HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/07/02 - Agenda Packetf.
- I
M.
O
O
14
I .
1.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA .
PLANNINC COMMISSION, ADJOURNED MEETING
AGENDA"
Monday, July,2, 1979s 7:00 p.m.
=: Library Oonference Room
j 9191 Baseline; Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
ACTION I. Fledge of Allegiance
II. !toil Call �
r Commissioner Dahl X Commissioner Rempel X
Ccamgissioner Garcia. X _ Commissioner Tolstoy X
Commissioner Jones X
III. Approval of Minutes'
None ..
"Dates for P.C. IV. Announcements
ISpecial Mtgs- Set
V. Consent Calendar
VI. Public Hearings
Approve 5-0 with A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN•AMEhDKENT'NO.
. 79 -002 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - -A request. for an
�,? 6_h St. to be designated
Special Blvd. to amendment, to. the Circulation Element•of the General
Vineyard Plan`to: remove and. reclassify 7th Street in the area
>'•.`f of Turnur.and Hellman and to reclassify 6th Street.
A -1 approved for VII, Old Business
s:Pilot program w /hardscape
encouraged & citywide B. REPORT regarding•.Landscapa Maintenance District
:election for inclusion of '
total city. (Dahl voted C WAIVER OF OONDITION'regarding landscape of interior
r, no parkway for Tract 9458 1oce.ed on;Baseline Avenue at
Continued to 7 11/79 Center.
Recommend that VIII. New Business
r '"C.C.- find proposal is
conformance w /Tract D. REVIEW of cradina plan for Tract No. 9423
`.9423 "& P.C. does not allow
^cross lot drainage as E. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR' REVIEW NO. 79 -40
a'policy 4 -0 -1 (Tolstoy CORAL INVESTMENT -,The development of a 5,936:'sgtu.ra'= ;
;abstained) foot medical office development to be located on'the
tApprove 5 -0 - Direct southwest corner of Seryl "aad Baseline.'.Asseesor'3
Parcel No. 208 - 011 -63.'
staff to reduce height
of'.western wall to
maximum IX. Council Referral >
r�
r'
, A , .1
;=fwe*1 S
.xryt x�x �lrY� i ``t „SS itf nS•ra 1 i`� , J11.�.{' ! ` 1 1 x r�.rµ hrji ���"'Y.` `%'A
. ?1 ��. �`i: n• �'�`�r.3+ x,�.�, d,.ftA _.. r�"?'���4i •- ''�f Y. � , ... .. , ., .. i:.nr ,.�J ,._... h�t•.7.,.at1�4;rC�4�-Y
flSS�q � i...n ,., r ... 1 r .:. k "tYef a•i1 ti.,x x f�1y. ]I>. 1.
Adjourned Pl ;" sing CommissiIon Meeting
July 2, 1979 2
Page
' .
X. Dlxector's' Rsporta
P DLR- CANYdJti S[,FMSNPARY SCgDOL,- Presentation of plans 5 '.
Continued to for''development of•,elementary school by Alta Loma
July 11,'1979 School:: District :.(ioformat ion Only).
XI. Public Comment 'Anyone wisldng to comment on any, items
not listed on the Agenda may, do so at this time.:
XII. Commission Comment .
XIIY. Upcoming Agenda for duly il, 1979
1. Negative Declaration and Director Review. M. 79 -42 f
Morgan:'
2. Negative Declaration and Director Review No 79 -44, .f,
Passan
3. Negative Declaration and Direc *ir Review No. '79
Wilcox
4. Negative Declaration w Parcel Map No. 5325 - Wilcox
5. NegativerIcIclaxatIon - Parcel Map No. 5239 -'Poly Plastics
6. Negative Declaration and Zone Chasige No..79 -D7!- B.0makian
7. Negative Declaration and Site App nodal; -No.' 79 -11 - Ol'iver
Helicopters
8-. Negative Declaration and Site llpproval No. 29 -12 - Hone
9. : Minor, Deviation No.• 79 -11' -^ Hone /Baxu�akiaa ""
10. Regaest L for Ordinance Change'.Regtirdiug Keeping of Goats
11. Geaeral',Plaa. Amendment No..79�- d1- B'-'Willism Lockhart "
12. .General Plan Amendment, No. 794i -C :.Jack'. Sylvester
13. General. Plan Amendment No. 79 -01 -1) -.City of.'.Rancho Aicamonga
14.. General Plan: Amendment No. 79-01-E,- City of Rancho Cucamonga,.,
15. General Plan .Amendment,.No. 79- 01 -H.- City of,Rancho Glicamonga'.
XIV . Ad j ourimment
i
tthy � ' rd
• , Y 4 yy t
r �4 viy !:';C x+, L }tn 1' i, z i� u IF '•i 54 � r� �Ci„ 4Z i
�{{r Nri�,,,�J �♦!�4 \f((tc...j F{ �l .. ., 4r . -... ..�/15 � yitf i�� _
�7T �i.'y�'':�+1Y 4I �r,:7iat rf.�5 !iv.T:�?'���i`�ui}f�yF,1 "�.c4i< s�.i•'i: F ': '. 't...�r 'j: '.F...,C-,��?L ,
1,
1 )
4K':
` I Y
A6.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING'COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING.
AGENDA
r.... r '
Monday, July 20.1979, 7 :00 p.m.
Library. Conf erence Room
9191 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Colmnissiown, Dahl Commissioner Hempel
Commissiont Garcia Commissioner Tolstoy
Commissioner Jones
III. Approval of Minutes
IV. Announcements
V. Consent calendar
VI. Public Hearings
+. A. NECATrVE DECLARATION ACID GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.
J9 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request for an
amendment to the Circulation;Element of the General
Plan to remove and reclassify 7th Street in the. area
of Turner and.Bellman and to. reclassify '6th - Street.
VII. Old Business
B. REPORT regarding Landscape Maintenance District
Vt
„. AI@6a0F ITIUN regarding landacap nterior
arkway for:lYact 9458 Y'ocated on eline venue at
J�
VIII. New. Bus inesa
Xr r LJ
D. REVIEW of adin lan for Tract No. 9423. f
ft \ 0 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW No 79 -40
1P11\
(bRAL INVESTMENT
The development o£ a 5,936. square
ff foot, medical . office development'to•be located an .the,
southwest corner of Beryl and Baseline. Assesaor's 4
t�FF� Parcel to., 208 - 011 -63. ~ `f
k a
J A + uncil'Refer �t}}•!
P �, � 11 •1.. �AT� 4.
QT 4
� in ll� v Ir; �Z a ,.J} � t�l r +. 1 � � 1; r ?I+A'y'�l)� �1,)�u •"'
t,?• 4
h i ° 1 .+ ,� n rw'O J 'w'.�yA u ram � •
ri �C�� i� ' :•July 2�, 19 1r c�ii �y ti:r vsr °tt � r.� ��r a + + l'
Pie 2.
V t
i. .
X. Director s, Reports
(-. F • DEER CANYON' ELEMENPARY_S_CHOOL - Presentation of plans
for, development' of elenientary.'school by Alta:%ma
School District (I2formation Only).
C {i XX. Public Comment '- Anyone - wishing to comment on any items
not listed `on, the Agenda may do so at this time.
r >. XII.,. commission 'Comment ..r.
XIII. Upcoming Agenda for July 11, 1979
v3rr`' 1. Negative Declaration and Director Review No. 79 -43 -
y Morgan
Z. Negative Declaration and Director Review No. 79 -44 -
.n, -
° 3. Negaiive_Declarat ion- and Director Review No ,79 -45
� Wilcox .
4.' Negative Declaration - Parcel Map No. 5325 - Wilcox
a
5. Declaration - Parcel Map No. 5239 - Poly Plastics'
6. Negative Declaration and Zone Change No. 79-07 Barmak'ian
`. 7.' Negative.Declaration and Site Approval No. 79-11'-. Oliver
! , , Helicopters '
4y 8. Negative Declaration and.Site Approval No. 79 -12 - Hone
9. Minor Deviation No..79 -11 Bone /Barmakian
+•. 10. Requeet for Ordinance Change Regarding Keeping of Goats
L 11. General Plan Amendment Ho:'79 =01 -B = William. Lockhart
12. General. Plan Amendment No..79,01-C jack,Sylvester
13.' General Plan Amendment No. 79 -01 -D - City of Rancho Ouramonga,
14. General Plan Amendment No. 79 01�-E - City of Rancho Cucamonga
< " 15.. General Planr.Amendment•No. 79-01-F'- City of Rancho Cucamonga
XIV. Adjournment
i
� dri +I
r t,.
,,, r, .., Jz '+�tli��r
s ,
z
,._�I Jifi.. 4t �� i� itf xi l,ll.•'tivrjl YE iC }.: r•` :.. ,." .... ..' .: �,{ e.. :. ti{ TrNS�ij u.
iE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
i
Late: June.27, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Lloyd 11abbs, City Engineer
Subject: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - CIRCULATION ELEMENT INDUSTRIAL AREA
The proposed amendment before the Commission is for the adoption of an
eas`_ -west rcute across the industrial area between Arrow Route and 4th
Street. The issues to be considered in the choice of the route are:
1. The elimination of the Seventh Street precise alignment;
2. The abandonr:ent of Eighth Street east of Haven Avenue;
3. The aloption of a Sixth Street routing from Vineyard Avenue
to Rochester Avenue.
The Industrial Area Specific Elan consultants have submitted preliminary
reports concluding that the above "issues" could be adopted as Specific
Plan elements. The Engineering Division has identified the following items,
from both the Consultant's'report and staff research, as.being of importance
in the consideration of the route adoption:
1. The area east of the Route 15 freeway, served by the under -
crossing at 7th Street, will generate about 3000 trips per
day from west of the freeway.
2. The area between Haven Avenue and Rochester Avenue will
generate from 20,000 to 50,000 trips per day along the
.','.
east -west route, with a volume less than 25,000 most
likely.
3. The proximity of 8th Street to the Santa Fe Railroad track
seriously impairs its function as an ,east -west through route.
4. Basic bridge construction costs have been provided at Deer
Creek for 6th Street and 8th Street. but a bridge on 7th
Street would be funded entirely by the City.
5. A portion of the street improvements on the north side of
6th Street between Archibald and Turner Avenues have been
y..
4`
installed at collector standards.
l
ITEM
!
1�"CL \9.Z.,i�S�St ;� , 5 C, „ pal ' r ..: J � J C ' •, .. :G '• .. .i
' • i � � `> °Eli
+
GENERAL PLAN ME iT
CIRCULATION ELE14ENT.iNDUSTRIAL AREA
June 27, 1979
Page 2
6. 8th Street serves existing residential and insutrial
development between Vineyard Avenue and Haven Avenue
and near Rochester Avenue.
7. 7th Street now exists only between Hellman and Archibald
Avenues.
8. Extension of 7th Street directly west beyond Hellman Avenue
is not possible.
9. Traffic volumes on a through route of 30,000 or more would
require a 6 -lane street.
The Engineering Division in considering the above data has made the fol-
lowing findings regarding circulation in the industrial area:
1. Seventh Street should be maintained in the General ?lan
as a Collector between Hellman Avenue and Turner Av'aue
to provide for current and pending development. Other
portions of 7th Street can be developed to serve local
areas.
KJ
2. Eighth Street should be maintained as a through route (not
on General Plan) and not be abandoned until such time as
Sixth Street has been completed between Haven and. Rochester.
Portions of Eighth Street will have to be retained pc.wanently
to serve existing development...
3. Sixth Street would provide a satisfactory through route. A
connection with 8th Street on the west end can be provided along
Cucamonga Creek. On the east end, an "S" shaped connector routing
traffic north to the existing 7th Street intersection with Rochester
Avenue can be provided. In addition, 6th Street should be extended
directly east to Rochester to provide for the eastbound to south-
bound (and reverse) move. This connection cari be built immediately
upon the development of the large Pleuss- Staufer site, providing
access to the site while the option of the "S" connector remains
mailable (refer to the attached sketches).
The portion of 6th Street between Haven and Rochester should pro-
vide. for Special Boulevard development TAi.th a 120' right -of -way.
Additional right- of-way should be obtained at major intersections.
The precise alignments at each end and the exact right -of -way require-
ments should be postponed until completion of more detailed traffic
studies.
`. r;
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
June 27, 1979
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Delete the alignment of Seventh Street from Vineyard
Averue ,;o R' ocFester Avenue; reclassify Seventh Street to a Collector
between Hellman Avenue and Turner Avenue; reclassify Sixth Street as
a Secondary Highway from Eighth Str tt v nue; adopt Sixth
Street as a Special Boulevard from Rochester Avenue
with an "S" connector north to the:Severt and ochester intersection
and a conhector.directly east to Rochester.
Respectfully ubmitted,
Llo B. Hubbs
City Engineer
LBH:PAR:deb
C
s
L'
k
{
;A 1
r is
4'
r.,
GENERAL PLAN AMET
CIRCULATION Er. Fli INDUSTRIAL AREA
June 27, 1979
Page 3
R£COM11£ND TI palate the alignment of Seventh Street r m Vineyard
Avenue to eater.Avenuet reclassify Seventh Street o a oliactor
between Street and Turner Avenuet adopt Sixth S eet aa'a Special
Boulevard from Hav n Avenue to Rochester Anenue
Vi an "5'! connector...
north to the Seven and Rochester intersection and a connecter directly
east to Rochester. ` 1
Respectfully submitted; ,.\
3'
LL S. iiUBBS,
City Engineer
LHH:PR:nm
/r
1�
r
i
i
i
r`
I
/r
t " •MKIJYM ••
. r • _ • a ,
i
oil
- ? � • r rftsc�rs.+r✓ '
74 1
. � - : f tfi• y .r ONS7 ..
i 0
it •.
�• S •+i � '•• /• r'' m a1 N N �s
! °fir
cq
ft It
� r w •N Iw P"�Ii
-1 4-14H -A -W , c
wk
i. r.+wVr. ✓7Lysv w"'/ ) ravrwrr
v
' - 1ST .•va77JA✓.r•7 Gve
g
up
i4 -
Ales
qov i
In
ON
,1� I
I I Say
+ N
'• I I .`, •+ to ill 1�
' rC I
N,v. y
w
r, Lp
i I �
i
' �-
1 _ '
{ yid 1 • � )1
41"1 PIPIT
go.
1%44
V
Al
- 51C
tgil
. . . . . . . . . .
,
I lV *J!
V.b'Yll
Ins,
f
"V P11"A
I
r4l �l
I
A
001
400•
V.
go.
I N
lk
1%44
3A
IN , I
. . . . . . . . . .
,
I lV *J!
V.b'Yll
I N
lk
3A
IN , I
I N
lk
"V P11"A
-
v L
ui
1 7 � �L'�" ✓/• I any apurd!li
aaV'ulu 1Rli���: ' j'� i -. al� 'x,'1`•1 ' � -•1
r \t,•f l • � {i' I
tcyee� S t,i' 4 }"Y9 1
i :�a Ora af+ � : a, 1•� 1 � '".ty LI�J �,r � 1,
'``• Y r.'r lia•'. �ti �. 'lprt, L�trtry1I1 C {��
�. � '�'a " Mar �Di^�l. any u•pp!IV
r tt.+ n r ;�� Ll4}i tY� •�
'
111A all �F�F,Iy' It.,.l iv1•i .aMt` ;
ON
7 U1 .•.H. iy `i a�y tt q.al �rf �•r•r 'anY Htv!taay
f R 5 a zfl L (( /• / .� iL
Ai � 4� � � ,:{i�`..W' M'Si A • P i. J.1/ 1 .. gin.
4L !
'}iq IA
f -t •4q,
1 I lti rJy . {, • tl �','1 f .r. PttIDfa�.yw�i• � ✓ � t'� r
•� 1 ,�,J /fa } 1 t 1 any raIla
r•S '.�:.:1•'S-ra• • iri J�1 '�' DIY.�r + .r. 'a.
"Aft w
' `. ! •� .1.. `' �� >�� .��;r�.,:� •J titer. -'' ��� 9 �?'.
is y .
���
• �.. Lis4y4 � �iil „'r -�.. . �i:ti.a• fats
r •'
•.• J.eM y,aT �, o ^I•i Yrlly.',. r , 7n anau • '
r .•� c �• �,��5�''I fit” f ._ � , rw +w+v w+w aT} 3
• wYy + y5C
.7 aN
•i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 27, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
Bill Holley, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
At it's June 13, 1979 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the
establishment of Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 to include new
tracts currently in various stages of construction or review. These
tracts previously agreed to the establishment and maintenance of park-
ways as a condition of approval.
At this meeting, the Commissioners indicated that they would like further
information on the following issues:
1. Cost of maintenance of all parkways Citywide on a per tot basis.
2. Uses for beautification funds versus maintenance district funds.
3. Methods available for annexation to the District.
CITYWIDE MAINTENANCE
The staff is not able at this time to precisely define the overall maintenace
cost for a Citywide program because of the uncertainty of parkway development,
parkway development standards and the lack of a complete inventory of the
parkways to be maintained. The staff is currently.working on standards for
parkway development making use of more extensive hardscape elements to reduce
planting and maintenance costs. It is expected that maintenance costs under
the revised standards will be much lower '.xran the historical costs developed
to date. Utilizing the current information and with a brief inventory cf
remaining parkways, it is estimated that per lot charges Citywide would range
from $50 to $60 per lot per year. This is a slight reduction over the l'mited
program proposed under Landscape District No. 1.
BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS
Parkways within the City fall into three categories:
1. Improved parkways adjacent to existing tracts - not maintained.
�...
2. Parkways aoutting undeveloped land - to be developed
`.
3. Undeveloped parkways adjacent to existing tracts.
r.
u;
11V iTII7 V
+
.f
r
tc i'
T
r.{
Beautification fees were developed to provide a funding source for the
development of category 3, undeveloped parkways adjacent to existing
tracts, and for development of special boulevards. These funds were
not intended to cover maintenance cost. The Beautification fees are
not a predictable source of revenue and depend on the level of resi-
dential development within the City, because they will vary from year
to year they will be used exclusively for construction.
MAINTENANCE FUNDING
No funds currently exist for the maintenance of parkway improvements and
many improved parkways are currently being lost because of lack of care.
Without development of future sources of revenue for maintenance, future
tract improvements will also be lost.
ANNEXATION TO DISTRICT
Included within the June 13, 1979 Council packet, was a detailed procedure
for the establishment of Landscape and Lighting Districts. This is the
same procedure to be used in annexation to the Maintenance District. It
is the intention of the staff to aggressively pursue District Annexations
when Landscape District No. 1 has been completed. Approval of these an-
nexations will be difficult to obtain where the majority of the residents
object to the District formation.
ALTERNATIVES
The City has.rour alternatives for funding of parkway maintenance:
1. Maintained from general funds.
2. Establishment of Maintenance Districts through phased development
and annexation.
3. Development of Citywide tax for maintenance of parkways - requires
election.
4. Do not maintain landscaped parkways.
Parkway maintenance cast will expand as development continues making funding
with general funds impossible without sacrifice of other City services.
Establishment of a Citywide tax should be pursued through election as soon
as the parkway beautification program has been established.
As a incremental step at implementing Citywide maintenance district, Alter-
native 2 should be implemented to prevent loss of current capital investments.
If none of the above are accomplished, parkways in the City will not be
maintained.
.Yy
r, r
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
June 27, 1979
Page 2
CONCLUSION
It Is recommended that the City establish Landscape and Lighting Districts
as proposed for the following reasons:
1. Without funds to maintain existing and planned landscaping, the
current investment will be lost. .
2. The established district will supply a living model of the Main -
tenance District program to encourage other areas of the. City to
join.
3. The Districts will allow experimentation to establish precise
maintenance cost and to develop cost effective maintenance
programs.
That the Planning Commission recommend the establishment of Landscape and
Lighting District No. 1 as one encompassing district with costs distributed
on a per lot basis.
i
�i
Y
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 13, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
Bill Holley, Director of Community Services
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
Attached for Commission review is preliminary information developed for the
Proposed formation of Landscape Maintenance District No. 1. Included is a
list of the tracts to be included, the procedures for establishing the
District and preliminary cost data for.maintenance of the District.
The tracts-to be included in this District were chosen because,they have
not yet left the control of the developer and remain as one owners.lip.
This fact will facilitate the formation process.
The attached meno on cost describes those methods of cost distribution
throughout the District and gives samples of typical costs under each
option.
This information was reviewed by the Citizen's Advisory Committees, who
recommended a two phased approach. The Committees were strongly in favor
of developing a parkway maintenance program, but felt that the program
should be Citywide with approval of the taxing authority by ballot measure.
Prior to this action, the combined maintenance district for the recommended
tracts was approved. This is the Plan 2 option described in the attached
memo.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend the establishment
of Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 as one encompassing district with
cost distributed on a per lot basis.
t
C,f
4
.I
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
FORMATION PROCEDURES
Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972
1.
Determination of Need for a District
The Community Development Department will determine the need for maintenance
districts on tentative tracts that have backup and side -on lots to the peri-
phery of the tract.
2.
Notification of Property Owners
All effective property owners will be notified of the Council hearing and in-
tention to form the district.
3.
Preparation of the Resolution of Intention
The Department will prepare a Resolution of Intention for City Council
approval.
4.
Preparation of District Map
The Engineering Division shall prepare a map showing the boundaries of the
the final tract
District, the lots to be assessed, and the relationship of
to the overall street pattern.
5.
Adoption of the Resolution of Intention
The City Council will adopt the Resolution of Intention, setting a time and
place for hearing protest against the District. The time and date for hear-
the Resolution of
ing protest must be set at least 10 'ays after the date of
Intention.
6.
Posting Notice of Improvement
The Engineering Division will prepare a Notice of Improvement. The Engineer-
ing Division will posi this notice at intervals of not more than 300 feet
along all streets within the proposed district. (At least three notices must
be posted.) Thc: posting must occur at least ten days prior to the time of
the hearing cf protests.
7.
Publir.,Lion of Notice of Improvement
the City Clerk will publish the Notice of Improvement in the Ontario Daily
Report and will obtain prooF of publication. The notice must be published
once, at least ten days prior to the time and date for hearing protest.
8.
Maiiina Notice of Improvement
The City Clerk will mail notices to all property owners within the District,
ten days prior to tha date of hearing.
l
0
9.
Cost Estimate
The Community Services Department will make an estimate of costs for the
District, including maintenance, water, administration and vandalism.
10.
Engineer's Report
The Engineering Division will prepare a report showing:
a. Plans and specifications of the maintenance
b. An estimate of the cost of maintenance (same as (a) above)
c. A diagram of the assessment district
d. An assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance
11.
Protests
The City Clerk will receive protests and forward them to the Community
Development Department. The Department will prepare resolutions over-
ruling the written protests.
12.
Resolution Ordering the Formation
The Community Development Department will prepare a resolution ordering
the formation of the District. A report discussing the District and pro-
test will be prepared at this time.
13.
Agenda for Hearing Protest
The City Clerk will prepare an agenda for all protests received and will
note on the agenda that protests may be received up to the hour of the
meeting and that those protests received after the preparation of the
agenda shall be heard in the order of submission.
14.
Hearing and Protests
The City Council will hold a hearing of objections. The hearing will pro-
ceed in accordance with the agenda.
15.
Filing the Resolution
The City Clerk will file a certified copy of the resolution ordering forma-
tion of the Maintenance District in the Office of the County Assessor.
15.
Tax Rate
The tax rate shall be determined by the Department of Finance.
17.
Adoption of Tax Rate
The City Council will adopt a budget and tax rate for the 14aintenance..District.
18.
Submission of Tax Rate
`
The Finance Department will submit tax rate to the County Tax Collector no
later than August 15 of the budget year. The Tax Collector prefers the tax`
rate to be submitted in duly.
G
V
STREET LENGTH.
Tract 9351 -
Mark III Homes, Inc.
Sapphire
565 x 10k
63 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9225 -
69 Lots
Lesny Development Company
447 South Fairfax Avenue
Carnelian
673 x 5
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tract 9306 -
Walton Construction Corporation
Archibald
1307 x 13h
48 Lots
51i blest Citrus Edge
P. 0. Box 775
Glendora, CA 91740
Tract 9269 -
Mark III Homes, Inc.
Wilson
Archibald
1379 x 11h
971 x 1311
53 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9268
- Mark III Homes, Inc.
Archibald
721 x 13h
53 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Amethyst
810 x 10h
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9267
- Mark III Homes, Inc.
Archibald
826 x 1311
28 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9444
- Mark III Hones, Inc.
20 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9445
- Mark III Homes, Inc.
Archibald
2140 x 12
61 Lots
2950 Redhill Avenue
Wilson
665 x 10
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tract 9440
- Chevron Construction
Hermosa
1138 x 10
45 Lots
2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9423
- Coral Investment, Inc.
23 Lots
540 South Pasadena Avenue
Glendora, CA 91740
Tract 9434
- Chevron Construction
19th Street 603 x 5
32 Lots 2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9430 - R. t.. Seivers & Sons, Inc. Wilson
29 Lots 6481 Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 8 Haven
Buena Park, CA 90620
3,365
17,645
15,859
13,109
9,734
8,505
11,151
25,680
6,650
11,380
3,015
1160 x 11 12,760
617 x 10 4,420
3-
STREE0
LCNGTH
SQUARE FEET
Tract 9436 -
Chevron Construction
Walnut
733 x
10
7,330
27 Lots
2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Haven
442 x
10
4,420
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9437 -
Chevron Construction
Walnut
1310 x
10
13,100
28 Lots
2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9454 -
Lewis Homes of California
Haven
514 x
12
6,165
59 Lots
1156 North Mountain Avenue
P. 0. Box 670
Upland, CA 91786'
Tract 9387 -
The Jones Company
Hermosa
110 x
5
550
56 Lots
10945 South Street
P. 0. Box 1178
Cerritos, CA 90701
Tract 9637 -
Chevron Construction
31 Lots
2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9638 -
Chevron Construction
Archibald
827 x
5
4,175
25 Lots
2120 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tract 9567 -
Travis L. Manning
Hermosu
494 x
10
4,940
33 Lots
2110 Hacienda Boulevard
Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
Tract 9402 -
Olympus Pacific Corporation
Lemon
977 x
5h
5,374
46 Lots
2110 East Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92803
Tract 9403 -
Olympus Pacific Corporation
43 Lots
2110 East Katella Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92803.
Tract 9480 -
Kaufman & Broad Homes, Inc.
Baseline
430 x
15
6,450
54 Lots
18902 Bardeen Way
Irvine, CA 92715
Tract 9472
- Boulevard Development
19th Street
528
x 6
3,167
60 Lots
778 South Main Street, Suite
106
Orange, CA 92688
A,
..i
E -
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: Play 11, 1979
To: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
From: Sill Holley, Director, Community Services
Subject: Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
Find attached cost information, based on current City of Ontario
figures. relating to landscape maintenance districts.
District operations cost
Per square toor, per year
a) Water. .$0.040.
b) Vandalism and repair . . . . . . . . . . 0,015
c) Equipment . . . . . . . . .. 0.028
d) Labor . . . . . . . . . .0.280
x'363
2) Other
a) Electrical, per meter., per year . . . . . .. 39.60
b) Inspections, per tract, per year. . . . . . 168.00
Methods of assessing cost
There are t ree sere ways of funding a Maintenance District,
such as we propose.
1) Each tract is a district;
2) All tracts are part of the same district; and
3) The whole City is the district.
An examination of the assessment levied against each homeowner
using "plan 1" in sample tracts 9351, 9269, and 9387, and using
the projected cost figures above, yields the following:
9351 per home, per year. $37.48*
9269 per home, per year . . . 202.32*
9387 per home, per year . . . . . . . . 13.54*
Using "plan 2" the homeowner in Maintenance District No. 1
would share equally the cost of maintaining the entire district.
With the 25 tracts in No. 1, cost to each residence would be
$75.37 per year.
Plan three, while the correct solixi.on (I continue to. hold the
minority view) is not politically feasible, and further
exploration into it will not be made at this time.
*The cost assumes that only one electrical meter per tract
is used, and this is not generally. the case in larger develop--
•�, ments. w:
1,,Loyd, we obviously have 'a serious problem. The cost to each
homeowner is too high under "plan 2' and financially out of
the question in several instances using "plan 1". We are going
to have to address cost reduction methods through. "hardscaping
some existing areas-, utiliiing beautification fees, and better
control of "financially. excessive greenery" imposed in planning
requirements. We must move quickly on this and get a policy set.
BHnL
CC: Lauren Wasserman
Date:
To:
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
June 27, 1979
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
n
u
Fran: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: WAIVER OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR TRACT NO. 9458 - Request
for waivar of condition for irrigation of public rights -of -way
(Parkways+) within the tract boundary for the tract located at
Baseline and Center
ABSTRACT: Tract No. 9458 was approved by the County Planning Commission
on October 24, 1976. One condition of approval read as follows: "Parkways
on all lots and side yards for corner lots adjacent to a street shall, Le
landscaped and provided with a Eermanent operating irrigatin oystem prior
to the final clearance issued by the County Department of ai lsing and Satiety ".
The intent of the above mentioned condition is that parkways within the
tract on the exterior of the tract be landscaped and provided with permanent
irrigating system. In actuality, the conditions of approval on all of the
County tracts within our City has been the provision of street trees as land-
scaping for interior parkways with street trees and shrubbery for exterior
parkways, such as along Baseline. It should be noted that in no case has
the County required irrigation systems in the parkways along interior streets
within a tract. The way the above mentioned condition is worded, it requires
the developer to supply a permanent irrigation system in the parkways within
the interior of the tract.
Attached you will find a letter from the developer requesting that the
requirement for lcnascaping (shrubbery, ground cover and street trees)
and for irrigation in the interior parkways be waived. It should be
noted that the developer has already installed street trees in the interior
parkways and that the homes are complete with some of them already occupied.
ANALYSIS: It is our opinion that the Commission has the following alterna-
tives regarding the developers rc st:
1. Deny the request and require the developer to install permanent
irrigation syster.s in the parkways within the interior tract.
2.8 Modify the condition to require the developer to install a PVC
3/4" schedule 40 pipe underneath the parkway for future connee
tion for an irrigation system that would be supplied by the
owner of the house.
3. Waive the requirement for the installation of an irrigation
system within the. interior parkways of the tract.
ITEM 11R"
The reason this request comes before the Planning Commission is because
originally the conditions were set by the County Planning Commission and
can only be waived by:a sim:aar body.
RECOMMENDATION: It iii recommended that the Planning Commission choose
one of the alternatives outlined above.
Respe tfully ubm ted.,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL : BKH::mt
Attachments: Letter of Request from Developer
Tract Map ?to. 9458 — Vicinity Map
M
it
- -
1617 Westcliff or. Suite 211. Naevport Beach. Ca. 92860 -7144 B45 -1373
June 12, 1979 u
J' V.
;,i i Y .`F.. RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY 1 ELOPMENT DEPT;
!";241979
W FM
Cit-.,, of Rancho Cucamonga 'zi$1$11Gill1I:1112131$�$1�
98320 Baseline i
Alta Lome, California
Attentions BF Hogan
Res Tract 94513 Baseline at Centel'
Dear Mr. Hogan s
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of June 12, we are hereby requesting
your waiver of the interior streets parkway landscaping requirements imposed
by the county approximately two years ago. The landscaping requirements
then imposed by the county on tractn being processed were subsequently
eliminated, however, other than a varbal 'don't worry," this writer received
no written confirmation, as our Tract folders were in boxes going to the
city, etc, etc.
Our landscape bond renewal on this tract occurs June 22, 1979, and since
it appears that we cannot get on the planning commission agenda prior to
the 28thor Junes we are hereby requesting that you allow release of the
landscape bond, and in return, we will post a cash bond pending our
hearing. A letter to that effect will allow the bond release.
It should be further noticed that the parkway along Baseline Street has
been fully sprinklered and landscaped.
Very truly yours,
H & 5 DEVELOPMENT CO.
Peter R. Hubinger
General Partner
PRH1 jh
�I
f,
Ilk
5!
� '• 1 r ,i f �`�. ).• � fZ�rva �" t�r0. *ill r) }. s�p�v�•'1�, �t,�•.�i�ri. .►��.
S.
TR ACT NO 9458 $lAde7 Z.M Z $Nff
ere /•
IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRI'T'ORY OF
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDNO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6f /NJ
CCrWO 5l.1G00/Y'l5•eCN a o l�A'IbPrIrON .M CajO•^T, 1 tP$•aj,O,i7r N . L %1.1 U f7 F 1 H4, .i �KMOF CKI
A Mr r
,1
J. A K4P50 4f AXg0C/Ari4r l vc.
• aeelfera roz n _ d„J
� q,. ..... 1. .., tr1••a nnv rtr ....i....alr:w •�i�•waNrrr wrr.•r wr� ew s•r ..
..r• r wL•.rs.[NL,a
ta; :.i'.�. �.: �::..''��.r1• I A' >.P aYf!'v :c r..r'.: (.'rizap)
r •r11 rY —_ n •. v`-
/ Ol.ir•P.nul I .
Uu.r•1 II ° 8A5E L NE
I
,Py!a
I ,� ;� p c:'r.n•w.. :, r_nr•rr ,' o w• NJ ter'
f • s .u.i> •� aYiw 'M rU
. r n •. r JM G ,a � •, l'•. I
-`7i �1r'i= � V+ra.Y, {rr �aJ�,,p,-._ �n'ru_ rr �Y ��.Yiw4.ar` 4 :..:•
. I�r �d 1111 I¢ •'' `•< ����KB �'�7 �f�
T rl i ,I •R aPPie arPirr : 'Hi).. a 4!00& r `
Ch r. •e•r _.. -_�V � -•r {•. r'r.w_uj sl� a 1. r�Jf ,�r
N[riir Nor �•1 <
2� fr' L-04st
•rf: .� , . ti t 1 t j7,:
�'� ,i, .f0 .. • .. r •• r.ti ;2
Z's
�i r;d 1 . . •+a. r 1. rr^^ �t� Ir
29 ,'w•.r «.. rr1'u1. 11 w
22 .1 70�
U )v•
.: 'tlr. 3 � .., ` .tf� .f• :I .! Laiu12
•+ il` . i t• �r Z c
r, a llMrnmwl.. _ J.R' r rYY '(r
..?, s G 4•.nM _ . 1
r isr a i
' 14 ( �e •
%Sf
of
= 'InY,. (...rc .r�. •i� A p'`..� ,`.. •i
i q
� ° d .� {... X 'L•r r naa)n ery I��r1__ •. .� .f.L
ti t + r ?ice {•: �~
7 •i: �• • ..
Nj
I I_, . Lii..:r`ri • Z !. r xi Y�Y rr
I ` : b:!r3• w ranY�!' p• n AW1NnOR J V r
1 i I,ra , •, 1 !B �;,f i °t •••..1, J, deli• } !
MN'f> 1!•M 1PJ• „• ��6!r of ON tM'f
a.r. me /f& .I
far..a' 7
psi S.
(. rrr rr) i su _as /KaVt) �'' .. _. /• ..r
�• NrJ•SS'ri£ iG 1r lD' st. rr rralra ar.lr.f�
�Irr /•.i[ /n r. •M �f MN. °, / "M .•• /'eir. -
Ise 11 N•.Y.wa Mfu lr U•MIN wro a.. FJr�11 >r, '•
�? /ru>.iiFEQg w %cs
dlr perXlll71lMWY7 lv /At Atlr/O
},� �Atif vr/lA;mwr r {.r. urra rF
sr -f rrr rrna ':.( _ .1 a}
I.
l 3¢.
r'
EXI 6D Oes
f ZES I DEAJT'I1
Ito
,i
4
Al" �•`
4,1 {
iC
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE: duly 2, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TRACT 9423 GRADING STANDARDS AND TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW
Attached for Commission review is a copy of Tentative Tract Map 9423 approved
by the County on August 199 1976. Minor revisions to this map have been ap-
proved by the staff to allow Beryl Street to shift westerly 10 feet and to
combine lots 1, 21 3, and 4 into ona lot which was subject to zone change at
the June 27, 1979 Planning Camission meeting. During plan check of this
tract, it was noticed that the tract has two problems related to City adopted
interim grading standards.
1. Lot 15, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 drain to the rear through
adjacent properties (cross drainage).
2. Lot 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 have slopes in excess of
10 feet and in.some croes up to 14 feet (see shaded
areas on attached map).
3. Yard areas are reduced significantly because of ex-
cessive slope areas.
Drainage patterns shown on the final grading plan are ;imilar to those submitted
through the tentative phase, however, slopes shown on the current plan signifi-
cantly exceed those shown on the approved tentative map.
In general, the proposed subdivision of this hillside property into 7200 square
foot lots has resulted in several undesirable drainage and design aspects. The
staff has reviewed the areas of concern with the applicant and his engineer to
develop alternative design solution that would mitigate the excessive slope pro -
blems and cross tot drainage. The applicant tentatively agreed to the construc-
tion of retaining walls to reduce slopes and increase yard areas and has proposed
that cross lot drainage be handled through the construction of concrete lined
ditches adjacent to sideyard block walls (see sketch).
Because the staff is trying to eliminate these types of design features, it was
determined that this project should go to the Commission for review and determina-
tion of substantial compliance with the tentative map.
This item is meant as a review of this tract and as a policy guidance issue in
the area of tract grading.
TRACT 9423
July 2, 1979
Page 2
Tract 942,, Grading Options_
For Tract 9423,-the proposed construction of walls and channels would appear
4.1. b t 1 ti tc the radi robiems that maintains the current lot
9
to be a es so u on ng p
configurations. Other options would involve redesign of streets to allow
drainage to public maintained rights of way and would likely result in the loss
of building sites and could decrease grading impacts.
Issues
The Commission is asked to make determinations on two issues:
1. Is Tract 9423 as submitted in substantial complaince with
the tentative map submittal and should it be allowed to
record?
2. Does the Commission wish to allow as a policy the practice of
cross lot drainage where better design solutions can be developed?
Respectfully submitted,
LloW Hubbs
City Engineer
W�•�rl
F1i
1
. .l
. 1
1•• 1
:J
Wall
Sr4s
a
3;
s�
S {a$
6]
f
Y
Y
UltrtM I/II ;11rrt
®1 1, YI ,.Fy , i "1!
1
p
■u11_ L. r.ri
i TENTATIVE MAP
)TRACT IBC,. 94 3
II: I TNt 000INII Cr SAX /t 1 MR 2CI••:
} 11[11; l 21001 MIN V rwna 9 lt1S 1 r•a 10. cr SMITII:..
j-- CLVY'%G 111•:IH7 ISitT. 11 t! :XUO IN Itr 21 d )WS. HL S': •.
Itttzios OF THE COATT ? wl tSaJVINL Stitt a MIr1P1M
' I
t'
I :
i tYwntt/. u1YM1 asr1
1g
Cn.t 7•«uw., Ir. sell., I w14 1.gfr
11
n
8.11140 [IIM.rui 1'11 /J/
i
1
I
tu•uS•}I/I It, cr .
,LNL1.. i.Nw,l,
{
y
PI /u. •t• Il.
•
O.un.. RIryI
f
1
�
11
P14.114.1111
•
•
iI
I
+•�•• 1.
`
.•
,5t
I
Y'.ru
1. M wFYI w Yglw w r MI pYl N r•FIM.
fr
1
_
i
.. YY plwq.pwlYlrY•NpF wlY pWl•1�
• 1
{I
1pwrlq
x'MWYr\0ebsto1YL N•Xwl
Y•w...
NN•/\FII »pJ+IW .N.IgNNY-I -4.w "w ,n•rN.xWNW
I M
\. ..YI \„MM M,•.•11 W.i, YN ylw rMtN,M r••r t � �u� • •~ HI•,
1
A
t
;'�
I
• wwu .nn .W&eege •..... rrNr 1
ft.Ua
wrl.»I
li,
1.... _ ..
••O
+`
WI pl K. 01 ••� + +X II.'i _,MNI'r.W
Yy
•
1 p
y MM•tM. M �r .. N Y
i
�
� \\
M1 .w 1.IGlIM p1
INwwlw•pM •411N1
'I
l._• _ —
I
C I •�I I\
•
��1
I
•I. p.
�.\
.V
'f
—1
InWN plrt••14P IA NNI Ir1111
�T� f
i
�`
• Ytl lwl.pnw Wlpl.m. nN bbr q. NN1•.
1.1
•�
,
` /
.• •
• I _
Iw• w111Nt1 U NIF
•
`
`
e.. .11 el,
YrNll wun q . l »Iq lu rN.
b• Y.,.toul q. Yw'M N•IYM14YI. YY.FNIr.
(11
{
.I•
WG. M \NMNL 1111\IWI Y IIW .WI i
li p1r'II�w
W W. W. Y YpW p M lw•w Y {» w111YM �•w wpY
'oeft
,\
�1
111
•
wwIG XYW. NIwY.y •Ypnp
�• pppM{ bYp Y.N IIINGY
wV.
q
t 1�p
I
•r
�—
I
`
1
wMlr {.•IFI.Nq�WMIWY
io '
—.
/wurr vrwnta
I
»IYI r •.
:.� wl 1w n, •1.1 r..l nul.Nw. Fr ..�w.N rwl
rLp, XlNllpliil YMn.pWIr.M 1MrF
,q �,
_
Q} 11.1•
1�
�p .11 .MYWMIMt�x�nN X.X INI w11NMH•r••.. "r••I.MpM
�y +' 1 iew:.1•'�11'1 t •' +R fy�r
FI:i'11'•;1w
•
• \. •. RMrL I[RIRr1rrN. `
N p yX11 WwW
�*—.— marl
�1 µ�i.lr..N
X
I � IY«ili Y ca i rM r t 1 M4..a'i4
INI.41 q Iw NNI � MGNIw.
II11.�
^xx �J•y� ��
�
UNM1w,YpY•I1NN'M INpLNI•Y IYI
• 1
M" Nlwlwlu Ili Ywlii u•iu11 Ywilwr`1.4..r.��lrul Yplpsp
pNNw
ulwl .ii uw�1 iili iinwi� «Fi IIII, F,nrl wr. r In .w rYri w.w.�w• �•.r.,•
ra:t
-
" 44&*yti oF. 2: / see
1.
}f'tJ
A
k%kL n
p 72:41
19
1
f .'a
J'
y.'
SGT 9�•Z3 -;�
PRa�AS�� .5l�PE� friv� l7Rfh�NA�Fs �,�
�raU,uTroN 1�
. -,F•.. t. :ni;yi..4
.. i..: .i- i...•..,..
rr�:.;�a•� .— �i .ra'i•.'
�
pRp1l�AiaC.r.
,� DKAINA�
d-
A
k%kL n
p 72:41
19
1
f .'a
J'
y.'
SGT 9�•Z3 -;�
PRa�AS�� .5l�PE� friv� l7Rfh�NA�Fs �,�
�raU,uTroN 1�
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT A'
GENCY
PLANNING DEPAnTMENT
7111 East Mill Street, Bldg. 1 - San Bernardino, CA 92415 - (714) 383-1446
•REVISED CONDITIONS 383 -1379
November 15, 1976
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS
Tentative Tract No. 9423
(Cucamonga)
DEVELOPER:
Coral Investment, Inc.
540 S. Pasadena Ave.
Glendora, CA 91740
11
County rl 5 -- Pe,nar:li!
Kenm111C loqump
EXPIRATION DATE- February 19, 1978
ENGINEER:
Associated Engineers
316 E. "E" Street
Ontario, CA 91764
This will advise you that after completion of the environmental
review process, and due consideration thereof, Tentative Tract Ila.
9423, 6 acres, containing 23 lots, was conditionally approved by the
Planning Commission at its meeting of August 19, 1976. Said Tentative
Tract was found to be in compliance with Section 66474 of the
Subdivision Map Act and was approved subject to the conditions as set
forth on attached pages 2 of 6 through 6 of 6.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING DEPABT4*;NT
Tommy H. Stephens
Design Review Section
THS:bg
cc: County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
Dept. of Transportation
Flood Control District
Surveyor
Env. Health Services
Dept. of Bldg. & Safety
Firewarden
Special Districts
Sheriff
State Division of Real Estate
107 S. Broadway;, P.00m 8003
Loa Angeles, CA 90012
1. GOODlnrl p:" r!It IIANSDL'nt;C FI
• i IJ.1 .il $nl n.. s..r
... IL•r•1 ln."1.1 7-.1-11 L 4 -.N•.1 ' I
`; i
Tract No. 9423 ZCucamc��) -Page 2 of 6 r
August 19,* 1976
7
STANDARD REQUIREMMTS:
2
3
The water system and fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance
4
with the requirements of the State Health and Safety Code, and in
5
accordance with ?lans approved by the San Bernardino County Health
6
7
Department and the governing fire protection authority.'
B
rascmer•ts and improvements shall be provided and drainage coordin-
10
ated in accordance with plans approved by the San Sernardi::o County
11
.
Health Department and the governing fire protection•authority.
12
Where a bond is to be posted in lieu of installation of the improve
13
Mont: -
14
15
16
The domestic water.plan and /or sewer plan shall be reviewed
17
by a civil engineer, registered in the State o_ California,
is
and said engineer shall determine the amount of bond necessary
to install
19
the improvements. This amount plus ton percent
shall be posted with the County of San 13crnardino.
20
' 21
22
The presently required certificates on water naps for the
23
water com;:any and engineer must still be placed on t e Mae.
In addition•a
24
statement shall be transmitted to the :°.blic
25
Health Department signed by the registered civil enc_reer
for
26
the %•later purveyor stating that the amount of 5ot,=
27
recommended is adequate to cover the cost of installation
of the improvement.
28
29
30
Further, prior to release of the bond for the impro:•cnent,
31
the Cucamonga County Crater District -i)all sub.-it a sinnea
32
statement confirming that th_ improvement has been i ^stalled
according to the approved
33
plans and meets the :equircrents
of all appropriate State and County laws. pertaining to
34
improvement. such
35
36
37
In cases where the water agency or sewering agency is a
governmental•subdivision, prior to final recording of the
a30
39
tract map, the governmental agency shall submit a statement
directed to
I' 40
the County stating that the impro^emcnt has
been installed according to the
41
approved plans or stating
thW+ uond in the amount of 110 perzent of the cost in-
42
�s 43
of
st.allation of the improvement has been placed with t're agency.
x.44
c'. 45
sidewalks shall be provided throughout the tract including all peri•-
1: 46
pheral streets.
47
4Z3I
( Street lighting shall be provided throughout the tract including all
peripheral
;� ; :4 9•
streets. .
50
X51
Utilit; lines shall be.placed underground in accordance with the
requirements
52
of Couni:y Ordinance No. 2041.
553:
X5:4
*STItRET, GRADING AND DRAINAGE• RL'QUIREMCNTS:'
F
t
s "x
5.5;County
Road Depa:rtment:'
5,G,'
Tract No. 9423 (Cucamon�j
2
3
4
6
II
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1II
19
20
21
22
23
24
26 2
27
28
29
30
..31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
L;41
42
43
44
45 ;
46 !
47
4 0'
49
5D
r0
Page 3 of 6
August 19, 197C
Road sactions within the tract are to be designed and constructed
to Valley Standards.
Any grading within the road right of way prior to the signing of the
improvement plans must be accomplished under 'the direction of a Soil
Testing Engineer. Compaction tests of embankment construction, trench
backfi'l, and all subgrades shall be performed at no cost to San,
Bernardino County and a written report is to be submitted to the
Contracts Division prior to any placement of base materials and /or
paving. -
Final plans and profiles shall show the location of any existing
utility facility that would affect construction.
A thorough evaluation of the structural road section, to include
parkway improvements, from a qualified materials engineer will be re-
quired.
A copy of the grading plan shall be submitted to the Road Department..
Vehicular access.rights are to be dedicated on Base Line.
Any existing County road which will require reconstruction shall
remain open for traffic at all times, with adequate detours, during
actual construction. A cash deposit shall be required to cover the
cost of grading and paving prior to recordation of the tract map.
Upon completion of the grading and paving, to tha satisfaction of the
Road Department, the cash deposit raay be refunded.
All existing easements lying within the future right of way are to be
quit - claimed or delineated, as per County Surveyor's requirements,
prior to recordation of the tract map.
An adequate drainage easement will be required with adequate improve-
ments, as determined by the ]toad Department and the Flood Control
District, together with the necessary offsite easements to convey
drainage from this tract to the natural drainage swale existing
offsite. the tract boundary.
Flowage easements or San Bernardino County drainage easements may be
required where diversion of runoff from the tract dewaters onto
private property.
All road names shall be coordinated with the County Transportation
Department Traffic Division.
Trees, irrigation systems, landscaping required to be installed on
Public right of way within this tract area shall be maintained by
others t:.za County Transportation Department, and evidence of such
arrangement of such maintenance with the appropriate County Service
Area shall be presented prior to acceptance of these roads into the
County 'Maintained Road•System.
The Engineer shall establish the ultimate alignment of Daryl Street
taking into consideration existing development on the east side of
Beryl Street. {
Tract No. 9423 (Cucama)
Revised
Page 4 of 6
November 15, 1975
i
County Division of Building and Safety:
_2
3
A preliminary soil report, complying with the provisions of
4
Ordinance 1928 shall be filed with and approved by the Director of
5
Building and Safety prior to recordation of the final map.
6
7
Grading plans to be submitted to and approved by the Building and
8
Safety Department.
9
10
Obtain a demoliton•permit for buildings to be demolished. Undergroun
11
structures must be broken -in, backf-illed, and inspected before coveri.
12
13
Submit plans and obtain building permits for walls required.
14
15
County Flood Control District:
16
17
Adequate provisions should be provided along the tracts west boundary
18
to intercept t1v m?.nor local drainage and convey it around or through
19
the tract in a manner which will not adversely affect adjacent or
20
downstream property. The existing concrete block wall and Garnet
21
Street along the west tract boundary should intercept a portion of
22
drainage.
23
24
Adequate provisions shall be made for handling onsite drainage and
25
dewatering the tract in a manner which will not adversely affect ad-
2G
jacent and downstream property.
27
2g
Grading and improvement plans shall be submitted for review.
29
30
All lots shall be graded to drain to streets. If lots are not gradec:
31
to streets it is assumed the cross -lot drainage will be reviewed by
32
County Builiding and Safety Department and provisions for handling
33
same made under the various ordinances involved.
34
35
*In addition to the Street and Drainage requirements, other "on- site"
36
or "off- site" improvements may be required which cannot be determined
37
from tentative plans and would have to be determined after more complete
38
improvement plans and profiles have been submitted to the County Road
39
Department:
40
41
WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL:
42
43
The water purveyor shall be Cucamonga County Water District.
44
95
Sewage disposal shall be by connection to Cucamonga County Water
461
District sewers.
47;
48
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AM ZONING:
49
V-50
Existing and proposed zoning is R -1.
=52
-All lots' should have -A minimum area of 7,200 square feet, a minimum ;
_:' 53
depth of 100 feet and a minimum width of 60 feet (70 feet on corner t
lots). In addition, each lot on a cul -de -sac or on a curved street
"55
where the side lot lines thereof are diverging from the front to rear
5G
..•of. the, lot, shall have a width of not less than sixty (60) feet.'
l
Tract No. 9423 (Cucamonga)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
No
28
29
30
31
" 32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Al
A2
93
44
45
46
47
•4 E
d9
_50,
Page 5 of 6
Revised November 150 1976
measured at the building setback, line as delineated on the final
tract map.
Variable front building setback lines of at least twenty -two (22)
feet and averaging at least twenty -five (25) feet and side street
building setback lines of fifteen (15) feet shall be delineated on
the final tract map.
A minimum number of fifteen (15) qallon trees shall be planted in
the parkway for each of the following types of lots;
a) cul -de -sac lot - one (1) tree;
b) interior lot - two (2) trcas;
c) ccrner lot - three (3) t:.ees.
The variety of tree to be provided is subject to County approval.
Prior to recordation, three (3) copies of a Landscape and Irrigation
Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and
approval.
Graded slopes shall be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1
and a maximum vertical height of 30 feet, or as approved by the
Planning Director, Building and Safety Department, and Engineering
Geologist.
Graded slopes shall be contour - graded to blend with existing natural
contours and developed with a minimum radius at intersecting
horizontal planes of two (2) feet (measured one (1) foot_ from top o
tre of slope) , and a maximum horizontal length of two hundred (200)
feet.
when graded slopes occur within or between individual lots, the slope
face shall be a part of the downhill lot and any graded slope exceeding
a 4 to 1 ratio and greater than a total of five (5) feet in vertical
height, as well as any inaccesible lot area created by a graded slope
in excess of ter (10) feet in vertical heights shall not reduce the
usable portion of the lot to less than the following applicable
percentage of the permitted minimum lot size:
A. 7,200 square feet 808
B. 8,500 square feet 758
C. 10,000 square feet 708
D. 15,000 square feet 708
E. 20,000 square feet 708
Landscaping and irrigation shall be provide3 for all graded slopes
in excess of five (5) feet in vertical height. Where slopes exceed
a 3 to 1 rorio, and are greater than ten (lip) feet in height, they
shall be covered with jute matting, or similar, and planted at the
following minimum ratios in aesthetic groups:
A. Trees (50% 15- gallon /508 l- gallon minimum) - one per each.
250 square feet.-
B. Shrubs (1- gallon minimum) - one per each 100 square feett.
C.'Ground coyer - as required.
5.
UM
2
4
5'
e"
1
Tract No, 9423 (Cucama'nga)` Revised•November 15, 1976
Page 6 of 6
1
Z
The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas shall be the
responsibility the
.3
oc,s developer until the transfer to individual
ownership or until the maintenance is officially assumed by
•4
a
County Servics Area.
5
6
7
All .irrigation s;+stems .where required shall be designed on an
8
individual lot basis unless commonly maintained in an approved
manner.
9
10.
1.1
Fifteen (15) copies of -a revised tentative tract map shall be*
12
submitted to show Beryl Avenue aligned with the existing Beryl
Avenue
across Baseline.
1`3
14
,15 _
1M
r,1
19
20
21
22 `
23
24
25
26
27
128
UM
2
4
5'
e"
.'� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: July 2, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW nu. 1y -4u — Wrai
Investment - Request for the development of a 5,526 square
foot medical office development to be located on the south-
west corner of Beryl and Baseline known no Assessor's Parcel
No. 208- 011 -63.
ABSTRACT: As the Commission will recall, an earlier discussion this
evening was the review of grading plans for Tract 9423. If the Com-
mission ties favorably considered approval of the grading plan for Tray
9423, then they should proceed on this item. If Favorable approval of
the grading plan has not been given, this item should be held in abeyance
and continued until such time as the City Council can act on the Commis-
sions' recommendation.
The proposed site consists of a medical building approximately 5,536 square
feet in area and the provision of 28 parking spaces. The subject property
has 94 feet of frontage along Baseline and 261 feet of frontage along Beryl
Street. The applicant proposes to locate a 2 -story office structure on the
northern half of the proposed property. There will be one means of vehicular
access gained to the property from Beryl Street approximately 128 feet from
the intersection of Beryl and Baseline. Parking code for office requires
that the applicant provide one space per 200 square feet of gross floor
area which requires the applicant to provide 28 spaces. A block wall is
being provided at the top of the slope of the western property line in addi-
tion to the six foot masonry wall being provided on the southerly property
line.
The building is to be constructed o-it of tan slump block accentuated by dark
stained wood. The roofing material will be Spanish tile. One trash enclosure
has 'azen provided to City standards. The conceptual landscape plan appears to
provide adequate coverage for the site.
ENVIROtN1ENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has field checked the site to verify the
information provided in the Initial Stcdy. We find that there will be no
adverse significant effect due to the project and therefore recommend issuance
of a Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 79 -48 approving Director Review No. 79 -40.
r,
JACK LAM, Director of Attachments: Development Exhibits
Community Development Initial Study
Resolution No. 79-48
YL:BRH:CUa
4111.
I
LA
1
L.
�y
.I
,Z` w
PART I -- PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
.i.
e
For All projects requiring environmental review, this
form must he completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is male. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff gill 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 tf.me the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three deteLminations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and ;:eg ?ti.ve Ucclaration will be
filed, 2) The project wits have an environmental impact
and an T:nvironmentr.l 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: Professional Office Building (Medical / Doctor)
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS TELEPHONE:
Coral Investments, Inc. .540 9. Pasadena Ave flue
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: for Panasiti, c/o Coral Inv.
IOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Southwest corner of Baseline and fleryl SlrcFt
208 -011- 3
LIST OTTIER PERMT.TS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND:"`
FEDERAI. AG; NCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCFI PERMITS: '- 3
Cna_ineering, . Building and Enroaehment Permits from City of Rancho
Cucamonga.'•• �
e
y
r : 146
III
1171
�i.
�J :1
I
i +
JIM 11
{ .
®nc
\tip:
lnl!�Illlry q' ^. .
-.,III �.' r` ...
II`I
I•��" ht
I1
I
I F.
11i,� II
11 fie(
,4
Fr ?
PROJE Z2L .Sian PTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Construction of a Professional Office
Building for doctors and med
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Total site area =+
Gross area of. proposed building g c -� - 24,500 s.C.
DESCRIDL TI1F EN %1TRONPIE*TTAI, SI "!a7'TNG Or TIM PROJECT SITE
INCLUDItIG INFOWIL1TION ON Toroclt'1PHY, PLIMTS (TREES),
ANIRALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCFtllc ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND Tilt DESCRIPTION OF ANY .
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SIIEETS)s
Proposed building to be erected on a graded pad which will be oradaa
1a�n rauoils, squirrels, varies species of birds, and other animals
bit the adiacnnt
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a ss
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environment
No al impact?
a=
Al
Y�
ak•i : : 1
x- 2
WILf.'T MOOC.CTi
Yrs w
X 1. Create -a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in exsting
noise or vibration!
.. _ X 3. Creat_.: a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)!
X
A. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5; Remove any existing trees? How many?
X 6. Create the need for use or'disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flaminables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
A zone change application from R -1 to A -P is
r
IMPORTANN If the project involves the construction of
residential units, gomplete the form on the
next pF.ge.
VERTIFICATlnN. I hereby certify that the statements iurnishG�'
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best or my aiiility, and that the Cnct:n, katements, and
i.nformnt•i.on 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 adcqunte evaulation can ",)e made by the Develarmtnt -;
Review Committee.
Dake Signaturev
Title.
Z .
aU
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -48
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -40
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BERYL AND
BASELINE IN THE A -P ZONE.
WHEREAS, on
the 13 day of April, 1979, a complete application was filed for
review of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on
the 2nd dey of July, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
C.ommissiun held a
meeting to consider the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1:
That the following findings have been made:
1. That the site 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
required by this section.
2. That the improvements as indicated on the development
plan are located in st!ch 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 June 27, 1979.
SECTION 3:
That Director Review No. 79 -40 is approved subject to the
following conditions:
Applicant shall conta::t the Planning Division for compliance
with the following uovr!itions:
1. Parking lot lights shall be a maximum height of 1V
and directed away from all property lines, adjacent
streets and residences.
2. All parking .spaces uhall be double striped.
3. Any signs proposed for this development shall be
derigned in conformdncz with Comprehensive Sign Ordinance
and shall require review and approval by the Planning
i
Division prior to installation of such signs.
4. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted
to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the
at
icauance of building permits.
5.
All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy
and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash and debris.
6,
Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, sball
be installed in accordance with the Master Plan of street
trees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
7.
Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved
site plan on file•in the Planning Division and the conditions
contained herein.
B.
Trash receptable areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high
masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards.
Location to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
9.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditoners, shall be
architecturally integrated and shielded from view and the
sound buffered from adjacent properties and.st•eets to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division and Building official.
10.
Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with
all sections of the Zoning ordinance aad all other applicable
City Ordinances in effect at time of Building Parmit issuance.
11.
Approval of Director Review.79 -40 is granted subject to the
approval of Zone Change 79 -05.
Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for compliance
with
the fo ?.lowing conditions:
12.
Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of
way, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the
City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits
required.
13.
Approved street improvement plans prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer shall be required, for all street improve -
manta, prior to issuance of encroachment permit.
14.
All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, prior to occupancy.
15.
Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney,
guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior
to issuance of building permits.
.,
16.
Construct the following missing improvements on the following
'-°
streets: Baseline - curb & gutter, A.C. pavement, sidowalk,
street trees and street lights. Beryl - curb and gutter.
A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approach, street trees and
street lights.
17.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic and street name signing
t
plan shall be required.
a
7
0
18. An approved grading plan and soils report in accordance
with the City grading standards will be required.
19. The applicant will be responsible for construction of
all onaite drainage facilities .required by the City
Engineer.
20. All proposed utilities within the project shall be
Installed underground.
21. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification
of the appropriate utility companies and the City
Engineer.
22. Developer shall be responsible for the relocation-of
existing public utilities, as required.
23. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of
street lighting in accordance with Southern California
Edison Company and City standards.
24. Water and sewer system plans shall be designed and
constructed to meet requtromeats of the Cucamonga
County Water District (CCWD), Foothill Fire District
and the Environmental Health Department of the C,)unty
of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from LjCWD
will be required prior to recordation.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Comsisaian
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resol•ition was duly and regulary introduced,
passel, and adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held the
on 2nd day of July, 1979,
by the following vote to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
c: l !
r•.
4