No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/08/26 - Agenda Packet� �� I��J � �I /l.• 4 V �� ,n fl alp 11 .. 1� r �rf 11 � I U � 1�w IL, 1 r �: AI' I 1', V r I .r �� • _ + w 1 .•�,r � li r S� r! 1 li��: m: � � �'� ( � .,' I �',�_ .d It .. 1 r 41 r."� '��� ...1 I ~ r G�!CA.LIq�. coo, \ \cam C (� o U U Iy 1977 A- C- T -I -O -N I. II. III. CITV Or RAN -HO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COTA MISSIGN AGENDA. WEDNESDAY AUGUST 26, 1981 7 :00 P.M. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Pledge of Allegianci Roll Call Commissioner Dahl X_ Commissioner King ` X Commissioner Sceranka —_ Approval of Mine,tes Approved 5 -0 -0 March 12, 1981 Approved 5 -0 -0 as amend. March 25, 1981 Approved 5 -0 -1 March 26, 1981 A roved 5 -0 -0 April 2, 1981 improved 5 -0 -0 as amend. April 8, 1981 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar Commissioner Rempel X_ Commissioner Tolstoy � X The following consent calendar items are expected to be routine- and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commissior at une time without discussion. If anycne has concern over any item, then it should be removed for discussion. VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals way voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized 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 for each project. Continued to 9 -9 -81 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT' AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7007- DAON CORPORATION - A division of 9.649 acres into 3 parcels with —` in the M -2 zorp located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive - APN 208 -35 -03 & 11 Continued to 9 -23 -81 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP N1. 6937 - PEREZ A residential subdivision of 2.41 acres into 4 parcels within the R -1 zone located on the southwest corner of Victoria and East Avenue - APN 227 - 121 -41 Planning Commission Agenda -2- August 26, 1981 APPROVED 5 -0 -0 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7088 WEN &ER AND ZWICKER - A division of 173.70 acres into 2 parcels in the M -2 zone located on the northwest corner of 4th Street and Etiwanda Ave. APN 229 - 283 -29 -APPROVED .5-0-0 D_ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6962 APPROVED 5 -0 -0 E. APPROVED AS AMENDED 5 -0 -0 - Deletion of Engineering Conditions q44 and 46 in previous Resolution APPROVED TO REQUIRE EIR TO-1 to adopt sed site plan P 11 F. KEY A residential subdivision of Z.Ud acres of land into 4 parcels in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on the north side of Vicar? Drive, west of Jasper Street - APN 1061- 141 -06 PRAVER BROS. INVESTMENTS - A commercial develop- ment cf 6.4 acres into four (4) parcels in the C -2 and R -1 zone located on the south side of Foothill Blvd, east of Helms - APN 208 - 261 -41, 42, 43, & 44 UCIAIL•S - cndttey Plaza i corner of Lemon and Haven G. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A public hearing to consider a requirement for pre- paration of an Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) on a total planned residential development of 185 single- family detached units and 14.6 acre park on 95.5 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside VII. Old Business VIII. New Business IX. Council Referrals X. Director's 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. H. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80 -03 - (TT 11610) - RLS ASSOC. Planning Commission Agenda -2- August 26, 1981 XII. Upcoming Agenda XIII. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 42:00 p.m. adjournment time. if items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. . Q }145, r K . .e : ¢ : w /qq sa .. K I °� •.: �j 3AV AUU3N7 G � OM1JO . ' � ? z s o LL a C . Q O t W ` N 347 aaNV . )iz :'.�..T�•,i i_I'� 3AV tl31S31170tl i £ Lu a LLL��� _ ^�� - -� • 3M1 N9A1'1lIW i Q • !: Y W rte- O Y 3AV N3AMN �j N 444yf • � \, •• W 3.M1 d1VNN ?NV • {y w ' '�" • 3AV UUVA3NIA � H Fc`a •� N J ° G yr \1�, 3nN3AV 0177n7 I. Ii. CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA PLANNING COTWMISSION, Ar'ENDA WEDNESDAY AUGUST 26, 1981 7:00 P.M. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 SASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner King Commissioner Sceranka Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Tolstoy III..- ,i Approval of Minutes 9{y 1a rc � 12 Mi 98 a, 981 I a March 26, 19111 April 2. ' :t April C, 198i 7. Vr- IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar. The following consent cal�tems are expscted to he routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, then it should be removed for discussion. VI Public Hearings The following items arc public hearings in whiph concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized 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 for each p.-oject. A. tWVIKU19I' VIAL 1AJJtJJmt141 AIYU rAKLt L_ r_imr iiv_ iuvi- unvr. CORPORATION - A division of 9.649 acres into 3 parcels wit iTTi t e-M -2 zone located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive - APN 208 -35 -03 & 11 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND P A residential subdivision of within the R -1 zone located on Victoria and East Avenue - APN KIdL nmr au. c7.71 - rcni 41. acres into 4 parcels the southwest corner of 227 - 121 -41 Planning Commission Agenda -2- August 26, 1981 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7088 WENGER AND ZWICY,ER - A division of 173.70 acres into 2 parcels in the M -2 zone located on the northwest corner of 4th Street_ and Etiwanda Ave. APN 229 - 283 -29 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6962 KEY - A residential subdivision of 2.08 acres of land into 4 parcels in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on the north side of Vicara Drive, west of Jasper Street - APN 1061- 141 -05 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP N0, 6582 PRAVER BROS. INVESTMENTS - A commercial eve op- ment of 6.4 acres into four (4) parcels in the C -2 and R -1 zone located on the south side of Foothill Blvd. east of Helms - APN 208 - 261 -41, 42, 43, & 44 F. REVISION OF CONDITIONS FOR SITE APPROVAL NO. 80 -01 ONE & ASSOCIATES - affey F aza orated at the southwest corner of Lemon and Haven ti G. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A public hearing to consider a requirement for pre- paration of an Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) on a total planned residential development of 185 single - family detached units and 14.6 acre park on 95.5 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside VII. Old Business VIII. New Business IX. X X1. Council Referrals Director's Reports Public Comments This is the time and place for the aensral public Lo address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those Which do not already appear on this agenda. Planning Commission P.ge.rda -2- August 26, I98I XII. Upcoming Agenda XIII. Adjournment The planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall .8e heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting March 12, 1981 CALL TO ORDER . V The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cu ^.amonga Planning Commission, held in the Lion's Park Community Center, 9131 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, was called to order by Chairman Richard Dahl at 7:03 p.m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledsi to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Scetanka, Peter. Tol:�toy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Barry Rogan, City Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairi.n, Senior Planner Chairman. Dahl stated that lie would entertain a motion for an adjournment time at tonight's meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adjourn at 10 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam announced that there would be another General Plan hearing by the City Council on March 16, 1981 at 7 p.m. in this building. 14fI AND DEVELOPER OF Barry Hogan, City Planner, presented the staff report stating, that at a previous meeting there had been discussion on Parks and Open Space and that the staff report discusses and makes recommendations on these points which were brought up at that meeting regarding credit for the lakes, Victoria Parkway and the private trails within the development of the Victoria Planned Community. He indicated that he would like to have some action on these items at this meeting. Further, that it was his and Mr. Holley's opinion that 100% credit should be considered for the lakes as they have been redesigned. This presentation was being made tonight. Mr. Hogan stated that he would like the Commission to take several actions tonight and would like to see, after presentation by the appli- cant and comments by the Commission, the settlement of the land use map. Further, insofar as the implementation of the land user, and the text, he felt that this should be resolved over the next one or two meetings. Mr. Hogan stated that he would then like the Commission to go on to Infrastructure and Design Criteria and review the suggested conditions that are contained within the report. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Frye, 9613 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the. William Lyon Company, expressed his appreciation in meeting with the Etiwanda residents to resolve certain issues within the plan. He felt that through the input received over the last few months the nlaa can be changed to reflect the tastes and preferences within the community in addation to those of the development company. Mr. Frye indicated that there is a significantly lower density and a change of parks from those belonging to Victoria residents to those of a public park system. He further stated that increased visibility of the lakes area and distri- bution of park space within the area would benefit the community and provide better access to the lakes. He stated that substantial changes were also made to the circulation within the Planned Community. Mr. Frye stated the plan was redrawn to conform to the Sedway /Cooke General. Plan and spoke of the reduction in dwelling units in the Windrow Village and those within the other villages of Victoria. Further, the middle lake was reduced to 10 acres and the top lake was increased, with a 5 acre park added. For clarification purposes, Mr. Frye stated that they are calling the original area the planning, area and will exclude people in the Rochester Tract from the Planned Community. Mr. Frye stated that the original plan called for 9850 dwelling units and this has been reduced to 8865. Mr. Frye stated that the parks makes use of the schools in a joint use so that in all of the school locations recrec:.ion can be achieved. Mr.. Frye explained the parks that were added to this plan and how the land uses have been restructured. Connnissioner Rempel asked if there had been any additional comments on the lakes as far as fishing uses were concerned. Mr. Frye replied that they will be offered as public parks and that the areas are ready for development, the specific design and uses would be worked out. He stated that they are totally flexible on this. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he liked the concept of the two parks and asked what kind of connection there would be to them. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 12, 1981 N. .. Mr. Frye replied that what- they are suggesting is a green belt mini- linear park at grade crossing. Mr. Lam requested that Mr. Frye mention that there was also discussion about the regional related uses from Base Tine to Victoria Road in terms of design and scale. Mr. Frye stated that there would be low profile offices of the garden type In this area. This would be to keep Base Line fairly lour profile. Mr. Frye discussed the timing and what would happen as the planned community is approved through the Commission and the City Council. Mr. Hogan stated that Mr. Frye mentioned that he would file a tentative tract on the entire Windrow Village and asked if that was going to lot out the entire development, portions of the development, or precise streets to other portions. Mr. Frye replied that there will be some areas that they will not attempt to design at this time but they anticipate a tentative for the entire area F- that the trails, parks, etc. can be included in the entire system. They wi l then include Victoria Parkway from Base Line north tasite Creek Boulevard and they would develop around the park school in that area. Commissioner King asked in what land use areas woula affordable housing in the $75,000 or under bracket be delivered. Mr. Frye replied that this was a. difficult question to answer because it was like asking what kind of house he would be able to afford in 10 years. He indicated that the figure would be in the range of the low- medium and he would anticipate more being available in the medium and medium high range. Mr. Neil Westlotorn stated that he would like to lend his support to this plan and to Mr. Frye because they were willing to sit down with Mr.. Wasserman and Mr. Lam. He indicated that the people of Etiwanda did not get everything that they wanted but neither did Mr. Frye and the William Lyon Company., Mr. Westlotorn recommended that future development plans use the kind of procedures that were used in making this compromise in taking into consideration the feelings of people in the area, the aspirations of the developer and City staff. He thanked all parties who helped in reaching the conclusions that they have. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Westlotorn if the statement he made was a reflection of the feelings of the group or his feelings. Mr. Westlotorn stated that this was a personal statement but he rather tLought that this is a general statement that would be heard from others. Planning Commission Minutes —3— March 12, 1981 Mr. .John Vlasi.c, Etiwanda resident, stated that he wished to echo what Mr. Westlotorn said and thanked Mr. Wasserman, Mr. Lam and Mr. Frye.. He further stated that he supports what is in the planned community and agreed that this is not the ideal but is a workab16 compromise. He also commented on the process that they went through and hoped that future developers would continue this approach to create a good working atmosphere. He felt that what had happened was really positive and hoped that all developers would be as cooperative as Mr. Frye. Kay Kanokvechayrnt, 8605 Ease Line, property and indicated that she did concept. asked how Victoria would affect her not wish to be included in this Mr. Frve and the Planning Conm:ission told her that she would not be involved and that her property would be determined by the General Plan which is before the City Council. Mr. F. Tannenbaum, Etiwanda resident, stated that without repeating, he was ir? suh,tantial agreement with the others who spoke of the positive approach taker. in working out the concerns of Etiwanda residents. Mr. C:lenn Rankin, member of the CAC, stated that he echoed the statements made. and further, that a great many residents will be satisfied with this development. Anne Calinsky, Deer. Creek resident, congratulated the residents of Etiwanda for supporting the Victoria Planned Community. Doug Hone, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the very fact that this hearing room was not overflowing tonight_ is a testimony of Mr. Frye's and Mr. Dilorio's abilities as developers and congratulated them and hoped that the Planning Commission would approve the plan. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Dahl stated that he appreciated everyone's comments and discussion of the nlan. Motion- Moved by Scerai:ka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt the land use map with the exception that the lakes under. the Edison corridor be removed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not understand because Mr. Frye had stated that the lakes were conceptual and that they may not be there. Chairman Dahl stated that they were conceptual. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like to make a clarification and proposed an amendment that there just be a paragraph in the planned community that the lakes in that area are conceptual and subject to the final plan when that area is finally planned. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 12, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the amendment. Mr. Hogan stated that what is being asked is to accept the land use as it was presented. Whether it will -open.7 in the Edison right -of -way and will be taken care of as a condition of approval at a later time, does not make a great deal of difference. Commissioner Sceranka stated that his intent in.-emovi.ng the lakes was purely in coincidence with the comments that Mr. Frye mode that the lakes could not be put there. He stated that he endorses the plan, and, if it is important to the Commission not to remove the lake, then he withdraws his motion. ' Commissioner King withdrew his second. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to accept the land use plan concept for the Victoria Planned Community. The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and carried unanimously. Mr. Hogan stated that if there was concurrence with the changes as shoom in the February 2 report on parks and open space and the March 12 staff report that the Commission move that there by 100% credit for the lakes 1 and 2 (not the lake in the regional shopping center), the trails and for Victoria Parkway. This will indicate concurrence that the issues of land use, circulation and open space have been resolved. Chairman Dahl stated that tie had one question relative to the issue of concession stands. Mr. Hogan stated that generally concession stands do not make money and usually carry a loss. He further stated that generally concession stands do not make money and usually carry a loss. He further stated that it depends on the way the operation is run and he was asking for a study to be prepared by the applicant to see if they will be a part of this. Commissioner. Tolstoy asked if, when they quote the size of the lake area, is the park area also being included. Mr. Hogan explained that the Commission should approve the lakes in concept only so that when they get to the specifics they bring hack.a lake plan that speak; about the maintenance and other things related to the lakes. Commissioner Tolstoy then asked when you state trails what is being talked about. Mr. Hogan explained how in the low medium area you might have cul -de -sacs that butt together and there may be a trail running along. Commissioner. Tolstoy asked if it had been stated that the trails would not count. Mr.. Hogan replied that they would count-. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 12, 1981 Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt the trail system and lakes give a fantastic recreation aspect, rot only the residents of the planned community; but the whole community. Further, that this is good for the entire City of Rancho Cuceunonga. Motion: Moved by P,empel., seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to allow full credit for the lakes, trails and open space as proposed. Mr. Hogan stated for the record the City Council did not take action on a portion of the area that involves the planned community. lie asked if the Planning Commission would concur by baking a motion cf recommends- ti on that the General Plan map be revised to indicate what has been done in accepting these portions of the Victoria Planned Community. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to so concur and recommend. 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:20 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl stated that Infrastructure and Design Criteria would be discussed together. City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report of November 24, 1981. He stated that Infrastructure is discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report which goes into great detail on water supplies, electrical service, sewage disposal telephone service, gas service and the adequacies of these. lie explained the studies under way relative to the flood control cha.nnc'_ and he suggested that as a condition this developer participate in these programs. Ile asked that the staff recommendation in this report be added to the conditions for the planned community. Mr.. Hogan discussed the Design Criteria with.solar standards, parkways, landscaping and grading standards, etc. and asked that the re:orimendation in the staff report be a condition to indicate whether the parkways would ho conneorp.i wit?- *v!e Victor'c rrc•:cn nrc-2. Mr. Hogan indicated that in the land use &ection A -F there are various changes that have been suggested by staff and the plan which was being reviewed tonight shows these with the General Plan designations. Some of the changes requested are of a minor nature and can be corrected by the applicant very quickly, he stated. Further., that the 14 -15 changes that they suggest are primarily detail changes. Mr. Hogan stated that staff would recommend that the Planning Commission consider the topics of infrastructure and move to include conditions on pages 1 -3 of the November 24 memorandum as a resolution of approval and also, under Design Criteria, the suggested conditions under Victoria Parkway under residential site planning standards ane road standards. Conmiissioner Rempel stated that on page 184 it was suggested that the word "minimum" be aided and he did not see how this could be done. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 12, 1981 Mr. Hogan replied that it would be under the bottom ;1ortion under garage, °tc. and that he would be able to go more but not less. ;ommissioner Rempel. asked if he would then insist that every garage must e 18 feet back of the wall. He further stated that it was his under - caading thaw it could be closer as long as there was an opening. ommissioner Sceranka asked f.or an explanation or. why a 5 -foot easement required on either side of a zero lot line on page 186. Frye explained that they are showing two things and that page 186 s a typical centerpiotted house and page 187 is the same lot size with zero lot line. )mmissioner Tolstoy stated that going back to standards for City roads, t one tire the Commission gave the ability for the developer to come a with a narrower street as long as he came in with some turf block irking and asked if this had been accomplished as part of the City`s :andards. Rougeau replied that the City has not really arrived ;At using this n any of the plans, and to be truthful., he was not familiar with this incept_ He indicated that the General Plan does have a list of street tar_dards and these can be worked out with the developer.; however, he bought that on a private street this would create probI.ems. r. Lam stated that Mr. Tolstoy was thinking of the rural road standards id a discussion that tookplace at that time. nmmissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt there are appropriate. places ?.thin this plan where that kind of thing could be used and asked if pis was included or precluded by the discussion before. t:ff replied that it was neither and could still be accomplished. The :roblem was that it has been discussed but not resolved. r.. Tomkins, SWA, stated that it has been his experience that you use urf block when it is associated with a private development or private oad system and it has .corked out pretty well. :hairman Dahl asked about the 4 -foot sidewalks under the B Land Use nd how they would feel if they were on one side only. r. Frye responded that during a meeting with Mr. Hubbs on September 22 ome of these sections were revised and as he recalled, they went with -foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. They do not have a problem Lth one side or both sides, he stated. He indicated that on pages 114 - i where there is a local private street it would make sense to only lave sidewalks on one side and that they will revise this section to onfocm with the City's standards. ;ommissioner Sceranka stated that he thought that the Commission had stablished a precedent on the tracts that have been approved in the ecent past. 'lanning Commission Minutes -7- March 12, 1981 Mr. Hogan replied that this was on 20,000 square foot lots or larger and that the lots in Victoria are smaller. He indicated that the Commission might want to retain flexibility and make a determination during the design review process so that this could be done on an individual basis. Commissioners Tolstoy and Rempel agreed. Mr. Hogan stated that a condition could be worded that would cover this stating that all. tract maps in the planned community should go through design review. Further, that these will not be custom tracts, they will probably have units on them, but in some cases he may just want to run the lc•.s through with the units later on. Most questions of this type, he stated, are answered at the tract level and as long as we address the issue at that time. Chairman Dahl stated his agreement and added that this should be a policy of the Planning Commission if the other Commissioners agreed. The consensus of the Commission was that they agreed with this as a poli, v. C.- rman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy asked an a point of clarification where in the text should there be a reminder that there should be some kind of treat- ment to get to that south park. Mr. Lam replied th.:t we can provide a condition to protect open spaces for any portion. Mr. Hogan stated that what is being asked for is a local trail map and this can be requested. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in selection of trees one tree that was called out was a Sycamore. He asked if types of trees are going to be reviewed and at what point. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that another tree be selected because the California Sycamore has more blight and there ought to be some provisions that other varieties be brought in and to be sure that they do well in this area. Mr. Frye stated that they would anticipate these kinds of issues at Design.Review. Mr. Lam stated that when you are calling out a tree you are really calling a shape, form, design and texture and that the Commission will be able to look at a tree in that light. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be a trail map. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 12, 1981 Mr.. Hogan replied that there would be one; however, it will riot show small paths. 1 Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Infrastructure portion and suggestions for Design Criteria with the additions that have been made. Mr. Hogan reviewed the process and stated that there would be a meeting on March 26; however, because of a conflict with the Citizens Advisory Commission, instead of starting at 7 p.m., the meeting would begin at 8 P.M. Mr. Hogan stated that areas of discussion at that meeting would be zoning, implementation, and the EIR, although the LIR has been discussed throughout the process. He indicated that mitigation measures would be discussed along with the changes that have been made. He indicated that an April 9 meeting was also scheduled and it was hoped that this will be the meeting at which a resolution will be brought forward recommending approval of the Planned Community to the City Council. Chairman Dahl asked if there was any reason why the recommendations, with the exception of zoning implementations and EIR, could not be brought to the Commission before the 26th. Mr. Hogan stated that there are substantial areas that need to be discussed. Mr. Lam stated that a determining factor is how quickly SWA can keep up with the revisions before the 26th and complete that with staff because staff will need more than one day to look at the materials. If, through a miracle, this can work it might be possible to complete on the 26th, but he would like to leave the April date open. Motion- Moved by Rempel -, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 8:55 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secrvtary Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 12, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION M114UTES Regular Meeting March 25, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, with C'.hairman Dahl calling the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pleGge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: C0Mr1ISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff:erey Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: CC "MISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Barry Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michae.L Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of January 22, 1981. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam announced that the 'meeting of March 26 which had been scheduled for the review and hearing of the Victoria Planned Community was postponed to April 2. Mr. Lam indicated that this meeting would be held at the Alta Loma High School Cafeteria and would begin at 7 p.m. Mr. Lam stated that the early portion of the April 2 meeting would be taken up with the discussion of the Victoria Plan text and discussion of the Office of Planning and Research comments on the General Plan 'He indicated that these must be reviewed in order to forward to the City Council for their General Plan meeting. Mr. Lam stated that the City Council has made a referral to the Planning Commission concerning some industrial designations and that these will be addressed under Director's Reports. He felt that it is necessary to discuss rhia item to provide feedback to them for the Monday meeting on the General. Plan. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 81 -10 - SCHLOSSER - The development of a 21,600 sq. ft. industrial warehouse addition to the existing Schlosser. Forge on 3 acres of land in the M -2 zone located at 11711 Arrt,.r Route - APN 229- 111 -18. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. AYES. COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried- * PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 10361 - MC DANIEL - A total residential development of 9.76 acres into lots in the R -1 zone generally located on the northeast corner of ngmon and Church - APN 208 - 181 -06. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. ChairmaL. Dahl stated that he had noticed that the Design Review Committee had reviewed this and that there was a statement concerning the driveway and garage on lot 9. Mr. Hogan replied that this was correct. He indicated that it was safer to have access come off of the east -west street and that the entry for ingress and egress be off- of the interior. Commissioner King asked on which borders of this property 'Zucalyptus trees can be found. Mr.. Hogan replied that there were some on the east and north property line. Commissioner King asked if the developer will take them down. Mr. Hogan replied that Condition No. 3 talks about retaining, these. trees where possible and trimming and topping them. Further, that if they were not in the way of the building, th-=y were to be preserved. Commissioner. Tolstoy asked where trees are to be removed and replaced are the replacement tree types to be of the wind break variety? Mr. Hogan replied that they were. Planning Commission Minutes -2- k„ March 25, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it should be made clear that it is the windbreak function that is doubly important. Mr.. Hogan replied that is the direction given by the Planning Commission and staff will continue to do this. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary McDaniel, 3028 Calie Juarez, San Clemente, the applicant, asked about Item 1 Section 2 of the Resolution regarding the storm drain on Ramona, the north tract boundary to Church Street being required, and whether this would be reimbursed. Mr.. Rougeau, Senicr Civil Engineer, replied explaining the requirement and that reimbursement would be set by the City Council. Assistant City Attorney, Hopson, explained the credit of fees on storm drain reimbursements. Mr. McDaniel also questioned Condition No. 20 requiring double - paned windows. Mr. Hogan replied that it was not a requirement; however, some of the items listed within the condition would have to be furnished. Mr. McDaniel stated that he would put in the s +cower heads. Commissioner Sceranka asked for a list of what the developer said he would put in to see what had been agreed to. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant filled out a check list and it was in file if the Commission wished to review it. There being no further continents, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -31 with the attached conditions. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11608 - L & G LIMITED - A total residential development of 8.31 acres into 2 lots comprising 120 condominium units in the southeast corner of Archibald and Victoria - APN 202 - 181 -07. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the visitor parking requirement is. Mr. Vairin replied that it is one space for every five (5) dwelling units. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the total met that requirement. Mr. Vairin replied that it did. Commissioner King stated that he was having difficulty picking out the visitor parking spaces in the plan. Mr. Vairin pointed them out in the areas where the building breaks occur. Commissioner King asked if the green area on Archibald was a park or a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Vairin replied that it was secondary fire access. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Gene Kearin, Southwest Engineering, representing the applicant, replied that he does not have any problem in meeting the conditions and was here to answer any questions. There being no further comments, the public hearing, was closed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he tbought this a very nice project and will add a nice housing alternative to the community. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -32 with the conditions of approval and issuing a Negative Declaration for this project. D. y1NEYARD BANK - The development of a temporary bank facility on 5.69 acres in the C -2 zone located 150' south of Foothill on the west side of Vineyard - APN 207 - 211 -12. Barry Hogan, City Planner reviewed the staff report. He indicated that the applicant requested approval for a one -year period of time and that plans world be submitted six months prior to the expiration. Mr. Hogan stated that he did not want de facto extension after the one year period. Commissioner King stated that it appeared that the nermanent facility must be constructed prior to the expiration of the one year period of time. Further, they would almost have to have the plans for the permanent structure before the Commission now in order to have it approved. Mr. Hogan stated that this should probably be modified. Commissioner King stated that according to Condition No. 1, they must apply 6 months before the expiration. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 25, 1981 Mr. Lam stated that if the Commission desired construction prior to removal they are looking at a two -year timeframe and they would still want si.x months. for the submission of plans. Commissioner King asked what the setback was from Vineyard to the easternmost side of the driveway. Mr. Hogan replied that it was 27 feet, 13 feet for landscaping within thc: parkway, and 14 feet to the curb line. Commissioner Rempel anked if the sign they see is on the mansard roof and if that had vet been considered. Mr. Hogan replied chat the sign has not yet been approved in this request and that the sign would have tc go through a sign permit. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Exhibit "G" shows the final building pad of the bank. Mr. Hogan replied that no plan within the packet shows the permanent facility and that they had not spoken to staff as yet. Chairman Dahl, opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Sensenbach, 7298 Sie-^ra Vista, Rancho Cucamo,?a, stated that he had no problem with the conditions but addressed a question regarding the timing under Planning Conditions 1 and 2, lie indicated that they would like consi.daration given to going In with a 24 morth.occupan.; in the temporary building. Further, that early on in the second year they would bring bac:: a site plan showing the relocation of the ban'.- oc. that site. He stated that they are bound by their charter that they will not relocate on their premises without going back to the government and getting approval. He indicated that the modular facility that is being used is only on a temporary basis and is planned to be used in another town as the bank expands_ Mr. Sensenbach stated that the bank is part of a master plan for this corner and the property owner has not yet made a determination on what will be done. He indicated that it would be difficult to be strapped with a condition that requires him to come in in six months from occupancy of the temporary facility with the permanent plans. Commissioner Sceranka asked how, if they are going to stay on the same site, will they be able to put up the new structure and stay in the temporary site on Vineyard and keep the temporary structure there as the master plan al.loos them to do this. Commissioner Rempel stated that he had some difficulty in developing a chunk of property 180 feet south of Vineyard without developing up to Foothill and getting the curbs and everything in there. He further stated that he foresees many problems with this not being devel.00ed. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 25, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that staff feels comfortable in recommending the temporary building for approval with a conceptual. plan being submitted. However., in light of the comments of the applicant that he would like to have 2 years, if the Commission is going to consider this, rather than a 6 month submittal time, a 9 -month time should be given for submittal and that he be under construction by the time the plans go through the process. Commissioner. King asked if under the City's ordinance the maximum period for a temporary facility was two years with no extensions. Mr.. Hogan replied that this was correct. Commissioner King stated that it was almost inevitable for this to be a temporary structure 2 -1/2 years. Mr. Hogan explained that it would not be so and further, that this was nit an ordinance of the City but rather a policy of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought that the Planning Commission had agreed that it was one year with 3 one year e?rtension and asked if that meant that everybody with a tem.�rary buildL ; could come up for a two year approval. Mr. Lam made a statement on why the Planning Commission developed this policy on temporary buildings. There was discussion anivi.q the Commissioners rel.prive to the requirement of a site plan without knowing definitely what uses would be located on the site. Mr. Lam stated that what the Commission is looking at is whether to grant a temporary structure on the merits of what has been propose:. before the Commission and that no one here wants to build permanently. The sole concern, Mr. Lam stated, is a condition that this will only be approved for 'Y' number of years whether this is developed as a shopping center or not. Adding to what Mr. Hogan said, it would mean that if the bank does something within 2 years and the shopping center disappears, they would have to remove that use, or if the bank wants to locate on the same site, the applicant would have to do it within 1 -2 years. They would need a parcel map and the Commission would then have to make a judgement on whether it was good planning to separate that looking at the whole. Mr_ Lam stated that the second alternative would be that there would be no parcel map and the applicant would furnish a complete site plan and they would then make a decision on whether to delete the temporary improvements put on the site and the driveway thereby giving total control.. Commissioner Rempel asked if this was already a parceled piece of property. Mr. Hopson replied that it was. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 25, 1981 P_`. Commissioner Rempel. stated that the staff report stated that this was on 5.65 acres and not on 1 acre. He indicated that this would be similar to Carnelian and Base Llue and that this.should not be conditioned one way when conditions were done another way on other property. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Gil Rodriguez, the property owner, stated that when they submitted their proposal, the staff recommendation was that they come in with a site plan for the entire piece of property. lie indicated that thin is not the site plan that they will be using and as far as the entrances on Poothi.11. Boulevard, it does not open to this project. Ile explained where the property he owned was and the layout of it. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he felt that they were doing a lot in the wzy of improvements. There being no further comments, the public hearing w.s closed. Comad.ssi.oner Tolst'oy stated that when the applicant is asked to submit n conceptual. plan and then replies that this is not what they will. do, it bothers him. Mr. Vair.i.n explained how it was necessary tO see some type of plan to be sure that they are not being backed into a corner. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was parkin' that will relate to the bank and the land available. Mr. Rodriguez answered that there. was 3/4 aerie. Commissioner King stated that we have always required full improvements on parcels and this is a much larger size than the bank area. He asked if the Commission wanted to make an exception to the temporary building and asked if full improvements should be made to the parcel. Mr. Hogan stated that the improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks will be installed from the north boundary of the bank, south to the south property line. Commissioner King asked if the IN -N -Out Burger was a separate parcel. Mr. Hogan repl'i'ed that there are full improvements there. Commissioner Sceranka stated that for the bank to go ahead with its plans at this time wit'.: the economy the way it is, is a tremendous risk and that he did not feel. that the City would be subjected to any liability with the improvements that would be made to this corner even though the improvement: will. be to only the 3/4 acre involved in the bank. He felt that this would be a benefit to the City. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Tol.stoy stated his agreement but did not feel that this went: far enough. He asked what if the economy doesn't improve and the applicz•t comes back it, t -_- years a,.0 says that he needs more time. Be indicated that what Commissioner Sceranka was saying is that the bank should be allowed to have an extension. Commissioner Sceranka stated that we would then require a site plan.. There was further discussion on whether this temporary structure would be allowed to remain without the submittal of a site plan. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, to adopt the Resolution of Approval with the modification that nine months after uccupancy of the temporary building precise plans be submitted for the permanent structure along with more precise plans for the rest of the center. AlY.S: COMMISSIONERS: P,E11PEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KING ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried- Mr. Hogan indicated that Condition No. 1 would remain however Condition No. 2 would read that if a permanent facility is desired on this site, appropriate_ plans would be submitted within 9 months of date of temporary occupancy for construction of a permanent facility prior to the expiration of the approval of the temporary facility, including more precise plans for the shopping center. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this would alter the former policy of one year for a temporary facility. Mr. Hogan replied that it would not. For clarification purposes the Commission stated that occupancy for the temporary building would be granted for a one year period and within 9 months of occupancy of the temporary building, site plans would be submitted for the entire shopping center. Another one year extension could then be requested. Commissioner King qualified his no vote by stating that he is very much in favor of a temporary bank and he knew that the word precise In speaking of a site plan is very vague; Lowever, he did not feel that the Commission should be hooking the permanent bank into this and it appeared that this is what happened. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 81 -01 - LORD -SHOBE - (IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH) - The construction of a 5,000 sq. ft. church building on 2.07 acres of land in the R -1 zone Located on the south side of 19th Street, between Amethyst and Archibald -APN 202 - 111 -19. Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 25, 1981 M Senior Planner, Michael Vai.rin, reviewed the staff: report. Commissioner Sceranka asked staff to clarify the financial impact on property on the west side in terms of the Flood Control. channel. Mr. Rougeau asked if Coumissi.oner Sceranka meant with respect to alternate "B" compared to "A", or in general. He continued, that he felt that "B" would be a better use of the whole site but if that were to be the proposal and the church went in first, then the logical way to handle this drainage would be to let ix go its course where it is now headed. The bottom 3 lots would have enough back yard where they could handle the drainage easement. Commissioner Sceranka asked what kind of drain would be installed. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be a large pipe rather than an open channel. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there would be any variance requirement for these lots and also asked what the density was. Mr. Vairin replied that it was 25% of the minimum requirements and that lots 11 -15 are of the minimum 7200 sq. ft., although they meet the width requirement. He indicated further that originally, the applicant proposed 20 lot's but now has 19. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the Engineering Department had any particular comments on the circulation of Hamilton going up to 19th or if it dead -ends as in the original. application. Mr. Rougeau replied that Alternate "B" was better because they don't have a lot going to 19th and that another connection isn't needea. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the church would use 19th for its access. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it was possible to engineer 19th to have some kind of turn pocket there. Mr.. Rougeau replied affirmatively. Commissioner Tolstcy asked if the parking let were to be created after the church use, could 19Lh be so constructed to handle that kind of traffic. Mr. Rougeau replied that he felt it could handle it when the north fide of the street is widened. There was discussion among the Commission relative to the alternatives that had previously come before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -9 -• March 25, 1981 Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing,. erend Meadows, pastor, expressed appreciation for the efforts of 5. . and stated what was proposed for the development of this property. IIe indicated that the California Engineering Company was doing the parcel split and designing the drainage for this property. He indicated that Caltrans had given their approval for an entrance to the church on 19th Street. Pastor Meadows also stated that parking spaces for this faciliry ..,ere more than adequate. Iie questioned the nossiuility of noise :mi.lton because of the proposed block wall and landscaping. He expressed hope that a decision would be made soon on this property. Mr.. Dave Arker - Lord - Shobe, indicated that he was in favor of this project. Ile also expressed confusion as to whether a site plan within the parcel was being talked about or a complete site plan. Chairman Dahl replied that the Commission's concerti is with the entire parcel. He further indicated that this would have to be looked at by the Design --w Committee, staff, and the Planning Commission. Mr. Arker ino cated that perhaps staff had been somewhat misleading to the church in giving an indication that this parcel might be approved tentatively. Further, that this is causing a financial hardship on the church. Chairman Dahl replied that there was nothing, ambiguous in this because the Commission approved this tentatively with the conditions that the problems that exist would be worked out prior to approval.. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one big issue was if It would be all right to have a church on this property and the Commission said yes. However., with the drawings that were submitted, the Commission had trouble with the configuration. The approval to put a church on the property was given with the understanding that the problems would be worked out. The Commission felt that a church would be appropriate for this piece of property but could not feel comfortable with the way the rest of the property was worked out. In fact, the Coma.:ssion was quite uncomfortable with the way it had been presented. Mr.. Ronald Glidden, member of the Immanuel Baptist Church, stated that he was in favor of the project. lie indicated that church members would be kept from parking oa 19th Street and in the residential area. Mr. Clark Bosun, 9519 19th Street, stated he lived directly west of this property and was not concerned with the church but was concerned with the swal.e. He indicated that because of the water problems, he did not wish to see any development until improvements take place to ensure that the existing; problems do not worsen. Mr. Bosun also stated that he had heard this would be a Butler type building and was not in favor of that.. Planning Commission Minutes -10- March 25, 1981 There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Corrnissioner Tolstoy asked if the drainage were to be put in a pipe, what would the size of right -of -way for the pipe have to be. Mr. P.,ougeau replied that a 25 -foot easement would be necessary because it is a fairly large ripe. There was discussion of how the pipe would have to be routed down the new street. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was really in favor of alternative "B" without the option of going through lot 17 on 19th Street. He felt it was far better to run water straight than to turn it. Commissioner King stated that he would like a lire of direction as ro what is before the Commission. He further asked if they were rendering an advisory opinion. City Attorney, Honsou, replied that what is before the Commission is a site approval with a condition for the finalization of the parcel map. Further, that the Commission could not make the findings for a CUP as proposed; therefore, the Commission could say that they will not approve that site approval and therefore, the parcel map will not become final. Ile indicated that the Commission may or may not, ns they wish, say that they like alternative "B" or some other alternative in a way to try to assist the developer of the church. However, to try to redesign this, would be to try engineering the parcel and if the Commission cannot make the findings for a CUP they could go one step further aad state what they find is a good idea and make a recommendation. Commissioner King stated that the Commission must then come back with a condition before this had any force or effect. Chairman Dahl stated that this is unnecessary because they can find that this is not suitable for a church property, or conversely, if the Commission states that this proposal meets the findings, staff can be directed to prepare a resolution for adoption and approval of this proposal. Mr. Hogan stated that if alternative "B" seems good for what the pastor of the church and the residents want then the Commission should direct the applicant to revise the parcel. map to comform to Alternative "B ". Upon completion of the revision, this project would be brought back to the Commission with a site plan for the development -r the property. Commissioner Sceranka stated that in previous meetings between staff: and the applicant, the applicant has stated that lie could not do the project the way it should be done because of the financial hardships. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if this is the case that land will never be developed. Planning Commission Minutes -11- :arch 25, 1981 Commissioner Rempel stated if the developer really wanted that property he would be willing to pay for these improvements. Reverend Meadows stated that what he was going to say had already been stated by Commissioner Sceranka, because if they are turned down, it will. mean that they must spend more money and he did not see how they would be able to do that. He indicated that Alternative "A" would be more acceptable to them as it would be less expensive than alternative "B ". There was discussion among the Commission and staff relative to Alternatives "A" and "P." and the number of lots that would be involved and how drainage would be accomplished. Commissioner. Sceranka -asked if the CommiSSi.On concurred with Design Review that the way the proposal is shown it would be necessary to deny the pro -ect. Commissioner Rempel stated that it would not be for him, but that a storm drain is necessary. Commissioner Sceranka asked it. the Commission concurred that three lots should not be approved as shown on the map. Commissioner King stated rhat he did not agree with what they were doing as a better approach would be to come back with the parcel map and conditions of approval. He indicated that this must be considered in its entirety and not as design and that the Commission should stick to the conditions for approval. He inidcated that this project should come to the Commission with everything that has been requested by the Commission completed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, that the 3 lots as shown are not :acceptable and that Site Approval 81 -01 come back before the Commissior_ with Alternative "B ". Mr. Hopson pointer: out that the last part of the motion is not a mandatory part of the motion. Commissioner King stated that he does not object to Alternatives "A" or "B" as long as the Commission roes through the process. Reverend Meadows stated that if they cannot have what they applied for, then they are asking for Alternative "A" rather than Alternative "B" for the reasons stated previously. Chairman Dahl stated that the Commission moticn is merely denying the site plan as submitted without making any preference to Alternatives "A" or "B ". Chairman Dahl stated he wished to make a comment that this project has been before Design Review 3 times and that they are not any further ahead than they were previously. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated for clariiic.tio:a that his motion is t) deny the site approval as requested and '.f there is no concurrence from the Commission, then the project should be denied and the applicant c.. ^.n come back. City Attorney Hopson stated for clarification that in Section 1 of the Resolution, the wording of the finding that the Commission cannot make should be directly out of the zoning code. He indicated that this proposal should be reworded to state that the Commission is denying the CUP because the Commission cannot make the required finding. Mr. Hogan stated that the intent of this is to have the applicant come back with a redesign and not that the church use is an inappropriate use of this property. In order for the applicant to complete the sale of this property the Commission can indicate that the applicant can revise his parcel map to Alternative "A" for the appropriate redesign of the church site and that this item can be continued to the May 13 meeting. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was structure now for the improvement of the storm drain. r Mr. Rougeau replied that there is. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it is adequate. Commissioner Sceranka stated that if there is a redesign and lots 9 and 10 are brought down they will. be creating a problem with. drainage that is more significant than what: they presently have. He indicated that for the sake of appruving the project he does not agree with.directing the applicant to go with Alternative "A" and go into the immediate area and bring a channel over and back again. Chairman Dahl asked what difference it made if you direct the applicant or someone else to do this. He stated that if the project is denied by Resolror on it can come back and he felt that Engineering should see if it is feasible to go under the street. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would want to know whAt the cost to the City or the residents would be if the drain is put in diagonally as opposed to putting it is straight. Commissioner Rempel stated that the storm dram has to be a part of the parcel map as this is basic and if that is handled, then the street and lot configuration can be handled. Chairman Dahl called for the question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANYJ,, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS KING, REMPEL, DPHL 194PLIO - failed- Planning Commissior_ Minutes -13- March 25, 1981 Commissioner King moved, seconded by Rempel, that this whole thing be continued to the next meeting for the purpose of review and that this be taken one step at a time with the applicant bringing in the parcel map with the possible conditions. of approval. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this is zo come back before Design Review or the Planning Commission. Commissioner King replied that it should come back to the Planning Commission because it is a straight parcel map. Chairman Dahl stated that he would like it to come back before Design Review and he would also like them to look at the storm drain situation. Mr. Lam stated that for the benefit of the applicant, if the Commission is going to continue the mattei they would want to do tl!e whole thing at once. The issue is one of the storm drain and precise design and the solutions should be developed for this. Commissioner King stated that he did not object to this and if the applicant is prepared, he can come back. Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission has already decided on the parcel map and that all that is being said is that there be a condition to allow the applicant to final the map and he can go with Alternative "A" or "B ". Mr. Hogan stated furtl,er that there was consensus that what he had done so far is right so the applicant can come back with either "A" or "B" in order to revise the parcel map so that the map may be finaled for s2le and the Commission can go on to the site plan for the church. Chairman Dr.hl stated that one thing is being; left out -- the storm drain. He indicated that the Commission does :,ot know from the City's Engineering staff whether Alternative "A" is acceptable ir. terms of the Engineering viewpoint. Mr. Hogan stated that a condition is needed for th-- development of the property with the storm drain and this would be a condition for the development of the church. City Attorney Hopson stated that this will come back to haunt the Commission. He indicated that the Commission has the power to make the storm drain a condition of the site approval of the church. lie indicated that there may never be a residential. development of this property, or that it may not be built for 2 -3 years, or it may never pass the point approval process, or that because of the economics of the situation, it may never be built, and unless they listen to what Mr. Hogan is saying, the problem will be amplified. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission has a heck of a problem with the storm drain and that it must go in when the property is developed no matter when it develops. Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that the church is a good use and its intention to use the sale of the excess property to help pay for the church '_s good„ but whoever develops Lbe property is going to have to take care of the water problem. Commissioner Rempel stated that staff is not going to draw up plans for the storm drain. Chairman Dahl stated that he has no problem with Alternative "A" and that it is better than the first plan that was shown but that he was in total agreement that the storm 'rain must go in. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the applicant must know that when that property develops that storm drain must go in. Commissioner Rempel stated that if that iS what the Commission is after, that the storm drain must be a condition of approval and that they come in with a site plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the applicant tries to turn the water 45 degrees and then another 45 degrees, the cost will be prohibitive. Mr. Hogan stated that it does not appear that the Commission was ready to make a decision on this tonight. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would have a problem with Alternative 'Wl Chairman Dahl reviewed the motion that the applicant come back with the plans and design for the development that they wish to do taking into consideration the parcel map that has already been approved conditionally. Mr. Hogan stated that what, should be done is that this be continued to May 13 and that the parcel map be brought back with a redesign that takes Into account alternative "A" and "B" and on the 13th the decision can be made on the final parcel map and the site approval. Commissioner King stated that he felt that it would be advisable that before this comes to *'..e public hearing this be brought to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Rempel suggested that alternative "B" be requested and that this be a rectangular configuration rather than an offset piece. AIRS: COMMISSIONERS: KING, REMPEL, SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Planning Commission Minutes NONE - carried- -35— March 25, 1981 10:00 p.m. The Planning Commission Recessed 10:22 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND UNTATIVE TRACT NO. 10035 - THE DEI /ELOPERS - A. residential subdivision of 15.7 acres of land into 38 custom lots in the R -1 -12 zone located east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Call.e CorLzcn - APN 202 - 111 -19. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Rougeau how the City guarantees that there will not be slope failure such as had occurred in Orange County. Mr. Rougeau replied that there are no guarantees; however, the land below had been analyzed and has soils reports and there was not any reason to believe that this land would be different. Mr. Hogan stated that it must be remembered that this is contour grading and it is minimal.. Further, that this area is not known for unstable slopes whereas Orange County had a great deal of cut and fill slopes. He indicated that in the area in Laguna where the slopes failed a study was done and there had been no record of instability in that area either. He indicated that grading would be at a minimum and design review would take place on each and every house with a required soils report for this project. Chairman Dahl. opened the public hearing. Mr.. Roger Muir, partner and designer of this project stated that he was in basic agreement with the conditions but wanted clarification that this was a 38 lot subdivision as be had noted clerical discrepancies in the number of lots in this project. He also indicated that Alternative "C" would be their choice in dealing with a triangular piece of land in trans- ferring it at no cost to the existing property owners. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there would be an increased assessment in doing this. Mr. Muir indicated that the property would be transferred at zero value and would therefore not add anything substantial to the assessment. Commissioner Sceranka stated that for the record, the property would be assessed at fair market end would add more to the assessment than if the property were not Transferred. Mr. Muir stated that there were several items in the conditions on which he would like to have clarification. He was concerned with item 4 and the requirement for adequate side yard for storage of recreational vehicles, etc. He stated that since these were large lots, he feit that thi, condition is covered and additionally, that these lots would come under critical architectural review. Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 25, 1981 Mr. Hogan explained the rroquirements were part of a newly adopted ordinance requiring side yard setbacks and was written to preclude the storage of recreational vehicles on the street. Mrs. Betty McMay, Rancho Cucamonga resident, addressed the Commission and indicated that she was neither in favor of or opposed to this project; however, she was concerned about entry into an 8 acre parcel of land that she owned near this project and the drainage problem that presently exists. She indicated that the County Flood Control District has not done anything to alleviate the problem thus far and if somuthing was not done this might result in a lake. She also cited concern about the steer road for access to her property. Following discussion between staff and the Commission, Mr. P.ougeau stated that because of improvements that would be made by this project there will be less water then there is now. Mr. Wally Schulte, 8513 Red Hill. Country Club Drive, Lot 11, expressed a number of concerns regarding the right -of -way proposed by this project near the corner of his home which would not afford protection as it angles through the lot; the 14 -15% grade from Red Bill Country Club Drive on the southwest corner of this property; and the necessity of street improvements. Mr. Ray Keeney, resident on Calle Corazon, stated that he was not for or against this project but asked if his view would be blocked by some type of wall. Mrs. Ada Cooper, 8520 Red Hill Country Clitb Drive, stated that she was concerned about access from the proposed rord. She indicated that when she purchased her property in :941, Mr. Krat er who owned most of the land, guaranteed that a road would be put in and it never was. She spoke also for a Mrs. Mand.ella in stating that she enjoys her view and would not like to see co,idominiums built here. There being no further vomments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner King, asked if there was something in the zoning ordinance that precludes excesses of a 10% grade. Mr. Rougeau stated that i'.: speaks of a 12 -14% grade maximum; however, for short distances such a grade would be acceptable. Commissioner King asked what the grade was on the road that goes up Cucamonga Canyon. Comnissioner Rempel explained whero tl,e 15% grades were. Commissioner Sce :rarka asked why the _proposed road in this development is going up through Red Hill instead of cutting down towards Foothill. Planning Commission Minutes -17- March 25, 1981 Mr. Rougeau explained that for it to go dorm would require even steeper grades and that the vacant land was left on this property to provide for a road .connection and to provide access to other pieces of property. Commissioner Sceranka asked why the road could not go in to the south. Mr. Hogan stated that access is needed where the road is proposed. Mr. Hogan stated that from a Planning point of view it connects property that should not be connected. Further, that it should not direct traffic through commercial ventures. Chairman Dahl asked if this area would be included in the Foothill study. Mr. Hogan replied that it would. Commissioner Sceranka asked where the property was going to drain and if this would be under the railroad tracks. Mr. Rougeau replied that the storm drain goes under the easement into Cucamonga Creek. He indicated that drainage would be improved in that most of the water will go into the new easement and not into the channel.. There was discussion on the condition requiring an easement from the Southern Pacific Railroad. Commissioner King asked if Design Review for lots 1 -9 and 14 -16 would be appropriate or whether Design Review should include all lots relative to view obstruction. Mr. Iiogan replied that he was going to suggest Design Review for all lots. Commissioner Hempel stated that relative to the are some fills where the condominiums are on Red all the foundations on the Red Hill side go down stated that one group of lots was fill put in by not compacted. He indicated that the Commission and put back in properly. :omment on fills, there Hill but he stated that to the natural. He further Kramer Nursery and was required it to be removed There were further comments relative to soil stability by the Commission. Mr. Hogan replied to the Commission's concerns by stating that Condition C7 would take care of this. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, that the Resolution be adopted with an amendment to Section 2, Planning Division, No. 2, and for items 14 -16, all lots have the addition of a -ondition on sewage so that each lot will not have to be pumped out individually but that there be some kind of community sewer pump to 'bring this up from the lower area designed into the tract. Planning Commission Minutes -18- March 25, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that this motion should be reworded to indicate that lots 1 -21 shall Lave a sewer in commor, and prior to the release of all improvement bonds for this tract this or another alternative that is satisfactory to the City Engineer and the Building Official shall be met. Commissioner Sceranka stated that condition No. 3 should indicate that buffering will be provided for unit No. 11 to the access point. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that this should be provided for unit No. 11 as well. Mr. Hogan stated that he wished to inform the Commission that in order to take care of the sewer in common it would have to be handled through C.C. 5 R's. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, DAHL COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NU — - carried- Commissioner Tolstoy asked if since the Commission was coming Sack tomorrow night would there be any objection to adjcurning and taking up the other items at this next meeting. Chairman Dahl stated that Items G, H, and I would have to be dealt with. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6761 - CARNELL INVESTMENTS_ - A residential subdivision of 18.7 acres into parcels in the r-1 zone located on the southwest corner of Highland Avenue and Carnelian Street - APN 201 - 214 -05 Mr. Hogan explained that not all the requirements for legal advertising for this item had been met and so the item should be removed from this agenda. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to remove this item from this agenda. H. PARCEL 14AP NO. 6725 - DAON CORPORATION - A commercial subdivision of 176.86 acres into 10 parcels in the 14 -2 zone located east of Haven Avenue on the south side of Foothill - APN 1 ^9- 351 -03, 13. Motion: Moved by Rempel., seconded by King, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the A,r.il 8, 1981 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -19- March 25, 1981 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. 11:30 p.m. The Pl..^.nning Commission Recessed 11:37 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened I. ENVIRONMENTAL !'SSESSMENT AND PARCEL i4AP NO. 6721 - DAVIS 1r5VELOPMEJT - An indrstri.al subdivision of 4.39 acres of land into 8 parc-ls within the M -R zone located on the north side Df 7th Street, east nf Hellman - APN 209- 171 -37 Paul Roureau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Di.Iorio representing; the applicant, had nothing; to address. Mr. Rougeau stated that there should be a correction made to the Resolu'-ion indicating that dedication requirements en 7th Street should be 33 feet rather than the 44 feet shown. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that he had some questions relative to the design between the buildings shown and requested that this be brcught back to Design Review before the final map was approved. Mr. Lam ssked the applicant if he woul-S be developing these lots or selling this project to soTecne else for development. The applicant replied that he would be sell.inp, these lots. Mr. Lam stated that, as a minimum, the Planning Commission's concern relative to this project should be referenced and that this should be brought back to Design Review. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resoltuiot, of approval and the negative declaration with the amendment relative to dedication requirements. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANP.A, P.EMPE'L, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried- Notion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. Planning Commission Minutes -20- March 25, 1981 J. ENVT.R% MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTOR REVIEIJ N0. 8I -01 - UJGA.- c;ul.A The development of a 26,800 sq. ft. bottled beverage distribution and warehouse facility on 9:2 acres of land in the M -2 zone, located on the north side of 6th Street, between Haven Avenue and Cleveland Avenue - PPN 209- 271 -21 (Eastern Portion) - (Parcel 2 of Tentative P.M. No. 6544). Michael Vairin, Senior. Planner, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King stated that relative to Design Review, it was recommended that the east side of the premises should be fenced. He asked if anything had come back relative to that request. Mr. Vairin replied that the applicant proposed chain link fencing, will do mounding and that substantial landscaping was proposed for the site. Further, the south side of the kuilding would be used for the storage of trucks and that area would be fenced 8 -10 feet high. Mr. Vairin indicated that the committee was reluctant to accept this at first but later felt that the landscaping was handled well and thought that this would be acceptable. Mr. Vairin stated that there are things that can be done with this such as the placement of pilasters; however, security is needed and they did not want this area totally blocked off from view. Chairman. Dahl asked if they would also be doing truck maintenance. Mr.. Vairin replied that they would in the northwest corner of the area.. Chairman Dahl asked if this was also proposed for an industrial park. Mr. Vairin replied that it was. Chairman Dahl again asked about truck maintenance. Mr. Vairin stated that there would be landscaping at that point and would obstruct the view of the trunk maintenance. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was any landscaping requirement on the west fencing. Mr. Vairin indicated that tnere was none from the committee beyond what had already been pointed out. Further, that originally it had been proposed that there be landscaping on the frontage and pointed out on the map where landscaping was now proposed. Mr. ?aul Ramirez, project engineer, addressed the Commission and indicated that he would like Section 3 item 1 of the conditions reviewed tonight. Ile also indicated that he would like to have resolution on Item 6 from the City Engineer. Mr. Rougeau replied that relative to Item 6 of the Resolution, this would become a standard condition that is put on properties. Planning Commission Minutes -21- March 25, 1981 Mr. Ramirez asked if they were speaking of the retention basin. Mr. Ro.geau replied affirmatively. Mr. Dave Hutcheson, 4815 Main, Yorba Linda, representing the applicant indicated that the structure change as far as materials was not the question but rather that the color is and needed to be addressed. He indicated that he did nct understand why a change from a textured surface would have as much to say about what a long wall would look like as much as color does. He indicated that there had been a color revision and were leaning to a parchment white and they were working with color rather than materials. 3" deep prefinished textured metal material would be used on this building. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this material would be anodized. Mr. Hutcheson replied that it is a textured steel. Commissioner Sceranka asked what was proposed between the posts on this building. Mr. Hutcheson replied that they would like to sce the wall as a continuous form and preferably without fenestration and would also prefer not to have � ;ny pilasters showing,. Chairman Dahl asked what color is 'being looked at. Mr. Hutcheson replied that it was a white. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the building he had looked at in Milpitas was one of the most attractive buildings that he had seen and had a lot of glass integrated into the structure. He asked why this building was not the same as the one he had seen in Milpitas. Mr. Hogan replied that the building in Milpitas was a two -story and had an office structure in front. lie explained the composition of the building and the way the glass was used to break up the lines. Commissioner Tol.stoy stated that he did not care what the building was made of. Further, that this is an industrial area and it was their hope that what goes into the area will be good. He indicated that some of the concrete buildings already look poor because of paint pep, ing and that the material should make no difference. He indicated that he liked the color scheme in this building but felt that some eye interest was needed in this structure. Mr. Hutcheson stated that he disagreed because_ of the function of this structure. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the whole frontend of this be,11%iing looks flat and needed relief. Planning Commission Minutes -22- March 25, 1981 Chairman Dahl stated that he would go along with the use oi" the white color but felt that the fascia should be another color. Commis!AonLr Sceranka stated that they had been told what Design Review needed from the Planning Cormmission and that the biggest question was that of material.. ile asked if they felt that the metal. alone was sufficient or if other material should be introduced to give this building more detail than it has. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the front of the building needs something else. He stated that he was giving his opinion so that they would know what it was and further, that there were two persons on the Commission who felt that the building requires more eye interest. Commissioner Rempel stated that one of the problems is that the Commission expects to see a finished photo rendering on this building and this is not what is supposed to happen. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wished to see some shadow lines because he did not feel there would be any. Mr. Hogan asked if a poll of the Commission could be taken to establish a need for additional material in this building. Commissioner Rempel proposed a motion to approve the use of material and take the colors back to Design Review for final approval. The Motion died for lack of a second. Commissicr,er. Rempel stated that he did not understand what the Commission was trying to do and that he felt they were getting carried away with design of this building in the industrial area. Chairman Dahl stated that there was a need for the Commission to know what problems would be mitigated this evening. Commissioner King stated that be did not have any problems with the material but did not wish to second Commissioner Rempel`s motion because he felt it to be premature. rurther, that he had seen the metal and thought it was nice. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had no objection to the material. Commissioner. Tolstoy stated that he had no objection to the material but needed to have something more in the front section to make the offices have more eye appeal. Mr.. Ramirez stated that there would be a dark anodized material to give eye appeal and additionally, there would be dark glass plus the overhand which is 5 feet beyond the building. Planning Commission Minutes -23- March 25, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated that he sat on Design Review and reviewed the industrial buildings and has also seen many other industrial buildings and his only concern is that this is a two -story warehouse that is very long that will dwarf the offices. Iie indicated that he was not sure that the five -foot overhang and bronzed windows would be enough to break up the lines and since this was the first building to be approved in the industrial area felt that it should be a good one. Mr. Hogan asked if the Commission wished to act on this tonight by asking the applicant to redesign or bring this back to Design Review. Commissioner King stated that he felt this was a good design and that changes were not needed. He further indicated that they were dealing with decoration and nothing substantial. Chairman Dahl stated that he felt that any changes that needed to be made could be done with color. he stated that he was satisfied with thy: material. Mr. Hogan stated that color will not give any depth of an in and out effect to any degree. He pointed out the mini- market at Malachite and Foothill and what was needed to help pop this building out. He also pointed out an office building at 6th Street and the way along with no material change. He indicated that when the expanse of the wall is considered, the addition or use of color would not change this,. He indicated that if there was consensus, this should go back to Design Iteview to look at the 6th Street frontage and if there wasn't, the Commission should get off the dime and do something with the building. Commissioner. Sceranka stated that he wants a different portion to change the front of the building. Chairman Dahl stated his familiarity :oith soft drink distribution centers, generally, where usually there is a garage area that is not kept neatly. His concern, he stated, was with some kind of buffering along the north side and that he would like to see landscaping there. Mr. Ramirez stated that there wi31 be nothing stored in the garage area in back and that they are providing enough landscaped area. Mr. Hogan stated that they would be in violation if they stored In this area. Commissioner King stated that they should not continue this item but should resolve it. Further., that an important base needs to be established and that he felt they have done a good job. Commissioner King stated that they must move on and felt that they were getting into too much detail and personal preference. Planning Commission Minutes -24- ida,cix 25, 1981 d Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt the Resolution with the conditions requiring the improvements along; 6th Street. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what will happen to the piece of property that is left vacant. Mr.. Ramirez stated that presently there are no plans for future growth. Commissioner TcJstoy asked If there will be adequate land and how it would be used and where the ingress and egress would be. Mr. Ramirez .stated that it would be on the corner of 6th and Turner. Mr. Rougeau replied that when the parcel was approved it was approved in such a way that the Planning Commission would have complete control over the access of this parcel. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they could say this at this point. Mr. Rougeau replied that the map is conditioned that way. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried- Mr. Joe Di.Iorio stated that he had a question relative to the east boundary and the future Utica. Pe asked what the purpose of the curve is. Mr. Rougeau replied that the curve is to bring the street into the location of where it should be. Mr. DiIorio stated that this will cause some problems with Sam Mandella's place. Mr. Hogan stated that the street had already been estabiished.on the parcel map. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, that the Planning Commission adjourn to Thursday, March 26, 1981, at the Lion's Park Community Building„ 7 p.m. to complete the agenda. 12:25 a.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -25- March 25, 1981 CITY OF RA14CHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COM-knESION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting March 26, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Vice- Charrman, Jeff: Sceranka called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning, Commission, continued from the previous evening, to order at ' p.m. Following the call to order Vice - Chairman Sceranka led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel., Peter Tolstoy, Jefferey Sceranka ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl STAFF PRESENT: Tim Reedle, Senior Planner; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development fir. Hogan stated for the record that the Vic�or.ia meeting which had previously been scheduled for this date had been cancelled and would be held on April 2, 1981 at the Alta Loma High School. Cafeteria. Further, any issues relative to the General Plan will be acted on at that time. Motion: Moved by Reunpel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue the Victoria meeting to April 2, 1981. K. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY LAND USE CONSIDERATION - SOUTHEAST 1034 City Planner, Barry Hogan reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr.. Hogan to review the illegal lot splits. Mr. Hogan replied that the only legal lot was the one outlined in green shown on the screen, all others were illegal.; however, that was not the initial reason that this item was brought before the Commission. Iie indicated that staff would like direction from the Planning Commission for commercial. in this area. He indicated that staff does not want to prejudice any determination for this area and asked if commercial. is appropriate. He further stated that perhaps higher density residential or another designation would also be appropriate. He indicated that if the Planning Commission determines that commercial is inappropriate for lot 4, this can be examined. r Vice - Chairman Sceranka stated rl•;t he would not take a part in this because of a possible conflict of interest. Comma- ssioner Rempel took over the chair. Commissioner King asked what the distanceir fromthe "S" curb or Hampshire to the lot line. Mr. Hogan replied that it was approximately 150 feet Commissioner King asked if this was to be commercial what the configuration should be. Mr. Hogan replied that this is diffiru.lt• because of its location behind a market. Commissioner King asked if this would be so even if it were a car wash. Mr. Hogan explained why it would not work. Commissioner King stated that it mjy not seem good or commercial but that it did not seem good for resident'_al,either. Mr. Hogan showed how landscaping could mitigate residential uses at this site. Commissioner Tol.stoy commented that this was better :han some areas in the City where there is a block wall, and beyond the wall, residential. Mr. Hogan stated that this is indicative of all the lroblems along Foothill and it is staff's feeling that commercial is not appzopriate here. Commissioner Rempel stated it appeared that there was no access to Hampshire. Mr. Hogan replied that there is prescriptive access. Commissioner King asked that, assuming that a self ca:- wash could be located *_here, what other type of commercial would be desirab:e. Mr. Hogan stated that if somecne were tc. come in with another use, the Commission might wish to rezone the entice site. Commis: ;i.oner Tolstoy asked if it would be proper to su,rgest to the owner of that piece of property that if i.t were completely chanted and its use redesigned and rebuilt, it might be a viable site for a commercial center. Howe-,r, if the use stays in the configuration they arc, in now it does not seem reasonable that commercial property could be put lehind the market. Mr. Hogan stated that they did not feel. commercial is appropriate and the best way to handle this is to say if it is usable, they cculd apply for a General. Plan amendment and that the Commission c ,)uld )e assured that t-iiev are looking at everything. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 26, 1981 Commissioner King asked if what .7as being suggested was that the Commission does not think commer ^Sal is appropriate but if it looks like something might work, it would be dealt with at that time. Mr. Hugan stated that he was looking for reaffirmation that they are head5^g in the riE:t direction in the app' -nri.ateress of the use. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to allow an appeal for a General Plan amendment. L. CONSTDERATTON OF REVISION TO GENE RAL PLAN IN THF INDUSTRIAL AREA Mr. Lam indicated that this item was referred to the Planning Commission from the City Council. and involves a portion of the industrial area. He described the Lrea as bounded between Arrow, Eighth Street, and east of Haven to Roc,,sster. Further, that this area is presently shown on the General Plan as general industrial. Mr. Lam stated that the amity Council wished to have this area as heavy industrial and :onsider If the Commission saw that other areas were appropriate for tLe same designation. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, advised that a property owner south of Rochester on 80. Street, Insul- Wagner, had also requested that this property be included in the heavy industrial use category. He indicated Inat this property is rail - served. Mr. Hogan stated that the designation in the Plan is presently gereral industrial rail - served. There was discussion among the Commission relative to the heavy industrial category. 21r. Hogan asked if ;:here were more areas that the Commission felt should have the heavy industrial classification. Commissioner Rempel stated that the area rear the freeway where they have already approved Rancho Disposal should also be added. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this did not have to be heavy industrial. Vice- Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Mr. .Toe Dilorio spoke of the character of the freeway and what was presently there. He a5'. -ed if the current uses would be able to continue as long as they are used. The Commission replied that the present uses would continue as long as they are used. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 26, 1981 WOO r w' Mr. Dilorio stated that if Wagner -Insul .left, they would get more for their property if it were not changed. He indicated that the total character of the area off of I 7-15, past the Ontario International Center, up to 4th Street and pasL the orfice park location up towards the regional center is important. He indicated that the I -15 corridor is a front door to the City and did not think that heavy industrial there, in the long -term, would be consistent with good planning. He felt that it is appropriate that the present uses be grandfathered in the General Plan and that these things should be worked out through the Industrial Specific Plan. If you were to take a poll, he stated, of those people south of the tracks, they would feel that there should be a better use here. Mr. Jay Viane, owner of a heavy duty machine shop, asked if under the proposed classification he would be able to expand his business. He stated that he purchased his property under ri -2 zoning classification and would hate to see that changed. He asked if the classification is acceptable now, why it would not be in the future. Commissioner Sceranka asked what he thought of no outside or unscreened storage in that area. Mr. Viane replied that he was not concerned as it is part of heavy industrial to have outside storage, and they have it. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kind of business is No. 15. Mr. Hopson replied that it is non - existent. He is planning to put ir, office industrial type structure. There was discussion among the Commission relative to the industrial uses that would be permitted in this area and whether outside storage would be permitted. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if all the heavy industrial west of the freeway is not into heavy industrial or if all the other users were in the green area shown on the map. There was discussion in the importance of the freeway right -of -way having some kind of protection as it was the window to the city. Commissioner Sceranka felt that it would be bad to have heavy industrial use along the freeway because of the image it would construe. Mr. Viane stated that you really couldn't see too much area because of the elevation of the freeway. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not feel that any more heavy industrial should be created and that there should be a limitation on outside storage. Commissioner. Fempel felt that any heavy industrial adjacent to the freeway should be properly landscaped and felt that the area designated No. 1 would be a problem with this classification. Planning Commission Minutes -4- Match 26, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy asked if heavy industrial were extended in Area I if there could be a restriction so that you can get the kind of appearance that is wanted. Mz_ Beedle replied that you would be able to do that through the Industrial Specific Plan. Commissioner Rempel stated that there might be an addition to the General Plan that states that anything along the freeway right -of -way shall be properly buffered. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission deliberated on-Coca-Cola and .sked what would be said about heavy use of trucks or outdoor storage. Mr. Beedle explained the heavy industrial uses and how they are identified. Commissioner Tolstoy commented on Area 2 and the person there now having a storage area. IIe indicated that there is not very much of an investment in a storage area and asked if that is right. Mr. Beedle indicated that maybe it should be heavy industrial, `he investment that would he necessary, and what the feasibility is of changing the use. Commissioner Rempel stated that as long as the use is there it should be legitimized. Vice - Chairman Sceranka stated that the Commission must be carefsl of what a good use is. Further, that it is a question of balance and whether it will be good for the City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that his recollection is that the heavy industrial use is not objectionable. Further, that long -term planning is what is needed to preserve the image of the City, as they were no against heavy industrial. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the whole point is that people who are heavy users want to stay in the area .:s long as they car. Further, that the Commission needs to show them total support for their kind of use. Council member Frost stated that his thoughts were that the kind of uses that should be allowed are those that are not incompatible with existing uses. Ile felt that the current uses should be legitimized. Commissioner. Tolstoy stated that when you look at the Mayor's office you know it is heavy industrial. in a well designed buildi.n5. He indicated that he had seen the Mayor change his mind and that b;: naw has a well landscaped industrial building. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 26, 1981 " Mr. Joe DiIorio stated that heavy uses of that type rho Largest parcels of land. Further, that he had no problem with area No. 2 because no matter how it is landscaped, you will always know that it is heavy. However, he stated, on the other side of the freeway there are very small parcels and at that point you are across the street from a regional- related use. He indicated that on the west side landscaping and appearance are more critical. Further, that the freeway is tl•e dividing line and he felt that south of the tracks it could go heavy industrial and that it was likely that they would get heavy use in parcel. No. 1. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what he thou ^ht of the area below. Mr. Dilorio stated that It is incoiici-z;tent end these are exactly the reasons for the area south of the freeway to go heavy. He indicated that the price of Industrial property is going for $90,000 an acre. Commissioner Rempel stated that there might be a problem with putting other uses directly across from Schlosser Forge, for example, a glass factory. Mr. DiIorio explained what brokers look at - consistency gf surrounding uses and that strong landscape standards must be required. Further, that this area has the largest block of heavy industrial land in Southern California and that it does not need to be taken to both sides of the freeway, especially with the development of a regional shopping center in the area. Commissioner King asked if an assum�,tion can be made that from the standpoint of aesthetics heavy industrial is not better than general industrial. Following brief discussion, it was moved by King, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, that Area No. 1 be retained in its present classification of General Industrial. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, that Area No. 2 be changed to the Heavy Industrial classification. Commissioner Rempel stated his disagreement with Commissioner King that a person can expand or put a crane in the present category and asked if he does not have the heavy designation, ten years from now if it is no longer viable and he wants to change, if he gets more. for the land as general industrial, he will do that. He indicated that this would be more fair and would be logical to use in heavy industrial. Mr. Hogan ex;lained non- conforming uses and stated that the Planning Commission could designaL_ ..one, all, or the 50% of the existing building. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this is done through the zoning code, is this done as a blanket, or can it be determined individually. Commissioner Rempel stated that you may say he will be allowed to expand and the Planning Commission chang. s, uador a new Commission, he would be unable to do it. Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 26, 1981 Y". Commissioner. Sceranka stated that adjacent is Ameron and he would have a hard time believing that someone not heavy will want to locate next to Ameron. Commissioner. King stated that every effort should be made to make the corridors as visibly pleasing as possible. He indicated his understanding of what Commissioner Rempel was saying about the Planning Commission and City Council but that he would have a hard time believing that a subsequent Commission would be more unfeeling thav they are. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by See.anka, to classify the Area designed No. 3 to heavy industrial. The motion did not carry. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they are ta!R,.ng about 2 uses and not the total industrial area, and that be did not _eel comfortable in changing all these areas to heavy. Commissioner King agreed and reiterated what he said about parcel No. 2, that he did not think that there exists mitigating circumstances with the Ameron Corporation there. Commissioner Rempel stated that what has been said about future Commissions being practical has been heard, but he felt that what may happen is that a person not having the category may have to go begging, and that is wrong. Following discussion, it was moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, that in the Area designated No. 3, the two uses already there can expand cdthout coming back to the Planning Commission. The other portion of the area will remain in the general industrial category. There being no furthet comments, it was moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn to the April 2, 1981 meeting on Vics�oria. 9:50 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary ?fanning Commission Minutes -7- March 26, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSI014 MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting April 2, 1981 CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Richard Dahl called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held in the Alta Loma High School. Cafeteria, to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl Absent: None s' Staff Present: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer City Planner, Barry Iiogan, reviewed the staff report, and highlighting changes to the victoria text. He explained that the text of the Victoria Planned Community has been reviewed for consistency with the General Plan goals and desires of the Victoria Planned Community. Mr. Hogan stated that the dwelling unit count per village had been adjusted to those areas to be consistent with the General Plan designations. Mr. Hogan then explained that the tentative track filing and Design Review process will be part of the implementation of the Victoria Plan. He also explained the Draft EIR and the mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval of the Victoria Plan. Mr. Hogan stated that attached was a report dated April 1, 1981, from Kenneth A. Reynolds, A.I.C.P., regarding the public utility transmission lines. Mr. Hogan then went over the changes that had been added to the conditions of approval. Commissioner "ling stated that on the resolution land use, and regional- related, was talked about with the possibility of being periodically reviewed because there is too much acreage in this category, and that the Cit may decide to do something else with it. He felt that general provision No. 1 should be modified to allow for a contingency that if it is decided that there is too much land, it would be able to be used for residential purposes. Mr. Hogan replied that if we decide there is too much regional - related there would need to be an amendment to another land use. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked if this is a regular occurrence. ..Mr. Hogan replied -that Victoria should be viewed in some aspects like a General Plan. Further, that the changes should reflect the conditions in the market, etc., and should be reviewed to see if the product types are responding to the needs of the community. He indicated that this would be brought up at that ti.mc• for review of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Tol.stoy asked if this would be done annually. Mr. Hogan replied that it would be reviewed generally on an annual basis. Commissioner King asked about the affordable housing definition and whether the only way a developer would be able to get a density bonus would be through the development of one portion of a multi -phase project. Mr. Hogan explained that the tentative tract map would be used as a tool to determine whether the product is affordable and that a density bonus based on the guarantee of the conditions of approval on the tentative tract map. Z. Commissioner King stated that he did not know how a developer could guarantee an affordable price,given that definition. Mr. Gary Frye, representing the William Lyon Company, explained the difference in guaranteeing affordable housing, and stated that price is not the sole issue in affordability. He explained how households are identified by income and that their definition is related to the unit sold to someone whose income is in the affordable range. Mr. Frye stated that another marketing tool that a lender has is a land lease program, to help in getting the price of housing down. Commissioner King asked how the density bonus issue would be resolved_ Mr. Frye replied that he had not gone that far in his thinking and was not prepared to say right now how he sees it. Further, that he felt that staff had not done their ground work either. He indicated that they have adequately addressed needs and set the definition but the question remained -- how do you monitor. Mr. Lain stated that what Mr. Frye has said is that the issue of implementation o£ affordability would relate not only to the planned community but was a city -wide issue. Commissioner King stated that it would seem that in the definition we accept risks in the various methods of implementation and before a given definition is accepted, they should think about how it will. be implemented. Planning Commission Minutes -2 -- April 2, 1981 Chairman Dahl stated that he is totally opposed to density bonuses for any affordable housing and especially for any single tract housing. However, because of the 10 -15 year build out in the planned community and not knowing what will happen he would have to be in favor of the density bonus. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would prefer that page 3 No. 14 stated may be allowed rather than shall be allowed. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Frye stated that he concurred with the changes and conditions that staff recommended in its report and the changes that were recommended at this meeting, including Commissioner Sceranka's recommendation. Commissioner King asked that in talking about increasing the units at a given percentage and going back to page 233 where it talks about the amount of increase in each village, in order to increase the optimum yield of any village by 20 -25 %, would it require a General Plan amendment? Mr. Hogan replied that it would not. Commissioner King asker" that this be explained. Mr. Hogan replied that Mr. King should not go by the revised text but by the resolution since here will be build out over 10 -15 years. He indicated that there are changes in the market that cannot be predicted and this partic- ular provision allows some defined flexibility by the developer to modify hi.s plan in a minor way. He explained what page 232, No. 2 meant and defined the ranger, in which changes may occur. He indicated that the changes could be reviewed by Design Review and, further, the option that the full Commission may also review these modifications. Commissioner King stated that this seems to be more than a minor deviation and that if they wanted to add 25 percent it could take him in excess of the number allowed in the General Plan. Mr.. Hogan explained that the total. number of units allowed in the planned community are 8255 and the developer would have to adjust to come up with fewer units in another area. Mr. Lam stated that the General Plan has a section with the Victoria boundary as a planned community. Further, the density ranges assume that the planned community is not there. lie indicated that the Planning Commission is looking, upon this as a planned area as long as the boundary and density do not vary. Chairman Dahl stated that he was sure that because of the difficulty in working with the people from Etiwanda, these densities would not be changed to increase the planned community area. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 2, 1981 Commissioner. Tolstoy asked if, for some reason, some of the regional. - -related was changed to residential would the increase in residential units have to be resolved elsewhere. Hogan stated that it would be added to the Victoria Plan. Chairman Dahl stated that circulatio:, Commissioner. Tolstoy stated that the Victoria Plan is predicatedonly on these areas for housing and if addition-, take place, it will have to be a pretty large one. There being no further comments for or against hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka indicated that page 249 should be 248 and wanted clarification of wbat was meant by these classifications on resiuential and commercial. He asked if that was the property line. Hogan explained that the chart was to show situations that may occur how the plan would deal with them. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the 15 -f-oot typical setback meant must average 15 feet. Hogan replied yes, that it cannot go more or less than 10 feet. Commissioner Sceranka stated that it is not a 15 -foot average setback. Hogan replied that this is correct. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimous;, adopt the Resolution of Approval. with the modifications propoi;ed. Commissioner Tolstoy, speaking for the Commission, stated that it has been a pleasure working with Mr. Frye and the SWA Group. He indicated they have been through a very long process and have gone a long way together. Chairman Dahl read the title of the resolution stating that this is now being recommended to the City Coancil for their adoption and includes passing the tent of the planned comomnity, its regulations and zoning, well as the Draft EIR, as amended. Commissioner. Sceranka corrected the title of the Resolution stating its location is generally west of Etiwanda Avenue, not east. The Commission thanked the developer, citizens, city manager, for the work that had been put in this project. Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Hogan reiterated for those people who were in attendance and for the record that what bad been completed at this meeting was the recommendation for approval to the City Council which would occur on a future ageada shortly after the General. Plan has received final adoption. He stated that the City Council will be requested to review and accept this recommendation. 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Mr. Hogan stated that comments have been re zived from the Office of Planning and Research relative to the General. Plan. Tim Beedle, senior Planner gave the staff report indicating that the State's comments were of a general nature, were supportive of the document, and had a few ideas for clarification. Additionally, there were some minor errors of omission that have beer. corrected with revised pages added to the text of the General Plan. Coi-missioner Sceranka asked if a letter had yet been received from Mr. Jerry Enomoto regarding seismic safety. Mr. Hogan replied that it had not yet been received. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no further comments the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, adopt the recommendations of staff relative to the revisions to the General Plan. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, RM4PEL, KING, TOLSTOY, DABL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried - Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, .JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 2, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETI14G Adiournee-.mgular Meeting April. 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the Regular Meeting of the City of .ancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held at the Lion's Park Community Building, 9161 Base Line Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, to order at 7 p.m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PEESE•NT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey -ing, Herman Ren.pel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter T,Istoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: "obe-t Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vai.rin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve the December 18, 1980 Minutes. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to approve the January 26, 1981 Minutes. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve the February 2, 1981 Minutes. Mr. Lam reported that the City Council had adopted the General Plan at their April 6 meeting and that in about 60 days a printed document would be available for the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam stated that Items B and C. daaling with tle Watkins Shopping Center, would be continued to the April 22 meeting He indicated that this item requires additional revisions and was not ready for this agenda. M Mr. Lam stated that Item C under Director's Reports, Cable T.V., was pulled from this agenda because the Building Industry Association had riot had the opportunity to review the staff report. He indicated that this will be brought back to the Commission as soon as input is received from the BIA. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -01 - A change in the color scheme for the previously approved K. Mart Department store t^ be located on the northeast corner of Arrow and Haven. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -03 - VAT The development of a commercial shopping center within the C -2 zone on 4.83 acres located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077- 641 -54 through 67. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL NO. 6726 - WAT_KINS - A subdivision of 5.09 acres into 8 parcels within the C -2 zone located at the north- east corner of Archibald and Foothill - APN 1077- 641 -54 through 67. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to continue these two items to the April 22, 1981 Planning Commission meting. * i, * * * NEW BUSINESS 10 REVIEW NO. 81 -06 - FRANCIS - Tha development of a 15,600 sq. ft., 2 -story professional. office building on a 1.39 acre parcel in the C -2 zone located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard at San Bernardino Road - APN 207 - 191 -50. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, to show him where the creek is in relation to this project. Mr. Rougeau explained how the drainage would go under the railroad tracko to the right of this project and over to Baker Street. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 8, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr_ Rougeau to show him how the property would be drained. Mr. Rougeau explained that drainage would occur in the back of the site, along the railroad tracks and over to Grove. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kind of drainage facility water would empty into. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would �o into a swale and down an embankment; however, some would go along Grove and felt that there would not be a problem with drainage there. He said presently a lot of the land is vacant and beyond this vacant land there are single- family homes. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this project would contribute substantially more water to Grove Avenue. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would not. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the frontage road would continue alorg this project. Mr.. Rougeau replied that the project will get access from the same driveway and that the one to the east will serve the Lire shop and the Cub. He indicated that the one driveway is all that will be allowed by both the City and the State. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that driveway would serve both. tic. Rougeau replied that it would not; however, he explained that they already have access to Foothill at that point. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant has been working with the adjacent owners also. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that is amenable to them. Mr. Vairin stated that the applicant could better answer that. Commissioner Rempel asked if the access is changed to this configuration will the island become a radius turn or will it have the sharp corner that was being shown. Mr. Rougeau replied that there would be a requirement for a 35 -foot radius turn. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr.. Bert Francis, the applicant, stated that he had no comments. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Francis about the property to the east using the driveway. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 8, 1981 v Mr. Francis replied that he owns it and that is why he gave a part of it for the driveway. Ile indicated that the tire shop will no longer be able to use this, however, because it is illegal and they have their own ingress and egress. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he sat on the Design Review Committee and felt that this project is well done and will be a benefit for the area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the shade_ in on the parking lot. Mr. Vairin replied that the landscape plan does have an entirely land- scaped median aisle along the parking area and will contain canopy trees. Commissioner T.olstoy asked if that will be a requirement. Mr. Vairin replied that it would not be, however, it could be added. Commissioner Tol -stoy stated that he would like to see that as a condition. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tol.stoy, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81 -38 with the addition of a condition for canopy trees. Commissioner Rempel stated that there had been a comment that there is a 35 -foot turn radius and in order to facilitate that turn, it needs to be checked into because it will. become a rough turn. lie indicated that they will want to cut the corner and the high curb will make it difficult in turning. Commissioner Tol.stey stated that is really a traffic problem and Engineering should look at this. E. RESOLUTION ON SIDEWALKS Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report stating that although a Resolution haF been drafted, there is still room for a project -by- project discussion on sidewalks, especially in the industrial area and it may be needed to be examined on that basis. lie asked that the Commission review this to be sure that it reflected their feelings on the sidewalk issue. Commissioner Rempel stated that he has some problems with. this. Special boulevards were all right; however, on major arterials and collectors, he did not think that the industrial area really needs to have sidewalks on both sides in all areas. He indicated that only a short section to the building is ample. He further :stated that ou a collector street, it: depends on the area and is not necessaxy in an industrial area. lie stated that in one -half acre areas the Commission had stated that sidewalks would be placed on one side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 8, 1981 Mr. Rougeau stated that was not the intent and perhaps this needed to be refined as this was patterned after the General. Pfau categories and was meant for 2 -4 dwelling ur.its per acre or denser. Commissioner Rempel stated he felt that one side is ample on 10,000 squat( foot lots. Chairman Dahl stated that this needed clarification because if both sides of residential have more than two lots per acre or two per acre or less, it might only require one side. Commissioner Rempel stated that in passing this, the Commissinn would also be passing for Victoria. IIe indicated that if they will then immedi- ately make an exceptic,, they would have to make one In other areas of the City as well. He indicated further that some type of resolution is needed for special boulevards and where sidewalks should be and where they are to pick up the rural atmosphere otherwise they will get right back into she old system that they have now. Mr. Rougeau stated that he thought that the rural areas should have less auto traffic and more foot traffic and the sidewalks don't necessarily have to be ugly concrete but of other materials, although concrete is the easiest to maintain. Chair.an Dahl stated that he did not think that Sapphire, Banyan, Beryl, would be considered collectors. He indicated that the majority of these streets have already been widened and there are nc, sidewalks. He felt that abcve Banyan there sw.ould be sidewalks on one side only with a trail on the other side. Mr. Hogan stated that all of the Commission's comments have been helpful and staff will have to bring back a modified resoltuion, however, the Commission's concurrence is needed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that before that is done, it would seem that in the Etiwanda area where there might be a lot of different size lots within a tract, sidewalk-, may be in order where these smaller lots exist or where smaller lots are mixed with.larger ones and have cul -de -sacs. He indicated that it will be difficult to make a hard and fast rule. Further, that the resolution needs to address that in the industrial area the Planning Commission wishes to encourage foot traffic for carpooling. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it depends on where the streets are in relationship to other streets. He felt that the planned communities might have some unique conditions that could not be covered by this type of resolution. He asked tbat the resolution contain some eerbiage that because of the uniqueness of some of the housing stock that we are going to have there will be sidewalk problems that can't be covered in a resolution.. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 8, 1981 r Commissioner Ring stated that he did not feel that a formal resolution is needed and that this should be delt with as developments come before the Commission. He felt that he is a minovi.ty but thought there should be some alternatives besides sidewalks. He indicated that just dirt is appropriate in many areas of t:ie community. All that is needed, he stated, is a place to walk to create the rural atmosphere. Commissioner 4alstoy stated ti:at he knew the problems something like this w uld create from an Engineering standpoint and asked if there was some type of sidewalk t..at could be used that is not concrete but is still ma.intai.nable. Commissioner Hempel stated that there are methods of dirt conditioning that could do this. Mr. Mogan replied that they will not establish standards for Etiwanda but make the specific plan do that. With regard to the sidewalks on streets in the horse area north of Banyan, staff will come back with the names of these streets where they will be on one side. He indicated on cul -de -sac streets in the equestrian area there may or may not be the need or desire to have sidewalks. Further, on collector streets you may want them only on one side or on both stdes. He indicated that this may have to -Ue dealt with c- a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Sceranka asked why the Commission is establishing a policy on sidewalks for all streets in the City. Mr. Rougeau replied that the problem is in one -half acre areas. Developers, do not want tc spend money on sidewalks and the Planning Commission had asked that staff come up with a solution to this problem. Com:,ni.sioner Sceranka stated that he thought the intent of the Commission w_:i 'Jiat sidewalks would be required on one side. Mr. Rougeau explained how this was developed and how on hillside areas you want ;sidewalks on one side only. Commissioner Rempel stated that this needs to be carried _.er but asked for some descriptive words or drawings that would show major s'reets like Archibald and Vineyard with cuts and horse trails and some sugg�ztions that the Commission could go on. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see the City get L..ay from sidewalks and have the recommendation state that pedestrian walkways will be provided in all parts of the City on one side of the street. This would give staff and City an alternative in Design Review to decide which it should be. He indicated that what is being promoted is a pedestrian walkway. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that tie wanted to agree but staff is saying teat they need some type of guideline. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 8, 1981 Mr. Hogan explained the problems that currently exist with the various lot sizes and the sidewalk requirements. Commissioner Sceranka asked if staff would prefer a sidewalk rather than a pedestrian walkway. Mr. Hogan replied affirmatively. Chairman Dahl stated that sidewalks rather than a pedestrian walkway would have more use than any other. material. He stated further that the Commission knew that kids like to roll.erskate. He indicated that a policy is needed for those areas below one -half acre with a minimum of one side. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that be believed what he had heard was that Hillside may bave a sidewalk only on one side. Mr. Hogan stated that he thought staff would need to take a look at one -half acre lots below Banyan, at 19th Street:, as well as the 7200 square foot lots. Be stated that he understood Mr. Sceranka's concern in wanting flexibility on the one hand ir, being able to give the developer an answer. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to table this item for one month. F. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - for the installation of a temporary trailer for residential sales on Tract No. 10491, locp`:d oa the southwest corner of Victoria and Ramona Avenue. Barry Hogan reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King stated that it would seem appropriate not to require a CUP as it seemed unnecessary to add to the expense of the development. Ile felt staff could develop some guide for the placement of temporary trailers which the developer could bring back. to staff for examination to sae if the conditions had been met. Chairman Dahl stated what the Commission would be doing in not issuing a CUP for those businesses wishinF Lo set up a temporary sales office is eliminating some of the control that might L_ had through.the CUP -. process with the conditions that could be attached. He Ated a motorcycle company oii Foothill where it had been determined that a CUP was n�2cessavy. Mr. Hogan states: that this would be for a model home. Commissioner King stated his understanding that they were dealing; wit' a residential development. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 8, 1981 Mr. Hogan replied that this was correct. Commissioner Rempel stated that what brought this to a head was a trailer that had been parked for two years on one tract- without wheels or skirts. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there was another situation where a trailer that was really a mess was parked in a street that was not given over to the City and created a traffic jam all the time. Commissioner Rempel stated that what the Commission was saying is that a trailer is only good for as long as it takes to get a garage or some other place up and ready for a sales office. Mr. Hogan stated that this can be controlled by the requirement of a TOP. He indicated that they must provide parking, landscaping, building elevations, and photos and would also be required to be there only one week after completion of the units and no longer. Commissioner Sceranka asked if this should be required of Daon and felt it ridiculous to put in a temporary trailer with reeuirements for Landscaping, etc. He asked what the difference is between the two. Commissioner Rempel. stated that there is & lot of difference. Chairman Dahl asked what this says to a developer going the TOP route versus the CUP route. Mr. Hogan replied that it saves a lot of money and time. He indicated that a developer can come up to the co._-ter for a TOP and can have it approved with a condition. Commissioner Tolstoy asked suppose a developer is building 20 houses and they are phased so that they are all ready at one time. He indicated that he cannot move into the sales office until the.final inspection. Mr. Hogan replied that he can get temporary power. He ; ndicated that the Commission's fear is that someone with a small tract will come in and have a spot for the entire life of the tract. Mr. Hogan indicated that if the Commission wanted assurance that the developer will not do this for the life of the tract, staff will come back with uses and a TOP procedure. Commissioner 1-)l.stoy stated that he did not wish to see the same thing that happened in the City before incorporation. Mr. Hogan stated that the direction is :o have staff c,me back f•>r ccncurrence of a TOP procedure and standards to be hdndled through staff. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to have staff prepare a TJP procedure and bring it back to the Commission. 'lanning Commission Minutes -8- April 8, 1981 . . '1 Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carri <�d unanimously, to adjourn at 8 p.m. 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 1981 0 n 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT DATE: Plagust 26, 1981 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. H bbs, City Engineer �`' Barbara Krall, Figineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7007 - DAON CORPORATION - ;division of 9. 9 acres into parse s within the M -2 zone located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Civic Center Drive - APN 208 -35 -03 & 11 This parcel map would provide for Completion of the K -Mart shopping center. For proper review of the proposed parcel lines, a more detailed site plan is required, but the site plan has riot yet been received from the Developer. It is requested that the Public Hearing for the above - referenced parcel map be continued until September 9, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ITEM A Zvw-,o : M -.p 4AN0 USA-: VACANT I sl 1 1 Y 1 I r I 1 I 1' I TENTATIVE - PARCEL MAP NO. '7007 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IWONO A SWWNISRN/ Or PARC¢� s OI IARCEI. wAP ma 6617. As PEP mAr nccOlpa M SOP; 65.01, PAPCZL. p( ;py. vac's C4-=.14 TNC OFFICr OF THE RECORDER Or me COUNTY OF SAN BCgFAR0n10.STATE Of CAUIORSIA. ASLY. 1661 I..D. RIItO.IRC'. JONR K►CEHSTRA RC.[.13s70 119 G.Y. [lq. 1.c. 517 Y ttll< \, acne. a Yvu ntnw.sRa • R rLoq 2111 R.tMTYT \I1,. Ynyrt \..[M, 4 ntfo � r Pnlre , l PARCEL OAK 64 IONCD: CAN.O OSF: cOMMCw crAL LAND USL: CoMMCA•CIAC t rNOUJTgiAC / 1 1 � err =- 1'w pone/ TI 1 s Q �! Parcl /1/ QpN / Z M 0 TILIJII m. sg gm w o.tl wr 040,1" t s.... \w1,. _ trr• o• Ytl ti: F1, w L ft.. f.W rrtY nf/wi -MI d. fort k�.M...Y falltl.w. N 1,rsi fY fwr,�wr - 4111yw1. N. t.Y1,.Yi Yr t>a loa.. awlnet•�) 1M f.a[ TpM FVwt L 6rU+rY; Wry/ •YI'rY. \.Y..r� 1,I.R. \twt ZtU f.Nl � ►..r tl.wilw�.� 11M Mr 1,4. G nuu Y.wn 1.Rn..w 411/.1. t.l.r wY0 1211 1., %, w. fin: ntlY6•fYl 3H[[T ICI, Jcs/!: /'w/oa, 2 � 93 ZONK0 . M -L parch 3 / ous qrA[. �J El 11 0 Li CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 26, 1981 10: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6937 - PEREZ A res—i ential subdivision of 2. acres ores into pates within the R -1 zone located on southwest corner of Victoria and East Avenue - APN 227 - 121 -41 INTRODUCTION: This proposed subdivision would produce four residential lots of about alf acre size, all making use of existing street frontage for access. The lots are in conformance with the General Plan designation, but are within the area of the pending Etiwanda Sp- -cific Plan. The surrounding area is sparsely developed with residences and a small, 7200 s.f. subdivision exists on the north side of Victoria St. about 1/4 mile to the west. PLANNING ISSUES: Even though the proposed parcel map complies with the General Plan, t erne are several areas of concern which should be considered by the Commission relative to the appropriateness of the subdivision. These are the size and shape of the lots, the relationship to the neighboring property and the Commission's concern regarding circulation in the area, as expressed during the Commission recent review of Parcel Map 6833. The configuration proposed by the applicant is the optimum for providing usable lots without a new street. Parcels 1 and 2 are unusually proportions: out could lend themselves to the keeping of animals. Parcel 4 appears quite shallow, how- ever, it is almost a half acre and could be developed attractively. The parcels of land to the south are quite varied in size but most are similar to those proposed. To the north and east, there are many 1/4 to 1/2 acre parcels, mostly occupied, and the remaininq land is in large acreage. To the west are three parcels of similar size and then large acreage. In referring to the attach - ed vicinity lotsand considering the above information, it appears that the number and sizes of the proposed map are in keeping with the surroun4 °ng land use. Regarding circulation, the Commission will remember that during consideration of Parcel Map 6833, copy attached, .:once m was expressed about a secondary access from Parcel 3 to Victoria St. While this is a desirable concept, it appears from the existing parcel pattern and building positions that a new north - south street between Parcel Mdp 6833 and Victoria would be very disruptive and portions of it ITEM B STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL 14AP NO. 6937 August 26, 1981 Page 2 may never be obtained. As a part of this evening's consideration of Parcel " p 6937, it is recommended that the need for a street or streets for local circulation between the Southern Pacific Railroad and Vict„ria, and between East Ave. and 660 feet west be di- cussed further. There appear to be alternates to a straight north - south street which would serve all existing properties and provide for some future splits. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is art I of the 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 'nitial Study and field investigation, Staff found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It f,s recommended that one of the following actions be taken: 1. Approval of the tentative map and negative declaration if the Commission decides that local circulation needs can be met with the proposed layout. A resolution has been prepared for adoption if this alternate is chosen. 2. Continuance of the hearing, if the Commission sees the need for a redesign of the map and the applicant concurs in the continuance to a certain date. 3. Denial of the map if the Commission determines that the proposal is unaccept- able and agreement cannot be reached on a continuance. Respectfully submitted, .,� rWIA'el� LBH 7 :jaa Attachments 0 0 1 VIC TO R I ri .e Th'EEl 13J„ !J N J rj cr o-� C; rt e k /_/� • � r I rQ'i0 I ( 9 43 !Ar, a u C »n _ 1.9A 691) rc 937 AG ri l i FpfQC� i a x fi LU te.�til4c.) c .^ t � h OIL 4 ..��. +_�y�• �� � 672 _ °6 -114 rPA No CITY OF RANCI RANCHO CUCAtN"ONGA title; C vt„��,:r fO A J'PM Tog ENGINEERING ` DIVISION --LE t1 r? ` " -- VICINITX ADAp p3gt ,.`�.- RESOLUTION P'0. A kESOLUTION ')F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6937 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. "6937) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VICTORIA STREET AND EAST AVENUE. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6937, submitted by Trinidad and Elvira Perez and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the southwest corner of Victoria Street and East Avenue, being a division .)f Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 4530; and, ,WHEREAS, on ,rune 4, 1981, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described mar. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and imprcveroents will not cause substantial environmental damage, publ : health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: Th ?t this project will not create significant adverse envi mental impacts and Negative Dec:aration is issued on August 26, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6937 is approvzd subject to the conditions of the City E:+gineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 11 C Resolution No. Page 2 BY- Je`f-frey :irig, ' airman Y 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 Flanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonc-,. at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of August, 1981, by the following vote - to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E RESCLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING PARCEL MAP NO. 6937 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.41 ACRES INTO 4 PARCELS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VICTORIA AND EAST AVENUE. WHEREAS, on the 4th day of June, 1981, a complete application was filed for review on the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 26th day of August, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above- described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGP PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the f6 lowing findings have been made: 1. That the pro!,os4d subdivision is not appropriate for the location fe- which it is proposed. 2. That local ci:•culation will be hampered by the proposed subdivision. 3. That an environmental finding is not possible at this time. SECTION 2: That Tentative Parcel ! No. 6937 is denied. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE L!TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY- Jeffrey King, Chairmuri ATTEST: secretary of the P an in ng Commission I, JACK, LAM, Secretary nf the Planning Comricsion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resoluticn 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 26th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to -wit: •1 '. 1 .� M I ,I I 'I V 1 '. Resolution No. Page I, AYES: COMMISSIONERS-, 1, COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: l '1 ,4. 4, / 1; .1 ,a 1 a . a, i • f' ••,J r 1 }:- 1 I ' 1 t I! 1 I 'l rl,''1' 1 I.! ,r.` 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Trinidad & Elaira Perez TENTATIVE MA? NO. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Victoria and DATE FILED: 6/4/31 East Avenue NUMBER OF LOTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 4 of Parcel Ma RECEIPT NUMBER recorded P.M.B. 46/53 FEE: $250.00 * 'k * * * * * * * * * *' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *• * * * * * * * i TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: William Scribner GROSS ACREAGE: 2.41 ADDRESS: 252 West "G" Street MINIMUM LOT AREA: Colton, CA 92324 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: **********.. t*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•k * * * * * * ** RECORD OWNER(S) idad and Elvi REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 13219 Pipeline Ave. Chino, CA 91710 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 r•ig;fts -of -way on the following streets: 11 additional feet on East Avenue additional feet on additional feet on 2— 4 orwer P/L radius required on East and Victoria Other -- R,Ights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: Street vacation required for: Master Plan of Streets revision required far: The following perimeter intersections require reali;nment as follows: E TENTATIVE MAP N0. 6937 Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recording for ) El B rilding permit for P- cn pa— rcel I 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway Lrees and street lights) on all interior streets. 8. Construct the foli.)w-rig missing improvements on the following streets: *including landscapinq and irrigation on meter STREET HAMS CURB — 2TTER�PVMT. A SIDE- WALK. DRIVE APPR. STREET TREES REE1" IiGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* 'rTHER st Aveppe y X I_ X X X X X — cross gutter Vict ri * h ! X K X X X * V"ictor,a shall be designed as a special boulevard. _ 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage struc•.ures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the amity Engineer. _< 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanita -y sewers, :!:,ter, electric power, gas, telephone and cable tel¢vision.conduit. All utilities are to be underground. _.?L 11. Developer shall courdinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 1�. Install appropriate street name signs and tr•aFfic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. y, _ 13. Developer is to provide all construction plan.; for d°ainape and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval o' the City Engineer. X 14. Sar�tary sewer and water systems shall oe des geed to Cucamonga County .Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 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 underqround service. _ 16. The following existing streets being torn up L1 new services will require an A.C. overlay: _ 17. The o oaring specific imensions, w.e., cu a -sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: _ 18. The folrowing existing streets are substandard They will require: Approvals and Fees _ 19. This subdivision �ridll be subject to conditions of approval S %n Bernardino Co -arty Flood Cont:•ol District. X 20. Approvals have not been secur ^_a from all utilities and other ties involved. Approval of the final man will ire subject to that may be received from them. RCE 20 fir;, from CALTRANS/ interested agen- any requirements TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6937 Page 3 X 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: _ A. Caltrans, for: _ B. City: _ C. County Dust Abatement District: _ D. U.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep: "- E. Cucamonga County Water District: F. Other: Map Control 22. I` 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. _ 2;. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be --orrected on the final map: X 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right -of -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 to prevent the creation of an unr ,2cognized parcel located ?6. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as follows- 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. Parcel Map Waiver 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certif ci ate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. F'.00d Control (Bonding is required prior to 0 Recording for ) ❑ 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 RCE 20 Broad scale hydrologic studies will-be require to assess impact ct increased runoff. luJ TENTATIVE MAP NO. Fo37 Page 4 Miscellaneous X 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:_ control, enta- X 39. Proper gra d erosion pre "— 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. X 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 development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or 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 limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final Map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and 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 lilies. CITY CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HU3BS CITY ENGINEER By: RCE 20 l l Atilt I IT .z C g •p�p� is C i L � _ .L� veyd.vf:.�.'lr%/ e• It w m O S ID V u Q i \ J y iY •:. F-/, Ll 2 i rENrN T i VE PARCEL MAP NO. 6833 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . ncr ,T R NLOGK °Y." ETIWANDA y.GFT i .tOO�RT P yw..i.ICF P1CF 12G9<- YEMO � GALIEOA`i1N sV0.vp J= oTQ). Own[ -0.�DF V[tOPtr4 ' • •.mYwTO wwNG.T .ou..o w. .nTei Ao m: N.r ...1'mN.�..A t• v...n.wv G o.N w[nta. •NT �A tue vq! 'M•awY RAr 90 f\ Yf M/.D .GA41� '14- 254 -24Ng (PCC •Ii'tG VVLCH O+.tNY.la .trt•O. DwOJLaal tYt 2.2•M'ww ro.+N w•�� S..NT••.1 tOV.w4 P•�Yb •GG .y/ T/.G YCi 2G \♦ •PO)9GLn ,ANO Wi. �+4t4INN. Pft. O tN.KV1.fv) Intl vYH.)NJt00 M.. ai••)' /y1YOV1 4[•.••LG 0�'. V11n V: a(IT�G PIV +� t+.vL 5i. M -a �2F'In`4 •iet IGY'.t. Mcn . { rw C.f G�It -.i NNt mrtY.sr. N I ".60 , 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $So.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 F.nviror_iaental 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 -i,hrr�e 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 Enviromitenta.l Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: TRINIDAD & ELVIRA PEREZ - SUBDIVISION OF 227 - 121 -41 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: (714) 628 -2926 fir. and P•1rs. Trinidad Perez 13219 Pipeline Ave. Chino, California 91710. NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONC ".RNING THIS PROJECT: Same as applicant's LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS ADM ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) *ADD. East 13200 block of Victoria & North 6900 block of East Ave. nooLJavI IVV. V 6G /-1G1 -Y1 — Mer`e is no mailing a ress present y assigned to the locaiion. LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: . 1-8 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Division of parcel 227- 121 -41 into four parcels. Complete conformity to city's zoning of area. Parcels to be turned -over on timely basis for single family dwellings of at east 1,800 square feet. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF location, but proposed foc AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND ANY: 2.41 acres. No buildings at----- taue will be 1.800 sq. ft. ]DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEfJIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): _ The project has been designed to preserve the goals and objectives ® of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the dev-eiMment of land for residential use. Timing of ttie project- is made to_ Allow for moderate—_ development to conform with the city and special districts cervices— rovided. The project allows for com lete conformitv with already esttablished density of 2-4 du./ac. in the area. The environmental setting will be maintainea not to disrupt, but conform to &jJL U2 of providing adequate housing sites Tor Tuture Kancno tucdmunyd residents. Trees on the project site are Eucalyptus and will be procedures before construction. Is the project, pant of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No i WILL THT S 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 many? _ 2 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: NSA IMPDRTANT: 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 reauired 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. Date Signatureivlll Title RZSIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid ir. assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. ),lame of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: Assessor # 227- 121 -41 PARCELS AS NUMBERED PHASE I PRASE 2 . ' PRASE 3 PH,,%SE 4 TOTAL 1. ,Number of single 1 I 1 1 4 family units: 2. Number of multiple 0 0 0 0 0 family units: Date proposed to 1/82 6/81 1/83 1!83 x begin. construction: 4. Earliest date of 3/82 9/81 3/83 3/83 x occ,-- pancy- Model and °- of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Rance ,T— 4 E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 26, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer 3Y: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO /UU73 WENGER AND ZWICKER - A ivision o % 3.70 acres into 2 parcels in the hi -2 zone located on the northwest corner of 4th Street and Etiwanda Ave. APN 229 - 283 -29 1977 INTRODUCTION: This map divides Parcel 2 of previously approved Parcel Map 05 8 into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 consists of 50.67 acres; Parcel 2 consists of 123.03 acres. The property is bounded on the north by the Edison Generating Plant and on the west by undeveloped industrial property. Improvement of perimeter streets has been deferred until such time as develop- ment occurs on the parcels. Seventh Street, a master planned street, hill be dedicated at this time, with improvements being deferred until time of development. The parcels being proposed are large enough to permit deferment of hydrological studies until development or further subdivision is proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II 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 environ- ment as a result of the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tentative map be approved, subject to t e 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, L BH-.U:jaa Attachments ITEM C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA., APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7088 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7088) LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4TH STREET AND ETIWANDA AVENUE. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7088, submitted by Ralph Wenger and Theodore Zwicker and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the northwest corner of 4th Street and Etiwanda Avenue, being a division of Parcel 2 of Parcel Maps 6658 as recorded in - -rcel Map Book 64, pages 52 and 52; and, WHEREAS, on July 28, 1981, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above- described maps NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed Is General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on August 26, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7088 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Resolution No. Par 9 ® 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 Ccmmission held on the 26th day of August, 1981, by the following vote - to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E It CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT Reference Parcel Map 6658 FILED BY: Ralph D. Wenger & Theodore Zwicker TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7088 LOCATION: West side of Etiwanda, north of 4th Street DATE FILED: 7/28181 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 6658 RECEIPT NUMBER: 12326 as recorded PMB 64 Pages 51 & 52 FEE: $273.00 ZONE: * * If * * * * If * * If * * * If If * If e * * * If * * If If * * * If * * * * * * If * * * * * * TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Adams & Ells GROSS ACREAGE: 173.70 ADDRESS: 3236 N. Peck Road E1 Monte, CA 91734 MINIMUM LOT AREA: MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: If If if * If * If If * If * * * * If If If * * * * If If If * * * * * * If If * If * If * * * * * it If RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE M Ralph D. Wenger 350 S. Figueroa 213/680 -3820 and Theodore 7wicker Suite 120, Los Angeles, CA 90071 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications X 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: 40 XN&Xl%bKXX feet on 7th Street additional feet on additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other X 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: per Planning Commission Resolution 78 -29 _ 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Master Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: RCE 20 LJ 2 E 11.4 TENTATIVE MAP N0. 708£ Page 2 Improvements (Bonding, is required prior to ❑ Recording for ) ZI Building permit for Parcel I & 2 ) 7. X 8. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk,one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on ali interior streets. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: __,..A; _.. 1.....t .. .. ....: .... �•..A i,,inntinn nn mntpr STREET NAME CURB & GJTTER A.C. PVMT. SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STREET TREES STREET LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER Etiwanda X X X X X X 4th Street X X X lien 7th Street X X X X X X X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage strictures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide asl utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilities are to be underground. X 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 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 underqround service. 16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The following specific ,imensions, i.e., cu - (T-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: _ lII. The to awing existing streets are su star ar : They will require: Approvals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map wiil be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7088 X 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: A. Caltrans, for: B. City: X C. County Dust Abatement District: D. U.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: X E. Cucamonga County Water Distr' -t: sewer and water F. Other: Map Control Paae 3 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 the right- of -wayT e n accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located _ 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as fo ows: _ 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. Parcel Map Waiver X 28. Infermaticn submitted at the time of application X is / Xil�',)aiUM 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 ❑ Recording for ) ® Building permit for Parcel ice) X 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood - ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. 'his subdivision will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. Zone A -4, B and C. _ 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 rater 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: X 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will e required to assess impact of increased runoff. X 34. Storm retention facilities will be rp-uired at time cf development. RCE 20 11 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7088 Page 4 Miscellaneous X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. X 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with tie Planning Division report on subject property. 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will requ're annexation. 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shk1wn as re- quired: __ X 39. X 40. -X Al. X 42. X 43. 44. X 45. 0 RCE 20 Proper grading and erosion control, includ�rg the preventation of s!dimenta -' tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as requires. A prelimino,ry soils -eport will not be required for this site for .'the follow- ing reasons: A coot' of the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to The Engineering Division. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not gua.rartee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga Courty Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Pcrwits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the signa- ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted frog the final map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. At the time of Final 11ap submittal, the following shall be submittal: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as re`erence and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Mul•.iple lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at loi lines. Prior to development of any parcel, a complete Circulation Plan for ;he area shall be ubmitted. CITY OF PONCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER BE y 1 h ,S ea r 7a i 4 � � 4 R o � u ; o- R b g� V ku r 1�. 0 Q� Wa c � 4 v i k i ase �•. 3 'P r r11 m fq t4 ask 0 II� ,\ I lhrr --11 � fb .1 I I:' Skk wrn ..... ' rte+• ...+.ir..� { v a r- i 0 L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIP.L STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SKEET - 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 p::oject 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 Cc mnittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 'l_) 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: Parcel Map No. 7088 APPLICAN'T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: —Ralph D. Wenner & Theodore Zwicker _ 350 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, Calif. 90071 Suite 120 W.ME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Adams & Ells Tel. (213) 283 -3797 3236 N. Peck Road Att: Jim Kammert E1 Monte, Calif. 91734 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Assessor's Parcel 229 - 283 -29 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None - Y_1 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Parcel Man ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SOUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS,. IF ANY: ]7..70 Acres comprised of two parcels. DESCRIBE THE ENVIR )IT.12.11TAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCE3sTIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The subject property consists of existing grape vineyards, flat_ Kaiser Steel Planfis adjacent to the east; vacant land owned ® by the railroad is to the south; the Southern California Edison Company generating plan adjoins on t 11 e north -na tea o n ng enrvPntly being developed. 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 Y^ 2 (' WILL THIS PROJECT: YXS NO _ *9_ 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? 11 X S: Remove any existing trees? flow many?____ _ X 6. Create the need for use o`s 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 .7-.:Iv 20. 1481 Signature Ia4, � James K. KanmTert Title 1-13 , PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _ Parcel Man ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OP' EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 173.70 Acres comprised of two parcels. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMMITAL SETTING OF T11E PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCFNIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPFRTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESS".RY SI3EETS): The subject property consists of existing grape - ineyards, Kaiser Steel Plant'is adjacent to the east; vacant land owned Ak by the railroad is to the south;, the Southern California Edison Company generating plan adjoins on the north and t- �e adjoining — - on the west is grape vineyard currently being developed. 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 ][, 2 RESIDE17TIAL CONSTRICTION 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.: Spe=cific Location of Project: 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin. construction: S. Earliest date of oc nc•: Modol and ` of Tentative 5. Bed_ooms Price Rance a PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PI•iASE 4 TOTAL l 0 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 26, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL NAP NO. 6962 KEY - X—residenvial subdivision of acres 1—and into 4 parcels in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on the north side of Vicara Drive, west of Jasper Street - APN 1061 - 141 -06 INTRODUCTION: This subdivision divides 2.08 aces of land into 4 parcels for single fami ly development. Areas to the north and south are presently developed with single family resi- dences; areas to the east and west are presently vacant and zoned for single family development. This site contains a flat grade with steep slopes to the street. Staff feels that it will be difficult to provide access for lot grading if pads are graded individually. In order to provide this access, a condition has been incorpora- ted to rough grade the entire site prior to recordation of the parcel map. It also appears that building the street improvements on a lot by lot basis would be inefficient and result in a patchwork product, therefore it is recommended that the entire frontage be built at once. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II 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 environment 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, LBN:BK:jaa Attachments ITEM D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROV1iiG PARCEL MAP NUMFER 6962 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6962) LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF VICARA AT JASPER STREET. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6962, submitted by Larry Key and consisting of 4 parcels, located N1S Vica.a at Jasper Street, being a division of parcel 3 of Parcel Map 3342 recorded in Book 33, Pages 61 and 62; and, WHEREAS, on June 24, 1981, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above- described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 2. That the improvemcnt of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on August 26, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6962 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 11 0 Resolution No. Page 2 0 BY Jeffrey Kiny, Chairman 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 26th day of August, 1981, by the following vote - to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 Ci,f OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY E:NGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Larry Key TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6962 LOCATION: North side of Vicara at Jasper Street DATE FILED:_ 6 /24/81 NUMBER OF LOTS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 3342 RECEIPT NUMBER: 11839 recordea in Book 33 pages 61 and 62 FEE:�250.00 ZONE: R- 1,20,000 *************** *k * * * * * ** * * ** *, * * * * * * * * * *•* * * ** TENTATIVE MAP PREPARFD BY: Jerry Wilson GROSS ACREAGE: 2.08 ADDRESS: 387 N. 2nd Street MINIMUM LOT AREA: Upland, CA 91786 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: ************k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS L:J PHONE. I- 0 Larry Key 12601 Ja.lepeno Avenue 714/627 -4479 Chino, CA 91710 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: 30 additional feet on Vicara various widths on Jasper additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other — 3. Rights of vehicular access snall be limited as follows: 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Haster Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP N0. 696 Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to 0 Recording for Vicara ) RIBuilding permit forJaspeer ) 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior streets. X _ 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: if...., l.riinn lnnrl<raninn anri irrinatinn on meter - STREET NAME J CURB & 1A.C. GUTTER PVMT. SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STREET TREES STREET LIGHTS 14EDIAN ISLAND* OTHER Vicara X X X :PF-J-_ I 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. _ x 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. y 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. X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. _X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 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 following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay:____ 17. The folTowing specific dimensions, i.e., cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: _ 18. ThheTi owing existing streets are substandar They will require: Approvals and Fees _ 19. This subdivisio 11 be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ San Bernardino Cuu,,[y Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP N0. 6962 Page 3 X 21- Permits from other agencies will be required as-follows: _ A. Caltrans, for: _ B. City: C. County Dust Abatement Uistrict.: _ 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 the right -of -way line in accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase § ubdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located _ 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs c arificatlon as fol ows: _ 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. Parcel F"ap Waiver 23. Information submitted at the time of application is J 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 0Recording for ) 0 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 flew may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. 31. If riater 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 re. ired to :i;sess rmpac o increased runoff. _ X 34. The site shall be rough graded per conceptual grading plan prior to recordation of map. RCE 20 13 qW Miscellaneous L] 35. ` 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. X 41. 42. X 43. 44. X 45. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP N0. 6962 Page 4 Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: Proper gracing and erosion contro , including the preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. A preliminary soils report will riot 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. 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. strict will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will it be issued unless said certification is received in writing. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property .-ill 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 limits of said Section. At the time of Final Map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 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. Local and Master Planned Equestrian Trails shall be provided throughout the tract in accordance with the Equestrian Trail Plan. A detailed equestrian trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance with City equestrian trail standards, shall be submitted to and approveo by the City Planner prior to approval and recordation of the final map. CITY OF RANCHO ( GA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: MTKC CTTY ur T!ANCAO Cur.►M tW-O.. COUNTY TENTATIVE PANAP. PARCEL 6962 aIIf%.LEtkaEN.►EHq� MCE�.Tp'WC4NYl «Yk. 4laL. WPR, . {'.1MLi M y.Y rC.tlY.YD.40 QnN,T•ENRTCNypCr4�. k.a.Ya ws MAY, 1901 � - / M.V.i <e.o..✓G....o cw. J6l.Y «ENO avS. laN....p.CV�MY..r «1106 CN.NN.CiI.gYM.urN Gr N.I GS, ...7i N[nw• l ay.f.N.{ k. k0.00.J 1t. Vb.. a.f 1. GIkpV .. <aYfYK n.I.Y: . ✓ORNNfV V. NOYMr...a. V.`..: +..�r�nwwNY.wkr� w.wwL..ra.r.. ra f..r..o fsKa+ 4.wG.w.N.Nr.Y�p VY.rwV i..Y�.1'111y�aYR NN�«V.V kN�O.R. -13L n v 9372, 141. Z. :U o110'4 LKCEL- DRIVE vr.NTY Jni« �'Al Cl CITY OI' RANChO GUCAMONGA INYTIAL STUDY PART I — PROJECT INI'ORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $60.0C For all projects requiring environmental re•7iew, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through t'te department whc:e the project application is made. Upon receipt >f: this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Devel.opme it 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 Declarzition will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental .l'm ^act Renort will be ;repare,, or 3) An additional information report should >e supplied ® by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project_ PROJECT TITLE: Pd,RGEL, rh,4V-> tai, —° (ZC(a APPLICAI.'T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: l�AS ,Y Ken NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: _A_hA_ulILSQU CIVIL, ENCIWE- z 38,7 VA. r210. . 0. OPlA1.iQF z C-1d4),MS -7-5B5 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO_1 NAr/ GQg, or VICAe& DWI k AASPOEL 1't i ftbtJevo Q' 0C1kM0NC,A _ 1Q�1- t�LV -Lr� LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE THE EIyVIROXMEMrAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORrJMTION 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): Peem,e is MAX -Am"T- M6 'S'T1%3C_- U1ZC%. F!Q -nrtS 9Q. - IS V4 r_ A..ti1'i". 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? Mdn 0 Y- 2 11 E WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)! 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? _X , 5: Remove any existing trees? Iiow many? -,K_ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables ar 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 Sd Signature ljmt �- -f I. 3 Title The following i Planning Divisi' school district vane of Develop I Specific Locati I 1. Number of singl family units: Z. Number of multi family units: i 3. Date proposed begin ccnstruct} i IIi 4- Earliest date d occupancy:i Modal and u of Tenta 5. Bedrooms Price 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 26, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP • ^`•v +-•� v,NyJ * 111 Y CJ 1 PIGIY 1 J - H cUllonerCla I geve 1 op- ment of 6.4 acres into four (4) parcels in the C -2 and R -1 zone located on the south side of f=oothill Blvd. east of Helms - AN 208- 261• -42, 43 & 44 1977 INTRODUCTION: This subdivision divides 6.4 acres of land into three (3) parcels for commercial development and one (1) parcel for residential use. Parcel #3 has an existing building containing a drug store and a pet shop. The Woolworth Garden Center approved by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1981, as Director Review 81 -28 will be constructed on Parcel #2. Parcel #1 is vacant with no immediate plans for development. Hampshire Street should be extended to Helms providing access to the rear of the existing building for service trucks and to Parcel #4 for future residen- tial development. The north half of the street should be built with this sub- division. The existing shopping center driveway is a part of this parcel map and should be rebuilt to proper standards. Property surrounding this location is developed or zoned commercial use. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initia Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II 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, Z l Attachments ITEM E ^s I�1 1 � 1� ^• � 11 1'1 1 1.. !i r 1 1 .1 1 ' 1 4 �� J ' �11 1 i1 1 1�� � '1� 1 � I' 1 � 1 •� `` ! '��: X11' � � , 7�.� 11 � � 1 1 • 'v 1 ry,. 1 r1. d. :it'i� 1 , l �11� 1.. ,+ S�" u, a;` �'i;, ��' 1 11,1,.', d .'y 1. I' � I' I nl r. 1� I eY ��� r 3 - ,1, ,,, �, � � ; fir' ,. ,, , r 1��. r`, I v ��' ���„ 1 1 }}��♦If 1`. 1� %I . r ' 1; .0 ��;�_ '.'.. v, i. ;,.. ,�:�' ,1 L lil'. , ,1:: : ..: 1 �;'�: `,'A J 1, '1 � -. ��1t tit ^ `^ �1; , �,; . `� 1;��� 1,. �1. 1� 1 s•;51,, ��, rqi t.ifi i'L 1 ,. i ., . , •.,r ; r .III r I .' .,!.r ', 1 � r.. J,. 1.�. — -: � ,. , ,,, ,, . Y +, ' .,t � C � ,,. 1 1 ♦ i . `- RESIDE ?ITIAL CONSTRUCTION i The followinq 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 residentia'! development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location o£2roject: 1. Numccr o-7 single 1 PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Plan SE. 4 TOTAL AWL T -4 family units: Z. Number of multiole family units: 3. Date proposed to beair. construction: 4. Earliest date of 0cc111 -) ^.CV Model In and u of Tentative 5. IIed_-oOms Price Rance 1 PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Plan SE. 4 TOTAL AWL T -4 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police-, fire, water, sewage, etc.)"! X_ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives: Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the 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. V Date O� Signature AM Title 1-778 �3 L. .1 CITI Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA S-TAFF REPORT DATE: August 26, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. PRAVER BROS. INVESTMENTS - A commercial develop- ment of 6.4 acres into four (4) parcels in the C -2 and R -1 zone located on the south side of Foothill Blvd. east of Helms - APN 208 - 261 -42, 43 & 44 INTRODUCTION: This subdivision divides 6.4 acres of land into three (3) parcels for commercial development and one (1) parcel for residential use. Parcel #3 has an existing building containing a drug store and a pet shop. The Woolworth Garden Center approved by the Planning Commission on August 12, 1981, as Director Review 81 -28 will be constructed an Parcel #2. Parcel #1 is vacant with no immediate plans for development. Hampshire Street should be extended to Helms providing access to the rear of the existing building for service trucks and to Parcel #4 for future residen- tial development. The north half of the street- should be built with this sub- division. The existing shopping center driveway is a part of this parcel map and should be rebuilt to proper standards. Propertu surrounding this location is developed or zoned commercial use. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II 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. RECC14MENDATION: It is recommended to the City Engineer's Report, and resolution is attached to provide Respectfully submitted, l LBH:B :jaa Attachments that the tentative map be approved, subject that a Negative Declaration be issued. A for approval should the Commission concur. ITEM E RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF-RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6582 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6582) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HELMS AND FOOTHILL. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6582, submitted by Praver Brothers Investments and consisting of 4 parcels, located at the southeast corner of Helms and Foothill, being a division of the North 1/2 of Northwest 114 of Northeast 1/4 of section 10, T.1.W R.7.1J. ; and, WHEREAS, on December 18, 1980, a formal application was s requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1981, the Planning Commission held duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: That the following findings That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on August 26, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6582 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 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 &e 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 26th day of August, 1981, by the following vote - to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT- COMMISSIONERS: ry 11 !'u fy ' • y. 111♦.• . pp W _ x 3AV 31 �N9Y7YM -3— - IZiS ca +c C4, zz S 14-1 _:.r PAS' SA73'N 1 r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ® CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Praver Bros. Investments TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6582 LOCATION: Southeast corner of Helms and Fcoth:71 DATE FILED: 12/818/80 NUMBER OF LOTS: 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Division of N 1/2 of NW 1/4 of NE RECEIPT NUMBER: 09422 114 of Section 10, T.I. N. R 7 W PEE: $250 ZONE: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * •.': * * TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Albert Webb & Associates GROSS ACREAGE: 6.4 ADDRESS: 3788 McCroy Street MINIMUM LOT AEA:_ Riverside, CA 92502 — MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: is RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE V Charles J. Hughes 1101 Fulton Ave_ Sacramento, CA 95825 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications X 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: 10 additional feet on Foothill Blvd. _ additional feet on additional feet on 24 Corner P/L radius required on Foothill & Helms Other 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Master Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6582 Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to El Recording for Foothill& Hampshire) ® Building permit for Helms ) 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior streets. X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: * includina land�raninn anri irrinatinn nn mnfnr STREET MAME CURB & T GUTTER P.C. I •Vf417. SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STREET TREES STREET LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER F thilI r X * X X ien 3b * R. cur Hm _'re n NS 26' X X X Helms X X X X txisting orive approacn ano parkway lanascaping on parcel 3 shall be reconstructed to City Standards prior to recordation. X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide ail utility .�rvices to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, :.elephone and cable television conduit. Ail utilities are to be underground. _X 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary -ewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County .Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X _ 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 underqround service. 16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. '!he foiTowing specific icemen ons, i.e., Cu -de -sac radius, street section widths) are not approved:_ ` 18. The fOl I owing existing streets are su stan ar . They will require: Approvals and Fees X 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALiRANS/ SXd( X6ifl F14l 4kd9XkOCXS16M14X�tXSX &%XIXBJ4?6X,X96RXARlEXX'117�R . X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6582 Page 3 0 X 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: X A. Caltrans, for: Foothill Blvd. _ B. City- _ C. County Dust Abatement District: D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: Y 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 the right -of -way line in acord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located _ 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map Needs clarification as follows: -27. The border sha be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. 0 Parcel Map Waiver _ 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certif ci ate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recording for ) O Building permit for —) _ 29. Proposed subaivision 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 -fTie require to assess impact o increased wil runoff. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP ND. 6582 Page 4 Miscellaneous 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: X 39. Proper grading and erosion control l, including the preventation of se3!menta Lion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. A preiiminary 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. X 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 Dilater 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 development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or 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 limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final Map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and 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 easements and maintenance agreement ensuring access to all parcels over private roads and drives and blanket drainage easements across all parcels shall be recorded concurrent with the recordation of the Parcel Map. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: 'RCE 20 CITY OF RAIICxo CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applir_an. Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form mu::t be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee- through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this app1icat4..�n, the Environmental Analysis staff will prelare 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 Concnittee will make one o. three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impac4. and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, ox 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: F. W. Woolworth Garden Center APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Praver Brothers — Investments, 16661 Ventura Blvd. 11302, Encino, CA. 91436 —MT177=7715TTT — TAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING TIiIS PROJECT: Albert A. Webb Associates, Att'n: Harold L. Maberry, 3788 McCray Street, Riverside, CA. 92306 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSO'.- PARCEL 1.0.) Southeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and Helms. Assessor's Parcel N<,. _ 208 -260 -043 and 208 -260 -044. LIST 01'I1ER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: City of R nchomonaa Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council _ - I- i PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OP PROJECT: Construction of a commercial plant nursery on 1.9 acres ACREAGE_ OF PROTECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 5.5 acres. Two proposed buildings, one of 5,115 So. Ft. and one of 960 Sq. Ft. One existing of 8,000 Sq.Ft. DESCRIBE 'ME ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCL17DING INM- RMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANT_L11ALS, IVY CULTURAL, 9ISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROU.MllgG PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): The project site is vacant land., except or one exis ing struc ure F5T a slope of less than two , commercia on consists of annua he site has no uniqu dential to the south a a mix of commercia , 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. r] a- 2. C] 16 hfb� WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO _ X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 3. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3.. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, a ater, sewage, etc.)? X 4. Create chancres in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5:. Remove any existing trees? How many? _ _ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as i--oxic substances, flammables or explec:.ves? Explanation of any :JES answers above: vrater may exist depending upon the type of plaits offered for sale 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 addi'donal information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. ALBERT A. WEBBBB ASSOCIATES Date November 24, 1983 Signature `\� R z -3 Title Environmental Specialist RrSIDETITIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the . school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Tame of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: 1. Number of single family units: Z. Iumber of multiple family units: 3. fate proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of oc ^•�ancv Nodal and u of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Rance PHASE I PRASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 0. CITY OF RA14CHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 26, 1981 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeav, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: REVISION 0?DTS :APPROVAL Na01 HONE&ASOCATS- _Ca�e_Y 62a located t the southwest corner of Lemon and Haven 1977 Site Approval 80 -01, approved by the Commission on May 21, 1980, provided for a shopping center on the southwest corner of Haven Ave. and Lemon Ave. Since that time, there have arisen reasons for the revision of two orf the engineer- ing conditions of approval. The San Bernardino County Flood Control r,-.strict, which is the owner of the storm drain in Haven Ave., will not allow a new connection to that drain because of its limited capacity. A supplemental drain is in the City's Master Plan but will not be built for several years. For these reasons, Condition #46 should be deleted. It has become apparent that traffic volumes at the intersection will not jus- tify the immediate installation of signals,thus Condition #44 should be deleted. RECOMMENDATION: )t is recommended that -the Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the deletion of Conditions 44 and 46 from the original conditions of approval for Site Approval 80 -01. Respectfully submitted, LBH : AR j as Attachments ITEM F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SITE APPROVAL ?0 -01 LOCATED AT HAVEN AVENUE AND LEMON AVENU:. WHEREAS, on the 25th day of February, 1980, Site Approval No. 80 -0I. was approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 80 -08; and , WHEREAS, cn the 26th day of August the Par -cho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the amendment to said Resolution which established signal and storm drain requirements as conditions of approval for the above - described project; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 2' Section 1: That the following findings have been made: a. That the traffic signal is not essential to public service at this time. b. That some sio;— strain work is currently infeasible. 41 Sectioi, 2: That Resolution No. 80 -07 is hereby revised to eliminate conditions 44 and 46 of said resolution. i,PPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission n 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 hald on the 26th day of August, 1981 by the following vote to-wit: 0 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 80 -07 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANC:10 CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE APPROVAL NO. 80 -01 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AND LEMON IN THE C -1 ZONE WHEREAS, on December 24, 1979, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the w ove- described project; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 1980. the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above- described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: , SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape. 2. Thrt the site has adequate access. 3. That the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property. I1. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. 5. That the conditions listed in this `report are necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on February 25, 1980. SECTION 3: That Site Approval No. 80 -01 is approved subject to the following conditions and the attached standard conditions: Applicant shall contact the Manning Division for compliance with the following conditions: I. The development plans on file in the Planning Division indicate several buildings and uses. Of those indicated, the nursery, the service station and the retail building were approved by the Commission. The second story office addition and drivethru restaurant were approved in concept only. Final review and approval by the Planning Commission is required for these two uses. t.� 2. Vacant building pads within the shopping center shall be temporarily turfed and irrigated until is they are built upon. Such detaiia shall be included in the detailed landscape and irrigation plans. 3. Six (6) foot block wails, measured • from the highest grade at the location of such wall, shall be constructed along the west and south property lines in conjunction with Phase 1. �. Dense landscaping shall be provided along the west and south property lines. 5. A ratio of 20% of the trees to be planted on the site shall be specimen size trees -to be 36" box trees. 6. All street landscaping along Lemon and Haven shall 'be installed in conjunction with Phase I. In addition, mounding shall be provided where - ever possible and hedges in front of the drive - thru window of the restaurant. 7. No additional food uses may be permitted within the center unless parking requirements of the zoning ordinance can be met and that such use is specifically reviewed and approved by the Plannir.g Division. 8. The service station shall be redesigned to incorporate the use of more woods and color. Such design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. 9. The signs shown on the plans are not approved and will require separate sign review and approval by the Planning Division. 10. Site shall be developed ir, occordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 11. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Approval of this request shall not waive com- pliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances In effect at time of Buildina Permit issuance. • I 1 13. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot* high masonry wall with view obstructing gates pursuant to City standards. Location shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division. 14. All roof appurtenances, including air condi- tioners, shall be architectirally integrated, shielded `rom view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning and Building Divisions. 15. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval contained herein shall bt completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 16. All parking lot ILadscaped islands shall have a minimum inside dimension of 4' and shall contain a 12" walk adjacent to parking stall enclosed F,v a 6" raised P.C.C. curb. 17. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. r..� 18. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum 1$ gallon size. 19. All twoway aisle widths shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 20. Emergency access shall be provided,. maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 24 feet wide at all times during construction in accordance with Foothill Fire District requirements. 21. All parking spaces shall be double striped. 22. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building per- mits. 23. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. 24. Any signs proposed for th;s 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. 25. A uniform sign program for this development shall be submitted to the Planning Division for 'heir review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 26. Phase 3 (secon,: story construction) shall be returned to the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits to determine if such addition would block views of residents to the south. 27. If the gasoline station ceases operation as a service station after 90 days, the station is to be demolished and removed, and the site is to be landscaped. Underground storage tanks shall also be removed. 28. Fifty percent of the parking area shall be shaded by vegetation within 15 ,tears. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 29. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable "codes and ordi- nances in effect at the time of approval of this project. 4 30. Prior to issuance of building permits for cum - bustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Foothill District Fire Chief that water supply for fire protection is available. 31. -Prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the appli- cant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Suca fees may include., but not be limited to: System Development Fee, Drainage Fee, Permit and Plan Checking fees. 32. This approval shall become_ null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval. 33. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted grading practices. 34. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning, Engineering and Builling Divisions and shall be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision man or issuance of building permit, whichever comes first. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for Compliance with the Following Conditions: 35• Dedications shall bt, made by final map of all interior street rights-of -Dray and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative Parcel Map 5803 prior to issuance of building permits for this site. 36. Reciprocal easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives, or parking areas. 37• Adequate provisions shall be made for the ingress, egress and internal circulation of any trucks which will be used for delivery of goods to the property or in the operation of the ® proposed business. 38. Construct: the following missing impr'ov&nents including, but not limited to: c Haven: Curb 6 gutter, A.C. pvmt., sidewalk, drive appr., street lights; A.C. over lay, and median island. Lemon: Curb E gutter, A.C. pvmt.,•sidewalk, drive appr., street lights, A.C. over lay, wheel chair ramps, and catch basins. 39. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of -way, an encroachment permit and fee- shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 40. Street improvement plans approved by the City Engineer and prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be required, for a'1 street improvements, prior to issuance o " an encroach- ment permit. 41. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to recording of the map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. 42. All street improvements shall be installed to the satisfz -!ion of the City Engineer, prior to occupant. y . 43. Pavement strip?ng, marking, traffic and street name signing shall be installed per the require- ments or the City Engineer. 44. Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue intersection shall be signalized at the developer.'s expense. Cost experienced above that of the systems development fee will be reimbursed_ 45. The applicant will re responsible for construc- tion of all onsite e-ainage facilities required by the City Engineer. 46. Intersection drains will be required at the following locations: Southside of Lemon at Haven 47. The proposed project falls within areas indi- cated as subject to flooding under the National Flood Insurance Program and is subject to the provisions of that program and City Ordinance No. 24. 48. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall will be required to protect the structures by diverting sheet runoff to streets, along Lemon. 49. The following northsouth streets shall be designed as major water carrying streets requir- ing a combination of special curb heights, com- mercial -type drive approaches, rolled street connections, flood protection walls, and /or landscaped earth berms and rolled driveways at property line- Haven Avenue 50. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground including utilities along major arterials less than 12 KV. 51. Utility easements shall be provided to the specification of the serving utility companies and the City Engineer. 0 11 J 52. Developer shall be responsible for the reloca- tion of existing public utilities, as required. 53. Developer shall be responsible for the instal- lation of street lighting in accordance with Southern California Edison Company and City standards. 54. Water and sewer system plans shall be deigned and constructed to meet n quirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Foothill Fire District and the Environmental Health Department of the County of Sar Bernardino. A letter of compliance from CCWD will be required prior to recordation. 55. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will be subjec -t to any requirements that may be received from them. 56. Permits from other agencies will be required as fo1 lows : PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Herman Rempel, Ch ikman A9TEST: Secretary oi' the inning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning COnrnissior 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 lanning Commission helu on the 25ut day of February, 1980, by the following vote, to wiL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, REMPCL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: N014E San Bernardino County Flood Control District 57. Final parcel and tract maps shall conform to City standards and procedures. c APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1980. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Herman Rempel, Ch ikman A9TEST: Secretary oi' the inning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning COnrnissior 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 lanning Commission helu on the 25ut day of February, 1980, by the following vote, to wiL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, REMPCL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: N014E E LJ 11 CITY OF RKNC?IO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 26, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11933 (P.D. 81- WOODLAND PACIFIC - A total planned development of 185 single fam detached units and a 14.6 acre park on 95.5 acres of land in the R -1- 20,000 zone located on Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside. ABSTRACT: The pro�ert is a single family residential development submitted in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance. Since this project appears to have environmental concerns, an Initial Study was•perpared for the Planning Commissions consideration and review. BACKGROUND: The project is located on the east and west side of Hermosa Avenue, north of Hillside. The project site totals 95.5 arses. 185 single family detached homes are proposed to be built on 80.9 acres while a park will be developed on the remaining 14.6 acres. The proposed Tentative Tract Map, Exhibit "B ", indicates that 149 lots are 12,000 sq. ft. and 36 lot are 20,000 sq. ft. Current zoning is R -1- 20,000, and the General Plan designates the majority of the property as a proposed park site. The applicant is re- questing a General Plan Amendment to very low density (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and a zone change to the PD Combining District. The surrounding zoning and land use is provided on the attached Zoning Map (Exhibit "C "). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: Approximately 80% of the site is densely covered with 65 -year old red gum Eucalyptus trees which are in good condition. The overall gradient of this site is approximately 10% with the slope running north to south. The majority of this site empties into a natural drainage course which flows northeast to southwest. Runoff from the easterly portions of this site travels into a channel which runs along the east project boundary 'then turns west along the south of the property line. Surface runoff is very slow and the erosion hazard is slight. Cutting across the northern part of the property is the Cucamonga Fault. Existing development on site is limited to Hermosa Avenue, a concrete reservoir near the south property line, a forest service road along the north project boundary, several internal dirt roads, and small borzon pits in the northwest portion of this site. The project site is bounded on the nurth by the foothills and isolated single family homes. To the southwest lies an existing single family residential development. A subdivision application, Tentative Tract 10088, has been filed along the western, project boundary. To the south and east there is a variety of land uses including agricultural uses, single family residences,vacant land, and a flood control basin. ITEM G TT 11933 (P.D. 81 -03) 0 Staff Report -2- August 26, 1981 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is attached for your review. Staff has conducted a field investigation and has completed Part II of the Initial Study. Following is a brief discussion of the major issues and potential adverse impacts which may occur as a result of this project. 1. Drainage: Currently, the onsite soils are excessively drained and the absorption rate is high. This project could significantly increase runoff by increasing the amount of impervious surfaces which do not allow water to seep into the gound. Compounding this problem, is the fact that approximately 750 acres of land outside of the project area drain into and across the site. The magnitude to which the increased runoff will affect the ground water table and erosion potential is not known. 2. Biota: Removing a large number of Eucalyptus trees from the site could significantly reduce a wildlife habitat which is unique to this area. The environmental impact of this action is not known. 3. Land Use: Since the project site is designated rs a park in the General Plan, construction of this project may necessitate the need for another park in the general vicinity. It is uncertain whether the short term benefit of the development of a 14.6 acre park will override the City's long -term goal of providing a much larger park some time in the future. Also, the economic feasibility of the City developing the entire Eucalyptus grove as a park, or the feasibility of purchasing an alternate site must be considered. A determination of the most appropriate land use configuration and density should be made. The possible alternatives could range from the clustering of homes on smaller lots to maximize open space or to maintaining a minimum lot ,ize of 3-,.acre or larger throughout the project site. 4. Public Safety: Public Safety is a concern which must also be addressed. Maintaining the maximum number of Eucalyptus trees will make the homes highly susceptitle to fire. Potential fire hazard is increased for this site because the northern project boundary abuts the foothills. Also of concern is the Cucamonga Fault which runs through the northern portion of the property. Since the magnitude of an earthquake in this fault could reach 6.5 to 7.0 on the Richter Scale, there is a significant public safety concern. X_Y T` eA`y Y z D 6 t + : q l , CHAFFEV PLAZA al�i� ,pp P . - •jwu twceo cur%Mml-&ti a ML_MW. AyJIy',4 �n rrw+..• Sul YYJ G.GWM+A, U61�. u CD Cril ph � a >,� m NPIJ tt M1 @�� a; vii M! �� _ a s a O GM1� P� u„ •� F� �y M C eA`y Y z D 6 t + : q l , CHAFFEV PLAZA al�i� ,pp P . - •jwu twceo cur%Mml-&ti a ML_MW. AyJIy',4 �n rrw+..• Sul YYJ G.GWM+A, U61�. u CD o- CA ph � a >,� m NPIJ tt M1 @�� a; vii _ a P� u„ •� F� �y M C eA`y Y z D 6 t + : q l , CHAFFEV PLAZA al�i� ,pp P . - •jwu twceo cur%Mml-&ti a ML_MW. AyJIy',4 �n rrw+..• Sul YYJ G.GWM+A, U61�. u TT 11933 (P.D. 81 -03) Staff Report -3- August 26, 1921 RECOMMENDATION: Based upon staff's review and preparatior. of the Ini,.ial Study, it is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this project. If the Commission concurs with this finding, then the scope of the E.I.R. should be determined by consi- dering the information presented in the initial Study, this report, and the public hearing. P.espectf,.11y su mitted- � t�L_ JACK I_Ali, AIC? Director of Community Development Atii.dchments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "E" Exh'ib'it "F" Exhibit "G" X Vicinity Map Tentativa Tract Map Zoning Map Site Plan Grading (two sheets) Natural Features Map Conceptual Landscaping Plan ' �` '�. ..- 1- ;,y.____.L �M1•rne! I�q,�,'lyfiplty,y� 1 €L• IF o . cr = ; I' , .. RANCHO ;. Ai BONGA WILZON _ _ . _ _ 4 _ _ r a 1- - -- -- •ry-�.« : ySC - r-- - - - + - - - - - -- - - - - - +i ��. 1 __.��• •waw /PR17P05 VICINITY Y FAA,P � FORTH CITY O lTEtt: ��� � �03) RA\CI-iO CUG. iMONI 'C>A TITLE yfC ;lsf'f`f j1P�`�, PLANNING DIVISO`•1 F:}iF�lliiT . d A 11 SCALE= _L�L2_ TENTA77V'E TRACT NO. 11933 1. Imp NN L NN . an+a.,oan _ rrer n or � �nrro - norzn " .r,..=- .s — ^s�� Gam•. �� .ems. � �I ms's°`- __'�?�r_�: •�..- ===c= = - � Q tea,•. ri - '��r— .�. fi y� '1 'Sr'ir •1 - • �..) r �W lL!) ii �� � I t :rte+++_-- •�._v+sxr_ -rxar r.+, (. ��' W� «d" '�`� fir' am � v i vr= •er: �'._�� {^ - j _ �� � � �i� A ^ ' ;� `may '` C. t: _-' -. _ _; = O =� � - CIF• P) w� M� n.l.x0 NN lip 'i, I �• r ono aa;� ON /p ! - Now cgs ���� - •T,a•. � � tea f .. - «� � � -� ir- d � .R THE UU20ODS AT R&SHCHO CUUMONG91 ER A Planned Conimunity try Woodland Pacific Deeelofxnent, Inc. � �=+= ITEM G 301N] Ha FAA PD- 0 THE WOODS 93T RAPMCH® CUCAMOPIGA Q Planned Community by Wood-land Pacific Development, Inc. WM E-I e=ra -:mss: 0 OffE PLAN STREET SECTIONS ri-7-710 wwlrtaaa<ucmaDml ^� +a � al ----I MIW11fL' -L Li �*. R& -1 LIA- SETBACKS1 PARC SM ---------- . rlw� 1A EA I'M I E 2 U -' N 1-F, k - 4'* -f— THE (WOODS 4T RMICHO CUCAMOFIC24 A Planned Commurity by *dland Pacific Development, 9 j I II mom IN FENCING —o"WrIWINO — 10tv VEMINQ .VMV amw muNrn. t1AP M-7 �*. R& -1 LIA- CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE; PLAN L7 Tr" T�MUL06CIwMi - _ IfItNOw env `�} . „ncwa� c�nw -wwwow wvnonNt owrce - avvw uw� wpm aurt�o 0 ucLpw wvLw[ WIwO[1 z &C Ow A-w �m � wee WC1q� M V El ptcv"c- cccwwM u tOC .w VOT IwwwRww To 0,1 _ pv �....... Tg1(IL r.asl aaLlrLtw 7o OU TYPICAL FINISH GRADING PLANS THE aw"CODS AT RMCHO CU camejIGA A Planned Ccmnwnity by Woodland Pacific Develop -rent I a A a � firm 9 u 0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE .PLAN An , , r I _1, - .r i I A Planned i:ormrlunity by Woodland Pacific Development, Ins. CF�� z EUCALVPTUS CJ'OVU SINULE TOICES Iq 111-11MG CONDITION ["Frr'VOADS NATMAL DRAINAGE CAKWSE M -I 7 rt...7� -- AN N N. 7. C\ - E TIHM WOOOODs aT RaHCHO CUCao�ofjGfi - [: I A Planned Cemmunity by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. qLf 0 2 ITSM 9AH1134T @'F"' THE WOODS 93T R63RCHO MAMMA R Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. � Am. i It + y1 ®ES MIR �� mm & smnwr ear CITY OF RANICUO XCIStONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFOPT- 1ATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Enviro:z ^enzal Assessment Review Fee: $80.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, thin form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department a.r_ere the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environvier_tal Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Devel.onment 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 Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project wifl have no envircrimental impact and a Negative D2claratiOn wil- be, filed, 1) 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: The Woods APPLICAIZ. "S NAME, ADDRLcS, TELEPHONE: Woodland Pacific Oeve1Q9mr1t C/o Dick Scott, :lll W. 9th Street- Upland CA 91786 (714) 946 -1802 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONTE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCLRNING THIS PROJECT: above add Peter Templeton; The Planning Center; 240 Newport Center Drive, Suiti•__21b; Newport Peach, CA 92660 (714) 640 -4911 LOCATION OF PROJECT (ST LL ET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO_) Hermosa Avenue - North of HI'.lside (see attached) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: t ng permits. I -1 13 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The development of deta•tied single- family units on 149 -• 12,000 sq. �,t. lots and 36- 20,000 sq.ft. lots for a total of 185 units plus dedication of a 14.6 acre park witn improve- ment for same as a natural park with equestrian f �i i des. ACREAGE OF PROJECT ArMA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 95.5 acre DESCRIBE THE ET.7MROIQ=` TAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFO RM%TION ONT TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY Ei:ISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) S,Qe attachment Is the project, part of , lar er project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? x- 2 WILL TITS PROJ'r•CT: 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 chance in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? X _ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X _ S: Remove any existing trees? How many ?___ 4. X 6. Create_ the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Exp lanation of any YES_ answers above: (3) The project, by going for services but should be within the accepted range. (4) The applicati is a request for a GPA and a F addition to the zoning classification. 5) Treer will be removed for streets and building envelopes and `ire requirements only. IMT13 T17r: 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 e,hibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my abili*v, 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 Developm t Review Committee. Date /b%d- ic Signaturc % Title 'x 7C-3 0 RESIDENTIAL Co: ST, t;CTIO ^I The _`ollo•.:ing information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planninc Division in order to aio ?.n assessing the :bility of the sc ool district to accommodate t• 1 proposed residential development. Narse of Developer anal Tentative Tract No.: Woodland Pacific Development Inc., TT X111933 Speci`:i; Location of Project: Hermosa Avenue, North of Hillside 1. 2�u -ice= of single L. Number Of lnultinit_ fa-:; ly units: 3. Date nr000sed to becir. ccnstructicn: 4. EarIiest da`e of occ� - :c•. Moca1 and = of Tentative 5. E^_-L`roc:7!s Price Range PHASE I Pii`M 2 PHT,SE 3 PILP SF: 4 TM'.L The development will have six phases as indicated on the phasing exhibit. Construction activities will start approximately 120 days after recordation with each phase approximately 6 mont'ns apart. -r — �el, 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - THE WOODS Allah Topography RP Located at the base of the San Bernardino National Forest, lhr Woods has a high elevation in the northeast corner of 21:0 feet above sea level dropping to a low point along the southern boundary line of 1560 feet above sea level (1520 withiG the drainage area). The overall gradient of the site is 10%, with the slope ranning from north to south. Running through the site in a northea! direction is a natural drainage course. the site west of the drainage area has a condition toward the drainage areas. That the drainage area, although also having a slopes easterly forming the western lirtits area (see attached USES map). ,t to southwest: That portion o, gradual sloping portion east of gradual change, of the drainage The development concept for this project results in mini- mal grading with grading only for streets, access, and housing structure. vegetations Approximately 80'% of the site is densely planted wi`.h red Am gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) approximately 65 years old. The densely planted conditions of the site have not permitted the average tree diameter formation, however, overall the trees are in good condition. The limits of the densely planted conditions are shown on the following exhibit. As can be se -n from this exhibit, th(: groves do not exist on the most eastern and western portions on the site. The "Woods" plan will preserve tn, maximum number of treas possibly restricting tree to that necessary for streets, access, building envelope and fire station. Additionally, those areas not now planted will have intro- ducers eucalyptus. Riparian habitat exist in the natural drainage areas of the site and will be -reserved in the park area. Soils The cite lies in the northwestern portion of the San Bernardino Valley in an area of granular alluvial soils. These soils, derived from the San Gabriel Mountains, have been deposited to great depths. is .. QII, .:I Is 1.1 _JiICWLAbW GIEANT it I W1YI c ��',:�r.•�``,, rte, ,, 1:. 1Nyttv.IN0, ,L-- R E ST vfG �✓ ilnr. a i'�xRa \ a I -- '�.- ; �I! .;r - ,III •27 n,l I• III �I �............. 1:- --i ^�� �i I J�'• l.II • ', �� ,l aall���_ QII, .:I Is 1.1 _JiICWLAbW GIEANT it I W1YI c ��',:�r.•�``,, rte, ,, 1:. 1Nyttv.IN0, ,L-- R E ST vfG �✓ ilnr. a i'�xRa \ a M THE WOODS ff RMICHO CUUMONC;A A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. H M. MN1lG �.-V d l l s Soils in this area are part of the Tu.junga- Soboba Associa- tion. A soil association is a landscape tnat has a dis- tinctive proportional pattern of soils. Specifically, these soils are of the Soboba gravelly, loamy sand series (SOC), are nearly level to moderately sloping, and are excessively drained. Runoff on these soils is very slow, erosion hazard is slight, and the degree of limitation for septic tank absorption fields is also slight. Test holes encountered surface layers of light brown to dark yellow -brown silty sands with gravel, cobbles, and boulders underlain by dark grey -brown sands with gravel, cobbles, and boulders, or red -brown very silty sands with gravel, cobbles, and boulders, which are further underlain by light orovrn sandy gravels with cobbles and boulders to the maximum depth penetrated. A full soils engineering report prepared by Richard Mills Associates, Inc., 9223 -C Archibald Avenue; Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, (714) 939 -1751, is available upon request. The study aid not indicate that soilsrwould be a problem during this development of the site provided guidelines are followed. Seismicity The Woods is located largely on the northwest extremity of the Deer Canyon alluvial fan in the upper San Bernardino Valley. The northwest portion of the property extends locally into the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains and is tran- sacted oy the Cucamonga fault. An Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone has been established for this fault. Bedrock exposures are limited to the foothills area north of the fault. The potentially active Cucamonga fault cuts across the northern part of the property. It is typically a thrust fault striking P50 -31E and dipping from zero to 19 degrees north. Si-nificant local variations in strike and dip suggest an runeven thrust plane. The southerly dip has been noted in adjacent areas along the Cucamonga fault. It may represent a "tectonic - slide" feature: the movement of the edge of the thrust plate downslope across the land surface during repeated fault movement. The maximum credible earthquake magnitude for the Cucamonga fault, and for other active or potentially active faults that should be considered in design are listed below: El Distance to Magnitude Maximum Site (Mi.) Crediblel San Andreas 10 8.5 Sari Jacinto 7.5 7.5 Whittier 20 7.5 Cucamonga On -Site 6.5 -7.0 A full seismicity report is available from Richaro Mills Associates, Inc., 9223 -C Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cuca- monga, CA 91730; (714) 989 -1751, upon request. Said investigation indicates that the site is considered feas- ible for development within the limitation and require- ments contained within the seismicity investigation. Groundwater Small seeps representing local groundwater 6rcurrences concentrated by the clay faultgouge were noted in the northwest portion, but were not in evidence on the exist- ing ground surface. A small spring discharging less than an estimated 1 gal/ min. was noted about 130 feet north - northeast of the northeast property corner. Water from this spring was not in evidence on the site. Surface water flowing at an estimated rate of 1 gal. /min. disappeared into the alluvium (Q al) at the existing sub - drain located approximately 325 feet northeasterly of the Hermosa Avenue cul -de -sac. The Seismic Refraction Survey suggests a possible isolated groundwater table at depths of 45 -75 feet along Seismic Lines 3. Drainage Analysis The Woods is bounded on the north by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Transmission line right -of- way and the south by a county roadway.. A arainage review of the site was made by the County Flood Control District in the late 1960's and the information is contained in their file 106.0302. A drainage study made for this report yields results consistent with District's. l J Comprehensive Storm Drain Project No. 2 (CSDP2), System No. 3, is intended to serve the area. Construction of the Corps of Engineers' Hillside Basin and Channel are re- quired before the CSDP2 system can function adequately as proposed. Approximately 750 acres, offsite, drain to and across the site. Of these, about 484 arses will be intercepted by the Hillside Basin and Channel System, construction of which is currently scheduled to ceaimence in the spring of 1982. Development of the site prior to 1982 must allow for the possibility of flows from the approximately 390 acres of drainage from Hillside Creek as well as the approximately 94 acres east of the Hillside Lreek drainage boundary and north of the proposed Hillside Channel. Existing ora.inage improvements on the site, constructed in connection with the improvement of Hermosa Avenue, include from north to south respectively, a 48" Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP), 30" CMP, two 24" CMP and a double 6' x 3' Reinforced Concrete Box, Culvert (RCB). (Plate 4) Their respective capacities, assuming one foot of head at the entrance before overflow onto the street, are 100 cfs, 40 cfs, 25 cfs and 290 cfs. With the exception of the 48" CMP, these capacities are adequate for the 10 -year dis- charges. Required capacity for the 48" CMP is 133 cfs. Capacity of the double 6' x 3' RCB is sufficient to handle the 1UO -year discharge once the Corps' Hillside Basin and Charnel improvements are completed. In addition to the improvements listed above, a County Flood Control channel bounds the property or the south, a large natural channel traverses it near the west line and a large channel, part of the earlier water spreading system, runs north to south near the east property line. This latt.Er channel serves about 8.5 acres of the most easterly part of the property. Its tributary area will be practically eliminated by construction of the Corps' proj- ect. The complete drainage report is available from Associated Engineers, 316 East "E" Street; Ontario, CA 91764. This report details the improvement that will accompany devel- opment. Existing Development Existing development on -site is limited to Hermosa Avenue, a concrete reservoir in the southwest portion, a forest service road along the north property line, several un- paved internal roads and paths and small oor =on pits on the northwest. The site utilization map filed as part of this application graphically describes surrounding land uses. DATE:--?Lr APPLICAN1': J FILING DATE: PROJECT: PROJECT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART Ii - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC &LIST LOG NUMBER: I. ENVIRONMENTAL I T. ACTS (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? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? -� d. The destruction, covering or modification. !cam 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? V g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards 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? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: r YES MAYBE NO Page 2 related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air quality. Will the proposal have significant results i.n: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? k. 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? a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rare a-id amount of surface water runoff? _ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? —_ -1. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? _ h. The reduction in the amount of water other- / wise available for public water supplies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water — related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air quality. Will the proposal have significant results i.n: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? k. 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? .,\ 1 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into au area? 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? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. 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? Mahe 3 YES 14AYBE NO b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? — 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: - z VX 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? 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? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmex:tal / entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of — existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? E, 61 1 YES MME NO 3. Page 4 Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: AIM a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? ✓ c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact span existing transporta- tion systems? > _ c.. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? _ f. Alterations to or effects on present and / potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? s_ _ g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? — 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, / paleontological, and /or historical resources? __ 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? — �J b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? t/ c. increase in existing noise levels? f. Eydosure of people to potentially dangerous raise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? _ t page S YES M)%YBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? — b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive / Site? ✓ c. A conflict with the objective of designated / or potential scenic corridors? 12. Uti?..�ties and Public Services. Will the proposal hav' a significant need for new ,systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c_ Communications systems? d. Water supply? _ e. Wastewater facilities? _ f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? _ h. Fire protection? �— i. Police protection? j. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? f M. Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? _✓ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? J� C. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? Pate 5 YES MAYBE NO e. Sub!:tantial depletion of any nonrenewable or / scarce natural resource'? f 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Do(!s the Project have the potential to degrade th,!. quality of the environment, substantially re•.iuce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, ca•ase fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliuu.nate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or rastrict the range of a rare or et3angered plant or animal or climinate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ✓ b. ;foes 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 •ohile 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 when viewed in connection with the effects of past projecta, i and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (I.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). II1. DETrICITNATION On the basis of 'phis initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not to a significant effect in this case because the +ritiration measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLAILITION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date r Page 7 E ADDENDUM 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11933 Explanation of "yes" and "maybe" answers: 1. Soils and Geology (c). The applicant intends to maintain the existing natural grade wherever possible. This is to be ac::omplished by grading only for streets, access, and the building footprint. (e) & (f) The grading and drainage plan indicates that a number of lots will drain into the existing natural drainage courses. Construction on this site will increase the amount of surface water runoff, therefore, in- crease the volume of water in these natural drainage courses which could re- sult in water erosion of soils affecting off -site conditions. No improvements to the drainage courses on -site or off -site are proposed, other than culverts under the street. W The northern most portion of the property is transected by the Cuz.imonna Fault. An Alry.uist- Priolo special study zone has been established for this fault. The maximum magnitude of an earthquake on the Cucamonga Fault at this location is projected at 6.5 to 7 on the Richter Scale, there- fore cnu11 ex -lose people or property to potentially significant geologic hazards. 0 2. �ydrrlogy (b). Construction will increase the area covered by buildings and paved areas which will reduce rain and flood water absorption rates and will increase the amount of surface water runoff. (i). Development of the site could concentrate runoff water, particularly in the existing natural drainage courses, which could result in potentially significant flooding hazards both on -site and off -site. 4. Flora (a; & (L) The project site is commonly known as the Hermosa Groves, and approx- imately 80% of the site is densely planted with Red Gum Eucalyptus approximately 65 years old. The proposed development has been designed to restrict tree re- moval to the minimum necessary for streets, access, building envelope, and fire protection. The most western and eastern portions of the project site are out- side the grove and are proposed to be planted with Eucalyptus. A Tree Removal Permit would be required from the City of Rancho Cucamonga for those trees meeting the size criteria of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, which are protected by same. _Fauna (a) The development of this site for human habitation will have an effect on the diversity, distribution, and numbers of species of animals inhabiting the site. Addendum to Environmental Ch ^cklist for TT 11933 -2- 5. inulation (a) The project site is designated a Dark site in the Ger :'an for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and has a land use density of • -•,.er 2 dwelling units per acre. However, to preserve a 14.6 acre pa-t'- a.... the western portion of the site, 149 of the lots are proposed to . the 12,000 square foot range. The surrounding properties are designated very low (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) residential on the General Plan and are presently zoned R -1- 20,000. Therefore, the project will alter the density and growth rata of the human population in this area. 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations (a) & (b) The project site is designated as a park in the City's General Plan, and the proposed development- includes a 14.6 acre park. Computing the dwelling unit density based upon excluding the 14.6 acre park from the pro- ject site results in a density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre, which is in conflict with the very low residential density established by the General Plan for this area of Alta Loma. 8. Transportation (a), (b) & (d) This project will generate increased vehicular traffic volumes which will effect existing streets and requirE new street con- struction and potentially impact existing transportation systems. (g) The proposed development will result in an increase in the population for the area and associated vehicular traffic. The 14.6 acre park shown on the development plazas does not indicate off - street parking facilities. Both of these factors could potentially result in traffi_- hazards to motor vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists. 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors (e) Increase in noise levels resulting from this project will be pri- marily due to increased vehicular traffic and normal human activities in a residential area. Noise levels will temporarily increase during construction. 11. Aesthetics (b) This site, commonly known as the Hermosa Grove, is recognized as a significant natural resource for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the develop- ment of the site could result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site. 12. Utilities and Public Services The construction of this project may require extensions or modifi- cations in some or all of the utilities and public services noted in the Environ- mental Checklist. The most significant impacts would be upon fire protect, :n services. LAY U Addendum to Environmental Checklist for TT 11993 -.3- 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (a) The development of this project may have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. st p antial adverseaffects'on human ebeings, a "therf directly �or indirectly.