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 About1981/08/12 - Agenda Packetc•�1v Ir :I r/ J I v' :! I .. q I 11 i «v„ J I tYl +!l I Jt! 1 ��.� r I'. yy�,. BFI •. I I+ Li ' s "� >I •� v v 'I,v i 4 � {f 1 1 I '. •1 1 '1 r I ., ftl lr 4 f l 1` nr,lJ l4wS+r..rNrr� r it y 11 I • „v1 -I I _. '�:i l4a '.., III;. •fl II 1 p Yni {` /If(. 4}'y f.�r ^N 1 p '.f I I 1 1 l I 1 1 •:Tl t \, �r )} % a { v ''.'I �I �� aaa�hh{{V'1;`��Atl /''1 Si7V 11 I)) v yr a"�y • l 'f J 7�� ::4�' r •!�'I II •i li I II 1 � II ! 1 I J �•I 'R t_• 1 I 1 � v 1 I� J I 5 � ., 5 1, ''iJ�• !1 F! 4 1. r 1 I, Ij t Y •r —Al� r r i vl� N J.; I` :c � I! y4 r V I 111 pT ip4t a� l+ 'll\ LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 1. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner King Commissioner Sceranka III. Approval of Minutes February 5, 1981 February 25, 1981 March 11, 1981 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Tolstoy The following consent calendar items are expected to be roc*_±ne and non- cortroversial. Thoy w.!lZ be acted upon by the Commission at one time .shout discussion. If an uone has concern over any item, then it should be removed for discussion, A. ENVIRONMFNTAI Acecccmrmr rnn - T - _'Irin one aevelopment of a�5220 s-;--- q. ft, industrial building on 3.2 acres of land within the M -2 zone located on the northeast corner Of Utica Avenue and Seventh Street - Parcels 75, 16, and 17 of Parcel Map 6194 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASCFSCnFNT rnv �r,.r.. .. -�J - K -6- 1Puua1K1AL - The developr:;:nt of inaustrial warehouse /distribution buildings totaling 221,000 sq, ft. on 13.1 acres of land in the M -2 zone located on the east side of Pittsburgh, south. 8th Of Street - APN 229- 261 -29 & 30 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT yT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LORD SHOBE - The deve opment P- ,000 �o !CA.tT�� '�� -2 zone to be located at 9120 Center :Avenue - APN 209-262-07 ' { CIT11 Or- iu!� ^tip ...,. _ r RANCHO CUCAMON(- cll 0 P.1- JANNING C,0Mj\4jSSIGN . z AGEVEA !977 WEDNESDAY AUGUST 12, 1981 7: 00 P. M. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 1. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner King Commissioner Sceranka III. Approval of Minutes February 5, 1981 February 25, 1981 March 11, 1981 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Tolstoy The following consent calendar items are expected to be roc*_±ne and non- cortroversial. Thoy w.!lZ be acted upon by the Commission at one time .shout discussion. If an uone has concern over any item, then it should be removed for discussion, A. ENVIRONMFNTAI Acecccmrmr rnn - T - _'Irin one aevelopment of a�5220 s-;--- q. ft, industrial building on 3.2 acres of land within the M -2 zone located on the northeast corner Of Utica Avenue and Seventh Street - Parcels 75, 16, and 17 of Parcel Map 6194 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASCFSCnFNT rnv �r,.r.. .. -�J - K -6- 1Puua1K1AL - The developr:;:nt of inaustrial warehouse /distribution buildings totaling 221,000 sq, ft. on 13.1 acres of land in the M -2 zone located on the east side of Pittsburgh, south. 8th Of Street - APN 229- 261 -29 & 30 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT yT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LORD SHOBE - The deve opment P- ,000 r; sg. ft..ware ouse facility on 5.02 acres of land in the M '�� -2 zone to be located at 9120 Center :Avenue - APN 209-262-07 { Planning Commission Agenda VI Public Hearings t,4;G • -2- August 12, 1981 The following items are public hearings in whic!1 concorned individuals may voice their opinion of the related:' project. please wait to be rtar_noni smr? by the Chairman and address the Commission from the Public microphone by giving your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual fo1 each project. D. VARIANCE NO. 81 -02 - CHRISTIAN - Request to permit construction of rest ence that will encroach into front and rear yards on a 3.532 sq. ft. lot in the R -3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst - APN 202 - 131 -04 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ACSFSSMENT ANn rnmriTTMnlal rlcc DCDMT' r•v- v, -v4 - JuuInrnn 1.A•.1rVKA1A tUIJVltl GU -IYANY - ine deve opmert of an a ectr ca stribution substation located on 4.78 acres of land in the R -1 -20 zone, located on the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN 1061- 571• -04 r nwn+vcnin� MJJ LJJPICIYI AnU ItRIA11M IKAI.I lUZ1U - LAWLOR A custom of subdivision of 46 acres into 39- o-ts comprising 36 untis in the R -1- 20,000 zone and R -1 -14 acre zone generally located on the north side of Almond between Sapphire and Turquoise - APN 200- 061 -12, 200- 051 -06, 1061- 172 -03 . r-ITVIKUPMUTAL HSatSSMtNi_AND LONE CHANGE NO. 81 -01 LAI+ILOR - A request to change t e zone rom R- - to R -1- 20,000 to be consistent with the zoning to the west. This area is a portion of Tentative Tract no. 10210. The balance of the tract is zoned for the intended use. H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 81 -12 - MILLS - The instruction of ceramic art techniques in con - `�/1` + junction with a ceramic manofactoriry, wiioiesaiej l retail use in an existing building in the M -2 (Industrial Park) zone located it 10722 Arrow Rt. c: Suite 610. , , 0 Planning Commission Agenda -3- August 22, 1981 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -11 - FOOTHILL IND. BANK - The developme-it, of a temporary modular bank Taclity of 720 sq. ft. on .94 acres of land in the C -2 zone to be used durinj construction of a perma- nent bank facility at 9709 Base Line Avenue - APNi 1077 -011 -451 J. EENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -02 WIS - A proposed change of zone f- R-' sing -fe family residential) to R -1- 20,000 (single family residential, 20,000 sq. ft. lot minimum) on 52 ac. of land located on the south side of Summit Avenue,, between Etiwanda and East Avenues - APN 225 -181 -4 through 9, 26, and 43 .rte K. L. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7012 CRESCENT BUSINESS CENTER - An industrial subdivision of 19.4 acres into 5 parcels in the M -2 zone located on the east side of Archibald between 4th and 6th Streets - APN 210- 071 -29 ai -us - Amenc!ing the zoning urdinance, Section 6T7.623(f) establishing a SP (Specific Plan ) classi- fication to implement the Industrial Specific Plan in the area generally defined as extending south of Arrow Highway to the City boundary between Grove and Haven and extending south of Foothill Boulevard to the City boundary between Haven and the eastern City boundary. comments in aavance or preparation or an tnviron- mental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Project Area. A study area to determine ultimate redevelop- ment project boundaries. •li:' .,' alhtl�f•�I T� �i..r . '. �l�t Y 1. Planning Commission Agenda -4- August 12, 1981 VIII. New Business t 0. ENVIPONM ta-- Ix_ X. XI. XII. XIII. rq,i1q ..V. . , -emu - Z" "Kin Fmucll LCnitK - !ne UP_Yeiop- ment of a retail garden center on i.9 acres of land ._ •.. ..., .. -� ivBc w Vc IV-61:ru lVU TL. east OT M °_Im5 on the south side of Foothill - APN 208 - 261 -43 & 44 SELECTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA P. AND FORMULATIOA & ADOPTION OF PREMIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT Council Referrals Director Reports Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear en this agenda. Upcoming Agenda Adjournment The Plaa.uing Cumi;:.ion has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 21.00 p.m. adjournment time. If, items ,go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission W LL e .. LL ,.(? -f1� � 1J�6�.d. \• +. � y� ¢ o � 3nV ANJ3H� J W •+ O O( �' W . -+ My VONVM113 Z� Elm i,. .; •:: _., ?;. ,.:. �: h any LU TA�3AV . :• N3NIYnYV co KJ .i C �� • 3AV N3AVH 3 3AV O'7min�dV + •.'" ado � u ga dam„ 'L — � auv�Nln 31W rtY l r It c CL ZD r / 2 (u ` gyp. �; • / `� U_ 1;.\ i W LL e .. LL ,.(? -f1� � 1J�6�.d. \• +. � y� ¢ o � 3nV ANJ3H� J W •+ O O( �' W . -+ My VONVM113 Z� Elm i,. .; •:: _., ?;. ,.:. �: h any LU TA�3AV . :• N3NIYnYV co KJ .i C �� • 3AV N3AVH 3 3AV O'7min�dV + •.'" ado � u ga dam„ 'L — � auv�Nln 31W rtY l r It c CL ZD r / 2 (u ` gyp. �; • / `� U_ 1;.\ C:l ;E 0 CITY' OF RANCHO C STAFF RE Auaust 12, 1981 :977 TO: Members of the Planning is..ion IP7 C /11 FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Develop , f /X BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner A J* )10,0"_X04 I SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 181 -05 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY - The development of an electrical distribution sub a ion loealedon 4.78 acres of Lei i The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on this its meeti nq of June 24,. 1921 to al Ow_ the anal i cant time to arov i additional In n:^ma nn ranarriinn not e ntiaT im08SiS_G surrounding nn_q hbSfhood_ This supplemental information —sass been a arc with a oral Staff Report outlining the details of the project. Also attached, is a Resolution of Approval and suggested conditions of approval should the Commission ;wish to approve this project. BACKGROUND: Several is:ues were identified at the previous public hearing relative to the environmental impact of the proposed substation on the Sur- rounding neighborhood. Residents and Cormniss aners alike questioned why this particular site was chosen and expressed concern as to the impact the proposed substation would have on the property values and lifestyles of resi- dents in the area. The attached supplemental report compiled by the Edison Company contains a detailed analysis of these concerns. The engineers and technicians who prepared the report will be available at the public hearing to answer any questions. ANALYSIS: Substation need The demand for electrical distribution substations is based upon ultimate load requirements for electricity in a given area. The total load assumption (electrical derland) has been calculated at 101.44 MW for the Alta Loma area. Because of line loss and voltage drop inherent in line equipment, the appli- cant maintains that a substation is needed in the Alta Loma area to supply sufficient electrical power to meet total load assumption demands. ITEM E Staff Report CUP 81 -05 Location Study -2- August 12, 1981 The supplementary report identifies 5 site selection criteria used by Southern California Edison to select the site under consideration.. These CrIi:eria udsicaiiy iaentify the avallabiiity, cost, and location of land in relation *to load demand. A detailed study of six alternate sites was perpared by Edison Company officials which resulted in the purchase of the site at the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson. The reasons for the selection are contained the the attached supplemental report. Economic Impact The supplemental report contains an economic study of the economic impact of substation facilities on surrounding residential property values. The study includes two substations, a 66 KV substation simildr to that applied for in this C.U.P., and a 220 N substation similar to the Padua substation located on the corner of Campus and Base Line Avenues in Upland. In both cases, conversations with local real estate agents and the developers in- dicated no difficulty in selling homes adjacent to these substations. Additional material used in this study will be available at the public hearing. Lower Pad Elevation Study During tive public hearing process, nearby residents expressed a desire to see the interior pad elevation lowered to maximize the screening effect of wails and landscaping. Lowering the interior pad elevation 2 feet would necessitate shifting the south and east perimeter walls 4 feet to the south and east to maintain the required 2:1 slope grade along the north and west perimeters of the station pad. The applicant has prepared revised line of site drawings to indicate the effect of lowering the pad elevation. Noise Levels A noise level survey has been prepared to determine the impact of the pro- posed substation upon existing ambient levels. The projected ambient levels for both day and night are well within the acceptable range for residential densities of this nature. The highest projected soung level is 43 DBA which is below the 45 to 55 DBA noise level indicated in the General Plan as an acceptable level which would not interupt speech or normal activity in this type of zone. E, i Staff Report CUP 81 -05 -2- August: 12, 1981 Radio and TV Interference Studies prepared by the Southern California Edison Company indicate that radio and TV interference attributed to substations is negligible. Tele- vision and radio ambient noise measurements will be taken by the Edison Company prior to installation of the facility and after the substation is energized. Any significant differences in 'Iiese readi.,gs which can be traced to the substation facilities would be corrected. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider all public input relative to the concerns of this project. Upon reviewing the concerns and considerations regarding this development, it is recommended that the Planning Conunission take action to either find the development consistent and compatible with the City's guidelines or deny the project should the Commission find that this facility cannot be constructed to mitigate the concerns to an acceptable level. Respectfully suhinitted, JACK AM, Director of Community Development JL:DC:cd Attachments r 1 Southern California Edison Company =• 1351 E. FRANCIS STREET ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 81701 R. R. VERRUE July 31, 1981 Yle Tn.CT ....cc. Community Development Department. Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 793 Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Michael Vairin, Seniox Planner Gentlemen: I have attached a booklet which contains the results of rather comprehensive studies of those items you suggested in your letter of June 29, 1981 to Don Bailey. We have expanded on some of the areas in order to provide members of the Planning Commission with which we hope will be sufficient information for the Planning Commission to make a favorable decision. I have also requested that the engineers and technicians who assisted in preparing this report be present at the Planning Commission meeting, and they will be available to respond to any questions which are not covered in the a'cached material. Yours truly, R. R. Verrue RRV:mb Attachment El NEED FOR SUBSTATION In the city of Rancho Cucamonga north of 19th Street are approximately 8 square miles. 1. Ultimate Load Density Assumption 2 lotU per acre = average 6 kiv demand per lot (historical on summer day) 2 x 6 x 640 Acres = 7.69 1W per Square Mile 7.68 x 8 = 61.44 MW Shopping Centers + College + Condo's =_40 M14 Total Load Assumption 101.44 MW 2. Line Loss and Voltage Drop For the largest wires capable of being held by by poles when at full load, there is a 1% voltage drop for energy 1,127 feet, which is Anob 4.7£ drop per mile, or about 6 volts. with the installation of capacitors, the voltage loss is reduced; however, voltages cannot be maintained at acceptable levels where wire miles exceed 5 miles on loaded circuits. 3. Economic Impact Voltage loss results in deterioration of adequate service to customers' facilities. Low voltages to motors in air conditioners, refrigerators, TV's and small appliances have an adverse effect on their operations and cn some occasions result in damage to the equipment. Low voltage conditions have a great impact on the Southern California Edison Company both in expense and customer relations. The Company dispatches crew;, to make a thorougI: investigation of every customer complaint of low voltage. An increase in these calls results in additional manpower, overtime expense, and delays in time to respond, and irritation to the customer. C SITE SELECTION CRITERTA 1. As near the load center as possible for both present and future growth. 2. Vacant land. 3. Existing overhead facilities along streets. 4- Every of fnrr 4-., =,,, , c -_ with condemnation.y� eic�u vi propertN, 5- Locate and construct at reasonable expense. SELECTION PROCESS AND RESULTS Site 1: West side Beryl Street, south of Manzanita. Owner had tract map filed. Did not wish to sell. Site 2: West side Heilman, south of Hillside. C Property encumbered by blanket flood control easement. Representative of Flood Control District stated that the District would wish to retain this easement. Not advisable to build a substation on land with Flood Control District easement. Site 3: Southwest corner Hillside and Archibald. Property not available. Owner does not desire to sell. Site 4: North of the end of Amethyst - adjacent transmission lines. $2,307,000 not economical. Substation would only sere within 180 degrees. Site A: Northwest corner Wilson and Archibald. Although east of load center would be able to meet energy requirements to the west because Cucamonga Canyon Dash Prevents future development westerly. Site was purchased. Site B: Northeast corner Hillside and Amethyst. Property available, however, encumbered on a portion by Flood Control easement. Also no overhead facilities west on Hillside. Not advisable to construct substation. sir "; Ci a �a a C IY I I I IT I � i d I i � 1 1- ipd0�_ � - W Q f I,il t 1 I •� 1� • 4 _ . 1 m m ••w :LQ Oa M m V � m m C 0 4 x Q p IL W CL n :® I F I�I "Ii'T Ilil�,.!�li I ! II n 15 I Him,y --t-A71 � of l - ..i •��, t •y I t l J _1 i (^ 1 11 Ail, r r { 3 c CThe attar_ ,d study was Prepared by: Jim DeNatale Property Appraiser 9 Years - SCE & Independent F_xnnri on. -cam. Cal State, Fulle-•ton B -A. Degree Rio Hondo Community College A. A. Degree Real Estate Member Finance & Real Estate Business (Real Estate) Real Estate Certificate Broker since 1973 California Association of Realtors National Association of Realtors Iiuntington Beach /Fountain Valley Board of Realtors Testified as an Expert Witness Superior Court, Riverside & San Bernardino Counties Applied and awaiting acceptance as an Associate Member Of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. U j J J L. G. PRUTSOS SPECIAL SERVICES SUBJECT: Alta Loma Substation Site City of Rancho Cucamonga In accordance with you request of Way and Land Department, Appraisal study regarding the economic effect on surrounding residential property July 27, 1981 July 1, 1981, Rigit of Section, has completed a of substation fa=i.lities values. The study included two (2) substations, South Substation (220 kV) in Cerritos and Par wood Substation (66 kv) in La Habra. The following is a summary of our findings: SouLIL Substation Location: Northeast corner of Del Arno Boulevard a.nd Studebaker Road in the city of Cerrito:. Size: The substation and rights of ways encompass approximately 33+ acres. Adjacent to and north of the substation is a 131 lot single family residential subdivision, Tract ',':o. 24011. The tract was filed and constructed during 1968. Currently, hoiaes iii this tract range in value from $125,000 to $136,500, depending on size and arienities. The tract is very well mainta..ned and shows pride of ownership. Based on conversations witL repre- sentatives of Golden West Realtors, Real Estate Specialists and Tiffany Real Estate, homes in this tract usually sell in a reasonable time, with no regards to their proximity to the substation. In order to substantiate these opinions, an analysis was made of sales over a two -year period. The sales relied upo.s took place between July 1979 and July 1981. In our opinion, these sales indicate the attitudes of typical. buyers. As a resLIt of our findings, the substation and related rights of gays have no adverse effect on the value of the real estate in this area. Pa;kwood Substation Lor•.tion: Approximately 4 of section of Imperial city of La Habra. a mile southwest of tha inter Highway and Idaho Street, Size: The substation contains approximately 2+ atcres. 97 -2- L Adjacent to and east of the su=bstation is a new single- family residential subdivision, the first phase of which was completed three years ago. Sales representatives of Classic Homes (developers) explained that only three homes are available that are new and not resales. One home has a direct view of the substation and is difficult to sell. Presently, there is no landscaping blocking this view. However, the homes adjacent to the station were among the f;rcf- calve- Tae have indicated no noise or T.V. and radio interference. The sales representatives explained that if the station was properly landscaped, they would not have encountered any difficulty in selling the remaining homes. To summarize our findings, we feel that there is no adverse impact on the value of homes adjacent to substation facilities. With proper landscaping, the stations can be made to blend into a neighborhood. Back-up material for this study will be available at the public hearing August 12, 1981, and Mr. DeNatale, R/W & Land, Appraisal Section, will be in attendance to answer any questions. CDuarte: ].dd cc: R. R. Verrue R. W. Bond J. L. Renner D. W. Bailey M e A. C. TA7JL9 RIGHT OF WAY AND LAND DEPARTMENT �J , 11 ALTA LOMA SUBSTATION GRADED PAD ELEVATION REVIEW Further subgrading of the interior pad for Alta Loma Substation was reviewed with the Southern. California Edison Company Archi- tectural Design and Civil Engineering Departments. The primary concern in lowering the pad elevation is mains- aininm adequate space for the ultimate planned electrical facilities J and clearances for maintenance and operation. Each foot lower in pad elevation requires moving the electrical facilities two feet to the south and east. This is required to maintain a 2:1 grading slope along the north and west perimeters of the station pad. Lowering the interior pad elevation two feet would also shift the south and east perimeter walls four feet to the south and east, as the interior of the station does not provide adequate space for a two -foot cut slope inside the south and east walls. Realigning the south and east walls four feet, as originally shown on our submitted Site Development Plan, would still retain the 25 -foot setback along Wilson Avenue; however, 72 linear feet of the east wall would extend three feet into the 25 -foot setback along Archibald Avenue at the northeast corner. Dropping the interior pad elevation two feet and moving the south and east walls four feet would have minimal effect: on the line of sight from Wilson and Archibald Avenues, except at the transition where- the cut and fill areas meet along Archibald Avenue. The daylight area between cut and fill comes approximately at the station entrance gate from Archibald Avenue. The effect of the above detailed subgrading is outlined in "Red" on the attached copies of the original submitted Site Development Plan, Sheets i. and 2. Any further depression of the station pad would adversely affect the station design and placement of interior electrical facilities. The Southern California Edison Company feels the Site Development Plan as originally submitted provides adequate screening of the substation interior facilities. After a few years growth, the landscaping as shown, along with the City's request for the additional landscaping on the west and north sides, will provide adequate screening of the interior facilities that will be visible above the perimeter walls. 7 IT . �' . p • i' y F ar T - 1 1'. I I F y i A Y rill i 7L Via. °d ,fit i t r ° L � c z41 Ig '� :� I� � �' j �'_ .v #�• Vie;, � �w • is � :y y� {u3� a • •� i c . �7 cg eg • ♦ D A 8€ r• e- a i ��I h c t O SW y 1 c *e� CCC iI• �yl t stl R; i 1� � � V 9- f- II I 13"frAld V-- C3 LU 1C.... 0 0 LIJ k444A Lll II I 13"frAld V-- C3 LU 1C.... 0 0 LIJ k444A February 12, 1981 SUBJECT: Alta Loma Substation Site - Noise Level Projection A noise level survey was made by Apparatus Engineering between. January 28, and February 1, 1981, to determine the ambient noise levels at the site of Alta Loma Substation. Projections have been calculated to determine the effect of the planned 1984 facilities on the eri.sting ambient levels. The Uta Loma Substation site is located in an area zoned R -1 (Residential) within the incorporated city limits of Rancho Cucamonga, in San Bernardino County. Substations are a permitted use with planning commission approval. It is bounded by Archibald Avenue on east, Wilson Avenue on the south and residential property on the west and north. The city of Rancho Cucamonga has no enacted noise ordinances at this time. Sari Bernardino County has a proposed noise ordinance which mould limit noise levels to 50 d3A day and 45 dBA night when measured on any residential property line. These would be further reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, such as from transformers, resulting in a proposed. 45 dBA day and 40 dBA night limit. The measured a ^..bient noise levels and the projected levels that have been calculated, assuning that two new Edison standard transfo=erc will be i.ustalled,are: The above table indicates that almost all of the projected noise levels are within the limits of the proposed San Bernardino County noise ordinance. Only the night time levels for the east and south property lines are projected to be above the proposed limits by l dBA. This is not expected to cause any significant impact because the station is buffered from those residential properties by Archibald. and Wilson Avenues. There are increases projected above the existing ambient levels for all of the locations shown. These projections assume that there will be no increase in ambient noise levels between now and the time the station will be constructed. This is a conservative assumption for it is apparent that the need for the station is depend- ent upon future growth, and future growth will be accompanied by an increasing noise level. Sound Level - dBA Existing Ambient Projected Location Day Night Day Night North Site Line 35 33 30 34 North Wall 35 33 39 37 East Wall (Archibald Ave.) 35 33 43 41 South Wall (Wilson Ave.) 35 33 43 41 West Wall 35 33 39 37 West Site Line 35 33 36 34 Resid. Prop. west 35 33 36 34 Resid. Prop. South 35 33 40 38 The above table indicates that almost all of the projected noise levels are within the limits of the proposed San Bernardino County noise ordinance. Only the night time levels for the east and south property lines are projected to be above the proposed limits by l dBA. This is not expected to cause any significant impact because the station is buffered from those residential properties by Archibald. and Wilson Avenues. There are increases projected above the existing ambient levels for all of the locations shown. These projections assume that there will be no increase in ambient noise levels between now and the time the station will be constructed. This is a conservative assumption for it is apparent that the need for the station is depend- ent upon future growth, and future growth will be accompanied by an increasing noise level. ALTA LOMA SUBSTATION TVI AND RFI AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS The magnitudes and effects of acoustic noise, Television Interference (TV =) and Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) inside, and at the immediate vicinities of substations, was monitored and evaluated by Southern California Edison Research and Development Organization beginning in 1977. Special_ emnhac;_g was i placed on tec.incal papers published by CIGRE *, Joint USA - USSR Committee or. Electrical Power and other European Journals. At the substations monitored, the measurement locations were off the ends of transformer banks, switchrack buses and trans- mission line entrances. The loop antenna was used for AF3 broadcast and the biconical antenna for TV VHF band measurements. In all cases, the antennas were oriented for maximum pickup of noise (pointed toward bands and buses) . The antenna height for either the loop or the biconical was approximately 10 feet aboveground. For the AM broadcast measurement, the "Broad" bandwidth was used as it best simulates a. standard AM receiver. The above study, which was completed in 1979, confirmed that the TVI and RFI noise attributed to substations is negligible. Southern California Edison presently has over 800 substations on our system. Minimal complaints concerning TVI and RFI interference from electrical substations are received annually. When the complaint is received, and the interference is traced directly to a substation, the problem is identified and corrected. A major portion of the complaints are traced to sources other than substF.cions. TVI and RFI ambient noise measurements will be taken by Edison prior to the installation of Alta Loma Substation facilities. After the substation is energ_ zed, the TV7 and RFI ambient noise measurements will again be taken. Any significant difference in these readings, which can be traced to the substation facilities, will be corrected. The above information was prepared by J. L. Renner, Southern California Edison Company Property Engineer in cooperation with the Research and Development Department, and E. R. Schlinger, Senior Engineer, Telecommunications Department, Southern California Edison Company. * CIGRE - Conference Internationale Des Grands Reseaux Electriques (International Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems) 0 12 11 E G CITY OF RANCHO CI.q' -)NGA. SrArA F REPORT DATE: June 24, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: an e 1977 LUMPANr - ine aevetop- substation located on 4.78 acres of land in the R -1 -20 zone, located on the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN 1061- 571 -04 ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission has continued the public hearing on this matter since May 13, 1981 to allow representatives of the Edison Company to meet with property owners in the immediate area of the project site to discuss their concerns and clarify the design of the project. Edison. Company,Cfficials met with approximately 30 people on June 9, 1981 to present the project details ?nd clarify any questions or issues. The project is now before the Planning Commission for 'your final review and consideration of the Conditional Use Permit. Please find attached a copy of the original Staff Report outlining the details of this project. Also attached, is a Resolution of Approval and suggested conditions of approval should the Commission wish to approve this project. BACKGROUND: The request for the development of an electrical sub - station requires review and approval by the Planning Commission to determine land use and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding and adjacent, properties. Typical concerns related to a facility of this nature generally focus upon aesthetics and views into the project site. Some of the concerns that were brought out by the' residents in the area relate to noise, views, and general aesthetics. Edison has conducted some noise studies to determine the existing `, surrounaing) noise levels of the site. From this base, Edison has projected what the noise levels will be with the installation of transformers that would be required for this facility. The projected sound levels for both day and night are well within the normal acceptable range for residential densities of this nature. The General Plan in- dicates a 45 to 55 dBA noise level as an acceptable level which would nit interupt speech or normal activity in this type of zone. Edison has also prepared line of sight drawings from Klusman Avenue to show potential views from those precise locations(These will be on display at meeting). Owners along Klusman were concerned that the difference in grade from their homes to the Edison facility would cause an objectionable view into the interior of the facility. Based upon the sections that have been completed by Edison, the majority of the ITEM A Staff Report CUD 81 -05 — Edison I'a CI June 24, 1581 facility will be screened through normal blockwall construction and landscaping. As can be seen fruin the Grading and Site Plan, Edison also proposes to sub -grade as much of the facility as possible to alleviate this ornblem_ in additin- r ......Az-- dense screen of trees and shrubs be ;le-nted aroundVthe perimeter of the facility. The Commission could further mitigate the immediate impact of these views, if it is a concern, by requiring specimen size trees to be planted along these boundaries. This would provide stronger screening immediately upon installation. To improve the general aesthetics of the facility, Edison has proposed decorative screenwalls or. mounded earth around the entire perimeter of the site with significant amounts of landscaping. Sections and eleva- tions of the wall designs are attached for your review. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commissior, conduct a public hearing to consider all public input relative to the concerns of this project. Upon reviewing the concerns and considerations regarding this development, it is recommended that the Planning Commission take action to either find the development consistent and compatible with the City policies and guidelines based upon the recommended conditions of approval or deny the project should the Commission find that this facility cannot be constructed to mitigate the concerns to an acceptable level. Re pectfu ly submitted, �i ARRY j:. HOGA CCity Planne BKH.MV:cd Attainments: VP RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -05 FOR ELECT::IC DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND WILSON AVENUE IN THE R -1 -20 ZONE. WHEREAS. on the 3rd day of March, 1981, a complete application was filed by Southern California Edison Company for review of xhe above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 12th day of Aug., 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and, 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions Is applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on Aug. 12, 1.981. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 81 -05 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: 1. That the detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall conform to the approved site plan, except as otherwise provided herein. 1 2. That trees be provided every 15 feet around the outside perimeter wall on the west and north side,with shrubs planted between the trees for screening purposes, using tree well insets. 3. That the California Black Oak be specimen size trees and. that additional specimen size trees be provided along Archibald Avenue to meet special Boulevard standards. Resolution No. Page 2 4. That trees be planted at the base of both transmission Tine poles to reduce visual impact. 5. Installation of a portion of the master planned storm drain on Wilson Avenue with adequate catch basin connections contiguous to the subject project shall be required. The drainage fee for the project shall be credited towards the cost of this drain. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 121-H npv nF Ai,n lost, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK. LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of Aug., 1981 by the following vote to- Wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ►C 11 ^1 ' 4 �• A d V P A A �ICOI"" V b0 MV Vn u ^ v V ✓ V• 6' - Or Q y 4 �/�b Ll 4 A ✓ V O Y .�° J.ei L N O V q oNN�i C� �b �✓ 3�•p w N 7pJ.9^ CO S � OWCbTA wV6 CP =fqN qV >.L y � Q a ✓O .0 � "° -UN 7f (JJ b ." T OO V C L YOPgO 'CO ^ 41 V PL.nr N« VV O R U J T d v V N Y " S M C � u _ 2 -✓ O F. l C L�✓ .� pV(y� .Cy V C4 Y L M C q q i G L V N q Y V 4^ {. � q R d b Y Q u N q - N } •O l°I N Y � T° L L .n P v V N q V L L4.r✓ t ✓C N ✓ ^ r b N uJi 6 q O - O L V L U •O •� C y T S✓ 36 b 04C a.r Q6 �T V q q«UV « ^.q.GUL H VPC90.O „ _ L yV 64rnV d O lN6 N Y L V V Q N C V y R 6 J rbi. Tj M^ " J C C p V N Y y N Y •.. q A N ^ P OYU ^< wi � p NP6 90 ^f 0I•.R u d..O- >L d�V Cn„ L4 r q 1V 11° J^ N C.IPn ✓.Ti C ^� Or bL q O OC qnN l4 YLL WgCV „M _ 4 L U• v L u w N • � w Z.= O N U C M u N 'n y u C T V 16 q �• ^f u � N (. C� O TJ p 1 j N L.L O Y i} P.r -1 > l i f. q p `a� YY � p� rV yA L3' L {1O b• W✓.nP ^ NGOL L ry U -rC. N C L W.0 N° W N V«} T II U✓ N.�n C .•q. � U x •°. J b R W««L�E C WN L W q pV C' urV > pw1 PG�j C L NLL N •�[ Cp Lr WLL�J r` rCO. `w°- qV O° q b- R Q v•-• lV MY -b rVNMCN Cr .O p �• 60 .^� bQ ^MLi ^ WuYV L'q O Y u.G- L N� qr^• CLOI q� (] wR0 ycyrr _Vr «� dC Ll" L "- � � ✓GO TY qd✓ L pL 6��1 V✓ w f' L P u N `L'q Y M• O V O CW G. d 4°- ^ ✓1 � p✓ C 2� Yi', R" O a e>i u P C1V L N C M b1�VU - p O _ Tq qM N r ^ •.C. tJi r�b>.NV .Cq_ 4 V N P� N �C6_J CJ CLL Pb +O� ^^ _ ^q qN W �OJ tOdpCW N WW UY P.O y �{_ V GN. �L Lw SJC `O. Off. LOL •.. « N4 C_yu V ^^ C' N b Or C d d^ Y N 1� Nb nY C`C d C% „u qV +CO° NV NO.9 Nr S ✓y.rV V L .L.. 4q VC O C✓OV .-J .L. 1 V O V G N�V�O N V [i Y y V U C LL Y. 4 P •' « Lp b •b-U VV UqV N TO b «� Y cN N .� b =� � 6 V 'O •r 00 Cq�6•V P OS U Y • V- U_, C " bV `y q Yq L 4 .o d .au 7 O <'Y V •^ C 4Y d L b L W n O w 6 ✓N «.` G ^� ^ ar i ^u l0 ui v° N� y.`. '_ yy ICJ L Ni u up N V.+o v u- + N •mob �C V d O aVbC CCp1 V yW�N y`qR yNU OVMA N NJ Gp �.L+V ✓C N� .^C -bd6 L ^� L < 4 N 6 < q O N 4 Fq W •n ` I 2 W W L� L [- M1I 1- N T. V ^V � .M LVLNY4 Y• L V p u q } .q O d( N 4 W NI 0 N - i.+ ^ V b C. D• « O V O C O T L y f� P_l O CV L y T PR FyN bG� 6V^ �b G y v+N- u:.G- n cz c� L°.m GfV iio b� ..^ ✓ $w .J LL O. Y L NN •r q+nN � q Y C V O A C N N C d 6 N L p Or C A 4 A C CE N ll W Or•• L L✓ 6 L G} LL ^ � V C W L « _ y R ^ .Tr C �y V y C O� V V y 4 6 E b 1 . Z O T q L C L N T « G^ Cl E 4 FN C >. E o <• Y^ N+' d A N Cr V Pq C 4 .pn e W ^ y Y - V J q .O L ✓ 9 C- V C Y O ✓ C O E2 V � N V T C a « u 3 « r N L O O w d M y W 1/1 ON j- ✓V •^ V T M4C'� 4 o W V Z« -b R.✓-o y �� W yo r 4 d mr wu Y.°. '� V Yy.c O C O O^ O C O q q O C.r ^y6 Y A^ O.q- NY N Nb. qC 25 o ca V- O O O .r,• � .- W q N p d Y w � t T .•. N d V w. .� y M fY [..) oY ci E nN L nN C LO ✓ N .nav Y- O a V - o«�'� v e eo O G 6 > N J d L t C 4 � V l✓ tl i 'J 4 � W Y N p. y p L: J O O •." O ^ « V Y O M y� • r" V a OyC qpN NY Or i'U NL P N u^L Ntc MVV ✓ rpJ N O R -•� �O� Yµn •>VU y C�w OLC� {L pvj {J q�R u0 q �: L y 6 6^ L• N C -" q > L V L L n = T ^ q N4 O�J N ^L- Vr OZ q" b.� qT•Y 6 •�•.•> 00 ^V C y A O a d NP d - ✓rW `o .� q wJ0 [,J f/} a u g4. emc wcrr Y« ^..N. Law > � c✓ 4N GG� odr_ .V•Cr. -o a F t i� qw -r: V n[ 6w RV [• y giVn NL ruO -WN L qO•N AMIk •• N_ L L Lr. N O C < O >>.q rq %LU V .. CC 1-• T P .• R �- L W� < Ll N 6 h- ✓ L > U W -.V. ✓y dp F• CI wn N I'1 O N rOI Ir � Or p O 6T I A I �I N rC J F Kr! N 4 ^1 �I N u •SS1 V NW a a Cn�: LA dW =° •n fJ DO ^ O •CrrW�dN Yap p r Y y p u N L 6 ° vL L pV N a N- ` V n C f! A_ V V N C « d rtl ✓ W q ✓ L C « r C` ` rOn u V L T N W V T u P ( C ✓ O y.. d V p 4 �q V W Y L CyN rN C LL L ° ✓f/J 9c W Y �� p N O u I- u_ W�noo` -.^ IC.• 1_�r V y ZZ _ n U✓ 0. N N 7 0 W� a R V � d O W Vr C W L U ~ u q O p d O L� ✓ > L ^J V" L u Ti 6' .>ir p✓ N V N L N J� p G V m ^ Ca i j� « 1� _C N:ro iZ L L u dV N Y L a✓ ]•qN ua L Lp 00 La O `^LVPT 2 p t u L i m q ✓ _ �b pi pn 4 J u P. ' 1_ g N N ty0 T PdR NCI n f. W W r M d« N "' N W N� �� „�.^ UVgi _q N M WT L Y^ r>o •O .y- � C°,r r s I °2]�.p yy1' q LuV >pL N> Y PAN ✓ Lr yr^ L CL !,n V q � rdir T +•�rNP>rC 1. uLL 7�L pC]' �t p A A T .r °> � ILR Yp,I+N uW '!l ✓LW U. y V i,' u� Wo✓ w. O g2'tn Inc W � _ E vcL v 1 r.. yO4 � ✓O W 1T j L4!N ` R� 9 M W ° � ° r Cr N a LLpO YUC ✓'U W 4 .N n N y L O d N d 6 O Z` Y d p V l' u V •O- ` ° OI �r ° rn v « C L' O W d P ryi W O LO C •W.r _ L I W (y A J M L Qi g Z V I W M� N Z Cc ° L J > ^° U O N OZ OY C �� •N d 'VV A VcW E fY 2 L'(ri 1 O«c LIrLLM L G p 1- f'WYa «TO OM _« O�( N..> -Er �b Ctl. « u C � u O V G u Cprr V v� �Y O l l �y - (” n � W .-• N U. O° N N W C C O O ✓ ••UU O N« � p l (� R �y d'C 6 g N W p 4 V r1r C L'✓ =C ^l.'r CW6 LPP P C_ ^ Y QI `�' ^ � pL+«• G-^p L Wu 4 N )uW'r 9 � «T 4q N [- • >.VWO •L- `C^ CrM ry.p j V VNN L✓ "L � p.CV ~OOVI O) N - CJWli +-y CC'_ ' w n c i E iyJ' yV "N' '= t r �+ :-° Ya •C °.m )-n 4 C4,�i au1 c L y i �-' I•'� .✓W, K> o GyiC UrOn Oro )-].0 � -lau N( ) `�j�V•� LLy VT•W Np6 N IO o W c 0 p is o W✓ �c a S. <uo °w a.� c M u vq o W °� o Pwo > W n W L N o a n` cc o u N n` ...N o. ✓ a c oc - q p.r. M ✓d .R, cc I .^ fi •n a o L4n._c �v uL q r^� q« q «c.co« °.°: A p.. ✓Wye NN0. _". °NY '� •C^VC CL ,c^ MTNSVI.d dU ^_�o FF u� N M ZVr ' VIi` a mud p ••- J 4VMiL L i, ✓ W M T C C V` ✓+° NW C V �P O M Pu Vba.�u_� rq ✓„ q Z p fi O W= S A W C V Y O W L +l Y O L u V r p p •' «c M N 1') O M O a M \,• •�• N d p ICe Wr �✓« L' L^ MW VV« na +(LY LLd ✓p Y VAPV O« L• V N L N d L .• N O> V. r--. CU0. Y' V O •° N Qr ✓ ry a y 6 W W W a0 LNd OrWN OM ` uG✓UN "C •`p- IS `6rL d0 N "C '-YUN Pp° y �V L W r•N N Y�WCr NNY- pN L: >pV V:.n _ n W� p Ou L°N PO UI- NRr (j, Y WNL W V LL^ LMt✓ F Y °.r LZ •� =N _C C V ✓ a •r- N 1y yp N "Vp° RY d^ -AIL Y NW•W I: .� Vf Wa d`V6VpV Ir PYV CVd °d k= MY CAP u y Nd V nlC 6L qp N q rO •^CONO]"r0✓ °l VayL 6AU 6C M " q CNJy `rL VW/ NC LN N(1 q ^p YIgW PPW N L VA Cu Lydi Ov y✓ V✓ VC« AV q l] a O, J u A V W Y. N^ b d q 1 q ry C 9 M✓ 4VI d Or L NN i? Ca�N L N �WY pV Ob Y q ✓✓ pOr CyW "N C O r4' L+ � p1 Q> Mp r� W N O ° N N W VJ_LV L( N 6✓ O C CI p q r nW - d p . � q TL 'p' O I, 6C LW aM NC Mu .L"^ 9 LLm ^ C gOaC OrL aVC pC � pC Li'W°V L4C N l 0��+ 6 p ^ C J 4✓ � O d✓ O W 4 W pL 4' v o i N d^ O d N q O p_ W L r`4 O N d✓ " N "«oo vo « aNgW« V- Y l N N u C r i l 2 P X _ C L- Y : W ..- N I"WJ a o uo LR Nb d_ •^ E ✓ R O J p 4) �C y � p V_` � V ^ ,^ .r- �YOL ur °cc _ M ; «P C: y - "'z •A r N .'L✓ N :. « °9W rO L, "a =o NJ-I, awM� °N I"N _ q W ILi.y �r �C I`.1 O ` Tmldl✓_ i71V I°n roW ¢d y� mn0'M1l Y•nC •qC OJ a O� OOG " « ,L+ dN V�Qrq �•^ n W Y N WWd •W-6 PP «.� Ir uCCM.�fI G {Nq pW q 6 YG«. VC rVO 4 j 1�a0 rQ ^ C P Z Ur �-W` ✓p j� (-; a n C O L C •r- -•• p C T C C �GJ LNW ' 1°.)�r MW_N y< ✓ yd V)LgW C.^� O NV _a« }O� nl]�+ ^_ ; � •- 4V•^+ WL L Y NV p bdau •- N= i} l L ^_ L �� WM u Wy 4 WOY. ry Q Q (] L.I �. y4 Qr , {'j V V (-e •^Y _ W AM V jy y C 6G WdyP ✓u0 NAVN 4NP Qp 40r6N N6 C4a QiOV H� 14 �I N u lj ••yr• VI V r l T « Y_ C C y d N.� p 4 N. A 'L • S � 1 � G b « r W O.q A q.•O. l: u d P � Cr E] � V N N C J �d0 V P ✓L L C yVN Yn d- L u(!`. -� J ..I uV O V « a VL O< AOV Yr CI C• LnY lN>•L J POU ✓ �•V L JI � LV L'NyNO uc WY o -iS ry '�U Yn-• COF G_v �L v � VG . y L 1] P u C = C '= .� 4✓ V fY n L. Y r d al N V �✓ b l� L L L> N ✓ u f. V P N � r W> C '� p � wyC A l L P q uEm �O> q •. N W O n•. •.. .:: L N� C •. O f� `: L m CLN � r nL.-�O' Ed ✓POUF 2 r N T l ✓ dY N l L« >•� V ••. �' R _T E d E ♦ r e• V V_ �� u V T N N V d P Vb ` L �� 4` •� l A y� r A 4•v ^ T O V[ ` u y Q V (f •' ` '^ d '^ d rA ~ G ". C T(I'�•• V J ` q -' V A A ••O- A w Y« N V � � •Oi •r yL V - L ` r L ✓ d L N N.n sY N d O •Vr .%u Cr 4 ^ P •L N N� AV O4LO� P � u N O 4rw yL� r r a qo (pa -•-S iaa <a F [ qS n� Cr e j pr °� �r «w wGC r4iar rn \r � O� clt yc U � P Y W N .� Y Vid]' ^rn C wi (J w 4 w�^.•�i�••.N lui O » J W W N✓ Ldy VG✓ L b.n. O N ar r a Y A1' WWG •V- Guy• V i t CCC 9 T)Pr N9r �U� `lu rAwVN wN I pra V N'�m •gi•pf «N�C.A Y O wuW 4 .N >lJ WJ .'•.N.c um 9'c. o�o� L».° ',c �riN uuy1 On-N„» � o d •rrti cuff -i LN✓ A� G10 N r \V•NV ilrV _ V� V VrN iU N.- FM N L O ,-`Lw 1 L ^. ^•� .^- N •J u�L 4 y y- PW o � _ .- N _ n r G q .Lw � p •` L• - W o N •� 1. NNi ✓ir •- N ' Lb « A N S W ` d O sr o o c.0 L n� y �rn•.. 4 o Nw^ c° � tr< d v °O}' N v. - _ 4 Cr L u S ••- d d O O» w N o •L L b.-m YI4 ^+ t: Nrn � N�G COp Y4V Y- r O NC 4 d✓A V` W +••^� v rYU rp u V C > Z L � [W L r L q- N L V t1`� i L m V � R b T b V L ... V VU' N w ^V N b u y O LL�r.0 N N o tl N 1. � •y qq'O N L i N L dupT UAY yyq nIV...LY 4 ^O w9 L! J m� L� 1. U P Wu ✓ 4i E Lr ![L t. d > N W V V yw V yL L .•- .•y. �VL ` �n V •- fiu rN W O uJ• •rV ^rw N_ C V L A CEO N V I w •r' C W V .LV A ✓� •••✓C1 u N J u d u L >V.C�yL .•• }J T L A N V. WP^4A F G .- \ •- �a.Pi LV nr ✓E v�U •Ar• �dV bTJPVL LW� 1P+ vw C PA -.-dN I- m •`V w V U ur T�C V � ^N O.V` J2 „� »t rO•LA�A✓ �L U rq 4 O duN tiP OPLO •r mL ^V. ^ • u u 'N 6CO r DO n-NN NOPU�p 7: a OVC O Y. N N L wiV � ^:P6 No oN � o.°. u °�' $'g, •��Y yq` ^r. Aa o u r ..b L ":. ' `o_•» 7La'�a -opW .N .°c> •T s+�'a {.. aYro�rLrr •Y A>. N✓ L V OJ n i 'ai a Li o' < v. •C .n q n .i c ai v � <j o f9 N a°J a •o [WL pY Y wl N wI U•) �[ lJH VCI 71 V •n N I.1 R Yl s w M 1 L ` N G O E. H O C V -„ 'i S V `t-' 6 L: J r• G N O 1� N u C Y •. 6 d r Y 6 Ow .;u^ C.r '� VV~ L• V N e r a O L V V V.V Neu. N P WA•J F! ^AT 'N�6 9 .iL m� N N �uNU V^ .Vim DLO VubN S lJ »VO Vo••P N cr cV W •+ c � t0 J OV� L Vu .V V� `b � N✓ J�^ W L L � fi t1 C l O � •W^ di O r V y M {, rr A J L N a C •� b V N A ✓ w �' ^� V V �WG7 ^F� L V TLU F.' W j yr O ••- J «A. -IL` QL^ ✓ r L q PN L� y .•. r• P MV'- NrNN ^u u L • �q fW d N✓ O A ^•ter U• '•' arC L - ^ A V Vp 1 4 <l bA W^ GV l• « C .0 rt4i G N V�VT L V �V O V -N S LA VW W db >rCY - r « V L 6LM' W P Z:Z Ww«C Oe ��p >A IZ- L<ru u9 Lrq W C ✓^ w'<'y i!i .AJ nrn s „b dNwflj T «UN - V L [[ u O C N Y r_ L V « Y y L p W� N� b !• - Wr LL O E ✓ ' N '^ aMxN $ ] ✓bV .� Jam- LL }� N W a y ..-u c -q c« P u�_ Y •r J C ✓ QLw ✓ .•W.d C \ -N » � >N N (dfo ✓ b N Vd,yJ L 4 �� I'aC •� 2 N C� O N NO` ✓ILV V N .- d ` N d f '•' •� l N a1 U q ^ L V dC O V VO •� y ¢i L'J •- •L'•"r- w'n• L a LN A> N ✓c J q VV NOC I�Y.V O V✓�YW {r�V)L JO 7•G- 4..._Y•A ` 4 WCFrOC Grn N .4.. «C V ••N -V � U•r V✓W a• C li N � .•. P- CS P•Nii arq �•• l] Y(JpVNeJ PmP ✓ ud d ti NPN L.-6 ✓,J •0.P uu• .� d W °� = °cS>, L «” A',OU o: • -`•°.i �.LJw Lc.W. ar E".N,ti `. « ^T) § Vc ^..o >Nbv'r� � N V •r • f9�W W w ^�C N w .L'- W .� N W �• d P N d .^^i -� bd OJVN.p� w+ �nA au t.{r a =LL. T S p O 4L .•• m„ mV ^- O p Z r O c`- �+ � N u... T O• N A N �l L• 0.A L. >• L- ✓car .. :2 V J o L `v "• > u L 4 L A � 10 �.LLNN .j.`_.o+ i�ryc o s- N cP= A'o'°: =t` ugAOm i r ctl -FJr yc . -... V J an J f� C O O w� �J \� TL v A A V O t7 •>-r S W V O U A C d J A A u d V r V •� w� u T] '� \- L .LU✓V��CW C ✓✓ O 06✓ Vyy ^1 VLfJN G{OruI O J VNV �VY l« • AO�J« UYdwu OCaL ; ) Crw AL N^ C L VA _N ^« r•p O ).V +aJrW N O VN 40 ✓� d�✓m L d�MSr •� w - NL Vt q N✓ f7 y•�u NV? wV lG A>•�GiO m <V «uy �u OruN xl �� H§ = Nra..��aN ✓9�G.� wG «^ s ^rW.J _Nw .^✓ V � lz A N CbO J Nr W ' d�4N NNAV6 jgAN L N '.....• VL w yN PC VL Y q V J n C C V O W L •+ L V N E F a/ C C c d « V C. N O d N r w Ni O •p i c• v O « d . N 6 •r O'^ N L L' 1 u 1- u 0. _ U .^ N .. d R \• M Y• •^ L V •• O {� a N vi V « L F C ti N J P� A O b A 03 YLd > .) r6 i, I.0 AM✓ L ^ ~•�q f •� ' pPAN f s✓ O C✓ V N O 4 � T� u T- ~ gLbd N��y w l W u u L C d C t: T� 4 V J nr F O G atr p P V. S d V W u V I V» 4 N b A JJ T) Jy O r� l +- w d« y Cr 4 O VT.r N W CI 1 d YI rn A P•V a { J- O >\ q j 7 r N C U N « l J L >•6 �Lrh « kk : :f `j W l P L rn VV�•�A OwN ^YrG J NOO<r Lew NOfO Lv. -.•-r. OUCy l� ✓ •� y VV VP O N C fJ d M J ,r W L O.- 6 V O« i •-• W ^.•.Y Do.—, VAL ✓G O +L V � d >) V y C N C C L �' L L ]] L N .✓ L G d L y ar pr 2 O^ n• C O OA Si r' LL VL) N�•••J H4✓« N�•J•� O «�NO N 4 •r• C.JVAd 6VVL V N 0V 4JO 6{r WN WY N O 'J�.,'. I I I n{ yY •(�rJj{� N NI I IA N t0 ^I r yl I{ NI �� pp � I I I :•.• f 4� N / 1 W / u pY S S g W V O. C b u O V Y R N q C. Y T� N S. u O V N vb z V o° V C O ✓ L- V T O i W N N N v r O l N V L i vL �V d V 1 n .'l.N O NwJV l d NC✓ V V oq u L.r L a O y W _L C: P AWN V I- i v tii r O al m L Vr t. O f q P O✓ W O u ry L •'I• +4i .Oi u N.r N O � W L N 0 d ✓^ w r C rK tJ n c L r L •d V L P cW y u l V � W W.V p T a L � 4M i J U WY O N q V V W v � W m Y Y C � V W mlG 0 V C V a� b 'v b p i ti v w N N 1' C u n u ✓ V l d V V � 9 C 4 G O y q O W a ✓ l W = W Pi C � TC ✓ ^ aLi b'rt °i^ r EW u o •2 tci c va` n. oY v c° n ✓w v v 4W N a L V Ly�i 4 ry J tT � L � ✓ a y. .•L. Iwo iv Lf' � i eve q.7C Iw y� �b N•Ni ^O ✓'^ �V� •11� OI ✓ y N w L G L � V P lG] E L >•L aC 9.p �W lQ� V� ✓ q O y N •N A C N C J C q yW L G wVl. V� O q 4 O' W F L U iJ y Q L IO.I � N m 1- O -n vNJ R v 7 r � V « C C d O f .•. q y ti� l V L «'•l }? L O L L J J L C O d J a � y N 4 G r 77 NZ r r Zn w W ._ I % IV 4Jj 41 L Y L� H JVN W ••• rt.N9m u •}� W V� V� V K q q. 4 1J u •n W L tT G Y N � � O A> J� y °i W O ). N •ia. �« A C L n �..� w. � t u N W W L � p LL ✓ a °i V Y N n C •� O C O W O W u V °' H V l .O V i L A u � q 'O V J •-• V J N H W q � O F Y W ^I q V« V m1 C q CO �J y O L W 4L W Y lqL "� L V '•' •W. WP O H ys L >• V 4. O n Y•.� L O y 'O M1] J [' W N' t,5 d ^ V N y W l W L uN Y✓ t'.V A• V O C •mil W n i W O 9HJ{ °. •�. N L .•L. - p.(�' S L1 LI 76 V yy V V u Nq L d A ✓ � fVi nl G LL � � � L N � � .` 6 O � Y l •.• V V. •.. N ILI � ✓ VN LN''L LL L Or Nf• V� �^ u°ti ••niy V= � M C q u A � W . N N l' L Y L N .L dV °Lj ON V V U.NI C .. «L MO V• r:, yr NY �u Qp •� ` V n .r t ar � N „ u• J N 6 y n L •O n W W V ^ C FW t'1 W✓ L r r��, N R N V C LYC q nnn ul IW WV .� LT°/ vl Oy. OV t'1 W IN.uL V O« V'W L ✓ W W^ 4� C W W j ` >� J^ r Y W` d q p h � ..U. Y• .' 4• •^ L .Z Y� t-✓ O. N L 6 4� � n ry G � yyY Lbw WI 7 J 1' C u n u ✓ V l d V V � 9 C 4 G O y q O W a ✓ l W = W Pi C � TC ✓ ^ aLi b'rt °i^ r EW u o •2 tci c va` n. oY v c° n ✓w v v 4W N a L V Ly�i 4 ry J tT � L � ✓ a y. .•L. Iwo iv Lf' � i eve q.7C Iw y� �b N•Ni ^O ✓'^ �V� •11� OI ✓ y N w L G L � V P lG] E L >•L aC 9.p �W lQ� V� ✓ q O y N •N A C N C J C q yW L G wVl. V� O q 4 O' W F L U iJ y Q L IO.I � N m W a L V Y O•^ V i n PcJ L fl L W v 4 ` w r 9 ✓ M W C C 4 V V L u L r P t. M C W N YIII G ••• Y Y V O c • P u c ssP u C V LAW r�u L N C V V r Y' pOI O C y p .O.• L .• u� .r LQ u L iYt:y Nn «Tqu nr � SL C P N V O V a O V C .•• q r��y NCnN N C =29C y N L V N O O K y N Y N N C P C tLNy .- aqn` M CY ^qLyW V O Y G v L 4 V L C N• Y ••O• L M N rNWy uLNL �u uoLQ pr• �6 ✓� C U•L+ NVYVV VJN.:OyT lT4+V• r y GOB CL yNWyi gJYL Nu `.o �+q «4a Y N C% O C V O. T •� n y N NL VyN C q �A•rt 7u �u L5VCIV M1 -e L Y —�YM+II 11 Y l y V O L 1 ^ L W •".v L N L •. .•.. � L N n °°w8 d•c'�� n6 ay 4�qN. YL �O•� WV� Y:l L Y•_ Cy nNC N ✓ao ✓c •.L -CyC� `,.0 C.N LWW. L .^ Olu u•Y �.•. u K �O •r• u ii rl T M W 1 � 4 V C1 •qrl NgYL^.• VyuN Nu �''u �4L+ VnN I� O N a'^ � 00••• 4V OM WYy 1- O -n R v 7 r N ti� l N J WZ a 4 G r 77 NZ r r Zn w W ._ I % IV 4Jj 41 H W W W a L V Y O•^ V i n PcJ L fl L W v 4 ` w r 9 ✓ M W C C 4 V V L u L r P t. M C W N YIII G ••• Y Y V O c • P u c ssP u C V LAW r�u L N C V V r Y' pOI O C y p .O.• L .• u� .r LQ u L iYt:y Nn «Tqu nr � SL C P N V O V a O V C .•• q r��y NCnN N C =29C y N L V N O O K y N Y N N C P C tLNy .- aqn` M CY ^qLyW V O Y G v L 4 V L C N• Y ••O• L M N rNWy uLNL �u uoLQ pr• �6 ✓� C U•L+ NVYVV VJN.:OyT lT4+V• r y GOB CL yNWyi gJYL Nu `.o �+q «4a Y N C% O C V O. T •� n y N NL VyN C q �A•rt 7u �u L5VCIV M1 -e L Y —�YM+II 11 Y l y V O L 1 ^ L W •".v L N L •. .•.. � L N n °°w8 d•c'�� n6 ay 4�qN. YL �O•� WV� Y:l L Y•_ Cy nNC N ✓ao ✓c •.L -CyC� `,.0 C.N LWW. L .^ Olu u•Y �.•. u K �O •r• u ii rl T M W 1 � 4 V C1 •qrl NgYL^.• VyuN Nu �''u �4L+ VnN I� O N a'^ � 00••• 4V OM WYy n a] N Y ' N ' ' M N L O O L n N c u � q I L r I W i C T u o ' ^^ V L � V V q �J L N O O m c n� c .. O � d � q u V V PVIO Q m V G 6 q V �+n T V E r V C t Y + r noq c v Y V d L V VIM= V O V • O O •^ ^qq W d�0 Vv��Cj/O qLl p M • +UV �VE� N �� rr0• yL m F Y Y V O y �n OQi OUP q �c ^mom T •� w3i� �tl c S q� LL J V i N C g O O i l Y L d q T D m L �• F L d T � cp y � m m v. 4$ M M C L 1a• O� u NU O2 A N A Y GAT L E > O cr q Q wLrV OY OV 2 � W � � ` N ••V• 2 O u L O T O Y q O C d L L u OWO � fCtl�/y L C R N 4 q F Nm V r� N q' GG C d u L r g L d 7 N V 1} p V L C J L I 2 F �rrrL b V q M f V C 4r O C'• LnGQ 6 71 L L� b. L M rrTi c U R oo oNO nN c W LLc ' A 7 / I yCr M C Or 6V A a V M u MY q XE CMu y PV.J O Y ur N Y ' N ' ' M N L O O L n N c u � q I L r I W i C T u o ' ^^ V L � V V q �J L N O O m c n� c .. O � d � q u V V PVIO Q m V G 6 W V V E r V C t Y + r noq VIM= 9 ^qq W d�0 p OV • +UV vOi NuN �y N L V O y C OQi +b 71 T wIw• V� V � d t] V Y •� LO d q T 4$ M M C L 1a• O� u Y ✓^ r N 2 � O q ` N ••V• OWO � 6V iY V O u u q N ONO u+ w• +9 y O_ q C 6+ •N d b V q M f V O lWI I O C O V 1H, J L M rrTi c oo oNO nN c W LLc A Y b 4 O M C Or 6V A a V M u MY q DO CMu y PV.J O Y ur O A N � •.• �p 4 6 q c L r-• � t TO q M L a• L` W l b A a a Lu'N N O IrVUG V M1q.. V 4 7 V Y Or L Oi 4 Q y q •� V V L W L N W � y 4 N m u �n VV 6d MCtl q }O �C gUMu 6m�q LLL4 QO. dJY•D 2� JL�r SV (n V N r0 w �I I LW r February 12, 1981 SUEJE'CT: Alta Loma S:jstatiov. Site - Noise Level Projection A noise level survey was made by Apparatus Engineering between January 28, and February 1, 1981, to determine the ambient noise levels at the site of Alta Loma Substation. Projections haves been calculated to determine the effect of the planned 1984 facilities on the existing ambient levels. The Alta Loma Substation site is located in an area zoned R -1 (Residential) uVV12 /V14YL'V �1iy iiiii.i Ls of Hancno Cucamonga, in San Bernardino County. Substations are a permitted use with planning commission approval. It is bounded by Archibald Avenue on east, Wilson Avenue on the south and residential property on the west and north. The city of Rancho Cucamonga has no enacted noise ordinances at this time. San Bernardino County has a proposed noise ordinance which would limit noise levels to 50 dBA day and 45 dBA night when measured on any residential property line. These would be further reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, such as from transformers, resulting in a proposed 45 dBA day and 40 dBA night lireit. KI The measured ambient noise levels and the projected levels that have been calculated, assuming that t,ro new Edison standard transformers will be installed,are: The above table indicates that almost all of the projected noise levels are within the limits of the proposed San Bernardino County noise ordinance. Only the night time levels for the east and south property lines are projected to be above the proposed limits by 1 dBA. This is not expected to cause any significant impact because the station is buffered from tiose residential properties by Archibald and Wilson Avenues. There are increases projected above the existing ambient levels for all of the locations shown. These projections assume that there will be no increase in ambient noise levels between now and the time the station will be constructed. This is a conservative assumption for it is apparent that the need for the station is depend- ent upon future growth, and future growth will be accompanied by an increasing noise level. Sound Level - dBA Existing Ambient Projected Location Dqy Night Day Night North Site Line 35 33 36 34 North Wall 35 33 39 37 East Wall (Archibald Ave.) 35 33 43 4i South Wall (Wilson Ave.) 35 33 43 41 West Wall 35 33 39 37 West Site Line 35 33 36 34 Resid. Prop. West 35 33 36 34 Resid. Prop. South 35 33 40 38 The above table indicates that almost all of the projected noise levels are within the limits of the proposed San Bernardino County noise ordinance. Only the night time levels for the east and south property lines are projected to be above the proposed limits by 1 dBA. This is not expected to cause any significant impact because the station is buffered from tiose residential properties by Archibald and Wilson Avenues. There are increases projected above the existing ambient levels for all of the locations shown. These projections assume that there will be no increase in ambient noise levels between now and the time the station will be constructed. This is a conservative assumption for it is apparent that the need for the station is depend- ent upon future growth, and future growth will be accompanied by an increasing noise level. E lu CITY OF RAi1CIAO Ct;C.( J\GX STAFF REPORT DATE: May 13, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FR0M: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: NU. 81 -Ub - JUUIMM4 LALLrUKIILA rUIZU11 wr'irrvv] - The development of an electrical distribution sub- station of 4.78 acres of land in the R -1 -20 zone, located on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues -• APN 1061 - 571 -04 ABSTRACT: The applicant has completed the development and design review process for an electrical distrubution substation to be located on the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson Avenue. It is now before the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. Because of its location in a residential neigh- borhood, the applicant has provided abundant landscaping and walls to provide a visual buffer between the facility and surrounding neighborhood. Staff has reviewed the project and has provided con- ditions of approval for your review and consideration. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting review and approval for the pment of an electrical distribution substation on 2.42 acres of the total parcel of 4.78 acres. The substation will con- sist of a single -story relay house, switchracks, transformer banks, and ether appurtenant equipment (Exhibit "B "). Two overhead trans- mission lines will emanate from the substation,'but all distribution lines will be underground. The remainder portion of the project site could be subdivided into 4 single - family residential half -acre lots as shown in Exhibit "D ". The total project site is bounded on the west and south by single- family residences, on the north by a citrus grove, and on the east by vacant iand and a single - family residence, as indicated on Exhibit "A ". The project site is pre- sently a vacant field and contains no significant vegetation or structures. The existing grade slopes from the north to the south at approximately a 5% grade. The property is presently zoned R -1- 2G,000 (single- family residential), and the General Plan designates this site as very low density residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). C CUP 81 -05 -2- May 13, 1981 ANALYSIS: The site development plan, Exhibit "B", has been developed in accordance with Zoning Ordinance standards and requirements. Electrical distribution substatinnc a m nllnrmr7 +c n 1 �•••. •. -� wile Sit ujeti;L to a Conditional Use Permit. The building setbacks, parking areas, and landscaped areas are all being provided in accordance with standards and policies set by the Planning Commission. Archibald Avenue is a Special Boulevard and the applicant has proposed to lands =ape it accordingly (Exhibit "C "). Access to the site is being provided by a single driveway located approximately 200 feet north of Wilson Avenue on Archibald Avenue. In accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, both streets are required to be improved along the entire length of the property. Strect im ,p- ovements would include paving overlay, curbs, berming and landscani -,jg, a meandering sidewalk on Archibald Avenue, and sidewalk on Wilscn Avenue. The elevations, as shown on Exhibit "C ", indicate the use of abundant landscaping and do.:orative walls to screen the substation from view. The site will be graded such that the finished grade level of the substation is 8 to 10 feet below the land on thn west and north. The proposed screen walls are to be constructed of concrete block With qF stucco finish and brown split -face block. The walls are designed with a minimum 81 height and will be placed atop berms to provide additional height for screening from the street level. As per the Design Review Committee comments, wails along Wilson Avenue and Archibald Avenue have been placed behind the 25 -foot building setback line. rolored elevations will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. The intent of the berming, sub - graded pad and walls is to limit the visibility and impact to adjacent areas. It is unlikely that the facility will he totally screened. Staff recommends that a row of dense trees by planted 15 feet on center along the north and west boundaries of the facility. This will help provide screening for properties to the north and west. The Design Review Committee worked with the applicant to formulate the design which is presently before the Commission. The C-nmittee recommends approval of the design with emphasis on the landscaping around the perimeter of the site. Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant is provided for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Ervironmental Assessment and deter - mined that although the project could have an impact on the environment from an aesthetic viewpoint, that adequate mitigation measures have been proposed to eliminate significant adverse impacts. If the U �J CUP 81 -05 -3- May 13, 1981 Commission concurs with such findings, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE- A public hearing notice was advertised in the Daily newspaper on May 1, 1981, and 29 public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 300 feet cf the prefect site. Residents living on both sides of Archibald and north of the project site have expressed concern with the visual appearance of a substation. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commisison review and consider the various aspects of this project. If the Commission concurs with the findings and analysis of Staff, the appropriate conditions of approval are attached for your review and consideration. Respectfully submitted, EARRY K. HOGAN City Planner BKH:DC:cd Attachments: Exhibit "A" - location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Elev,.tions Exh—lbit "D" - Conceputal Site Development Plan Part. I - Initial Study Resolution of Approval Conditions G I I y�, �rl 'lll l i I I. ,! I I � !. I� 1 1 1 1 I 1 I' 1. � L 1 � � I f � � � � I A� �!� I A .,p�!'�� I � I I 1 � I IT • ! � II n' 1 ��l I � �,I �� 1 _ ,a• 1 �� 1 � � � I I J� 1, 1� �i� .`,'- t I / � ��' E E i - '. 12 KV 1p 1 �.•'ial.t. V. 1••'I .✓YIK 1'�d.NK I 1 pa.IK ,I. �E :..%`m...g..... 1.. n.Y... :.M....H ..•Y,I �.I * �' {1 .Y 1 r 4:.• � - , fid KY LWITJrRIti.K . i m � T i.,.rte � �� Y ��y�4M�•M M ��I ,1 • r- 11 I C1rS 1 ®r' ITEM: Co F gl no5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: _ lilre MAN PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE: . 1 Ql.w V p ~I \ 1, -b K V NURTH M W, a_ h O N � � tr.4 l N J l • � 1AM1YL � I 11 I C1rS 1 ®r' ITEM: Co F gl no5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: _ lilre MAN PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: SCALE: . 1 Ql.w V p ~I \ 1, -b K V NURTH .e !� 1 M w l 'i i 0 l %I• aJ T inr I� sr. d I E 11 L074 • �oocvtF /zo.m• �^ W1150N AVE%la& CITY OF ITEM:_ C.q P l i' 055 RANCHO C,'CA.MONUA TITLE: CA) kf-"v. IS+" S PLANNIN DIVISION EXHIBIT= SCALE- C NORTH AJJ' LOT 2 L0000 SF tVov ser v i CUT 5 v ALTa LOMA JuLi 6.OLDOA h L074 • �oocvtF /zo.m• �^ W1150N AVE%la& CITY OF ITEM:_ C.q P l i' 055 RANCHO C,'CA.MONUA TITLE: CA) kf-"v. IS+" S PLANNIN DIVISION EXHIBIT= SCALE- C NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI401dGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 A- For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and SnAmi 4-h�A t-., t-,ho Develop_ ment Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Reviewr Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an Environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Alta Loma Substation APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Southern California -Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, Ca. 91770 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Don W. Bailey, Room 306, (213)572 -2879. LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) North W,at corner of Archibald Ave and Wilson Ave. intersection. A5 CSSG Y• Parcel No. 104iJ 757i - 04 i LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TILE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Site Approval - City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading E_FencinP. Permit - City of Rancho Cucamon a Building Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga Encroachment Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga I -i rROJ. °CT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alta Loma Subsite will be used for a new —.aesthetically treated low profile 66/12kV distribution substation ultimately consisting or a_single story relay housr ninr- position^ of 66kV switchrack four 44 4MVA 66/12kV trap former banks. se.vente-n 'Io"itinn^ of 12kV 'witrhrark f r+r 19kV r;+p,rito I bank -nd otbpr appurtenant enijioinenr ansoriated with a will be 15 feet above its pad level. All distributien'lincs emanating from the station will be undrr,,round. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BU 'LDINGS# IF ANY: Total parcel: 4.78 Acres; Project Site: 2.42 Acres; Relav House: 693 sq. feet. DESCRIBE THE -ENVIR.ON`- !Q7rAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOMAATION ON TOPOGF.A,PFY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY cUL•rUR.AL, HT_STORICAL OR SCEI•TIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND TI3E DESCP.IPTIOT7 OF ANY LXIS711' 7G STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The 4.78 Acre site is vacant and used as pasture ].and for livestock. No trees exist on the site and grazing has reduced the vegetation to 7Phtly covered weed- and grass. The oroiect site terrain slopes North to South with a relief of approximately 25 feet. No signs of soil erosion exists. Any animals existing on the site would be scenic aspectr known to exist on the site. Two story single family exists sou h of Wil ^on Ave adjacent to the South Single _tory, single family, residences exists to the west of the 4.78 acre parcel. '1'o the north the area contains a citrus grove with a two story farm house, barn and other small sheds. Acro:.s Archibald Avenue, f adjacent to the east, the area is vacent. 1 Is tie Project, part of a larger projcat, one of a serl 5 i Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have signi.'icz.nt enviromne -tal impact? r The original .interior installation will be the electrical equipment and �p '•'�'r1+/`inrG!!` rocu rn+i t0 ^ixyp I the current needs Of the area. Periodic F additions may be made in the future, as required, to meet the electrical 0 aemar. or tho area that is served. WILT. T1I7; PV,O,TI',CT: YES NO W 1• Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2- Create a substantial change in existing noise or vihration? E 3- Create a substantial chancre in demand c.,_ munici al sewage. services , ices (police, fire, water g , etc.) X 4- Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? --- x 6• Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IM— RTANT : If the project involves the construction of next pagresidential age. +anits, complete the form on the n CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that- :'ic facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief- I further understand that additional information may b^ required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Dev(gc3l rte t y Review Committee. J k; Date G , cu.r -4,� g'. � �f� Signature( �:;' Title FROPERTY ENrTitE °R f� l� .. °% CITY or ,^ - R.AN040 CUCAMONGA �` `' PLANNING Ct�T\4MISSION II 1977 WEDNFSDAY AUGUST 12, 1981 7:00 P.M. LION'S PARK, COMMUNITY CENTER QIFI BASF iTNF_ RUM CUf.AM1NGA_ CALIFORNIA ACTION I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl X Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner King X Commissioner Tolstoy Y Commissioner Sceranka X III. Approval of Minutes Approved 4 -0 -0 -1 February 5, 1981 Approved 5 -0 -0 February 25,1981 Approved 4 -0 -0 -1 March 11, 1981 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar Approved 5 -0 -0 The foliowing consent calendar items are e:.pectod.to be. routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Zf anyone has concern over any item, then it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW N0. 81-24 - KAJ MA - The development of a 30,220 sq. ft. industrial building on 3.2 acres of land within the M -2 zone located on the northeast corner of Utica Avenue and Seventh 3tr�et - irarcels 15, 16, and 17 of Parcel Map 6194 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW N0. 81 -27 - R.C. INDUSTRIAL - The development of 2 industrial warehouse /distribution buildings totaling 221,000 sq. ft. on 13.1 acres of land in the M -2 zone located on the east side of Pittsburgh, south of 8th Street - APN 229 - 261 -29 & 30 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW N0. 1 -22 — LORD SHOBE - The ',evelopment•of 370OQ ". sq. ft. warehouse faciiity on 5.02 acres of land in the M -2 zone to be located at 9120 Center;'Avenue.,, APN 209- 262 -07 .. e LEI i( Planning Commis ion Agenda VI. Approved 5 -0 -0 with residence design to be brought back to Design Review Continued 4 -1 -0 for further study be Edison Continued for further study by Design Review Continued 4 -0 -0 -1 Approved 4 -0 -0 -1 T Public Hearings -2- August 12, 1981 ! F r The following items are public Bearings in which concerned individuals may vnfno rr�tr l c the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Conuui.ssion from the public microphone by giving your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per., individual for each project. D. VARIANCE NO. 81 -02 - CHRISTIAN - Request to permit construction of residence — that will encroach into front and rear yards on a 3.532 sq. ft. lot in the R -3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst - APN 202 - •131 -04 E. ENVI n.. vUrIrmllI - 611C eve ocT p-9 ment of an electrical istribution substation located on 4.78 acres of land in the R -1 -20 zone, located an the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson Avenu: APW 1061 - 571 -04 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10210 - LAWLOR A custom lot subdivision of 46 acres into '3 ots comprising 36 untis in the R -1- 20,000 zone and R -1 -14 acre zone generally located on the north side of Almond between Sapphire and Turquoise - APN 200 - 061 -12, 200 - 051 -06, 1061 - 172 -C3 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -01 LAWLOR - A request to change the zone from R -1 -14 to R -1- 20,000 to be consistent with the zonino to the west. This area is a portion of Tentative Tra;t no. 1021.0. The balance of the tract is zoned for the intended use. H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -12 - MILLS - The instruction of ceramic art techniques in con- junction with a ceramic manufactoring, wholesale/ retail use in an existing building in the M -2 (industrial Park) zonelocated at 10722 Arrow Rt. Suite 610. 1; i w Planning Commis ion Agenda Approved 5 -0 -0 P, rpp oved 5 -0 -0 Approved 5 -0 -0 with change suggested by staff Approved 5 -0 -0 Approved 5 -0 -0 Approved 5 -0 -0 f -3- August 22, 1981 I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -11 - FOOTHILL IND. BANK - The development of a temp, rary modular bank facility of 720 sq. ft. on .94 a res of land ;n the L -L zone LO he used during I:UfID B 'f1411Ur1 V1 a Nc`� ma- ncnt bank facility at 9709 Base A ne Avenue - APN 1077- 011 -451 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZOV: CHANGE NO. 81 -02 L-WFS - propose change of zor! from R-1 ksing e family residential) to R -1- 20,010 (single family residential, 20,000 sq. ft. lot minimum) on 52 ac. of land located on the south si a of Summit Avenue, between Etiwanda and East Avenu s - APN 225 -181 -4 through 9, 26, and 43 K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PAICEL MAP NO. 7012 CRESCENT BUSINESS CENTER - An iidustria subdivision of ig.4 acres into '5 parcels in the M -2 zone located on the east side of Archibald between 4th and 6th Streets - APN 210- 071 -29 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING, OR. AMEND NO_ 81 -03 - Amending the Zoning Ordinance, Section 6 .623(f) establishing a SP (Specific Plan ) classi- fication to implement the Indust•ial Specific Plan in the area generally defined as extending south of Arrow Highway to the City buundary between Grove and Haven and extending south of Foothill Boulevard to the City boundary between Haven and the eastern City boundary. M. ENVIRONMENTA': ASSESSMENT_ FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Commen— t��a ?Vance of preparation of an Environ- mental Impact Report for the Redr.velopment Project Area. A study area to determine ultimate redevelop- ment project boundaries. VII. Old Business N. REVISION TO DAON LANDSCAPE PLAN F)R DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 80 -13 f Planning Commission Agenda -4 August 12, 1981 VIII. New Business Reproved 5 -0 -0 with 0. '7NVIRON "ArNTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW additional condition NO. 81 -28 - WOOLWORTH GARDEN CENTER The develop- ment or a retail garden center on 1.9 acres of land in the C -2 zone to be located 100 Ft. east of Helms on the south side of Foothill - APN 208 - 261 -43 & 44 SELECTION OF REDEVELOPMENT P OR JECT AREA Approved 5 -0 -0 P. AND FORMULATION & ADOPTION OF PREMIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT 7C}1— IX. Ccuncil Referrals X. Director Reports XI. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda . XII. Upcoming Agenda XIII. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournmert time. Sf items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission CITY. OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting February 5, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Vice - chairman, Jeff Sceranka, called the adjourned regular City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission meeting, held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7 :07 p.m. Following the call to order, Vice - chairman, Sceranka led the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff Sceranka ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Jack Lam. Director of Community Development Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, explained the agenda stating that the EIR for the Victoria Project had been continued from the previous meeting of February 2, 1451. He then went into a recap of the Victoria Plan to date. He also explained that because the General Plan has progressed, it was now possible to go on with the Victoria Planned Community hearing. Mr. Hogan, Citv Planner, provided background for the discussion explaining that this agenda is a compilation of reports that had been p :pared for the Planning commission's review. Mr. Hogan followed with a reran of the staff reports relative tc land use. circulation, parks and open space. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was a. preference by the Commission to go on to the next section or deal with this section before they go on to another. Commissioner King asked Mr. Hogan to discuss the adjustments made to density. Mr. Hogan replied that there were cbanges to the boundary in the Planned Community area resulting in a reduction of units from 980 to 8924. The total acres of residential were changed from 1035 to 851 1. Mr. Hogan indicated that the area near the Pacific Electric Railroad, Flood Control Channel, lumber yard, and the area south of Base Line would have to be adjusted. Commissioner King stated that: because of boundary changes density has been reduced. He wanted to know how much more was the result of General Plan changes and asked for an estimate. • . Mr. Hogan replied thnt he could not give him an estimate at the moment but could get the figures for him. Commissioner Tolstoy also asked for these figures. Further, he thought it would be good to have them broken out of the total. Vice-chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Mr. John Scherb, representing the Myohoji Temple, stated that prior to the cessation of meetings in November, it had been planned that they would be meeting with the applicant. He indicated that they had met and thcrc wcrc ..n_ of m�rn__1. to 7 n .r9 ..n f hu Tnm..l u oraa enarnA nF traffic and noise encroachment resulting from this development. He restated the necessity for a perimeter road, and careful study of its placement because of the eucalyptus trees along the west boundary. He also indicated that perimeter landscaping would be necessary. Mr. Scherb asked what the uses would be under the regional- related category and how lane development would affect the Temple. He stated that although he is interested in the perimeter question his main concern was the west perimeter. Mr. John Lyons, 11984 Dorset, Etiwanda, stated that his concern is that Rochester will be opened through to Church. He further stated that people living in this area would not like to see this happen. Mr. Cary Frye, 9613 Arrow huy., Rancho Cucamonga, stated that it was their intention to come back on the 26th of February to clarify those areas relative to land use and did not have comments on these areas specifically at this time. Mr. Frye commented that he felt the question on regional - related u;es was one of clarification, not so much oil what these uses would be, but rather, or. traffic management for this use. He felt that this would be done and asked what kind of detail staff wants them to ome back with on regional- related uses. He indicated that the portion of the EIR that deals with regional- related use-, could be found on pages 154 -156 and if more was wanted he felt that it could be related to traffic. He asked for clarification on this point. Mr. Frye also asked for clarification on the buffering along Base Line Road relative to commercial uses and stated that he was not sure they could stipulate how that p- ope=ty will be after development-. He talked about the "lanned Community boundary map and the change of designation of lard use east of Victoria Parkway. He stated that they will come back on the treatment of Highland Avenue but indicated that they felt it would be given a rural flavor. Mr. Lam commented on Base Linc Road indicating that there shoui8 oroba _i be some adjustment on the higher density there. Further, that these was a question on whether the density on Etiwanda Av_ .:_ u; '. affect Base Line and asked if the Planning Commi:,-sion was still : nterested in seeing the lay out along Base Line. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 5, 1981 Mr. Hogan indicated his concern with how design uses along Base Line would coincide with the deign of the commercial center. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt that the design would be dictated by the planned community standards, even if it was not in the planned community. He indicated that the commercial center along Victoria Parkway could be designed to have a rural atmosphere and thought that would be an excelle:t theme. Commissioner King stated that he did not agree with Commissioner Tolstoy Ju uu tii k.Jiuts. uE .Clt that -- V 4.ond. AM AAnP Tine it was un- necessary to see what treatment would be given at this point in time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could not imagine failing to look at how things occur right outside of the Victoria Planned Community boundary. Further, that even if the Planning Commission Is not obliged at this point to look at the perimeter, they should be. Commissioner P.empel stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner King; however, he stated that some kind of design has to be blocked out. On the shopping center, he felt that a theme design should be submitted and it would be well for the Planning Commission to make some plan to see how ideas are going. Mr. Lam asked if what the Commission meant was some graphic displays to see how certain design elements could be transitioned. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought it would be important to see how it would relate to the planned community especially along Base Line. He further stated that a new character is being assigned to Base Line and the Commission needs to see what they are doing to it. Commissioner Sceranka stated that pages 180 -181 show vignettes and how density relates and translates. He thought that Mr. Frye could point out other vignettes. Mr. Hogan stated that pages 79 -83 have an illustrative concept plan in detail and that page 83 is a more simplistic version for the commercial center. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to see a typical perspective as you would then know what you are going to get. If the design was not coming through, they could then tell the applicant to rethink it. lie indicated that it would be important to have Day Creek Boulevard, Highland, Base Line, and Foothill done and that all these areas were not included. Commissioner Sceranka asked, if in terms of Day Creek, the Commission was 1, oking ,,t the edge treatment and exterior of the project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was interested in the exterior edges along Day Creek Boulevard, Milliken and Base Line. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 5, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that this would give the Commission an idea of what the buildings would look like with design and landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed and stated that it would have to be to scale. Mr. Frye stated that they would be happy to accommodate the Planning Commision. He then spoke about the land use and zoning. He indicated that thare are some things within the regional center that could change depending on the development all around it. Further, that he did not want to apend a lot of time and money today or. something now that still bad Line pos,�i„iiiiy of changing. Mr. Frye stated that they would in- corporate a tome in the text to conform to whatever the Planning Commission desired. On pages 158 -162, Mr. Frye stated that he wanted to establish concurrence in landscaping approach and what trees would be used internally and externally. Mr. Frye spoke about the entrance treatment- that would allow people to know they were making a transition into Victoria, as they go along the street. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it really doesn't show what the character would be along the street and does not relate to how it would transition. Mr. Frye replied that it would depend on who develops first along Base Line and part of the answer is on Page 157. Commissioner. Sceranka stated that he had a serious question about going into the plan in detail. Re stated that he is having trouble with getting into that level of detail at this time. Commissioner Rempel stated thatMr. Frye has no control over the last 1000' along Base Line and so can really show it. Mr. Frye stated that this would almost be like a site plan review. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he could make oae more stab and stated that you dor't have control over the last 1000 feet, but what if someone comes in and says he would like to develop it. ldhen the Planning Commission reviews the plan they need to see if it will properly relate. Mr. Don Tomkins of SWA stated that if the Commission was concerned with an inconsistency gap, that might 're -- problem. If the two planned areas are consistent, the Commission should be able to get detail and specifics in the treatment that will be used. Mr. Frye asked if Commissioner Tolstoy was looking at specific plans and material. Planning Commisson Minutes -4- February 5, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy replied that he was pretty sure it would be this way but was concerned with block walls, mounding or columnar type walls. Mr. Hogan asked Commi ^stoner Tolstoy to look at page 139 to see if that is what he wanted. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that this is what he wanted because you can then loot, to what proposal is being submitted to see how it will match. Mr. Frye stated that it will not be effective in this planned community but should go into the Etiwanda Specific Plan. There was further discussion relative to the edge condition and how this would follow along Etiwanda Avenue, Base Line and that intersection. Mr. Hogan went into the circulation portion of the Victoria Planned Community and reviewed the four items that were presented in the staff report. He discussed the "A" land uses and looped streets stating that this could be resolved through more illustrative planning. Commissioner King stated that he had a couple of additions -- the Church Street aspect and his concern with Day Creek Boulevard at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard. He stated tha` he wished to have this issue addressed. Mr. Hogan replied that the City Engineer, in a previous report, had indicated that this area needs to be looked at further through more detailed studies. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see the type and traffic flow from the project to the rest of the community. Further, that there has been a lot of discussion about work traffic, etc. and felt that the outlying areas also needed to be addressed. Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that we have made a commitment on Etiwanda Avenue and that there was a need to know how traffic there will be handled along the east side. Commissioner Sceranka expressed his concern about the impact of traffic both on the east and west side of Etiwanda Avenue and along Base Line. Mr. .John Lyons came forward and asked about the corner of Rochester and Foothill. He wanted to know if a traffic signal could be installed there. He reiterated that he was against opening Church Street to Rochester but that if it was, he hoped that it would become a signalized intersection. Vice - chairman Sceranka asked that Mr. Lyons meet and discuss this with City Staff. Planning CoraAssion Minutes -5- February 5, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if in light of all the discussion on Church Street traversing the Rochester Tract, if it would be appropriate to discuss this at this time. Mr. Hogan stated that they will come back to this issue. 8:25 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:35 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Mr. Hogan reviewed the Parks and open Space section of the Victoria Planned. Community as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Lam added to this review with philosophical questions to be resolved such as does the lake edge belong to only those people living adjacent to it or to the entire community. Commissioner King stated that he would like to know how density reduction relates to parks. He felt that there needed to be some discussion of the deficiency and whether it is better to have community open space to combine it with other areas for a larger total area. Mr. Hogan stated that perhaps this is a philosophical discussion where you would have development credit for certain amenities. The credit, Mr. Hogan stated, is issued only after the developer has provided land or a. fee. Mr. Hopson stated he thought Mr. King was asking if you change to reflect clustering or do you spread it out to an open area. Mr. Lam replied that this is something that this is a value judgement that the Planning Commission has to answer. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the lake front was thought to be for use of people within the City or just the Planned Community? Mr. Lam stated that from the very beginning, staff considered the lakes fur the residents of the entire City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it adds an amenity for people all over the City to enjoy and that they don't need teeter totters or swings because just walking around the lake would be a treat. Further., that picnic tables and the like would be encouraged as recreational uses in this area. Commissioner. Rempel agreed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the issue of swimming 5.n the lake also needed to be addressed and cited the way the City of Woodbridge developed such an area. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 5, 1981 Mr. Frye stated that they will come back with answers to the areas and questions raised by the Commission. He further stated that he agreed i;ith Barry Hogan relative to the specifics and felt that more time needed to be spent on parks: He stated that they would prefer to come back with these answers on March 12. Mr. Hogan stated ghat infrastructure and design must also be reviewed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about a timetable for development. Mr. Hogan replied that there is a schedule for nhasi.ng contained within the text. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the lakes and the village is built how much of Victoria Parkway will be built. Mr. Hogan replied that there will be conditions that will be included prior to submittal of the Planned Community to the City Council for approval which will detail those requirements. Further, staff would not like to see only residential development going in without the parks being built. He stated that a phasing plan must be worked out for this and other amenities within the project. Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission will be provided with a detailed review and total picture of the Victoria Planned Community. Mr. Hogan then stated that February 26 has been set for another meeting where answers and exhibits will be provided for those areas discussed at this meeting with the exception of the parks and open space areas. March 12 has been set for a meeting to discuss parks and open space infrastructure and design criteria with March 26 set to discuss regulations and implementation and the EIR. He indicated that if everything proceeds on schedule, April 9th would conceivably be the time when the project is recommended to the City Council for their action. Mr. Hogan further stated that February 17 was scheduled for the last General Plan meeting with.a recommendation to the City Council from the Planning Commission. Motion; Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy carried unanimously, to adopt the dates for the various meetings as proposed by Mr. Hogan. GENERAL PLAN - E.I.R. Mr. Hogan stated that a matrix had been prepared from the EIR for second portion of the February 9 meeting. He explained bow mitigation measures would be incorporated within the EIR and gave examples of development, run off, and percolation. Mr. Hogan then explained the SCAG 208 program, the federal requirements, and the standards v1iich have been set to guarantee quality of water for this area. Planning Commission Minutes -7- .i.., February 5, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when this community was originally formed it was primarily an agricultural community which now has a new use. He further stated that the FIR was written to those problems that occurred in the transition from farming to an urban area. Mr. Tolstoy stated further that an EIR should not be written, to meet the letter c7 the law and then to be put on a shelf and forgotten. He indicated that it needs to be read again and to be kept before the City Council, Community and Planning Commission to be sure that something will be done about it. He felt that one of the first things that must be addressed is keeping the mitigating factors before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hogan stated than the EIR is a good design tool.V "He further indicatedpthato what o makes this od pint - that EIR different than others is that it relies heavily on the General Plan text and the problem areas are mitigated through the text. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt a portion of the staff report should address this as projects come before the Commission. City Attorney Hopson stated that this is really a funciton of staff.. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he dial not want to lose the import of what the sIR was saying in the years ahead. Mr. Hogan stated that the way to retain this is through creative, innovative use of the Zoning Ordinance in order to protect the City in those areas. Further, that if the EIR is not going to be used, it should not be in the General Plan. He indicated that this is a general EIR for the whole City and perhaps at some future time specific EIR s may be required to develop more information for c:rtain areas d EIRs could be used for this pu an suggested that focused rpose. Commissioner Sceranka, stated that the most significant issue is the sociological impact on the City that is being proposed by the General Plan inasmuch as the City is coming out of the agricultural pattern of the Past into a urbanized community. Further, that during the past 3 -4 years there have beta tremendous pattern changes in the sociological aspects of the community that have had a negative effect. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it is easy to sit on the Planning Commission and discuss residential, industrial areas, the affordability of housing and rationalize these issues, but it does not mitigate the emotional and psychological impacts on their life styles. Further, that what the Planning Commission is saying is that growth is inevitable. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that there is a need to address the impacts that occur with further growth and densities. He felt that these issues are not adequately addressed and stated that he would like to see more serious emphasis on this. Planning Commission Minutes -8.. February 5, 1981 ,.1.. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his agreement with Commissioner. Sceranka but indicated that he felt that these areas have been addressed. Ile felt that anytime the Commission hears an issue that is somewhat con- troversial that draws people from the community to the hearing, the Commission has addressed the issue because their concerns are mitigated. He gave an example of a recent hearing involving a church, the Roberts Group proposal, and the Etiwanda area addressed in the General Plan hearings. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as a result of the Etiwanda hearings, densities were reduced around the Victoria oroiect. Further_ that thv Planning Commission has been sensitive to the concerns of the residents and how development and progress affects them. He indicated that he coped Lice Planning Commission would remember the E1R and know what the sensitive issues are on these and do their own mitigating on the issues. Commissioner Rempel. stated that the concerns of the community are being addressed as each issue comes before t.e Planning; Commission and that the Planning Commission is concerned and addresses the sociological aspects. Commissioner Sceranka stated that when you speak of the rural character of Etiwanda, densities and traffic, school impaction and protection of school sites you are touching on an area that a lot of people think can be prevented from changing. he indicated that many don't think this needs to be changed and the Planning Commission doesn't need to put density on major streets and he knows that he must say to them that these are levels of life that must be accepted and that this does have an affect on and change the community. Further, that it doesn't matter how right the Planning Commission is or what the justifications are, it is important that the Community helps in providing as much information as possible to aid in making the correct decisions. Mr. Hogan indicated that item can be added to the EIR. He indicated that what the Commission is talking about is outside the physical impact of this project and he did not !think it appropriate to go into the sociological effects, nor is it required legally. Commissioner. Ring stated that from a practical standpoint what they are doing as projects and persons come before the Commission is to create a buffer., and it is an attempt to minimize the culture shock. He further stated that this is the whole purpose of what the process is about. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this does not address noise and he does not agree with attenuation. Further, that perhaps the EIR should be looked at even though the minimum legal requirements are met. Commissioner Rempel stated that you cannot address every person in this community. He iuct.cated that there are general terms and this is what the Commission is prying to answer. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 5, 1981 There being no further comments, the public portion was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tol.stoy, carried unanimously, to adjourn to February 9, 1981. 9:50 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, l �e 1 ! Arll6� JACK LAM., Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 5, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Regular Meeting February 25, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Regular. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Meeting, held in the Lion's Park CommLnity Center, 9161 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga, was called to order by Chairman Richard Dahl at 7:05 p.m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Barry K. Hagan, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Assistant- Planner; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL. OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of the November. 12, 1980 meeting with a correction to the spelling of Commissioner Rempel's name on page 16. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of November 17, 1980. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to approve the Minutes of November 24, 1980. Commissioner Rempel abstained as he was not in attendance at the November 24 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman James Frost addressed the Commission stating that Mr. Leonard Gorczyka, Chairman of the Historical Preservation Commission, had passed away. He related to the Commission the consideration Mr. Gorczyka had shown for the City and asked that the Commission recognize his work by the adoption of a Resolution in memory of him. Chairman Dahl indicated that the Planning Commission could be in full concurrence with this and asked that staff prepare a resolution. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to draft a Resolution. Barry Hogan stated that an agenda and staff reports had been distributed to the Commission for the Victoria meeting ohich was scheduled for Thursday, February 26, 1981. Mr. Hogan further stated that another meeting for the Victoria Planned Comanurlity had been scheduled for March 12, 1981 in the Lion's Park Community Center. CONSENT CALENDAR A_ REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 80 -08 - KALBACH - A rim. cv1_e ^mot .::y __ f-_ `, v& UlE UCVCiVk1111C11L uL a nerall center to be located on the sorltheast corner of Arrow and Archibald. 0 TIME FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5144 - Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS C_ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11460 - LEWIS - A request for conversion of 7.71 existing apartments into condominiums located on a 12 -acre site on the north side of 19th Street, east of Carnelian (Sunscape I). Mr. Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to speai:. Mr. John Withers, ::-presenting Lewis Homes, stated that he would use his presentation as a rebuttal in the hope that it would save time. Mr. Don Vitura, a resident of Sunscape asked if he could address a question to Mr. Withers. Air. Withers then said that he would make his presentation and provided background on the proposed condominium conversion indicating that his company had worked with staff in the development of the conversion. He stated that landscaping and visual improvements had been made on 19th Street to meet the requirements proposed by staff. He also stated that an attempt was made to inform tenants of the proposed conversio-n. He indicated that notices had been prepared and distributed among tht. tenants approximately a year and a half in advance. lie spoke of the laundry facilities and referenced the City of Alameda's study relative to this issue. Planning, Commission Minutes -2- February 25, 1981 I R . I Mr. Withers indicated that on Section 2, Item 6, of the Resolution, he would like to adjust any requirement that would cause money to be spent on making additional improvements. He a..so asked that Item 13 be waived and asked that they be excluded from any landscaping district. Chairman Dahl asked when the units would be available for purchase. Mr. Withers replied that they would be available in January of 1982. Mr. Dan Latour, Sunscape resident, indicated that he had previously gone through a conversion in San Diego and asked what improvements were nrnnncnri Fnr rF.io ..i .... v. _� �i _.. ....utw ��w� tiiE6c uiai t6 u:i(i 11U i. apy nni to be condominiums^ and asked if there would be any inspection before the conversion takes place. Mr. Hogan replied that the condominium ordinance does not go into the detail of the interiors of the buildings. Mr. Latour asked about the roof lines. Mr. Hogan replied that the roof is inspected to be sure that no costs will be incurred by the buyers of faulty roofs. Further., that the ordinance requires that there be no structural defects but does nct require such things as new carpeting or painting. Mr. Paul Conrad, 8684 Belle Vista, asked if children would be excluded from Sunscape. Fe also asked if densities s +s well as the ability to accommodate additional children in the schools had been considered. Mr. Hogan replied that he could not answer whether children would be excluded or whether there would be a problem with schools. He stated that the ordinance does not address school impaction as a result of conversion and that during the ordinance hearings it was felt that rental units vs. the condo units would nrt drastically change the composition of children within this project. Mr. Del Craves, a resident of Sunscape asked if there are plana for Sunscape II. The Planning Commission replied that Sunscape IT is already a condominium project. Maryann Marion, Sunscape resident, stated that she did not feel that the apartments would convert_ well to condominiums. She asked if they are converted how far she would have to move to find a comparable apartment. :,he further stated that she did not think that the one month's rent that is being provided to those residents who must relocate would be sufficient to cover relocation expenses. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 25, 1981 Mr. Withers responded by stating that as far as improving the units is concerned, it is their intent to keep them as affordable as the, can and are therefore not planning on upgrading the equipment Oat presently exists in the units. Further, it is their fccl:.ng.that there will not be comparable condo units for this price in the City. He stated that the units will be sold primarily to first time come buyers and that there will be ve::y few sreculators. He indicated that as far as children are concerned, in offering VA financing for the units, the developer will. be prohibited from excluding childrep. fir stated that they felt the young families and older people would be interested in buying the condos. Mr. [dithers stated that the standards of this development are in don - formance with HUD and the units are keyed more to the law- and -- moderate income family. Because the units are in conformance with the HUD standards, the l=undry facilities are adequate. Mr. Withers stated that there are comparable a,artment :.nits in the Upland area and that the Lewis Company has a property management division that will do everything, it can to relocate those persons displaced by this con•rers ion. Commi.ssi.oner. Rempel asked what the price range of the condominiums will. be. Mr. Withers responded that they are prohibited by the Department of Real Estate from quoting those prices at this time. However., he felt that they would be somewhat in the range of Sunscape II, which is between $38,000 and $66,000. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the white paper would be issued on this project. Mr. Withers replied that there would be some wa..ting after the dpproval of the tentative map and expected that the white paper would be in their hands sometime in November of 1981 with sale nf the units beginning in January of 1982. Commissioner Xing asked If there was a children's play area. Mr. Withers replied that they did not have cn2 a: this time and this would ultimately have to be a decisi.cn of their. farketing Di.visior.. There were further questions by the Commission n•garding storage space, relocation of tenants of Sunscape and children's play area. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that transportation in trying to find new hou.;ing for the handicapped ani elderly who presently live in Sunscape should be provided by the developer. Chairman Dahl advised that there was a request by Mr. Withers that they be allowed to bond on Item 6. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 25, 198? • 1: i I I i Mr. Hogan replied that this action n.:ed not be taken by the Flauning Commission as Lt eocld be worked out by staff if the Planning Commission is amenable. The Planniug Co=nissi,.n consensu.- was that staff work this out. Mr. Vairin stated that :.wo issues had not yet been resolved: parking spaces and laundry fariliti.es. Mr. Mogan replied that staff has no objection to the Commission's waiver o` the number .f parking requirements in this instance. It was t ?Le consensus of• the Commission to waive the rcquirement for parking spaces. Commissioner Sceranka asked if HUD or the VA bad lauidry requirements. Mr. Withers replied that they currently meet or e::need those requirements. Motion: e'oved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimous:, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -14, approving the tentative Map for th purposes of co-.dominium conversion subject to the conditions of �,:proval and the following amendments. 1. That the applicant provide an appropriate chil.dten's play z,rea. 2. erovide transportation for the handicapped to facilitate their finding a new place to live. 3. Allow the allowance of conversion as proposed by the applicant relative to parking and laundry fac.'.lities. 81.25 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:45 p.m. The Planning Commissiou reconvened. D. ENVI80t;MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTAT'_VE TRACT NO. 11,581 - CAPNELIAN INV ST1TENTS - The development of a residential subdivision consisting of 40 single family lots on 10.8 acres of land within the R -1 -8,500 zone, generally located on the southwest corner of Carnelian and Highland Avenue - AFN 201- 214 -05. Michael Vairin, Senior Plainer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Richard Dahl opened the public heariug. Mr. Doug Corgen, representing Carnelian Investments, spoke for the project and prevented a letter written by Mr. 'Rogan to Caltrans to the Planning Commission. He stated that he had reached the conclusion that the Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 25, 1981 way to deal with Caltrans was to fc :ce their hand and that the City's interest in this issue does rot coincide with his interest. Mr. Gorgen further stated th:.t on a de facto basis, the City and the County have condemned tl,e rig'at -of -way for the Foothill Freeway. He indicated that if the City -aas done this and he is unable to use his property, then the City should pay for this property, in all fairness. Mr. Gorgen stated he did not feel that an EIR is needed and that he is entitled to use his property. He asked if the City wants to stick its neck out and buy this property. Further, that the City has been trying to get Caltrans to buy this right -of -way b,it it is not in the State budget Mr. Gorgen stated that an alternative he is offering is an approval on the basis that the condition includes a statement that he cannot record his map within 12 months. He further stated that it would not hurt his feelings if the project is denied. Commissioner Sceranka aa'<.ed Mr. Gorgen if he really felt that this is the way to go. Mr. Gorgen replied that he has been trying to sell this property to Caltrans for the past 4 years. lie indicated that he understands the City's position, but that she City needs to understand the buyers position as well. Commissioner Rempel stated that in the Circulation Element, the Freeway corridor must be in. Further, this was something that needs answering and that he would not be comfortable in approving this when it could affect thecirculation of the City. Ted Hopson, City Attorney responded that what is being said is that someone must determine what will happen if the freeway is deleted and that someone must determine the size of r'ie east- -west trnff.ic corridor. What Mr. F.empel war saying is that it will not be equal to the north -south boundary of the property. I�Ihat staff suggested is someone must make determination of what, where and how. The City, in the General Plan, has followed the State indication that there will be a freeway. If a street is proposed to go in where the freeway is proposed, it may or ma, not be adequate. He further explained that it is not approval or disapproval of what the tract will be, and reading the staff report, this issue will not be threshed out tonight. Mr.. Gorgen asked if the EIt will state whether a developer should not build on that property. Further, what in the report will sake that decision. Mr. Hopson replied that what is suggested and the way the staff report is structured ..ill not say that you may or may net build on that property, but whether there should be a 80 -100 -120' right -of -way and it should be developed within that corridor with the tract designed in accordance. Additionally, that the City could be sued for inverse ..ondemnation if it removed all the developable property from the tract. Flanning Commission Minutes -6- February 25, 1981 Mr. Vairin stated that the issue of the Environmental Impact Report is the design and alternatives to what has been suggested. Further, that it will have a direct impact on whar will happen to the City in the `uture. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the EIR on the abandonement of the freeway will cost. Mr. Vairin replied that a consultant must be hired and the report could cost anywhere between $2,000- 20,000, and would be financed by the annl9rant. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the scope of the EIR would be. Mr. Hogan replied that there have been certain issues brought out through- out part one and part two of the Initial Study but that tae EIR has not yet been drawn up. Further, that the Planning Commission has not yet made a determination that an EIR is required. Mr. Doug Hone, 7333 Hellman, stated that he has been a supporter of the Foothill Freeway, does not have an int °rest in this property, but that there has not been one public agency that has refused to collect taxes on this property since this freeway proposal was adopted. He asked what governmental body is looking out for his interests and property rights under the Constitution and Bill of L^:;hts- There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner. Sceranka stated that this discussion has centered arouni vn,e EIR being prepared with the General Plan, the appropriateness of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, densities and holding capacity of the City. He stated that it could have been any individual who owns property along the freeway corridor having the same problem. He stated that in his opinion the State of California shoult- do an EIR but does not think the City should require individuals to pay for the EIR. Further, he was not sure that all factors are clear enough to make a decision on this tonight. Mr. Vairin stateu that there is another alternative but he had not the opportunity to speak to the applicant. Further, that the City Attorney had fou.d a freeway agreement rnd that there was such an agreement between the State and County before the City's incorporation. He indicated that there was not enough time to review this agreement to see if other avenues other than an EIR are available. Chairman Dahl stated that if the agreement is viable, he would like to continue this item to the next regular meeting in order to come up with more information on the alternatives. jr. Vairin stater' that the applicant must grant this extension or else cc;,. Commission would have to act on this tonight. Planning Commission Minutes -7 -• February 25, 1981 Mr. Gorger. stated he would be willing to if in two weer he coull have a decision on this property. Mr. Hopson advised against a continuant, under the circumstances because of the condition of agreement requested by Mr. Gorgen and further advised that you don't agree that you bar yourself from making a discretionary decision at some future point in time. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the applicant would agree to a two week continuance for staff to study this. Fir. Gorgt;i replied that he would. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue this item. Mr. Hopson stated that if and when the agreement i- found that the County entered into with Caltrans,it will need to :se searched in order to render an opinion to staff and to make a report. He stated that the City Attorney will certainly respond as soon as a copy of the agreement was received. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10277 - BARMAKTAN - A custom lot subdivision consisting of 30 lots or [4.36 acres of land in the A -1 -5 zone located cn the north side of Almond Road east of Carnelian St. - APN 1061 - 171 -02. ZC 80 -12. '.:ommissioner King stepped down because of a possible conflict of interest. Senior Planner., Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Andrew Barmakian, the applicant, advised the Commission that he would answer any questions. Commissioner Rempel asked tb- applicant if he was planning to sell any lots that he could develop on ",is own. Mr. Barmakian replied that if they du, it would be handled through CC &R's, and their firm .could be used as the architect. Commissioner R:.mpel st ;,..:ed that the origh.al intent was to have the individual do his ow:: 1st. He indicated that he did not want an owner to circumvent the design review. Further, that in pregrading the land it would be important to be sure that the houses fit the lot rather than the lot fitting the house. He stated that he did not want the land destroyed. Planning Commission Minutes am February 25, 1981 Mr. Barmakian stated that they have shoo a grading plan that is minimal and that they are moving a small amount of earth. lie addpd that they expect to eo additional grading eaet time a 'home is constructei but that they do not want to do a lot of cuts and fills. Commissioner Rempel stated that in looking at zhe conto-ir map he still sees a lot of straight lines in it and did not think there was any way to build a street with just moving 10,000 yards of dirt. Mr.. Batmakian replied that staff had reviewed this plan ana he did not see why he was bein¢ auesti.oned abcnet the amrnmt of dirt that is proposed to be removed. Mr. Barmakian stated that he had a question on condition 12 of the Resolution under the Engineering Division. He further stated that tie did rot intend to do this and thought that staff should reconsider this rather than require a letter from private property owners downstream of this project. He further stated that he was agreeable to all other terms and conditions of approval. Mr. Paul Rougeau stated that he did not feel that a letter from downstream property owners was necessary. Commissioner Rempel stated that this will create a problem like one that occured at Rad Hill. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the impact of increased drainage is as a result of this tract. Mr. Rougeau explained the drainage as proposed by this d.evelopmert. Mr. Stan Sievers, 6484 Ornsdorff, Buena Park, asked about the emergency secondary access to be sure that it is sufficient for both parcels. Mr. Dana Henderson, 8887 Hidden Farm Road stated that he was concerned about drainage and asked that condition 12 be modified to require Oat Mr. Barmakian work with the City Engineer to assure that there will be no further erosion. Mr. Gene "isen, 5100 Carnelian, stated that he is in favor of the project but was concerned about the row of trees al8ng Almond Street. Mr. Barmakian replied that there is a condition of approval that requires that the tree ' preserved. Mr. V'airin, Sei.�vi :lanner, explained 0-at the first row of trees may have to be removed because of the knuctc�e, but marry of the trees wh(-e possible would be saved. Mr. Barmakian stated that he was unable to get ded. cation from the doctor who owns the property. Planning Commiacion Minutes -9- February 25, 1981 Mr. Sisen stated that he was concerned that the trail that presently exists will remain. Mr. Bruce Chitica stated that.he thought this is a well- conceived and desi.gned tract and deservAs approval. Chairman Dahl asked if -his tract will be equestrian oriented. Mr. Barmakian replied that there is equestrian all around this tract. Chairman Dahl asked if this particular tract will preclude or all.)w hcrnco- Mr. Barmaiian explained that there would be a choice of homeowners depending upon where they locate within the tract. Motic_i: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt zone change 80 -12. Mr. Stan Seivers asked if the ayplic.at will also have to abide with the requirement for fire access. He indicated that this can be by private agreement between two property owners. Chairman Dahl stated tl.at the secondary access is in the major trail system and would better be continued to the next project. Commiss:oner Tolstoy stated that he did not want some type of Carrier that would be a physical barrier. He stated that it should be one that a fire truck could get through to the property. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -15, approving Tentative Tract No. 1.0277 with the r,aggestions for change on condition 12 of the Resolution, no barrier for passage between the two projects along the eastern boundary, and the preservation of trees along Almoad. Commissioner Rempel voted no stating that for the protection of the City and the property owner, aletter should be required. 10:10 p.m. The Planning Conwi.ssion recessed. 10:25 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LIMITED - A total developmen 120 - condominium units in the Victoria - APN 202 - 181 -07. Planning Commission Minutes TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11608 - L & G o£ 8.31 acres into 2 lots compri . xsoutheast corner of Archibala and -1()- February 75, 1981 Senior Planner, staff report. Following the staff report, Commissioner King raised some questions relative to setbacks on Archibald Avenue. Chairman Dahl the Design Review Committee recommendation was. that it was recommended that the project be approved �_...... :....r e..... -....b �..Lo.i fn,- rlarifirntinn on the land use designation. Mr. vairin responded chat ii. wart euta5INLeaL. Commissioner Tolstoy asked whether this project would require sidewalks. Mr. Vairin that the revision shows pedestrian crossing and that there are no sidewal.ics. Chairman Dahl opened Mr. Gene Kerin, representing Southwest Engineering, Santa Monica, stated his availability to answer any questions and that Mr. Tim Smith, would answer any questions pertaining to the engineering on this project. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this project is proposed to be adults only. Mr. Tim Smith replied that this project will contain a tot lot and'wfil not excltde children. Further, that it is intended to be a small, family - orlented, community. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the walkway for pedestrian access east side of this project. Mr. Smith explained that there is a walkway along Archibald and between the buildings for circulation within the project. Mr. Smith. also explained the grading that was proposed for this site. Mr. Neil Matson, 9868 Avalon, asked if Victoria Street is proposed be widened and whether parking would be allowed along the street. Mr. Kerin explained that the parking within the complex should be sufficient to exclude street parking; however, Victoria will be widened from this tract to she adjacent tract. Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the planned entry of these units. Mr. Smith explained that the entry is different depcnding upon unit's style and that most entries are through the garage. lie that guests will use the front door. Commission Minutes Commissioner. Tolstoy stated that he had a problem in having to ;;alk on the street and not on a sidewalk. Commissioner King asked if there is adequate parking space and asked about secondary access. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he still has a problem watt, walking in this project and asked for delineation for ped"— trians and aatos within this tract. There_ was discussion among the Commission relativd r,, pedestrian walks and the use of textured narks. Commissioner Sceranka eked where visitor parking will be. Following further discussion by the Commission, Chairman Dahl stated that he did not think that the Commission was in a position -� make a decision on this tonight. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue this item to March 25, 1981, following review by the Design Review Committee. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unaa mously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO 6627 - JENSEN - A residential subdivision of 29.355 acres of land into 2 parcels within the R -1 -20 zone, located on the south side of Wilson, west side of Hermosa - APN 201 - 172 -14 17. I. ••v. iav7 — Jcpac.LV — A residential subdivision of 7+ acres into 12 lots in the R -1 -20 zone generally located on the south side of Wilson, west of Hermosa - APN 201- 172 -17. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Seni...,r Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report, indicating that this is a request for a division of 2° acres into 2 large parcels. He further indicated that tentative tract NO'. 11609 has already been filed on parcel. 2 and will be the next item ta'-en up by the Commission. Further, that the remaining parcel will be left vacant for a while. Mr. Rougeau continued that the spl9.t of this property by parcel map is intended so *_hat the parcel on which the tentat've tract is proposed can be sold. All improvement conditions on the parcel map will be post- poned until the time of development. He indicated that there was a slight error in condition No. 48 requit.ag that prior to issuance of builJing permits for parcel one and two, construction of the channel crossin- at Wilson Avenue is required. He stated that this should really only refer to parcel two because that is the only parcel which is adjacent to the future bridge. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 25, 1981 Commissioner Rempel asked if it was not correct that when the Commission used to require a road or something built on a parcel map even though it would only affect one of the parcels, it was required for both parcels. Mr. Rougeau replied that the improvements are usually assigned to the parcel adjacent to the improvement unless iz is determined that for some reason developments are needed immediately upon the subdivision. And usually, that only applies if there is an existing house or an existing business or something on one of the parcels. I;. this case, in dividing a large piece of property into two parcels, the remainder parcels are still large enough for future subdivision. Therefore, it is felt that all improvements should be deferred to time of building vernitts. It is not likely that someone will build one resider:_ on either of the parcels. But, if that were to occur., the building permit would be issued subject to having to do the improvements. Commissioner Rempel asked if we could make an exception when this is a small parcel. and whether this should be treated alike or not. Mr. Rougeau replied that they would be treated alike in that improvements would be required on each parcel. If the large parcel, No. 1 were to be improved, then there would be no reason to require the channel or the bridge over the channel to be improved because it would be remote from this parcel. Unless, of course, the Commission felt that no matter what happened to either parcel that improvement should be made. He indicated that generally the improvement is deferred to the particular parcel in question. In this case, of course, the improvement is going to be part of the next item that will be taken up. Commissioner Rempel said this is just a point of information. He thought just because it is large or small, it should be immaterial. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be more appropriate to get the improvements at the time the land is going to be used for future residential subdivisions. Mr. Hopson stated that he wasn't consistent on Mr. Kortepeter.'s Parcel Map for example, when you said improvements in front of the house were required and that the other lot would have to be improved in order to pull building, permits. Commissioner Sceranka asked about page two of the requirements where it states that you are only requiring part of the improvements, or are they being required? Mr. Rougeau replied that it states that all of these :lmprovments are required but only at the time of when the building permit is applied for on one of the parcels. Mr. Rougeau replied that at the beginning of the agreement it stated that bonding is required. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 25, 1981 Chairman Dahl asked if there were any other questions. There being none, the :-iblic hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Williams of Associated Engineers, representing the applicant, stated they had no pi�jblems with the conditions on the parcel map. Mr. Williams pointed out the purpose of the parcel map is simply to legalize the sale of the property to two separate buyers. He stated that on parcel. one they have been retained by the prospective buyer to go forward and file the tentative map within the April filing period on that parcel so that an application will be coming before the Commission on parcel. one and narrpl tvn. Wit}, No. 48, he stated that they were in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Rougeau asked if that was with the deletion of parcel one. Mr. Williams replied affirmatively. Chairman Dahl asked how Mr. Williams felt about having a condition on parcel one for tra'ls pertaining to a General Plan trail system. Mr. Williams replied the proposed buyer of parcel one plans to file an eq,restrian- oriented subdivision so it would not bother him at all. Chairman Dahl stated that he would like to have that entered as a condition. Mr. Rougeau stated that this was contained in condition No. 46. Chairman Dahl asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this parcel map. No one spoke. Chairman Dahl asked for those in opp- -ition to this project. Mr. Jack Tannenbaum, Mark III Homes, stated that the condition on number 48 to have the crossing apply to parcel. two only would appear to be a pretty heavy burden to parcel two. Iie indicated that parcel one would allow for a larger spread and since there are only 12 lots in the small parcel it would appear to h:- unfair to place all. the burden on parcel two. Mr. Rougeau stated that this condition would to deferred to the future subdi-risiun. Further, that in this condition as well as the one in the tract, the l,Ity's system development fees arc going to be applied towards this. lie stated further that the builder has to put in the entire bridge, then his fees will be credited and the City will enter into a reimbursement agreement with him. Planning Comm4',sion Minutes -14- February 25, 1981 Mr Rougeau indicated that if parcel one, which is a larger tract is going to be developed, it seems logical that those fees apply directly to this crossing as well as fees for any surrounding. subdivisions. The reimbursement could occur quite quickly. Of course, he stated it was un'cno.nt what type of agreement the Council will approve. Commissioner Sceranka stated that this is the same type of ituation that exists anywhere else in the City and since he is adjacent to a school he must provide the improvement!-;. Further, that parcel one has nothing to do with this in the sense. Mr. Rougeau stated that this was not entirely so but that he is adjacent to this property and to this crossing and it could be construed b: the City Council that those fees could be directly reimbursed for this parcel. rather than the b'_- part. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel asked if the whole piece of property is still Linder one ownership. Mr.. Rougeau replied that it; was. Commissioner Rempel asked if the owner is aware of the stipulations that are being made. Mr. Rougeau replied that the owner was aware. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to make a motion to issue a negative declaration and adopt the parcel map with the change in condition No. 48. The reason was that in every subdivision that has been done and every other approval, the adjacent property owner bears the brunt of cost and he reimbursement comes from the fees that have bean paid by the other parcels In the City. He added that if it is deeaed appropriate, in the motion, the Commission can recommend to the C'.ty Council their consi.ueration of applying the fees in parcel one specifically co this drain. Mr. Rougeau stated tl.it if parcel one is not developed the City simply gets no fees from that for a while. Mr.. Hogan stated that it would not seem appropriate to say that parcel one's fees when developed should be directed to improvement of the Alta .oma channel. The improvements of Floud Control channels are based upon a priority system reviewed on all projects t the City. To say that this particular parcel's fees should be directed tot-lards that particular channel would seem to him to be inappropriate and considered to be out- side the capital improvement program for the master plan for storm drains. Further, to be consistent with past Commission policy, it woul(; either be included or not. To take this one portion and direct it to take it out of something is to say that it is nor.. important at this particular point and perhaps we are trying, to be too exact. Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 25, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka asked for an explanation of how fees are allocated for the Crainage areas. Mr. Hogan explained 'now this works. Commissioner Sceranka asked if drainage fees are allocated on the basis of what they contribute to. Mr. Rougeau replied that they do not at the presence time. It is a city -wide collection of fees for city -wide allocrtion. Cc ^icc'c ^cr Scarw ^'.:a thc^ stated thrt c e:ichcd to "i hdraa lic motion. Chairman Dahl asked Commissioner Sceranka to restate the motion. Commissioner Sceranka moved to draw up a negative declaration and approve the parcel map with an amendment to condition No. 48. Ca missioner Tolstoy seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Motion: Moved by Sceranka seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. Mr. Larry Hogan, City Planner, prove ,d background on Tentative Tract No. 116n9 - Jeusen. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if on the cross lot drainage, a formal structure to carry the water across, will be required r- if this would be an informal cross lot drainage where the water is g)ing to be so- called, sheet flowed. Mr. slogan replied that it depends on the quantity of water.. In this particular case there are the lots along the proposed channel. He believed that the front portion of the lot will drain towards the street. The rear portions of the lot will go into the channel at approved points. He further explained the drainage and collection of water. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if teat would be - formal water carrier. Mr. Hogan replied that this has not yet been determined. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that whatever is determined will affect this tract. Mr. Hogan stated that it would and that staff must still •-eview and approve the final grading plan. There were several questions of blocking drainage by the Commission and the feasibility of designing a system that allows eater percolation into the basin. Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 25, 1981 Mr.. Hogan replied that there are several trade -offs thak will have to be made and that he is only one member of the GradL g Committee. He added, that while it may be feasible to allow retention on residential lots, it may not be feasible on ina1istridl or commercial lots. Following further discussion, Commissioner. Tolstoy asked whether tb.e water drainage would be formal. or no_. Mr. Hogan replied that at this point the Committee has decided it should be in a V ditch which is gunnited. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as far as he was concerned he would not raise the issue again but it it is not going to be this way, 'ie would have a real Problem. Mr. Hogar. stated that if the issue changes he would bring this back to the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the likelihood is that our storm drain problems are so massive and that the fees are not sufficient to accomplish all the storm drains that are needed and as a consequence there will be people: who will riot get fu7.'- reimbursement at the end of the reimburse- ment agreement.. Howevrr, the: alternative is to either allow development to go ahead and that is goiu;; t•, inc -ease runoff and increase the problems of having drainage or put t.', birder. of _wing the L . velopment not increase the runoff:, put on the developer. Cc- miissioner King asked if what is being said is ,1rectly contrary to what was said on the previous item. Mr. Williams replied that it is not. That the previous item did have those conditions in t %ere and it w,.s felt that they would accept the approval on that the fight their battle on this particular tract. That is because if they have to take this to Council and it is waived or whatever, they feel that they have a position to stand on the parcel map anyway. Further, that they needed the approval of the pz.rcel map in the legalization of the sale. Commissioner King asked if Mr. Williams did not already feel that this r, ^,ument has been waved by consenting to this on the previous parcel. Mr. Williams replied that he did not think so. F•trther, that they would take their case to the Council if necessary and if cbny have a precedent there, the conditions will. be taken btc% to the Council at that time. lie indicated that what he thought the Commission is saying here `_s that you're really nor imposing a $2500 an acre fee on this tract, but about 4 times that much because it is p:obtbly very likely that the fee reimbursement will not be realized and all the construction and cost is being placed on the one tract simply because it happens to border a drain which it really doesn't contribute to. The only thing that would contribute to this drain are the three lots that hack up to it. Planning Commissicn Minutes -17- February 25, 1981 He felt that it is an unfair condition and that the proper way to do it is to collect drainage fees on this and other tracts wi.ti.in the City a d build the storm drains as the fees are collected and provided where they are needed the most. He stated that if 'he condition i& approved they would have no choice but to do this. Mr. Hogan asked for clarification from Mr. Williams on whether they are objecting to condition Section 2, Engineering Condition 2A and 2H. Mr.. Williams stated that they are objecting to condition No. 2 of Engineering. Mr. Reeves of Mark III Homes, stated that he had serious concerns about the requirement for improvement of the flood control channel. imposed on parcel 2. He felt that it would have been much fairer if the spread of developing was over the entire piece. He also felt ti,at a precedent was being set with this. Commissioner. Sceranka stated that th'•s has been the way the Commission has handled this type of situation. Mr. Reeves stated that if developed in a different manner, the spread would be entirely different and it is under one ownership. Commissioner Sceranka stated that this obviously is a loophole and 4•,ne- thing that has beer pointed out to the Commission now. Commissioner King stated that the parcel map was done with what he thought was an understanding by the owner of the other parcel that im- provements had to be made and with the owners consent and then it flipped - flopped with this item. Mr. Reeves stated that he did not realize that things were moving so fast and so wanted to speak during the hearing on the last item but the public hearing closed. He further stated that his investigations of the channel that would affect him is that the i:,provements of the concrete -lined channel as proposed raised the question to Flood Control as to what their requirements for improvement of the channel are. They were requesting additional right -of: -way only. he said. The City stated that they would like to have the channel fully improved and asked the Flood Control District if they would not object if the City was going to make that requirement. He inc_icated that requirement by the City will add approximately $888 - 10,000 a lot on their lots and $5000 -6000 on his lots and is purely a request of the City and not the Flood Control District. Chairman Dahl stated that he felt they have been snookered here and asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Rempel caved that the conditions as proposed in the Resolution be adopted. Planning Commission Minutes -18- February 25, 1981 Yr. Hopson stated that the Commission could not do that. He further stated that the Commission must go back and reconsider th! previous recision or else they will have a tract with half of a larQ ",r piece of property. Chairman Dahl moved that the Commission reconsider Item H, Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map No. 6627, aE they have ti go back and V ke arothPr look at what has beer. done. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Hogan stated that a motion was needed to cont:nue this item in order to reconsider the ether item. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue this item to later in the agenda. Chairman. Dahl stated that the Commission would mcve back to Item H, Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map No. 6627. Commissioner Rempel moved that the previous motion be rescinded and that the conditions to adopted as proposed by staff without any changes, retaining Condirion No. 48, as it should be. Commissioner Sceranka seconded the motion. ,hairman Dahl stated that the motion had been moved and seconded and ..ould therefore open this for public hearing. He indicated that only new information should be brought forward at this time. Mr. Joe Karman, Jensen Homes, apologized that things had gotten out -of -nand and stated that he did not try to dupe anyone int) creating one thing and not another. He furt$,er stated that it was their understanding that only parcel 2 would be included in that channel. tie further stated that since the Commission has clarified the issue and :hey have looked it over, it is acceptable to the parcel and the parcid can go in. Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing portion s. sting that a motion was before the Commission. The question was called and the motion camed unanimously. Chairman Dahl stated that they would now go on to Item I. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, car-ied unanimously, to go beyond the 11 p.m. cu-.few- Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, car-Jed unanimously, to adopt Staff's recommendation on Item I. Planning Commission Minutes -19- February 25, 1981 11:45 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 11:50 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. J. E"VIROi-IMENT..I. ASSESSMENT AND 'TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 9441 - MARY. TII - A tra--t subdivision of 72 single family lots on 4.08 acres of R -1 -20 zoned land located near the center of the block bounded by Wilson Avenue, Banyan Avenue, Archibald Avenue, and 3ermosd Avenue - APN 201- 172 -18, 20, 21 and 22. City Plauner, Parry Hogan, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Jack Peeve::_ MarIr T-rT u..mer ....v..a <c .ti... _ _____.. _ of the Flood Control District to have the channel improved. Mr. Rougeau replied that it is a City policy that these channels be fully improved. Mr. Reeves stated this seems to be inconsistent with the discussion that he just heard the Commission make that they wanted water retention and water back into the ground on the other parcel that was being discusbed. Commissioner Sceranka stated that these channels are not designed for percolation but to take water that is flowing dnwn the hills after rains that cannot be carried into basins. Mr. Reeves stated that he understood that, but that channel has been carrying that water for over 100 years. Commissioner Sceranka stated that they would increase flows with the additional subdivisions that are going in. 14r. Reeves stated that the Flood Control District indicated that there was no need for improvement to the floo8 control channel to carry water in the future - that it would be adequate. Further, this being the case, there seems to be an inconsistency. Commissioner Rempel stated that this very channel is the one that almost washed out a house a couple of winters ago and moved it down the hill. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Reeves if he had ever seen the water flew in this channel. Mr. Reeves replied that he bad not. Mr. Rougeau stated the Flood Control District usually recommends or does, and in this case did recommend severe setbacks to whenever you don't improve a channel. He indicated that means large areas of vacant land have to be left there. Commissioner Sceranka stated he understood Mr. Reeves' concern. Further that if Mr. Reeves were around that channel and saw the rains flowing down he would realize the damage that it does now each time a new tract comes in. He indicated that the water will continue to do damage until. i 'I Planning Commission Minutes -20- February ?5, 1981 the problem is solved and that we are not the kind of City that can afford to wait 10 more years for money to somehow come in to build these systems. lie ;,tatc3 that they have to solve the problem the best way they call and this is the only way that they know of that they can do it rroperly. Mr. Reeves stated his concern is that it will add an additional. $5000 -6000 to each homeowner. That they will have to finance and carry these improvements. Further, that from his discussions with the Flood Control District, he did not see the benefit for those dollars that people will have to nay for. He asked if it were possible to get the map approveu with all of the conditions subject to that one being reviewed. Chairman Dahl stated that Mr. Reeves would have a certain amount of time to appeal and that the condition can be based upon the appeal at the Council level. The Council would then decide whether they would allow the appeal or what or have it remain as the Commission approved it. Mr. Reeves asked if he could appeal just one condition. Mr. Hopson replied that he could. Mr. Reeves stated O.K. because he objects to that one condition. Mr. Hogan stated that the Planning Commission, if they consider this for approval. and act on it will be final unless appealed within 14 calendar clays. He indicated that if this is appealed it must be in writing and the applicable fees paid. There being no furtbrr comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Remnel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Tentative Tract No. 9441 with all conditions. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSM Development of a reta zo.ie to be located on APN 208- 321 -32. 1 center. on 1.5 acres of land in the C -1 the northwest corner. of Arrow and Turner - Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff. report. Commissioner King asked how staff foresees delivery trucks going in and out of this project. Mr. Coleman replied that it would be done through the use of bob - tailed trucks so that there would be adequate room if the condition for 24 feet is approved by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -21- February 25, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka asked why staff recommended not to allow pedestrian a.xess. Mr. Coleman replied that it was thought it would prevent vandalism to thQ rear of the unit. Mr. Hogan stated that staff would work further with the applicant on access. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how far the apartmen.ts were from this project. Mr. Coleman replied approximately 60 feet. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that noise from cars in the car wash must be considered as it would be heard in the apartments. Mr. Hogan stated that he did not feel this would be a problem. There would be a wall that would attenuate noise. Mr. Vairin added that the architect has stated that a parapet screen wall on the rear portions of the building would totally screen all roof mounted equipment. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr.. Alan Snapp, architect on this project, requested that the existing sidewalk on the south side of this project remain as shown. lie also requested that the block wall opening at the northwest corner because of access of the apartments to the Center. Mr. Snapp also clarified that this would be a 4 -bay rather than a 3 -bay carwash and would therefore not have a turnaround aisle. Mr. Arnold Anderson, 8070 Calle Gray Ct., Rancho Cucamonga, requested three things. He did not feel that any security is gained through closing the pass through at the northwest corner of this project and wished to see it remain open; he indicated that he could probably improve the dimensions of the planter on the adjacent wall but requested that the staff request of 10 feet inside the wall be reduced to 5 feet; and his third request was informational -- what is a specimen tree? Mr. Vairin explained that it is a tree contained within a 24 -inch box or larger and explained the standard street tree requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the type of business that is proposed to go in a 24 -hour. market. Mr. Anderson replied that the plan is for a restaurant on the corner with an ice cream parlor and auto supply occupying the other stores. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the car wash would close. Planning Conmiission Minutes -22- February 25, 1981 Mr. Anderson indicated that it would be a coin - operated car wash but there is no intention of keeping it open all night. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was concerned about the people who might come from a party and use the car wash with the ensuir-. noise factor. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hogan stated that staff would not object to leaving the opening in the wall to accommodate the apartment dwellers or to the sidewalk requirement. I4r. Mogan indicated that the 3 -stall opening in the ca:- wash is a Fire District requirement as they feel that there should be nr provisions for parking cars that would block access. Mr. Hogan further stated that the CUP would specify the hours that the car wash could remain open. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there could be some provision within the condition that if a problem ensues this could be brought back before the 'Commission. Mr. Hopson stated that this would be handled just as the Roar's Head where there would be a reexamination within a year to be sure that everything is operating smoothly. Mr. Hogan stated that if the Commission is concerned with the hours of operation of the car wash the Commission could review this in a year and may then make an adjustment if necessary. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution No. 81 -21 approving the CUP subject to the following conditions: 1. That the sidewalk remain straight on Arrow. 2. That the landscaping be allowed to be 5 feet on the north side planters. 3. That open access remain on the northwest corner. 4. That the stall remain on the north side because he felt that the Fire Department is being excessive in this request. 5. That the parapet extend above the airconditi.oning equipment on the roof. 6. That this be reviewed within one year to be sure that the hours of operation are not excessive or a nuisance. Commissioner King seconded by motion. Commissioner Rempel asked that the motion be amended to allow only 5 feet of landscaping on the north wall. Planning Commission Minutes -23- February 25, 1981 The amendment was accepted and the motion carried unanimously. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, King, Rempel, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None - carried- Mr. Anderson asked about the fascia around the commercial area. It was explained that this is just a plant on beam and should remain. k ak is Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. L. ENVIROiMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 5545 - HOOVER - A residential subdivision of 2.28 acres of land into 2 parcels within the A -1 zone located south of Highland, west of Etiwanda channel - hPN 228 - 011-23. Paul Rougeau rfeviewc:d the staff report. 12:30 a.m., ';ommissioners King and Dahl stepped down during this hearing. Vice - chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81 -22 approving the tentative tract and issuing a Negative Declaration. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, Sceranka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: King, Dahl 12:35 a.m., Commissioners King and Dahl returned to the table. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p,m. curfew. M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP N0. 6651 - BOERTJE (DIVERSIFIED) - A subdivision of 16.96 acres of land into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 within the Y -3 zone, and parcel 2 within the A -F zone, located at the north east corner of Archibald and Base Line. Planning Commission Minutes -24- February 25, 1981 Paul Rougeau reviewed the staff report, recommending that if this project is approved, ir. should be with the deletion of condition No. 46. Commissioner king asked if this was because staff wanted to look into this further. Mr. Rougeau replied affirmatively and that the requirement for this condition is also covered by Condition No. 30 so that the City is not abrogating this requirement. He stated that perhaps a concrete ditch is unnecessary and that a combination of a wall and a ditch may suffice.. Chairman Dahl, opened the public hearing. Mr. Scan SLrykek, 17632 Irvine, TusLln, stated that he was in agreement with the conditions; however., he had one concern regarding the removal of the existing house on the parcel prior to recordation. He asked if he would be able to have an option to bond for removal. The City Attorney stated that he saw no problem with bonding for removal of the house. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -23 approving the tentative map and issuing a negative declaration with removal of Condition No. 46 and the option by the applicant for bonding for the removal of the existing structure. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. New Business N. DIRECi'OR REVII•V NO. 81 -02 - FORBCO (SIZZLER) - The development of a 5,230 square foot restaurant on a one acre pad in the Sierra Plaza in the C -1 zone, located on the north side of Base Line, west of Archibalt! Avenue - APN 202 - 161 -45. Dan Doleman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Herb Andrews, 15, Morningsun, Irvine, representing the applicant, stated he would answer any questions. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a walkway could be provided for people to walk around the commercial center. Staff advised that this has been considered. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -24 approving this project subject to the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes -25- February 25, 1981 0. ZONING ORDINANCE DETERMINATION NO. 81 -02 - WEEKS - A request to develop a racquetball court in the A -P zone. Senior Planner, Michael Vairir_, reviewed the staff 'report. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Scerauka, carried unanimously, to allow this racquetball facility with the A -P zone. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this action meant that from now on this use would be permitted within the A -P zone. Mr. Hogan replied that it did not, and that each request would be brought before the Planning Commission for their consideration of the request. * * x x * Director's Reports P. E1►XR, Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the March 10, 1981 meeting. r- * ** * Adjournment Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn at 12:50 p.m. 12:50 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -26- February 25, 1981 e I CITY OF RANCT10 CUCAMONGA PLANMING C01-11-1ISSION MINUTES March 11, 1991 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Coimnission, held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, wan called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chairman Dahl, who led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL. CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Peter Tolstoy (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Parry K. Rogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Michael Vaiiin, Senior Planner * is fr ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam announced that the next hearing on the Victoria Planned Community will be held on March 12, 1981 at the Lion's Park Community Center, beginning at 7 p.m. Mr. Lam announced that items F, J, and K have been requested to be continued by the applicants. These items have been rescheduled as follows: Item "F" - March 25, 1981 Item "J" - March 25, 1981 Item "K" - April 8, 1981 Chairman Dahl anuounr_ed that Mr. Hopson became the father of a baby boy, Edward John, on Monday, March 9, 1981. CONSENT CALENDAR A. REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION ON DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -06 - VANGUARD - A time extension request for the development of a 200 -unit apartment project on 9.3 acres of land located on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Ramona Avenue. B. RE WEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION ON THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT FOR SITE APPROVAL N0. 79 -07 - BRETIIr, •LN IN CHRIST CHURCH - A request for an extension of time to complete the redesign and alteration of an existing structure. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 -05 -- AMERON - A 24,90are Boot industrial addition to the existing 41 -acne Ameron pipe plant located on the southwest cor:ger of Arrow & Etiwanda Avenues within the M -2 zone. APN 229 - 131 -09. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: * * * k * PUBLIC HEARINGS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, DiWL NONE COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carriad- Chairman Dahl asked for a motion to open the public hearings to continue items, "F", "J" and "K ". F. i. K. A total residential development: of 9.76 acresjYint:oJ33olots ` in theL R -1 zone generally located ou the northeast- corner of Ramona and Church. APN 208 - 181 -06. 1JAV1:; DEVELOPMENT - An industrial subdivision of 6.02 acres into 8 parcels wilhi— n rb M -R zone located on the east side of Hellman and the north side of Seventh Street. APN 209 - 171 -37. MAP NO. 679A _ -'- �••° •+•.• -.J. 11VV. - a commercial subdivision of 2.47 acres into 8 parcels within the C -2 zone located at the northeast corner of Archibald and Foothill. APN 1077- 641 -54 through 67. Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Rempel., carried, to reschedule Items "F" and "J" to March 25, 1981 and Item "K" to April 8, 1981. * * * * PUBLIC HEARINGS D. ORAL RrpnPT _ ...... uvvnalMENTS - The development of a residential subdivision consisting of 40 single family lots on 10.8 acres of land within the R -1 -8,500 zone, generally located on the southwest corner of Carnelian and Highland. APN 201- 214 -05. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 1.1, 1981 City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff reporc. Following the report, Assistant City Attorney Hopson, stated that he had given a report and legal opinion to the City and in that regard, the issue that staff raised is whether or not there is a debate on the en- vironmental impact from the exi.s:ence of this particular project. Further, case law states that if it can be reasonably debated whether or not it will. have an environmental impact, the Planning Commission can require an Environmental Impact Report as you need not be certain that it rill have an impact but only that it may have one. The discussion, therefore, should be on whether or not this project as proposed will. have an impact. lie staled additionally, that if the Commission desires, it can require the applicant to do a focused EIR. He indicated that ndtigation of potential impacts in the project as proposed should also be considered. Mr. Hopson stated that it was correct that the County entered into an agreement with CALTRANS but that this is not particularly helpful to the City and places no critical obligation on the City. Further, that the City has no reason to force CALTRANS to do anything on this. Mr. Hopson stated that if the Planning Commission feels that this project will have an environmental impact they may or may not require the applicant to do an EIR. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Gorgon, 7333 Hellman, Rancho Cucamonga, the applicant, stated that he did not disagree th..t the City can require an EIR. Further, that he thought that the City is still in hope that CALTRANS will buy this right -of -way. He indicated "hat the project has been in process for 7 months and the City has not taken a position in saying yes or no. Mr. Gorgon stated that he is being asked to study the public use of this property. There being no further comments, the public portion of this hearing was closed. There was considerable discussion among the Commission on how many properties presently exist in the freeway right -of -way, the quest1ons that must be asked on the basis for an EIR, and the agreement that the County of San Bernardino has with CALTRtJvS. Commissioner Sceranka asked why the City has accepted applications if the project does not conform to the General Plan. Mr. Lam replied that the City has no right to deny the acceptance of an application. Commissioner King asked what type of data the City has that assumes that the freeway will not go through in terms of a traffic. mode. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 11, 1981 Mr.. Rougeau replied that the City has an alternate route without the freeway which shows that without it there will be considerable traffic impacts on existing streets. Commissioner Sceranka, after discussion, stated that the bottom line Problem he is coming to is that in 1950 the State said they would put a freeway through the City. He felt that there is something wrong when 20 years later a property owner is still paying for that use. Tar. Hopson replied that one could be sympathetic if someone has had property for that length of time, but not for someone who has acquired it recently. He stated that other factors must be considered on this as it has been 25 years since the freeway was on the books as being proposed. The choice is; do you allow the developer to build on the right -of -way or does the City buy the property. He stated that they have said the City is not in a position to buy this property. Commissioner King stated that everyone knows that this will affect the environment and transportation and it does not seem that necessary to have the applicant do an F.iR when It is already known that it will have an effect. Commissioner Rempel stated that it is being asked where traffic will go and whether 19th Street is capable of handling the traffic that wil.l be generated if the freeway does not go in. The consideration that must be made is that it will, not be able to handle the traffic. Commissioner Sceranka stated that be does not know of any mitigation measures that would allow more traffic. Mr. Hogan stated that this is unknown and that there are some alternatives. He indicated that there must be a comparison made of the 50 square miles involved with this specific area. Mr. Gorgen stated that if the mitigation is that he provide a six -lane street, that would leave him with about 25 -foot lots. Mr. Hopson stated that there is nothing to compare this with now and that the applicant may be left with one bank of lots on the north or no lots at all. Mr. Hogan replied that the City is not discussing design of the tract and how it is located but of the environmental impact. Chairman Dahl asked for a brief recess. 8:03 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Commissioner Sceranka asked what the the project. impact would be if the City denied Planning Commission Minutes _y_ March 11, 1981 Mr. Hopson replied that if the project was denied then there would be a good argument for inverse condemnation against the City. Commissioner Rempel stated that all one had to do is look at a reap to see that there is nothing there and if tracts are allowed in the right - of-way,it will be necessary to prepare and Environmental Impact Report. lie added that the impact of the larger area including regional and in- dustrial plans will be involved if that corridor is not established. Mr. Rempel then stated that he wished to make a motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel that an EIR be prepared on this with a special focus on what will happen to circulation within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification of the motion in what the applicant would be required to do. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would want to know what happens to circulatiou and the effects of circulation if the corridor for the freeway is no longer there because there would be other impacts such as sociological, hydrological, etc., if a tract is allowed to be built there. Mr. Hogan stated that if the Commission looks at parts I and I: of the Initial Study and the previously transmitted staff report, items 6, 7, and 8, they would see that there would be substantial effects on land use also. M:. Hogan felt that an EIR should be focused on these issues as well and added that item 5 should also be considered. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt items 6, 7 and 8 were critical and should be included but felt that item 5 might not have to be. Commissioner King stated that it was his understanding that this would relate to the regional area. and not just the city -wide transportation problems and asked if this was true. Mr. Hogan replied that this was true. Commissioner Rempel's motion died for lack of a second. There was discussion among the Commission on what the impact provisions would be and how the corridor could be preserved. Mr. Hogan stated that there are regional aspects that must be considered and that this corridor is not in a vacuum but would affect the entire City. Motion: Commissioner Sceranka moved that the project be denied. The motion died for lack of a second. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 11, 1981 Commissioner Rempel moved that Item 6 be deleted and that a focused EIR be prepared on Items 7 and 8. Further, that it must be looked at on a city -wide basis. It should be examined from the perspective of every person living in the City and what the impacts of not having a freeway would be on the total. population. Further, that if the rest of the property owners along this corridor want to help with the bill for the preparation of the EIR this would be all. right but he did not feel that the City should pay for this. Chairman Dahl seconded the motion. Commissioner King asked if Mr. Rempel would be willing to amend his motion to the impact on the City rather than on the region. Commiss:ioners Rempel and Dahl accepted Commissioner King's amendment. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, DAHL, KING SCERANKA TOLSTOY -carried- Commissioner Sr_eranka explained that his negative vote resulted from the feeling that this is only an exercise knowing full well what the results of the EIR will. ba. E. _ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11549 - LEWIS - A residential tract subdivision of 52 acres into 90 lots in the R -1 zone generally located on the southwest corner of Summit and East Avenue. APN 225 - 181- 02 -04, 06 -09, 26 and 43. City Planner, Barry Hogan reviewed the staff report and asked for con- sideration of selective retention of the Eucalyptus trees on the project site. He asked further, that staff be directed by the Planning Commission to work with the Lewis Company to retain the character of the area as well as preserve and prom � safety for residents in the retention of the trees. Commissioner Scerauka asked for clarification of Item 52. Mr. Rougeau and Mr. Hogan explained that if there is a requirement for sidewalks on Etiwanda Avenue, then they will be required and requested that the Commission make a determination on this. There was discussion on the relocation of the Chaf.fey- Garcia House which was recently named by the City Council as a historical landmark. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Ron Nottingham, representing the Lewis Homes Company, asked if there will be a requirement for sidewalks on both sides of the street. Planning Cocunission Minutes -6- March 11, 1981 Mr. Hogan replied that the best way to handle this is to say that sidewalks will have to comply with the Commission's .'xture policy so that this will not delay the appli.cer.t's project. Mr. Rick Eliar, resident on East Avenue, asked if this plan envisions the widening of East Avenue or Summit at this time. Mr. Hogan replied that if they are to wild. they would have to widen East Avenue. Mr. Elias asked hoc• wide this would be. Mr. Rougeau said it would be comparable to the street in front of the Telephone Company. Mr. Elias asked if this tract would have a wall around it or be open space. Mr.. Hogan stated teat no wall is proposed at this time; however, they are not restricted from putting up a wall in the future. Mr. Ron Tannenbaum, Etiwanda resident, stated that he had some specific comments but since this is the first project for the area it should be scrutinized carefully. one of the things th ?t Mr. Tannenbaum requested was that some thought be given to the preservation of the windrows with- in the subdivision beacuse replacement with 15- gallon trees would not replace the character that presently exists. The second item of concern to Mr. Tannenbaum was that the development is not intended to be equestrian and he felt that since this area was named within the General Plan as being animal - related he did not feel that this tract would set a good precedent for the Etiwanda area. Mr. Hogan replied that staff is not proposing entire removal of the trees from this area but rather, selective retainment and the number would have to be determined by the Planning Commission. Further, as far as animal use within this area, if the Lewis Company does not want them, it is their legal right. Commissioner Rempel stated that what the Planning Commission stated is that the trail system must be maintained in this area and will be required. Mr.. Hogan stated that he failed to mention that the community trail system would be required and would have to be maintained. Mr. Bruce Chitiea asked for a better definition of selective retention. lie also asked if widening would be required and about the removal of trees along Summit Avenue. Mr. Hogan provided an explanation 'c Mr. Chiti.ea. There being no further comments the public hearing was closed. Chairman Dahl asked about equestrian uses and whether this was ccnsidered. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 11, 1981 Mr. Richard Lewis explained that in one project above Peter Tolstor's mouse they went out of their way to provide equestrian property but the first six buyers went out of their way to state that they would not purchase if the property was equestrian. Further, while equestriai was not proposed for this tract, this was not cast in concrete. There was discussion among the Commission relative to the windrow re- tention and street design within this tract. Mr. JJ- Wilson, Etiwanda resident, stated that he owned property cn the southwest corner of this project and the plan shows a street going, through his property and he wished to voice objection to that. Mr. Nottingham explained that this required dedication of one -half of a street and that there was a 70 -foot strip that comes out to Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Wilson stated that he dial not hear about the plans for this development until yesterday afternoon and that this niece is owned by two piorer.ty owners. Mr. Nottingham stated that there is a solution to this as the stre >t coul� be saved northerly and sti7.1 get the necessary improvements. Mr. Hogan stated that he thought this problem had been worked out l:ut that there imrrt: have been some misunderstanding. But it appeared that there would be a mutual advantage to each property owner that could be worked out between them. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried that this ptoject be approved with the condition that the tree preservation and replac =_went be brought back to Design Review and that the wording on condition J? be changed to state that sidewalks will be required subject to Plant ng Commission Resolutior relative to sidewalk replacement. Commissioner King voted no on this motion because he felt the project should be redesigned to place more emphasis on windrows because with the size of lot and the fact that trees could be topped there were adequate means to protect the windrows and allay aamage problems. Further, he felt it is the responsibility of residents to preserve that windrows. * *.t* * 9:30 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9:42 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. * * * * * Planning Commission Minutes _g_ March 11, 1981 G. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-01- DAON_ The development of a retail center on 18 acres of land in the M -2 zone to be located on the northeast corner of Haven and Arrow. APN 208 - 351 -13. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King asked if the lines on the right elevation of the proposed building would go all the way back to the nursery area. Mr. Ramirez, architect for this project, replied that it will go all the way back to the nursery area and is a split concrete block. Chairman Dahl asked if the Design Review Committee wanted the beam to continue on to the Arrow side of the building. Mr. Vairin replied that they did so that it would wrap around and be visible from that side. Commissioner King stated that it appearee that there was not much that could be done for the service entry for autos. Mr. Vairin replied that the applicant provided additional landscaping in anticipation that it would help screen the set-vice area. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Jack Corrigan, representing the Deon Corporation, stated that they had just returned from Troy, Michigan, X -Mart Headquarters, in an attempt to change the K -Mart image. He indicated that this store will set a precedent in changing the 'image of these stores and he felt that they have gone as far as they will go in making additional changes. He indicated that this store has upgraded landscaping from the usual $30,000- 40,000 to approximately $128,000 on this project. Mr. Gilbert Aja, architect for this project, stated that he did not feel that landscaping was required in the back area as it would be des- troyed by the trucks. Mr. Aja explained the pedestrian areaway as a logical place to terms -uate the beam. He also stared that the median island was not intended to be a pass through. Mr. Aja indicated that the K -Mart Corporation has just sent a letter stating that they would _find the dark blue accent unaccept- able and wished the trim canopy to be painted a dark brown, instead. Mr. Hogan asked Mr. Aja about the beam and windows as far as trim color was concerned. Mr. Aja explained that it would be changed to a gray driftwood color. Mr. Joe DiIoric stated that he felt that this project fulfills the object - ive of upgrading the industrial area, and, further, that this project will be an asset to the. City. He thanked Mr. Corrigan !,or setting this kind of standard for the industrial area. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March +1, 1981 There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Vairin provided staff comments on this project stating that on the letter received from the K -Mart Corporation he would have some difficulty in approving the project color change with seeing only a sample and not the total package. lie indicated that items 2, 3, and 4 are fine, but he felt that in terms of the accent paint, he felt that the blue color was better for this building. He stated that under the City's ordinance a sign would not be permitted on the front elevation for the garden center. The auto sign would be permitted by virtue of the ordinance permitting pedestrian - oriented sign. The parking layout with angled parking could work but there might be more efficient parking with a new Layout. Mr. Vairin further stated that foundation plantings only would not be acceptable. Mr.. Hogan asked that for the record, is Mr. Corrigan requesting these modifications to be considered by the City as a request from Daon or a transmittal of concern that was expressed by K -Mart to the Daon architect. Mr. Corrigan stated that this was a transmittal only. Mr. Hogan stated that what should be considered is what staff has and not what is in the letter. Mr. Corrigan stated that they have asked for these changes and he did not feel he could go back to them with any more change; proposed by staff. Further., that they would like to deliver this project to the City by Spetember to help th> City in its tax base. Chairman Dahl asked about the free standing beam and how this Would present a problem. Mr. Corrigan replied that K -Mart does not want people walking around the rear area. Further, that architecturally, in breaking the store front up, it would be inconsistent with the project. He felt that when the trees grow up you would be unable to see the store front anyway. Commissioner King stated that although in Design Review they had talked about having the beam go down all the way, lie was not sure that the suggestion brought up tonight about pedestrian safety would be countervailing issue. Commissioner Sceranka stated his concurrence. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -25 approving this project, striking Items 2, 4 and 7. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Planning Commission Minutes REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, DAHL NONE TOLSTOY - carried- -10- March 11, 1981 Mr. Hogan asked if the Commission accepts the site plan as proposed as far as color. The Commission stated their acceptance. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11606- WESTEND - A residential subdivision on 70.32 acres of land into 277 single family residential lots in the R -1 zone, located on the north side of the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way between Haver, Avenue and Deer Creek. APN 207 - 221 -18. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would feel better if subdivision maps came before Design Review before they get this far because the Planning Commission is concerned about grading and curvilinear streets. Mr. Vairin stated that this is a second or third round and the applicant has now come in with curvilinear streets. Further, that coming before Design Review would prolong the review process. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rempel. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Gorgen, representing the applicant, stated that he would like to leave the requirement for a noise attenuation wall, under Item I of the Resolution, open because FHA would probably require. lie stated that with regard to the Deer Creek Regional Trail System, he felt that this should be paid for by the City as a whole and not by the developer. lie then asked if this could be credited against the park fee as this would be equitable. Mr. Gorgen also objected to the parking pod requirement on the cul -de -sacs. He indicated that people living there w ,)uld not like to have these on their property. He asked who would maintain them and said that they would create more problems than they would solve. Mr. Gorgen stated that relative to Condition No. S in the Engineering Section, he had spoken with Lloyd Huhbs and it was felt that N/S drainage could be done in phases with an acceptance letter from the property owner. below. He also stated that a reimbursement agreement would be explored. Mr. Gorgen also spoke of an acceptable letter to the property owner re- garding drainage if they are creating a problem; however, he felt that the letter should be dispensed with if it is found not to create a problem. Mr. Vairin commented on the parking pod concept stating that people want to get to the trail system and parking on the street would be less desirable than parking pods. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 1.1, 1981 Mr. Vairin suggested a change to the effect that a noise attenuation wall should be constructed if a noise analysis determines that the intensity and degree of the noise would cause substantial adverse impacts on those dwellings. Further, in terms of the regional trail, he stated that this is a multi. -use trail that is being encouraged through the General Plan. It is not a park or part of the Recreational. Element. He stated that staff has reviewed the ordinance as has the City Attorney. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this trail would be like the one that goes along Highway 91. through Corona and Anaheim. Fir. Hogan replied that that is an awfully long trail and there are portions that will look like it and many portions that will not. Mr. Gorgen asked what the maintenance district boundaries would be on this tract. Mr. Rougeau replied that there is a city -wide maintenance district but the lighting district has not yet been formed. Mr. Gorgen asked who is presently in the maintenance district. Mr. Rougeau replied that all property within the City. Mr. Gorgen stated that he did not like to go into something that is open - ended and where lie is not sure that standards exist. Mr. Hogan replied that no definitive design standards exist at the present time and explained that some of these could be worked out with Mr. Gorgen. Mr. Gorgen stated that he would like the record to show that unless there is some credit for the park fee, they are in opposition to this condition and the noise attenuation condition. Mr. Bruce Chitiea stated that for the record any agreement to use the Flood Control land for trails is up in the air. He further stated that the Flood Control District is awaiting legal answer concerning main- tenance and basic improvement to the channel right -of -way. Whether a trail system is built depends on what happens in the public sphere. Iie indicated that the requirement that. trail improvements be made might be premature. Mr. Chitiea also talked about the regional and local grid. lie stated that the more developments that are held up, and the more money a developer must spend on the trails the less desirable they are and the more opposition there will be and stated that this is an area where extreme moderation must be exercised. Mr. Vairin replied that_ the City has been District and they have indicated that they on the Regional Trails and that it is not build it all. It will be worked out with and lien agreement- because the City wants standards that should be imposed. in contact with the Flood Control are more than willing to work expected that the applicant will the applicant as far as bonding it to be done right with the Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 11, 1981 Mr. Hopson stated however, it goes on here or it doesn't go on at all. Mr. Gorgen stated that he wanted to' make sure that it will go on the Flood Control right -of -way and that at some point in the future he does not want to lose 70 lots. Mr. Hogan stated that the Flood Control District has stated to Mr. Gorgen that he would be able to use the right -of -way but the City must have an agre -2ment in the form of a Resolution from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gorgen asked if he would be required in the future to make dedication on the tract map. Staff advised that he would not be required to do so. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hopson stated that City Ordinance No. 105 describes credits against park fees and the way it is worded, credits cannot be applied in this instance. Further, that it states you can get a credit for private open space in a subdivision if the private open space is owned and main- tained by the future residents of the subdivision. Sp:•^_e that is not privately owned or privately maintained does not fit in with the way the ordinance is written. He further stated that it may be a good idea to have credits for something that was not thought of at the time the ordinance was drafted. However, you can't make a finding that this is privately owned the way that this is worded now so that a credit is given. Mr. Rempel stated that based on the amount of through traffic that will be going through here a six -foot wall, that is a barrier rather than a noise attenuation wall, would be better. As far as access to the trail system, Mr. Rempel stated that access should be provided for those using the trail but was not in agreement with the parking pod concept. He said that the Commission does not want to encourage_ people to drive to this trail system and then to start walking. Rather, they should walk there or run and use the trail for horses but the access should not be through parking pods. Commissioner King 'stated he was not sure how this fits in with the ordinance as far as fe- credits for the trail system, but it has always seemed logical to him that the trails are a part of recreation and the fees should there- fore provide some credit for this purpose. Mr. Gorgen stated that he would be happy if the City Council would provide some credit for this. lie further stated that he rill make a friendly appeal to the City Council to obtain credit for the fees. Co:•mnissioner Sceranka stated that he wished to make himself perfectly clear on this as he does not feel that the tennis courts are the only form of recreation in a city. When you speak of walking, jogging, horseback riding and you have places that people can do these things, you are talking about recreational facilities the same as you would a park where people could sit under a tree. He felt that these trails should be given credit the same way that a park would because it is a recreational use. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 11, 1981 Chairman Dahl. asked at what point does a trail not become a park amenity. lie stated that there are different trails and under one situation trails are allowed as part of an old trail system and then it was revised to eliminate this and again revised to put some credit back in for it. He then asked how many parks, aside from the trails, are planned to be built in the City. Commissioner Hempel stated that this trail has nothing to do with parks because he is not furnishing the land. Further, that this could be part of the recreation fee to develop a recreation mode. He indicated that the Commission is getting into a play on semantics when they discuss whether this is a recreation trail. or a transportation mode. Mr.. Hogan stated that the Planning Commission is treading on a dangerous precedent if they are considering this. Further, that the ordinance will be eroded away if this is considered to go before the City Council. The Trail Element,he stated,is not a part of the Recreation and Parks Element. Ordinance No. 105 is directed at that element and this Is what gives it its authority under law. He stated that the Trail Element is not a part of that. Further,that this is part_ of the open space conservation plan and the Planning Commission should not lightly consider a recommendation to the City Council to change the Park and Recreation Ordinance. The question of whether or not Mr. Gorgen can have credit under the ordinance has already been answered and if the Trails are to be considered as part of the Recreation Element they should be done as part of the General Plan and not here. Chairman Dahl stated that his feelings are that he is opposed to using the parking, pods unless there is a willingness to give this in lieu of the park fee. Further, the statement made on Item 16, the letter of acceptance, by Pir. Rougeau should be worked out with Mr. Gorgen and that the sound attenuation wall should not be required. He stated that regarding the credit for the park fees along the Deer Creek channel he cannot go with that because it is against the City Ordinance and he is not sure that the applicant can stand on that in the first place. Commissioner. King Moved that the sound attenuation wall., parking pods and agreement with the Flood Control District for use of the right -of --way be amerded. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he also would like to see the parking pods removed and that pedestrian access should be at three spots, at the top, bottom and middle instead of the two spots as proposed. Mr. Gorgen stated that they have no problem with that access but would also like to include his request relative to the master plan of drainage and the extension to the railroad tracks and a letter from the property owners as requested iu condition No. 16. Commissioner King stated that he would amend his motion to include that in his motion. Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 11, 1981 Commissioner Rempel seconded this motion. AYES: C01%IHISSIONERS: 'KING, REMPEL, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried- * * * * * Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carri.cd unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 11:10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 140. 6260 - WEAVER - A residential subdivision of 18.4 parcels within the R -1 -20 zone located on the east side of Carnelian, north of Hillside. APN 1061- 261 -01. Mr. Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King stated that he did not really understand what was stated about wanting Carnelian improved. Mr. Rougeau replied that this would be improved but only at the time someone builds on Parcel 1. Commissioner King asked if a road is requested to be constructed off of Carnelian with the development of parcels 2 and 3. Mr. Rougeau replied yes, that it would be a 60 -foot wide right -of -way dedicated as a public road and a 26 -foot wide strip of asphalt to go into the farthest end of parcel 3. Chairman Dahl. asked if he was stating that you also want a sidewalk along with the widening. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be suggested that the sidewalk policy be reviewed on this. Chairman Dahl stated that there are presently sidewalks on the west side and asked if they are not wanted on the east side. Mr. Rougeau replied that they must be provided for public access and this is what should be done. Commissioner King asked if access presently exists. Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 11, 1981 Mr. Rougeau replied that there is a dirt road for casual access now. The Planning Commission discussed whether private or public access must be provided. Chairman Dahl suggested that a road be put in above rather than where it was being shown. Mr. Hogan stated that the City might consider 1 private road, for this is a difficult piece of property. Following discussion, Chairman Dahl stated that he did not feel that street A is a necessary street. He indicated that the private ingress and egress is O.Y. but that the way it is shown is not flood. He indicated further that it would be proper at the north end of the property but not the south end. Following further discussion, Mr. Hogan stated that we have an opportunity to get dedication and full. improvements which may not be available in the future. Further, that the consensus was that these improvements will be required at the time building permits are issued. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr--. '% fiver, the applicant, asked why she must put in a 60 -foot easement along Scrang Lane. She indicated that she wants to develop parcel No. 2 and does not want the street to be paved because_ it would be an invitation to bike riders to use this private street. TFare was discussion on why this street must be public and not a private street. Commissioner R.empel explained why the City policy is to require public streets and why this policy must be adhered to. He indicated that if this was not done,the Planning Commission would be setting a dangerous precedent in not having a street here. The City Attorney explained Ordinance No. 28 and the fact that if this was a private road there would be an inconsistency because the policy is that there be public access to every lot. Mrs. Weaver stated that she would like to have a private road. Mr. Hogan explained the access policy and stated that there are several ways that this can be handled -- through an irrevocable offer of dedication or a lien agreement for future development- for our standards and allow less street standards at this time. However, Mrs. Weaver would have to record on her map that certain of the parcels would only contain one house in perpetuity and would therefore not have to have access. In that: case, there could be a private road. He further explained that through a deed restriction you could prevent people from developing a certain number of houses on lots 1 or 3. Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 11, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that we can give her something now and when and if she sells the property it would be determined by rezoning and the restrictions on it. Mr. Glenn Dyer, resident across the street from this subdivision, stated that all residents in the block are in favor of this subdivision but have a question on drainage relative to the curbi: required on this parcel. lie explained the rain problems of last year and did not feel that the standard curt and gutter specifications are sufficient here especially behind lot 10. He also requested that careful consideration be given to drainage on Carnelian and Street A. Mr. Terry Lane with Landmark, consultants and engineers on this project, asked if it would be possible to condition as part of parcel 3, the offer of dedication. Mr. ^ougeau replied stating that this could not be done. Mr. Hopson stated that if you pulled a permit on parcel two, you must make improvements for Carnelian to the western boundary; however, if you pull permits on three, it would require dedication and improvement across parcel 2. Ilowever, the applicant could do this as a condition of sale. Mrs. Richard Tredioni, owner of two out of three lots on this corner, stated that she has a future concern for the little triangle of land that runs t>ehiocl the lots as far as what will be approved for this piece or what will be done with it. Chairman Dahl stated that it would be a substandard lot size and because of the way the lot is situa,.ed, it is not feasible to be a buildable lot. He stated that all the City requires is an easement to maintain the drainage ditch. Mr. Rougeau stated that at some time in the future the City will want to have some dedication for this easement. Mrs. Tredioni stated that property owners to the north have filled in this easement and she had a concern with the drainage. Mr. Hogan stated that the staff recommendations should be modified to read that condition No. 1 will read irrevocable offer of dedication, etc., and that condition No. 45 should be amended to read up to and including, etc. notion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -27 with the amendment made by staff to conditions No, i. and 45. Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 11, 1981 L. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 81 -08 - C/L BUILDERS - DEM- .OPERS - The development of an 8,249 sq. ft. restaurant on a .99 acre parcel in the "Exchange" professional office center in the C -1 zone, located on the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue. APN 207- 031 -29. Senior Planner, Michael Vairi.n, reviewed the staff report stating that there will be 31 parking spaces left to allow the building of an office pad. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King., carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -28, with the conditions of approval. ►.Vt* -9 NOES: ABSENT: SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL, DAHL COMMISSIONERS: NONE TOLSTOY - carried- Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue the Foothill Corridor Study to March 25, 1981. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, to go beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. N. STREET NAMING POLICY Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Dahl, carried unanimously, to adopt the Street Naming Resolution No. 81 -29 with changes on page 2 to have avenues changed to streets and streets to avenues. Commissioner King asked what happens to streets that intersect perpendicularly and then jogs as far as continuing the same name. Mr. Hogan replied that it woul9 not be continued. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, DAHL, KING, SCERANKA COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried- Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to go beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 11, 1981 0. HCD REPORT Senior Planner, Tim P.ccdlc, reviewed the staff report, and stated that two concerns were addressed by the Department of Housing and Community Development. One, that specific numerical goals be established, and that the programs be more detailed in a specific fashion regarding addressing those housing goals. He stated further that what has been done to comply with their request is to bring these forward into the General Plan text. Changes were made on page 73 of the text on houses that are in the comnuinity now, and a projection of what the needs will be in the community during the next: 5 years. He indicated that the projections in the study are based on income category using current information. The other portion of the report, Mr. Beedle stated, deals with housing programs. He indicatea that the HCD comments were that the programs should be very specific and spelled out in detail. He indicated that the program options which were available had been reviewed and grouped based upon the overall. objective. These were identified and implementation responsibility was made including a financing summary of these needs. Inclusionary was shown only as a study in the means of attaining housing goals. Commissioner. King asked if the Commission is supposed to cotmient on the last pages and whether they were supposed to go o-7er the objectives. Mr. Hogan replied that if there was agreement on the response to HCD's letters then the Commission should indicate that they agrae. Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by King, carried unanimously, that they agreed on the response. Motion: Moved by Sceranka., seconded by Rempel, carried, that there was agreement on the definition of affordable housing. Commissioner King voted no. Mr. Hogan stated that if the Commission agrees and concurs, with the last portion of this report, a motion is needed to adopt Resolution No. 81 -30. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried, to adopt. Commissioner King stated for the record that he does not like entitlement programs thereby explaining his no vote. Mr. Horn- explained what an entitlement program is anJ how its conditions are met he County or the City who work directly with HCD. Planning Commission Minutes -19- March 11, 1981 Chairman Dahl stated that the Mayor has requested a meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss goals and policies. The Planning Commission concurred. Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development explained the action of the City Council at the Monday evening General Plan hearing wherein they reinstituted the 3 areas that the Planning Commission had taken out. Mr. Lam further stated that the total effect of what the Council had done was to reduce the holding capacity by 1100 units. Mr. Lam reported on his meeting with Mr. Frye indicating that it was very positive and that Mr. Vlasic would support the Victoria Plan. He stated that this was because of Council's action and Mr. Frye's changes to the number of units. Motion_ Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adjourn to tomorrow evening, March 12, 1981. 12:15 a.m. The Planning Commission. adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes —20— March 11, 1981 2 DATE: TO: FRO14: BY: SUBJECT CITY OF RANCHO C1 STAFF RE] August 12, 1981 Members of the Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Devel Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner r.WS EW KAJIMA ASSOCIATES - The development of a su'ezu industrial building on 3.2 acres of land within zone, located on the northeast corner of Utica 7th Street, parcel 15, 16 and 17 of Parcel Map N0. E1 -24 sq. ft. the M -2 Avenue and No. 6194 ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting review and approval for the develop- ment of an industrial building as described above. The structure will house the office, assembly line, and warehouse necessary for the manufacturing of disposable butane lighters. The project has completed the development and design review process and is now before the Planning Commission for environ- mental review. Staff is recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND: This review is for environmental assessment to determine the sign ficant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. The site and architectural design is not considered at this time unless it is related to environmental concerns. To determine significant adverse impacts, an Initial Study on environmental concerns is prepared. Upon com- pletion of that study, evidence would indicate either no significant impacts or the potential for significant impacts. If a determination of no signifi- cant impacts is made based upon the Initial Study, then a Negative Declara- tion may be issued for the project. If significant impacts are found, then an Environmental Impact Report shall be required to fully analyze impacts of the project. The detailed Site Plan and elevations will be reviewed and approved with conditions by the City Planner, contingent upon approval of the Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this r -. RECOMMENDATION.: Based upon analysis of the Environme udy, it appears that the project will not cause significant adverse impi-i-LS upon the environ- ment. If the Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration for the project would be in order. JL:CJ:cd Attach. ITEM A L F E - I Q 7 , a p3d — 9 till - 0 At NORTH 1 (( CITE' OF ITEM-. VF, No. 11 --Z-d) RANCH® CUCATMONGA TITLE: pt=Ll-� 0 PLANNING DIVISION E,\I11131T-_A� SCALE= �'S, � ° o Yi87T �� * X0.5. adf st L F E - I Q 7 , a p3d — 9 till - 0 At NORTH 1 (( CITE' OF ITEM-. VF, No. 11 --Z-d) RANCH® CUCATMONGA TITLE: pt=Ll-� 0 PLANNING DIVISION E,\I11131T-_A� SCALE= �'S, 11 l �) REC r-- I V rz CITY Or Knvcno wcr; Iorrca MAY 2 9 1981 INITIAL STUY KAJINA PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Rev..ew Fee: $ 80.00 For all projects requiring e:vironmental review, this form be completed and s ibmitted to the Development .2�ie'W Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take: action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is tG be heard. Thc° Committee will mate one of three determinations: 1) V e project will have no environmental impact and a ,..egative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will lave an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information, report should he supplied by the applicant giving furtaer information concerning the proposed project., PROJECT TITLE: TOKAI OF AMERIfA, CUCAMONGA PLANT APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TTLEPHONE: KAJIMA ASSOCIATES, 250 East Fil:sj St ii Suite700 Los Angeles, California 90L12 T213 629 -2381 i NAME, ADDRESS,,TELrPnoNE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: K1,JIMA ASSOCIATE3 Georne S_Shinno, Architect (213) 6f9-23$1_ LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NC'_ Parceis 15,16,17 Parcel Map 6194 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY PROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: _ —City building Departmetit, Ufy--UnTCounty Fire Uepartment, County Sanitation District,_ Flood Control. i- i r it e PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Approximately lighters. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE :FOOTAGE PROPOSED BUILDIi•IGS, IF ANY: 3.244 acres 2 OF EXISTING AND DESCRIBE THE ENVIROPISiENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS !TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) Newly LdevelopPd Indilctrial Dark site is now clear of any olanting. _ There are no cultural historical or scenic aspects effected. There areno existing buildings on the site or on ad„acent prop s. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, nay as a whole have significant environmental impact? No X- `Z 1 WTLi, THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X _ 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. )? X_ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How :cany? X 6. Create `he need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTAl7r: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. No CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnisl above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statement_, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belies. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an aBequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date June 5, 1981 Signature T- 3 Title Architect, Kajima Associates E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Develo ent i BY: Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. ! distribution buildings totaling 221,000 sq. ft. on 13.1 ac. of land in the M-2 zone to be located on the east side of Pittsburg Avenue; south of Bth Street - APN 229 - 261 -29 6 30 1977 ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting review and approval of the develop- ment of two industrial warehouse buildings as described above. The project has completed the development and design review process and is now before the Planning Commission for environmental review. Staff is recommending issuance ill a Negative Declaration. BACY.GROUND: This review is for environmental assessment to determine the significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. The site and architectural design are not considered at this time unless relative to environmental concerns. To determine significant adverse impacts, an Initial Study on environmental concerns is prepared. Upon com- pletion of that study, evidence would indicate either no significant impacts or the potential for significant impacts. If a determination of no signi- ficant impacts is made based upon the initial Study, then a Negative Declaration may be issued for the project. If significant impacts are found, then an F_n:ironmental Impact: Report shall be required to fully analyze impacts of the project The detailed Site Plan and elevations will be reviewed and approved with conditions by the City Planner, contingent upon approval of the Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of tl the applicant and is attached for your completed Part II of the Environmental adverse impacts on the environment as e Initial Study has been completed by review and consideration. Staff has Assessment and has found no significant result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon analysis of the Environmental Study, it appears that the project will not cause significant adverse impacts upon the environ- ment. If the Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration for the project would be in order. JL :AJT.cd Attach. ITE14 B ^� P (, ~ G Q� S� 9 Y CITY OF PLANINING QIViSION o e g�� o 0 E M V FORTH ITE11 :71),Rec-+oa �r ��,< < L'- 7� TITLr: _R • C • Z roc �ctc -�ca1 FYI MIT - �_ SCALE= 0 �O C> U r lrI i G� NORTH L-J ! L L_.. i__J L -1 CITY OF ITEM! ,�- RAINCHO CUC'ATMIO \GA T� C � TITLE: . • n �u�4� ,� PLANNING DIVISION M-11BIT:--b - SCALE: I'., 1•� p T 11✓ � I I ` ETERS APHIVEC 6 ASSOC. INC. [i. C. INOUHTRIAL CO. MMES • METERS C TII 1301 00V ® JITE 760 • ...•.« - ...... •...... _ . _ •«•..,+ -wY 4. rnr_�n ._._ _ . . i G� NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80.,00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the Project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study_ The Development Review Committee will meet and tare action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the Project is to be heard. The Cotrnittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Rancho Cucamnga Business Center - Phase 1B APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: R.C. Industrial Company C/O O'Donnell, Brigham & Partners /Southern 30 Dove Street, butte i6U, ewpo - _ NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT; James R_ C4estl.in2 Project Manager. 714/752 -5515 - LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Address: N /E /C 6th and Milli-Ken Avenues - ---------- LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None 1-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Construction of 221,000 S.F. of rail served, concrete tilt -up buildings for tribution ware . ousmg, — - ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANT': 7 building gs - 81,000 & DESCRIBE THE ENVIROh'?LNTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORILBTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, Ar?Y CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AA'D THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) Presently the undeveloped acreage is vineyard on gradually sloping — ?-nd_ 91hmrm arm no exiating structures or trees on the land designated _ for Phase 1B. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Phnc� IS int),irt of the 74 acre master nlai'med development of Rancho Cucamonga Business Center, which as a Whole s ou no nab v`e '— significant environmental impact. W" WILL THIS PROJECT: YTS NO _ x 1_ Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ x 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) °. _ x 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? x 5.- Remove any existing trees? How many? _ x 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: I£ the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the date and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand tla t additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Dev.lopment Review Committee. R_Q��tlDfD�PR n Date July 9 1981 Si Ti Z -3 D. O'Donnell r E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVI LORD -SHOBE - The development of a JU,000 sq. tt. warehouse facility on 5.02 acres of land in the N -2 zone to be located at 9120 Center Avenue - APN 209- 262 -07 1977 ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting review and approval of the develop- ment of one industrial warehouse building as described above. The project has completed the development and design review process and is now before the Planning Commission for environmental review. Staff is recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND: This review is for environmental assessment to determine the significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. The site and architectural design is not considered at this time unless it is related to environmental concerns. To determine significant adverse impacts, an Initial Study on environmental concerns is prepared. Upon com- pletion of that study, evidence would indicate either no significant impacts or the potential for significant impacts. If a determination of no signifi- cant impacts is made based upon the Initial Study, then a Negative Declaration may be issued for the project. If significant impacts are found, then an Environmental Impact Report shall be required to fully analyze impacts of the project. The detailed Site Plan and elevations will be reviewed and approved with conditions by the City Planner, contingent upon approval of the Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as.a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon, analysis of the Environmental Study, it appears that the project will not cause significant adverse impacts upon the environ- ment. If the Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration for the project would be in order. JL:CJ:cd Attach. ITEM C ,Il.l�,ll.rc 1! � 1r Mr..r+afrn ^ 1 M -MITI MY� .f/Y 1 I l i I� Ti a awar.w uta.awww.wro w 1M {C�r+F1Y IMIMAI — -f C-M $t TENTATIVE '"Al CITY Or ITEN'I: C (IOt el -24 RAINCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: MASTER PLIP&M � PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT - -ON SCALE- LPBTS Pte' E CITE' OF RANCI -10 CUCkMONGA PLANNING DI`✓ISIUN ✓I �i r V NORTH ITEM: TITLE. •sm rL.um EXIUBIT- �� SCALE- PITS -111 IT1Tl -r 1�T[l�Ti�1TI I I ; I I•I i (1i -TT1Ti -I TM7 ;�� 3 i ,q t 1 I I I I I i i I I I I I y- STVMtwJ,4'61iM11Y. IJ w•i �iYF ` CITE' OF RANCI -10 CUCkMONGA PLANNING DI`✓ISIUN ✓I �i r V NORTH ITEM: TITLE. •sm rL.um EXIUBIT- �� SCALE- PITS CITY OF RAi'CIiO CUCMIONGA INITIRL SThDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environ';Pntal AL ;essment Review Fee: $80.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the Project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Revie-.o Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the Project is to be heard. T_ne Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental im-pact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional infornation report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: IPoQAL ('.PE9TIONS - WA.ee1,ed4.fe ,aoa /Tioi/ APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: ZORO- S114,ac gvlo WAL.(�L -%L /!t-2¢ 11✓- ! /LF t7 Stir BLAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: t,4v_ /O WgLK4n /bib W. // SJ Sun fc ,r'� GI PLgaO. Pia. 4/906 /7!Y/ LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 9/2o Crn•�/e/i /f✓p• i'RC 9ntONCd CA )i 73o LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: x -1 11 r . i PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: cows7,2acr "O.1 a /so' 'rzo0 POte -CNC4V rVIZC00 WAAC.10a s w ACRE -AGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING P_ND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY.- 1.y6 Cbs,aoa .Srrz' CXi3PiiV4 - 453.oco a' _ $'- 6Z 4c'2 / ZIt, 57o° } 7&?4< Po2apose'o - 30, voo v, DESCRIBE THE F.NVIROn!=NPAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOR &iATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PUNTS (TREES) ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNTDING PROP?RTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) °Yrr* AA.,,,._ QrtJSy 9rem..Of Cooir' Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series, of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? I- S WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fare, water, sewage, etc.)! -j::I��4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? ✓ S: Remove any existing trees? Hoop many? ✓ 6.Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above_ IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Signature LS /� Title Z3 L-J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 31 -02 - CHRISTIAN - Request to permit construction of a res7 ence that will encroach into front and rear yards on a 3,532 square foot lot in the R -3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst - APN 202 - 131 -04 BACKGROUND: This request was continued from the Planning Commissioa meeting of July 22, 1981, to detereni7e the legalit;/ of the lot. The applicant has submitted supplemental information to the City Attorney relative to this concern. The City Attorney will inform the Com- mission of the legality of the lot at the meeting. Please find attached & copy of the supplemental information and a copy of the original Staff Report. Respectfully` ubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:DC:jr Attachments: Letter from Charles Doskow, Attorney July 8, 1981 Planning Commission Staff Report ITEM 0 i10 IR 0 X Z Y CHAR! ES S. UOSKOW LOUIS C.iQOvmc MARK A. INGRAM DOSKOW- 8 NOVAK AT7 "ORN F.l ^.G 'n N. MOUNTAIN AVENUE, SUITE 210 UVIAN6,CALIFORNIA 01786 August 3, 1981 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Gentlemen: Re: Variance 81 -02. August 12 agenda. Subject property: South half of Lot 1, Lucas and Waed Alta Loma Subdivision, as per plat recorded in Book 19, Page 95 of Maps. N /F, corner Amethyst and Monte Vista. ( %Id) 11.16 -1001 (71•i) flM5 -t9�1 We are writing in support of the application of Christian /Waters Enterprises(C /W) for variance No. 81 -02. You have received the favorable recommendation of your staff. The matter was put over because a question was raised as to the legality of the lot in question. It is our position that no illegal land division, has occurred. In support thereof we submit the following chronology of my clients' involvement with this property: 1. C/W acquired the property (Lot 1) by deed :-ecorded January 28, 1980. At the time of acquisition there were two structures on the property; the listing agreement clearly referred to "two separate lots "; cnd there were two parcels and two tax bills at that time. There should be no question that my clients acquired this property in the good faith belief that they were purchasing two separate lots. 2. Application was made for a permit to remodel the nortl, ^rly of the two structures. At that point there was no reason for city concern, because no question of the legality of the lot was raised by a permit for- remodeling. 3. Following extensive .remodeling, the house and lot (the north half of lot .l) were sold and conveyed by my clients. The Title Company wrotr* it policy of title insurance with no notation of the possibility of an illegal subdivision. Such a notation is the normal practice when such a question exists. E 11 I.] LJ E111`1 J Planning Commission August 3, 1981 Page Two... 4. Subsequent to the transfer of the north .Aalf, the house on the south half, which was subject to at least informal condemnation by the city, was demolished. 5. C/W then applied for a permit to construct a building on the south half; because of the size of the lot a variance is required, and the matter has been brought here for resolution. rt :3 # Our research into the history of this parcel cannot be definitive because the County's records are not complete, but we have been able to ascertain the following: The assessors' map of the tract as revised February 13, 1963, shows the. lot divided into two ns!rc�ls for tax purposes. The assessor is unable to determine from its records what caused it to enter such division on its books, but Lot 1 was clearly treated as two parcels in 1968, according to both the map and assessors' ledger. An examination of the chain of title shows transfers of the property in 1917, 1941, 1946, 1970 and 1978. The 1970 transfer was from Mr. Palmer to himself and his wife-so the property remained in the same hands from 1946 to 1978. The point to be made here is that there was no activity after 1946 which would have caused the assessor to create the division, compelling the conclusion that the lots must have been created in 1946 or earlier. We have ascertained from the Gas Company that the northerly structure first received gas service in 1924. We are attempting to establish the date of construction of the house on the south half, although from its style and condition my clients are convinced it must have been at least 30 years old at the time of its demolition. The deeds in the chain of title to the property all refer to "Lot I "; none refer to the two halves. This is, however, not inconsistent with a division of the lot into two parcels. An escrow officer or title officer (or even a lawyer) drawing a deed which would convey the north half of a single lot and the south half of the same lot could very well describe them as simply "Lot 1 ". The description in each of these deeds is by no means inconsistent with the existence of two legal lots throughout this period. M Planning Commission August 3, 1981. Page Three... The subdivision ordinances of San Bernardino County were amended in 1967 to define a "division" as one into "two, three or four parcels ". The effective date of Ordinance No. 1349 is July 1, 1967. Prior to that time the definition contained in ordinance 924 (effective in 1960 and possibly earlier) defines subdivision as a division into "five or more parcels ". Clearly the division which occurred in the 40's was clearly not illegal. Only a division after July 1, 1967 could have been illegal under thes - ordinances, and we have already sainted out that no transaction which would have caused such a division occurred in that period. We believe that the above establishes with reasonable certainty that the subject lot was not created by an illegal division, therefore was a "recognized parcel" at the time of incorporation.of the city, and should be so recognized for this purpose. Even if we are in error in the above, and the property was not divided during this period, the south half nonetheless constitutes a parcel which should be recognized by the city. The transfer by my clients to their purchasers of the north half is an effective transfer of land tinder state law, although if it constituted a violation of a subdivision ordinance it is voidable at the option of the grantee. (Government Code §66499.32) Note that it is voidable and not void. The purchasers would have to take affirmative action to return it to my clients to create one lot out of the entirety of Lot 1, something highly unlikely and under present day circumstances. That being so, my clients are left with a piece of land which can be used for one of two purposes: either the variance can be granted and a structure not inharmonious with the neighborhood can b,:, constructed, or it can remain a vacant lot subject to all the di sidvantages appurtenant, thereto. We see no advantage to the city in such a reo.tlt, particulary when staff is willing to recommend a variance based on the plans and footprints cahmitted by my clients. We trust that the anove will permit the Plannir:,. Commission to proceed to grant the variance requested. n LJ El J KI Planning Commission August 3; 1981 Page Four... We have nut, in the interests of supply economy, attached a.z exhibits the documents referred to. They have been shown to the Comm:.ssion's attorney, Mr. Hopson, and he has copied certain of them. We will have them available at the August 11 meeting for your inspection. Very truly yours, Charles S. Doskow CSD:dg Cf Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 8. 1981 TO: Member, of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 81 -02 - CHRISTIAN - Request to construct residence that will encroach into front and rear yards on a 3,281 square foot lot in the R -3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst - AP ?! 202 - 131 -04 ABSTRACT: This item was continued from the June 24, 1981 agenda to a 1 -� cw the applicant time to resolve problems with this request. Re- vised plans have been submitted and reviewed by Staff in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance Standards. Staff has provided a detailed analysis contained within this report and is recommending approval of the variance based upon the findings listed in the attached Reso- 1 uti c:.. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval for a variance op. the front and rear yard setbacks for a legal substandard size lot located at 6969 Amethyst Avenue, on the corner of Monte Vista Street (Exhibit "A "). The applicant previously demolished and removed a delapidated structure from this property with the intention of con- structing a new residence. The applicant has submitted construction drawings to the Building and Safety Division which indicate a proposed two story residence as shown on Exhibit "C '. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' front yard setback and a 20' rear yard setback for property in this zone. The applicant is requesting a 9' variance in the front yard setback and a 12' vari- ance in the rear yard setback. Therefore, should the Planning Com- mission approve the variance, the residence would be 16' from the public right -of -way on Monte Vista Street and 8' from the rear set- back line, as indicated on Exhibit "B ". The applicant's basis for requesting the variance is based upon the substandard lot size and configuration that is approximately 35' less than the minimum now required in the R -3 zone. ITEM C 13 KI Variance No. 81 -02 July 8, 1981 Page Two C ANALYSIS: Although the proposed variance, if approved as requested, worsuit in the construction of a residence 8' from the rear prop- erty line, which is the side lot line for the property to the north, the existing residence to the north is approximately 15 to 20 feet from the subject property line. Therefore the result would be a separation between the two residences of 25 to 30 feet. Consideration should be given to the fact that the subject property is a 3,281 square foot lot, whereas the R3 zone has a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Additionally, although the Zoning Ordinance now requires a 20' rear yard setback, the County Code required only a 10' rear yard set- back in the R -3 zone which is consistent with most of the dwelling units constructed in the immediate vicinity along Monte Vista Street. The front yard setback reduction to 16' wou'IF not be inconsistent with the setbacks found on other tots within the area under similar circumstances. Variances may be granted by the Planning Commission for certain devel- opment standards only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict interpretation and application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Therefore, variances may be granted when the strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. After review of this request, Staff finds that the proposed variance is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community or the surrounding area. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing and notices have been mailed to property owners within 300' of the subject property. To date, no correspondence has been received for or against this project. t; C Variance No. 81 -02 July 8, 1981 Paae Three RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider all pubiic input. If the Commission concurs with the findings of Staff, then the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. ty jr ly.submitted, Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevation Resolution of Approval 6' 11 0 El 11 Ell is R �¢o 11:1 `J •.. � .. . :.! •3 i n rte-: . -2 9 fJ !3 n 0 �' CG V ' � 0. `J I \Jl \:' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON'GA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM- _ A Ll. 0, 9 '' 0 we TI'FLE= _ WcA TIN mh p E \Ii[131T =_ A SGLLE- omw rl�) NORTH tz 04 n Is I ai A 5.-5.L. 2 CITYOF RANCHO CUCAN/lO.NLGA PLANNING Dl.\,'ISIQN ITENI--Ag• Mo. TITLE,. — PLAa: EXHIBIT. 0 - SCALE: Amw NORTH 11 McWTG VISTA sue: CITYOF RANCHO CUCAN/lO.NLGA PLANNING Dl.\,'ISIQN ITENI--Ag• Mo. TITLE,. — PLAa: EXHIBIT. 0 - SCALE: Amw NORTH 11 0 E 1: .1 CITY OF RANCHO CU&4iNNIOXL GA PLANNING DIVISION NORTH ITI NI: � ® 0 TITLE: W fofiT VA&A jam_ P RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMOIGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 81 -02 TO ,_VIATE FROM FRONT AND REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS LOCATED AT 6969 AMETHYST AVENUE IN THE R -3 ZONE. IIHEREAS, on the 21st day of May, 1981, an application was filed and accepted on the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 12M day of Aug., 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1! The Rancho Cccamonga Planning Commission has made the following find ;.igs: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code. B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do riot apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. That strict or literal interpretation acid enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. D. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. E. That the granting of the Variance will nut be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS12fH DAY OF Aug., 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman 0 ATTEST: Secretz-y of the Panning Commission 0 E Resolution No. Page 2 1., JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly in &oduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of R.avicho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the'A&h day of Aug., 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: l":J 11 a; . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRAC 1977 IUZIU LAWL.UK - A custom lot subdivision of 46 acres into 38 lots comprising 36 dwelling units in the R -1- 20,000 zone and R -1 -14 acre zone, generally located on the north side of Almond Street between Sapphire and Turquoise - APN 200 - 061 -12, 200 - 051 -06, 1061 - 172 -03. Related Item - Zone Change 81 -01 ABSTRACT: The applicant has requested approval of a custom Tat subdivisicn of 38 lots in accordance Wdlb the GrowthAEwZ22ment Ordinance anagement eview Committee has reviewe the project in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance. The project received a 43.5 point rating based upon compliance with several conditions recommended by the Growth Mangement Review Committee. The minimum a;i.ount of points needed to be considered for approval by the Planning Commission is 43 points. Upon con- sideration of the project- and its relationship to the new General Plan and policies thereof, the Planning Division Staff has recom- mended within this report than the project be either denied in its present form or revised by the applicant to substantially reduce the concerns which are outlined within this report. BACKGROUND: This project was originally submitted in August 1980 as one tract covering 160 acres owned by Lawlor Enterpirses. There is an additional 114 acres to the north of the present tract bound- aries which was separated off in order to accommodate the appropriate fire response times under the Growth Management Ordinance. In addi- tion, the Planning Commission had reviewed the project-.= Septemti�r 7q,, 4 in order to determine the environmental issues and whether an VIIP1C14Q1 im•JaLL INa NUrL wuuIu ue neeueu. AT tnat Time, JtdTT had recommended preparation of an Environmental Report-, however, the Planning Commission did not feel that such a report was needed but rather required a more detailed Initial Study. The applicant has supplied information on drainage, seismicity, and a model. ITEM F Environmental Assessment /Tentative Tract 10210 Planning Commission - August 12, 1981 Page 2 The site which is now being considered by the Planning Commission com- prises approximately 46 acres of land located on the north side of Almond Street, between Sapphire and Turquoise (Exhibit "A "). The subdivision is proposing lot sizes ranging fr...:i 25,000 to 50,000 square feet. The pre- sent zoning of the site is R -1- 20,000 square feet and R -1 -14 acres (Single family Residential). The southeast corner of the project site was zoned R -1 -14 acre by the County and thus will require a change in zone, which is also on this agenda. The General Plan designates this area as Hillside Residential uses. Hillside Residential use permits residential uses based upon the environmental development constraints that may be inherent_ in this area. However, the General Plan states that the residential density may not exceed more then 2 units per area. The area in which this project is located is primarily open space in its natural character. Little development has occurred in the immediate vicinity; most developments north of Almond have been on large parcels of 5 acres or greater. In fact, the County had a policy to zone the foothill areas in large acreage zones, such as the R -1 -14 acres that exists on the pr•oJect site. The following analysis will be devoted to analysis of the project in regards to some of the environmental constraints and hazards that are associated with this site and policies of the General Plan included in the Open Space category of the Environmental Resources Element. ANALYSIS: The foothills area typically includes environmental constraints consisting of flood, fire hazards, geologic hazards, and seismic hazards. Also public services and extension of those services are critical in those areas as the project is located on the extreme boundaries of the public services core. One of the main objectives of the Open Space Element of the General Plan is to maintain the open spaces where flood, fire, geologic, or seismic conditions may endanger public health and safety. The policies of the Open Space category recommend that areas where moderate constraints -include these hazards, development be restricted in the area as a low den- sity development as is justifiable by detailed site investigations. Based upon these policies, Staff would like to offer the following analysis of the specific public health and safety issues: Flood: The project site is bounded along the northwest section of the property by a major water carrying canyon, the Cucamonga Canyon. The applicant prepared a hydrology study which indicated a need for some storm drain work which would connect up to the Almond Intercept and which would divert water flows from this project to the Cucamonga Wash and Almond interceptor. According to the studies conducted by the applicant, the projected flows from the development would be appro- priately handled by the improvements that would be required to be in- stalled as a result of this development; however, on -site flows from lot to lot and from open spaces on lots has not been adequately ad- dressed and is impacted as a result of the amount of lots proposed. El 11 11 L] Fi TVs projtL . projected by the-Fe response time is a cri 12, 1 11 1 't5 meiin i hh��`,the//FFire District trd_ is the maximum allow We for approprlat6 +•espj�nse to fire calls-ii' safety situations The Fire District fee's ++.�D1�rat this will be mares` ally served by the district's present out ets and that damage to prop - ,er'ty and potential for loss of life is gry :atly impacted given the lo- cation o this project. The aonlicant's ;ntention to develop a second phase north of this project would further hinder the service capabi- lities of the Fire District. tri Geologic Conditions: The applicant has )repared a detailed geologic report which describes the grading concept to be utilized in this pro- ject. In addition, a model has been --onstructed to show the proposed ,� - treet grades and existing lot terrain. the concept the applicant is v proposing is to retain the basic grade of the lots in their natural state and cut in the street with as littl,: grading as possible. The applicant is proposing to retain some of -:he unbuildable areas in common open space usage for the developiaert because of its severe grade. Because the grades of the lots will be left natural, the neces- sity of additional grading for buildable pads will be needed. As a result of additional grading, the aestheti :s of the natural hillside will be ruined. ---- Seismic Conditions: The applicant had a seismic report prepared by a registered engineering geologist which • ndicates thct there are several faults transversing the subject prtoerty. The northern fault, The Cucamonga Fault, is classified in the Alauist- Prir'o zone which requires a 50' building setback from the line of t:oe active fault. The report indicates that there was not immediate evidence of present ground rupture or displacement: however, th! geologist did not rule out the existence of a fault trace that cou d ba located deeper in the soil horizons. He recommended that further detailed studies be done in o_ r to determi *h ar =iati e_rp~adi f _o a areas . In a.r e acF es from the faults have created som •�;Y-i - .irre4ular�bu-i °S„�reas. - - - ---- -,.� Other Public Services: lire protection fo• this project can only be m-nima y satisfied since the project site is located at the extreme boundaries of the City and is rot within app,•opriate distances of existing development. In addition to the project located at the outlying bound- aries of the City, the subdivision is located "n an area which is used for access t orthern forest and can n r r Environmental Assessment /Tentative Tract 10210 Plannina Commission - August 12, 1981 Pane 4 this area will allow aa,ier access which will cause safety and security problems for the residents. The project received zero points in the point rating system under the O,derly Development section based uron its distance from existing major development. A development of this magnitude in relation to its pruxinity to the :ity core is premature. Upon analysis of the environmental and development constraints of this site, the policies of the General Plan, and the density at which th`s project is being proposed in relationship to public safety issues, Staff is recommending denial of the p-ojecL- at its current density. The Planning Commission has several options regarding the decisions on this project: 1. Denial of the project eased upon the density in relationship to the environmental and public safety constraints. 2. Approval of the project, in which case the public hearing should be contincEd to the following meeting to allow Staff time to prepare final rem: itions of approval for the Com- mission's final consid,?1.- *.ion. 3. Provide direction to the applicant or, acceptable densities, if possible, ani redesign of the project. In dis= us°_ina the issue of density with some property owners in the area, Staff has received feedback that this area and the immediate vicinity north of Almond has historically been anticipated to be developed at much tower densities of 3 -5 acre parcels. Several people voiced objections to the density that is being proposed by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning the appropriate public hearing to receive all public gards to this project. It, after conclusion of the analysis of all information, the Commission concurs it is recommended that this project be denied bar-ed in the attached Resolution. Ren 11,y s rri t ed, JACK LAM, Director of Co.-anunity Development JL:MV:jr Attachments Commission conduct testianny with re- public hearing ^rd with Staff's firdinas, upon the findings listed CL J 13 L, CITE' OF RANCHO CL'CAMONGA PLANNINU DIVISM rrEi /I 7%-(. 10 Z 10/1143-6 1 TITLE: '0--M� i ES m&t i & PiN EXHIBIT: a SCALE: IS _ El 4 rl CITE' Or IZ,,A,NCHO CUCAMONGA PLANN Ml DIVISION TrrLE- 3rre cl im6l RtTi Exiiina : C 10 — SCALE= NT45 W, I ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES January 19, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga W0# 9 -79 -02 Planning Department P.O. Sox 807 P.ancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Michael Vairin Re: Tentative Tract No. 10210 (Lawlor) D ^ar Mr. Vairin: As a result of our prior discussions relative to Tentative Tract No. 10210, the following reports are given for your review: 1. An analysis of drainage as it pertains to this subdivision the increased flows and the method of disposition. 2. A report relative to the grading of the site. We are still attempting to resolve issues relative to emergency services to this site, --pecifically fire and paramedic. At such time as we have infor- mation relative to this, we will advise you. We hope the information furnished will be of value to you in your analysis of this subdivision. Should tt,!-re be any questions, please do rot hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, C M ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES i r'� �j��s o� n-.V.-..Keding Ll/K:meh Enclosures cc: Mr. Gregory Lawlor 225 E Airport Dr. • P.O. Box 6087. San Bernardino. California 92412 • Phone (714) 884 -8804 or (714) 825 -9562 E ' � l 11 GRADING ANALYSIS TRACT 10210, (Rancho Cucamonga) This report is written in answer to your concerns and the concerns of the Planning Commission some months back relative to the effect the grading on this project would have to the environment. The proposed subdivision envisions 129 lots in '161 acres .,f laid for a density of 8/10 of a lot per acre. Each lot is a minimum of approximately 30,000 sq. ft. net area exclusive of streets. Many of tht, lots in the deve- lopment are in excess of 40,000 sq. ft.in size. is The subdivision as filed does not envision the grading of lot pads. The,,e- fore this tract will be developed utilizing the natural terrain of the ground with houses constructed on built !gip foundations designed to follow the terrain with a minimal amount of grading. Placement of buildings and design of the structure will be the responsibility of the individual lot purchaser. The only grading on this site is for the construction of roadways. As far as possible, roadways are reasonably at grade with the existing terrair„ except where roadways must pass through steeper areas to reach adjacent flatter levels of 'and. Approximately 80,000 cubic yards of earthwork will be required for the construction of these roadways. This is less than 500 cubic yards per acre, a very minimal amount of grading for the subject site. ii \4L \F; LrNt \4 pXKO C�.�T 9� r i. �p� � In an effort to minimize lot grading for the individual Purchasers, the Subdivision has been desionPd reconrizir:g the flatter portions of the land. J Steeper areas in thu northwest and northeast corners of the property have been left in open space in their natural state. Also the break in elevation that passes diagonally northwest to southeast through the property has been recognized as open space and the lot lines designed to follow this topographic feature of the land. In the majority of the building site and lot areas are on land containing less than 15% natural slope. The design is a conscious effort to perserve as much as possible the existing terrain of the land acid beauty of the area. A geological investigation of the property was conducted by Leighton and Associates, during April and May, 1978. Their investigation covered load bearing capabilities of natural swales and their use as fill soils, perk - ability of exisiting soils and seismic safety conditions on the site. The report indicates that natural swales encountered on the site were determined to be satisfactory for supporting structures and fill soils. It is assumed therefore th -At no problems will occur with the minimal grading that is proposed for the site. In conclusion, it is our opinion that development of this site as proposed will not adversely effect the environment of the coinnunity nor advgr�;ely effect the vistas from the valley to this area and the foothills beyond. We feel every attempt has been made to minimize grading on the .ite so that adversity from an environmental standpoint would not occur. ATIES . .. 2 0 " Hydrology The Drainage Study for Tentative Tract No. 10210 was based on charts and graphs prepared by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for use in land development drainage analysis. The onsite and offsite drainage for Tract No. 10210 was deter- mined by using the following data for these Charts: T (Time of Concentration) = 10 minutes for all drainage sub - areas, including offsite drainage. P60 1.05 inches per hour for 10 year 1 -hour rain fall. 1i0 = 2.65 inches per hour C = 0.65 (developed), 0.50 (undeveloped) A = Area in Acres Qi0 = CI10A Q100 = 1.56 Q10 Using the above data, the amount of runoff for undeveloped con- ditions was determined (See Plate No. 1). By dividing the de- velopment into fourteen sub -areas (A Io N) and two offsite areas, the subsequent runoff for the developed condition was determined (See Table 'A' and Plate No. 2). As shown by Plates No. 1 and 2, the amount of increased runoff in Sapphire'Street south of Almond Street, due to developed conditions, would increase about twenty -two percent. Storm Drains Currently there is constructed to a point approximately 500 feet south of Almond Street, and proposed Crescent Drive a storm drain, of the San Bernardino County Flood Condtol District, known ' E�c:wF.fiot�xe- .assor�.axr•.c as the Almond Intercept. When competed the Almond Interceptor would extend from the Cucamonga 'Wash northeasterly to the base of the fuuthilis north of Tract No. 7596. It is proposed to pick up the onsite drainage for Tentative Tract No. 10210 by constructing a series of storm drains, as shown on Plate No. 3. These drains, as proposed, would inter- cept onsite drainage and direct it into the Cucamonga Wash and the Almond Interceptor. In conjunction with the onsite drain- age system, it would be necessary to bui:d approximately 550 feet of concrete channel or closed conduit south from Almond Street and proposed Crescent Drive to connect to the existing Almond Interceptor. By constructing such a system, all the on- site drainage except from areas G and L (approximately 70 c.f.s. for Q100) would go cirectly into the Cucamonga Wash. The amount of drainage (Q100) leaving Tentative Tract Mo. 10210 at proposed Skyline Drive and Almond Street would be reduced from approxima- tely 399 c.f.s. for undeveloped condition to 207 c.f.s., for de- veloped conditions, of this 207 c.f.s., 137 c.f.s. is from off- site drainage and not attributed to this development. Therefore, it is our opinion any extension of the Almond Inter- ceptor northeasterly of its present location to the east boundary of Tentative Tract No. 10 210 is not warranted at this time, if the proposed drainage system is implemented. C h ,IN}s G ASSOCIATES aul L. Forester, R.C.E. 12180 ENGINVA -MIV4 LJ I- w TABLE- 'A' Area Acres Q10 (cfs) 01.00 A 8.0 13.8 21.5 B 0.6 1.0 1.6 C 14.7 25.3 39.5 D 7.6 13.1 20.4 E 7.2 12.4 19.3 F 12.9 22.2 34.7 G 5.1 8.3 13.7 H 9.2 15.8 24.7 1 2.8 4.8 7.5 J 24.0 41.3 64.5 K 16.6 28.6 44.6 L 20.9 36.0 56.2 m 9.0 15.5 24.2 N 2.3 4.0 6.2 O£f -Sit^. 1 Off -Site 2 4.0 51.0 7.0 88.0 11.0 137.0 PLATG NO. I :--NT ATIVF —rRAC-r It a 400 -OTA U ONI S1 77F- A?,JP OFF - ITE AfZGA - Il3 Ar--RGS' M to bi 10-0 MPF,VELOPOD `RAIPIA&E O tib SOOMPARY. PLATS N 44OWjr4& RUNOFF FOR PE'rEi►0pE17 419- T VE TRACT- NO. 60Z10..1�1�`� +" �1.� � �': \. •1 f v ' � . � _ \ .,T '� ..ate \ 'hr E TPc13LE 'Fi c.4'� �» ^ . —� , �C` =��• mw I ;..Y /.may •t r••^ .'t+f -1,' I .� •=.`'•\ A �,;�'i��rr'- 2 \ \�' �: ;� �' i'• -:rw � mow« M~ � ' • Nil, .• M'! i �- ' .,ire: ''��4 l ^�/ - •• f . �� <• n F � .—_ " crcatecti. � .M_I � . `� N •, iY. r � ✓• -�'� � Q n tip_ ,rY� .. _ :.•'. ._ � �� ,, Y5. 0 ISHOWIM&L PRoPcS)wP '5Tnowa p{t.tiai C ejvcIy. rom Tvp4TATIVE TRAar UD. l02�0 O mm- PROPp4EP 4-ror,M RUMOFF. G. F.G. TO GVGAMONGA WASH J-4, 11 u YS.. TO GVGAMONGA WASH J-4, 11 u LE-IGHTON and ASSOCIATES ^ INCOAPORATEO „ -... auk 1 SOIL ENGINEERING TESTING GEOLOGY ENVIRONIfREN.AL SCIENCES May 31, 1978 Project No. 677027 -01 Toups Corporation 2223 Avenida de la Playa, Suite 267 La Jolla, California 92037 Attention: Mr. William Moorhous SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Fault Locations and Percolation, 'Proposed 196 -Lot (200± Acres) Subdivisiln, Northwest of Sapphire and Almond Streets, Alta Lona, County of San Bernardino, California Introduction This investigation has been performed at your request and authorization to locate the Cucamonga fault and other suspected faults in the area )which could affect Tentative Tract 10:10 and to determine aspects of residential development along the fault zone_ Also included as Section 2 of this report � -e the results of percolation tests for onsite sewage disposal' systems. Our findings are presented on a copy of the 100 -scale topogrdpnic map and Ltntative tract layout provided by you. Accompanying Maps and Appendices Index Map - Page 2 Geotechnical Map of Tentative Tract 10210 (100-'scale) - In Pocket, Section 2 Appendix, A - Referenced Reports and Aerial Photographs Reviewed Appendix B - Geotechnical Trench Logs INttachment A 21308 P 1T4FINDER ROAD, SU TE 204• DIA,AOND BAR. CALIFORNIA 91765 17941 598 -2856. (2131965-4974 :H VIN I' WLSTLAIt C /V,:N TUHA [ HC CITY. DIAMOND 11AH /WAUNIIT• &AN n1:I1NAH VINO /111V 1.HY1U'i Alt 111140 677027 -01 r. .. . "! 1 \'.'�.l.�f�%, :•;7: aa.�;`J�r61..-Z�`• -ar, !.r_n.. JrUU -_ ♦ y�4 �_�_' ♦• J , \�, ill . \..1 •. 1 ju-��of �•{ . J Y GR \ a �lOLO y 1 / 1vplLYSh \chr- '`an Antonio !- �` :- 'i• ��^ _ -- " --- ��- •F eCn.ncr 5ta� '- — a :,y —�—. — ,n 1.'+ Na• °rw — LOuNvAlcY �� ±.__ -•��`4 + o.............v. _.� �i. O rd5 - Oil ankh .. .. / .. ............... Wet! ti ::. i:i z; >•.` .._, C U,-Gr 2000 4000 Scale feet INDEX MAP OF PROPOSED 196 -LOT (200± ACRES) SUBDIVISION ALTA LOMA. CALIFORNIA (Subject Area Shown in Yellow) BASE MAP: USGS hit, aaldy and Cucamonga Quadrangle 2 — 1 1 11 11 617027 -01 LI Scope Our investigation was based upon: I. A review of the literature in our files relating to the area. 2. Review of aerial photographs. 3_ Excavation, logging and backfilling of 400 feet of backhoe trench and visual classification of typical onsife earth materials. Existio2 Site Conditions Tentative Tract 10210 iS located at the foot of the San Gabriel mountns along an area characterized bf an alluvial fan. Cucamonga Hash flows through most western portions of the property. Almond Street farms the southern property boundary. A northerly extension at Sapphire Street would approximate the eastern boundary. The subject 200± acre site was utilized in the past for citrus and vineyard production. Many of the citrus trees and associated structures have been removed. A few foundations and an abandoned reservoir rema.in. Although not observed, an underground irrigation system is likely at the site. `I ,f N 677027 -01 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ogy The San Gabriel mountains are structurally controlled on the south by frontal faulting along their base (the Sierra Madre fault zone). One of the more prominent: is the Cucamonga fault which forms scarps in allu- vium across the mouths of several canyons along the foot of the mountains. The fault trace has been the subject of a number of geologic studies, and has been approximately located along an acre which locally includes southern portions of the subject property (see Geotechnical Map)_ Based on assumptions that alluvial fans in the area were formed about 11,000 to 30,000 years ago (Lamar et al, 1973) some displacement along the fault appears to have occurred during Quaternary time. Furthermore, based upon its youthful expressions and association with San Fernando earthquakes in 1971 (Sierra Madre fault zone), the Cucamonga fault is considered to be active (Fife et al, 1976). Two other anomalies were observed in aerial photographs which could indicate faulting in very ancient rocks on either side of the subject property. The trends of those features, when projected, extend through northern portions of the subject property. Subsurface Exploration Three backhoe trenches were developed at the site along predetermined loca- tions most likely to intercept faulting. A combined total of 460 feet of 6t feet deep trenches were excavated normal. to suspected fault traces. The trenches were entered, geologically logged and then backfilled. The backhoe trench locations are shown on the accompanying 100 -scale map (see Appendix B for Trench Logs). Summary of Findings 1. Earth materials exposed in the trenches exhibited loose alluvium con- sisting of brown gravelly silty sand and boulders to depths of three to six feet. Underlying terrace deposits were found to contain fewer boulders were composed of yellow -brown loose gravelly silty sand. The thickness of terrace deposits was not determined, but are estimated to average 15 to 20 feet thick based on adjacent canyon exposures. No groundwater was encountered at the indicated depths of excavation during our investigation. 2. Significant features were observed in Trench 1 and.Trench 3 along north and south sides of the site to indicate fault rupture (see Trench Log 1, Sheet 2 and Trench Log 3, Sheet 3). Expressions in Trench 1 exhibit ark offset soil horizon with likely displacement during the past 11,000 years (Holocene). - 4 - El win? 7 _m The expression in Trench 3 is not too well defined and faulting is indicated by near vertical alignments of boulders along a likely fault. However, based on its location along the approximately located Cucamonga fault, the feature is most likely associated with the main trace, if in fact, not the main trace. Again, displacement during the past 11,000 years is indicated based along offset soils. We found no evidence of faulting in Trench 2 to the depth of our excavation. Considerations for Planning 1. Seismicity The predominant faults in Southern California which could affect the site are the San Andreas, the San Jacinto and the Cucamonga. Because of the proximity of the Cucamonga fault with respect to the subject property, it overshadows the others in terms of ground shaking earth -' quakes comparable to the 1971 event in San Fernando should be expected along the Cucamonga fault (Fife et al, 1976). 2. Ground Rupture Ground rupture may occur along an active fault in association with an earthquake or as gradual displacement or creep. Rupture or creep generally occurs along existing traces of previous ruptures. During plan design, consideration should•be made to avoid placing deeper fill over known active fault traces. The potential for splay- ing rupture through deep fills could, by necessity, increase the width of building setbacks other than indicated later on in this report. 5- 677027 -01 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions 1. The Cucamonga fault and the fault trace trarsversing the northern portion of the subject property are considered active from a geologic viewpoint in that they offset Holocene soil deposits (younger than I1 ,000 years). 2. No signs of faulting were observed in Trench 2. However, this does not rule out the existence of a fault trace in terrace deposits deeper than exposed soil horizons. Should the trace underlie terrace deposits, and extend along underlying very ancient rock units, it would be classi- fied inactive. Recommendations According to the San Bernardino County Seismic and Public Safety Element, a 50 -foot setback will be required for structures of human occupancy on either side of active faults. Additional subsurface investigation should be performed to accurately delineate fault traces prior to grading plan design. The investigation should also include deeper trenching to con- clusively determine whether or not recent faulting has occurred along the vicinity of Trench 2. • /mp Distribution: (6) Addressee pectfully submitted, John F. Hoefferle Engineering Geologist- EG 799 - 6 - E 11 r-: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10210. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 10210, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Lawlor Enterprises, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a 46 acre single family subdivision, generally located on the north side of Almond Street, between Sapphire and Turquoise into 38 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on A;igust 12, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended denial of the Map based upon findings set forth in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the recommendation and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Pl.i.nning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resoive as foliov,s: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission hereby denies Tentative Tract No. 10210 based on the following findings: (a) The tentative tract is not consistent with goals, objectives and policies. of the City's adopted General Plan; (b) The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed; (c) The design of the subdivision could cause substantial environmental damage and injury to. humans and wildlife or their habitat; (d) The tentative tract could cause serious public health and safety problems. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 10210, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby denied. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST: Secretary uP the Planning commission 1, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 2 J 1 tJffY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPO RT DATE: August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -01 A request to change the zone from R -1 -14 acres to sq. ft. fair the development of Tentative Tract No, Related Files: Tentative Tract No. 10210 10210. BACKGROUND: The decision of the Planning Commission on Tentative Tract No. 10210, should determine the final decision on this Zone Change request. If the Commission chooses to deny Tentative Tract No. 10210, then it would be recommended that the Zone Change be denied concurrently with the denial of the tract. If the Commission authorizes staff to prepare final Condi- tions of Approval for the tract, then the Zone Change will be brought back to the Commission for final review and consideration in conjunction with the tract. I ctfully submitted, JACK, LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:cd ITEM G RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING__ COMMISSION DENYING ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -01 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM R -1 -14 ACRES TO R- 1- 20,000 FOR 14 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ALMOND, WEST OF SAPPHIRE. WHEREAS, on the 6th day of July, 1981, an application was filed and accepted on the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 12th day of held a duly advertised public hearing California Government Code. August, 1981, the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 65854 of the SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission finds the following: 1. That the subject property is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; 2. The proposed zone change could have significant impact on the environment or the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is found not to be in conformance with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies Zone Change No. 81 -01. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 8Y- Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Panning Commission 11 11 11 r'1 LJ F Resolution No. Page 2 T .LACK LAMA Secretary of tie Planning, Commi -sion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1931 by the following vote to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: L It 11 E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission 1977 FROM: .lack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Arlene J. Troup, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 140. 80 -12 - MILLS - The instruction of ceramic art techniques 'inn 5njuriction with a ceramic manufact- uring, wholesale, retail use in an existing building in the M -2 zone (Industrial Park) located at 10722 Arrow Route, Suite 610 ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting review and :oproval of the implemen- tation of ceramics classes in a manufacturing, whole - .ling, retailing facility located in the Daon Development on Arrow Route. Instruction would take place after normal working hours. This item is being brought before the Planning Commission based upon past Commission Zoning Ordinance determinations that such instructional uses within an industrial zone be subject to review under the Conditional Use Process. Staff has reviewed the details of the request and finds that this request could be found compatible with other uses in the area. A Resolution of Approval is provided for your consideration. BACKGROUND: Mr. Mills has requested that he be allowed to use his manu- facturing facilities for the instruction of ceramic techniques during evening hours (6:30 p.m. to 9 :30 p.m.) Monday through Thursday and possibly on Satur- day afternoons. Said facilities are proposed to be located on the north side of Arrow Route just east of Haven Avenue in the Daon Development. This site is master planned for light industrial uses. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the use in conjunction with other uses permit- Ted hin the master planned area and those uses which are being comtemplated under the Industrial Specific Plan. The Industrial Specific Plan proposes that Personal Services such as instructional activities be allowed within the Industrial Park categories upon approval of a Conditiu..Jl Use Permit. The use as presently planned, class size ranging from 16 or less students, will not impact the development, since it is held during evening hours. The facility includes 1,440 square feet of floor area and only a small area of the facility will be used for instruction. The location of the facility within the Center will not adversely affect either the uses of the facility or the other tenants of the park. CORRESPONDENCE: As a Conditional Use Permit, this item was advertised in the local newspaper as a public hearing and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. To date, we have no oral or written communications regarding this project. ITEM H Staff Report CUP 80 -12 -?- August i2, 1901 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider all matters relative to this request. Should the Commission make the necessary findings to grant approval of this project, Staff has provided the appropriate Resolution of Approval for your consider- ation_ Resp ctfuliy s bm ted, c -- JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:AT:cd Attachments E 1.1 v: , . RESOLUTION NO. AML qu A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -12 FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF CERAMIC ART TECH - NIQUES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CERAMIC MANUFACTUR- ING WHOLESALE /RETAIL USE LOCATED AT 10722 ARROW ROUTE, SUITE 610 IN THE M -2 INDUSTRIAL PARK ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 27th day of July, 1981, a complete application was filed by Randall C. Mills for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 12th day of August, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and, 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 81 -I2 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Classes are restricted to sixteen (16) or less students. 2. Class hours are restricted to 6:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and may be held any time during weekends. 3. The Planning Commission shall have the right for periodic review of the use to determine any problems and consistency with conditions of approval. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. v: , . Resolution No. Page 2 5. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity be being commenced hereon, dii conditions of approval contained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Ccnni-ission I, JACK. LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ,1:,;'. CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA STAFF REPORT August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack. Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Arlene Troup, Assistant Manner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. E1 -11 - FOOTHILL INDEPENDENT BANK The development of a temporary modular bank facility of 720 square feet on .94 acres of land in the C -2 (general business) zone, to be used during the construction of a permanent bank facility, at 9790 Base Line Road - APN 3.077- 011 -451 ABSTRACT: The applicant ati ion of s temporary bank the perrmman t yank site -OD rh cility wi consist is requesting review and approval of the instal - facility located on Base Line Road, 4AjA Pnt o. one 12'X Arch ibal aaT —use BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of this project in order toga low the bank to begin staffing and training employees and to begin operations while the permanent building, which is already under construction, is completed. The anticipated duration of use for the modular unit is 180 days__or until fir i nrcupancv of the nnrmanent building., The site improve- ments required for the ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewed by the Design ana Development Rev ,•, rmmittees, w ere cer ain minor revisions were r:; request is different from other requests for temporary offices, such as Vineyard Bank. The major difference is the fact that the permanent facility for this use is presently under construction and the improvements such as access, parking and landscaping have already been installed. Staff has reviewed the project and has recommended certain conditions of approval for your review and consider- ation. CORRESPONDENCE: As a Conditional Use Permit, this item was advertised in the local newspaper as a public hearing and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. To date, we have received no oral or :•!ritten communications regarding this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a pubs 'c hearing to consider all matters relative to this reo:Aest. Should the Commission make the necessary findings to grant approval rf this project, staff has provided the appropriate Resolution of Approval for your consi- deration. JL:AT:cd Attachments ITEM I �d• 1 / 22yca tlo.F` -MIT 1� .�nveu.v w.w�•. T7r I<!V `F' 17 5MC. M V) 6c,51-c" e 54 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANj0, \'GcL PLANNING DIVISION 3L°Ol'�27,'� 1A. L A Ito. GAP N6. POLL ,�B ITEM d, . . I �i TITLE: Fag+ "►t�;�_ M l lBlT= ---A - SCALE:— c5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -11 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEMPORARY MODULAR BANK FACILITY LOCATED AT 9709 BASE- LINE ROAD IN THE C -2 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 7th day of July, 1981, a complete application d by George E. Langley for review of the above - described project; WHEREAS, on the 12th day of August, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described NOw, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General i an, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and, • 2. That- the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental 'to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Thai the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 81 -11 is A subject to the following conditions: 1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at time of Building Permit issuance. 3. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval con- tained herein shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 4. Any signs proposed for this development shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of such signs. E El GJ.1114 TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 12, 1981 Members of the Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Curt Johnston, Assistant. Planner A proposed cn to R- 1- 20,000 minimumL=_5 Summit Aye= RSSESSMENT AN nge of zone f (single famil 5_rough9, 2E, and 43 81 -02 - M R -1 single family residential) residential, 20,000 sq. ft. lot located an the south side of__ BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a change of zone for 52 acres of and orated on the c h side of Summit Amenue between Etiwanda and Avenues (Exhibit "A "). a zoned R -1 sinaie Tamil reside which allows 1 s ft. row *� i inc a the m n r o si 000 sa ft- is A 90 -lot residential ivision T _��ewic Flnmoe ha b gen tentativ4ly annroved by tie won. ITT lots within the subdivision contain a minim— u— m ol� 20 OOp sa. ft. Apply 1��of the zone change will brin the ro ert into .een4srnter c�with° the GenerarTran. gna a as very 1 ow ens ANALYSIS: The majority of the site is presently undeveloped containing only minimal improvements. There is an existing house on the property which has historical significance and will be relocated by the applicant. Eucalyptus windrows run east -west at 330' spacing, and north -south along East Avenue and two interior locations. A portion of the site is covered by an abandoned, non- maintained citrus grove. Surrounding land uses include residences, orchards, vacant lots, a school, and a General Telephone sub - station (see Exhibit "B"). The surrounding area is planned for very low density; therefore, this change of zone will conform to future development. This zone change will not affect the approved tentative map. The Initial Study has been prepared for the environmental assessment of the zone change. Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as provided by the ap- plicant. The Environmental checklist was completed by Staff with no positive response to any of the items; thus leading to the finding of no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. If after review of the Initial Study, the Commission finds the Environmental Assess- ment to be adequate, an issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. ITEM J Staff Report ZC 81 -02 -2- August 12, 1981 CORRESPON)ENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in the Daily Report legal ad section on July 31, 1981. In addition, notices of public hearing were sent to all property owners within 300" of the subJect property. RECOMMENDATIO14: If, after review of the information presented herein and after the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission concurs with the above analysis and proposal, appropriate action would be to recommend approval to the City Council for the change of zone on the above described property from R -1 to P -1- 20,000 as described on the attached Resolution. Res ectfully subm tted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:CJ:cd Attachments El 0 Resolution No. Page 2 5. The applicant shall comply with tl Building Code, Unifo -n Mechanical Code, National Electric Code, and codes and ordinances in effect at of relative permits. ie latest adopted Uniform Codc, Uniform Plumbing all other applicable the time of issuance 6. Street addresses shall be provided by the building official. 7. The trailer unit shall be fully skirted with compatible material. 8. Potted trees, as shown on site plan, shall be installed upon installation of trailer. 9. The trail shall be removed from the site within 180 days from installation of the trailer or upon occupancy of the permanent building, whichever comes first. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E 0 I. 0 u 11 P{I ivu q •F^ or ?O C` l iT°) Pr. ��OtEo �j« %I - — ,ow so rQ TAP.- A/O. Fonl VICINITY MAP NO SCALE CITY or RA.IN'C O C,'CAMONGA PLANNING DIVISON --Vol/ NORTH ITE11: a C ZG at ' Mme_ TITLE: 39CMI MAP EXHIBIT: n SCALE: NYS � R .AV/- cnr" -e 4'✓ri -V /Sn1ow�ir iu � V'�./'y hod /PCS /QN/9T /OI N (� CUIAC.) 1-0".. rz I` C f SITE PLAN CITY OF ITEM: T (Zeal -a2, R MACHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: SIM u Z MON MOP PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: "Is*_ SCALE: M S- v 1 r � NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PAR.r I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an 6nvirorun.antal impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving f- -,ether information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Tract Number 11549 APPLICALT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Lewis Homes of California, 1156'North Mountain Avenue, P. 0. Bo:: 670, Upland, CA 91.786 714F985-0971 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED C017CERNING THIS PROJECT: lion Nottingham Lewis Homes of California, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, P. 0. Box 670, Upland, CA 91786 714/985 -0971 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue, southerly of Summit Avenue, 225- 181 -02, 02, 03, 06, 07, 08, 09, 26, 43 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Santa Ana Repional Water Quality Control Board i- 8 . _ C C PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.: go sinr_le family+ r�cidrn tizl deypI npmonr ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 52 acres Existing Buildings s 3.000 s.f* approximately Proposed Buildings a 170,000 s.f. approximately DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMEDTTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDIING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH 1NECESSARY SHEETS): 'the site has a Q,pnrle clang frnm rhp nnrrh...gcr rn rhp There are Eucal.vutus windrows running east -west spaced at 330 feet. Plus north -south windrows along East Avenue and at two interior IoCat2.02Ab. (See attached map showing windrows.) A portion of the site is covered Mr by an abandoned, non - maintained citrus grove. The only animals observed were the rodents. birds, and rabbits normal to the general area. There is an existing very old house on the property. It appears to be of marginal condition to maintain. However, we have been in contact with the local historical society and will relocate this house to an appropriate local. location at our expense when the society has provided such a site. Uses of surrounding properties are shown on the enclosed site utilization map. These uses consist of existing residences, vacant lots, the General Telephone Substation, and some orchards. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series, of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No. WTLI. THIS PRO,'MCT: ES. NG C� X_ 1. Create a substantial change in ground co-tours? - _x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)'. X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan. designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 350 _yy 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially ha.zardous matf-rials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: The plans shoo, the many existing eucalyptus, windrows to be maintained if desirable to the City. However, approximately 70% or 350 eucalvptus trees are shown to be removed. Also, there is a small citrus grove which is not maintained which will have to be removed. (See letter dated 8/28/80 with item 1 regarding possibly saving additional eucalyptus windrows along East Avenue and Summit Avenue.) IM?JR;a"%'T: If the project- involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of ray ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Develorr,ent Review Committee. Lewis Homes of-California Date January 21, 1981 Signature by /�� Title Aut prized Aeent Z 3 Rr$Tj�r•;^.TtT_. CQ ".e•rni1��O'I The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential. development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Lewis, Homes of California Tract 11549 Specific Location of Project: Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue southerly of Summit Avenue PHASE T PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PTTAS: 4 TOT;:L 1. Y:umc_r of single family units: 34 30 26 N/A 90 2. Number of multiple family units: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2. Date prcposed to begin ccnI-tructio October April October ^: 1981 1982 1982 N/A N/A 4. l artiest date or April October April occ;:rancy: 1982 1982 1983 N/A N/A Model 4 and = of Tentative 5. Bed_-oo .s Price Dance 640 - 4BR $150.000 6 5 6 N/A 17 684.2 ' 684.3 - 4BR 135,000 9 8 6 N/A 23 685 - 3BR _ 110,000 8 6 7 N/A 21 687 - 3BR 130,000 10 9 8 N/A 27 WJ - iRR _ 1552000 1 2 1 N/A 4 ,Noee: The above are our best estimates at this date (8/28/80) and are - subject to change. Revised 1/21/81. 90 RESOLUTION 140. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 81 -02 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM R -1 TO R- 1- 20,000 FOR 52 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AND EAST AVENUES - APN 225 -181 -4 through 9, 26, and 43. WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of July, 1981, an application was filed and accepted on the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 12th day of August, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following ings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; 2. The proposed zone change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the existing and proposed General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on August 12, 1981. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 12th day of August, 1981, Zone Change No. 81 -02. 2. The Planning commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 81 -02. 3. That a Certified Copy o . Resolution and related material hereby adopted by ;.he Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONER`_-. Y U 11 1 F] El I 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 12, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Huuus, City Engineer BY: Barbara Kra-L1, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND - PA RCEL MAP 7012 - Crescent t3usiness cenze An in ustria su v s on o .T acres into 5 parcels in e M-2 zone located on the east side of Archibald between 4th and 6th Streets. INTRODUCTION: This parcel map subdivides a commercial development previously approvea -Fy Planning Commission on April 23, 1981 as D.R. 80 -16 submitted by Myers Investment. Buildinqs and dries as shown on the attached map are being constructed at this time along with off -site improvements on Archibald Avenue. The property is bounded on the south by the existing Frito Lay Plant, on the north by a recently developed industrial park and on the east by a rail spur and vacant land. FNVIROMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part bf Me Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part I1 of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no significant adverse impacts on the envi- ronment as a result of the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: it 'is recommended that the tentative map be approved, subject to the City Engineer's Report, and that a Negative Declaration be issued. A resolution is attached to provide for approval should the Commission concur. Respectfully submitted, Attachments ITEM K " o L c � 7 g�a n � T e E boo O % V' o T a ®1 �a > O z yy>s ' L3 � {1 , F • K C a .� r ze -Or �! J J u Yid r U, ga 0 Y,a k;x3R d dd: �Sx >c 4 � C S 6 F <i " �Jn1T 1 r. m 13: r� O i c :S a: s , ' r l .y. 1 d v •T ;,r - - - - -- 1 � 1 j r � l 11 co iN e IL'D -ra r• i' i O i c :S a: s , ' r l .y. 1 d v •T 1 .I. nj ©' i 13 R ;,r - - - - -- r � l 11 co iN e IL'D -ra r• i' ea 1 .I. nj ©' i 13 R RESOLUTION NO. AML A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AIPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7012 (TENTATIVE PARCE. MAP NO. 7012) LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHI3ALD, SOUTH OF 6TH STREET. WHEREAS, Tertative Parcel Map Number 7(12, submitted by Crescent Business Center and consisting of 5 parcels, locited on the east side of Archibald, south of 6th Street, being a divis on of (:ne south 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of scc.lun 14, T.I.S., R.7.W.; and, WHEREAS, on June 24, 1981, a formal ap)lication was submitted requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 1981, the Planring Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ILANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following finings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 2. That the improveneit of the proposed subdivision is con ;istent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is piysically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvemen,.s will not cause sub!tantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will nat create significant adverse environmental impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on August 12, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Mai No. 7012 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Iteport pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON(A S'i , Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Richard Dahl, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the °lanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1981, by the following vote - to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: n CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Crescent Business Center TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7012 LOCATION: E/S of Archibald, S/0 6th Street _ DATE FILED: 6/24/81 NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: the south 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 RECEIPT NUMBER: 1185,1 of the southwest 1/4 of section 14. T. 1. S., R7W FEE: $250.00 ZONE:M -2 TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Wilson -Engineering GROSS ACREAGE: 19.4 ADDRESS: 387 N. Second Avenue MINIMUM LOT AREA: Upland, CA 91786 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE f Crescent Business Center 1201 S. Beach Blvd. 714/870 -9740 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 2 X ?. 4 5 Aft _ 6 RCE 20 La Habra, CA 90631 Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -o-P -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on _ _ Corner P/L radius required on Other Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: as conditioned in Resolution No. 80- 22_(D.R. 80 -16). Street vacation required for: Master Plan of Streets revision req,n red for: The following perimeter intersections require realignment as fo ?lows: TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7012 Page 2 Lien Agreement Improvements wiiag is required prior to M Recording'KHA j o s;�x�xla�x�>RaFA,�Ir j 7. Construct full street improvements (including c� b and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trL•�s and street lights) on all interior streets. Y 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *inclu inq landscaping and irrigation on meter STREET NAME CURB & GUTTER A.C. PVMT. SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STREET TREES STREET LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER Merenemelit 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. _ 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. all utilities are to be underground. _ 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. _ 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. _ 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. _ 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall ti` designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. _ 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative poles with underground service. _ 16. The follcwing existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: _ 17. The following specific dimensions, i.e., cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: _ 18. The T6 owing existing streets are substandard: They will require: Approvals and Fees _ 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of San Bernardino County Flood Control District. _ 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities Gies involved. Approval of the final map will be that may be received from them. RCE 20 approval from CALTRANS/ and other interested agen- subject to any requirements TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7012 Page 3 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: _ A. Calt-ans, for: _. _ B. City: _ C. County Dust Abatement District: _ D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep: E. Cucamonga County Water District: _ F. Other: Map Control _ 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro- vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected streets. 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map: _ 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at t e rig t -o -way line in accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision ;o prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located 26. The boundary of the entative Map nee s c , iification as follows: _ 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. 4OParcel Map Waiver _ 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to G Recording for ) O Building permit for ) _ 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. _ 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall along the entire north pro - perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. 31. If water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. _ 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:_ _ 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will a required to assess impact o increased runoff. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP N0. 7012 Page 4 Miscellaneous T. _ 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. _ 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: _ 39. Proper grading and erosion control, including the preventation of sedimenta -' tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow- ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division. _ 41. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and deve'iopment of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the signa -� ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the final map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- tion within the specified time Ismits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final Map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded mal.s ,ind deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. Reciprocal' access parking and maintenance easements ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives, or parking areas and blanket drainage easements across all parcels shall be recorded concurrent with the recordation of the parcel map. X 46. All previously written conditions for D.R. 80 -16 shall apply to Parcel Map 7012. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: RCE 20 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental. Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard_ The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will 'be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will by prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE.' GC.MTC b l APPLICAN'T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: .l. L W1I Sots t tv tt_ �x *IG,t ylV Q. 387 td SF-C,0 ,JJ Ail,. UThloy�ti. �t7Ar, <��a1yg4 -zAr35 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) A.vC-i 5 °1= lTH S'ry� P/��1C{ -16 G_ycAr.o•.IG% LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE. AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: _xi C PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: �tl IY3UUSCR1l� �r�iapLE Gc�r- lS��-ffd. fnl=- fJ n, I !L,!( I t 1 t ;� O ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS IF ANY: >• -^ DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- o£ cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? 3- 2 E WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? i 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _L 3. Create a substantial charge in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)°. �! 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? �< 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? "A- 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? F.-planation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evallation can be made by the .Development Review Committee. P. Date r ? c Signatures V Title Pe! -= / 7*?Pc9 r� RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTIO'.d The follot•Iinq information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: PHASE i PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PIIASF, 4 TOTAL 1. NumbOr of single family units: 2. Number of rultiole family units: 3. Date proposed to beai.. ccnstruction: 4. Earliest Ovate of oc(_::�anc,I : I4odr_1 and u of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Rance 11 S` d: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCM40NGA STAFF REPORT August 12, 1981 Members of the Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner ASSESSMEfT —An amendment to the Zoning cone acoing Sect�eon�i'1- 023(F) implementing the Industrial Specific Plan ABSTRACT: Upon adoption of the Industrial Specific Plan, develop- ment regulations contained within the Plan replaced those previously contained within the industrial zoning classifications of the Zoning Ordinance. In o -der to impleme ion• j*, necessa that the order of The attached oreposed Zoning Ordinance amendment provides language which assures that the Industrial Specific Plan development regulations would supersede those contained within the underlying old zoning designations. This provision will also be utilized when other, specific plans are adopted. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution which reconmends approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res ectfull s bmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JI.:TJB:jr Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Proposed Resolution Initial Study ITEM L RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RE ^COMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 81 -03 ADDING SECTION 61.023(F) TO THE ZONING CODE PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly advertis °d public hearing to consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment 81 -03, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission seeks to implement the Industrial Specific Plan. SECTION 1: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 81 -03 which adds Section 61.023(x') to the Zoning Code as shot-in on the attached proposed Ordinance. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission finds that this amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts upon the environment and therefore recommends issuance of - Negative Declaration. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Panning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: I* 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LANE USE AND BUILDING REGULATIONS AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 17 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SPECIFICALLY ADDING SECTION 61.023(F) TO THE ZONING CODE PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California nereby ordains the following: Section 61.023(F) of the Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 61.023(F) SPECIFIC PLAN: In any areas where a Specific Plan has been adopted .ir said area as provided for in Section 65450 ET.SEQ. of the Government :;ode of the State of California, such regulations contained within the Specific Plan shall supersede those regulations contained within the Zoning Districts within the Specific Plan boundary. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Daily Report, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated ir. the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor U11 I ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM014CA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant, Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80.CO For all projects requiring environmental review, this. form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff -will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and talke action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three: determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Rancho Cucamonga, P. 0. Box 807, Rancho -1851 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Tim .1. RFndla_ Saninr Planner E..1I LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Y - E PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Amendment of the Zoning Code to provide for implementation of the Industrial pecitic� an ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): REFER TO INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a serieG- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? �o 2. WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1.. Create a :ubstantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a ubstantial change in existing noise or ibration? X 3. Create a ;ubstantial change in demand fir municipal services (police, fire, water sewage, a :c.;'. X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning o: general FLan designations? X 5-- Remove are existing trees! I:ow many ?`_ 11 x 6. Create tY3 need for use or disposal of potentiaal.y hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosi-es? Explanation of any YES a.iswers above: IMPORTANT: if the project involves the construction of residential u.-Iits, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements fi-nished above and in the attached exhi:Dits present the data ani'. information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, anc information presented are true and correct to the best !f my knowledge and belief_ E further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulat-:.on can be made by the .Develop sent Review Committee. ,O Date Signatu Title enior Planner I - -3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .171 1 Y, d Ai' �>rl�Pdi a 1/ r,— \ . 9 DATE: August 12, 1981 �I F TO: Members of the Piannino Commission 1977 a FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Tim J_ Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOI> REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ABSTRACT: This report reviews the environmental processing neces- sary for the Redevelopmeri: Plan. BACKGROUND: The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated the process towards adoption ;,f a Redevelopment. District. In order for this to be done, a Redevelopment Plan must be prepared and an Environmental Assessment must determine whether there are significant adverse im- pacts. Should any significant adverse impacts be created through the Redevelopment Plan, an Environmental Impact Report will address these. Attached to this report is the Initial Study Parts I and II, which reviews the potential impacts based ;:pon the Initial Study. An Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to address these areas as discussed in a summary of the evaluations (Attachment "D "). Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for t..._ Redevelopment Agency will borrow heavily from earlier Environmental Impart Reports on both the General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan. It is important to know that implementation within the redevelopment area will be consistent with the General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan and therefore both of the previous Environmental Impact Reports will be very useful in the preparation of the Redevelopment Plan EnvironmEntal Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the Initial Study and direct Staff to prepare an Environ- mental Impact Report which considers the issues as set forth in the Initial Study. Resp caa JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:TJB:jr Attachments: Initial Study, Parts I and II ITEM M CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY L'ART I — PROJECT INFORP'fATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $90.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Developmctnt Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this applir-ation, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Stndy. The Developmen_ Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three deterr..inations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declarati�n will be filed, 2) The project wall have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City of Ranchn Cucamonqa, F. 0. Box 807. Ranc NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNII:G THIS PROJECT: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner - City of Rancho Cucamonga 730 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) See Attached Man LIST OTI3ER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE it "ERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: - I -1 AND ti I PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: See Attachment "A" ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: See Attachment "A" DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE I14CLUDING I1WORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTUPURM, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, MM THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACK NECESSARY SHEETS; See Attachment "T'` is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whale have significant environmental impact? aw 2 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)' _X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? _X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: Sep Mttadhment "C" IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the uc�xt page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attacA::d exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fe =ts, statements, and information presented are tri,e and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief- I further understand t13 t additional information may be required .:o be submitted / before an adequate evaluation can be made the Developtuent Review Committee. Date_ 71 )0 Signatur 74-- � / i� / Title g��io2 PttS�1J �(L T3 -a CITY ("' RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: July 27, 1981 — APPLICANT: City of Rancho Cucamonga FILING DATE: July 27 1981 LOC NUMBER: PROJECT: Redevelopment Pr0Ject Area PROJECT LOCATION: See Attachment I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazard:, such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 4w2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: Y, X X X X X ?ageL a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? X c. Alteration of local or regionai climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? X 5. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? -_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage parterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? X f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? X g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? X h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for water supplies? public X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? X 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? X c. Alteration of local or regionai climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? X 5. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? -_ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X l'agc 3 a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X _ b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, o: create a demand for additional housing? X _ b. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional Socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? �! _ b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? X 7. Land Use and Planning: Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned 'land use of an area? X b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental — entities? X c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? R YES MAYBE NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? X _ d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural. production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? X _ S. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X _ b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, o: create a demand for additional housing? X _ b. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional Socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? �! _ b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? X 7. Land Use and Planning: Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned 'land use of an area? X b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental — entities? X c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? R 8. Transportation. Will. the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? YES MAYBE NO x Page 4 b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? X _ c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? X e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? X _ f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? X Increases in traffic hazards to motor ••ehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 9. l•ilt-ural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? X 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Tactors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? _ X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ Y. c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event- of an accident? X d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? T X e. Increase in existing noise levels? X _ f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? _ X g. The creation of objectionable odors? X h. An increase in light or glare? X L3 • y El Page S YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? X c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors'! — X _ 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? — X b. Natural or packaged gas? X c. Communications systems? X d. Pater supply? — e. Wastewater facilities? X — f. Flood control structures? X — g. Solid waste facilities? X h. Fire protection? X — 1. Police protection? X — 1. Schools? X k. T'arks or other recreational facilities? X 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? X M. Other govern_.ental services? X — 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or- excessive fuel or energy? X — b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? X _ c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? X d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non — renewable forms of energy, when feasible 9r;, renewable sources of energy are available? X e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural. resource? Ili. Mandatory rindings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining 'levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examr1es of the major pericd.s of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future). C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable x;aen viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). YES MAYBE NO x x x M d. Doez the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x _- Vage u 9 II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). See Attachment "D" Li] 41 III". DETERMINATION On the basis of this ".nitiai evaluation: I --� I find the proposed project COULD 140T have a significant effect U on the environment, and a 14EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant. effect L� in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project 14AY have a significant effecOfbn the XX envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT a,EPORT s require 14 &)� Date July 27, 1981 Tim J. Signature Senior Planner Title rage i Attachment "A." PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing a redevelopment project for that portion of the City outlined on the attached map. The proposed Redevelopment Project is a plan for the elimination or mitigation of conditions which are serving to deter development and prevent the City from realizing the goals and objec- tives established in the General Plan. The Redevelopment Project proposes no changes to development policies established in the General Plan. The sole purpose is to help imple- ment the General Plan by providing the means to assist with such improve - ment�, as flood control channels and inadequate circulation. .1 Ell \" 1 C Attachment "B" TOPOGRAPHY: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is situated on a 9- adual)y slop slop g plain located near the eastern edge of the San Gabriel Mountains. This plain is referred to as an alluvial fan. Most of the City is on fairly level slopes, typically less than 10 %. The west valley region is characterized by numerous faults, most notably being the San Andreas Fault. HYDROLOGY: Rancho Cucamonga lies within the upper Santa Ara water shed. The system includes the Cucamonga Creek and its tributaries. Of these water courses Cucamonga, Deer and Day Creeks drain directly into the project area. Of the water courses running through the City, most have been modified by earth evacuated channels for flood control purposes. However, these water courses are not able to sustain major floods. Substantial portions of the project area are susceptible to 100 year flood activity. BIOLOGY: Rancho Cucamonga lies between two different environments; the desert mountains and the coast. Where these two environments inter- mix, the genetic phenomena creates its own unique environment. Most of this area lies within the coastal stage Eco system. The fauna of the area are typical of disturbed and altered areas. There are no known rare or endangered species within the area. LAND USE AND ZONING: A substantial portion of the area is undeveloped. With the northern area of the project lie boundaries of two planned communities; the Victoria Plan consisting of a mixture of residential, commercial, and recreational land uses on approximately 2,000 acres, and the Terra Vista Community plan consisting of approximately 1,200 acres. A substantial portion of the remaining area is composed of in- .ic +,.iii i._1 F�cn �hV,�..n nn +h� r;.+,',e r�. oral Plan. This includes all vacant lands east of Haven Avenue and south of Arrow Highway, west of Haven Avenue. Both of these areas extend to the City Limits. IJ ;t r Attachment "C" Relative to Page I -3 (question #2) Upon development within the project boundary, area activities will be generated which will increase the level of noise which currently exists. this change is due mainly to the fact that a majority of the project area is undeveloped. (question #3) Development within the project area could substantially change a need for municipal services. Currently within the project boundary a majority of the area is undeveloped and has essentially little demand on municipal services. fe E IL-11 fV�', Attachment "D" RESPONSE TO EIR ASSESSMENT ON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1. Soils and Geology: Significant impacts in the soil and geological state of the project site will occur mist through the disruption or compaction from construction, change in topographical cr ground contours, increase in wind or water erosion, and resultant siltation due to soil erosion. 2. Hydrology: Construction and develcpmen± within the projec-: area could substantially impact on the hydrology of the area. Potential signi- ficant impacts would include changes to the course and di•ection of channels and the absorbtion rate of water through the inc °eased paved surfaces, alternations of water flow including on -site waver flow (sheet flow). Potential significant impacts to the hydro ogy could result from the changes in quantity and quality of ground water inter- ference and the exposure of ;persons or property to resultimt flood hazards from the project area and surrounding land. 3. Air O�uality: Land use intensification within the project ¢rea, especi ally within the industrial area, could cause significant in- creases in the amount of periods :. emissions from both mobile sources and stationary sources. 4. Biota: Increased construction activity will cause disrupti m to any existing wildlife within the project area. Ultimately with the full buildout within the project area, existing known wildlife vill no longer survive in the project area. 5. Population: Proposed development will significantly alter the pop - ulation density and distribution within the project area. Currently, a majority of the project area is vacant undeveloped land; however, upon development within two planned communities and the industrial area, changes in the land use pattern will occur. 6. Socio- Economic Factors: It is anticipated tnat development within the project: area will substantially change the economic factors influencing the area. The development of a regional shopping center ant a major industrial center complex will create sionificant changes iii the tax rate and property values in addition to alt either developmert proposed within the project boundaries. Ell r a: Response to EIl; Assessment on Redcvelopment Agency Page 2 El TransportaV on: The current traffic situation within the project area varies es significantly. Generally, however, most of the area developed west of Haven will experience little change 4n traffic volume. Areas east of Haven Avenue, which are substantially unde- veloped, will undergo significant Oanges as the project Brea approaches full buildout. Ultimately, several new major arterials are planned within the project area to accommodate the increased traffic flow. Even with these changes, previous traffic stidies have indicated localized points of traffic cenjestion at the time of full buildout. 9. Cultural Resources: Although no known archeological sites exist, the potentia remains for disruption of those features during con - struction within the project area. 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors: With the development in the project area, it is anticipated that changes in the noise level will occur. Sources of noise that will increase include additional traffic and noise emi'tiaq from the industrial area. Additional light and glare could occur due to development acti-ity within the industrial area. 11. Aesthetics: The potential exists for signif4c;�s,i adverse changes affecting the surrounding view. These chamyes z uld likely happen as a result of development blockinq view corridors to the surrounding mountains. P2. Utilities and Public Services: It is anticipated that Lpor. develop- ment within the project area, inc -eacvs in flood protection, fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and maintenance of public roads and other public facilities will be affected. It is anticipated that the needs for these services will be substantially increased in areas east of Haven Avenue. 13. En�ero,� and Scarce Resources: Full development in the project area could liTce y cause substantial increases in consumption of fuel and energy. It is likely that development in the industrial area would substantially increase the demand for petroleum derived resources. Ll 0 INA art F�R�•. icy �' ~ A1tj C V C C 0 1�. d .O sl s x LLJ o 4 V d v 6 C LI E 11 CITY OF RANCHO C UCAMONGA S L A F REPORT DATE: August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Flaming Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner 1977 SUBJECT: REVISION TO DAON LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW 80 -13 BACKGROUND: The Daon Planned Industrial Park was adopted in concept by the Planning Commission last year. Subsequent to the adoption of the Master Planned Industrial Park, Daon Corporation submitted the first phase development. As a condition of approval of the park, the Commission desired the review and approval authority of the Landscape Plans. Upon presentation of the Landscape Plans to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission approved the plan subject to the installation of 6 additional landscape planters in front of the screen walls :n some parking areas. The project has since been constructed and :omoleted: however, during the course of construction the additional landscape planters desired by the Commission were not installed by the developer as an oversight. The developer is now requesting that ..,e Commission waive the previous condition of the planters based upon the magnitude and intensity of landscaping that has been provided throughout the entire development. This revision to the Landscape Plan is being presented to the Planning Commission for your consideration as it was an original concern of the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning (omission consider the present amount of the landscaping and the effective- ness that it has. If the Commission feels that present landscaping achquately meets the desires and expectations of the City, then it may be appropriate to waive the condition of the additional planters. If tLe Commission finds that these planters would benefit the project, then the Commission may wish to consider that these be installed now or in futl!re, phases of the project. .3ubmitted, JACK. LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:jr ITEM N KI CITY OF RANCHO CUQU4ONGA STAFF REPORT August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 -28 WOOLWORTH GARDEN CENTER - Tne development of a retail garden center on 1.9 acres of land in the C -2 zone located on the southeast corner of Foothill and Helms - APN 208 - 261 -43 & 44 ABSTRACT: This request is a new s.bmittal on a previous application which the Commission denied, for t.:e development of a garden center at the above - described logy -tion. The applicant has utilized the Commission input from th- previous application filing and has revisEd the project to substantially comply with the comments previously made by the Commis- sion. The Design Review Committee has reviewed the project and has recommended approval based upon certain changes in conditions as explained in this report. The matter is again before the Planning Commission for a fina'. decision on the site plan and des> ;:4. BACKGROUND: As the Planning Commission-.41 l recall, Praver Brothers Investments submitted a request for the development of a retail garden nursery on the southeast corner of Helms and Foothill Boulevard which was reviewed and subsequently denied by the Planning Commission. The Commission's denial was based mainly upon the architectural design of the fac" ity, integration of tho parcel with the remaining portions of the shoppinn center, and the division of land that would occur as a result of the projet-t_ After denial of the project, the applicants reevzluated th, concerns of t;:P Commission and eccided to acain request approval of the development whit, substantially a1dressing the concerns whic` the Commis- sion ;aas raised duri.ig its first review. ANALYSIS: During the Commissions first review, there were s evpral policy issues that were raised in regards to the development of this site in con- junction with the ultimate parcelization and physical integration with the existing shopping center. Ir. the past, the Planning Commission ;.?, utilized a policy to prevent strip commercial development and encourage centralized shopping centers. It has been the Commissions intent in the past that development of this nature physically appear to be within one center utili- zing cowbined accesses, shared parking areas, and unified architectural themes. In addition, the resultant, subdivision, that would occur as a resuit of development, (Exhibit "C ") presented issues and concerns. The Commission was concerned that the vacant parcel would not have enough ITEM C Staff Report DR 81 -28 -2- August 12, 1981 development optio:+s, if the access between the two parcels :s pre - determined. In addition, t "e Commission was concerned with the remainder parcel on the south side of the adjacent shopping center in terms of access and land use compatibility. The Commission previously stated that this remainder strip would not be appropriate for commercial usage and that a new street would be necessary to provide appropriate access to the shopping centcr. There- fore, staff is recommending, should this project be approved, that the parcel map be required to provide a fully dedicated street through this parcel. The Design Review Committee has reviewed the issue of the vacant corner parcel and they have recommended that rather than providing a pre - determined access point that it would be more beneficial to prepare an agreement for lien on the Property that would require appropriate access in the future.along the west boundary of the nursery parking lot. It was the Committees intent that this condition would allow feixibility of locating the building on the corner parcel either along the street setback line or to the rear of the property. The applicant has provided Exhibits "F" and "G" which shows these two alter- natives. The issue of continuation or compatibility of the Center has been addressed by the applicant by having a combined access with the shopping center and by agreeing to design a unified shopping center identification sign. In addi- tion, receptacle access and parking would be provided to tie the two develop- ments t,gether. The applicants have redesigned the buildings substantially to provide a more aesthetic appearance to the overall area. The Design Review Committee has reviewed the design and has recommended approval of the design based upon the f;ilowing changes and conditions of approval: 1. That the east and west elevations of the building use stucco in place of wood as the primary material and that wood plant - ons be placed around the windows and corners of the buildings. 2. That all wood be of a dark brown tone stain, and not a redwood finish. 3. That the stucco be sand color and provided with a Spanish lace texture. 4. That wrought iron, fencing be provided along the north and west boundaries, the outdoor nursery area, and that chainlink fencing be utilized along the south and east boundaries of the nursery area. U EI Ll Staff Report DE 81 -28 -2- August 12, 1981 In addition, the Committee had recommended that final building material samples such as the tile and final building colors be submitted to the Design Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. If the Commission finds that this project is consistent with its past policies and has satisfied all of the previous concerns then a Resolution of Approval with recommended conditions are provided for your consideration. If the Commission adopts the attached Resolution with conditions, then staff will prepare the final report for the parcel map which would be pro- vided to you at a following meeting for your final consideration. In the course of reviewing the parcel map, staff will ne recommending that appro• priate conditions o� approval be provided on the parcel map that would require a dedicated street on the south parcel to provide for the necessary access to the rear of the shopping center buildings and provide for the necessary buffering and access to the development that would occu° to the south. RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended that the Planning Commission review the issues and policies at hand and decide whether these issues and con- cerns have been fully addressed and meet the present pulicy of the Planning Commission. If so, a Resolution of Approval with appropriate conditions have been attached for your review and consideration. �P; tted, of Community Development JL:MV:cd Attachments. a DDDDDL DDD DDDDDD Tlflfllli]'O DUMDUM I I. 'DLTDU"nD DUBUDD DD DD DD D D D D 2 D OD HE mum rl kO 011' Do r--1 U 00 E-1 11 0 M1 E P r riy r rr at 0 4 r e �LDY gag k t P r riy r rr at 0 4 r e ftleff `{ Vs 777p � {TT.QQ] j =y3 1 t'l lr` 9i �a F ^^b (71 Ln 0 L� �" 11 gag k t Y y L� Sri J s: Y IN arc ftleff `{ Vs 777p � {TT.QQ] j =y3 1 t'l lr` 9i �a F ^^b (71 Ln 0 L� �" 11 • .r _ c o e7 v ! k •��' e ivii��. E:dlz�l:�s ;lrla !• ay n, ' q N . Y. M .-r � . i \ •/ YYY � �' 111 h J •c zP• fi r 1 k i" 1 z t z • U '�� . \ ,( Ly vla .y L '� 4w '- .':xalr �.y -,�:•.._ Q \ AF r i tw•t�.J /..rri v I♦ 1 i � �� 4. 1 . !' '.1� y 1 '� • ♦� M ^I``l�(L• x \'Ll i I �,�r%'♦•i%Y11�.{. 4 ♦ t' r '.1 ; /1 ". �4wK Sv l4 -f r = �•Mi ^, G pl - '` bll yl `� ,rr. .. - u �.,n b.. � 1 -: �1 1J7i c,.,It r a U :L, �♦ ci YY � •. �/ { '�..'r,� �. 1_11_1 - ,.,�_ ^�Y +'� ?K = ^T °t i 1 e • 1 T 1!'1'~1 rj�i fir. r 1" lu 1 .. 71 . , iv T Gtr, w r I i � ' 9r'Q �- ' '�_� 4.j -+Jy1 -.. Q( ' N rlli 1 f y. 1.•+ rr. 1 I� II ' `\ , . ..: t 1"�%',.1 ' 4 = I r ,♦ _ ' q N . Y. M .-r � . i \ •/ YYY � �' 111 h J •c zP• fi r 1 k i" 1 z t z • U '�� . \ ,( Ly vla .y L '� 4w '- .':xalr �.y -,�:•.._ Q \ AF r i tw•t�.J /..rri v I♦ 1 i � �� 4. 1 . !' '.1� y 1 '� • ♦� M ^I``l�(L• x \'Ll i I �,�r%'♦•i%Y11�.{. 4 ♦ t' r '.1 ; /1 ". �4wK Sv l4 -f r = �•Mi ^, G pl - '` bll yl `� ,rr. .. - u �.,n b.. � 1 -: �1 1J7i c,.,It r a U :L, �♦ ci YY � •. �/ { '�..'r,� �. 1_11_1 - ,.,�_ ^�Y +'� ?K = ^T °t i 1 e • 1 T 1!'1'~1 rj�i fir. r 1" lu 1 .. 71 . 11 L• 'I 0 J � 7J_1i i C ,�••r. i` 7 r��r� � t`F4� -'� •'"mil [h ,s -V -2 713 Y� J� �J o �i lJ "U yl 1 lij; Cilz)�Co 29!-eifl(D' COL =ffj L5:3 or ;Mcq At uq U. ZED -17 ILL 4LI gill at u st ME := X333 M77,17 2t j, 1 41 Liz I a Lfi LJ oo RMIV T 0 POO WE C) 2 E 31 O I-] E au 'Ar W,� extileff 11 F 90 12 C9 Tln O [,� �3Cr.�vc� �� IK -- e 17 1 L7 Ity� ,4 h 3 1� 3 a n 3 i r 0 woo owl.N C- IUT ISO LA F- �1 i,, J _S Y� u 'J EW l Li El t1P d.q iftiQ�o ,� rz oavz� E ll � i I Y s I� ®.: I P �J r a J J 3 I CITY OF RANCHO MCAMON( A INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFOPUI&TION SHEET - To he completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $90.00 For all projects reaui.ring environmentai review, thin form ,rust be completed and subm ltted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental analysis staff will prepare Part II of the initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the pro' pct i:, to be heard. The Ccasnittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The Froject will have no environmertal impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving fur `.her information concerning the proposed project.. PROJECT TITLE: F„W.WOOLWORIH GARDEN CENTER �raverA ro . N . vL�8 85' T E,•hE: H[ff:9 Ventura blva. SUM 1245 Encino, Ca. NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCEPITINC THIS PROJECT: Gautiei -Phillips (Bob Gautier) e 1717 Kettner Blvd. suit Z•UU -an Diego. v LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ALORISS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) SE corner Helms Ave. and Foothill Blvd. tlssessor Parcel No. L08- 261 -043 & 044 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY I3STTING SUCH PERMITS: NO OTHER PF3MITS REQUIRED FROM AGENCIES ABOVE ............... Ask i 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Construct two wood frame, single story buildings and an attached shad e out cot sa es area wood beams. erovile parking tor 41 cars. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE CF EXISTING AND PR(-POSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: area of vropL-rrttyis 1.9+ acres There are no existing buildin s on the site. eropose ux dings are; h HC OU O 950 sq. ft. INDOOR SALES BLDG.= 5115sq.ft. U H S covere = J49J s DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON",IENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),. ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SUP - ROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The site is- barren of any distinguishing physical c aracteris ics. ibe site is level and covered with gra . .There are no trees or shrubs on the site. AOL e1 shopping center (built in the 5U's or 60's) is to the eaaqt„ acant I an s— to the South with a residential tract. beyond. Vacant land lies to the w Rr There is alder- mixed commercialiresidential use to the north ae -moss Foothills Boulevard. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which aithn.:gh individually small, may as a whole have Pigni.ficant environmental impact? O I- 2 WILL THIS PROJECT: YOS NO NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ NO 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? N 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)'. NO _ 4. Create changes in the e-%,isting zoning or general plan designations. NO 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? ` NO g, Create the need for use o= disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: I111K)kTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of . my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date } 3 Signatur z �_'1.FA „i`{ /� •,. Title - --T'71- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 -28 LOCATED GENERALLY 014 THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HELMS AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE C -2 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 10th day of July, 1981, a complete application was filed by Praver Brothers Investments for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 12th day of August, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga ?lanning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Zcning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and, 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on August 12, 1981. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 81 -28 is approved subject to the M -owing conditions and attached standard conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. Building elevations shall be revised in accordance with Design Review Committee's comments and shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. - 2. Final samples of the building colors and roof material shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. ® Resolution No. Page 2 3. Wrought iron fencing shall be installed along the west and north boundaries of the nursery storage area. 4. Appropriate C.C. & R.'s and agreements shall be completed for this property to ensure future access and reciprocal parking to the parcel on the southeast corner of Helms and Foothill Boulevard. ENGINEERING DIVISION 5. Record Parcel Map 6582 prior to issuance of building permit. 6. All pertinent conditions for Parcel Map 6582 shall apply. 7. Reconstruct the drive approch on Foothill Boulevard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. Relocate the drive approach on Helms to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING CO!It1ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r:1 LJ BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Panning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: &'Mrr - r,vu, C01*1111ISSIGNERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ,tt . .J 11 CITY O�FNR�jAI�`jdGIO CIJCAINIONCA REPORT August 12, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: 1977 BACKGROUND: From the survey area selected by the City Council, the Planning Commission must select a project area and adopt a Prelimi- nary Redevelopment Plan. The attached document, prepared by M.S.I.,' the City's Redevelopment consultant, contains both and the Planning Commission is requested to take formal action on each at the meeting of August 12. Also included in your packet is an assessment of con - ditions report. Please be reminded of the fact that the time schedule for adoption of the Redevelopment Plan is so tight that it is imper- ative for the Commission to study the preliminary plan and be dile to make a decision on it at that meeting. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't hesitate to call either Tim Beedle, or myself. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution to select a project area from within the survey area; and, adopt the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan. JACK. LAM, Director of Community Development JL:jk Attachments: City Council Resolution adopted 8/5/81 Memorandum from M.S.I. Preliminary Redevelopment Plan Assessment of Conditions Report Planning Commission Resolution ITEM P RESOLUTION NO. 81-121 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 1NE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO SELECT A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND TO FORMULATE A PRELIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, upon adoption of Resolution No. 81 -121, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby designates as a Redevelop- ment Survey Area that area described on Exhibit "It" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council of tha city of Rancho rszr�mnnni determined that such designated area requires study to determine if a redevelopment project(,) within the survey area is feasible; and WHEREAS, Section 33322 of the California Community Redevelopment Law provides that the Planning Commission shall select a project area(s) comprised of all or part of the Redevelopment Survey Area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall, furthermore, formulate a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of each selected project area. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamongi does resolve as follows: Section I: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby directs that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga select a project areas) from within the designated survey area described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Section 2: The Planning Commission is, furthermore, directed to formulate a pr—eTiminary plan for the Redevelopment Project Area. Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 1981. AYES: NOES: ABSENT ATTEST: Frost, Me!-els, Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser None None Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk Phillip D. Schlosser, Mayor 0 0 Ell M E M O R A N D U M TO: Jack' Lam, Director of Communi_tyy DevelopMez t;� ;." `", 1�- fi c.!•r, "•,Pr101'dG�1 FROM: Abraham DeDios, Tan.-; Coordinator C�� i� "r "� �'' nF.PT DATE: August 5, 1987. SUBJECT: Rancho Redevelopment Project Accompanying this memorandum are 20 copies each of the Preliminary T' an L dit • - L r1411 tauu IiOJCO JIIICIIU of VVL46L.1 VIIO AGiJVLL 41PA d LCOVL l.LVII LVL \. Az_ sideration by the Planning Commission the adoption of which acknow- ledges receipt of the Assessment of Conditions Report, est�.blishes the Project Area and approves the Preliminary Plan. This project, the Rancho Redevelopment Project, was initiated when the City Council adopted a Survey Area for study purposes. Following this action, staff proceeded with a study to determine if a redevelopment project or projects within the Survey Area were feasible. Part of this study was the completion of the Assessment of Conditions Report which presents a description of existing conditions in the Survey Area. This report assisted staff in detezmining the recommended boundaries of the Project Area. ® The Health and a Project Area Area, as outli selected based conditions. Safety Code, Section 33320.1, has stated that means a blighted area in a community. The Project aed on Exhibit 1 in the Preliminary Plan, was upon areas within the City that exhibit blighting The proposed Preliminary Redevelopment Plan was prepared for the selected Project Area and outlines objectives for elimimating blight. As indicated, the Preliminary Plan is a preliminary statement of that which the Agency and Planning Commission wish to undertake. Please call if you have any questions. CC: Lauren Wasserman Manuel DeDios /cd RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECEIVING THE ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS REPORT, DESIGNATING A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND ADOPTING A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California has adopted a Redeve!npment Survey Area by Resolution No. 81 -121; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission may select a Project Area comprised of all or part of a Redevelopment Survey Area and formulate a Preliminary Plan for the redevelopment of the selected Project Area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has received the Assessment of Conditions Report finding that the Survey Area exhibits conditions of blight as described in Sections 33031 and 33032 of the California Health and Safety Code:, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires in cooperation with the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency to select the boundaries for the proposed Rancho Redevelopment Project, adopt a Preliminary Plan for said Project and submit the Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency ldmk for preparation of an official Redevelopment Plan for said Project. NOW, THEREFORE, Cucamo��ga does resolve as SECTION 1: The is found to be a blighted to effectuate the public Redevelopment Law. the Planning Commission follows: area set forth in City area, the redevelopment mrposes declared in the of the City of Rancho ,ouncil Resolution No. 81 -121 of which is necessary California Community SECTION 2: The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby selects and designates as the boundaries of the proposed Rancho Redevelopment Project, that area shown in the Preliminary Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A ". SECTION 3: The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby adopts the Preliminary Plan formulated for the redevelop- ment of the proposed Rancho Project Area, which Preliminary Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. SECTION 4: The secretary is directed to forward a copy of this resolution, along with the attached Preliminary Plan, to the Redevelopment: Agency of the City of Rancho Cucaronga. 0 11 6 Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION b: -The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1.217H DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY- Jeffrey King, Cha-irma`— n ++ ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission 1, JACK, LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: