Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981/02/17 - Agenda PacketJ , '�� :',� ;. �� r Sri , � r ,;• 1 V )�, r •:� .; � ". ant �� i � , ��; r 1 v 1 �•• 1 1/ 1 1 v � "� :I 1 1 r 1 I I � tll QI Y� � 1 }�rl •11 it 11 1„ )I• �Y r 1 I,I i 4 wi \I 1. 1 , r�• j a_'.C� ciry OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PL ANNM C0MMJ!§.q0N AGENDA, . TUESDAY, FEERUARY 17, 1961 LION'S PA.RK•COMMUNI7Y CENTER 9161 EASE LINE, RANCHO CUC.!ONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Sceranka Commissioner King Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Rempei —` III. Announcements IV. Final Wrap -up of Remaining Land Use Consider tion s At the direction of the Commission, staff was asked to consider several land use alternatives. it is anticipated that action on these remaining land use considerations will complete the Planning Commission review of land use considerations. V. Consideration of Revised General Plan and Environmental Impact Report During the course of the past public hearings before the Planning Commission, numerous revisions have been made to the Draft General Plan and land use map. staff has inserted these changes into the Draft General Plan for consideration by the Commission. It is anticipated that the Commission will review these changes and consider for adoption the Draft General Plan at their next meeting, Feb- ruary 29. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for considerotior.. The Planning Commission will also make a recommendation to the City Council on accept - ance of the Environmental Impact Report. UI. Adjournment The Planning Commission will adjourn to February 23, 1981 for the continued public hearing process on the General Plan process. The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. at the Lion's Park Community Building,, 9151 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. FEB 10 1,981 AM P114 7ig19o10111112111212e41516 a Gerald W. Koski Darlene D. Koski 9268 Layton Street Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 February 7, 1981 Community Development Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Gentlemen: Thank you for this opportunity to address you regarding the Sedway /Cooke General Draft Plan for our city. We live in the areabordered by Archibald Avenue on the East; Sixth Street on the South, and Hellman Avenue on the West. As you snould know, this is an area of low (2 -4 DU's /AC) residential development. already surrounded by comme...-ci_al. development on the North and the West. Since this residential pocket has been fully developed in the last few years, we believe that it would only be wise and logical planning to continue this same type of develop- ment to the South. The Sedway /Cooke Plan recommends medium residential for the area bordered by Archibald Avenue, Sixth Street, Hellman Avenue, and Fourth Street. We feel that the development area just South along Sixth street should be the same as that North of Sixth Street, which is Low Density. Then in progressive steps, this could then be increased to low— medium density and then medium density further South until the Southern boundary along Fourth Street. I trust that these recommendations will be carefully con- sidered, as the area just North of Sixth Street is the home of many residents, who want their children to be able to grow up in a residential area, and not in a pocket surrounded be commercial. development. Thank you from two concerned residents. —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ct�G+nnq� MEMORANDUM E Date: February 13,:79$1 F fj U To: Planning Commission 177 From: Bill Holley, Director, Connunite Services Department Subject: PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRAFT GENERAL PLAN At the February 9th meeting, the Comnission directed that the following changes be made: 1. Page 94, first line, "shall" to "may "; 2. Page 96, second paragraph, clarification on what type of facilities a develop ?r was not responsible for; and, 3. Page 96, eighth paragraph,, same type of clarification as item sited above. Those changes and clarifications have been made and are reflected in your latest update. I have concerns, however, regarding an item due for Commission. consideration at the meeting of the 17th, that item is, designating an alternate land use for the 99 acre Base Line Park. My concerns center on two factors: I. The Ripple Effect. The'possibility of deleting the subject park from the plan foreshadows a revision of the remainder of the element for the following reasons: A. It leaves the proposal "short" of meeting Ordinance 105's five acre per 1,000 standard of planned park lands. To include the 99 acres in the undesignated category would render that parti- cular category in excess of 25% of the total 740 acres required for City standard compliance. The present proposal shows 10% in the undesignated category, and that can be justified. I don't believe however that justification can be extended to cover an undesignated 25 %. Carrying that thought to conclusion, we must then redistribute that 99 acres elsewhere by creating new park sites' (which under the present proposal would create a redundancy of effort within a specified client service area), or enlarging existing designations. Along this same line, we would have to rethink and realign our philosophy of m -eting our clients' needs. Current proposal centers community based citizen directed activities, such as little leagues and soccer organizations, at the "basically" developed neighborhood parks scattered throughout the City. Sophisticated, high dollar facility development, such as Parks and Recreation Element Rancho Cucamonga Draft General Plan February 13, 1981 Page 2 lighted sporting fields, aquatic centers, and available "public gymnasiums, would be limited to only one centrally located park, for reasons of both fiscal conservation and more efficient client utilization. Alternatives to the proceeding service concept would be to scatter sophisticated development featur,,s throughout the City (higher fiscal commitment, less efficient operation) or simply abandon the idea of providing these'types of amenities. 2. If we approach this central park idea as a "maybe ", interests apart from ourselves (potential revenue sources, developers, and city residents) may wrongly perceive that we have a weak commitment to the park program within Rancho Cucamonga. This wrong impression may result in lack of enthusiasm for "outside" joint venture finding; a fight with every developer who has a park designation or park responsibility connected with his project; or, the general citizenry misinterpreting the motivations of this action. In closing, I would request that when the Commission considers the alternate land use for the 99 acre park on the 17th, consider also the factors cited above. If I can answer any questions, please feel free to give me a call at your con- venience. Thank you. WLH:n 11 CJ 11 r'1 LJ 11 CITY OF RAls I-l0 CUCAM0NICA DAIS: February 17, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 1977 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission asked staff to bring back for fur- ther consideration land use designation on the above - described property. The Planning Commission previously considered this matter at their January 28 meeting, where they modified the land use to Industrial Park. Attached to this report is a copy of the January 28 staff report with recommenda- tions and exhi;)its. During that meeting representatives of property owners within that area discussed alternative land use recommendations of their own. This recom.- mendation included commercial land use along Fourth Street and Industrial Park category along Archibald. The remaining property being shown as medium density residential. Attached to this staff report is an illus- tration prepared by staff which attempts to indicate those that were sug- gested by reprsentatives of the property owners. It is interesting to note that the suggested recommendations by the property owners are similar to alternative No. 2 presented by staff at that meeting. Industrial Park designation allows motel, hotel, eating establishments and support com- mercial uses. Should the Commission wish to consider modifying their original land use decision, staff recommendation is the same as presented at the January 28 meeting. Preferably, that the Commission retain the medium density resi- dential or accept modification of the alternatives as discussed in that staff report. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Planning Commission decide to revise the land use decision on property between Fourth and Sixth Street, and Heilman and Archibald Avenues, that they consider the recommendations made in the January 28 staff report. Respectfully submitted, Barry K. Hogan City Planner BKH:TJB:jk LA 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: • 3anuary 28, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner SUBJECT: FOURTH AND ARCHIBALD - NORTHWEST CORNER ABSTRACT: Contained within this memo and its attachments are staff's suggestions for the 120 + acres of land located at the northwest cor- ner of Archibald and 4th Street. Action on this item is requested. DISCUSSION: As the Planning Commission is aware, considerable dis- cussion occurred at the last meeting on the General Plan on January 19 relative to the above - referenced item. There were various options and plans presented by owners and people concerned with the property in question. While the staff still feels that medium density resi- dential is appropriate for the above - referenced property, the Commis- sion may wish to consider the following options: Designate the northwest corner of Archibald and 4th Street as a 10 -acre commercial site for a neighborhood shopping center. This shopping center could service future residential and existing residential in the area of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario to the west, and the pro- posed Ontario International Centre. Continuing along 4th and along Archibald, a designation of industrial park 500 feet in depth may be considered. The remainder of said property should be left in the 5 -14 du /ac designation of medium density residential. The designation would be con- sistent with adjacent land use in the City of Ontario at a 5 -15 du /ac density. Additionally, there should be a park designation within the area as was the case on the John Blayney plan. (See exhibits.) 2. At the northwest corner a 10- acre•cemmercial site should be indicated and the remainder of the property should be in- dustrial park. In both of the two above"rientioned options, the text should be amended to include the following para- graph. "The City of Ranc "o Cucamonga recognizes the im- portance of the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street and its significance as an entry to the City and its potential to provide for uses complimentary to the airport and nearby industrial and residential property. The specific related uses that might occupy sites on 4th Street and Archibald Avenue would be hotels, motels, res- taurants, offices, and related anciliary commercial uses. Fourth and Archibald - Northwest Corner January 28, 1981 Page Two Additiorilly, because of the significance of the northwest corner of Ith Street and Archibald Avenue, the 120 acres must be master planned as a single unit. Any property ow- ner wishing to develop a portion of the property would be required to provide a conceptual master plan for the re- maining acreage:" REUVIMENDATION : It is recanmended that if the Planning Commission does not wish to de- signate the northwest corner Archibald and Fourth Street as medium density residential with a park side, that the Planning Comnission con- sider the two options indicated above. Respectfully submitted. _9A HOGAN -� CITY CANNER �' -- BKH:jk At-tac h. n ALTERNATIVE ONE ALTERNATIVE TWO LFG�NTJ E�: { VERY LO'N 1 "� "" 1 2 DU /AC i•;' r LOW 2 -4 DU /AC LOW- MEDIUM 5 -8 DU /AC 5-14 DU/AC MED. HIGH 15 -24 DU /AC i•;' r HIGH 25 -30 DU /AC COMMERCIAL .. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL NEIG14BOHOOD T .COMMERCIAL REGION "L COMMERCIAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL � GENERAL INDUS. RAIL SERVED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FlHILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL _ OPEN SPACE FLOOD CONTROL I= - UTILITY CORR. OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK GENERAL INDUSTRIAL � GENERAL INDUS. RAIL SERVED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL FlHILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL _ OPEN SPACE FLOOD CONTROL I= - UTILITY CORR. 1- r = lk ------------- T.— m rn • cr ' to UNIT--- � f u N .j• .. I r ' n �� a i'`D Oy41p • i � jl•1 - 1 • ,�, � 1 Y� r 1 .J -. � f' V • 1 GIB y .. ' O Y Ti S to � C.P. e F °y i�l. Ll no all f Iw" f Cv gl55' w.IK ^ N n n N - m'1 •f'' ti ;•; _ 1 . Il'_i '.AVF U T_P...�. -. l; r4.tl w. _ .. _ - ira 9 a x'1.1.- :` r•.S = . T�•+i:.'• 7Pi �. i : � t � �� .. _ ' .7 . <�....:.� .•+w•• - A -y �zZ nil.. t N = .R -' - - (( - :'fir a� :�.v.�h - tea`- -- Golf ours �... 14..1 w u ....... •.- •i— y.. <.+w— Lam.:'. "r: i .- _ .-. -q.. a... �' •:�:_ ::::. : ..w:•.: �•: - .1••,r: s• YlnicW_. �� .•V"4 ....P .} ^r r'• i=il�.<!"'�- y 't 9 .CC _ . — ..iu..wa.�nA•a.wwwwl�lli �� .,. .:.1:` .r. ..... .•w.��• 1: ... i S tk...:.'. .f. TPI- Y. J�V�/ I,, :_:. •a�nili7. A 7S .3r r ...._i:.........:0. y . .. ri In 6th n r ri T C13 .' a it Y �...- In 6th EC----- -- ,v 7 { 1 • 1 Y 11 ri T I. l it Y �...- EC----- -- ,v 7 { 1 • 1 Y 11 E Ii►] C].TY OF RANCHO C. "UC.AMONGA- DATE: February 17, 1981 TO: Members of the Manning Commission FROM: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE SITE i- OCATION FOR _A NEI ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission requested that the staff review al- ternat ve site locations for a. shopping center within the Terra Vista planning area. Staff has determined that there are other acceptable locations around the intersection of Cleveland and Church Avenue. BACKGROUND: Upon Planning Commission request, staff has reviewed se- veral alternatives for relocating a neighborhood shopping center shown on the Draft General Plan at the southwest corner of Milliken and Base Line. All alternatives include approximately the same size neighborhood shopping center (10 acres). It was the opinion of the Commission that it may be preferable to have a neighborhood shopping center located in closer proximity to higher residential density and they suggested that staff evaluate potential sites around the intersection of Cleveland and Church Streets. In addition, the Planning Commission asked staff to review a potential site at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line as requested by Mr. Ralph Lewis. Briefly, the four alternatives are described as follows: Alternative No. 1 - Neighborhoed Shopping Center located at the northeast corner of Church and Cleveland surrounded by medium -high residential density. East of the medium -high re- sidential density is a 10 -acre park; east of the park and front- ing Milliken is a junior high location. The southwest corner of Base Line and Milliken is changed to low- medium dersi *y. Alternative No. I - A neighborhood shopping center is located at t'e northwest corner of Cleveland and Church surrounded by medium-high residential density. fhe junior high is relocated to the northwest corner of Church and Milliken; west of the junior high site is a 10 -acre park. Both the southwest corner of Milliken and Base Line and the northeast corner of Cleveland and Church are changed to low- medium residential density. Alternative No._.'-; - A neighborhood shopping center is located at the southwest corner of Cleveland and Church, the area just north of the shopping center and is changed to medium -high residential density between the Deer Creek Channel and Cleveland Avenue. The junior high site is located to the northwest corner of Milliken and Church; just west of the junior high site is a 10-acre park. Both the southwest corner of Base Line and Milliken and the northeast corner of Church and Cleveland are changed to low- medium residential density. Alternative February 17, Page Two Neighborhood Shopping Center 1981 Alternative No. 4 - A neighborhood shopping center located at Northeast corner of Haven and Base Line surrounded by low - medium density. The southwest corner of Base Line and Milliken is changed to low- wc%dium residential. The analysis accompanying this report as part of Exhibit "A" indicates that any of the alternatives 1 through 3 are in close proximity to the higher residential density, this is an advance over alternative No. 4. Alternative No. 4 places a shopping center at an intersection which the City Council has preferred in other discussions to remain non -com- mercial. All alternatives i, 2 or 3 provide for the best planning effort because they are located within the Terra Vista planning area. Should the Commission desire to locate tho neighborhood center furthest away from the junior high in the proximity of Cleveland and Church, then alternative 2 or 3 would be desirable. Also, alternative 3 places the shopping center within the closest proximity to the higher density re- sidential uses. RECOMMENDATION: Should the Commission wish to locate a neighborhood shopping center in closer proximity to higher residential density then it should con- sider acceptance of either alternative 1, 2 or 3. Respectfully submitted, Barry K. Hogan City Planner BKH:TJB:jk Attachments: Land Use -Terra Vista Exhibit "A" of Alternatives 1 -4 0 LI s LLJ F D fd�� A = ul I I I I t�i•l I I�1.1`I : I I'I i I i•I� III ^I•! ! 1 +:, •f' � ' ' I'f' IkD� ®1�1�41' ' '' •-'''I'I' '� r�llEllllllli � _ Ililltllliiiillliiiiil _ mm \ _ + o ...� LLU. •':ii:::::^cccic Q::: ul. ::.- ::....... • .`O . .`4 . . r • __.r...._ ._.. . .. 6 coC s0 0alaw _ _ _..:. 0® ®0®018 too 0 comma m a °s Y : o om \ so Y�r �7•::• III ' •il I I Ill I O� D b jgj (�( o y , �U _ `�. �� m° (• �(• � 1 .ICI' - U--3 _ iiiw• ,b 7. • 1 � . ............ soon fLy d _............ K -:-:-�•. -:-:� Lout /1�ts As n�zi /EIS !y 11 E 0 EXHIBIT "A" Analysis - Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 All three alternatives locate a neighborhood shopping center at the in- tersectio,i of Clev eland and Church Street. A shopping center site at any of these locations would be situated to serve the highest residen- tial density within the entire city. Alternative No. 1 relocates the junior high fronting Milliken away from proximity to the shopping center and separates the junior high from the medium -high residential by a park designation. Also, the park designation is adjacent to a medium -high residential area giving very close proximity and use to those residing in that area. Alternative No. 2 places tive junior high and park site again in the same configuration as alternative No. 1 to avoid any potential conflicts from the location of the neighborhood shopping center. Alternative No. 3 places the neighborhood shopping center at the southwest corner of Church and Cleveland surrounded entirely by highs density residential. 91so north of Church has been changed to medium -high residential. This configuration places the neighborhood shopping center in the closest proximity to the higher residential use. Again, the junior high and park site have been located furthest away from the neighborhood shopping to avoid conflicts. All three alternatives have replaced the former location of the neighbor- hood shopping center, medium -high residential and junior site with the prevailing surrounding land use of low- medium residential density. All three alternatives have located the neighborhood shopping center within the boundaries of the revised Terra Vista Planning Area, thus, providing the ability to consider all design aspects regarding the relationship between the shopping center and surrounding land uses. Analysis - Alternative No. 4 The location of the neighborhood shopping center would likely create further exacerbation of the already nigh traffic volumes at the intersection of Haven and Base Line. The shopping center location would be away from many of the higher residential densities and would establish a commercial use at an intersection which the City Council has preferred to keep in a non- commercial character. Also, the location of the neightborhood shopping center is *_side the revised Terra Vista planning area and could not be subject to the same level of review and planning that it would have if it was within the Terra Vista plan area. r; . E Ij Cry O� RANCHO CUCAMONCA SrAFIF APT DATE: February 77, 1981 pIj TO: Members of the Planning Commission E- U FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner 1977 BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REVISED DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Staff has completed the revisions to the Draft General Plan in accordance with the recommendations and suggestions of the Planning Commission. These changes have been incorporated throughout the text either as notes within the margin or as a complete revision to sections of the General Plan text. Any areas to be deleted have been noted on the draft text or graphics. Because of the late nature of the review on the General Plan revisions, it is not anticipated that the Planning Commission will be able to recom- mend approval at the February 17 meeting. Therefore, the Commission should consider that this matter be continued to the February 23.meeting. Upon review of the General Plan and its revisions, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration. Attached also is a copy of the comments and responses received on the Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council adoption of the Draft Environmental Impact Report as com- plet�- upon approval of the Draft General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue consideration of thr.• revised General Plan 7Or adoption to February 23, 1981. Respectfully submitted, Barry K. Hogan City Planner BKH:TJB:jk El pINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRAFT GENERAL PLAN E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1981 lu I. AGENCIES RECEIVING DRAFT DOCUMENTS The following agencies received Draft Environmental Impact Reports. Those preceded by an asterisk made comments on the Draft document. Copies of all comments received with responses are included in the next section. 1. Southern California Association of Governments 2. San Bernardino County Association of Governments 3. City of Ontario 4. City of Upland S. City of Fontana 5. San Bernardino County Planning Department 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District 8. San Bernardino County Flood Control District 9. San Bernardino County Health Department *10. San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Rancho Cucamonga Substation 11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 12. General Telephone 13. Chino Basin Municipal Water District 14. Chaffey Joint Unified High School District 15. Chaffey Community College District 16. Etiwanda School District 17. Omnitrans 18. Cucamonga School District 19. Central School District 20. Alta Loma School District 21. Foothill Fire Protection District 22. Cucamonga County Water District *23. Caltrans District 8 *24. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 25. Southern California Gas Company 26. Southern California Edison *27. State Clearinghouse II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED A. State Clearinghouse: Comment: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above listed environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review is complete and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter verifies your compliance with the environ- mental review requirements of the State Clearinghouse pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Where applicable, however, this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional authority or title interests of the State of California. Response: None necessary. .B, California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Comment: We have reviewed the Draft EIR for the Draft General Plan of the. City of Rancho Cucamonga, The issue of wastewater treatment and disposal is not adequately addressed.. Since the sewage treatment capacity available at (CBMWD''s) Regional Plant No, 1 and package plant continues to be limited, it ® appea-increase. s t t the. use of on -site septic tank disposal systems will The DEIR fails to discuss any water quality impacts likely to result from this large proportion of on -site. septic tank disposal systems, In addition, the impacts of increased use of poor quality imported water (Colorado River) on the groundwater of the area should be discussed in the EIR. Response: The Draft EIR on pages 105 -109 discusses the setting, impact, and potential mitigation measureZ associated with wastewater treatment. The setting section gives an extensive overview of the current and planned wastewater 'treatment facilities that are planned to serve the entire West End and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The impacts section recognizes the increase i.n the wastewater that will be generated by the eventual build -out of the City. However, in the mitigation section it states that plans are being developed now by local developers to accommodate anticipated increased flows. Also, the City's growth management program requires Cucamonga County Water District certification of sufficient capacity to accommodate any additional flows prior to approving any final subdivision map or residential project. In regard to the possible groundwater impacts associated with usage of imported Colorado River water, the City has stated in the General Plan that the usage of local water sources is highly recommended, Additionally, the Plan en- courages increased recharge in the northern portions of the ` City to facilitate increased local water availability. EI 11 Comment: The EIR should discuss the impact on non- motorized trans- portation such as pedestrian, hiking, and equestrian traffic. Response: The Circulation Element of the General Plan discusses the need for an integrated non - motorized circulation system. To encourage pedestrian traffic and ensure the safety of those walking, policies require sidewalks on both sides of the street throughout the City. Also, the City Circu- lation Plan includes a hiking and biking component that links residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational/ educational facilities. In regard to tracts. the General Plan includes an entire section that encourages an inter - connected system of trails city -wide for usage by non - motorized transportation. In regard to the comments relative to groundwater quality impacts, the primary method cf wastewater treatment will be through a community sewage system. Any developments which would utilize on -site sewage treatment systems will first require percolation tests to insure the soil type has sufficient permeability to accommodate anticipated discharge. C. Caltrans District 8 Comment: The EIR and the Draft General Plan do not adequately address the implementation of the of the SBCFCG (San Bernardino County Flood Control District) Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan No. 2. Response: The City of Rancho Cucamonga has recently published a report on the City's Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan. The report is an extension of the SBCFCD Plan No. 2 and takes into consi- deration anticipated residential, commercial and industrial growth. A copy of this report has been transmitted to Caltrans District No. 8 and is available to the public at City Hall. The Draft Storm Drainage Study will be incorporated into the General Plan upon its completion. Comment: It should be recognized that there may be freeway operational problems associated with an interchange proposal at 7th Street. Assuming any such problems can be overcome, it should be noted that since the land developments which create the need for an interchange at this location would be primarily local and con- stitute impositions or. the existing freeway facilties and its users, we would view the funding of the new interchange as a City responsibility. Response: The Seventh Street interchange is part of the Master Circula- tion Plan for the City. The City recognizes that operational problems may exist and that a funding source does not currently exist. However, the interchange is only planned at this t_imc- and would only be constructed if land development necessitated it. At the time the need for the interchange becomes obvious, the City will further explore the feasibility of the interchange. D. San Bernardino Couty Sheriff's Department - Rancho Cucamonga Substation Comment: Comment included in the following section in its entirety. Response: The updated figures are noted and included in the final EIR. E. Pam Henry, Alta Loma Riding Club (Comment made in person at February 9, 1981 Planning Commission Public Hearing on Draft General Plan: No letter attached.) w' WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVEn .I' V1,, �+ 1 1 � l� • t �t Ir 1 �� 'J. �;IJ )1 (1..111 -0l•,I II I 1 �!� . GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ti OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH �' 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 88614 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. 60VRRNOR ;,; : L o V F. n GiY OF!'Micl ?o CUCAMONGA January 30, 1931 COUNIUNiTY DEk /uriPf ^IENT DEPT. AM ht ei 2 1:.x;;1 P9 Steve McCutchanIaBgllQllll ]Z111213141516 Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P.U. Box 307 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: SCH #80040901 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan 1980 Dear Mr. Mccutchan: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above listed environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review is complete and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter aer_ifies your compliance with the environmental review requirements of the State Clearinghouse pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Where applicable, however, this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional authority or title interests of the State of California. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, SY -ephe , Williamson State /clearinghouse Ell. STATE OF CALIFORNIA— RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGIOI4 4 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE ZOO VERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 9Z406 PHONE: (7141664-5330 January 26, 1981 Mr. Steve McCutchan Community Development Dept. Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 CITY OF IRANr j: C'UCAMONGA COIPMUNiTY HVP OPWNT DEPT. 2'( 1:)81 AM 7e8r3d4dlr�i1i2�3:4sSpF� 4 Dear Mr. McCutchan: Draft EIP.: Graft General Plan City of Rancho Cucamonga We have reviewed this Draft EIR for the Draft General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The issue of wastewater treatment and disposal is not adequately addressed. Since the sewage treatment capacity available at (CBMWD's) Regional Plant No. 1 and package plant continues to be limited, it appears that the use of on -site septic tank disposal systems will increase. The DEIR fails to discuss any water quality impacts likely to result from this large proportion of on -site septic tank disposal systems. In addition, the impacts of increased use of poor quality imported water (Colorado River) on the groundwater of the area should be discussed in the EIR. If there are any questions, please call the undersigned. Sincerely, k�uw Ronald K. Baker Environmental Specialist I RKB:GKA:dml t STATE OF CAIIi ORNIA— BUSINF.55 AND TRANSPORTATION AOF.NCY EDMUND O. BROWN JR., Gornrnor —• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I)LIM,a e, P.O. Box 221 LO]dG RANGE RNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92403 TIiAh`T�IN �.FtEVE'd7 z I" Y CF R, flel-]0 s s�Q 8 CUt��dl'Ut4ffYOCVEi.APMCf.i L,I Date: "' City of Rancho Cucamonga J(L 2 `� I1; "; P.0- Box 897 Rancho Cucamonga, CAAM1730 ,n n�g�9�10�S1iue�" �293��It Thank you for the opportunity to review Co- Rte -PM: 5 Rd - Your Ref: .DeA!CL IrAft #,%a- the proposed. -Cf.xyAe-a / The following checked items apply to this proposal: We have no specific comment on this We assume this proposal, increasing y portation trips, will not be in con Element of the General Plan. if it necessary changes will be reflected Element. proposal. or otherwise altering trans - Ciict with tie Circulation is we would expect that the in a revised Circulation ® Although this proposal Gn itself do-;s not appear to have a significant effect upon our facilities, the cumulative effect of this and other changes could have a significant impact. Measures commensurate with this proposal. necessary to mitigate this effect should be taken. When more detailed plans and information are available, such as traffic and environmental reports, we would expect to have additional comments as to the propriety cf this proposal relative to our facilities. do t1L 40 V0, 7'� ��. �U C. ��i 4► A.v a ��' ii 1� w,lL° Lie /y O,i — — r r� �GU 0 ems. r— Al—A—" ...... ,Please refer to the attached material. If additi.onal. information is desired, please call Mr. Don Weaver at (714.) 383 -4673. J. E. PEDDY Dist-r ct_Director By 5. R. Saucier Project Development Services ,,.: L0:1G RANG": Piz:::iIi:G DOCUNETITS REVIi l FGPII Re: 7th Street Interzhange 1.- = hould be recognized that there may be freeway operational Fr:iblems associated with an interchange proposal at 7th Street. Assuming any such problems can be overcome, it should be nc =ed that since the land developments which create the need f--= an interchange at t- 4-:3 location would be primarily local and constitute impositions on the existing freeway facilities an:- its users, we would view the funding of the new in_erchange as a City responsibility. ,o DATE FROM TO INTER-OFFICE MEMO February 2, 1981 Thomas Wickan, Captain PHONE Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's Station Steve McC:rtchan, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBJECT Draft En•f4 ronmental. Impact Report After reviewing your Draft EI Report, I would like to call your attention to the law enforcement section on page 97. Under existing conditions, you state manpower strengths as well as traffic and criminal problems. However, they are not the existing conditions of Fiscal Year 80/81, but rather the conditions that existed during Fiscal Year 79/80. Existing Conditions FY 80!81: The ratio of police personnel to permanent city residents is .93 sworn officers per thousand (1.09 employees if clerical is included, per thousand). The Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff's staffing is as follows: 1 Captain 1 Lieutenant 6 Sergeants 5 Detectives 35 Deputy Sheriffs (five of which are traffic enforcement officers working ur.der an Office of Traffic Safety Grant) Budget 1.95 million plus $250,000 grant for traffic enforcemen.=. For Calendar Year 1980 the total ramber of traffic accidents was 1,204, of which 257 were injury or fatal accidents, as compared to 1,147 accidents, of which 315 were injury or fatal accidents in 1979. The Sheriff's Office was successful in obtaining a traffic grant which started July 1, 1980 and consisted of five officers and three radar equipped units for the purpose of enforcing hazardous traffic violations. In the 1980 Calendar Year burglaries totalled 1,070, of which is 702 were residential. During 1979 there were 1,064 burglaries, 789 of which were residential burglaries. The Sheriff's Office did receive a Crime Prevention Officer for Fiscal Year 80/81 to <, 12.1967.000 Rev. 1177 r' Memo to Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner February 2, 1981 Page Two Aftk combat the burglary problem. The above are the existing conditions for Fiscal Year 80/81. It may have been intended to uee the 1979/80 Fiscal conditions anal, if so, the statement in the RI Report is accurate. %J TW: jes E P E T I T Z TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the cent_r, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. JBW:jah:021181 ADDRESS Lg DATE Z/ —Z 7 rz % AFV &15-0 Cod- >> �_ Z&Y- 75/Y7 leC' P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a. proposed neighborhood commercial center at the nurrheast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attacti.re addition to our neighborhood. JBW:jah:021181 nnr,AFCa l / /U/',' %'4 �'1/•� DATE_�x - J! 'Z-- l� P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attective addition to our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS DATE 7 5/ g /v l� P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this .location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commute but also because we feel that the center, as p_Dposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. L'. :jah:021181 pnD_RES5 DATE l/ / I C/o c/ �2 n L'. :jah:021181 pnD_RES5 DATE I C/o c/ �2 n C ( -r 13 P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FZMCHO CUCAMONGA: Wet, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the- location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactiv_ addition to our neighborhood. BW:jah 621181 ADDRESS DATE _ F 76 `l8 I P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. NAME 7 JBW:jah:021181 ADDRESS - ? 36�J Y DATE A? ii J,. r /-3 P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. JBW:jah:021181 ADDRESS DATE 114 1R( U � r L 1^ s P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. JBW:jah:021181 ADDRESS DATE v 105q� 4a ✓'i 2 4Lf :4e- I 13 P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: we, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. we support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS DATE �0 V1 MEN P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. ADDRESS ,lG 2 - DATE ,�t2 -mil 2- Ib3-21 V�4'v'tiA plc_. - - I ..� J1 P E T I T I O N TO THE HONO -kBL'E MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. we support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS DATE 2 nor -VP/ 15 /J Vic• /o/��/y/ 7_. i .� �Y/ 70(,4 2- -83 -9/ (o75-7 i(4,c>ildac .sr .2 -�y -sr e2 ( Lo (-(t P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RX:- -HO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only locatca for us and cut down current because we feel that the center, addition to our neighborhood. , because it will lengthy shopping .s proposed, will be conveniently commutes but also be an attactive LESS �� /�`�" DATE J JBW:jah: 0211$1 G!; - /G-XI A P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haver_ and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the cenL-er, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. ADDRESS DATE P l 7I n% / % - JBw:jah:021181 I P E T T. T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. NAME i A ADDRESS /��f��'�� "•hy 515 DATE&ti JBW:jah:021181 "i P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMP,ERS OF THE PLAFNING COMMISSION AND CIT" i COQNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed belc`w, wish to express our support regarling the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haver. and Base Line. we support this location not only because it will be con -eniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, aE proposed, will be an .ttactive addition to our neighborhood. ADDRESS LATE jBw.jah :022.1e1 C) P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this ]oration not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut: down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. AD DRESS DATE -- SBW:jah:021181 �Z2ss- ��_ff %G �rUN�ti " -Z — /o<G 541,s41, P E T I T I O N /0:5- TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed -,eighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and c, -,t down current lengthy shopping commute but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. , JBW:jah:0211s1 T - -- . ADDRESS DATE 72 S O iM�ilY%2 -r-L�• .e4�G' _ Z 7� r � I i�rl" 1p pl c :] 17 7- 9/ r ✓ P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC- ,AMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. we support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS ELI'_ DATE � -r b I i l Aft 1 l� P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. we support this location riot only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut -'own current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. NAME %� _( (�/�' � Z J ' 1'.r�- �.r�7l.:vt� ADDRESS 7360 JB14:jah:021181 CIE DATE ' / a r /7 1= P E T I T I O N i3 TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only located for us and cut down current because we feel that the center, addition to our neighborhood. I NAME � I because it will be conveniently lengthy shopping commutes but also Ls proposed, will be an attactive y? ADDRESS I !' -` � 7 � %�� :; /LF(7 ^�Clf�,1�r DATE / 1. � -/ � /�iE - -17 -o //I /l =. /•-rte_... r P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed cielow, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping comma: but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attacti.ve addition to our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS DATE JBW:jah:021191 P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base line. We sappor_t this location not only because it will be conveniently located fir us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because w-:� feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. JBW:jah:021181 ADDRESS J / ` 1. '.; ,y ! DAT9f I 12,1 v� Z / 7- /3 P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS _ DATE JBW:jah:021181 �7 1 "I f f 1 / L/ JBW:jah:021181 �7 1 "I f f 116" - G) 9 y/ P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSTOiv AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us ai,d cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposes, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. Vkt'f. JBW:jah:021181 ADDRESS DATE. of �%/ ye /� VMMEMWA F\ \i_ _ v , l� 3 i0 ,U'rSFI /Nr/f'!� C 4C /7/+SE/ //L'4 =: f �.? -/1' G t -71 , a 41 7h/ P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commerci<1 center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also loecausC we LCC1 LliaL '..Lie cutl Le , ati p; coposed, Will i1C all &Uac'Live addition to our neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS DATE JBw:jah:021191 P E T I T I O N TO THE HONORABLE. MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:` We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, whose addresses are listed below, wish to express our support regarding the location of a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line. We support this location not only because it will be conveniently located for us and cut down current lengthy shopping commutes but also because we feel that the center, as proposed, will be an attactive addition to our neighborhood. NAME / q ADDRESS ... JBW:jah:021181 DATE p s� 7 .r, M TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CO1,24UNITY DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY PLANNING MR. RICHARD DAHL, CHA MR. HERI,IAN REMPEL MR. JEFFREY SCERANKA MR. PETER TOLSTOY 1-1R_ JEFFREY KING GENTLEMEN: Cl-'Clu I017GA DE PA i :'I'11ENT C01,0011 SS ION IRI- +AN WE THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, WISH TO MAKE OUR VIEWS YNOWN TO THE CITY PLANNING C01,1MISSION, REGARDING THE CITY GENERAL PLAN PREPARED BY THE SEDWAY/ COOKE CONSULTING FIRM, WE ALL RESIDE WITHIN THE AREA BORDERED BY ARCHIBALD AVENUE ON THE EAST, SIXTH STREET ON THE SOUTH, AND HEI.LMAN AVENUE ON THE WEST, WHICH ?S LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA SOUTH OF US TO FOURTH STREET, WHICH THE SEDWAY / COOKE PLAN PROPOSES TO BE ZONED FOR MEDIUM DENSITY (5 -14 DU'S /AC) RESIDENTIAL, WE PROPOSE THAT THIS AREA BE DEVELOPED WITH LOW OR LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BEGINNING AT SIXTH STREET, AND SOUTH TO FOURTH STREET, EXCEPT FOR A STRIP OF OFFICE ALONG FORTH STREET AND COMMERCIAL ON ARCHIBALD & 4TH. THE REASONS WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NECESSARY IS THAT IdE ARE PRESENTLY BORDERED BY C01,11ERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST AND NORT , AND WOULD NOT THINK IT IS PRUDENT PLANNING TO ENCLOSE US IN A POCKET SURROUNDED BY COiZIERCT;AL OR HIGH vENSiTY RESIDENTIAL. THIS AREA NVl1 HAS A FEIN RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE COIR4ERCIAL ENTERPRISE ON THE CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND FOURTH STREET. THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICU.'i TO MAKE THESE PLANS NOW, TO INSURE THE LOGICAL DEVEICIMENT OF THIS AREA OF OUR CITY. !Z TRUST THAT THESE PROPOSALS WILL BE CONSIDERED AND In'CLUDED IN OUR CITY'S MASTER PLAN, A MASTER PLAN THAT ALT. OF THE RESIDENTS CAN LIVE WITH, THANK YOU. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUCAI•.ONGA I S PETITION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, C01,24UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY MASTER PI.A.ti. CONCEP.NED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA [game -»�sr Y `Tf -XCi -_� -_- __- AU�L CJS z 7 0 . .:_ ;'�,,a .• r r� r%( rrc tiLKU %<.• =5� I`�'t lw- / l fr7�, 9' �I e_ r -, _ %, , ar, p g -. Y PETITION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COMMUNYTY DEV.''.LOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY PIASTER PLAN_ �y CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r S .S ,t �-�� -?� 11. 8_� �- •-''��>' �ri�.� � ice-- Via`' ;� • = s � n o � 'r _ - -� 9r/�2 GA'z� Sr - � 27 Lc, y 7 � T^ 54- S J r S .S ,t 5(� AMress r 9~ —axles t bi ' 0 PETITION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CO.IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY MASTER PLAN. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Name - -- % - - - -- AMress 9~ —axles 4! bi / 3 Co 1 / Za o,.�� r i l� /X--,-a in u -1 J L3 Y / G PETITION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COMN.UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY MkSTER PLAN_ CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUC&MONGA f ame�— Address �u-� '.f •• L° o Al q Vol ;c4it If 91 r XIi�ac�a%� ��Z,/,� '4x g4s j9 � t�r�taw s% Cic.CAtN �_ -UGL! %S�7 �1 %8: %r�?� `7- C-I.CCff�aJrac',�. rV��• ;c pt.� 0 )17a ?3'c.; `1i73� If 'f i � r ;,1a PETITION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COI•IMUNITY DEVELOP14ENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY MASTER PLAN. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUCIZ40NGA Name — Ai3resa _ - - ~ - -- C X397 ,7 Lq �pm�l I , .Val _V�� it B teztq.f7 V ,> G /J PETITION TO THE CITY OF RAIJCHO CUCAI10I]Gfi, COiIMUNTTY DEVELOPb7ENT DEPARTMENT REGARDIIJG THE CITY MASTER PLAN. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Al n Vv I / 0 7�. 0 � ? �--. �/ " s all Z U Kl,�.kC�b ©� �± vf, .� ��• -� Al n C l_ G J PETITION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. C01,1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY MASTER PLAN. CONCERNED CITIZENS` OF PANCHO CUCA140NGA fume -- Address CL- ^•a ri • -.t J /�a�� / /a lli.�C� nom' '7 r PETITION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. COn4UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY MASTER PLAN. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Nom' - A ess g77v 67-11- Cuc I&I01,14A 93 SI L {,yam /Y1a��.�' =� �e- _ i C31�.S' f�.e- e� -��°fc :Vice -.ems• L {,yam �4 GII c PETITION TO THL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. COMPTUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY MASTER PLAN. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Name F2 ♦ �.3D� Ct /S Sit ems• 5 e��. �S`� -53 ��c_ Ir_2.V� fA ��...�(l, :c:- aYf'."1 J �0 1 �C.'�•7f14 -' • %Cr"1 / /�r l V:G•LG� - An, t�c(:•n�1:' L+� )/� `ter'- �'.''� 1 s J PETITION TO THE CITY OF RANCHO C;JCAMONGA, COI•114UNITY DEVELOPI:ENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE CITY MASTER PLAN. CONCEP.NED CITIZEBIS OF P.ANCHO CUCAMONGA