underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be respons74le for the rekrcallon of existing utilities as mrewbey. 1 3. Water arK± sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to mast the rsquiremert's of the —�-1 -_ Cucamonga Count,! Water Oistrict (CCWO),,Rancho Cucamonga Mini Protection District, and the Environme6%,,4 Health Cepai tment of the Courci of San Bernardino. -"e-of com;,Oiar +rn the CZ.WO Is required prior to final map approvai or Issuar edvA permits, whichkn,m occurs fintt. C. t aneral Requirements and Approvels 1. The .separate parcels Wntalnod within the project boundaries shall be legally combtntxi into �J ono parrg1i prior to issuaNnee of b!riiding penmits. 2. An easem, it for a aftk use driveway shall 3e pmvWW prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever aCcu s first, for 3. Prior to approval of the t,nal map a deposit shall be posted with tine City covering the J� estimated cost of app miming the assessments under AssesaraM Oistrk;t iamortg fire newly Created parcels. 4. EttwandalSan Sevairfm "A Regiortsl Maittkw, Sow dW Reglortab and Master Plan Orainage Fees "be paid pear k Vial MV approval or prior to Wilding permit issuance if no map is irttvaivod. 5, Permits shall be oblawd from the toWng agencies for wont witfrirt heir fight-of-way: 6.A signed COnaeiit and W11111Wf0fM to rbin &Wor bm the Law Enforoen*ra Go nwriity Facilitfea tWlritx shall t n filed with the City Ettglnw prior to final mp approval ooFlh* issuartor} of bctitding Plllnn be t'41icttevt-occ= W. Formation Costs shat be bons by, the irsveloper. . Prat to frlllzatar of arty uievrilopettttett p`tass, sttlr cHrtt imp avoinent ptmritt shall be cone- _J_1— plated boyvafc'th9 phWN Aaurdaries k aSStire se ordaty aoM Arid tlra nap protection to the SAIslaction of the City:'.. Engineer. Pha s boundaries OW curaspord to lot tines stem on the approved tenttattie irap. SC - 2/41 ;. 12 of 12 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT �. DATE: August 14;":1991 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL A;k4ESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91 -10 BEN WEST - The request to allow auto sales and truck rentals withir. a leased space of 360 square feet in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9797 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208- 282 -05. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an auto sales and truck rental use. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Commercial buildings; Commercial Office District (Subaree, 3) South - Single family rez';ential; Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per sere) East - Commercial buildingst community Commercial District (Subarea 3) West - Commercial. buildings; =ommunity CoYLmer(,11a3,._ District (Subarea 31 - C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Commercial North - Commercial South - Low Residential i East - Commercial es_ ommerc a D. Site Characterist -co: The- site contains a total of 6,630 square faet of tenant space and 8 designated Parking spaces, there is no vegetation within project boundaries. Access to the site is taken from a frontage road a 4ectly adjacent to the south side or '7othill Boulevard. Dire U.y south of the project site is an alle., i-hat extends from Ramon4 ivenue to Archibald Avent±a, there is no actress to the site from :his allay. Tenant space is divided into va buildings, one building located along the erist and one bu'sldang located rtong the west property lanes. STEM S PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -10 - DEN WEST 'ugust 14, 1991 Pace 2 c. E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Auto Sales and 360 1/400 1 0.43 Truck Rental F. Applicable Regulations: The Foothill Boulevard SpaciZic Plan conditionally permits automobile sales and rental uses within the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3). ANALYSIS., A. Background: The project site contains an existing automobile sales use that has been in operation foL several years and was original3,y established as a aermitted ilge under County development standards. The City�s adoption of a Poothill Boulevard Specific Plan established that auto sales anti \,rentals within this district will require approval of a Conditiotta,'Use Permit. The existing use was determined to be legal and,- as such, could remain in operation provided th'.a use Was not fntem4fied and the use c.d not go out of operation for greater gran '180 days. The applicant has proposed an intensi:tication of tho existing business, hence, the requested application. B. general: The applicant expanded their existing automobile sales use by adding a truck rental (U -haul) use-, A full range of truck and trailer sizes are rented. The truck- �.jtrailers are stored at the front of the property in an area ringed by metal pasts and chain. Proposed hours of operation are 7;30 a.m. to ';;go p.m., Monday through Saturday. 'there are a total of four employees for the assisting auto sales use, no additional employees will be added for tho truck rental use. C. Issues. ues: The primary issuini related to locating this type of use within a commercial setting are compatibility with surrounding uses and availability of parking, The fo :Llowting sectionrs address and discuss these issues; 1. Compatibilityaf Uses: The proposed use is located within a strip commercial center located along the south side of Foothill Boulevard. There are a variety of automotive sales and body 'shops located to the west of the project site extending towards Archibald Avenue. Directly to the east of the project site is a relatively 'ilex commercial center contains a variety of ua s ,.such, a -: a bicycle shop, '3 ook storep gulf shots, and restaurant. D 0 PLANNING tOMMISSION CTAFF REPORT CUP 91 -10 - HEN WEST . +.: August 14, 1991 Page 3 Uses within project boundaries consist of the applicant's: existing Luto sales office and several aatomotivr repair and body shops. Expansion of the existing use to allow for truck rentals will. be in keeping with t3:e automotive orientation of project uses, therefore, staff believes that expanding the auto sales use to allow for a truck rental use will not create adverse impacts on surrounding uses. Nevertheless, to ensure control over use compatiblUty, the Resolution of Approval contains a c,:adition statingL- "If operation of the facility cakes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall he brought before the Planning Cortmtssion for consideration and possiblQ termination of the use," 2. Availability of Parking: This issue conzerns the availability of parking and additional circulation demands the proposed truck rLItal use would generate within project bor-tdaries. There a,)e currently five tenants within the cosplex occupying a tE \tal of 6,630 scnlare feet of tenant space. Parking for they;•terra is is provided by a designated parking spaces t' . 9,"�50 square foot gravel lot used for the random parking of veha',cles, additional parking spaces are available, although tot- 9kxiped, ;'-j front of the remaining tenant spaces. It appears that vaen the project site was originally developed, the'- , 70-foot, by 70-foot area, which is proposed for the storage of vehicles for sy a '2nd rent, 1c initially designated for required parking : »'ever., continued u,te and maintenance of the project site deleted these parking spaces and the area is paved, but iS_,!ti stripe w-,, The Development Code establishes a pArking requiviment of 1 parking space for each 400 square fe.`,of gross floor area and based upon existing gross square footage a total of 17 parking spaces are required within 'project boundaries. The applicant proposes to occupy 360 sglai8 feet and requires 1 Parking space, which is'providad dire•tly adjacent to their proposed office. Howexer, the applicant indicated that there will be foa employee- 'which will exceed parking available to them. To conpensrte for this packing discrepancy, the Resolution of Approval contains a condition requiring the applicant to provide 9 additional paved and striped parking spaces within p ;oject boundaries. Plans identifying, the location of thssl�,parking spaces shall be subAitted for City Planner review •and approval. D. Miscellaneous% The projecz:� site is located off a frontage road on the south side of Foothill Bc,ievard. Street `improvements, including curb and gutter were installed at the time of site development, however, sidewelk and parkway laxdscape improvements do not exist. City Ordinances do not impose sidewalk improverwehts ..- 27 '. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -10 - BEN WEST August 14, 1991 ,Page a for non- construction Conditional Use Permits. However, should additional paving become ncce'ssary for the additional parking spaces, the applicant shall submit a - Hiro:: Development Review application for review and ap. roval by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to its installation, at wh -ch time a conditicu for sidewalk improvements may be impised. Parkway landscaping, including street t>:.3es, shrubs, ground cover an ;l irrigat_cn shall be installed in the parkwd,, along the front,^.gi-road. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be (submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval, and "these landscape improvements sh+tll be installed pvior'zso the commencement of business activity. E. Fire District rosments: The Rancho Cu:awonV Fire District has reviewed request and indicated that a portable .fire extingu' -sear and sign are "required by the Uniform Fire Code. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT., Part I of +ae._Initial Study has been completed by the a.?pl3.cant. completed Part II of the i Environmental CheckliP_ and found no significant impacts on the czavironment as a rasiIt of t:his•project, FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Plan ;:in3 Commission musi: make the following findings before approving this applications 1. That the propose9 use is in acJorfAnce with the General Plan; Aft the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan subarea in which the site is located. Z. 71.at the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3< That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the oethill Boulevard Specific Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has b...n advertised as a public hearing in the Inland valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the pr(`perty has been posteO, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. PSCOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 9110 thrcagh adoption of the attached Resoluti.G:. Respec .y st ttte Bra le City .Manner _ BS:TG:mlg �_ 1 PANNING 61r,AISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91 -10 - BEN HEST Augu-it 14, '19.41 Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant _ l Exhibit "8" - Locatioa Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit `D" - Fire District C (,mments i Resolution of Approval Yfrl �Sr 1964 March 18,1991 Planning Department Rancho Cucamonga,Ca. RE; 9797 Foothill Blvd. The proposed ure of 9797 Foothill Blvd, is primarily auto - sales.. Secondarily a rental : ;onvt-nience. oui saes forcasts show maybe 70. to"9% of ou =' cu4tomer :base-. - ' There will be no additional employees rewired. The'yusineRs i hours of operation will b-I 7:30 A.M. until.- 7'E30P.M. Monday thruogh Satu >day. Aflk We leaeed the property with tha same inte?u -6 Al- mind as .did the previous owners r'. av%omot' ve ; sales aQk - rentaliu. Thank you in advance for -our, iAme --an4 cooperation. IT 12168 Mt Vemmn Alva. Grand Terrace, CA 92324 c Cl'I 1 783 - 330 it s� _ Ulul Inly ►� 1. ME a �a � ms's - _ uu \.� = 1►1+1 I r1 ;� � r s e �� �µi ` � �� ,�.�. an n spa �► lli 1 � n�n� ®��1I11111 Mull � ILIltlllu8lf ��._ lul 111.11 �'��n s� N MIN HUNION111111/ u,;;; u ull = •p/� :� .� r ��1111� 111 Hit t1y s r��1i .i11I►h un nn 1 1 41nn a �o � E� >• _1911_1♦ X11 1 t►. r ..�" ITEM: 1 d10 TY OF r;L i!'0', 'C UCAN ON%.; A ITME: lot PLANNING- DMSION 1 a C �. J EXHIEIT: SCALE: '10 x -7o Auto r d �N �dtak rmr' . 1 WNW LPL ?w ` 46 MY OF RANC UCAMONGA. TrTLc PLANNING DMSI ®N E�'Ft TO •c-- t'a✓!/'CK �6.�'1'TTw.aa� p �`2�Y1 �� AtA 71-9 )G Ar o _- SUBJECT 4 /� 1..0L�� rTit+H U' f (/! P � Dr'TC. r MEEE'AGF. TA S/t /llf �o'YT�er�ner G Yje G Y'..'1/40" P ct.;'A� to d`� a t.! TC7 1e g tic /t%. "Tell CA) SIGNED DATE / RgPLFOd"_, 45 4T2 SEwD PARIS AND a tKTACT . p:�),'l b'AK (5ti SETS) �tF iT2 PART 3 VRLL BS i U WITii R�1.V. A� n Z. of RL"1Si1CH&V' UCA178V1YGA PLANNING- DIEWSION ME Mdoi 7 r: TrrLE- �4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF TH PLANNING CO)24ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, „CALIFORNIA, ;.APPROVING CONDITIOAAL USE PERMIT NO. 91 -10, THE REQUEST TC ALLOW AUTO SALES:. AND TRUCK RENTALS WITHIN A LEMtD SPACE OF 360 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 9797 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD` IN THE '`COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBARLA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAK2NG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208- 282 -05. A. Recitals. ( ) Ben West,,has filed an application for the issuance rf the Conditional Use Permit No. 91 -10 as described in the title of this Re',:612tion. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject 'Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 14th of August 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed p,rblic hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal grerequisitec.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 Reecho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the fsttts set forth in tre Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. cased upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced; public hearing on August 14, 1941, includina w --itten and oral staff reports, tog then with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as foller4z: (a) The application applies to property located on a frontage road at 9797 ?oothil_ Eoalaiard with a street frontage cif I50 feet and lot depth of 230 feet rand is presently improved with two comer--ial buildings totaling�6,630 square fee;: and 8 parking spaces; and P (b) The property to the north, east, and west contains commercial buildings, the property to the south contains single .!amily residences; and ` (c) ".he property contains an wxisting automotive- Bales use that has been in operation since prior z.) city incorporation; therefore, it is . a ldgal Lon- conforming use; and PL&NNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91 -10 - BEN WEST August 14, 1991 Page 2 (d) The Foothill '�,Bouleyard Specific Plan, adopted in Seaptemb(•_ 1987, classifies auto sales and rentals aJ a conditionally permitted u #e; and (a0. The application con = ;'',plates the -- intensification of the use by offering 'the rental of a ft:ll- range of sizes of tracks• and trailers with office hours from 7:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday.' 3. Based upon the substantial csvidence presented to this 4ommission- during`tho above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs l and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the siie is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable tP.�reto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or, welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vlafaUty. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, 4. This Commission hereby finds and ceetiiies that the project Las been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California. Environmental quality Rai: of 1970 and, further, this Commission hareby issues a Negative Doclarrtion, S. Based upon the findings and conciusions suet forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approaes the application subject to sash and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division: 1) A�rs;o7al of this request shall not waive, cc.°_ol:iance with all. sections of the, Foothill Boulevard Specific 'Plan and all other City ordinances 2) If operation of. the facility causes adverse effecLm, upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Coi:,:itionaa Uos Permit shall be Lrought befois,__ :,the Planning Commission for coiisideration il! -and posn!ble tezminat.:on of the usb. i E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP c ',1 -10 - BEN WEST August 14, 1991 Page 3 b. 3) The ai!proved use shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, regulations have been complied with. ^Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rannoa Cucamonga Fire Protection District to ' show compliance, Including, but not limited to, lisrlallatinr of a portab =e fire extinguisher inside -.;the office. 4) Any sign proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance with the comprehensive Sign Ordinance, any Gniform Sign Program for the camplex, and shall require review ands- approv�l by the Planning Division, prior ;ao installation.. 5) Use of the facility shall be limited t,3 a maximum of Four employees. .1 6) Nine additional paved and striped parking spaces shall be provided within project bcsndaries. A site plan identifying the location of these` parking spaces shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to their installation. The additional parkinC spaces shall be inetalled prior to commencement of business activity. if additional paving is necessary to provide., additional parking spaces, the applicant shalt) submit a Elinor Development Review application' for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to installation. 7) The storage area for automobiles for sala and pucks for rent shall not extend bayonit the bouadary of -she area- _identifiad aA.Exhibit, "C" of the Auguat 14, 1991, Plannind'. Commission staff repart. There shall be no vehicle parking along Foothill Boulevard' or ,the .frontage road. r 8) The fa. lowing missing parkuray landscape improvements shall be installei along the fsoncage road: street traesc)sli-rubs, ground covgj and irrigation. Landscape improvements ' shall bye installed prior to the commencement of businsus activity. A Landscape aril Irrigation Plan shall be submitted Planner `Wand City Engineer review and approval.:i 1� f I (I :J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91 -10 - J,'N WEST August Page 4 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 'J APPROVED AND ADOPT: THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLAN.-'m COMMISSIOF OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY f Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST' Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Sullen Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution wza duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular aeeCing of t;.iu Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by the follrwina hots- to -wit:r AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COM1ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: v. Jt� 9, L] CITY OF RANCHO CiTCAM0N0,k STAFF REPORT ti ,. Al. DATE: August 14, 1991 1 T0: Chai nnan and Members of the Planning Comm sign FROM: Shintu',Bose, Deputy 1Citf Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer ' SUBJECT: ENVIROk.'FNTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13755 - LEWIS DEVENFREN1 COMPANY - he eireatfort or one 14.21 acre parce or tfie development of a junior high school within the Terra Vista Planned Community, located betwo- Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue, north of Church Street- APN: 1077- 091 -27 and 31 I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Re u-cted• Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as W own on xnib"it,t "B" B. Parcel Size: 14.27 acres C. Existing Zoning: Terra Vista Planned Community Junior ffigF School designation D. Surrounding Land Use: North - Multi- family apartments " 1 South - Multi-family apartments and City' .ark East - Single family.h3mes Nest - Single family homes E. Surrounding General Plan and Devd1opment Code Des3C^-w-tirns: North - Medium Density j4 -14 du/ac? South - Medium Densi'j e,,�-14 Mac) East - Redium Oeps'ky (4 -14 dulac) West - Medium`bensity (4 -14 du/ac) F. Site Characteristics: T'c site is presently vacant with no significant plant grorth and slopes from north to south at approximately a 2% grad ITEM T i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT PM 13755 — LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO " August 14,.x991 Page 2 r II. ANALYSIS: The pu -pose of this Parcel Map i!z to create a single parcel ror the development of Ruth Musser Middle School in the central School PIstrict. The public streets/ adjacent to the site are improved with the exception of rfdewal';:s, drive approaches and street trees which are requirel; upon devel ppment of the parcel . The constructior.. of the greenBel t trail, 'along the northerly property line is also to be constructed with the development of the parcel. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVINE : The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Stiff,condut7ted a field investigation sand 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. IV. CORRUPONDENCE: 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. r V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input ana elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 13755. ?.f after such consideration, the Commission uan "recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, a - 1 Shintu Bose Deputy City Engineer SB:BK: dl w Attachments, Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval V CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA E1�1CI�� I?i�IL9IQ� �- t -- 3 N MAL. PAME L MAP 13755 ViC.1NtT' MRP A _ 0 MY OF ;SPAR L MAP I a-7-9S 66 ENGDlEMMMG D ZWM®N r a j B - _ 11 07D1 -o2 o AUGUST 14, 1991 P. C AGENDA 7 of 7 � RESOLUTION NO. i A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, - ,CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALL;{ APPROVING TEN'T'ATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER`;3755, LOCATED BETWEEN TERRA VISTA PARKVVx AND SPRUCE AVENUE, NORTH OF CHURCH 'STREET, AND RAKING FINDINGS IN' SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077- 091 -27, 31 , 1HEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 13755, submitted by Lewis Development Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing itto l parcel, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 1077 - 091 -27, 31, lo.ated between Terra Vista Parkway and Spruce Avenue, north of Church Strert; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 1991, the Planning Commission held a duly; advertised public hearing for the z-bove- described map. NOW, THEREFORr,, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS � FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings -Save been made: ` 1. That the map is consistent with thr,. Gn)nsral Plan. 2. That the improvement of the p_o,.L., -xcd e,kbdivision is consistent with the General Plan 3. That the site is physically ,ir,.uitable for the proposed development. A. That the proposed subdivision and imprC'-ements will not oause substantial environmental damage or publi: health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. !c SECTION 2: This Commission minds and certifies t',at the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental. Quality Act of 1970; and fus:ther, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Hap Number 13755 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special. Conditions: 1. Construct the Green Belt Trail Connection as required by the Terra Vista Community Pxan on the' north `�-Ide of th'° Bite, Extending south along the west side of Spruce Avenue and southarly along the e4ft- side of Terra Vista Parkw:�y. AOL �.r `= LANNING CO1*dISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENT PARCHL ASAP 13755 -• LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. 'August 14, 1955 Page 2 Ank 2. The grr,3ing of the(_,site shall be coordinated with Spruce Park. A maintenance agreement will need to be.worke6 :; out with the Community Services Department. 3. The exiating maintenance depression in the m(.'' r, island on Terra Vista Parkway ohall be removed and replacefi :h curb and landscaping ?to t:� satisfaction of the City Engineer r �.i 4. A left turn > pocket shall be constructed in t1i• erra Vista Parkway median for south bound traffic at Hampt�j lace to the satisfaction of the city nngineer. S. Public street pavement striping, marklr�j, and signage''shall he inatalled'per the requirements of the Ciy Traffic Engineer. 6. Street Improvement Flans shall`be revised by a Registered Civil Engineer and app:pved by the City Engineer. 7. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public street improvements. S. Pursuant to provisions of .California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not bC _`,operative, vested or final, nnr will building permits be issued or a map recorded, unti). (lj•.',the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associate ''environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of tt,4 "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 xe-quired handl%ag charges, are paid to the County Clark of the '.:ounty of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD togetter with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. In the event this application is determined exauugt from such - filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Gaeta Code, or the guidelines promulgated £hersui3Oes, except for payment of any required handling charTa €or filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall Ls deemed null` and void. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF R4NCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENT PARCEL MAP 13755 - LEWIS DE1'ELOPMENT CO. August 14, 1991 Page 3 j BY: - Larry T. MCNiel,- Chairman ATTEST: ..red huller, Secretary I, Brad Fuller, Secretary of the. Planning toramission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, pealed, and adopted by the Planting Commisrlon of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1991, by the following vote -to -wits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: a pK.H pa o v a q r 2 G >. Oy 9 C V9 4 U N •.U• C C O y O. q GUS u ON O NO q NC �N Cry NO y� >� � CC �0:CY nc Xo O1 N ,pT C iTNw f' .G L T 1-5 G •,• fT gC11 f W � CN i C a E 06 1r.G av Y Wig' day a• � 2L^ ° i w�t1 Y L..�.' `yGmi Y�4g�u o.cccv cal ^°' E i a� s`dam rL i is =t mo.- M-9 S $ r° o r � o r a•� oG o 9Y. 6P4.6 VlW9 OLgMtl NNf.IN jq,�i 1.» �• 1� NM zI I I I I I M" a c 1+� a3=1 r r�a�v�oq iu �iii^c e�a V C.41.GONpph +y�y U V^ p Y p ✓ YY .8 Q._.! su a .4 'gZ;LG1.p..`•ay b$ Q a Sea d �Y`. �,ryG, 4L R t C « tlL ap e� tu. p` yY y L fig .O T r t O p. a ra =wKa-�' coq. SO �Cm W� S G + C O r C�t Y. PC O pL Y.`p'y, Yj yq mqa YaQQ�NbD IT N ter' rug QgL $VG V•p Z . `D.Sa°L'. rC ■ypa'G ms1�x++ g YI M ^1. M�•sL `NV E. C �pnY Y u p .Y O COY ♦. >�> g a r� O -1 �- oMC �lya � � dal igLV4 u ^` «¢y ■i. E. $�s NV YSCOf _p «Y O: s® L O _Y�{0�9 M •�: .SQ ■gjl tv`� =��. #,`GOOMLe si `scRO Cq �q O� SV 6 � CiCC 6C� WI.a I�L�MM�t>lOaQd NY�I.gV �K��I IIEIli 7a 8 «o W °vs g a G o ycM ;N a B W NYC N O c. ` o m a P ya= ,G .ago <a» �^ Y o� r N f.i pK.H pa o v a q r 2 G >. Oy 9 C V9 4 U N •.U• C C O y O. q GUS u ON O NO q NC �N Cry NO y� >� � CC �0:CY nc Xo O1 N ,pT C iTNw f' .G L T 1-5 G •,• fT gC11 f W � CN i C a E 06 1r.G av Y Wig' day a• � 2L^ ° i w�t1 Y L..�.' `yGmi Y�4g�u o.cccv cal ^°' E i a� s`dam rL i is =t mo.- M-9 S $ r° o r � o r a•� oG o 9Y. 6P4.6 VlW9 OLgMtl NNf.IN jq,�i 1.» �• 1� NM zI I I I I I M" a c 1+� a3=1 r r�a�v�oq iu �iii^c e�a V C.41.GONpph +y�y U V^ p Y p ✓ YY .8 Q._.! su a .4 'gZ;LG1.p..`•ay b$ Q a Sea d �Y`. �,ryG, 4L R t C « tlL ap e� tu. p` yY y L fig .O T r t O p. a ra =wKa-�' coq. SO �Cm W� S G + C O r C�t Y. PC O pL Y.`p'y, Yj yq mqa YaQQ�NbD IT N ter' rug QgL $VG V•p Z . `D.Sa°L'. rC ■ypa'G ms1�x++ g YI M ^1. M�•sL `NV E. C �pnY Y u p .Y O COY ♦. >�> g a r� O -1 �- oMC �lya � � dal igLV4 u ^` «¢y ■i. E. $�s NV YSCOf _p «Y O: s® L O _Y�{0�9 M •�: .SQ ■gjl tv`� =��. #,`GOOMLe si `scRO Cq �q O� SV 6 � CiCC 6C� WI.a I�L�MM�t>lOaQd NY�I.gV �K��I IIEIli 7a I 0 411 ° � C it au Lc T O u a h q T^ U4 o RX 4 Oi i V aB aLL ^ s s W r m IiI s c o t E V4 3 � � Y Q� qM o � a E n C y Y o c r a] V r V V. V n Y? H O Y C ^ N J, L • w V n M d H uyf G uN S< _ Tt O� 'y Y q C u. Y E C EE �r-.S Op q Y C Z= p ° =pE Y° cA cr�g C � °4 �« O Q Y✓ V VM 4V Y 6N_ `� L W N4 4 f.J'n to c Y ° 2 Y u 4 L q L TS ECG w .,6 C, qY� ^ pO�C°.. CCNO L Lw tluq. 4�EC 4C YqO. EYO + y V Ys L O u d 0 06CC • Q tY.465 Scfy�� Va �O • 6 QNY u� O PC u 5.4 O iV�. -- L LT p c nJ S•L$ -15g Y O.XY °M ^ ^Y�'�dF +�: Ls +nu M.x 0. v g rift ■yam« qY Y� c 4LC L�9nY °Oq O� itl �• �°i60 f YZ C SQL «u C ` m ON. ~C 1Y!!aaY4 C fi -Car Sp. SOY �rCnp6M p C``q y E c ■■Np> s O O O p+ y Y it Y y° $ ' rl` Y` ' ^Y . m og.� . S:�S•L l! 6N > \M1..1m p3UN S= 0 UL..d 6VY.CSYq YY1�60 MY HM +� L Y Z ' ` t „3 U y q pM L Y SY N• +� 00 L C L Y y N •s p G C O d. �.�^ `p W Sq � LSq L C Cf1 S. �yUccr L M Y Y q N S N 4 � N u V S P LO NC h • �r r sb aw >u cw $YeY e.1 � pg O. S °mil 4Y ~ G� LbY _E n Qro co` pc� w LL O 6 R A O .2. V 1 Y « N b N faa < W ,� N y 4 Y n Y r Y C � YOW= O Q Y✓ qqC qIY ' yf M•° St•!f Sefr 4U 0 L 4Y �' YqO. G w C, ppp■L 8 r qp. U L Pr CC. ^q� C pa a„ v g rift ■yam« qY C Y rC y O�#* L ms NQ QsSIL V ��C Y L Y Z ' ` t „3 U y q pM L Y SY N• +� 00 L C L Y y N •s p G C O d. �.�^ `p W Sq � LSq L C Cf1 S. �yUccr L M Y Y q N S N 4 � N u V S P LO NC h • �r r sb aw >u cw $YeY e.1 � pg O. S °mil 4Y ~ G� LbY _E n Qro co` pc� w LL O 6 R A O .2. V 1 Y « N b N faa < W ,� N y A A UYYX ur ItA1NU tV k1UU1UY1V1N1_Tti aTAFF REPORT DATE: August 14, 1991 ' T0. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FRCg': Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 AHMANSON A request to modiFy ond1tion o approva requ r' ng a removal of a Flood Insurance Rate Map "D" Zone designation for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of nand in the Low ResidFntial District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located it the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225 - 082 -01. MnnTPTraTTnu Tn THE nESIGN REVIEW. FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS' 14379, amrim - M rwqucJ" VI "".--J u .. ... . rr• -'-• '- '- _ - -- removl of a Flood Insurance Rate Map "D" Zone designation for a previously approved design review of a tentative tract map consisting of 152 single family lots on 51.6 acres of land in the Low Residentiall. District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street - APN: 225 - 073 -65. I. ABSTRACT The Developers of both projects are requesting the modification of a condition of appsroval which requires that they obtain a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) prior to the recordation of the Final Maps for their projects. The map to be revised is the federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood insurance Pate Map for the project areas. Ii. BACKGROUND Tentative Tract 13527 was originally approved on September 28, 1988, for an initial two years until September 28, 1990. A one year time extension was granted on September 26, 1990 until September 28, 1991. The project is eligible for additional time extensions although the developer has stated that he will not seek any hoping that he can record the Final Map prior to the current expiration date. Design reviews were approved fore the first four phases of the Tract (Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381 and 14382) on September 26, 1990, for an initial two years until _September 26, 1992. Tentative Tract 14139 was originally approved on July 12, 1989,'for an initial two years until July 12, 1991. A one year ti:,' extension was granted on July 10, 1991, until July 12, 1992. The requested conditions to be modified affect both projects therefore both requests are included' in this same staff report. ITEM v,v A D E`J UrrY Ur• AANU i UUUAIVIVINkrrl� STAFF R,EPOMI DATE: August 14, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: MODIFICATION To TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A request to mo�i y a rondition of approval requ r ng a removal of a Flood Insurance Rate Map "0" Zone designation for a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street - APN: 225- 082 -01. THE TRACTS request o me y a con t o n of- approval requiring the removal of a Flood Insurance Rate Map "D" Zone designation for a previously approved design review of a tentative tract map consisting of 152 single :family lots on 51.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located at the northwest corner of EtiwLiida Avenue and 24th Street - APN: 225 - 071 -65. I. ABSTRACT The Developers of both projects are requesting the modification of a condition of approval which requires that they obtain a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) prior to the recordation of the Final Maps for their projects. The map to be revised is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for the project areas. II. BACKWUND Tentative 'tract 1352.7 was originally approved on September 28, 1988, for an initial two years until September 28, 1990. A tine year time extension was granted on September 26, 1990 until September 28, 1991. The project is eligible for additional time extensions although the Developer has ,staked that he will not seek any hoping that he can record the Final Map prior to the current expiration date. Design reviews were approved for the first four phases of the Tract (Tracts 14379, 14380, 14381 and 14382) on September 26, 1990, for an initial two years until September 25, 1992. Tentative Tract 14139 was originally approved on July 12, 1989,, for an initial two years until July 12, 1991. A one year time extension was granted on July 10, 1991, until July 12, 1992- The requested conditions to be modified affect both projects therefore both requests are included in this same staff report. =T;4 u,v PLANNING COMMISSION SIVAFF REPORT TENT TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON TRACT 13527 - WATT INLAND EMPIRE August 14, 1991 Page 2 III. DISCUSSION Ll On June 28, 1989, the Engineering Division initiated th• policy of requiring Developers to have the r-lood Tone A, B or D designations conditionally removed by FEMA prior to recordation of Final Maps. This policy was initiated due to the large number of complaints receivad from residents who live in areas with a Flood Zone A designation, when they were required by their lenders to acquire Flood Insurance. Staff felt, in all cases, the properties had been protected frzm flooding, but, because the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) had not been revised, they were still located in a Flood Zone A requiring Flood Insurance. Prior to the recent real estate boom, sore Developers voluntarily had the Flood Zone A designation removed as a marketing tool; the William Lyr.+ Company for example. However, during the boom everything was selling, therefore Developers didn't have to worry about Zone A designations. Once the residents moved into the homes and received the Flood Insurance premium bills, they immediately called the City which was not in a position to provide any relief. Although, we couldn't help those residents, we felt we could help future residents by requiring Developers of future projects to have the Flood Zone Designations removed prior to the sale of the homes.. Recordation of the Final Map is the point in the process where the City has the most control. Thta policy requires that the CLOMR be obtained at this time, because it is through the CLOMR that FEMA certifies the proposed flood protection measures will be sufficient to allow the zone designation removal. The actual Letter of Map Revision LOMiR) is obtained after the facilities are installed, prior to occupancy release. The Developers in this case do not necessarily disagree with the intent of the policy. They are concerned with the time required to obtain the '. CLOMR from FEMA, which also' requires a review by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District .!SBCFCD). See the Developers' letters of request attached. Essential"ky, the Developers are requesting that the CLOMR requirement be replaced by a disclosure statement to be read and signed by the prospective home buyer, which states that the Developer will pay any and all future Flood insurance premiums. Staff* has the following concerns with the Developer's proposal 1. There is no wady tz, guarantee that the Developer will have ,u °ficient funds to .:over the insurance premiums in the future when and if they are required. 2. It is unlikely that the homeowners will remember signing the disclosure statement when the insurance premiums are required at a future date. They will expect the City to resolve the problem if they experience difficulty collecting funds from the Developer. This concern is compounded with successive resales of the homes. \A ,.. PLANNING ; COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT TRACT 14139 AHMANSON TRACT 13527 - WATT INLAND EMPIRE August 14, 1991 Page 3 Staff recognizes the Developers' concern for ;possible delays in processing a CLOMR, because of the necessity to deal with a Federal Agency. This was understood when the policy was implemented; however, it was felt that it was in the best interest of both the Cily and the future homeowners to have the flood zone desigratlons removed during the project._ processing. IV: RECOMMENDATION St-)ff recognizes the difficulty the applicants are experiencing- in attempting to obtain the CLOMR. The applicants are suggesting a temporary solution ,which would allow the map to be recorded and the project to move for.�lard while working towards the CLOMR. WQ r'recognize the problems for tha- City associated with flood insurance,.are well- documented. If the Commission wishes to continue the current policy regarding CLOMR's, the applicants' requests should not be acted on favorably and t,';e appropriate resolutionstadopted. Respectfully submitted, Barrye R. Hanson Senior Civil Engineer BRH: dl w Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Approved Tentett a Map Tract 14139 j Exhibit "Cu - Approved Tentative N-�,p DR 14379 -81 � Request Letters from DeveI'op=rs Resolutions R�z Ol OH ,o ton€ C�,. • -� ern • 1—:. lj ' ��.�.,.L- � . • ��'rJ�Ya �K� .�'• � p� t�,, � � QfJ �� .• •tea !� �i r ttl nav ! Y cc� Ini i �In In l _ 1 n i =i L �r a.. r ttl nav ! Y cc� Ini i �In In l _ 1 n i =i +i Ir I AHMANSON DEVELQPMUNTS. INC. July 9, 199: City of Rancho Cucamonga Fanning Department Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91236 Re: Explanation for Minor Modification of Tentative Tract *14139 Ladies and Gentlemen Condit on #16 of the referenced map states the following: that it is the Developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone (A,3 or D; removed from he property:;; preliminary FEMA approval shall be obtained prior to approval of the record man or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first; the designation shall be officially removed prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs First.. , 68 lots of•TentatIve Tract 4339 are is Zone D and 51 lots are in Zone C. Flood insurance is not required in either Zone. Zone D is considered "unstud:.ed" and Zone C is considered flood safe. Ahma ^son Developments and the City have submitted a Rate ciao revision application to FEMA to change the Zone D area to Zone C. The application was reviewed and returned to Ahmanson with a recuest for additional investigation of offtract facilities which are w_thir_ the jurisdiction of San Bernardino County Flood Con,. -,rl District. Engineering studies have been completed and reviewed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and are being reviewed by the Flood. Control District. The application will be resubmitted to FEMA when Flood Control.'s approval is obtained. Neither the City nor Ahmanson Developments can control Flood Control's review process. The Flood Rate Man cannot be revised prior to tract map recording because that process is controlled by other agencies. .owever, Ahmanson Developments proposes to provide the attached Disclosure Statement to homebuyers while the FIRM revision is pursued. Ahmanson would nay Zone D Flood Insurance premiums, if required by a lender, until the Flood Rate Map is revised. This alternative to Condition #16 is any which we can control and which is supported by staff. concurrently, the FEMA studies will be resubmitted-so ,hat a Rate Map amendment will hopefully be obtained in time to render the Disclosure unnecessary. 1:171Sauth Valli•y ViQA. Suite st1 :1,[mrsion ilkin VA011SK•= .. {iti}NC�>`4itN1, f+�Sl %tS }ltGtl•tµGitt U\0 Y ' 7 r. 11 - City o: Rancho Cucamonga July 9, 1991 Page 2 Ahmanson Decelogments requests' -the Planning Commission's acceptance of the Disclosure Statement as evidence of pomp'-lance with Condition #16. Very truly yours Craig : :�age� Vice ; president cc: M. 3ehke CP :slm FLOOD INSURANCE DISCLOSTTRM,STATEMENT _ This is to advise ynu that yoq,r lot is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Mao for the City of Rancho Cucamonga as an area of "undetermined but nosstble flood hazard" or "Zone D" Because your lot is located with-in "Z on= D ", some banks or other, lending institutions might choose `SO require you to purchase and maintain flood insures: ice as a condition of residential loan anoroval. if your lending institution recuires you to purchase flood insurance, Ahmansori or its successor in interest agrees to reimburse you for "he act;:ai costs of the nremiums for any required �Tlood insurance for up to ten (10) years or until your lot is re ovee from "Zone D ", w:ic ever occurs first. In order to obtain this re- 4mburse azit, you must n.:ovide Ahmanson with written proof that you are required to purchase the flood.' :;,k2surance as a condition of your residential loan for this lot and that you have paid the premium. , Ahmanson and the City of Rancho Cucamonga are cCimerating with the Federal Emergency Management Agency or - "FEMA" to remove your lot fi,;c "Zone D" on the Flood Insurance Rate ,Mao_ After "FE.MA" annroves this charge in designatil�, your °lending institution should release you from any requiremer�t to buy flood insurance as a condition of loan. anoroval, As soon as 'cur lot 'as rf'T oved from J "Zone D" on 1- ie Flood Insurance Bate MaD :for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ahmanson will not longer reimburse you for any floaC insurance premiums for your lot, . even if your lending institution continues to recuire this insurance.. `if you have any questions about this disclosure statemr-nt;, you may call Ahmanson Developments, Inc. at (7_4) 850 -5400 CP:slm Aft l AA) WATT 37,KLAND EMPIR£+. Io7"L. 9035 MAVEN AVE, SLO, 2. STE. 102 RANCHO CUCA70NGA, CA 91730 17141989.5663 - FAX 17141944•$968 ,June 27, 1991 jut CETf 0 �a�c{ �rJ11G pfV/SiG1, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca, 91730 Barry Hanson RE: Revised Justification f&r Modification to TRACTS 14379, 14380, 14itAO, 14381 14382, 13 52 7. q I Dear Barry, r� Please replace the original justification vj'th this revised copy., This justification will :.t for all of our tracts, If I can be of any assistance in reviewing any of the history of this tract, or if I can furnish any additional information yoix may need to support the modification please do not hesitate to call me. I Sincer T vaxS 1- Direct r of Deg n cc: Joe q °Neil City of Rancho Cucamonga Rick Gomez C ty of Rancho Cucamonga 'l Steve Stewart Overlook Homes Tamar Stein, Esq. Cox, Castle, Nicholson (f A WATT ENTERPRISES. CON=A7?Y JUSTIFICX21ON FOR MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS (revised) TRACTS 14379, 14380, 14331, 14382, 13527. tl please accept this application for a Modr£l, ition to Condition No. 5. Condition No. 5 of the refetan, :ad map states the following: that it is the Developer's responsility to have the current Fi.rm'Zone D designation removed from the project area; a Conditional Letter of Map Revision shall be obtained from FEMA prior to approval of the map or issuance of building perm'." whichever occurs first. It further States: A Letter of clap Rev! shall be issued by r-Mb, prior to' occuaancy or improvement;- ceptance, whichever occurs first. We have approximately 11 lots which are located in the Zone "D° designation on the FEMA maps. our remaining lots are Zane C. Flood insurance is not required 3a either Zone. Zone D is considered unstudied and Zone C.s, considered flood safe. y i Watt has su:rva e3 several len4c.:� in the area. The. attached letters i show that flood insuranc_ is not a requirement. watt, through Ahmanson Development and the City of Rancho Cucamonga have bmitted a Rate Flap revision application to FEMA to change the Zone A o a Zone C. The application was reviewed &ad returned, along with our deposit from FEMA in March of this year. We have diligently pursued the FEMA requirements for a resubmittal. FEMA is now regruesti,na additional• investigation of offtract facilities which are Within the Jmvi,•diction of San Bernardino County Flood Control District. E.ngineerikzg studies have been completed and reviewed by the City of Rancho CucamGnga and arC. being reviewed by the Flood Control District. The appLicatxcn will be resubmitted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to FEMA when Flood Cor.::rol's approval is obtained. Neither the City nor Ws`t cast control the Flood Control or FEMA's review processing time. The Flood rate map cannot be revised prior to tract map recordation for 'two main reasons. 1. The approval process is controllsQ by other agencies, and 2. The City requires improvement plans to be 90% complete before the map will be allowed to record, which basically holds off our submittal to FEMA until the time the map is ready to record. Watt has, been working with both Rick Gomez and Joe O'Neil to come up with an alternative that could -e supported. Watt proposes to provide the attached Disclosure Statement to the homebuyers during the time it takes to complete the FEm processing. Watt would pay Zone D flood insu °ante premiums, if required by a lender, until the Flood Rate Map is revised. This Alternative is one which we can control and is supported by Staff. Concurrently, the FM4 studies Will be resubmitted so that a RAte Yap amendment will hopefully be obtained in t1me to render the use of the Disclosure Statement unne•;;essary. watt respectfully requests this�;-Aanning Commission accept the Disclosure stateaent as evidence of compliance with Condition #5. Lf you have any 'questions or need any additional information, please feel free to call. 5ir_cerely, r Larry Lewis Watt Inland Empidz (714) M) -5663 i r; ,l3 i Directors Mortgage Loan Corporation I Mortgage Bankers ' p/ ,._: I• 04/12/91 Randy Hurwitz (_ Watt Inland Empire, Inca 9035 Haven Ave. Bldg. 2 0102 Rancho Cucamonga. CA. 91730 Dear Randy: Per your request, 1 have investigated our insura =e requirements for home loans in areas located in a "Zone D" as designated by FE`'LS. , Based on agency requirements today, the only i zuranc , required by our firm for loans on homes in a "Zone Dt° is Scand:rd Homeowners Insurance. At this time flood insurance is not a requirement. Please let me know af..you require additional information. SinC rLi . I Branch Manager 8311 Haven Ave.;; Suite 210 ti Flancho Cucamgnga. CA 91730 (714) 950-1922 `> Y . April 18, 1991 Randy Hurwitz 9035 Haven Avenue #302 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Randy.: After reviewing your project and the location, we are able to perform with home loans in the Zone "D" area requiring only the standard ,insurance on each. home Afth and currently not requiring the flood insurance. We look forward to working with you or. your project in the near future. Sincerely, , r Jon H. Schacht- JHS /nt (t,i .. ll _. n. fie.. � � ar... _ nr7nn0 re♦ n� weC e997 . T CM.��l ,,yA1, �' 6350 Gra _ ; rC' �rve Suite 200 San Ofego. CA 92122.3958 T2i 619 450 33',°,.. . Mort-gage April 9, 1997 Mr. Randy Hurwitz HE[t Inland Empire 9035 Haven Ave., Suite 102 1r Rancho Cucamonga, GA 91730 RE: `.{united Edition Dear Randy, This isto certify that the. above meatioced tract its not located in a flood zone. At the present time we would not require flood insurance on loans closing in this tract. If you have any questions, please contact me. Rigards, aanie ,'aza sistant 'Oise resident 7 V, FLOOD INSURANCE, DISCLOSURE STATE= This is to advise ° you that your, loan -,is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for this City of:!ancho Cucamonga as an area of "undetermined but possible flood hazard " or "`Zone D". Because your lot is located within.` "Zone D ", some banki\,.or ottier lending institutions may choose to require you to'purGhase and maintain flood insurance as a condition of residential Than approval. If your lending institution requires you to purchase flood insurance, Watt or its successor in interest agrees to reimburse you for the actual costs of the Flood Insurance premium for up to ten (10) years or until the "Zone D" designation is removed from,your lot, whichever occurs first. In order to obtain this re.11mbursemend, you must provide Watt Inland Empire, Inc. with written proof that you are required to purchase the flood insurance as a; condition of your residential loan for your lot and that you have paid the premium. Watt and the City of Rancho Cucamonga are cooperating with "the Federal Emergency management Agency (r'gh) to remove your lot, from "Zone D" an the Flood Insurance Rate Map. After FEMA approves this change in designation, your lending institution should, release you from any requirement to buy.,flood insurance as a condition of your mortgage loan. As soon as ,- ur lot is removed from the "Zone D11 on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for) the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Watt Inland Empire, Inc. will no longer reimburse you for any flood insurance premiums for your lot, even if your lending institution continues to require this insurance. I f you have any questions about this c sclos r a statement, you may call Watt Inland Empire, Inc. at (7.14) 989 -5663. :j A ; RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYI T A REQUEST FOR 14ODIFIcATIQN OF A Co -_DxTION OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 141391 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND 25TH STREET AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225- 032 -01 A. Recitals. (i) on duly 12, 1989, the Planning Commission approved, subject to specified conditions, Tentative Tract 14139, which provides for the development of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwellir4 units per acre)' located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street. (ii) On June 27, 1991, a request was filed by Ahmanson Development to modify the condition of approval requiring the developer to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision prior to recordation of the Final Map._, (iii) On August 14, 1991, the Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing ov -'the ppi?catizn and concluded said searing on that date= (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution.:, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby foil,in�i, 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 Augu ©t 14, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this commission hereby specifically finds as `ollows: (a) The requirement to have a Conditional Letter of Map Revision prior to Final Map approval is i1 the best interest of the future homeowners. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission ` during the above- referenced public hearing "'an C,,upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs l and 2 above, t.is Commission herebvjfinds and concludes as follows: (a) That the requirement to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision prior to Final Map is necessary and reasonable., �A,V .- ) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TR 14139 -'AHMANSON August 14, 1991 Page 2 J 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this commission hereby denies the requested condition modification. S. The secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVxl,? AND ADOPTED THIS 14M DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMKISSIOy OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , -J BY: Larry '('.. J0bNiel, Chairman ATTEST* -- Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the 'Planning Commission of t e City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, gauaed, land adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the .Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 1992, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMIS : dONBRS: - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i L] 11 �\f RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACTS 14379, 14380, 14381, AND 14382, LOCATED AT THE NORTBWZST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND 24TH STREET, AND MAKING 7INDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:225- 072 -65 A. Recitals. 11 (i) On Septem`ser 26, 1990, the Planning Cor"rission approved, subject to specified conditions" Design Review for Tracts' 14379, 14380, 14381, and 14382, which provides for the development of the first 4 phases of a previously approved tentative tract map consisting of 152 single family lots an 51.6 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) located at �` a northwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street. (ii) on June 27, 1991, a request was filed by Hatt Inland Empir to modify the condition of approval requ):ring �a developer to obtain a C.:nditional Lett.'T of Map Revision prior tD recordation of the Final Hap. (iv) on August 14, 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. (v) 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 faltts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are tr" and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on August 14, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, togethgr with public' testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as followsm ' (a) The requirement mo have a Conditior..1 Letter of Map Revision prior to Final Map approval is in the best interest of the future homeowners. 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 Commissica hereby finds and concludes as fk \llowsd is f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TR 14379 - WATT INLAND EMPIRE' August 14, 1991 Page 2 (a) That the requirement to obtain a Conditional Lett.9r of Hap Revision prior to Final Map approval is necessary and reasonable. 4. Based upon the - indings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 7, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the requested condition modification. - S. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITX,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 hereby certify that the formgoing Ueaolution 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 14th day of August 1991, by the followE;Z. vote -to -wit: AYES: COMHISSIONE" -. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COKIISSIONERSt !AI D L. 3 "CITY �O(gF1RANCHO4�{CUC`�AMONGA i. 1ryir�F VFW DATE: August 14, 1991 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM- Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician SUBJECT: SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS li BACKGROUND- Several developers who attended the Planning Commission Workshop on compact parking have,Yequested that the Planning Commission consider placin ,the review off- - shopping center parking ratios or. the Planning Division's Work Proga°+m (see Exhibit "A "). Therefore, your direction is needed whether the iPtiing Commission believes this issue warrants placement on the work program for further study and if so its;' priority. -- The Current and Advanrs'Pian:Aiag Work Program for 1991 -93 is attached (see Exhibit "B "). 'As' you know, a number of factors have arisen since this Work Program was presented to the Planning Commission in February which have severely iopacted our ability to complete the program. Firstly, a h ,\ ng !Freeze Taas prevented us from replacing the vacant staff positions. At present there are two full -time planner positions and two ,)art- time positions vacant in Current Planning, and one full- time planner position vacant in Advance Planning. Secondly, several work program items have grown in scope and complexity which has required a significantly greater commitment of staff time. Resp lly t , x // B 1 City Planner BB:BB:js Attachments:Exhibit "A" - Letter from Lewis Homes and Hu?hes Investments Exhibit "B" - Planning Division, " -3rk Program ITEM W __j 2 Chairman Larry McNeil Vice Chairman Suzanne Chitiea Planning Commissioner Peter,Jolstoy Planning Commissioner John Melcher Planning Commissioner Wendy Vahette CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCJ1 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 May 14, 1991 RE: Proposed Parking Ordinance CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Oe,;, Mr. Chairman and Planning Commissioners: At the April 10th Planning Commission hearing testimony was given in regard to the City's proposed Amendment to the existing parking ordinance proposing the elimination of compact parking spaces. its a result of the public testimony in opposition to the elimination of compact parking spaces, the Planning Commission ®I directed that a report defining different parking alternatives be submitted to staff on or before May 15 and-that the Planning Commission would hold workshops ,in the matter following staffs review of the proposal. By way of this letter, we are transmitting to Brad ?puller, City Planner, our Memorandum to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Staff with our proposed alternative to eliminate compact parking spaces from the City's existing parking ordinance. In addition to the Memorandum, we have also provided to staff an extensive . bibliography of resource material used to formulate our study. We are also in the process of having a survey conducted on existing shopping centers in Rancho Cucamonga to further substantiate the growing prominence of small cars. We expect to have this survey completed, and to staff, no later than June 12th. In addition to our proposal on the compact Barking space issue, the Memorandum also contains ..proposal to modify the City s overall parking ordinance which has been discussed on several occasions with the planning staff. The current parking ordinance is structured in such a way that a developer needs to have a "crystal ball" to know precisely whar uses and how many square feet those uses require so that a site plan and parking layout can be adequately and properly designed prior to construction and lease up. This problem, results frw the requirement in the existing parking ordinance of accounting for various uses differently over and above the allotted base parking ratio. Essentially, what we have proposed is to raise the base parking ratio to eliminate the special -r May 14, 1991 Page Two counting except for extraordinary uses such as theaters; and provide for a certain percentage of the project to be available for restaurant uses. By revising the parking ordinance in this manner, it would give Planning st':aff,,as r j well as the developer, a more useful tool in planning the development of future I shopping centers projects. This proposal will by no means reduce the parking below what the city would ordinarily have for restaurant uses using the current ` parking ordinance and in some cases where the percentage of restaurants is less t than the maximum would provide parking in excess of the City's base' parking requirement Please b_ assured that a considerable amount of time and research, not only through research materials, but in consultations with other- cities has gone into our proposal. We look forward to the opportunity to sit down with staff as soon as possible to go through our proposal and,, to address all of the parking issues. .i Wp see thin challenge as an opportunity for the City of Rancho Cucamonga fo, be a leader among developing cities fn formulating a workable parking ordinance. TG nk you for the fleribi''ity to allow -us to present these proposals and we look forward to working with= the Planning staff and Planning Commisslon in the coming_ months. -= Very truly yours, L S ES MANAGEMENT CORP. HUGHES 1 EST HTS I' dl!3rd A. Mayer hn B. Potter JBP /nyc cc Brad Buller w /Enclosures - 1 t/ CDRRSNT PLANNING iROPOSED WORK PROGRAM SUM&Uff FISCAL VIAR 1991 -93 PROGRAM ITEM YEAR STATUS WKS PROGRAMS WE CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH CURRENT STAFFING: 1. Develorment Processing Services 91/93 Ongoing 420 2. Public Itiformation Services 91/93 Ongoing 168 3. Etiwand^ North Spec. Plan (Support) 91/92 In progress 10 4. Regional Trails Agreements, 91/92 In progress 4 5. Regional Mall 91/93 In progress 20 6. Foothill Boulevard Missing Link 91/52 In progress 6 7. Central Park (Support), 91/92 In progress 5 S. Mu-ti- Family Housing /Setback Study 91/92 In progress 10 9. Tree Ordinance Update 91/92 In progress 10. 10. Compact Car Parking Amendment 91/92 In progress 3 11. Commercial /Industrial Policies 91/92 Completed 2 12. Sign Design Guidelines Manual 91/92 Complete¢ 5 13. Swap Meet ISP Amendment 91/92 Completed 3 14. Recycling Operations ISP Amsndm .:t 92/93 Completed 3 Subtotal 569 NEW OR CONTINUED PROGRAMS WE MUST ACCOMPLISH AND NEED MORE STAFF: 1. Geographic Informat?on System 91/93 On hold 10 2. Design Criteria Guidebook (Support) 91/92 On hold 4 3. Foothill /I -15 Fwy Beautification (Support) 91/92 On hold 1 4. Art In Public Places (Support), 91/93 On hold 2 5. CEQA Updates /Monitoring Program (Support) 91192 In Progreso 5 6. Development Code Update 91/92 On hold 42 7. Foothill Streetscape Specs 91/92 In progress 5 S. Senior Housing Location /Design (Support) 91/93 On hold 1 9. Old Alta Loma Neighborhood Plan (Jupport) 91/93 In progress 1 10. Special Projects 91/93 Ongoing 80 11. Sign Ordinance Amendment 91/92 New -2 12. Standard r.`:;awings Update (Support) 91/92 In progress 2 13. Design Awards Excellence Program 91/93 New 12 Subtotal 167 E. PROGRB1IS WE WOULD LIRE TO SEE ACCOMPLISHED, BUT NEED MORE STAFF: 1. Trails Implementation Projects 91/93 In progress 10 2. Fdison. Transformer Study 92/93 On hold 2 3. Adult Business Zoning Controls 92/93 On hold 3 F 4. Cul -de -sac Design Study 132/93 On hold 2 5. Uniform Sign Program Format 92/93 On hold 2 6. Office Manual Update 92/93 On hold .,13' 7. Manufactured notes Regulations 52193 On hold 4 S. Parking Lot Lighting Study ,f 92/93 On hold 3 Affik 9, Medical Office Parking Study 92/93 On hold 3 U, Second Dwelling U�n/i�tjsfAme}ndrent 92/93 On hold 3 �ft�ll�! r CfH Subtotal 35 vV -. TOTAL 871 ADVANCE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM SMOUM FISCAL YEAR 1991 -93 PROGRAM ITEM YEAR STATUS WKS PROGMAIS WE CAN ACCOMPL`LSH WV1H CURRENT STAFFING: 1. Community Development Block Grant 91/93 Ongoing 168 2. Inter- grvernmental Relations 91193 Ongoing 84 3. General Plan Land Use Amendments 91/93 Ongoing s' 4. Geographic Information System 91/93 In progress 10 5. Sphere of Influence Annexation Strategy 91/93 Ongoing 3 6. Historic Preservation Program 91/93 Ongoing 114 7. Expanded Air Quality Element 91/93 In progress , 24 B. Land Use & Demographic Data Base 91/93 Ongoing 5 9. Housing Element AmenCaent (RDA Strategy) 91/92 Ongoing 10 10 . Economic Development Activities 91/93 Ongoing 20 11. Community Profile Update 91/93 Ongoing 6 12. Senior Housing Activillies Monitoring 91/93 Ongoing -12 J 13. Etiwanda North Specific Plan /Prezoning 91,93 Ongoing 12 14. Design Guide Book 91/92 On hold 20 15. County Planning Referrals 91/93 Ongoing 20 16. Street Name Changes 91/93 On hold 6 17. Commuter Rail 91/93 Ona ,ng 6 18. Foothill /I -15 Freeway Beautification 91/93 On hold 6 Subtotal 579 NEW OR CONTINUED PROGRAMS WE MUST ACCOMPLISH AND NEED MORE STAFF: 1. City Source Reduction &Recycling 90/91 In progress 1G Element (Support & Implement.) 2. s:.)nsity Bonuses abusing Incentives 90/91 On hold 12 3. Special Projects 90/92 Ongoing an 4. Advance Planning Data System Module 91/92 On hold 44 5. Senior Housing (SHOD) Site Location 91/93 On hold 9 & Design Criteria Study /Ordinance 6. CEQA Guideline3 Update /Mitigation 9i/92 I-1 progress 6 g Progra' Monitoring Subtotal 160 PROGRAMS WE WOULD LIKE T3 SEE ACCOMPLISL%D, BUT NEED HORS STAFF:' I. Antenna Regulation Study 91/93 On hold 2 2. Strategic Planning Program 91/93 on hold -- 6 3. vacant Lard Use Inventory Map 91/93 In progress 4. Water & Sewer Defic. Study (Support) 91/93 On hold _2r Ask subtotal 17 . s TOT 747 i 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 14, 1991 yS TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: USE DETERMINA`"FGN 91 -01- HUGHES INVESTMENTS - A request to consider adding Animal -Care Facilities as a permitted or conditionally niermitted. use in the Village Commercial Development District of the Victoria Community Plan. I. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is for the Planning Commission to review and discuss the above mentioned proposal. If the Commission can support the p aposad land use as a - permitted use, then staff should be directed to "clarify this determination wiLli an amendment to the Victoria Community Plan. Ii. BACIMROU -1 1: Animal Core Facilities are currently a conditionally permitted- use in the Regional Related Office /Commercial and Regional Center development districts of the Victoria Community Plan. Furthermore, this use (excluding exterior kennels, pens, or runs) is permitted -by right within the Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial development dis`tric-.t-s of the Development Code. (See Exhibit "A "). III. 9NALYSIS: The Victoria Community Plan contains three commercial land use categories of varying intensity: Regional Center, Regional. Related Office /Commercial, and Village Commercial. The first two cultegories are primarily intended to serve the needs of local residents as well as residents of the larger region. By contras,, the Village Commercial areas are primarily intended to sezr,7e local residents within a small ex radius, provide convenience needs not normally found in the other Victoria Commercial districts (i.e. drug store, supermarket, etc.) and be convenient for pedestrians and bicyclists. At the time of adoption of the victoria Community Plan, Animal Care Facilities were made a conditionally permitted use within the Regional Center and Regional Related office /Commercial districts due to the intended character of these zones; they were intended to be for a high intensity commercial use. Therefore, Visitors with pets in need of care may encounter substantial vehicular traffic. Furthermore, centers within the Regional Center and Regional Related zone, although larger, tend to tae farther from residential areas thereby requiring residents to travel a greater distance for animal care. ITEM X 7. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT USE DETERMINATION S1 -01 - HUGHES INVESTMENTS � August':14, 1991 f+ Page 2 v j` Again, Village Commercial centers are intended to serve the needs of residents within the immediate area. Uses such . as (' delicatessens, drug stores, .florist stops, and administration offices are uses typical to the Village Commercial areas within the City. Also, retail pet stores are already a permitted use i; within the Village "Commercial district of the Victoria Community plan. :t should be noted' that the intent bet',•d the Village Commercial district is essentially identical to the Neighborhood commercial district within the Development ' Code. At this time, the Development Code permits 'Animal Care Facilities as long as exterior kennels, pens or rune are not provided in conjunction' with the use. It should also be noteu'` that this is the district in which a majority of the existing ari�mal care facilities in the City can be found. No reported compatibility problems with other typical neighborhood commercial' uses have been expprienced. In conclusion, staff can find no reason why the William Lyon Company chc.se; to exclude animal rare facilities in the Village. Commercial district. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis, staff supports the addition of Animal Care Facilities as a permitted use within the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan, if the Commission concurs, therm staff should be directed- to clarify the permitted uses within the district by amending the Victoria Community Plan text and placing this item on the work program for the near future. Resp ly s Bra er City Planner BBaSH :js Attachments: Exhibit "A " -- Victoria Community Plan and Development Cade Land Uses Exhibit "B" - Letter from Proponent b. Uses permitted subj act to -specific approval, of Conditions! Use Permit: �. (1) Animal care facilities, not including kennels. f (2) Parking lots and parking buildi.ngs.,; (3) Automobile service stations and car washes. (4) Automobile orsias and a*' ioa. (5) Rlectriu distribution switch` stations. (6) Communication equipment buildings. (7) Public utility booster stations. (8) Commercial recreation. i9) Accessory structures and uses necessary or customarily incidental to the ..:'sae uses as specifically provided for by the use permit and the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ranch * - Cucamonga. (10) Conditionally permitted Community Facilities listed an Page 241. t (11) Shopping centers subject to provisions in Section 1 on Page 235. CITY,, Op RANCHO- CUCAMONGA + PLANNIING DM. SION TrrLF: La iA Use 5 NJ EXFTaBY'x':';4 -1 " SC.ALE:r x, 3 l` �e��o�l �1al�z� UT-�"ic.e`�I�Co /�+/h ✓��41 ' �vnz v(LJ.U/`iG CJMML�n �?� f IQs I b. Uses parsitted subject to a Conditional use Permit: ^(1), Animal care facilities. (2) Public utility booster stations. (3) Parking late and parking buildings. (4) Public utility exchange and substations. (5) Public buildings. (6) Accessory structures and uses necessary or c�istomarily incidental to the above uses as apeei£icelly prow" dad for by %he use permit. j -M Conditionally permittee Community - Facilities listed on Page 241. i82 Shopping Centers subject to prarisiowq in Section 1 m Fags 235. CI?if OF RA'NCHC) CUCAMONGA MM. �V..Q�}� >n� PLANNING- DFvLcION me 1. -h US-5 f Vt,4v -,a) N EXHIBIT: - 4" SCALE: 4. VILLAGE COM_ERCIAL — kc-6-;:, a. The following general categories of uses shall be nemirted` > ( ?) Retail businesses, including out not limited to: o grocery stores o meat markets, delicatessens o produce markets o drug stores • dry good stores • hardware sales • pet sttes, • cloth „ifg stores • florist shops }} \(2) service buxsr.oses, including but nut limited to: + f�J4 L \ o banks, financial institutions o barber shops, beauty parlors CA C f y (TIE 5; L. VILLAGE GJMLSA.RCZAL 9. The following gaaf6ral categories of uses shall be permitted: ( ) Retail businesses, including but not limited to. a grocery stores o meat markets, delicatessens o produce markets o drug stores o dry good stores o hardware sales o pet stores O clothing stores _ o florist shoos r� (2) service businesses. including but not limited c: banks, financial institutions 1 0 barber shops, beauty parlors CA��} C t fiTtG t 4 locksmiths o laundry and dry cleaning establishments o self-service laundry and dry cleaning ' G %/ F D :0) Administrative and professional offices. Q/ / UJrr Lt" -r (4) Governmental. offices. IN (5) Restaurants (other than fast food). including incidental aarwiag of beer and vine but without a cocktail lounge. ZDNL- bar, entertwUment or dancing. l\ (6) Accessory structures and uses necessary or customarily innidetital toL)the above as provided for in the Rancho Cucamonva Zoning Ordinance. b. Uses pazlz4,'Eed subject to specific approval of a Conditional Use t (1) Autostotive serrics stations. (2) Convenience sarkets. (3) Past food restaurants. (4) pine and liquor stores. (5) Restaurants with antertainuent and/or serving;; of alcoholic bevat"ges. (4) Shopping centers subject to pravisivas in Section i Cc" / Page 235. (7) Conditionally petai.tted Cam unity Facilities listed on Page 241. .CITY OF RANCH - CL±CAPd 0NGFI Ig PLANNING' 1®rvzION T,E. EXHIprr. -' ¢3" SCALE: .lf.A. AN'7 t CITY OF IOCR y^ FnUCA . 6lN GA PLANNING- DrVISION -99- EXHIBIT. 4 11' " SCALB: 1 J Section I7.10A30 USE OP NC GC 10. Related commercial uses (blueprinting, P P P` stationary, quick copy, etc.) when incidental to an office building or complex, B. General Commercial Uses 1. Antique shops p p 2. Adult business (see sped' requirements - - C per Section 17.10.030) 3. Animal Care Facility (animal hospital, veterinarian, commercial kennel, uding exterior kennel, pens, or C 1. P P L ding exterior kennel, pens, cr - - C 4: Apparel stores. - p P 5. Art, music and photographic studios and C P p supply stores. S. Appliance stores and repair. - C P 7. Arcades (see special requirements per - C C Section 17.10.030 FJ 8. Athletic and Health Club, gyms and P P P weight reducing clinics. 9. Automotive services (including motorcycles, boats, trailer and camper) (a) sales C - C . (b) rentals - - C (c) repairs (major engine work, muffler - - C shops, painting, body work and upholstery) (d) Coin -op washing C C C I (e) Automatic washing C C C .lf.A. AN'7 t CITY OF IOCR y^ FnUCA . 6lN GA PLANNING- DrVISION -99- EXHIBIT. 4 11' " SCALB: 1 J hVARCHITECTURE AND PL.%NNING RECEIVED — July 24, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION Steve Hayes JUL 28•}19.99[ AN pu ring Department 7iw�9rnou1�tlt��1�18 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 RE: Vineyards Marketplace Rancho Cucamonga, California Project No. 88022 -1604 Animal Hospital Use Dear Steve: This is letter ii pursu, at to our meeting of July 10th regarding the interpretation and intent of the allowable commercial uses as outlined in the Victoria Community PIan. As you are well aware, the Community Plan has three commercial categories: Village Commercial, Regional Related,-and Regional Commercial. In both the Regional and Regional Related Commercial sections there are provisions that require a Conditional Use Perrr;t for ardmal care facility use. The Village Commercial section does not specifically list animal care facilities as an allowable use or as a use requiring a Conditional Use Permit From this, you would have to decide if the intent of this section were to totally disallow this use in Pillage Commercial or to allow it by right without any further action. It is our firm belief that it falls within the allowable professional office category, along with other medical offices. As both you and Brad were inclined to agree, it appears most obvious that an animal hose iW (veterinarian) is most appropriately located in a neighborhood commercial center who*. it is conveniently accessible to neighboring residents to provide for their daily pet needs. A regional center or mall, on the other hand, would be an inappropriate location for such a use. Imagine driving a greater distance to a regional shopping center and walking or carrying your sick pet through the middle of the mall to reach a vet. A review of the City's Development Code also bears out this interpretation where the neighborhood commercial use is the only location where, animal care facilities are allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. We believe that th%t Victoria Community Plan was written with the spirit of the Development Code in mind, as well as the ease of neighboring residents. V dLcussed in our meeting„ it would be very impractical for a Community Plan (or the i,;, ;� ipaaent Cede) to list all allowable uses for any particular zone. Any such document should Blow stair the authority and flexibility to implement and interpret the intent, and approve o, rronriate t .nd compatible uses without further discretionary action. We would recommend that you coftAer tal0 a Community Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission with such wording 1W R that would Yiovide for this flexible implementation in the future. IN\t\t'S \ \ihlou-S�\uc+� ZN13 \h1\ ST01 I Stilt lUtl, Mt\b LA-X-1714. M412444)111. F\\ 1-71412314)%01 CII \IR \I\\ - A D At t \NI+ \1 \ • ANC 111M t WWI- A\IINIC',\ 1 \1t1K 4 C+F An 1110111 Mr. Steve Hayes 1 jr Vinfyards Marketplace Pra)ect No. 88022 -16-04 ;` t July 24, 1991 Page 2 , r` Thank you very much for working with us on thi,'-,and we look forward to a favorable interpretation from the Planning Commission on august 14th. If you have any further questions or comments, please give me a call. Sincerely, _ GGeo ey' "B. Reeslund, AIA Principal GRism-- cc: John Potter/Hughts Investments 11 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 14, 1991 TO; Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission I FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE A SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AT.inW MONUMfiiiT SIGNS FOR FREE- STANDING PADS WITHIN rtOPPING CENTERS. REQUEST: In conjunction with the submi':tal of the Uniform Sign Program for the Central Park Plaza (southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue), Lewis Homes has requested that the Planning Commission consider placing the review of the Sign Ordinance regarding allowing monument signs for fuse- standing pads within shopping centers on the Work Program. Under the present Sign Ordinance provisions, shopping centers (othe than regional ce•)Lter.�,) are permitted or- z,;Mnument sign per street frottage, with a maximum of two signs per development (see Exhibit "B "). ?.The signs may contain the name of the center and two te;.znt names or the sign may contain three tenant names. Therefore, your direction is needed whether the rianning Commission believes this issue warrants placement on the work program for further study and, if so, its priority. With the amendment being requested by Lewis Homes, the "center" monument signs would be supplemented by "single identity" monument signs for use by the buil:ing pad tenants.:-; By allowing such signs, the number of monument signs 'along the project frontacte could increase dramatically. Using Central Park Plaza as an example, as many as seven monument signs could be erected along the bordering streets. In that the free - standing pads have good visibility because of their proximity to the street, staff does not feel that the request is appropriate. The Current and Advance Planning Work Programs for 1991 -93 are attached (see Exhibit "D "): As you know, a number of factors have arisen since this Work Program was presented to the Planning Commission in February which have severely impacted our ability to complete the program. Firstly, a hiring freeze has prevented us from replacing the vacant staff ,positions. At present there are two full -time planner positions and two part -time positions vacant in Current Planning, and -one full- time planner position vacant in Advance Planning. Secondly, several work program items have grown in scope and complexity whicb has required a significantly greater commitment of ss:aff time. ITEM Y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CITY OF R.0 P.ugust 14, 1991 _Page 2 t� Respe 1y submi ed, Bra ter / City anner BB:SM /jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from, "+ewes Homes Exhibit "S" - Sign Ordin+u.�ce Criteria Exhibit "C" - Central Park Plaza Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Planning Division's Work :rogram j r a Lewis Hordes Management Corp. _ 1156 North Mountain Avenue (PO. Box 6701 Upland C , California 91785 -0670 RECEIVED ..ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMANGA 714/985 -0971 PAX - 714/949 -6700 RI,ANNIMG DIVISION July 24, 1991 Pill Mr. Scott Murphy City of Rancho Cucamonga 3 Planning Department 20500 Civic Center Drive � Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730_ Elubject: City of Ranch& Cucamonga Sign Ordinance Dear Scott: l Per our phone conversation I -am requesting a revision to the "Sign l Ordinance ". This revision would be to allow monument signs for all pad users who occupy .the total allowable pad area as one single tenant or pad owner. T,;lexisting Sign Ordinance allows individual property owners the right to a monument sign, but because our pad tenant or owners in Central Park Plaza are a part of a shopping center, they are denied the same right. This does not seem i ANIL equitable and we respectfully request that the Sign Ordinance be revised to allow these monument signs. t It is my understanding that this issue will need to be scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing. Since we are on the DRC agenda for August 22,1991, I would hope that the issue concerning monument signs could be scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on the previous Wednes4ay, August 14, 1991_ This would allow us to effectively approach the DRC with some idea of what will be allowed. We appreciate your help in addressing this issue as it is a very important issue to aui.,prospective pad tenants and owners. ordially c el L. a- y Commerci ivisi Project Manager MLL•cs cc: Joe Oleson, Richard Mager and Sunny Boren ��A ►t t�`� E I� g �1 14.20.100 W m it rn.r Yp O C 0�6r 1 s O CT g CL4 C/ r q S �! a .++ UO a O A° C{9{/10 T94 O�I.+G Cr6 .FOR U�{ 1+ 4D ■ Y Y M PM g�i✓ C� ='Y o a .Dr weo G a 4 o e aco.1Y�Rerrr Q.d .+ u t p O O r O w Caw M. M. ••'I 'O dd s M O M. i G. C A O .C6 e C M'. aRp GraC Ywm■ 01++CL W OY -uC 0 . y � Y Pr vr.Y 4.a e 02-4- M a vu ?yuy Y PA aM 9�.'Re Vb Ay a •p.+(� Br OCO C w4pp Or Rte+ Yv m 4 �nRA �apmi:C O �•� CpCp O'+ wqy r-ary t 1� i 067eiGRt. qq. Ar ■aNC Y O e L 6 Yr�{ f, G ii tlW.W.IU 4 LN:4 aYWw " NO .., .tla:.0i a�p .aM i.tli`p7 r13 Wa:CU y""' W iil R ODO C ,r � Ai - -tl 9 UY u C Y R •+0. OAD C. w Mw4 tl.Ce~ 9C.L [L A Y.INUU ab Y a I.r - >Y � �r -o1 ��I 4i N M ■�� 4VY■ C�••+ 0 a Ca�C LGG'YC Jw1 Yq�C TC��': Ca9y +1 04 CJ�C ~' G r`.•i ap .C°r 6°i � M O �R M.O NY OM.�.� y aCl O C.r� � S• Led L r y � q E4 .N m 6G ed Vl x D N C6 OCgqr p Or eP■ RO�UUtl tl1 tr6 > +'a.e�r at N % i� M ..� w Q A'��qqe+ C utlCyPagY y � iOzvl -s pPRU mwuYYr LLU Pd1 Q 'O Rrq 1 V10�1 Y R 'C -C. r.CL tltl #O �P■ r 17 Rr R.0 Ytl C -H.+d R GWyw pp f)' a R Rqmp pp bp �1 k q � C.0 RT9r C�er 1y rAOrr.n rA0 R y i/ 7 OrA ? ?r.grr u uC Im7f s�rr y }� GI iJ .'uY S.i� Y0 1.• <iCAdP A�NY.Ci 61q OAIlSA�N2..�dOagd •COyi4o1 .Yd'6 A 4) U d W8 m G ym1 C qm W A MIA W T Y U y Y y Y W u. ,l 0 c w C C Y � .fit � N x� ,:Oa�,�6Pnwq Ou C.Pai ~p �. a� Ch qpa 4�rw.Ri g tlrW ci 2�g ja Z V V �t'' ZPM�W Y ed PC® ees Y °.°.Y °.�...I;*" xc oa .ate a rQ i°� o�w.x� oZ o�apoir t7 •••pw Y R nW .•aw ✓•nW U rl to an Gt -� C id. rxqU nai'i ~o wxC ill X 6({ O y�a�m U$�aw �/ C CYI ��w yl I 4) G7 w O J12, pYpOk13@+ Gmp y w (. •.1 •d CU N + • i C 41 zaLypBY 6Y r.l r1 Cp am �N E `+y+ Rg 01 c NJ R•.yi RY ev- Qe 4 0 =emsI CU CCU 11tln� 04 gw., C.,sw� rl m��ae4 to (Rancho Cucamonga 184 -2 �pl • a 3 q Y 19 IM III-.I ILI 14.20.100 9 0 N H F� N W r N� L® W.•.r 9 a}I O S J N y � �qq. A ,± YN ..79LY Y OWO ?e�r> YL OL war E� GY ,CC �IwOOJ Y v}3W.. .+O J ~A'Y aYd Nd .19J -rJ �„I6W E7r >V R C'O O +� 4 W N O C Aq Vq.9 LOIC.0. Gam. Yp� Y HU'NJW YY CNIs - :I NNOi7 .0i pY�GO a7 w��G 6�Y CL.Ce~.rYM ~w0. �q r V9� 1fdf1JJ�� G.tl+.w,+R �v,104N� N N 6w+.Ri S.Q Gr CC .�•tlm Y w�N O C J �qd Y J t y Y J 2.0 J 0 yC J gy a W =;;: e4Cpp 4 7Y1$ ■ Y ,yN"YCCC LL Y'w NJ pO Ua,pII�A� O�aCS; NGYS�9 %OItl G�QLLY CGUaI O. eYJ�gC' . L G NG . 8a A C fWY � 1'rO U E d pp O +L >I LU UIC ~ III IIE M H q L�� C 4C�.Y . w9�s ♦ dY w w U b pUG 4p1 ery+ ! � .2 _5 W W etl l a.6e O ILY a ti4 Y Z 6VO' H r WaN N r 9YN 9Y Up� 9 CY M �G Y d w 0= d w H e % 66- 1 d J Y gqc o o O U QOu e b120 OY J p b C� �. OOO4t ..Hm O U U �; r1Y @O�9 w ONO Y r pY L M ='N.�E.�' tS gM.gL OS CLppO Y6 7 i70�NA 14 P' �r :wL wd.OddiYq qJ LLgU.T.LG:II Lp1.�C. Y tl o co 0 d O O CJ O s G�H 7 O y L Lw�wY1 Vi q O -Nm nM a O^UJ a ✓4vpoM tl@I dOYy N pad�1 N.IYa am-aCN w 1 H v 43 6 r. c4 a~iGO1. c I�4. aC C�V C�� Od 0�:4 rW Oqa.. C &M-0 999 OO ®eqq L g A O pNQ G(pF C L �tyw et M G.+ p .e _ O O O Vi M 6. tl! Y a H 91 O Yf90 W 3 F°.:+a � ®qo z '#2Z ua 5 -III .O+taiOL ��CL"� d Gd:.�C Tw.Y q .OIi 4 2� as j OwwwaQ�Q dq..aw.00 �1CJ�aHpata40.wL.C� 'ej Jf 184 -3 (Rancho .r!lca�+onga ]2/83) a #z a. o` t CL U � a t1{ Ct3 In J 0 F C O �� z H% q t v Uj LU o a I 1� �J AWL 1 RP TTT � f 6 �I 1 X Cl) - s - -�° PROGRAMS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ACCOMPT;ISHED, BUT NEED MORE STAFF: CURRENT PLANl�TNG,i' PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM SUMMARY FISCAL YEAR 1991 -93 PROGRAM ITEM YEAR STATUS WKS 91/9;1 DROGRAMS WE CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH CURRENT STiFFING: 10 2. Edison Transformer Study 92/93 1. Development Processing Services 91/93 Ongoing 420 On hold 2. Public Information Services X1/93 Ongoing 168 2 3. Etiwanda North Spec. Plan (Support) 91/92 In progress 10 6. 4. Regional Trails Agreemepts 91/92 3a progress 4 Manufactured Home Regulations S. Regional Mall 91/93 lz progress 20 92/93 6. Foothill Boulevyxd Missing Link 91/92 In progress 6 On hold 7. Central Park (Support) 91/92 In progress 5 3 8. Multi - Family Housing /Setback Study !'1/92 In progress 10. _ 7 9. Tree Ordinance Update 91/92 In progress 10 10. Compact Car Parking Amendment J1/92 In progress 3 11. ^ommercial /Industrial Policies 91/92 Completed 2 12. -ign Design Guidelines Manual 91/92 Completed 5 13. Swap Meet ISP Amendment 91/92 CQ,.Vleted 3 , 14. Recycling Operations ISP Amendment 92/93' Completed _, 3 Subtotal 669 NEW OR CONTINUED PROGRAMS WE MUST ACCOMPLISH AND NEED MORE STAFF: 1. Geographic Information System 91/93 On hold 10 2. Design Criteria Guidebook (Support) 91/92 On hold 4 3. Foothill /5 -15 Fwy Beautification (Support) 51/92 On hold 1 4. Art In Public Places (Support) 91/93 On hold 2 5. CEQA Updates /Monitoring Program (Support) 91/92 In progress 5 6. Development Code .Update 91/92 On hold 42 7. Foothill 3treetscape Specs 91/92 In progress 5 S. Senior Housing Location /Design (Support) 91/93 On hId 1 9. Old Alta Loma Neighborhood Plan (Support) 91/93 In progress 1 10. Special Projects 91/93 Ongoing 80 11. Sign Ordinance Amendment 91/92 New 2,, 12. Standard Drawings Update (Support) 91/92 In progress 2 13. Design kwards Excellence Program 91/93 Clew 12 Subtotal 167 _ PROGRAMS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ACCOMPT;ISHED, BUT NEED MORE STAFF: 1. Trails Implementation Prod; =. 91/9;1 In progress 10 2. Edison Transformer Study 92/93 On hold 2 3. Adult Bui!N.ess Zoning Controls 92//3 On hold 3 4. Cul -de -'sac Design Study 92/133 On hold 2 5. Ura.form Sign:Program Format 92/93 On hold 2 6. Office Manual. Update 92/93 On hold 3 7. Manufactured Home Regulations 92/93 On hold 4 B. Parking Lot Lighting Study 92/93 On hold 3 9. Medical Office Parking Study 92/93 On hold 3 10. Second Dwellinngupitts Amendment `; ADVANCE PLAlidING WORT PROGRAM SUMMARY FISCAL YEAR 1991 -93 PROGRAM ITEM YEAR STi TUS WAS PROGRAMS TIE CAN ACCOMPLISH WITH CURRENT STAFFING: 1. Community Development Block Grant 91/93 Ongoing ' 168 2. Inter- governmental Relations 91/93 Ongoing 84 3. General Plan Land Use Amendments 91/93 Ongoinx 44 4. Geographic Information System 91/93 In pr,3r,,,s 10 . 5. Sphere of Influence Annexation Strategy 91/93 Ongoing 3 ' 6. Historic Preservation Program 91/93 Ongoing 114 7. Expanded Air Quality Element 91/93 In progress 24 S. Land Use "& Demographic Data Base 91193 Ongoing 5 9. Housing Element Amendment (RDA Strategy) 91/92 Ongoing 10 10. Economi ^,.Development Activities 91/93 Ongoing 20 11. Community Profile Update 91/93 Ongoing 6 12. Senior dousing Activities Monitoring 91/93 Ongoing 12 13. Etiwanda North Specific Plan /Prezoning 91/93 Ongoiiig `,, 12 14. Design Guide B -ok 91/92 On hold 20 15. County Planning Referrals 91/93 Ongoing 20 16. Street Name Chances 91/93 On hold 6 17. Commuter Rail 91/93 Ongoing 6 18. Foothill /I -15 Freeway Beautification 91/93 On hold 6 Subtotal 570 NEW OR CONTINUED PROGRAMS WE MUST ACCOMPLISH AND NEED MORE STAFF: i 1. City Source Reduction & Recycling -- ,90/91 In progress 10 Element (Support & Implement.) 2. Density Bonuses & Housing Incentives 90/91 On hold 12 3. Special Projects 90/92 Ongoing 80 4. advance Planning Data System Module 91/92 On hold 44 P 5. Senior Housing (SHOD) Site Location 91/93 On hold 8 & Design Criteria Study /Ordinance 6. CEQA Guidelines Update/Mitigation 91/92 In progress c 6 Monitoring Program Subtotal 160 PROGRAMS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ACCOMPLISHED, BUT NEED MORE STAFF: I. Antenna Regulation Study 91/93 On hold 2 2. Strategic Planning Program 91/93 On hold' 6 3. iacant Land Use Inventory Map 91/93 In progress 7 4. Water & Sewer Defic. Study (Support) 91/93 On hold 2 Subtotal. 17 TOTAL 747 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 14, 1991 TO: Chairman and Membees of the Planning commission FROM: Brad Builar, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, Principal P14nner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FORMAL pFrFLIONSE TO ROUTE 30 EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) ABSTRACT: The purpose of this item is to consider and formulate a draft response for City Council's consideration on September 4, 1991, concerning the draft Route 30 Extension EIR/EIS.- In addition to the Planning Commission review and recommendation to �i �. city Council, two other City Commissions are considering the drart EIS. Those two Commissions are; the Historic Preservation Commission and the -Public Safety Committee. BACKGRDUND AND ANALYSIS: A. Draft 'Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement: The draft EIR/EIS for the Route 30 Freeway extension has been released by the California Depart=--, :of Transportation for public comment. The deadline for responding to the draft EIP,/EIS is September 15, 1991. In addition to a series of public hearings (see attached schedule for times and locations) that the State has sponsored concerning this EIR/EIS, City staff is , forwarding copies of this document to the Planning Commission for consideration during the formulation of a draft response for final consideration by the City council. B. EIS Response Process: The Planning Commission 11 being given a copy of the full EIR/ZIS prior to the August 14, 1991 meeting. However, it is anticipated that the Planning Commission will have until the August.. 28, 1991 meeting ta- 'consider a draft response prepared by staff with input from the Public Safety and Historic Preservation Commissions. This will allow the Planning , ng Commissioners to _have additional needed time to consider their concerns and comuents and presant them for final Incorporation at the August 28, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. In order to finalize City comments and have City ' Council authorization of same, this item will be scheduled for the September 4, 1991, City Council agenda. However, the City Council ::IrEm Z PLANNING C ^- MISSION STAFF REPORT ROUTE 30 EXtENSION August 14, 1991 Page 2 will (simultaneously to the Commission) receive tare August. 28 E° Planning Commission stafij report. At the September 4, 1991, City Council meeting staff will p;gsent an oral report concerning any changes /modifications. \\ RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recomme4 that the Planning Commission accept , the draft EIR /EIS for consideration and review and schedule the +.tem for ,I forpai comment on August 28, 1991„ Res�ctull} s tted, l J Bra Ci y F;4nner AB:LB:mlg �s Attachment: Exi35it "A" - Listing of Public Bearings �;i As part of the •public Environmental Review of this freeway project, Caltrans has :also scheduled a number of opportunities for residents to receive info- I.mation on this project, Informal reviews of tr> project will ba; offered at: Rancho Cucamonga Lutheran High School Neighborhood Center Gymn� lum 9791 Arrow Route 3960 Fruit Strut Rancho Cucamonga La Verne ON: August 29,1991 ON- August 29,1591 FROM 3:30 TO 8:00 r.,.q, FROM: 3:30 TO 8:00 P.M. Rialto Senior Center 214 N. Palm Rialto ON: August 28,1991 FROM 3:304-6`8:00 P.M. PubLa Hearing on the Environmental Review Documents will be held at: The School of Theology Mudd Auditorium 1325 North College Avenue Claremont ON: September 4,1991 AM r-:30 P.M. A Caltrans Open Forum Hearing, with a video presentation and time for fiv:rividual questions wilt be held at: Chaffey College Cafeteria 5885 Haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga ON: September 5, 1991 FROM: 3:00 TO 8:00 P.M. Caltrans and the City sncLnvage all interested individuals to submit comments on the freeway to raltrans; also, a Hearing Reporter will be a:•railable to take oral comments at a. Forum Faring to be held at Cliaffey' ` - tlege. These comments will be part of the legal hearing record and will be considered as Caltrans arrives} a final decision on the freeway projects and it, uious alternatives. RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTIOP,\'OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PRIORITY BE GIVEN TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BICYCLE TRAIL SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the City's General Plan established a Master Plan of Trails for a network of bicycling trails:; and, WHEFTiAS, the goal cf the City's General Plan is to implement 'a bicycle trail system that will service the recreational needs of its residents and reduce dependency on the automobile; and WHEREAS, the City's General Plan states that implementation of the bicyrlc. trail system is vital to the transportation system,, a the City and wili help achieve a 10 percent r, %Iucticn in vehicle trips .Itywide and a 25 percent reduction of peak hour indu 'ltri l -based trips, and WHEREAS, the City is comm34;ted to improving the public health ! safety, and welfare, including air quallhy; and T- THEREAS, the South Coast. lir= sality Hanageiment Plan (AQHP) calls upon cities and counties to reduce emisol=s ftom motor' vehicles by developing mobile nource air pollution reduction pro.-rams; and WHEREAS, installation of bicycle trails is consistent with these goals; and, WHEREAS, the street infrastructure the City is now completed to tha extent that installation of a bicycle trail system is feasible; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that consideration be given to priority funding for implementing the bicycle trail system as funds become available. APPROVED AND ADOPTED T.A 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman,_ ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary _ ` Y,, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho 4amonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and <w ITEM AA PLANNING COi4i(ISSION RESOLMMON'NO;. BIKE TRAILS ClT7t OF RANC130 CUCAh:3iyGA August 14, 1991 Page 2 regularly introduced, pa>sed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of 'Uhie City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on tIa.34th day cf'August 1941, by the following vote -to -slits AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES* COhMISSIONERSt ABSEM". COMMISSIONED"'{: t i i