The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-04-27 - SupplementalPlanning Commission April 27, 2016 Applicant SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.) Proposed Project Description 1. Amend the 2010 General Plan; 2. 3. Amend Amend the the "Empire Lakes Specific Plan"; and Development Code Planning Commission April 27, 2016 Summary of April 131" Public Hearing 1. Oral Staff Report; 2. Applicant's Presentation; 3. Public Comments; and 4. Planning Commission Deliberations Planning Commission April 27, 2016 Next Steps 1. Staff Response to Questions from the Public and the Planning Commission; 2. Applicant's Response to Questions from the Public and the Planning Commission; 3. Additional Questions from the Commission 4. Planning Commission Deliberations Planning Commission April 27, 2016 Staff Recommendations 1. Recommend that the City Council certify the EIR; 2. Recommend that the City Council approve: • General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 • Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040 • Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 Completion Year (2024) Significant &Unavoidable Impacts (Intersections) Intersection Peak Hour Without Project With Project With Mitigation Comments Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Foothill Boulevard & Rochester Avenue AM 28.1 C 28.7 C Right -of -Way Required PM 70.4 E 82.0 F 53.9 D Arrow Route & Haven Avenue AM 32.7 C 33.1 C Right -of -Way Required PM 61.4 E 63.6 E 56.4 E 41h Street & Haven Avenue AM 28.9 C 46.9 D Right -of -Way Required PM 61.5 E 96.5 F 61.5 E Inland Empire & Haven Avenue AM 24.4 C 27.1 C City of Ontario Approval Required PM 52.1 D 66.5 E 50.6 D Completion Year (2024) Significant &Unavoidable Impacts (Intersections) Intersection Peak Hour Without Project With Project With Mitigation Comments Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 4ch Street & 1-15 Southbound Ramps AM 18.1 B 28.9 C Caltrans Approval Required PM 44.6 D 72.2 E 39.9 D Haven Avenue & 1-10 Eastbound Ramps AM 34.9 C 44.0 D 23.3 C Caltrans Approval Required PM 15.7 B 35.1 D 16.0 B Milliken Avenue & I- 10 Westbound Ramps AM 27.8 C 28.3 C Caltrans Approval Required PM 34.6 C 53.4 D 29.7 C Cumulative Year (2036) Significant & Unavoidable Impacts (Intersections) Intersection Peak Hour Without Project With Project With Mitigation Comments Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Foothill Boulevard & Rochester Avenue AM 33.3 C 34.5 C Right -of -Way Required PM 71.9 E 83.0 F 54.1 D 4th Street & Haven Avenue AM 28.8 C 44.8 D Right -of -Way Required PM 57.7 E 92.6 F 46.7 D Cumulative Year (2036) Significant &Unavoidable Impacts (Intersections) Intersection Peak Hour Without Project With Project With Mitigation Comments Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 4th Street & 1-15 Southbound Ramps AM 21.9 C 32.8 C Caltrans Approval Required PM 40.4 D 63.0 E 33.6 C Haven Avenue & 1-10 Eastbound Ramps AM 32.8 C 39.4 D 18.7 B Caltrans Approval Required PM 14.8 B 30.4 C Foothill Boulevard & Rochester Avenue Proposed Mitigation: Add 1 Northbound Right Turn Lane Constraint: Right -of -Way Required PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Scenario Without Project With Project % Increase Project Trips 294 Existing (2014) 4,772 5,066 6% Completion Year (2024) 5,640 5,934 5% Cumulative Year (2036) 6,150 6,444 5% Scenario Peak Hour Without Project With Project With Project + Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Completion Year (2024) PM 70.4 E 82.0 F 53.9 D Cumulative Year (2036) PM 71.9 E 83.0 F 54.1 D Arrow Route & Haven Avenue Proposed Mitigation: Add 1 Southbound & 1 Westbound Right Turn Lanes Constraint: Right -of -Way Required PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Scenario Without Project With Project % Increase Project Trips 105 Existing (2014) 4,275 4,380 3% Completion Year (2024) 5,940 6,045 2% Cumulative Year (2036) 6,140 6,245 2% Scenario Peak Hour Without Project With Project With Project + Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Completion Year (2024) PM 61.4 E 63.6 E 56.4 E 41" Street & Haven Avenue Proposed Mitigation: Add 1 Northbound Through Lane Constraint: Right -of -Way Required PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Scenario Without Project With Project % Increase Project Trips 818 Existing (2014) 5,534 6,352 15% Completion Year (2024) 6,780 7,598 12% Cumulative Year (2036) 7,020 7,838 12% Scenario Peak Hour Without Project With Project With Project+ Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Completion Year (2024) PM 61.5 E 96.5 F 61.5 E Cumulative Year (2036) PM 57.7 E 92.6 F 46.7 D Hillside Rd Banyan St 19th St Base Line Rd > ¢ > ¢ Community Facilities District 85-1 0 ¢ C 6 CO> N O ¢ > ¢ C Fire Protection C E L E C N N Y U 2 ` ¢ 2 > S _ .._.._.._..—.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._* r ................................ > m 'U Wilson Av CU LLI Foothill BI i' i Arrow Rt! i i 8th St :L............... ¢ `e 0 6th 4 4th St "orvne W..e�mr• iibimo "' L E S ¢ ¢ ¢ c m Y N C r_ > U 0 w Of Base Line Rd a) r U Foothill BI Arrow Rt !1i ¢> N m W St 1 Legend ji.y ;��•• City Limits K CFD 85-1 � J RtC 1 Miles 1 > a Landscape Maintenance District 1 N Q e E E E Y CO > _ _.�, _ .._.._.. �.S .�..—..—..—..—.._..—..—..—.�.. • Y 1 i � � 1 Q C j Hillside Rd 1CO IU j i 3 i Wilson Av 1 i n m p w i i i r i. — p j Banyan St i 19th St e Base Line Rd Base Line Rd c i Foothill BI Foothill BI Arrow Rt Arrow Rt 7 .a ath St • - - .. i Legend Q Q i 1 Q City Limits o �6th S mr 0 0) f CO w K LMD1 > 4th St 4th St .�„ no.•n� mm�,.w u�ov.«.v..-.•a.,. pox.,��..ma..,a E O > Y N C .� E 2 =_ N CO `°cMNa� .«.yew b m•.:, �. Q. NEDE71 Miles _ •�,��W _. 0.50.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 Q Q Assessment District 85-PD-R _ ¢ C N W O C C N C E L E > Y urr U _ j.................. l.._.... Im......... l0 Hillside Rd i CO 3 Wilson Av , U I Banyan Sri- . % 19th S jRd Base Lin Base Line Rd r �- Foothill BI Foothill BI Arrow Rt Arrow Rt 8th St - — Legend a > S ;��City Limits i4thSt T6th Cu = AD-85-PD-R > 4th St a> a' ¢> > a ¢> a> � cc N N V v. �MPP.rtivcumw^T.�. Pezrreaw!efwcreorrrcea P^�m•rmmnvw�i M�,P.Mbc•.r�`.�..�"".rmp.. „a,nmrem...,rvner�.mm.. E E o w Miles 0.50.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 > U) > Q> C N Q N C c E !EE Y jjnrccxo Cu 77D 2 (D m C[ICAMONCA C) = Q S c— S L Hillside Rd a) i (D L U O Banyan St of Base Line Rd Foothill BI Arrow Rt 4, 8th St ., < c Q) '0 > S T6th C _ 4th St C N C a, fbmrmawm� aOH �RxM Nomeryp @ N Q rtpesmetlu!nP�'Ic ee®urtee 9emvl�MmmE�onq. m. E n >> reu1R zmxmmm �mcmu an; Imormalbn . of mtl awn e m , rae rl. mr.ie. �aaa, L = M, av pa MParX Ir n e M M IMmWIm rey e N ` U GHho Pare rumbvga eantlrtl 9nELL m'w l�arar'ctlbbc M rrpYetl remMn = 0 IwNd ¢arq es br aalvrrWv pa{ase. iru tl�ol qa� a ueamega rry InwYIV ar w n be pl Y V9arLLezc m.aerr �a,�rre nu< b am o<r,� MRi�k +wRa tlnar'matl w I.� raa' �:r.n. Street Light Maintenance District 1 w 4th St C (6 3 W Line Rd Foothill BI Arrow Rt Wilson Legend t City Limits SLD1 � J 0 IffiNCE Miles 0.50.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19968 Design Review DRC2015-00589 Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00180 Planning Commission Historic Preservation Commission April 27, 2016 Project Location al� k Project Location Project Applications • Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19968 - The subdivision of 5.0 acres into 11 single-family lots. • Design Review DRC2015-00589 - Design Review for 10 single-family homes. - Ernst Mueller House, a designated historic landmark, will remain on Lot S. • Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00180 - Relates to improvements around the Ernst Mueller House, a designated local historic landmark. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19968 • A request to subdivide 5.0 acres into 11 single-family lots. • Low (L) Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. ■ 4 du/ac. ■ 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. ■ 15,000 square foot average lot size. • Development Proposal: ■ 2.21 du/ac. ■ 13,387 square foot minimum lot size. ■ 19,054 square foot maximum lot size. ■ 15,469 average lot size. • The design of the subdivision complies with all applicable development standards of the Development Code and ESP. Site Utilization Map SITE C I ILIZITION MAP TENTATIVE TRACT No. 1"68 .. ._ i ^ Ywl E g � � �. i t msauourw i .E cm or Tp m.Murr 11 , E - -.-• _-. -- - _.. _ - = --- CRY aF RANCHO CUCAMOWA IN THEORY DFRANCSb WCAMONGA WEST S0 BSHEET`: 00I OF SMf SERNNIDINO, CALFORNIA TRACT NO. 19968 BENS A BUSUMSIO! OF THE N T1^3 OF LOT a, SL W,h SHOWN ON ME PREIJIWN YAVM OF ME EMI ANDA 00L ANDS RERORDED IN SODK 2 PAGE U OF NAME IN THE OFROE OFTIE COUNTY RECORDER OF MD OOUHI WbV.'EI CNOEFFANO A9.90CYlLB, NG DEc4 mwfi uunlo .nalwwstiocw aaalsv.. 4wFISHER OR. ♦ - t ��icw x.woeefrMD� SEE DETAIL BELOW Ey FORO.D SCALE I 3 In W. a �u w. c : a '?„♦r� �1 mew ew.cxen ww - '°' w •R`I,C s I e. YY��Iwteaxnow.:,.�. a WHRESTONE RACE I7 Its l I4E i P � I pl puq IP 1 M S IE L B y is LJ S g aI 10 If b I �-- mrvA,e oA.nAt _ ,y 1 E4f1EM am I 1 1 F I I am urNvuw� ii i e..memc.w 44 1 TF . T IPA. 1 II.E. al_ I, —Id FISHER DR } .. ... .. ♦ i eT'MWNIm r,. v0 Y I — e< 1 a vmw DETAIL SCALE'. 1, 10 s.wF •whew. voaeoweeo auan SEE SHEET ] FOR ENdNEERB NOTES 7101 CO _ ^O �W V y �w+wo waaru CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Design Review DRC2015-00589 • 10-lot Design Review (Ernst Mueller House will remain on Lot 5). • ESP requires 3 floor plans, with 2 elevations per plan. ■ Plans 1, 2, and 3 have 2 elevations each. ■ Plan 2R has 1 elevation. ■ Floor Plans range in size from 3,208 to 3,995 square feet. ■ Plans 1 & 2 are single -story. ■ Plan 3 is two-story. ■ Plan mix includes 7 single -story and 3 two-story floor plans. • The placement of the proposed homes complies with all applicable development standards of the ESP. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Elevations UL I< LLL;,\-1<`h LLFI LLLVATION FRONT ELEVATION PLAN #E 1 H �NI�UCHE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Spanish Colonial ...__.. �' _...... RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA JEC Eniarplsas Elevations R A N C H O C U C A M 0 N G A J E C E N T E R P R 1 5 E 5. I N C H A N N 0 N C H E A R C H I T E C T 5 ©• •fir,. S� • Elevations Emi=3- 1 I 'I. %"R ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION PLAN #T RANCHO CUCAMONGA Craftsman <'-.... -- _.. .... RANCHO CUCAMONOA, CA JEC Entayprl s � am M Ll t4d 5z �ry ki a Alt, . 16 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Elevations I dLAR LLLVAIION LLff LLEVATON FROM ELEVATION PLAN #2 Sponlsh Colo lal ��E RANCHO CUCAMONGA RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA .1EC Enferprlses Elevations M•e RANCHO C U C A M 0 N G A J E C EN T E R PR I9 E 9, INC H A N N 0 U C H E A R C H I T E C T S ©o CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Elevations ItEAR ELEVATION Elevations FROM ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION PLAN 02X Crafts n RANCHO CUCAMONGA rLrmi -. _._. RANCHO CUUMONGA CA JEC Enterprises 3 A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA e • r• Elevations C A M 0 N G A J E C EN T E R P R 1 5 E9, INC H A N N U U C N E A R C H 1 T E C T 5 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00180 • Project site contains the Ernst Mueller House, a designated local historic landmark. - On March 9, 1994, the HPC recommended approval of the house, citrus groves, Eucalyptus windrows, and Magnolia street trees. - On June 1, 1994, the City Council approved the landmark designation. - On August 10, 1994, the HPC approved a landmark alteration permit for the installation of a temporary church, allowing for the removal of some of the citrus grove interior to the site. Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00180 • The Saint Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church installed the temporary church building, parking lot, and replacement citrus grove. • Development of the East Avenue bridge, with the 210 Freeway, required the removal of the East Avenue Magnolia street trees. • Due to the cost of irrigating and maintaining the replacement Magnolia trees, the remaining citrus grove, and the replacement citrus grove, all of the Magnolia trees and citrus trees were removed by the Church. • Remaining trees include Eucalyptus windrows throughout the site and a variety of trees in close proximity to the Ernst er House. Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00180 • The Ernst Mueller House will be located on Lot 5 of SUBTT19968. • Driveway access will be from the east side of the lot, off of the northerly extension of Brownstone Place. • A new freestanding garage will be built northeast of the house. The design will be subject to DRC review and approval. • The East Avenue wall and related landscaping will be installed. • Existing trees, other than Eucalyptus, in close proximity to the house will be preserved in place. TRP 2016-00292 • TRP will be completed following PC/HPC action. • Arborist Report evaluated seventy-five (75) trees on -site. • 27 trees meet Heritage Tree minimum height and trunk diameter requirements. • 63 trees are Eucalyptus trees (15 meet Heritage tree requirements); however, they are over -mature, dead or in declining condition, and have structural defects. • Within ESP, replacement windrow planting along the rear property line of all 11 lots. • Spotted Gum Eucalyptus, minimum 5-gallon size, planted 8 feet on center. Environmental Review • Staff prepared the Initial Study for the project. ■ Findings in the IS determined that with the imposition of mitigation measures related to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, and noise, that there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Conclusion • Staff recommends the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission take the following actions: ■ Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; and ■ That the Planning Commission adopt the Resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT19968 and Design Review DRC2015-00589; and ■ That the Historic Preservation Commission adopt the Resolution approving Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00180. Planning Commission April 27, 2016 Applicant Cariyensis Garcia, owner of Cariyensis Wellness Project Description CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-01049 — CARIYENIS WELLNESS - A request to operate a massage establishment in a 1,114 square foot tenant space within the General Industrial (GI) zoning district located at 9087 Arrow Route, Suite 100. O O - M 10 nllis�wn R.ePart -Y�o11Cho. t Aul o PnmUng Chap p. ^'✓1� a ..:. . _an:c PrnGram r:a ^Lie Crarl IN'ewery Mulb Phase Horne LUa 'c e Approving Authority • Per Chapter 17.16 of the Development Code, the Planning Director is authorized to administratively review and decide all Conditional Use Permits. • Pursuant to Section 17.14.060.0 of the Development Code, the Planning Director may at any point in the application review process, transfer decision making authority to the Planning Commission at her discretion. • At this time the Planning Director is referring Conditional Use Permit applications for massage establishments to the Planning Commission for review and action. Business Specifics • Massage therapy practice • Subject Suite is 1,140 square feet in size • Hours of operation • Monday — Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. • Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. • Closed Sunday • Minimum of 3 employees, maximum of 5 • 2 dedicated massage therapy rooms, one hypnotherapy room, break room, restroom and storage Floor Plan ARROW BUSINESS PACK. !-7'.3" z 1X4' g4 SIT,1N`d/8RFAK AeGA :o'5"x jb 3" ci mm5c Mr'SSAe,6 Roo" x5 T' 'T3" sroeAGE k cYMMSAGS RDbli �q j ;a,v.X TS„ . -4TI'Nt�lERnP'f -• 19'3" x H'12.,, SIYf1NCn/ vq?tmNG, MA7 Row, P"A sute 100 + 1,114 sf Public Notification • Notification was sent to surrounding property owners on April 11, 2016 • The site was posted on April 13, 2016 • Hearing notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on April 14, 2016 • Staff has not received any comments or concerns Environmental Determination and Staff Recommendation • The project qualifies as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. • Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-01149 by adoption of Resolution of Approval 16-21 with conditions of approval.