Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978/11/08 - Agenda Packet3 Li 7 V I 00, L4 V. 0 ,1"t1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1LANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, November 8, 1978, 7 :00 p.m. Community Services Building 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Jones III. Approval of Minutes IV. Public Hearings Conditional Use Permit No 78 -01 - The development•of a Neighborhood J Commercial Shopping Center to be located on the northwest corner of 19th and Archibald - Request submitted by Varir Research Company.. Conditional Use Permit No. 78 -02 - The development of a Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center on the southeast corner of 19th and Archi- bald - Request submitted by Robinson- Jensen Development Company. Zone Change No@ 78 -02 - To change the zone from C-2 and M -R to M -2 for approximately 9g3 acres located on the northeast corner of Eti- AA`� wands Avenue and Whittram - Request submitted by Secondo Colaabero. Site Approval No. 78-03 a�rThe development of a nursery /day care facility to be located at 9817 Baseline - R -1 zone - Request sub- mitted by Ed Young. Access s Policy for Major and Secondary Highways - Initiated by Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. Jae,. The Rancho Cuci.monpa Proposed General Plan. F. 1. Chaffey College presentation 2. Remaining individual concerns V.. New Business G. Director Review No. 78 -42 - A request to place a %L quor" sign on i, each of the Stater Brothers Stores located on the northeast corner of Carnelian and Baseline and on the northeast corner of Archibald and 19th Street - Request submitted by Federal Sign Company. r H. Request for revisions to Tract No. 9589 - Request submitted by r, Mr. Bates. :.i PLANNING COMMISSION DA' , November 8, 1978 Page 2 VI. Consent Calendar The following consent calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial. All items will be acted upon at one time without.discus- sion. Anyone having questions may request removal from the consent calendar for later discussion. I. Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 78 -38 - The development of four industrial buildings in an industrial complex to be located on the southeast corner of Helms and 9th Street. J. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4762 - The subdivision of 27.6 acres on the southwest corner.of 6th Street and-Turner Avenue into 19 industrial parcels. K. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No.,4743 - The subdivision of approximately 14 acres of property located on the west side of Beryl Street, approximately 900' south of 19th Street into three parcels. L. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4805 - The subdivision of approximately 10 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Church Street and Ramona Avenue into two parcels. VII. Communications 'VIII. Adjournment a' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 19,'1978 Special Meeting CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Thursday, October 19, 1978. Meeting was celled to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRcSENT: Corunissioners: Jorge Garcia, Herman Rempel and Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Commissioners: Laura Jones and Richard Dahl STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Jack Lam,_ Director of Community Development, stated a letter has been received from the City /County Planning Commission indicating a conference will be held at Norton Air Force Base Officers Club on October 28th. He stated the Commission is invited to attend and asked that reservations be made by October 23, 1978. * * * * *: STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated a communication has been received from the Planning Commissioners Association. Every year Planning Com- missioners from various cities get together to conduct•a Commissioners Conference. This year the conference is, scheduled for November 9 and November 10, 1978. lie asked that the Commission contact him a:; soon as possible on whether or not they wily be able to attend this conference. lie indicated an Agenda will be forwarded to them in the near future on this conference. * * * * * Chairman Rempel asked that Staff Communication, Item 7A on the Agenda, be reviewed at this time. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Jack Lam reviewed a letter from James L. Catanzaro, Superintendent /President from Chaffey- College requesting that the college.be given the opportunity to present Planning .Commission Minuo -2- October 19, 1978 their proposal and back -.up information regarding the general plan designations for the area east, west.and south of the campus to the Planning Commission at the October 25 meeting. Jack Lam stated the October 25 meeting is the date set to review indus- trial portions of the general plan, as well as any commercial issues that have cone in the last week. Chairman Rempel stated he feels the October 25, 1978 meeting will,be a fairly heavy meeting and suggested that this matter be reviewed at the November 8, 1978 meeting. He further asked that a position statement and any supportive information be for- warded to the Commission by Chaffey College prior to the November, 1978 meeting, in order that the Commission can understand their position and respond to it at that meeting. The Board of Trustees is invited to attend this meeting. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy, and unanimously carried that Staff inform the College Board of Trustees to have a representative at the November 8, 1978 Planning Commission meeting and that proper information to substantiate their position should be forwarded to the Commission in writing prior to November 1, 1978. PUBLIC HEARING Site Approval No. 78 -02 - Request for an Aluminum Recycling Plant in an M -2 zone generally located on the north side of Sixth Street between-Archibald and Turner Avenue - Request submitted by Reynolds Aluminum. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. lie reported this was continued from the last meeting at which time the applicant was requested to submit noise level measurements of other similar recycling plants. The measurements were not received for review at the last meeting, thus the item was continued to this meeting. He further indicated the Commission expressed concern about the architectural treat- ment of the building. Staff was directed to work with the applicant to revise the exterior elevation plans so as to allow for a more aesthetically pleasing building. He stated the applicant has agreed to use attenuation techniques so as to reduce the noise level at any property line below 65 dbA. The applicant has agreed to revise the exterior elevation plans of the building and they propose to replace the chain link fence in the front of the property with a decorative block wall. He reported the Planning Division recommends approval of Resolution No. 78 -12 based on the findings, and conditions contained therein. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he feels a condition should be added to the Resolution which states the noise level. at any property line shall not exceed 65dbA. Jack Lam stated this condition should.be made a part of the Resolution as Item number 27. There being no further questions from the Commission to the Staff, Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. There being no comments from the applicant, a motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and unanimously carried to approve Resolution No. 78 -12 subject to the findings and conditions as listed with the addition of Item number 27 Chairman Remoel stated the General Plan discussions (Item 4B) should be continued until after review of the remaining Agenda items. OLD BUSINESS Modification of Tract Conditions for Regency Equestrian Estates - Tracts 9378 -79 Jack Lam, DirecLar. of Community Development, stated at the October 11, 1978 meeting, the Commission continued review of the request for modification of wall requirements on these tracts. This was continued to October 25, 1978. The applicant, however, is experiencing some time problems and has additional information for review at this meeting. He is therefore requesting that the Commission consider the new information at this time. Jack Lam stated the Commission continued this item for two reasons: 1) It was requested that the rail fence as proposed be replaced.with a concrete rail fence on both sides of the trail easement; and 2) There was a question as to proper irrigation of the trees that were preserved on the site. It was felt the property owner would have difficulty maintaining the trees.' He stated the applicant is present and can speak to these issues. Mr. John Chayanne, representing Regency Equestrian Estates, stated they have looked at .the landscaping maintenance situation and they have decided to put in n -a bubbler system for the Erees that will be in the rear of lots 1 through'4. Those lots are visible from Hillside Drive. He stated each lot will have a slope planting. Sprinkler systems will be installed at the rear of each lot for the maintenance of the slope, so water will be available to the rear of all lots. They plan on installing a drip type irrigation system to maintain the trees on lots 1 through 4. This is a planned unit development and will have a home owners association which will collect dues for the maintenance of the fence. In looking at the concrete fence and in talking to some people who have horses, it was felt that a concrete fence could be very dangerous and they would prefer a wood fence. If the wood fence is allowed, it will be maintained by the Home Owners Association. After general discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Comm missioner Tolstoy, and unanimously carried to approve the modification of Tract con - ditions for Regency Equestrian Rstates - Tracts 9378 -79 subject to the following con- ditions:. 1) That a bubbler system for the trees be provided in the rear of Lots I through 4 of the tract, and 2) that the split rail fence as proposed be approved subject to the condition that the CC&R's reflect that the Home Owners Association will be responsible for the maintenance of said split rail fence. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GARCIA* TOLSTOY, REMPEL NONE COMMISSIONERS JONES, DAHL P.lanniug Commission 1•iinm -3- October_ 19, 1978 which states: The noise level at any property line shall not exceed 65 dbA. AYES: COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, GARCIA,• REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS DAHL, JONES Chairman Remoel stated the General Plan discussions (Item 4B) should be continued until after review of the remaining Agenda items. OLD BUSINESS Modification of Tract Conditions for Regency Equestrian Estates - Tracts 9378 -79 Jack Lam, DirecLar. of Community Development, stated at the October 11, 1978 meeting, the Commission continued review of the request for modification of wall requirements on these tracts. This was continued to October 25, 1978. The applicant, however, is experiencing some time problems and has additional information for review at this meeting. He is therefore requesting that the Commission consider the new information at this time. Jack Lam stated the Commission continued this item for two reasons: 1) It was requested that the rail fence as proposed be replaced.with a concrete rail fence on both sides of the trail easement; and 2) There was a question as to proper irrigation of the trees that were preserved on the site. It was felt the property owner would have difficulty maintaining the trees.' He stated the applicant is present and can speak to these issues. Mr. John Chayanne, representing Regency Equestrian Estates, stated they have looked at .the landscaping maintenance situation and they have decided to put in n -a bubbler system for the Erees that will be in the rear of lots 1 through'4. Those lots are visible from Hillside Drive. He stated each lot will have a slope planting. Sprinkler systems will be installed at the rear of each lot for the maintenance of the slope, so water will be available to the rear of all lots. They plan on installing a drip type irrigation system to maintain the trees on lots 1 through 4. This is a planned unit development and will have a home owners association which will collect dues for the maintenance of the fence. In looking at the concrete fence and in talking to some people who have horses, it was felt that a concrete fence could be very dangerous and they would prefer a wood fence. If the wood fence is allowed, it will be maintained by the Home Owners Association. After general discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Comm missioner Tolstoy, and unanimously carried to approve the modification of Tract con - ditions for Regency Equestrian Rstates - Tracts 9378 -79 subject to the following con- ditions:. 1) That a bubbler system for the trees be provided in the rear of Lots I through 4 of the tract, and 2) that the split rail fence as proposed be approved subject to the condition that the CC&R's reflect that the Home Owners Association will be responsible for the maintenance of said split rail fence. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GARCIA* TOLSTOY, REMPEL NONE COMMISSIONERS JONES, DAHL Planning Commission Mine -4- 0 October 19, 1978 PUBLIC HEARING GENERAL PLAN - Certain Residential and Commercial designations will be discussed Jack Lam stated according to the time frame, the Commission has this as the last formal meeting in which residential and commercial issues would be considered. The October 25, 1978 meeting is scheduled to consider industrial properties. However, there are some commercial issues still in our office and we feel. we can add those to the meeting of the 25th; however, at that point formal*d'iscus- sions and individual issues should cease and the Commission should then begin looking at some conclusions and some final recommendatians to the City Council in order that they can conduct their public hearings before the first of the year. RESIDENTIAL Area: "Reserve Area" Issue: A Number of property owners expressed concern regarding the meaning of "Reserve Area ". Jack Lam reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported the land use element designates this reserve area primarily because it is remote from urban services and need not be developed in the near future. It seems obvious that the land use will be residential but better environ- mental data is needed before any approvals are granted and there should be assurances that there will be a large enough community built over a short time to support the cost of providing services to such development. In the interim only large parcels should be required. He 'stated it appears that most property owners are in general agreement that there are fiscal and environmental constraints to development in the area in the short term but they are concerned that "reserve area" somehow has a connotation that development can never occur on such property. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Commission to consider a "study area" designation instead of . "reserve". He slated staff recommends that the Planning Commission delete the "reserve" area designations and replace the same with "study area ". The text to be changed to indicate predominately lower density residential uses but that rapid urbanization of land within the area is to be discouraged until certain conditions can be met as stated in the Staff Report. Chairman Rcmpel asked for questions from the Commission to the staff. Commissioner Tolstoro stated It is his opinion that seismic study should be included as a part of Staff Recommendation No. 2. There being no further comments from the Commission, Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Joe DeOrial, 776 19th Street, stated the major land owners in this area seem to be in ..' agreement with this "study area ". Commissioner Garcia stated he does feel that a study must be done in that particular area, and he would like to encourage property owners in that particular area to do a study earlier than the three year time period if they can fund one. If a study is done in this area, lie feels the entire area should be studied at one time and should not be done piecemeal. Pl.anntug Commission M111 -5.� October 19, 1978 Jack lam stated in talking about areas outside our sphere of influence, the City - would like to insure any development which occurs be consistent with city policies. LAFCO will not make a decision on the sphere of influence until after our General Plan is adopted. Commissioner Garcia stated if the land owners in this area decide to initiate a study in. the next year or so, he would personally be receptive to such a study. Mr. John Shurb, 1998 Banyan, asked if the Commission has any idea at this Pime of the ultimate density for this area. Chairman Rempel stated this can not be answered at this time until such time as a study can be done. Mrs. Betty McNay stated there aren't many people involved in this area. It is possible that, the owners in this area could get a study going. Chairman Rempel stated if a study was started now and at such time there is something positive to present, the Commission and Staff would look at it. There being no further discussion, a motion was made.by Commissioner Tolstov, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unanimously carried to accept staff recommendation to delete the reserve area designations and replace the same with "Study Area ". The text.is to be changed to indicate predominately lower density residential uses but that rapid urbanization of land within the area is to be discouraged until: 1. A firm resolution of the LAFCO sphere of influence for the City and agreement with the County on development standards and densities, etc. on both sides of the city line. 2. Identification of environmental constraints and their mitigation or resolution; i.e., the resolution of flood control designs for this area and seismic safety, etc., should be established or determined. 3. The fiscal impacts of the city of development including the critical Issues of timing and utility extensions need to be determined. 4. The completion of a city zoning ordinance and completion of the remaining General Plan elements. 5. The city will initiate a study and general plan amendment within three years from date of adoption of a zoning map or unless such a study and amendment can be made with property owners bcaring the cost of such study prior to the three year time period. Lame parcel zoning should be required to discourage premature conversion to urban densities in the interim. AYES: COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, GARCIA, HEMPEL NOES: NONE j!, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS JONES, AAHL Planning Commission Mit -G- October 19, 1978 Area: Area bounded by the Devore Freeway and Fast Avenue, south of Victoria Street in Etiwanda. Jack Lam reviewed the staff report, this being on file in the Planning Division. He stated the property owners disagree with the Windrow designation and desire high density. He recommended that the Windrow designation as shown on the General Plan be retained for this area. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. After general discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and unanimously carried to retain the Windrow designa- tion for this area. AYES: COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: C"IISSIONERS JONES, DAHL Ralph Lewis stated they are the owners of property from Haven to Rochester up to Baseline and a small amount of property north of Baseline. On the original master plan for their property, they proposed a hundred acre mobile tome park on the north side of Baseline, east of Haven to where Milliken extends up. He feels there is a need for a mobilehome park in the City. He asked that the Com- mission consider this type of use for that area. Commissioner Garcia stated it would be advisable for Mr. Lewis to submit his request in writing prior to our Agenda in order for the Commission to analyze the request. It was the co ncensus of the Commission that this item be brought back to the October 25, 1978 meeting for further review. COMJ4ERCIAL ISSUES Area: Between the Southern Pacific Station and the Junior High School on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue Jack Lam reviewed the Staff Report this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported the General Plan designation for this area is Windrow. The property owner Indicates there is an opportunity to create a commercial environment conducive to the creation of an historic village for the Etlwanda area and that such an opportunity should be recognized on the land use plan. Staff recommends that the Windrow desig- nation be -retained until such time as a specific proposal whether on a project basis or on a plan basis be submitted for City consideration. '? Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Planning Commission MASS -7- October 19, 1978 Mrs. McNay_ stated she is very v,uch interested in a historical village in this area. She feels there is a need for commercial in this area. This is no place for homes. It is her opinicn that this would be an ideal place for protecting the area to be able to bring in older houses and possibly convert them to a commercial use in order to p•.eserve them in this small area. Commissioner Garcia stated the concept of commercial of some sort between school and railroad tracks perhaps should be studied. He stated he would agree with Staff that the present Windrow designation should be retained until such time as a specific proposal is submitted for city consideration. That would allow the applicant to come up with a proposal such as a historical village for this property for review. The City would then have some control as to what the facility will look like. A general commercial designation would give less con- trol over development in the area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree with Commissioner Garcia. The his- torical village concept is a good idea, but he would not like to show a general commercial designation at this point in time. Chairman Rempel stated he understands there is a commercial use on t:e property at the present time, which would be allowed to continue. Jack Lam stated that is correct, it would be a legal non - conforming use and has every right to remain so long as the use is in continuous operation. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unanin.ously carried to retain the Windrow designation until such time as a specific proposal whether on a project basis or on a plan basis be submitted for City consideration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS GARCIA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL JONES, DAHL Area: Northwest and southeast corner of 19th and Archibald Jack Lam reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported the General Plan designates this area as high density residential, and medium density residential. The property owner desires a com- mercial designation. He reported no projects have been approved for these two sites ;: lthough withhold zone changes are pending on both parcels. Both property owners are currently in the process of developing a site plan for approval although no approvals have been given at this time. Pe stated there are sites within the City which developers have announced plans for future development. The Planning Commission has yet to make a firm statement regarding the issue of such neighbor- hood shopping centers whether more should be allowed to be constructed within the concentrated areas of Alta Loma. A withhold zone is not legal. until the ordinance has been adopted and no vested rights in continuing development are present unless a building permit has been issued on a particular piece of property. The Commission should establish a firm policy as to the rejection or selection of multiple corner sites. He recommended if the Planning Commission rejects the sites, the General Plan designations should be retained. If the Planning Coimnission desires in some respect to recognize outstanding commercial center projects, criteria should be determined so that a selection may be made. rn Planning Commission Mims -8- October 19, 1978. Commissioner Garcia stated lie would like a brief report from the City Engineer in terms of traffic conditions at that particular Cotner and the condition during peak hours in relationship to the shopping center to the south on Baseline and Archibald. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, stated a tremendous amount of detail study has not been done on 19th Street as yet. He does have some traffic engineer counts. The traffic during the last year has increased" quite a bit but a step by step study needs to be done. Chairman Hempel asked what.the width design is for 19th Street. Llyd Hubbs stated the master plan width is 64 feet. Commissioner Garcia stated he has a concern about traffic problems if shopping centers are located in this area especially during the rainy season. There being no further questions from the Commission to the•staff, Chairman Rappel opened the public hearing. Mr. Frank Dominguez, President of Vanir Development Company, stated he would like the Canmission to consider changing the proposed master plan to commercial zoning on the northwest corner of Archibald and 19th Street. From a moral standpoint, they have been working on this project for two years now in an effort to develop a shopping center on this property. He stated a meeting was held with the Board of Supervisors for San Bernardino County prior to the City's incorporation at which time they were led to believe this development would not cause auy problems. From the comments made at that board meeting, they proceeded to acquire the pro- perty on the northwest corner of 19th and Archibald for this commercial develop- ment and thus far they have expended several hundred thousands of dollars to plan and.acquire property. They were told by San Bernardino County in a meeting, at which time members of the City Council for the City of Rancho Cucamonga were present, that the withhold states if developers followed certain conditions,. the Bard has never turned down a request for extension of a zone change where an anplicant shows diligence in a project. He stated he does not feel residen- tial dec.-lopmcnt in this area would be conducive to good planning.• They are working on a development which they feel will be an asset to the City and will do very well at this location. Mr. Doug Hone stated he is not associated in any way with this property at the present time. At one time lie had this property in escrow and they did represent the property before the Board of Supervisors. This was not a joint meeting of the City Council and the Board of Supervisors, but prior to the incorporation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. DeWsyne Walkers, representing Lucky Stores and Gemco, sta�cd they had a con- sultant report made up which states that their site is a very good cne for Lucky Stores and would be a very profitable venture for Lucky's. it is generally-felt. that when other grocery stores are located within a community they are more com- petitive. The site has a natural barrier to the north if the Foothill Freeway goes through. Planning Commission M es -9- 0 October 19, 1978 Mr. Ted Robinson. Robinson Development Company of Newport Beach, stated they are the developers of the southeast corner of Archibald and 19th Street. He . stated they selected this location because they felt it was a little more removed from the proposed freeway and they warned to avoid the on and off ramps of the freeway. It was pointed out.by the City Engineer that east of the intersection there is a good drop off of traffic, so their particular 'center might have less of an impact on traffic along 19th Street. They too had their site plan reviewed by the County of San Bernardino and they were postponed until the outcome of the formation of the City. Mr. Frank Dominguez stated their project was reviewed by the County Planning Com- mission and they received unanimous approval. It then went forward to the Board of Supervisors. , Mayor Jim Frost stated for the record, 'the only meeting the Board of Supervisors had with our City Council was Monday, November 21st. The Council members were sworn in on the second of December. Any information given would have been advisory only. Commissioner Garcia stated he does not like tc implicate what action was carried' on by the previous Board of Supervisors. This Commission as a planning body has been instructed to look at matters regarding planning. This Commission should look strictly at the project and its effect on the community as a whole.,' The City is facing a considerable amount of commercial development. He understands the compe- titive issues, but overbuilding commercial is not good either. Commercial develop- ments have to be competitive to population of the area. The issue the Commission must address ourselves to is do we have enough commercial now versus population growth. our consultant has indicated we do have enough commercial at the present time. There is also tremendous traffic problems in this area. The -City has not been able to study the traffic flows and the impact a shopping center within, this area may have. He is very reluctant to increase the traffic unless proper jsti- fication and constructive comments can be made for this area. Lloyd Hubbs stated there have been no traffic studies done on this intersection. Chairman Rappel stated there is another problem the Commission. has to address and that is whether the Commission wants to recommend to the Council that.we have multiple corner shopping center areas or do we want to spread shopping centers out. We need to determine the traffic generated because of multiple corner developments and whether or not it is more than can be handled. We can not get into the economics of a development. Commissioner Garcia stated the General plan Consultant has done enough studies in the. area and their recommendstions at this point are valid based on experience that we ave. lie stated he is reluctant at this point to make any constructive comments to change the present master plan designation. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it has been pointed out by John Blayney, our consultant. ithat when shopping centers oppose each other across the street, they are not desirable. He is in agreement with the General Plan as proposed for this area. Mr. Donimauez stated he feels that multiple family residential would bring more traffic into the area overall, especially during peak periods. He feels this should be considered. r �I re- A Chairman Rempc ksae: if shopping centers were approved in an area that does not really neea tx. :r. y t, this also causes the additional traffic congestion before the time he City can handle it. He is not in favor of markets on different corners as it causes traffic problems that we are trying to avoid. For now, until a traffic study Im done and solutions reached in the area, and better means of .andling that traffic, he would not be in favor of changing the master plan designation. A motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and unanimously carried to.reta!_n the proposed General. Plan designation of high density residential and medium density residential for prnperty on the northwest and southeast corner of 19th and Archibald. AYES: COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS .ZONES, DAHL Chairman Rempel stated he would like to clarify that the Commission is not saying they will never be able to put a market on this property. What they are saj•ing is in order to develop this area, some very good back up informa- tion is needed when someone comes in with a development. The fact that the County made some prior commitments does not mean that they were best for the City. he are sorry this had to happen but one of the reasons the City of Rancho Cucamonga incorporated is because, of the fact it was felt- we weren't getting what was best for the community. Area Southeast corner and Southwest corner of Foothill and Haven Jack Unn reviewed the Staff Report ir detail, this being on file in the Planning Divlsion. He reported the General Plan designates the area on the southwest corner for mixed use and the southeast corner industrial. The property owners want commercial center designations. The intersection of Foothill and Haven is a critical one since it is a juncture of two major arterials in the community. It is also a location for a regional shopping center alternative thereby making the intersection more critical in terms of access and efficiency flow of traffic. The consultant indicates that a site in any quadrant of the Foothill /Haven inter - soctlon would be suitable If a regional shopping ranter site is not to be reserved in the northeast qundrnnt. Any development of shopping cer.ters on corner sites other than the northeast corner should be on a "show me" basis with full traffic studies. He recommended that the General Plan designation be retained. Chairman Rompel opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience. '_Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. i Fl.anntng Conrnissi.or ?tops, -i(]- �OCtober 19, 1978 Cummissioner Garcia stated in terms of long range planning if it is found there is a need for such a use in the future, at Chat Lime there is flexibility to amend the General Plan. There is not proper justification at the present time to make a constructive. decision. Chairman Rempc ksae: if shopping centers were approved in an area that does not really neea tx. :r. y t, this also causes the additional traffic congestion before the time he City can handle it. He is not in favor of markets on different corners as it causes traffic problems that we are trying to avoid. For now, until a traffic study Im done and solutions reached in the area, and better means of .andling that traffic, he would not be in favor of changing the master plan designation. A motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and unanimously carried to.reta!_n the proposed General. Plan designation of high density residential and medium density residential for prnperty on the northwest and southeast corner of 19th and Archibald. AYES: COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS .ZONES, DAHL Chairman Rempel stated he would like to clarify that the Commission is not saying they will never be able to put a market on this property. What they are saj•ing is in order to develop this area, some very good back up informa- tion is needed when someone comes in with a development. The fact that the County made some prior commitments does not mean that they were best for the City. he are sorry this had to happen but one of the reasons the City of Rancho Cucamonga incorporated is because, of the fact it was felt- we weren't getting what was best for the community. Area Southeast corner and Southwest corner of Foothill and Haven Jack Unn reviewed the Staff Report ir detail, this being on file in the Planning Divlsion. He reported the General Plan designates the area on the southwest corner for mixed use and the southeast corner industrial. The property owners want commercial center designations. The intersection of Foothill and Haven is a critical one since it is a juncture of two major arterials in the community. It is also a location for a regional shopping center alternative thereby making the intersection more critical in terms of access and efficiency flow of traffic. The consultant indicates that a site in any quadrant of the Foothill /Haven inter - soctlon would be suitable If a regional shopping ranter site is not to be reserved in the northeast qundrnnt. Any development of shopping cer.ters on corner sites other than the northeast corner should be on a "show me" basis with full traffic studies. He recommended that the General Plan designation be retained. Chairman Rompel opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience. '_Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. i planning Commission Pi cc: -11- Octobex 19, 1978 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is excited about the prospect of a regional shop- ping center in this location and he doesn't think this Commission should do any- thing that would change that as this is one of the focal points of the community. We should consider very strongly keeping the designation onthe map until soaebody comes in with a specific project. Commissioner Garcia stated he would agree with Commissioner Tolstoy. He would also like to make a policy on the General Plan that this area should be set aside for high sophisticated development with chat particular intersection. This area should be looked at as a whole and any development should be strictly related in terms +ii basic concept. Some sort of protection should be addressed on all four corners. Jack Linn stated any development proposed on these corners should also have a full traffic study and specific recommendations to mitigate any traffic problems at that intersection. Commissioner Garcia stated that is more reason for us to implement within our objectives that that particular corner, regardless of development, should be total: -y addressed in some specific manner. The area should be looked at as a whole and not in pieces. A motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unanimously carried to retain the proposed General Plan designation on all four corners and that our Director contact our General Plan Consultant to make proper policies addressing concerns of. the Commission on the corner of Haven and Foot- hill. AYES: COMMISSIONERS CARCIA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS JONES, PAHL a k � Area: Southeast corner of Highland and Haven Jack Lam reported the General Plan designates this area as mixed use. The property owner desires commercial designation. The other residents don't want any cummer- cial on any intersection. It is felt a commercial site should be moved as.far from an interchange situation as possible to avoid traffic conflict. lie recommended that the General Plan designation be retained but re- evaluate if coy additional changes are made in the land use around Chaffey College and the area between Chaffey College and the Foothill Freeway. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the proposed Foothill Freeway would remove Highland Avenue in this area. City Engineer stated it would appear Highland Avenue would be a frontage road on the north side of the freeway. Mi.. Milton Zugar stated he believes the frontage road is on the south side of the proposed freeway. it is designated by Cal -Trans for an off ramp and frontage road. He stated there are a rod g p of people that own this property for over ten . years. He stated the property for the most part would be developed residential. However, a portion of the property on Haven, they would like to consider as a . :r' I'Inntiint; (a�t nule::;:t�+t ..)�:. �uet iihe•r 1!1, ��;.. reasonable place for a neighborhood type shopping center as there would be a fairly large amount of residential porinIntion for thin type. of use. They feel Highland Avenue would be a natural boundary between the area around Chaffey Collcge and what wi11 be Located below this area. Ile asked that the Ccim;lssion consider another alternative site for the southeast portion of their property. Doug hone stated he fins half Interest in the property at the southwest corner of Haven. At this point they are in favor or the master plan as designated at the present time. There being no' further.commcnts from the audience, CIiimnan Reinpot closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and unanimously carried to retain the proposed Mixed Use designation on the Ceneial Plat for this area. It was further moved that this could lie re- evaluated if any additional changes are made in the land use around Chaffey College and tilt, area hettacccn Chaffey College and the Foothill Freeway. . AYES: CMVISSIONERS TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSBIIT: CUMISSIONERS ,LONGS, DAIIL Chairman -Mize el called for a recess at 10:30 p.m. Fleeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m. Area: West side of F.t1wanda Avenue north of Highland Avenue Jack Lam reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported tl•e Cencral Plan designation for this area indicated Windrow and the property owner desires neighborhood commcrclal center. Ile stated given the present concept of the F.tlwanda Avenue area, the consnitant has established alternative shopping center sites south of the proposed Foothill Freeway. Until other factors change, the General Plan designation should be retained. He recom- mended that the Commission retain the Windrow designation. Chairman Rempcl asked for questions from the Commission to the staff. Commissioner Garcia stated he feels that the alternative site definition In relation to the content of what- It actually means should be a little more defined so there is no misinterpretation. Chairman Rempel opened tlic public hearing. There being no discussion from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Tol.stoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, and unanimously carried to retain the Wirdrow designation for subject property. ;;��i:. Planning Commission Wes, -.i3- October 19, 1978 AYES: COMMISSIONERS TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: CMDUSSIONERS JONES, DARL Area: Area abounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, Archibald Avenue, and the rear portion of Alpha Beta Shopping Center Jack Lam reviewed the staff report in-detail. this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported the General Plan designation is high density residential for this area. The property owner desires commercial.. He stated since the site . is situated between two commercial uses and the Southern Pacific tracks, it becomes questionable whether this environment can be conducive toward high density residential. Archibald and Baseline is a critical intersection and currently generates a great deal of traffic. This traffic would further increase with the construction of the "committed" shopping center on the southeast corner of Archibald and Baseline. It is therefore desirable that if. the site is not conducive for residential use, lower traffic generation commercial uses be allowed thereby reducing the impact upon that portion of Archibald Avenue. .lie recommended that the general plan be modified with either those commercial designations or mixed use designation. Chairman Rempel stated if commercial zoning is designated, it could still be restrictive to the zoning. Jack Lam stated it should be entered into the record if this is the desire of the Commission, so that when the property is zoned, the appropriate zone dis- trict is shown. Otherwise this could be debatable at a later date. Chairman Rempel stated he can not see residential development in this area. Commissioner Garcia stated there is a tremendous need for professional uses within the community. In order to enhance the particular corner over and above commercinl uses, he would be receptive to the idea that mixed use should be Implemented not only on this corner but also the northeast portion of Archibald and Baseline. Chairman Rempel stated lie didn't think offices located next to the retail lumber sale outlet on the south side of 'the Southern Pacific tracks would be compatible. He further stated he would rather see a designation of commercial where we can control with zoning what can be developed. Commissioner Garcia stated lie would agree but there is no designation for this to insure control in the future. He does not fccl this area should be shown commercial with no restrictions upon development. Jack Lam stated whether it is limited commercial or A -P, we still have to deal .L with the particular constraints with the design of the site. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see this area limited commercial. Jack Lam stated it could be stated at the time zoning is developed, it should'be zoned limited commercial on the site. v r,; : ' Planning Commission tes -1.4- �ctober 19, 1978 Mr. Alan Wyrick stated this property is designated as community commercial by the County of San Bernardino. He asked that the General Plan show service commercial with a restriction on zoning that requires Commission approval for the site uses. They are planning to put a street down the middle so that developments going in could face a street. The first phase they are planning would be to put a private storage or mini storage facility to the rear of the property. He feels this type of use is needed in the City. It would be a low traffic generator. Walls would be developed around it and the front would be landscaped. They would then like to proceed with the office and perhaps a medical or dental office to the front of the property. Ccmmisuicner Garcia statcd.he isn't too sure about a storage facility in this area: This type of use should be developed in the industrial area. He stated aside from the storage facility, Mr. Wyrick is talking about a mixed use desig- nation. Mr. Dave Herford stated there are few uses practical for the rear portion of this property. He feels the mini storage facility is an idea worth con- sidering. Jack Lam stated the property owners have indicated general agreement with mixed use. After further discussion,'a motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy, and unanimously carried to modify the proposed General Plan to indicate a mixed use designation for property abounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, Archibald Avenue, and the rear portion of Alpha Beta Shopping Center. Further that the mixed use designation be extended to include the northeast corner of Archibald and Baseline which is'now shown as high den- sity residential. AYES: COMMISSIOV.*,RS GARCIA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS JONES, DAHL Mr. Gil Rodriguez_ stated Foothill Blvd., east of Vineyard is designated as.an, alternative site. tie asked if the Commission could tell him how much of his property is included in that alternative designation. His property is approxi- mately 400' east of Vineyard on Foothill Blvd. Jack Lam stated there is no specific boundary at this time. This designation would be set at the time development is proposed in the area. Commissioner Garcia stated perhaps Mr. Rodriguez could meet with Idr. Lam to • discuss this further and it could be brought back to the Commission for review on November. 8, 1978. a Mr. Rodripuez_stated he would like a mixed use designation for his site as he has a 'savings and loan and two restaurants that are interested in developing` here. He is also interested in the possibility of building two story offices =``';''' which he feels would be a very good development for Foothill Blvd. Planning CommissiotWutes . -15- *October 19,1978 Jack tam stated the issue the Commission will-have to discuss is how far. would they want to recognize commercial along Foothill Blvd. The Commission 'took a position a few weeks ago that it would recognize the northern portion of Foothill and not the southern portion. Commissioner Garcia stated as he recalls, the Commission was going to study that particular situation a little more. He feels on November.8, 1978, more information can be obtained to address ourselves a'little more carefully., It was the concensus of the Commission that Mr. Rodriguez' request be heard aL Lhe November 8, 1978 Planning Commission. meeting. ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy, and unanimously carried it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 1978 at 11:45 p.m. to a Special Meeting on October-24, 1978 In the Library Conference Room at 4:00 p.m. to discuss the Sign Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Nancy McA ster, Secretary r a .. i DATE - November 8, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FMIM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development tilgj.}li(7f: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78 -01 - The development of a neighbor- hood Shopping Center to be located on the northwest corner of l9th and Archibald - Request submitted by Vanir Research Company BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, its meeting of reviewed the proposed General Plan, in egnrd to the number of neighborho shopping centers at the intersection 4 19th Street a�u_Archibald. The proposed General Plan presently shows a center on the i•ortheast corner which has recently been construed_ At this meeting the Planning Commission upheld the present designations as shown on the plan. The concern was that it was poor planning practice toFillow dddition,+l shopping centers at this intersection as there are several other centers existing and under construe - tion which can more than adequately .serve this aria. ANALYSIS: The development of this site as a neighborhood shopping renter is not consistent with the proposed General Plan nor the recent Planning Commissioi. findings on the General Plan. Following are the existing and proposed land uses Ln accordance with the proposed General Plan: Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Northwest comer. Vacant Nigh Density Residential North_'adt corner Shopping Center Commercial Southwest corner Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Southeast corner Vacant Medium Density Residential REMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission, after holding the Public hearing, deny Conditional Use Permit No. 78 -01 based on the findings listed in Resolution No. 78 -25. Respectf illy submitted, . JACK LAM, Director of Community Development i i H � z� . w= % P4 lei ,�� z O c. ^C � Y Ia a s is H ' z � a O Ar. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -25 A RESOLUTION OF THE.RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78 -01 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD WHEREAS, on the 12th day of September, 1978, a complete application was filed for review on the above described property; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of November, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above described' project. NOW, THEFEFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site for the proposed development is. not consistent with the proposed General Plan. 2. That the proposed use may have an adverie effect on abutting property and the permitted use thereof. 3. That this development may be injurious to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. <ir .Y!•L•...'f. APPROVED AND.ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1978. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: Hcrman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: — Secretary of the Planning Commission I. 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 day of ; 1978, by the following vote to -wit:. AYES. NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 0 SSTAF1 REPOR "f ? 1Vt1:: November 8, 1978 TO Planning Commission FFtoM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development CONDITIONAL USE PEP -MIT NO. 78 -02 - The development of a neighbor- hood Shopping Center on the southeast corner of 19th and Archibald, Request submitted by Robinson - Jensen Development Company BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 19, 1978, reviewed the proposed General Plan in regards to the number of neighborhood shopping centers at the intersection of 19th Street and Archibald. The proposed General Plan presently shows one center on the northeast corner which has recently been conFtructod. At this meeting the Planning Commission upheld .the present designations as shown on the plan. The concern was that it was poor planning practice to allow additional shopping centers at this intersec- tion as there are several other centers existing and under construction which can more than adequately serve this area. ANALYSIS: The development of this site as a neighborhood shopping center is not consistent with the proposed General Plan nor the recent Planning Commission findings on the General Plan. Following are the existing and proposed land uses in accordance with the proposed General Plan. Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Northwest corner Vacant High Density Residential Northeast corner Shopping Center Commere Li?. Southwest corner Low Density Residential Low Density Residential' Southeast corner Vacant Medium Dc�sity Residential RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission, after holding the public hearing, deny Conditional Use Permit No. 78 -02 based on the findings listed in Resolution No. 78 -26. Respectfully submitted, `A JACK LAM, Director of Community Devleopmcnt JL:nm 9 7' 'WES � o r •I Q� � K [p all, �iITill a �q 1 \t y Ij Ip R'N' 11r." � • �l l l l l i l � ,�a.� - : � � 'o r, '� �� : o�rl !ll.! 11;' '' r �I . /-F "j.N331:JN,N - 11 i� 40 0 RESOLUTION NO. 78 -25 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COM1MISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78 -02 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER TO BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH AND ARCHIBALD WHEREAS, on the 12th day of September, 1978, a complete application was filed for review on the above described property; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of November, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site for the proposed development is not- consistent with the proposed General Plan. 2. That the proposed use may have an adverse affect on abutting property and the permitted use thereof. 3. That this development may be injurious to the health, safety, and general welfare of the coermunity. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1978. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Bye Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary or the Planning Commission I, , 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 day of , 1978, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COHMISSIONERS: 0 `� srnl�r• Rlspnirr DA•rE: November 8,, 1978. TO: Planning Commission FROM: .Iar.k Lam, Director of Community Development S1m.mc7r: ZONE CHANGE NO. 78 -02 - The change of zone from C -2 and M -R to M -2 for 9.3 acres of land located on the northeast corner of E.tiwanda Avenue and Whittram - Request submitted by Secoudo Colmmbero BACKGROUND: Mr. Colombero is requesting approval to change the zone from C -2 (General Commercial and M -R (Restricted Manufacturing) to M -2 (Heavy Industrial) for 9.3 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Hhittram (Exhibit "A "). The applicant wishes to continue develop- ing an existing industrial center on the site and would like.M -2 zoning which will allow more diversity within the project. The proposed General Plan indicates area major industry. Subject site is presently zoned M -R and C -2 and contains several existing buildings and uses. Within the project site, there is a 13,000 square foot steel building, 10,000 square foot concrete tilt up building which is under construction, a 3,000 square foot cafe, and two 900 square foot offices. Surrounding zoning and land use is as follows: LAND USE ZONING North Vacant, Industrial MR South Residences M2 East. Drainage Channel, Residential MR West Vacant M2 XNALYSIS: The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed General Plat. and the site is suitable in size and shape to accommodate the uses per - mitted in the proposed zone. The uses in said zone are compatible with adjacent land uses eind future development in. the immediate area. Existing uses on the site are permitted within the proposed zone and will be com- patible with any other uses developed on this site. The Environmental. Analysis staff has reviewed this project for significant adverse impacts on the environment. Steff has found no significant -adverse impacts as a result of this project. Therefore, a draft Negative Declara- tion was published in the newspaper for public review. 0 Zone Change No. 78 -02 Page 2 November 8, 1978 CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in the Cucamonga Times on October 26, 1978. in addition, notice-of said hearing was mailed to property owners within 300' of the subject property. Nor correspondence has been received in regard to this notice. RECOWIENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission, . folluwlug the public heariLtg, apprbve ResoluLlou No: 78 -28 and forward such recommendation to the City Council for approval Respectf lly s mi ted, AM JACK L, Director o .Community Development JL:MV:deb ■uXrlr av[ r STATE VIC'TSNIA AV[ WALNUT AVE Et f w�nda I sASe r ST. _ MLLL[N �I O! [OOTNI 2 _ / SLOT X S x u i O i u I — JUNUVA � a O MAR Ii♦ ti AVl X � � F J ` Y �Y���. w •FTfON 7 •Y[ f M M � µ• }p 6 <d{ r 5z t.� �1 rl O 4 jbaa • O n Q b C a "COCA�o� 1NDvs7��A� A AI C9 Ce ev rv. 2 + - ~8133 T � C 1 � 1 i n 1 I � i • i Ir Z ! r �� i u v 3 w 2 L n 0 A. ti i • i Z ! r �� u v 3 w 2 L e.. ...• A. j c V. i • RESOLUTION NO. 78 -27 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -42 FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A LIQUOR SIGN ON EACH OF THE TWO STATER BROTHERS MARKETS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASELINE AVENUE AND CARNELIAN AVENUE. WHEREAS, on the 26th day of August, 1978, a complete application was filed for review on the above d.ascribed property; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of November, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissi:rt held a meeting to consider the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following finding has been made: I. That the improvements as shown on the development plans are inconsistent with adopted standards and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. That the proposed improvements would detract from the aesthetic quality of the existing shopping centers, and further, the City of. Rancho Cucamonga. APPROVED AND ADOPTED T11iS 8TH DAY OF NOumm, 1978. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: Herman Rempel, Chairman k. ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted ,Resolution by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the day of 1978, by the following vote to -wit: " AYES: COMMISSIONERS: a� NOES: COMMISSIONERS: "r=,. s ..,�-:': `} ABSENT; COPII4ISSIONERS: STAfP RMIOWI DATE November 8, 1978 TO: Planning Commission HUM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SlgUIXT, ACCESS TO APPROVED TRACT NO. 9589 As a condition of approval of this tract, the applicants, K and B Development Company were required to obtain an 'offer of dedication with proper setback lines established for the future construction of standard street for Sierra Vista ". This requirement was based on County ordinance which states: "Access to a Subdivision: The subdivision and each phase thereof shall have two points of vehicular ingress and egress from existing and surrounding streets, ene of which may be emergency only. Where it can be shown that this requirement is a physical Impossibility or a cul -de -sac of six hundred (600) feet or less is proposed, this requirement may be waived." The required dedication along Sierra Vista is not in the ownership of K and B Development and is currently a private easement. K and B has shown good faith in pursuing the dedication with these property owners but has been unable to obtain their concurrence. The owners do not wish Sierra Vista to be utilized as a Tract entrance but have no objection to its use as an emergency entrance. e The purpose of dual access is to avoid traffic concentrations and to provide !' for emergency access. Because K and B Development has been unable to obtain the required dedications,. . they are requesting a waiver of the requirement of dual access for purposes other than emergency. This proposal has been reviewed by the Foothill Fire District who agreed to the waiver subject to approval-of appropriate access gate provisions at Sierra Vista. '(nee attached letter) The Tract will. cortst.ruct 36 additional homes which will generate approximately 432 trips per day. These trips will utilize Red Hill Country Club Drive for. access. The Engineering Department feels that the concentration of traffic to Red Hill Country Club Drive will not be harmful to Coe street operation nor to the surrounding community. f .� j Access to approved Tract No. 9589' Page 2 November 8, 1975 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the requirement for dedicated access from Tract 9589 to Sierra Vista be waived under the following conditions: 1. A gate shall be erected at the proposed dead end of Sierra Vista Drive at the roadway adjoining.Lots 18 and 19. 2. The referenced gate shall be a, minimum of 25' in width and shall be constructed in'such a manner that the opening and closing will not be unduly difficult. 3. Prior to installation, plans for the gate and appurtenances shall be submitted to and approved by the Foothill Fire District. 4. That a cash trust be established in the amount of $6,000.00 to cover partial cost for any future development of Sierra Vista as a public street. Respectfully subr[t:ed, LLOYD UBBS ci t� jngine�r LH:deb LA n cts`: tI i r' E; r. a K AND B. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 160 CENTENNIALWAY, SUITE 6 • TUSTIN, CALIFOFINIA 92680 W. RICHAIM BATES. PRESIDENT Mr.Jack Lam Planning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga,CA. 91730 Dear B ?r,lam, 714 -544 -6960 July 25,1978 I appreciated very much the courtesy extended to me through personal field vi..it by you.und the city en6ineer to the 7789 Sierra Vista, Rancho Cucamonga Ranch property known as tract 9589 - Red Hill. I an enclosing letters and document copies which are pertinent to the status problem, request and solution for final_ tract 9589 approval. 1. I left with you a copy of final tract map engineering draw - ings at the conclusion of our conference last week. John Egan,con- sulanting engineer, will be happy to assist with any questions. Egans phone number is 714 - 883 -8761. Please feel free to contact Mr. Egan. 2. Copy of April 20,1978 letter to Lauren D1.Vasserman. This states problem, �cives documents and request waive off -site improve- ment condition as tract condition. !!he new suggestion is that in lieu of off -site easement(Sierra Vista) offer of dedication and improvements, condition be added; that developer of tract.9589 tie requirad to place amount of money in trust with the City of Ran.. cho Cucamon7a, for the purpose of mal -ing improvements in the fu- ture if the city decides to make Sierra Vista a public street from subject property to adjoining prevent. public street. Engineer has estimated the cost for off -site improvement as per tract 9589 ccndition to be ab!•ut $5.500.00. 3. Colrj tract 9589 subdivision conditions and copy of public Commission he. -rin!7: 12 /15/76 minute- approving tentative tx -r.t 9589. Copy of April 17.197& letter to Kenneth Topping, Director of Plan ing, San Bernardino County. 4. Copy of extension of subject Sept.1,1976,. Addition extension is City of Cucamonga. troct 9589 from June 16,1978 to requested for this tract by the 5. Copy of April. 21,1978 letter frcm Foothill. Fire Dept. with its only requirement for Sierra Vista -a rate; no public street' needed, C a 4{ 4 June 6, 1978 Mr. W. Richard Bates Post Office Box 546 La Mirada, California 90637 Dear Mr. Bates: Thanks for your letter of May 24. I think the whole issue concerning the access to your proposed tract is so confused that we should wait until our new Com- munity Development Director, Mr. Jack Lam, is on board. He will be with us beginning in July. However, it will be very difficult to set up any appoint- ments with him since we will be implementing all of our own planning services . during the first week of July. 1 would suggest that, if possible, you wait. until about the middle of the month to contact Mr. Lam. I will give Mo. Lam copies of your correspondence and make certain that he talks with the County Planning staff .prior to any appointment with you. Thanks again for your letters. Sincerely, Lauren I1. Wasserman City Manager LMW:baa cc: Jack Lain Tommy Stephens )c.wr ctt.,rin: I N.7(11, IiANC'110 r11rAi1nNr,A. r'hl.11- 1)PNIA "1730 o. copy of county surveyor tract-95o9 status as or Jan a b.1976 and my Jan.11.1978 letter to the.county surveyor. 7. Copies of letter regarding pedestrian access to Valle Vista School yard. I believe the district has some second thoughts a- bout this now due to vandalism potential for the school. It is my opinion that.,.if this is school districts desirep this is time to consider this need. I leave this with your office. I will contact you the first of the week for a meeting to see what is needed additionally by your office. Sincerel y C q WRichar�A&'ltes 714-523 -2200 ' K AND B DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 160 CENTENNIALWAY, SUITE 6 • TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 W. RICHARD 0ATE5, PRESIDENT April 20, 1978 Mr. Lauren M. Wassem4n City `tanager, Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 793 CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, Dear Mr. Wasserman: Country in Red TIs. Bess At andnciatedrvarytrnuch our conference W-1 you Club subdivision app Mr. & yesterday concerning the desire of Pis.r Bess tAt inson, M to Mrs. George WPor" road easeme }nt" property of. the private maintain the "private road known as Sierra Vista between my property (Tract 9589 and Camino Sur. As per your suggestion, I am submitting the reyvest that Rancho Cucamonga 1'lanni.ng CcmGni.ssion review Tract 9exc which has net .all county subdivision reclui.red conditions except securing the "offer of Dedication of offsite casement for Sierra Vista, as per De. 1976 tentative tract map 9589 San Bernardino Planni.n� Couunissicn4al E 7'a1i.liea�d -9� ,ant pecifically; for offsite conditions , page proposed "A standard 26' paved section shall be cont;ioterlyn}landle . Sierra vista including offsite easement to 1 P' vehicular traffic and drainage through this proper are . set back Vista shall be of:fer.ed for Dedication with lines esLablished for future construction of standard street. Typical section of Proposed "A" street shall be to collection standards ". I am attallci.ng the following: 1. Tract 9589 (Iucamonga) Dec. 1976 San Bernardino County. requirements. 2. 'Copy of April 14, 1978 extension request. 3. One complete set of final tract map and street improvement plans approved by various S.13. County departments. 4. Copy of letter from S.R. County surveyor dated Jan. 160 1978 w1u.ch indicated only Outstanding items ment " "offsite dedications and grants of accompanying ease . 5. Copy of Ms. Bess Atkinson April 10, 1978 letter in which is expressed: Ms. Atkinson and Mr. George porter, Jr. willingness to cooperate with development ,of 'Pratt 9589, i April 20, 1978 . Page 2 K AND B DEVELOPIAENT COMPANY -� 160 CENTENNIALWAY, SUITE 6 • TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA 92680 - - ( W. RICHARD SATES, PRESIDENT ` 1 provided off site Sierra Vista remains as private road ! under•cbntrol 61 owners of said property and easement, in granting water and sewer casement to Cucamonga Water District for Sierra Vista in present 30' road easement between 9589 tract on site Sierra Vista and { Camino Sur. Ms. *Atkinson will provide for Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission any necessary documented expressions of Red { Hill property owners desire to maintain the Sierra Vista 1 as a private road. {{ 6. Copy of S.B. County ordinance 2041 (subdivision code) i Division d. section 2, item (F) which is basis. for relief to off site conditions requirement. As owner of Tract 9589, I have made every effort possible to solve this impass with Fir. & Mrs. Porter and Ms. Atkinson. I fully appreciate these property owners position expecially in light of the fact that County of San Bernardino approved a tract of 35 single family residences just northwest of Tract 9589 property. Calle Feliz and Valle Visa, Rancho Cucamonga. This subdivision has only one entrance and exit. Ms. Atkinson'and Mr. Porter pointed this out to me in Dec. 1977 conference in office of Attorney Hopson. I had no answer but "point to condition, as per requirement- for offsite "offer of dedication Sierra Vista" for Tract 9589. f I fully realize the objective for ideal planning conditions regarding traffic circulation. However, I hope we can appre- ciate the desire and advantages of private property rights of owners and character of development such as Red Hill. Ms. Atkinson and I met with Foot Hill Fire Department, Rancho Cucamonga, Inspector Longo, yesterday concerning the effect 1 on fire protection and servin the area if Sierra Vista would remain as private road tract 9589 offsite). Inspector saw no adverse effect for fire rrrotecti.on safety and serving the area. tie suggested- a gate be instal led. at Tract 9589 property line before entrance into private road casement jointly owned by the Porters, Ms. Atkinson and myself provided constructed in a manner to meet fire departments emergency . entrance requirements. I am willing to meet required conditions, however due to fact that: 1. Porters and Ms. Atkinson. and their neighbors desire �i K'AND*B DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 160 CENTENNIALWAY, SUITE 6 • TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA 92680 i W. RICHARD SATES, PRESIDENT April 20, 1978 Page 3 i z That Sierra Vista be retained as private road._ 2. Crash gate for emergency only use installed er`ty�ine at entrance to Porter- at Tract 9589 proVAtlkinson -Bates 30 offsite private road easement portion of Sierra Vista is accepted by Fire Department. 3. Porter- Atkinson -Bates are agreeable to grant - in� Cucamonga Water Company easement in present 30' private road Sierra Vista for construction and maintenance of water and sewer line. 4. There is an established subdivision of 35 single family residences in Rancho Cucamonga entrance Calle Feliz and Valle Visa approved in recent years by I' S.B. County with only a single ingress and egress entrance to subdivison. 5. Present Sierra Vista private road easement is paved and respective owners have maintained this property for many years. 1 We are requesting that offsite condition as required in Tract 9589 Dec. 16, 1976.County of S.S. Planning Commission sub- = division requirement as per page -4 of 7, line 1 -8 be waived. by City of Rancho Cucamonga, as per above. As owner- of Tract 9589 property, along with the Porters, Ms. Bess Atkinson and other Red Hill property owners, we trust the Rancho Cucamonga Planni.nz Conunission will reconanend the } waiver of requested offsite p-civate road "offer of dedication "" and improvement requirements for final tract map 9589, as a condition for final tract map approval by City of Rancho Cucamonga. Sincerely, ^� 1 r W. Richard Bates '4 .. R WRB /j ti .r i 0 K AND 8 DEVELOPM T COMPANY 160 CENTENNIALWAY, SUITE 6 • TUSTIN. r-ALIFORNIA 92680 W. RICHARD DATES, PRESIDENT April 17, 1978 Mr. Kenneth Topping Director of Planning San Bernardino County 1111 Third Street San Bernardino, CA RE: Tract '9589 Dear Mr. Topping, As owner of tract 9589 property, we are requesting t11at San Bernardino planning Director and Planning Commission, the acting Director of Planning and Rancho Cucamunga City Council waive tract 9589 sub - division December 16, 1976 San Bernardino planning colmnission approved condition page 4 of 7 line 1 - 8; namely: "A standard 26' paved section shall be contracted on proposed Sierra Vista including offsite easement to properly handle vehicular traffic and drainage through this area. Sierra Vista shall be-offered for Dedicatior . with proper set back lines established for future con - strur.tion of standard street. typical section of Pro- posed "A" street shall be to collection standards ". Owner /Developer is requesting that afoi.ement-i_oned apply only to Sierra Vista, as per the County ''•,+rvcyor and County Flood control, transportation, plunnint; department et-c., approved final tract map 9589 and i!- ;,rovement plans tract 9589 on site property. Tract 9589 map and improvement conditions applicable to private road off site improvements and offer of dedication and accompanying requirements by County /City of Cucamunga, affecting private road easement and prot�_-rty owned by Mr. and Mrs. George Porter and Ms. Bess Atkinson shall not be required for continued processing and final tract 9589 approval by S.B. County /City of Cucamunga by owner /developer tract 9589. The reasons for this request: I. This relief is requested under S.B. County ordinance page 2 Oo. 2041 C. S. n Bernardino Countv Sub - division design and improvement standards section (2) item (F) access to sub- division: "The sub division and each phase thereof shall have two points of vehicular ing gress and egress from existing and surrounding streets one of. which may be' emergency only. Where it can be shown that this requirement ,Is a• Physical impossibility on a cul -de -sac of six hundred feet or less is proposed, this requirement may be waived." 1. Sub - division owner has complied with all county sub - division requirements except securing the "private road" easonent offer of dedication and driveway and drainage facility reconstruction, tract 9589, as per attached copies, for off site portion of Sierra Vista from George W. and .Lynette Porter and Mary Bess Atkinson. 2. K and B Development Company as successors to Tract 9589 tract property. previously owned by Mr and Mrs. Robert G. Beloud, owns tight of ingress and egress via 30 ft. private road easement through - Porter- Atkinson property, between tract 9589 property and Camino Sur via off site Sierra Vista. The three o%% -iers of this private road easement are Porter, Atkinson and Bates (K and B Development Company), 3. 1•1r.and 1.1rs. Porter and I-Is Atkinson do not wish to give up this 4frivate road easement control to S. B. County /City of Cucamunga by xecuting "offer of dedications" as per attachments. Even though hese governmental bodies intend not to accept offer of dedications, the present and or future governmental bodies have option to accept and thus ability to change Sierra Vista from private road to public street. 4. *Ir. and PIrs. Porter and Ms Atkinson are willing to cooperate with K and B Development Company in development of tract 9589 in granting easement to Cucamunga water district to construct water and sewer line in private road easement (off site Sierra Vista) provided tract 9589 owner /developer will connect their respective residences to sewer and i-ater lines installed in Sierra Vista private road. off si.to). 5. tract 9589 owner has been accurring extra ordinary developement expenses and delays since November 1977, due. to inability to secure "off site offer of dedi.caticn signatures from Mr. and Mrs. Porter and Ms Atkinson. a. Clearance for this item by developer has prohibited S.B. County surveyor from processing tract 9589, since November 1977, for sewer. certification under S.B. County Planning Director Kenneth C. Topping June 10, 1977, inter office memo " which constitutes directive for County Surveyor Department of Building and Safety, Cucamunga water istrict, Chino Water District and County Enviornmental Health Service or any tract in West End of San Bernardino Couaty, specifically tract .589. b. This• delay in processing, due to this problem, has endangered position of tract 9589 for sewer allocation when sewer hook -up pate 3 becomes available for Rancho Cucamunga.Projects. 5, County Transportation Department has cooperated with developer in afs-sur.ing. • that Sierra Vista (tract: 9589 on site) will be private street for•.emergency use only by approving - "sh gate" installatioxi at Sierra V"zsta en ranee rom via Huerte tract 9589 street). We respectfully and urgently request the granting of this waiver, since it will permit: 1) The county surveyor to immediately procede with tract 9589 sewer position allocating processing. 2) Submission of tract-9589 to City of Cucamonga for final tract approval and subsequent- recording. 3) Off site portion of Sierra'Vista to remain under control of present, property owners with right of ingress and egress by owner of the present 30 ft "recorded easement between tract 9589 property and Camino Sur Via offsite portion of Sierra Vista. We believe this is to the best interest of property owners George and Lynette Porter, Mary Bess Atkinson and W. Ricliard Bates / K and B Development Company owner tract 9589 property. Sincere y, t -W. Richard 9,t�es 1dRB Lj i w F 0 fill `Uy plV l ;apv tlr Vr.f :ri r.a h+: :: Ugryr 5141 :r = :•Ln� Thr C•• •y-, aril 1••mc.- .... N.. rid in lhq G,Sn,.. tarn yry,lll Ire rnry.dr red n♦ r real pile neap (1) La-.d Use SI.nd,.ods. The 1,-•.d - vu sc,ndal -h in tors s•d, +acfiun 'hall be ar ulied as rrquLr_.nenn for n•.p .q P•ovat. The mininwm a'cet and dirt tmions of fats still[ be as lequbed for the part-c -IJI Zoning District clatdtiealipn in avhich he property Is classllied by the San Ouoa-dmp County Zoning Code, provided ho.ever, that. IAI Lot or pa•cel side lines shall be apptprcin,llely ngrrmal to +treat tines. (B) Each 101 or ps,cel'pn a dead end slgef, cut - de sec, or on a "tried street where the side lines thereof ale dnerping from the from to the rear of such lot or parcel, shall have a width of not less than sip ty 160) feet, of that width r,,,;,ad by the Zoning Code, whichever is the great", minuretl along the front tie ildmg selbaeh line. (C) Each tot or Parcel on a run ed street where the side lilies thereof are converging from she front to the ear of such tot " petrel, shall have an average c,;dlh at nor Icss than sixty 11301 1crt, or that width required by the Zoning Coda. wh;chr w is glamor (D) Double frontage tots shall be divourwged natant where rucolial to provide separation of uf"a .IQf /_o: etc Y•r eau l-vn. ma,o. pr virl u ... UIV n:g•- ..roes w der Ili 1.109-- mhicat cis nr/iti(n/. When deubte bpnlagh lots ere Fmmitteq, vehinrla1 access riphts shall be dedinted To the County along the sir act designated by the Advisory Agency (EI The Advisory Agency may r.nuire lob larger than the above minimum sires sn"ifl w in rnupiple - mideMUf• commercial end indus,r)a, subdivisions. When lots or parcels twice or more the required area or width are shown as part of a suhdivisibn of IoM, the Advisory Agency may require such lob or parcels to be t0 esseblished as iq mike practical a further divislc,n Into allowable building sites, without injury to adioininp P- o;m,IV, IF) In defers areas or in hilly or mountainous land, the Advitoty Agency may require lots larger than required rmimimurds Larger IOts shat$ he required it it is deemed necessary in order to conform to the I.and Life Element at tare Grnnal Plan. (G) hloditicatron of the Lcp Design Standards may be ave.ved pursuant so the Planned Unit Development IP.0 -D.)• Somon 61.071G of the Sell ffnna-dino County Cod^. (H) This subseelion does not aooly to any hat 0, par e,1 width the subilmda, oilers le dedicate to the Coen TV or any publi•, ag,.ncY cr district. 111 When a vane classif-im on fine htabllahed bV the Zoning Code divides a lot of rarest, 11-:h tot or pa,cel (haft have the area acrd tr.nt.W required for the, fame Classification within the lot o• parcel which has the greater Brea and frontage .equ;rrmp mfr (2) Circulation Standards. The circulation standards in this aub1oc6on shell he applied as ,equiltowenu /or mar app-"al. It the General Plan dc,•g.ules location of a proposed hlphyaay and any portion Ihcrepf Inay be wholly of Pa, •ially within any P- aPO•-ed suhdivlNon or may be a11Ktt'd by A 010foluo s Udivislon, Clear to the •+P,poval of the proposed f,,bUiv;,;On if wix,fic alignment pia. shalt be Prepared slid adonled• Each such roadway shaft conform in width and alignment with that shown or indicatro an the Geneal at Specific Pion o, any st.-It ud, oriented pull.apt thereto. As a condition of al•P,pval of Stitt whdivis urn, the subdivbler shall Le frqusred m oti dedications and construct such rP.lan,bl• ;rl"Ovemants as rrquitvd by the spec,tic al :ynrner.t plan. Such requi,ene,nts may be waived try the Advisory Agcnci upon -rcaol >. nddtion Of the County Trout spa, totion Department, if the proposed highway is locatnf upon a se, lion line or its peedse Alignment can be otheriviso dvferrnir.ed. The following sec9iant shall apply as standards governing circulation design and shall be required for map approval, IA) The circulation design of all subdivisions shalt be e.n,pri and cocudir,ale wdh the General Plan end the existing +neat and sand we pattern in he utlor--vfitg area. Is) Any rift vuidth highv:ay tying along and .dl eta of fo any boundary Of a suhdrvislon 0a11 have such a Pill width and alignmenl as will conform to the route lines shown an the htasle, Plan at 1l iganvays cmnring the same portion of such subdivision. IC) tech street inicnded to be rxtendrd Into adlo;ning property shall be term ;nated by a one Ill toot Parcel If land extending ac -oss the end of the treat and, in the ime of a part . width street, a one 111 foot pa,crl of land shall *,land along the entire side of the &veer Said Parcels shall be dtsgnated alphabetically as a lot, labeled as a future sat", and Offered for dadiratiOn by GPprOPriate certificate stn the final or Parcel rap. The offer of dedication of said future street Shall Intlpde • restriction against the use of smote Ipr areess purposes until such time as it it accepted as a pubfiG sire*,. When It Is determined by the Advisory Agency that to p-ofect the public health, safety, and general welfare It is necessary In emend a street beyond the boundaries of jhe subdivision for atlequsla traffic needs, the subd-vider shall Provide %me air deeds to, the necessary 0 Original Poor Quality ., n•: or C, ..•y la e•0.1 air c,,,h t',dlit ru,n r••Pub•. of . -ev 11.411 I.. nape p••st in ,cd'dwmcq ,,In CnuntY • -.I +Lis ds O• as m.lO.red h1• the A,I • ,r V Agency. 10) Cut de .." ,hat riot a -, eed sia hunrbed (4601 1r11 in Il•ngth slid shall tcml ;-tale will, •turn • ,round a• arf- ,lil - -1 ip der . -Aup id County build -Standards. tO Road glades shall not e.ceed twelve prreent ill -i) unI%s H can be derr.pnflr led that in order to accomplish the obl•cl,vns of the General Plan a road grade In excess of teielve tw,eams 1177:) is nscvasary. In such eircumsfaMrs, the Advisory Agency may approve a lead grade not to r.cced fauttren pefeent 041 %) grade tot a distance nol to exceed five hundred (5001 test if a finding is made, based upon /he ncommrndetions of the Counts, Di•ecto, of Transportation Ind the County Fire Warden, shat said roadway will not create an unacceptable hara�dour_siiv sa —sn• rwnlfrJtoalthsalLY, or -5v __ (F) Access to a Subdivision: The Subdivision and each phase thereof Shall have two points of vehicular Ingress end egrets from existing and surrounding streets. One of which may be emergency only. Whole it can be shown that this leauhe -nent is a Physical impos+iyitily a, a cut - do • we of sia hundred 1:•x61 lee, or less is proposed, t ct_ ,,,anent o .y be vmivnd. - .. I'll p hoe tele5eaa &M Fxcllinm. The public services and L ciliht, st..odardi in this suh+ation shall be applied •s rroefr•i for naP F'e,tl. These standards shaft regulate the placement of ut.11prs within the +ubdiv isi.n. tAl Ullli:l• Iii ". including but rot timiled to electric, telec,hung rpmmunications, a gal lighting and rabtn tele.i::pn, within or dorcily serving each subdivision, shalt be Pf rid underg,eund. The subdivider Is responsible for complying With the re,c ;•cments of this sub+roton without expense 10 the County, pfd he shall make necessary, ^rfengernents with the utility company for the installation of such facilities. Ap,.Iten..nces and associated wuipment,auch as boars and mere, cabinets and concealed ducts in an underground system may be planed above g.pvnd, Weirs, of the tequirrnenls tar und erground utilities shell he rvado through the Public Utilities Commiwion. This +ubscction shalt m01 apply Ili existing utility topics in use of the lime the subdivi +Ion is completed which do not ,,rude service 10 the sera Subdivided. Aerial #cute, 91-11 in eaislcoce at the lima she Subdivision hcornptnowd may tie rviolo,crat from time to time es conditions dictate; howrvrr. all previsions of this uibs-ciion pail be sut.ject to the frquirnn Kits of any undr•prpgnd district created pWsuLm In County Code Section 67.011 to exhtsnce. prior to the &uhd1VWOn of the land or healed su>sepuent thereto. 10) 09a.hrad utility lines where pittmilled shall be located al the tray of lots c1 Parcels where prat tl,al, slid along the side al lots or pa,ceb I,here rim,"sary. (al The standards herein :hail be relaled 10 public safety. (A) The standards herein shalt govern drain". "C:fs. (1) When a subdivisirn Iles in the path of existing svator[ourm of overflows 'bourbon, and /or natural dra:page from ppspeam prpreth". it shall not be approved unless adequate dedicated rights of way and /o, Improvements one provided in a manner sethfectpry to the Advisory Agency. (1 When, in the opinion of the Advisory Agency, a subdivision surface i may eauae an unnatural increase said rotcenuadon an sure, a waters polo downst-crun Aiplso property, said wb,pinos-. shall eat be approved hi the will he a ry Agency umhdt the oa my of era provided which will C untquote t0 render the Caumy v1 San Bernardino and 2110 County Flood Control District harmless from any damages reused therefrom 1111) The location, all d tYSSe and tae of anJ atoms it ehd/u1 orksbel works. and all It be I gl of sheets ant olber County Slag- works het wren Sprats. thou be i, ,, Age nc . with County final ar ils or (I r Who by the Advisory Agency. (1 VI When, in the opinion of the Advisor Atrait o drainage to d rights p way era neeeoo at the subdivider Shaft pllrc m dedicate upon the finch h of the fubt'lie an the ter essary' rights of way for fresh drainage lac;4lict. IV) Where dedication h ay *listed all tie r. d COnuol vlsvid rights e l way. Such rights of way shall be 4mwe m Ieu Huo•M ae ma a by a appropriate /he final map- Such onr.r nl is She., o shall in matle by an ditto a cerhhcaq de the title sheet a the lima, mad and. in f may t an ea Flood Cont c.nverict tae title to said t right i way w the Flood Conn., District shall be de The to said District. f81 The standards contained gardi ed me related e to fire o protest lion measures shalt be considered u re q1- baments tar .nap ePV- o•1a1.. _ Iq Subdivision iiie n tivppn shall Provide to, safe and ready access for a e and other emergency equipment end for routes of escape a safely handle evacuations. (1u The subdivision shag be seance with water supplies for evmI,appr fire a firm authority. ri ac"a-danca wish the standards Fart by fir aPPron sere sire au file Y• ' (111) in hazardous fire areas, all flammable or combustible vrootahu., shall be removed from around 411 u11itopef, in aeeoHenee with the requirements of the Son Be- nerdino County Unilnrm Fire Code. Where erosion It probable the shoes shall by planlyd with flit teslativ► ground cover. .. 1:!......I,:r.•I. �.fi•1:''r (...i l(�i:�i•1:('t!Ih lli.�lli DI'1 "..'I'ri'. '� ..1 :ft '�: �U ...1'f NVIROWFAENTAI IMPROVEMENT AGENCY ��;.: ?_-� County of S.�n ?r:. n[) lino .�Y_. —_:a .a.:.c'.~ i..r.- a._� :T'r rL Ml.ra�i -ery rr�•'T r, s... M M Con �N'Y��.� u...... ... ... +'+ T! AWANG DEPARTAtENT 315 Mt- View Avenue •San Bernardino. CA 92475 • 1774) 363.1417 P1 v..r•.,a SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PLAAINING COpIMISSI. ^N SUBDIVISION REQUIRLDIENTS TRACT N0.-9589 (Cucamonga) EXPIRATION DATE: June 16, 1978 DEVELOPER: / _ ENGINEER: .1 J K b S nEVF.l.U!'1•:ENT JOHN C N 6CAN AND AS5TATES ` P.O.BOX 546 SAN BERNARDINO, CA. LA MIRADA, CA. 90637: PIfON6 0714/883 -8761 'This w411- advise you chat after completion of the L•nvire:uaental Review process, and due cc•nsiceratien theroof, Tentative Tract- 170. 9589 15 acres, containing 36 lots, was conditiona'__g , approved by the Planaing Corranission at its meeting of December 16, 1976 Said Tentative Tract was found to be in cc:^rnliancs with Section 66474 the Subdivision Map Act and was aaprovec S-,%::,eCt .of to the conditions as set forth on attached rages .2 of 7 thre--ch 7 of 7. L•NVIRWM'ENTAL II•!.1?OVEr-M-NT AGL11CY 1'I,A!JNlNG DGN�3TmH,1;T _ },; ~vim f mss - .`.y'r����� �'� , �" F��•J i T O!114i: 11. 51'F P11I:I::i f`� Design Review Section T11S :mes cc: County Dept. of Transportation County Flood Control District, County Surveyor County Envirci:mental 11, ralth Eervices q .' County Dept, of Building and Safety County Firewar(Ien County Sheriff County Special Districts State Division of Peal 1s_ate 107 �3. Broadway, Room 8003 Los Angeles, CA 90012 ' c .'tae, :�iC•.78.r,,�fJgv. a.rr, •1ni -u i ..G'•ir 1.. r• ..7 .. .. .,.w� � 4 r TXac!:. Ila. 95139 (Cacao ]a) � rage 2 of 7 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS: 3 The water system and fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance 4 with the requirements of the State Health and Safety Code, and in 5 accordance with plans approved by the San Bernardino County Health 6 Depar- --rent and the governing fire protection authority. 7. 8 Easements and improvements shall be provided and drainage coordin- 9 ated in accordance with the standards and requirements of the 10. County of San Bernardino and the County Planning Commission. 11 12 Where a bond is to be posted in lieu of installation of the 13 improvement: 14 15 The domestic water plan and /or sewer plan shall be reviewed 16 by a civil engineer, registered in the State of California, 17 and said engineer, shall determine the amount of bond 18 necessary to install the improvements. This amount plus ten 19 percent shall be posted with the County of San Bernardino. 20 21 The presently.r"egnired_ certificates on,water -maps for the 22 water company a_nd engineer must ti sll be placed on the mapl. 23 in addition; a statement shall 'be transmitted to the Public 24 Health Department signed by the registered civil engineer 25 for the water purveyor stating that the amount of bond ru.:ommended is adequate to cover the cost of installation of the improvement. 28 29 Further, prior to release of the bond for the improvement, 30 the Cucamonga County Water District shall submit a signed 31 statement confirming that the improvement has been. installed 32 according to the approved plans and meets the requirements 3'3 of all appropriate State and County laws pertaining to such 34 improvement. 35 36 'In cases where the water agency or sewering agency is a 37 governmental subdivision, prior to final recording of the 38 tract map, the governmental agency shall submit a statement 39 directed to the County stating that the improvement has been 40 installed according to the approved plans or stating that 41 bond in the amount of 110 percent of the cost of installa- 42 tion of the improvement has been placed with the agency. 43 44 A commitment shall be obtai d i 't' 45 agency. ne , n wr ing, from the sewering Said commitment to indicate that the agency has the . 46 capacity to furnish said sewer service to the subject project, 47 and that all necessary arrangements have been made with said 48 agency t- supply such service. A copy. of the commitment to be J 49 filed w!Lh the Planning Director. 50 Street lighting.shall he provided throughout the tract including all peripheral streets. 53• 54. 55.. -. 5 56 t Utility lines shall be placed underground in accordance with the requirements of County Ordinance No. 2041. 9 L..4j 4 5 6 7 8• 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 So 51 54 J'raet c•lo. g'_;i9 (Cuc t+l.i). �/ Page 3 of 7 *STREET, GRADING AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS: County Road Department: V .1204•..1 Road sections within the tract are to be designed and constructed to Valley Standards. Any grading within the road right of way prior to the signing . of the improvement plans must be accomplished under the direction of a Soil Testing Engineer. Compaction tests of embankment construction, trench backfill, and all subgrades shall be performed at no cost to San Bernardino County and a written report is to be submitted to the Contracts Division prior to any placement of base materials and /or paving. Final plans and profiles shall show the lo:ation of any existing utility facility that would affect construction. Slope rights are to b cessary. A thorough evaluation parkway improvements, quired. A copy of the grading a dedicated on the final tract map where ne- of the structural road section, to include from a qualified materials engineer will be re- r plan shall be submitted to the Road Department. Any existing County road which will require reconstruction shall remain open for traffic at all times, with adequate detours, during actual construction. A cash deposit shall be. required to cover the cost of grading and paving prior to recordation of the tract map. Upon completion of the grading and paving, ro the satisfaction of the Road Department,,the cash deposit may be refunded. All existing easements lying within the future right of way are to be quit - claimed or delineated, as per County Surveyor's requirements, prior to recordation of the tract map. All natural draws or tract drainage that dewaters onto a County road section shall have an improved facility to accept drainage onto the road section. The Engineer shall provide a drainage study to include accumulation and analysis of hydrologic and hydraulic data for existing and pro- posed drainage structures prior to approval of the plans and pro - files. All road names shall be coordinated with the County Transportation Department Traffic Division. The improvement of-Red Hill Country Club Drive,.will be necessary to carry drainage diverted by Tract onto the street over to Cuca- monga Creeks.... . Extent of im>,rovement shall be 'coordinated with County Transportation Department. j 1 f A standard 26' paved section shall be constructed on proposed Sierra Vista inclndin; oftsi a easement to properly handle vehicular 3� I traffic and drainage through this area. 4 ( 1 Sierra .Vista shall be offered for dedication with proper setbak c 6 lines established for future construction of standard street. 7 8 Typical section of Proposed "A" Street shall be to Collector Standards.' 9 0 County Division of Building and Safety: +1 . 2 A preliminar- soil report, complying.with the 1- avisions of -3 Ordinance l5ed shall be filed with and =ppruved by the DliecLor 4- of Building and Safety prior to recordation of the final map. 5. 16 Grading plans to be submitted to and approved by the Building and 17 Safety Department. 8 9 Obtain a demoliton permit for buildings to be demolished. :o Underground structures must be broken -in, backfilled, and inspected 1 before covering. .2 3 Submit plans and obtain building permits for walls required. ,4 . :5 County Flood Control District: 17 Lots Lots 4 through 7 shall be excluded from development until such time 8 as.permanent channel improvements and debris retention facilities !9 are provided for Cucamonga Creek. Those lots shall be labeled :0 "Subject to Infrequent Flood Hazards From Cucamonga Creek" on ;1 the final map. 13 A 50 -foot minimum setback for structures from the existing Flood ?4 Control District right -of -way shall be established for Lot 3 and 'S labeled on the final map. :r ?7 Adequate provisions shall be made along the north and west tract 38 boundaries to intercept local drainage flows and convey them around 39 or through the tract in a manner which will not adversely affect 10 adjacent or downstream property. i t1 12 Adequate provisions shall be made for handling onsite drainage and . 13 dewater:.ng the tract in a mariner which will not adversely affect 14 adjacent or downstream property. 15 }6 Grading and improvement plans shall be submitted for review. 17 18 All lots shall drain to streets. If lots do not drain to street, it 19 is assumed the cross -lot drainage will be reviewed by Building and 30 Safety Department and provisions for handling same' made under the various ordinances involved. :3 A permit from the Flood Control District shall be required for any 4 encroachments onto the District's rights -of -way. .XIS .Bun. .+.. L , 3 4 3 6 7 ei 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25" .16 28 .29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 .45 46 47 48 49 50 11 53` u ;54 . Tract Mo. 9589 (Cu iga) County Surveyor: Page 5 of 7 Submit names,.addresses, and telephone numbers of serving Utility Companies to Surveyor's office for: Fire Protection. Submit 2 copies.of preliminary boundary plat and checking deoovit X Q-fee for checking prior to advance copy of final map. Final map form and contents shall comply with County Surveyor's standards and policies_ All easements of record are to be delineated and labeled on final tract map unless said easements are quit- claimed. *In addition to the Street and Drainage requirements, other "on- site" or "off- site" improvements may be required which cannot be determined from tentative plans and would have to be determined after more complete improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to the County Road Department. WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL--. The water ourvevor shall be Cucamonaa Countv Water District. Sewaae disposal shall be by connection to Cucamonaa Countv Water District sewers. Emanations shall be controlled so as not to interfere with surrc...dina land uses: Noise and Dust. GENERAL REOUIREMtNTS AND ZONING: Sidewalks shall be provided along streets "D ", "E" a- +d "A" and a pedestrian easement (20 feet wide) provided between Lots 15 & 16. Existing zoninv is R -1- 12,000. All lots shall have a minimum area of 12,000 square feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet and a minimum width of 60 feet, (70 feet on corner lots). In addition, each lot on a cul -de -sac or or a curved street where the side lot lines thereof are diverging from the front to rear of the lot, shall have a width of not less than sixty (60) feet measured at the building setback line as delineated on the final tract Map. Variable front building setback lines of at least 22 feet and aver- aging at least 25 feet and side street building setback lines of fifteen (15) feet shall be delineated on the final tract map. A minimum-number of one inch caliper, multi- branched trYes shall.be planted in the parkway for each of the following types of lots: Tract. No. 9589 (Cu "Iga) Page 6 of 7 1 The variety of tree to be provided is subject to Count_ t approval and to be maintained by the property owner. 4 Three (3) copies of Tentative Tract Map shall be provided showing pre- 5 li.minary finished graded slopes exceeding a 4:1 ratio and the approxi_ 6 mate location of -all residential structures on sites where the average 7. natural slope-exceeds 108. 8 9, Three (3) copies of a .final Grading and Landscaping Plan shall be 10 submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the 11 issuance of grading permits when phasing, where finished perimeter 12 slopes are proposed adjacent to existing development, or when graded 13 slopes exceed ten (10) feet in vertical height. 1A 15 Graded slopes shall be contour - graded to blend with existing natural 16 contours and developed with a minimum radius at intersecting hori- 17 zontal planes of two (2) feet, (measured one (1) foot from the top or 18 toe of slope) and a maximum horizontal length of two hundred (200) 19 feet. 20 21 Whet graded slopes occur within or between individual lots, the slope 22 face shall be a part of the downhill lot and any graded slope ex- 23 seeding a 4 to 1 ratio and greater than a total. of five (5) feet in 24 vertical height, as well as any inaccessible lot area created by a 25 graded slope in excess of ten (10) feet in•vert3cal height shall not 26 reduce the useable portion of the lot to less than applicable percent of the permitted minimum lot size. 29 A. 7,200 square feet - 1008 30 B. 8,5n0 square feet - 90v 31 C. 10,000 square feet - 75, 32 D. 15,000 square feet - 705 33 E. 20,000 square feet - 708 34 35 Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided for all graded slopes in 36 excess of five (5) feet in vertical height..Wheae graded slopes exceed 37 a 3 to 1 ratio and exceed ten (10) feet in vertical height, they shall' 38 be covered with jute matting, or similar, and planted in aesthetic 39 groups: 40 41 Trees (508 one inch caliper, multi- branched /501 1 gallon 42 minimum) - one per each 250 feet of slope area. 43 44 shrubs (1 gallon minimum) - one per each 100 square 45 feet. 46 47 Ground cover as required. 48 49 The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be the 50 responsibility of the developer until the transfer to individual 51 ownership or until the maintenance is officially assumed.by a'County ,, Service Area. 54 $5 r Page 7 of 7 18 .19 20 21. 22 23 24 _,27 :28 ;29 30 3.1 32 ,. 3 3 =;34 35. 36 .37 38 •; 39 41 ;3 46 17 18 d 11 All irrigation systems where-required shall be designed on an 2 :..3 individual lot'basis unless commonly maintained in an approved manner. 4 As many of the..existing trees as possible shall be retained. The =: 5 Grr,ding Plan shall indicate the trees to be saved.and submitted to 6 the Planning Director for approval. 7 8 The,proposed 40' wide street, Sierra Vista, shall be improved in 9 :10 accordance with requirements of the County Road Department and fully repaved from proposed tract,to.Camino Sur Street. 12. Twenty -five (25) foot side street-building setback line shall be 13 shown for lots 16 and 19. ,.14 15 <.16 A letter from the school superintendent shall be submitted granting pedestrian access to school yard from between lots 15 and 16. !17 18 .19 20 21. 22 23 24 _,27 :28 ;29 30 3.1 32 ,. 3 3 =;34 35. 36 .37 38 •; 39 41 ;3 46 17 18 d 11 Item 7. Applicant: K & B DEVELOFNENT /JOHN EGAN & ASSOC. ENGINEER P. C. clearing Dated 12 -16 -76 Proposal: Tentative tract 9589,.consisting of 36 l.otR nn 15= acres. Location: Northwest of Red Hill Country Club Drive, Red Hill. , Staff makes presentation_ which includes facts of the case, findings and a recommendation to approve with conditions: Staff further'stated Flood Control District has imposed a condition that lots 4 through 7 be ex- eluded from development until such time as permanent channel improvements and debris retention facilities are provided for Cucamonga Creek. The Chairman calls for testimony, none was given, he closes the hearing. Commission discuss the conditions regarding sidewalks. Commissioner Masingale moves to APPROVE Tentative Tract• 9589, finding the site is physically suitable for both'the type and density of development proposed, the design of this tract and its related improve- ments will not cause substantial environmental damage, nor generate a public health nuisance, nor cause a threat to life and property from a wildland fire, the tract together with the provisions for tis design and improvements are consistent with the San Bernardino - Valley .Portion General Plan which indicates Urban Areas, as well as any applicable Specific Plan,'this tract, its design, density, type of development', and improvements confrom to the conditions and regulations of the County Zoning Code, the County subdivision Code, and the regulations of all appropriate public agencies-having-jurisdiction by law; the., site is of sufficient size for the proposed use, has adequate accss, III, and will -not have an adverse effect on abutting o ert 'f 4 p P i deve]:v ed y P as proposed; subject to conditions as prepared ' P P by staff. Commissioner Carr seconds; motion CARRIES unopposed. r { +.'TsA Y ?t • FIRE PREVENTION BUSINESS ''.40THILL FIRE 'DISTRA BUREAU - (714) 987.2539 .. - (714) 987.1700 Serving the Communities of Alta Loma - Cucamonga - Etitcanoa P.O. Box 35 — 6627 Amethyst Street Alto Loma, California 91/01 Aptit 21, 1978 - Mir. W. R. Sates P. 0. Sox 546 La M.i. &ado, CA 90637 RE: PROPOSED TRACT 9589" RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dean Mt. Sates: A6 pet you& convehsation of Apr.iC 4, 1978 with Tnspectot J. E. Longo aegaading o66 -s.ite emergen y access, the 6ozzow- .ing is stipuCated: 1. A gate, .i6 erected, shaCC be Cacated at the pAoposed dead end o6 Sienta Vista Dhive, 'that roadway adjoin- ing Lots 18 and 19. 2. The Ae6e&enced gate shaCC be a minimum o6 25' in width and shaCC be constructed in -,such a mansicit that the opening and ctosing witt not be undu.ty di66icutt without the use o6 a Eoch.ing device. NOTE: A Cocking device may be instaCCed .i6 6aeiCitie6 ate paovided Jon untoeking by both residents and emergency services (i.e. etect&.icatCy operated push button device seeuhed in a gC.ass covehed security box. f Phioh to in6tatta.tiol1 ' plans Got the gate and appurtenances 6haCC.be submitted to and approved by..thi6 department. 16 there ate any 6u4.then questions, please contact the under - signed. Sincetety, 3enjamin L. Mackatt Sa.ttation Chie6 /Fine Marehat i BLM: va r'4 . to RESOLUTION N0. 73 -28 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCANONGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ADOPTION OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 78 -02 TO ORDINANCE-NO. 17 BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM C -2 AND N -R TO H -2 FOR 9.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND WI11TTRA4 - ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 229- 151 -14 AND .15, AND 229 - 161 -01 THROUGH 07 WHEREAS, on the 16th day of October, 1978, an application .,was filed and accepted on the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of October, 1978, the Planning Commis- sion held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1. The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and 2. The proposed zone change would not have significant Impact on the environment nor the surrounding pro- perties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the proposed General Plan. SECTION 2. The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration on November 8, 1978. NOW, Ir fERF.FORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. That pursuant to Sectivn 65850 to •65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Cumn.ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on tile 8th day of November, 3518, Zone Change No. 78 -02. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 78 -02. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission ti shall be forwarded to the City Council. �r APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1978. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: Herman R empel, Chairman ATTEST: ` Secretary of the Planning Commission Z, Secretary of the Planning Conunission of the .' City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adapted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the day of 1978, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOFS: COMMISSTONERS: ABSENT: C% MISSIONERS: STAFF REP01,1' hAIE: November 8,• 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Flgt•il'(a = SITE APPROVAL NO. 78 -03 - The .development of a nursery /day care facility to be located at 9317 Ba -eline - R -1 zone - Request sub- milted by Ed Young BACKGROUND: Mr. Young is requesting approval. to develop and conduct a childrens day care facility to be located on the south side of Baseline east of Archibald (Exhibit "A "). The subject site is 23,000 square feet in area and contains a single family residence and an accessory building which has been converted to a'day care facility. The applicant intends to use the accessory building and the play yard around it for the day care, operation. The residence is owned by Mr. Young and will remain as his family's home. Mr. Young's operation will he nn owner /operated facility. The applicant is presently caring for up to f ive children as allowed by code without having to obtain approvals or permits. Mr. Young has 'worked with the -Department of Health, Education and Welfare in developing this site in accordance with their regulations and has obtained a license to operaCe a day care facility for 36 children. He now is before the Commission to obtain City approval. ANALYSIS: The project site fronts on Baseline and is bordered by a single family residential tract on the east and south sides. Adjacent to the west of the project site is a proposed shopping center complex which was approved by the County. -Tile applicant's site plan and elevations shown on Exhibit. "B" and "C" Indicate three access points from Baseline, eight (8) parking stalls, and no street improvements. The Engineering and Planning Division Staff have been working with Mr, Young to improve his plan by providing street improvements, more parking, and a single access. Exhibit "D" allows the revisions that have been recommended by Staff and agreed to by the applicant. The revised plan provides one 30' main driveway from Baseline to serve the day tare operation and retain the existing drive to the residence. Ai there can he only 10 parking spaces pro- vided on the site, the facility must be limited to the care of forty (40) children in order to meet parking requirements.. Attached ar, Exhibit "E" Is a memo from the City Engineer which reviews and Eecomme nds.the course of action to obtain necessary street improvements. ,,r The only residence directly adjacent to the day care f;---ility'is located to the south. Staff recommended that some buffer be provided along the south portion of the play yard by either installing a 6' block wall or - dense landscaping or by some other method acceptable to the Director of Community Development. As the-parking lot improvements are vital to this operation, Staff.recom- mends that such improvements as. paving, striped parking stalls and 6" raised concrete curbs be installed prior to full operation as a day care' .fac Uity. Staff recommends that all other improvements such as exterior building ele- vations and complete landscaping be installed within one year from the date of approval. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in the newspaper and such notice was sent to property owners within 300' of the subject property. To date,'no correspondence has been received. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commis - sion, following the public hearing, approve Site Approval No. 78 -03 based on the fin dings and conditions as listed in Resolution. No. 78 -30. 11 . I. Fr: t oj;svci Eoll C-111 2 . I. Fr: t oj;svci of W s 3 a a i. {Y r. �3 i v I i 7v n � . x';il VI0 J DATE: November 8, 1978 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer SIIN.IECT: DIRECTOR. REVIEW N0. 78 -03 - CHILD CARE CENTER ON BASELINE The Prot,osed child care facility is locared on Baseline cast of Archibald Avenue. The frontage of the proposed facility is currently the only frontage between Archibald and Ramona Avenues-that is not currertly planned for widen- ing on the south side. The Engineering Department feels that for reasons of safety it is vi%7.a1 to obtain the right.of way and cons'ruct street improve- ments at this location as soon, as possible. The development of the proposed facility will alow this; to occur. The applicant Mr. Young has indicated his willingness to dedicate right of way and participate in the construction of street improvements. Normally in a development of this nature, the applicant would be required to provide..full street improvements as 4 condition of approval. Mr. Young has indicated that he is.not in a financial position to do this and that the project would be dropped. In order to insure the rapid construction of this badly needed widening, the Engineering - Department has negotiated with the applicant' and. the adja- cent shopping center d�velopar to participate in '-lie construction of improve- ment cost in the proportion of 1/5. by Mr. Young, l/3 by Diversified Develop- ment and 3/5 by the City. This agreement would be subject to the approval of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Two alternative solutions remain: 1. Require the applicant to provide full improvements prior to occupancy. 2. Use a modified assessment proceeding and require that the applicant pay for the improvement over a specified time period. In order to facilitate the project, Engineering would recommend that the City share in the cost of improvements as discussed. Respectfully sub fitted, Lw& HUEBS City Engineer *.H: deb 3. Comblived access to major and secondary thoroughfares between adjacent properties shall. be encouraged wherever jossible to reduce the number of encroachment; and made a condition of, approval for any land diva.••' •sions fronting on major and secondary thoroughfares: 4. Access points shall wherever possible be located a miniLnum of one hundred (100) feet from the end of curb returns at intersections. 3. Where otherwise compatible with this policy access shall.. he located nppostte cxintinl: or planned access points on the opposite side of the Variations From these policies will require approval 'of the 'Chinning Commission of the CIEV of Rancho Cucamonga i .. Rr.OIAITION N0. 72 -?7 . - Qrlglnal Poor Quality _ A RESOLUTTON 01' THr PLANNING COIIIIISSION OF Till-. CITY OF. RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING ACCESS POLICY FOR MAJOR AND SECONDARY THOROUGHFARES. MIRREAS, t tic 'P.LannIfir Commjssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that to in. tain capacity, efzicienr.y and the safety of traffic flaw on waju1 :aid secondary thoroughfares, ix is necessary to limit and ' control access, and WHEREAS, iL is necessary to establish Cirm policy guidel.inos tv allow property owners fronting on %iid streets to properly plan the use of their. land. NOW. TillTEFORIi, -PE 1T RP.SOLVED.ANII FSTA111,1:F11130 that for development of properties fronting on all major and secondary thoroughfares the following criteria shall. he o'oscrved in relation to access control: 1. Non access to al.J- major and secondary thoroughfares shall. he dedicated to t'iie City wherever suitable alternative access may be developed from loral or collector streets. .•. .' 2. Wh?rc access must be granted to a major or secondary thorough- fares said access shall. he I-Imited to one point for 600 °.cut of frontage or one point per parcel with less than 600 feet of frontage. 3. Comblived access to major and secondary thoroughfares between adjacent properties shall. be encouraged wherever jossible to reduce the number of encroachment; and made a condition of, approval for any land diva.••' •sions fronting on major and secondary thoroughfares: 4. Access points shall wherever possible be located a miniLnum of one hundred (100) feet from the end of curb returns at intersections. 3. Where otherwise compatible with this policy access shall.. he located nppostte cxintinl: or planned access points on the opposite side of the Variations From these policies will require approval 'of the 'Chinning Commission of the CIEV of Rancho Cucamonga D APPROVI ;D AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1976. PLA14NING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCMIONGA By: — Herman Rempel., Chairman ATTEST: - Secretary of Lite Planning Commission I, , Secretary of the Planning Commis::Ion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that Lite foregoD. Resolutlon was duly and regularly .introduced, passed, and adopLed by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the I'lanninj. Commission held on the _ dny of _ �, 1978, by the following vote to -kit: AYES: COWMISS10NERS: NOES: CMUTSSIONERS: ABSENT: C01 llK;SIONICBS: E L J 11 Al li : TO ' ',r:�l�r• Rl:rnr:r November 8, 1978 Planning Commission 0 I'Rtri: .lack Lam, Director of Community Development S111'.1ECT: CHAFF'dY COLLEGE PRESENTATION Please find the following attachments to your Staff Report: 1. Communication from Dr. Catanzaro 2. Resolution by the Board of Trustees of Chaffey College 3. Position statement and joint resolution by the Faculty Senate of Chaffey College . It is apparent in examin ssion by individua be. esents Ghaffey College, has made n n] statement ci�terninP -rtctr interest and des re. Lor participation in 'a community planning process and their desire to see any development around the college he environmenLall.y . sooid and not impose burdens upon the college. I think the Planning Com- miss-on will agree that the thoughts contained within this Resolution also reflect the desires of the. Planning Ccmmission and City Council. The Reso- lution is basically a statement for good planning. The Board, however, has not taken any position whatsoever regarding the density.of land use sur- rounding the college.. On the other hand, the. Faculty Senate is supporting a position that low den- sity residential be the predominate land use adjacent to the college. This position is supported by the attached material. Ilesides the academic senate, At is possible that individual professors may express their own views regarding either development around the college or the Oity's planning process. The Staff, position, again, in regard to land'nse around the college le: that as a publIc faeillLy In a r%mununity, any character of land u:+o may be Sueress- ful if properly planned and adverse impacts mitigated through proper develop- ment control. vit!: mean:= that- the Planning Cummb;sion, after considering all the expressions of vaLae concerning t'ie co,l.l.ege, should dc? ermine what kind of character a community college should have in Rancho Cucamonga. This then Is a major policy i:•suc, one which the Planning Commission should decide after all input has <:cr; rocei,ved regarding the subject. Respect f�ly 'sub i L ed, �1 Ar COMM nity Development JL rim. 0 0 CFIAFFEY COMMUr\w COLLEGE DISTRICT lGi � ',i'li(',�(t_S�rrC`.:�flfUfPl:1 El FI ( 197t( �, W PIM 11r. Jack Lam, Directoz Community Planning Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Lam: 5685 HAVEN AVENUE, ALTA LOMk C1tLIfOHyIA 91701 TELEPHONE-. •(714) 987.1737, 622••!•114, 735.0242 octAY7 tz`; j., ,00 RAi o J'oracA ,OCT 301978 . APO PM 7�8(9(10(1111211�21:1(45518 . Enclosed is the official Board adopted resolution dated October 19, 1978. As you can see, the Board took no position regarding the specific development of land contiguous r^ the College. I plan to read the Board's resolution at the November 8 meeting of the Planning Commission. I will make no fttrther comments. Faculty from the College may .individually or as representatides of the Faculty Senate address the Planning Commission. They will make it clear that their stance is not an official College stance but the position of the faculty at the College. Thank you for continuing to work with us to ensure that the traffic, security and environmental needs of the College a--,a tilken into account in community planning. encl cc: Lester Stroh, President, Board of Trustees ,A,oren Wasserman, City Manager; Rancho Cucamonga James Frost, Mayor, Rancho Cucamonga BOARD OF TRUSTS Sincerely, James L. Catanzaro Suporintendent /President . ES. ` ;Laster Stroh, M.D., P,esndrnr . .. Y KdMelh Cr KClnef, Vice President An Affirmative Attlon!Eque! Opportunity Employer and nistrict ,b. Sharon KIM-d -NCr y Serving Alta Lomo, Chino. Cbnnnu, Cucnmen o, Err wondo, Jornes L. Calanzorot Ph .D.', 4'•. hSrcrotw 0 q ' Pwichel R. G.� 4n ." .Fan /onq, Cumti, Sdenrclo6, Mt, ❑nIJY, Super intrmlw,t of the District r r.cfirpma Soundars • Ncreo, Ontario :,"J Uplood Nesider,; nl +1. f:olI' a CHAFF Y COMMM-40 / COLLEGE DISTRICT 7 3- .. Jj;��aoe r} FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION LAND USE IN RANC11O CUCAt1014GA 5935 WN AVENUE. AttA LOMA.- t:ALVYIQNtA 91701.. TELEPIIONE: (714) 987.1737, 822.1-431, 73SWd7 Chaffey College supports the principle of a well thlught out and documented general plan for Rancho Cucamonga based on all elements necessary for the development of a plan including traffic, seismic, public safety, fire, flood and a proper environmental impact report. Because of the avail.able.ezpertise at Chaffey College and the location of Lhe College u-ithin the boundat:irs of Rancho Cucamonga, the College should take an active role in the planning of the community. Chaffey College is directly affected by the development of the land adjacent to the campus. The College should be consulted and have a voice in the decision making process prior to the development of the land. Any adtrerse effects of such development of these lands should he mitigated prior to development. Adopted Octoher 19, 1978 Board of Trustees Chaffey Community College Diearict D OF TRUSTEES: ' Tt: r Stroh. M.D., P,esidont - th C. Katnor. vies President An'Aflirmmive Action /Equol Oppurturity Fti,ploye, and District ro King - Jeffers, Secretary- Serving Altc! ono, Chino, Corona. Cecnmol.go, Etiwanda, James L. Calanxoro PhD -I. hef R. Glenn Faniono, Guasti. Montrld.r, mu. Dnldy, Superintendent of the District ice: Sain4ees Norco Ontario and 1l1,10od President of, 1l.r.4`.allesa vf" CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Novemaer 2, 1978 5885 HAVEN AVENUE. ALTA LOMA. CALtronNIA 91701 TELEPHONE: (714) 987-1737, 822.4484; 735.0242 Dear Mr. Lam: Attached is a written statement of the position of the faculty of Chaffey College concerning our recommendations regarding the use of land adjacent to the college campus, as per .your request of October 27, 1978. lie appreci -te this opportunity to express our concerns and to provide input. ega . Fhilip L. Hartley, Ph:D. Chairman Chaffey College Faculty Senate %( BOARD Or,TP.USTEES: r Herschel R. Glenn. Prreidn.,I .Lester Stroh. M.D., vi,, 1'.a.iJant 'Sharon W. Jeffers. S,c ..- -w. Kenneth C. Keener f,Clerence Seunders yy> An AllNmcb,e Action: Ewal Opporh.Nty lirnplv,ar and IN Irict ' .:I rvi..n Aha Lca.v, C61no, Cr.rana, Gicamvnnv, Etiwnnun,. KohnetU C. Hlnrlchsen Fonlnnn, Guash, llentcl oir, t.V. Sl Ijy, Nr•rr0. On•n•in and tlrin•��1 S ......... Irn +•Prel.daM F- - - _ 1 rN S . •�• •• 1 ��` yr- r r r �� c ' 'r �.\C5.• i•� r r G. r ._� �1" Cart•�ri 51. f i! Ilfihim rtd. L j c- -. ;l Nmnn SL FC 1wh S Uplans FC 1 9mel�nr - m ' \ C. Chumh %I 1 ',ot27i�W�C'� lid adhi114hd. 17 0' .�i. \' Nnute \\ IU ♦a+aaaa .ta l � k'y' - 41h Slnci =" T f t �14p {ALOIM rt S : OMiUIU 1 Jar . Jlt>, Il ; +11'Y[ CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 5885 HAVEN AVENUE. ALTA LOMA. CALIFORNIA 91701 TELEPHONE: (714) 987.1737, 822.4484, 735.0242 `Chaffey College Joint Faculty Senate And Board Of Trustees Resolution Chaffey College supports the principle of 'a well thought out and dvcumented general plan for Rancho Cucamonga based on all elements necessary.for the ievelLpment of a plan including traffic,.sciamfc, public safety, fire, flood and a proper environmental impact report. Because of the available expertise at Chaffey College and the -location of the college within the boundaries of Rancho Cucamonga, .the college should take an active role in the plann±ng of the comilrunity. Chaffey College is directly affected by the development.of the. land adjacent to the campus. The college should be consulted and have a voice in the decision making process prior to the development of the land. Any adverse effects of such development of these lands should be mitigated prior to development. ai ' �• "HlRCh01 R, f lefxl . - .. ronfnnn, Gooali, IAantcla'r, Alf• Linldy, at the 17rctnct j t :Cloranee 9aundets ., . AMC"; 0......w .,..d tlnln..d 1'rn •.idcnf r;f the..(ollepe `' - 1 ti '.BOAR: Or TPUSTELS: - - hester Stroh, M.D., Praxidont l�i• ;Kenryth C. Ke[ner., Vie e• rre s. l_rn A An Affirm li,e Action /11"41 pypor:vn,f. r•mpl o, cr and natrict o.,Sharon xing-Jeffer /, Se orator. S Se, - ing Alla L, ma, Chi no, •F_y,ona, C, tomn»yo, E f i..a.da, J Jemes L. Cf»nrzare Ph D.,1 DISTRICT S` +S: ItA�RI AVEtt TIE. AL1A LOMA. CAI IFOR11A 91701 • F71_ri11ONr: (7141987 -1732, r „2.,t.W',)35 -()242 C1IAFFEX COLLEGE FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIUN The faculty of Chaf.fey College supports the idea that development of the community should proceed without significant enviornmental impact and disruption. Fvrther, the faculty believes that the community'should.be safe from natural and artificial'hazards. pq L—A ABOARD OF TRUSTEES: ' Lester Stith, M.D.. prrshlrnr Kemeth C. ret"r, Vlra prr idrN An Aflrl n +live Ae. ion, Eyvol OFPertn,.it, I!.” rlr y and D.Sl icl kr 4Sho"n KIng'401ors. Satrrtmy Sr,vtr n Alto Lnma, Chino, Cn ona, G r ,nnn, Etiwnndq J+mt!S L. Cattmzaio, Ph.D. F1arFChal R: Gl erm Fanton�, Gvastt, ldontcl.•i+, Alt. Ital•.ly, Superint ad, nl of ihn Oisfritl rr a' � Ciorertee Saunders Norco, Onlvit. and Ltpin -,d F'rn sidenl of d„• College - i101. tj hAVIA AVCNUE, ALTA LOMA, CALL 0::c.1tA 91701 DISTRICT Tcl.r:htloue: (714) 9E7 -1737, s7..t.tne ;95.0242 CHAFFEY COLLEGE FACULTY SENATE Recommendation Regarding La,,± Immediately Adjacent To Chaffey College Campus The Chaffey College Faculty Senate, in its role as the official, elected representative of the faculty of Chaffey College, proposes the following recommendation concerning land use in the area adjacent to the college campus. 1.i�zre and t. The land use plan should reflect natural open space in this area which, would preserve a natural corridor from the College to the Chaffey Regional Park. The use of the properties: north, west and south, within 2000 feet or the College should be residential, very low density, for the following reasons: a. This is consistent with the design and phywical layout of the College. b. The earliest plans for the Alta Lama area (the Chaffey Coi'rge plan) were consistent with this principles c. The College's indus trial- technic• .-1 cr. -plex generates noise levels chat would cause too great of an . hart on linavier development. d. Higher density development would pose burdensome security problems and would require additional expenditures for security services and fencing. C. Higher density development would create dctrlm ^ntal usage of the College grounds and increased vandalism. f. Higher density developer ^nt would place ut: acceptable de;nands on misting utilities requiring extension of and upgrading of utility lines. g, Higher density development will increase traffic around the . College requiring upgrading of streets and signals. h. Heavier development would pose heavy demand and usage of open lands cast of the College that should he preserved. i. Very low density zoning would not preclude application for variance or conditional use in the future. Each application could be evaluated on its merit and with an eye to conditions, trends and demands of that time. '. BOAPU OF TRUSTEES: - ww±nathG. Kutner. Vic ••Pr sidnnt An AHirn,np .y Act,en /Egjnl Upp^rt,,o, t elgr. nr.d Dichict ,y r - Sharon. Xing- Jeffers, serie,my: .: _ Set v, ,q Alto Lome, Chieo, C.....nn, f.nc r ,qn, Ft;vrnnJq James L. C"tonznro, 'h.o. -of R: wean Fr,t•...•.. Gunsu, Nent•In,., Pit. 11�tdy, Suprri,.d n -0• nt " tha Pistriel` +, - Saarmteu Sniindcrt Byrn, . •.nd ;q',•r,•i Pre e.drvN �I b' rGllq�e 5'M11' REPUI +:1' IlA'fli: No 8, 1978 TO Planining Commission Ig10%1: Jack Lam, Directcr of Community Development tilllt- 11'CT: GENERAL PLAN ISSUES 1. Area: South sale of Foothill, east of Vineyard General Plan Desig.,ation: High Density i� Issue: Owner desires Commercial Factors: The Planning Commission has discussed the issue of commercial on both the north and south side of Foothill Blvd. with an eye toward restricting the development of the commercial. strip along its entirety. This is accomplished by varying commercial and residential in key areas to maintain a dynamic balance of land uses. The south side of Foothill in this area is large enough and deep enough to support high density uses and incorporate adequate buffers from Foothill. Commercial use could worsen the ingress and egress problems off of Foothill Blvd. between Vineyard and Hellman. Recommendation: Retain General Plan designation 2. Southeast corner of Vineyard and San Bernardino Road General Plan Designation:. Low Density Residential Issue: Owner desires commercial office Factors: Said property consists of several marginal pieces of land formerly owned by the County for right -o£ -way improvements. According to the owner, the County no longer wanted to retain this land and sold it at auction to the present owner. The northern portion of the land is too narrow for the development of any usc.whatsoever. The southern portion that fronts on San Bernardino Coad is 78 feet wide at its widest part and existing residences abut the property. The northern portion is a greater slope. Normally, small slivers of public land I are purchased by those seeking to enlarge an adjacent ?,. parcel'and because such land is extremely restricted in use by Its size, the auction value is quite low. Any'remaining vacant parcel adjacent to•a residential neighborhood should be continued as real. dential. It .t.s conceivable that a small residence with access off v GENERAL PLAN ISSUES November S, 1978 Page 2 UN of San Bernardino Road towards the eastern property line may be developed. It should be noted that any use other than resi- dential would create traffic conflicts detrimental to the-inter- section and create conflicts with adjacent residential use. Recommendation: Retain Low Density Residential 3. Area: West side of Haven Avcnuc; north of the AT&SF Railroad General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential. Issue: The owner of this property feels.low density residential .is'Inappro- priate for this site and would prefer an industrial designation. Currently existing on the property is the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard. Factors: The area is bounded to the south by the ATSSF Railroad•which has a spur running into the property. To the west is an older residen- tial area buffered by Marine Avenue and to the north is an existing light industrial building. The sites proximity to Haven Avenue, the AT&SF Railroad, and an existing' industrial building makes it non- conducive to low density residential- development. if .planned well, a minimum impact industrial use would be compatible with the surrounding area. Recommendation: Modify the General Plan to .reflect a minimum impact industrial on that property bounded by Humboldt, Marine, 26th Street and Haven. Respectfully submitted, J, =. LAM, irector of Community Development STAIT REPOR'r DATE: November 8, 1978 TO. Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SIID.IEM': DIRECTOR- REVIEW NO. 78 -42; Request to place a "Liquor" sign on each of the Stater Brother stores located on Request submitted by Federal Signs Company BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval to place. a "liquor" sign on each of the above described stores. The purpose of the signs would be to advertise the liquor departments within the Stater Brother markets. The area of each sign would be twenty five (25) square feet (10' % 2.5'). The signs would be in addition to the "Stater Brothers" sign and the "Van de Kamps" sign already existing on each of the buildings. ANALYSIS: A uniform sign program was approved for each center as part of. two separate Conditional Use Permits. The programs do not allow for "liquor" signs of this type. Further, the proposed signa are not allowable under the proposed sign ordinance which states that only one sign is allowed per build- ing frontage and such signs are to be used for business identification pur- poses only. The applicant contends that "liquor" signs are common on'many major markets f and should be allowed. Staff £eels. that "liquor" signs are not appropriate nor necessary in major shopping centers. Such signs tend to clutter the appearance of the center and disrupt uniform signing of the center. In that additional shopping centers will be built in Rancho Cucamonga, staff feels that the Planning Commission should establish a policy on signs of this nature. RECOMENDATION: If the Planning Commission wishes to adhere to a policy of discouraging such signs, the Planning Division would recommend adoption of Resolution No. 78 -27 denying Director Review No. 78 -42 based on the findings contained therein. RespectfilWsubmit ed. J , Community Development q;.. ` JL: Bit: de6 . E y ; h . E v F• - a b IJ lul v c �7 sC � .� tJ qov r 4 9 f'! 2 • V h g L O ti O .0 IW a �+ H :E h � � D F v_ 4 M r � _ N w to N � 2 n a o Q Q[ w 1i1 w Q a h y ; h . E v F• - a b IJ lul v c �7 sC � .� tJ qov r 4 9 f'! 2 • V h g L O ti O .0 IW y �► caN[d cgc .�' srpmrr "C6 a 4t h M � � y a N a N � IL t Y y <j 2 U► I� Q � v 3� t? T IVCq /jyo7a►l/ w a r� im d W' h .Q o 'n Z of U► I� Q � v 3� t? T IVCq /jyo7a►l/ w a r� im d W' h .Q o of �, RESOLUTION NO. 78 -30 A RESOLUTION OF THE ETyCHO CUCAPIONCA PLANNING CMRIISSION APPROVING SITE APPROVAL-NO. 78 -03 TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A DAY CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 9817 BASELINE WHEREAS, on the 25th day of September, 1978, , a complete application was filed for review on the above described property; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of November, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above described project. NOW, TlmEFORE, the Rancho Cecamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings have hcen made: 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape. 2. That the site has adequate access. .3. That. tile proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property. 4. That the proposed use is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 5. That the conditions listed in the Resolution are the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. SECTION 2:. That such approval is based on the following conditions:: . Enfiincerin{; Division: 1. An offer of dedication consisting of 27 feet along Base- line of site. 2. At the time of final approval., the applicant shall make arrangements for participation in construction of curb, gutter, drive approaches, sidewalk, street trees and A.C. . match -up paving to be provLded a]. ng Ba line in confor- mance with City Standards and thc�t plans. 3. The property should not gather y artificial means and discharge them onto (lower) properties in greater con- centration than would naturally be discharged. y 4. The designer may be required to obtain or provide drain - :.,, age easements and construct improvements to comply with design ccnceps 1 b 2. 5.. Access shall be limited to the current residential drive on x = the eastern property line and one additional 35 foot drive 4 to serve the Child Care Center. r �4i 0 Planning Division 6. That all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be complied with. 7. That the site be developed'.in accordance with Exhibit "D" attached to the staff .report. S. That a detailed landscape and irrigation plan be sub- mitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. 9. That the day care operation be limited to forty (40) children. 10. That a buffer be provided along the south boundary of the play yard by either a 6' block wall or dense land- scaping or by some method acceptable to the Director of Community Development. 11. That the parking lot improvements such as paving, striping, and 6" raised concrete curbs be installed prior to full operation of the day care facility. The remaining improve- ments such as landscaping and exterior building elevations shall be installed by Novembe 8, 1979. 12. The private residence and pool shall not be used as any part of the day care operation. 1:3. That hours of operation are limited to 6:30 a.m. -6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday. 14. That any lighting be directed away from adjacent properties. 15. All. requirements and conditions of HEW shall be. adhered to and required licenses shall be obtained. A copy of such license and conditions shall be filed with the Department of Community Development. 16. That any signs be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1978. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, 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 day of 1978, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COM!NISSIONERS: f�t 0 ;, Al 1: RI:Pill:.I Original Poor Quality DAVE: November 8, 1978 in: Planning. Commission 1 :poq: Lloyd ilubbs, City Engineer `:IIU.IL(:'1•; ACCESS POLICY AND RESOLUTION At the September 27, 1978, meeting of the Planning Cormnisslou an accc«s policy was proposed covering major and secondary thoroughfares: At that timv, it was indicated that the policy would be distributed to interested groups, engineers and developers. This has been accomplished and a public: hearing been advised for presentation or this item at.the November 8 mceting of the planuln,c. Com- inission. Only five responses were obtained and only Use response Irdm Vanguard Builders was in writing (see attached copy) . Ken Will.] s of the BIA indicated. that the policy was basically in line with current practievs in other areas and had no specific objections. The Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerco re- viewed the policy and was in agreement but cashed to discourage and future con- sideration of frontage roads along Foothill. Boulevard similar to those used areas of.Upland. CALTRANS requested that a provision be included wh1oh would condition ]and divisions to require future access combinations. This comment was felt of value and has, been included in the rev.i&cd resolution under Item 3. Vanguard Builders has requested the following chances: 1. In 2 chnnFc - 600 feet to 300 feet (see Access Resolution) Engineering does not concur in this comment for the reason that drive approaches will proliferate along property lines adjacent to each other (see attached sketch). The policy as Stated will encourage adjacent owner to cooperate in combining points of access. Where the policy is not workable. waivers may be granted. 2. In 4 change - 100 feet to 50 feet (see Access Resolution) Again a less restrictive policy will encourage the intersection conflicts which the City would wish to avoid. 3. Eliminate 5 - "Where otherwise compatible with this policy access shall. lie lot•atvcl opposite existing ur pl.anned access points on the opposite side of the street." This provision is included to avoid left turn conflicts which can occur where drive•approaribcs are staggered in such a way as to creato conflicts (sce.attached sket -o). This policy is currently pursued by CALTRANS and it is recommended that It be adopted by the City. Access Policy and Resolution Page 2 November 8, 1918 RECONMENDATTON: The Engineering Department recommends the adoption of the Policy as written: Respectfully subm}tted, /� gyp. �� /�,�✓.r`?` LLOYD I4UBBS City Engineer L1L• d eb L J K • 0 1 i 1 L_ �LIr11i1. �Vr-1 y� `Y -P� I--- .. r les - -- \ AWGuAR . 1A 987 -6376 921'1 ARCHIBALD AVE. • CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 (7 ) October 25; 1978 i U �C;Y 0V lv�116 :6 C(1CF,Cin(',G,1 �•rt1Lfll DEPT. L7idibUNi "fY UVLto P',.OT DEiT. 19 M , 1978 OC7 2 � rE� Mr. Lloyd ltubbs, city Engineddi 1� 1(Ithl�� i'f i{1213I }1516 city of Rancho cy- camonga 81 l`I 9320 Baseline Ik Rancho Cucamonga, California 9170I 0 r. RE: Resolution on access parkway:-' on major and secondary thoroughfares Dcar Mr. ltubbs, 17c have received and reviewed the proposed resolution and would appreciate your condiseration of our comments. rirst, the proposed is reasonable for residential development Where new streets provide lot access. for residential development purposes the only change would be in (5) to add "or said access points shall be separated by a minimum of 200 feet ". For commercial or industrial development this policy is very detrimental. We don't believe it should be adopted for anything other than residential subdivisions. If adopted for cormercial and industrial we would request the following changes: (a) in 2 change - 000 feet to 300 feet. (b) In Q change - I00 feet to 50 feet. (c) For commercial /industrial. properties and their driveways, this would create more problems by inducing cross over traffic. 1.10 suogest elimination of 5 (see attached sketch). Very truly yours, Ron Nottingham Director of Development Vanguard Builders, Inc. RNICs encl. 0 N en 0 PO, t4 Lr rtr �r