HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983/01/12 - Agenda Packeta
x
Cr
a
C --�
w a
N t0
—+ O
l0
W
W in
In
r.
O
7
G
fD
7
C
Iw
\/G.. -L
<� ;
CITY OF
z
14
RAr\(M CL VVXX\GA
LL
_ `-" �'
`N
��jT[��(��
+! vTG COI�AlYl1JJAtJ1 V
F}C-
z
LA](►J,rJEd^v7Tr Ai
U
1977
>
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 12, 1983
A C
T I O N S
LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LINE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
TOPIC: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PI.AN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
. IMPACT REPORT
MEETING OBJECTIVE: Review key elements of the Regulatory
rov s ons of the Specific Plan and provide staff with
direction as appropriate.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved 5 -0 -0 November 4, 1982
Approved as ccrrected 5- 0- ONovember 18, 1982
Approved 5 -0 -0 December 9, 1982
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Meeting Purpose
Extension of Review Schedule
IV. REGULATORY PROVISIONS
(Part 11 of Specific Plan)
Staff will review the key components of the
Regulatory Provisions to be followed by public
input-and-Commission action.
Consensus of Cormission A. SITE - RELATED STANDARDS jLe c. 5.2
was to approve both stand- o General Overview
ards in order to have the o Basic ;,md Optional Development Standards
optimum in specific instances. (Residential only) (Article 5.22)
o Overlay Districts (Article 5.25)
E /OL - Etiwanda Avenue Overlay
CS /OL - Community Service Overlay
Etiwanda Specific Plan Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 2
B. CIRCULATION - RELATED STANDARDS (Sec. 5.3)
o :eneral Overview
Continued to 1/26/83 o Tr,,ils (Article 5.33)
C. SPECIAL REGULATIONS Sec. 5.4
Continued to 1/26/83 o Windrows (Artile 5.41)
o Architectual & Design Guidelines (Artile 5.42)
V.
No Planning Commission action is necessary at this time.
However, the Commission will hold a public hearing nn
the Draft EIR and consider public cements.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
�o C<<CA."()A,
�. CITY OF
- RAI CFD CUCAM NIGA
P��/L''''�ANNING COMMISSION
1977
ACTIONS
Approved 5 -0 -0
Approved 5 -0 -0
WEDNESDAY January 12, 1983 6:30 p.m.
LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LINE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
L Call to Order
IL Terra. Vista Slide Presentation by the Lewis Development
Company
III. Recess 6:55 p.m.to 7:00 p.m.
IV. Pledge of Allegiance
V. Roll Cali
Commissioner Barker X Commissioner Rempel X
Commissioner King -7—Commissioner Stout _T_
Commissioner McNiel -r
VL Approval of Minutes
December 8, 1982
VII. Consent Calendar
The following Consent -Calendar items are expected to be
routine and non - controversial. They will be acted on by the
Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has
concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion.
* A.
'AL
- R
DEVELOP
two warehouse /distribution buildings of 345,500 square
feet and 258,000 square feet on 73.55 acres of land in the
General Industrial/Rail Served zone (Subarea 10) located at
the northwest corner of 6th Street and Buffalo - APN
229 - 261 -261 28.
* B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR
REVIEW 82 -23 - sr.Ht.nSCFR - Thp rip,
manufacturing /warehousing buildings of 21,600 square feet
and 10,800 square feet on 19.4 acres of land in the
Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial zone (Subarea 9) to be
located at 11711 Arrow Route - APN 229 - 111 -179 18.
*Project falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area.
• Planning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 2
VIII. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned
individuals may voice their opinion of the related prefect.
Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the
Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project.
Approved 5 -0 -0 with * C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP
amendment to delay planting 7797 - R.C.xSSUCIATES, II - An industrial subdivision of
of street trees, bonding, & 68.79 acres into S parcels, located on the southside of 8th
u'ilities on Parcel U. Street, approximately 440 °eet east of Pittsburgh Avenue
hi the M -2 zone - APiv 2'4'9-.'. 61 -26, 28.
Approved 5 -0 -0 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP
215 - GADUM KI --A division of 5.25 acres into 4 parcels
within the A -1 zone (R -1 pending) located on the east side
of Beryl. Street, approxmately 1000 feet south of 19th
Street APN 202 - 041 -15.
Approved 5 -0 -0 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
82.04 - MIM MACK - A change of zone from -1 A Limited
Agriculture to R -1 (Single Family Residential) for 5.25
acres of land located on the east side of Beryl Street, 1000
feet south of 19th Street - APN 202 - 041 -15.
Approved 5 -0 -0 * F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERAUT 82 -2d - MESSENGER - The development o a
180,056 square foot industrial building on 8.6 acres of land
in the General industrial Category (Subarea 8) located at
the southeast corner of Maple Place and Elm Avenue.
Approved 5 -0 -0 s/ addi- G.
tional condition to re-
scind one tract after other
is recorded and to have a
block wall at cul -de -sac w/
knock out.
Approved 5 -0 -0 H.
AND TENTATIVE
sots on its.:) acres of land in the R -1 zone, located on the
north side of Church Street between Hellman Avenue and
Lion Street - APN 208- 011 -069 208 - 921 -020 11, 139 19, 22
and 23.
MENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
= o4 -uY - ami,vaii - n cnange of zone from
M -1 Limited Manufacturing to R -3 /PD (Multiple
Family /Planned Development) and the development of 248
condominiums on 11.35 acres located at the northeast
corner of 8th Street and Grove Avenue - APN
207 - 251- 02,03013.
*Project falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area.
Planning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 3 _
Approved 4 -0 -0 -1 L ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE
Appicant to submit letter of TRACT 12237 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A custom lot
withdrawal of previous tract residential development of 86 lots on 55.95 acres, located
following 10 -day appeal on the east side of Hermosa, north, of Hillside in the
period. R- 1- 20,000 zone - APN 201- 091 -03, 160 170 23, 30, 36 and
38.
IX. Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public to address the
Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not
already appear on this agenda.
X. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulatiwrs that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go
beyond that tune, they shall be heard only with the consent of
the Commission. The Planning Commission will adjourn to a
public hearing for the Draft Etiwanda Specific Plan immediately
following this agenda.
..�-r
v P-14
044410 14ILI4AbO4AL AIRPORT'
CITY OF RANC"O CUCAwmGA
t
J4cic--
'• CITY OF
A RANG 1) CIKAMONGA
qr6o IVI1�I COIV�MISSION
a
Z
1977
WEDNESDAY January 12, 1983 6:30 p.m.
LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LINE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNLI
L Call to Order
II. Terra Vista Slide Presentation by the Lewis Development
Company
IIL Reiss 6:55 p.m-to 7:00 p.m.
IV. Pledge of Allegiance
V. Roll Call.
Commissioner Barker Commissioner R I
Commissioner King — Commissioner
Commissioner McNiel
VL Approval GI Minutes
December 8, 1982 Q V
V11- Consent Calendar / /
The following Consent -Calendar item, are expected to be
routine and non - controversial. They will be acted on by the
Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has
concern over any item, it should be ry moved for discussion.
* A. ENIRRONMENTAL• ASSESSM2NT FOR DEVELOPMENT
RF.VIE— W1 82 - R• DUSTRIAL - The developmem
two warehouse /distributirn buildings of 3459500 square
feet and 958,000 square feet on 73.55 acres of land in the
General Industrial/Rail Served zone (Subarea 10) located at
the northwest corns: of 6th Street qnd Buffalo - AP14
229 - 261 -26, 28.
* B. ENVIRONMENTAL USESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 82 -23 -: l321.1LOSSER - Tiie development of two
manufac— tuinng /x;;r•zwusing buildings of 21,600 square feet
and 10,800 sq,:are feet on 19.4 acres of land in the
Minimum Impact .Fleavy Industrittl zone (Subarea 9) to be
located at 11711 P, ow Route - AP,v 229 - 111-17, 18.
L *Project. falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area.
*
F1
n
Planning Commission Agenda„
Janea y 12, 1983
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 Chairman and address the
Commisvin by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited t0,5 minutes per individual for each project.
C. ENWRnr (MLIMM., .
D.
E.
F.
H.
Ii TI
Street, approximately 440 feet eat of Pittsburgh Avenue
in the M -2 zone - APN 229 - 261 -26, 28.
_ A f+"U r9ttCEL MAP
within the A -1 zone (R -1 pending) located on into
east side
of Beryl Street, approxmately 1000 feet south of 19th
Street APN 202 - 041 -15.
acres of land located on the east side of Beryl�Street,
feet south of 12th Street - APN 202 - 041 -15.
5.25
1000
+av,uoo square foot industr —wing on $:5 a-ves Of land
in the General Industrial Category (Subarea 8) located at
the southeast corner of Maple Place and Elm Avenue.
lots on 18.5 acres of land in the residential R 1 one,loc t d on the
north side of Church Street b ^.tween Hellman Avenue and
Lien Street - APN 208 - 011 -06, 208 - 921 -029 11, 139 19, 22
and 23.
ENT
corner of 8th Street and
207- 251- 02,03113.
YIENT AND PLANNED
ATI - A change of zone from
to R -3 /PD (Multiple
and the development of 248
located at the northeast
Grove Avenue - APN
Family /Planned Develop "u""
condominiums on 11.35 acre s
*Project falls within the boundaries of the Redevelopment Area.
®®
Planning Cormiission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 3
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE
TRACT 12237 - WOODLAND PACIFIC - A custom lot
residential development of 86 lute on 55.95 acres, located
on the east side of Hermosa, north of Hillside in the
R -1- 20,000 zone - APN 201 - 091 -039 16, 17, 23, 30, 36 and
38.
IX. Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public to address the
Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not
already appear on this agenda.
X. Adjournment
The PlannLrg Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If iterns go
beyond that rime, ent o
the Cn _ om tor. The Planning Commission will adjourn to a
public hearing for the Draft Etiwanda Specific Plan immediately
following this igenda.
04'"10 IMf(MMAP044t �IMOII'
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAA4OkV
�\ 4
.�Z;, -. � .
o
F
U
1977
r1
L_J
QTY OF
RANCHO CUCA�1VNJi \CA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 12, 1983
LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LINE, RANCHO COCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
TOPIC: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
MEETING OBJECT 'VE: Review key elements of the Regulatory
Provisions of the Specific Plan and provide staff with
direction as appropriate.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 4, 1982
November 18, 1982
December 9, 1982
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Meeting Purpose
Extension of Review Schedule
IV. REGULATORY PROVISIONS
(Part II of Specific Plan)
Staff will review the key components of the
Regulatory Provisions to be followed by public
input and•Commission action.
A. SITE - RELATED STANDARDS (Sec. 5.2)
o General Overview
o Basic and Optional Development Standards
(Residential only) (Article 5.22)
o Overlay Districts (Article 5.25)
E /OL - Etiwanda Avenue Overlay
CS /OL - Community Service Overlay
V.
VI.
Etiwanda Specific Plan Agenda
Page 2y 12' 1983
B. CIRCULATION -RELATED STANDARDS Sec. 5.3
o General Overview
I Trails (Article 5.33)
C. SPECIAL REGULATIONS Sec. 5.4
o Windrows (Artile 5.41)
o Architectual & Design Guidelines (Artile 5.42)
No Planning Commission action is necessar
However Public he the Commission will hold a c he this time,
the Draft EIR and consider public aring on
comments,.
ADJOURNMENT
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
December 8, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission was
called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman Jeff King. The meeting was held at the
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman
King then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Herman Rempel,
Dennis Stout, Jeff King
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston,
Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary;
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin,
Senior Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Planner, Rick Gomez, advised that this meeting would adjourn to
December 9, 1982 at 7 p.m. for a public hearing on the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Commissioner Hempel stated tht he and Commissioner Barker had attended a
Design Review workshop and learned that the City's system for review is the
most efficient and best method that could be devised. He indicated that what
was shown at the workshop left a lot to be desired.
U * i i #
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of the October 27, 1982 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel carried unanimously, to approve
the Minutes of the November 10, 1982 Planning Commission meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously; to approve
the CONSENT CALENDAR, adopting Resolution No. 82 -110 for Farce! 1hp 6726.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVEUOPMENT REVIEW 82 -20 - WHEELER - The
development of a 12,000 square foot industrial building on 1 26 acres of
land in the Minimum Impact Heavy industrial category (Subarei 9), located
on Uc east side of Utica, north of Jersey - APN 209- 142 -24.
P. PARCEL MAP 6726 - QUONG- WATKINS PROPERTIES - Revision to Par-el Map
located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ar:hibald
Avenue. A change from 8 parcels to 10 parcels - APN 1077- 641 -57.
rrrrr
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12242 - HUGHES - A
residential tract subdivision of 18 lots on 4.96 acres of land in the
R -1 -81500 (Single Family Residential) zone to be located or. tha east side
of Sapphire Street, south of Highland Avenue - APN 201 - 212 -'0.
City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report for this iteu and
Associate Planner, Dan Colemrn, gave s slide presentation of the area
involved.
Chairman King opened the public heFring.
fir. Pat Kapp, of J. P. Kapp and Associates, Civil Engineers, stated that the
$30,000 it would take to prepare an EIR for this subject property Is a "tad"
skewed.
Mr. Kapp further stated that Hughes Development has held this lanl for 5
years, it has always been zoned R -1- 8,500, and the burden should ►e the city's
and not Hughes Development in preparing an EIR. Mr. Kapp indicated that this
project is a logical use of the land and hoped that the Planning :ommission
would approve this subdivision without an EIR requirement. Further, that if
this tract is approved, it would trigger CALTRANS into some activity on the
property as they were unable _o move ahead without Planning Commission
approval nor afford the cost of an EIR.
Chairman King asked Mr. Kapp if he was aware that the General Plan for Rariho
Oicamonga provides that a major transportation corridor will go through this
property whether or not there is a Foothill Freeway.
Me. Kapp replied that he did understand this; however, the point is that the
underlying zoning on this property is R- 1- 8,500. Further, that if it is
relieved that there are mitigating measures. it is up to the Planning
U=mission to :mike this determination and not the developers.
Planning Commission % nutes -2- December 8, 1982
There being no rurther questions or comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Medial asked what the most recent communication with CALTRANS has
been and whether there is any dialogue going on.
Mr. Kapp stated that there has been some with CALTRANS through the City
conduit and that Hick Gomez has forwarded a letter received on December 1 from
CALTRANS concerning the property; however, it did not mention anything
specific to the site. Mfr. Kapp said that CALTRANS will not have any money
until July of 1983. Further, that until the City takes some action CALTRANS
will not proceed with any appraisals and indicated that what is happening is
that the City is taking a delaying tactic.
Commissioner McNiel asked what has transpired before between CALTRANS and the
City.
Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, replied that what CALTRANS will do, should not be
speculated on. He indicated that the City cannot compel CALTRANS to buy the
property and you crust not look at a chicken and egg situation.
Mr. Hopson cautioned the Commission to look at this project, examining it in
the context of what would happen if it were built, because the City is rot. in
a position to buy this land. Mr. Hopson stated that in previous sessions,
Planning and Engineering staffs have stated that the General Plan is premised
on some type of east /west transportation corridor which would be within the
boundaries of this tract. Further, that it may not be a freeway but a 4 -lane
limited access road, although the General Plan was adopted and the City has
planned as if it will be a freeway. Mir. Hopson stated that if there is not a
freeway someone must stlydy the impacts of land use of doing something other
than a freeway for east /west transportation in the City.
Mho. Hopson stated the law in California is that if .reasonable men could argue
whether or not there will be an impact from an environmental aspect, it
requires an EIR be done. Mho. Hopson stated that if the Commission approves
this tract after the environmental process is completed and if the tract meets
and mitigates the EIR impacts, then no matter what CALTRANS does, it will not
jeopardize the City's planning by construction on thin, piece of property. Mr.
Hopson stated that thie is not a delaying tactic and that in framing it the
way he has it would be absolute folly to approve this tract in any form or put
something in the ground with which the Commission is not content.
Mr. Hopson said that if something else other than a freeway is prcposed for
this land, the Commission could not find consistency with the General Plan to
app ^ove this tract. Mr. Hopson stated that the responsibility for the EIR is
that of the u.;veloper and while it is important for the builder, the City acts
as the lead agency and controls the work on the EIR in doing everything but
paying for it. Further, that whether it is one acre, five, or 50, it is the
developer seeping to have something done with this property. Mr. Hopson
stated that this is a recap of a similar situation that occurred about 9
months ago and ttie law supports the City's requirement of an EIR.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- December P, 1982
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that whatever action the Commission takes tonight
has nothing to do with CALTRANS.
Mr. Hopson stated that this is exactly true and the Commission would have to
like this tract so as to preclude any transportation corridor. Mr. Hopson
stated that otherwise, the Commission must determine what goes on this
property.
Mr. Gomez, City Planner, stated that negotiations would continue with CALTRANS
on this tract and the requirement for an EIR would not stop the negotiations
and was the same as the other two tracts which had previously been heard.
Commissiorcr Stout asked what percentage of the corridor is under CALTRANS as
opposed to private ownership.
Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that it is approximately 25
per-,ent :"fate ownership.
Chairman King asked if it is staff's recommendation that the EIR be focused
along the lines indicated in the staff report.
Mr. Gomez replied affirmatively, as outlined in the attachment of Part II of
the Initial Study.
Commissioner Stout stated that when he attended a previous meeting the
indication wry that a lot of study has been done on the prediction that this
would be a freeway corridor and asked if it is still true that the City is not
planning an alternative to the freeway so that if there were not a freeway the
City's flood control plans would still be in effect.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the flood control can still go on as planned.
Commissioner Stout asked if this tract were approved, would it require a
General Plan amendment.
Mr. Gomez replied that this would have to occur prior to the approval of any
of this in order to define consistency.
Commissioner Stout asked that since this is such a large impact on the General
Plan wouldn't it require an EIR in any case.
Mr. Gomez replied that this is what is being considered this evening.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to require a
focused EIR relating to land use, transportation and circulation, socio-
economic factors, and population distribution as it relates to Rancho
Cucamonga.
Mr. Hopson stated that the applicant has the option of appealing the Planning
Commission decision requiring a focused EIR to the City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 8, 1982
i i • # �
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TE
lot residential subdivision of
R -1- 20,000 zone located or. the
- APN 1061- 411 -03, 1061 - 451 -01,
NTATIVE TRACT 11b2b - SIEVERS - A custom
96 lots on 86.53 acres of land in the
north side of Almond Street at Beryl Street
1061- 171 -01.
Chairman King stepped down during the hearing of this item due to a possible
conflict of interest.
Vice chairman Hempel chaired this portion of the meeting.
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report and narrated a slide
presentation of this site.
Mr. Coleman stated that staff had received several telephone calls expressing
concern about this project; however, he indicated that although this property
has been proposed for a number of different developments since incorporation,
this is not a condominium development as previously proposed.
Commissioner Stout asked what the plans are for Almond because this proposal
eliminates the possibility of Almond going across.
Mr. Coleman replied that Almond Street has already been vacated, that to the
west of this project thare is an approved tract under construction which is
providing a dead end cul-de -sac for Almond. Proceeding from that would be a
24 -Toot wide community trail and fire access.
Commissioner Stout asked if there is some kind of structure that is to link
this with other properties.
Mr. Coleman stated that there is no access from the east because of another
channel and private properties. The only way to get access to the east of the
site is across the plateau and natural channel. That would mean filling in a
portion of this property.
Vice chairman Hempel asked if there is any way that someone might want to do
something north of this tract and should there be some provision for access to
the north.
Mr. Coleman stated that Exhibit C proposes a street in the vicinity of the
existing residence in the northwest corner and that would end in a cul-de -sac
and could provide access into the hills.
Vice chairman Hempel opened the public hearing.
Mr. Stan Sievers, the applicant, gave a brief history of this tract and stated
that they have addressed most of staff's concerns and they are resolved to the
fact that an EIR will be required. He indicated that his company would like
to have the preiiminary studies that were done utilised by the consultant who
will prepare the EIR. He indicated that seismic studies, drainage and soil
studies have already been done.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 8, 1982
Mr. Craig Andreiko, 9153 Almond Street, asked about zoning, Demen's drainage,
traffic, fire, access to development and the phase 3 plans shown by
Mr. Sievers.
Vice chairman Hempel stated that the Commission is not considering this tract
tonight but that anything that had previously been heard by the County would
go by the wayside since the City's incorporation.
Mr. Andreiko asked how the zoning on this property got changed.
Vice chairman Rempel replied that the zc ^ing had not changed.
Mr. Jim Bowman, representing the Foothill Fire Protection District, stated
that safety and an emergency access for traffic circulation particularly
because of Almond Street have been taken into eonsideratior in this project.
He indicated that the Fire District has asked for additional hydrants and
water pressure in this area as well as a road for entry to the National Forest
to the north.
Commissioner Barker stated that there seems to be some Qonfusion as to what
options are available and that this tract has not been before the Design
Review Committee. Further, that the only thing that the Planning Commission
can do tonight is determine whether or not a focused EIR should be required.
Commissioner Barker stated that he did understand what the gentlemen was
talking about because during the General Plan hearings these were 1/2 acre
lots but should be answered by the EIR.
Mr. Hopson stated that the gentleman's comments and questions would he
answered by the EIR as one of the considerations of whether there should be
private or public parks under public facilities.
Vice chairman Hempel stated that every development must contribute something
for parks in the City either through a fund or a contribution of land.
Further, that if the bottom of a gulley is accepted as a park would be a
determination by the Commission and would come up for consideration.
Commissioner Stout apologized to the audience for the use of jargon by the
Commission. He explained what some of the terms being used meant.
Commissioner Barker asked if staff recommends a focused EIR if they could
indicate how focusti it would be and whether transportation would be included.
Mr. Coleman replied that it would be a consideration.
Mr. Vairin stated that this is not to say that staff would not look at a
design for the planning and location of a street.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 8, 1982
Mr. Gomez stated that the comments of the applicant relative to previous
studies was pertinent and that these studies will not be wasted but be used as
part of the report.
Commissioner Stout asked where drastic changes to the terrain would be covered
in the report.
Mr. Coleman replied that this will be done under soils and geology as well as
land use and planning. Further, that all the grading plans submitted by the
applicant show grading for the street. He indicated that since these will be
custom homes, he will be using custom foundations and this must be examined by
the EIR.
Vice chairman Rempel stated that the old Commission always wanted to see the
houses fit the terrain and that there be as little out and fill as possible.
Commissioner Stout asked if this will be like Deer Greek.
Vice chairman Rempel stated that this would not be as extensive as Deer Creek.
Commissioner Barker stated that his only concern is for the spur of Almond and
its impact on Beryl. He asked about the channel.
Mr. Coleman replied that under the land use and planning focus of the EIR, it
would be examined. He stated that if there was a desire to know how many cars
would be going down that street this could be added under transportation and
will be examined as well.
Commissioner Stout asked about the drainage between this tract and the
internal transportation of the project itself. Further, he asked if the only
entrance is off Beryl and the only way to get there is to go north.
Mr. Gomez replied that with this proposal the only access would be by Beryl.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to accept
Staff's recommendation to require a focused EIR on this project with the
additional requirement that transportation also be studied.
Mr. Coleman stated that when the EIR is being prepared there will be a public
hearing before the Planning Commission to certify the EIR which says it is
complete. Further, at that point the applicant would be able to move forward
with final design for this tract based upon what comes out of the EIR and the
mitigation measures that may be required.
Chairman King returned to the table.
r■r+�a
8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 8, 1982
* • ; f ;
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82 -05 - TENTATIVE TRACT
12305 - ROY - A change of zone from R -3 (Multiple Family Residential) to
R -3 /PD ( ltiple Family Residential /Planned Development) for the
development of 59 condominium units on 5.24 acres of land located north of
19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue - APN 201 - 232 -34 & 54.
Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report stating that phone
calls have been received both in favor and opposition to this project.
Mr. Coleman read a letter from Alan Marlow, 9332 19th Street in
the project, that had been received today because of increased traffic son the
opposition to
potential for increased crime. Mr. Coleman also requested that the Commission
review a petition circulated by the applicant stating that those signing have
seen the plans for this project and approve of its concept.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. M. Dawson, architect representing the applicant, stated his willingness to
respond to any questions.
Commissioner Stout asked what kind of fencing would be used on the perimeter
of this project.
Mr. Lawson replied that it will be a masonry fence at a height of between 5 -6
feet.
Commissioner Stout asked if there are any plans to plaster the fence.
Mr. Dawson replied that no particular thought has been given to that.
Commissioner Stout asked if there is any plan to do something between the
entry to the project and 19th Street in the area of landscaping.
Mr. Dawson explained what is proposed.
Mr. Coleman stated that there will be trees along the five -foot planter.
Mr. Dawson stated that their concept plan addresses the tree pattern and
pointed out that they show 384 trees which is approximately 90 trees per acre,
considerably more than what is required. Further, that they had reviewed the
staff report and see no problem in complying with the condition relative to
trees.
Chairman King stated that as it relates to the portion abutting 19th Street
and coming down, given the fact that we are dealing with a five -foot landscape
border between the driveway on the north and the abutting property owner,
would there be any problems with the idea of on the lower three buildings,
each containing three units, knocking one unit off of each so that a larger
area could be created in what appears to be a tight corridor.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8- December 8, 1982
hJr. Dawson replied that they are approximately 9 units per acre on that side
and they have been pretty generous with the landscaping element to the west
and that five feet is pretty heavily landscaped.
Chairman Y.ing asked what the distance is to the property line on the second
building to the north.
Mr. Gomez replied that it is 17 feet from the corner.
Mr. Dawson stated that one reason for the generous setback and landscaping is
for a greenway area and pedestrian circulation between the second and third
buildings coming off the driveway going west and linking up with the open
space area.
Commissioner Stout asked if the black material is the proposed roof material.
W. Dawson replied that it is.
Commissioner Stout asked what it is and what it will be.
Mr. Dawson replied that it is a composition shingle of the 300 pound category.
Commissioner Stout asked if it will come in squares or in sheets.
Mr. Dawson replied that it will be in pieces and is a construction standard
composition.
Commissioner Stout stated that his concern is for the surrounding residents
who will only see the roof lines.
Mr. Dawson replied that they will also see the trees above the roof lines.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the City's requirement is 50 trees per acre
and they will be putting in 90.
Mr. A.T. Wilkes, owner of the property to the east facing Amethyst, stated
that he had examined the plans and felt the project is well designed and
expressed his approval. He indicated that his only concern is the black roof.
Mr. Nels Smith, 9385 19th Street, expressed concern with the possible increase
in traffic and crime problems and stated that everyone within 300 feet had
been contacted regarding this property, although he had not been. He asked
what would be done about storm drains. Mr. Smith stated later that he lived
500 feet from this property line.
Mr. Mike Hancock, 9206 Garden, expressed concern with school overcrowding and
traffic problems, indicating that it now takes 20 minutes to make a left turn
on Hellman to go south at 5 in the afternoon. Mr. Hancock also expressed
concern that many people will buy the condos as an investment and rent them
out thereby risking the possibility that they tiould not be kept up by renters.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 8, 1982
Chair.. - Kin
were
Ins to
lo at and this ms of
Chain 1th Street, Project Of flood � istrol" if a negative
fro e an °lved iatrine that quire there a requirement for house distr re
indicated children Co Indicatin rent for a school
certificat that the Ci g Into the that there is °j ertIfIc
�Y oy district dirQej not ye ativ ssUe tbuildi s a result f Of classroom e9 ter sed erCrowding that the voice heir concern hemaudien less hisect.Aa to
vo hos
Ftr's,
thei Lynn Simo n relative tO cont
Ur, her edre °m faces the Arden Street t° this prOJect the
end
•raffic'she asked about street on which was Opposed to
develops are setback the this
. Per could be forrced to' She kedaifdAtraffio project ill becbu l
zoning lley Taylor Contribute fees there is an generation and built
19th Street
Is for this resident across °O build Schools. Y that the whether
whet sub woutd go �ntonmult pherf her sen tweet, as
aged Stan
her this area will ever he ifirsta4111 . He Sts that eve the -Y s
et
CSC e
to •be°c�nn stated t 60 baok to si Blert�mie Years ago area as°und
area state with the one . and asked
zone Chan ea that it ahohe �enera8 for a Piece of
this piece of pr p rtyral Plan chanle er den ltY and the Gen l p State law has
but
Is • Rich Boserr 6670 Hel o the concepttt�e the Citnly or this s
valuesd. locked and fell tlmaat,condominiums stated he felt Y has had for
CO�i Simons asked if the trees or tO houe s ldpro project to that it
develop 1ontr Repej replied will be Outside or Inside Property
bedroSmamons asked if that they will be both outside he develoPent,
this o and back the two sto and Inside the
after the petard and stater}' buildin
hir Isbecca Boser Ing, d that she should yo�oking into their.
area. She higher t that h ttertlands� she I`avor Of the developer about
It t
Cost stated ted t Is is a'good Alanh the freeay a �develOPment be
Dawson sta
closest Of building business, the developer eality for this
Hellman Avenue d setbacks pro willpbyingato pg.90 lot fees and thl Plans will
Probably be a 175 feet awray. her home stated
mmission Minutes along
December 8, 1982
Mrs. Barbara Scofield, stated that this area is not prestigious and felt that
this is a good project. She further stated that homeowners run the risk of
having a two story single family home looking down into their yards and into
their bedrooms the same as condominiums.
There being no further questions or comments, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman King stated that he felt thrr,_ was a tight squeeze between the
project and the driveway coming along 19th Street.
Commissioner Barker stated that the Applicant has made a fair effort to
mitigate this and has already made some changes. Further, when you request
more, you get into density and what is betng proposed is compatible with the
surrounding area.
Mr. Barker stated that the site is not the best and the developer has done a
lot with it.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the setbacks have been moved along 19th Street
and there will be 50 feet between the wall and the first unit which will be
much different than single family residential. Furtter, that when the
property to the east develops they will want to use a part of this driveway.
Chairman King stated that the one concern he has as he drives along 19th
Street is you will see a straight shot of the driveway and there will a very
nice buffer between 19th Street and the first units. However, from a visual
standpoint as you look north there is very little landscaping.
Commissioner Stout stated that along the same lines, when staff is looking at
landscaping, they should look at covering the wall with some type of vine to
lessen the impact. He indicted that this will be a long wall along 19th
Street and something should soften it because if it is covered it tends to
mitigate the harshness.
Mr. Gomez stated that what has been submitted is conceptual and will be
refined at a later date.
Commissioner Stout stated that the City apparently has no design standards for
block walls and stated his concern regarding the lack of standards asking that
they be addressed.
Mr. Gomez stated that this is subject to the review and approval of the City
Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
Commis.3ioner Stout stated that his point is there are no standards.
Mr. Gomez asked if he was discussing more a concept of parkway walls that deal
with street frontages. In this case, he stated, you are only seeing the ends
of the walls and when you move you will get a different, more oblique angle.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 8, 1982
Commissioner Hempel stated that a year or so ago he had tried to get some
decorative block with vines planted through the walls to break up the
monotony. He indicated that this would improve the appearance of the block
walls being considered.
Commissioner Stout stated that standards for block walls should be pursued.
Mr. Gomez stated that the Commission should give some direction in this regard
to staff.
Commissioner Barker stated that both of these should be considered as separate
issues.
Commissioner Stout stated that with regard to the roofing, he ; rould like staff
to look closely at the material and his personal preference would be some
random shadow pattern to it because it detracts seriously from the condominium
project.
Mr. Vairin replied that staf will definitely look at the roofing material.
Chairman King stated that there are two things that the Commission must act
upon. One, whether the Planning Commission wishes to approve the Planned
Development category and secondly, the resolution approving the tentative
tract.
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82 -111 approving the planned development.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Hempel, carried unanimously to adopt
Resolution No. 82 -112, approving Tentative Tract 12305, with the amendments
that the design of she wall be examined along with the landscaping along the
wall, and also .hat the roofing material and color be reviewed.
f ■ * * r
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -27 - LESLIE AND INFANTE - The establishment of
an ARCADE in the C -1 -T zone to be located at 9685 Base Line in the Base
Line Village Shopping Center - APN 208 - 031 -74.
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. He stated that the
City Attorney has requested that prior to occupancy, the applicant obtain a
letter from the owner of the property stipulating that there will not be
another arcade located within this shopping center.
Chairman King stated that something will also be needed from the previous
arcade applicant stating that he will not proceed.
Mr. Coleman stated that this is a moot point since the building is being
leased to someone elst:.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- December 8, 1982
Mr. Hopson stated that the problem !s that if the space previously rented to
the applicant, Walls, is vacated by the bicycle shop there is a possibility
that another arcade could go in. He indicated that there is no incentive to
give the applicant this kind of letter. He indicated that what is needed is a
letter from the landlord stating that he will not rblease space to Walls.
There was discussion on what the best approach would be to ensure that Mr.
Walls, recipient of the prior CUP of an arecade at this location, does not
occupy space here.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
t -1r. Tom Leslie stated that he has no problem with the conditions and
regulations proposed in the staff report and resolution.
Mr. Hopson asked Mr. Leslie if he would be able to obtain a letter from Mr.
Walls stating that he will not occupy another area to set up an arcade.
Mr. Leslie stated that the leasing agent has indicated he would get such a
letter.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. MoNiel stated that in some of the recent approvalz of arcades by the
Commission some of the applicants really have their act together and asked Mr.
Leslie how he intends to operate this arcade.
Mr. Leslie reponded by saying he
that the clientele will mainly be
arcade. He indicated that a file
he will use the Police Department
unruly. He indicated that he has
situations.
iad two years of prior experience and knows
children but proposes this to be a family
will be kept on troublesome individuals and
as a last resort to control those who may be
had experience in handling these kinds of
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82 -113, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -27, with the
stipulation that a good faith effort be made to obtain a letter from Mr. Walls
stating that hn does not intend to proceed with an arcade in this location and
that no arcade is to go in where the Walls' arcade was to go.
Mr. Hopson stated that if a letter from Walls was received stating that he was
turning back the CUP and requesting its revocation, the City would be off the
hook. Further, that he would prefer that there not be two CUP's side -by -side.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that there should be an inspection by staff prior
to the arcade opening.
* r s f *
Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 8, 1982
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP
subdivision of 3.94 acres into 2 parcels
located at the southeast corner of Footh
APN 208 - 331 -21.
Rick Gomez requested that Item I be moved up
completed its review of this item because of
T666 - HERBERT HAWKINS - A
within the C -2 zone (A -P pending)
L11 and Turner Avenue -
after the Commission has
their adjacent location.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Mr. Vairi% stated that a letter has been received from Mr. MoGill voicing
concern on the 30 -foot strip of land. Mr. Vairin indicated that this has been
resolved.
Mr. McGill also was concerned about architectural considerations and
aesthetics; and a third item, which was traffic.
Commissioner barker asked if :he buffer zone is what Mr. Ma Gill refers to as
the 30 -foot piece of property.
Mr. Vairin replied that Mr. McGill thought that there would be a gap there and
it was not intended to be that stay. He indicated that the parking lot will be
expanded and there will be 10 feet of landscaping planter along the wall.
Commissioner Barker asked whether tha wall would be backed up to the other
houses.
Mr. Vairin explained that this will be worked out between the applicant and
the homeowners. Further, that most property owners want a full height wall to
keep out noise and the wall would relate to the homes in the area.
Commissioner Barker asked if the south elevation along the parking lot
easement was raised.
Mr. Vairin replied that this has now been incorporated but that tae applicant
had not put in a raised elevation on Exhibit D.
Chairman King opened the public hearing for both Item G and Item I.
Jack Norris, 17662 Irvine Blvd., Suite 7, Tustin, California, Civil Engineer
representing the owner, Herbert Hawkins, stated that he had notning to add and
concurred with the staff report and the conditions of approval.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82 -15 - MCMURRAY /SANDS -
The development of a 6394 square foot restaurant on 1.38 acres of land in
the C -2 zone located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Turner Avenue - APN 208 - 331 -21.
Mr. ;Michael Tooley, applicant and owner of the Michael J's restaurant chain,
stated that he had no problem with the conditions of approval.
Planning CUmmi.ssion Minutes -14- December 8, 1982
Mr. Ed Sands, architect, asked .°-r s little latit, ;de in working with the
Design Review Committee and artment on the various ways of
the Pw ^= ! ro Dep
setting the height of the wall, the grading and landscaping since the south
end of the property will have to be readjusted in some way.
commissi ,)ner Stout asked if there will be any problem in putting a stamped
concrete treatment on the driveway to make the landscaping appear to be
continuous.
Mr. Sands replied that it can either be pavers or cobble stone.
Mr. vairin stated that Foothill has the designation of special boulevard.
Mr. Sands stated that all the aprons must be concrete. Further, that stamping
and color will not increase the cost substantially.
Commissioner Rempel asked when they plan to start.
Mr. Tooley replied as soon as possible.
Mr. Sands stated that what they are doing will solve the problem with the
choke point and also the storm drain.
Mr. Ceorge (7udera stated that he wants to see th3 project go in and has spoken
with staff and was satisfied with the .inswers he received relative to the
grading of parcel two and the drainage in the subdivision.
Mr. Rougeau stated that conditions No. 6 on the Resolution takes care of this
and that drainage requirements are a standard condition which must also take
care of parcel No. 2.
Someone from the audience asked about the drainage on the east side and west
side as well as the drainage ditch.
Mr. Rougeau stated that the person was referring to drainage from the property
to the west side of Turner. He further stated, that the drainage ditch on the
east side of Turner will be completely eliminated but the one on the west will
still remain.
Mr. Rougeau stated that Turner will be widened out to three lines.
There was discussion regarding the problem with left turns.
Chairman King stated that while this project will not completely solve
everything it will go a long way in resolving tl:e current problems.
There being no further quebtions or comments, the public hearing was closed.
Planning commission Minutes -15- December 6, 1982
Commissioner Rempel stated that the P.ecolution contains a condition that
nothing can be built until the tentative map is complete and wondered if this
has to be with the permission of the prior owner to proceed with
construction. He indicated that there are some projects that can be divided
afterwards.
Mr. Rougeau stated that this is like the shopping center at 19th and
Carnelian. The buildings could be built but there would have to be some sort
of permission to put in the parking lot as to standards.
Commissioner Hempel stated that perhaps the condition can read that this must
be completed before occupancy.
Mr. Rougeau replied that this would be appropriate to say either before
occupancy or before the final map.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Mc Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82 -114, approving Parcel Map 7666.
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 82 -116, to change condition 5 to have the developer go ahead
with the parcel map; however, with the condition that it be resolved prior to
occupancy and that there be a stamped concrete driveway at Turner and
Foothill.
i * i f i
H. ENVI
- II.U. xNUUJ1MXAL -
The development of a 223,500 square foot warehouse /distribution build
on 9.79 acres of land in the General Industrial zone to be located in
Subarea 11 at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and 6th Street.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman King op- -ed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stout asked what the building will be used for.
Mr. James Westlirg, in partnership with R.C. Industrial, replied that it will
be a warehouse for shoes.
^ommission ?r St:o-i. stated thst from reading the staff report it appears that
this is a specialized building.
Mr. Westling replied that this wzrehousing takes a special type of rack and
the building is made specifically for this operation, using the ultimate in
the building's lengtl: and width.
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt
Resolution No. 32 -115, approving Development Review No. 82 -21.
Planning Commission Minutes ••16- December 8, 1982
a 4 t N 3
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. John O'Donnell, partner in the development "irm of O'Donnell Brigham,
stated that he was proud to develop in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and would
do his best to meet the City's needs. He complimented the City's staff for
their professionalism and stated that it was a pleasure to work with them.
• ■ f f r
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by MoNlel, Carried unanimously, to adjourtt
to December 9, 1982 to a public hearing on the Draft Etiwanda Specific Plan.
9:50 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
0
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -17- December 8, 1982
0
0
E
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Adjourned Meeting
November 4, 1982
Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Adjourned Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting
was held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry Mc Niel, Herman Rempel,
Dennis Stout, Jeff King
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs, City
Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Jack Lam,
Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary;
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimoulsy carried, to approve
the Minutes of the October 18, 1982 Planning Commission meeting.
Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, announced that tonight's meeting would be an
informal work session to discuss land use and circul—ation aspects of the Draft
Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. Beedle explained to the Commission how the
densities in the Plan were arrived at by the Specific Plan Advisory Committee,
how they related to the General Plan, and how the densities ,could affect the
character of various parts of the community.
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, explained how the trip generation fig -res were
prepared. Mr. Hubbs advised the Commission that the traffic model was based
on assumptions regarding proposed land uses and also speculation of what would
occur in the industrial area, therefore is meant to be used merely as a tool
to aide the Commissioners in their decisions.
Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, displayed slides on the overhead projector
which showed the effects and influences traffic and circulation would have on
various parts of the community.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
The Commission viewed a slide presentation by David Flocker, representing the
Landowner's Association, which portrayed the background and history of
• Etiwanda which the Association wishes to preserve.
Jim Banks, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission regarding the bypass
road and stated that he could not understand the opposition and controversy
because some type of road system would have to be created to carry traffic
generated by future and existing Etiwanda residents. He further stated that
the Commission would have to decide whether it would be more efficient to
build a two or four lane road east of East Avenue or to retrofit East Avenue.
Neil Westlotorn, Etiwanda resident and Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory
Committee member, addressed the Commission stating that in a sense of
compromise and fair play, the Committee offered to help the landowners out by
giving them higher density for the bypass road, but failed to see a response
from the landowners to compromise. Mr. Westlotorn suggested that if the
bypass road was turned down, the Commission adjust the density in that area
downward.
John Scherb, representing t!.a I-Vohoi Temple, addressed the Commission stating
their opposition to the widening of Etiwanda Avenue and reQuested the
Commission to not widen the street until traffic necessitates its widening.
The Commission viewed a slide presentation by Don King which showed impacts of
various land use intensities on traffic. Mr. King indicated that he would
make himself available to work with staff should they desire his input.
Alice Kleinman addressed the Commission supporting the views of the
Landowner's Association. Mrs. Kleinman stated that she is against the bypass
road because it would take two to three acres of her land.
8:15 - Planning Commission Recessed
8:30 - Planning Commission Reconvened
Chairman King called the meeting to order and explained that the Commission
would now be considering the circulation issue and that this would be a
discussion between the Commissioners and later the Commission may ask for
public input.
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the circulation report.
Chairman King asked about the traffic figure of 14,500 on Etiwanda Avenue and
what would be the equivalent street?
Mr. Hubbs replied that it would be equivalent to Base Line at Alta Loma High
School.
Chairman King asked if this street would be widened by necessity under this
plan to four lanes.
0
Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 4, 1982 0
..
® Mr. Hubbs replied that under the Plan the street would not be widened and this
was a concern.
Commissioner McNiel asked if the numbers in the traffic model were likely to
be greater than those projected.
Mr. Hubbs replied that they may be less due to the overload on Day Creek
Boulevard.
Commissioner Mc Niel asked if there would be a problem there since traffic
would shift to other streets.
Mr. Hubbs replied that this was a fear, however, a lot of things could change
because of the land uses. Further, that some figures were based on SCAG
projections which assumed a very low growth and that some anticipated &rowth
in the industrial area does not seem to be as intense as what was projected
and those figures may be high for that area.
Commissioner Rempel stated that for the next meeting he would like to have the
unit cost for paving, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of the bypass road per
linear foot, an estimate of widening East Avenue to a four lane road, the cost
factor for land acquisition, the cost of bringing the rock curbs back to
standard on Etiwanda Avenue, the cost to maintain them, and the cost of street
maintenance of a street with rock curbs.
Chairman King asked what is proposed for Etiwanda north of 24th Street to make
sure the bypass would be an effective carrier of traffic to keep traffic off
of Etiwanda Avenue?
Lloyd Hubbs replied that off setting "T's" would probably be used and left
turns would not be allowed to discourage traffic from going down Etiwanda
Avenue to Day Creek.
Commissioner Rempel stated that not aliowing left turns on Etiwanda at 24th
would cause some serious implications.
Tim Beedle informed the Commission that the County is proposing a Community
Plan for the area north of the City's sphere of influence which will
eventually tie a circulation system in with what is being proposed for
Etiwanda.
Chairman King asked what streets would be proposed to carry north /south
traffic east of East Avenue assuming the bypa:a is not implemented.
Mr. Hubbs replied they would be standard local streets similar to those
feeding onto Carnelian or Sapphire. Further, that there would not be a need
for another north /south street and it would be undesirable.
Chairman King asked if East Avenue would then pick up most of the traffic if
the bypass is not implemented and Etiwanda would pick up some of the traffic
and if this is so, how much traffic would these streets carry?
elanning Commission Minutes -3- November 4, 1982
.r
Mr. Hubbs replied that this would happen and the EIR provides the figures as
to how much traffi3 would be generated on East and Etiwanda Avenues.
Commissioner Hempel stated that he visualized the traffin count at Etiwanda
Avenue and East Avenue aL build out to be the same as that at Carnelian and
Base Line.
Mr. Hubbs replied that one of the parameters is that there is more developable
land north of the sphere than in the Alta Loma area.
Commissioner Hempel stated that he didn't feel that it made that much
difference when the top of the city limits is adjusted upward and did not see
where the count would be that different. Further, that a much higter count
may be projected coming from north than what will occur.
Oommissioner Stout asked what type of road Day Creek Boulevard was proposed to
be.
Mr. Hubbs replied that it was proposed to be a major divided highway with six
lanes.
Commissioner Stout asked if it is realistic to expect this street to carry
51,000 cars.
Mr. Hubbs replied that this type of road normally would not carry over 40,000
car3. 0
Chairman King asked Jim Banks if he felt the character of Etiwanda could be
maintained if Etiwanda Avenue is a two lane road and the traffic count was
14,500.
Mr. Banks replied that this would have a negative effect on the character of
Etiwanda, however, having the street widened to four lanes would be worse.
Commissioner Hempel stated that the problem with not widening Etiwanda Avenue
below Base Line until some time in the future is if development is allowed now
it will reduce the chances of widening it later.
Mr. Hibbs replied that if the widening was not made a condition of
development, the City would have to begin assessment district proceedings to
widen the street in the future.
.hairmdn King asked David Flocker if he felt that the concept of the bypass
road is a good idea given the land use in that area, regardless of who has to
pay for it.
Mr. Flocker replied that he*would still be opposed to the bypass road because
its location with respect to the high school is dangerous.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 4, 1982 0
A
E
9:15 - Planning Commi -j ion Recessed
9:20 - Planning Commission Reconvened
Chairman King opened the hearing to public comment.
John Scherb addressed the Commission and disputed the numbers displayed on the
traffic model and further stated that if the streets were widened, traffic
would be encouraged to travel those streets. However if the streets are not
widened, people will seek the most fully developed route which would be Day
Creek Boulevard.
Mary Catania addressed the Commmission and asked if staff had an answer to the
question she raised at the last meeting regarding how the property owners
would be compensated for the property they would have to dedicate for the
bypass and if a decision is made by this Commission, will that decision be
uphelp by a new Commission.
Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, replied that upon completion of the Specific Plan,
it would become a legal document and as such would require public hearings and
Public notification if any aspect of it were changed.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the legal way to guarantee
Lhe use of property is to use it because no one has a vested right under our
system to have any particular land use regardless of how long the land is
owned as long as it is vacant.
Mrs. Flocker addressed the Commission stating that she gathered names for the
Petition presented to the Commission opposing the bypass and that most of
those people opposed because of the proposed "T" at Highland Avenue and the
closing of Victoria at the high school.
Neil Westlotorn addressee the Commission stating that the Etiwanda Advisory
Committees reason for proposing the bypass road was a concern for young
people speeding doi.a Victoria to get to their school without regard for the
existing school on Victoria and Etiwanda Avenue.
Ray Trujillo addressed the Commission stating his opinion that the most
significant aspect of the Specific Plan is the bypass road and without it,
there is no plan because it will make living in Etiwanda unbearable due to
traffic. Further, that the safety concerns could be mitigated by the members
of the City staff and should not be a determining factor.
Mrs. Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that she would be happy to take
low density on her property with no bypass.
Betty Mc Nay addressed the Commission stating that she is concerned that a
barrier is being drawn around the core and also is concerned about the lack of
east /west streets.
Planning Commission Minutes -5-
November 4, 1982
Robert Flocker addressed the Commission opposing the bypass road because he
felt that it attracts traffic to the core rather than drawing traffic around
it. Mr. Flocker also disputed the figures shown on the traffic model.
Commissioner Rempel stated that some of the local roads should show on the
plan to help visualize where traffic is coming from and where it goes.
Chairman King advised staff that the next meeting should cover the cost of the
bypass and its implementation and alternatives, and also Etiwanda Avenue and
alternatives associated with it.
Otto Kroutil reviewed the staff report on residential land use issues.
Chairman King asked for public input on the residential land uses.
Wayne Blanton addressed the Commission stating that he would like to see a
graduation of lot sizes going north up the freeway corridor.
Cordon Wilson addressed the Commission stating his concern with the Very Low
land use designation in the core area and expressed a fear that no development
would take place south of the Route 30 freeway with that designation.
Don Hornbeck addressed the Commission stating that the noise impacts from the
freeways, would extend further than what was projected and stated that the
density adjacent to the freeway is too low.
Mrs. Flocker addressed the Commission advocating low density above Summit and
stated that the very low density from Highland to the railroad tracks is not
feasible.
Chairmar. King stated that much of the residential issues could be resolved
after the circulation issue is decided.
Tim Beedle asked the Commissioners if they would like further discussion
regarding land use intensification at their next meeting.
Chairman King replied that it should be discussed at the November 18, 1982
meeting.
Commissioner Rempel stated that circulation also has to be patterned after the
density and that the Commission also has control over the circulation.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Rempal, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjcurn.
10:15 - Planning Commission Adjourned
is
u
Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 4, 1982 •
i.
\'..
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, Secretary
n
0
11 l .
11
1 11
11
17
1
L
LI
- L I
1_I
—1
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Adjourned Meeting
November 18, 1982
O
Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Adjourned Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting
was held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry Me Niel, Herman Hempel,
Dennis Stout, Jeff King
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beadle, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, ;ity Planner; Edward
Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer;
Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil
Engineer
Chairman King opened the meeting by stating that this would be the final
Planning Commission meeting dealing with land use issues for the Etiwanda
Specific Plan, and that .:he next meeting would also deal with the
Environmental Impact Report and the Regulatory Provisions of the Plan.
Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, stated that review of Part II, Regulatory
Provisions, and of the Environmental Impact Report had been legally advertised
to take place at this meeting; however, staff recommended that the Commission
make a moLlon to defer that discussion to the meeting of December 9, 1982.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to defer
discussion of the Environmental Impact Report and the Implementation Plan to
the meeting of December 9, 1982.
Tim Beedle advised thdt the purpose of this evening's meeting was for the
Commission to direct staff on,,approval of a conceptual plan for circulation
and land use.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Engineering report dealing
with implementation and cost of the East Avenue Bypass. Mr. Rougeau stated
that there were two possible ways to implement the bypass; one being a
requirement of residential or commercial development, the second by means of
one or more public projects. He explained that when utilizing the development
mett.3d, the bypass would have to be installed in development projects so that
a portion of the bypa.;s installed would have to serve temporarily as
circulation for any given project. rurther, if the projects were submitted in
the right order, the roadway could be installed in an orderly fashion and
connect from Highland to Victoria; however, this is not likely to happen.
Also, to use portions of the bypass road for local circulation, other local
roads would be required to get circulation to the existing East Avenue.
Heavier traffic would result on East Avenue in the interim between now and
full build out of the city, and East Avenue may have a problem in handling
that additional traffic. In utilizing the public projects method, he stated
that the source of funding for such ,a large project becomes a problem. If it
were to be funded as a single project, the only feasible method would be
through establishment of an assessment district; however, it would be
difficult to arrive at a legally defensible benefit area for the roadway, thus
questioning the feasibility. Also, there would still be impacts on Eaat
Avenue if the project was split into one or more projects. Mr. Rougeau
further stated that other means of funding had been suggested such as
redevelopment and fees imposed; however, did not feel they could come up with
the necessary funding for such a large project. Further, review of the cost
summary distributed earlier to the Commission stated that the total estimated
cost would be $3,083,820 and that the cost of developing East Avenue to
arterial status would be approximately $1.8 Million. However, he advised that
the construction cost for doin3 it all as one project would be about the same.
Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, addressed the Commission stating that he would
like to elaborate further on the'troces, of establishing an assessment
district. He stated that this is a public hearing process, requiring a City
Council resolution establishing intei.tion to form a district and order an
engineer's report. This report would 9stablish a method of spreading the
assessment for the roadway thus proposLig a benefit relationship of how the
road should be assessed to the individua_'• property within the boundaries of
the assessment district. This report would the key document which would be
evaluated through the public review process. further stated that there are
many ways of doing this and the most ccmmon would be an area -type basis or
front footage -type basis related to the cost of the individual properties
involved. Once the engineer's report has been established, a public hearing
is held and each property owner is noticed and given an assessment of his
amount. The property owner is then given an option to protest the formation
of the district. Further, that the weight of his protest would be in relation
to the area amount of his property located within the district. Also, if a
majority of the property owners protested, a finding would have to be made
that the public health, safety, or welfare would be in jeopardy without the
formation of the district and,this would require a 4/5 vote of the City
Council to override the property owner's protest. Mr. Hubbs further stated
that from a practical standpoint, it is very difficult to form an a -^ ent
district without at least 70 percent support of the property owners. o,
that even if the district received 98 percent support and one propert it
with a substantial amount of land protested, the formation could be , A lleL.ded
in a court action.
Commissioner Mc Niel asked Mr. Rougeau if he could give an estimation of the
quarterly escalation in construction costs which would affect the bypass
construction.
E
Planning Commission Minutes -2- November 18, 1982 •
Mr. Rougeau replied that under normal conditions, the construction escalation
• is equivalent to the rate of inflation or even slightly higher.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that his concern with the escalation in prices is
that the figures listed on the cost summary are 1982 figures and there was
very little of 1982 left. Therefore, wanted to have a better idea of what the
figures may escalate to further down the road.
Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the circulation and land use
alternatives staff report to the Commission.
Chairman King opened the public hearing stating that he would like to begin
the public hearing with all those individuals wishing to make general comments
in terms of land use and circulation as it relates to the entire plan.
Further, that he would like the comments to remain general in nature and deal
with concepts, ideas, and theories behind the alternatives. After this is
done on a general basis, Chairman King advised that the area north of Route 30
would be discussed and all individuals wishing to discuss property in this
area would be asked to speak. South of Route 30 and north of I -15 would be
addressed next, followed by the area south of Routr, 30 down to Foothill
Boulevard.
Cecil Johnson, 18207 Santa Cecelia, Fountain Valley, addressed the Commission
stating that he would like to address the area of the umbrella road which will.
bisect his property and the property of others. He stated that the cost
factor to effectuate this road would have to be considered from a beneficial
interest rather than merely the frontage that would apply, as there would be
very little beneficial use to the remaining property on this road. Further,
he requested that the Commission consider the eventual establishment of this
road in terms of land acquisition and dedication. Mr. Johnson called the
Commission's attention to a fifteen acre parcel on the map which had been
proposed Low Medium density by the Advisory Committee, however, the
designation had been deleted in Alternatives 2 and 3. He stated that he would
like the Commission to respond to the funding of the construction of the
umbrella road and direction as to what development could be done in this area
in the interim.
Robert Arcinage addressed the Commission stating that he owns two parcels of
land which would be bisected by the bypass road and had no objection. He
further stated that the placement of the road in that area was a good trade
off to the property owners since they would be getting an increase in density
and allowed more houses per acre. Mr. Arcinage stated that he would also like
to know the cost of implementing the umbrella loop.
Dr. Ralph Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that he is one of the
owners just north of I -15 and opposed the installation of the bypass road
whether he is given higher density or not. Further, that the the bypass road
would be a clear and definite danger to the students of Etiwanda High School.
0 Planning Commission Minutes -3- November 18, 1982
Betty Mc Nay, Cucamonga
concerned with the lack
road should extend down
She further stated that
accessibility.
resident, addressed ';he Commission stating that she is S
of east /west streets and suggested that some kind of
from Highland to the high school on the north side.
the plan is separating the city because of vehicular
7:50 - Planning Commission Recessed
0:05 - Planning Commission Reconvened
Pat Earhardt, 6862 Etiwanda Avenue, addressed
would like to know who would fund the widening
if any thought was given to one of the earlier
Committee that brought the bypass road further
channel with an approach road west of the high
parking lot.
the Commission stating that she
of East Avenue. She also asked
alternatives of the Advisory
east along the flood control
school in the location of the
Clark Shackl Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission and distributed
written comments to the Commissioners. Additionally, he commented that the
thought the Commission should be concerned with is the impact to the students
of the high school. Further, he-stated that he was disturbed by the fact that
Victoria will be closed just west of the high school and west of Etiwanda
Avenue as proposed by the Victoria Plan and felt this should be changed to
allow access to the high school. Mr. Shacklett also stated that the board
members of tha high school district should be present at one of the meetings
to express their view of the impacts to the high school. •
Chairman King advised that the written comments distributed by Mr. Shacklett
were basically a summary of his oral comments.
Rick Elias, 6261 East Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that he is in
favor of the bypass, felt that it created a safe entrance and exit to the high
school, and would insure the safety of residents and their enil.dren who live
on East Avenue.
Dave Hopkins, East Avenue resident, addressed the Commission advocating the
bypass and stated that he is opposed to widening East Avenue to accommodate
more traffic.
Liz Allerton, 6384 East Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she is
in favor of the bypass road and against the widening of East Avenue.
Kathy Elias, 6384 East Avenue, addressed the Commission stating that she is in
favor of the bypass road and did not agree that it would be unsafe for the
students of Etiwanda High School. Further, that the bypass would not be any
more hazardous than a four lane highway on East Avenue would be to the
residents whose driveways front that street. Also, that the bypass may not
appease everyone, but does accommodate the concept of keeping Etiwanda a
community. Mrs. Elias also proposed that the bypass be altered from its
present design and suggested that it go on the east side of the high school,
parallel the freeway, and connect with East Avenue at the railroad tracks.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- November A, 1982 •
Ruben Bermudez, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission stating that he is
in favor of the bypass and opposed to the widening of Etiwanda Avenue.
John Lyons, 11984 Dorsett Street, Etiwanda, addressed the Commisson stating
that he is in favor of the bypass. Further, that during the General Plan
hearings, Level "D" was established as the minimum level of service for Rancho
Cucamonga and that the Specific Plan Advisory Committee developed the bypass
to keep the traffic at this level of service out of the Etiwanda core.
Ray Furgeson, Upland, representing a few Etiwanda landowners, addressed the
Commission requesting that the Commission consider higher density south of the
freeway.
Charles Schulz, East Avenue resident and Chaffey School District teacher,
addressed the Commission stating that he was also in favor of the bypass to
get the students of the new high school back safely to the Alta Loma area.
Marsha Banks, Victoria Avenue resident, addressed the Commission stating that
she had obtained a copy of the petition presented by the Etiwanda Landowners'
Association and was surprised at some of the names that appeared on the
peti'..ion because these same people were in attendance at the Victoria meetings
and at that time opposed the widening of East Avenue. She further stated that
she had contacted some of these residents and they indicated that they wished
to have their names withdrawn from the petition as the facts were not properly
presented to them and that they had been misled.
® Jim Banks, Victo. ^la Avenue resident, addressed the Commission gi•,ing the
reason: wny the Etiwanda Advisory Committee chose the bypass. He stated that
most of the Committee members agreed that Etiwanda is different and unique,
worth preservJAg if possible, and that a decision must be made as ;row to
equitably preserve Etiwanda. Further, that the majority of the landowners
want higher density and the homeowners want lower density with less crowding
of the streets, schools, and fewer problems. Mr. Banks stated that. the
Committee tried to reach a compromise in placing higher densities in some
areas and lower densities in others. The Committee then had to decide where
to put these densities and decided that it made sense to place the higher
densities near the transporation corridors and the lower densities where
building had already begun on a one-to-an-acre basis, yet not so much building
that it couldn't be coordinated with a one-to-an-acre pattern. The upper
central part of Etiwanda was selected as the best area for lower density. The
next issue- to be dealt with was how to keep them from adversely affecting one
another. The Committee decided that the only way to do this was through the
umbrella loop. Mr. Banks stated that the bypass road was only a component of
the umbrella loop, which was designed to serve the higher densities and
protect the lower densities. Once the umbrella loop was established, the
Committee was faced with its implementation. Mr. Banks further stated that
the implementation of East Avenue as a four lane street would be a more
difficult implementation problem than the bypass. The Committee then decided
to give the landowners whose property was bisected by the bypass a higher
density to help pay for the road. Also, the Committee did not decide on any
0 Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 18, 1982
one alternative and felt that it was disturbing that the focus was being
placed on the bypass and not on the entire system and how it ties together.
Further, that if the bypass was defeated, it would create more problems than
it would solve and that densities would have to be cut in half.
Chairman King asked Mr. Banks if he thought a four lane highway could be
placed in the area of East Avenue that would be environmentally sensitive to
the characteristics of Etiwanda.
Mr. Banks replied that he did not because this road would be a modern roadway
with berms which is not conducive to the character of Etiwanda.
Chairman King asked Mr. Banks if those same objections would apply to the
bypass.
Mr. Banks replied that the bypass is out of the sensitive areas of Etiwanda
and he would not voice the same objections. Further, that East and Etiwanda
Avenues actually outline the heart of Etiwanda which are particularly
sensitive areas.
Mary Catania, Covina resident, addressed the Commission stating that she is
against the bypass and asked Mr. Banks to show her the higher density north of
Route 30 which the residents were supposed to get in return for funding the
bypass road through redevelopment. Further, that she did not feel it was fair
that a property owner in that area should be expected to put in a four lane
road with no compensation.
Heil Westlotorn, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission stating that he
had always felt that opposing honestly opposed opinions could be resolved into
common agreement, or at leant compromise if the respondents were really
seeking an equitable solution to the problem. Further, that when one part to
the dispute had no higher purpoee but to completely subdue the other party,
one could expect less than frankness or honesty in discussion. Mr. Westlotorn
further stated that this seemed to Le the case with the petition which was
presented to the City Council and Planning Commission by the Landowners'
Association containing the names of Etiwanda residents opposing the bypass
road. He indicated that the name of the sponsoring agent was not listed on
the petition and that he had yisited people whose names appear on the petition
and found that both sides of the issue had not been presented. W. Westlotorn
reviewed the attachment to the petition issue -by -issue and explained the
comments he received from the residents when he visited them. He also stated
that most of the residents were adamant about maintaining low density in
Et iwar.da .
Mrs. Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that the main object that
Etiwanda should be developed in an orderly and pleasing fashion was being
forgotten. Further, that she opposed the bypass and felt that it would cause
many safety problems.
is
•
Planning Commission Minutes -6- November 18, 1982 •
® Jean Luck, Etiwanda resident, addressed the Commission and asked if staff
could tell her whst the open spaces east of the high school were going to be
used for.
Tim Beedle replied that the open space was shown on the County Flood Control
maps for a water recharge area.
8:50 - Planning Commission Recessed
9:05 - Planning Co=ission Reconvened
Chairman King stated that the Commission would like for those who had concerns
for specific areas or pieces of property north of Route 30 to address these
issues now.
Mary Catania addressed the Commission stating that wished her opinion that the
bypass road is a waste of money and land to go on record. However, if the
bypass was implemented, she wanted to know how she would be compensated for
paying for th3 road. Further, that her property is zoned as a park but if not
used as a park, it will be zoned Very Low and this is not a compensation for
the bypass.
Chairman King replied that Mrs. Catania's point was made in the question
itself. Further, that if her property was to be used as a park by the City,
the City would compensate her for the land.
• Mrs. Catania replied that she did not want the bypass road or the high
density, but if she has to pay for the bypass, the sap does not show where she
will be compensated by getting higher density.
Chairman King asked if there were others who wished to speak with regard to
]and north of Route 30. There were none and Chairman King announced that the
next section for discussion would be south of Route 30 and north of the Devore
Freeway.
Alice Flocker addressed the Commission stating that she is very much opposed
to the Very Low density designation on East Avenue in the core area. She
further stated that this area has always been designated low density, which is
compatible with existing development in that area. Also, that this area is
not suitable for homes which would be built on half -acre or e,,e acre lots.
Dr. Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that the area on the south side
of Victoria, across from the high school should be designated Very Low and he
opposed the bypass. Further, that he would voice his opposition if an
assessment district was formed.
Cordon Getchell, representing a property owner at the northwest corner of
Victoria and Etiw,.nda, addressed the Commission stating that he was favor
of alternative three as presented to the Commission because it app ears to be
the easiest to implement, presented the most equitable distribution of the
development potential of the area, is the most consistent with the conceptual
0 Planning rommission Minutes -7- November 189 1982
plan included within the Specific Plan do,ument, and is the most logical in
terms of freeway access.
David Flocker addressed the Commission st ting th t the Landowners'
Association would like to go on record in support of alternative three. Mr.
Flocker also stated that Dr. Smith had to .ephoned him and wished to go on
record as opposing the bypass road and t1 i zoning designation on his property
in the Etiwanda core.
Mrs. Casaletti, owner of Casaletti's Poll i Palace, add:,eased the Commission
stating that her property has been zoned 2ommereial for thirty -six years and
asked the Commission to respond as to wh; this designation has been changed.
An Etiwanda resident addressed the Commission stating that she supported Mrs.
Casaletti's request that the commercial !oning designation be returned to her
property. Further, that this would also be a good location for a small
neighborhood commercial center.
Neil westlotorn addressed the Commission and stated that he did not consider
it a noacessary requirement of the reside its of Etiwanda to guarantee a maximun
return on an investment in the community, particularly for people who only
wished to make a return on an investment and would not live there after the
investment is fulfilled.
Joe DiIorio addressed the Commission and stated that he would like to see Mora
flexibility in the Low Medium designatioi along Etiwanda, south of Base Line
to Miller Avenue because it is an area which should attract rather unique
types of development.
There were no further public comments retarding this area and Chairman King
announced the next section for discussior would be the area south of Devore
Freeway.
Ray Furgeson, representing an area property owner, addressed the Commission
stating that the property on the south site of Miller between East and
Etiwanda had been zoned Low Medium and asked that the Commission consider
raising the density to at least Medium.
Mr. Angelotti, 937 S. Fifth Street, Montebello, California, addressed the
Commission stating that his property located at the northwest corner of Mille,
and East Avenue had been designated Low Medium and requested the Commission t,
raise the density to Medium due to its location near freeway access and access
to Miller, Fast and Etiwanda Avenues.
John Lyons addressed the Commission regarding the property below the Devore
freeway and suggested that it be redesignated Low Medium.
Betty Mc Nay addressed the Commission regar - ling the property east of Etiwanda,
south of Foothill and suggested that it be designated as master planned light
indut.;rial park with a park as a possible luffer between uses.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 18, 1982 0
There were no : urther comments, therefore Chairman King closed the public
hearing.
Chairman King stated that he agreed with the fact that Etiwanda had a special
character and quality, however, did not .gree that development and local
character and quality were inconsistent. Further, that the most important
aspect in getting a development to maintain a local character and quality is
reasonable and equitable land use with emphasis placed on implementation. He
further stated that future meetings dealing with the implementation aspects
would have more significance than the hearings relating to land use because
its through the implementation that the development that takes place can be
assured that there will be an attempt to preserve the local quality and
character. Also, with proper land use any local charect_er that exists in
Etiwanda will lie m?intaiaad and can be preservad. Further, the densities
should be modified for the most part in a downward fashion and that the bypass
should not exist.
Commissioner Hempel agreed with moat of Chairman King's statement and that the
bypass would definitely be a problem due to the safety of the streoL and its
placement next to the high school and to areas of high density. Further, that
the implementation and costs involved in the bypass would also be a problem.
Also, there would be problems with the intersection where the bypass comes
into East Avenue. In the area of density, Commissioner Hempel stated that he
felt the most serious problem is that we are stratifying the city by in
essence telling people of lower income that they must live below the railroad
tracks or below Foothill.
Commissioner Barker stated that the Specific Plan was already a compromise in
that in exchange for the bypass road, there would be increased densities. He
also stated ae is not for the higher densities and not comfortable with the
bypass road. Further, that the problems could be lessened by limiting the
density. Also, the bypass road seems to invite an increase in density not
just locally, but also in the sphere of influence area. He further stated
that he was opposed to the bypass road for practical and safety reasons.
Commission Stout stated that when he reviewed the Specific Plan he was
extremely unhappy with it because it does not seem to solve all the problems
that everyone wanted to solve in creating the plan in the first place.
Further, that Ztiwanda should,be a unique place and unlike any city
anywhere. Also, that the desire to retain Etiwanda's character was shared by
all, however, this desire was based on the fact that 95 percent of the land in
the Etiwanda area is vacant and some day this would not be the case.
Commissioner Stout further stated that with the proposed plan or the two
alternatives presented, there would be an increase in population to between
10,000 and 20,000 people in the plan area alone and this new development wouli
overwhelm Etiwanda and it would never be the same. Further, that he agreed
with the comments made by the other two Commissioners and would like to see
the densities lowered, and disagreed with the concept of the bypass road and
felt that the increase in density was too high a price to pay. He also stated
that he noticed a majority of the rock curb along Fast Avenue was
0 Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 18, 1982
deteriorating and was probably unusable and it is impractical to think that
those curbs are restorable. Also, the trees along East are an impractical
type of tree and should he Qonsidered for replacement and that the widening of
East Avenue and replanting of trees may be iciething we have to lire with.
:Nmmissioner Mc Niel stated that
recently driven to Etiwarda but
referenced throu0. "t the plan.
would not envision the location
AvPn;:e. He further stated that
and its impact to the high scho
;d is not a re .
had difficulty
Further, that
on East Avenue
he opposed the
)1.
aident of Etiwanda and had
identifying the core area
if such s place exists, he
but rather on Eti.wanda
bypass road for safety reasons
Chairman King announced that the specific requests made by people at the
public hearing this evening regarding specific pieces of property would be
discussed as the first item at the Planning Commission meeting of
December 9, 1982. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Report and
Implementation Plan would be discussed at this meeting. Chairman King further
stated his feeling towards the area south of Route 30 would be that the bypass
road should not exist, the neighborhood commercial designation should not be
shown where it presently exists, the Low Medium designation should be lowered
to Low, and the west side of Eas£ Avenue running north and south between Route
30 and the railroad tracks should be designated Low.
Commissioner Stout stated that the area south of Foothill, around the existing
residential tract, should be designated as light industrial park with an
extremely high design criteria to buffer it from the homes. Further, the'. Line O
Rotate Residential designation iu the northern area should he reduced because
he did not feel that the area needed to be that large. He further stated that
he like the concept, however, and felt it should be used in other areas.
Also, he agreed with the comments regarding the density around the core area
and would be satisfied with a very low designation there.
Commissioner Barker agreed with Commissioner Stout's comments regarding the
Estate Residential designation. Also, assuming that something could be done
to buffer the existing horws south of F3c%hill Boulevard, he agreed with
Commissioner Stout's recommendation fer an industrial park desiunatlion in that
area. He further stated that ha would. like some discussion on the traffic
impacts with Chairman King's 9ugEestion that the strip on the west side of
Fast Avenue be designated a high-r density.
Paul Rogeau replied that the trips per day generated would about double,
however, most of the traffic would be generated from farther away than the
immediate area therefore an exact number of trips generated would be difficult
to determine. He indicated that the traffic volumes listed for alternative 2
were similar to this concept in that it showed traffic volumes on East Avenue
would be similar to those on Archibald oetween Base Line and Foothill.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- November 189 1982 0
Commissioner Barker stated his concern with t�, number of driveways coming on
to a carrier asked how this would be handled to assure that a traffic problem
would not be created.
Mr. Hougeau replied that front access would not be allowed directly onto the
street to eliminate this problem.
Commissioner Barker replied that the northeast corner was already developed
and asked how many of those lots already had front access on East Avenue.
Mr. Rogeau replied that a few of the lots have front access, but the
subdivision has street access.
Commissioner Hempel questioned the accuracy of the figures for Alternative 2
because the densities shown for that area are almost what they are in Alta
Loma. Further, he agreed with the density proposed by Chairman King in that
it is a reasonable compromise and also agreed with Commissioner Stout that the
area south of Foothill should be zoned Industrial and should be taken out of
the Etiwanda Plan boundaries and placed in the boundaries of the Industrial
Specific Plan.
Commissioner Stout clarified his previous statement regarding the Estate
Residential category and stated that he would also like to have this category
combined with a special design designation for Etiwanda Boulevard. He further
stated that he would like to know the impact of lining Etiwanda Avenue above
Highland with Estate Residential, having it on both sides and perhaps only one
Slot deep.
Commissioner Hempel stated that the densities shown give the Commission the
right to do that without changing the plan and all the lots along Etiwanda
Avenue could be reduced to half -acre lots by design review.
Chairman King stated that he did not disagree with Commissioner Stout's
recommendation in that it could be a very good thought; however, he also did
not disagree with Commissioner Hempel's position.
Commissioner Barker asked Commissioner Hempel if his thought was although
there was a very low designation, you could still follow Commissioner Stout's
objective of having major setbacks and special treatments north up Etiwanda
Avenue?
Commissioner Hempel stated that this very definitely was what he was trying to
convey as the Plan goes intr this to a large degree along Etiwanda Avenue so
that very thing has to tag, -= with those setbacks.
Tim Beedle stated that there is an overlay along Etiwanda for design
consideration which adds architecture, landscaping, and setback distances that
bring about a certain appearance that was felt important during the Committee
process of the plan. Further, that what the Commission is now proposing would
go further in increasing the lot size and increase the setbacks even
0 Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 18, 1982
further. He also advised the Commission that there have been design
Considerations already worked into the plan and that this might be considered
as part of the implementation to
Chairman King recommended the neighbohood commercial deeianndtthatba moved
very small
Line near the freeway interchang
the north side of Base
sere ice neighborhood commercial be designated at Fast and 24th.
Commissioner Barker asked if zoning the area south of Foothill industrial
would be compatible with the surrounding area.
commissioner Rempel replied that in his opinion it would be compatible because
Foothill is going
to be a heavily traveled street and that the neighborhood
Commercial shoul°��e the triangle
salvaged- of medium designation above so
that the Eucalyptus
Commissioner Mc Niel stated his concern that the densotelsewherevery lox in the
plan and that development desired for the city may B
Commissioner Stout replied that there are many other areas of the city where
any type of development could be built, however, did not agree that Etiwanda
should have to be considered as an ideal location for everyone. shown in
Motion: Moved by Barker that section one appear approximately as
Alternative 2 with all Very Low designation and the Estate Residential south
of Summit and west of Etlwanda Avenue. he motion to include
commissioner Stout stated that he would like to modify
the strip
the str f land within
t
within the bspec al design for Et nda Avenue between Route
30
ious ramifications if full
Commissioner Rempel stated that there would be ser
acre lots were taken all the way along that area and there may be a problem
getting a developer to develop there.
Chairman King agreed with Commissioner Stout's concept of Fatbut indicated 1
and implementation of that type of look for Etiwanda Avenue,
that he was not ready to vote that both sides of Etiwanda Avenue should be
Estate Residential at this time. and
Commissioner Barker restated his original motion c eptP for hedsection labeled
north of Route 30 is to be designated Very Low a)
Estate Residential. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Stout.
chairman King asked staff
osed why Vthe
Low islands lternative flood control area were
designated Low as °PP � process in the
Otto Kroutil replied that since the beginning of the land use P
General Plan this area has been designated Low.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12- November 18, 1982 •
0
Chairman King advised that the motion had been moved and seconded and called
for the vote.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, Mc Niel, Hempel, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
Tim Beedle asked if there was any interest in the community commercial center.
Commissioner Barker replied that he did not include that in his motion because
he is not opposed to the commercial center location.
There was discussion on the commercial center location and the motion was
amended by Commissioner Barker to move the location to 24th Street and Fast
Avenue.
Chairman King made the motion for Section 2, south of Route 30, north of Route
15, that the neighborhood commercial land use be deleted and moved to the
general vicintiy of Base Line and East Avenue, the entire area east of East
Avenue surrounding the school and open space be Low, thus deleting the Low
Medium and the Very Low designations north of the railroad tracks. Further,
that north of the railroad tracks, west of East Avenue, Low designation be
extended from Route 30 along the back line of the existing tract, down to the
railroad tracks then west bound and have it meet just south of the junior high
school. Retain the rest of the Very Low designation as is. The area south of
the railroad tracks is to remain the same other than moving the neighborhood
commercial designation as noted.
Commissioner Hempel stated that he would prsfer that the Low designation
extend all the way west to Etiwanda Avenue.
Chairman King stated that the bypass road should be eliminated and that
Victoria should be continued as a through street.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated his concern regarding the impacts to East Avenue
caused by people traveling to the neighborhood comercial center.
Chairman King replied that the possibility of placing the neighborhood
commercial center above Route 30 should be looked at.
Commissioner Hempel stated that if the center was placed in that location, no
one would build there and also felt that staff's analysis of traffic volumes
in that location is wrong. Further, that he would second the Chairman's
motion if he would exclude the neighbood commercial center at 24th and East.
Commissioner Stout stated that he would be against placing low density in the
core area all the way to Etiwanda Avenue.
0 Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 18, 1982
Otto Kroutil stated that the Committee did not feel that a neighborhood center
should be placed in the core. However, if the Commission desired a second
center, it should be located at Base Line and East Avenue in lieu of the Route
30/bypass location. Further, that the Commission might want to defer this
until the freeway discussion takes place at the next meeting.
Chairman King clarified his motion and stated that in Section 2, the Low
designation should be placed east of East Avenue, Very Low designation for the
rest of the core and along Etiwanda Avenue; Victoria Street is to by
continuous, no bypass road, and East Avenue be continuous and widened to four
lanes. Commissioner Hempel seconded the motion. Motion failed 2 -3.
Chairman King asked for further discussion of the impacts of Low versus Very
Low along East Avenue. He stated that traffic will impact the Very Low
designations. Also, Low is more compatible with the high school. Further,
that it is consistent with traffic along East Avenue and the rest of the areas
along Etiwanda will have Very Low to preserve its character.
Commissioner McNiel stated his concern regarding the neighborhood center
location at the north end of Etiwanda.
Chairman King replied that possibly this could be discussed at the next
meeting when the Commission begins its review of the freeway.
Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Hempel, carried, that the density east of
East Avenue be Low with a strip of Very Low along the west side of Fast
Avenue, Very Low density for the rest of the core area and along Etiwanda
Avenue; Victoria to remain a continuous street, no bypass road, and East
Avenue would be continuous and widened to four lanes throughout the planning
area.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, Hempel, Mc Niel, Stout
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker
Commissioner Barker voted No because he preferred Very Low density along the
west side of East Avenue.
* * * * *
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue
past the 11 p.m. adjournment time.
* 4 * * *
Chairman King asked for discussion and a motion regarding Section 3, south of
I -15.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- November 18, 1982 0
Commissioner Hempel stated that the area south of Foothill Boulevard is
inappropriate for residential and should be designated light industrial.
Also, he was concerned with possible litigation and felt the densities should
remain near those specified in the General Plan.
Chairman King stated that the densities below the interchange should be
raised, however, the remaining densities could be discussed at the next
meeting.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Me Niel, that the area below Foothill
remain as is except that residential Low Medium south of the existing tract to
be designated Industrial Park. Motion failed 2 -3.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Hempel, that the triangular area bounded
by I -15, Foothill and East be discussed at the meeting of December 9, 1982.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried to remove the
area south of Foothill and the existing tract from the Etiwanda Plan and place
it in the Industrial Specific Plan boundaries, with the intent to redesignate
it for light industrial park uses.
Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to reconsider
area one north of Route 30 at the next meeting.
Chairman King stated that the items the Commission would like to cover at the
meeting of December 9, 1982, were the specific requests from property owners,
the triangle south of I -15 north of Foothill Boulevard, and the Development
Standards.
a s a a a
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Barker, eeconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
11:05 - Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, Secretary
® Planning Commission Minutes -15-
November 18, 1982
11
0
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Adjourned Meeting
December 9, 1982
Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Adjourned Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to order at 7 :05 p.m. The meeting
was held at the Liors Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry Me Niel, Herman Hempel,
Dennis Stout, Jeff King
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Frank Dreckman, Assistant
Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant
City Attorney; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner; Paul
Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer
Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the actions of the Commission at their
meeting of November 18, 1982.
Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, presented staff's recommendations for
specific land use district boundaries based on last meeting's general
actions. Among staff's recommendations on the residential district boundares
were to move the Very Low Estate Residential boundaries north to Summit
Avenue; the consideration of two alternatives for the 660' wide strip of Very
Low along the west side of East Avenue; maintaining Low Medium at Miller and
East; and consideration of an increase to Medium on the south side of Miller,
east of Etiwanda. Staff recommended that the Commission select a specific
site location for a Neighborbnod Commercial center in the vicinity of Base
Line and East Avenue. Also, Wat the area south of Foothill be designated for
light industrial uses and annexed into the Industrial Specific Plan
boundaries.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mary Catania, Etiwanda property owner, addressed the Commission and stated her
property east of East Avenue should be considered for an increase in density
from the current Very Low designation because of the close proximity to flood
control and utility lines.
Pat Meyer addressed the Commission stating that he was concerned about the
density change to the east side of East Avenue, just north of the railroad
tracks. Mr. Meyer advocated higher density due to the railroad tracks and t •
close proximity to the freeway. he
Mrs. Flocker addressed the Commission regarding the property west of East
Avenue and advocated Low as an appropriate zoning. Mrs. Flocker also stated
that the entire 660 foot strip along the west side of Fast Avenue should be
zoned Low.
Mr. Angellotti addressed the Commission regarding the property at Miller and
Etiwanda and stated that the property should be zoned Medium due to the close
proximity of the freeway,
Cecil Johnson addressed the Commission regarding the property south of the
bend at Upper Summit and recommended the Commission consider the density
change from Very Low to Low.
Dale Vanderhuff addressed the Commission recommending that property at the
northeast corner of Route 30 and East Avenue be designated Low or Low Medium
and that areas adjacent to the freeway route should carry this higher density.
Don King addressed the Commission regarding the property at the northwest
corner of Etiwanda and Base Line Road. Mr. King stated that he advocated a
combination or mixed use f)r that area.
Larry Arcinage addressed the Commission regarding the property at the
northeast part of Etiwanda stating that he is part owner of 200 acres with
Cecil Johnson and planned to develop this area in a planned unit development
with common horse a:ass, thus advocated a change in density for this area to
Low.
Wayne Blanton add" -sled the Commission regarding the property along Route
30. Mr. Blanton advocated a graduated scale moving upward from 10,00
foot lots to half -acre development similar to that in Alta Loma, 0 square
Dr. Kleinman addressed the Commission regarding the property south of the new
high school stating that while he advocated low density in Etiwanda, he could
not advocate that density on his property along the freeway corridor.
Pat Gerhardt, president of the Etiwanda Homeowners' Association, addressed the
Commission regarding the property in the northeast area of Etiwanda and
advocated an increase in density from Very Low to Low. Further, that the
property along East Avenue should remain Low.
Mrs. Catania addressed the Commission regarding the property at East and
SuMmit and requested Low zoning for this property.
Joe DiIorio addressed the Commission regarding the property in northeastern
Etiwanda, on the north side of Cecil Johnson's property and stated that his
Planning Commission Minutes -2- •
December 9, 1982
• current plan for that property is a une acre lot subdivision. Further, that
he would be agreeable to the Low density as requested by Mr. Johnson for the
south side of the road, as long as the property is developed on a planned unit
development basis rather than a standard development.
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the commercial land use staff report
to the Commission and requested that a specific site be selected for the
Neighborhood Commercial center in the vicinity of Base Line and East Avenue.
Further, that the two to three acre convenience commercial designation at 24th
and East Avenue be kept at a limited level at this time and if plans for
development warrant the expansion of commercial facilities, the Commission
could redesignate a site or expand the scope of this site to allow
neighborhood commercial facilities.
8:00 - Planning Commission Recessed
8:10 - Planning Commission Reconvened
Chairman King stated that a logistics problem had developed with the slide
Presentation proposed to be a part of the commercial designation public
nearing and the Commission would postpone the public hearing until after the
vote on the residential land issues. Chairman King then stated that the first
vote to be taken would be concerning the Estate Residential designation and
asked for discussion by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Harker asked if the only option at this time is to adjust the
dotted area to increase the density below Summit, or if there is an
alternative.
Chairman King replied that if there were other alternatives, the Commission
should hear them.
Commissioner Barker stated there may be other alternatives and one of the
problems was the existing ten half -acre lots. The other option for
consideration would be cutting that position out.
Commissioner Rempel stated that one thing that must be considered is that the
road pattern is already basically developed, especially east of Etiwanda
Avenue. Further, that the staff recommendation is well taken.
Commissioner Barker replied that there were arguments to both sides; however,
would recommend that the area of the existing half -acre lots be eliW nated
with the remaining to be designated Estate Residential.
Commissioner Stout stated that his inclination also would be to eliminate the
ten half-acre parcels from the Estate Residential area.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt it would be cleaner to go straight
across rather than cut that little chunk out and cause confusion.
0 Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 9, 1982
Commissioner Barker replied that it would be cleaner if the Commission had •
been able to start with a clean map; however, this was not the way it was.
Commissioner Hempel replied that if those parcels were eliminated, the road
pattern would also have to be changed considerably from what is already
established. Also, there already are half -acre lots encircling this area and
to bring all of it into conformity would be better than making jagged
boundaries.
Commissioner Barker stated that it may not look the best from a graphics
viewpoint, but was looking for a logical argument that it is impractical and
asked Commissioner Hempel if it was impractical to go ahead with an Estate
Residential designation on those parcels.
Commissioner Hempel replied that Summit Avenue w,,uld be a better boundary than
weaving it around so that the people buying in that area would not be bordered
by half -acre lots.
Chairman King stated that although he agreed with Commissioners Barker and
Stout that if those ten acres were carved out it would not affect the street
pattern surrounding it, he felt that it to be more logical to cut off the
Estate Residential designation at Summit.
Commissioner McNiel stated that the difficulties the Commission was having in
making a decision in this area is dealing with the inconsistencies which
already exist. Further, the elimination of these parcels from the Estate
Residential designation only contributes to the inconsistency therefore would
be in favor of Summit Avenue being the cut off point.
Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried, that the Estate
Residential designation be continued to Summit Avenue.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
Hempel, MoNiel, King
Barker, Stout
Commissioners Barker and Stout voted No for the reasons previously stated.
Chairman King called for a vote on the area north of the railroad tracks,
south of Highland and west of East Avenue and asked for discussion by the
Commissioners.
Chairman King asked staff why they felt the area designated Very Low west of
East Avenue could not be incorporated into a good circulation system.
Otto Kroutil replied that it is not impossible, just less than ideal with what
already exists. Further, that the 660 foot strip of land between the two
boundaries is wide enough to develop a 10 or 20 acre project, but does not
encourage the two people who own land next to each other in different land use
designations to work with, each other.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 9, 1982
S Chairman King stated that the Low designation going down Fast and along the
railroad tracks over to Etiwanda is appropriate because of the traffic on East
and its relationship to the community. However, felt the Very Loa the
Commission designated at its last meeting was also important in taking every
precaution to preserve that area, especially along Etiwanda Avenue and placing
more Low would be contrary to that preservation.
Commissioner Stout stated that he felt the area should be Very Low as
presented in Figure IV -7 of the staff report with no Low west of East Avenue,
as it was more logical and eliminated the inconsistency of the 660 foot wide
strip in the center. Further, that the Commission would either have to
increase the density again and place it in the Low designation or decrease
it. Also, that by changing the parcel in the center to Low as opposed to
changing the entire area to Very Low would make a difference of adding 170
dwelling units.
Commissioner Barker stated that rather than raising the entire density to Low,
he would agree with Commissioner Stout on this issue.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated that his opinion was that the designation should go
to Low.
Commissioner Hempel advised that several thousand dwelling units could be
added to this plan and still be within the General Plan designation on this
area.
• Motion: Moved by King, seconded by McNiel, carried, that the land use
designation remain as decided previously by the Commission, with only 660 feet
of Low on the west side of East Avenue.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: King, McNiel, Barker, Hempel
NOES: COMMISSIONERr: Stout
Commissioner Stout voted No because he felt the designation should be Very Low
along the west side of East Avenue.
Chairman King stated the next area for vote would be East and Miller and asked
for discus:,lon by the Commission.
Commissioner Stout asked staff if they would go over their recommendation
main for this area.
Otto Kroutil replied that a request was made at the last meeting regarding the
propert, at East and Miller to reconsider the densities at that location.
Further, that if the Commission wished to increase the densities in this area,
the most appropriate place would be Miller just east of Etiwanda Avenue, but
not at East and Miller because of existing single family homes.
0 P.:nning Commission Minutes -5- December 9, 1982
Commissioner Barker stated that he did not think it was appropriate to raise
the density in this area.
Motion: Movea by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to retain
the Low Medium density in the area of East and Miller.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, MoNiel, Hempel, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman. King stated that the next area for vote would be east of East Avenue
and north of the railroad tracks and asked for discussion.
Commissioner MoNiel stated that he did not see an advantage in changing the
designation for this area.
Commissioner Barker agreed with Commissioner MoNiel.
Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to retain
the Low land use designation east of East Avenue and north of the railroad
tracks.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mc Niel, Barker, Hempel, Stout, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman King stated the next section for vote would the the Very Low 0
designation south of 24th Street and asked for discussion.
Commissioner Barker stated that to redesignate this area would be preferential
treatment to this piece of property.
Commissioner Stout agreed with Commissioner Barker and stated that if this
area was proposed for a planned development, it should be in units of
half-acre or larger.
Chairman King stated that he felt this area is a little different in that it
is surrcunded by open space which geographically tends to separate it from
northern Etiwanda and is only appropriate for a Low category if a master plan
was required.
Commissioner Stout stated that he would recommend that the designation remain
Very Low and if a well designed, master planned development was submitted, the
change in designation could be considered at that time.
Commissioner Hempel stated that an incentive to submit this type of plan would
have to be give.: to a developer and that incentive would be the increased
density. Also, that 2 -4 dwelling units per acre does not mean a developer
would get four lots to the acre. Further, that Low with a planned development
designation would be an appropriate land use for this area.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 9, 1982
o Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried, that the Very Low
designation south of 24th Street be changed to Low with a planned development
requirement.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hempel, McNiel, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout
Commissioners Barker and Stout voted No for their previously stated reasons.
Chairman King announced that the next area for vote would be the northeast
corner of East and 19th and the freeway corridor. Chairman King asked for
discussion and stated his preference that the designation remain as is.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded t, Stout, carried unanimously to retain the
land use designation for this area.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout, Mc Niel, Hempel, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
El
Chairman King stated the next area for vote would be the property surrounding
the park and elementary school, adjacent to East Avenue.
Motion: Moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Barker, carried, to retain the Very Low
designation at this location.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mc Niel, Barker, Hempel, Stout
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: King
Chairman King announced that the public hearing regarding the commercial land
use designation was now open.
Dr. Kleinman addressed the Commission regarding the offramp at East Avenue and
the area presently zoned Medium bounded on the north by the railroad tracks,
south by the freeway, and on the west by a proposed four lane highway. He
stated that the Blayney Plan designated this area as Commercial and asked for
the Commission's discussion on this.
Mrs. Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that the proposed Commercial
designation south of this property should logically extend to include the
property mentioned by Dr. Kleinman.
Don King addressed the Commission regarding the area at all four corners of
Etiwanda and Base Line, with specific proposals for the northwest corner. The
Commission viewed a slide presentation by Mr. King which advocated a mixed use
designation for this area.
Plannf.ng Commission Minutes December 9, 1982
Joe DiIorio addressed the Commission regarding the property at Etiwanda and e
Base Line. Mr. DiIorio stated that he believed there was an out piece of
property not shown in the proposal graphics which is owned by the Bannano
family, and felt it was misleading to show proposed assigns when there is a
specific cut parcel which is not a part of the design. Further, that it has
always been discussed that four corners of commercial designation is not
desirable at any location in the city and if any type of commercial zone is
shown, it should be a floating zone in which a developer comes in with a
specific, realistic proposal which would be vote< on as a specific planned
development. Mr. DiIorio further stated that wi!h the Victoria Plan and the
Specific Plan, there is no need for commercial at this location. Also, this
area should have a character that carries a grea•,er flexibility of use so that
it is not strictly residential or office / profess:onal.
Chairman King stated that this intersection is oie which should establish some
form of community identity and entrance and if kopt as it now is, the
developer would have no impetus to put the money into it in an attempt to
develop that identity. Further, that some type )f trade off would have to be
established if a community identity is to be developed.
Mr. DiIorio agreed with this statement but states that it was a confusion of
two issues in that everyone agreed with the issue of community identity and
character, but nothing says that that particular corner has to be
commercial. Further, perhaps the overlay zones ror Etiwanda Avenue should be
considered to see how they might %ork.
Chairman King asked Mr. D1Iorio if he thought thi overlay for Etiwanda Avenue e
excludes the possibility of some type of commercial and if twenty years down
the line it might not be possible that a limited commercial might be
appropriate?
Mr. DiIorio replied that in the review of the Spe;ifie Plan it was suggested
that the original Etiwanda core be recreated to b -ing some commercial along
Vic "oria and that this part of the plan should be discussed in greater detail
to make sure it is flexible enough so that when a plan does come in, there
will be the incentive to the developer to go shear with his plan.
John Scherb of the Nichren Temple addressed the Commission regarding Etiwanda
Avenue and what he termed "creeping commercialism' along that street. Mr.
Scherb stated that he did not feel the community could support the commercial
areas being proposed. Further, the Temple would be opposed to any commercial
designation on the southeast and southwest corners because it would extend the
office professional designation to the south.
There were no further comments and the public hear.ng was closed.
Chairman King asked for discussion and a vote on tie shopping center location
in the vicinity of Base Line and East Avenue.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 9, 1982 0
0
Commissioner Hempel stated that because of access, he felt the location would
be better on the scuth side.
Chairman King disagreed with ;nis statement stating that the north was the
best location because of access to Fast Avenue and it is a better
configuration in terms of usable space and design.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he did not feel that lot configuration was
that important and that Commissioner Hempel made a good point on the
accessibility in that the property on the south side would have easier access
than the property on the rcrth.
Chairman King stated his opinion that the property on the north is designed to
serve the people not only to the north, but also has access to Base Line.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Hempel, carried, to retain the
Neighborhood Commercial designation as shown on the Land Use Map at Base Line
and East.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
Mc Niel, Hempel, Barker
King, Stout
Chairman King and Commissioner Stout voted No because they preferred the
northern location.
Chairman King called for the vote and discussion regarding the Neighborhood
Commercial designation at Foothill and East Avenue.
Motion: Moved by Stout, second:: by Barter, carried unanimously, tu retain
the Neighborhood Commercial de::,.,ition as shown on the Land Use Map at
Foothill and East Avenue.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Stout, Barker, McNiel, Hempel, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman King called for the vote . --id discussion regarding the Convenience
Commercial at East and 24th.
Commissioner Stout stated that he thought the plan, should state convenience
commercial at thin time, however, this site may be expanded.
' )tion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to retain
the Convenience Commercial designation as shown on the Land Use Map with the
inclusion in text as mentioned by Commissioner Stout.
0 Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 9, 1982
r■ #r*
Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, presented the Draft Environmental Impact
Report to the Commission and requested that the Commission provide staff with
direction regarding the EIR's mitigation measures dealing with a Route 30
access in Etiwanda.
Pnul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engfneer, reviewed the City Engineer's staff report
to the Commission regarding impacts of no interchange at East Avcaue.
Commissioner Stout asked what the difference would be in trying to add an
interchange after the plan has been set by CALTRANS versus deleting it?
Mr. Rougeau replied that Etiwanda Avenue is the site of the interchange on
CALTRANS' original plans; however, during review of the General Plan it was
determined that Etiwanda Avenue was not intended to be that major of a
corridor. Further. during review of the Victoria Plan, the new Day Creek
Boulevard provided an opportunity to move the interchange to the west and that
if more acceres to the freeway was desired, East Avenue should be considered.
He further stated that this concept has not been presented to CALTRANS so
interchange access is not guaranteed.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
0
Mr. Flocker, Alta Loma resident, addressed the Commission stating that not
giving an interchange to the local residents would create more traffic because .
they would have to travel the local streets to get to the freeway.
Dr. Kleinman addressed the Commission stating that he is against the offramp
at East Avenue because it would make the area heavily congested.
Dave Flocker addressed the Commission and presented the Landowners'
Association's position in favor of an interchange at East or Etiwanda Avenue.
Mike Perez addressed the Commission stating that he is against an offramp a•.
East or Etiwanda because he wants to keep traffic out of the core.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman King stated that he had always felt than an offramp at East Avenue
was not appropriate because it would cause more traffic which would not
accomplish the purpose of keeping the area as low keyed as possible. However,
felt that not having an offramp may do the opposite because it would create
more traffic on the local streets. Further, that if an offramp is located on
East Avenue it will help to keep traffic off the local streets, provided that
the land usa is not altered in the area surrounding the access.
Commissioner Barker stated that the offramp might invite an increase in
density to the sphere of influence and invite more traffic going north and
south on East Avenue. Further, that because the Commission does not have all
Planning Commigsion Minutes -10- December ;, 1982 0
J
the information necessary to make a determination, the decision should be
deferred until such information is available.
the same problems which eUpland further stated with
the same p o on record
Commissioner Rempel requested to g
figures d stzuld Engineering staff re
verified.
that Etiwanda could experience
no access to Campus*
as questioning the accuracy of
port and the EIR and stated they
u sed deriving the
Paul Rouge-au replied that the standard techniques fined in were
figures and did not feel they now stand on
Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like the figures as they
Archibald, Carnelian and Vineyard because he felt they would show a
dis:sepancy in what is shown in the EIR. Further, that the offramp is
essential to Etiwanda.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, to place a freeway
access ramp at East Avenue.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Stout, McNiel, King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker
Commissioner Barker voted No because of his previously stated reasons.
� ■ r s ■
Tim Beedle, Senior Planner,
Provisions.
reviewed Part II of the Plan., Regulatory
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Betty Mc Nay adiressed the !ommission and stated she regtrxhtionseimposed by
y
"shalls" in the plan as there were already too many
other agencies.
There were ie further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman King announced that at the, meeting on January 12, 1983, the
Commission would further us th the vSpecificaPlanpact Report and further
review the Regulatory of
ADJOURN NT
moved by Mc Niel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to adjourn-
motion:
10:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned.
Planning Commission Minutes
-11- December 99 1982
ti.
r•
r
rr
i
I.
I
r•.
_
J-
r•
r
rr
i
I.
I
J.
n
•
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA
STAFF REPORT
January 12, 1983
Members of the Planning Commission
Rick Gomez, City Planner
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
FOR
1977
IEW 82 -22 - R
111uVJIn1nL - IM OeVeIOPment OT two warenouse /distribution
buildings 345,500 square feet and 258,000 square feet on
73.55 acres of land in the General Industrial /Rail Served zone
(Subarea 10) located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and
Buffalo - APN 229 - 261 -26, 28.
Related File: Parcel Map 7797
PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting review and approval
of two warehouse/distribution buildings or! 38 acres of a larger 73.55 acre
parcel. The parcel is pr.posed to be subdivided per Parcel Map 7797 on this
agenda. The project has completed the Development and Design Review process
and is now before the Planning Commission to receive environmental clearance
only. The Detailed Site Plan and Elevations will be reviewed and approved
with conditions by the City Planner contingent upon approval of the Negative
Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the
applicant and is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has
completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and found no significant
impacts on the environment as a result of this project.
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon analysis and the Initial Study, it appears that
this project will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment.
If the Commission concurs, the issuance of a Negative Declaration for the
project would be in order.
ITEM A
Development Review 82- 22 /i(.C. Industrial
Planning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 2
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
Initial Stu,
- Location Map
- Detailed Site Plan
- Conceptual Landscape Plan
- Conceptual Grading Plan
- Elevations, Building One
- Elevations, Building Two
iy, Part I
0
•
n
U
•
CITY OF
RANCHO CL'G1N,I0 \'(�A
PLANNING DIVISION
►GT
NORTH
ITEM: 09 '82 o "' z
TITLE: &.io Aw hl _ < ?'.,o
EXmBr : �_ SCALE:
�lit- .. r i
�w��mnm�l
8TH 8711!!7
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANION'GA
PLANNING DIVISION
i
■I
C
w
sI
�J
e
r V
\ORTH
ITEM: M T% r Z 2
TITLE: 5.1=6► AWAN
EXI 1113IT: _ SCALE* "��
A a "11e
i
i
i
•I
^I
w
1
1
it
11
11
!1
!1
V
. 1
p
i
i
i
•I
^I
w
V
. 1
p
w L: -l�� � IG •
t - Z
s
NORTH
CITY OF jZ • Z Z
RANCHO ITEM:
N
TITLE : --
PLANVI� \G DIVISION G \t IIBIT
r. SCALE:
• l'ONI '70B9V 9 S1:Ja11 ►.,dv
i
Ll
I f i
' i t
S i
E
�. 1 ill 1
.•-
t:�ij
� J
�= 1
L � �
II
I � .
I `e'I
1
a
11
II
1
i
Ll
I f i
' i t
S i
E
�. 1 ill 1
.•-
t:�ij
� J
�= 1
L � �
II
I � .
I `e'I
1
a
11
r
(i
f
r
1
e 1'e7 ...__.
V.•
I'7NIM '709Stf 9••61a H1...�gV
I
1 i
+ i
i
r
� i 1
1 '
�D
f
t<�
it
6
L
T, r1 Ell
�I.
KH! T F
FGVV TICS I •„
;..Ir..
N 1
i�t
� •�r
-E
•i. •r4
•i
• a,
KH! T F
FGVV TICS I •„
r
® CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
•
PA_TRT I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental rev'.ew, this
form must be completed and submitted to the 'ievelopment
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Rev,_ew
Committee will meet and take action no later thr.r ien
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: :) The project will have no signi-
ficant 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 prcpsrcd, or 31 an nAMitional information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE:
RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS CENTER II
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: R.C. INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
1301 Dove Street - Suite 760
W
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: James R. Westling, R.C. Industrial
_Company - 1301 Dove Street - Suite 760 - Newport Beach, CA
92660 - (714) 752 -5515
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Center at 6th & Milliken Ave. APN: 229- 261 -26 & 229 - 261 -28
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
I -1
PROJF.` DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
and uti7; *;... __,
11
ale-
Site develo ment, on -site stre is
ruction of 4.._
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA ANr
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF Ay :
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
R;tn area• 73 55 s
DESCRIBE THE ENVIROV.XCIMAL SETTING
INCLUDING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS $TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AM THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
ti
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 immact?
Althou h art of a new 73.55 acre development to ho
develnnm.
ve a significant
1-2.
IT.
' Y r • X11
Q
C
WILL THIS PROJECT:
wYES NO
NO 1. Create a substantial charge in ground
contours?
•
2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
3. Create a substantial chr.nge in demand for
municipal services (pol.ce, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designaticns?
_ X 5. Remove any existing tries? How many ?__
X 6. Create the need for us: or disposal of
potentially hazardous naterials such as
toxic substances, flamnables ;r explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTANT: residential units`,ocompicte theform construction on
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached echibits present the evaluation
data and information required for
tthis initial statements, and
to the best of my ability, 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 subnitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by a Develop ent Re few Committee.
R
Date October 29,1982 Signat _
;! n I :—o f onnell
Title �anag :ng General Partner
1-3
RESIDENTIAL COrSTRUc'iSON
She £ingDiv :' infor^atioa s.zoald be provided to the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability o£ the school
:'strict to accommodate the proposed residential development.
flame of Developer and Tentative Tract No. :_
.3peci£ic Location of Project:
PHASE I PEA-SE 2 PHASE 3 HASE 4 TOTAL,
- fam -11r units:
single —
£amily ':nits:
• Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin construction:
4. Earliest date of —
occupancy:
Model
and € of Tentative
5, Bedrooms Price Range
I -4
11
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
11
0
c STAFF R,EP®RT GA
January 12, 1933
Members of the Planning Commission
Rick Gomez, City Planner
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
acres of
(Subarea
18.
lano ,-1 --
9) to be located at 11711 Arrow ou e -
PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTT�N: The applicant is requesting review and approval
developed with existing
of two ma Afaortiongofa theo project siitegisocurrentlyon developed a larger 1e acre
parcel. p with the remaining portion undeveloped. The project
manufacturing buildings, The Detailed Site Plan
has completed the Development Review process and is now before the Planning
Y
raved with conditions by
Commission to receive environmental clearance only.
and elevations will be reviewed and app
planr:er contingent upon approva'. of tye legative Declaration• the
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by
significant
app�a� ant an is attached for your review and consideration. Staff as
completed Part TI of the Environmental Assessment and has found o si9
impacts on the environment as a result of this project. it appears that
impacts upon the
RECONC�ENDATION: Based upon analysis and the Initial Study, Negative
this project will not cause significant thedvissuance of a
environment. If the. Commission concurs,
Declaration for the proect would be in order.
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Locatlo❑ rice
Exhibit "d" - Detailed Site Plan
Initial Study, Part I
ITEM B
0
AQgpyy IFDUT£ _
2 STDXY Li I ..
n FFILC , '� ! EXISITC W}TEs UVE _
� 1
I 1. 2H"XILAME-
R4zeIN6 lDC 7.'. VEWMES
+CwmES
UEW G' STL
r0tCET5 1 57PE: APE i /
- i } - -Tt
S,/o0 L
TDSXlY) LPl! T..
. fYDFD5 - V".- ¢ICMACM DIUL£
aADU6A CD WATE.
25`0'
c T}[C Y7FLD AU BUTS 5CTM 570E5 }IiW 6' PfYE STD
STEaL S/�NL�N
IQ
x
�DILUSCrLVAsE/ CIJi _�.i / /'/ ..! / /!:•� /i' /
-!i�LCS M }Li- X7D..c= &.4 WVACILHOL'SE /
MYC • / /. /// �. -/
CITY OF
® RAI\CHO CL'C�1�1O \GA
p�� �1I \G DIVISION
V /'���]
NOR l l l
s
TITLE°
E1HIBIT: -0-- SCALE --'-= -
11
CITY OF RANCHO 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 a-nd submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part I£ 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 signi-
ficant 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 informa-
ticn concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: S C 14- E� 0 S S L--77, P-c> 2. 4 e
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Fj���� P �A 7 2!G
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: & y ".r-
LOCATION OF
//7!i
PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS
AND ASSESSOR
PARCEL NO.)
4- -�_.,- 0C - .I
/ —/7
/S
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
I -1
c c
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF7THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY.- SPLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series
Of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
11
I -2
11
L-1
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
�3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
�4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
/5. Remove any existing trees? How many?
/ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
't potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, £lammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTPNT: 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 exi:ibits 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 b= submitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by }ham Oeveiopment Review Committee.
17
Date 1�! -7 Signature
Title
1-3
RESIDENTIAL, CONSTRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Plan ing Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school
distr t to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Name o\Deloper and Tentative Tract No.:
Specifion of Project:
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin construction:
4. Earliest date of
occupancy:
Model
and # of Tentative
S. Bedrooms Price Rance
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL,
I- 4
J
0
11
ILI
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 12, 1983
T0: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Kubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SiBJE:T: ENVIRONMENT. ASSESSMENT" AND PARCEL MAP 7797- R. C. ASSOCIATES II -
An
industrial subdivision of -08.79, acres into 3 parcels, located on
the south side of Stn Street, 440± east of Pittsburgh Avenue in the
M -2 zone (APN 229 - 261 - 26,28)
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
This site is located on the south side of 8th Street, approximately 440± east
of Pittsburqh Avenue within the subareas 10 and 11 of the Industrial Specific
Plan Redevelopment Area. To the north is the Santa Fe Railway, to the south
and east is vacant land; and to the west is a recently completed industrial
development. All surrounding property is zoned for industrial use.
Development Review 82 -22, also on tonight's agenda, will be constructed on
parcel numbers 1 and 2 of this parcel map. Parcel No. 3 containing 32.82
acres is to remain vacant at the present time.
ANALYSIS:
Buffaio Avenue and 6th Street are now being constructed under Assessment
District 82 -1. The streets shown on the tentative map as "A" and "B" will be
construted with this project along with approximately 60 feet of storm drain
to tie into the master storm drain now being constructed on Buffalo Avenue.
EKVIROW4EKTAL REVIEW:
Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study
as completed by the applicant. Staff has on
Part II of the Initial
Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation.
Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff
found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed
subdivision.
continued....
ITEM C
CORRESPONDENCE:
Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and
placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been
completed.
RECONKENOA:ION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements
of the project. If, after such corsideration of the Commission can support
the recommended conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's
Report, then adoption of the attached resolution woula be appropriate. It is
also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued.
Respectfully submitted,
r
LBH:@K:jaa
Attachments: Map
City Engineer's Report
Initial Study
Resolution
El
E
E
=cow -I
El
0
u
Y�
�a
PPx -r
MO �'
9 • =E��6j
Fling,
ae ;�i
515�S p
It _N�
C%: C % \7p Lr
1977
TY OF RANCHO C'CtWONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY AIAP
title;
page
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
0 CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
FILED BY:
R. C. Associates II (c /o O'Donnell, Bri-. "-
'°TENTATIVE MAP NO. PM 7797
LOCATION:
South of 8th Street, east
of Milliken ':
�:TE FILED: 11/24/82
; -dMBER OF LOTS: 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A portion of the
Southwest 114,
RECEIPT NUMBER:
Section ?
TIS R6W San Bernaroino
Base & Meridian
FEE: $243
as per deed to So. Calif. RR Co. as
April 11, 1902,
ZONE:
in Bk 315,
Pag. 469
TENTATIVE
MAP PREPARED BY: Joseph B.
Hyde, Jr_
GROSS ACREAGE: 68.79
ADDRESS:
602 S. Hilda Street
MINIMUM LOT AREA:_
Anaheim CA 92806
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE:
RECORD OWNER(S)
R.C. Associates
ADDRESS PHONE 0
1301 Dove Street 714/752 -5515
nitman'c Investment Corp. & Suite 760
O'Donnell. Brigham & Partners Newport Beach CA 92660
REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Dedications
_ X - 1. Dedication by final map o" all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary
easements W% XW(d(KXdAXtX,, "XfS"i11iMX#4X.
2. Dedication by final map cf the following missing rights -of -way on the following
streets:
additional feet on
additional feet on
additional feet on
24 - Corner PA radius required on tree
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 140. 7797
Page 2
Improvements (Bonding is required prior to M Recordinq for all ;,arcels 1
❑ Building permit for )
X 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
XM6144IIR, 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 landscaping and irrigation on meter
STREET NAME
CURB &
J
GTTER
I A.
PVMT.
SIDE-
WALK
DRIVE
APPR.
STREET
TREES
STREET
LIGHTS
MEDIAN
ISLAND*
OTHER
i
f
Y_ 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative
map, or as required by the City Engineer.
X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water,
electric power, gas, telephone. �LA6XUhT6XX6XH >Gi�Xb?SU5iSiS'M. All utilities
are to be inderground.
_
11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of
any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary.
12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca-
tions and types approved by the City Engineer.
X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im-
provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer.
14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water
District standards. A letter of acceptance is required.
_ x 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern
California Edison Company end the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative
poles with underqround service.
16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an
A.C. overlay:
_ 17. The following specific dimensions, i.e., cul-de-sac radius, street section
widths) are not approved:
18. The following existing streets are substandard: _
They will require:
Approvals and Fees
_ 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of
San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
y 20. Approvals have not beer, secured from all utilities
ties involved. Approval of the final map will be
that may be received from them.
RCE 20
approval from CALTRA"S/
and other interested agen-
subject to any requirements
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 of the State Map Act and local ordinances.
Flood Control and (Conding is required prior to M Recording Xdk )
Storm Drain ❑ Building permit for_ _ j
29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to fiooi-
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 andior 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 throegh 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. Bread scale hydrologic studies wr a requi -e to assess impac o increasEtl
X runoff.
_ 34. Storm drain pipe and catch basin to be installed at the intersection of "A"
and 6th Streets as shown on the tentative map.
RCc' 20
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7797
Page 3
X 21.
Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
_ A. Caitrans, for:
B. City:
T C. County Dust Abatement District: County of San Dernardino
—
D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep:
--
X E. Cucamonga County Water District: sewer and water
_ F. Other:
Map Control
22.
If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to
23.
vide for two -hty traffic and parking on all affected streets.
pro-
The following lots appear to be substandard ire either frontage, depth
and should be
o- area
24.
corrected on the final map:
All corner lets
shall have a corner radius at the right -of -way ine in
ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards.
!ccord-
` 25.
A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to
the creation of an unrecognized parcel located
;,revent
_ 26.
The boundary of the Tentative Map Needs clarification as follows:
—_
27.
The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets,
o
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 of the State Map Act and local ordinances.
Flood Control and (Conding is required prior to M Recording Xdk )
Storm Drain ❑ Building permit for_ _ j
29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to fiooi-
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 andior 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 throegh 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. Bread scale hydrologic studies wr a requi -e to assess impac o increasEtl
X runoff.
_ 34. Storm drain pipe and catch basin to be installed at the intersection of "A"
and 6th Streets as shown on the tentative map.
RCc' 20
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7797
Page 4
Miscellaneous
X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for
this project.
36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with t:e 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 eor+.tro including the preventation of sedimenta-
tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required.
40. A preliminary sails report will not be required for this site for the follow-
ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division
n prior to grading will be furnished to the Ennineering Division.
41
X . The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that
sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are
requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water
District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will
not be issued unless said certification is received in writing.
X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section
66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the
property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise
of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the 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 common drive approaches at let lines.
X 45. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the esti-
mated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 82 -1
among the newly created parcels.
X 46. Private drainage easements fir cross -lot drainage shail be required and shall be
delineated or noticed on final map.
X 47. Intericr street dedication to be 54 feet (44 feet curb to curb).
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
LLOYD B. HUBBS
CITY ENGINEER
By:
RCE ?0
E
11
E
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART T_ - p.ROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
For all projects requiring environmental review. this
fora must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environiresital Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and ta-ke action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: PH 7797/ RC Industrial CenterI2
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
O'Bnnnell , Brigham,& Partners ,Southern — 1301 Dove St /Suite 760
1;6-Mort Beach Cal:U 92660 (714) 752-M5 _
e
WME, ADDRESS, TET..EFfiONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Joseph B Hyde Jr. PE ,
602 South Eiilda St ,Anaheim Cali._ (714) 991-KSW
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
6th h P ttaburvh Rancho �`d�cananaa
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL. REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
NONE
- I - -f
SITE AREA
PARCEL N0. 1
19.47 Ac.
PARCEL NO. 2
15.87 Ac,
PARCEL NO. 3
32.82 Ac.
PARCEL aArr
0.63 Ac.
STREETS
8.12 Ac
TOTAL SI':TE
76.91 Ac.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
osplex which will be rail se
rote pore$ to south_ phaa. T .
The Project consists of an Industrial
Exis
at
Ll
uy ❑uylair_gs a rs
= eteaorterq
arce� as a aecon e e
ACREP_GE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE
O
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANy: No existing buildiEgsISTIN'G AND
PROPOSED Building Parcel No. 1 345,181
u � ag a ,
g o.
-� on
See L st In Bor er ter Site ea.
DESCRIBE THE ENVTTzn%.*Ti*qrmT SETTT
INCLUDING
_NG OF THE PROJECT SITE
INFrJRMATION ON TOPnrzpaoav
ALV�LS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR PLANTS SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND Tb'E DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
The project site noa conaistg of grape vinyards. No trees or plants on site
urroun ag
P—Pertles are being eve ope as n uatr s es._ o '—�-,
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 im pact. �
P.o significc:nt eavi.ronoental invact will be caused by the
the development of this project.
4-2.
is
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES M
Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X
._
2.
Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
X-
_ _
3.
Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)'.
_ %
4.
Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X
_
S:
Remove any existing trees? How ffiany?
X
_
6.
Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic s =bstances, flar.=ables or explosives?
Explanaticn cf any `_S answers above:
!lone
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the = onstruction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATI N: 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 tint
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be mgfqe by th etpment
Review Committee. L-r
2�QU -82 daseph B H e PE
Date Signat a Consulting Civil Engr.
Title rmgl -neer of Record
Z -13
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
NOT AMICA=
f0110-uing information she ald be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
zoning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
'lool district to accommodate the proposed residential develoament.
ze of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
2cific .Vocation of Project:
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PIMSE 4 TOTAL
wer of single
:xily units:
aber of multiple
'lily units:
:e proposed to
Iin construction:
sliest date of
:upancy:
iel #
1 4 of Tentative
ircOms Price Range
Z— 4
I
E
K W��
RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER
7797 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7797), LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET, EAST OF PITTSBURGH AVENUE
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7797, submitted by R.C.
Associates II and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the south side of 8th
Street, East of Pittsburgh Avenue, being a division of the SW 1/4, Section 7,
T. 1 S., R. 6 W., S.S.B. & N. ds per deed to Southern Caiifornia Railway
Company, recorded April 11, 1902 in Book 315, Page 469 of Deeds and a portion
of Lot 1, Tract No. 2205 as Recorded in Book 34 of Maps, Page 64; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 1982, a formal application was submitted
requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing for the above- described map.
FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
SECTION 1: That the following findings have bean 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: That this project will not create significant adverse
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on
January 12, 1983.
SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7797 is approveo subject to
the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
11
Resolution No.
Page 2
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I. JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, to hereby certify that the Yoregoing Resolution was duty and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 12th day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit.:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
E
11
0
Ll
LJ
CITY OF F,ANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 12, 1.83
T0. Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krail, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7215 - GP
A division of 5.25 acres into 4 parce s within the
pending) located on the east side of Beryl Street,
1000 feet south of 19th Street. (APN 202 - 041 -15)
1 -1 zone (R -1
approximately
PROJECT AND SITE DE :'3tIPTIDI7:
This property divides 5.25 acres of land into 4 parcels for future residential
development within an existing A -1 zone. The General Plan shows this area as
low, 2 -4 dwelling units per acre. Zone Change No. 82 -04, requesting a change
from A -1 to R -1, has been submitted for this project and is on tonight's
agenda for approval.
of
There are existing residences on parcel 1 and 2• Parcel 3 1 7s acres are
approximately 1 acre and Parcel 4 consisting of approximately
vacant at this time.
To the north of the site is vacant land; to the east, west and south are
existing single family dwellings. Eastwood Avenue, on the east boundary of
0 osed subdivision, is built to a substandard width at present.
the pr p
APLALYSIS:
The developer has submitted a'conceptual layout to show possible future
development of Parcels 3 and 4. Ths conceptual layout also shows :hat the
property to the north can be developed into single family lots fitting into
the Eastwood Avenue nshouldsbena requirement for reecordingImprovements e a to complete
ENYIRONwKTAL REVIEW:
Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study
as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial
Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation.
Upon founds no 1 adverse dimpacts on the
thel en virlonment as field
result investigation,
the proposed
subdivision.
ITEM D
CORRESPONDENCE: 0
Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and
placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been
completed.
RECONKENDATION:
It is recomi ended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements
of the project. If, after such consideration of the Commission can support
the reco-- -%rded conditions of approval as written in the City Engineer's
Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be appropriate.
Respectfully subm, ted,
i
L H: .jaa
/
Attachments: Map
City Engineer's Report
Initial Study
Resolution
n
U
1 I i
title;
c��o```p`4rOtcs CITY OF RANCHO CUCrjwIONGA -
rre1 Maw_
7215
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Dom' Z VICINITY MAP u;1, > Page
j PARCEL /E/N�A T®TIVE �
! IN "HE Cli'y or RQN NO. 7215
CHO CUCAMONGA
NONF:af<D a` +SD6P.ION rolvlldv v:Di: 6:1Kf �.'v CUUwJryFe NO,¢MBER 1982
CS
fDDe ti (K WARS. °acf +L JS AS VF.AR�T RCCDRD�:D IN
SMiE (% `2LNDAy,A. 4 MEJNpS v Sex 6ffNeDrYJ cp,Nh,
NG /N
LEORW N Mw MACK Q• £RS O� F_ q�RO
<T7N50.TryG Uv1l E1NW CLARA M GAGOMS %1 QT(UT /£S UST /N(, Z2nM �i� EUCUD AvENUE NEE4 69TH BERYL STREET ELECTR'
( >1t/96J -0<3IA 91761 4Li4 LOwA, CAU '�`°I /'-al.
10R°A4 EAST WCAN(`0
ONTARIO. CALIF 9!761
E%ISTANG A.i LAND USA 1m TW'LL 6 E)(T.Z2
7ELEpN01� 2996 E%7.229
PpppDyEO �< E %I$TING_.SWGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ^ y STREE'ETE COL
EXISTING .SOiIGLC FAMILY ESDIIAL O"rARIQ CALIF 9rM
NOT7N =R-! RFSDEMI4e, GAS 1- 161983 -1811
EXI571NGSOUT)e:R- E %1$TING N�X7TN__v4CiNT
EXISTING EAST: 18A -1 E%1$TWG SOU: N.__SWGe,FF RC Box 6226L �
EXISTING AST. R-I E %I$TNG E4ST_�,• 4MILY RESIOENTWL SAN BEFM4O
WEST:4•IBR-2 EXISTNG W SINGLE F4MILY RESIOENTWL 7/CLCALT92eR
ESL..• -..y 4TTEN''BETTY 8411
>�1/ ANr YRESIDEN7UlL SEWER A1ND f UC4d �•D111 UWT;-
/9 IX47ER D'STRIC:96tf"'v�+MMi +47ER
STREET arAMONGa.C„UF w RD
(7;4)98 N. CLINE
� '` F'.�if'•S.^,t`! °..:1:°,.n<Pi;'.�'1u5r1 i1�1Ll= :s'��'��F���ree•r �e 4 .t
L I -7Z%. -�. , o I'•�`!'Sf)P4Cr'LMG ,(�;�,.y -\��4
J
Iln i __ L__iy a +•c—$
LTI r� L ----��
�Ii 11 17•l+F)QJ[',Y LINE: 1 ' iV`
-'a• -cam - `s � e I r�I�. �r• I N.S = I :/
.e':Ji' ^'_ �.. - ,___ �c•t .. _ ".,n X16 I +r41 J �
I4� i I ��yax?5. t I .nv7 1 I I G i •I` d° f- I
'''• � �4r's° 1 � s, � lrir I ?�, 1 � I
�y7f7.
I:Iyi �e el i it
n
STAyEM— e,T= �ORO$ED
ca -'1•s cio�. —I� 'llbl �1 i /�y t"9
�J tf«p .Y'` -F4 .uJCCS/fi:a•.[ays�G �rYY /!
J<CJ:L <� J�SY " "F•�i �C.v 4<:.i SLCI
lNL f�•!!iJ)iw'G.1n'+{!.v <�LLYIfM1,�ti'"µ.,�YwrYF! ✓• ✓fv � �'�b ^ =N0 /l'£f�K n
^II
'w•• C:!'Or�^NS rYFN!(I,y vKS ,I ,f rw1 Ij'
SA�JCLT %�� I
I_ R fl
f �
rI(� N
�CINITY lygp
0
1
g �g IE
Q y I
J
s
i
IR
Ir
I
I '
-f
1
I�
I
I � _
I
m. I _rt —mss `• � I —tea a s�..� �
I •�_ __ o i S _CGl ? � —�
f I�
1_
b'
N
Y M
" y � ice► � I �
1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
FILED BY: Clara Gadomski TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7215
LOCATION: East side of Beryl Street, approximately DATE FILED: 11/11,82
1000 feet south of 19th Street
NUMBER OF LOTS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: being a subdivision of a portion RECEIPT NUMBER:
of Lot 2, Block 12 of Cucamonga Homestead Assoc. Lands,FEE: $186,000
as per plat recorded in Book 6 of Maps, page 46, RecorftNE: A-1 (R -1 pending)
of an ernaraino o., a e o a
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * x * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -* * *
TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Mim Mack Engineering GROSS ACREAGE: 3-25
ADDRESS: 214 S_ Euclid Avenue MINIMUM LOT AREA:
Ontario, CA 91761 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE 0
Clara Gadomski 6875 Beryl Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Dedications
- -offer of
x 1. A Dedication by final :nap of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary
easements as shown on the tentative map.
x 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of- -way on the following
streets:
30 additional feet on Eastwood Avenue
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 N0. 7215
Page 2
�rovements (Bonding is required prior to Q Recording for ParcelsdIAge2 and qO
�] Building permit for P;,rc�_)
X 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C.
sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, pavement,
-terior streets. parkway trees and street lights) or. all
X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets.
*inclupJFF dscaping and irrigation on meter
DRIVE STREET STREET STREET NA ME APPR. TREES LIGHTS iSLDAND* OTHER
BeBervl X X X
Eastwood X X
9- Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative
map, or as required by the City Engineer.
10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water,
electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilities
are to be underground.
X 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of
a,y power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary.
_ 12. Install appropriate street nam, signs and traffic control signs with loca-
X tions and types approved by the City Engineer.
13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im-
provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer.
14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water
X District standards. A letter of acceptance is required.
15. Street light locations, as required, a-•e to be approved by the Southern
California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative
_ 16. Poles e
hefollowi d
ngexiting streets being torn up by new services will require an
A.C. overlay:
_ 17. The fo lowing specific dimensions, i.e., cul-de-sac radius,
widths) are not approved: street section
18. The 1olcuwlllq existing streets are substandar
They w_ ill require:
Approvals and Fees
_ 19. This subdivision shell be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/
San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
X 20. Approvals have riot been secured from all utilities and other interested agen-
,:zes involved. Approval of the final mar. will be subject to any requirements
that may be received from them.
RCE 20
TENTATIVE MAP NO..7215 Page 3
® _y _ 21. Permits from other agencies will be required is follows:
H
_ A. Caltrans, for:
_ B. city:
--
_ C. County Dust Abatement District:
D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep:
s E. Cucamonga County Water District:sewe; and water
F. Other: —
Map Control
22. .If Orly a portion of this Map is recorded, acjo tments shall.be.saae to pro-
vide for two -way traffic and parking on all iffected streets.
23. The following lots appear to be substandard -n either frontage, depth or area
and should be corrected on the final map:
24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius _
a.. the right- of-way lire in accord -
anc. , with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards.
25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the 7irst phase subdivision to prevent
the creation of an unrecognized parcel located
2F. he boundary of the Tentative Map needs c arification as follows:
_ 27. The border shall be shown to centerline or ex sting perimeter streets, or
title explanation required.
Parcel Map Waiver
28. Information submitted at the time of applicati-)n is / is not sufficient
to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel NapCertifzCate, according to
requirements of the State Map Act and locai oriinances.
Flood Control (ending is required prior to E3 Recording for )
0 Bui ding permit for'.)
29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas iidicated as subject to flood-
ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be
subject to the provisions of that program and 0 dinance No. 24.
_____ 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall along the entire north pro-
perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets.
Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts.
31. If water surface is above too of curb, 30" ails sr:all be required at the
back of the sidewalk at all downstrea• curb retu -ns.
32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:
_ 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will be require o assess impac c zn creased
iunoff.
RC'c 20
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7215
-- Page 4
Misce— l— a�S
X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for
this project.
36. Noise impact on this-project will be mitigated in accordance with the Plarnin_q
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.fbe required ide this site for the follow-
ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division
prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division.
X 41. The filing of the tentative map cr 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
6F436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the
property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise
of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the signa-
L,re of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the final
mao unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said detc -mina-
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.
fronting on a single street shall use common dr Multiple lots
ive approaches at lot lines.
X 45. A drainage plan shall be Prepared, surety posted and an agreement executed,
guaranteeing completion c,. all on -site drainage facilities necessary for
dewatering parcels 1 and 3, to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety
Division_
lla
X 46. Appropriate easements, for the safe disposal of drainage waters that are
conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded
to the satisfaction cf the Building and Safety Division.
X 47. On -site drainage improvements necessary for dewatering or protecting the
subdivided properties are to be installed prior to issuance of building
Permits for construction upon any portion of Parcel 3.
CITY CF WJCFO CL'CA; O?1GA
LLOYD B. HLBBS
CITY ENGI''EER
By:
E 20
CITY OF RILNCnO CCCIMONGA
=NITiAL STUDY
PART S - PROJECT TN*FOREiATIOR SHEET - 1b be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $60.00
n
U
U
For all projects =equiring environmental review, this
Development
form must be completed and submitted to the
Review Co r =�ttee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Fnvira=ental Analysis stai_f will prepare
Part II of the Initial S`udg. The TY.weioprrant Review
Cotiraittee will meet and to ce action no later- than ten
time the
(10) days before the public meeting at `L3nizh
project is to be heard_ Tae .rat ;ttee Ssi11 maKe o s °- of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant
D
enviro^er_ta1 impact and a Ne3ative e
L
Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have a significant'environtren'�a7 irpact
and an Enviroramntal impact Repo:`_ will be prepared, or 3) An
additional inforr•:*inn report should be supplied by the applicant
giving further ir,forma� ion concerning the proposed project.
PRoXz'CT TITLE:
Tentative Parcel Map M.
7215
P.PPLICAICT'S I7A"iE. ADDRESS,
Civil Engineer, 214
TELEPHOtit: Tinot�v °. Ptin *!ack.
Soctt't iuclid Avenue, O:_t =trio, Ca lif _
91761, (
R-AME, "ADDRESS, TELEPHME OF pERSON TO BE CONTACTED
COI?C£R'�'ING uS PROJECT: �s}nP zs applicant.
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS yIM ASSESSOR PyRC EL NO.)
r, 7 Be tree Alta Loma
APN 202- G -'2 -15
LIST OTHER PER' -ZITS NECESS.RY FRO,: LOCAL,
FF._DERAL AGENCIF•S AND T-.% AGENCY ISSUING
None
I �
REGICNAL, STi1TE AND
SUCH PERMITS
PROTECT =SCRIPTZON
D.ESCRI_ In= OF PROJECT: This project consists of a four lot
s•abdivision of apprvxinate]y 5_25 acres. This is to he a custom
.lot s„hA;vicion There is no building proposed for this-site-
11
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AidD
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF TLVY: Gross Area = 5.25 acres
Area of existing structures: 3200 s.,.. (north) & s.z, soutn —"
—Them ere no nropospd struct:ses or this site
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONIIQTiAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
2NCIMUING rY.FOR•is1TION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLAITS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEtiiC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUN NG PROPERTIES, AM THE DMSCRLpTICN OF AN1'
Z=ING STRUCTURES AND THE2R USE (ATTACH =M- CESS.:- RY S"B=q) :
um at the bas. of
Gabriel Mountains.
no armaren*_ scarps or noticeable changes in grade. There is a major
drainage channel several hundred feet northeast of this site. There are
npny varieties of flora utilized as landscaped planting for the existing
— structures. It is not proposed that any existing flora be removed er
reloc ?tAd a� a result of this project There is a naturally occurring
ann „al crass. There-was-no apparent fauna on this site "mere was no
�icnific_=_nt cli gal historical or scenic aspects to the project site.
ThA property is utilized as follows: to the north it is
_vacant; to the south there is single family residential; to the east .
ti-ere is single family residential; and to the west there is single
family residential and vacant land. There are three existing structures
on this site with the following areas and uses: north structure,
A = 3200 s. f., single family residential; south
Sind.- family residential; and east structure A = 840 s f storage
room.
Is the project, part of a larder project, one of a series
of cu=jlative actions, which although indivic-ually small,
riav as a whole have significant environmental ir..oact?
This project is not part of a larger project nor one of a-se_ies of
c=nulative action.
I- 2
Is
WILL T111PRDJL'CT:
-YES M
_ X 1_ Create a substantial change in ground
contouxs?
_ 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,
sew-age, etc.)°.
X 4_ r_--eate changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations'.
X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many?
6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentiall-y hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, fla:snables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
Aaplication has been *wade for a zone change £rori A -1 to R -1_
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, .complete the fo= on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information recuired for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are tr•,:e and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be recuired to be submitted
before an adecuate evaulation can be made by the Development
Review Co =ittee.
Date
April 1a 3982 Signature
0 Title RCE 33340
Z -3
r
ti
0 RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER
7215 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7215), LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF BERYL STREET, SOUTH OF 19TH STREET
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7215, submitted by Clara Z.
Gadomski and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the east side of Beryl, south
of 19th Street, being a division of a portion of Lot 2, Block 12 of Cucamonga
Homestead Associated Lands, as per plat recorded in Book 6 of Maps, page 46,
records of San Bernardino County, State of California; and
WHEREAS, on November 11, 1982, a formal anplication was submitted
requesting review of the above- described Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on January 12, 1983, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing for the above - described map.
FOLLOWS: NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the proposed General
Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the proposed General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and 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
January 12, 1983.
SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7215 is approved subject to
the recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto.
APPROVED AND ADrPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1933.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
Resolution No.
Page 2
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
or: the 12th day of January, 1483, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
11
0
0
11
11
CI'1Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 12, 1983
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: tNV1KUA1'1r!11M-
A change of zone from A- Limited grscu.
(Single Family Residential) for 5.25 acres of
on the east side of Beryl Street, 1000 feet
Street - APN 202-041-15_
Related File: Parcel Map 7215
land located
south of 19th
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This zone change request is to
consunction with the subdivision is 5.25
oca edron the least �side fofr Berl
(PM 7215). The subject property
Street, approximately 1000 feet south c,f 19th Street (Exhibit "A" -
Parcel M is also on this agenda for your review and consideration
(Exhibit
Currentl,
remainder
south at
grass and
two houses are located on the west
t is vacant. The land
end of the site. The
of the proper y slopes uniformly to the
approximately 3 percent. vegetation is limited to indigenous
weeds, except for landscaping around the homes-
Zoning on the subject property is currently A -1 (Limited Agriculture).
As shown on Exhibit "C ": the property on the east side of Beryl is R -1
(Single Family Residential) and A -1 with a General Plan designation st side
Low Density Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) and R -2 (multiple
of Beryl, across from the subject property,
Family Residential) with a 6enerai Plan designation of Low - Medium
density residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) -
ANALYSIS: No new development is proposed with this Parcel Map at this
t- 1wever, parcels 3 and 4 could accommodate a future subdivision
consistent with the General Plan designation of 2 -4 dwelling units per
acre and consistent with the current development standards for single
family homes on 7200 square foot lots. Exhibit D shows a conceptual
master plan for parcels 3 and 4, and the continuation of Spinel
sketch )f this to demonstrate
Avenue. h intent
asc ably developed to'their ra uimate surrounding
properties
However, the exact street pattern will be determined when the adjacent
land is subdivided.
ITEM E
Zone Change 82- 04 /Mim Mack
Planning Commission Agenda
Canuary 12, 1983
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by
the applicant and is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part
II of the Initial Study and found that this project will not have a
significant effect on the environment. If the Commission concurs with
such findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The project site is appropriate in size and shape to
accommodate future development consistent w'.th the General Plan. Also,
the change in zone from A -1 to R -1 is consistent with the General Plan
designation.
CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in The Daily
Report newspaper and 74 public hearing notices were mailed to property
owners within 300 feet of the subject site. In addition, public hearing
notices have been posted on the property. 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 material relative to this project. A Resolution of
Approval is provided for your review and consideration.
i'
anner
RP:CJ:jr
Attachments: Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Initial
Resoiut
°A" - Virinity Map
"B" - Parcel Map 7215
"C" - Zoning and General Plan Designations
"D° - Conceptual Master Plan
Study, Part
ion of Approval
1 J
11
E
� -- --= lam-
cr
U)
WALNUTS -
cr
ua
1
PROJECT
SITE
\\ . I Z
� --- T
L
L�
NORTH
OF L C ANL ,1O�e ,L-k TITLE:R \ C HO
it13 + r SCA E ---
PLAINNING Dl- %rb9ON
E \t tT= �..-- L.
TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO 72`5
EHG/NEER
GEORGE N (AFO NAP[
CONS: TWi CML ENGINEER
214 SO EUGA AvENE
ONTARC CALIFORWA 9176(
(714190 -0439
(� V) EXISTING A.[
PROPOSED P'
Cyf.rA1p EXISTING NORTH: R-i
EXISTING SOO7N: R -I S A-1
EXISTING EMT : R-1
EX=ftG WEST:Al6R -2
1
) 4
h
r
ki
Q4
35'
/9 To
IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
M;AIG • A6'XV5 V • H9RTNN V t 2II DDI IIGF CUCAMDN6A
nD>G'TU' ASSOGATION LANDS, AS PTA PLAT RECCROEJ rM
N,o. 6 (W MADE. - 44 NEcD P SAN AENIADIND COUNTY.
STA - V GALIIp9MA
NDICMBER 1902
OOWERS OF RECORD
UTILITIES LIST/NG
CLARA M. GADOMSKI
ELECTRIC SVJf/E}A CAL EDISON
6M BERYL STREET
CM EAST FRANCS
ALTA LO". CAIJF'OR AA
OKTMK: CALF. 91761
EXISTING SOUTH __SXI6LE FAMILY PE S DENTAL
ATTEN: 8-LL WEYLANDT
EXISTING EAST. __ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(714)947.2996 EXT229
EXISTING WEST— —JANGLE FAMILY RESOUnIAL SEWER AND
TELEPHONE GE)IEHA'TELEF44AVE CO.
LAND VS
EUr w. u SINL61
EXISTING.-SINGLE
NG._SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CALF 911M
(7- 19(53-01
PROPOSED-S :GLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL GAS
SOUTHERN CAL GAS CO
EXISTING NORTN_vSUNT
PO BOX 6226
S 9ERiADINO.CAL F924R
EXISTING SOUTH __SXI6LE FAMILY PE S DENTAL
ATTEN:BETTY RAUK
EXISTING EAST. __ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(714)884-94N EXT.786
EXISTING WEST— —JANGLE FAMILY RESOUnIAL SEWER AND
CUCAMOMCA COUNTY WATER
AND VACANT WATER
- 4SMCT. 9641 SAN 9ERNADNL7MM
CUCAMONGA.CA F 91770
/o.!/vE! ST.°.EET
AWTEN: JAMS x CLINE
C Pe_.ro 1 ;roc
_—
STATEMENT OF PROPOSED LAND USAGE
;wy +LK�s flMTiJrS Or «cpr�vrCC N4e mcser
U AYPM 4'IT:RIY.J U <fi/310"GJ/ FNOaRTpV. K[:O�Xllw
r�aaay�e A�s�IN «s+�e. <pvrvrue [pn<r.SA�+Fturt�t
ALY IVf U.Sn461'w6(ly+:LV� J <rv'<.Q.W rv!-
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PL kINNINU DIVISION
ITEM: Z -G . 42 -04
TITLE: Y K - 77-1'T
ExiiiB T: ((B T' SCALE- N•T S.
Nom
4
E
0
E
w9 ea...••.e.e.e• ow 0 • • ...
• N
_ •- • s •• •
�• •.'. � :�: -�: � �o 0 0 � /mil
CITY Or
RANCHO CUCA TONGA
PL V KING DIVISON
ITT_NI- 7 4 60-- #4 -
TITLE: =:*4,W-m, i, &Mere -"-m
F-m iur: `G" SCX LE- h4T 5 -
' I �
Y
YS.
F z.�
s _
i
I �
NORT- H
CITY OF
R1TCI�J Ci✓'C'.��IO \G.� rrrl E:,,�
PLANNING DIVIS ON E\(tlBrr: JD" SCALE - ELL$ -
a ..
.r .
' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
1NITIAL ST6DY
11
0
PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $60 -00
For ::ll projects recuirinq envirorznental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Co::¢aittee through t'he department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Envircroner_tal Analysis staff will prepare
'^e Development Feview
Part iT_ of the Initial S. -udY• �•-
Conmittee will meet and take action no wlater than the
(10) days before "the p:biih Con=ig
project is to be heard. The Colrcnittee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant
enviro-anental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have a signiftcanV environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or, 3) An
additional information report should be supplied by
pthe applicant
giving further information concerning the p
PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Parcel Map No. 7215
APPLICAI�'T S NAiZE- ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Timothy P. *iim Mack,`
-. F„clid Avenue, Ontario, Calif_
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERING THIS PROJECT: _,-5
a li.cant.
N
WCATION OF Pic SECT (STREET P-DD?2ESS 7,10 ASSESSOR PARCEL NJ - )-
7 g Feet Alta Loma
F.PN 202 - 041 -15
LIST OTHER PER°'iITS NECESSF+RY FROAJ LOCAL,
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING
None
I -1
c
RE:GION'AL, STATE AND
SUCH PERMITS:
PROJECT DESCRIPT10n,
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT-
subdivision of approximately
This
project
consists of
a four lot
5.25
acres.
This is to
be a custom
_..bdi _a si 0 Th2Xg is no
b-
udina nroposed for this site=.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AIM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Gross Area = 5.25 acres
Area of existing structures: 3200 = -__ (north) & lJ00 s.r, soutn
P P Are no ctures °or iS site.
I?ESCRIBE THE EINIROCME!7AL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING IIUORI•iATZON ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, US-
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, za%M THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS).
ectsi•e 's located o, gently slop°d alluvium at the base of
sou.herly at 3k+ with
I.A1C J6aL V.... ry -
no apparent scans or noticeable chana_es_in grade. There is a major
this site. There
drainage channel several hundred feet northeas* of -
varieties of flora utilized as lan dscaped planting for the existing
str ctures. It is not proposed that anv existing flora be removed or
f,Ptocture as a re`ult of Phis project. There is a naturally occurring
inn, 1
.I-= There was no apparent fa•.ana cn this site. There was no
,,1 *,rat histori calmer scenic asnects to the project site.
the __ _ `�: ,. . ,nnerty is utilized as follows: to the north it is
to the east
on this -site with the following areas and uses: north suu��•�
nnl P faalilV re5ldentl , soutn s uC ure,
-ziw t c ; ential and east structure, +
c
roa1.L-
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 enviro;-Lmental impact'?
This project is not part o a larger project nor one of a series of
cumulative action-
11
c �
yIZLL Z'�S PROJECT =
YDS round
g 1. Create a substantial change in 5
-- contours?
g 2. Create a sub ;:antial change in exiting
noise or vi'.:2 stion!
x 3. create a sub tantial change in remand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)!
�. Create cant ss i. t-ne existing zoning 'r
h
x a., designations?
general p- l
x 31 pemove a-Y = xisting trees? $oW as
6. create the need for use or disposal of
�— potentiall hazardous materials such s
toxic subs.ances, t= annables or explasives?
Explanation of anY YES
a,I -vers above:from A -1 to R -1-
Application has
been mane £or a zoo 9
the construction of
f the project 1IIvolves on th'
residential .nits, tplete the form
'1W -TT Z
next page*
hereby certify ,-hat the statements
f arnished
CERTSFZCATI013c 1 rosent the data ar :
for this initial evaluation tatements, air
above and in the attached exhibits
infor'- io rewired
and ':hat the facts, to the be s- of
best of my ability, true and correct
information presented ar` further understand tb3 t
my Knowledge and belief. Zbe re the to be submitte
additional information m:y de by the leve opment
before an adequate evaulation can be made
Review Co maittee. f.
i- 14 X982
Date __a 2 -
T-
Signature
Title RCE 33340
_.v A-
0 RESDLUTION 40. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF 7nNF ^HANGE N0. 82 -04 REQUESTING
A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FRUS A -i TO R -1 FOR 5.25 ACRES OF
LAND, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERYL STREET,
APPROXIMATELY 1000' SOUTH OF 19TH STREET - APN 202- C41 -15
WFEREAS, on the 24th day of November, 1982, an application was filed
and accepted on the above - described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 12th day of January, 1983, the Psannino Commission
aeid a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Cods.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamcnga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses
permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access,
size, and compatibility with existing land use irs
the surrounding area; and
2. That the proposed zone change would not have
significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties; and
3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with
the existing and proposed General Plan.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on January 12, 1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 12th day of January,
1933, Zone Change No. 82 -04.
2. The Planning Commission hereby reconanend� that the
City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No.
82 -04.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shalt be forwarded to the City Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF OANU.ARY, 1983.
Resolution No.
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 12th day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
r 1
LJ
11
E
Ll
E
Cry OF RR,ANCx4 CUC_SMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 12, 1983
TO: Members of the PiannI ^a Commission
FROM!: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDIT ?OPAL we YL[SI'il
- MESSENGER - The development of a 80,056 square foot
industrial building on 8.6 acres of land in the General
Industrial Category (Subarea 81 located at the southeast
corner of Maple Place and Elm Avenue.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, the Messenger Company, is
requesting rev an approval of a Conditional Use Permit to develop a
180,056 square foot warehouse and distribution building on 8.6 acres of
land witi,in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park as shown on Exhibit "A"
and "B ".The project site is currently an unmaintained vineyard. An
AT &SF spurline exists along the south property line -
Surrounding land uses include a general industrial manufacturer,
Supracote, incorporated, to the south. Unmaintained vineyards and
�.,acant property exist to the north, east and west. The General Plan and
Industrial Area Specific Plan designates the site as General industrial
Subarea 8). Across Maple Place and --lm Avenue the land use designation
i_ Industrial Park (Subarea 7).
The proroced Suilding wiilThe northwesteandf � concrete tilt-UP
northeast corners ofthe
(Exhibits "D" and "E ").
building have a ribbed concrete form, heavy sandblasting, and accent
striping. The remainder of the building has a smooth painted surface.
Dock high doors will be provided on the south side of the building for
rail s_rvice and an the north s erminr tandkadlowi level A cr shown on
en wall
Exhibt "F" and "G ", landscaping, g�
will be used along the street frontage to screen the parking and loading
areas.
ANALYSiS: Theproject is located The subject paon TA. is ea portion of
Rancho Cucanorg a Business park).
Parcel Map 7244 shover: on Exhibit "N ". The project site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the proposed use as shown on the
development plans. All building setbacks, landscaped areas and parking
requific: 'ts are then a d licable.ci accordance with the
y standards and ordinances. Full
Specific t'lan and oth_r app
street improvements will he required with the project including any
missing improvements on Maple Place and Elm Avenue and the complete full
width construction of 1; — Birch Drive.
ITEM F
Conditional Use Permit 82 -26 /Messenger
Planning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 2
DESIGN REVIEW: When reviewing this project, the Design Review Committee
felt that a stronge�� office fascade would make this project more
compatible with future land uses allowed in the Industrial Park category
on the west side of Maple Place. In respon -e to the comments, the
applicant provided upgraded elevations to enhance building design. With
these revisions, the Committee recommends approval of this project.
ENVIROI:MENTAL REVIEW: Part 1 of the Initial Study, as completed by the
applicant, is provided for your review and consideration. Staff has
completed Part II of the environmental assessment and found no adverse
impacts on the environment as a result of this project. If the
Commission concurs with such findings, issuance of a Negative
Seclaration would be in order.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The use, as well as the proposed building design and
site p an, is in accorda.ice with the objectives of the General Plan, the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the Daon Master Plan for the
Cucamonga Business Park. In addition, the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
public or properties in the immediate vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recorunendPd that the Planning Commission consider
all input and elements of this rroject. If after such consideration the
Commission can support the facts for finding and recommended Conditions
of Approval, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate.
ully submitted,
anner
CJ:jr
Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Industrial Specific Plan
Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "G" - Scrcening Techniques
Exhibit 'H" - PM 7244
Initial Study, Part I
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
E
11
E
0
J..' JcSnst �z�•
1
PFJOJECT SITE
CITY OF
\CH�J CUCAN 10�(;:�
ING DIVISION
NI OM
iTL• \i=
u o
TITLE: VICA 8mr -mMAp�- -
EXi IM: SCALD --
CITY OF
RANCHO Ct;C= k1-10\GA
PLANNI. \G DIX'iS N
!NIli1M111►1 IMQA=r
W-oW f 2NDJSiR lac .
ITEM:
TITLE: l = uMLMA -Tiag .SAP
ExIiIMT: "0 SCXLE:_bLT- -n.
C \J
NORTH
11
FIG. IV-8
fflCJd�i6��'cL- tNp�S"�RJK�_
CIRCULATION
® 120' R.O.W.
� 100° FLOW.
- 8W or less R.O.W.
TRALS/ROUTES
o v o o Pedestrian
e • o s Bicycle
Ora
"Wr� Creeks do Channels
u Bridge
-� Access Pokft
FORTH
CITE' OF nrc%t: a vP -ez -zv
®
RANCHO CUC NIO \GA n-n.E: .-ww+f.- 1:?wne, ?LAM
PUVNT\I \G DIVISION E \I IIMT=
;-
CITY OF
RANCHO C;G1N-I0\GA
PLANNING DRrISION
E
w
iTr\i: G. u. P. 62 —Z-4o,
T[TLE- 1XINLED SM Pled
EX!i[BFr- "D SCaLE- _STS.
a1MM90
Ll
_
ww
r.
w
r•
swami ++`
iTr\i: G. u. P. 62 —Z-4o,
T[TLE- 1XINLED SM Pled
EX!i[BFr- "D SCaLE- _STS.
a1MM90
Ll
El
a
A
NORTH Y
-A5T
r:.m»
41
-Y�
•ems
I�
4
SmJTH
I? 4
��/F*4S,K,EOLLE
°
Sias m r
CITY OF FTE P. Sz —icc
R LJLNCI-1O CLC -ILMONG, k TITLE= as:n/As oo 5
PL UNNI \G DI %rjSION EV ?163IT- SG \LE �.T.S .
-M-L -SL L L
SmJTH
I? 4
��/F*4S,K,EOLLE
°
Sias m r
CITY OF FTE P. Sz —icc
R LJLNCI-1O CLC -ILMONG, k TITLE= as:n/As oo 5
PL UNNI \G DI %rjSION EV ?163IT- SG \LE �.T.S .
CITY Or
RANCHO CUC-MMONGA
PLANNING DIN SION'
ITEM 1= G• V. P• $Z"Zlo
TITLE- C.e*ICE. A:..- 45
EXHIBIT- a SCALE: !l'Y:S.
�l
E
Il
V
INCRTH
�AS� -!kr
o
®
1
rY14�wY�lr�y
w�
�rrMw/1�
Q ��Ir
IYAA�T!P/1�
CITY Or
RANCHO CUC-MMONGA
PLANNING DIN SION'
ITEM 1= G• V. P• $Z"Zlo
TITLE- C.e*ICE. A:..- 45
EXHIBIT- a SCALE: !l'Y:S.
�l
E
Il
V
INCRTH
E
El
wHrr ��t
� 1
4)
CITY Or'
® RANCHO
CI✓C.k�,IONNCA
PL.�`NiNG Dl "SloN
RN R Bl-
FeRMIT (m6l a-
TORTE-'•
tTENt= u P
TtTLE= m --
EXt HBIT= — SCALE-
- --
.. ,
P. M. 7244
CITY OF
R. -V CHO CuCAjNi0y-GAL
PLANNING DIVISION
WIR
ITEM:
T Tt : -7jgk �
E\HII3IT. _ � SCALE:-&T5.
--
v
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCPMONGA
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 th_
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi-
ficant 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 informa-
tion. concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE:
APPLICANT'S NA..VX, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Un I - ca.lrae —r a
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
S_ . _ DQ1 M 6aI'r flL: 'Q, Vr= MR -1#74d PAS1=l 7
LIST OTHER PERMITS NEC:;SSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
A-r ^ 'SP Tll1 i[ m rlAr % r " . . _
I -1
It
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: a,�f�CS �'�Q (c7r7- SF
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICA". OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
Ina; -*a
ti � S v : L•
Is the project
of cumulative
may as a whole
KID
o
part of a larger Yzoject, one of a series
actions, which although individually small,
have significant environmental impact?
1-2
u
1.1
11
•
Si-
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
Create a sub.,tantial change in ground
contours?
✓ 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vif ration?
V 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc ) ?
4. chan;es in the existing Zoning or
designations?
5. Remove any existing trees? How many?
6.:.-Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic sul)i :antes, flan - nables or explosive! ?
Explanation of any YES an_wers above:
of
INPORTANTz residential eu: its,�ocomplete thesfo.: -m. On- the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: t hereby carti`y that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluaticn
to the best of my ability; and that the facts, statemen'.s, and
information presented are :rue a,.d cc =sect to the best E my
knowledge and belief. I farther understand that additional
information may be requires to be submitted before ar_ at equate
evaluation can be made by :he Development Review Commltt ae.
Date �ni9aA-0 Signat=e
_ 1 �
Title f 74Q i' 1S.Pwrlt �
I -. -
0 RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONCA F`_ANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-26 FOR A 180,056
SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF MAPLE PLACE AND ELM AVENUE IN THE GE"ERAL
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY (SUBAREA 8;
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY
Jeffrey King, Chairman
WHEREAS, on the 28th day of October, 1982, a complete application was
filed by
The Messenger Company for review of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 12th day of January, 1983, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described
project_
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 3: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the -proposed use is in accord with the General
Flan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use
is proposed; ai,d
40
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to tre
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or inmrovements in the
vicinity; and
3. That the propesed use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on January 12, 1:33.
SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -26 is approved
subject
to the o Towing conditions:
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. All applicable portions of the conditions of
approval for Parcel Map 7?44 shall also apply.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED 111,IS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 19931.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY
Jeffrey King, Chairman
Resolution No.
Page 2
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretar., of the Planning Commission 38f the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adcptea by the Pla.wing Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the r.k,3anning Commission held
on the 12th day of January, 1983, by the followiig votgtto -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: * S
NOES: COMISSIONERS: * Sq
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: * c_
F]
0
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SU3JECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG A
STAFF REPORT
January 12, 1983
Members of the Planning Commission
Rick Gomez, City Planner
Curt Johnston, Assistant "fanner
:NVIRONI4ENTAL ASSESSMENT PAL) "'" lots on so•�
located on the north side
C.H.R. _ A residential subdwision of
Of of land 'n the R -1 zone
alma 119 Avenue z n and Z3. 'treev of Church Street between
APN 208- 011 -05,
This project consists of 74 DoT {he�idel of
land located on the „Au)
i PROJECT AND SITE DESCRI gI5N acres of l Lion Street (Exhibit proposed
lots on approximately Avenues and
for the subdivision only and no units are
Church Streei between Hellman
This application Ss o� 1500
rove with Proximately 5
at this time• an orange g of approximately
presently a southerlY slope
The project site is P averag o ro ertY which has h
trees. The site has an and through of the
+ with the exception nit h runs along the east boundary
1 percen_
I steep kno71. A draiact the South and
the ce�;:'r of the tract* le family tract 110, }�, Bordering the
land uses include sing Hellman, and
Surrounding le family homes fronting G
west, and Southern Pacific r4igle The General Plan designates the area
project to the east are h School. er acre), and the zdn�ng
Junior Hig 4 dwelling unit�oPased project is four (4)
the Cucamonga of the P P
u The density the proposed tract are
as Low Density Residential T � lots w1thin
is R -1 (Exhibit CThe majority of
unit' Per acre. Exhibit ^D^)• As
approximately 7200 square feet (Exhibit
cul -de -sacs_
The street design incorporates two t' the north cul -de -sac
p„iALYSIS: teal Master Fian (Exhibit = t
�� Conceptual while Street co�ln AvenuetenThe
shown on the Hellman Avenue, rAvenue. can
ccuid be extended to land between the tract and Hellman the exact
to provide access to the to demonstrate that en aI nd No e,er. land is
intent of this sketch easto their ultimate P it the adjacent
Develop to fill the
be reasonably deterr.ined Y+hen the knoit at
an
street pattern will be plan submit elevelp °ffs wall will be
subdivided. The Conceptual gh the property lock
drainage ditch running throng = concrete b
site. six apt high On Hellman pingz%S
the north end of th_ landscap 9
provided along the norVhdenz upgraded two- tiered wall and
T deonlExhibitljFp-
shown
ITEM G
Tentative Tract 12238/C.H.R.
Planning Commission agenda
January 12, 1.933
Page 2
The preliminary grading and drainage
Committee and has been conceptual was reviewed by the Grading
improvements will be required
the will
intends to eo along all street approval. Full stree
approximatel,Y 270 feet Provide pavement 9 In addition,
Avenue west. of the south side of Church bStreet fro
mtHellman
to its ultimate this work completed, Church Street wili be fir! r
,mate width,
In January, oved
located atthe8southe Plan ng Commission a Tentative Tract 9647
Tract 12238 the sub' approved T
street patternYerlaps the previous t site (Exhibit Ga). Tentative
p and cc..tinues the north /south
DESIGN REVIEW: When disussed ` -he street reviewing this project, the Design Review Committee
9f lot 30. The Committee building setbacks
ecommended that variable setbackstbehrecorded + andrthe coniguratbrt
add visual interest pa'
was adequate,
Committee to the streetsca e, on the �7n;1 tract map to
provided to that front rd landscaping lot 30
by the developer. P g and irrigation
the
recommended appror�• of the tract map_ these conditio:is be
the Committee
:NYIRONMENTAL REVjEyI: part I Of the Initial Stud
the ap 7tp antes attached for Your Initial
II of the in't,_, Y has been completed by
significant a " ""uy and found that. Staff has completed Part
such findin ffect on the environment_ =hts project will not have a
9s, issuance of a Negative Dec art �Onmission concurs with
FACTS FOR FINDING: °R would be in order.
Conditions of A The subdivisfioa map, together with the recommended
0,- 'finance pprOVal, Sas been designed in accordance with the
the City. Gl�vth Management Ordinance +ing
General Plan. addition and the Subdivision Ordinance�of
she density proposed u is consistent with the
CORNDENCt: This
newspaper as a project has been advertise
property owners public hearing d in The Daily Report
within 3 g and 88 notices were mailed to adJacent
Public hearin feet of the sub'ect
correspondence for we ^e posted on the site' In addition,
or against this property. To date, no
project has been received,
11
11
Tentative Tract 12238/C.H.R.
?lanning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: nuta dlements of this project. the
If after such consideration the
ail input a
Cotrnnission can support 'the facts for findings and recomnw- ned Conditions
of A nroval, adoption, of the attached Resolution would be appropriate.
Res�ctfuily Submitted,
RI
Ci
11
:Cj:jr
tachments: Exhibit °A° - Location Map
Exhibit "B° - Aerial Photo
Exhibit °C" - Zoning & General Plan
Exhibit "U° - Tentative Tract 12238
Exhibit °E° - Conceptual Master Plan
Exhibit °F' - Perimeter Nall
Exhibit °G" - Previously Approved TT 9647
initial Study, Part I
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
r
r•1 ¢ tl
r. • a
tl r f
L�
• r I 1
1
a ( n
a
\ r s
aan
w 1
LYJA
lO,l
4v+
•
SS'r
v
smw
s�w -n �• o ®s .�
i
3a Its, a
nu nw s—„ w
• i f ewe 1rc � R
l
A11 -0�
•
1
♦ - A1C'a
9
a � 9mas• ®fa
� s
1 �
• w • j
s i
at a a Al tl
1 = 1 w
W
i
n i s • � s � a j A!Pw I i•� a , � ,
s w � w I• v a .cNa� i
� � • us.aA ,c
a I n I • i a � • v cm 6%'°P � j1
w �_ � L� 6 { • j _ � � � � � ! f i o n � a F
• I a r. I�I v r 51►i�-- v ` 1 j j a � I
• r - / a/ � � j i n I ve � 1 � s� � n I • �
CITY OF rrE.t:
Rl \C 0 CUC. -ko IONGA T, : vwN
PLr1:%NTN,'I\'G DIVISION EXHIPAT- SCALE: F�'f•5-
r
P
V V
NORTH
w �
r � 1 �t.:' � .. RRRSSLLLL�� .•
t
> x r
y
/ ~• l V / 5 1 l~ ♦ y f
.i
�t���•�. tom. a..� � I i 11 r 1 . i . v {
. 6. 'I r157�r r♦
{
/
ZONING
E-ffl
GENERAL, PLAN
t4
.a
l
j \K)RTH
CITY OF lTE`l:ir�Z3b
R. 'CIAO CL'CA,t10 \G.�
PLA \�1 \C DR OON EYliIBIT=
ALMINAllivE 111HIIII Run izzrl.%,a
am" OF MARCH@ WOMMUM
L
CO/IM OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
V301M "WPER"
CRAGOMMM" 74Lms vi muir. c um -j
0 .1
K�oi.amw.
- rP
TIPML Symm
XMPE"m Imurm
Cum= %,nw
LIM 711ff5. alm=swa
X1
VV
.7g
40 RAINCHO ("'luckMO.NGA
PL-kiNNING DINMON
I T E% 1: 1r M Z,%
TITLE: !MW. Trdr MA?
ExiiiBrr-- OV —scALE--g.T.
NORTH
its ai nt mw mu. izzid
Cam' ar ROOM HUMUOaM
OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA
.,,.:
LI.L'is ill• f•�
•Lr Imo_ —� .
fR7ffTT AL9 Ll1 �
Smut FLLCiFR(MId1 .,
9 +
IE./EREIl SSR4l5 ..' ���t0
•
�vI1 r tn1 .
_r. . n _ --' a ,1_.. 1 ice• 'y
1
av wr,w�"
•t`.rn
rAwm L MW
RATtCHO C;CAl,,IO. CA
PLAINNING Dl,%r M
_N
a
i
a ^Li
F..,
-
X'777-
>i . .,.
i..•,.q
-
•.tw1
1 a. t �� �'
� _�
i Via' �,. ,«: .... ' .,..• i'
.. �.
. _
F..,
-
X'777-
>i . .,.
i..•,.q
-
•.tw1
1 a. t �� �'
� _�
i Via' �,. ,«: .... ' .,..• i'
F..,
ITEM: 7-1: =19,
TITLE: exguEPtoft_ M�aTFiC P��s.�t
EXHIMT- It air SG-ILLE =� ?S.
'
NORT -I
ITEM: 7-1: =19,
TITLE: exguEPtoft_ M�aTFiC P��s.�t
EXHIMT- It air SG-ILLE =� ?S.
r--- tea. bovac - e�TeosveRMVr -� •wTrcwus �r, ousaN .. �
i•411. Ntry6¢04LL,S ,1'(9tIP -e1nSD Ea10�
ii !OY GINN L�'1dltJW GL14p1g4 i 4,rN ML,,.ONFY WALE.
S V4V..RLIM: A- [YLN7
uG jIM& R
rraL. 'RAUw - -- _ /
LOT OT d L OT 2
paD =�4svSjKhi j ; r,LO rLavAT'�ON
- 7
TYPICAL PLAIIT3NG SCHEME'
YRRIL n= STME
J .tom
PERSPECTIVE VIEW •
NIr" MUfOri P[•(
CLA+4TO IL
LOT S
Ftx" rLwt!j .'fti
stet
J
C OF ITEM: - CELZZIt
RA.ICHO CUCkNIO TGA TrrLE= see -r`st � c-1 _
PLANND,�G UNISON F-XlilB-IT----t— SCALE-
E. J
! I 1 YALANT ID II
! !RANGE 904E
i._t
rrs-
i1ll N
L &Z55
CHURM
O
•(!—i .ice_ ���. l ' �_ t i — 2- ` � �
' n� - --
3
2
C
y�,iRiL!' MA7 s x w
.s
Y
CITY Or
RANCHO CUC-' ti,10.NCA
PLNINNI. \G DIVISION
AT--i
NORTH
ITE%t: -r-c =- b
T1TLE: love,
EXHIBIT. A 4 ._ SCAEE: A.TS
E
E
�1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFOR14ATION SHEET - To be ccmpleted by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: SE7.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department -where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II io the Initial Study. 'rite Development Review
Committee will meet and take action at no later
hich time ten
(10) days before the public meeting
project iF to be heard. The Committee will make ore of
three determinations: 1) The project wi'.i have no significant
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmertal
impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared,
or 3) Ali appliiait giving further should be
by the applicant giving
proposed .reject.
-� 2A C.; 1 Zze3 6
PROJECT -ITLE := E '\-TT` _ _ . - —A .,.
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, 'TELEPHONE:
I -. -^r7
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHGNE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PR03ECT: r, _ . L� en e271 l..
- --
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET
PARCEL NO.)
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FIEOERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
1.10 NG
to I -1
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION Of PROJECT:
1
SUt31J iVxS 101-)
S
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: �g��� AC a-ES
1 cl + C.Lii iJ65 °
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES?,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF iv
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY St:EETS):
1 �t 1 S r322,cS= Ti r Q_t C V LTU fc_� C..
L.
Is this project, part of a larger project, one of a series
of cumulati%e actions, which although individ-ally sma,l,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact-
e
I -2
u
u
2
� 1
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
K 1. Create a sutstantial chang-z in ground
contours?
2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
_ _ X 3. Create a su)stantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X 4. Create charges in the existing zoning or
general plEn designations?
5. Remove any existing trees? How many? JGOC?._ CMZVI,p
5. Create the need for use or disposal of _
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic subs -ances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES arswers above: �ii �S c.uRR'cnttC.�
— M?L -cUQE � �s,1_ -LzUS GQoV�
_OF —rU -r 2cc \/ V-: 2Q C=aan —M rLLPiti
isC�c L_L14J
0
IMPORTANT: If the proiec-. involves the construction of
residential units, comp'.:_ u. form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the Ftatements furnishec
above and in the attact__G exhibits present the data and
information required for tiis initial evaluation to the
test of my ability, and th,it the facts, statements, and
information presented are :rue and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. further understand that
additional information nay be required to be subMittEd
before an adequate evalliat-on can be made by the Development n
Review Cerarittee.
j
Deta_i6 —i1_ g L _ Signature I `� pZ
I
--3
Title
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 0
The following info ration should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
school district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: VZ:-38 G�42 G01 -mrAQq
Specific Location of Project: N VJ Coy— MEL.LrYMA0 Cl�L1TLG}�
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
1. Number of single e ! 5 -7,'
family units: 24 1 q 1
2. Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to 4--8:5
begin, construction:
4. Earliest date of 9 -$�
occupancy:
Mode
and 7- of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Ranae
3 -4- �3o- i65,�aa
ci -S3
S -84
1-4
4 -84
9 -84-
19 -a4
S -81�7-
G
E
E
E
IL
RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF Ti4E CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12238
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12238 hereinafter "Map" submitted by
C.Y.R., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of
California, described as a residential tract subdivision of 18.5 acres of land
in the R -1 zone, located on the north side of Church Street, between Hellman
Avenue and Lion Street into 74 lots, regularly came before the Planning
Commission for public hearing and action on January 12, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject
to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's
rep:,rts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning' Commission has read and considered the
Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other a idence
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 f;;llowing findings in
regard to Tentative Tract No. 12238 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
development proposed;
(d) The design of the subdivision is not iikely 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 lar5e,
now of record, for access through or use of the
property within the proposed subdivision.
Resolution No.
Page 2
E.
(g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on
the environment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12238, a copy of which is
attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions
and the attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. Variable front yard building setbacks no less than
=0' shall be recorded with the Final Tract Map, and
shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Division prior to recordation of the map.
2. Landscaping and irrigation must be provided by the
developer at the ends of the two temporary cul -de-
sacs, and in the front yard of the flag lot, number
30, subject to the review and approval OF the
Planning Division prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. The street frontages of lots i and 9 must be
increased to the minimum 40' required by the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. Retaining walls must be provided on lots with side
yard slopes exceeding 4' in height. Details must be
provided with the final grading plans prior to
issuance of building permits, and subject to the
review and approval by the Building Official.
5. The final design of the perimeter wall on Hellman.
Avenue shall be subject to the review and approval
of the Planning Division prior to final approval and
recordation of the map. Construction techniques and
choice of materials shall provide for low
maintenance and long time attractiveness.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
5. All lot line adjustments necessary to form the
project boundary shall be recorded prior to
recording of Tract Map.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12Th DAY OF JANUAR , 1983.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Resolution No.
Page 3
BY.
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 12th day of January, 1983, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
11
11
r.y=O
D
N G O C
d
AOraVE
J
` q
O
W V C
.D
- W V A GAO
� N
T:2:;
H
V
L a
V N
N C
L r
O G
r
L G
L L u
C
D S L V
O O
N N
9� C d
P
C
�„
_T L '
r K V i S
V•
V
r�
L
^
P
- q
C
^
W N
r u ^
1
°
r
r
9u
q E
_
r J 9_ 7 O N
O
�GV
V
Lqq
gLYC E
O
dq NVY
LF J°
CL AprCrO
>a
bG
P`N6r r
yu
V V
L6 qc
99 NOq
N
�L.r
OL
>r
�O�qd
Nbl
L9rdrr
L=
T-w0 P_
dV ^ ='9 °
�GV
M
C
'NPr
S ^ L
L
^ q
d 6r
O A
r✓
rr _
N
t
N d N ar
d
0 J
L L
L?
r IL q
`GPO O
�• C
^
! C N
PJ
u T
M M
=
b=
d
q
. C q
rgir
00`
dd -�
u0
Y
dY j
V.CeNN
t
°AO
b
O
•
d C 4 N
^'
P M^ Y
L E E
=L
L g r C
to
H
C
L
r j j
N V C
O Y
C CJ
�
Lrr� °u
qVa�
O
°Li
""t rU0
•^O �
S_a a ^L�qN
ArLrP
OTVaE
'N_ >L
GyC
Lv r'
<
rQOr HC
O.
aON-
a CO
td9
nD�-°
�b�
4r
OV Or E: N^
wai90
d> aNPC
9P
l "QO
GJaU
°
q✓
CP
L O °
.^ d
V D L C q
V J q
r
b
L
r
y.Ort
. r
OCP
r 9 N
y
D�
O L
Cn^ V> C
-�q•- Lr
q 0 b L
KO
Sy qGq>
`
9^.rp
6VD
QA6L 0.
QN°Ll
644m QL
F-'iN
•�N6 rL Nm
NNq 6U
Jr96b
L O
O
q
L V r Qr
10i 7 90
d6^
N� qq
°TC rpG
W COrr
rV
CSq
PC N
q�r
F
OV-Lar
C 0-
Care
a 9r
-
l
rt O°
p
i s q FC
r nq
r aNrr-
Na
'qb
aCq
=
L O
NNO
a
qq
6V �'6
ZEE H a TV
W
O.Oy
UIOy
LV V
dui
^ O
aC N'C
:5.2
g4.1a .
v72
_pp
L
tE
-
rar
-0-.-
g d
� A
_
V
OV �N�
OV=
rr"
V =9rr
QClO ^A
4 E C
a C r
a O
T
L C C
p
P r P F C
C O r O
S
O O
q
rLL
Gqa
J E
�N^
^Vt O. r
aN
OC
=I
q
O
Or ^
Ln
> L
C M q O
Lrr
V
zi o °-
D
it
a. c M^
O N -
r y
2
N
I
r
q
°Yrr
•��
LO q
L
OIN N Y b a
��
�
9
O
u
C
q 6> d q O q
6
6 A
_ q
i
�
� C
�N�
6NP
YOrIr
0.2
Pq
a^ 6L�
ParLN LP C_
C
�
V
r > N v
d� rP0
rNC
DL 9�
NO
rwEr r
��r
00�
Ar[L
�c brr0
rGeaL^ �c�E
L
V
C
V
=
600run ON�L
d
yp
u 4C r^<
=
� .>- c9r
Os
E V
•
� d
J CLO
<arG
CG
O
yC d C
4I
.a..
_ 6
9
W` Vr
g y
o.
V
D Ima
q U^
�^ O 6
b >Cy
l N E ° _
O QO
W V_
O N
__ J� .�
N!
\ � OI
� N/�1f� \r•/Vf I�
<
m
O
O
6
�Y�LN d 9mrJ
u
aP
YP
V WdCP
�C6 era — ap
AyA
aLTJy
r a 6 i✓ N r u
r i
t•
N
d—
r
6 N
L I V
nV
O n
n
_^ N p
r 9
Q y V a O
E�
A a
N a y n T i
n0
L
��qb.p u=i
QUO
6'�
G V
Nan✓°^
dC` NG.+
_n
i�CJ
A�
o
O72
O L
^ 9 i° S C O C •
S y r
C a
a r
O
�'• � .N�
-7E
>^ 'e6
�Cq NG�gN OQV
O.�.ti
qm
Np
p d
VA`s
C ii
•.r ✓. T q m— N
d 9
A
d
7 9
� 3 A
p —'� n . L y��
^ 0
OO
y
^
C
T
r
�T?o DNN•.r
^�r'D6 Jr
9a
Y
^�
`_pN
_O
P
P L
r>
t r E= N u
c 6
V w
"•
S^
ti d
i •+
r
„!! � d
•^ n` L 'y
JO'-'uE
d
u F
-°r
a.°_c
� c° Q.L. mq
ALq
^L
E�
a
�o
nnc� °••L c
°G✓a a���3�?
c'
^vu
aL
Nun
NA
rE
n q
c=
c P dd -n
C 9^ .• L '• 6� 0 V q
r Y
� C
A
O I C
r L
p i L N a�
a A^
p
rV '• qa
dLP
N pr
NL
^ ��>, r
1iJ. �` O r� L O O C �
a
�
m
a r m
d p a
y. r� N
^ V w V D q
L
•Jw q
yq
_NY
D rW
pO'`
a^
CL °A LLa G
nq yLCIL�d4�0�
C
mr>O.um
'V
Oq qC0
p
L n
n�
= q
La
OVO CPO
r9A
=T!5, p V
C _6
n
.-_
R <�
r V
_
Mq
N a` C
P90
` N r � C L •-.
..O-. N � u �
N
�
r q
.00u
n g
q9 Ewa LD�VN qr
LLOd
AV
W�a
N L'r
Or nr
NwNU NC q Y
=Vi °L1rL
uY9^
d PCN
OD'rr
�YVr
N' �Yf
L
=• r�0
L �N
C' Nq
V qN TO nrrN
N �C
aai
V L
N p
•N.i �V
rymL da Ip`
A N a
�
6 O
y r` P r
O�� r L^ D a c
Oq °�
d .r'
r°
u .
C r
q C w V
� r•
O yCG
^
pro
L YLC
^E
N
WHO
^G•O QP pW
a —V'v 6 <SMLm ��
rr NL
> 6pN
6 ^�
6 6p
FiNrA C
6NCA r'V•Or•042
tl
\OjI� \_JIB
O
W
CV
p��V d •
p
d���rN
m V
��d
�Pr _ i
y _a�Pr L
00
C
r
r c
a
i J�
_
=
•a-
r
um•
N L+ aa•
.L., i
O 6�
^�N d r q
y
J N•
V -
G N r
O L S L° 6
^ i g d O Y
D `
L i
C
nr 9
O. ? .a+ p � q
`
L ..•
` a C T
Y C Y
vC
=
P P
r
m
f yd
_nip P>
N�c° d
p
a�uu
iLe
L SrN
m ^oars
nq aoiv -mow
�" Oa. r
m
aL
p
q Nr
AV LO
E EN I
AL%_.�nc
•L- °°.�„r..
a- o.o
m
� am
ndaa p
q qur Wp
L
�
d
L
V n
4'Jr TOa
.N ^QGL CLM
C1q �.
q
�L
d PC O d
6
^ L'
L �
GOAD
-p�n
pLmVrt�r
C N C q D ii
'j
47
•`
n�
9 C q
O W
D
d
r
c, t
S r
V „�y a r�
o
C C d o q �
A J_ u
L
M° O
G 5
p L r• M�
pOM: •.id Y
N
NO
O 9
ADO
J`gOr qr
CCV �mA
•L.�
EEJ
32 g O R:5
-J
C
- =p
p �r
1 L
J O
aG
✓
✓a4C
i
oNEH
Eorr�Ln
o.�V m-r cm
m
E
O N
^ter Op
GnUC
a�rr
p
L_d0•ai
LOCO V.
pC
nY a'a'
QO`k
--- -qc
Is—
^r
° °o.a,
cn
ANN
ML
r
J
A —
N O
O O i p A
L q •.. G V
d
J
Y p T � V C
C C`
y�
_
O O y
N
y �
a A
O N •�
r°
m d M m
6d J^ —N
O']qq
dI CD
MC`C
C•'� /� •.a
G1Gr n' V
Crrr V
q-V=ALDtn
].�y 4G GE
p•+
A�•.T•
C
Pnu V
p V
G�Vr
-I �
V
LO —Jr
+ .�•
C_q N —C�O�
�=—j Ni arN
r L r N �
:i.2 °
Oc
6Ewn
�a OO�G6
G —iN ANtr�
6Cr4V C ✓•
S
N
•
1;
•
w
•�
ml
P
\J•I�
I
iii
V
Ci
.i
«c��
v
'�'
�v
✓ c
c
w
c
u
`p
A d�
� d A ✓
C CI
L° A d
N L
a
a
O
y
°
N
O
LA
O
V•G,F
9v
a
do'^C
No
c
,^
^
y
�
Adc c
o c a
=°p ✓N .A..y
� °^
`.
d �
s A�
C q
6
4y n. •
LL W
V A q
J
� C
etl
4
q E?jV
N
°n
Oi
J O
u^
°
a
tl '
✓
pP>
2^
0 q
M
n q .tl C
t 4'
7
tlfj�
N
N.^
�✓ A
9
d
L
O
n
d✓ v«
2
A
^
9 E=
^
d p d Y O�
6fj
✓` O
✓
O
N r O✓ v
LL O L O
t L<
C
>
p'
✓
✓ V
2
�
D C L
d
q r
6� L
� y 6 C
s
C
N
O N tl
L
C
L C
d O D
�
✓ A
L d
^V
L
G
Pd
q
J r
mN6v
d
K
LOVOC
r✓
~
Ac ^9✓
✓d
°'�
N�
^'
A W
N
A..•r
V`
2
P
L ✓EZ-
Lv
°r
i
✓
� O.i C
TL
A
`
N�
✓N OA
G'N
�Y
? ^ �
� V6 YvLL
? =�L
\.�L
O[
YCSm
d A 0
C N✓
Cp L
m �-
d O
A_
✓_
d_
A C
C
C
P= E
E O
C
d V
N. q N
O C✓
N A m
d'
L
A O
V U OW I O
C R C
✓ L-
r
.�
C _
T
LL
Epp
N06
7
TC
C 00
TLL 'h 0«
OyT� r
✓
0✓
�C
_
C ^Cqq
fi CP
A � SO
C^ C EO
A✓°yuQ 6A V P ✓
Gm\�O'
mCi GMJ
^J
��
T.
WLL WET
6NY
�-G O.✓
6
O 6E �
O
Ord
.ti
Cy
G
�C
d'1
AP
V
d�✓L
t
^
=L
qQ
•
^Nd
d
p
tl
2%
r
C v Cp m L
tl
g T 0 n
N G P
V Z
l
4 J 9
g d
ZEtl
GY
tl
r C�
L
Y
N
O
L 6 4 d
`
✓
✓ I V nA.
L C O
✓ A A ' V
A
�•
v C O
N�dO
A V
C� C
y✓
A
L 6 C
d
= w M L
Y V V
� G •n �
�^
% ^ y
LN
O
Nl]
✓lt
T-`L O
N
L Lv T
C 0 r
L
=✓
C Aar
•'.
N
V
A�
^
✓ d
7�
.-N
PLO
N ^iVi
.L
C �A
—'•N•
L �•
p'd•
'T'
�NH •
m _ ^�
t�°1
� ✓Atl
d
w2PL
�°'
i
� v� c
tcid �
yGG
i
s y.v'^
cry@
Nv
Nmc
>
v
^cc
✓e ^��
c
d ✓m oa
m _i=
c`.=
LA
N g
J v ✓m
° _q
G
G
d
w°
e 9✓
9
C
` d« P e O
T L
.O "J'
Otl L
C> V
YO. DY Y✓
C
OLV�
z:5 L, ^
Aq
p
y
=
V
L
G
q LV
�V 6d�
EJr
Cit.
m L�Aw
A_=
✓
VV`m.nQ
O
C
w O V O
N d C rA _•
W=
o oOi
y i
O a
q
C✓ E
q A
q
.L.
T• C tl
C
O T
j r�
N
V N
✓ N^
r 0
'
� C q
O G_
r
J �
m q
u C y
tl � � C L
-J ��
C J
✓ T
pC A
q
V
�Y"[�
PVO O
d 69y
WIT
L
qC�
C6C
O
W
_ d
tlC
C'tlA
N• + ^'i°
'CA r d
•^d ��G
J
�
ri>
2 ✓n
f r
N.
N t ��
N
✓
A
P
N�
P A
oco
1[
V
'^
O>� J y Y
A d C
T N
C d
A m 69
IL
°�nPn
qG Nr a�
tld p o
me
oy
v< ��a,v
ENdr
P
qq
vC✓ V
AULO
N >P
M
Nnc
.+v ✓`��
T q
19
�A
P✓
..r
= OO
v
YL ^Arw.
a
. d
N^
9J • d O
Nt`
C q
L TLv
-L o
y
N
cc Go
AN
._ �`or y °�
vT tlN✓
v
a�L._
.d+E a.v A
p uM
`C
O
L'• N M
m
SS V
T� V ✓
ANN
`G
Y � fS
C 4d
6d
TQ
d TG C
✓._S NV
yC
✓
r9 9`.Cd
✓OL-
NO
^
j
ERA
p,1�O =00
G✓7 is C�
eG _.�V
S c
r
V LH
E
=j
O u�0
ON79C q
iNV A?
L�
=rC
�l
yA«
V N
V
`• N N
^'
C y0
�_ O w
d A`
C_ d
N
U
= L =° q
J
�
V wyi
V C
d^
r d
q O..•
y C
` c
d P
E
= . V
V
L9
p
N d d
Q A� p L Q V
'`�
G✓ N ii
N N
Z
-
✓l � N A N
6 N
6 L
6 N S
Ci
0
6
a o•co
c��
°c owe
°O'.°.�
•• "
o.°+A n=
�`o .°.•
°o cc
:.
uP
� N
T� LcN°+
�
�` -.wE
t•N °r° �
L.c
�
-°.co
Pre
iEy
� oN_ irc
:.'vyd o.
cA oG °•`
iG
_
G� n
c o'✓ °b9
=c
Nom
a'n t
� v
r�
L da'
c�'y'
aCgD
o Oq
qu0i0
y VICE
CLYYLi•q
��
yni
°�
rn
O' CHUG
; rt_
°
i_M isW
aO
+yam
d
p
q«
2
A i
�y N
oL
dO
C�U�Y
�rN
nN
AL
.Z
✓•'
TO ACAS °Cp
L'LO
dLLP
«•c
En
Tr n�'
c
c °N•' z
.via«
6'°r .°O
�� ✓
V O
y 9✓ u ?� t
n, °
d
°
d
b t
Gd D«
V
a•—.+d
L r
� _
••
y
N°
N
N
VC
>°•dA
�
>oEVV
°rGLi
>�
^cC
TN
DQ�
°a
C dC�nY ON
W +t
ddO Nr
% O i
8-Z
•�C ✓
C
U. qnG �Cp
y'J° �
•
�yV -'�°VC
dN
v «qr
m �o
bop✓
Tr
.�
m
N+ LN
TL
�
Y
O.L
��v
j
04
DP q✓
_
O�
gLC6
N`_p _CVC
+dNOV
:APP
GOr.
N°
qC
._•°•y
Y
°�
U y�
D>
N
V O'«
d q
9 N A d O
N •VU O j
q O
V. ny � 6 V
�°
NA �+
r
`.-.
L ✓P-- ° Rq 6Vp�
P«
ON Tq O'
` ++ N
r 5Cr•
�
'l. 'J
«
P•
V n L t
NV°V' 6Ag0
d`
�cr E-
O J A
.YmDa
+ O O w- d Y
<OVVO P9
O
q T
V°
N1A P ^y'
L!��O
L OL
CCV•
N A
d
6« 6O'V
CV�r
O 6 q a
U
C
d
s
0 0
0
c
I
W
r o�
u_
z
W J
Wa
P�° ON- -O°
Ldt -
VP
°d LP
01
dTd
='
r �
.•N
^
r
q
P. c-
C
E
� 2✓
� «yEyE
r � •J
p1`
O O O V
.• W O
A d� C°
2 r � O d
C
�%
7
r_
m
q
L
d
W
C 9�
C
W
O °d CoN
Vy°i
✓ °
�dwd.Ad
Z °Np .Y
`
'J V
N
O 9
q�
VY�.
�
d S D e O A
m
. L
°�
D C
y d
F 9
9✓ O d
✓W
n V � C
D
PSgC
AV— vC°.
r
E�N
7`
�
Vn
Vt__
N
m.
V° M
Dn
>•V'^
°c.-. r•SE
Cnr ««�
=nW
Nd� T
WKC
NC'LG
.LV..
Ert =rE
DV
�b G m
Cr✓ L �
—d
�
Y
—
° F�
-• O L« P A N T
G'1
7 q
E .^ .r v_
A O
°p,0 0 P
N
°L
�° 1j >
DL 'V
L�=
T — •> -•VVLL
J Ors n
d
6.••A
2A•'•r .r Cr C
DOd On d
C
rJ
_�
�
VL7-
q
> O
° L
C V W O
V' n a✓ 9 � CG
�
OyEC9
-_" O.
L«
V
U b P �
rd� C
LrV D° O
n{
'Ja
6y <O
V
Lr A
d6A
�`
N
jOAC
UC
zdVd
d
N
dd
N
Vf
�L
NPI
v •+..
L •-J
�_o
••V.�>
CC«ECl
C�6dE
r
CN
Pc
C.
rr
N°
�
VCV.
°
-U
LTJC
Md = =d
dT
✓CV
„
NBC^
Ndq . N
•.•O
°S PE6
Cd
•LU�Fi
V
C y
O
D C
O G H A
C
°
C O ° C y W
r T'
.°.. a .�•
— c T A
N
V C•�
d O
P Y d P✓
J G
O
`� L.
d
O .� r •-. > d
cd-�
`�I
N
P E V=
p
✓f
Q A N y��
r V� A «
�1 � q.^
� O� C V
P
C r
✓
•'j
we ° =_aJ me
�NC b
4'a
u qo
rc•- -
yN
p�•'a
m =q -°
r
b� -
u �
a
o'd-
SLN.N6
O
�l°iWl 6C nD.rN
✓
6•C -A�p
`
70
J76Z
N
O
N
J nVG
N
WtiC WUV
«I
O G
\NIvj1I
.-1
N Al
f
C
\
I
�
o ✓t�
W I
uI '
�
Y
r �l
J
0
FYI
0
6
11
E
a
J_D
i.I o
_ L
1 w va n
?^ d
'y' O
y�" c
G0
° � O
d V y9
q q
c PC
aq�
i q�y9�
Tr L
.9Tu a
9 J�
V L 2 W
u
r V 7
V
T
N
O
� N
9
D
c
N
6
✓
d V
L
o
V
N
_
I
q U
a 7
u
L
—
—V
G
vu
j
.• O
O
C
d
J
w
Q
M
V
C
¢o
9
9
CO
Y
V
q
c N O
L
E
Y
fN
✓
D.
'1 NL
.0
Tu
✓ o=
�q
q V
V a y
V °, O
r
V y
� y< c r°•
Ve>'i�✓i.
Ny
Wo
G
6' 6
L
�
a
�
0
o
✓
q
L q
L
G r
N U
u
i
V q •✓
a a
Vy
Gu
u
C J•'nuL—
�
y9
Q1
1
E
',I
I
NI
LAN
qS
DL
\1f
K_
gLLd
'dV
p�L
Lr TQu
L v
^
4�
W
ti
`
v
N
�r
a
J_D
i.I o
_ L
1 w va n
?^ d
'y' O
y�" c
G0
° � O
d V y9
q q
c PC
aq�
i q�y9�
Tr L
.9Tu a
9 J�
e
L 9
O
Aw
7
Y
s
d _
v
w �
v
D N 4
� o L
° V
0
V G
G N
L
a 4
„ V
V y
> O 9
O W a
y cqc
. q _
q L
q
q „
Ty M
Z1O. \V ^'9
�1 1
V L 2 W
G
r V 7
V
T
N
9•
� N
9
D
Y d
N
6
✓
d V
L
V
N
r
q U
a 7
u
L
—
—V
G
vu
j
.• O
O
C
d
� fiK P
Q
M
C
,L
9
9
CO
Y
V
q
c N O
L
E
Y
fN
✓
D.
'1 NL
.0
Tu
✓ o=
�q
q V
V a y
V °, O
r
V y
� y< c r°•
Ve>'i�✓i.
Ny
Wo
Syr�T
L
�
a
�
0
✓
q
L q
L
O
N U
u
i
V q •✓
a a
Vy
Gu
C J•'nuL—
�
y9
E
',I
NI
LAN
qS
DL
\1f
`CaCrt
gLLd
'dV
p�L
Lr TQu
^
4�
`
v
D
�r
W✓
NJ'•
l_u
NG
G
LO
q
.a.
O
[} D N p �
g y U G
✓ L
M°
U q� u O C
OLdV
V —C
✓a
P '�VOP
`P
alC'JS2
a.-nD
NM
�W
�qI
`QC
^—
9C
CVY
NL°�r
O.rtr
WYWi
1
�
1
e
L 9
O
Aw
7
Y
s
d _
v
w �
v
D N 4
� o L
° V
0
V G
G N
L
a 4
„ V
V y
> O 9
O W a
y cqc
. q _
q L
q
q „
Ty M
Z1O. \V ^'9
�1 1
V L 2 W
G
r V 7
V
T
N
9•
� N
9
D
Y d
N
6
✓
d V
L
V
N
r
q U
a 7
u
L
—
—V
G
vu
j
.• O
O
C
d
� fiK P
Q
M
C
,L
9
9
CO
Y
V
q
c N O
L
E
Y
fN
✓
D.
'1 NL
.0
Tu
q V
C
T •
d "
V N
_
q
V
N L
y d N
L
_
V
a
�
°
✓
q
L q
L
O
N U
W G
i
C J•'nuL—
�
y9
E
',I
NI
LAN
qS
DL
\1f
2
P
^
`
v
D
�r
W✓
NJ'•
l_u
NG
G
LO
q
.a.
Nq
Vy
E
✓..r
°L
_
� NE
D�L
�L
Td
♦nl
9
qqN
V�d
..Np
c°
^u
^__E
9
i 1'
C
�
V
NwL•
c4
'D
L
Z
=N
G q
N
L
d✓
y
°
VI
j
a
V N L
N L
q d
V
N N
6
O
g L V F
O
qL
SOU
-.
C.Ti
.°r
P
pf_
O_PL
^O
yp_
rtq`
CN
� o
�
1\W�If V
C q
° y
< V •+
L
W Z
1
�
NI
�0i
\ay'q
1
\4v'o'
1
QI
e
L 9
O
Aw
7
Y
s
d _
v
w �
v
D N 4
� o L
° V
0
V G
G N
L
a 4
„ V
V y
> O 9
O W a
y cqc
. q _
q L
q
q „
Ty M
Z1O. \V ^'9
�1 1
ui
V L 2 W
G
r V 7
V
T
N
9•
� N
9
D
Y d
N
6
a 7
° u
�
—
—V
G
vu
w°• r
•G-
✓'o
cM
� fiK P
Q
M
C
,L
V
CTNy
VLWd
r^-
Y
c N O
L
E
G9LN
i�
q V
d "
V N
^
2
pti
L
O
N U
i
C J•'nuL—
�
y9
E
NI
\e•/
\1f
2
ui
i
t O�
P
° Z
�q cqn
S N
N � p
C y O
W � >
q O y
E.-c �qL
L�r V Oa
a-
^ C E
� V �
N
L Z u
a G
C J d O C
L ^ W
� J
V
a F U L
^ d C
L C L Tr 9
6 V L q N
q L y a
O W N Q C w
'1
C
0
O
O
j L
�G
c c
O W
V
V
G
D
ca
O
N °
G Jo
a i
0
C q q
O
V .� •r
° p P
O q q
O
W C
�v
c
O
O
0
q
L
w
D
c
9
C
O
N
q
l
°c
N
V
`c
V
n
E
qi
O Y
L °
6 q
9
C
d
a' LL W
O
6
r
d
V�
6
ud
d
7 ?
q ' O
°CN
G q
eqo
nd
^ d C
N dQ
d q0
qNJ
V
^�q
F O
r q
q P
c°
az_
L N
� � N
T>
C `
p. p
°
you
� l �
Y O =�
� d C
`L O
o
D •O � E
N iYW
r V
C V
L V
y O^
L O d 7
� d ^
c e
n
LL O r
6
•O w ^ L r
L ^ J
L S C L
d ?^ G
dC �OL1
rp P d
O O dL
n� dCtr
d
1 -5 eq °
L C J ^ l
L N V O
p G C O> D
Q a L n O G
»ua
NI II
O q
O
eJ
- c
J
O
�N
d
d `
a
i
C L
J
r d
O P
a�
oL
O r
L T
�a
O
d
qL
L N
V
cd...L. ^
q
C J 9
° O y
O W
J L
° c L
Q d q
N L V
a .Ld..
L L
O �
� L
q ddL O°
nV Q q L
.'9 N °
y c q
Y p L P y
W V O G V
dnNO T^
O
dr
d q C
� O P
l
L
V L u d
G
N O
i
O
Y
C
C
C
9
y
O
r
9
N
Y
O
C
d Y
O
.L.
J
c
rce
�
c
3
d
V
d
^
9
D yN.
Q�
N
uqi
O
6
^
y
O
C
r0
L
d
(
C
nz�
i z
^
N
N
d}
moo•
°
aL
c
q
4i
`q
P
c
o
•n
J
C
n d
^
r
..r d
d
C P
C
O L
F A
Sy
V P
C
_�
_U
ir•
JJ
p
Nk
N A r N b O _
r
E
IA
� -A.
E
U
11
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT*
CITY STAFF REPORT GA
I
January 12, 1983
Members of the Planning Co,onission
Rick Gomez, City Planner
Curt Johnston, Assistant 7}anner
ONE!,
r4anu acturing) tthe
Development) and
11.35 acres located a t
and Grove Avenue - WIN
K -J /ru v- ,. -.._--
development of 248 condominiums on
the northeast corner of 8th Street
207 -251- 02,03,13.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a
OF armed deveiopznent and zone change from M -1 to R -3 /PD located at the
northeast corner of Grove Avenue and 8th Street (Exhibit y 2 percent and
The project site slopes to the southeast at approximately 2 P
significant vegetation exists on the property- Several structures
building on Grove Avenue exist on the property
including a large dairy ro ect. As shown on the
and will be removed with
t2"Bp)nsur surrounding land uses inc d single
Site U Map
family-homes, AT On the west railroad Side tracks, of Grove tAvenue r ay ross from the
drive -in dairy. roved 172 unit condominium Project in the City of
project site is an app
condominium project is zoned R -4 and has a density
Upland. The approved
of 18.5 units per acre. fronting on
Zoning on the subject property is f the is zoned C -2 and R -1
currently M-1. Property
the east side of Grove, north oe projec,
as Medium High Density Residential (14 -24 dwelling
exists to the north, east, and south. The General Plan designates the
subject property The density of the proposed project is 22.14 units per
units per acre).
acre.
The proposed development features a Spanish style buildings with a
to a 1295 square foot rkit with two bedrooms and a
total of 248 units. The dwellings range in size from a one bedroom 71
square foot unit up a single drive
loft. Public access to the project will b� provided y
provided
two percent �` the site is devoted to open
approach onto Grove Avenue and subterranean parking will e
with each building. Fifty -
spalof the addition fitblo °n 11 be incorporated around
the
perimeter
wall design along the north and east property lines.
ITEM P
Planned Development
Planning Commission
January 12, 1983
Page 2
82- 04;Salvati
Agenda
ANALYSIS: This project has been reviewed by the Growth Management
Committee, Girading Comaittee, and Design Review Committee and has
undergone appropriate revisions. A neighborhood meeting was conducted
tc familiarize the sui,rounding property owners with the project and
identify their concerns. A detailed description of the proposal was
presented by the architect and a number of questions were answered. The
general consensus of the property owners in attendance was that the
project will be a benefit to the area.
Two items of concern relative to this project are traffic safety and
drainage. Regarding traffic safety, several conditions compound the
impacts of the proposed project: Grove Avenue is currently operating at
95 percent capacity north of 8th Street; the approved condominium
Project across the street exits onto Grove from Chaffey Street; and
visibility is limited by the railroad grade crossing. To mitigate any
potential hazards, the Engineering Division is recommending that the
developer be required to reconstruct and widen Grove Avenue in front of
the project site, across the railroad tracks, and south to 8th Street.
A right -hand turn lane will also be provided for north bound traffic
entering the project site as a deceleration lane.
Drainage was a concern because calculations provided by the applicant
indicated that development of the site will increase runoff to 8th
Street which already has flooding problems during winter months. To
eliminate this increased runoff LO 8th Street, the Engineering Division
recommends that the developer grade a drainage channel from Grove Avenue
Cucam
addition,t eo appl cant' wall nbe requiredh tor clean douta amnumber of
existing drainage pipes so that they will function properly.
DESIGN REVIEW: The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the
project, but requested that the applicant make minor revisions to the
side building elevations, 'eliminate sidewalks to increase the amount of
open space, and upgrade the block wall along the north and east property
lines. All of these revisions have been made and are reflected in the
latest plans.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study, as completed by the
applicant, is provided for your review and consideration. Staff has
completed Part I.T of the environmental assessment and has determined
that the proposed project together with the recommended conditions will
not create any adverse impacts on the environment. If the Commission
concurs with such findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be
in order.
11
E
11
Planned Development 82- 04 /Salvati
Planning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 3
L:J
FACTS FOR "TNG: The project site is adequate in size and shape to
accormroda :': roject. The proposed building design and site plan is
in accord, `i the objectives of the General Plan and will not be
detrimental re public health, safety, or general welfare of the
public or peuperties in the immediate vicintiy. Together with the
-acommended conditions of approval, the project meets the current
development standards of the City. In addition, the zone change and
density proposed is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
CORRESPONDENCE: This project has been advertised in The Dail Report
newspaper as a public hearing and 75 not;reg were mailed d to ad3,..ent
property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. As mentioned
earlier, a neighborhood meeting was ccnducted and all surrounding
property owners were invited to attend. In addition, public hearing
notices have been posted on the property. To date, no xritten
correspondence either for or against this project has been received.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recormended that the Planning Commission consider
all input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the
Commission can support the facts for findings and recommending
conditions of approval, adoption of the attached Resolution would be
appropriate.
ly,kubmitted,
Planner
CJ:jr
Attachments:
Exhibit
"A"
- Location Map
Exhibit
"8"
- Site Utilization Map
Exhibit
"C"
- Zoning and General Plan Designations
Exhibit
"O"
- Detailed Site Plans
Exhibit
"E"
- Elevations
Exhibit
"F"
- Floor Plans
Exhibit
"G"
- Conceptual Landscape Plans
Exhibit
"ti"
- Perimeter Wall
Initial
Study, Part I
Resolutions
of Approval with Conditions
J
CI'T'Y OF
RANCHO CUCANNIQ:TGA
PL %,i\'NI \G DIVISION
E
NORTH
�-
TITLE= ��• .�rt•F &tarp
ExHiBiT -�-- SCALE-
0
- :..a ..
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCNhIO` GA
PLANNING DIVI.S a4
ITBI= ITIZACT &-- T.6z —a4)
TITLE:,' utTe_rua—rrard MAP
El'H!BI7 _ SCALE= H; S-
C�-�
NORTF.
ZONING
• GENERAL. PLAN _
Arrow ..•..Y.. •
AWD- Ht"
■
■
•
c/
NORTH
L.J.
E
CITY OF ITEMis!Tm!vgl c a ez -04)
RANCHO CL'C_k1IO`;GA ;,TE: ,za.ai� s ` « _ R.aW
P Ai\NING DIVISION iLm uRm "C" _ SG�I E -�1T5. 0
• • • • • • • • •
• •
AWD- Ht"
■
■
•
c/
NORTH
L.J.
E
CITY OF ITEMis!Tm!vgl c a ez -04)
RANCHO CL'C_k1IO`;GA ;,TE: ,za.ai� s ` « _ R.aW
P Ai\NING DIVISION iLm uRm "C" _ SG�I E -�1T5. 0
.I
O
NIT
A ��N PRD� - pp 104x- $At.YA71. O+MFR
T}IG�MS J. DA746 ASSORATES ARC
it
I'r'L \I� 2
CITY OF
\ ISIU` G \13I1�1"C�
DI
r
G�
NORTH
tviori
w���
�M^ ��a►w.
�� ��an-
w �.a �.a � Fi I
��
ISO
- -L
Y.
NIT
A ��N PRD� - pp 104x- $At.YA71. O+MFR
T}IG�MS J. DA746 ASSORATES ARC
it
I'r'L \I� 2
CITY OF
\ ISIU` G \13I1�1"C�
DI
r
G�
NORTH
'�-- �r��'! �
��,�
�.�
... j ; ?T, � �r,•
r L'e.� .�
atx i�. t�M�. 'r `�:
��
..`
��
'�-- �r��'! �
��,�
�.�
... j ; ?T, � �r,•
r L'e.� .�
atx i�. t�M�. 'r `�:
��
.. a..�>i ,.r -�r -•' � - rr.�. �': v .. C1 • � y t-•i. •,. ,y�� •. r+� = � .��rc'3?
SIDE ELE k
e
:X .•.J �' T ` r � mot' i
SECTION AT SITE ENTW
A CONDOM $ U PROJECT - DaANC SALVATL OW NE
1140MAS 4 DAMS ASSUaATM - ARC i MT
CITY OF I I LEI: -�, �,_r�.a.8 =-�►�
RANCHO CUC-M IO\GA T=-: EUMAM&AS
PLANNI NG DIVISION EX IIBAT: . SGALF:
A-
..�._RCPOILYI __ 1 -__. lIOS�LY6 r
w
E
W & 2ND LEVEL LEVEL
a. FLOOR PLANS F1ONCI PLAN r'S a
RzKK\ \] GIi KO D D >=
A CMCC)6INR M PROM= - DCWfC SALVATL OMER
M M S %L DAMS ASSOCIATES - ARCHaUCT
Marti "m
CITY OF ITEM= - rrtruer! �-P•p •sz -al�
RA\CHO CUC,kNXIONGA Tree: a,=cF--R-w5
PLA"NNI \G DRISION EMUBIT: Pro SCALE- 14-T.S.
' Ii
I
0
a
1
LArgscVE
UST w -
..
CITY OF
R�k1CHO CUCAAIO \GA
pL�ii \G Dl\r SION'
. Do
A CONDOMMWMMECT- CSNLVA:L OWNER
T}►,7pV1°. J. cAY1S AS -,m - i
n Mw.
PA OR
-lrr 1w.1 -- -
Trrl�=
EXHIBIT=��' S NLE-. A y-
►: � _ F Gc+KYER cc
4 �IEr' -ca wvcE �:,�• _—" # 3 Ix "_i -3 �� cf c..l.
CONC. BLOCK WALL i
VVFKXJGFrr 4- -F Y = rl
1 — 1
WALL ELEVA -nON AT RAND E..R 0:?OMAIEY3
'Y
JOG ,RAX
CITY OF
RANNCHO CIti,,CA1I0 \GA
PLANNING DIX SIOV
U
ITEM= --Ml �1 �'P-D.sz2e
TITIE'PJERI�A�ILP_
E \HIIiIT= •.H•
SCALE: - A-T.S. _
j?
e
E
I
•
�� �' fps n" L _
VVFKXJGFrr 4- -F Y = rl
1 — 1
WALL ELEVA -nON AT RAND E..R 0:?OMAIEY3
'Y
JOG ,RAX
CITY OF
RANNCHO CIti,,CA1I0 \GA
PLANNING DIX SIOV
U
ITEM= --Ml �1 �'P-D.sz2e
TITIE'PJERI�A�ILP_
E \HIIiIT= •.H•
SCALE: - A-T.S. _
j?
e
E
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
1
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
Fcr all projects requiring envirommental review, this
forr.+. must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
Project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which, time the
Project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi-
ficant environmental i.npact and a Negative Declaration
will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant
environmental impact and do Environmental Impact Report
will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further inforsa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
0 PROJECT TITLE:F� `(ff* _ -ra C-T- u0 IW91
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE QF PERSON TO BE CONT*ICTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT. 4•
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
fin_ _ &Ff jg-
I -1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (--� 541e�"i b"r'fbLE}ED`
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING Z'M
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 11.55 gtosS 1 N. ?l1 n,4- .+sroS
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PRO.T_T'CT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREr;S),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS)
_ • r ;7 1 �
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?
E
I -2
yES answers above:
Explanation Of any
11
volves the construction 04
:[DApoRTANT: If the proiect In the form on the
res3.de-,Itiai Unl�s, complete
next page-
CERTIFIC;�TION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
and information required for this initial evaluation and
data , abijii-y, and that the facts, statementso
to the best Of e and correct to the best Of my
information presented are tru
-lief. I fu-,ther understand that additional
knowledge and be -.tted before an adequate
information may be required to be subm,3
evaluation can be yaade by the Development Review mmxttee.
Signature
Title
1-3
WILL THIS
ro
YES NO
in ground
a substantial chaiige we
Create _ '=�Izr _rsC;,
TE- M1 �E-1 U�Ac�
contours? Sa eoee["
k'VI-L-
Mar
substantial change in existing
2.
Crea te a
vibration?
noise or
a substan tial change in demand for
3,
Create fire, water,
municipal services (police,
sewage, etc.)?
j:
4.
Create c ',lianges in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
P
5.
Remove any exis ting trees? How many?
6.
disposal Of
Create the need for use or Is such as
potentially hazardous materia
�s flammables or explosives?
toxic substance
yES answers above:
Explanation Of any
11
volves the construction 04
:[DApoRTANT: If the proiect In the form on the
res3.de-,Itiai Unl�s, complete
next page-
CERTIFIC;�TION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
and information required for this initial evaluation and
data , abijii-y, and that the facts, statementso
to the best Of e and correct to the best Of my
information presented are tru
-lief. I fu-,ther understand that additional
knowledge and be -.tted before an adequate
information may be required to be subm,3
evaluation can be yaade by the Development Review mmxttee.
Signature
Title
1-3
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
0
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cu =a,,,onga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school
district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No cAt, (&- .T, - T12AC? ;QpoE
Specific Location of Project:��e
PHASE I PRASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
I. N=m er of single
family units: --
2. N= ber of multiple
family units: e2 CZ
3. Date proposed to
;:egin constriction: 2 $ cgs€ ? g(o
4. Earliest .late of
occupancy:
Model #
an,- 4 of Ten�ative
5. Bedrooms Price Range
A -H 2 4 *ice_ C_I 1 $ A.5, 3OO
- 4-79-4-�� � �2
5-2 1 bo 9 0 - 2;2; C c�
1 -4
0 RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 82 -04
REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM M -1 TO R -3 /PD FOR
11.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
GROVE AVENUE AND 8TH STREET
WHEREAS, on the 4th day of October, 1933, an application was filed
and accepted on the above - described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 12th day of January, 1983, 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 rr, he
following findings:
1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses
permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access,
size, and compatibility with existing land use in
the surrounding area; and
is 2. That the proposed zone change would not have
significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties; and
3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with
the existing and proposed General Plan.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Connission has found that
this project wi Mnot create a significant adverse impact on thr environment
and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on January 12th= 1983.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 12th day of January,
1983, Planned Development No. 82 -04.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Ccuncii approve and adopt Planned De-. iopment
No. 82 -04.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
sk APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983.
Resolution No.
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0
M.
ng, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the P anning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing or��ssgon of the City of Rancho
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted f by th ng Resolution was duly
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at�a regular meeting of Commission Plannin was
of the
on the 12th day of January, .983; by the following vote -to -wit:
9 Commission held
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: x
C
11
3
RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE^LANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE
WHERtH�, Tentative Tract Map No. 32091, hereinafter "Map" submitted
by Dominic Salvati, applicant, for the purpose County subdividing of Sar ernardino,
property situated in the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga,
State of California, described as located eats the sunGa theast corner not mGrove
Purposes of 11.35 acres of land, regularly came before the Planning
Avenue and 8th Street into 3 lots, 12, 1983; and
Commission for public hearing and action on January roval of the Map subject
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended ap and Planning Division's
to all conditions set forth in the Engineering
reports; and
, ning Commission has read and considered the
WHEREAS the Plan
Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence
presented at the Public hearing. of Rancho
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City
® Cucamonga does resolve as follows: following finding s in the
re and to TeT Tract No. 12091Cand �the Map thereof:
9 all
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with specific
applicable interim and proposed general and
plans;
(b) The design or improvements of ',:he tentative tract 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 damaae 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
with large
with any easemen.. acquired by the p f the
now of record, for access through or use o.
property wittiin the proposed subdivision.
Resolution No.
Page -e
E
(g) Yhat this project will not create adrerse impacts on
the environment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12091, a copy of which is
attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to al' of the following conditions
and the attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. The perimeter wall adjacent to Sierra Madre Avenue
and the alley shall not exceed :ix feet (6') in
height above the top of the curve. In addition, the
wall must be upgraded with design elements such as
split face block, vertical columns or an increased
amount of wrought -Iron. The finEl design must be
reviewed and aoproJed by the Planning Division prior
to issuance of building permits.
2. For security purposes locking doors must be provided
at the pedestrian entires into the subterranean
garages; low level lighting must to provided along
the perimeter jogging trail; and t1ornv shrubs must
be provided along the inside of the south perimeter
wall.
3. The tot lot shall be provided with active play
equipment and mist be enclosed by fence or hedge.
Details must be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Division prior to issuance of building
permits.
EENGINEERING DIVISION
4. The Developer shall clean out 50" x ;1" C.M.P.A. and
30" C.M.P. so that flows along Grove Avenue from
north of the railroad shall continue south of Eighth
Street.
5. The Developer shall grade a drainace channel from
Grove Avenue to Cucamonga Creek Channel along the
AT &SF Railroad, to the satisfactio i of the City
Engineer.
6. The Developer shall clean out t!i pipe arch and pave
the area at the railroad bridge to accept drainage
from Sierra Madre Avenue.
7. A permit from the AT &SF Railroad shall be required
fo- all work performed in the railroad right -of -way.
U
Resolution No.
Page 3
g, The Developer shall reconstruct and widen Grove
Avenue from the project site to Eighth Street, and
shall coordinate with AT &SF Railroad for the
widening project at the railroad crossing.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1933.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA
BY:
Chairman
AitEST: --
Secretary of the Planning•Cosmission
Commission of the City of Rancho
Of the Planning Resolution was duly and
I, JACK LAM, Secretary that the foregoing Cozrnission of t'0
Cucamonga, do hereby certify the Planning
regularly introduced, passed, and adop! by
® City of Rancho Cuca�onga, at 1983. byathe following the
vot Planning
to- wit :Co�iss :an held
on the 12th day of January,
AILS: COm- MIGIZRS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: '
ABSENT; COKMMISSIONERS:
m
LI
-Grr aSS uC 6E •+TP �- q SQ •�COC
A «o aic aaG J L p•'- i
aN q9 -'' = V wa. �., u .O Uc •° r ^VY =r
N O d J C^ V N L O r T S A a q r G� d o •'� ' H- N V r A a
Nyc E d t -6 c iC � V mac' uAU �� N� SOY J�N
? r •-r p N
`._ ap�r rL gFLV yu a� - oc Cd C uc -rp
.a. y °a �6N' A�q LNr � NO L'C NJV qAn -O r`yN_OG
L aC >� P�Nd r LY N« SyG A jn �(Cdgiq
_ _ 'OS r •w L W q
p0= 6T -P p_ aNN qq T- 6r -�a `.NH L•^ 'J ^• N -r
nO rr P -^ L� NS= 9L LVN dJ d aWq S.^ yyn�y -n
-fl
G • A ^ q •r 9 M L r > q d 0.� C q q- 9 S
O M 9
' r � a
N G« q
rdir C« nS Y^ O l'• .O C r i N O- A a' ^ A q �� O � M N ���^ O. 2
w T Y Y p N« C r N Y d r
T. O E •..rN�L AA�� PC ¢tl i` T Sr PO OCr Icy
S T� C i r 2 nC y �V `yraV C�
n NAr F
c5 'qc _
` .v
d O
y EE- N w> V
r_ O'
EEO C r ID4� L V q ^� OG aF 69«
6YL 6AGLL 6N¢a 64Wm 6! fyN �qG �L MO NA CV Jr9 nd P
n
T n u S V = Q y d- C yG
l i u Ec «q� e' q Ayy = ^qE
2b ° Tv 6u •'au u
V oLL YO Snr No QO O.»� uL
_ d F Or•� w L iq ycr Mq «S q
° C
d ur S 9 a C
y i ° •o °c ••tea qvb <rdr. ��c
c
J 4
dr
0 0 �� -jZi � `o� - ¢'c� _N ° '•' `r°n _q.-. � o o 'w °� = ° n o « u
°o oar e�nu_ - -N
} I -� C q d- V rr l r r a= . A N O q O
0 22 J O> L
► {ir I V; r cl _ E V P G •u a >c NCN >o. nc � a c.T.M
= ry W&
E` d y s PS • w ° u i E y
a J rr n p
r' S 1 N` N r -
9y!l� - S¢ N d N g Y
7 r 6 l 6 I r O ¢ V✓ 6 N- O V C O A G
" •• dE N_N �i a
•• 6 O r G� E _ _ a � \fVj'
m qJ V O 6� �• I
N 4 J`^ OV �I �•
\i C m
y V l� T✓ V L N d
V q •Li j
J a L d g y
o ° iPL'-a✓ v N
r q
✓ nj d ✓iq�Ti
u E. ��an c.L. a.dnYOO�V
_C n °O_7✓
V d n d n d r y
6 ^ry qr CCU
mE.L..��Nn cu'•O
St
L q « q
OCYd CF «aNiS ^L
L ✓° L m q N
y r r Y �✓ L 6 g y q
y l V
0- ?7Z ° p ¢L G
9 O q S T N L
O
n C•L..= V�p�NC'�
^ b" Lo✓ m`^
°W'r •� „vL LV N
o_Cgn ✓p ° «✓
O V T t
L C Y
My�'� CN✓� r
L 9� S W.°•� > 4 E
M L °� 9 N.✓ �
O O >
L N d q t
n� V Gy 2 M L S 2
9 O T v
m
« V
V �
y N ^9
V
N
C q O
y
N O
w >
N �
✓
V N C c
O
q
C E
O
Fp°
_OSIUL
TV
o
t o
r L
7 r y
L
_
V
VIP
•C 09V
y�✓
C g n O
9
V O V L
_✓
L C
o`�y
of
� V
m
_ L
q
L
O O •
T
a
V
O^ T
EI 7 n
=
CI
b
=Il
V
ddr y
O�9 q J q
+m'o on
°L E�
°r q°
O
td y� E e
r ~ q q
dao
> ✓ i
L
y ✓ d q m
q L C L
O
V
NoP u
NyLE e9L
S i m q Y
L r
Vlr V
Na�9 .Ji� °N•..
N L O y
L Y 4 V w
i
6�
C
« P = �r a •' P V O
q C0 O n 0� P O q O p g t q
E C r>
ga
N N i ✓
q C q 9 •
4-
m
O✓ � � �� •°'C✓ E �O PC9i
N° 9 a V i L d P6 r
v 9 q r '-16 C •9 L° d ti C m L
O q
y f _ a mL �' ���L = dN •O
9 N � ✓�qy ° NC ^rVC
Ey u r6-' Nr t.� q qEr iq aNV v
m L P N « O O L a O N C 6 q r
va a�w.
°” ° �� ¢ N r a J .°y �•c .tic
Ny a > v cCc
q V i O N F O y! C L S dr L n
q L° 1` n Pon ✓ V
p.2mm
ow
r ° N eu �>qJ e m cacti
O L O a
g q«
OI m i i T W O O i ^ m O q P Py L p
��a ^ .•� m
9 t t 04. NNE ✓nd
C <wCq Wm 06t
N �
1 J
f
W
=c✓NCd
J ✓ ✓Vr q Vd C
V m i °an L y G ✓« tL C✓ n
q.L L y d 9 C h✓ C q i N
.°.. 7 m_ _i o v mEdE is d va
a - N° d L a d $1 a•L v v
`
q
q ° q� L K 4 C r 2 v C✓ q
•La
w e coa _ r 'Y^cN� Id�Edm
N n e o j c a° r•
-• o r Y.V.ci °9m.. ^�.cd.V EEg9 ✓Q�
0
G q 09
.•T. �' r
r .L.t sram tic ro c�ni n.°e.
C V O
L 7 V ry a _ N N M d✓ 9 q Q
9 q C ✓✓ C d � 4 J N f 7 Q V C 9 - Q N
O q = �✓ y V j� a q y C r
✓ «N VO•.igq 2 �� qC�P O N C.�
O J✓ N _q 1:
C C V C N V L
.°.oac c•'o oL
Ln.
N V V O
6 q � ✓
r' O O OV C V
O y yV V y>-
�
j L
O C Vr N
s ✓
✓ I q O° V' O
rV mdo
L N Z q V
e £ic a�N >m
g P C e r T✓ n.
C OnQ °Tq
S� 4p�r9L n✓
^ v J L
O �
C r ✓ « 4 V
L e L' m✓ e
O N E V p T r N
L J
� � I w g N L«✓
N,
11
cv®i
0 C
C q
22, u
bt_
V
y
N L
G
•
a N q
J c
G a ^
u
C N
9D L L
b.
w400r
r ,�
V V
✓
E L N
C C
L
d 9_
_ D 9
� O O
�
O 4 r >
O
A
C u N P V A O
N^
V C C N p G
I{
L'OC
D
aO
'9
Grp
✓C
O
A
d
7 r 4 Z
P
C
�
O
LL4
J C� N
Q L
Y L
L
Lr
C 6
P
d�N V
L _ °
a
_V
°" cN ei
o
c
^
pdL
G Y
C i A T p
C Z
mjy,L•
uN 7A C�J
J�
vGC O
E
N a
E.
p� EO°
y4C
^c
ND�
C Lr
O
� 4
O
ILa- 9 C A C G 6 O
G1 V
N
d
r
O.'
V P
O Y
G
9
r
v
•O'
a
D
L
a y
+
� OI
d K
K ✓
C
OI
b
6 d
O
n�
H
O O
p 9
O O
O.O.
G °
C O
=� N
9I rI I
4'J
u
b
N
L
q
c
N T A
a
C q
bt_
J 9
G
•
N L
J c
C N
I
b.
w400r
r ,�
V V
✓
E L N
C C
L
d 9_
C
�
V
O
A
N^
I{
L'OC
dG
✓C
O
LO
L�
O
G
P
C
�
O
LL4
J C� N
Q L
Y L
✓
J A
WN
d L
y + +
^
pdL
G Y
a
C
✓✓
O N
C _P
b.
w400r
r ,�
E L N
a O
L
d 9_
9 C
C
,✓� L p=
^
O
A
✓C
O
LO
L�
O
G
P
C
�
O
LL4
J C� N
Q L
Y L
✓
aO
DA•Vn
�O
mjy,L•
.'�L W
oar+
^c
ND�
Y.y
„ZO
v
i
�a
aaLm
LN
L
rc•�i
�
i
�°
v
N e n
O
✓
✓ p^ EOOO
—
N!
A
SLY'
VJ
VZr 4
r
O ✓
TLL ]qOY Obi^
r O ✓ 9✓
✓C y
6l °E') P
Oryry'L P = 940.10EEOo.
^
CTCOa
�G 6✓ °
r4
U� WLL LZS 6V�V
C'
a \^
L 1
OI
0
o >
J t
N C
V L
_ t L y P a A O E A 9 ✓ j O G
�_ ✓� �O 0C P00. 90,N C r HO. P dL ' C
O'p_
d 9 O S
° n a = D V J J N ✓ W C
N S
M P A V w d L q O u✓ U C 9 v 4 0 0 C A D
N O b C O N � 0 E i O T O✓ � O. L i S 9 N r tJ
L N 7 L\ L �- N V T. V O O O ✓_ ✓ a �� � � a � d
P O_ ✓� M V V6. O'O4C 0 ^6V✓ A P� �4 ^9 Ot D dNr .
+ jL 9 ✓ P e O 7 d D N Z 40 y ^ _ y T
N C d C r L O L^ P — 9 L— +_ O + L Z C C N ^C C O• rVi v O Si
L � P a ✓ A
O� C A '� r_ C! �_ C 0 b O d O M N r r Z + C✓ � N v B 0 y u V
ti Z A V O d F V�� L d 9 L L V S p y 2 W d. 9 y �✓ V M
b�� V
aE :5Ir 1U
CVTN i � 9 �q N�q +DLV` OW 9OJ LSO A EL ^M
r S E N yam^ �N ✓'^e
pi a. O J4 M C P W V N u V 0 A C• °^
t O Cr ]r^ J^ Y V
O� }VE p^ Vd0
^+ OC Q•+ K d_ W S W V_ a d ' V O p G �_ q 6 C b✓ N 9 C 4 L+ 0' N � E� Y
9 � V b`
09r0 ti ✓ ^ lP9�y L9 �N `�D iNQ NJ y 9 °•>
tz
� cao c w ^p�ny �c G °' qy "ar qe'N c T a �vE
E9 �O OS VNl'C�O O>�09 NZ N9 CN `�9 uC VC La
E TL d ✓ �� —O G L 0 PY N O✓ A 9 J P^ A 4 C^ L Pr ^ C O C T M
r C
9 E
y�v A 0 9
✓� A NC✓ ✓E✓ ✓� Gj N^ ,Vi�V Cyr d TD
9_ E+ W= 6 yE C d^
O ^� �' A✓ O.QN 6 = y N � T Q ^NV NC q `q gv.CL
N O^ O C D d � q � C ✓^ 9 �[ Y ^ V a ^ �_ L V� Q✓
`4�q SO QP"'L COO O�JCC G+ LNV j r ✓.Cn LEA CN CLCO
_A d9d CdP CN NOLLL� LCVA ^V rD✓ I�ND N C M� G^ JLEr
G�ei E A Gti 6NYNaa
y4�N N 6N^ .
�I
0
•r a
✓ry
P^ V I g C O L J V
� O
L O
°�
C C N
0
• p N
� Y
q
O^
PCB d ..
C�
Pl9 O W✓
C`q
A °•�
Ow•'n
y
LµE b0
�°,••°,
a
L
a
Y q•Vr
`M
72
L n
p
`J
W9
✓
V
N
V ^ O
8600 CV50°
9�Oy
A CJ
L°.5t
m
C S
n �• q
w E g p
C✓ O V
V V
PLy
°�N
Jq ✓W w
✓Ld
q •°r
Ps �e
�E2
^cn^ Ys�E
L
=a c
q
a y
C.� f
O t
5 CAl6
WP
ci
O•a p.
d o9
Eo_
Uis_`VO
LY
O
a
� 9 d
q C
9
J O✓ d 6
g C O
TV
L
✓ Y
n
°> L O C
9
N
N
C
p✓ 6 0
°a•�°
c u.
Ab^
+On qa
dL
c�� ^°
am° L
L_C A
N
_7V
�W JC N
•�
_
.�' g0✓rp
Edc ^c^
..L°.
dOY�O
Qoo_ HE WN
115.5
C:5
O
C C L L L
. C C O^ .Yi• d
O� g T V A
't•
(O, _
L C q ` L
6^ O N
OI
pi rVWI 6J 6aWN
L
V
5 O
d
q�
q 6
C C A Y^
^ V Y
M d V i
O
•dr 9 L
S
m
N
A y
Y
°
q
W A
`^ q
L
d E
N
` O t O
N
•�A.�i•
Y °•°r � L
u C T
EdY
o ��
. d
`
�O6
0
pG!iNC
q�E
Oo
4a
aY
N6
aw
`ON
Oy�nOQ
L
6�
q'I�
b6
�O�✓
.°rC�
K ^P�nn
i
^+Ja
O
�L
�LG
6>
SN�U
TV
a�
Y
�
� t0
d J9Y C
6n N
N� PaV u5i�
WI a d
L
w
GLN
BONN
5A66
L n` C
°Y
mod„ ^9Lq
Vi ^C
.•°r
OL
6Y
A
bWd
rbJVU
PN�
Cq
q�
N ^09+
LYaS
`9
a°'o
N
i N
° L
V
✓ V
V P O
q
CIO-y i
A V
!'
O
Oki
N O V
d
C
O Y P
O..•
V C
C U O
b Y y P„
°• C i•.
b`� C
C
N
y
^ .EY
� D •r d
2I
YN
i
S
N!
��
LY P+
y
C N
VO O•A
�
V
-j
V O N
6
A d
V
`'1• a
G
-
5
n
O
q
O
W'
J
0
•r a
✓ry
P^ V I g C O L J V
� O
2
• p N
� Y
�
ms vc ^off
LµE b0
�°,••°,
a
jzE
✓ O L
p
✓
V
L �
Vpn
V ^ O
8600 CV50°
_
O
A CJ
L°.5t
m
C S
n �• q
w E g p
C✓ O V
V V
PLy
°�N
Jq ✓W w
✓Ld
q •°r
Ps �e
^cn^ Ys�E
L
=a c
q
a y
C.� f
O t
5 CAl6
V
O••`.a d V
O
q
^
a
O
O
L .°. W V W
J O✓ d 6
g C O
TV
L
✓ Y
n
°> L O C
V J O C
p✓ 6 0
` q
C
i _ y ✓ f
am° L
L_C A
N
_7V
�W JC N
•�
.�' g0✓rp
Edc ^c^
Ny ^^
dOY�O
Qoo_ HE WN
.��NCb cNi
O
C C L L L
. C C O^ .Yi• d
O� g T V A
't•
(O, _
L C q ` L
6^ O N
OI
pi rVWI 6J 6aWN
3UWN°
J
7�•
m
b P
c`
T`
i 5
6•r
O O
L N
L
O C
� d
O N
V N
P V
^ V
J �
m 9
E q
V q
C V
� n
V .
L N
w J
NI
i'
�I
C
W'
V d
qa
P�
� N
J P
m C
C �
5 +
L -J
La
J
V 5
L �
S L
T °
O
V
V
v
C
9 �
5
a 5
L q
P s
Z +
P
C
C y q
O _
O N J
V u P P L
4= J F
+ C
OLz - %N
6 V a W 7
L P
O L
C ^
9 j
v m
E
d
O
4
+ V
a o
a V
� O•
� yC
E
N ^
d 6
O
n'
P
G
9
a
O
M
e
d
A y
nr
9 f
d
P n
q
s o
� V
PJ
V
°np9
•[ O
W V V
O C
5
4
O q
^
a°
°
O q
N `
A U
6
P
v
� a
r
N
9
O �
V R
j
L N
P
aq
9 _
j 6
5Pb
L C V
! +c
L O E
P`
iec
yo
V
C 5 y
9pM
O q
V9 N
A y
a
r
` N
9
Y `
5
C
^Vf ^
°
N °•Ly P
G
T N R q
L� dP
n
q
°moo J
A n
9 q V
JV C
N PL.O
d C V V
L 9 r t
^ e°
OmN
PE�tC
q + n J
u�nt
INI
I
Y
l�
N
O
6
11
El
W
`o
L
C
V
N O V
A✓
T_O
l d� 0
I
6
✓
i
V
A _
O
C
—
d
V
i
J U A
V i a •+
A
C
G
9
L
O✓
9 T V
G
c.`. ✓L..
c
d
O I L
_ � O C
N � G�
J
Y
O
A
V W
L✓�
d�
N L
LPO
✓
6 O
/I
N
9 I
C i
P
` C
.L+
•O+ n N
d
C
Y
L p
L
`
i ¢
r
G d
q' A
V
N p
Gq O
` a� A
a L✓
✓
O 6
g y
N7Vp
N
�
^^
✓
✓
1
✓�
•
�r�.
�jqd
nn0
6✓ O
o�
C
Y
N
a
N S
TLd6T
dP0
LW
..O L6 'M
—
\\
C
Y ✓.
d d�
N
� G
L
N 9
y✓
d T
N
�
V
V �
C
l q
L L
^
L 9 d
V
u v
G
_
A
I
V
�
VyE ✓
A ✓=
6 a
^
✓
O
x
C N
O
. T
C
L [.
O
=e
V P N
�
P°
Ery
_
G A J�
O
—
A
N
^n
.y.
cq °
a
Nu
Q
E
==
dod
L
C
V
N O V
A✓
L-
l d� 0
V
O
✓
V
A _
V 9
V M
C
—
d
V
J U A
V i a •+
A
C
G
9
L
O✓
9 T V
G
c.`. ✓L..
c
d
O I L
_ � O C
N � G�
N
Y
O
A
7
�
L✓�
d�
N L
LPO
✓
C,
l V O L �
N
9 I
C i
P
` C
.L+
•O+ n N
d
C
Y
L p
L
`
r
G d
q' A
V
N p
Gq O
` a� A
a L✓
✓
g y
N7Vp
N
�
^^
✓
✓
✓�
•
�r�.
�jqd
nn0
6✓ O
r
C
Y
N
TLd6T
dP0
LW
..O L6 'M
—
_
C
Y ✓.
d d�
N
� G
L
N 9
y✓
d T
N
�
V
V �
C
l q
L L
^
L 9 d
V
?
G
_
A
I
V
�
VyE ✓
A ✓=
6 a
^
✓
O
x
C N
O
. T
C
L [.
O
=e
V P N
�
P°
Ery
_
G A J�
O
—
A
. .�
^n
.y.
cq °
a
Nu
Q
E
==
dod
qv
✓c
O
``°V^
NCaam
C�nL
C�
L�>�O✓
r
Y -✓
O�`Gd
qW QLF
•
Y.
O
��
�
^•
9q
N�
EPIi✓mc
L`
`wNo
✓✓
...
�"� O
O
i
qi
m
A N
Y C V
� m C
d W✓
°c
d—
�
d L a
o"na�EQ
a
p� o
w y� A
y �mc
E
O 6
cd
L
�.-
= y
`L -FJ"r9t
C L^ G y
y
� P L
—
^_ ` O O •
YVL
^ T
L a
AT
W'6
EL
—�'
^L
SL
uA
u n=
g a N O �
C
N°
Y ^✓
N
r
N'=
�{
N C
A O^
q
A
�• N O
—mm
V�V
P
✓d
P VupP
N�
�N
(jVVVV��✓p�
Vt �
�W
GV
��Y
hu
CY
Y dqY >�
Zd
N
LpW
CN
6
y
^ ^^
V �
I
E Y d
a
V
x�
�
✓ d am
V
Ne °G N.`
W— O
y�L�
O✓ O
--
Q V
Ac
6—
W ✓ ✓a
N L L V
A
2 n
oL
V O
cN—
9
LP
p
000
CG
t —O
,O_•"'
V
E,�„V
qV
lit
v
L
C
V
N O V
A✓
L-
l d� 0
V
O
✓
V
A _
V 9
V M
C
—
d
V
J U A
V i a •+
A
C
G
9
—
I
9 T V
� O
a0i
�
U
• 9^
v
Y
O
L
�
L
N
9 I
C i
P
` C
.L+
•O+ n N
d
C
I
�
=
r
V
N p
Gq O
L
•V.� O
U V
�
gO
•
�r�.
C
6✓ O
9 L
C
wVP
?
L
I
V
✓ C
y N
•
L
Q✓j
j
O
Y•
O
=e
�
P°
L n
G A J�
Y
—
O
V
x
m d
V T
t^ �
N C
� O
N A
�• N O
L
a
q
x
6
^ ^^
I
E Y d
a
V
x�
�
✓ d am
E w
x
N
LP
p
000
CG
t —O
,O_•"'
O.V
E,�„V
qV
v
9
E
A S q
9
L
( L C d^
Y O
V O
N
�✓
^y G U
O
C
G
V V
n
O
�
y�
e C S
�
d
✓
9 E
Y ..+
.r
w
N ,♦
O
q
OL
T
r
1
n
V y
C i
i J
� 9✓
��
� �
O
i
✓
✓
�_
a=
O�
O PL
O
y T
AN
Y q L
—_
CV N
Cy�
` �
� O
`C
=�
i
=`
6,^♦y0
006
�y
E`
F
NPN —C
�✓
M�
W Z
LOI
I
V A A x Z
6 L
V-
E
\}
S
I U
0
G
c_ a
Y V w
a f
a
T E •
c E
N C d —�
W G rGY
C ^
C 7 V V
O t
_ Y a
q r
q O d
iA
sue° `oa
a ncq
` U j
9
d C N 7 Y
a L > N
c d o c
'c °p a _ S
d l
ai y
^ mc�
L G L q q
ai+LOO �J"
2 V Y
t
> A 6Y?
uh b
V
c
q
O
G
O
L
d
N �
C P
V W
V
L.'
d V
G y
C T
a
rd
• L
ai
q
o AA
c
aI r G
dI
`C11 I
OI t
O
O
C
L
T
d
e
0
w
i t
v q
V
Or C T
�r
G
V N
p
O
o a
c•�e�i
o
y
C
y
\
C J
Y
r
O
� t
N
E
-
2{OL
T
d
O
Y
N
eau
v
`
c
o
u
L^
cqw
p y
N a
p
O N
q
y
va
y —N
9w
Yr Yi
DDDV
E
oc
zo
G L
M N
N
m
L 6
L.
O r
G
T
C
y
C
p
q O
P d
q
1
°L
dJ
C
EyG
W a
V.^i
I1 9 V
Q d
L N O
�
p
K
1LG
6n
L
»Ua
M
q
NI \n
VI I
1
i
O.
i t
v q
V
Or C T
�r
p
P
o a
c•�e�i
o
y
c
c
V
-
DDDV
I
M N
N
m
L 6
L.
G
T
C
y
C
i
—
q
1
q
V
L
C
'• O m
m
a>
p
K
a
�
W g V
M
q
ciq
O
O.�p°
NVJy
_
i
m
N
Q
q 5.
a
V
O
sz
g L
q M
r
uj
d
m
C
O
•'
V o
�
Y
Y
o
-`o
d
a..
NN
atl
n
ci
Nc
Ia L°.e
C O
N
� aim
•'• W
b �
m
�
q m
J V
QNJi
i-
116Y
INr
�r
43
C-
jj
mY
Ni
t
0
I
t
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANI0NGA
STAFF REPORT
�IDATE: January 12, 1953
1 TD. Members of the Planning Coam+ission
FROM:
Rick Gomez, City Planner
f BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner T
11
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL AJ�>t »'''F-"' me "` "'
WOODLAND PACIFIC A custom loC ted�onntthe east side of
BMW; on SS.9� acres,
Hermosa, north of Hillside 35 a d 38.1 "20'000 zone
201- 091 -03, 16, 17, 23, 30,
BACKGROUND AND SUtM7AP.Y: This project was initially brought before the
Co�s¢nisUW1 on August 25, 1982 to discuss the potential
Planning project design. As a result Of that meeting,
environmental i.apacts and p and cultural
the Planning Commission required the development
ogy. ° biota, and Initial
Study in the area of seismicity, re erred and is summarized in the
impacts. This irforrnat°f nth has s been
eport. prepared the Commission
environmental
has
discussed design ideas and concerns for this tract and the project
been revised to address those concern'- committees and has successfully
Dints under the Growth Management Assessment
The prcjet has been reviewed under for final
attained the necessary P the Planning staff has provided a
System and is now before
consideration. In additi °recommended cond� tions.
Resolution of APP generally located on
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is
of
the east side of Hermosa Avenue at the base of the foothills The Eucalyptus
u The site contains approximately 56 acres of land, the majority
h ). planted Eucalyptus grove.
seventy -five years and th
which is covered by a densely P percent grade
grove has peen in existe d e ton ap Theisitelslopes at a 10 p
trees are in varying
in a southerly direction and contains several small drainage swa es.
zonad P. -1- 20,000 and the area is planned
The Cucamonga Fault zone covers a portion of the northern limits of the
project. The site is presently of less than two units per acre. A
for a very low residential density Council.
portion of this site is shown on the General y the City potential park,
but has since been eliminated as a ?
,° ect site has warranted a character ofJtfie
ANALYSIS: The sensitivity of the P" �. This has been accomplished
land a terms no Y the, treesllanda�gr des the existing
ITEM I
Tentative Tract 12237 /Woodland Pacific
Planning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 2
mainly through the creation of a curvilinear street design, a reduced
street section, variable lot patterns and widths, maintaining existing
trees, and maintaining existing grade wherever possible. Staff has
recommended that Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC &R's) are
prepared for this development which would assure the preservation of the
trees and natural grade of the lots.
Lot 85 of the tract, which is located in the northwest corner,
is
proposed to be dedicated to the City mainly for the purposes of flood
control. This lot will be used to transition water fr-3m northerly
canyons into the Alta Loma Channel. The tentative map also notes that
this lot is being dedicated for park purposes. This lot, when
dedicated, cannot be dedicated for park purposes unless specifically
accepted by the City Council for that use. The City Engineer has
recommended several conditions for storm drain improvements and
recommended v the construction and ;inancing of the Alta Loma
Channel.
As a custom lot subdivision, the final design of the perimeter approved parker ys,
walls, and fences are required to be reviewed nstall Lion of all the
final recordation of the map. Additionally,
trails, fences, drainage structures, and interior clean up will be
required with the installation of street improvements.
The Desian Review Committee reviewed the project design on several
occasions to arrive at this final design. The Design Review Committee
wanted to achieve a unique cortmunity and strong neighborhood identihe
through a combination of the tre of this design proposal �in a its t. current
Committee has recommended app
design.
The Trails Committee: has reviewed the trail plans and wage with the
project on several occasions. The tract has been P
network of interior trails and community trails to connect with trails
to the north and the community trail along the west side of Hermosa.
All recommendations of the Trails Committee have been incorporated. The
Trails Committee was concerned with the local fee
de tmaylgo from athat
on Hermosa and where an equestrian rider or jogg-
point. Therefore, the Committee requested an additional ten to twelve
foot trail along the entire east side of Hermosa Avenue.
The developer and his engineer suggested that this can sbe accommodated
trough usage of the standard parkway along the
rather than adding an additional ten to twelve —foot easement. Since
that parkway is presently void of trees and the Design Review Committee
intended to maintain a 20 -foot buffer of trees from the property line to
the proposed dwelling units, usage parkway work
well. The parkway s sufficient to accommodate atrail and the
as a trail. This would
developer has agreed to design the parkway
satisfy the concern of the Equestrian Committee as well as the Design
Tentative Tract 12237 /Woodland Pacific
Planning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
® Page 3
Review Committee's concern for maintaining a buffer of trees.
Therefore, staff has included a recommendatior, that the Hermosa Avenue
parkway be designed and built as a trail.
i_NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The expanded Intial Study has been completed
through the compilation of several reportsand Those p ultural aspects. T
hydrology, he
areas of seismicity, biota,
following is a summary of tmeasures are proposed to beri � ncarporated into the project. areas and what
1, Seismicity: The fault line which was dpinvithelnortherndparttof
tract map has now been accurat21Y plotted
the tract. The seismicity report has recommended several
conditions:
a. No structures for human occupancy shall be constructed within
75 feet of said fault line.
b. No structures for human occupancy shall be constructed north of
the fault.
C. Design of all proposed stuctnres should conform to all the
seismic City of Rancho Cu Cucamonga Building ding Code and to the
ld ng D vision
2. Biota: A report was prepared to analyze the plant and animal life
on the site and to propose any mitigation measures. The findings of
the assessment showed that there were no rare threatened or
,
t
endangered plant or animal species found the property.
it was found that the vegetation of the site is principally
non - native and of relatively low habitat value to wildlife. The
major mitigation measure here is the preservation of as much of the
Eucalyptus forest as possible.
3, Hydrology: A detailed hydrology report has been prepared and will
provide the necessary guidelines for the design or the final
improvements. The report outlines interim and permanent measures
that can be taken to accommodate the drainage of this area. Nuch of
the physical design of the storm drain system will have to be
coordinated with the Alta Loma Channel design and would be done
during the design stages of the infrastructure improvements. The
basic finding of the report is that the water coming from the north
can be safely conveyed from the north through the property into
appropriate drainage structures.
4. Cult_ ..ural Ash A cultural resources assessment was prepared by
an archeglog�sts from the San Bernardino County Museum
Association. There were found no known cultural resources on the
project site or within the project area. It was recommended that in
the event cultural remains are found during the course of grading, a
Tentative Tract 2237 /Woodland Pacific
Planning Commission Agenda
January 12, 1983
Page 4
qualified archeologist be consulted in order that such remains may
be properly evaluated.
In light of the specific studies that have been conducted, staff finds
that appropriate mitigation measures have been applied to the project
which would alleviate any project impacts to an insignificant level.
Therefore, it i° recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued with
the mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the project
design and through the conditions of approval.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing item
in the newspaper and the property has been posted. To date, we have
r_t;eived no correspondence either for or against this project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct
a public hearing and receive all public input regarding this project.
If following the public hearing the Planning Commiission concurs with the
findings outlined in the proposed Resolution, it is recommended that the
Planning Commission adopt said Resolution of Approval for Tentative
Tract 12237.
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "8" - Natural Features Map
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit. "0" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
E
u
TES . rAMVE IMAM T22si
WOMMUMON&MONAL"FIE5T
ss ff�
ry
A-1-5 i
au,
t---
ro
i'M "�
IPL 30L
VFW"
jl�
SFJ:L
. --j
•
I-
A J
r. 1 .1
R-1-20
low
ss ff�
ry
A-1-5 i
au,
t---
ro
i'M "�
IPL 30L
VFW"
jl�
SFJ:L
. --j
•
I-
A J
r. 1 .1
TENTATIVE TRAC'. 12237 ;
�I q EFY2 D
Uq
eieurrvus GROW f a l ; .
armacc®lum
—
d
7 =
cuss r 7N
TRACT x0. 122:;7
eROP�v c�vnow
J
1 -
1 _
f
• Y
4
�,wA RLON �•'
.ypG�w[.Y 6vG.P•G.� � �� •�
lawGG. ✓.•C�G. FIN
, M -•K
all
cam• y : - c r �.auLV�i.IV.
r T -s1e 1
�—
WCDATY FLAP
.►
p ao ao ]00 up
_i:
._CGNCEPTUAL G=DWG PLAN
TENTATIVE TPA= 1i(- 1=7
z d IM ^iv OF I&MQ M =UCXW -4%Gh
Z
r
:..s.� xis.•.... `�'a�^[L-S wl
r
Rf.o
I
w
� K
1
�I •mil
axe .m
PM TA I �D4
�__ t.. ,yr••�� �� I� �Jr�� �� IIOVAfA tKT
I at• �w�. LYty N
I
s
s
PM TA I �D4
�__ t.. ,yr••�� �� I� �Jr�� �� IIOVAfA tKT
I at• �w�. LYty N
I
Ll
RESOLUTION NO. x
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CO"DITIONALLY APPROVING
TEN',ATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12237
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12237, hereinafter "Map" submitted
by Woodland Pacific, applicant, for the purpose of sub6ividing the real
property situated in the City of Rancho C::camnnaa, County of San Bernardino,
Sate of California, described as 55.95 acres located on the east side of
Hermosa A•renue, north of Hillside into 86 lots, regularly cane before the
Planning Co:mnission for public hearing and action on January 12, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has r_comiended approval of the Map subject
to all conaitions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's
reports; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission has read and considered tie
Engineerirg and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence
presented zt the public hearing.
NOW, 110REFORE, t`+e Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonna does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in
reo_ard to Tentative Tract No. 12237 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with all
applicable interim and proposed general and specific
pans;
(b) The design or improvements of he tentative proposes
consistent with all applicable
general and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of
development proposed;
(d) The Jesign 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 n;.t 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 throug'a or use of the
property within the proposed subdivision.
Resolution No.
Page 2
(�) That this project will not create adverse impacts on
the environment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
SECT_ reto, I_ ON 2= Tentative Tract Map No. 12237, a copy of which is
e is hereby approved subject to all of the following conditions
attached h
and the attached Standard Conditions-
PLANNING reserve
1. existingh e tre a maintenance of etrails,tand minimize
grading. The CC&R's shall be developed by the
applicant and submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to approval of the final map.
2. uses. s been accepted for park and
recreational
3. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls
and fences shall be completed by the applicant and
approved by the City Planner prior to firal map
approval.
4. The Hermosa as a all be designed and developed
by the applicant
5. All trails, fences, drainage structures and site
clean up shall be done in conjunction Witt' street
improvement installations.
6. The two trail crossings over Hsignedd Sby'1 the
texturized and appropriately 9
applicant.
7. No structures for human occupancy shall be built
within 75 feet of the fault line or north of the
fault line.
B. All structures in this project shall be designed to
conform with all seismic requirements of the Ungiforin
Building Code and City standards.
g, If any evideiice of cultural remains is F_•und during
the development of this project, work shall be
stopped and a qualified archeologist shall be
consulted for a proper evaluation of the remains.
Resolution No.
Page 3
IJ
ENGINEERING DIVISION
10.
Developer shall be required to install a concrete
drainage structure a,cnq Alta Loma Channel from its
northerly tract boundary to the proposed channel at
Wilson Avenue. The cost of this stormdrainage
system shall be credited against the stormdrainage
fee for this project and a Reimbursement Agreement
per City Ordinance 75 will be executed to cover the
contributions which exceed the fee amount.
11.
The above condition shall be waived when and if the
Alta Loma Assessment District is formed to complete
the installation of an improved channel.
12.
Developer shall submit a letter to the City Engineer
requesting the extension of the Alta Loma Charnel
boundary to include the portion of the tract as
noted on the Tentative Tract Map. Execution of
Payment Guarantee Agreement for participation in
consulting cost relative to formation of Alta Loma
Channel shall be required.
13.
Developer shall be required to install a
stormdrainage system along the southerly tract
boundary from its easterly boundary to the proposed
Alta soma Channel.
14.
The above condition shall be waived when and if the
Alta Loma Assessment District is formed to complete
the installation of an improved channel.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST: _
Secretary of the Pl.nnina Commission
Resolution No.
Page 4
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Comrission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly ;ntroduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Comnissijn held
on the 12th day of January, 1983, by the following vote —to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
E
E
0
11
✓_TP ..C.q A C q
d99 �
aC � PVC .O ` O'p N�� ✓`
dV-
W
A q� V
J°
0 0
�_ ° q L � `
N Z^
V ;� N ✓
G
9 O d^ E V l
N a
y] A
d✓ t a C;
T •-n d T'• � L✓ C L .( y � Y E
� ) m � q
rd
^_ d N N 9 A 6 G
N q M D O � L 9• ~ E O 9
_T
z
"ai
.e ^. an • =itlFn✓
rL °"•
L.^ u
,off �° a.
1
pJz
Z
r 9v Tr
N- y „��
N A ✓_ p M
�[bU �9Da
y a i
q d� r
'•o. D^ r �pW dq°
a T q 0 D -
� y o p
N
C
N^^ � d C
d
o �
i`.c�•°'o
y, L°. c E cL�
�° use m �
uc i ^°,° P L
°! 9
d U_ r �� 9 .r
.ii V G^ q C” ° G j 6 p� y V N L 6
a r 6 Y•
�
q�
'_ DT>.•�
r ^6 Lp.Cn `
N 9-✓'f Nd`f�6O
b O.V L N✓
A L N ✓
✓S =P
V✓ N A D q a✓ C j V G C✓
G
W
_ L � d
N
q •• C 9 d^ �
P q E V 9 '• L 9_ J �^ <�°
°✓ N
9
N~
E C � � l^ r O° d D O y° C 9� 6
V
N O
d °` F C
a V E N q J^ � O
N V
y N� 9 •
dC
CZ CL N
q � d q
d Z VJ >^ G C` gggV9 PC
r
�
.°d•
r9d i A d�� qi
p
qL>
^G�deCA
^ i9 NC 6` ~qC
^q A
9
a 9 y C r
•q�-
N d d h y N q
L
J d�N
^ 6 y L j y 4� L G y CA 4 O.
�
N✓
✓ o q 1= D •• E N
�� t C N L
P✓ y� p
N G✓ C � > C 6
Y± O
_` �q N
✓
r O 9PL
GC
'^� rr.0 � ^.r ^ ✓O CN N N✓�d✓
9 A q
`O �r n0
°O~
°M
N w.•C.. iZV N`C NV S«d9Y�LC
qN 6-
` ✓r OC
Y.?q
O O•r r J r G QC••T�A
L ✓ ° p
=C
O. O. >. °-
O. d N O V ^ L q,• i NyE T e C V 'O ✓ V V q a^ O.
M• N�
O✓ N L q`
! i
V L am` v 9 C A C
C °
> � r C
lY C✓ N= E
P u 0 _. •D V O V 4 L g P
i 9 N CCAO rp L >�C
OTN
ep
�V V✓
�
`J�NO
CL9 ' (�6p° pO
A✓�
�� .dY9q VL•> E � ✓9L DL q
-9N 9N VO
^a
Or •Fl PP OVQC
O ^V N 6V ^d LTCG�i
y '�
��V r
✓ O �� '� y
w� rt`u G.•n q0�4� Y C <Y JYOGVq
9
q M
C
✓_ y J d C i L�„
A
^ O°
N� Fi• L M O N
E r
y 9 6 Y
r O r J L O
d ._.• •
G • H
L� G
V
6VD
J
'� �
•�
� � I: I
11
L O E C
✓ O
TOq i0
D Tp ✓ C 9
d = ✓ V C m >
� d � 01,
JJ •=i. y O q d q
O
C G p N G
`A•m.• 9V= KAY
P✓ d pp
�L-
b� Pqp �N
A PP 6 P• =r
N qy-
A
O N
A P 6 •
A C C � r� S O✓
�� E 6� q ✓ N C
fLd E V 'NJ' EJf• r O f
✓ F° O V
�� y L E ✓ a< ✓
�CL� Q pL qq °d
C C
° u
` 7 q
NI O 6
E�
t� ^I
6
9 L'
C� q^ A L V= ✓
y y q '� 6� V � d✓
N� C�� O ✓9� Y_O✓
L✓ °A� ANO� YTy
pEae
C✓` q d e .di• O S e
V V d y y V ✓ d ` q.
y 9
Ar V 9 ° TLS
V q r N •D! L _
�N Dom,✓ <NG LY•gN
V> 9 'O ` O
>O L °GD L9rN
d C O P ✓� � G^
9t ON C^ NO 7✓
d^ °O.> • °rJ sP
aL Ar NEeo ✓���
p C°dD^ y
G
Ar � °C O.dO j.✓i. ON�d
o•
fl• N i� q yE 6 6
C� N ^_ s90 •• O ¢OqO
47
1
r
1
W
z
W
1
pJz
Z
I�a
�
W
Z
O_
V x A OI
_
j
O
V
q p
O O
O
G
r
�
(JC]7�0"�yj4i
t
O
u
C
�
u
I q <
y V
V
J
u 5
1
�O
• ¢
r ^r
J O 6
V
J
L O E C
✓ O
TOq i0
D Tp ✓ C 9
d = ✓ V C m >
� d � 01,
JJ •=i. y O q d q
O
C G p N G
`A•m.• 9V= KAY
P✓ d pp
�L-
b� Pqp �N
A PP 6 P• =r
N qy-
A
O N
A P 6 •
A C C � r� S O✓
�� E 6� q ✓ N C
fLd E V 'NJ' EJf• r O f
✓ F° O V
�� y L E ✓ a< ✓
�CL� Q pL qq °d
C C
° u
` 7 q
NI O 6
E�
t� ^I
6
9 L'
C� q^ A L V= ✓
y y q '� 6� V � d✓
N� C�� O ✓9� Y_O✓
L✓ °A� ANO� YTy
pEae
C✓` q d e .di• O S e
V V d y y V ✓ d ` q.
y 9
Ar V 9 ° TLS
V q r N •D! L _
�N Dom,✓ <NG LY•gN
V> 9 'O ` O
>O L °GD L9rN
d C O P ✓� � G^
9t ON C^ NO 7✓
d^ °O.> • °rJ sP
aL Ar NEeo ✓���
p C°dD^ y
G
Ar � °C O.dO j.✓i. ON�d
o•
fl• N i� q yE 6 6
C� N ^_ s90 •• O ¢OqO
47
1
r
NI O 6
E�
t� ^I
6
9 L'
C� q^ A L V= ✓
y y q '� 6� V � d✓
N� C�� O ✓9� Y_O✓
L✓ °A� ANO� YTy
pEae
C✓` q d e .di• O S e
V V d y y V ✓ d ` q.
y 9
Ar V 9 ° TLS
V q r N •D! L _
�N Dom,✓ <NG LY•gN
V> 9 'O ` O
>O L °GD L9rN
d C O P ✓� � G^
9t ON C^ NO 7✓
d^ °O.> • °rJ sP
aL Ar NEeo ✓���
p C°dD^ y
G
Ar � °C O.dO j.✓i. ON�d
o•
fl• N i� q yE 6 6
C� N ^_ s90 •• O ¢OqO
47
1
r
v
O
G
a Y V °V 9 V^ A✓ 7
O ✓ _ y q _
z C q T
C y r d L ✓
E— A.bocL•e �m..'o Pu
L- TOYUm ^m
^ uOULL n_?L
V U 6 y q ✓ Y
GG y
L•p`_V'
d E u 9 C N n C y+ C
C C V 9✓ d q ✓
2
.,;,z
S
q _N ° P
0
°
pem„y ami iu✓
9 V A ✓ q q O
v�y �d�z =in =a
?a`�_�N� LV N
y0 TL
✓ Gy� O A =
w°+b� V�EC N✓� .+
c4a�
iw� 2V + — +V2✓
1
S O T a
b
Q r ✓ L
V
D
V V
r
TdU-'
p O 9
N 9
p>
c
N O
A � T
_Nn
^
V
>
u0i
v C A
N6
b P q¢ N'
q
yoICpE
n E N
OS W y
-'boy
�y4
o, .z
G
C 9
—2
C O
i G i
y
u V a
mco�
r
� O a
0 0
T
Vu ��
saL -L-c �a
1
0
e
0
O
L
u
V
9
� V
�s
�o
� c
-L
O
v_
L C
N �
� L
w d
O1 c
y o
e°
r1 V �
N
0
u
v co
q'c
A
p0 q
q
s y o
S V 6
6 q
J O
C ✓q
.2z
m�•Oi
v p1
L O
C
G
0
✓
r
w
U
0
t
L
e.
T
N
q C O
0Z >
A V
q L N
✓
q � S
✓ A G
L
�r q
c
T
C Q S C
Ne °L..6
�✓ mH
N y O
ar o«
N d = 9
NLJO
r r N L
.ql
W
n
v
s
u
0
j
p
Y
a
H
O C
c a
✓ L
C v
_ 2
1 L
-N• o
C N
� q
4 L-
do
oc
,L
O 6
� u
4
G C
i V
q q
r
q+
L i
t
N C
N A
9 G
A Q
� C
0
V
O
o�
o ^ '
�cD
q �
V
✓
V P
L_�
G
6� J�
0
ao o.Nw
y C ^
d=
a
q
_L pp
L N •Or
P
gyQL
d
V f H p
C N n
Vb
t c�d
qS L�
e�L V
N O
V O M
V p
N °
_t
D V
O d O r
09-I `-CO`V
e
O 2 q
W G A
•N a
w
aLi
n
v
L
m
EyT
C'
t
Y
G
r
O
e
J P
q c
O
9 q
a
C d
c"
d
d i
N O
G L
= U
e
P9
N
^ d
E �
c a
Ey T
A e a
VLP
D r
—N�
Q U Q
L +
J �
d
l
O Vyy
N C
P q
{ ` V
6
YL w
V
p Z y
N'
O
p.+
-- c
A �
N P
C q
r
d
r M
v
r
V
e
v
q
i
r
J
S
r
u
L
o�
V L
d �
a E
y
L O
y
a
�a
G J
�N
— b
b c
a 0
9
S
9
T
u
L
9
d
L
N
—
V
A
w
P
L
6
4
L
d
6
b
O
b
P
q n
L a
r 9
2 �
S d
O N
G G
d °
a r,
N
+ m
N^
r
� e
O
p —
a y P L
6
L Y
prL
N d O
a
by ✓N
r �
r `D
v T6�
N U P
a L
Aa
- v
<N _G
L. y_
N G
O � C
c y s
✓ V V
t_L L
J N ✓ V
¢ N
O G p+
c oY_
q N A V
u =` c
V C �
N
r
9 q
c.r u
W O O L
V A V l •
V
H -• q
T o d
V y
C
C 9 O
£ u
WW p0
6 � �
m A ^
L -
v w J
=g e
•Lil L D C
a
Py q P
c
coN=
b L
C
A o
72 4
_ F �
m d
L C �
A O O
c
pL
O q
N N
- T
is -a
n�v �
C q
— a _
-C6
vOq
—u• E
q�q
O G
n P�
b C
mac`
N A L
V
n
^ r
C
= L O O
N
q Oaa
q
C P✓
^
c +
✓ Ar
Lda�
V V
C L O S
q L b V
O V O
�r•cd
NN
V y N V
C ^ L
�yLr
M r ^
a
+ p O q
Y a "
9 q O L
_ p
`n t
W
d PJyp -a L
D N d �, ✓ �
V
OL CJOG
w' qq V G T
6 CS Yom`
° L ✓v
o °LE�m
_ t
V LCNJ
u
Vp VL j 9
L'S✓ TO>
D O
I}lILJ_ L
O
Utz 6 bQ
S E o ✓ r
Ec
E V J V p
9 P O 9
cL
v�otc�+
L L O 9 L d
y q C 6 N
d
6C-V-V
V J
C N d L
OL qL Cq
q p
nN 6j9N
q O O d
N «
E C� Poo
A ° E
d O q
s:NJro
O ✓
q V
s u r N L-
^'^
�„A6aL
^ 6 9 y L
V �°y
V
°✓
q L n • N r
m V yr d
a � l PeL
c
L +
i o'pO92_=
M L O L f
N G PC
O N
N N O P g L
O P
PPV L9 d
W V N O p 2
Y. a r Pr L L
LGNUE�'T V
n+ GEGE
w q0�-f
✓v4�0 +o
6E «� LVi .T.MJ
Nr C g L G y N '1
d °an >mdy`om
s o.b+.T. -� ✓c o
bci
J r A E O u u O
oy ct^
LE EEL^inim
S p� E V y m O
q J V 9
�� °yQDT N
q�,oC�aD pr
�o yoLN L
P O
r C r g C a L S
a d O
°�y•OngNCJ^
1
N
0
0
Z
9
v
i
9 00 V��a
a
V
uAA >
`o-Q
oa c o
'n
O"i9
QCN
q2
V G
U
G
p�
i
1
1
V y
J
L
a
E G
�
a
[1
q� Cdr
CO
_N69
°'
L Yd anNQ
td qod i
06 d 4' N�✓r
! yd� E
L ^
r
A
'T� TOO YO9Y
COVP
0L
h0 �6f yy � ^q i-C OY o
J
q N > d S
q
^ G d
G
O
O 4 ^
G f N q O
L r
6
a�9� NO d
O
N
d c G C q
q
7
N J Q
QS dd Q G
d
I
c
q •-
d ^
i
6
r✓ 9✓ t
C �
L
d
P
r
N
o
r
Q
T O`"
CyE f
d Z
A
d Pr O C _
L
C
V
Sy
r
V Td AO
QO
d fY
P'iE
6
C
� E
TC
q
Aq
as
1 d
C N
n
C'I�1
O
Z
9
v
i
q
9 00 V��a
a
uAA >
`o-Q
oa c o
'n
O"i9
QCN
q2
V G
U
G
p�
V y
J
L
a
E G
�
a
[1
q� Cdr
CO
q
Wr W
C
OI
b
V
O N
G O
y
d
c
> °
I� u
C
u O
I -- O
S
�V
Y C
L NE<
r
o ="
y Pi
L M ^ C
�u c
1i if
Ord Li `� q M e V� O L•7i
�L aY Gy qd> � -tea✓ r (1" 9 N
MSRC• ` V 'g4')wdidi ^ >V�y
_ H ^ U C L L � L V✓ ¢ N d I L a N J
O -q qL> 00 LN L Lr ^N �q • y qT
^ A N C y y O y P O ^^ O � d 4 ^^ q .� = C- q^ ^ O.y y ✓ q n
q L P yLO ^✓ �` qP qid r a
°od
EG^ T ^9 ^OCq b'�L Y`C ` � >'Lj � ✓S N d C LLV
! C- 9L 6G Y ^G j >9 J q L C✓ ✓
oo V V V
o —�° C
qrN • _ — Ty A� 6L 6yC CV a LL�r
C q d _ q � ✓� q LV_ yG 60 _ O> V...ii _
9 C � � q q V O qv 6 N yy ✓
�OV` 4 ✓� 6 .N.iNO CU.J "`` =�✓ � L9 dL9 l N � GO
P°yC C q d q J O C� O. ^= E L q C d ✓^ V Y N G N q S✓ T O> a
�O tC O�fO J �y�e q yC qd G� qi W 2 L C 6�
c P —T b y O L` A' 9 N E ^ N c o a? J p N q L n .V o ✓ L i
L c
O O° _O O. v O_ � N q_ O� O G ^ C g C V N d q> y U q °� N G✓ d V V P OC E
E y j t•1 d _ K. N � M N N g i N d� d O 9 O O ° r V q ^ 6 q W ^ ✓ q
GNP L OC '� ddP L C✓ CL6 dV^' >.yN — SG N
C ^GOO Cr��C qr ^q qG9 PAY AGO °TS
_ T yV Q L TS q
q. ✓d OVT 1'dy NNgq`F .� Qc ^ ✓O C` fin. dq� pE— dL dE Pq
V` Yf J.]� Y� A�6^ ✓ —qC0^1 qr q9T 9N G N 'L^G O
O C O 4 C R T 0 Y d ^ L 9 d V
d9 V q t N O �� O a N N N �•• O Q •J n C G= E N V r 2 N '� ✓ ... d V d 6C � p��
g d 6 N G N i G� N O✓ L J� � L{ u= ^ G ^
G N g N 6J 6 N
I \TI 11
(h
1
9 00 V��a
^ • VO
uAA >
`o-Q
oa c o
N ou
o a
�
NN
9
�
y✓ ��> �
q� Cdr
V^ Ty A
_N69
°'
Wr W
C
OI
b
V
O N
G O
y
d
c
> °
I� u
C
u O
I -- O
S
�V
Y C
L NE<
r
o ="
y Pi
L M ^ C
�u c
1i if
Ord Li `� q M e V� O L•7i
�L aY Gy qd> � -tea✓ r (1" 9 N
MSRC• ` V 'g4')wdidi ^ >V�y
_ H ^ U C L L � L V✓ ¢ N d I L a N J
O -q qL> 00 LN L Lr ^N �q • y qT
^ A N C y y O y P O ^^ O � d 4 ^^ q .� = C- q^ ^ O.y y ✓ q n
q L P yLO ^✓ �` qP qid r a
°od
EG^ T ^9 ^OCq b'�L Y`C ` � >'Lj � ✓S N d C LLV
! C- 9L 6G Y ^G j >9 J q L C✓ ✓
oo V V V
o —�° C
qrN • _ — Ty A� 6L 6yC CV a LL�r
C q d _ q � ✓� q LV_ yG 60 _ O> V...ii _
9 C � � q q V O qv 6 N yy ✓
�OV` 4 ✓� 6 .N.iNO CU.J "`` =�✓ � L9 dL9 l N � GO
P°yC C q d q J O C� O. ^= E L q C d ✓^ V Y N G N q S✓ T O> a
�O tC O�fO J �y�e q yC qd G� qi W 2 L C 6�
c P —T b y O L` A' 9 N E ^ N c o a? J p N q L n .V o ✓ L i
L c
O O° _O O. v O_ � N q_ O� O G ^ C g C V N d q> y U q °� N G✓ d V V P OC E
E y j t•1 d _ K. N � M N N g i N d� d O 9 O O ° r V q ^ 6 q W ^ ✓ q
GNP L OC '� ddP L C✓ CL6 dV^' >.yN — SG N
C ^GOO Cr��C qr ^q qG9 PAY AGO °TS
_ T yV Q L TS q
q. ✓d OVT 1'dy NNgq`F .� Qc ^ ✓O C` fin. dq� pE— dL dE Pq
V` Yf J.]� Y� A�6^ ✓ —qC0^1 qr q9T 9N G N 'L^G O
O C O 4 C R T 0 Y d ^ L 9 d V
d9 V q t N O �� O a N N N �•• O Q •J n C G= E N V r 2 N '� ✓ ... d V d 6C � p��
g d 6 N G N i G� N O✓ L J� � L{ u= ^ G ^
G N g N 6J 6 N
I \TI 11
(h
1
9 00 V��a
^ • VO
uAA >
`o-Q
oa c o
N ou
o a
�
NN
q W
A 9r°y'
y✓ ��> �
q� Cdr
V^ Ty A
_N69
°'
L Yd anNQ
td qod i
06 d 4' N�✓r
! yd� E
L ^
r
A
'T� TOO YO9Y
COVP
0L
h0 �6f yy � ^q i-C OY o
Wr W
C
OI
b
V
O N
G O
y
d
c
> °
I� u
C
u O
I -- O
S
�V
Y C
L NE<
r
o ="
y Pi
L M ^ C
�u c
1i if
Ord Li `� q M e V� O L•7i
�L aY Gy qd> � -tea✓ r (1" 9 N
MSRC• ` V 'g4')wdidi ^ >V�y
_ H ^ U C L L � L V✓ ¢ N d I L a N J
O -q qL> 00 LN L Lr ^N �q • y qT
^ A N C y y O y P O ^^ O � d 4 ^^ q .� = C- q^ ^ O.y y ✓ q n
q L P yLO ^✓ �` qP qid r a
°od
EG^ T ^9 ^OCq b'�L Y`C ` � >'Lj � ✓S N d C LLV
! C- 9L 6G Y ^G j >9 J q L C✓ ✓
oo V V V
o —�° C
qrN • _ — Ty A� 6L 6yC CV a LL�r
C q d _ q � ✓� q LV_ yG 60 _ O> V...ii _
9 C � � q q V O qv 6 N yy ✓
�OV` 4 ✓� 6 .N.iNO CU.J "`` =�✓ � L9 dL9 l N � GO
P°yC C q d q J O C� O. ^= E L q C d ✓^ V Y N G N q S✓ T O> a
�O tC O�fO J �y�e q yC qd G� qi W 2 L C 6�
c P —T b y O L` A' 9 N E ^ N c o a? J p N q L n .V o ✓ L i
L c
O O° _O O. v O_ � N q_ O� O G ^ C g C V N d q> y U q °� N G✓ d V V P OC E
E y j t•1 d _ K. N � M N N g i N d� d O 9 O O ° r V q ^ 6 q W ^ ✓ q
GNP L OC '� ddP L C✓ CL6 dV^' >.yN — SG N
C ^GOO Cr��C qr ^q qG9 PAY AGO °TS
_ T yV Q L TS q
q. ✓d OVT 1'dy NNgq`F .� Qc ^ ✓O C` fin. dq� pE— dL dE Pq
V` Yf J.]� Y� A�6^ ✓ —qC0^1 qr q9T 9N G N 'L^G O
O C O 4 C R T 0 Y d ^ L 9 d V
d9 V q t N O �� O a N N N �•• O Q •J n C G= E N V r 2 N '� ✓ ... d V d 6C � p��
g d 6 N G N i G� N O✓ L J� � L{ u= ^ G ^
G N g N 6J 6 N
I \TI 11
(h
1
F
V
6
11
El
11
LOS
•y
OY pr
LO✓
GOp` ^✓L_
t
a °_
CLU
V i
✓
J '^ C
P
C 6
L
9~ S
A •Vr
l u
L i✓
N
Y = y
N
N
�r
°gym' ^.o
o � �
V
v N
6�
G < r.�
D Tv
= Lp u.•
i
_ S
°•.G. 3
✓ e
V
Vp
9
ifJC
C
d
6N�
L O
V d
c q
Y E y
A N q
^ 7 d J
✓ p N P
... L
NO
4' i 6 O
L
V
PVQt dV
E ^rSC
9P90«
N«
9y
aNy
9CV A
9Y
✓q
L✓
_
j
y D�
N
O
N O
O N u
O O A
� V
4=
q
J U� V .. L
�✓ �
✓CL
q�
Y S C •qr O
LN+�r
^ G
^O
L'
•�q
9
O' CAYL ^V✓
= V� yA ✓ A V
N i L S
`
O G
� C �^ L.
q C
D
w
Y
NPO
j0
LT
P `dN0 0.0.0
d N
N
OL
,x 9 V
V. y
C P q C ^
C N N V
A
G Q
v h L G^
p N
`
G
E
O O
L. y N q N
G O ✓ i
y C T
yg
G
d`
9dui
O—ly^
°L •^W U^
�`�
Gs
a«
d0�
D^
•., LLp
L A V V
V
dNE
W 6
qY°
G yCN�
0.1
C LL
�O•+
d(•O^Cl ^C
d
^y_
_pN
O^
X�PE pp
d
l ° V
C
P A
N T
G N G V
t.
G N 9
N V^
G° •.'
9
VOo 6G �GO
GJC G
•^
�qDV M�
L
ONN
D D G 0✓
PN�YL
O.A
Nr
Nq
d
V
Dy
L^
G« C
qY
r d
�dJ V✓
D d
P E
TG�r^
^
^ C
•�
O•o
^ O q N d C
m:5 =
9
=
O G E C
DPG'LA
6
r
6a
0 4GP} GVy
CPO J'
N E
N^
^ M 4 J
- N O
9
qqp
L PP
O O L
p0•^.�^
q
A
A
^ C G
p P E
d G
O� °• ��
P
n
Y
C
V O V
L�
i^ V p V L N
✓✓ C a G
N
•1 ^ O^ C
NN V^ L
C
Pr
d
Ly
G�W4 pG9>
N J
ON TqO
A r
^'•'N
p✓ ^V
� EGV i
L
•!
NA �'-'
P
0�
jr
J
V J pS CA �'
CC d
y
'
J J
GOB dW
60VVO P4
Z
�
4�
�S
°��[
NV9N ! O
O��E^
VmLD
9
„Vf
°�O
i qa
4
G d
V L
C`
•
•
•
•� A
%
O O
<� 4PV
6VV0
< 4 L
V
9
d
_
C
✓�
ulJ
L�
P^C P^ .dC
dL .
0:5
dP
Cd iP
P
dPd
C
«LE
ELT
rMJ!q
Y�{y
�•
P^ CO
O C
^�
^✓ N N d C 4 •
r
✓
V X
4 m,:;
J
✓ P`
a
WVL
nl VT.�
o
E
appt 06
00
Co
O
LSO T
OV
�d�A V
YC nO
`.
=C
L J y
M
O4A
V O 4
4 4 G
VL...rV
p'�O`
4NN✓
9 M
��
•
L
O E^`N�=
V
-`.
VH
_ W
9
!Nw
E
O C
d N
d
E W
V V
t
p
A 6
L X
P
L O
A
L
O
•j
y�iG
^ G g 9
NiEy?
N
om
m
dAp
��
M ^ G
^^
nq
LJ i Ve
P
Ys✓ ✓ V
d
W
G
J
✓
� N
^Z U
`
G�
_
„L.
H O T
m
�J
V w E
D D
A 6
N qG
'� r N 4✓
S
✓Nd°�
C
>•� �
C6' YY M�^
G p cy_ .� N E
g u •'n �
}�
D
E q
�9 ^
d N p
yA
NGnP
C
✓
T G
_J A F
W A V E
P d
O
W A
a
7✓ J E
d E
q T q
aV «V
y V
�.9 pC ✓_m
✓ ^
..`
dV'pP
V.
9C__V
�
�e
E�
AFV
SV✓ "mod =�
� 4 aq
OV
V C
Q
AP
O r°
L OLO
r «L•V
«6
-
V
A
^•�O�
aJLO
q} w
f l T^ J O✓ C
D'✓-.
O° G V
o
CVWVgAT
Si
°CC J
^
^C
NV OT
JL
;91 C
OCaV
_ „ ^
D O
PVC
O.t.Ln6O
�LqV
y�qa_
G=
C
AS W Vq��T
C °pd�
��
rw•
Ply
V
C •q
.0
q�✓EO
N} -J6
A^
G
•^
�C
P6
CV
�CrC
V ✓
6dC � 4Gr^
0^
_
�C�
•�
�o
6V
=«a
°Y
� �
^O
NE I:
eV
rr dV
°dC
Try
q
VVP
-�
ON
GENC°
q`
^OV� � TL
p V
•°..gym
`� V
P P�
PE�•Lu
L✓
r✓ N d N^
r 9
✓
°- 9.
.�
d
a
�c L
c�
q ..`..'• �.vQ o
iN =E c
d
r - L
C « c^ Y
Q`✓t.
v °e ^N_
p dA
}
`� off^
=e —FV
Z n
O
J
LO^ iC-•O
4 7 pa 4 N
LCQ=
6^ O
N
✓ 6 V
J uvV O p
5c.
a 9 W V V �
L9J4t
L 1r p
•+I
of
••' V �J i
N
i
^I
G
_
j
7
Y
m ^
11
El
11
1
i
j
C O
W
La ad a+
Lo`oaL�
O
O
.
z
=o
I
6
o J
C
O
O
6
L
Q
CS SY• d
T t
�
u u
T
Q O
�
Z
au
`
N J
oY I
N 2
V y
6 °
IU V'
W
C
N
0
O
r
C O
La ad a+
Lo`oaL�
A
Y
^Y ^�
w
m
I
A
C
t
O
II
L
Q
CS SY• d
T t
�
c �
T
�
Z
`
o
�
r
L
V
P
y
�•
C N D= V 9 2
n
✓
N U S
Nr•
P
r_
7
O
N
O S
P
o
^
�
^
C C C
O O O
a
y
y
°
P A
d
d
t uA.
O4
a
a
`
AeAN
L°
r
yL
�•--'.
2 A
� C C
q p V
CC
MS
N
N O
W�FQY
yAL �
r
VOLY
9
i r
A
AI
CdD
AML
YaY °•^
`O
dW
a
I
I
^
BOG CO
A
r N
9
g
M
N T
L
L
M
j j
°
JOEL ^
�
j2 dr?
1
l
O• N
C
P
Y
I
° °rLL`
O
C 9
2
6Y
C
V�
OY O'L�
6 A
v
r
La ad a+
Lo`oaL�
^Y ^�
cw-b j a
m
Nd
A
b P
y
rn
CS SY• d
AW
�
S S U
�N „
C
C
C N D= V 9 2
Lyy
•^{a
✓
N U S
Nr•
N✓
7
O S
P
G L N
^
O
y
°
P A
E
t uA.
c'^
a
y
AeAN
L°
r
yL
�•--'.
2 A
UC6
q p V
CC
MS
N
N O
W�FQY
yAL �
r
VOLY
9
i r
A
CdD
AML
YaY °•^
`O
dW
O
T 44I N
APO -O-
• P•
BOG CO
A
r N
9
g
C
N T
V✓ O
O OL
j j
`V Y
JOEL ^
SV
j2 dr?
OL
q
° °rLL`
Ey W`4
6Y
C
V�
OY O'L�
f CV1
^ c
°�
N�
•
= y ti
N
P A L
N
O L
6 Y
C V L L ^�
G
S
S
a LVq
CC' .:�.
A4r> V
yCy
L�•"n -'•
Y
` F
10
F`
°
S A O
A
W C N
•°.�
C
d O O
9 L
l J
1A GCl .JZ
6JGV
6VJ
ic
p� i
L_
d S 2]
L°
a L
GY
L° p •
r
�b
wOC4
_ Sr_
A'C
_WF6
LV
�
NA d
CA •Oa OT w.0
P
J6 V9 ^J °�
NS
O AN
S 6' °tJNCr
Au JC
=9 V.
VSSP
Nr L
NV
n d a
Y
••. 6'
Z
P
W
Y
g
T Y Lon
E y
dN
7 J T
�`L
Y
` �T airO2S
aJdG rY
Cw.J
LNV •'�gyCj N •Ln0
G N
HOMO GV
6^
N
9
•
r.
V
J
6 A
v
r
A^ t
r
b P
y
P
CS SY• d
AW
�
�N „
C
Oar N
V6'
d0
Lyy
•^{a
9
C
Nr•
c E
6
O S
L q
d A M
O
J
L°
r
6
G °
4 .L•
q p V
d
y
N O
C
Y
r C
N A
i r
pO
CdD
`
`O
A ur
2 C°
OJ
P�
j j
OL
^ c
°�
N�
NSAy
CTC
2_E
AS
O
O
O
�
P
F`
°
S A O
A
W C N
•°.�
C
d O O
9 L
l J
1A GCl .JZ
6JGV
6VJ
N P
N Y C a O
4 ^? C
V L _
M V -
2^ r
n+ A n d 9 N
O
_ c
Ja� oo u
C V r C J
p d
a'k� c A c
S � O
i iO F
C
C Cyr P
y C q d 9 O C
E w V 2
�c Jb
NV PC N d
rG^ b cL.
c2S^ EP of
O
u A A t 2 6 t u^
E
N
{
I.:i
O
y
O
1
P T
d D
'•^
!
O
=
�c
NEE
✓+
.'.. EiW
N S
O
G
C q d
d O
•� O a
O V i
O N
.✓�
°69
A O.d
L9
d6E
N yY
C 7
d O^
E) T L w
o
�Zld
o v
a C"
,
1
d
D
C L
G
'C ✓'' O t_
9
•n O
N
O N r V « q C
N��
w'O
'V°
qN
W11
VC
LVUO
YGy
OCN
O
�[6 6JVD
LLV
C
w
,
P u
O Q O T
•�
O
O a
Y
✓q O d Cr�r
9
�
d t
.O.r�
O
O
L V O.Q
N
D d N d
y
D L ✓
J.•. O
�
N
° _J M
G
I Jq� y✓ VCYQ 6a CV
r q
O
C 4 G L
•
C P
N d° C V
y
d
9
N Y
` NNy
I
d G
q
jl
Ll
C�V �T 1N0 NV
L 4
A .W
NL
II
��
D d t.` H✓� p
N=
� N d yV G
OJ
L
LL�
w. •J. J O y d
d Y
Y .y � D a w.
✓w. d
G V
� q 0 � V
C I
e i
d P O � y
d' d
q
aL
T
� -r r.Oa C�V� qA•j
yY It °L
r6 Z`_ �= rL
�I
N9
ZJ
O �d�
IF.w
I.
C
A 6
d d N
qy
^
V V C 6 q 4 V
^ 1Gr. ^ T
A •� C
i�J
O
N
O.° A N f � ^`J 6. d _`(�� � C)
n• _ G y
q q
[� .^ .d. I
p_
L
z
12 Januaru 1483
t
TO: Planning Diwisicn. R echo Cucamonga
RE: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82 -04- SALVATI OF [ONE CHANGE.
AI
I(JENNIE CISNEROS) have never been so concered a,1-4 this ,riFrtsr and
as a private citizen of which I will directly be affected since i live
adjacent to this said propertv. I have lived in this area for more than 15 years
and I find that violence has tremenously increased in this past5 years in all
the near by blocs, Bowanm,,Chaffey, 8th Street and Grcve. In the past2 years we have
experienced 2 shoots our with public officials and ;gangs,....
Ny nieghbo- at SandY`S 'Market (The Owner Sandy) has been Physically
asszulted .
HOW CAN YOU CONSIDER i NCORPORAT ! NG CONDOMINIUMS IN ONLY 11.35 Acres ? ? ? ? ? ??
Whats Wrong with a Para or single dwelling?
Did you know this property i8 next to the rail road EAST - WEST ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
WE HADh FLOOD NOT MORE THAN 3 YEARS AND IT TOOK 8th Street and this area he,
not been repair. Lets be realistic , would you like to live next to
the rali road trazks? 1,
VERY CONCERED CITIZEN AND OWNER ACROSS
THIS PROaERTY.
E
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 12, 1983
TO: Members of the 'tanning t1a i sion
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Otto Kroutil, Associate er
SUBJECT: JANUARY 12 ETIWANDA SPElIFI6 PLAN/DRAFT EIR MEETING
MEETING PURPOSE
1977
Tonight, we need to cover some of the key components of the Regulatory
Provisions, in order to obtain public comments and Commission direction
in several important areas. These include residential standards,
community service overlay district, trails, windrows and architecture.
Because of the limited amount of time available at this meeting, it may
bp difficult to cover all of these areas in a great amount of detail.
We would therefore suggest that the Commission take public input and
attempt to reach a general consensus, with the intent to provide staff
with general direction as to potential changes. If it should appear
that an item will take more time to discuss in greater detail due to
specific concerns, the item can be deferred to the next meeting for
final resolution.
ATTACHED MATERIALS:
As usual, the attached .materials are keyed to your agenda by item
number, as follows:
Item II: Minutes
Item III: Revised Review Schedule
Item IV: Regulatory Provisions /Staff Reports on:
o Residential Standards
o Overlay Districts
o Trails
o Windrows
o Architecture & Design
In addition, also attached for your review you will find map revisions
based on the Commission actions on Part I, the Policy Plan.
RG:OK:jr
..''s
�;
�:.
:.,
,..
,,
`,1
4�;:
E
REVISED
REVIEW SCHEDULE
The original schedule called for the January 12th meeting to be the last of
the series. However, because of the extra time :,:ant on the review of Part I,
the Policy Plan, and because of the need for a Ge +eral Plan Amendment as
result of land use adjustments, two additional p• ilic hearings will be
necessary. The revised schedule is outlined belol:
January 12, 1983: Regular Commission Meeting
o Public hearing and review of key elements of the Plan's Regulatory
Provisions.
o Public hearing on Draft Environmental Ir.)act Report
0 January 26, 1983: Regular Commission Meeting
o Public hearing and review of an amendment to the Circulation and Land
Use Elements of the Rancho Cucamonga Gene -al Plan.
o Public hearing and review of associated Daft Environmental Impact
Report.
February 17, 1983: Special Commission Meeting
• Wrap up Plan's Regulatory Provisions.
• Recommend certification of the Draft EIR ti City Council.
• Recommend adoption of General Plan AmendmE. ?t to City Council.
• Recommend adoption of Specific Plan to Cit., Council, with changes as
appropriate.
i
r
J
F -
i.
E
is
ITEM IV: REGULATORY PROVISIONS
art 11 ot Specific an
Part IT_ Re ulator Provisiors.carries out the policies and concepts of Part
rat consists o
Chapter 5, Standards and Regulati -ns, is designed to stand on its own in
that it contains a substantial portion of what a person needs to know in
order to submit a development proposal in Etiwanda, including detailed
development standards. In substantial part, this chapter replaces
existing zoning regulations for the Etiwanda area. In order to make this
material easier to work with, the standards and regulations are grouped in
several distinct parts:
Section 5.2 Contains information dealing with the specific project
site or lot and answers questions about permitted land
uses, lot sizes, setbacks, open space requirements,
etc.
Section 5.3 Deals with questions relating to the circulation
system, such as street dedications and improvements,
trails, access restrictions, streetscape design, etc.
Section 5.4 Covers special regulations, such as windbreaks,
arch itecturaTguide ines, parks, and similar topics.
Section 5.5 Notes the needs of other agencies, such as public
utilities, schools, the Fire District, and other
services.
Chapter 6, Implementation, contains a descriptior. of how the provisions of
the Plan may be implemented.
Because of the changes the Commission made in Part I, t
portions of Part II were reviled by staff to reflect th
include the elimination of the bypass
use revisions, trail realignments and
necessitated by the circulation syste m
enclosed in the following section for
road and widening
other changes in
revisions. All
your review.
he Policy Plan,
ose changes. These
of East Avenue, land
specific standards
the revised maps are
U
}I
O�
J
1
P. C. CHANCES'OF 12 -9 °'82
LAND i.ito;Q;€
r Parks (P)
Residentiai (ER,VLjLjLM M)
Commercial (cc,F(cGC,NC)
Open Space (os)
SXistins Schools (E J,H)
Proposed Schools (e,j,h)
Office/Professional(op)
L AND USE
DISTRICTS
Solent
l�
0
3
r'
LAND i.ito;Q;€
r Parks (P)
Residentiai (ER,VLjLjLM M)
Commercial (cc,F(cGC,NC)
Open Space (os)
SXistins Schools (E J,H)
Proposed Schools (e,j,h)
Office/Professional(op)
L AND USE
DISTRICTS
Solent
l�
0
® ?• SITE - RELATED STANDARD `SQc 5 2)
® This section contains land -use related standards, including detailed
land use maps the Commission, already reviewed. The latest land use
revisions are indicated in Figure 5.2 -I.
Residential Districts Article 5.22)
%Ddbil and Optional Standards
The residential section outlines uses and types of dwelling permitted
in 3ach residential district, and specifies development standards for
each category. The development provisions are presented in two ways,
untie- Basic and Optional Standards (Figures 5.2 -2 and 5.213).
The Basic Standards are very similar to conventional zoning
regulations in use elsewhere in the City, in that they define
acceptable minimums such as lot widths, depths, sizes and similar
criteria.
The Optional Stardardards are f formm oriented, in that they call
for substantial open space, windrow leplacement, greenways and
similar amenities considered important by the community.
While thare is some overl 'op between the two sets of standards, the
Optional Standards are both more flexible and substantially more
demanding. The purpose of the two sets of standards is to -
certain certain minimum conditions through the Basic Standards, while
encouraging the attainment & other community goals through the
flex— ibility and incentives built into the Optional Standards. The
table below indicate; the relative densities under each land use
category.
VL
(.I-- iEDU /AC) (I -2 DU /AC) (2 -4 DU /AC) (4 -8 DU /AC) (8-14 DU/AC)
Basic
Standards IpDU to /AC Up to Up to U
Density i1.5 DU/AC ±2.5 DU /AC ±4.5oDU /AC U8 DU /AC
Optional
Standards Up to U p to
Density 1 DU /AC 2DU /AC 4pDU /AC Up 8 DU to A„ r Up to
14 DU /AC
Please note the degree )f incentive to use Optional Standards varies from very
little in ER & VL to strong incentives in the LM & M designations.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recd.- F*nded that the Commission consider public cmuaents and
dsrect staff as may be appropriate.
2
r
1
VL
25.000
L
15,000
1
R
min. ave. lot
0,000 1
size in sq.ft.
40sQOO
min. lot size
4 ax/1ot.
nt
in ^q. ft.
302000
no. of du's/
25'
lot area in
1/40,000
sq. ft.
2 max/lot
min. lot depth
135'
min, lot width
120`
(at front
setback)
rain. frontage
(at front p -l.)
60`
Setbac',=
Front
40 ,
Side (street)
L..'
Side
'1/20 -
Rear
40'
Max. lot
coverage
20%
on -site windrows
in ]in. feet /ac
7A0' /ac
Streetside
landscaping
prior to
NB
occupancy
VL
25.000
L
15,000
1
7,200 7,200
/7,200 1/5,000 "
S max/lot 4 Max/lot'
100` 100'
60' 60'
40' 40'
25' 25'
25' 25'
0 * /1s 0 *115
Total 15' Total 15'
20' 20'
40% 40%
N/R N/R
Required Required .
20,000
M
30'
0,000 1
10,000
1
2 a uax,1lot
4 ax/1ot.
nt
135'
1001
25'
20,000
10,000
30'
1120,300
1/10,000
1
2 a uax,1lot
4 ax/1ot.
nt
135'
1001
25'
90' 80,
.
40'
40'
30'
25'
25'
15'
10120
0 *120
Total 20"
30'
25'
25% 30%
501.1ac N/R.
* 0 lot a»ne not to be used at aroject boundary
Tablo:
BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 5.2 °2
a'
i
t
1
site area
no. of du's
permitted up to
one per (sq.ft.)
min. site area
in open space
min. site area
in common o.s.
min. site area
Eta
N/R
40,000
of site
area.
80%
20'.'Ei
VL
5 AC
20,000
of site
area
65%
5 AC
10,000
of site
area
60%
25% 30°5
LM
5 A
5,000
of site
area
50%
In
3,000
of site
area
40%
30% 30%
in private o.s.
5,040
2,000
1,000
600
300
in sq. ft.
per du .
per du
per du
per du
per du
Setbacks along
40' ave.
30' ave.
25` ave_
25' ave.
25 min.
public streets
vary 3101
vary *10, `'
vary t5T
vary *5'
Setbacks along
100' '
S0' 50' X/R
on-site ge_enways NIR.
(Minimum
one connection across project site per section
private streets:
5.33.300)
street land-
variable but no
25'
25'
20'
S'
S'
less than
be visually open to the extent possible and shat: not be fenced with solid view - obstructing
fencing for more than 50% of their periphery.
Setbacks at
iAMior site 40'
30'
25' 20' 20'
dary
Res. building
separations:
side to side 40'
30'
20' 15' IS'
Other (front to
side, etc.) 40'
30'
(Combined building height)
on -site windrows
in lin. ft. /acre 150'
100' '
S0' 50' X/R
on-site ge_enways NIR.
(Minimum
one connection across project site per section
_
5.33.300)
street land-
scaping prior to NIR
Required
Required Required Required
occupancy
Note: In order to qualifv for open space - ^edit, common open space areas shall be designed to
be visually open to the extent possible and shat: not be fenced with solid view - obstructing
fencing for more than 50% of their periphery.
Table:
STIONAL-
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 5.2 3
f<z r_
OVERLAY DISTRICTS s�
(Article 5.259):
specializededevel pment criteria to Districts
areas with'certainicor�non characteristics,
regardless of the base land use designation.
The Etiwanda Plan contains three Overlay Districts:
E /GL - Etiwanda Avenue Overlay, (P.5 -20)
Applies to all properties within 200 feet of Etiwanda Av�nue.
Intended to protect the visual and historical character of the
Avenue through special setback, landscaping, and architectural
requirements. The E /OL District is mostly an aesthestic tool.
CS /OL - COmmunity Service Overlay, (P. 5 -21)
Applies to areas along Etiwanda Avenue, south of Victoria as
specified in Figure 5.2 -5.
Intended to provide a focal point, to reinforce the sense of
=Olnunity identity, and to encourage perpetuation of Etiwanda's
heritage.
This is accomplished through carefully controlled opportunities fer
limited, low Impact commercial and office professional uses in what
is basically a residential area. As proposed, the Planning
Commission could, at its discretion, allow limited commercial or
professional uses if in its opinion a proposed project meets the
intent of the CS /OL District.
The Commission should note that the Etiwanda Advisory Committee's
support of the CS /OL District is predicated on the proviso that the
scope and intensity of any non - residential uses remain very
limited. The Committee expressed strong sentiment against excessive
commercializatior. of Etiwanda Avenue and opposed any use which, may
have an adverse impact on the quality and character of Etiwanda
Avenue and its surroundings. To that effect, the Plannin
Coneaission would be required to make specific findings (p. 5 -22?
relative to proposed non - residential development prior to approval
of a Conditional Use Permit.
EQ /OL - Equestrian Overlay (P.5 -24)
Applies to all properties north of Rcute 30, west of Cherry Avenue.
Intended to implement General Plan Rural /Equestrian area provisions,
and to provide an opportunity for keeping of horses in residential
areas.
RECON6MEhDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
Pub!4 . coa.'ents and provide staff with direction as appropriate. �i
E
2. 7H
Ll
1]
jo
; � lo IC�f n1 Co
OVERLAY DiSTRIt%TS
or
fillEtiwanda Avenue
?? Overlay District
Community Service
Overlay DistrictcP.r F39ss -5D
FOOTH LBLVa,' 7y77
Equestrian
Overlay District
d�
"!"� title
figure
j OVERLAY &2"4
g! I DISTRICTS
Y' f
�7
i
�4.
RRIM
i
z,65 .`s• � IFS. Z�.a ..r�.+kW �ri ��`.r••� i,
r�q ��u4 -C.�° n Y �; .4Ffi •'•' \'. �, iY "Y
.� .m �� 7 � ±"t�s 1• �'d' �!"� MTV, k' d a1.''v�`
v
•�t'x., tf �. "�rM ate;. �P ir�a c ��
� iz l
- 11
® � 7
i
.' .. 1 .., l"r'' l;i i' r� , r.•n off•. -'
.. l ••l:.Y -, -'fir L r.�.Y ..
AFAL
E. CIRCULATION- RELATED STANDARDS (Sec. 5.3)
Trails (Article 5.33)
This article contains provisions for 'he development of trails in
accordance with the Policy Plan. Tvo levels of service are called for:
Community Trails are designed to link up with the city -wide community
trail system. The standards define the use of each alignment (Figure
5.3 -12 and -13), type and location of improvements and similar
criteria.
Figure 5.3 -12 indicates the extent of the community equestrian trails
based on the Etiwanda Committee recommendations. The trails are
intended to serve the equestrian area north of Route 30 and to provide
connections to other parts of the city.
The trails were also revic ed by the Trails Committee. Their
recommendation is to expand the length of the equestrian trails in
accordance with Figure 5.3 -12 A, providing for an equestrian trail
along Victoria Avenue and along Etiwanda Avenue, north of Victoria.
This recomrmendation is based on the desire to provide for a viable
connection between Victoria Planned Community, Etiwanda, and areas to
the north and east, including Fontana, and a concern :.hat the east -crest
trail elorg the Sour... ---rn Pacific Railroad trac's may not materialize.
® (A representative from the Trails Committee will be present at the
meeting to elaborate on the Committee's recommendations).
Feeder TrailsJGreenways provide a lower level of service, and differ
from community trails in that their specific alignments remain to be
worked out at the time of development review. These trails do not
f0110w public streets; rather, they are designed to cut across a
development site according to specified design criteria. Feeder trails
are intended for equestrian cse, similar to feeder trails elsewhere in
`he city. Greenways are intended predominantly for pedestrian use, and
limited bicycle use.
RECOMMENDATION: It is suggested that the Commission consider public input and
the Trails Committee recommendations and direct staff to revise this section
if appropriate.
11
,I
W
is ni
FoOT?*U 9LVD. y.I�^
U
��M r1Co 1110 9
-� — Equestrian 'Trails
u,,ffm Bike Ladle (in Pay.i,..tl
""' Bike Path (In Parkway)
COMMUNITY
TRAILS
E
E` 1'
TRAILS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
24 7ia RYREEF_i • • y A — M��.•,�.% j
MNIN • �.. /
II Q1(G�+C L
1 ARK L 1
i
i
i
•
V _ L
: � • it
.»K - -_ -- - L=am •-`' /
6
v
j
p el
-o ?j
_�j
F
ARROW HWY.� :
W� W
C� 7
4"
€� G
o
armno re,
-«•»• Equestrian Trails j
nm=-n Bike Lane (in Pavement)
Bike Path (In Parkway)
""So EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EXTENSIONS
AS R£COMENDED BY THE TRAIL
COWITTEE
i
title figure
COMMUNdTY 5.3� 12 �•
TRAILS
zs H
t
s
�C h
n
I �L i
I
4 u "� j(, 9 I N Q
IMPROVED SIDEWALKS
One Side Only
Both Sides
I
Hiking / Pedestrian
TrailSQUmited Improvements)
T, it ti tie ig
h - I PLDESTRIAN
>I I TRAILS & 5.3-1
i SIDEWALKS
$il
f2
C. SPECIAL REGULATIONS (Sec. 5.4)
This section contains regulations and standards such as windrows, a- chitec:.-ure
and design, parks, and similar topics.
Windrows (Article 5.41)
The Policy Plan calls for the perpetuation of a windbreak system in
Etiwanda, while recognizing the hazards and problems associated with the
existing Blue Gum Eucalyptus. The standards contained in the Plan specify
a two - pronged approach:
1. Protect a limited number of existing blue gum windrows in specified
locations, where it is safe and most beneficial to the community.
These locations are defined 'n Figure 5.3 -8.
2. At the time of development, replace other windrows with better trees
with similar visual and wind protection qualities, based on the
established planting pattern and a formula of so many trees per
acre. The formula (Figure 5.2 -2 and 5.2 -3, Basic and Optional
Standards) requires between. 50 and 150 linear feet of new windrows
per acre, depending on Tand use category. The new trees are of the
Eucalyptus maculata (spotted gum) variety to be planted generally
resembling the existing windrows (see Figure 5.4 -1). The standards
also contain criteria for grading, setbacks, maintenance and planting
as well as otn�r areas.
is The Commission should note that the windrow policies and some
standaras were also reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Commission. At
their meeting of Decc!nher 30, 1982, the CAC unanimously endorsed the
approach outlined in the Draft Etiwanda Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: The Plannin; Commission is requested to consider public
comments and to provide staff with direction as appropriate.
KI
El
REES TO BE
waftmom Existing Windbreaks
Palms
Existing Trees
-- - --
Pappers,
�M Oaks
STREE'" TREE
P'RESEI1VATIC
E
24 TH
E
11
FOOrHLL
- - I/ /
71.1
I .�4t-
/.9
ARCHITECTURAL AND DESIGN STANDARDS (Article 5.42)
The Architectural and Design Standards are intended to guarantee sensitivity
and compatibility of future development with the existing community, The
Standards vary in the degree of control based on the type of development, as
follows:
Project Type Design Criteria
Single Family Projects of Least
4 dwellings or less Restrictive
Larger Residential Projects Slightly More
Under Basic Standards Restrictive
Larger Residential Projects More
Under Optional Standards Restrictive
Commercial & Office Projects Most
Restrictive
Projects Within Etiwanda Ave. Restrictive
Overlay
In addition, this article contains
maintenance of existing structures
to the historical character and vi
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended
hearing and direct staff as to the
provisions encouraging the preservation and is
(identified in Fig. 5.4 -2) which contribute
sual quality of Etiwanda.
that the Commission conduct a public
appropriate action.
t C--=1
.h �
' .. ..
�..
-.. .. �..�
..
.
..
� .
.. .. .. L -.'. �.
/. /
.d
t
4,
.
--
- �
i,t
�:
"t
�-
'
-i.
',',.�
�' '
..�.. •
..
C,:; �'
...
1
._
�
�,.
`.
R: -
r ...
..,
,.
\\;
..
�
' i
,
� �
y
;w
"+1"o-.
°';t;,
...,1
._'.....
. \ -
._
F.�11t.-1
ICI �.�:1 '{
r
/ ..�
.r
•
7
E
E
Freeway Access
Major Arterial
Secondary Arterial
Existing
Improvement Width
Collector
Local Streets
STREET SYSTEM 5.3-
0
Access Restrictions
Special Access Policy
No Access
ACCESS
CONTROLS
0
24 tN
LE
11
I
I I,
!1
M
.®.� City I' lisle Theme
Supplerilented Existing
ouauu +u Theme
New Unifying Theme
STREETSCAPE
i THEi1AE
za re
Ll
�iYo a «► nlco
"Special Blvd: Setback
(City-wide Standard)
Etiwanda Ave. Overlay
District Setback
SPECIAL J=
�!i I. SMACKS --
0
0
City Gateway
Community Entry
Neighborhood Entrees
ENTRY THEME
5.315
24 nH
_i
L
F1 IF7�
r� II
i!
r `
NEW STREET TREEc
Along major
or existing streets
Suplernental
Landscaping. for
Etiwanda Avenue
0
SYREETSCAPE 5.3 -9
El