Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/02/14 - Agenda Packeti} i 7 I I i i I 1 i .�u t 3 9 4 i M ' O N F V b n C3 tiJ J. RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, February 14, 1979, 7:00 p.m. Community Services Building 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Jones III. Approval of Minutes January 10, 1979 January 24, 1979 IV. Announcements Commissioner Rempel Commis;ioner Tolstay a V. Consent Calendar A. Request for Time Extension for Minor Subdivision No. 77 -0671 to February 23, 1980. B. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP 4590 - MURILLO - Dividing 5 acres into 4 lots located on the southwest corner of Victoria and Fast Avenue. C. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4907 - STAGLIANO - Dividing 20 acres into 27 lots located on the northeast corner of Cleveland and Fourth. D. NEGATIVE DECLARATICN FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4929 - PETTWAY - Dividing 4.09 acres into 2 lots located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Summit. E. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4881 - BAUER - Dividing 0.45 acre into 2 lots located on the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Comet Street. F. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4783 - SANCHEZ - Dividing 10 acres into 2 lots located on the west side of Turner, south of Baseline. G. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP N0. 4957 - HONE - Dividing 2.5 acres into 3 lots located on the southeast corner of Hellman and Baseline. W r .-w Page 2 Agenda February 14, 1979 H. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4820 - LINVILLE - Dividing 5.21 acres into 2 lots located on the southwest corner of Hellman and Ninth Street. I. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5051 - INGHAM - ' Dividing 4.5 acres into 5 lots on the north aide of 6th Street, just west of Turner Avenue. J. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 78 -0215 The division of 5 acres into 4 parcels located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 1,350' south Of Baseline Avenue. VI. Public Hearings F.. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -01 - SIGN ORDINANCE - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a n,, *:v sign ordi- nance and repeal all existing sign regulation.; (continued from 1/24/79). L. SITS APPROVAL NO. 79 -01 - COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - The development of a church facility to be located on the north- west corner of 19th and Beryl. n M. SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -03 - FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT - The construction of the fire prevention staff offices to be located at the existing station on the east side of Amethyst, north of 19th Street. VII. Old Business N. SERVICE STATION STANDARDS (To be removed) 0. SPECIAL BOULEVARD STANDARDS (Continued from 1/24/79). P. DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78 -12 - ALDF.RFER (Continued from 1/24/79) - Request for development of a two- story, 10,000 square foot office buildinr, located at 8030 Vineyard in the C -2 zone. Q. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 AND PARCEL MAP 4773 - KORTEPETER - The division of 1.8 acres into two (2) lots located 850' east of Etiwanda Avenue and 950' north Of Summit Avenue - R -1 Zone (Continued from 1/24/79). R. POLICY FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON PARCEL MAPS 1/24/79). (Continued from 0 ry - fr k . Page 3 Agenda February 14, 1979 - VIII. New Business S. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -04 - SUNSET PLAZA - Request for construction of two (2) one -story commercial buildings totaling 12,000 square feet at the southwest corner of Ramona Avenue and Foothill Blvd. in the C -2 (General Business) District. T. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -01 - LEWIS - The development . of a 248 unit apartment complex to be located on the north side of 19th Street, approximately 330' west of Beryl Avenue. U. DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 79 -06 - VANGUARD BUILDERS - The development of a 200 unit apartment complex to be located on the north side of 19th Street, approximately 500' east of Archibald Avenue. IX. Council Referral X. Director's Report V. POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN STUDY AREAS NOT WITHIN CITY (Continued from 1/24/79). XI. Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any items not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. XII. Ccv ission Comment XIII. Adjournment - The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjourument time. If items go beyond that time, it shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. F 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 10, 1979 Regular Meeting 0 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, January 10, 1979. Meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Alle6 ,nce. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission minutes of December 13, 1979 were approved as submitted. ANNOUNCEMENTS , Jack Lam stated he would like to bring to the Commissions' attention a revised copy of the Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 78 -55, correcting the subject heading. CONSENT CALENDAR Upon Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Garcia, it was moved to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. A. Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 78 -55 - Rancho Cucamonga Development Company B. negative Declaration for Director Review No. 78 -60 - Jaska C. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map - Arrow -Haven Partnership MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 1 of 19 r PUBLIC HEARL*]G ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79 -01 - SIGN ORDINANCE - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new sign ordinance and repeal all existing sign regulations. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reported the ordinance is not ready for review and public hearing at this meeting. A copy of the final draft will be distri- buted to the Commission some time this week for their review prior to the meeting of January 24, 1979. Therefore, Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to January 24, 1979. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing, stating that since this was advertised as a public hearing at this time, anyone wishing to speak may do so at this time. A member of the audience indicated she would wait unti'_ the next meeting to speak concerning the sign ordinance. Michael Vairin stated a draft copy of the sign ordinance will be available in the library early next week for review. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dabl and seconded b-• commissioner Tolstoy to continue the public hearing for the Sign vrdinance to January 24, 1979. AYES: DAHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION CARRIED. * * * A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Dahl and unani- mously carried to review Council Referral Item IX -K at this time. ru13LIC FACILITIES ELEMENT - Referral from Council for recommendation on specific areas of concern. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated at the City Council meeting of January 3, 1979, the Council opened the public hearing to consider the Commissions' recommendations on the Land Use, Circulation and Public Facilities Elements of the General Plan. As the public hearing progressed the Council decided to hear all issues that evening and respond to each of the individuals who spoke concerning different portions of the community. Having made conclusions on a number of items the Council has referred four items to the Commission for their recommendation. The reason for this is that these items were not considered specifically by the Commis- sion, as it was new material brought up at the Council meeting. He stated Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, will review each of the four items for the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 10, 1979 . Area 01: North side of Foothill Blvd. between Turner and Center Avenue Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report which is on file in the Planning Division. He reported chat the owners desire service commercial across the Foothill frontage between Turner and Center and high density residential to the rear. Staff recom- mends service commercial on the northwest corner with mixed use for the remaining frontage along Foothill Blvd. and to change the rear portion to imixed use. Mr. Lam indicated that the mixed use category does allow for multi - family develop- ment. It has flexibility to allow for a variety of land uses if done appropriately. The sole basis for staff's recommendation is on previous Commission discussions regarding their desire to not foster the continuation of service commercial along Foothill Blvd. Commissioner Jones asked if the tire business in this area would be allowed under the mixed use designation. Mr. Vairin stated no, that current use would become non - conforming. Mrs. Socorro Solarzano asked if there would be any restrictions as to what kind of restaurant would be allowed in the mixed use area. Mr. Lam stated restaurants encompass a broad range of eating establishments. It would allow sit down restaurants similar to Socorro's Restaurant. . Mr. George Guedera, 10192 East Foothill Blvd., gave copies of a map to each Commission member for review. He introduced Sam and Eddie Lackies, representing the Bronx Res- taurant; Mr. William Espinoza from the Tire Shop, Mr. and Mrs. Solarzano, and Mrs. Walters, all of whom own property in this area. He indicated they have all agreed that they would like to see the front 300 feet along Foothill frontage as service commercial with the property to the. rear as mixed use. They asked that service com- mercial be extended to the boundary of Center Avenue as a natural boundary. He stated Mr. Espinoza, owner of.the tire business would not be allowed to enlarge or continue on with the type of business he is now conducting if that a *ea is changed to mixed use. Commissioner Garcia asked what business is located east of the tire business in this location. Mr. Guedera stated there are no other businesses east of Mr. Espinoza's at the pre- sent time; however, Mr. Espinoza would like to build another business there in the future. Mr. Espinoza, owner of the tire business, stated his tire business is to the point where he needs another store bigger than the existing store. He intended to expand last year; however, was unable to do so at that time. He requested that the Commis- sion consider leaving the land use as service commercial so that he could expand his business. He is in agreement with the mixed use designation to the rear of the lots on Foothill Blvd. He stated his home is now on this property; however, at the time the house was built, it was constructed to have it moved. He indicated he owns other properties In-the Etiwanda area and his intentions are to move the house within 4 or 5 years. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 10, 1979 . 0 Mr. Sam Lackies, owner of the Bronx Restaurant, stated he owns Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23. He has three acres to the back of the Bronx and his intentions are to construct office buildings which he feels would suit the area. He. can not see any houses or apartment buildings next to a night club. He stated he would like to request that mixed use be shown to the, rear of the lots fronting Foothill Blvd. Mr. Lam reiterated that the mixed use designation could allow residential develop- ment. Mrs. Walters, 10150 Foothill Blvd., stated she would like to keep service commercial to the front along Foothill Blvd, and apartments to the rear of those lots. Mr. Joe Solarzaro stated he owns Lot 32 on the corner of Center and Foothill Blvd. He indicated they would like to keep this property commercial if possible. They recently purchased this property at a very high price and if the property should go to mixed use, it would be liable to drop in value. They intend to use this pro- perty for restaurant purposes however, they feel the property is too valuable for mixed use. Jeff Sceranka, Lucas Land Co., in regard to Mr. Espinoza's property stated that Mr. Espinoza bought this property to locate his tire business; he did not buy it for speculation purposes. If his property is shown as mixed use, he would not be able to expand his business and would have to relocate. Commissioner Garcia stated the Commission deliberated on the type of land uses for Foothill Blvd. for a long time. He is concerned with how this area will be developed and asked if it is the intention of the applicants (if the area fronting Foothill Blvd. is changed to show all service commercial) to develop the area uniformally? He would not like to see the area develop piecemeal but in a uniform manner because it is the core of the community. Chairman Rempel stated he doesn't know how these property owners could get together and put one big business; however, what we are saying is that wher the area is developed, landscaping, parking, land use, and everything else along Foothill should be tied together as a uniform design. We would not want to see a building with a spanish motif and next door another building with a cape cod design or something of that nature. Mr. Guedera stated all of the property owners are in agreement with a uniform design. Chairman Rempel stated from what he has heard from the applicants, when site develop- ment plans are requested for this area and the area is not shown as a uniform design, than the Commission would have a legitimate right to deny a request until they get their plans together. If the area where the tire business is located should remain mixed use, then Mr. Espinoza would not be able to expand which Mr. Rempel stated he is concerned about. As far as the restaurant is concerned, they would not have any problems building in the mixed use area, He stated it is his opinion Center Street would be a better boundary line for the service commercial.. Michael Vairin stated the Commission indicated concern about the design of the areas and that the property owners integrate joint parking, and joint access, because of individual parcelization on Foothill. If the existing tire store wishes to redesign their store it should be done so as not to have warehouse doors facing Foot- hill Blvd. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 10, 1979 0 0 Commissioner Garcia stated the City has adopted an access policy on Foothill which limits access to 300' and in some cases 600'. Our concern is that we do not want too many accesses aloe; a major thoroughfare. Commissioner T_olstoy stated his concern is that he would not like to see Foothill Blvd. piecemealed. He does not want Foothill Blvd. to look like Holt Bivd. because it is a focal point in our city. He is personally not for extending service com- mercial all along Foothill Blvd. Commissioner Dahl stated he feels the Commission has the control to determine the type of architecture and design that goes into an area. The Commission also has the control to determine access in accordance with the access policy. The owners of property in this particular area have indicated they would have joint access and joint cooperation between owners that wish to build in this area. It is iris opinion that it would be a disservice to our citizens if we try to keep this as mixed use. The Commission would have the control to determine the type of commercial that .:ill be going in there and the design which would be befitting the area. Commissioner Jones stated it is her opinion that it would be unjust if the Commission didn't allow Mr. Espinoza to expand his tire business. As long as the property owners have indicated they are together on this, it is her opinion that service commercial should be allowed along Foothill Blvd. with the rear of the property shown for mixed use. Jack Lam stated it is admirable the property owners are working together; however, it takes a great deal of effort to accomplish this. Unless Estacia is developed there could be ar access problem to the properties to the back of the lots fronting Foothill. We do have controls in terms of landscaping and we have an access policy adopted for the City. What everyone would like to do is not often possible because property changes hands. The owner of the tire business may wish to do something on the site within five years and the others may wish to develop sooner. How do you seal a commitment for control in the meantime? If an access road is developed then we are dealing with arother pocket of commercial versus administrative professional on a secondary street. Commissioner Dahl stated the property owners have indicated they were willing to extend Estacia to Center. Jeff Sceranka stated the property owners have agreed if they are going to develop the rear portion as a separate development then property along Foothill, they would have to have separate access and would have to bring the street through. Commissioner Garcia asked if Mr. Espinoza's tire business would fall under a non- confoxming use? Mr. Lam stated any uses existins and not allowable in a new district would be a legal non - conforming use. The business can remain and be conducted in a normal manner but would not be able to expand the use. The decision of the Commission goes back to the whole issue of whether the Commission desires more areas in service commercial then previously expressed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the reason he stated he didn't want Foothill Blva. to become another Holt Blvd. is any time there are a number of small ownerships of pro- perty they can develop in almost any way and generally don't blend but stand out. Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 10, 1979 0 0 Chairman Rempel stated we are requiring special boulevard treatment along Foothill Blvd. and with site plan review this can be accomplished. Commissioner Garcia asked if it would be acceptable to condition our concern for specific planning of the entire area since we have a unified group of property owners? Mr. Lam stated there is no legal way of requiring this. Commissioner Garcia stated this disturbs him because we are trying not to restrict expan- sion of a present business. He would like to see some control on how this area develops. We have experienced what was done under County jurisdiction with its lack of controls. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Jones that the General Plan designatio. be changed for the area on the north side of Foothill Blvd. between Turner and Center Avenue to service commercial for the first 300` fronting Foothill Blvd. with the remaining portion to the rear shown as mixed use. AYES: DAHL, JONES, GARCIA, REMPBL NOES: TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE MOTION CARRIED Area 92 - East side of Haven between Highland and Lemon Michael Vairin reported the general plan designation for this area is mixed use and low density residential. The owner desires extension of mixed use to Lemon Avenue. Staff recommends that the General Plan designation of mixed use and low density resi- dential be retained. Chairman Rempel asked the Commission for questions of the staff. Commissioner Garcia asked if Lemon Avenue will be extended in this area. Michael Vairin stated there is a slight extension of Lemon Avenue off of Haven Avenue at the present time and it is most likely that this extension wUl continue with development in the area for access. Mr. Vito Francisco, Attorney representing Mr. Jack Sylvester, stated Mr. Sylvester owns approximately 75 acres on the northeast corner of Highland and Haven. The pro- perty goes from Highland to Lemon Avenue. If the Foothill Freeway goes through this will subtract a portion of his property; when Lemon Avenue goes through it will sub - trsct another portion of his property; and when other streets in the area are developed it will subtract further from his property. When this property is taken away, mixed ase designation is going to end up giving him strips of property which may or may not be usable. If the area could all be shown as mixed use all the way from Highland to Lemon it would at least give a uniform indication and would make it easier for Mr. Sylvester when he tries to sell the property. Mr. Francisco indicated the Council asked what the dimensions of the lot would be with the removal of sections for the proposed roads and freeway. They wanted this information in order to see what the pro- perty will look like. Mr. Sylvester has retained the services of Mr. Mills of Asso- ciated Engineers and he has been trying to develop these facts and figures showing the freeway, Lemon Avenue and any other streets go through, At this point in time this information is not available. Plnnning Commission Mimttes -R- 7nnnnry in, 1074 V. 0 0 Mr. Mills, Associated Engineers, stated the State Highway Department is very reluc- tank to give us information as to where the Foothill Freeway is going to be. It is very difficult to get them to make any kind of estimates. It is my opinion that after taking off for the freeway and other streets, it would leave approximately 700' to 800' available for mixed use. Mr. Francisco stated if the Commission extends mixed use up to Lemon Avenue they are not giving the owner permission to do anything with the property. The property owner would still have to meet zoning requirements. By making the land use uniform it is easier to sell or develop. If the Commission feels that further information might be helpful, the Commission could continue this for 2 or 3 weeks in order to allow my client to go back to the State and get additional or better information. Michael Vairin stated that Staff feels the situation is very clear. The only unknown is how much of land will be taken by the freeway. There will still, however, be a significant portion of land remaining to be developed for mixed use purposes. Mr. Francisco asked if this area is left as presently shown would it be possible to show the exact distance the mixed use and low density residential areas are shown. Mr. Lam stated the rrecise location of the land zoning. The land use map is based upon certain changes in the future, the Commission is recept request and modifications. The Commission will He stated for the record, it could be indicated intended to be one tier buffer lots along Lemon uses will be shown at the time of assumptions today. If there are ive to looking at any reasonable be reviewing this plan annually. that low density residential is Avenue. Commissioner Garcia stated in reviewing this request, if part of the property is taken for the freeway and other streets to be developed in the area, there will still be a sizable amount of property left to develop for mixed uses. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to retain the general plan designation of mixed use and low density residential for property located on the east side of Haven between Highland and Lemon Avenues. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, .TONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Garcia stated he would like it noted for the record that the Commission desires single family detached residential homes to border Lemon Avenue on the north- ern portion of the property a minimum of one lot in deyth. Area 03: South side of Foothill Blvd. between Rochester Avenue and Dav Creek Michael Vairin reported the general plan designation for this area is shown as minimum impact industrial and the owner desires a commercial designation. Staff recommends that the General Plan designation be retained. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Commissioner Dahl asked if the Historical Committee has determined what areas should be shown as historical. Michael Vairin stated the Historical Committee has been meeting and working on this however at the present time they have not completed their study. Planning Commission Minutes -7- .Tnnunry 10. 1979 0 0 Jack Lam stated this is similar to other winery's in the city. If, at some future date, as part of winery development, some type of commercial use is requested, the General Plan would allow the flexibility for such applications. The Historical Commission has been examining sites but has not made any recommendations at this time. Mr. Steve Aggazzotti, owner of this property, stated he would like to establish another business next to the winery. if this area is shown as minimum impact indus- trial, it would stop his future business that he would like to develop at this loca- tion. It is his opinion that the natural boundary from Day Creek to Rochester Avenue should be shown as service commercial and would only add approximately 500' for com- mercial use. He indicated he would like to have a tire service center next to the winery. Chairman Rempel asked if tire'repair would be allowed in the industrial zone. Mr. Lam stated the industrial committee has discussed service commercial type facili- ties that would compliment the industrial area such as auto repair or tire repair and automotive type uses. He questions, in terms of automotive related uses whether auto repair and /or retail stores as part of a development would be allowed. Commissioner Garcia stated he is uncomfortable with changing any of the industrial areas to commercial. We have considered the industrial areas and the entire issue has been treated as a whole in terms of study areas. Until we have proper guide- lines for ancillary commercial uses within the industrial areas it is very difficult to make a decision at this time. It is his opinion that the general plan designation of minimum impact industrial should remain. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree the general plan designation should not change at this time. Commissioner Garcia stated he does not feel there is enough substantiation from the applicant to change the general plan at this time. Mr. Steve Aggazzotti stated he is currently in the process of preparing plans; however, he wants to know for sure that he can develop prior to doing anything else. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to retain the general plan designation of minimum impact industrial for subject pro- perty. AYES: GARCIA, DAHL. JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the industrial committee is coming in its review. Mr. Lam stated a proposal has been requested from John Blayney and Associates for a specific plan for the industrial areas. Mr. Blayney met with the Committee this week and discussed the proposal. The industrial committee will meet again next Tuesday (1/16) to discuss the proposal and determine what the commitments are for planning efforts, funding, etc. Commissioner Jones stated perhaps it Chamber meeting Tuesday in order for allowed in the industrial area. 9. Planning Commission Minutes would be good for Mr. Aggazzotti to attend the him to voice his opinions on the uses to be 10 January 10, 1979 0 0 Michael Vairin reported the general plan designation for subject area is mixed use. The owners desire s neighborhood commercial designation. staff recommends that the general plan designation be retained. Commissioner Jones stated there is a deficit of parking in the Alpha Beta Center and asked if mixed use is designated to the west, will the developer have to put up additional parking stalls to compensate for this deficit. Mr. Lam stated the property owner had given covenants to the City Attorney which stated that a recipricol parking agreement would be provided. This agreement leads one to conclude that the original intent was that when the first center was developed the other half would have to take up the slack in terms of parking. The existing center is deficient by 80 spaces. If this site were to pick up 80 spaces to meet code then this parcel becomes basically a parking lot because there Is not much land area for building left. Mr. Pope stated he and his partner, Mr. James Hudson, owned this property since 1955. He indicated they presently have a 60' wide easement to facilitate access from the existing center to their property. He indicated in 1977 they checked with the County and they were told the zoning at that time was alright for their proposed development and that the City would go along with the County's zoning. They did not find out until December of this year that the Cenral Plan proposed a mixed use designation for this property. He stated in talking to the County of San Bernardino they were told that the Alpha Beta center had met every parking requirement of the County, otherwise they would not have been able to construct there. Mr. Christenson stated they are currently in escrow to purchase subject property. He indicated the doctors sold this property to developers and made an agreement not to develop this property until the center was fully leased which has just happened last year. He stated economics and demand are favorable for commercial at this location. He indicated he has come up with a plan that would show how this property could integrate with the adjacent property contrary to what staff believes. From what he understands, the Agreement is a cross easement for driving and not for providing additional parking. It does not seem fair or legal that such a covenant be agreed upon by the owner of Alpha Beta and the County or the City. They are not taking an undeveloped corner, zoning it commercial, and building a new center; they are merely completing phase 2 of the existing center. The final precise plans would be subject to Commission review. They will develop aplan which will be more than self sufficient on parking. City Attorney stated Paragraph 4 of the document has a statement regarding mutual parking which does appear there is a mutual parking agreement between these two properties. It is impossible to tell at this time the extent and full intent without the full document for review. Mr. Christenson asked if they were required to put in the extra parking stalls they could still develop the property. Mr. Bob Kirkpatrick, real estate agent representing the buyer and seller, stated he has talked to the property owner to the north of subject property and if need be, additional property can be purchased to the north for parking purposes. Planning Commission. Minutes -9- January 10, 1979 Jack Lem stated he might indicate that the Council asked the owners of this property to stick to the issue of land use rather than review of the site plan at this time. The site plan may or may not '.ave anything to do with that issue at the present time. Commissioner Garcia stated the key issue is traffic congestion. By having two commercial developments on this particular corner it is very difficult for him to imagine a third commercial development. He hasn't really found any substantiation from the applicant to answer his questions of traffic and the impact this additional center will have on the area. Mr. Christenson stated it is his opinion that they feel this center would be feasible at this time due to the fact it is adjacent to an existing center. The traffic into the center exists at this time. They are not trying to bring additional traffic into the new center but to live off of existing traffic. Chairman Rempel stated for a good many of our shopping needs we have to go out of town, and he feels it is about time that some stores are constructed to meet the needs of the people within the City. As far as this shopping area is concerned he would rather see the extension of the existing center then taking over another cor- ner within the city. Baseline Avenue is going to be widened in the near future and if this shopping center is allowed it would pay for some of the cost of widening that street. He stated he did vote to change this area from high density residen- tial to mixed use; however, he feels that commercial on this property is appropo and he would like to see something of this nature allowed for this area. Jack Lam stated the Commission should consider the fact that Angels wilt be building on the southeast corner of Baseline and Archibald Avenues and will draw considerable amount of customers itself. Previous discussions by the Commission considered all these factors about the character of the area. The Commission in earlier discussions wished to maintain the character of the area for administrative professional uses. If commercial is allowed on this property and the applicants have a need to purchase additional property to the north for their development, it would be necessary for the Commission to designate an additional area for commercial rather than blocking them into one site. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the corner of Archibald and Baseline is a very sensitive corner. During the rainy season, Archibald is the only street in the area which can tarty traffic down from areas to the north. The biggest problem in his opinion is the traffic congestion. He would agree however, that. we do need more retail businesses within the city. It is his opinion that mixed use would not have as much of an impact. Chairman Hempel stated if we are to determine that a development can not be approved in an area because of problems during the rainy season which may occur 10 to 15 times during a year, then he feels we are in trouble. It is his opinion that an office building could hz.ve as much impact on congestion in an area as a commercial develop- ment. Mixed use would allow high density residential which could also cause the same traffic congestion. Archibald and Baseline are two streets in the city which he feels can best carry our traffic outside of Foothill Blvd. A Motion was made by Chairmar Rempel to designate a neighborhood commercial for this area. Motion died due to the lack of a second. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 10, 1979 Commissioner Tolstoy asked how wide Baseline is projected to be. Chairman Rempel stated it is proposed to be 120 feet from property line to property line. Archibald Avenue is projected to be approximately 140 feet. Commissioner Garcia stated if subject property should be changed to commercial, he does not feel we should stop there but also look at the westerly property. Jack Lam stated if the Commission is inclined to designate this as commercial,.then it should also consider a piece of property across the street west of Baseline as this property owner has also requested commercial. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to retain the mixed use designation for property on the north side of Baseline, west of Archi- bald, adjacent to the existing Alpha Beta Shopping Center. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL. GARCIA, JONES NOES: REMPEL ABSENT: NONE MOTION CARRIED Jack Lam stated the Council has also discussed an additional general plan item which the Commission might want to consider et this time. He stated there is a residential area between the Cucamonga Wash and Archibald. In previous general plan meetings there was discussion'as to what the character of the area should b� and whether it should be left residential or changed to industrial. There is an existing residential tract in this area. Due to this tract development there is some question as to how the residen- tial could be protected if industrial is allowed in the area. If more detailed study and specific development regulations or zoning regulations are developed for these areas that would protect existing residential. from any other land use in the area, it is possible to consider some form of industrial development. The Industrial Committee of the Chamber of Commerce is making the effort to study areas such as this in more detail. It is Mr. Lam's opinion that without a site specific plan and development packages we, by designating minimum impact industrial, do not have controls to stop piecemealing of this area. Since the industrial committee will be making a recommenda- tion as soon as the specific plan for the industrial area is developed, it is felt this area should be retained for residential but we should state for the record that the City would entertain a proposal for minimum impact industrial, provided the property development regulations in the specific plan are developed. He asked that the Commis- sion make a statement regarding this matter at this time in case it should come up again in the future. Commissioner Garcia stated the residential designation as currently shown should remain until a specific plan of the area has been accomplished. Commissioner Dahl stated he would like to go on record that this area should be left as residential at this time; however, at such tire as specific development regulations in the specific p,an are developed, it would be possible to discuss industrial for this area. It was the concensus of the Commission that subject area be retained as residential at this time and that they would be receptive to discussing industrial for the area at such time as a specific plan of the area is completed. Planning Comais Minutes -11- January 10, 1979 Recess called at 10:10 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:25 p.m. * * * * * PUBLIC HFARING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -02 - HEV2 nCCUPATIONS - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add Home Occupation regulations to allow businesses in residential zones. Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Plan- ning Division. He reported Staff recommends, after the public hearing, that the Com- mission adopt Resolution No. 79 -04 and transfer such recommendation to the City 'Council. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Jack Lam stated if there is any questions or issues that arise that may need further examination that the Commissior. hold this item over to the next meeting. Commissioner Jones asked if the new ordinance would apply to uses allowed in the past. Mr, lam stated yes, the ordinance would apply to those uses approved in the past as well as present unless the use was established prior t:i the current ordinances adopted by San Bernardino County. The County ordinance is very restrictive as it only allows medical type facilities. Most of the home occupations that are estab- lished in the community are currently in violation of the Cotmty ordinance. Chairman Rempel stated there are quite a few businesses that were here during the period of time when this area was all agricultural. He asked how this ordinance would affect those businesses. Mr. Lam stated there is a range of uses allowable including some commercial type activities related to agriculture. Retail type uses other than those related to agriculture would not be allowed. If a use was established prior to the County ordinance, those would become legal non - conforming uses and could remain. Commissioner Garcia asked if it would be possible to include temporary sales suckx as garage sales under the home occupation permit procedure. Mr. Lam stated garage sales should come under a separate ordinance which would set guidelines for that type of 1,sn and should not be discussed as part of the home occupation. Commissioner Garcia asked how this would affect a furniture business in the home in which the business has been conducted in a certain location for 20 to 30 years. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 10, 1979 ERR�_ r-F � r� , Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stated if the use pre -dates the ordinance, it would be a non- conforming use which we couldn't eliminate through zoning. At this time he does not know how far back the County hone occupation ordinance goes. Commissioner Jones asked if a person presently has a business in his home which is a non- conforming use and that person should move to another location would that use be allowed to continue in the new location. Mr. Lam stated if a person should move to arother location within the city he would have to comply with the same regulations as everyone else. The City can't give special preference over others., Michael Vairin stated he would like to recommend one change in the report. Condition No. 7 should state no home occupation shall be conducted in an accessory building. Normal use of the garage may be permitted if such use does not obstruct required parking. Jack Lam stated Condition #5 of the report should also be changed as follows: The conduct of a home occupation shall not involve visiting the premises by clients or customers. Michael Vairin reported Condition #9 should be reworded as follows: The use shall not involve storage of materials or supplies in accessory buildings or outdoor storage. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. City Attorney stated as far as piano lessons and the like in the home, he is concerned at this time with the wording allowing this type of use. Perhaps the Commission would consider continuing this item to the next meeting in order for him to review this section. There being no comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to con- _Z. tine review a° Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 79 -02 to the next regular meeting of January 24, 1979. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE' ZONE CHANGE N0. 87 -73 - ROGERS - Request to change the zoning from FP -2 (Flood Plain 2) to A -P (Administrative and Professional) zone on the property located an the south side of Baseline Avenue 800'+ east of Carnelian Street. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. TF.e Planning Division recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -02 recommending approval of Zone Change Nu. 87 -73 changing the zone from FP -2 to A -P and forward it to the City Council. Commissioner Garcia asked if Staff has any idea of what will be developed on this property. • Planning ,Con January -13- t'Y 10 + 1979 �il t� 0 0 Barry Hogan stated the applicant is proposing an office structure. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Rogers etated he would answer any questions the Commission may have regarding this zone change. Mr. Hogan stated he might indicate the reason the staff report indicated the issue of flooding on the property is so that the applicant is aware that the City will be looking at this problem at the site approval stage. However, any discussion regarding this matter should be discussed at the site approval stage. Mr. Hille, Engineer, etated they are pr=ently reviewing the drainage problems with the City Engineer and trying to resolve them prior to review of site plans. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -02 approving Zone Change No. 87 -73. AYES: DAHL, JONES, GARCIA, TOLS'POY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION CARRIED DIRECTOR REVIEW No. 78 -12 - ALDERFER - Request for development of a two story, 10,000 square foot office building located at 8030 Vineyard Avenue in the C -2 zone. Jack Lam stated the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next meeting of January 24, 1979. A Motion was made by Commissioner 7'olstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to ccn- tinue Director Review No. 78 -12 until January 24, 1979 at the request of the appli- cant. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE s PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS (Continued from 'December 12, 1978). Jack Lam reviewed the staff report, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the Commission establish the exco.b::d and unexcused absences allowed prior to removal and adopt Resolution No. 79 -03 establishing the Planning Commission Administrative Regulations. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 10, 1979 Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Garcia stated Commissioner Jones was not present at the last meeting when this matter was discussed and indicated he could like to hear her comments con- cerning this matter. Commissioner Jones stated she is in overall agreement with the regulations as pre - sented. She, however, had a question in regard to the excused absences allowed prior to removal. She asked if a Commissioner wanted to go on an extended vacation would absences be counted for any special meetings called during this time. Commissioner Dahl agreed that this could cause a problem if special meetings ere called during a Commissioners absence and that Commission member is not aware of the special meeting. Mr. Lam states if the Commission desires, it could be stipulated not to include those meetings called when a Commission member is absent. Chairman Rempel asked if the Commission has the power to replace a Commission member or does this have to come from the Council. City Attorney stated he has not read the ordinance adopted by the Council in this regard. The Commission does serve the Council; however, if the Commission should make a recommendation to the Council that a Commissioa member be replaced the Council would review this. Commissioner Dahl stated it would seem reasonable to allow the Commission to miss six regular meetings and /or 3 special called meetings throughout the year. Commissioner Garcia stated it is his opinion that seven excused absences be allowed during one year and three unexcused absences be allowed. During the next year there could be numerous special meetings called. He also agrees that if a special meeting is called during a Commissioners absence that meeting should not count. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to redraft the Planning Commission Administrative Regulations and bring back to the next regular meeting of January 24, 1979. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DARL, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE SERVICE STATION CTANDARDS (Continued from 12/27/78). Jack Lam stated the changes requested by the Commission a `%eir last meeting required more time than available. Staff therefore requested the'. ..e Commission continue consideration of Service Station Standards to the Januar 24, 1979 Planning Com- mission meeting. A Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Tolstayjp con- tinue review of Service Station Standards to January 24, 1979. ten, Planning Commission Min_utar' r -15- January 10, 1979 . AYES: JONES, TOLSTOY, DAHL, GARCIA, HEMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -58 - IDNGLEY - Request for development of a retail and whole- sale building material and supply center with outdoor display and sales located on the south side of Foothill Bl- d., 1000'± west of the Devore Freeway in the C -2 and M -1 zones. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recomm?ndw adoption of Resolution No. 79 -01 denying Director Review No. 78 -58. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Commissioner Garcia stated the staff report indicates that the proposed development only covers a portion of the property.and asked that the Commission review this for him. Barry Hogan stated the property is approximately five acres and this development would only cover approximately two acres of that property. Property to the rear and to the east will be left vacant at this time. Chairman Hempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Don Shippley, representing the applicant, stated it was his impression everyone knew what Mr. Longley's intent was at the time of the zone change from " -1 on this property. Mr. Jack Lam stated when this property was discussed in September, the appropriate allowable.uses were also discussed. It was acknowledged that the applicant desired a materials sales yard, that is why Staff proposed splitting zones on the property. The applicants' representative indicated this would be a home improvement center with some display proposed. It was further stated in the staff report, in rela- tionship to the regional center and retail commercial development in the area, that the City would be very critical in review of any proposal being submitted. In reviewing this development plan, Staff could not support approval. We feel that the primary issue is whether there is not in fact an industrial uses under disguise in a retail proposal. In taking a look at the site plan in question, most of it is storage and display. Staff does not feel this meets the intent of the ordinance nor intent the city had at the time the rezoning was granted. Staff can not make any recommendation for approval. Commissioner Garcia stated as he recalls in reviewing this area previously, it was made very clear that it should be master planned as a whole if this develop- ment goes in along Foothill Blvd. It would create many conflicts with future development. He would personally like to see restudy of this plan. He is not Planning Commission Minutes -16- January 10, .1979 ?i.,_ .� receptive to this type of development with roothill Blvd. which is going to be the focal point of our community. Commissioner Tolatoy stated as he recalls, Staff suggested that the property be in two zones; M -1 for the industrial use and C -2 for the retail use. It looks as though there is storage area on the C -2 portion of the property which he thought had been taken care of by the discussions of the zone change. Another point is that across the street could well be one of our most important parts of our city, a regional shopping center. It was previously indicated if this development were proposed, it should be a well designed commercial use. It seems that this plan presented tonight violates the first zoning situation and it is not well planned nor well designed. Mr. Shippley asked where a commercial development such as this really belongs in the zoning ordinance. In this case, this development is essentially a retail/ wholesale outlet. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stated a building supply lot is an M -1 use not a C -1 or C -2 use. Chairman Rempel stated he was under the impression that building materials are not normally stored inside of a building. We did anticipate that there would be some display on the outside. This is standard for building supply houses but he can understand that we don't want storage blocks of material out there in that commercial zone because it is not applicable to that area. Mr. Lam stated that a building materials yard is an M -1 use. The idea of the C -2 district is for primarily indoor retail sales. Some small areas such as plant display would be allowable. This area will be a window to the community and could be very significant in terms of a future retail core. It is very important to consider the positive character of uses going into that area. It will set the pace and tore for other future uses in the area. Commissioner Garcia stated he would like to see restudy of the whole area. It is too important an issue for us to entertain a motion that would allow M -1 uses in the C -2 area. Mr. Shippley stated as Mr. Rempel indicated it would be nearly impossible to totally enclose the building supplies. Mr. Lam stated if the primary use is going to be an outdoor building material censer, then this is clearly an M -1 use and no amount of juggling of the site plan is going to change that. Commissioner Garcia stated with further study perhaps the storage area can be moved back to the M -1 area where it belongs. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the display areas do not have to be display of a pile here and there of different materials. A small stack of bricks could per- haps be displayed in front with the materials stored to the rear of the property. Planning Commission Minutes -17- January 10, 1979 Mr. Longley stated at the time of his request for zone change, staff stated this area should be part C -2-aid part M -1. The property has been zoned as the Com- mission desired for this development. He asked at that time if a development as the one proposed would be allowable on this site, and he was told yes, it would be appropriate. Mr. Lam stated Mr. Longley dealt with the County and he is not certain of what transpired at that time. When we received this file and the application request for a building materials sales yard we indicated to the applicant it was not allowable in the C -2 zone but in the M -1 zone. That is why we suggested that the zoning be split so that Mr. lorgley's desires could be accommodated in the M -1 portion. Mr. Longley stated he feels this type of development should be allowed in a com- mercial zone. When there is a commercial business, people should not have to go into the industrial area to do their business. Mr. Lam stated this does not come close to a C -2 use. This use is appropriate in the M -1 district. The character of the use is not C -2, the only thing that comes clone is a garden shop. He stated at the City Council and Commission meetings it was indicated the staff would be very critical in reviewing the design of this development because of the importance of ttis site Commissioner Garcia stated he feels that the applicants proposal is completely in violation of the code. A Motion was made by commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Resolution No. 79 -01 denying Director Review No. 78 -58. AYES: GARCIA. TOLSTOY, DAHL, JUNES NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: REMPEL ABSENT: NONE Chairman Rempel stated this plan needs to be looked at and possibly come up with a more definitive type criteria that determines what is display and what is storage. Mr. Hogan stated the decision of the Planning Commission becomes final 14 calendar days after today. If Mr. Longley wants to file an appeal, this has to be done in writing with the appropriate fee submitted to the Planning Division. After 14 days this decision will become final. Commissioner Jones stexed she attended the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting. At that meeting, they indicated they wish to be sure that there will be back yard access for recreational vehicle storage provided for within the new zoning ordinance. planning Conmission Minutes Barry Hogan stated this will be taken care of in the new zoning ordinance. The City has informed the planning consultant of providing setbacks wide enough to provide for access for recreational vehicles, horse trailers, etc. Michael Vairin stated in addition, the existing code does require a ten foot side yard on one side of each house. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Carcia, seconded by Commissioner Dahl to adjourn the meeting to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, i� r ij ,j 'i�•II ..l � � JACK LAM, Director of Community Development Planning Commmission Minutes c2: -19- January 10, 1979 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0 JANUARY 24, 1979 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cuca- monga, on Wednesday, January 24. 1979. Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary APPROVAL OF MIN'JfES Upon Motion by Commissioner Tolatoy, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried, the minutes of December 27, 1978 were approved subject to the following changes: Page 1, Approval of Minutes of the Special Study Session of November 21, 1978 were approved subject to the following change: Peter Tolstoy to be shown as present at this meeting; Jorge Garcia to be shown as absent at this meeting. Page 1, Approval of Minutes for Special Study Session of November 29, 1978 to be changed as follows: Chair, Rempel substituted for Jones on the Committee. Page 8, 2nd paragraph from bottom of page should read: Commissioner Garcia stated we should encourage diversity of exterior architectural design and site development plans over and beyond increasing landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 1979 I 0 ANNOUNCEMENTS: 0 Jack Lam indicated the City Council has approved the Commissions' attendance at the League of California Cities Conference to be held February 21 - February 23, 1979. The necessary arrangements have been made and our office will be sending additional information regarding the conference to the Commission in the near future. PU'SLIC HEARINGS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79 -01 - SIGN ORDINLNCE - Amendment to the Zoning Ordi- nance to add a new sign ordinance and repeal all existing sign regulations (Con- tinued from 1/10/79 with public hearing open). Jack Lam reviewed the staff rernrt in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He stated Staff recommends after the public hearing, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 79- 08'and transfer such recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission to the staff. Commissioner Garcia stated in previous discussions regarding the ordinance, there was much discussion regarding billboard signer. He asked where this type of sign falls within the ordinance. Mr. Lam stated as per previous discussions, it was the feeling that billboards should not be allowed in the community. Only temporary construction or sub- division signs are mentioned. Under the non - conforming section, billboard signs would be amortized. The ordinance defines billboards as advertising structures. Commissioner Jones asked why the grandfather clause has not been added to the ordinance. Chairman Rempel stated the amortization clause is in the ordinance to eliminate any sign that is non - conforming rather than a grandfather clause. Commissioner Jones wondered if the 8' height limitation would invite vandalism? Mr. Lam stated there is no conclusive evidence that sign height has an effect on 'l vandalism one way or the other. You tend to find damaged signs in areas that have a lot of youngsters that pats through lrregardleas of height. This can be minimized and in some cases eliminated through proper design and sign placement. Commissioner Garcia asked if the historical commission has submitted any docu- mentation of what they might consider a historical sign. Mr. Lam stated the Historical Committee is presently looking at historical sites but not,historicnl signs at this time. It is not necessary for the Commission at this time to list these signs. A sign which is found to be of historical signi- ficance may he allowed to remain provided the Commission makes certain findings. �''' Planning Commisuion Minutes -2- January 24, 1979 Chairman Rempel stated he would like to suggest a change to the 1st page, para- graph 2, under 'W' to read as follows: Tt is the purpose of this ordinance to make our city attractive to residents, visitors and commercial, industrial and professional interests in our community through attractive and functional signing. Mr. Hopson star, from our prospective, a general statement about views and pur- poses is helpful if future interpretation is necessary. The statement suggested by Mr. Hempel is acceptable as it more clearly defines what we are trying to do. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the sign ordinance should address itself to allowing some originality in special situations, such as a regional shopping center that might come into the city. There might be a statement added to the ordinance that would allow this type of situation to be considered. Mr. Lam stated V tuber of Commerce Sign Committee discussed signs such as this in terms of _ ring a neighborhood shopping center to a regional shopping center. No conclusions were reached as to what size sign a large center should have. It was felt at the time the regional center does come in this can be handled at that time. City Attorney stated the ordinance allows a variance procedure to vary from the ordinance if exceptional circumstances should arise. Mr. Lam stated there has been some discussion under the commercial sections, to include the category of regional center with a statement that signing could be determined at the time of development through Commission review. Commissioner Dahl stated Page 6, Item 7 only identifies historical society. He wondered if civic organizations should also be included in this section? Mr. Hopson stated additional clarification is helpful and would broaden the intent of that section. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Arden Berg, Director of the Sign Users Council, stated in reviewing this proposed ordinance in his experience it is the roost restrictive one he has ever seen and will cause economic problems to the small businessman. In regard to roof signs, he stated that they would like to see roof signs included as a part of the permitted signing only when it is compatible with the rest of the structure, and when no other sign configuration can be accomplished. He stated this ordinance deals with the reduction of signing to the magnitude where it doesn't allow the small businessman to hav-t appropriate signing. The person that needs signing most of all is the small businessman. The 8' height limit on signs is very res- trictive. Educational institutions are allcv °rl 20' high, free standing signs and commercial businesses are allowed only 8' high signs. In regard to the amortiza- tion of signs over a 5 year period, he is concerned about the economic impact upon the business community with the 5 year amortization period. It is their opinion that any sign that is in a state of disrepair should conform to the ordinance. other than that there should be no sliding scale of abatement. He would like to say there is some good direction of sign control within the ordinance; the main- tenance section is super. other areas such as off site directional signs and subdivision signs rte fine. However, there are still a lot of problems. He Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 24, 1979 0 indicated there will be a meeting with the Laftabra Chamber of Commerce on March 24, 1979 which will be an educational seminar on signs. He encouraged the Commis- sion to attend. He requested that the Commission consider continuing this matter. As far as the amortization period contemplated in the ordinance, he suggested that a schedule using 1978 cost per square foot to assist in using to days replacement costs be considered. Michael Vairin stated he would like to clarify some of Mr. Berg's comments. He stated the existing sign ordinance currently prohibits roof signs. The height of monument signs within the C -1 zone is currently limited to 4'. The reason school signs are suggested to be 20' high is the necessity for listing school activities. Mr. Mark Dermi, Wilmington Savings and Loan, indicated he and a few others have been passing around petitions to the various businesses as well as priva citizens in the community letting them read the ordinance. The petition stated the under- signed would like to voice strong opposition to the illconceived sign ordinance as it now exists. They have found certain points to be completely unacceptable. There is a total lack of a grandfather clause. It is felt tl,. = 24 square foot maximum for commercial and the 8' height for signs is unacceptable. There are 29 signatures on the petition at this time. The grrndfather clause should be considered, as those having non - conforming signs have much money into the signs and if told they will have to replace them would Lave the expense of purchasing two signs. A newcomer would conform to the existing ordinance and only have to put up one sign. He does not see the equality there. In some cases, a 24 square foot sign may be large enough, in other cases it will not be large enough. Mr. Bill Rickard, Insurance Agent, stated he is in disagreement with the 8' height requirement for signs. He stated the city could possibly be held respon- sible for an accident caused by a person looking for a sign. An inventive attorney can possibly have a case and this should be considered by the City. It would be better to allow different size signs. Mr. Hopson stated whether a sign is 8' in height or 80' in height, any inventive attorney can create a case upon which anyone can be sued. The city needs to consider the safety and visibility of a sign in 5.ts review. Mr. Jeff Sceranka, Lucas Land Company, stated they have four non - conforming signs for one business. They have been in the area for quite some time and in that particular building with the same sign structure for at least 20 years. The sign on their roof is the only possible place that they co;rld put a sign for identifica- tion of tenants within the building. They can not understand why that particular sign would have to be removed. He doesn't understand why a roof sign would be disagreeable to anyone if it did not extend above the highest point of the roof line. In terms of signs on the boulevard frontage, and the 24 square foot sign, he questions what is really needed by a person driving along Foothill Blvd. at 50 miles per hour to be able to see a sign and turn into a driveway without getting into an accident. It could be very dangerous if a sign is too small to not be seen by those traveling down the highway. He does not know at taia time what size would be adequate but does feel additional data should be collected to determine whether the 24 square foot sign is adequate. In terms of window signs he does not understand why two square feet is proposed. This could possibly be related according to the percentage of space occupied by the sign in the window. He wondered why a com- mercial user should only be allowed a 24 square foot sign and r contractor be allowed a 32 square foot sign. He is not sure why there is a discrepancy in P1an'Aing "Commission Minutes -4- January 24, 1979 0 property setbacks as well. 0 Michael. Vairin stated the intention of the ordinance is that the siga does not pro- ject into the right of way in any manner. In terms of the square - uotage differences in the commercial signs and contractors advertising signs, if the (aamission desires, they can be made identical. Chairman Rempel stated the difference between a ommercial sign and a contractors sign is that a contractor sign is temporary. Jeff Sceranka stated since there is a Devore Freeway turn off, there may be com- mercial uzers within that area that would like to have people on the freeway know that they are there. Thomas Vineyards generally use billboard signing near free,4aya to get people to come to their facility. There are facilities such as this within our community and this would be helpful and necessary signing for businesses to have the tourist trade. Mr. Robert Sketter, 8330 Camino Sur, stated there are signs all down the street 6'at restrict the view of the buildings due to their height. That could be taker care of very easily by having all signs placed'against the sides of the buildings. In the City of Upland signs are up against the be "'-ding and can be read very well. The signs are also uniform. The grandfather clause in Upland allows a sign until five y4-ars after a business is sold to bring the sign in conformance with the present ordinance. Mr. Lam stated he would like to make it clear that the 24 square foot sign is not the only sign which is allowed for a business; it is intended to be the secondary identification sign., The main identification sign is on the structure. In those cases where further identification is needed because of building setbacks, there is an option to select a monument sign in addition to other construction signs. In the case where there are excessive set backs there is a variance approach. The Commission is to determine what kind of character it desires for this com- munity. There is not an ordinance which would meet the needs of every community. Mr. Wally Schultz, resident and businessman in the community, stated the 24 square foot sign for commercial signing is below the necessary level for many businesses, particularly those on individual sites. Also, the 8' high sign could eliminate the field of vision from Lice nLicet to a '_ueln_ ?aa. Mrs. Mary Lane, Lane Realty, stated she had a 96 square foot sign now and they had more than one person pass up their business because they didn't see the sign. The County required that the sign be high enough not to cut off any view for the traffic coming down Klusman Avenue. The bottom of the sign is 8' high. If a �.,,aller sign is required no one could see under it or over it. She would also like to state that the time and temperature signs such as the one at Wilmingtoa ravings and Loan are very nice to have within the city and it would be a shame to cut down the size as required by the ordinance. Mr. Hopson stated the ordinance exempts time and temperature signs, as long as they are solely used for time and temperatut.-e. If the sign is also used for advertising then it would be prohibited. ;` Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 24, 1979 P NE r Mr. Lam sated there is a Variance procedure within the ordinance and if Mrs. Lane's sign meets the requirements for a variance it could be allowed to remain. Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the `r Commission. Commissioner Jones stated she would like to know the opinion of staff with regard to the amortization period required in the ordinance and the possibility of permitting a business to keep their sign until the lrasiness is remodeled or sold. Commissioner Dahl stated in his opinion that does not always work the way it should because you my have a buaincss with non- conforming signs that will never remodel or sell their business. They would be allowed to keep their sign from now on. Oftentimes these businesses are the biggest problems. He is opposed. to the clause suggested by Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Garcia stated if a business is permitted to maintain a sign until change of ownership we are basically talking about a grandfather clause. The Commission needs to address itself on* whether or not they want to have a grand- father clause. We have to look toward the future and the image of the community in the future. It is his opinion that we have established within the general plan the basic goals of the community. He feels that basic concepts of height and levels of visibility are subjee': to discussion but that the proposed ordinance is very concise and comprehensive. He aoked if the Chamber of Commerce has taken a position on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lam c+tated the Chamber has taken no position on the ordinance. The Chamber appointed a sign committee to work with the city on the ordinance and has had a number of study sessions. However, this should not be interpreted as support nor objection to the ordinance. Jeff aceranka stated he was on the sign committee and would like to indicate the Committee did not receive a final draft of the ordinance. That is why a _ letter has not been forwarded from the Chamber on the sign ordinance. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is his opinion this sign ordinance is a reflec- tion of what the community wants; a distinctive and well planned community. It is his opinion that this sign ordinance is an important facet that makes for a distinctive and well planned community. Commissioner Jones asked if it is important to have a penalty clause in the y' ordinance? Mr. Hopson stated the non - conforming use leaves us with the power to seek court orders or whatever might be necessary to c rose a nuisance to be abated so the penalty provision is not needed in the ordinance. Commissioner Dahl stated overall, the ordinance will go a long way to making the city a beautiful place in which to live. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 24, 1979 c Commissioner Garcia stated he is not too sure at this time if he would agree with the 8' height requirement for monument signs. The 8' height is pretty high as far as he is concerned. He would like to have some time to think about the ordinance. Tu previous discussions we did address ourselves to the basic factors . that roof signs could be permitted within areas that are impossible to sign other- wise. He .vuld also like to see a classification of what we consider billboard signs. Chairman Rempel stated billboard signs are taken care of in item 7 which state no off site signs allowed accept temporary subdivision directional signs, or advertising structures except as permitted in this ordinance. The ordinance does not permit free standing signs over 20 feet in height. There are several ways it is covered in the ordinance without making it a specific reference so we are not singling out one type of industry in the community. Mr. Hopson stated the question has been raised as to what generally the courts will do when confronted with a claim that a specific industry; billboards for example, are being eliminated from cities. That case is currently in front of the California Supreme Court. He will have something definitive as to whether or not billboards can be banned after this decision has been made by the courts. By not referring to billboards but applying to all advertising media that would fit within a certain class doesn't single billboards out for special treatment. There may be some small benefits legally in not singling out billboards. Commissioner Garcia stated he would like to continue review of the sign ordinance until the next meeting unless the Commission feels differently. La is very comfortable with the general aspects and format of the ordinance but he would really like to have a little more time for further review. Commissioner Jones indicated she would be in favor of continuing this hearing to the next meeting. She indicated she is concerned about off site signs and would like to further review. Chairman Rempel stated regarding off site signs there are some businesses in our community and also in our neighboring communities that do well with signs on the freeway. He is not talking about big billboard signs, but rather small signs mentioning the fact that there is a restaurant or business near a certain off ramp. He feels total prohibition of off site signs might not be the best. He would also like to consider this item further before a final decision is made on the ordinance. Mr. Lam stated if the Commission chooses to continue this hearing for further study staff can schedule a special study session next week for further review. It was the concensus of the Commission that a study session be set for Wednesday, January 31, 1979 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Services Building to discuss the s,gn ordinance. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to continue the Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 79 -01 with the public hearing closed to the regular Planning Commission meeting of Fe1r.ruary 14, 1979. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minute. -7- January 24, 1979 l Recess called at 7e15 p.m. Meeting reconveneu at 9 :30 p.m. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79-02 - HOME OCCUPATIONS - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add Home Occupation regulations to allow incidental occupational uses in residential homes (continued from 1/10/79) Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -04 and refer such recommendation to the City Council= Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Dahl stated he has noticed where a property owner has two or more vehicles parked at his home advertising their commercial business. He asked if that constitutes storage of said vehicle on the property. Mr. Lam stated no, it does not because vehicles are not connected with a home occupation. There is another ordinance which deals with parking of commercial vehicles within residential areas. Chairman Rempel aR!:ed if it is alright to have an income tax business as long as that person goes to the homes of clients to do his business. Mr. Lam stated that is correct.' If the income tax business is conducted solely within the applicants home it would not be inconsistent with the residential area. The intent is that a business conducted within a home does not disrupt the residen- tial character of the neighborhood. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Skeller asked if a person which sells plants from his home is considered a home occupation. Chairman Rempel stated no, it would not be considered a home occupation. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed 'the public hearing. Mr. Lam stated the City Attorney has,requeeted that the wording be changed on Item 65 to read as follows: The use' shall not allow customers or clientele to visit dwellings. However, incidental uses much as music lessons, may be permitted if the intensity of such instruction is approved by the Director of Community Development. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 24, 1979 F !. There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Dahl, and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to approve Resolution No. 79 -04 based on the findings and conditions as listed in t_ie Resolution. AYES: DAHL, GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12 - ALDERFER (Continued from 1/10/79) - Request for development of a two - story, 10,000 square foot office building at 8030 Vineyard In the C -2 zone. Mr. Lam stated the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next regular meeting of February 14, 1979. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to continue review of Director Review-No. 78 -12 to the next regular meeting of February 14, 1979. AYES: TOLSTOY, GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS (Continued for corrections from 1/10/79). Jack Lam reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -03 estab- lishing the Planning Commission Administrative regulations. Commissioner Garcia stated he is comfortable with the regulations as amended and does not have any additional input at this time. There being no discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve Resolution No. 79 -03 establishing the Planning Commission Administrative regulations. AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, JONES. TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE SERVICE STATION STANDARDS (Continued from 1/10/79) SPECIAL BOULEVARD STANDARDS (Continued from 12/27/78) Mr. Lam Stated staff recommends that the service station standards and the special boulevard standards be continued to the next regular meeting of February 14, 1979. Planning Commission Minutes January 24, 1979 A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to continue review of the service station standards and special boulevard standards to the next regular meeting of February 14, 1979. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, TOLSTOY, REEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 - KORTEPETER The division of 1.8 acres into two lot& located 850' east of Etiwanda Avenue and 950' north o" Suwmit Avenue - R -1 zone Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, these being on file in the Planning Division. He recommended that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4773 and adopt Resolution No. 79 -09 approving Parcel Map No. 4773. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Dahl stated he would like to publically state that he knows Mr. Kortepeter; however, he does not feel it will impair his judgement on the matter. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stated his interpretation of conflict of interest is that of financial involvement. Anything other than financial involvement is not considered a conflict of interest. Barry Hogan stated he might add this parcel map is not a proposed development, the applicant only proposes to split the property. At the time of development of Lot 2, they would be required to meet all city requirements. Commissioner Garcia asked what is the proposed land use? Bill Hofman stated the general plan designates windrow preservation which allows for residential development at a density of .1 to 3 units per acre. Chairman Rempel stated the major item of concern is the improvement of 23rd Street to Etiwanda Avenue. Chairmar. Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Kortepeter, applicant, stated he applied for a land division on November 22, 1977. He has taken pictures of the area and has taken notes on the pictures which he reviewed with the Commission. The road is now maintained by the people that live there. He. sees no reason to cut down 159 eucalyptus trees that protect residents from the wind. He statdd he has a question concerning the 40' offer of dedication. Is this 40' offer of dedication from Lot 1 west to Etiwanda Avenue? !Tanning Commission Minutes -10- January 24, 1979 . Mr. Hubbs st :.ted that is correct. Mr. Kortepeter stated if this is required, the people in the area will not only lose their eucalyptus trees but also some of the homes, garages, water lines, etc. Mr. Hubbs stated the 40' is required under the Street Highway Act, the City can not accept into the maintenance system less then 40' of roadway. He would like to see a residential area served by public roads and maintained by the City. It is more equitable from an access standpoint and from maintenance stand- point. If the streets are to be maintained by the people living in the area, there tends to be serious problems and something that all cities try to eliminate. The Engineerisro 0 +,_isicn would like to work with the applicant to help him get the neighbors together and help them understand what we are trying to do. The road will be to their benefit. If the people on the street, in order to preserve the windrows, were willing to make some sacrifices there is some possibility that this could be worked out. However, this has to be done with concurrence with the people on the street. The City Council on numerous occasions has required improvements such as those required on this parcel map. Mr. Kortepeter stated he would agree to pave the front of his property; however, he does not feel it should be up to him.to see that the entire road is completed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated if he understands correctly, is Mr. Kortepeter reqttired to dedicate the entire 40'2 Mr. Hubbs stated we are asking that Mr. Kortepeter attempt to obtain dedications from his neighbors equaling 40' of right of way from his parcel to Etiwanda Avenue. Chairman Hempel stated there are other streets within our city that will have the same problem as Mr. Kortepeter. He doesn't feel the City wants any more streets of this nature because of the problems they cause. People will complain to the city and say they want the street paved and maintained and streets of this nature cause many problems. Mr. Kortepeter stated this is a private road at the present time and the people in the area are not asking the city to do anything. Commissioner Garcia asked if the other residents in the area are totally opposed to the engineering recommendations. Mr. Kortepeter stated he can't speak for the other people in the area. From talking with the people they have indicated they would like to be left alone. The only people that use this road is the ones that live in the area. Clara Murillo, 13665 Monte Vista Avenue, Chino, stated as far as a solution to this problem, one solution would be to state that if any application is made for a swimming pool, room addition, or any building permit, it be tied to putting in improvements and making dedication. For Mr. Kortepeter to have to do all improve- ments is not right, but would be more equitable to be tied to any future building permits. Mr. Vic Sherback asked if the City has tine authority to require a road to be developed under the 1911 Act if a majority of the people want to put it in. Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 24, 1979 Mr. Hubbs stated if 50 percent of the people will concur, the 19U Act could be instituted. Commissioner Garcia stated he would like to have an opportunity to review this site a little more before making z determination. He would like to become more familiar with the 1911 Act. Mr. Kortepeter stated the people in the area might not be hesitant of maintaining or coming up with funds to maintain what is there but as far as cutting down trees, garages, etc., they would not be in favor of this. Doug Taylor, owning property east of Mr. Kortepeter stated he is presently P building a house on his property. He will not cut down his eucalyptus trees to put a road in. Commissioner Garcia stated this decision will set a precident for future develop- ments in the city. He would like the applicant to work with staff and contact the property owners to get sufficient data to be submitted to the Commission in order for them to properly analyse the situation and make a proper judgement in this particular case. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to continue review of Parcel Map No. 4773 to the next regular meeting of February 14, 1979. In the meantime, it was requested that a meeting be held with owners of property in this area and City Staff to try to work out a solution to the problems. AYES: GARCIA, DAHL. JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE POLICY FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON PARCEL MAPS I A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to continue review of this policy to the next regular meeting of February 14, 1979 in conjunction with review of Parcel Map No. 4773. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE INTERIM LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT - Referral from Council for recommendation on specific areas of concern. Area: Northwest corner of 19th and Archibald (Vanir Property). Jack Lam, Director of Community Development reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported the general plan desig -. Planning Commission Minutes _12- January 24, 1979 � r nation for this area is -high density residential and the owners desire to have 4 acres of R -3 (apartments) and 3 acres of A -P (office). He reported the Commission has three options. First, leave the area as is, designating high density residential for the entire seven acres. Second, split the designation with 200' of mixed use along 19th Street extending northerly the full length of the property with the remainder being.high density residential. Third, designate the entire site as mixed use. Commissioner Garcia asked how staff feels about mixed use on this site. Barry Hogan stated in referring to mixed use, Staff is not talking about both apartments and offices being built on the same property. Staff is talking about the option fo-r either apartments or offices. If mixed use is designated for the entire property, the applicant would be required to prove at the zoning stage whether or not offices or multi - family would be a better use for that property. Mr. Lam stated if the Commission in their decision were to lean toward considering administrative professional of some kind, he would suggest that the entire site be mixed use rather than split it at this time because we do not know what the development plans are at this time. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to designate the entire site on the northwest corner of 19th and Archibald as mixed use. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Jack Lam stated Chaffey College presented their views on the proposed land use surrounding the college and their concern was that the city might promote develop - ment that would be out of character with the plans and development of the college. Staff has met with the college and feels that a solution to the college's concern would be to add a statement in the text of the Ge.weral Plan outlining the city's policy for development surrounding Chaffey College. He recommended that the Commission concur with the addition of the paragraph as stated in the staff report into the Community Facilities section of the General Plan text and that this be forwarded to the City Council for their decision. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to add the following paragraph to the Community Facilities Section, Sub heading Chaffey Community College, Paragraph 2 in the General Plan Text: "Since the Chaffey College community has been developed through the years as a non -urban environment which reflects the natural character of the physical surroundings, any development adjacent to the campus should be designed to reflect the same values. Specific attention should be paid to proper scale of buildings, the sensitive clustering Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 24, 1979 of structures, use of natural landscaping, and avoidance of harsh geo- metric design and-grading. Such design sensitivity would preserve openness of surroundings, enhance the College community's environmental character and reinforce the long- standing aesthetic tradition of the institution. The above - stated principles would be best incorporated in planned unit developments." AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN STUDY AREAS NOT WITHIN CITY A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Jones to continue review of this policy to February 14, 1979. AYES: DAHL, JONES, GARCIA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unani- mously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of January 24; 1979 to the Study Session of January 31, 1979 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Services Building. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. ie�ctfaulOtly ubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development r' Date: February 14, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jeck Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: Agenda Items Please insert the following reports from your Agenda packet of January 24, 1979 into the February 14, 1979 packet as they were continued items and have not been changed at this time: Please insert Item "IV' from the January 24th Agenda - Policy for Improvements on Parcel Maps - into Item "R" of this Agenda. Please insert Item "J" from the January 24th Agenda - Policy for Development in Study Areas not within City - into Item "V" of this Agenda. ReIpectfull submitted, JACK LAH, Director of Community Development JL:nm 0 .9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORPNDUM DATE: February 14, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM. JACK LAM, Director of Community Development El SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR MINOR SUPPi'VISION #77 -0671. BACi.GROMID* Mr. Rice is requesting extension of the expiration date of his Minor Subdivision as he has not been able to process or complete the conditions of approval that Were a5opted by the County (Exhibit "A "). Mr. Rice has re- quested an extension of this conditional approval to February 23, 1580. He has stated that this additional time will allow him to meet conditions of approval and finalize the subdivi.wion. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division Staff recommends that the Planning Commission extend the expiration of Minor Subdivision No. 77 -0671 to February 23, 1980. Respectfully suNmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV: e3.m Attachments: letter V .nor Subdivision documents -410 R. U6EIVE0 CUCAMONGA `rQN!rUNIT! DEvEOIOPMEN DEPL JAN 1 v 1979 AM PN L Sincerely, Gtte Rice 0 Mr. Gene Rice 320 S. Laurel Ave. Ontario, Ca 91761 " r January 4, 1979 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commision 1111 East Mill Street Bldg. I San Bernardino, Ca 92415 D�a Minor Subdivision No. W77 -06:1 (Copy enclosed) �r Dear Mr. Michael Varrin: As of this date I have not been able to meet the requirements of the Minor Subdivision, conditionally approved on February 15, 1978_ At this time, I am requesting an extension of time according to paragraph two. Hopefully the extended time to February 23, 1980 will give me the needed time to meet your requirements- -410 R. U6EIVE0 CUCAMONGA `rQN!rUNIT! DEvEOIOPMEN DEPL JAN 1 v 1979 AM PN L Sincerely, Gtte Rice 0 Original Poor Quality ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPROVEMENT AGENCY -:: co„AI, of son"ISerncrdno PLANNING DEPARTMEP:T 1117 EM Mill Street, Bldg. 7 - Son Bernardino, CA 82416 - (7(4)?83 1A1 A February 23, 1976 `t,' CUCA(ti1GHGA YGf RANGh11G COEAtAUNM DEVELOPMENT DEPT. JAN lu 1�)y PIA Gene Rice 320S. Laurel Ave. $list %�Ju1u11121314,5i6 Ontario, Ca. 91786 Re: Minor Subdivision No. W77 -0671 Dear Mr. Rice: This is to advise yoe that your Minor Subdivision application was conditionally approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council at its meeting of February 15, 1978. Said Minor Subdivision application was found to be in complia,lce with Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act and was approved subject to your completion of the requirements as Bet forth on the attached sheet (s) . All requirements specified on the attached she:t(s) shall be fret within one (1) year after the date o: this letter, or the Ccndii.ional. approval is void. An extension of time not to exceed one (1) year .hay be granted upon wnitren application to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission not less than thirty (36) Calendar days prior to the date of expiration. The lots proposed by your Minor Subdivision application cannot be legally divided, recorded or sold until the requirements 14-r!•ed have been complated and. your arplicarinn hrF lip-on given "Final Approval" sinned by the'Pl.:nning Director. sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL ::;PPOVE44ENT AGENCY. cc: City of Ranchl Cucan:on.a PLANNING DEPARTXES'P Co. TransEiort .at _c (" ^' Co. rlood Control Co. Survevor Foothill Fire Jests tic Joan Ptfcevuzni)? Associate ?mariner Assocaited Engineers :WCSt Valle% Planning 316 East "Ent Street Ontario, Ca. 91786 JP:nk M.S. File W77 -0662 Incl.: as noted a;aave " EARL GOODWIh lcamd el Sup�rvnon • 4nmmnirel • Of 1,, s. R06E @T O. TOWNSEND ...Fuunh D•.brcl JOE KAMAN;:Kr .Secorw r]w . • 8408ERT8 RIGNEY..A[unln.j��p6;_t1 _•�- �•+ °L"If llrnyro DENNIS NANSFIERGER ...Tom* DAPWI � . L wnru•• 11141 Ir;4,roy."...q XiWcy JAME%L MAVFIC I -D ... F.r.I D".[r.ct 606 HAMMOCK .. •-` F.i[" OAlt.m. �Cf i �I J 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 Is IQ 20 ,1 .3 24 25 26 F_ 7 2y 31 3.•1 54 3S 36 37 39 3o 40 41 47 43 44 45 .46 47 44) 53 S� Rancho Cucamonga City Council Feb. 15, 1978 0 MS: W77 -0671 RICE Offers of Dedication required along the south and east boundaries as shown on Hinor Subdivision map. 20' radius of return offer of dedication required for rounding the corner as shown on the Minor Subdivision Plat Map. Curb, gutter and paving required along south and east property lines and along north and east property lines of parcel $3 of the Minor Subdivision application #W77 -0198 as shown on the Minor Subdivision map: An additional 26' of paving is required to Summit Avenue for access to this parcel. Applicant is advised to coordinate road im- provements with the legal corner of Mir-or Subdivision application W77- 0662. Plans for all improvements must be approved by the San Bernardino County Road Department prior to installation of said improvements. A cash deposit or bond may be placed with the County Road Department to fulfill this requirement. Applicant shall provide a fire protection water system in accordance with Foothill Fire District standards and comply with Foothill Fire District requirements. Applicant shall obtain and forward to the Planning Department a letter from the serving water agency certifying that capacity for this pro- ject has been reserved for a minimum period of one (1) year. Upon completion of all other conditions, a parcel map of the proposed division shall be recorded with the County Recorder pursuant to provisions of the State Map Act. (Note: This map must be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or a Registered Civil Engineer.) An advance ropy of the parcel map may be submitted to the County Surveyor to expedite checking, but the County Surveyor will not accept the linen for presentation to the County Recorder for.filing until notified by the Planning Director that your Minor Subdivision application is in order for final approval. The parcel map is required due to insufficient survey data recorded with the County of San Bernardino. The following are Flood Control District RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY and are not to be considered as requirements. (Applicant is advised to forward these recommendations to the prospective purchasers of these lots.): That adequate provisions be provided along the north and west site boundaries to intercept local drainage flows and possible tributary drainage flows from the north and convey them around or through the site in a manner which will not adversely. affect adjacent or downstream properties. That any future building pads be elevated above natural ground to reduce damage due to overflow. e 56 `6 (714) 067. ;773 4boT •I,LL FIRE DISTIOT. Serving the Communities c/ Alta Lome _ Cucamonga - Bliwan4 P. O. Sox 35 — 6627 Amethyst Street Alta Uma, California 91701 Decer -b¢.. 22. 1977 jq'VL IIRt rIRtV[HTION� , OYRLAY (714) 007-0740.' San Bennandino County PZanning Department 1 ;y , - ;N� :•7 n .9 Design Review Section ll ❑C�2 v 137 %' 1111 E. hli U Bui-tding 01 San ., r n =}"A*tMc M Beltnard o, CA 92415 3, - REt W17 -0671 (RICE1 ETIWANDA , Gentlemen: . In accordance (with Ordinance e1, FoothitZ Fire Di6tnict, the pUowi,ngg .stems are Ae44u/ ked prior to commencing construction o6 any buitding (a) oh 4tAUCtUAe (a) : 1 • 1. • FiAe 6Zow wU-P- be determined by th,ih department upon receipt o6 the 6ott'a.ting in6ormati.on: a. Two (21 bets o6 ptana b. StAucture6 pen ache (den6ity) c. Location o6 titact d. Type o6 rood eovening e. Number. o6 &toAie.6 1 j r r 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Catcatati.olta indicating that the 6•i4e • 6tow )tequincment Witt be met ahatt be aubmUted to thus'department pAim to plan approvat. Water mains and appurtenances shah be in6.taUed.in accordance with..the nequinementa 0.6 the Cucamonga County Wate -n D.i. t.%ic,t. Th.46 department ahate be no&6ied to witness an acceptance . .teat oa, the water system pAion..to eonstAuction o6 any buUding(a) oll, .6t t:uctune la) . Fine ltydra)tt a6aemb u ahatt be in6tatted in accordance with hequ4hement6 o6 .thib dittll.i.et. FiAe hydnm>.ta aha;U be i.n6.taUed p,%io,% to commencing aonstlu a- tion o6 any building(4)• on e.truietme(, 1, and ahatt be approved wet baAAU type onty. r Page Twe l� 7. ACC atxeet6 . and cut- de -4ac6 ahaU meet the minimum San Berman= �. ty Road Depatonent 6tandn. ano County dS 8. S•tn.eet6 Leading to cut- de -aaeb on dead ends aha t not exceed , 600 beet in Leng.t1t. In .the event the e- atneetA an.e Aedea.ianed •in any mar.neA, the 600 loot Lengtk ahaU be maintained on as ne6ubmitted ptan6 (tentative on 6inat) . The 604towing %equiAementa arse neeeeaaay pnio,% to eompteti.on e!- oceupa nay o6 •fie a6onementioned devetopment: 1. Tr:ee6 exiat..cna o nD t n n �nr��c.tj tLKe -#a b„ - topped �'O 30 beet and thumwd ' - 6iwm- the babe up 15 beet. Aft dead timba and teavea ahe to be removed. r 2. House on buitding ada!eaa numbering shah be paovided•in aceond- , ance with San Bmuvtdino County Ordinance 2108. 5. Any atructuxe which incorponatea 6iAeptaee ehimneya ahatt have approved spank ara"tm •ena•taUed. S.inceAe.ty, ti EUGENE M. BILLINGS, FIRE CHUF syt Seajamin L. Mackaft, F.u,.e MauhaL ' Fi4e Phevention Bureau BLM:va cc: A6aociated Enginewu Gene Rice 11 r vi i � • 'c r Tr of RANCHO cLrArxcA 4 STAFF REPORT 'A DATE: February 14, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SLEJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4590 — MURILLO -- the division of approximately 5 acres of land located an the southwest corner of Victoria and East Avetiaea into 4 parcels. BACrGROUND: Mr. Murillo is requesting approval to divide 5 acres of land into R parcels located on the southwest corner of Victoria and East Ave. ( E).,hibit "A "). TiAs is a residential subdivision and has been exempted from the moratorium as it woy an existing parcel map application. ENVIROMLWTAL SETTING: The project Bite is presently vacant, sloping in a southerly direction, and contains minimal vegetation. There are existing eucalyptus ;windrows along the north and east. property lines and a citrus grove west of the subject property. There are no known cultural, historical or scenic aspects on the site nor the presence of any significant or endangered " animal life. Properties to the north, East and south are presently used fcr residential purposes. aENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS': The environmental analysis staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse impact on the envir- onment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Study, the environmental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impacts upon the environment as a result of this project and therefore recommence issuance of, a Negative Declaration. rt. • Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:elm Attachments: Initial Study Part I Exhibit "A ", location map 11 -sefK __ r.�._y.iiiaR ter! Trill va lidfew C6 .10 __ '1 I. �go •�6 ifi I11 � 1 14 . }:L. {LYPfl M�.Ti.UC,00N ,I \1 e 0 r•. f�^ L. .•Cd�.ah.'r- •M.'m.1t'°`�^^'_ ♦: ^[t�f/". (.ir.. RY !. .JP I•i0 , � ! ... -rn.! V.rw r.•i vv'yjll � l�. �I f�•J' //Y Yl !P�7r►r�' ... T:: �"rq+�nr.'•i'� �.. 4 • ya .; CITY OF RANCHO CUCA1,1ONGA INITIAL STUDY 0 PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all project, requiring environmental review, this . form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of.this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare`.;i. Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the.public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. F'A -16- 0 PROJECT TITLE: _ {nlxr1110 Miner Stbft ' W?-Y C7n7 5 APPLICANT ' S NA♦M/E1, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Al-�' prkC. 9 1 In rYI , 1 _ Murl' � U NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: �M.(bg Ct5 above-- IACATION OF PROJECT (STREET 4DDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) of V le;nrl tt.[���'1 +ttJCrl LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE... `AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS :. y , r PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _ _ -_� /o/s zrraoi an ex/-,/r.,$ 5 ' X s/ 9' Md reinain.17o 76 TC o� p- crnsis i par ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING ANA PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: rra BcT` ffiea� Jam" re twiiil no bui /d s' fx [arts ,ec on nor fire. DESCRIPE THE T N FIRONAIEMAI, sI :'PT7NG OF TIM PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMTIO.N' ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ; ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, " may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Nu' 41 W Tare% %5 nd a- Alar�' �f a.. X� Z. !: WILL TIUS PRMIECT: 0 0 Y. YES M) r1. Create a substantial change in ground / contours? �/ 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration! 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, Sewage, Etc. ) : - - - - -Z 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? /36 - 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? V" 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? cation of any YES answers above: it a eu[yv Firs 990' o f 6alA as,e wlh 1 eaaf �� r,.1, ,,�, .e w f � per - -tZE/ -%G/' wAfih rPSU/� IMPORTANT: if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. t r; CERTIFICATInN: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibit, present the data and inform-ition required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fact:, ntaLcments, nsid information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may hr.- required to be submitted ' before an adcqunte evaulation can be made by the Developwint Review Convnittee. k ctnr OF RANCHO cucarxNGA STAFF FEPORT DATE: February 14, 1979 T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR PARCEL MAP N0. 4907 -- Stagliano the division of approximately 20 acres of land located on the northeast corner of 4tb Street and Cleveland Ave. into 27 oarcels.. BACKGROUND: Mr. Stagliano is requesting approval to divide approximately 20 acres of land into 27 separate parcels for development of an industrial park (Exhibit "A). Lot sizes range from a minimum of IS acre to 1 acre in size. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is presently vacant, sloping slightly, to the south, and contains vineyards. There are no known cultural or historical aspects about the site, nor is there evidence of significant or endangered animal life. Surrounding properties are presently being used as vineyards. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Environmental analysis staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study and did not find any significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Study, the environ- mental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project and therefore recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted,. not JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:e1m Attachments: Initial Study Part I Exhibit "A ", location map 1 ITEM "C" � ,4j CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I -- PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be compllsted by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 0. For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development , Review Committee throx)gh the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare; Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations-- 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. Speedway Industrial Park PROTECT TITLE: APPLICANT'S NAI-IE, ADDRESS,. TELEPHONE- Vince Stagliano 3742 Nimble Circle, Huntington Beach. . (714)846 -0247 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCEIINING THIS PROJECT: LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Assessor Parcel No_ 210- OB2• -31 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE ARID, FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None a —' r PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Twenty -three _4 acre and four one acre Industrial pares s. 0f'f site improvements will be constructed initially. Some parcels will be sold and others will be constxnacted on by owner. Structures will be small industrial buildings. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND ' PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 20-r Acres Square Footage Of proposed buildings varies. approx. 10,000 s.f._on acre lots and approx. 20,000 s.f, on acre lots. DESCRIPE TILE ENVIRONMEP7rAL S),PTING OF TIE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMN -TION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICA'.L OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND T11E DESCRIPTION OF ANY . EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Grape vineyards totally surround Project site. No existing; structures on site. Topography rolling to south. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? _Parcels will be split initially and construction of individual sites may take place subsequently. _ KILL TIIIS PROJECT: YES NO X Z. Create a substantial change in ground contours? Z. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)'. X 4. create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? Sow many? R 6. Create the need for use o): disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YE3 answers above: 1. Site will be 9. -aded to meet .flood insurance requxremen s. ). Since no demand for mun' al services currentl exist, improvements wil be a ded and demand will increase. IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the -_ best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the - Develapment Review Committee. Date November 21, 1978 Signature/ Title owner jk 0 Ll r r A� V LL, � 1• � Q ri ♦ I M �11N11 sndwo 40 r I �a T f Y� p i� 1. 1 YY {LyY L)17q•L ��stas +oa � L w `I••.r.•YS �� .. 0 D CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: February 14, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW of PARCEL MAP NO. 4929 - PETTWAY - A division of 4.09 acres of land located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 300 feet north of Summit into two (2) parcels BACKGROUND: Mr. Pettway is requesting the approval to subdivide 4.09 acres into two (2) parcels of land located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue approximately 300 feet north of Summit (Exhibit "A"). This is :t residential subdivision and is exempted under the current residential moratorium. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site is presently vacant and contains an existing lemon grove. Trio. site is bordered on the north and south by Eucalyptus windrows and surrou.:ded by single family residences on the north and south. There are no known culi:•xral, historical or scenic aspects of the site. Further, there is no evide.:+ce of endangered or significant animal life on the site. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The Environmental Analysis Staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study and has not found any significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Study, the environmental analysis staff has not found any significant adverse Impacts upon the environment as a result of this project and therefore recommends issuance of. a Negative Declaration. Respectfully1submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL: MV: nm Attachments: Initial Study Part I Exhibit "A ", Location Map . 9 'rf• i'. 0 • rl CITY OF RA.NC110 CUCAMONGtt INITIAL STUDY PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the publ3.c meeting at which time the Project is to be heard. The Committee will inalce one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an onvironmental impact and an Tnvironmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: .�CeL # , 1'� ��"j "W,ny APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: C- Og 1�: 2UT-10 CaLwAo os` . _rQVIAIA Alf LIP 2- 33 -1 L k)*& &#3J 947 -Y2,91 NAME, - ADDRESS, TELEPIONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: f Pffi,V6E Q PA- 7 2.1A)ew LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.). ,nA6 A/AA .;lss -► 1 )CAM 44d A N� �� is o ,r ,E 4CF- 471a LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND .' FEDERAL AGENCIES THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: l�fYj Y T 0 i PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTIJ: -)F PROJECT: e7l ,/Vj" 7,Q4 �CQ�S �,QCaL M 69Z h A) t#.ITb ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FO •CAGE OF EXIST?NG AND PROPUSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: �P Ai 7. DESCRIBE THE T.NV7 ONAIENTA7, RI rT3•NG OF `I'IIf: PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFDRMT_DN ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF �`IRROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND TUE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTILTG STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTAC,14 wre vccrnv �.,..... ... Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumLIati.ve actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? L.�Y+�/SCC �inK r lQ /�0171AGg T17 Ae emAA- ".H2-J0M tf- : t IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements iurnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and WILL T1IOP12q.11 CT: best of my al+ility, and that the iactc, statements, and nEr. informnt•i.nn presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand Urnit Yt• additional information may 11r, required to be submitted YES NO before an adequate evaulation can be made by the . Development ` - Date 1 Signature :. Create a substantial change in ground Title contours? 2. Crez,`e a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)': 4. create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5: Remove pny trees? *t 42(' existing f. ? Ho an 6. Create the need Vor use or disposal of p+5tentially`hazarlou s materials such as _ toxic substances, £lammables or explosavPs? Explanation of any YES answers above: QAVA1 mI& 9)r— _ -- AP&PIFEe•e,Tleal OP A 5ia/c c ct Aono is —R� r ,MCe= xrwna�e�y _ .Z6� r ►nr �rJ s�2 F_ fi lAtugs- ✓A•4 _c.liit. ` IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements iurnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information requi•.zed for this initial evaluation to, the best of my al+ility, and that the iactc, statements, and - informnt•i.nn presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand Urnit additional information may 11r, required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the . Development ` Review Committee. Date 1 Signature :. Title :24.4h. r ITTX IFA 287 PwAB. :�rf3 X11 .. A�_�.M1..1 -�.•�• -. � - I Y.R13. V67 •_•�• yy to �iUnO �. ti�fMCfli�� 3 z I PIOCEL- MAP 492.. °�" �_ 'TFa1TAT7VC _(N. rAE OF RANCHO CUCAMORC-A___.. _.jh -CITY tGY q Aoe1. b /.CLdIGr+O TO r '�+ +F: N%W G� .�l,1LTXa1..1M TA-aNY tpa� xr.c caW+*Y R! 9KJ C`n w=a :r�Cmix�ao +m fs fm d•.—� n+ �•mw a vwr sr eF. _ mnP"']I3�GaF� -pF cP _•. �'a •JJM+a�i7• ..,..F -- T.r�oczn.�++�ar:_:_._ GtltyOC'JS6LY -D K1W111 ... —..n. mYwA:.,_,.�.:Snif __ - eolan•m��• . - �rainoNnwtsa+r'- .•— •a�•rr�q . :24.4h. r ITTX IFA 287 PwAB. :�rf3 X11 .. A�_�.M1..1 -�.•�• -. � - I Y.R13. V67 •_•�• yy to �iUnO �. ti�fMCfli�� 3 z I 2, J RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Study, the environmental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impact rcon the environment as a result cf this project and therefore recommends 'Issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res ectfully ubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:nm Attachments: initial Study Part I Exhibit "A ", Locatic.a Map xl y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: February lei, 1979 To: Planning Commission ' From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4881 - BAUER - The division of 0.45 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Comet and Arrow Route into two (2) lots. BACKGROUND: Mr. Bauer is requesting approval for the division of 0.45 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Comet and Arrow Route into two (2) parcels (Exhibit "A "). As the Commission will recall, a Variance was granted to allow the creation of a corner lot which is less than the 75' in width. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site contains a single family residence on the eastern portion of the lot. The western portion of the lot is vacant and ® a single family residence is proposed. Surrounding properties are used for single family residential uses. FNVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Environmental Analysis Staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study and has not found.any significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. 2, J RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Study, the environmental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impact rcon the environment as a result cf this project and therefore recommends 'Issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res ectfully ubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:nm Attachments: initial Study Part I Exhibit "A ", Locatic.a Map xl 0 CITY OF RANCFIO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70,00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted.to the Development Review Committee t1srough the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Init %al Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is do be heard. The Committee kill make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information Concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: M 46 01 I 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: �a NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 4 - «ref -5 - LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND .. FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION DE�fSCRIPTI,ON OF PROJECT: /ytsd fn '50e /,Y" v[iri 4E22-.. . /d f' ACREAGE Oi PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: J& dent &;J jeM �r� Hyde _%r �!!rt���wwe {• cJ :�� �r �64if�TS��.._. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMEATAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INF WIATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND TIi DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY _gt4RRmcl. Is.the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have sig:tificant environmental impact? 5. Remove any existing trees? Now many? / 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: Q// reccs W; J/ a.6 /r fe � .. rxc�: +� / �iA�rrmr fi-r.. :fs �Q�Qr0a �/'fA _d1r .i.C.��(sre ..+ �iiC�Ci /.�t�.`i,rrc� .J .sr�!•M IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished. above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date /Quy /S, / ?74S 9 Y n • WILL THIS PROJrCT: YES NO Create a substantial.change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise: or .v.i.brationi 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) °. ,_ ✓ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5. Remove any existing trees? Now many? / 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: Q// reccs W; J/ a.6 /r fe � .. rxc�: +� / �iA�rrmr fi-r.. :fs �Q�Qr0a �/'fA _d1r .i.C.��(sre ..+ �iiC�Ci /.�t�.`i,rrc� .J .sr�!•M IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished. above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date /Quy /S, / ?74S 9 Y n 0 pp .� i TENTATRVE PARCEL MAP NO, 48OR Goiwrr d C :rrviv s efnlr Er+/ .1F O rx%r Co.•/ .1F 0'r, U, /✓rr/ -* of Lo/ / >, Soefrrn O. ;'~ X14P / ~."*, rPsryo 7 Mrtr /_ 4cw~o fivr / /inli . As rwcrMod .q o.& .0 o/ . .w"N' /COyo s, rvocir/s of Sin M .r..dino [&s ..n/Y , ohM of Co/ f+.r�it Hovomhor - rs7l i 1 1 I A w q0W RnurL CNO /NLE.4: rr s•• // / on r .__ rNw trNw•, r.r.. neo w.•n+. w.ri� +n..�......rs Muy M.r� nr..M ereN.rre nv./r.. +, .rw � h•) we lrN . �- n• /n a ✓...ryr � /y N�•N. •�✓ / r.ny / t...o rw q•r .Ir -eye w.n.r i. .nw. M /Nl�r rr M. s. /d • l ri wr. K�> f ' l�# 0 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: PEBEUARY 14, 1979 TO: PLAITNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development n U SUBJECT: ENVIROF-*=AL REVIEW OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4783 -- SANCHEZ — the division of 10 acres of land located on the west side of Turner approximately 1300 ft. north of Church St. into two (2) parcels. BACKGROUND: Mr. Sanchez is requesting approval for the subdivision of 10 acres of land located on the west side of Turner approximately 1300 ft. north of Church St. into two (2) parcels (Exhibit "A "). This residential subdivision is exempt from the moratorium as it creates only one buildable lot. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Parcel No. l presently contains two single family residences. Parcel No. 2 is presently vacant and contains mini-al vegetation such as annual weeds and grasses. Surrounding properties are dcoeloped and used for residential uses. In addition, Parcel 1 contains an old winery which dates beck to approximates ly 1934, however, this subdivision will not effect the winery in any way. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The environmental analysis staff has prepared Part --a ofr a Initial Study and has found no significant adverse impacts on the environ- ment as a result of this pcoject. RECOMMENDATION: Afttr review and preparation of the Initial Study the environ- mental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impacts on the xnviron- ment as a result of this project, and, therefore, recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, s JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL: MV: elm Attachments: Initial Study Part I Exhibit "A ", location map ITEM "Fu . 4gfiz� CITY Or RANC11O COCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY - PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring envirotunental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is mad3. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the. public meeting at which time the project is to'be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied ® by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: IEI.i7ArllVi` (AtZ�L�M {�j� �}1`�,jj APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: • 32.7- SAr, A-Ty! <A A,%Jc -- i Lt -c, /doh) =„4•- r 5'i ! - . NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE CONCERNING THIS+ PROJECT: TO LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND :. FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: NouC DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: l.eEA-1ra A -P1VIT3trrD . ACREAGU OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARU FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND' PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: (Q &_, ►c✓ri+ DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): ' t�►c_�.vn I �c �i�f ?fir - -t�A�..t I c y �wr -.c�.� u� ��cx»T�la,t7- e5 LM 1:bmiie z WIOC- . -PV W lc4 -( �7ATC� Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series, . of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? QW v .. [' WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO r 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? v 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, ` sewage, etc.)! 4. Create, changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5: Remove any existing trees? How .-,.any? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous matexiaa such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: rN'.L IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form cn the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best: of my knowledge and be],,-:.. r further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made the Development' Review Committee. ty Date signature Title Li v 0 T �- PVPLMWrlvlrrk K d' w m hb � W -or �s � T Va q M A T MMM ewi+f K MY M =dr+ f 0-5, p I �IK ti.+aw T we" Mf�+'f. AauAO�D 1M i001< 400A_ CLTMA/ i 0 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: Feuruary 14, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROG: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PARCEL MAP NO. 4957 -- HONE — The division of 2.5 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Hellman Ave. and Beseline Ave. into 3 parcels. BACKGROUND: Mr. Hone is requesting approval to subdivide 2.5 acres of land located an the southeast corner of Hellman and Baseline Avenues into three (3) parcels (Exhibit "A "). M --. Hone's intentions are the eventual devlopment of a professional office complex on these sites. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site presently contains an existing .tructure which contains a business. The site slopes in a southeasterly direction at ppproxi-' mately a 2.9% slope. Mature trees are located throughout the site e•d around the existing house, much of which will be retained through development. `The main portion of the site contains perennial grasses native to the area, and small rodents. There are no known cultural, historical or scenic values present on the site. ENVIRONMENTAL ANhLYSIS: The environmental analysis staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study and found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a reault of this project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Stud, the environ- mental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impacte on the environment as a result of this project and therefore recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res ectfullyZubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:elm Attachments: Initial Study Part I Exhibit "A ", lonation map `1 . +. YL 1. �. ITEM "G" CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA INITIAL STUDY f PART I -- PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impuet Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: RANCHO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES A£PLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: DOUGLAS K. HONE 7333 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (714)989 -1767 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE of PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Doug Hone /Paula Smillie 7333 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, Californ-Ta 9t730 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 208- 431 -14- SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASELINE ANp HELLHAN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON PARCEL 2 -7333 HZLV1AN AVENUE, .CA.. LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None needed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT; on three ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING MID;:: PROPOSED BUILDINGS, SF ANYi 2.50 net acres PARCEL 2: Existing structure -1,800 sq. Et PAHC 2 story- 16,535 sq. ft. PARCEL. . DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series* of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No. 1-2. WILL TIIIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? ** 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)! 1. x r X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? `x 6. Create the need for usr- or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: 1. *All Grade Changes Per Grading Plan subject to city approval. ** F . Office Sp One service Station. 3. Two Red wood trees and pine trees to be remove a ong wTtff t.Tyeasa.+d My Rlnn Gum F.ur Trees currently in the , AdoptpWrlghr of s for Baseline Rd. and Hellman Ave in conjunction with County of San Bernardino road widening project. Y' FA I IMPORTANT: if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page.' CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation-to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the .Development Review Committee. i.�/_• , 1� Date signature D Title ?` �a } I µ, 4f N z� s ♦ i Y Y j It`-� Q. J LLJ Z S� u s P / Si � J I -1 � L �E f� lit • 4kf. Sir� HY , �t �)l �E f� lit • 4kf. Sir� HY , �t Y: fop; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: February 14, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM. JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PARCEL HAP NO. 4820 — LINVILLE -- The division of 5.21 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Hellman and Ninth Street into two (2) parcels. BACKGROUND: Mr. Linville is requesting approval for the division of 5.21 acres of land into two (2) parcels located on the southwest corner of Hellman and Ninth Avenues (Exhibit "A "). This site is being divided for eventual development, of industrial uses. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site presently contains an existing industrial building on the east portion of the property. The remaining portion of the property is vacant and contains minimal low lying weeds and vegetation. There are no known cultural, historical or scenic aspects present on this site. Surrounding properties are vacant or used for industrial purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The environmental analysis staff prepared Part II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse impacts on the environ- ment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Study, the environ- mental analysis staff found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Study, the environ- mental analysis staff found no significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this project and therefore recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:elm Attachments: Initial Study Part I Exhibit "A ", location map k &t"": [[ r' .p ITEM "H" 0 . r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET '- To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted•to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt,of. this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Developer mt Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be. supplied . by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: _ 'Ybt.%"S pa.{2C.EL M p•�7 "7,0 - APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Kra k_6 4•L ° - • • O - 9�'<' fit• St.tie 1r t t NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: \Lr� 6►w.7ytLL 99'x' brt- ems 917$e=r LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) �t+.i'� M.e �a'Y l•t2 - 9 � 5Y i I.�at.� N a. � j ZCnf.- Ctl• -4.1 M LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE .At FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: 2. Fluncl tv�}¢ol. �l�.vltr�{• r ffWt %�. nVC'4L i 9PE55g:j ) ., L DESCRIBE THE•ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE. INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, ­USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES," -AND THE DESCRIPTION OF.ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): A r-he. hJP_J /+>` .Sl?t f T f r � Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series, of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental.impact? 1 No (A PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION'OF PROJECT: - �.iC. 11.�SyVty4QMtL A1.O! uy pyyEGr_i; �►��r Cc-JL 'L- e . DRonas� L.t6.y -� �•h+�bt.S}iLVtlti. RIQ�r -'G d1u' ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND 'PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF'ANY: PRc7, gp,_p ..6,2► kC,___ L DESCRIBE THE•ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE. INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, ­USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES," -AND THE DESCRIPTION OF.ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): A r-he. hJP_J /+>` .Sl?t f T f r � Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series, of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental.impact? 1 No (A ./ I .. W 0 0 Orlginal Poor Quality WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO . 1 Create a substantial change in ground contours? —G 2- Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration! 2 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) .. 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? — — �/� 5- Remove any existing trees ?. Haw many? --- --X 6- Create the need for use or disposal_of Potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives?. Explanation of any YEs answers above; MPpRTANTv If the project invrolves the construction of residential units, complete ther form on the. next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnish, above and in the attached exhibits Present 'the data and Of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information required for this initial evaluation to the best information presented are true and correct to the bast of my knowledge 'and belief. I further understand tint additional information r..av be re,-;red to be submitted �'o=e an adequate evallation can- be made by the Development Review Committee. 7 Date .Ias. ..+r' ? signature sq' Is 0 I i r I ItY� N col so jL ©1 zi 0-t )f �tw ; i� pf z1a Emd �a t�al� 1. I- - - -- I � � �! ------------ J;L11' Ilk lip1 1 Pi= kA CITY OF RANCHO.000AMONGA STAFF (ART DATE; February 14, 1979 TO PLANNINGr COMMISSION FROM; JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5051 — INGAM -- the division of 4.5 acres into 5 lots for property located on the north side of Sixth St. just west of Turner Ave. BACKGROUND: Mr. Ingam is requesting approval of the division of 4.5 acres into 5 lots for property located on the north side of Sixth St. west of tucncr Ave. (Exhibit "A "). This is an industrial area and is being subdivided for industrial development. °:° IRONW;TAL SETTING: The site is presently vacant, sloping slightly to the southeast, and contains no significant vegetation. There are no known historical, cultural or scenic values on the property. There presently exists annual weeds and grasses and small animals such as ground rodents. Property to the west is used for industrial purposes. Property to the east contains a single family house and significant amount of vacant land. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The environmental analysis staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study and can find no significant adverse impacts on the environ- ment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and preparation of the Initial Study, the environ- mental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impacts on the environ- ment as a result of this project, and therefore, recommends issuance of a. Negative Declaration, Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:elm 0 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCMiONGA CP A• 4-5 INITIAL STUDY PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department ti ^here the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one. of three determinationu: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be ' filed, 2) The project will have an environmental -impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 31% An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: %-P. M:45nF,1 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: MR. JACK INGHAN 9500 IATCAS RANCH ROAD: SUITE 'CO RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 (714)987 -0759 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTEb CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: LOCKWOOD ENGINEERING AND SURVEYINC CO., INC. P,O. BOX 1!26, RTALT0. C ORNIA 9 476, (_7141879-501r3 IACATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.). APPROXIMATELY 381.91 FEET WEST OF TURNER AVENUE NORTH OF SIXTH STREET III THE CTJY OF RANCHO C11AGM911A, LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, .REGIONAL, STATE FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: City Council, State Division of Real Estate, Water and Sever Agency all typical-af a subdivision requirement. AD • Y.T 'r W. 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: pro e ',y lies on the North aide of Sixth.Streei inaustrieu use, and to be knovn,,as Tractl0 57. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND'. - 1 I'ItOPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 627.29' X 316.211 NO BUILDiNGB PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. DESCRIBE THE 91MROMIE�NPAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOPl+1ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): PROPERTY TM A 127 -Alv4o I{ _ • qyl �i �1� yel" C / iyy -k. / ?- ,I�G : p Ap . Lsiffay V;4 ' M.: ilildl �I: fat • t yY WU D4.1 MA i DE , R :y f2id 1:61:11 N 1 Do ;♦i i .y d' • : , yy' ti� Y.1 :x.51 it : �" jillum, A ./ -41 ra. d Is the project, part of a larger project, One of a series- Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, 4 NO y as a whole have significant environmental impact7 x•- z +' 0 0 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, se -age, etc.)'. X 4. Create changes in the existing zoningor general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as. toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPDRTANT- If the project involves the construction of ' residential units, complete the form on the next page. No residential units. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statementsft_rnished above and in the attached eyhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. LOCKWOOD ENGINEERING -AND BUNYE3CIN0 CO II: Date�eDecember 14,ilggg Signatur c-,Arj PON W. LOCKWOOD* Pres. TitleEngineer for Applicant rcwrrgrivc M.gv pa- 0 T^" fl pF�RC.EL ,9P Na..SOv. J L Qa•r� ,g Suata•v -: /eu G� !- :arc•Fa .3'�p,•.,.��i � . Mqa /Vc..d /3D .nr rF�r .�..r •►.rnew•nto /.v ' aon.r s� r•A :c re pf �A. /•rn.rs•,s irai.lnr O�wS•AN �i Ril //.TG /Na CeY.{/rY CAt /w•uxn/. nv T/r r- C�rY et •i•19.a .a CNrA/•rco aws. -� r' jI .rrr rnn, • . .r ♦.RI4 �IQ II R. 4.!•f f4.lMi NL. fv.wK -a..� .nwrS F1f.a . /wf /. M'► � wM �JN /M >w Jw..r...♦ ate.: ✓...w.r F... a. - . O .w, LW.n tilt. Kl.lw rJI.•..r� qr.0 of r.. rr.r rfs•l.,.r �f +f•+ aer -.wif .nlll... 77-Nr.. rivF. IyA♦o pr F. k.PC'ti /'9w,e ,(b..t-w �/ •iACIr• i.ICi.AM �•. � 1 • .. �� •ifw �.K•wf r•ww•cw w+w..n,lw.y. j•• •. . Rw./t•..w CLrwn..wn . [l..rMnww w >ay 1 1' 4 w /P.lM LUCKWOOD ENGINEERING 1-=N - A SURVEYING COMPANY. INC r.f . - r wA•ffA.w ♦f ���r IY t Iwl.y .Mlly. MN 2. C •1 ,i • r; i CITY OF RAtKM cLc4uNGA STAFF UORT DATE: February 14, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SLB•JECT: 'ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF MINOR SUBDIVISION #78 -0215 — Wiebe -- A division of 5 acres of land located on the east aide of Etiwanda Ave. approximately 1350 ft. south of Baseline into 4 parcels. BACKGROUND: Mr. Wiebe is requesting approval for the division of 5 acres of land into four parcels; each one acre or greater (Exhibit "A"). This particular subdivision is being processed because the City Council specifically exempted this subdivision from the moratorium. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The property is currently vacant, relatively flat, and relatively free of natural vegetation. Typical vegetation includes annual weeds and grasses and a few scattered trees throughout the site. There is a eucalyptus windrow bordering the north side of the site. The site is borded on the north and south by existing single family residential uses. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The environmental analysis staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study and has found no adverse impact on. the environment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: The environmental analysis staff, after review and completion of the Initial Study, has not found any significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project and therefore recommends the issuance of a negative Declaration for this project. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development •: TL:MV.elm Attachments: Initial Study, Part I Exhibit "A ", location map ITEM "J" CITY OF RANC110 CWAMONGA INITIAL STUDY 0 PART I - PROJECT It:FORMATION SHEET -'To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For All projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of.this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare '. Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to he heard. The committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: i_ �- APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:. - l s` r ��,.�.,� F 9^ X49 z NAME; `ADDRESS, TELEPHONE O, PERSON TO HE CONTACTED CONCERNING TIiIS PROJECT:i¢.� ;o LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) ` LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE .AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AP DESCRIPTTION OF PROJECT: ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING ?ROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF AMY: AND I DrSCRIPE THE FNVIRONMENTA7, SETTTNG OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDIIIG IN ON TOPOCPJ1PyY, PLNtTrS (TREES) , ANIh1AL5, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DF,SCRIPTION OF ANY EXI?STING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):' S � t h x c: M Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? x, 2 :,, 1 ®® WILL WILL T1t]Tl rl10JECT: '.t YrS NO ,+ - I. Create a substantial change in ground -.. .. contours? ..... 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? Q. Create changes in the existing zoning.or general plan designations? ``/� A 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, £lammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION; I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of nil, ability, and that the facts, statements, and i.nformati.nn presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that ndditional information may 1,n required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by t Development Review Coinmittee. bate/ Signature .: Title Z3 ". J. i' Date: February 14, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENr NO. 79-01 - SIGN ORDINANCE - An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new sign ordinance and repeat all existing sign regulations BACKGROUND: At the study session the Planning Commission held on January 31, 1979, it was the concensus of the Commission to refer the proposed sign ordi- nance to the Advisory Committee for their review and comment. The Adviscry Committee will be meeting in late February. Comments from them are expected in time for the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 1979. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue review of the proposed sign ordinance to the regular meeting of February 28, 1979 in order to allow input from the Advisory Com- mittees. Respectfully ubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of C. Community Development._:, JL:MV:nm 7 it v'.w - - - - - .::.K*".�' •.. ITF2f "K" 0 Is I°1 Date: To: CITY OF °.ANCBO CUCAMONGA February 14, 1979 Planning Commission STAFF REPORT From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: Site Approval No. 79 -01 - Community Baptist Church - Request for development of church buildings for worship, services and class- rooms for biblical studies including a pre - school not to exceed 100 students; and a request for two (2) temporary mobile units to be used for church worship and services including pre - school until Phase 1 structure is complete - Location is at the northwest corner of Beryl and 19th Street in an R -1 8500 -T zone BACKGROUND: Enclosed in your package you will find a reduced version of the site plan and two (2) elevation plans. The site plan depicts the ultimate development of the church facility. It encompasses a four - phased building project. The first phase would be multi- purpose building for which approval is requested at this time; second phase would be the educational building, a two -story building fronting on Beryl Street; the third phase would be the sanctuary with seating for 1,200 parishioners;, and the fourth phase would be a gymnasium for use with the educational building. The number of parking spaces provided is 306. The parking code requirements are that one space for each four seats be provided. The applicant has six more than the 300 required by ordinance. You will note that the applicant requests site approval for the Phase I multi- purpose building which fronts on 19th Street, and approval for the location of two temporary structures as indicated on the site plan with dotted lines. At the present time, the applicant requests the use of the Phase 1 building as a sanctuary to seat•'approximately 300 parishioners, with the parking requirement of one space per each four seats. 75 parking spaces would be required. The applicant has proposed to provide 91 with this phase; which is indicated by the dotted line on the site plan. There are three issues before the Commission tonight. The first issue is the consideration of the conceptual site plan. Careful consideration should be given to the siting of the buildings on the property, the possible problems of the various land uses proposed on the site such as the playground facility, the educational building, the gymnasium, the play areas, the sanctuary, the location of the parking, building setbacks, landscaping, lighting, and loca-' tions of air conditioning equipment. The second issue before the Commission is the approval of the Phase I multi- purpose building. Close attention should be paid to the proposed design of the structure, its appearance on Beryl, on 19th Street, and what effect this design _ ITEM "L" 0 40 Page 2 Site Approval No. 79 -01 February 14, 1979 will have as an overall scheme for the other building proposed for the Entire site. The third and final issue is the Commission's consideration of the two temporary buildings proposed. Staff has attached a copy of the elevation of the proposed temporary building. The applicant has stated that these would be made of rough sawn plywood, stained in earth - tones. The request is for the buildings to remain until completion of the Phase I multi- purpose building. We will have available for distribution at the Planning Commission meeting a brochure describing and depicting similar units of the type proposed. ANALYSIS: Our analysis will review the project in accordance with the three issues outlined above. First the total concept site plan. In reviewing the conceptual site plan we find the applicant has met the parking requirements of the Code and has pro- vided good on -site traffic circulation. The plan depicts single striped parking spaces; code would require double striped spaces. We have reviewed the plan in accordance with the adopted access policy. Because of the eminent development of apartments to the west, we suggest that a joint access be provided. The pre- cise design of this joint access should be to the satisfaction of the apartment developer, the church and the City Engineer. In regard to the siting of the four permanent structures, the applicant has met the required 25 foot building setback in all cases. The playground proposed at the corner of Beryl and 19th Is to be used for two year olds that would accompany the parents to church. We suggest that a minimum four foot slump block wall or stucco covered masonry wall be constructed around the playground area to provide for protection and confine- ment of the children. The concept proposed by the landscape plan is not adequate. While we realize that maintenance is generally a problem with regard to church facilities, the proposed landscaping is insufficient in number and lacks the detail necessary for an adequate review. Additionally, we suggest that a 6' masonry wall be provided along the west property line to afford protection and noise control for the proposed apartments. We wish to note for the applicant!s edification that the proposed gymnasium, educational building and sanctuary must come back before the Planning Commission for review prior to development. Addi- tionally, the operation of a child care center or child care facility also requires review prior to operation.. The se,:ond issue is the approval of the multi- purpose building. Attached, please find copies of the elevations of the proposed structure. You will note that it is Spanish in architecture, displaying the major entrance facing north (see north elevation). The elevation facing south (see south elevation) is the 19th Street elevation. The Beryl Street elevation is the east elevation. Total height of the structure would be the highest point of the structure; in this case, it is the spire and would not exceed 35 feet in height, the maximum height of the zone. On the south elevation the applicant has provided a four to five foot screen wall which would shroud the view of the ground mounted air conditioning units. We suggest that a similar wall be provided to enclose the playground area. The materials proposed for the structure would be a combination of slump block, 'yj�: �Y4Y Page 3 Site Approval No. 79- February 14, 1979 white stucco, brown wood trim, and mission tile roofing. will be available.£or Commission review at the meeting. A colored elevation The third and final issue are the temporary structures requested. The appli- cant has provided an elevation of the temporary structures (see attached). We feel that these would be acceptable for interim purposes until the Phase I structure is complete. However, we suggest that the Commission entertain a maximum allowable time period with a possible extension as a condition of approval for the temporary buildings. The environmental checklist did not indicate any significant adverse environ- mental impacts as a result of this project. Staff has field checked the site and has found no discrepancies with the checklist. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -11 approving Site Approval "No. 79 -01 subject to the conditions delineated In the Resolution. Res ectfully ubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development' JL:SKH:nm Attachments Resolution No. 79 -11 Exhibits 0 9 RESOLUTION NO. 79 -11 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE APPROVAL NO. 79-01 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND BERYL IN THE R -1 -3500 ZONE WHEREAS, on January 9, 1979, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly adver- tised public hearing for the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: CECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the a!re is adequate in size and shape. 2. That the site has adequate access. 3. That the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property. 4. That the proposed use is consistent with the .proposed General Plan. . S. That the conditions listed in this report are necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on February 14, 1979. SECTION 3: That Site Approval No. 79 -01 is approved subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for compliance with the following conditions: 1. Site Approval No. 79 -01 is approved for zhe constructior. of Phase I,. multi- purpose building in accordance with the plan on file in the Planning Division as may be amended by conditions herein. 2. The two temporary buildings requested for church operation are approved for one year from the date of building permit issuince for the Phase I multi- purpose building. Prior to expiration.of permission to use these temporary structures, the applicant may apply for a one -year extension. rI 3. A minimum of 75 parking spaces shall be provided in . conjunction with the construction of the Phase I multi - purpose building. 19th Avenue street access shall be redesigned to provide joint access between the adjacent proposed enartment project and the church to the satin- factiow of the City Engineer 4. The proposed conceptual landscape plan is not approved. The applicant shall submit prior to the issuance ol! building permits for Phase I, a precise landscape plan to t'he Plan - ning Division for approval. It shall indicate the type, size, quantity and location of trees, bushes and ground cover in addition to all walls and fences. Plans for auto- matic irrigation systems shall also be submitted concurrently. 5. Parking lot lighting shall be a msx1oum of 12 feet from the finished grade of the parking lot. 6. All landscaped areas shall be separated from any parking area by a six inch high Portland concrete cement curb. 7. The temporary buildings shall not be located on the site until. the parking lot is complete and the issuance of a building permit for the Phase I multi- purpose building has occurred. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for compliance witli the following conditions: 8. Prior to the issuance of building permit, dedication con- sisting of 20 foot corner cut -off and it feet along 19th Street is required. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit verification that all requirements of the Cucamonga County Water Dis- trict shall be met for sewer and water. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans shall be designed and approved to the satis- faction of the City Engineer. Water shall not be gathered by artificial means, discharged, damned, or surface flowa . obatructed so as to cause problems for downstream proper- ties. 12. Concentrated flows across driveways or sidewalks are pro- hibited. Parkway drains per city standards shall be used. 0 0 13. t , n Prior to occupancy, curb, gutter, drive approaches, side - walk,.street trees, A.C. match -up paving shall be provided along 19th Street in conformance with City standards. Street improvements plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civ11 Engineer in conformance with city standards and to the specifications of the City Engineer. Street improvement plans shell be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit. 14. Street lights are required along 19th Street. The developer shall submit all necessary plans for installation to the City. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 15. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric Code, . and all other applicable city codes. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1979. PLANNING (MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary.:of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify .that'the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of February, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: r I :. ❑^' 1IIIIIIIIIIIilull III III II tr 5 A ti�lir +'y �;��r �.JK is Yt"k 'r "'�{K'+ •'s; � i ;y. Z+ Z+.fi�� +� (•. =.. fit f la j 1; r ';�za;�� <,t t" ; �.��iy.a xY, �r > z�; tea':.;. � S'• � ''• �.•• r , ••��, ., :. : , t, � •,: r �� ~ I v i F. •r X�r' 7 r� r �,., . s '.�.'w Ir ��� 3� iKt A�:p.l�t ' �s:� � T' a :ti rr. ii';G i _ *, � `- _ - - } y �- - y ; . • , ( - > .. -'r. r ..� •;i, 'r i.. 1 yr( f1t +'�•r 1}; >` l; 4 ,i Ilk `4 Via' I.t M Y � - .iidf =.� iL J�� .J t r• � �w i.�I.:�. » 'rte I IIs• .y,' i � , � • M X Y •1 •. Vr , T k .f� �l % •}' �IJCY `rr. r 5! 4 .,1 U. ., _f � Air 5 i s . _ - -.. .. -� -. �: v. �{ �,: r,,••r• �i!".•.. Fi �• SI�rF .�rP`7:j.•iui'c.4�F:•�v7�r,..i 'r�5�1F�r/y�►¢t�J•'yj� 1. 'f T� •ts iK n. �, 1 .1.. '�n•�'��1 -�; '•15'.. yi �'{{'i.l�r rtiV. lz:iry x�.T Cl �A'l �tefllil%r Evil I SEEN= �A'l �tefllil%r Evil I Ke;�� F3144R. I ff-1 �111 0 ............. .......... 'AI tot A .1., iy Albw ,1:4i: a. 13 Parkelte AREA LIGHTING H PRESENT INSTALLATIONS: Don Stoves Chevrolet• Le Habra, Electrical Contractor Bill Douglas. Long Beach; Engineers and Contractors: Iacono and Orswa. Loa Angeles. piwH�s* v `t ALSO: K•Mart Shopping Center. Rlveratga. Calif; Bill Barry Roctea- [ florist VeruClea. Santa Ana. Calif; Wall Chevrolet. Pasadena, Calif, ' •ni i ..'- American Motors. San Diego. Calif ; Numerous MS+oa Dealerships 1i• (•f.ir. ThrouglsoulSouthetnCahlpmia.0 S Navallnstalfepon. Pori Heunemv ., Calif. Tempe Community Hospital. Tempe, Ariz. Mu,,av-Blyanl Chevrolet. Tucson. Ara ; as well as many others APPLICATION: Parking areas where Illuminal ion control and harmony with NARDUCCI LINCOLN MERCURY, GLENDORA. CA. architectural thema is important. They are adaptable to JOB DESIGN: FORD MOTOR COMPANY mounting heights up to thirty -live (35) feet allowing broad spacing of poles. Variable intensities further increase their St'SLISHEO Ia versatility through the use of Mercury Vapor, Metal Halice, or rr ?y High- Pressure sodium. BIEBER LIGHTING CORPORATION slucR 626 SO. ISIS AVENUE, INGLEWOOD. CALIFORNIA 90301 a (213) 776 -4744 a Ll ry CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PAh2 I.- PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department wbere the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the. public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: pc APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Q c u1ZLL e k RA( 61 Rw !+►ONO j��,,Y� EI_ TORO rra aLZVO .�Kt NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: -t4& S:K TNAaCLyg. —49_ LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)' ti-W. e-oR,JEiL wri* *. ET=z4_� _ _i2A 45-VIO eC! CA,t PM&A GA A. 'R YJo ?-,oi 1 ��ja LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM IOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: RA We- • -ca c a, !A D w A s LD_ S pi� •Y� _ r PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _ =e 14 rY foe. . _ tVOK -s►+tP r3�SUCaL. /� �r �grtsEt .. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF- RXISTItgr_-AND .. PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: _ Cp�{ p�c E! R QRO`RbRC� L).p�OOtJ �4 ET 6F I3LD & r _. DESCRIBE THE ENVIROMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORKNTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEISTIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) :. _ 5, -re IS' LeyEL VAcAle -C LAND W )/o TREES, XtaIMat.s oR. P%bl:r eu6-j:4iR.AL . HISTOfIrELL� dl $CEN \L ASr�L =S - S�RRCU.aaiu� PR.oPFRt�Ef _ ._ N pctcrosfp F r-,\v Ay S. _ i-LoME W V P.o.A LET f Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have sgnific i nt e�nyXironmental impact? , . M• Geu1.P TAw! 16 YAS -',' TO Lp MpftirsTE .. Y d. f IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the date and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fact, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beli3f. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date I X09 -. Signature WI L:. Ti17S PRU.TiiCT: YES NO t� 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? �_ ✓ 2. Create a substantial change ill existing noise or vibration? r ✓ 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.): „_ ✓ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations?. !� 5: Remove any existing trees? How.many? .� ✓ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the date and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fact, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and beli3f. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date I X09 -. Signature RESIDEIITIAL CONSTRIICTION The following information should be provided to the city of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development: Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model 4 and 4 of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Rance 1-4 Date: To: From: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 14, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: SITE APPROVAL NO. 7.9 -03 --FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT - Request to construct an office structure encompassing 2,700 square feet to be used as the office headq•jarters for the Foothill Fire District. The property is located on Amethyst immediately north and adjacent to the existing Fire Station in the C -1 -T Zone BACKGROUND: As the Commission may be aware, the Foothill Fire District cur- rently has offices within its fire stations. This proposal would consolidate all of those office uses at one site. The project has been designed in such a way that it may be sold as offices at a later date. The project is an indi- vidual lot even though it is owned by the Fire District and adjacent to the existing Fire Station. The proposal includes a conference room and offices for the Battalion Chiefs, Fire Chief, Secretaries, etc. The applicant has met all City requirements for development including fire. The architecture of the proposed office structure is similar in nature Co the existing fire station immediately south. The building materials proposed are tan concrete block, solar bronze glass, dark stained wood trim and tan stucco and Spanish concrete roof tile. A sample of the proposed building materials will be available for review at the Planning Commission hearing, as will colored renderings of the elevation. You will note that the landscape plan proposed is quite extensive. The applicant, however, has informed us that instead of the turf proposed on the Amethyst frontage, they request the gravel that is existing to remain. Their primary reason for this request is maintenance. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed elevations and site plans in accordance with the zoning ordinance and adopted policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and we find that the application meets all of our requirements. Our only concern is the proposed free - standing sigr. The information provided on the elevation. is insufficient for our review at this time. We would suggest that the Fire District resubmit this sign with additional detail for consideration at a later date. The environmental check list did not indicate any significant adverse environ- mental impacts as a result of this p:ojdct. Staff has field checked the site and has found no discrepancies with the checklist. Staff recommends issuance .` of a Negative Declaration. a. 1' > ITEM "Mn f i r Page 2 SITE APPROVAL, NO. 79 -0* February 14, 1979' RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolu- tion No. 79 -10 approving Site Approval No. 79 -03 subject to the conditions. delineated in the Resolution. Respe t£ully su mitted, JACK L AH, Director of Community Development .LL:BKH:nm Attachments Resolution No. 79 -10 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 79 -09 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 TO DIVIDE 1.9 ACRES OF LAND INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED 850' EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND 950' NORTH OF SUMMIT AVENUE IN THE R -1 ZONE. wiiMEAS, un Lire 30ch day of Wovember, 1978, a formal application was filed with the City Planning Division; and WHEREAS, on the 24th day of January, 1979, the Planning Commission held a meeting to consider said project and continued to February 14, 1979. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the proposed General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. That the design for improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 4. That the design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or other habitat. 5. That the design nor the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6. That the design or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. SECTION 2: That this land division will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on February 14, 1979. SECTION 3: That Parcel lisp No. 4773 is approved subject to the follrwing conditions: 0 0 PLANNING 1. 40' of dedication shall be made along 23rd Street from Etiwanda Ave. to Lot 1 and through Lot 1 and Lot 2; this access shall be paved with 26' wide paving from Etiwanda Avenue to Lot 1 and through Lot I to Lot 2. 2. Full street improvements shall be provided along the frontage of Lot 1 along 23rd Street. 3. At the time of development street improvements shall be provided along the frontage of Lot 2 along 73rd Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.- 4. Developer stall coordinate and pay where necessary for relocation of any public utilities. 5. Developer shall provide all construction plans for drainage and street improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. Sanitary sewers and water system shall be designed and coordinated with the Cucamonga County Water District standards. 7. The proposed subdivision shall meet the provisions of Zone D of the National Flood Insurance Program. 8. All requirements of the Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas CO3. shall be met. 9. The City Engineer shall make the determination, pursuant to Section 66436 (C -1) of the subdivision map act, that the division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easements. The signature of any public entity or utility may be omitted from the final map if written notification of objections is not filed with the City within the time limits specified in Section 66436 (C -1). 10. The developer shall meet all Final Map requirements of the City including but not limited to providing Traverse calculation sheets, copies of recorded map and deeds used as reference and /or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks that are referenced thereon. 11. All requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall be complied with. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1979. COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. 3i BY: . Herman Rem M-1, Chairman ATTEST - Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify "that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, - passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January, 1979. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 r 0 r r W l l Jr W � O r � � e o w r c r w r i6 I 4Z: X41 VI1 n f 1 u 0 .= b � � u r� modr _ =e Lij i F_ I b 8 u C 1* i6 I 4Z: X41 VI1 i 1 i 1 k� I sv;uvw I C\.1 .4 �1 L ... I a f 1 _ I • � —iMT� k Y I � � i 1 I 1* f i 1 i 1 k� I sv;uvw I C\.1 .4 �1 L ... I I f 1 R I � � i 1 I 1* 0 w CITY OF RANCHO CUCArVM 40 STAF UORr DATE: JANUARY 24, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL NAP NO. 4773 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 - XORTAPETER - The division of 1.8 acres of land into two (2) .9 acre lots located 850' east of Etiwanda Avenue and 950' north of Summit Ave. BACKGROUND: This parcel map is being brought before the Planning Commission as an example of staff's suggested policy regarding access iolrovements on Parcel Maps. This application is of particular interest in that several inherent problems related to street improvements are associated with this map. Access to this site is provided by an 847' unimproved private easement from Etiwanda Avenue. Residential development has occurred on both sides of this easement and no street improvamerts have been provided. ANALYSIS: An existing single family residence exists on the western portion of the site and the lot split will create one (1) buildable lot on which one additional single family residence may be built. The property is zoned R -1 and the proposed General Plan designation is Windrow Preservation. The Engineering Division has reviewed this project and suggests the following requirements: 1. A 40' dedication of land along 23rd St. from Etiwanda Ave. to Lot 1 and through Lot 1 and Lot 2; 2. Full street improvements along Lot 1 only; 3. Deferment of improvements on Lot 2 until the time of development; and 4. 26' wide paving of the easement from Ettwanda Avenue to Lot 1 and through Lot 1 to Lot 2. These suggested requirements reflect staff's proposed policy for street improve- ments on parcel maps. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The subject site is located on deep alluvial soil and ° has a gradient of 4 percent. A Eucalyptus windrow runs along the northern p+ boundary of the property and would have to be removed when the desired street improvements are installed. The only alternative which would allow retention of these trees is the requirement of an additional amount of dedicatia:.�. using the trees as a median island. Staff feels that this alternative is not viable, realistic or equitable for the affected property owners or for the City. Policy regarding the windrow preservation designation suggests preservation of windrows whenever it is feasible to do so. Preservation of trees at this site is not feasible in light of the existing development. Staff feels that removal of these trees will not be detrimental to the existing windrow preservation policy. Thezefore, removal of these trees would not create a significant environmental impact. ., ITEM uGu Page 2 The envirorfinerital "check list did not indicate any other significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. Staff has field checked the site and has found no discrepancies with the checklist other than the re- moval of the windrow. Staff. finds no other significant adverse environmental Impacts associated with this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission 1) issue a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4773 and 2) adopt Resolution No. 79 -09 approving Parcel Map No. 4773. Respectfully submitted, JACK L/.H, Director of Community Development JL: SNH:elm Attachments: Resolution No. 79 -09 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten. (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is tv- be heard. The Committee will make one of tl.ree determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be firmed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: J NAME,•ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: 5 4 MC_ A's n iSr+t LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO,)• ,2 r3 z E I C7/J� % tf i/J N DA LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 0�'be/T/DA1 cF .[o_T J- ?, Am5nr-, r � ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: JC.G xo29) DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORF7ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR.USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):' Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? I- 2 V,ff , ',S s 5 CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished' above and in the attached exhibits present the•data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be rnad6 by the Development, Review Committee. Date Signature Title n-y T__ 3 WILL THIS PROJECT: XES. NO 1. Create a substantial dnange in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration! 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services.(police, fire, water,. sevrage, etc.)! ✓ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? _Z 5: Remove any existing trees! now many? ✓ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or,explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential u-pits, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished' above and in the attached exhibits present the•data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be rnad6 by the Development, Review Committee. Date Signature Title n-y T__ 3 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the city of Rancho Cucamonga - Planning Division in-order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PRASE 4 TCYPAL 1. Number of single family units: 7. Number of multiple family units: ' Date proposed' to begin construction: A. Earliest date of occupancy: �r Date: To: From: 0 Irl r +1 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT February 14, 1979 Planning Commission 0 Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -04 - SUNSET PLAZA - Request for the con- struction of two (2) one -story commercial buildings encompassing a total of 12,000 square feet at the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Ramona Avenue in the C -2 (General Business) District. BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to develop the property at the southwest corner of Ramona and Foothill. This will leave a vacant piece of property between the recently approved racquetball court and this development. The applicant is desirous of constructing two buildings, Building B located.on the western portion of the property approximately 4,000 square feet requiring 20 parking spaces, and Building A located to the south of the property approxi- mately 8,000 square feet. On the southeasterly portion of the property, there is a swimming pool and spa display area that would be enclosed by a slumpstone pilaster wrought iron fence. The applicant has provided lard - scaping at an average depth of 25 feet measured from the front property line along Foothill Blvd. in accordance with the proposed Special Boulevard Stan- dards. One access is proposed off of Foothill Blvd. and one access 1s proposed on Ramona Avenue. The development as proposed is basically a spec (speculative) building venture with only one tenant secured at this time - Sunset Pools. The applicant proposes to use a rectangular structure with at,. add-on wood shingled mansard punctuated by landscaping as can be seen on the landscape and site plan in front of Building "A" and Building "B ". ANALYSIS: In reviewing the plan we have the following comments: Landscaping: The plan as proposed delineates plant material that is not commonly used in the area. The extensive use of Mexican fan palms, and sparing use of California sycamores we feel is inappropriate. Because this development is on Foothill Blvd., the landscaping proposed should make a strong statement. It is our belief that the use of Mexican fan palms should be eliminated or severly limited so that it does not become the predominate tree for this development. We would suggest the use of more sycamores, pine trees, eucalyptus trees, liquid amber and other deciduous and evergreen trees. Additionally, the basic ground cover should be turf punctuated with shrubs and varying types of ground cover. The quantity of landscaping on Foothill Blvd. should also be substantially increased. The size of the landscaping along w ITEM nSn Page 2 Director Review No. 79 -04 - Sunset Plaza February 14, 1979 Foothill and Ramona should also reflect a substantial amount of specimen size trees. The sidewalk proposed should also meander through the 25 foot landscape setback rather than being adjacent to the curb; this would provide for more aesthetic street scene and eliminate the ribbon of concrete effect that are encouraged with sidewalks adjacent to the curb. PARKING: We find that at least one of the spaces proposed is not usable. That space is located on Exhibit 1 in the southwest corner of the property near Building A. We also are somewhat concerned with one parking space located in the northeast corner of the property. Additionally, all parking spaces should he double- stripped. The parking provided perpendicular to Building A and Building B appears to be overhang parking which would negate the use of the four foot concrete walkway. We suggest the applicant extend the walkway by 2S feet to provide for overhang parking. Additionally, no parking lot lighting has been proposed. We suggest that if parking lot lighting is desired, a maximum 12 foot height from the finished grade of the parking lot be required. Because one parking space is not usable and would have to be eliminated, the applicant would not meet parking requirements for the square footage of building proposed. Therefore, the applicant should revise his building plans to reflect the reduction in parking. SIGNING: The applicant has indicated two types of signing, one would be facia signing on the buildings. The other would be a free - standing sign not included as part of this application to be located at the corner of Ramona and Foothill. We suggest that the applicant submit a uniform sign prograr, for the entire center and include in that package the application for the free - standing sign. All signing should be in conformance with the proposed sign ordinance. The environmental checklist did not indicate any significant adverse environ- mental impacts as a result of this project. Staff has field checked the site and has found no discrepancies with the checklist. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. BUILDING ELEVATIONS: The building elevations proposed are not consistent with past designs: approved by the City for Foothill Blvd. In the past, the Planning Commission has expressed concern with the quality of design of developments along Foothill Blvd. We have conditioned this application for a redesign of the building elevations subject to staff approval. We would like the Planning Commission's direction regarding the redesign. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolu- tion No. 79 -12 approving Director Review No. 79 -04 with the conditions as delineated in the Resolution. R pectf ly submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development r JL.BKH:nm Attachments: Exhibits Resolution 979 -12 Initial Study, Part I __ •_- - FJpTNILLWi1Rp• • _-.••• _ _.__..� _ _.._ � ._� �___.��.. i ,r f..4. Y^../M!Y I - - I - I I (`w)) •�. .� � lob 1.. � I __.I"�ii) -i"' :" f Y�I�I. j71N .� •�• LA, 40 4'•tYA WM LAWPWAwlN Cs fT` ~ I• �MG�P'jUP�L LP►ND�aGP�P� ' H. .� \ ^u" IAO�:, � e• H. .� \ ^u" IAO�:, 1 c I - \ ! j4 c. 1 c I - r � ryr . C I I 't � I cor ! , m IR ll 1 I1 1 •, • T� r l � �l � r � ryr . C I I 't � I cor ! , m 1 •, • T� r l � �l � � RAJ ftirlSTf�YiYr;•�� _ I. .' /'�,`�•'�n 1 f :1 , �• v•1 • � 1. � 1 • . � •, • I t I t ,.,f,•. .c f. ' �,' � • 1 tl �Y .,�.r•:� .�.%K.J� �i�t%'���N_ ""tea I;: err .•}�!.!. zg, •,:7•.7r I +. h =y - wit •�+� r- 4A wF' tl., RESOLUTION NO. 79 -:0 = _ A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -03 - FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT - LOCATED AT 6627 AMETHYST IN THE C -1 -T ZONE WHEREAS, on January 23, 1979, a formal application was :submitted requesting review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CM*fISSION RESOLVED AS . FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the si.te is adequate in size and shape. 2. That,the site has adequate access. 3. That the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property. 4. That the proposed use is consistent with the pro- posed General Plan. 5. That the conditions listed in this report are necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and,general welfare. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on February 14, 1979. SECTION 3: That Site Approval No. 79 -03 is a ?proved subject to the com- pletion..of -rthe_ following conditions: Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for compliance with the following conditions: 1. The plans on file with the Planning Division are approved with the modifications to the proposed ground cover along Amethyst from turf to gravel. 2. Parking lot lighting shall be a maximum height of 12 feet from the finished grade of the parking lot and shall shield from bleeding onto adjacent properties or streets. 3. 411 landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and'orderly manner. 4. Alt landscaping shall be separated from -'any vehicular area by a six inch Portland concret..• cement curb. �4� r }y . 5. The freestanding sign is not approved and shall be _.- _._...:, resubmitted. 6. Approval of this application shall expire one year from date of approval unless exercised by the issuance of a building permit. Applicant shall contact Engineering Division for compliance with the following conditions: 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. S. Prior to the issuance of a building permit verification that all requirements of the Cucamonga County.Water Dia- trict shall be met for sewer and water. 9. At the time of development drive approaches and street trees shall be provided along Amethyst Street in confor- mance with City standards. Street lights are required along Amethyst. The developer of each parcel shall coor- dinate installation with the Southern California Edison Company of a mastarm style light on an existing wooden pole. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans shall be designed and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Water shall not be gathered by artificial means, discharged, dammed, or sur- face flows obstructed so as to cause problem for downstream properties. 11. Concentrated flows across driveways or sidewalks are pro- hibited. Parkway drains Fsr city standards shall be used. _.;Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 12. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with the - .atest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric Code, and ell other applicable city codes. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1979. p S. 6 t; R PLANNING CCHMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAHONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman. ATTEST: Secretary of the Plannin& Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning_Commiasion 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 irith day of February, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: CCWISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 t `� xf . - �Ar- 1= =090% F7 11-. I W, AAA JIILIIII�� , cc -Ir co i tl 7M Al F7 11-. I W, AAA JIILIIII�� , cc -Ir co i tl 7M r �.�+��: •`tiNi:w+i +rpyd+re 'v�n:rm7 -rry ►Mad Y009/ y .- .' -.:. �•"'r _% -wv. . f 3C .�1 �". LZt9 r'v-1J '3114 . k... � 69.rr�G4 r 1'.'31rF+�Vr y�1y14:d TrCr1911Pdd 9 1003 t +n ^d �ad. - �••• �.- f* dI G 5'fV 1 4fl fl « ., . _ dvw imroln ro Ix IL •M '4 .'a: -w. _ .... .... yew• ..� ... -, - __ _ � v :�`�',' '�� ... �.--. ,.� - � � ��} ��• .•'rte i'�pi ~' ��tF{ y w ' p / - .iY' • � �— :1� ' Tom- � � ' 1i� I ' � - ii I e t � , , i � � � • .1 � � ...IYYYIII• ..f 1 .y • q ! 51 or ` + I;'., �1 :� �I J�pc w ri J 91'ri ,TT �I tni All 1'. 7-n , 1" e.lyr! I M I rnr j C7 1 Y I x vil .4 jd"�4 IL 0 jd"�4 S •rryry,�s' ••nCfrir'1'] -- cry ^. u�.l. C'L71W "� 4f101y�G/�9'1� 1 iiyy 1 f101y 3JO�A ?�; 5101`d 9yX'j IFY 7 A.1.,. JF4% -Q11 NUMI ICS Y i IY I l; Ir` �71YI;C�r r 19!lIH: MIM �Ib vin yn fir. •. 5 4`• ILI �.:. is ills'`1 I r: ;I a; I 1�7 aa a • p Ir i a. IO.id F i 11 � ISAS •� n •r: ' 'xl Ioee 1. M Lv . 11/ b�� >• r - - .F111191�1� Ct: 1 M F I I I 1 j.l 1. :r, S •rryry,�s' ••nCfrir'1'] -- cry ^. u�.l. C'L71W "� 4f101y�G/�9'1� 1 iiyy 1 f101y 3JO�A ?�; 5101`d 9yX'j IFY 7 A.1.,. JF4% -Q11 NUMI ICS Y i IY I l; Ir` 11 t ills'`1 I •K I aa a. IO.id Ilse ISAS •� n Ioee 1 ;'1,• lil i � d r i �I 1 t• • c' NANA ?t .:.t xv.-, 1 � L. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY M&IT I -- PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET '- To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted' to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt 'of .this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare. Part' II Of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will :neet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the •roject is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determiinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact, and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will rave an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additiona -. information report should be•supplied by the applicant giving further !-nformati7n concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: MAUQUARTERS OFFICE BUILDING I.PPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS TELEPHONE - r FOOTHILL FIRF PROTECTION 61'SYRICT - 6627 —An ._ r NAME :,; 7h )DRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACT CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: RuFus TURNER A•.I.A. 714)! >24 -398 226 W. FOOTHILL BLVD., CLAARREMONT% i I I� IACATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS &�Zj ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 6627 AMETHYST, RANCHO CUCAMONGA . PARCEL No. 11 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, RLGIONAL, STATE AI FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS :` NONE PROJECT - DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: OFFICE BUILDING, (1) STORY P781 SQ. FT. LOCATED ON PROPERTY WITH EXISTING FIRE STATION: OLT WITH SEPARATE ENTRY BECAUSE OF PUBLIC ORIENTATION. BUILDING IS CONyRETE BLOCK VENZER, AND CEMENT TILE R00'C. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND . PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF'ANY: 1.1 ACRE TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE 6993 50. FT. DEgr.RIB", THE'•ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLULING INVORMATZON ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMAL'', ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE• , OF SURR)UNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRT 'ION OF-ANY EKXSTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR 'USE. W-L-TACH. NECESSARY SHEETS): • HE BUILDING IS ON THE NORTH SIOt '.PF EX,STING LOT, WHICH IS NOW SURROUNDED BY A CONCRETE BLOCK %,ALL. IT HAS A • STORM DPAIN EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY. NO TREES ARE ® ON THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME. PROPERTY TO THE NORTH • BELONGS TO THE WATER COMPANY. THE PROPERTY NORTH OF THE - RATER COMPANY IS THE PROPOSED FOOTHILL-FREEWAY. PROPERTY' 1 TO THE SOUTH IS NOW THE POST OFFICE. PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS NOW ORANGE GROV -1813 OFFIF Wt. 1 N Off SF t. ST_�cc_nv !(9) PERSONNEL WITH MAIN CONC -EELN FOR FonE PgFvFNTIGN_ 1 • i Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series, of cumulative actions, which although individually small, . r may as a whrle have significant environmental impact? No .w WILL TUIS PROJECT: YES NO _`..X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing " Noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial zhange in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)a X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations?. X 5: Remove any existing trees ?. Hoy• many? _ X 6. Create the need for use.or disposal-of potentially haza -dous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES, answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CEMI!IFICATION: I hereby certif{ that the state, rents furnishc . above and in L. &n attached exhibits present the data and information requ. %.red for this initial evaluation to ` -he hest of my ability, and thnZ: the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the bust of my knowledge and belief.- I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date -19 -79 Signature Title PROJECT ARCHITECT ... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT S, Date: February 14, 1979 To: Planning Co=ission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: SERVICE STATION STANDARDS BACKGROUND: We suggest ttit this item be removed from the Agenda until such time as the issues of the sign 9rdinance, Growth Management Plan, and the School Task Force are resolved. At that time Staff will reschedule this item for Planning Commission consideration. Res ectfully ubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development L"Si CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: February 14, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: LA'DSCIL °E STANDAP.DS FOR SPECIAL BOULEVARDS, MAJOR AND SECONDARY THOROUGHFARES, AND COLLECTOR STREETS BACKGROUND: As the Planning Commission will recall, this item was continued from the meeting of December 27, 1978 to allow, for Chamber of Commerce review. The Chamber and Industrial Committee havereviewed the proposed landscaped standards and have not submitted ii formal endorsement or rejection of the standards. The Commission's only concern at the December meeting was that language be included in the standard that would encourage a diversity,in.design so that parking areas are not always locatee. along the street frontages. Such language has been incorporated i:ito the standards which are attached to the Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commis- sion approve the attached landscape standards for the implementation of the General Plan by adopting Resolution No. 79 -15. Respectfully ubmitted, ... _ 1114 iu of 11 JACK LAM, Director-of. Community Development JL: MV: nm `• } Mm RESOLUTION NO. 79 -12 <' - A RESOLUTION OF THE ItANCHO_CUCAMONGA PLANNING _ COknSSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 79 -04 LOCATED ON THE SOUTMAEST CORNER OF RAMONA AVENUE AND FOOTHILL BLVD. IN THE C -2 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 9th day of January, 1979, a complete application was filed for review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of February, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described pro ject. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNI4'G COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site indicated by the development plan is adequate in size and shape to cccommilg'efthe pro- posed use, and all y rds, sp parking, landscaping, loading and other features required by this section.' 2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop- ment plan are located in such a manner as to be properly related to existing and proposed streets and highways. 3. That the improvements as shown on the development n?an are consistent with all adopted standards and policies as set forth in this section. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on February 14, '1979. roved subject to the SECION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -04 is app folTlowing conditions: Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for com- pliance with the following conditions: 1. The landscape plan shall be resubmitted prior to the issuance of building permits. it shall be revised f to eliminate or severely limit the use of Me palms and substitute California sycamores, p ine trees, other deciduous or evergreen trees in their place. Addi- tionally, there shall be a substantial number of specimen r.rees used along Foothill Blvd. and Ramona Avenue. 2. All parking lot trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size. 12. 13. Prior to occupancy, drive approaches and street trees shall be provided along Foothill Blvd. and Ramona Avenue in conformance with city standards. Street lights are required along Foothill Blvd. The developer shall coor- dinate installation and location with the Southern Cali- fornia Edison Company and the City. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans shall be designed and approved,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Water shall not be 3. The sidewalk as shown on the landscape plan is .not approved and shall meander within the distance from _ -, the curb face to the building setback line. Approval -- of the construction of this sidewalk shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. 4. The applicant shall eliminate the parking space indi- cated on Exhibit 1 and shall revise his building square footage to meet parking requirements. Additionally, all parking shall be double striped. 5. Any light".ng proposed for the parking lot area shall be a maximum 12 feet sigh from the finish grade of the. parking lot and shall be shielded from bleeding onto adjacent properties or streets. ; 6. The applicant shall widen the walkways in front of Building A and B by 2' feet. 7. The applicant shall submit a uniform sign program-indi- cating the size, location, material, colors, and illumina- tion if proposed, of signing for the center prior to occupancy. Included on this application shall be the free - standing sign proposal. 8. Approval of this application shall expire one year from date of approval unless exercised by the issuance of a building permit. �. 9. Building elevations shall be redesigned to the satisfac- tion of the Planning Division consistent with past Plan- ning Commission approvals for Foothill Blvd. Applicant shall contact Engineering Division for compliance with the following conditions: 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, grading and orainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit verification that all requirements of the Cucamonga County Water Dis- trict shall be met for sewer and water. 12. 13. Prior to occupancy, drive approaches and street trees shall be provided along Foothill Blvd. and Ramona Avenue in conformance with city standards. Street lights are required along Foothill Blvd. The developer shall coor- dinate installation and location with the Southern Cali- fornia Edison Company and the City. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans shall be designed and approved,to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Water shall not be i ® gathered by artificial means, discharged, dammed, or surface flows obstructed so as to cause problem for down- stream properties. ' 14. Concentrated flows across driveways or sidewalks are pro - hibited. Parkway drains per city standards shall be used. 15. Prior to occupancy lot line adjustment proceedings shall be completed. 16. Repair and paving of alleys and streets shall be in con- formance with city standards and completed prior to occu- pancy. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 17. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable city codes. . Applicant shall, contact the Foothill Fire District for com- pliance with the following conditions: 18, Prior to the issuance of a building permit, verification that all requirements of the Fat -thill Fire District shall be met for fire anu safety. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, parised, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Coumissi.on held on the 14th day of February, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee. $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the DevelopmEnt Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will'prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heakd. The Committee will make one of three d eterminations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An a dditiunal information report should be su,.plied by the appliear: giving further information co;:- Kerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: "NAIDE;�"Ai?DRESS, TELEPHONE O� PERSON CQKERNING TIiIS _ PROJECT: IL Mff OF PROJECT (STREET AUDR�SS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LWrUMMWA &CrJri:a'wsAn LIST OTHER PERMITS NECF.SSARi FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEE �DMAI, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY IS5KNG SUCH PERMITS W rY- 0%'�l_.//•f� - /'l r+. wr fPA. /, ,..- .1 - -_I/l Y' -� PROJECT DESCRIPTION DE�SCR�PT�ON OF Pi�JECTo �J �< � C 11 ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE, FOOTACE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF 'ANY: �4 lilartl DESCRICC THE ENyTgONMENPAI, SIZTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORDIITION ON TOPOGR,IPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIDIALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series, Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may Ali as a whole have significant environmental impact? • IT l �, J1 ' � WILL T11R0,71C1: YES N!) Create a substantial change in ground contours? ._. 2, Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? V 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire. water, sewage, etc.)? d. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 1! 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: if the project in-olves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTITiCAT1oN: I hereby certiFy that the statements furnisheid above and in the attached exhibits present ' :he data and information required for this initial evaluation to• the best of MY ability, and that the facts, statomrnts, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additioneil information may he xrquircd to be submitted before ml adrquate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date_4/j, �J 1 signature AD , = Titla y~ �'Iw(Y f. µ.1l:. - l.. •�'M�¢-'� i... 4� t IMSIDSIITIAL COW2TRUCTIUN The iollOWing information should be provided to the city of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.- Spe.Ific Location of Projects PHASE I PRASE 2 PHASE 3 PIIASr A TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model B and } of Tentative S. Bedrooms Price Ranae 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUC*UNGA DATE: February 14, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: .TACK LAM, Director of Community Development 0 SUBJECT: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -01; LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO.— The development of a 248 unit apartment complex on 14.93 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street 363 ft. west of Beryl Street in the R -3 zone. BACKGROUND: This application is among the first apartment projects submitted to the City since the adoption, of Ordinance 50 which exempts such projecto from the residential moratorium. Staff is bringing this and other apartment applications before the planning Com,aisaion to recieve guidance regarding development review and design criteria. The Lewis Development Co. is pro- posing a 248 unit apartment complex at the above described location which is the Phase II expansion of an Existing apartment complex to the west. The property is zoned R -3 and the General Plan designation is Nigh Density Residential (15 -30 units /acre). The complex will be built on 14.93 acres of land and the overall density will be 16.6 units per acre. ANALYSIS: The 248 unit complex will consist of 72 efficiency (bachelor), 56 one bedroom and 120 two bedroom units. The applicant proposes 559 parking stalls, 248 covered and 310 open, which exceeds the zoning ordinance requirement of two (2) spaces per unit. Staff is requiring the elimination of the eight (8) proposed carports,with the spaces remaining, on the northern property line which lies within the 25 ft. setback from the Foothill Freeway right -of -way; these carports should be redistributed throughout the project. . The complex proposes three (3) drive approaches from 19th Street. The Engin- eering Division has reviewed tItzsE: approaches in terms of the laity's access policy and is recommending a shared access drive between this site and the proposed Community Baptist Church to the east. The design of this approach will be subject.to_ the City Engineer's approval. Further, it is recommended that a block wail be built along the eastern property line, the expense of which could be shared by the l/_wis Development Co, and the Baptist Community Church. The applicant pro>>oses a total of 420 trees on the conceptual landscape plan which indicates a density of 28 trees per gross acre. Staff feels this density will not present the high quality environment desired for high density residen- tial projects. We recommend a standard of 50 trees per gross acre; 20% of the trees a minimum 24" box size, 70% be a minimum of 15 gallon size and the remaining 10% be a minimum of 5 gallons in size. All parking lot trees should be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. The building materials proposed are off -white stucco with dark stained wood siding. 2alconies will have dark stained wood rai1P along the top and wrought ITEM "T" Page 2 — "iron Tailings to allow maximum visibility from units. Fascia and trim proposed are dark brown wood and dark color composition roofing. A material display board will be available for review at the Planning Coamission meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The site is vacant and contains no significant wildlife or vegetation. The enviroamental checklist indicates no significant environ- mental impacts resulting from this pr:)Ject. Staff has field investigated this site and has found no ? ;acrepenciea with the checklist. Staff, therefore, is recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration for the project. REGOiDATIaN: Staff recomagends adoption of Resolution No. 79-13 approving DR 79 -01 for a 248 unit apartment complex. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Communtty Development JL:BNH:elm Attachments: Resolution No. 79 -13 Site, Elevation and Conceptual Landrscape Plana Initial Study 6. e lhl _ LIB \ / � � .,� . � \ \\ _ � � � � 1 ty • a- L . � � 1, ' �' ,' !� r °' � ' i. p' '� ' \. f e. LJ el .t s 0 CITY Or RAIIpIiO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATI0N SH ET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the Project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Dr.•relopment Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant- giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: SUNSCAPE II APARTMENTS APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TEL13P11ONE: LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO., P. 0. Box 670, Upland, CA 91786 7141985 -0971 NANE;'AADWESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Thomas J. Sanhamel, Director of Multifamily Operations, Levis Development Co.. P. 0. Box 670, Upland, CA 91786 714/985 -0971 LOCI%TI0N OF PROJECT (STREET ADDIti:SS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Noith Eide of 19th Street [8900 79th cr_r_oerk Tax Assessor's Parcel No. 201 -221 -9 LIST OTHER PERI.IITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE ,Am FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: NONE PROJECT DESCRIPTION' DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 248 -unit, 2 -story, garden -type udult apartment project— consisting gf 27 buildings with nffire nna imtnaL, fPe415Ci P__ 0 tennis court, a volley ball court, 2 Swimming pools with spas, 310 open parking spaces, and 248 covered parking spaces. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF P.NY: Project -area: 14.92 agres• area of existing buildings: -0 -; area of proposed buildings: 174.312. S.F. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENrAl, SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORHNTION ON -TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND T11E DESCRIPTION OF.ANY . EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The subject property is a barren field with a topographic relief of approximately � the south and east with no existing trees or atructures. The land to the north of the site is vacant and is the proposed right -of- way or t e tats Route Freeway. The land tot the east is vacant anFis the proposed site for the Commpaity Baptist Church. 19th Street forms the southern boundary of the site. Single - family homes are located on the south side of t Street across from the site. Immediately tot a er,t of — t � subject property are the Sunsa.ape Apartments, a 172 -unit project owner by the applicant. Is the project-, part• of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? The project is adjacent to and immediately to the east of applicants existing 172 -unit Sunscape Apartments and Alta Loma Square Shopping Center, �rc.w I r WILL. TUTS r KOJI:CT: YES NO X Create a substantial change in ground contours? % 2- Create a substantial.change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand rur municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) ! Incremental increase only. A. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? . r % 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? % b. Create the need for use or disposal.of �^ potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any PITS answers above: LPOREAITE: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the•ciate and information required for this i.nitinl evaluation to the best of my ability, and L•haL• the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be :submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development. Review Committee. LEWIS DEV PME[ CO. Date Signature mas J. S n e Title Director of Multifamily Operations, • :;, 40 Q ; .,: T a RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 'The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. SUNSCAPE II APARTHMTS Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: LEWIS DEVELOPMENT co. - Specific LDcation of Project: No. side of 19th St., 330 feet West of Beryl Street. 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: Date proposed to begin construction: 4. earliest date of occupancy: Model A and f of Tentative S. Bedrooms Price Rance Efficiency 1- bedroom/ 1 -bath 2- bedroom/ 1 -bath 2- bedroom/ 2 -bath PHASE I PRASE 2 248 04 -01 -79 04 -01 -80 .0 300 1mo. 72 $325 /mo. 56 $350/mo. 48 $375/mo. 72 PHASE 3 PRASE 4 0 o. RESOLUTUION NO. 79 -13 40 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -01 REQUESTING A 248 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCA- TED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET 363 FEET WEST OF BERYL STREET. WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of January, 1979, an application was filed and accepted on the above described project; and . WHEREAS, on the 14th day of February, 1979, the Planning Commission held a meeting for the above described project. follows: NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site indicated by the development plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other 'features required. 2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop- ment plan are located in such a manner as to be properly related to existing and proposed streets and highways. 3. That the improvements as shown on the development plan are consistent with all adopted standards and policies of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4. That there is reasonable probability that the land use proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered. 5. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if the use proposed is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plinn. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cc--mission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration on February 14, 1979. SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -01 is approved subject to the following conditions: -mow r I I 0 `.i N� 0 Page 2 0 The-applicant-shall contact the Planning Division in order to comply with the following conditions: 1. All provisions of the zoning ordinance shall be complied cdth. 2. Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all other applicable City ordinances in effect at this time. 3. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved plans on file in the Plannin3 Division office and conditions adopted by the Planning Commission. 4. All roof mounted equipment shall be shielded from view from adjacent properties and streets with materials that architecturally conform with the dwelling structures subject to the approval of the Planning Division. 5. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to an approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 6. A minimum of 50 treee per gross acre comprised of the following sizes shall be provided within the proposed development; 20X — 24" box or larger. 70% — 15 gallon and ICZ — minimum 5 gallon. 7. The applicant shall maintain all landscaped areas in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash and debris. 8. The landscaped area along 19th Street shall be mounded and substantially landscaped in order to screen parkinE areas. 9. A dense landscape screen shall be planted along the nLrthern property line to visually screen the project from the proposed Foothill Freeway right -of -way. Plant types and size shall be indicated on a detailed landscape plan and is subject to the approval of the Planning Division. 10. All signs shall be in conformance with the sign ordinance and approved by *.ine Planning Division prior to installation. 11. Parking spaces for the physically handicapped shall be provided to comply with the Uniform Building Code (latest adopted edition) and the State of California Health and Safety Code. 12. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground. 13. Water supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the City approved agency and the City Engineer with all incidental fees paid by the developer. 14. The cover sheet of each set of building construction plans submitted for the City's approval shall have attached -- copy of the City's conditions of approval. Page 3 - 15. The eight - ($) carports along the northern property line shall be relo- cated outside the 25 foot rear yard setback from the Foothill Freeway right- of-way to new location subject to : ie approval of the Planning Division. 16. All carports shall be designed and constructed with wood trim and other materials architecturally compatible with the dwelling units. 17. A block wall shall be prpvided along the eastern property line. The applicant shall deaelop Flans for said wall in coordination witb the adjacent property owner to the east. Plans for said wall shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 18. Fencing around the tennis courts shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Light posts for each tennis court shall not exceed eight (8) in number and 22 feet in height and shall ':e designed so that no light or glare is directed towards on or off site residential dwelling units. 19. Light posts for the parking lot shall not exceed 12 feet in height from the finished grade. These lights shall be designed so that no light or glare is directed towards any on or off site residential dwelling units. Placement of these lights shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 20. This approval shall be null and void if building permits are not Issued for this project within one year from the date of approval of this application. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for compliance with the following conditions: 21. Prior to Issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate 11 ft. of land along 19th Street. 22. Prior to issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plana prepared by ,a.registered civil engineer shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall submit written verification to the Buiidiug Division that all requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District have been met. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans shall be designed and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Water shall not be gathered by artificial means, discharged, dammed or surface flows obstructed so as to cause problems for downstream properties. 25. Prior to occupancy of any units, curb, gutter, drive approaches (alley standard) , sidewalk, street trees, A.C. match -up paving shall be pro- vided along 19th Street in conformance with the City standards. bCa 0 0 Page 4 26. The -developer shall provide street lights along 19th Street. Plana for said lights shall be included on street improvement plans which shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Street lights shall be installed prior to final occupancy of any units. 27. Concentrated flows across driveways or sidewalks are prohibited. Parkway drains per City standards shall be used. 28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall provide proof of a shared access agreement with the adjacent property owner to the east subject to the approval.of the City Engineer. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 29. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted U.B.C., Fire Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable City Codes. Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for corpliance with the following conditions: 30. All rules, regulations, conditions and requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall be complied with. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. By: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of February, 1979. AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 0 CITY OF PANCHO CUCAPIONCA STW rOORT DATE: February 14, 1979 TAO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 79-06 -- VANGUARD BUILDERS — The development of a 200 unit apartment complex to be located on the north aide of 19th Street approximately 500 ft. east of Archibald Ave. BACKGROUND: Vanguard Builders are requesting approval for the development of a 200 unit apartment complex on 9.5 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street approximately 500 ft. east of Archibald Avenue (Exhibit "A"). The west property line of the project site borders the existing Stater Brothers Shopping Center and the north boundary of the project site borders the south side of the proposed Foothill Freeway. Vanguard had originally submitted a site approval application with the County and was caught in the moratorium. The applicant has revised the site plan substantially to conform with City development standards and policies. The project site is presently zoned R -1 -8500 and a withhold zone change to R -3 pending approval of a site development plan. The General Plan projects high density residential for this area at 15 -30 dwelling units /acre. ANALYSIS: The project consists of 200 dwelling units on 9.5 acres of land providing a density of 20.9 units /acre. The project consists of 25 separate buildings which contain 96 one bedroom units and 104 two bedroom units. The site development plans indicate a total of 397 parking spaces; 200 of which are covered and 197 which are open. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of two pt., -king spaces per unit. Therefore, an additional three (3) parking spaces are required to be provided on site. '_n addition, the zoning ordinance requires a 25 ft. building setback from any existing or proposed freeway right - of -way. The carports along the north property line are located within the required 25 fit. setback. Therefore, these carports are required to be relocated throughout the site where open parking is now being proposed. Open parking spaces may be allowed in;this_25 ft. setback area. Exhibit "B" displays a ,relimivary landscaping plan which shows perimeter land- scaping around the entire site and landscaping throughout all interior pedes- trian pathways. Staff is recommending that a landscaping standard of 50 trees per acre be used for multiple family developments in ore4tr to insure adequate landscape materials will be incorporated. In adoition, staff is recommending that mounding and a significant amount of trees be used along the 19th Ave. frontage in front of the parking areas for screening. Exhibits "C" & "D" display details of the interior pedestrian walkways, private patio living areas, and typical floor plans. In addition to the private patio areas, the development will also be providing a 1200 sq. ft. recreational building, pool, spa, and a volley ball court. r . _ --ITEM +•un 0 Page 2 Exhibits "E" 6 "F" display the exterior building elevations for the dwelling units. The exterior materials proposed consist of wood shingle roof, rough sawn cedar trim, rough sawn cedar siding, and textured stucco. TypLcal carports are being proposed for the project. Staff recommends that the car- ports utilize wood trim and like materials that would.be architeS urally compatible with the dwelling units. In addition, screen walls or fences compatible with the dwelling unirs are needed at the end of the carports facing 19th Street to screen the rows of parked cars. Access to the development is being provided by tro points along the 19th Street frontage. The shared access along the east property line must provide a minimum 24 ft. of paving at the time of dex•.lopmeot in order to meet zoning ordinance requirements. This can be done by either providing a full 24 ft. of paving on the subject site or by obtaining necessary permission from ad- jacent property owner for partial construction of the shared access. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: After review of the Initial Study, the environmental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impacts on the envirumaent as a result of this project. The site is presently vacant and does not contain evidence of any known cultural, historical or scenic. aspects. Plant life typically consists of annual weeds and grasses and a few scattered trees through- out the site. Staff recomc:ends that a Negative Declaration be issued for this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Director Review No. 79 -06 based on the findings and conditions listed in the attached Resolution No. 79 -14 Respectfully submitted, JACK LAN, Director of Community Development JL:MV:elm .y Attachments: Site plan +a Landscaping plan Floor plans Exterior building elevations Resolution No. 79 -14 Initial Study Part I M1Ild a1i8 j�'/•� v \rny�{1�YY lY\! r`^ [ ../y -': •• • l[l•_•'A•f•. �} �'✓'•� +w.• -: � v.. -i Nt y [.. \l: - ,"�''\ + p 1F ♦ j' � M� ��. �)T•... +. 'i�' is a •^v .✓ • F . y . •L ! y '�."'iYr�� "S,'•,.i�N:•!.••1�� �` c..[������;tij >Y.tir' '. YJ.1.`4�4�f:�.�•'Tti'.',•���yy�� �d.�i� "� ✓t• "; r . w, •yy �• =[1A - try r '�i }.L i �� - _ [� (I f f '1iy 11 .,tom 1 , i It '` 1 _ tp-� •..l � /tl •�•• f1. �. T Y' ['' 11 • �yr�•'!.A• ,•(.; t,'L A 1•'C'S•'>�4 > .f _f '" �•. �' ,•y+,7, ..' • .. r �?71 �' i A .f. _ .. �'.�r' �� >.j p,.� ftiit hY'Y —"' j Y ♦� ,1•�_� _a�.r..._. =.e' - I "~.. t. i.• �� Ci i_ t�If j �N�1 fy;1 +}1�� �rl.r• rr ��r. .. r�: .`,•y•. r•�.'ti „tt�.•�.�nryFt•,�t: i• �j tr•,.♦ 'Y� •lJ d'•. �2 \•� '�•i.y�.•Jr 1• t�.M .++'ff.tM Ll 1i. 11 _ _ , rI El. .F K 1 I I• t 1 21 J t t' 'y. 1� 1 'M... ; -. )L . —t � ✓ •.!j p � 1i M14 7 Iy' +Ih}��y,,i��•,+•'vY' +�re �.w .?rV, {.' ��• — ! __ ',�i++ea�.�l .•'• L��..a.,..j .7r'!M. _t ..y;. '7',•��'Y�,-�_✓•' \:.*.. r' ' .. let • all �jf E 4 �.r, .� ;�7'S:� '�,l �`3% i '_ � � •, i�' .r's•i<< . "aj "'. iti.Ji�' 'Y +t•• i .t i. Ea 7 S -' • u ��.'ll� /�%� • F i�r [ 1 �yi: L.. ,: 1''}l, . ' r \ 'f,.. a ?" ; Y.�•M �•� -'w, Fiai \ �v_•' 't+..�I,iT :•A'•�.yf,~!•�'trf_.`f:i„•'�'I. - !!! i Q ti •' ,.t�' rc I�;,v45 c!• �t ..n: "r i} {.'f' :'YrK�'•v 3F''t�Y.t "„ ", 9tat .•,tt3'r!5:i«cw,C:R�;.trh�4,N +SRI*` ,rSr v N"Cl pN{allne r rN .. y \�� ^M . 4. yr, n � •�~ .. Ati j / i r r I c, _ s s t ''��}}r�f' _ r� y .r. I � -,y..r �y4/ - �" +. 1 �y�r� r ice• 1 a��...� 3 f •• i 1 s..,' >• 4L L i fty� ♦.i .j !'. r ' • �+ xJ S •AY.`` 9 A y J +2y�;r.Y.3.`s,c"ti(�.•F`..' .,.jl.kry �'9'`' A a l• •.r ;R .. .: , ' r ..t'A ►��ic .. r . ICA w �i( l u"tylt .r % ..`,. -.. +�, rt t� i. l' *1 `'t. •4` ''.7 .1 �vr` �': :.aM 4/ y _. , F,'. .' { i IY• by i .."�!K'+!�t +el !« 'r1,'.1 �.�FM+h .v P' y._t ` �.s j ^�•� •- ,. �1:J+.ac • r. i h w r.. •, il,�t�.�},i( rr{r��}� •'y:�kD%c, 6, .��, y• ,ii vf,;,,Y" .. "�` _.r. �jj'��I�r'%T�'1?y }'l'�,• . i�� s ,ll,• r ..%�i .., _.� a i t •,f r• t \. ., .y :S'Cs,- rrl.!3!4' t. F!� ^. ,.R 1. i`• C /,!. -r.,. ,.} + �.�.•�, ..t ., •.I, • +'y. +tir ,, +.'�F _. r \ �• �yt, -; yr?hiw N. ` if ..�. A "r} Y^l►4'ryr .h.+. � �.K _. 'r� � _R' j� Yom- •Y l :I i. _i:iF!' 1 ; ••naY y.,'�f. .� ♦:S. 4. . { -1� �jl1�. S'' Ji.� "M. f•�n"' + +`. ;r:r''''�. w. +{.. �. r , •Ir,l � { Llfy Mil i t (s jp- •�Jr.y,, •P•t{�•�r� R^,�. •�'�; .�y�� tbarAl %•,,,� � '! '4�•�. ,itryYF.- �'. }i,Y.yr v y K �h }I N 1�f��N�rr •! .. 11 � •�P i- •t! ' �1'{_ y1 �v '•. +IT t, rr• \'Cr ti r 1`. _t F:latyf[ 1 k, f�• >ti: .S��.�'�•+i �... 4i.U4{ 4w {fy ��. a ei t � 1 ; ry '� i.}e h ', � rt yrlsl:{�5�+4 ✓�,,. :ii' � . � � ,�.. 'I MEMO, I I e NVId ONKnins Lo Ib'y:t`��R�.� s:.•.tir. ...titti"r, w.a Est ..•.:nt �•^', F. �". -+�ri:. �.�n y.� {� �. } 11 a' � i C�a I •. d4'�' °�'!r"t"iJ„aF"�.r �O 1• t .1' °. i �t �y� �� A i. Y 1,A� -rT I !Y: Lyra ir1_k'r' �"a F.11, �•.3+�a' 7�iTRJ V1",v fSlb'7.y�af.S F r,° r 1 t • ' .,y."".'�/t'�"G��'F'7 !l i'' � ° �• � N: "w M } 3 fly ��, AA : c.yr��l 0 �. ✓•.fyM �' *r ..Y -Y�' hE.� °•t���E'+�, ' 4 � •;'�`uj.. yaJ'!•. � �I ! �i+� ��i+� K, ,rcJ ��11 �' !b,'�y w � � • � _i f i i TjM N 1T..i . �'I,- r � `; � ++ y it ..r�}: A '� k �.. y— i rl• a'c'}!`tr `"L7f j'��a'• rh 4:•r�' +►; �Y�+PIY'+•.hk����'h�hF, °_�1x'7M1.� ?�Li ��• �a ,�.�J{�.T71�r'��G'�XnTas,`°C: ��i_�..7 ••./ _ M� Aatr�N /.4ryjlal.iT� ; \°S1a�M�,�.�'.0' "•�"1V 1�1Y4 Y4 f r. • }.Vr1 a• �:, y:v -. y'=�.: 11 jj�l '-n •M• Liar CCP ta'+C�i y_,�.rj' Sv�.yv e.+,� b`f.}�4 .4„�% r 5ti k•- �/y�.r' " r •,••� Lrr,�y�a- i,.{7."• ir, l.' b ii/`s• I a�S". '�+",•�,.b'J�d'�.►`�''•'y,. !' b.,j�ySr.�%►a k�t�?r�P+ 7r,+ �} �rN�w��"' �'; �6' L^ �" �. i�Y� {�•„1``��". +_.;�°A;z`.,,,y,;, �Y 'q� r may,,: _ :. • ' , .• 7 � --te� •�• r! _� T :✓'�. '^ -q•' �* �[ry+�:. .� y A ��' r.. r�x ��'Y�� �7•�t�i:t�L���.�'+'}4 y��r t�v��.k'S'`'i7r3•�'•'r� �.+t�"�"';'�. 5 4t,8af "p�RL °�'G!�t'�r� � f _ 1't IIrte.�: 1, ����r�r�..r�.r,�.•,� ?!.:•�;�4•ry��K ��•c; �1)�.f 1 .�ht!;s /�:",..w-ti f• - .i�. b��f ip �.W95KUTr \f \F i�c�l�- A':•f`F�•fl w,,.+ ^: �.'r• '•w �•'r 1y9�.yt.�w.�4,�tJ..K -_ �'r�����.�ty. r •�[.i. ..S y t.`i:'r1W ?r. +. �n,. •*� '3,' . �•1�'�y;.. 1.1-7+ M My �- ....o[r- '�7�'Y•:�','lN , W ,•..4a .r•J°f�k.� ^�.+�t•E'�-�t,'�;4?�,w� 'E �'' �. �r�? 4�H'+>: e�i�t` i��` �'` �. yS+ R. �kr+' d{ �' �,��;�.'-�,�,+'q«�;�;SC.ink.L}S a PROJECT TITLE: vanguard Apartments APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: vangUgrd Biyjidgrs. rnc- 92111 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 NAMB;'APDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS.PROJECT: Chuck Beck-4t aboya address and telephone number LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) L�ca1 building Permits LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAI, AGENCIES AND TILE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: 760 •4 1 • q CITY OF RANCHO CICAIIONGA . INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of.this `• application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the initial Study. The Development Review committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving furi:her information concerning the proposed project. a PROJECT TITLE: vanguard Apartments APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: vangUgrd Biyjidgrs. rnc- 92111 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 NAMB;'APDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS.PROJECT: Chuck Beck-4t aboya address and telephone number LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) L�ca1 building Permits LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAI, AGENCIES AND TILE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project will be a 200 unit garden annrtm ut comOlex. with one and two bedroom units. ThebuilalngsV±T2 ,. neianz. euu coverea ana iy, open parsing apauwa wins uo provided along with a recreation building, pool and laundFles. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING. AND PROPOSF.G BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 9.54 acres, no existing buildings, 179,522 square feet of building are proposed DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMEWAi, S1`TTING OF TIM PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOMINTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMLS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY . EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS)i The exist ;no Property is vacant with very little veaitation other than weeds and J or 4 small trees. The property slopes 55' from the h1gW— point at.fhn w ^r *h -East , rnar doom to hh O �h ^east corner. There a1ja_und1WJ2tedlu Vme small ground animals such as mice, gophers etc. ^ on the property. To the best of our knowledge, there are no cultural, historical nr srgnic asneets to the site. The adjacent properties to the east and north are vacant with the exception of one residence and one small accessory building. A ne g r shopping cen er is 20cated to the weaE or e proper y an o rn, across street is a rolacively new single family subdivision. t r. 1!. X Is the project•, part of a larger project, one of a tserics- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? "• NO b kl r CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the f.ncts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may hr! required to be submitted before an adequate evallation can be made by the Development Review Committee. D Date` / q P7 Signature Title WILL 7_I1OPRUyllic : YYI`S NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? �. X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? ". 5= Remove any existing trees? How many? 3 or. 4 X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: There are 3 or 4 trees t1cSr.Phe north Property Iine that probably will be removed IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the f.ncts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may hr! required to be submitted before an adequate evallation can be made by the Development Review Committee. D Date` / q P7 Signature Title ­­4' RESOLUTION NO. 79 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -06 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 19TH ST. APPROXI- MATELY 500 FT. EAST OF ARCHIBALD IN THE R -1 -8500 ZONE WITH R -3 ZONING PENDING. WHEREAS, on the 8th day of January, 1979, a complete applicatiou was filed for review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of February, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project NCW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site indicated by the development plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the pro- posed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, landscaping, loading and other features 0 required by this section. 2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop- ment plan are located in such a manner as to be properly related to existing and proposed streets and highways. 3. That the improvements as shown on the development plan are consistent with all adopted standards and policies as set forth in this section. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment;;and that a Negative Declaration is issued on February 14, 1979. _ SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -06 is approved subject to the r following conditions: Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for compliance with the following conditlr -v. 1. Compliance with all zoning ordinance provisions. 2. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plan on file in the Planning Division and conditions adopted by the Planning Commission 3. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. ^• .mss- ,`.'� ,;;�<Mr,a....:� _ Page 2 0 4. kminiinum� of fifty (50) trees per gross acre comprised of the following sizes shall be provided within the development; 20% ' 24" box or larger, 70Z minimum 15 gallon, and minimum 10% 5 gallon. . S. The applicant shall maintain all landscaped areas in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weed, trash and debris. 6. A minimum of three (3) additional open parking spaces 9'x19' shall be provided on -site. 7. All carports shall maintain a miu;atum of 25' from all streets and the proposed freeway right -of -way. 8. All carports shall be designed and constructed with wood trim and other materials architecturally compatible with the dwelling units. 9. The landscaped area along 19th Street shall be mounded and substantially landscaped in order to screen parking areas. In addition, a dense landscaped screen shall be provided along the north property line adjacent to the freeway right -of -way. 10. Screen walls shall be provided at the ends of carports facing 19th Street. Such walls shall be constructed with materials compatible with the dwellings. 11. Any roof mounted equipaent shall be screened from view from all adjacent properties. Screening material shall blend with the architectural feature of the buildings. 12. The shared access along the east property line shall provide a minimum of 24' of paving for the development of this project. A reciprocal access easement shall be obtained for this shared access and documentation of such access shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits. 13.' All-ligiiting, :rhether used for parking areas or recreation areas, shall be no higher than 12' and shall not create glare to ad- jacent properties or on -site dwellings. The volleyball court shall be permitted lights not exceeding 22' in height. 14. Any proposed signs require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation. 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the withhold zone change to R -3 shall be adopted by the City Council. 16. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of . approval of the zone change. r 1 IJ r'1 Page 3 Applicant sball contact the Engineering Division for compliance with the following conditions; 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit verification that all requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District shall be met for sewer and water and shall be submitted to the Building Official. 19. Prior to occupancy curb, gutter, drive approaches, sidewalk, street tree, A.C. match —up paving shall be provided along 19th Street in conformance with City Standards. 1. Street lights are required along 19th Street. Prior to the issuance of building permits the developer shall submit all necessary plans for. installation to the City Engineer. 22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, grading and drainage plans shall be designed and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Water shall not be gathered by artificial means, discharged, dammed, or surface flows obstructed so as to cause problem for downstream properties. 23. Concentrated flows across driveways or sidewalks are prohibited. Parkway drains per City standards shall be used. Applicant shall contact thi Building Division for compliance with the following conditions- 24. All building puns shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable City codes. Applicant..:shall contact the Foothill Fire District for compliance with the following conditions: 25. Prior to the issuance of building permits verification thist all requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall be met and submitted to the Building Official. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TP_ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIT°. OF 1..ANCHO CUCAMONGA Herman Rempel, Chairman r- �= • n ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission helc: on the 14th day of February, 1979. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E^ _ J SAN BERNARDINO COUNT`/ FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT INTER - OFFICE MEMO DATE April 22, 1975 FROM Bill C. Mann Ext-. 2388 �Q- Flood Control District p..••. ..,' CONTROL TO Board of Supervisors File: 1- 502/1.00 Sub. File: 118.0202 SUBJECT Appeal Nearing for Site Approval 'Or Borrow Site East of Deer Creek in Foothills of Alta Loma.- Cherbak - Zone 1, Deer Creek Spreading Grounds On April 14, 1975, the Board of Supervisors heard the subject appeal for the borrow site. Action on the matter was continued until April 28, 1975, to provide the Flood Control District time to review the matter. The original proposal was for two sites located in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, located north and east of Deer Creek Canyon Wash. The District has right -of -way over the Deer Creek Spreading Grounds immediately south of both sites. As background to the present appeal, the County Planning Commission required the Environmental Impact Report at its May 9, 1974 meeting, and subsequently changed the requirements to an Information Report. At its meeting on January 21, 1975, the Environmental Review Board determined a Negative Declaration could not be issued, and regclred a full Impact Report, primarily due to visual and esthetic impacts, loss of ground cover and plant supportive soil, is and potential erosion and sedimentation problems downstream. lconsid- understood the applicant has proposed 4 eration; however, it was still the consideration of the Environmental Review Board an Impact Report should be required. The Site 11 proposal entails removing approximately 800,000 cubic yards of materials froin'the foothills, leaving a cu*_ face below existing natural ground in excess of 100 -feet. Although the tributary drainage areas to the site are small, the steep slopes and high runoff factors can cause erosion on the cut slopes with accelerated runofi and debris movement downstream unless a permanent and adequate mantle is restored. It is our opinion, which appears to be concurred in by the U. S. Forest Service, that it will be difficult to provide adequate ground cover for the cut slopes due to loss of topsoil and exposure of nutrient - deficient, decomposed granite at these excessive depths. It is recognized the applicant plans to replant the slopes; however, this major disturbance entails a difficult and questionable re- vegetation process involving guaranteed long -range cost and maintenance. The availability of a permanent water supply frorl existing springs is questionable. 4MP April 22, 1975 Boare, of Supervisors -Page. two Accordingly,. the excavation of Site #1 may Pose an aggravation Of runoff and debris from these steep slopes. It is felt this environmental factor could be an important consideration in this and thoroughly explored with event Site #2 was also excavated, the all necessary respects. In the eve % potential silt and debris movement downstream due to erosion would be much greater because the site lies partially within a drainage course and is much larger. Site 42 will pose an accelerated flood water and debris -runoff to dovmstresm are-an. In addition, the onsite watercourses will be affected by the proposed borrow. It is recommended that the matter be referred back to the Envir onmental Improvement Agency for the Preparation of a full Environmental 'Impact Report. Bill C. Mann'- Ch2ef Subdivision Division BCH:sw cc, Environmental Improvement Agency attn: Lew Walker planning Department attn: Ken Topping Flood Control Engineer RESOLUTION NO. 79 -15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF'RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING LANDSCAPING STAN- DARDS FOR SPECT.AL BOULEVARDS, MAJOR AND SECONDARY THOROUGHFARES, AND COLLECTOR STREETS AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAT, PLAN WHEREAS,- the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that i%, is necessary to set standards for landscaping along special boulevards. major and secondary thoroughfares and collector streets for the orderly implerentation of the General Plan. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the standards attached to this Resolution and has found that these standards are the minimum necessary to implement the intent and purpose of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PAEBY: 1. Adopts the attached landscape standards for special boulevards, maj ,)r and secondary thoroughfares, and collector streets; and 2. Finds that such standards are the minimum necessary to implement the intent and purpose of the General Plan. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1.979. PLANNING CC41MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of -the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commis- sion held on the 14th day of February, 1979 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: S LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL BOULEVARDS, MAJOR AND SECONDARY THOROUGHFARES, AM COLLECTOR STREETS SPECIAL BOULEVARDS: Six (6) major thoroughfares are identified as special boulevards; Foothill Blvd., Archibald, Haven, Milliken, Etiwanda, and Base- line. The text of the Plan indicates that increased landscaped parkways should be used to provide a distinct identity for special boulevards. In addition to increased landscaping, design elements such as meandering side - walks, mounded landscaping, pedestrian plazas, low profile walls and fences, and textured sidewalks and crosswalks, can be used to denote special boule- vards. A variety of designs and building placements are encouraged so that parking areas are not always located along the street frontage. Since Foot- hill Blvd. is the City's major east /west focal point, a higher standard should be used. The following standards shall be used: Foothill Blvd.: All new development or redevelopments shall provide landscaping at an average depth of 25', measured from the front pro- perty line, along the entire street frontage. In no case shall the depth, as measured from the front property line, be less than 15'. This landscaping shall be in addition to the parkway landscaping between the curb and property line ( Exbibit "A "). Other Special Boulevards: All new development or redevelopments shall provide a landscaped area across the entire boulevard frontage at an average depth equal to 20% of the depth of the property. The depth of the property shall be measured from the property line adjacent to and parallel with the boulevard to the opposite parallel property line. This landscaped area need not exceed 35' in depth; however, in r no case shall there be less than 15' in depth as measured from the face of the curb. Such area shall include any required sidewalks or walkways. (Exhibit "A") M.UOR AND SECONDARY THOROUGHFARES: Major thoroughfares not shown as special boulevards are; Carnelian /Vineyard, Fourth Street, and a portion of Milliken and Etiwanda. Secondary thoroughfares are indicated as; Carnelian, Beryl, Banyan, 19th, Arrow, Grove, Wilson, and Seventh Street. The following stan- dard shall be used-for major and secondary thoroughfares. All new developments or redevelopments shall provide a landscaped area across the entire street frontage at an average depth of 25', as measured from the face of curb. In no case shall this dimension be less than 15' in depth (Exhibit "B "). C' COLLECTOR STREETS: The remaining streets indicated on the Plan are collector streets. Staff feels that landscape standards are also needed for collectors in order to establish consistency among developments. The following standard shall be usfd: All new developments or redevelopments shall provide a landscaped area across the entire street frontage at an average depth of 20' as measured from the face of curb. In no case shall this dimension be less than 15' in depth (Exhibit "B "). 11 FOOTHILL KVD. eoTANDAR'D • --ft— . I SPECIAL BLVD, 5T MAJOR AND 5ECONOAR`( UOUROUAHFARES CCLU�CTOK eDTMETS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA ...____ STAFF REPORT Date: February 14, 1979 To: Pia • nning Commission From: .Tack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: DIRECTOR REVIEW N0..78 -12 - ALDERFER (Continued from 1/24/79) - Request for development of a two - story, 10,000 square foot office building located at 8030 Vineyard in the 0-2 zone The applicant is requesting a two creek continuance. In light of the fact that this item has been continued a number of times before with no resolution to the flood problem, we suggest that this be the last con- tinuance and a decision be made at the next meeting. This will require the applicant to submit his solutions to the City Engineer no later than Monday, February 19, 1979. Respectfully submitted, .TACK LAM, Director of Community Development • CITY OF RAND CUCA ONGA 0 DATE:' February 14, 1979 T0: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development S(RJECT: Parcel Map No. 4773 — Kortepeter — the division of 1.8 acres of land into two (2) .9 acre lots located 850' east of Etiwanda Avenue and 950' north of Summit Ave. BACKGROUND: As the Planning Commission will recall, this application was continued from the January 24, 1979 meeting to allow staff to meet with and receive input from the residents affected by this subdivision. Lloyd Hobbs, the City Engineer, and Bill Hofman, of the Planning Staff, met with the residents at the home of Gary Kortepeter on January 31, 1979. The Staff members explained the access improvement policy being proposed to the Planning Commission and the reasons for the conditions of approval placed on Mr. Kortepeter's map. In summary, the conditions are: 1. A 40' dedication of land along 23rd St. from Etiwanda Ave. to lot 1 and along the frontage of lot 1 and lot 2; 2. Full street improvements along the frontage of lot 1; 3. Deferment of improvements along the frontage of lot 2 until the time of development; and 4. 26' wide paving of the easement from Etiwanda Avenue to lot 1 and along the frontage of lot 1 and lot 2. The majority of the residents in attendance stated that they did not want to dedicate their land to the City nor pave the street. They indicated their desire to retain the rural atmosphere of the neighborhood and felt that paving would invite unwanted traffic. They further expressed their desire to stop _new..residential development along their street, however, indicated that Mr. Kortepeter's lot split could be an exception. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission is aware of similar situations involving unimproved private easements in other areas of the City. The maintenance of such easements becomes increasingly difficult and costly as development continues. The proposed access improvement policy is designed to alleviate existing access problems and prevent future ones. The residents of 23rd Street have indicated their desire to retain a rural atmosphere in their neighborhood by limiting development, however, they feel Mr. Kortepeter could be an exception. Staff's position is prior applications before the City Council have already set policy for improvements, and to waive improvements in this situation would be setting a precedent and create incon- sistencies in policy. If improvements were waived, other subdividers could de- mand the same treatment and existing access problems would perpetuate. ITEM "Q" -.f Page 2 RECOMMENDATION:__.$taff recommends 1) issuance of a Negative Declaration for �.,. Parcel Map No. 4773 and 2) adoption of Resolution No. 79 -09 approving Parcel Nap No. 4773 (with improvement and dedication of 23rd St.) Respectfully submitted, Joil JACK LAM, Director of community Development JL:BNH:elm Attachments: -Resolution No. 79 -09 Exhibit A -'Parcel Map No. 4773 Staff report-to Planning Commission, January 24, 1979 0 s a "1 I ti `T - �, Ali �'JJ i• }fi„1 1��1 Ilil r 1' 1 i C 1 • .a IA's... ,..• , , i �Ili�'I ff •i'� C � jl 1,� M 1 r. 1 � 1 11• 1 1 'i j 1Z jll I; r n I i � t 11�N 1 J. 1 • .a IA's... ,..• , , i �Ili�'I ff •i'� C � jl 1,� M 1 r. IX `1 �• ,r ' 1 'i IX `1 �• ,r ' 0 r cv' flo' h Qn I" I � I� 3 a11� �Af X�q2CE-G `l Asa =,'411 iCE f ,l/ °2 SgGtlp ski F>-^ i_ -- � \ • .t�so � �A.ccEZ �� Q e-vepooa z �z� • - — AYYLICANT: Name OfX/G7 G..E Phone =r -; , dress — v LEGAL OWNER. OF RECORD : Name Rv1//0 /..•fe-3 ZU25 4Z-lf ..Phone ` %'• Address �'•` ?LAP PREPARED BY: Name GFJ!'L�J. "VVf C•S. it f Phone - 'ye 9 - /9 &e Address TOTAL N0. LOTS Q' ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.�c 7,: S%. Z51 SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE - f3CURCE OF WATER SUPPLY:._, ;47 7�- IETHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL "' certify that I am the (check one) Wlegal owner, his authors- age vAK hat the information shown hereon a roeiCOe p.at of my knowledge. `� 0 �0 N N X l' r Map Scale (Office Use only) L.D. NO. ZONE FEE RECEIPT NO._3 =�li•%is� DATE OF`CONDIT' ONAL ACTION DATE OF FINAL APPROVAL • -a 1 1� Ij , 1 �!!:. —rte =,�,� x:.7••74 •W ..I GX—•Jr\�•(ydf •r. /(�t�f: %.fit. • csy�er O'i �`a � ry L a:1!. UGJ'v� Jim l ;liii ( FROM i:•:: DE:-:0 CF fir.GO�D� (�lla� i- nt� =J1? D (,7 G'iC .si n /zi /147• .•/1 j7 /r F. G //VL- •i3; r7 /L7 / /.NG.9 COLrJN)' !. /•PIA -; .V,l�,Z pv v• � :JG %7 . , /!•- /V.C_". CC.�V� /.' �F ••S�Oal�ira ; i. •�-zA- LCT /!: :p�rti•C'F_ : /G'7': 7iriT:✓C�- v.A'7" vsl:i i; /:(i� F .7% P "Y _�. r•F 7? /g ,y, / /,v. cJF ! pT /:: CF: S v0 i�G/.' iJ i 7: h�rVC(� c. ii7 "i. %!.• //l t / /ii; -/'il ;ti. (' /.I /•NG! F.'+ 7•[J 771� F_. / 'P /,� �-F l.O: /+.' t,:r: ? ://3 i' / -X •ii I %:'R'.'JG':= /J, �C /G'NG 7T /C G. .C.G'.= •7,/. pvr.� / - ::7 v ,r i c:l;!_r r•:= •,._(� RE,LS � /rill ; 16-ge / /.w/v/srri+,ry>re �e.si g �i..� v>/ ca b g gplie,- /Q-Cce-sv 1-; lerrrSls --�s s��s,,w cr. �s /ai �F/u'vFp4i of cledlC0 -0-1 ir5u/red ear 77.e s4 /¢/rp /irrf.V - dfirsr {s ►a�a APPLICANT: Name Gene Rice Phone 984 ^1668 Address 320 S. Laurel Ave., Ontario LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD: Name Gene Rice Phone 984 -1668 Address 320 S Laurel Ave ,j Ontario MAP/P}tEPATRE BB Y: Associated Engineers, Gntario Name! d y Gene Rice Phone 714- 986 -5848 Address 316 Cast E St„ Ontario TOTAL NO. LOTS 4 ASSESSORS PARCLTL 1402 2 5- 12 2 -7; SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE ec -2 8 T- Le GLJ SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY- METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAIA� tic Tank & Legch Lini I certify Chat I am the (check one)r-,Vllegal owner, 0 his authorized agent and th:.t the information shown hereon is true and correct to the beat of my knowledge. (Office Use L.A. NO. !D ZONE . _Z FEE RECEIPT NO. DATE OF CONDITIONAL ACTION DATE C.F FINAL APPRCV.,L S .( •afr r; �)r\ is +f tit •1 r% •W ..I GX—•Jr\�•(ydf •r. /(�t�f: %.fit. • csy�er O'i �`a � ry L a:1!. UGJ'v� Jim l ;liii ( FROM i:•:: DE:-:0 CF fir.GO�D� (�lla� i- nt� =J1? D (,7 G'iC .si n /zi /147• .•/1 j7 /r F. G //VL- •i3; r7 /L7 / /.NG.9 COLrJN)' !. /•PIA -; .V,l�,Z pv v• � :JG %7 . , /!•- /V.C_". CC.�V� /.' �F ••S�Oal�ira ; i. •�-zA- LCT /!: :p�rti•C'F_ : /G'7': 7iriT:✓C�- v.A'7" vsl:i i; /:(i� F .7% P "Y _�. r•F 7? /g ,y, / /,v. cJF ! pT /:: CF: S v0 i�G/.' iJ i 7: h�rVC(� c. ii7 "i. %!.• //l t / /ii; -/'il ;ti. (' /.I /•NG! F.'+ 7•[J 771� F_. / 'P /,� �-F l.O: /+.' t,:r: ? ://3 i' / -X •ii I %:'R'.'JG':= /J, �C /G'NG 7T /C G. .C.G'.= •7,/. pvr.� / - ::7 v ,r i c:l;!_r r•:= •,._(� RE,LS � /rill ; 16-ge / /.w/v/srri+,ry>re �e.si g �i..� v>/ ca b g gplie,- /Q-Cce-sv 1-; lerrrSls --�s s��s,,w cr. �s /ai �F/u'vFp4i of cledlC0 -0-1 ir5u/red ear 77.e s4 /¢/rp /irrf.V - dfirsr {s ►a�a APPLICANT: Name Gene Rice Phone 984 ^1668 Address 320 S. Laurel Ave., Ontario LEGAL OWNER OF RECORD: Name Gene Rice Phone 984 -1668 Address 320 S Laurel Ave ,j Ontario MAP/P}tEPATRE BB Y: Associated Engineers, Gntario Name! d y Gene Rice Phone 714- 986 -5848 Address 316 Cast E St„ Ontario TOTAL NO. LOTS 4 ASSESSORS PARCLTL 1402 2 5- 12 2 -7; SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE ec -2 8 T- Le GLJ SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY- METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAIA� tic Tank & Legch Lini I certify Chat I am the (check one)r-,Vllegal owner, 0 his authorized agent and th:.t the information shown hereon is true and correct to the beat of my knowledge. (Office Use L.A. NO. !D ZONE . _Z FEE RECEIPT NO. DATE OF CONDITIONAL ACTION DATE C.F FINAL APPRCV.,L S .(