Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/07/14 - Agenda PacketME, C C7 co CD Ln Ln O ✓i R aO ' 7" Crrv- Err RANCHO CL)CAIMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDrk 1977 WEDNESDAY JULY 14, 1982 7:00 P.M. A C T i 0 N LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER — — — — — — 9161 BASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAY.ONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Barker X Commissioner Rempel X Commissioner King X Commissioner Stout_ X Commissioner Mc#iel X Continued to 8/11/82 Presentation - Commendation Resolution - Peter Tolstoy III. Approval of Minutes Approved 2 -0 -0 -1 June 74, 1982 Approved 5 -0-0 June 23 1982 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be 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.. Approved 5-0 -0 A. REVISION TO TRACT MAP 11734 - DLV - Located at the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route. A change from 5 -lot condominium subdivision to 6 -lot subdivision. Approved 5 -0 -0 B. EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 6636 - STEVENS - An industrial subdivision of 6.09 acres into 2 parcels located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, approximately 433' south of 9th Street - APN 209 - 011 -43. VI_ Approved 5 -0 -0 Approved 5 -0 -0 with addi- tion of condition that line of sight be preserved for Deer Creek residents. V, Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 1982 Page 2 Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the C- bairman and address the Commission from the Public uc£croyhone by giving your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. C. ZONE CHANGE 80 -11 - NEEVA - A request for a change of zone from 5 (Limited Agricultural - 5 acres) to R- 1- 20,000 (Single Family Minimum 20,000 Square Foot Lots) and R -3 (Multiple Family Residential) for approximately 65 acres of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, east and adjacent to Chaffey College - APN 201 - 191 -07. D. TENTATIVE TRACT 11550 - NEEVA - A residential project consisting of 508 condominiums and 8 single family dwellings on 65 acres generally located on the south side of Wilson, one -half mile east of Haven Avenue in the A -1 -5 zone (a change of zone pending to R- 1- 20,000 zz�nd R -3) - APN 201- 191 -07. Approved 4 -1 -0 with addi- E. tion that emergency ease- ment not be of lawr material, and ped easement shall require maintenance by property owners. Final desigr to be rev'd by staff. Continued to 7/28/82 Approved 5 -0 -0 F. G. ENVIRUNMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12184 - TOWN AND COU TRY - A total residenti development of a 32 lot subdivision on 8.5 acres of land in the R -1 zone located on the east side of Beryl, south of Base Line - APN 208- 011 -49. - FAMILY GAME - ine esraoiisnment of an arcade in the C -1 zone to be located at 8800 Base Line in the Alta Loma Country Village Shopping Center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -1! - WUKLM - {ne use of an existil,g church tdcm t fer a preschool and kindergarten on 4.5 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located at 5719 Beryl Street - APN 1061 - 761 -01. Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 1982 Page 3 Approved 5 -0 -0 * H. ENVIRONMEN -AL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7244 - THE MESSENGER COMPANY - A 9 lot subdivision of 41.56 acres within the General Industrial zone located on the scw th side of Foothill Boulevard east of Elm Avenue - APN 208- 351 -03. Approved 5 -0 -C * I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7555 R.C. IND'JSr12IAL COMP NY - A ivision of 25.95 acres intu 3 parcels within the M -2 zone iocated at the sout;saast corner of 8th Street and Milliken Avenue - APN 229 - 261 -62 & 63. Approved E -0 -0 * J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL YAP 7326 - KOBACKER STORES, INCORPORATED - A subdivision of 12.54 acres o ian into 2 parcels in the General Industrial zone located on the southeast corner of Baker Avenue and Feron Boulevard - APN 207 - 271 -31. VII. Public Comment This is the time and place for �.he general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear or.. this agenda. V_ - *II. Adjournment 5:07 p.m. The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11.00 p.m, adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. * DESIGNATES PROJECTS WHICY FALL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THr REDEVELOP14ENT AREA. s } \'• CI':'Y OF AN ;� PLANNING C©MMISSIOiN 1977 WEO°IESOAY JULY 14, 1982 7:00 P.M. LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,. RANCHO CUCA.MOXrA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner King _ Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Stout Presentation - Commendation-'Resolution - Peter Tolstoy III. Approval of Minutes IV. V. June 14, 1982 June 23, 1982 Announcements Consent Calendar :he.following Consent Calendar lte-ms are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Comsfssion at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, then it shouit� be removed for discussion. A. REVISION TO TRACT MAP 11734 - OLV - Located at the nort west corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route. A change from 5 -lot condominium subdivision to 6 -lot subdivision. B. EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR PARCEL MAP 6636 - STEVENS - An industrial subdivision of 6.09 acres ,nto 2 parcels located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, approximately 433' south of 9th Street - APN 209 - 011 -43. w� VI Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 1982 Page 2 Public Hearings The following items are puL'ic hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Cor =ission from the pii bllc rrdcrophoae by giving your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. C. ZONE CHANGE 80 -11 - NEEVA - A request for a change of zone from A -7 -5 (Limited Agricultural - 5 acres) to R -1- 20,000 (Single Family Minimum : 20,000 Square Foot Lots) and R -3 (Multiple Family Residentiai) for approximately 65 acres of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, east and adjacent to Chaffey College - APN 201 - 191 -07. D. TENTATIVE TRACT 11550 - NEEVA - A residential project consisting of 508 condominiums and 8 single family dwellings on 65 acres generally located on the south side of Wilson, one -half mile east of Haven Avenue in the A -1 -5 zone (a change of zone pending to R- 1- 20,000 and R -3) - APN 201 - 191 -07. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12184 - TORN AND COUNTRY - A total residents development o a 2 lot subdivision on 8.5 acres of land in the R -1 zone located on the east side of Beryl, south of Base Line - APN 208 - 011 -49. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -13 - FA,MILY GAME - The establishment of an arcade in the C- zone to be located at 8800 Base Line in the AIta Loma Country Village Shopping Center. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -14 - GRACE BRETHREN CHURCH - The use of an existing church facilit e r a preschool and kindergarten on 4.5 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located at 5719 Beryl Street - APN 1061 - 761 -01. Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 1982 Page 3 * H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7244 - THE MESSENGER COMPANY - A 9 lot subdivision of 41.56 acres within th General Industrial zone located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard east of Elm Avenue - APN 208 - 351 -03. * I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7555 R. C. INDUSTRIAL COMPANY - A division of 25.95 acres into 3 parcels within the N -2 zone located at the southeast corner of 8th Street and Milliken Avenue - APN 229 - 261 -62 & 63. * J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7326 •- &WAl.KtK Z)'W l"145"urw'ty - m 5uouivl5lu71 u' acres o an into 2 parcels in the General Industrial zone located on the southeast corner of Baker Avenue and Feron Boulevard - APN 207 - 271 -31. VII. Public Comment This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Ztems to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. 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 be heard only with the consent of the Commission. VICINITY' 1 . . %, OMTICM MURMArFOMIL At~r .. ii REQUEST TO ADDRESS -cl mss': A THE PLANNING COMMISSION i1S I!' F1 rDc17 I; —> Date ul Y`f 1%97_ u% Name (1i 4 rh rn Sc-!,rh ep, Telephone : 197 -S 1.7 Z Address : 160AS BRISTtsc. RelationshiD to Agenda Rem . cr Name of Item Usc %m-n;+ SZ -tE- Gm� r#l�n hk,�R Snmm=ry of Comments : REQUEST TO ADDRESS TFE PLANNING COMMISSION i9 ;; Name Telephone : .'na 7 Relationshio to Agenda Item _ I\'ame of Item . Daft : wi S73m7-1=y of Comments -7 -i. ^ t >r - /'� • r a,.: ; .i•c t,/ 4:- 9n /c - r, r� r� /cn {ltd -� r r^ r) r n'1 .cz yr t /ri "� "'•�� r 1 �w Name : Telephoi Add*ess REQUEST i v ADDRESS THE PLANNING CO1`JdMISSION Date ReLztvonship to Agenda Item °° Name of Item " REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION Name Telephone Add.-iess : 11 D �l� \AJ s .v Date : Relationship to Agenda Item — Name of Item S immar-y Of Comments tRLL tiicl2 12 �i� ?i "C -! 'iYr /Zrc. 1 cl a 1977 REQUEST TO ADDRESS - THE PLANNING COMMISSION Name Telephone Z - Address •lam ,� �__.: r Wiz- Y- Relaticnship to Agenda Item - Name of Item SunLnal7 of Comments Name . Telephoi Address Dates - i 4 -,r? �5 -� � . _ `, a ; ��?1 t , �:- rte, •H� i�rt�. -a ,:�'� 1. REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION Date Relationship to Agenda Item . Name of Item summary of Co c • .- �o ilQ�Q -r'In .�iGC.tiL -� Q�.� REQUEST TO ADDRESS - T4E PLANNING COMMISSION Name : _ := � 14i Telephone Address RelationshiD to Agenda item (21 y« F Name of Item _-tom- I Summary of Comments : Date : /4 82 ; Jam, A,45. t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOI.GA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting June 14, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King calle. r _ •.journed Regular Planning Commission Meeting and public hearint ne Terra Vista Planned Community to order at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho C::camo ga. Cheri.W n YIng then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: CON?iISSIONERS: Dennis Stout, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff K.i:.g ABSENT: CO?- 1MISSIONERS: Herman Rempel (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Robert Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Bill Holley, Director of Community Services; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS City Planner, Rick Gomez, advised that because of the anticipated light agenda, the June 23, 1982 regular meeting would include the continued public hearing on the Terra Vista Planned Community. Chairman King advised that a Commendation Resolution would be presented to former Commissioner Jeff Sceranka at the June 23 meeting in thanks and appreciation for serving on the Commission. He invited all of those interested to attend this meeting for the presentation to Mr. Sceranka. Mr. Gomez stated that Mr. Holley would present the Park portion of the staff report, with landscape guidelines and energy conservation being presented by himself. Mr. Gomez further stated that it is proposed that a final review of the Planned Community is expected to be before the Planning Commission at their first meeting in August with presentation to the City Council in September. Community Services Director, Bill Holley, presented the Park portion of the staff report. He indicated that in meeting with the proponent of this project satisfactory resolution was met on all issues. Mr. Holley indicated that oz May 3 the school /parks issue had been resolved by relocating some of the proposed parks into a joint use configuration. Further, that the park detention basin had been covered in a report dated June 10, 1982 which contained four options: 1) the granting of 100% credit with conditions that contained improvements similar in concept to those presented by Lewis Development shown in attachment B of the staff report; 2) granting 100% credit with no ccn- ditions; 3) granting credit between 1% and 1.00% depending on what con- tribution the Commission feels the sites make to the public park system; and 4) granting no credit if the Commission feels that the sites are inappropriate and do not contribute to the public park system. Mr. Holley stated that staff recommends option one. Mr. Holley discussed private open space credit and criteria and imple- mentation plans so that parks would go forward in an orderly fashion to the benefit of the proponent and the City park program. Mr. Holley proposed a bridge that would cross the channel at the north- west corner of the planned community to provide immediate access to the people living on the northwest side of the channel into ^erra Vista and a more direct line to the schools and other services and to provide a more harmonious continuation of the trail system. Mr. Holley stated that the concept is supported by the Central School District beczuse it would eliminate busing to the Junior High and Elementary Schools but is something that the Planning Commission must cunsider. Mr. Gomez stated that one more item for the City park is the possibility that it be moved to the west side of the charnel, and if that is still the COxmnission's consensus, they will work with the Lewises to change the park site and prepare it for final review. Chairman King asked that the retention basin credit be the first item to be considered. Ms. Kay Matlock, Lewis Develcpment Company, stated that since the last hearing they went through a lot of work with staff and had also gone to a third party engineering firm which stated that there is no need for concern on points raised by staff. She further stated that there is agreement with the staff recommendation that the detention basin should be a park and credited as such. She provided the Commission with a report on park de*_eetion areas and conceptual plans. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that since reading what staff and the developer have said about detention basins, he has changed his thoughts on this. He indicated that the only issue he had and which is now solved is the problem of flooding. He indicated further that the only problem the City may have is to have a park where one is not ordinarily wanted and asked Mr. Holley if the City would want the park where the developer proposes to put it. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 14, 1982 Mr. Holley replied that the City does want it provided it is not done in a redundant fashion to another in proximity. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for examples of what ?fr. Holl -y meant. Mr. Holley described a proposed park 600 feet to the north and east and the amenities it would contain in the traditional mole of base- ball diamond, soccer field, etc. He indicated that comiig down 600 feet to the north and east to the retention facility ill:strated in the map behind the Commission, it would provide 50% open space and two institutional development types of facilities that would not be dupli- cated t.iat sensitivity and consideration of land use must be achieved so that the park will b2 done well and serve a non - repetitive purpose. In using the detention basins, he indicated that it must be insured because of safety and maintenance reasons that these sites are kept free of all debris and obstacles. Commissioner Tolstoy.:tiked what kinds of activities wou:d be carried on at that park site that would be of a passive nature. Mr. Holley replied it would be activities such as pickn.cking, frisbie throwing, etc. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Holley is suggesting chat other uses of this type be designed to compliment these. Mr. Holley replied, certainly. Further, benches and tables could be placed here as well as along the portion on the eastern :dge. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if barbecue facilities are planned. Mr. Holley replied that thhey are not at this point. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this would be desirable. Mr. Holley replied that it would be. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the map tells the :mox:nt of acreage, plus and minus. Mr. Holley replied that it Ms. Matlock stated that it Commissioner Tolstoy asked shown on the map. Commissioner Tolstoy asked is a minus they could add refers to the £mpleAentation r_an. refers to the service area in each park. for a defini�:ion of the plus and minus signs if what Ms. Matlock said is that where there nore. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 14, 1982 Ms. Matlock explained that presently the City park is immediately next to them. Commissioner Tolstcy asked what happens if the City park does not materialize. Ms. Matlock stated that they have assured the City that it will and the difference is very minor. Further, that it is all within a few acres of the balance. Chairman King asked for an explanation of the 10-20 year rain and the char*_ that was provided. Mr. :tike Fox of Hadole Engineering explained the chart. Chairman King asked for clarification of what time frame there is from the mii.imum water containment to the maxijZwm. Mr. ?like Fo% of Madole explained the chart and time for the retained water to come up and get back. Chairman King asked if the time factor is the same in a 10 -year rain as it is in a 5 year. Mr. like Fox explained that storage is a 'Little longer but rainfall is the same. Commissioner Tolstoy asked from their standpoint, which of the two concepts is the best one. Mr. Holley explained that the cne directly behind Commissioner Tolstoy was because it provides a non - redundancy of use and intensifies the space by addressing the retention in a manner which would at the same time se-ve two good purposes. He indicated that when you are building a park from scratch, which is what is being done, you would not build 2 parks of the same amenities so closely together. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the reason he questions this is that it is important to the project and must be there for drainage problems; however, the park can be made non - redundant, and because the amount of park in the detenticn basin is only minus an acre or two, he sees no Problem with accepting this as proposed in concept No. 2 and asked if this is the concept that Mr. Holley wished to have because of its proximity to a high density area and provides needed passive recreation uses. Mr. Holley replied that he would like concept No. 2 but emphasized that this is not a specific park plan, only a concept. Chairman King stated that basically he agreed with Commissioner. Tolstoy and he saw no problem with giving full credit for the retentior. basin Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 14, 1982 except from a theoretical point of view where the park site cannot be used 100 percent of the time because of the other function which is to serve as a retention basin. He felt that the credit to be given should be around 95 percent. Ms. Matlock stated that they have added up all of the time when there might be water in the basin and their resulting calculations indicate that the basin could be used as a park site for approximately 99 per- cent of the time. She indicated that it is so close as to be ludicrous. Commissioner Stout stated he felt 100 percent credit should be given. There was conse: sus among the Commission that 100 percent credit be given for the detention basin to be used as a park. The Commission then discussed private open space credit. Ys. Matlock advised that a lot of time has been spent with staff on this item and that it was their proposal that credit be given for open space as it was for *_heir Sunscape project. She further indicated that in terms of the kind of valuation that would be put on the credit, they are providing the kinds of activities that would be found in a public park. She felt that under the formula private facilities would not get full credit for what they are contributing. Chairman King asked how they would deal with the aspect of private open space receiving no park credit because it is a trade off for increased density. Ms. Matlock replied that she rejects that notion because it provides recreation where there isn't any. She further replied that with private open space there is enough of a trade -off so that density can stand on its own. Commissioner Tolstoy stated thaw open space is important because it looks better and makes people feel better. Further, in this part of the wcrld developers could not build high density projects and sell them without open space provisions. People look for open space when they live in a high density area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that open space at home is not the same as open space away from home or open space in another location as people in high density projects like to get away from it. He indicated that another thing is the importance of open space for soccer and field play because people need both. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he noticed that staff talks about 100 percent credit with 25 percent for amenities and 75 percent for land. He further stated that it seems to him that a little credit should be taken away so that both kinds of activities can be provided. Planning Comciissior. Minutes -5- June 14, 1982 Chairman King stated that following what Commissioner Tolstoy said, when he reviewed this, if the Commission approves high density they I ave to pay into the park system and they are not necessarily credit- ing whatever private open space they have within their development. He indicated that they still have to pay something and his thinking at the moment is that they should not get 100 percent credit for private open space because it is something that the builder should provide for the high density type development he proposes. Ns. Matlock responded that she did not quarrel with the fact that people do look for open space areas, but in Terra Vista every area is adjacent to a park and there is no question but that that need will be met. She felt that the amount of parks that they are contributing is the most generous that the City will ever see. She indicated that in most places credit is given to public open space and not to private but in Terra Vista they are taking a balanced approach. She indicated that most projects will have private facilities and she felt that in an average condo project this would take care of 40 percent. Ms. Matlock stated that park credit for private open space is a part of the Park Ordinance and rather than reducing credit, she wishes that the guidelines are applied citywide. Chairman King asked if he is correct that under the Ordinance, 50 percent credit can be obtained. Mr. Holley stated that as clarified at the last meeting, one relates to planned communities, which is applicable to Terra Vista in which the Commission and Council has discretion in issuing credit of between 1 -100 percent fcr private open space, and the other section, which relates to planned developments such as condominiums which may receive up to 50 percent credit. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for clarification. Mr. Holley replied that Ordinance No. 105 provides for credit for private open space for such things as condos, or in other words, everyr',ing other than a planned community could be given up to 5C percent redit for private open space. Chairman King asked what distinguishes between this and any other community plan. Mr. Holley replied that it is just in the way the planned community is put together rather than a random condo site. He stated that there is a complete integration of planning in a planned community whereas in a condo site there is not. Chairman King asked Ms. Matlock what she felt the difference is. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 14, 1982 Ms. Matlock replied that the difference is planning and that you do not have the opportunity twat you have in an isolated project. She indicated that the private open space in the planned community must connect with the gre --way system and the two are almost totally inter- changeable. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that what they are p�c ^using is a r ;,art of Sun - scape and are assuming that they will build one juste 1?1:e it in Terra Vista. He pointed out light green areas where they would ask for credit. He indicated that they were given credit for the dark green areas and that it does include credit for parking. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that hr. Lewis has one point and that is that Terra Vista offers a potential for better recreational design than is available anywhere else in the City. He indicated, however, that he would still like to see some credit go for the larger type park areas. Chairman King asked, if he did not wish to give 100 percent credit, how a line would be drawn rationally. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not know. Ms. Matlock stated that there might be some slight confusion when they say 100 percent credit. She indicated that if 1000 people require 5 acres of park they would get 100 percent credit for their contribu- tion of a local park even though it is not five acres. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Holley concurred with that statement. Mr. Holley replied that he concurred with what has been presented. Chairman King asked what Lewis Development thinks of the staff recom- mendation of 75 -25 percent. Ms. Matlock replied that she thought this is agreeable. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Ms. Matlock could list the type of hard- ware she should receive 25 percent credit for. Ms. Matlock replied that tennis courts, swimming pools, tot lots, wading pools; shade structures, etc. are examples. She indicated things that would make space usable. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that open space with 50 trees to the acre would not do it. Ms. Matlock .stated that they would make a large open area more usable.. Mr. Lewis stated that if they do more, they would want more credit. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 16, 1982 7:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:03 p.cl. The Planning Commission reconvened. Commissioner Stout stated it was his feeling that 100 percent credit should not be given because people will still go to a public park and he was unable to address this, but this is his feeling. Chairman King stated that assuming Commissioner Stout's proposal was taken and also the one that he alluded to, if the Commission did not want 100 percent or the 75 -25 percent recommended by staff, could anyone think of any rational or reasonable basis on which to draw a line for the credit. *r. Gomez stated that many days have been spent with the Lewis Company in trying to come up with what was felt to be an equitable solution. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Holley wished to comment. Mr. Holley restated the question of is there a logical basis from which to come. Fie indicated that othez than the one presented here in staff's report which best `its, he was unable to think of anything else. He indicated that he would throw out for discussion the same argument that he does not necessarily agree with, that 50 percent credit be given as was the credit on a PUD. He indicated that there was a balancing effect going on there but it was on a piecemeal project versus a planned coms:unity. Mr. Dougherty stated that this is a matter of legal parameters of being one on one end and 100 on the other. He indicated that as far as drawing a rational and reasonable Sine, it is difficult in this type of matter because it is a judgement call. He further stated that you must exercise your best judgement given the circumstances. He cautioned against just coming up with some arbitrary figure that would not be supportable. The proposal of 75 percent for land and 25 percent for amenities is something that could be classified as rational and reasonable and something that a court would not strike down. Commissioner Tolstoy, stated that since it has been brought out that those people who live in those condominiums will contribute to the general park funds throughout the City, he has changed his mind because when he first came to the meeting tonight he felt that the credit should be 50 percent for the land, 25 percent for the amenities, is something that could be classified as rational and reasonable and something that a court would net strike down. Commissioner Tolstoy, stated that since it has been brought out that those people who live in those condominiums will contribute Co the general park funds throughout the City, he has changed his mind because wher, he first came to the meeting tonight he felt that the credit should be 50 percent for the land, 25 percent for the amenities, and 25 percent for overall park situation. Planning Commission :Sinutes _g_ Tune 14, 1982 Mr. Holley asked if Commissioner Tolstov said general overall City park fund. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he meant the City park in Terra vista and that is what tie said before but he would be willing to go along with the 75 percent 25 percent. Ms. Matlock stated that they agree that private open space does not mean that much for all people and that they need open space. They propose that part would be given to open space and part to the private park. Further, she stated that what is there would not meet all of the park ordinance. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his agreement. Commissioner Stout asked if there was any calculation on that. MG. Matlock stated that 45 percent is typical on a condo, with the balance to go to a local park. Commissioner Stout stated that it is difficult to conceptualize and asked if any breakdown has been done on a high density area. Ms. Matlock replied that they find it difficult to meet any more than 75 percent on a site. Commissioner Stout asked if that is a gross or net calculation. Ms. Matlock replied that it is calculated en the basis of some of the projects that they have done. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they did not include the whole project but used high density projects and not single family in this calculation. Ms. Matlock stated that they did not assume any one^ space credit. Conmissioner Stout stated he has no objection to the 75 -25 credit if some condition exists for credit of private versus public open space. He indicated that they should not get credit if all the open space in an area is private because sose of the project should support public park space. Discussion ensued relative to the percentage of credit to be given. Following discussion, Chairman King stated his feeling is that what Commissioner Stout is saying makes a lot of sense, however, he has not given enough though*_ to coming up with a conscientious opinion tonight. He stated that he could deal with the 75 -25 percent proportion, and have it make sense. Further, that Commissioner Stout's proposal makes sense but perhaps needs some more thought. His thinking is that they may have consensus on 75 -25 percent and maybe that what Dennis is bringing Planning Commission Minutes -9— June 14, 1982 up can be further discussed on the 23rd of June. Commissioner Tolstov stated that it appears that there is consensus to bring the issue of private open space credit back. Chairman King stated that there are 2 more issues -- implementation and the aspect of moving the City Park. Ms. Matlock stated that graphics have been prepared and she proceeded to show how the allocation will be received dependent upon how the project is built on an area by area basis. The trail systes and trail links and green-way were shown. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they now have a phasing schedule. Further, what happens if a section or phase of building is not completed and another is begun. Ms. Matlock replied that it will have no effect and will still work. She indicated that this plan has been run in every possible way. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he could not conceive that they would build a complete section and then go on. He further stated. that after thev have built one half, they will probably go on to the next, and asked how the phasing will fit. Ms. Matlock replied that the building will not follow those lines. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that -he knew this and asked how the schedule will fit. Ms_ Matlock stated that the park fee will be applied to local facilities that will be of most benefit to the people and if a facility is finished they will go on to the next area in sequence_ Chairman. King asked what would happen if they build one -half of one and go, for example, to the so -itheast part of the project and want to go on. Ms. Matlock replied that they wouldn't be taking park credit from one place and using it in another, they will be doing what benefits everyone. She indicated that the whole point is to take a little park and make the greenway possible. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought they would be building along Foothill first. Ms. Matlock replied that they will be building along Foothill but do not expect to build housing there for some time. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 14, 1982 Mr. Lewis stated that Commissioner Tolstoy is correct in that there is no way to follow a fixed schedule because things keep changing. Further, that he thought by now they would know about the park and they don't know the City's desires or market questions so there is no way they can follow a phasing schedule. He indicated that they will go from west to east because there are all kinds of reasons such as sewer and the different owners they bought from that must be paid. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that because of this and because of what Ms. Matlock is showing, he did not see how this will work. Mr. Lewis stated that the bookkeeping is not that hard. Cozoissioner Tolstoy stated that this is his point and that he was going to ask staff what kind of bookkeeping they will use and how it will be kept track of. Mr. Holley stated that this is a very complicated issue and the Lewis Development Company is saying that it will work but the city will have to have security attached to each project and each phase will pay for itself at the time. He indicated that there would not be any owed credit. Mr. Holley spoke of outright dedication that may be required for whatever is owed against what was permitted. Further, that the complication arises because they do not know what the precise boundaries are. He stated that there must be irrevocable guarantees on pieces of property. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would bet you will see a line around Base Line and Foothill before you see any other development. Ms. Matlock stated that if this is so, the City would require the parks to go in. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is not arguing that point but was asking if they can come up with a logical bookkeeping system so that farther along the line they will know where they are. He indicated that it is always good to have a clear plan of attack where there are no impacts and everyone knows where they stand. Ms. Matlock stated that they have been working with staff to make this as simple as possible. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he knew this but worries about complexities. Mr. Lewis stated that he hoped it would not be made too rigid. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the Commission would decide tonight about implementation and whether trey would just be presenting their strategy or if something must be done. mr Liolley replied that the point of implementation in the final test Planning Commission Minutes _Ii_ June 14, 1982 is how this will proceed. He further indicated that this is the first cut of a workable plan and if this is the type of implementation that is desired, they will go ahead and ink out more specific details to be included in the final text. He indicated that they are looking for conceptual agreement so that each area pays as it goes. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that they did not kuow enough tonight to sake ary decision. He indicated that the concept may be fine but there is nothing they can contribute. Chairman King asked that the Commission go on to the City Park. Chairman King stated that the proposal is to move from the south to the north side of Base Li:ie and asked for the Commission's thoughts on this. Ms. Matlock stated that this is pretty complicated in their view and there were several alternatives that they would like to discuss at the next meeting. 8:55 p-m. The Planning Commission recessed 9:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconv =ned Ms. Matlock asked if they could discuss the City Park. She indicated that Gruen and Associates had done further alternative studies on what would happen if the park were moved. She indicated that when this was brought up there was general feeling about reducing the size of the park and she shawed a graphic of a park with 96 acres. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that what they want to do is horse trade. Ms. Matlock stated that they are pleased with the open space and that it would balance what they have at that area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they thought they are dealing with the City Council. Mr. Lewis st;.ted that the Council has made suggestions that they are responding to. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if their suggestions were from a clear blue sky, or if they were suggested by Lewis Development Company. Chairman King stated that he personally liked the part: at Haven and Base Line and on both sides and relative to the aspect of neighborhood commercial, obviously, he felt it would be better without it_ He indicated, however, that some time past when Lewis came before the Commission for neighborhood commercial he had been one of the people who voted in favor of it at that location. He stated that he did not necessarily like it as it is shown on the graphic but did not feel that neighborhood commercial Planning Commission Minutes —12— June 16, 1982 is totally incongrous with a park. He felt that former Commissioner Sceranka had a good idea in noving it to Haven as it would provide good entry into the Terra Vista Planned Community and would be more centrally located to the city as a whole. He felt that it would accomplish much more moved to Haven than where it was. Mr. Lewis stated that he appreciated Mr. King's opinion and knew he did not speak for the entire Commission or the City Council. He indicated that this could be adjusted depending on how the Commission or Council wants it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if money is no object there is more visibility for the park if it is located on Haven. In other words, Commissioner Tolstoy stated, if the City had the bucks, they could do it and favor Haven Avenue because it would give more people more pleasure; but he wondered how realistic this is because he did not know if the park can be had, or if it can be afforded, because things have changed since a City park was once proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is very much against the shopping center and has always been as he did not like it in the first place and would not like it in the second place. He indicated that the shopp?rg center would make a lousy statement for the entry in such an important project as it conflicts with the shopping centers that are already built within the community. lie indicated that it is his feeling that there are presently too many shopping centers built within the community and he would 'like to see a shopping center to serve the whole project rather :han one part of it which would draw from the other already existing shopping centers. He indicated that he likes the park on Haven Avenue, didn't know if it is realistic, but does not wart a commercial center there. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to see the park on Haven and is opposed to where it is shown. Chairman King asked the Lewis Development Company what they would do with where they have proposed the park if it were stuck on Haven Avenue. Ms. Matlock stated that they do have a layout. Mr. Ki Suh Park of Gruen and Associates, showed the Commission what the road connections and park would be with the connecting trails. Commissioner Stout asked if tha park were moved across Haven, would they do a bridge across the flood control channel. Ms. Matlock replied that if the park were there the only reason to put a bridge across the channel would be to have the school children walk to the local school. She felt that most are close enough not to be bussed and not go over the bridge. Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 14, 1982 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it would provide nice access to the city park. Ms. Matlock stated that the City should put the bridge in then. Mr. Lewis stated that he understood what Commissioner Tolstoy is saying in not liking the shopping center because there are so many but the Council has stated that this is the best corner in town and the people living across should have close access to a shopping center. Further, if there are tenants who cannot compete, then it is their tough luck. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it is the Commission who gets the blame for this. Mr. Lewis stated that they do not knew if they can get a shopping center that would outdraw Victoria, but they would take the gamble. He further stated that five years from now a person may come out with a bigger and better shopping center and that is the American system. He indicated that they have started negotiating again with a couple of regional companies to see if they can revive the shopping center here. Mr. Lewis stated that it would be in the City's interest because Mr. Hahn might not get the regional center as it could go to Ontario and he felt they should be on the same level as Hahn because if they loose ground, it will be harder to negotiate. He indicated that they spent a lot of time in Las Vegas at the shopping center convention and the Hahn Company has nothing shown for this area. He further indicated that as long as there it; interest in the regional center they do not want to speculate on a neighborhood center and asked if they would be better off with a regional center. Commissioner Tolstoy replied that was not a fair question at this time. Mr. Lewis stated that there is a race for the regional center and if Ontario wins, Rancho Cucamonga loses., and he does not want to put a neighborhood center at Haven and Foothill and indicated they are making an effcrt for a regional center again. Chairman King stated that in a positive vein, Lewis Development will reap what it will sow at the corner of Foothill and Naven, and he personally thinks it is an open ball game. Mr. Lewis :;tated that he has asked the Hahn Company when they will get started in Rancho Cucamonga and they have replied that it is a low priority. Mr. Gomez went on to the landscaping guidelines and read the six staff recommendations. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was in agreement Condition No. 1. Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 14, 1982 There was consensus among the Commission of this agreement. Mr. Ki Sub. Park stated that Conditiou N--. 2 was not totally agreeable to them and that Terra Vista was excluded from the General Plan study. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the conditions and requ;- dents should not be less than the General Plan but should be compatlbi�. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that item 2 be brought back for discussion after graphics are presented for review by the Commission in the final draft. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission must be shown more before a decision is arrived at and that states it meets the intent of the General Flan. He further indicated that the staff report does not show trees in the median. Mr. Jeff Skorneck, Gruen and Associates stated it is his understanding that the General Plan calls for shrubs in Milliken and this is sr--cifically mentioned. He indicated that they are taking their cue from the General Plan and are conforming with its intent. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that no trees are shown in the Haven median in figure 40. Mr. Skorneck replied that trees are not shown, but shrubs are. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that there will have to be trees on haven Avenue because the Commission has determined that the Jacaranda will be used there. Chairman King stated that what the Commission is see1,_'ng is assurance that the medians will look nice. Further, there are various guidelines but this was emphasized throughout the Victoria Planned Community and sraff knows what the Commission wants to do on major boulevards and the kind of impression they wish to create. Mr. Lewis stated that it is their desire to move along and be cooperative. Mr. Skorneck stated it was their feeling that the median was better with trees left out, but if trees are Granted, they will work it out. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the things expressed in the General Plan is that the vistas to the mountains be preserved but that did not preclude trees that can be seen throug, He indicated the reason for the selection of the .Jacaranda along Haven is that you can see through them. He indicated that the other consideration that the Commission must take into account is that most streets denote hot unpleasant places in this semi arid desert area. He further stated that something like the Jacaranda can do much to instill the feeling of it being cooler by their canopy so that a lot of money is not spent on air conditioning. He Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 14, 1982 a indicated that they do not want to have a city like Ontario where all you have is a lot of pavement in their parking lots without any trees. Mr. Lewis stated that he is not arguing. Chairman King asked the Lewises if of the six items recommended in the staff report there are any that they do not feel they could agree on. Ms. Matlock indicated there were none. Mr. Gomez asked if the Commission wants staff to work this out for final text at the next meeting. Commissioner Tolstoy and the Commission felt these should be worked out and brought back. Mr. Park stated that with the trees on Milliken, by the time the left - turn lanes are added, they would be unable to meet the tree preservation requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that_ there are many kinds of eucalyptus that are not of the Blue Gum variety. He indicated that the issue is whether the trees that re there are a desirable species, and if they are not, they should not be ,erpetuated but replaced with new ones. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not say they should be removed. Mr. Lewis stated that they would prefer removing them but they will work this out with staff. He indicated that he felt confident that this could be worked out by the next meeting. Chairman King stated that the next issue is energy conservation. Ms. Matloc` stated that they concur with all of staff's recommendations. Ms. Matlock stated that Dennis Kurutz was available with some graphics on the parkway. Chairman King asked if the Commission would like to discuss the City park in more depth at the next meeting. Mr. Lewis stated that they would because it would otherwise hold up the first phase and they do not want it held up for four months. Chairman King asked what they wished to say about it. Pis. Matlock indicated that they would discuss it at the next meeting. Mr. Lewis stated that Commissioner Tolstoy does not like the shopping center and the west triangle. Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 14, 1982 Chairman King asked if an alternative configuration can be developed in the vacated park site. Mr. Lewis replied that they would. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Kurutz if he has a plant material list. Mr. Kurutz replied that he does not have at this time and that it needs to be fully resolved. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Kurutz could tell him what will be utilized. Mr. Kurutz stated that Crape Myrtle or Purple Leaf Plum would be used and explained the mode and usage of the greenway for the parkway. He explained that the function of the greenway is to provide pedestrian, bicycle and maintenance vehicle circulation. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what kind of containment would be used for the decomposed granite in the greenway. Mr. Kurutz stated that this has not been worked out and could be anything from redwood headers to concrete curbs. He indicated that this will be undulating and used for pedestrians and bikers alike. Mr. Kurutz indicated that a plant vocabulary is being worked out with a matrix of trees as well as a landscape pallet. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be any change of elevation along the walkway. Mr. Kurutz stated that without the grading study they could not commit to that and that they are working with a relatively level site. He indicated that the same treatment can be achieved by the difference in variation of tree heights and that they did not have a final solution. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that thev talked about three types of circu- lation and Mr. Kurutz stated they would make use of the bike trail. Mr. Kurutz replied that was correct, it was a 10 -foot wide bike trail and could be used for maintenance vehicles. Commissioner Stout asked what kind of fences will be used between the corridors. Mr. Kurutz stated that he would like to see some variation in movement and height along the corridor. Chairman King stated that he liked the aspect of little groves and felt they looked extremely nice. Planning Commission Ninutes -17- June 14, 1982 Ms. Matlock stated that this is how it will look after it is grown. Chairman Kin-, stated he assumed that this w: h be in the text as well. Ms. Matlock stated that it would be. Chairman King stated that 39.scussion will r sume on June 23 after the regular meeting. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stour, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 10:00 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minute -18- June 14, 1982 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLA14NING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 23, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chai=an Jeffrey Kiag called the Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lion's Park {c=unity Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL ?RESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeffrey King A3SaU: COMMISSIONERS: Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESL%T : Rick Gomez, City Planner; Bill Holley, Community Services Director; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner * * Lauren Wasserman, City Manager, conducted the swearing in ceremony for the new Planning Commissioners E. David Barker, and Larry McNiel and also renewed the oaths of office to Commissioners Jeffrey King and Herman. Rempel. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of May 26, 1982. Commissioners Barker and McNiel abstained from vote as they were not in attendance for those meetings. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded Minutes of the meeting of June 9, McNiel abstained from vote as they meeting. Chairman King read and presented a Sceranka. by Stout, carried, to approve the 1982. Commissioners Barker, King, and were not in attendance for that Commendation R --solution for Jeff Mr. Sceranka then addressed the Crimnission thanking them and staff for their support. * * * * * A T%OUYCEr =TS Jack La., Caren unity Developmenc Director, announced that the City Council would be holding a budget meeting on Monday, June 28, 1982, 6:30 p.m. at the Lion's Park Community Center. Mr. Lam also announced that the City of 'Rancho Cucamonga's Industrial Area Specific ?lan was to receive the APA Inland Chapter :Merit A;uard at a special awards dinner to be held June 24, 1982 in San Bernardino. Mr. Lam further announced that there would be a meeting concerning the Foothill Community Plan Tuesday, June 39, 1982 at 7.30 p.m. Citv Council member Jim Frost addressed the Commission stating his appreciation and the appreciation of the City Council for the past work efforts of the Commission and that the Council was looking forward to working with the Planning Commission it the future. CONSENT CALENDAR A. ENVORON-MENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPM= REVIEW 82 -12 - FILPI - The development of a 5,000 square foot industrial building on a portion of a 3.47 acre lot iz rizz General Industrial category (Subarea 3) located at the northeast corner of Industrial Lane and Feron Boulevard - APN 205 - 031 -74. Motion: 'coved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt the Consent Calendar. FLBLIC HEARINGS Chairman King suggested that Items "B ", "C ", and "D" be heard collectively as they all dealt with the same applicant. B. ENVIRON.k=AL ASSESSMLNT AND PARCEL MAP 7373 - LEWIS DEVELOP! —= COMPA'N'Y - A one parcel subdivision of 2.05 acres located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approximately 700' south of Church Street - APN 1077- 421 -06. C. EV7IRONMENTAL ASSESSMOT AND ZONE CHANGE 82 -01 - LEWiS DEVELOPME COMP& \'F - A change of zone from A -1 (Limited Agriculture) to A -P (Administrative Professional) for 2.045 acres of land within the Terra Vista Planned Community located on the east side of Haven Avenue, south of Church Street, north of Foothill Boulevard - APti 1044 - 421 -06. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 23, 1982 D. Pa'WIRONTMENTIAL ASSESSMEt AND DEVELUYMEIVI MLVJLw 04-"4 - LLWIJ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The development of a 28,600 square foot two-story office building on 2.045 acres of land proposed to be zoned A -P (Administrative Professional) in a portion of the Terra Vista Planned Community area on the east side of Haver. Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church Street - APN 1077- 421 -06. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report and briefly outlined the required actions of the Commission for these items. John Melcher of Lewis Development Company addressed the Commission stating that they had read and accepted the Conditions of Approval with the exception of Item D of the Engineering Division which require that an occupancy permit not be issued until the completion of the Deer Creek Channel. His suggestion to the Commission was that this could possibly be amended to read completion of Deer Creek Channel in the immediate vicinity of the development. Commissioner Rempel asked Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, if there was a problem with that amendment. Mr. Rougeau replied that at this time he did not have a problem in amending the condition as suggested. He stated that the original intent of the condition was for completion beyond the immediate vicinity, however it is most likely that t:ie entire chanrel will be completed before the building is completed. He suggested a modification of the condition to read to the satisfaction of the City Engineer for protection of the project. Chairman King :asked Mr. Rougeau how much of the channel did the Engineering Division feel would have to be completed before occupancy could be given. Mr. Reugeau replied that completion to Highland Avenue would be adequate and the work was almost there now so it would net be a problem with holding up the project. Chairman King opened the public hearing. There were no public comments and the public hea-ring was closed. Conmiss4.oner Rerpel stated that he would like to express his appreciation to the Lewis Development Company for their cooperation with staff in making the changes in the plan that was now before the Commission and felt that it was a great improvement over what was originally proposed. Chairman King stated that he would like more discussion on the improvement of Deer Creek Channel as he was having a problem with how it relates to this site. Mr. Rougeau replied that the maps or. the overhead projector and the ones included in the reports did not really show what the problems would be if there was a breakout in the channel. He indicated that in the last Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 23, 1982 major flooding that Rancho Cucamonga experienced, the water broke loose north of Base Line and ran across the subject property and if this were to happen again it would pose some threat to property. Chairman King suggested that the condition could be modified to state that if the time for occupancy arrived and the Channel was not completed in that location, staff could review the need for additional reauirements. Commissioner P,empel stat that he would like to suggest that the condition be amended to read that if the building is completed before the channel is completed adequately upon the request of the applicant that the Planning Commission can authorize occupancy of the building. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, asked Commissioner Rempel what he felt the northerly boundary for completion of the Channel would be. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt it should be completed to Highland Avenue. *lotion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout,. unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving ?arcel Map 7373. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Zone Change 82 -01. Motion: ;Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 82 -04 with the revision to the Engineering Condition concerning the completion of Deer Creek Channel. in conjunction with the occupancy of the applicant's building. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS E. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report for the Commission. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt a time limit should be placed on the notification signs for public input and that a statement should be included that there was a penalty for removal of signs from the site. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that by law the only thing required is that a city publish the notification of public hearing in the newspaper. Mr. Gomez explained to the Commission that our current notification process for public hearing is that of advertising in the legal ad section of the newspaper and direct mailing of notices to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 23, 1982 Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that adci *_io^�l notification requirements mould require en adjust=er.*_ to the fee schedule because of the additional cost to the processing. Co-mnissioner Stout suggested that the wcrd welcome on the proposed signs be replaced with the word encouraged as he would like to see the public encouraged to participate in the processing of projects. ',lotion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unan..mously carried, to direct staff to prepare an Ordinance for the City Council adjpting the notification procedure of posting signs at the time of project filing and public hearing, to continue the process of direct mailing notices at the time of public hearing to property owners withi-a _^CP feet of the subject property, and to adjust the fee schedule tc compensate for the additional cost of processing. This draft Ordinance is to be brought back to the Commission for recommendation to the City Council. 8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission Recessed 8.15 p.m. The Planning Commai.ssior. Reconvened F. PLANNING CO_`tiMISSION COMMITTEE APPOINT2 -LNTS The Planning Commission voted on the positions of Chairman and Vice - Chairran selecting Jeff King to retain his seat as Chairman and Herman Rempel as Vice- Chairman. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, reviewed the various City committees with the Commissioners and the following were selected to be on these committees: Design Review Committee - Rempel, Barker, King (Alternate) Eti.wanda : dvisory Committee - Rempel, Stout (Alternate) Zoning Committee - Mcliel, King Flood Control Committee - King, Stout Street flaming Committee - Barker, McNiel Equestrian /Trails Committee - Stout *lotion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to have staff work with the Commission on the draf ting of a Commendation Resolution for Peter Tolstoy. G. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COW UNITY - A continued public hearing to discuss the Terra Vista Planned Community. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 23, 1982 Fait ufi2i. +diL ii:, Senior Planner, reviewed Staff Report number six (6) dealing with the Community Development Standards and the Implementation Section of the Terra Vista Planned Community text. Staff made four recommendations to the Commission concerning the Community Development Standards Section. These four recommerdations were (1) interim and temporary uses including information and sales centers shall require review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit; (2) residential development standards should be revised to develop a system of flexibility in the variation of lit sizes, widths, and setbacks; (3) community facility type uses should require the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and (4) the off- s *_reet parking regulations contained within the draft text should be eliminated and references should be made to adopted City narking standards. Staff also made three recommendations for the Com- mission's consideration concerning the Planned Community Implementation Section.. These three recommendations were (1) additional discussion on the types of maintenance programs should be provided within the text; (2) reference to the twelve -month period for the development of an acquisi- tion agreement for the city park should be eliminated; and (3) provisions for granting a 100% credit for landscaped median islands should be eliminated. Bill Holley, Community Services Director, reviewed the Staff Report concerning the Park Plan for Terra Vista. Mr. Holley stated that the issues before the Commission this evening were that of how ruck credit private open space should receive in Terra Vista and the impiementation phase of the plan. Chairman King asked Mr. Holley if the Planned Community as it is being presented to the Commission needs approximately 124 acres of parks. Mr. Holley replied that that was correct. Chairman King asked if it were correct that in terms of what is actually depicted, there was about 80 acres. Mr. Holley replied that he was correct. Chairman King stated that during the last meeting the Commission addressed the subject of private open space and how much credit private open space should receive. He further stated that the map as shown depicted approxi- mately 57% of the required open space as public and all that was left to be dealt with was the other 43Z as private open space. Chairman King stated that in the way that certain things were written, he could see problems many years later where a proposal could come in whereby the proponent was attempting to meet all the needed open space by way of private open space versus what is being presented graphically to the Commission. Kat Matlock of Lewis Homes addressed the Commission stating that for the project as a whjl:., they were looking at only a portion of the total nark requirement being met through privately owned facilities. The Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 23, 1982 amount of private open space of any one development within the planned community would vary, partly at the Commission's discretion, as to what would be eligible for credit and in accordance with the guidelines which had been discussed previously. Ms. Matlock further explained that Terra Vista had been designed with a combination of park systems, privately owned areas and the greenway and t:aiis systems. Chairman King stated that he was confused at the last meeting and wanted clarification. of the issue. He asked Ms. Matlock if there were an agreement on the part of the Lewis Company that of the total open space provided, 57% shall be public and then the other 43% was to be private. Ms. Matlock stated that the Lewis Company did not feel the need for that sort of distinction. She further stated that the reason for having credit for the private facilities was that they were identical to the public facilities however the burden of construction and maintenance was not that of the public and they are designed to meet the specific reeds of the people who live there. Chairman King stated that he could see from the maps where the 57% of the total public open space was, however, if you took the verbiage in the next concerning private open space it would be very arguable and that in the final analysis the City could be left with no public open space but with only private open space and with the verbiage of the text that would be totally acceptable. He further stated that he felt the City needed a commitment that at least 57% of the open space would be public. ! ?s. Matlock stated that in terms of what percentage was being met, it would be dealing with population estimates and the Lewis Company would b: reluctant to agree to any one figure when it would be tied to some- thing that could not be predicted. Chairman King explained that the 57% is not an e-cact number and could vary with the population that was there aad did not see why this could not be written in the text. Ms. Matlock stated that they would rather not have the restriction at all, however, because of the population fluctuation they would prefer a 50% rather than a 57% figure be used. 8:55 p.m. The Planning Commission Recessed 9:10 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened Ralph Lewis of the Lewis Development Company addressed the Commission stating that he wished to clarify one statement made by Chairman King regarding the issue of what the Commission was seeing depicted on the map would be what they were actually getting. He wished to clarify that under the City's present Ordinance that would be what they were getting, however, a bill, The Foran Sill, 5S 1785, before the legislature nay limit or restrict the amount of park dedication a city could obtain. Planning Commission Minutes -7- Sune 23, 1982 Chairman King stated that if the bill did pass and applied retroactively so that it effected this project and the amount of land was reduced, it still did not circ"vent the fact that the Commission would like a commitment that 57% of what ever amount of acreage would be public op ^n space. Mr. Lewis stated that as its. Matlock had previously mentioned, they would be happier with a 5C -50 split rather than a 57 -43, however, other than the proportion, they were in agreement. Chairman King asked that if this statement would be placed in the text of the planned community. Mr. Lewis replied that it would be placed in the text. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated that when a land use map is adopted there must be a statement in the text that what you see is what you get. He further stated that staff's position on the Fora- Bill was that existing policies are implemented until a bill is passed to change those policies. Commissioner Stout stated that rather than trying to establish a percentage, why not state that 62 acres will be public parks. Chairman. King stated that he felt that with a specific acreage amount the Foran bill might make a significant impact. Mr. Lam stated that the difference between the percentage amount and the specific acreage amount if the Foran bill came into effect would be that the percentage fee would be of a smaller amount to begin with, thus giving an even lesser aT -int of open space and with the specific acreage amount, an acre or r , may have to be trimmed off but the City would still end up with more public open space. Commissioner Stout stated that if the same formulas held true and that the Foran bill, if passed, would reduce the number of acres a city could require, it would be better to designate 62 acres as the amount required. Commissioner Rempel stated that this was true, however it was not being fair to developers who developed in the past and were given credit. He further stated that not giving credit for the private open space was not the right thing to do. He also stated that he did not feel that the 50-50 split proposed by the Lewis Development Company was an adequate percentage for public to private open space and would rather see a 60-40 percentage. Chairman King stated he felt more comfortable with the percentage cal- culation, Commissioner Rempel felt more comfortable with the percentage calculation and Commissioner Stout was more comfortable with the acreage calculation. He asked for the opinion of the other two Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 23, 1982 Commissioner McNiel stated that he felt more comfortable with the percentage calculation. Commissioner Barker stated that he understood both arguments, however, felt that the acreage calculation as Commissioner Stout had suggested was one that he could better relate to. Chairman King stated that although there .aas not a clear consensus on ow the figure would be arrived at, there was a consensus that the Commission wants a commitment in the text relacive to the fact that a given amount of acreage be public open space. Bill Holley, Community Services Director, stated that if the Foran Bill is passed it will cause a massive rippling effect on the plan as it would all have to be recalculated and that the Commission would almost assuredly be looking at the plan again. Kay Matlock of Lewis Homes addressed the Commission stating that the Lewis Company would like to have the chance to work this out with staff and bring it back to the Commission. Chairman King asked the Commissioners again which method of calculation they preferred. Chairman King and Commissioners Rempel and McNiel pre- ferred the percentage; Stout and Barker preferred the acreage method. Chairman King stated that he would like to address the issue of phasing and what would happen if there was a 60-40 split. He asked what could be done to preve:t the higher density projects being developed first, the open space provided as private, thereby meeting the park requirement for the open space requirement solely thus putting off the provision of public space as they are meeting all their requirements by private open space. ` ?r. Lam replied that the way to prevent this from occurring was to stipulate at a certain point in time there must be so much public park land adjacent to that development. ?lay Matlock stated that the Commission's protection from this occurence was the map and the fact that development would start on the edge where the higher density projects were generally not placed. She also stated that Terra Vista was designed with a mix of uses and with the exception of the Town Center area, was not designed for total high density areas. Chairman King stated that it does not state in the text that development will occur according to the map. Ralph Lewis stated that it would net be good businass to jump arou, d with the development of the project and it was intended to develop on the outside of the project boundaries and work east. Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 23, 1982 Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that staff had requested that Lewis prepare a. graphic showing the phasing of the plan and after staff review, the consensus of staff was that the phasing plan does work. Chairman King asked Kay Matlock if the Lewis Company was in agreement with the four recommendations of staff concerning the Community Devel- opment Standards. Ms. Matlock stated that they agreed with the first three recommendations, however, the reco=nendation concerning the parking standards needed discussion. Ms. Matlock further stated that the City parking require- ments were rather obsolete and as the Development Code was approximately eighteen months from completion, thev preferred to start out with the right thing zo begin with. Michael Vairin explained staff's reesoring behind the recommendation. Staff felt that parking standards should not vary from the planned communities to the rest of the City and should be consistent throughout the city. The off - street parking requirements in the text are significantly different from what has been implemented currently in the City and would require an extension study by staff of these standards. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Vairin if he could explain what was meant by the applicant's reference to the outdated city :ode. Mr. Vairin replied that one of the issue areas was that of shared com- binaticn parking by businesses which operate a different peak hours. Staff had indicated to the applicant that staff would probably be working on that area of the Development Code when they are ready to develop in those areas and that if staff is not at that phase in the development of the Code, it would be easy to take a look at that one concept and develop that standard or amend the code at that point. Chairman King stated that he felt that the applicant had a good point concerning the shared parking, however, felt_ that the applicant should comply with our present code and if staff isn't at that phase of the Development Code when the applicant is ready to implement the parking standards, the Commission could take a look at the issue again. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt that Terra Vista should comply with the present Ordinance rather than accepting what is written in the text now and having to modify it at a later date. It was the consensus of the Commission that all four recommendations of staff be accepted. Chairman King asked for discussion on the three recommendations for the implementation. Kay Matlock replied that the Lewis Company had no problems with those three recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 23, 1982 It was the consensus of the Commission that all three recommendations of staff be accepted. Chairman King stated that there was a general consensus from both the present and past Commissioners that the Terra Vista Planned Community would be a very nice development and an asset to the Community in the long run and now it is time for Lewis Development to get their text into final form and bring it back to the Commission. Chairman King further stated that he wanted to stress the point that the Commission has various commitments which they expected and that it was understood that there were various things that could not be committed to, however the Commission expects a top notch job and if there are major problems it will only slow up the process. Richard Lewis of Lewis Development Company expressed their appreciation to the Commission and staff for their direction in the development of the text. * * * x * Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously to adjourn. 10 :10 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes —11— June 23, 1982 El 11 1, 0 2 11 \J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM July 8, 1982 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planne►`'"�� SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, THE TRIANGLE Attached for your information is a =opy of a letter from the Foothill Fire District responding to the City's request to the District's master planning and service capabilities for the triangle. Should you have any additional concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time_ /jk .r FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT R O. BOX ,35 6623 Amethyst street Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91701 f71Q 987 -2535 Ju'v 7, 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA., 91730 _Att: Rick Gomez re: L- =F , C 2�5, This letter is sent in order to clarify the position of Foothill Fire Protection District on the above L.A.F.C. action. .Boundary The boundary of Foothill Fire Protection District is now set at Lytle Creek Road, north from I -15 to the National Forest boundary. The majority of the acreage in the proposed sphere change lies within our present boundary. Additionally, it should be noted that the vast majority of really useable acreage is also within this boundary. Master Plan- 0 Foothill Fire protection District is in the process of developing a mz.ster plan of fire stations, services and financiiag. Tie above area has been included in this master plan process. Currently the fire station location portion is being prepared document form and will be available for public discuss ,.a someti.ae in July. The remaining portions are now in the developmental stages- Finances: Master tages. Finances- The flat lard acreage along the north side of I -15 will probably develop to be the most finan cially fertile portion Of the area in question. The agency holding jurisdiction to that area should be responsible for coverage of the entire section north of the freeway. The revenues will be created by the area along the freeway to support the Foothill operations costs. If this is not done,perhaps the economy of the area will not support the service levels needed or desired, E -2- Z -15- I -15 serves a good logical boundary fo• fire and police services. it is a physically outstand.ng boundary with easy distinguishable landmarks. The Cucamonga Wash, common roads or any boundary which persons in the a.-ea are familiar with and can easily recognize for reporting purposes are considered best. The more prominent the feature =he better. Extension of Services: It would appear to the Foothill Fire Protection District that the area would most easily be sewed by Foothill Fire Pro- tection District in an orderly manner from existing and planned stations and with automatic a:d agreements already in the negotiation process with San Bernardino County. Again, this appears to be a logical extensioi of services. Foothill Specific Plan: The Foothill spacific plan when develcoed will address the issue of fire protection to the area at length. The splitting of the area by servicing it with two fLre departments creates several inconveneiences and confusions: 1. Confusion as to what fire depa-tment to call by residents, of all classifications; commercial, industrial and dwellings. 2. Conceivably one portion of a development would be served by one fire department end the other portion by a different department. 3. Inconsistencies in development and construction standards. 4. Differences in fire code requirements, etc. Conclusions: We feel the above information presented, warrants a much closer look at the proposed sphere chance. While we are also aware that a .change of sphere by a city does not neces- sitate a corresponding action for the fire servi;.e, we are also aware of the political implications the proposed sphere change has inherantiy caused. One of the Lti_'C concepts previously expo coded is, "if it is in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere, Foothill Fire Protection District should serve it, if it is in Fo:itara sphere, Central Valley Fire District should serve it." '.'he LAFC staff position paper presented to its members, clearly zddressed this issue by a reco.;,mendation that the area be detzched from Foothill Fire Protection District's boundary. Focthill Fire Protection District's Board of Directors' first impression of this recom- mendation was,'why "? if LAFC is answering "who can best serve s -3- r the area" a logical, orderly extension of services. LAFC's recommendation should be based on: i. logical, orderlv extension of services 2. master planned growth area 3. logical boundary of I -15 4. financial burden of area without all going to one jurisdiction 5. and present boundaries. This staff report from Foothill Fire Protection District will be made to LAFC in writing and an oral presentation will be made at the hearing if warranted. I would be glad to meet with yourself, LAFC staff or other jurisdiction representatives if a real solution appears to warrant such a meeting. Pdc^ard A. Feuersteir_ Fire C114ef /Beard Secretary Foothii_ Fire Protection iistric' R.A.F. bar L] L] 11 11 L July 8, 1982 CITY GR RANCHO CUCAMONGA x.,..Jon D. Mikels fa..cl..wol . Charles J. $aquet iI James C. Frost Richard SL Dahl Phillip D. Schlosser Chairman and Members of the Local Acencv Formation Coy= ission 1111 East Mill Street, Bldg. 1, 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 SUBJECT: LAFCO ITEM NO. 2167 - FONTANA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Gentlemen: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is disappointed with the LAFCO decision to bring back Item No. 2167 prior to the date of our original understanding that this was to be continued for a period of 90 days. We are concerned as to how a consensus of the Commission was made to recall this item to the July Agenda without any prior notification and public hearing. We be- lieve it would have been proper to notify all interested parties well in advance that this item was to return earlier than expected at a public hearing for discussion. In your letter of June 16th, yo•, indicated that since the Commission con- tinued this item, ample time was available to give full attention to Rancho Cucamonga's interests. By bringing this back in less than 30 days, it is unrealistic of LAFCO to think that we can adequately address all the impli- cations of a sphere amendment, taking into consideration the myriad of spe- cial districts and property owners in the area, preparing the necessary agreements, and LAFC applications. We feel we are being forced into an eleventh -hour decision, and must prepare a presentation to LAFCG with incom- plete data and analysis. We are currently in the process of meeting with the affected special service districts to discuss their master planning and service capabilities for the subject area. We are also planning on meeting with the property owners to discuss their immediate and long -range concerns. Also in regard to service, there seems to be some confusion, as outlined in your letter dated June 25, 1982, in which the Chino Basin Municipal Water District has some concern as to the sewer and water service arrangements for the subject area in light of all the }proposed amendments before LAFCO (LAFCO Items 2164 and 2165;. With an initial meeting this Friday, June 9, with Chino Basin Municipal Water District and other affected parties, it doesn't seem feasible that such concerns can be resoived prior to the July 14th LAFCO meeting. 13-V BASELINE ROAD. SUITE C • POST OFFICE BOX Sol • IWNCIIO CrCA31ONG4. CALIFOP—MA 91730 • (714) 989 -1851 July 8, 1982 Local Agency Formatior. Cog - ssion LAFCO Item No. 2167 -2- LAFCO staff, and the staffs of bath Fontana and Rialto, have had months to discuss and resolve any problems relating to these LAFCO items. We were initially notified of this proposed amendment just days prior to your June 9 meeting. We wish to reiterate our position regarding this item and other related items. The original LAFCO motion was to continue these items for a period of 90 days in order to permit our staff adequate time to prepare the necessary application and materials for Council review. The Council fully anticipates filing an application For a sphere amendment with LAFCO for the necessary environmental review and scheduling for a joint public hearing with the City of Fontana. If you have any additional questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Rick Gomez, City Planner, at any time. Sincerely, Jon Mikels Mayor JO: jk c:: City Council City Manager Larry Hendon El E 11 E E KI CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 7, 1982 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM-. Rick Gomez, City Planner SUBJECT: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE - THE TRIANGLE On Tuesday, July 6, the Board of Directors of the Cucamonga County Water District made a formal response to the City inquiry regarding the District's master planning for the triangle. The Board's res- ponse is outlined in the attached District Staff Report. A letter will be sent once their attorney has a chance to review their response. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call me at any time. CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT • 9647 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD • CUCAMONGA. CALIF. 91730 C July 1, 1982 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FRC'.i: George B. Blanchard, Jr. Assistant General Manager RE: Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence Tn response to the request made at our meeting of June 22, 1982, staff requested a written request from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The request from the City was to contain the points on which they would like to receive comment from our District. C A copy of the request letter from the City is attached for your review. Paragraph two of that letter indicates those items on which the City would like us to make comments. Also attached for your review, is a transmittal received from L.A.F_C. on June 29, 1982, relative to the subject matter. This transmittal brings to light the fact that yet another agency has become involved in this issue. jtaff recommends that the City's letter be answered as follows: 1. The updated Water Master Plan has been developed to serve Lill of the area north westerly of Interstate 15 east to the approximate. center of Section 23, (northerly extension of San Sevanie Road). 2. The water system, as master planned, can be expanded to serve easterly to Citrus Avenue according to verbal conversation with James M. Montgomery's staff. S. The Cucamonga County Water District feels that it is the logical agency to service all of the area contained within the City of Rancho Cucamonga_; however, the District does not wish to infringe on another purveyor's area. Before agreeing to service the area, an agreement must be reached with the Fontana Water Company and he Best San Bernardino �. County Water District for those agencies to give up their intentions to service the area. That direction should come from L.A.F.C. E E CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT . 9641 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD . CUCAMONGA. CALIF. 91730 Memo to Board July 1, 1982 Paee 2 With reference to th-, transmittal from L.A.F.C. dated June 25, 1982, that transmittal was the first to raise the question of server service, and bring to light the question of basin water rights. On the 'latter topic, staff suggests that we seek advice from our legal council relative to our serving water to areas overlaying a basin outside of our jurisdiction. in addition, a defined boundary study of the Cucamonga Basin could scow that the subject property actually overlies our basin rather than S.B.V.M.W.D. The recent presentation by Camp, Dresser and Me Kee hinted at a basin boundary that intersected Lytle Creek. In addition to replying to the City's letter, it is reconrended that we attend the meeting of July 9, 1982 in San Bernardino. E t - �'• �O YYT n Z 19- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 28, 1982 Xo Jon D. Mikels Cltarics J. auquet N James C. Frost Richard NI. Dahl Phillip D. Schlosser Mr. Lloyd Michael, General Manaqer Cucamonga County Water District 9041 San Bernardino Road Cucamonca, California 91730 SUBJECT: RANCHO CUCAMONGA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Dear :qtr. Michael: As you are already aware, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is considering an amendment to its sphere of influence by incorporating an area east of its existing sphere boundary, north of the 1 -15 Freeway. (See at- tached map.) This is in response to a recent LAFC application by the Cit_ of Fontana to include this area into their sphere of influence. LAFC has given Rancho Cucamonga 90 days to review Fontana's request and either agree to their request or submit an amendment application of its own for the area. In order that we may complete our analysis of the area, we wo,.ld re- quest that the District inform us as to their master planning for the subject area as well as any service capabilities and constraints the District micht have if this area is included into Rancho Cucamonga's sphere of influence. Again, thank you for all your assistance in regard to this matter. if you should have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call either myself or Rick Gomez, City Planner, at any time. Sincerely, Jon Mikeis Mayor JM: j k RISC R.i4.1LLZ� JUN 2 9 1982 WAY- VC. e 9x9 BASEIM"E ROAD. SLITE C • POST OFFICE BOX 807 • RA.NCHC CUCAMONGA. CALIFOB. \1A 91130 • (:l4) 9891851 El El US- _ � - larti�euueuuaed¢atlYacme id�ama aon sit a Ell aaa sill eaa omeaamueaeuamaoilImail Ao uj Hilo LU ZA �S -Ti'— f-`— r 1. / ��'_' -Z�7 I1I��, _ ]n• ••� . �: !�''/ .Z] �cti l .;JrlJr \ ,1'iiAJ fL •� — ;:t \1� LL nf zrl " w .) v 1'.- .k-- T.e- y'- "`i:Y�. - •°•,- �--°`^ -w'i't i�\\��`I� -- ,�1^F.. =�-,. '. .) l )) `] (S� .+-.— � �a a arses a,•�� a �s�``ao s � �,, '` —�1�. �- ate. LLA vm - -- rrg,,), Via' +l .rL • ,P1�34 r. \� ���.� ` Q >1 <: '. -� \ in`� �! \-._-- -� -.�� Sz \ n `j -E. 'i. ����� �-{�'� �): «` �� .� !• � ^�� i „razes ;�R�] •/ I1��c�' \�� l.:%�•;Cl �]i,•=1, /� I'.`�. � \t :C i. �� : , \ � mil` . CMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT June 25, 1982 An adjourned regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Cucamonga County Tn*ater District -4as called to order by President Cherbak at 5 -55 p.m., who then led all those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Present were President Victor A. Cherbak, Jr., Vice PRESENT President Frank Lesinsky, Directors Earle R. Anderson, Robert Neufeld and Beverly Braden, Secretary - General Manager Lloyd W. Michael, Assistant General Manager George B. Blanchard, Jr., Office Manager - Controller George Day, and District Engineer Farold m. Olson. After a general discussion concerning a letter dated CITY OF RANG June 11, 1982, from the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and CUCAIMONGA, the meeting Mr. Blanchard attended on June 17, 1982, ANNEXATION the Board instructed that the City should submit their request for the District's ccmments on their proposed annexation in writing. The subject area is at the Devore Freeway and Summit Avenue, and coLld also be served by the West San Bernardino County Water District, or by the Fontana Water Company. Further discussion on the matter was tabled until the lette- request from. the City of Rancho Cucamonga is received. Because of a question as to whether or not to continue FORM FOR INITIAL printing a Post Office Box on the bills, Mr. Day BILLING AND FINAL explained the processing of the bill payments, and NOTICE the time of the mail delivery. After a general discussion, the Board instructed that the Post Office Box is to continue to `�e printed on the bills. Copies of the Update of the 1974 Water Mast.,�r Plan UPDATE OF THE / 1974 WATER MASTER 1. 0 L17 DATE: T0: FROM,: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM July 2, 1982 Mayor and Members of the C Rick Gomez, City Planner e it As part of the staff analysis of Fontana's request to amend their sphere of influence, we have put together some base maps illustrating the special districts serving the triangle. As you can see, it is just short c7 a mess! Piease note that the Cucamonga County Water District boundary shown on Exhibit "B" is that of their sphere of influence. Their district boun- dary is at Cherry Avenue, north to the powerlines. That area between the Cucamonga County Water District boundary and their sphere is serviced by a private water company. The Cucamonga County Water District, Foothill and Etiwanda School Districts will be addressing a letter to the City Council discussing their respective district master planning of the triangle out- lining any service capabilities and constraints they might have. In addition to the Service District Maps, we have included base maps showing the County's General Plan and Zoning, Exhibits "D" and "E ", respectively. Also, Tim Beedle has put together a memo discussing the possible land use concepts for the triangle. If the City is to prepare an application to LAFC to include this area in its sphere, then we will need to show some General Plan land use designations. This is the staff's initial pass. I would appreciate any comment you may have in order to develop a final for presentation to the Council. RG:jr Attachments CC: Lauren Wasserman Jack Lam a� 17 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: July 1, 1482 TO: Rick Gomez, City Planner FROM: Tim J_ Beedle, Senior Plan SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RE DING LAND 1977 BACKGROUND: In order -to heip determine appropriate lard use concepts in the area east of the City's Sphere of Influence, staff has reviewed the adopted General Plan for policy statements that define appropriate land use considerations in the area east of the Sphere of Influence. The following information is either paraphrased or taken verbatim from the General Plan with both the page and the content of the policy action. These policies have then been translated into the attached "Land Use Sca: ;ario" which is a guide to established land use designations in the aria east of the City's Sphere of influence. The land use desig- nation;; shown on the scenario are subject to refinement during the precise mapping of the environmental features of the area. The fol- lowing is a summary of comments in the General Plan by topics: CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT IN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE A. Development in the unincorporated areas are shown for "Master Plan" required in order to ensure that the unique features of topographic, geologic, flood and fire hazards and natural r(_- source considerations are addressed during the design of d =vel- opment. ;Page 35) B. Development in the area should respect the topographic features in order to minimize the visual and physical alternations of the land form, particularly those areas north of Hillside Road_ (Page 132) Areas of moderate environmental constraints including fire, soii erosion, slope and seismic hazards shall have develop- ment policies for low intensity. (Page 201) Development patterns in the areas north of the City should remain essentially in open space or in a clustered develop- ment for residential use. (Pages 246 and 253) Continued . . . General Plan Policies July 1, 10-82 Page 2 w 2. DEVELOPMENT PM_ E_ NT 14TENSITY A. Development in the foothills area shall conform to the slope development guidelines Table IV -1. (Page 186) B. The hillside residential designation provides for development not to exceed more than 2 dwelling units per acre with appro- priate environmental studies. (Page 187 and 208) C. The open space designation defines areas which will remain essentially in open space. However, development may occur in areas environmentally suited at density not to exceed i unit per 10 buildable acres. (Page 187 and 202) D. Land uses should be regulated to prohibit development in areas of excessive slope and soil instability which may endanger pub- lic health and safety. (Page 201) 3. PROVISIONS FOR OPEN SPACE Open space shall be used to preserve l value. (Page 200) and with natural or scenic is B. Open space shall be used where flood, fire, geologic or seismic conditions exist which may endanger public health and safety. (Page 200) C. Open, space shall be used within the designated creeks, channels, utility corridors and transportation right -of -ways. (Page 200) 4. WERALL DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS Figure V -10 of.the Public Health and Safety Policy Map has determined high, moderate and low development constraints based upon a collection of ervironmental data as follows: A. High Development Constraints - development Jiscouraged based upon conditions of excessive and unstable slopes as shown on the slope stability map. B. Moderate Development Constraints - development conditionally per- mitted based upon areas of flood hazards, fault hazard study zones, fire hazards on slopes greater than 20% and excessive noise contours. C. Low Constraints - development permitted- 0 General Plan Policies July 1, 1982 jib As noted from the comments discussed above, these policies generally define limitations on development based upon environmental conditions. These comments then are used to define areas of limitations on land use intensity. These policies have then been applied to the existing features in the area of the triangle, east of the City's sphere and thus used to identify areas shown for open space, hillside residential, utility cor- ridors and very low density residential. Tie only new feature in this area exists at the intersection of Duncan Canyon and I -15 which shows commercial designation at the interchange. This designation could pro- vide commercial service to residents in the area and also provide com- mercial service to traffic along I -15 Interstate route. TJB:jr Attachments u 0 ` \\ �..... N .4...b lu `�:i �` - ' C9�M {{{�` �•\ ( dt11t11rtrr tlttlli1fl11t1011•Ii1rr111 IIIHIIrIltlltlllt1111r (19/111pl101LILIf11tl�111011 S A� .".�% —� fJ` +a `�, i 'a �` \` J/ e Qi '•31� Sflti cl t.Lu rA NaBso 3-11k] W CC •.'i`�,�� �� • �� �~ <'%i= ,`\r.- -_�"'. C.J'`� .yam+. � y�\ `+ �_�`'�bG yam` r lea 1'` �,+ � }- ��rl �- �.r^ ^ice �i , _ -•� �_ �-''-_ -- Sj"'�^ ' '� _ -.. 1 $ )_ J SAN SEVAINE �1i- Z LO UJI iQ t� Y . �... .• 10� Z F j F F F � � `V C O O ti C Iwo O R n ++ 4C CC OC HU Cix y E 2 En ti E p O Chi E c U `•' \Ietem Iuemotho ao lazol 1L � ® • 13 '3A� 1J Ia�iS uj: ssi•:ee•••�s� a - � �� 2 � � �� 3ltAl � - -•- t r cr Ei LU zt f: °x CD s to U Zn rZ y ZI , r 1 _'7 X15 �'1 J ��'� (•' =.l � ��7 .� y - -i - f: -�I �I / ' �" !✓ �[� y 5 / ' ;o ' of 3AV SnLA.U3 jj r- G�ql' -�[y, S�y1 /�� 'I�i� Nor i:(r -ti�l�% � •"�1 .� - f - ✓rr`y • ' N 31 ' >� % / " _ - �f� eeetseeeef!•e Nopeef�e oeene"' ■�!'® ®■ ®� ®!a ®Q���• >lrieM ewso Q�. •': s+,-- s'r'�— \r ~--- '- :7sf�^,.��_�i -- ...�. =G ��� \ice �� �7- - •. vi L ` < 14�i ti 4. J 8 ? ;"G• CD CD tm Err ` o (( nn ,i, m . �'• ' / • `� I7+s+Ynnlue++aurtlnnuA u ss+ IOIIii +1UIlUSl + ++1SiF LJ lip 4L 40� - T.� \' ) i �C` f � lJ� ,,,..��,_ �... �., is �• ��• -� �•'\_ ,�. '''�O�Y vY I ."2 L \ -/ Ali i 8/ \.� -/' '\ �.3 r �\\ 4 �- L Lit CL t d, � '� its. -• �, ✓�/ '� �•i "`.�1 ''.�� t � ��� OiS4... '� =`, J .s, i - ,- �4 tAA e lzf cil Te �� 'r'' •�.� \i _ . {< two* �'—�1 �ren . .. C� -1` ;7:j : � �\ •. v ter. i.� �'_ �t'� l —_L.� \\ _ m x x u O Q Z u v W N C Z Q a �J Q C u Z w C7 Q CD U U O. U Z IL ..- .t_ a `2 a F O w El 4 k' rt O V C C 14 C C r U t c 0� 1 88000000 0 18 �— Ix008goo 000 C t 1 1i P L- � C7 !4 U Z v - eoc - i= ` -- _ CC) -� 1}° c ... si d :::::::::::::::. 9z �'Y it cr ......... itz - tz- IF uj '4 LU =3 14 ................. ............. cr rl N;� , I ki iJ , I - 1 i7,-- -7 . Zr......_. •.. I. zi zi 73AV U-1 I tj rn LL IN I ---------- .1 ZZ 77 I—Qw LM 70 CL tv E 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUC_9M0NGn STAFF REPORT DATE: July 14, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City `:lgineer BY: Joe Stofa Jr., Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: REVISION TO TRACT MAP 11734 - DLV - located at the nort:iwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route. A change from 5 -lot condominium subdivision to 6 -lot subdivision This tentative tract was approved by the Commission as a total development of 96 units on October 14, 1981. On May 26, 1982, the Commission approved a revision to the tentative map from a 4 -lot condominium subdivision to a 5 -lot subdivision. Since that time, the developer has found that proceesing with the project could ba aided by charging the =map to a 6 -lot subdivision to provide for a separate lot "A" for recreation purpeses. This change affects the map only and results in no change whatever to the project itself. The City's subdivision ordinance requires Planning Commission approval of all increases in lot number, therefore, this is being presented to you for your review and approval tonight. The developer has paid the administrative processing fee and the fee charged for the increase in number of lots. RECOMh?ENDri ION: It is recommended that the revision to the tentative map be approved and if the Commission agrees, a resolution has been prepared providing for the change and retaining the original conditions of approval and environmental clearance. Respectfully submi Attachments 1TEM A ',• a ^1b j�. II ° -0000m <� °' °' 'I , � S° `/ � ail I Ali •. oo; j f at iz s ILA Yea$ Rj ffff ... ., �' I•. 1.. :4 e:i i .. e$ Q39� —I lIE ° "Mulberry Place" • wa.Ew eaE,mEdey Gl� E11 r� 11 RESOLUTION NO_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPPOVING REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11734 WEREAS, Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 11734. hereinafter "flap" S,%mitted by DLV, applicant, for the purpose of amending the approved tentative flap situatad in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as Planned Development of 30-unit condominiums on 8.5 acres of land, zoned for R -3, located at the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Vineyard Avenue to contain 6 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for action on July 14, 1382; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering Division reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering Division Report. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Revised Tentative Tract No. 117 34 and the Map thereof: (a) The Map is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the Map is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The Map is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the Map will not conflict with any ease- ment acquired by the public at large, now of record, fcr access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. Page 2 (g) The environmental impact findinnF in Resolution No. 81 -122 apply to this map. SECTION 2: The Conditions of Approval contained in Resolution No. 81 -122 shall apply to this map. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY. 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Panning Commission i, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca,nonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularay introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a recular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of Juiy, 1982, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Is I] CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 14 19802 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Extension of Approval for P.M. 6636 - Stevens - An Industrial Subdivision of 6.09 acres into 2 parcels located on the west side of Hellman Avenue. approxima *-el; 43" so:th of Sth Street {APIs 209 - 011 -43} Susan Spraker as trustee for Richard Stevens has requested a 6 -month extension for the recordation of Parcel Map 6636. Parcel Map 6636 as described above was approved by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1981 for a period cf 18 months. Director Review 81 -03 approval for the develcrment of this parcel map has been granted a time extension by Planning Commission on February 10, 1982. The expiration date for this extension is January 21, 1983. A six -month extension for the map would coin =cide with the expiration of the Director Review. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommanded that Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution extending the expiration date of Parcel Map 6636 to January 28, 1982. Respectfully submitted, V LBW. K:bc Attachment ITEM B § � - � �k @ 2� \ �a � � I:$ ; $ � z« � s �� �■ q k « - $ 2 � a � 2� \ �a � e-42 ; $ � z« � s �� �■ q k « - $ 2 � a � � B � > 2 a CL \ , / � \�\ §/� t: —af> LU y � \} � 29 � CL / 2� \ �a � e-42 ; $ � z« � s �� �■ q � kl � i I � I � .� , ^)\ |! ){ � / . Ii \ iZIP \ ( 9 A - } k « .� , ^)\ |! ){ � / . Ii �_- ,.; . \ ( my } } , ■ ■� - 7IL �{ � \ 2 \ > all .(� . & , §/� —af> �_- ,.; . \ ( my } } -Z - 7IL �{ � \ 2 \ > all .(� . & , §/� —af> ! .� /jj� 29 / �_- ,.; . \ ( my } } -Z 7IL �{ � \ 2 > all .(� . & , —af> �_- ,.; . \ ( my } } -Z 7IL �{ � \ 2 > all .(� . & , �\ | k \ se � § / ¥- � E 11 UEWAIN R. BUTLER 8753 ALONDRP. BOULEVARD PARAMOUNT CALIF0RNIA90723 June 22, 1982 (213)634-3330 `? nz a - Mr. Paul A. Rougeau Senior Civil Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 807 =^ - .ii v.- ..it L�.fJ . .1i �.• Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Parcel Map 6636 Dear Mr. Rougeau: TT:ank you for -our assistance on the telephone this morning concerning the expiration. of Parcel Map 6636. It was our under tarding that the Development Review (81 -03) and the Parcel Map (6636) were both extended to January, 1983 with the Resolution dated February 10, 1982. 1 am enclosing herewith our check for $62.00 r, cover the extension of Parcel Map 6636. At this point, we would request that it be extended for a period of six months to coincide with the expiration date of the Development Review. This will make it easier for us to insure that the proper extensions are filed to avoid expiration of the Parcel Map and Development Review. He will appreciLte confirmation of the expiration date for the Parcel Map. Thank you again for your assistance. Yours very trul , i l� Susan Spraker for Richard P. Stevens, Trustee SS:sms Enclosure CC: R. P. Stevens P.S. Please note cur new address above? RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVING THE EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6636 WHEREAS, ar application has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 1.501.8.2(b) of Ordinance No. 28 -B, the Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described project; and WHEREAT, the Planning Commission corditionally approved the above - described Tentative Parcel Map. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: A. i'hat prevailing economic conditions have caused a lack of financing and high interest rates for zonstruction; B. That these economic conditions make it unreasonable to build at this time; C. That external physical conditions have caused delay in the start of construction; D. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; E. That the granting of said time extensions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or :nr.terialiy injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for the above- described project as follows: Parcel 11ap Expiraticn Date 6536 January 28, 1983 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA E LJ 40 Resolution No. Page 2 gv Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAN, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was auly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1982, by the follm-ing vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSEM1T: COMMISSIONERS: E 11 E 11 CT l OF RANU-iO CUCAI./IONGA MIFF REPORT DATE: July 14, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 80 -11 - NEEVA CORPORATION - A request for a change of zone from A -1 -5 Limited Agricultural -5 acres) to R- 1- 20,000 (Single Family Minimum 20,000 Square Foot Lots) and R -3 (Multiple Family Residential) for approxi- mately 65 acres of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, east and adjacent to Chaffey College - AP14 201 - 191 -07. Related File: Tentative Tract 11550 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This request for the change of zone is in conjunction with the development of 516 dwelling units on 65 acres of land located east and adjacent to Chaffey College on the south side of Wilson Avenue (Exhibit "A "). The development project consists of Tentative Tract Map 11550 which is also on this agenda for your review and consideration. The existing site has an agricultural zone of A -1 -5. As can be seen on Exhibit "B ", the R- 1- 20,000 square foot zone will be located along the north boundary of the project for the single family lots, and the remainde-, of the property will be zoned R -3. Property to the north is presently developed and zoned with single family residential development on large acreage lots. To the west is the existing Chaffey College campus; to the east is Peer Creek Channel; anj to the south is unde- veloped land. The General Plan designates this area for residential develcpment at the Low Medium Density of 4-8 units per acre. ANALYSIS: The project site is large enough shape to accommodate the types of uses that this zone. The zone change, in con4.,t.- *'._-. indicates that adequate provisions a,•e made The change of zone is consistent with 'he G the site development plan which indicat_; a the range of the Gener;.l Plan. in size and appropriate in would be permitted within with the development plans, for appropriate development. >_nerai Plan as well as density which is within 1577 CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Da_ y Report newspaper, and property owners within 300 feet of I he subject property have been notified of such hearing. To date, no correspondence directly related to the zone charge has be ?n received. ITEM C ZONE CHANGE 80-11 - NEEVA CORPORATION Planning Commission Agenda july 14, 1982 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the prcject. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the findings, then a juption of the attache, lesoiutiOF would to appropriate. Res ectfully submitted, �1 ILK GOMEZ ity Planner RG:MV:kap Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Resolution M 1y� l r, •to Plogf . p t9 '.• r. lt. tit y+ Q f r 1 - .�4 J •tln' r RESOLUTION NO. I' :. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA.MONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 80 -11 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM A -1 -5 TO R- 1- 20,000 AND R -3 FOR 65 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WILSON, ADJACENT TO THE EAST BOUNDARIES OF CHAFFEY COLLEGE AND EXTENDING SOUTH TO BANYAN - APN 201 - 191 -07 WHEREAS, on the 1st day of August, 1980, an application was filed and accepted on the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of July, 1982, the Planning Commission, held a duly advertised public_ hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has Wade the following findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terns of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area: and 2. That the proposed zone change would not have sig- nificant impact on the environment nor the surround- ing properties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on July 14, 1982. NO11, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 14th day of July, 1982, Zone Charge No. 80 -11. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 80 -11. 11 Resolution No. cage 2 Thai � Certified Copy of this Resolution and re- lated material hereby adopted by the Pianning ®I Commission. shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATIEST: 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 Plennirg Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1982, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E 0 9 QTY OF RANCHO Ci CA:NtC Na-k �o C'�u-^'9!2'.V, S PUT REPORT DATE: July 14, 1982 Eli 0, TO: Members of the Planning Commission 1977 FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11550 - NEEVA - A residential project consisting of 508 condominiums and 8 single - family dwellings on 65 acres generally located on the south side of Wilson; ore -half mile east of Haven Avenue in the A -1 -5 zone (a change of zone pending to R- 1- 20,000 and R -3) - APP+ 201 -191- 07. Related file: Zone Change No. 80 -11. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project consists of 508 condominium units units arranged in clusters around open space areas and 8 single - family residential units on one -half acre lots along the northern boundary of the project. The project site consists of approximately 65 acres and is located on the south side of Wilson adjacent to the east boundary of the Chaffey College campus and extending south to the proposed extension of Banyan Avenue. The project site is presently zoned as A -1 -5 (limited to agricultural uses on minimum 5 -acre lots) and the General Plan desig- nates the site as residential use at a density of low- meiium (4 -8 dwell- ing units per acre). A change of zone to R -1- 20,000 and R -3 is pending and is also contained on this agenda. The multiple - family units are arranged in two and four -unit townhouses and a twelve -unit condominium structure. The dwelling units range in size from 1255 sq. ft. to 1669 sq. ft. the site slopes generally in a southerly direction at approximately a 7 percent grade and is presently in a natural shrubland vegetation condition. Deer Creek borders a por- tion of the project along the eastern boundary. This project was originally viewed by the Planning Commission in Septem- ber of 1980, at which time the Planning Commission required the prepara- tion of an environmental impact report (EIR). Since that time, an EIR was prepared and certified by the Planning Commission in July of 1981. As a result, the project has been redesigned tc comply with the ,findings in the EIR. The project was originally designed to accommodate 662 units which has now been reduced to a total of 516 units. ANALYSIS: The project presently before the Commission is significantly different from the first design,. This design is the result of working with representatives from Chaffey College and residents from the Deer Creek community. There were several issues of particular concern in- cluding overall density, phasing, drainage, circulation, and the relation- ship to the college campus and Deer Creek community. ITEM D Staff Report Neeva - TT 11 -50 j my 14, 1982 -2- The density of the project has now been reduced to just under 8 units per acre, which is within the General Plan maximum of 8 units per acre. In ad- dition, the north boundary of the project along Wilson Avenue has been de- voted to the development of single - family homes on minimum one -half acre lots which will provide better neighborhood compatibility with the existing Deer Creek homes. The issue of phasing was of major concern to the residents of Deer Creek. The first phases of the project will occur at the north end of the site and access will be provided via Wilson Avenue. The residents were concerned that the number of units built in the first phase, prior to the construction of the Banyan loop, would cause traffic congestion along Wilson. The devel- opment now indicates a maximum of 66 condominium units in the first phase along with the 8 single - family homes. This is'consistent with the discussion the Commission had previously when reviewing the environmental impact report; at which time it was indicated that the first phase should be in the range of 60 -80 units. The next phase beyond the initial phase of the single - family units and the first condominium units will take place at the southern end of the project site and will take access off Banyan and Haven Avenues. In this manner, no additional traffic will be added to Wilson Avenue. In addition, the model complex area will be built for the project at the north end. Again, the residents were concerned that the traffic generated by the model complex could affect the neighborhood. Therefore, a temporary 26 -foot paved access road from the model complex will be installed southward to Banyan and out to Haven. This will be used to route customer traffic to the model complex area rather than Wilson Avenue. The Banyan extension and loop will be con- structed on a phased basis as each phase is added to the project. The project architect and developer gave been working extensively with the college to incorporate their concerns regarding open, space and rural charac- ter. The site plan has been developed in a manner that incorporates the open spaces of the project with the open space and theme of the campus. The revised project which is present before the Commission reflects changes per findings of the environmental impact report. The list of recommended conditions on the attached resoiution are needed in order to mitigate po- tential adverse impacts identified in the project EIR. DESIGN REVIEW: The design of the units themselves were also a point of concern based upon the original proposal. Originally, concern was expressed regarding the scale and design of the buildings as it related to the exist- ing residential character. The architect, 8armakian, Wolff, Lang Christopher, responded with a redesigned unit more in keeping with the existing residen- tial character and scale by reducing the height and a more conventional re- sidential design. The Design Review Committee has reviewed this project and Staff Report Neeva - TT 11550 July 144 1962 -3- is reccrmending approval of the architectural design and site plan design aspects. The single - family lots along Wilson Avenue do not have precise plans shown for each single- family dwelling. Therefore, it has been recommended that each dwelling be reviewed on an individual or collective basis prior to issuance of building permits. FACTS FOR FINDING: This project has General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Grow Ordinance of the City. In addition, ;;he surrounding properties and their fashion that will not create adverse been designed in accordance with the th Management Ordinance and Subdivision the design has taken into consideration effects, and is being implemented in the impacts to surrounding properties. CORRESPONDENCE: This project has been advertised in the Daily Report news- paper as a public hearing as well as notices being mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. Over`the last several months, the developer has held meetings with property owners and representatives from Chaffey College to review final concerns. At this time we have not received correspondence which objects to the project. RECCtO1ENDATION: It is recommended input anc. elements of the project mission can support the facts for Approval, then adopt. ion of the at Resi' ctfollyesubmittedI ck gromez ty Planner MV:jk ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" "a" "CID to Dn "Ell F" 11 G" — 16 We Resolution E. that the Planning Commission consider all If, after such consideration, the Com- finding and recommend the Conditions of Cached Resolution world be appropriate. = Location Map - Conceptual Landscape Plan - Tract Map - Conceptual Grading Plan - Detailed Site Plan - Natural Features Map - Building Elevation=_ & Floor Plans with Conditions f r >--te Tex.• _ ' - ..• O e \i;: ( L� y� • ire_ Jir�t,0 ••+i� '�.��;'V� oi..? �1 • WON 0 psiir ��•�, 1� er:Z'1. ,�..,a •'•,..,' f ;' a _►� I r`�' e •r..wca f� r e � • '� �#".• i,1' . � ��+ '',\,tea ..r,�A� e. .. 4. i 4�!• _ • 'itr �'y. � r�ce e ' � f�' � • �� �� �� � L. `M ` ..fir' r�.' �� .pl• .rte. p•�.t<'' [.' • a TRACT ENTAI NE.y��� 1 ET N ,:i I�C�1lP'AGA?I Ki r% B iii"YirL'T 1 550 WT \ aG 526 NET Jr r ��,mcr se Jr t �- ! ice\ owNex: nuEew coca V . AC TUS NET 'AQ l _ -.f LOT V A.C. 16,88 NET J,-/ i 4RIICi -7!/W2 � J La \� "\ Ar� 9.62 NET i 1 , Y ly # . 0 x("T.dV A -4 V.(JN.TV MAO . 0 � !1 Jc / MIA ci a6aov ewe _ J Y � ^ Y !. DYNw Rmfts _PMP,.ef.eElowd. J •C ,1M tru= eeeo Corcephid '`' 1 It- PX Lq C� fZ7 t%r, �-Cj- 1 � I VCNvty MM Deto-ni mW El �. .1 E E., L .1 02 Can � tKWwAdud VAOLv*M kft*wmv I 2 e Iry - 'V @UUPP.�P(EERR 654SF. GROUND 900SF_ 1554c) ILm ENTRY VIEW TERRACE VIEW PATIO TERRACE VIEW 1. 11 PATIO a.m N.m UPPER 730S(��Fiyr���GROUND 81pp4�1SSF. Rm ■ iai OmunumB ft i i � r U ~1 � mull ENTRY VIEW.,-. 2 e Iry - 'V @UUPP.�P(EERR 654SF. GROUND 900SF_ 1554c) ILm ENTRY VIEW TERRACE VIEW PATIO TERRACE VIEW 1. 11 PATIO a.m N.m UPPER 730S(��Fiyr���GROUND 81pp4�1SSF. Rm ■ iai OmunumB ft i i � r U t 4 � .... YV ENTRY VIEW - L TEF RACE VIEW UPPER 7025F. GROUND 965SF. E PATIO t LEVEL 3 o LtUEi. 2 a fn r TK. 1.Y •a •I .1 oer ANNEA uc1— v ac 2— a:.n i• `•4 n 2�' :h `V` tz d N--- -3mJG S7b0 LEVEL I nay 7 ill tr El C Y sa r s •� t -_ K' a - rn� raeco�io .,ap�nr � ` f i '.i RESOLUTION PYJ. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11550 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract hap No. 11550, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Neeva Corporation, applica.:t, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as 65 acres of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, east and adjacent to Chaffey College and extending south to Banyan Street into 14 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on July 1.4, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the flap subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho ® Cucamcrga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Conmission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 11550 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of de- velopment proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. Pane 2 (g) That this project will on the environment and issued. not create adverse impacts a Negative Declaration is SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11550, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION I. Design review for each of the single- family lots is required prior to issuance of buildine permits for those lots. 2. A temporary access road and parking facilities shall be installed as part of the model complex. The access road shall be from Haven Avenue along the aroposed Banyan Street extension. 3. A dense landscaped buffer shall be provided between the proposed single - family dwellings and the multiple family dwellings. 4. Trees, ground cover and irrigation shall be provided alonq both sides of Banyan Street extension and loop. 5. The edge treatment along the west boundary of the site shall be compatible with the Chaffey College planting. 6. This tract is contingent upon approval of Zone Change No. 80 -11 by the City Council. The Zone Change must be complete prior to recordation of the map. 7. This tentative map shall become null and void if not approved and recorded within twenty -four (24) months from the approval of this project, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. 8. All requirements and ordinances of the Foothill Fire Protection District and the Cucamonga County Water District shall be complied with. 9. Main directories at entrances of the project shall be provided. ENGINEERING DIVISION 10. Wilson Avenue shall be designed as a Secondary Highway. The developer shall construct 32' wide pavement with the face of curb location at 49' from the section line of Wilson Avenue. [1 11 Resolution No. Page 3 11. Public utility and sidewalk easements shall be pro- vided behind the right -of -way line on Wilson Avenue. Exact width of easement shall be determined based on sidewalk design and utility requirements. 12. Installation of a portion of masterplanned storm drains on Wilson Avenue and on Banyan Street shall be required. The cost of construction shall be credited against the storm drain fees for the project and a stand and reim- bursement agreement will be executed to cover the con- tribution which exceeds the anwunt of the fees. 13. Catch Basins on Canistei Avenue at Wilson including connection to the main line stony, drain shall be con- structed to intercept all storm runoff from the north. 14. The proposed Banyan Street at Haven Avenue shall be aligned with the existing street to the west. Required right -of -way for the connection to Haven Avenue shall be dedicated to the City. 15. Approval from Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for the use of a portion of the right -of -way for street purposes shall be required prior to recordation of the map. 16. Installation of traffic signals to the satisfaction of is the City Engineer shall be required at the intersection of Banyan Street and Haven Avenue. The cost of installa- tion shall be credited against the system development fee for the project. 17. Off -site street improvements may he phased in the following order: a. Improvement of Wilson Avenue shall be completed with 0 the first phase development. b. A minimum of 26 -foot wide asphalt pavement shall be constructed on Banyan Street from Haven Avenue to Wilson Avenue with the first phase. A temporary connection to Haven Avenue along M4D right -of -way may be provided with this phase. C. All storm drain installation shall be completed with first phase. 11 Resolution No. ?age 4 d. Full width street improvements for Banyan Street including curb, gutter, . ^..C. pavement, sidewalk on one side, street lights and traffic signal shall be constructed with the second phase deveiopment from its ultimate connection to Haven to the end of the phase boundary. e. Rest of Banyan Street improvements shall be completed along with the other phase developments contiguous to the street. 18. No building permit for the project shall be issued until the Army Corps of Engineers Leer Creek project is -,am- pleted. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCM10NGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman. ATTEST: Secretary of the Panning Co— Fi ssion I, JACK LAN, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1982, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E 11 V ^'] C- VO O� V q lC9 i �y�CO � -VT V.� -"Lv V �° C V J Y C 6 p T =- G V O C r O C•C C b e' qq r.. O -V n` Y lG V u 9✓C_ `' vTpVMp Q V « G q q dam`. s •` oyy .c �.J oa. o q � �� .. .L.. Lq -n v_ _.� Q ec E Z C q° z 2: i' � O j� N d n O w � O J O� R� ' ' V C = O✓ > �= V L V 9C J4 ���V 6 E V Q �.. '-• )•l V y� q>. l_ V w y V a« > w Y W n Tr C L Y p Uil E a V POLP L O �. Wrr� a u> y 'wm - °c no °n q v`- n OO^ > c «c V ccsL 4YO L :- LP v° w w0 V 9� > aC w- U r qr qSQ C�1 LGL G °.E « r P a O V a 1 ;;4 °_ V LE 6.E - � r yMp g i jy >.pbY e` .G�o ZE .r O N G W -LS �S Wes. 1' C�J` L� Jrr 9Ll �.V FVIb�C _- _ N _ NI Q X� N� N •N tV N SIX �Of11 � 1 I I I I u'i e Z C 1'S L :55 C T P9 C4 ) Tr ./ r Jr >.GjZ L l CFA.y 2t dr. �9 L 9 =� t: r u M:5 r° V V O 9 r G p } V O U 0 N v V V� � y •� Y u. = Q� 0 q �- = P O 99 Z Y ^.yif �q6y «OL w� 4 Up v O y 9 O �I Vr C _ O C VrC .nr L C q L L VC q C I °� N O L� _ ^ -•J W G o? V 6.°.. Y r V r � a y ` J v N i� t c _� v c° or �•v'_ >oi M us. ° �L coo � o «•b, 1'i y- I .°.: %. 9 w�V �d "i VG 4y.V.r q 9G0 - 9 � r q MP; q np CO' i O�- O � L' P -G� • G Y V r 9 a w •. � P O l v T C V C= « L> c G .Li. A q `Gd. � •S•• Y q 4 G C QJ V I � - �- w ° O P J O G � C O` c r y 4 '� >� •" 0 u F y ` O Lr� Y T L {•- t °o N r GI = .°: °^ R 4 �� w p b q w N r 6' 9 a Q .L.. r L • C C r V L P� V�> n � • V - Y I ,V n 1 N b A O PY •Lj• u n C 9 •°. a 7 y L �. 3:= S w C y _ L L Z n O O _ G L �_ •^JC yG V V aV VJ l 42 LVO `f/= q 04 Er ,> C._�TV 9V_w L L n r l J �6 w _y a_ y V 9� O E r r 4 � � fl C• O _ C q C y V G _L V 9 y 49 L y � Ids r L S•V.. —O �— L O. — r `a S P O r •' YO> E G G °1 �_UOV u VO `q CL L9 uLLV O L =dV wLG O Lp 00 CP 9 u r V9 w� `O V JdwC Y aG_7P GC ClV n C P G W> C� 9 9 w •ii, � >• L •e C _ 4 y � u` 9 r L W w V 9✓ ` > S w u u G r V O .e L V E N S t n 0 V O P — r i r u EQ y C° IN r E ° r V o w tin r 9 w s t � G l 4 cr_ w W_ S y N Y w www _r N`L 90� Lt n V V I I O O> V y P> G d fi Y w�i rLy M H •0 V R r. O 4 O n q ` G L www uw u�•�.1C uOS• rLT _ lyn 9�r CVr L JSP rNC •°2L` V e IV wLa ^ yO Z =1 `L� d' Z VrOJ Cy� IL y�L n^w qr � q �C° L`pVn P Itu r V.L�L wSJ9 ti OEG� =.i .T V Yn ( TG••. Ow .' E,'O n 09 Er C ¢ E r 0° .nL4 w N • >✓ � ti ~ �~ L a m `_ y r .U. d w L CwV ECP O ° ECr OV _Er Lyn C_ '� V� 9r =Lr O ldb N y G(. a 2 LV9C Gad r•ny w =y c9 w0 O ^r � } LOr C. swC L ^9w yC�.r�VO`°V G.n :22 ^.I n � L 60 r2rr r�Cb � JLO —Vn >O � r 0 u 'c N c =c v Fr V L C t P p �� L L V N • 0 9 O O d L O L' C V w 4 r — a_q �� _ oq —m =_r..w a'�,. c� °O -�._v_ LG� vr 9•n e�L„ y9 OL •Gw w 9�6 Sr Q�rL t� '�� P. C C���C �9 9r 7.. nV � VL 4 wv rC,J OG rL0•oY d�L �LL'T �U L r� n �P w ti6 =� y Z Oy ^9 rr° PCU --.Zs 2 G a l y V w G V q c � L V FS 6 T✓ C w w L^ b L O � O4 0 � . ` E _ y V w u V° x V 4 L V O •Jn L d r i y y m •ri• V 6 V~ .—.. r u r N a V = V ✓i r V 9 C r ` u O V� L 9 r d O E wV —w� d l .[]O Gw'yYO P9G1 U O Y VaV a O` r C V T..• = L Q O L L U..O O Cy n L l� uzw lC r o— 4 2-Iy0 upcoc °L eT �y O�i°'+ ro L rrV C`yLUr r G L d0 u L L 9 N Y P O r 9 y _C �fa C .• Ly n w �V9 C•wi� V Vwr Vall lnG w L9 CCU 9r CuV 42 E 5 r b _ wY 9r YO .On d •WT Vr O 9l uY S P G4 b L .e w V �J ar Oct TOr � Ov 0 2�9.pu O\.Or a Oj ? L Vd �lV aO GG r CC v9OjCCVU .un ^Jr 99 w _ M L V• A c O d_ > =_ E L a r L V E j 9 .p C w irrLL L J rJ L L r Q .ECy L G q G4 w_a4O'a S.wuO __l rl•.C— O.LrO q� Cfw�� Cr 4CO M —2 j .L -21L _V r L L' ra_ vu d _ —nr ,`„C n < °: E qo •L.eN c_ uw r cr c y C ' {u i v �1= ; CC ::- � yip 4du C nwI C CEG Sr O�9 w d L O u rr O`C •"q �! r �� '.'rte E= ` y'Cq L T C a Q Y Y Y G O ^ n P P a € L• d w V d •^ C TC P.N G O P M L.Vr V d y w .5.5 .5.5 r C L� w C 1 T g _C.E V _ Vrw r G9_. '•y d � 4 ..r wdL 4�q4 �L L�` �c OLL� .���C _<.y C4 L�Cw l _ _w .b.. >w s` EGA < C u 4 P./ O N 9 V w �( w P < 9 4 P G •_n Z,5 LO "o-• o VG �.. 4 ° R� '° L —�u a ✓LN — o y 4°. ro 3 _O _ P ✓L l e e c°N °,ce b— W P —i o � � _ v ..e •'q Y °p_ .'✓� 6N°Y rO LQOru aI I L O.( y °.P � = 4 VY T r r. •� O G v 1 V l .. V l V 9 C V .� r i N C O U�� O C - L . 0 c c^ � u� —v L d N �P °c°u� i w`G � Nc= .' ♦7 ,°`. — ^ �.°. q_ S ° ` �� I y L G ` � !e ✓ G y � T` V P L.- �'` .� d w a L T ° � r � �, rV � ` d 9P rLU d On. VL>��✓ -� CO j -_•L -. �V� GaN rCO JC L �� Rp I I L q - ° Z7. L <° a✓ °'^ coo ` ._� `i ° .° `� c' NI _ i c j °ps°, iri Z.:; c - WN n_o bV• r�o _ 'c°�� ° -LZ �O Eo•rONO C �$� � ��� �V �� > °pig °�Op Lu` V` V Qr> Na o�q �.-°. N. l L w L�IP -� G•ct O V a ay9 NOL AO nrN O N�r9P U „9 L y Lr -�Y w° bI u '� °L w C GCq N` u; ✓ rNr_ �Jy ql6 C1 C P O T.S N`o a CC c— 5_ V Ow. 6 `� y G I °rV ON ` L Or��G V.AV QN Oa Nip qT. t� l6 My 00� C_ <N 69 9 LI t� y �� ° • �� _ I 1. G O U L9 .Y Or C ` tom-. G I S V _ ✓ _ O_ O -- -_ —° c —✓ oo—°� n ° — on ° ° - _ r •~^ � 4 m- g a°,oN r a•o. —rte.✓ ✓.ce �� c° V o= 9 _ O� C 6 P V -°L � L d q J -- ° � c O r � u d L 9✓ O 4 N O �_ - �` _V _ j L L r✓ C J V V q O ° L O `. � .-i, n° C J C O r y .'n O �. y � ✓ � T `J S l^ d _� ~ v ° N ° ° .• W - u ._ L C,°. C Y V V C° N �' ^ = � � n E .di- v .>., _• r - u W 4 - L��L � ° °_✓ °. C C rVrV> °C� O { A N _ F- Oqr yrr NuT.CO q L rQ V �. i' ✓ q0 : u -_ LY_ V_✓ A L L L y L L C C S G V O J 4 6 d CI C O 9 E' V VOOd �9V �ILJV uV V J° L'E �.� V` 4'. °V NLC VNLWA C ' -T9 ....0✓ - -j = C -V ro�...V ` V< °° O r =•O L .� 99b a -- L.... �. N LSLic ° O O� -° 43 Lry9^ M Y'J SP u> ° � °9 CCC 4P.'✓ ry° NPN LPL .O r. 4 ni G= C J_ ^_ •i V N_ u- � r N r 9 ^ 3� �., O 9 4� l V V 6� t Y_ ]� Y � i J T M _ V C °�rG °9iC OI P�VCL Prd✓ '° .L+ V .°.. O `- -V T�.rr L6O _ LL G °i�r C^�N4 a V^ ° rV... T i y • =a JC.0 GIf1 Cy LOr a,v y- G .°° E5l UC COiiN G °off =° C9 N — �G.� >i L` j ✓VF °�V°._ ° °t�y��� L � yOV OL• V... -� La v °.L oy NFL °. '.TC °'°✓ •_Od .., 9 m Vb �.°. .°:u N99„° jq9 N LG C VL N' Noy -` „L? - 'c„o� �o�o.w •c•u Py7 °-- ��.r� °� io V c -c`° Mf —✓ �c °LS _” o� i ^ GC CJUVn ✓C O4.r JL 9 + �'?vG�VwCNV Lf r 9 ri dam ✓l4VC ° .0 wT = C C C• CL ✓I rV pi c✓ =V VL Q. --_s C °� ��yV 9�OV ��GV ✓ = =� Nrr° C O�V '� J °aG LO L_ CJV rI 6.O.r TI O P �I i I Zf 2 !!1 ' r - V cp A O .V.. y L� r _ V ry `J. fTq L •r 1 a Pi oAe o � 1 �•°o a„ �.q -L s.°.o•'Sy ' I � �P .•°°_ _ °r. � O� ^V .nu W CWO Si 6F yi q,r •L'' r C V O q a _ V c c < ° r G . A V .5 lz W -a d Cr °Y `J _ -C l?• ar EV V w V- «r O1 LO �V pC q ^= q P L F u n q q l •an V r d L I I •` « Y w V C r� W Op M•.' va a oI i� � o�.o °'i °� °^ P4 °Le € -• �4 �y _ w� �y �•.°i `� =". °a 'y'I �.= v cy« 4r ^ u °� cO_ •'<+ � I "yo -u L.� a u� °vcT•a °'-'� V_ v U` y.a S� Jn0 P_ Od r_ S� •... _L r� �.. P «L« TI '4 "• OJT P�q 6L `O Ys� �C Vy JL _ `� - r. = •• U= W � '• l � 6 '° •Vn O C O _ u y •Vn 0 O J .� y � 4 L L y '� -J .n -. h q „ V O'7n q CF -Jq y` WVN O_ d� V 000 WV V =d L6.1 � •. >4 �" •nA ✓O' - `V rRO q � u I N sl xI S.d Y n i y TIE,, � I V Y O - C Y< - iP d•n VV• F7L C."P rS0 P 7u Pr Y4 M _ 2•u u rp 2i. P pq� •�qr�' wd � °`mow "0 q , L A- � P L _ �'� Y v, V _ O I I V f..• L' �_ •` L !, V O r �O 4 n _V Pl` 7 Z 411. 'Y 41O r Cb �LrV b°c A� in .e for qc .«. a -o � °" �mc.•. y LVo Y T-2 Y p d V O V G O V W •n v u' Cr O J l � u a L y ` O t i •-q• q V ? O y n OV' = �O Vn C•'"� v0 r YOG L G= a -�� �ti.0iu r �� .yi00Cl C_ .. ry .c � •_ W Ar +. _ � M r V21 �C Pq GO Lc, r G �V- Y Vr qv UG YT •` O =p.- Q l y. 1 L= 9 O L V •r V i a 4 ` O = �_ 0 V L '° - r O = C T� ` r 7 n L .+ - • I I O L O Y O 9 4 n N O u u u U i o" « L y U •r V 0 � C ✓ n. G 2 `. L Y!� S 1 xl "I r P c L V •� 9 0� F_ � O C l y L O L V ==G VU t =ta tq 4VP .+a 2 q �YY � On Oq`4 .•.°. __� �.'�� d b. <'.0. ��' .`.< � `� � r an�� 6�rr•y uL � =L T U Gar it X x <p c o y •.A °= c G_ 0 Y L c. <. n - -_° q .. F. v n= y V P __ o o. n_ o r •a „ c rV= Ot = _ N v r P'^ O q r I q f. 4 i O U w � S r V .� ..• L n L j' ." � ` 4 w .rn V V V V •[V,. V 0 9 C C 7 y m= I X G •0i rl C - �� •w V C V r r n V r O {' <V �. C q <C u 2 i ani aJir Er US c � q.T. �'C �•-__ 4.�.. u. 'n4 r n �`7 w� F _ ¢L V W CI C I I L L ra•L.'t.a „V�w u pr -`C� - MI� I f ^ 4 C V a ^ 1: ' 0 s 0 LJ r C r O u y G r C � o c V V J O ✓ ` t .L. n C ✓ S COO 4 f H _ c 4Z ^moo r y _v' d J C .- 0 ✓ V EGG � r A .� _N O- ��� �^V VQ UiT i C� i ✓ C i � G✓ n � 7 S L O= r V �✓ � T O a0u l a —uL cl L'"od ° L�O•eu -�� _ r � O � T d O� T. A d ZLL.OG c Oi L O u • J � La s a -Jl y`Tt! � i P T�1 Lr ..L �.V.. G �� u✓N O u y G r C f H c c O r d r o d J C .- 0 I : A i ✓ O C C ` � ��� L r d G V �✓ � T y l ° I✓ T � O � T d O� T. A d O u • J La a -Jl y`Tt! � i P uu^ Lr ..L �.V.. G �� u✓N J � up.yy AC CA u or�A 9 72 V n^ r C� O n O N L V g u A C✓ u Lr .n O n r� ✓ 6 O A .-. O w V A V°a. ^ °•d VCNd u? 4..V PNO v CnGC Ci_ 60 VO T,_yw tLJ � u n - �� qV O 1' q d •J V< b n V4 - xl 11 L 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C'!�A��1r REPORT DATE: July 14, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commissicn FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin. Senior Planner SUBJECT: & CUUNTRY - A total residential development of a 32 lot — subd v;sion on 8.5 acres of land in the R -1 zone located on the east side of Beryl, south of Base Line - APN 208- 011-49 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This project is. a single - family residential development consisting of 32 lots. The site is presently zoned R -1 (Single- Family Residential) and is General Planned for residential development at the Low Density of 2 -4 dwelling units per acre. The project site is located south of Base Line along the east side of Beryl Avenue -as shown on Exhibit "A ". The site is primarily undeveloped but does contain one single- family residence which will be removed at the time of development. The site also contains some vegetation including some trees, which will be removed as a ro-ult of on -site grading. The site is located on a hill which has grades of up to 10 -120% and surrounded primarily by existing single family residen- tial development. ANALYSIS: The development constraints for this project site are more severe than usual. The site falls on a slope which has grades ranging from 10 -12 ". The existing development abutting the site will require that grades be matched. In addition, the configuration of the project site is narrow and long, making it difficult to make up grade differences. These constraints reduces the number of subdivision alternatives. Several sub- division alternatives have been reviewed and considered for this site. In consideration of the development constraints, it was generally agreed upon that the present design is the best suited for the area. The conceptual grading plan has been approved by the Grading Committee and is attached for your review. The developer has attempted to mitigate some of the grading problems by incorporating a split -level dwelling unit that allows the grade to be taken up within the lot and dwelling unit itself. Attached as Exhibit "F" is the anticipated drainage patterns for this pro- ject site and the surrounding vicinity. The project will necessitate the installation of a storm drain as described within the Conditions of Approval. A complete hydrology study has been prepared by the applicant and is under review by the Community Development Department for final design of drainage structures. ITEM E ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TT 12184 Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 1982 Page 2 The subdivision design does create five (5) double frontage lots which will necessitate a perimeter wall and landscaping. The applicant has shown the conceptual landscaping for that area and staff will be working with the applicant on the final design to ensure that the area will be appropriately mai,ptained and designed in an aesthetic manner. DESIGN REVIE14: The Design Review Committee has considered both the sub- division design and the architectural design of the individual units. The Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing the subdivision design with the developer. It was the consensus of the Design Review Committee that the proposed subdivision design is the best suitad given the constraints and the existing development in the area. The Committee also reviewed the architectural design of the structures and has recommended approval of the design with the condition that the side elevations of corner units contain additional wood trim and treatment similar to that of the front elevations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Attached is Part I of the Initial Study, as completed by the Applicant. Staff has conducted an environmental investigation and has completed the Environmental Checklist and has not found any significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. It is recommended that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration based upon the 2mplementation of the conditions of approval contained within the Resolution. FACTS FOR FINDING: The Tentative Tract Nap does meet the requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The improvements and physical devel- opment of the site will be consistent with specific plans for street im- provements and street alignments. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems based upon implementation of the conditions contained within this proposal. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing item in The Daily Report newspaper and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property have been notified of said hearing. To date, no corres- pondence has been received either for or against the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TT 12184 Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 1982 Page 3 RECOMMEiVDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the project. If, after such conside -ation, the Commission can support the facts for finding and recommended C mditions of Approval, then adoption of the attached Resolution would be ap)ropriate. Respectfully submitted, RG /MV /kep Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity /Location Map Exhibit "B" - Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Grading.Plan Exhibit "F" - Drainage System Exhibits "G ", "H ", "I" - Architectural Elevation: Part I - Initial Study Resolution �f o= .5: = =C n �Ih V < f � N f h < r O = 7 Y h VI < =0 Z Z� a _J I � "— nom--- .as--�- -sT-a- z c ^,4, G S c 0 ICJ n 0 u N h r .� 1 � �rI x G eL z c ^,4, G S c 0 ICJ n 0 u N E u 11 1 / > - •• r `� i _ is ("�.. 3�ob �s i 1 t ms � -iar Yp _ w I Imo— '_.� _ P ,. � � ^x —. ,< � \- 4• _'� ,_. --'—t mil• `-T ............ I In 9,.-1 -:—,Iuvbaou-lR M., �3�,,,DAMCI no= 117, 7:— 11- kv Lli TU It .. :. . . —1 -1.11Z' mzm(n I. 11-1:i 11 61 C, I 41 rp 9 PIP c E 11 aanacsa¢ 7n,azrcr__;I I• \t,1 1 e0 8 9 s Isurawea ra�aa wu: r�noo 9 NMOl _ 11 =G1 'Ll II cs c: mrn r I J I - 10 _ n t zi io tw -- �ilf J � .�'>�dOY _'•l\\� r •. 1! 'fiYt _].!R W. �tA _d Y, _:j R - A. o a L12 3 it El KI E 10 1J 50ALE: FcD' = —T O.5 A, GA0 AREA D ��- 0.! A 7A AREA 5 5.7A Tr iO Mm. T.;•IZ MIN. v •LCC[O 0 - 7.4 cx..f / AREA K I L BED Srtt£ET — _— .AR G AREA F AREA H S. A I I I A t ZEA SFINEL AVENUE 1I CWt N' i. TG•IS NIN! i 5 G • SSlaa TG• IC MIN. A i O • G.ecs 5. A 5 _ LION STRE£T i{ u� !F7' TG•K.S MtN LIBRARY Tc -r MIN 1 LEGEND DE5iW CAIA CONNECT TO LA-Er� DNS AREA DOMIOIRY— n:Et1uEwr: cvnAz MK TRACT iiL05 DICAINA" - -� m 301_ Cii1R: G 5TORM DRAIN r!. Of Rts174 of0'R'1P�f LAND I6E:54MGM HUCi7 G'LN EIa1N cg._ z—vx I pworoCED 57cm OAml= E%ISTwG 5=" CMV ennu� I+nrrr - L crs kREA 16 0 0 6 7A AREA 5 5.7A Tr iO Mm. T.;•IZ MIN. v •LCC[O 0 - 7.4 cx..f / AREA K I L BED Srtt£ET — _— .AR G AREA F AREA H S. A I I I A t ZEA SFINEL AVENUE 1I CWt N' i. TG•IS NIN! i 5 G • SSlaa TG• IC MIN. A i O • G.ecs 5. A 5 _ LION STRE£T i{ u� !F7' TG•K.S MtN LIBRARY Tc -r MIN 1 LEGEND DE5iW CAIA CONNECT TO LA-Er� DNS AREA DOMIOIRY— n:Et1uEwr: cvnAz MK TRACT iiL05 DICAINA" - -� m 301_ Cii1R: G 5TORM DRAIN r!. Of Rts174 of0'R'1P�f LAND I6E:54MGM HUCi7 G'LN EIa1N cg._ z—vx I pworoCED 57cm OAml= E%ISTwG 5=" CMV ennu� I+nrrr LIBRARY Tc -r MIN 1 LEGEND DE5iW CAIA CONNECT TO LA-Er� DNS AREA DOMIOIRY— n:Et1uEwr: cvnAz MK TRACT iiL05 DICAINA" - -� m 301_ Cii1R: G 5TORM DRAIN r!. Of Rts174 of0'R'1P�f LAND I6E:54MGM HUCi7 G'LN EIa1N cg._ z—vx I pworoCED 57cm OAml= E%ISTwG 5=" CMV ennu� I+nrrr ��On� � `!I: SI j_, YLVI�"�tl0'finl0 ittlJ,NftO> > NMOt lf�t 1. II J 1 R _ I - i ]i . i t f i E 11 13 11 iU7O W R -a b oY S Imv%acn Atl1Nf10� 9 NM01 -rte Y j 1,.0 1 I Llip 11 ' u I i= =� fi, i t IW 1 - El 1 J } _ 1 f V f� V E3 FEE Ml* m Fr: v �a�R� 1�e0� 1 stH�wavZartav�wn�w�nov>wwol Ml* m Fr: v CITY OF RANCHO CUCA =GA INITIAL STUDY u PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Commmittee through the department where the project a- .)placation is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Eniir::nmer_tal 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. Tae Committee will male one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied b_v the applicant giving further information concerning the pronosed project. 0 PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Tract 12134 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Richard Jaxoyi Town & Country Development 133 North Pixlev. Oranqe, California 92668 714/997-70-1 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: L. D. Kin Inc_ 517 NCalifornia . Euclid Avenue, Ontario, Californ 91762 14/988 -5492 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) East of Beryl Street. South of Baseline Road - 208 - 011 -49 - LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Grading permit, City of Rancho Cucamonga W1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This project consists of 4 residences on 34 lots in the R -17200 Zone, construction or street, storm drains, water and sewer mains, _ and necessary appurtenances required in residential, trac,. construction. El ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Acreage is 8.5± acres -all existing buildings will be removed. Proposed bu-slairgs a�roximately 1850 square feet. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON?•TCNTAL SETTING OF TIM PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORM_kTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SU'RROUMI ING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): This project -is located in the hilly area south of Baseline Road, east of Beryle Street. It is surrounded by resi� dential properties to the east and south, and sparse y occupie d land to e n _ avest. Inere is an existing residence on this property, Bu w be removed. There ars several trees located on the property, but they will also be.rernoved. 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? c: a— 2 WILL THIS PROJECT: YES D70 X r 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial ch=ange 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? 10+ _ X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammnables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: W, Facrtin work shall involve cut and fill slopes and lot terracing. ,( ) All -- s shall he rpmnvpd_ IMPORTANT: if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee_ - i." Date - t G _ Signature Title T-3 C � r RESIDE13TIAL CONSTPUC:ION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the schoo 1 district to accommodate the proposed residential development. NZ=e of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Richard Jaxon, Ten:. Tract 12184 Specific Location. of Project: East of Beryl Street, South of Baseline Road 1. PHASE I PMASE 2 PHASE 3 PRASE 4 TOTAL 34 _0 8/1/82 . 12/1/82 7— 4 Number of single famil•: units: 2. Number of multinle family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest .-ate of Modal and t of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Rance 1 -3 bdr 86,450 2 -3 bdr 96,450 3 -4 bdr 99,950 4 -4 bdr 99, PHASE I PMASE 2 PHASE 3 PRASE 4 TOTAL 34 _0 8/1/82 . 12/1/82 7— 4 11 W] RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12184 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12184, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Town & Country Development, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as 8.5 acres of land located on the east side of Beryl, south of Base Line, into 32 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on July 14, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Planner subject to all conditions set forth Divisions reports; and has recommended approval of the Map in the Engineering and Planning WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in regard to Tentative Tract No.. 12184 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans; (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of de- velopment proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. Page 2 (g) That this project will nrt create adverse impacts on the environment and a >legative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract M p No. 12184, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved sub ect to all of the following_ conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION I. This tentative map shall become null and void if not approved and recorded wi :hin twenty -four (24) months from Planning Commissior approval, unless an extension is granted. ENGINEERING DIVISION 2. A storm drain system sha 1 be constructed from the proposed project to an a :isting channel or proposed storm drain easterly of .ion's Park Center and shall be coordinated with proposed Tract 11605. Necessary easements shall be dedicated to the City. 3. Curb adjacent sidewalk or Beryl Street feet wide. All interior streets shall the City's standard street sections. 4. Concrete or gunite drainage device aloi lot line of lot 1 shall bt� constructed runoff from the area to tie west. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secreta -y of the Panning Cortmiiss o f shall be 6 conform to ig the southerly to convey 1982. I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Connission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the forecoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular neeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1912, by the following vote -to- wit: I a { y I 9 9 i C d W C `° � ° L -° c oL'` c « c o �3✓'� °� =MT L^�o i c'.a p _' C✓ L6 9 1 u V _ c k V VY ✓ Nw r V 7 9 Jl = Cp ✓V �j � Cu ��rOC C Lu �PCCP° r L _ I°°pNl n.pe° d w 9 ny O� 9 N - CrV C O a� _O ` i M� 22 D 2 > PoLm °° `c `.°.° -• •°u� •°ate .�01 o> ... .°`.�� W.� ✓> E -C OC �O a °cL 6 N4 p`E 9 j .iLl LV 9 rC 03 C_ OLC ly0 iP d CM -) __LL _ O 4LC -2VpC Lu 7;j ` - Jd cL`•�-gd D.L, ay >�"�: ✓.T re � =-5 Dr oou °Li..L. g 7z 9 J L l C O v ° d 9 T O 9' u` ✓ G 4; c V_ u O r V _ r 1p .nd ..Ti C C LV C T6V2 TJm do - °_ t�. N6 CO NO N �.w W�d� _ V.`a 9-J ° ��_ UV r � ^�'Vr OI F✓ C. _ .0 9 _ r d v� r` m 2✓ r r E� � � y 2:5 C. — L = N \/�I N N Ka N VII O O� p 2 C Cy v P 5 _ vM �- c = _' E= o Sao- o ✓°' _- MN - 6 Od 9e O >rT E O rP °° e a- ` va ri =o >p 'x o -o a� °� ooE °°''o - °•°ice d c° L } .i O O 9 V V u l u✓ J P r N ✓ C d .i.. ✓ V r V + C ° L w U- O Y _ O C - l Ll y r✓ r i l V ° Y �♦ .72 = O zp ° F C `J" d ° - N° O -V `•_c N J� .°. �C 9 w F CI N9 ?,e >T z N c it '= �.. rc` <+�" °'° = i...i °•v' a Z.7- •'�� .23.2- pt >C �d G J 4_r[_• v G y C ^ Cd 9 D ^. 9P9 i1 r� _r C a - U C= � D O\ y P � V d P 0 e°i C? f C Y '.. C = j✓ V r DC 9SN .= G. VY y .nq 7r9 V`. � r9.L.. c L•iT Y b J d C _< m U L O q O O O 4 � E uV. u V ° - u 9 7✓ q� C q � °j G`E ♦ VS_l .E2nL Lbw W 9 �;_J i ® u . N� rU^ L � `N rCV r Cr GOr� V <w � S J <fJ Ni 1 • 1 t I e. 7 a V Y L C 11 N E I T o ec° cb se c� � -•`c i� _ m' o >° 1� _d w w` � V O p O C 9 p p i r � 9 N i 7 •a _ I p C r c, ` L C� w i M V •L" 1 r V O y U C 9 c V C C G kr Md =p �V= 4L � L j � OU PV LV OrNVO C O f �`� C �• T C b TJ � = 9 ` O r L N r _d _ J L N � I V T v v � f ° ° 1 L °-„ r .°. L' E L .L. n° L U ..> � • _o � r r w.... ` J I I� � e d NN N� •• V ° ° = r_ o f o e _ .: ... n> y It r�:�sL_E • w y '_ V V P u r L D "' >� r 1 ° L �+ V N _ C r O 12 M y N 6 v 4 L C V N V °ro a =b wVC c r_ it d - 70° oNn ` � - d 0 fr 9 ...• C.. L D w T _m _� - P ;61 M 4 q C I O_ V r V v_ i° C.i E b 2 O� d •L w� _ T —O Ow Td GJC way =b QI C Qk � r =�q V� T :i d r > ✓��Yjw r9u .V VS Op r •.rC � c o ^i L o - V= �' aq _ E•Lc = L� .nP �VbL -2,:5 wLr OLI r0 .D VNV �Cb NO �_ O> > yuC CCU �C_.� woc •I NI �I QI NI �� I f ¢� 0 - c E° °..�° —= ~ =•, '_ 02 a:— own _ °.N � — =•'6'O _ — _ U 72 00 •" b V7 C �_ VC'jc d. TT L r= i'9N O VO �L b 4`J �n q_�L `Vw d y '•� VN� _ w 2] O P r V•, L V w L w Y C. b O t� S f O Qu y LC L �_ °Oa° '+wr V..° __PO `•_rt o_ ^V� __ 4.;': Y. °d '.'" =i ocP nt L°_ eb4 N < vc c° T cq o a.or _° "` o e •P _ c ...y V Lr T_ bC V T T �9 wub „n =C LE 9 _60 V _ D r T t � L' � J u .°i V b ''” '� L r O r •v V d . C G V 9 C• _ rt G%= u M L P Cd T Ll r —_O Lr Dp LrOCy �y c Jr` _ C AGO '�C 6 LGLO V ^l Py _V OLy FL`JOS4 9C L• ETLC J LG..rL L� v _ V b SOS V r _ O F 9 L r 9= V •. _O .v S _° r 6 l _ y w a r O 9 .�• L w <� V N 6 •3 � ° L� w O P b G E w p C° O L_ �� w° p 2 L � N C S 7 C"• M O •'• V V 4 9 C J V d S P S V➢ r O¢ ^__ V d M U u M H E G= S E l C C. h C 4 w ` N L '. O P y O O N E r = < 9 b „ -° l cc .,.Nr cuL U U P •' N .. O N L 4 T r P O M _ 4 i C T T `` ° °e u °' L � .°. oTO c c b_ "_' o o ` boL_r i___ _4 ^v S M L. •'Nc PR G O Y L y w O _° C � M •" C C. V. S d w V C V T >._ { L NV n 'J P r VVU rN Vy = _dCZ V ra CJ �G_ C OI PC S��VG rCr `4 _ 4LL 4b q_ r rU� oC C yu wT =_ °' d 4 'U =C NVne _N L<°i`_ C� ` =L> ' ° ' S Ewe. r•a E � ��C((( c .� u o ao. 4`{.`..°.. " r �' J „ •- : - v 4 _ � <. r.. Iz; ml 11 N E Y 4 V L �• V E V ✓ O � 6 �•V'ac 4 O� -O o Yc V Y ✓ V ¢✓ � L 9� q �✓ G y P- d - a4i p m G ° b V s C b L p C P' d 0• ! 4 U V vv V V C 4 9 P > L✓ � V r N 9 V C p L O C L V C - b 9 J i T C ✓ p ° C c C P a e A g G o G P bur c q 9✓ 4 V� ° R -_ 9 _ ✓ TL L n- O L-•1] J ^�� w V Cr0 ur 4 4 V •r v C�� O O 4 ••• 4 O C Gl n t - � 4 C O ✓ C O VT ° =e ✓rL° nAr a ��e M C i L P L O r Vim- N 6q C -r- ¢b ` i �' n ✓ 9 � Y l 4 � � i+ b E � + O •A•' nc `vim No _5 ny � N•-o UO�u GN <9 •-VM 6 9 Ce•1 � Q Y1 J c G N E '- yLO-• _ o - _- q✓ x` � C r V n - .�4riE 4 -.Ti+ VSrr ✓W9 L b - L V L � C + •'• -y Lt _ Oyu O O� r O 4 r C V- �- _• � - P r c c c- ✓ c c u - � 9 L c ✓ ^_i 4✓ O_ J✓ - O P rEr o 'F'�cr c �.°,.crrc V r_T+ G3n Tyc �4b�v=- �= •a_.r =g Gam. =°c+r J r N w 3L G N r L_ Y �R- �z09� - ✓�7 Y °x4 Y.°.L� - � b b q y= 4✓ N V+ L q 7 a 4 Lo T z: ;t oG� -- r o Ne NcOm c4Y �`- U.LV..I waV.•4 ti�CC I.lr� _ b + q G V V �+ p d S V N+ 9 3 • T l I M N C L 7 N ° A 4+ y C ✓ C O -� OJ C = I I` 9 I � V V Lam= Lur•TL y= CO✓ �cp ° 4° O cr°rno I� LE Y � I ` b I °✓ - T Pd P'O :l p V - •^ � b I q O I II r O t•bq l G>_ ✓O_ Vq��C u✓ O V I n G I Ob ��MM•• I I ✓ - i� e a b z u c' 4a. im Pc L• ou I S S T =' a b e b7�Cr VPi•y = Q O7c_ < b� O I � I U F I aVi �c `� °ter ° -� co.rb � �✓ r ° i _? O 9+ T V✓ y _ ✓ J C S ✓ I I I L C A O _ p O• III11 ° _ A�J L'LV♦< V✓ L �It�V V A C L I I 1 V L � r A✓ cam r��i¢ AioV Nbm � •rc n � n J�.i p Sr V O Cw^+ U 6 O +_ ✓ G✓ O b L .� O ^� A C OI � O O O C I L` - A V C q O C L O 9_ V L •°+ u 9 > ` C G ° I O J L�.� y. N�-rA nq ✓yF ° •`�G I -'- 4 V r N � GLv VA F-YCby V O• Z E 2 n y r qA9 Y y b✓ Taw C O Q T L .7 °b - or -- "Y Gra rA - a •` oho r w _}t •"4` ow L.°.i ° imoroc u 4 0 __ � c N o•vb 4 O✓ !_ ¢ O r C+ G I r v ••• T bV OA r ti i O LN tV V� A�A r.�b✓br r� Gn oA9 L L I � -.� �� o d �✓ r r w u a u V I t M E c -�� r o i be =JCL.+ coo °or ob `•°+ w ¢� -4 .- d u7 S °G ✓ V Ij O N� O G o �� - .On =of+ -N NO _ V r �_� •Ljc � � 1 � � �-ei 0 GVY O ✓J}�6 L.A. 6N O>r�0 J b U2 VV ` 4 t•` O. E I V V V -j y p y rI OO �r i� V 6� � Y O✓ v N en v A= � A c T o N ✓° o c = � � a ab V G _O V b •^ U- ° C G G q V_ C C b 7 v L 4✓V V N _ b- L_ W�✓= V C 7 q� J - r-J T7 - A GV ✓O _VVV -V_- 4 cN _- S- b +_ c- .°r -Lb' o:•r ''gig €q s° - ro n c =o 3 �09 9 =•� _b avLrOO Cr -G Cr P_ ✓ V •.V. r V P 9 ^r A a V V V i V V �' Q_ L •r^ J L C NL1r p � w ^ l -bC O� - d7 O O p L r V L F1 V C V V O T 4 L 6 90C Elb `r OYV `ON l C+ PN C•b Ur G L _ A E C T C N -✓ r'Y 7 V N PN L. � ✓ ONLY O i 9b b V E O V AG.=a +.'J 6ML�V LC L•r h T �° O r rV O w = O C ✓ p A P+ b C L P✓ 9✓ a b A b N P c u 7 v �� T b � Cr O A C V' A _O ✓ V C V- - r p r r C J O= V a V� °✓` G+ ° P L C - � L N C u q L .q.• r -VI Va+= v.On .4..✓ J7rr ✓.V.• t•.U.. rO4 TL r_ �_� - _ •_ V C r V C w O V V A V N r O - V O C V +- V r rC i6 OT -_O �•Ol O�Or rO GLG -O nLi c o:.ni + -Lm LLCOC L ✓ ✓o•b- � �= b be °c• bx r u_{L rr ✓ C rc LI N O - V✓ =VSO �OV�F y -c�tw 4 C� `7i 1- V ' E �� - T n w o E 0444 o U 6- ✓ c✓ o o ` y� O� c C c FI 4 ^ -L o�cm oho -b 0 � 4 -r L m =' -cL-N �I '•• - N•• OG - v L N G+ L C V V i O C'L- ✓ - V ¢ C L t V ♦� � -JNO d •r LJb G� 6bbJV N p <JO r` 6 u M r � O G.� v_ u a = a ✓ 4 6 ' •�i P O � N =LOL u V ru J Pr y V n PV - Y• ✓ O. — .. Y a ? C� D 6 O I C . V � 4 �' "' L ado �' c '• °`-o ° i iii° < "7L �� `�,<. V C 9 Y O ✓ w . q V L C u 6 ( 9 fGS.! C d � NO3 T •O• 1 „7N Vl "_V V ✓VOw I o. �V O P u� i ` Ca p c " C N 7 y "L +�D S ,� I oc •� ms`s - �" a ^ rVL C S L '9 9 On ry 4 S` �✓ TJy= 1 VV aV = •- C ✓c0 _• � '_ C � CV' < �£ L> 9VVO a 1 I+ rd 'n _VV r 9V J ✓O V�j � ; NLi ✓b ya C4 P��a q � .r'r �V "` � w. G C N c P `` ` y O" j N L ° °' V V S y✓j 0 r a d V -T. N U P V ✓ V V T d 9 V O P L '< 'J r✓ O J ^ 9 1 ✓ W L C W V✓ C Y d° V L d ._ V C l � r � b 9 g yVe NG L �O 9L a y� °Or� d eS c t � q O b �° �� C" � N V l• V oi9 <rJ V 1rL OT Ca yOYL ''„ � y4 r' ?y v V S _ $i VC O Lr V VL a O a— q Oa LJ •. �'C >. rP L Crb br N Oy G' O by L q M L O C �> 4 L 2 �' ' r O N M i V y i L V L C r n 6 P Y •• a' `^ CCL� V ?4l ^i = d ✓y ny Vy Y� V I I °✓ G _ r� _ 0 G� G N i ' V _ ^• C V < _9 L ✓O CL p ICPnC yL ..O•V �S c 9 N rEG 1= VJ 4 N -• .n 9_ ✓^ a ' G L N ✓ N C L f�• V r — G u O V J L N N 7 a^ O1 9 V C 9 0 V M _C V a III(((���L p "� .� ° _ _. ✓ ✓ V L V d u Niq ON V� �� CN UC 'O1 7 a 1j4O CR I yV _^ 4r ^L S .\i a L O 6 P V O. P> a✓ L ° V a C V V T W I y✓ r Y— 4« w 9 n 4 Oi C` � � O � V O L � y f i '." V ✓ O n✓ . ^O T 4" b V y Ga O. 9 n L 'n 1J I •Owl 'b "•O' Q'J LN VC y — Y G J V a G r G O �� � L b a C y p ✓ V 1 N ^@ V yy1 L >- U � u A •rr O' L... O q I 1- O r V v 6 G N G w J L it i n s V 6 •• I � O T 4 J� = Y �— Y �S � = UI � IN ✓S'r '-✓ I I 4N1 O✓ —c L i= �'V ci �' •n a .I — 3 � � U s Z ZI G E w �14 - - � Y d V p � � ✓ C � ly � F LP— — S W 9 I q— ✓ C " O V O V C r y _ YV� S. NI y'lt L'CN tCi N p. ��9C 'a 40V •C^.^ V >� � ` J -WI POQ `a O�u� w " yVCU Pa O _ L V r i w r L V ✓ 4 b` V L q.° r D db __•' a ° = Vol � �° � co °— 9 .. z 7Y —aor Mli � O a L 6 ^ O P L 4 N y W L� 4 Y � O a r < C -• <„ a 4 J p ° •n V r Q n 0 O P C 4 y U J V C ' O ✓ 9 /� V✓ 9 V l V= b V O v V M O N j✓ N O r T .5-2 ^O Oa CC JL w'�V _SV G { 1 1 €� °�V CO Vi 9 'V ✓OlC 9t0 Vr --J L Cw— Cp E 7_66I I 1 Q' '° d aO7• C6�u = U r-JO O Q ` ?? fL aC TS GO CO L _ F'i � 11 E FF _7 OLVr.r V a LC qu• _ yN LPVOc c v= .° .m.. i _•^, —� >< c aq ccu �OV Gig c...� = v c >c uu �a iv iLJ= •-'a 2 1 I .✓q C0.'V aWOnP 9eG[a •w+� _P` JrVVV rsr ^� ui� 9Y -•C �— C _ -' � •'Vn9� pj�wV �L io d = 3y�•_. N~ �_• \! r i7O CV -VC 6C G9 it C4 �� ° C•Tr 9L C7 �� zi �S _Y °� I 1 I I O IVO' WVOa •LU 4P. 06 Cy `rnd< �_ �� "� °- -'� �`r °�.: °: �•`•�3 `� °i r = °ate NI Vc7 ¢V V 1 `� 1 { P nCC LN IL° —��V _4 .uG ✓'= ` G > N V •-' Ca i � ✓ q "' C r .� i C r I J � I I y al C '- a f.r n M V G C• V P ✓ C 7 O S N — .. gut r Ge 6v �Y ° v.°,�� �� of 1— �'�` -�-�� c qr be o7 + :y N•T' L n —a PN E t L W_ I I I I= L w V vuLi GZ ✓„ N C e x V L�6 E �+ v r 0 'r Lv 7 9 l T I•� j G ✓ C v N � N� � C -- _ r.— d — •y 't �t+PrO L O V O11 1 v v u d M T T Gar -M.t.• C� G CV.G �Vy`COIL p .OeGVJ L� O O o' Aa z 0 ir`f.. a M _•��� O N 0 _ L i f r q Q —.rC 9vC 4i •r. r L g C 4 G Nf — V — _NV4t G S T Y C E O' q O.O r`p� ✓ V O N. — T rvr r 7 S r _ a L O e r q 4 w L � J O. < q N V rSVy Vi I�O ...• C P r_ x m ✓ =..•N L07� � O 1 — r 2 z �+ v r 0 'r Lv 7 9 l T I•� j G ✓ C v N � N� � C -- _ r.— d — •y 't �t+PrO L O V O11 1 L"f Gar -M.t.• 9 G CV.G r p C ✓ O O z uv a M _•��� O N _ L i f r r — C O.O r`p� ✓ V O N. — T rvr r 7 S r _ a O. N rSVy I�O ...• C P r_ x m ✓ =..•N L07� O — r 2 z q 0 9 r�°T Y 6q V9 .2 4 P709 O~= 06 -9 � iC L•ri•4G V r q� G L L 9 i •-• C C C� .0. H rl Y1 M - L"f U 1 �J CITY OF RANCHO CeJCAMONGA MEMORANDUM 6M DATE: July 14, 1482 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -13 - FAMILY GAME ARCADE - The establishment of an arcade in the C -1 zone to be located at 8788 Base Line, in the Alta Loma Country Village Shopping Center - APN 202 - 381 -33 BACKGROUND: This item was incorrectly advertised with the wrong address. The proposed arcade will be located at 8788 Base Line, not 8800 Base Line as mistakenly advertised. Therefore, the public hearing must be postponed until July 28, 1482 to allow for renotification and advertising. New notices and a letter of explanation _have been sent to all property owners and businesses within 300' of the proposed arcade. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Com;nission continue this item until the July 28, 3982 agenda. Res /ectfjal ly submitted, ICK GOMEZ ity Planner kep ITEM F I] F_ 7 11 = OF RAN 40 CLCArvIONG,A STAFF REPORT DATE: July 14, 1982 T0: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -14 - GRACE BRETHREN CHURCH - The use ch an —existing church facility for a pre- school and kindergarten on 4.5 acres of land in the R- 1- 20,000 zone located at 5719 Beryl Street - APN 1061- 671 -81 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Grace Brethren Church, is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a preschool and kindergarten in their existing church building. The church intends to hold two class sessions from 9 a.m. to 12 noon and from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The students will range in age from 2 -years old to 6 -years old. The first year each session should have approximately 24 students with two teachers. Expansion of the school will continue until each session has 72 children with six teachers in about five years. The church property is Iocated on the east side of Beryl Street, directly across from Heritage Park as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B ". To the north of the church is an orchard and vacant land. An unimproved drainage ditch borders the property on the east. The nearest homes are located approximately 200 - 300 yards from the church building to the east and south. Eight (8) classrooms, plus the sanctuary are available for the school as shown on the floor plan (Exhibit "C "). An improved 6,440 sq. ft. playground will be provided in two phases behind the building as shown on Exhibit "D ". Also, 65 parking stalls are existing on the property as shown on time site plan. Exhibit "E" shows the master plan of the church property and illustrates how the existing building and playground will fit in when the land is fully developed. ANALYSIS: The Zoning Ordinance allows children day care centers in the R -1 zone with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The parking requirement is one space per each employee or teacher plus one space for each five children. With the 72 children and six teachers, the parking requirement for this school equals 21 spaces; currently 65 parking stalls exist on the site. In addition, ITEM G CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -14 - GRACE BRETHEREN CHURCH Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 1982 Page 2 the church has an ample amount of excess land within the site to absorb this activity. The church will be required to comply with all requirements of the State Department of Social Services as well as the requirements of the Foothill Fire Protection District. These requirements must be met prior to commencement of the school. FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan and applicab a Zoning Ordinance provisions. The size of the building, playground, and parking lot will adequately service the 73 students anticipated by the church in five years. CORRESPONDENCE: & public hearing notice.-was advertised in The Daily Report newspaper on July 2, 1982. Seven(7) public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and materials relative to this project. A Resolution of Approval with conditions is provided for your review and consideration. Res pec tfu I I y� ubmi tted, ty Planner CJ:kap Attachm�rts: Exhibit "A" HB11 lictl D,: "E" "F" Vicinity Map Site Plan Floor Plan Playground Area Church Master Plan Letter from Applicant Fasolution of Approval with Conditions �, 0 Ll r J- . 7 1 L; pry �w.1 XNP-r' 1 .= i j. L NORTH CITY OF ITE. \I: RANCHO CUCANIO\GA TITLE: ! /V.+1 -i r>�C MAe PL AINNI.ING DIVISION' !_xl nur. W — SCALE. I`~ IEEE' ti �c ie i I +r, i 1 i 1. I� L!t uF �� 4!�'Y . L M M RANCHO CUGk.NL ia�c;A PI— JuNNING ©Ix'L;IO\ 4111 III .1,�. i I11• f it I �1 r. �J c ' i i; 6$ �i. i1 i I I v *_:l r _j jVl I � V3 Ir S�� I 1. I� L!t uF �� 4!�'Y . L M M RANCHO CUGk.NL ia�c;A PI— JuNNING ©Ix'L;IO\ 4111 III .1,�. i I11• f it I �1 r. a. r fl e W � t N3 ; U ` a � 1 i r e P � o �t a a j I '.FORTH iTr-m: _c.L-:P_ TITLE: E.\I MIT - SCALE. � Ll 11 ' i 6$ i a. r fl e W � t N3 ; U ` a � 1 i r e P � o �t a a j I '.FORTH iTr-m: _c.L-:P_ TITLE: E.\I MIT - SCALE. � Ll 11 'i•'� .r.0 . V '. '- y��re �/M 3�:".'J . J c � .�e.YN �. t {�,t .Y ��lN �w,j��i �r r�r•X' .i..^ ® 1 i} �/�.�. -_. a♦� jrj�tk'. I �{w.�. ♦ ►]�. .$�' x L �Awj�jae M•� y' • : . \. r-.- -� - ` \ • r+r. /ran.. •yr;.. off IZ ...� r � .«._.. 'a-�_ .LLB-- �Q.?'�- .r •• tJ•T .! 1 I T.- .I CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCANNIONGA TrrLE: n= fts PLANNING L)iNINON EXHIBIT- `G° SOLE: r1-TS - 4" r 7 V JI _j ` � L n T r r=' •I � � � K ' I � i h v r z 1 N A n d G 0 2 ♦: i I it 1� is �II CITY OF RANCHO C QkjN/jONC;A PLANNING DIVISDN n G 7 �^ U r� G� 0 f _ ✓ V NORTH ITEM: e- -V P. Sz -Iq TITLE - Y4igxi 4p � a EXHIBIT. "o•, — SCALE- • r 1 ! A L S = I` I 1 ^ r h v r z 1 N A n d G 0 2 ♦: i I it 1� is �II CITY OF RANCHO C QkjN/jONC;A PLANNING DIVISDN n G 7 �^ U r� G� 0 f _ ✓ V NORTH ITEM: e- -V P. Sz -Iq TITLE - Y4igxi 4p � a EXHIBIT. "o•, — SCALE- Cl �___�_� ri �. - ^•. Lam_ -.Tz< .-.{ 'O � L m tp ct ii i ii � � 7 e= I 0 J CITY OF RANCHO CUCANiONGA PLANNING DIVISION i' ITEM: sz- i m NORTH TITLL: MA -609P- B�M_ er= r� P.. \I IIBIT- 'i-- ` SCALE- &VrS. 3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANiONGA PLANNING DIVISION i' ITEM: sz- i m NORTH TITLL: MA -609P- B�M_ er= r� P.. \I IIBIT- 'i-- ` SCALE- &VrS. ,G]WE `BETH ,EIV CHUB 5719 BERYL a ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 GARY NOLANqW une 25, 1982 PASTOR goo -0727 '•_r. Curt Johnston Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P.C. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear ;:r. Johnston: Grace Brethren Church has peen a part o our community. since 1977, fist as a home Bible study' and since Nov,:"er 1960 in our new sanctuary at 5719 3eryl. wring that time our concreaation has grown from a handfit of believers to approximately 100 families. Tr-e C: arch elders recently decided to e:;pand the ministries Of the Church to our congregation and 0-T.munity by offer:nc_ a presc- cl and k.i.ndergarten for children aces 2 in the Pall of 1382. Fe plan to enroll twenty- four students for a :,ornir.0 session from 9:00 - 12:60, and twenty -four for an after-con session from 12:30 -3:30, with a staff of two adults. +e Tian to axpand by a class of twelve students and one adult °-acn _; ear, . - s�'4eto• `Phis projection w0L1C ive Js sevent_.- -t:.o students and s' -X staff persons In five _ears. T "e sc::001 (Grace Brethren ; hristian School,, .:ill operate September through June. Cur facility can easi ly accomodate this r umber of students. :tie plan ro new construction or medificat2on of our struct•:re to facilitate Cracenrethren Christian School, a ministry of Grace 3retiren Church. Carrer.*_ zonin' alle:as the operation of a school at our location. The purpose cf this letter is to initiate the procedure for 0 taining a Conditional Use Permit. T haiz_k. you for our time and attention. contact ne if you require any additional be reached at 927 -3272 or 930 -0727. Sincerel•,. l o l a,�L a- &r� r. :-artin ; . 2eechen, Jr. Adr..i-listrator P] ease feel free to infor=ation. T_ may G- u-? 6z- 144 EIHtbtT °F" The Church in the Foothills E CT� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -14 FOR GRACE BRETHREN CHURCH PRESC400L AND KINDERG.ARDEN LOCATED AT 5719 BERYL STREET IN THE R -1- 20,000 ZONE WHEREAS, on tie 24th day of June, 1982, a complete application was filed by Grace Brethren Church for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 14th d.y of July, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public ht3ring to consider the above- described project. NOW, ...EREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows. SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. ThEt the proposed use is in accord with the General Plai, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is p- oposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions app? +cable thereto., will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vic°.iity; and 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -14 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and conditions contained herein. 2. Approval of this request shall not waive ccmp?iance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances. 11 Resolution No. Pace 2 Any sions proposed for this conditional use permit shall be designed in confo ,rance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require rev= -x and approval by the Pla mina Division prior to installation of such signs. 4. All aws and regulations of the State Department of Social Services relating to licensing of children's day c -re Tacilities shall be complied with prior to opening Of the school. Expansion of the preschool and kindergarden beyond 72 students will reouire the approval of a r difieri conditional use permit. o'. if the operation of this school causes adverse affects upon adjacent properties, the ccnditiona7 use permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for their consideration and possible termination of such use. Operation of the preschool and kindergarden shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and Title 19 of the State Fire Marshall's Regulations have Lepn complied with. Plans shall be submitted to the Foothill Fire Protection District and the Buildinn and Safety Division to show compliance. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, -1982. 0 PLANNING C0,11iSSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG-A BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman AT';EST: Secretary of the Planning Commission. 1, JACK LAN., Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu� inn was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted Ey the Planning Commission of the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1982, by the following vote -to -- wi t: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COr'44ISSIONERS: E 11 11 CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 14, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Resubmission of Parcel Mao 7244 - Messenger Company - located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Elm Avenue PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION The Messenger Company has submitted a revised map of V'e approved tentative Parcel Map 7244 with substantial changes in the design, thus requiring another public hearing for its approval. The original map, approved by the Planning Commissicn on January 13, 1982, contained 13 lots. The revised map, as proposed, contains 9 lots and is located adjacent to the Daon project at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue. The revised lot sizes, ranging from 2.33 acres to 8.58 acres, comply with the Industrial Specific Plan, sub areas 7 and 8, which state a minimum of 2 acres on Foothill Boulevard and a minimum of 1 acre and 1/2 acre lots on interior streets. The interior street patterns have also been revised. A copy of the original map is attached for your information. Elm Avenue, Maple Place and Foothill Boulevard have been constructed leaving the interior streets to be constructed with this project. - The developer has no plan_ for site development at this time. Each lot will be subject to further Planning Commission review prior to development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A negative declaration was filed on January 13, 1982 for Parcel Map 7244. CORRESPONDENCE Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and a notice was placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. RECOMMENDATION It is recow.ended that the Planning Commission consider all the elements of the project. If after such consideration, the Commission can support the conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's report, then adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Respectfully subq�itted, L L$H : be Attachments ITEM H J c., Jj' r,rc �:` a by i� • ~- ... PROJECT SITE C1 v1 @> 1977 TY OF RANCHO NCHO CUCvmO:NCA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP Lisle; P_M. NT I Rage 9� • 01 ' 1 i i' .� � • was M 6./x.1 � ff � ' ff 1�5 ��. ��• wLic 1 C1 v1 @> 1977 TY OF RANCHO NCHO CUCvmO:NCA ENGINEERING DIVISION VICINITY MAP Lisle; P_M. NT I Rage 9� • 01 0 L, tL V �V {I i sY� QE`s. I :r. z i f 0 0 Q Y Z - 1 =0< f S C a _ :- Y 7L �Ss <� • e Ya i r si a • C t •n Y � m y $3 }s _ •.a � t z 0 -z 00 z tL V �V {I i sY� QE`s. I :r. z i f 0 0 Q Y Z - 1 =0< f S C a _ :- Y 7L A _i_ ao a Q m S h�� i t iz F. '! s �Ss a C t •n Y � m $3 }s f � t z 0 -z 00 z 00 O w F IL ��� 4r �� dig Z < f o o � ^- 6Y � c Z A _i_ ao a Q m S h�� i t iz F. '! s o j rx f` _a - • f � < • O IL 0 Oi !I -: • . a JL{l �<' Z o� Z < o:z_ C $2. —_gas ..a 'r'�� •F w6_ fy_x_ i- k • _ w ► t i O a IL bL W S i , ti sl s u J m Z) UJ I J E CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY E'N'GiNEER'S REPORT FILED BY: The Messenger Co. TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7244 LOCATION: North of Arrow, South side of Foothill, DATE FILED: 6/25/82 (Revised; west side of A.T.S.F. NUI TER OF LOTS: 9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 27 of P.M. 6206 as recorded RECEIPT NUMBER: in Rook 59. Pages 91 -95, County of Sar, Bernardino FEE: $186.00 ZONE: Sub Area 7 TENTATIVE MAP PP,EPARED BY:Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgien GROS$ ACREAGE: 41.56 & Short ADDRESS: 2101 E. 4th Street. Suite 260 MINIMUM LOT AREA: Santa Ana. California 92705 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE r The Messenger Co. 2501 Alton Avenue (714) 957 -3226 Irvine, Ca. 92714 REPORT 0- 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. 2. Dedication by final map of the following :Hissing rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on _ Other x 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: Foothill Blyd. con- tiguous to the parcel boundary. 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Master Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersectio,'s require realignment as follows: RCE 20 TENTATIVE M„P N0. 7244 Page 2 improvements (Bonding is required -r-!or told Recording for all parcels E7 Building permit 'for) X_ 7. Construct full street improvements (inciuding 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 imp ^vements or the following streets: *including lancicranina and irrioatinn nn m� +nr STREET NAME CURD & GJTT,ER A.C. y 'PVMT. SIDE - WALK DRIVE APPR. I STREET I TREES STREET I LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER Foothill Blvd. LIEN AG ZEEMENT I a X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. it 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television- conduit. All utilities — — are to be underground. 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. 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 Waiver 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 undergrcund service. 16. The following existing streets being tern up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The of owing specs �c dimensions, i.e., cu -de -sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: 18. The fol g existing streets are substandar.: They will require: Approvals and Fees X 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval fron, CALTRANS/ 9�4�a�ef ifi�nq�{) fly (rcx�rds'1�d4�dN(�4x7�c�HgE3�'X X 20. Approvals haVL 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 TE14TATIVE MAP NO. 7244 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: X E. Cucamonga County Water District: Sewer and Water F. Other: Mao Control 22. If only a portior 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 P.ancho Cucamonga standards. 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to tha first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located _ 26. The bcundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as follows: _ 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. 0 Parcel Map Waiver _ 23. Information submitted at the time of applicatior is /_ is not sufficient to sup-ort the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Nap Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Fonditig is required prior to E Recording for all parcels ) And Storm Drains ❑ Building permit for ) 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivi.ion will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wali along the entire north pro- perty line n.ay be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flc:,i may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. _ 31. I` aster 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 wi a require to assess impac o increased runoff. X 34. Storm drains shall be constructed on easements shown on Tentative Map. Design shall eliminate right angle bends. Storm drain easements not draining City streets shall be private easements. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7244 Page 4 Miscellaneous �1 )c_35. Dust abatement will be made a condition: of issuance cf 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. _ 33. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: X 39. Proper gr_ding and erosion s cn contro , including the preventatien of sedimenta- tion or admage 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 ^ -ading will be furnished to the Engineering Division.. X 41. The ilisy 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 :cater 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 interfer_ with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the sign ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the fin 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 bend 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. Applicable portions of the conditions for Parcel Nap 6206 shall also apply to this project. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: RCE 20 11 ;:"t; RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RE ;ISED PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7244 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7244) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH OF ARROW ROUTE AND WEST OF THE A.T. & S.F. RIGHT -OF -WAY WHEREAS, Revised Parcel Map Number 7244, submitted by The Messenger Company and consisting of 9 parcels, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, north of Arrow Route and west of the A.T. & S.F. right -of -way, being a division of lot 27 of Parcel Map 620E as recorded ir. Sar. Bernardino County, State of California; and WHEREAS, or June 23, 1982, a formal application was submitted requ =sting review of the above - described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 1982, the Planning Commission held a duly advertiser public hearing for the above- described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That fine following f'-idirgs 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 improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: adverse environmental July 14, 1982. SECTIO:: 3: subject to the condit thereto. That thi <_ project Will not create significant impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on That Tentative Parcel "Sap No. 7244 is approved ions of the City Engineer's Report pertainirg APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1982- Resolution No. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATT EST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LA's, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly an(' regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held (in the 14th day of July, 1982, by the following vote -to- W't: C.VES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E E 11 - •� CITY OF RA.IICHO CUCAMONG.k STAFF REPORT DATE; J::ly 14, 1932 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and P.M. 7555 - R. C. Industrial - A. division of 25.95 acres into 3 parcels within the General Industrial Zone loca- ted at the southwest corner of 8th Street and Milliken Avenue (APN 229- 261 -62, 63) PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION R. C. industrial Co. submitted P.M. 7555 to divide 25.55 acres cf land into 3 parcels in Sub Area 10 of the Industrial Specific Plan area. Parcel 1 is the site for a 205,000 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse building approved by the Planning Commission as D.R_ 32 -10 on May 12, 1982. Parcel 2 and 3 are to remain for future development. Surrounding property is zoned for industrial use with an existing Industrial build- ing to the east. Add-:tional dedication on Milliken Avenue for the construction of the railroad over- pass >s being made at this time. Improvements for Milliken Avenue will be con- structed at the time of installation of the overpass. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is Par: 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 intiestigatinn, Staff found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. RECOi iMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commissior consider all input and elements of the project. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support the recom- mended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's Report then adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted] LSH!BX:b Attachments ITEM I PARCEL MAP 1 GEVERIL %DYES: ENGINEER. i. 60 /AM ON PARCEL. JOSE" b. MTDE 2. SOtti RCPOAT YILL b[ P[DUTAEO NA 602 5. MILDA SUECT W LOING DESILM 6 6RJING. PMPMEfN [MAUX, I■ 92!06 i- LAUD uYL: IN%1)i NI K. f>ln'I 0+1 -6NDD 6. BONING; IF2. Pluck "An I 0 a EL 1126.0" :ET GRASS ME :N S00TM EAO OF THE %I BRIM AN: ' OF A STEEL IOOCR RRIOGE ACROSS TMC CTIIIOMOY F DOD CMIM "ROMEL. 1 A FELT S Jlk OF IMS SOUTH HANG RAIL. A FT. SWN OF SOUTH �Af L. 9 PGCES EAST OF PDCNCSIER AVE 10 IIZ FT ♦_art EAST MILLPOST 95 AND 2.1 FT. VLOJ :RACKS. APT 6: I PAACE: MO. 1 11.11 AC'CS PARDLL M0. 2 2.26 ALPLS. PAtlf Ft W. 3 6.'9 R•w�5 57REEIS a.2R r]RE' 7555 UTILIIIE%- WIER: C CORDONS Sl ISR: C C—G Pb -A- 5 M1THERK LAS: 5 NTHERN TEIERNOML :I ALMA, LFGAL M5C, IITTON: •APCLL A A D TOGEINEA � ON A PO ON S= P_ [u NAP IR 0. W RAMS PCCOMSS W ARM 6E! URE ZONED tA- 2 Z AA�T -&S.F R I E� 1'g;; :aBOGS F 1 1J � X55 Z3R62c'A}T ^ �- x '� SCALE 1 100' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER' S REPORT FILED BY: R. C. Industrial Company LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Milliken Avenue and Eighth Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 4 and 5 cf Parcel Map 576^ as recorded in Book 54, Pages 53 -56 TENTATIVE MAP N0. 7555 DATE FILED: 6/16/82 NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 RECEIPT NUMBER: FEE: $273 ZONE: M -2 TENTATIVE rI.AP PREPARED BY: Joseph Hyde ADDRESS: 602 S. Hilda Street Anaheim, California 92806 GROSS ACREAGE: 25.95 MINIMUM LOT AREA: MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications X 1 3. X 4. 5. 6. RCE 20 Newpert Beach, Ca. 92660 Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. Dedication by final rap of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: X additional ftavt =variable width dedication on Mil'zicen for future_ xW)V(WAixftrW ran rat road overcrossing additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows. Street vacation. required Tor: rittsaurgn, as snown on tentative reap Master Plan of Stre.ts revision required for: The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: _ RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE is R. C. Industrial Co. 1301 Dove Street, Suite 760 (714) 752 -5515 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications X 1 3. X 4. 5. 6. RCE 20 Newpert Beach, Ca. 92660 Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. Dedication by final rap of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: X additional ftavt =variable width dedication on Mil'zicen for future_ xW)V(WAixftrW ran rat road overcrossing additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows. Street vacation. required Tor: rittsaurgn, as snown on tentative reap Master Plan of Stre.ts revision required for: The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: _ TENTATIVE MAP NO. '.555 Page 2 Improvements (Bo "-ing is required prior to a Recording f�oroc for map ❑ Building permit for ) X 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. 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *including lanrlcraninn anri { ,,ter; ..,,*__ STREET NAME CURB & GUTTER A.C. PVMT. SIDE- 14ALK iDRIVE I APPR. STREET TREES STREET LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER I I 9. Construct all storm dre'4n and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide ail 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 hater 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: 37_ The T011owing specific dimensions, i.e., cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: 18. The Tollowing existing streets are substandard: They tirll require: Approvals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ San Bernardina County Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approvai of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. RCE 20 11 TENTATIVE MAP r10. 7555 Page 3 X 21. Pe-nnits from other agencies will be required as follows: _ A. Caltrans, for: B. City: X C. County Dust Abatement District: Prior to issuance of ui ing perms . D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: x E. Cucamonga County Water District: Sewer and Water x F. Other: Metropolitan Water District 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 subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located 26. 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 Certificate. according to requirements cf the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to 71 Recording for ; 0 B- 4ilding 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. 3:. If water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all dc,.mstream curb returns. 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at .°ollowing locations:_ 33 RCE 20 Broad scale hydrologic studies will be reou7e to assess impac o increased runoff. TENTATIVE MAP N0. Page 4 Miscellaneous 0 X 36. Dust abatement wilt be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. X 36. Noise impact cr 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, including the preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. _ 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow- ing reasons: A copy of the ;oils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division. X 41. The filing o° 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 wilt not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the sign ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the fin 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 tonmon drive approaches at lot lines. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: RCE 20 CITY OF R-MCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET -- To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee_ $87.00 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, th_ Environmental Analvsis 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. T_ ^_e Co =ittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the pronosed project. PROJECT TITLE: Phase IB, Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Center APPLTr_ag;T'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE- (714) 752 -5515 R.C. Industrial Company 1301 Dove St., Newport Beach, CA 926bU Contact: James es ing NZAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: 602 Hilda St., Anaheim, CA 9 OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED (714) 991 -8800- Joseph B. Hdy B06 Consultina Civil Fnoinpar TDCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AM ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Parcel 4 and Parcel 5 PM 5760 (Milliken and Eighth) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: NONE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The protect consists of the construction of one new building which forrs Phase I6 to ___existin Irdustriai Park to the south. u ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Par 1 Tort. PM 7555 Land:. 571.071_S�BidG-- Ana unnc r Fir 2 Tent pM 7555 Lard 98_392 S.f� Par 3 Tent. PM 7555 Land: 273,791 S.F. DESCRIBE THE EM-17czny—,,n7TAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDIIvG INFORMP,TION ON TOPOGRAPHY P I`;NTc (T r ES) , ANr*ALS ANe CULTL -PAL, HISTOR ICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AIM THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXIST_INTG STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SILEETS): The proposed construction site is an existin grape vineyard i in north of an existin Industr�a7 Park. The existin Industrial Park consists of seven buildings. Nq trees are invo ved. a anu Slopes ±2% to the south. Utilities from the existing ndustria Park will be extended to serve the proposed new TU-17a inq — - 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 environ^ rental impact? This is the second phase of the total project. Future phases will develop the are a to the east and soot T e propose base wi no have significant env7rnn,nnnr� 1- `Z WILL. THIS PRO.ECT- ® YES -Nn - X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial charge in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services {police, £ire, water, sewage, etc.;°. X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designatior_s? X 5= Remove any existing trees? How many? None _ X 6. Create the need for use or disaosal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: is No yes anvwers IMP'JRTa7r: 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 inform -ation 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 Develop¢ent Review Committee. (� Signature j Joseph B. Hyde. PE Title Engineer of Record T--13 RESIDENTIAL CCNSTRi7CTIo ^I A The following vi ion ;- tio, s*�ould be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Plhnning Division. in Order to aid in assessing schooi district to actor ,nodate the `he ability Of the prcposed residential development, K"' of L'evelOYer and Tentative Tract No.: Srecific Location of Project: PHASE I PI .SE 2 1. Nu�ber of single family units: Z• Number of nuiti_ole family u ^its: 3. Date proposed to _ begin. construction: �. Tea rlie5t mate ° O� Mod,-1 g . and s Of Tentative 5• Bedrec -5 ; Pr_c__ T_ 4 PHASE 3 PRASE /. TOTE L RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7555 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7555) LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 8TH STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE *eIHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7555, submitted by R. C. Industrial Company and consisting of 3 parcels, located en the southeast corner of 8th Street and Milli!:er. Avenue, being a division of Parcel 4 and 5 of Parcel 'lap 5760 as recorded in Book 54, Pages 53 -56; and WHEREAS, cn June 16, 1982, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 1982, 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 Deer, made: ® 1. That thz map is consistent with the proposed General Flan. 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: adverse environmental July 14, 1982. SECTION 3: subject to the Condit thereto. That this project will not create significant impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7555 is approved ions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1982. Resolution No. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RA4CH0 CUCAMONGA is 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 tn-- City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1982, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COI- IMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L. E J 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUC.aMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July la, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7326 - Kobacker Stores, Inc. - A subdivision of 12.54 acres of land into 2 parcels in the General Industrial Zone located on the southeast corner of Baker Avenue and Feron Blvd. (APN 207 - 271 -31) PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Kobacker Stores, Inc. is submitting the above described parcel map to divide 12.54 acres of land into 2 parcels. Parcel 2 contains an existing building utilized by Koby Shoe Co. Parcel 1 is undeveloped and will consist of 7.58 acres. This project is in Sub area 1 of the Industrial Specific Plan which allows a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre. To the north and northeast is vacant land with a General Plan designation of single family and general industrial, respectively; to the south and west are existing residences; to the east is vacant land with a General Plan designation for general industrial. The "Not a Part" portion as shown on the attached map contains a single family residence. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide the area for the purpose of selling or leasing the vacant lot (Parcel 1). Parcel 1 could be further subdivided in the future in conformance with our Industrial Specific Plan. The proposed new street (Feron Blvd.) is required to provide access to Parcel 2 as well as to open up the vacant properties surrounding the project area for future development. Due to the existance of a residence on the property located at the northwest corner of the map (Not a Part), the proposed street could not be connected to Baker Avenue in the near future. The project is required to construct the Feron street improvements adjacent to the existing building on Parcel 2 and to utilize she existing paved road across Parce 2 for access to the building. Depending upon the type of development that may occur in the future in and around the parcels, the location if the Baker Ave. connection of Feron Blvd. will be determined at a later date. Sketches of two possible alternate alignments of Feron Blvd. are attached for yogi. review. 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 tie Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upo.-I completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff fecund no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed ITEM J Staff Report - Plan. Coma. P.M. 7326 July i4, 1982 Page w subdivision. CORRESPONDENCE Notice of Public Hearing has been sent to surrounding property owners and a Notice was placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commissior consider all input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission can approve the recommended conditions of approval, then adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, L6fi: S6: be Attachments E I �91IL.7. 1 G •99.6.:1 1 IIO.!N i .KKN w rJ PK W - .j Wj1 lh I ,� O I G o—�I B — _1LLi1M91C 1 I � � I I •• •• 7�. PROP FERON I BLVD. -- _9LLtEn9mi� 7 9x9xo .. o p iz 1{ J" Q S.6K //l �/ �(�PO..I I�n `Y:/M1r.2 v�l'9.•J =''� j T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA title; Pm ENGINEERING DIVISION w T` VICINITY, MAP ��`II page El : e i -?I I.I"(I I rr r'„ -t'1 I r1i _J '•`t • - e CW � I. 9 — L �.. — � 't.i I I t ' •' '—jI I�._ 1�t its E �'s' a c i 1 i� s 1 111s •` �Ew�. AL JL it ih INst I i• f:.y x • iaG . w' � _6x iIC1 GI xf• F s - �. l � . • jai y r G. •c I t E 6 'Z - a N � Y3e! •r a � •.may � - + � - eE_,E• _ i }� .• •. I tea' EF I t � '"1 � �ri'fF��. i a is jT ZOE IF 'ERy. EST �r _ ..... __ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Kobacker Stores Inc. TENTATIVE MAP NO. LOCATION: SEC of Baker and Feron Blvd. 7326 DATE FILED: June 7, 1982 NUMBER OF LCTS: 2 LEGAL DESCRIrTTCN: Portion of Lot 31 lying north of thIZECEIPT NUMBER: right of way of the So. Calif. R.R. Co., Section 9, FEE: $273 T1S, R7W, Co. of San Bernardino as recorded in Book 4 Pia q Axrp tIL g thar(-frnm the west 300 feet of the ZONE: General Industrial - Subarea 1 north 160 feet. TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED 3Y: Richard Newton GROSS ACREAGE: 12.54 ADDRESS: 624 West I Street MINIMUM LOT AREA: Ontario, CA 91762 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD OWNER(S) is Kobacker Stores,Inc. ADDRESS P. 0. Box 27935 Columbus, Ohio 43227 PHONE r 614) 864 -7700 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: 31 additional feet on Feron Blvd. as an "Offer to Dedicate" additional feet on additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on 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. 7326 Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to ® Recording_ :or Parcel 2 ® Building permit for arcel I 1 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach oer lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior streets. X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *includin landsca in and irri ati STREET NAME CURB & GUTTER A.C. PVMT. SIDE- WALK g DRIVE APPR_ on on meter STREET TREES STREET LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER Feron X X X X X X I 1 I C 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 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 tG 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 Ediscn 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 o owing sped is ( imensions, i.e., cu -de -sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: 18. The following existing streets are substandara: They will require: Approvals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of 'San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have rot been secured from all utilities cies involved. Approval of the final map will be that may be received from them. RCE 20 approval from CALTRANS/ and other interested agen- subject to any requirements ® TENTATIVE MAP N0. 7326 Page 3 Alak X 21. Permits from other agencies xi'.1 be required as follows: _ A. Caltrans, for: B. City: x C. County Dust Abatement District: at ime of ulWing Fennit issuance D. U.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep: x E. Cucamonga County Water District: Water and Sewer F. Other: 0 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 subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located 26. Tre 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 sutmitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel flap Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recording for ) G Building permit for l 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 wail along the entire north pro- perty line may be required to di�_ert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. _ 31. if water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:! 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will a required to assess impact of increased runoff. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP N0. 7326 Page 4 Miscellaneous _X_ 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. y_ 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: y_ 39. Proper grading and erosion. control, including the preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. _ 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow- ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division. y_ 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. _y 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and deve'.opment 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 sign ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the finib map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to saia determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. X_ 43. At the time of Final Kap 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. Improvement Certificate for the construction of standard street improvements, including but not limited to: curb, gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approach, street trees and street lights, for Parcel 1 shall be noticed on the map. X 46. Temporary private easement for access across Parcel 1 to Parcel 2 along the existing paved access shall be delineated on the final map. This easement shall remain in force until such time as the extension of Feron Blvd. to Baker Ave. is constructed. X 47. The existing paved access road shall be realigned at the east end to connect to the proposed Feron Blvd. X 48. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. Landscaping shall be bonded for prior to recordation of map. These plans must be coordinated with Street Improvement Plans. X 49. Any on -site utility lines that may cross parcel 1 to serve parcel 2 shall be located in private easements and delineated on the final Rlap. X 50. An irrevocable offer of dedication of an easement for storm drainage purposes along the easterly parcel boundary shall be required. An improved drainage device satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be constructed along the easem�; to convey runoff from Feror. Bivd. southerly to existing ditch at railroad right of way. RCE 20 0 X 51 n G TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7326 Utility companies are to be contacted for any requirements for easements. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER M Page 5 Please send copy of all reports to J. Richard Newton Inc CITY OF RANCHO CUC.4MONGA INITIAL STUDY 624 west I St. Ontario 91762 PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80 -00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Envircnmental Analysis staff will prepare Part IT of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be 'heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or E) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Parcel Map 4 7326 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: T Richard Newton, 624 West I Street Ontario 91762 oral (7141 486 8707 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Applicant LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) RRSS Raker Avenue Cucamonga 207 27 31 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None - 1 -1 It '11� 0 r( r PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _ Parcel Map 7326 Divisi n of 4a Acres into 2 --reels for sale purposes ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQLTARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY; • Total Acreage 12.54 Acres pxistinct Building _71-730 Square feet. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONP=-NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING ZBORNATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEPTIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, A.-ND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS3 - �+rtinn of F»ral tuc Sri ndhrPak on East limits — acant ar a to North Residential subdivision west of Baker Avenue. - *T^ •x�g -t"4nn oirrrant nat - Rodent8 are t✓oical desert area 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. a -z. WILL THIS PROTECT: YES M x 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration: _ x 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? _ x 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? x 5- Remove any existing trees? How many? x 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: ZMPORTANP: If the project involves the construction of residential units, commlete the form on the next page. E 4 CERTIFICATION: 1 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 taxi t additio :. -1 information may be required to be subi4ttedr before an adequate evallation can be made by thq -, ev opm�Rt Review Committee. 1 i p • '' f Date Signature4o Or A/ Title_ � .' 113 0 RESOLUTION NG. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7326 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7326) LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAKER AVENUE AND FERON BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7326, submitted by Kobacker Stores, Inc. and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the southeast corner of Baker Avenue and Feron Boulevard, being a division of a portion of Lot 31 lying north of the right -of -way of the A.T. & S.F. Rail Road, Section 19, T. 1 S., R. 7 W. County of San Bernardino as recorded in Book 4, Page 9; and WHEREAS, an June 7, 1982, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above- described tentative :rap; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 1982, 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 improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed developeent. 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 a Negative Declaration is issued on July 14, 1982. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7326 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1982. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Jeffrey lCirg, Cf:air^,an 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 Piannina Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1982, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C :I E