Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/03/30 - Agenda Packet -Special Adjournedo~,; ~.,,~~~ c`• rte= <. ~ . ~,~ -1 ~-<_~> >. F ~ Z U i> 1977 CITY OF CITY CC~'CIL AGI.NI~ MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1981 r ~~. 7:00 p.m. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute B. Ro11 Call: Frost Mikels_Palom6o_Bridge Schlosser 60 Min. 2. CONTINL'AT IOiI OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUPER EL't'EMT TEIT Review of the Land Use and Developnrnt Super Element Text has been continued frem the previous City Council meeting in order that the City Council may address any additional comnen ts. Wi thir. this Element includes Housing, Circulation, Public Facilities, Parks and Recreation, and Community Design. 60 Min. 3. CO;d SIDE RATION FOR ADOPTION OF LRND USE iN THE ALTA LOMA AREA The Ci [y Council heard testimony at their Flarch 16 meeting regarding land use items in the Alta Loma area. These items have been brought back to the City Council for their consideration. Once the City Council has completed their review of the land use in the Alta Loma area, it is recormrended that they take action to adopt the I.arid Use Plan. 60 Min. 4. CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION OF LAND USE IN THE CUCAMONGA AREA The City Council heard tes ttrtrony at their March 16 meeting _*egarding land use items in the Cucamonga area. These items have been brought hack to the City Council For their consideration. Upon completion of their tevi ew of the Cucamonga area, it is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of the Land Use Plan. 5. ADJOURNMENT The next mee tiny on the General Plan will be held April G to consider certification of the Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Draft Gerte cal Plan. 'N STAFF REPORT ~~~ c'~~ o F L 1977 DATE: March 30, 1981 T0: Members of the City Council ', FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS IN THE ALTA LOMA AND CUCAMONGA PL N~ NING AREA ABSTRACT: This report discusses certain land use considerations in the Rlta Loma and Cucamonga area which the Council wishes to consider prior to approval of the Land Use Plan. • BACKGROUND: The City Council, at their March 16 meeting, continued their review of the Land Use Map of the Draft General Plan. During the meeting, the Coucil considered individual land use requests in the Alta Loma and Cucamonga area. The Staff has prepared material based upon the land use request heard by the City Council. Attached to this report is a back- ground summary of each land use request and exhibits examining the General Plan designation and other relevant considerations. These exhibits are numbered as they originally were reviewed by the Planning Commission. In the Alta Loma area, 3items are brought back for further consideration and in the Cucamonga area, 4 items are brought back for consideration. These items are listed on the attached vicinity map. In addition, the Council heard a request to examine policies regarding offsetting park- land dedication requirements with dedicated and improved trai lways. The City Council also heard a request to review the Equestrian Trail section of the Public Facilities Element. Since the last City Council meeting, an additional land use request has been received and is being transmitted for your consideration. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review all material and requests received regarding the items discussed within this report, and after completion of their review of the Alta Loma and Cucamonga areas, approve the land use within these planning areas with any necessary revisions. ad, • I-1 LOCATION: 84 acres located north of Almond at the end of Beryl Avenue. The owner has requested that the site be considered for Low Density Re- sidential. The Draft General Plan indicates a substantial portion of the site as Hillside Residential (less than 2 du/ac). This matter was considered by the Planning Commission; their interpretation was that the Very Low Residential density should extend up to the south side of the power line corridor. Attached to this report is an exhibit indicat- ing where that corrf dor exists, It is located in the northern end of the property boundaries, Origfnal graphic representation by the "Blayney" interim land use plan had misplaced the corridor. This error was not • picked up on the Draft feneral Plan. In accordance with the Planning Commission recommendation, a revision to the General Plan Map will be made to extend the Very Low Residential density to the south boundary of the electrical Dower corridor. Attached is the revision to the General Plan. • • .~ .{~...-.-.~.~............ Very Low Resident~at ` Less than 2 du/ac Low Residential 2-4 du/ac Low-Medium Residentia' 4-8 du/ac Medium Residential :~4-14 du/ac Medium High Residentiz X14-24 du/ac (High Residential ~ 24-30 du/ac Commercial Coimnunity Commercial Neighborhood Comme rcia Regional Commercial Office CORMU"IITY: ALTA L0~4A • INTERIM PLAN: HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL SE O'n'AY/C00`;E PLAi7: VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE Ri. ~~UEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 du/ac) r//////I IndUStrldl Park K1~~//L 1~~j~] General Industrial Gen/Indus. Rail Served ® Heavy Industrial ~;;~";'~~ Parks AilALYSIS: Immediately south of the Proposed request is an existing half-acre single family residential development. The property contains two mesas with existing vineyards on the larger mesa and an existing orchard on the other mesa. On the northerly boundary of the property is a wooded area with year-round creek. There is a drainage swail of substantial proportions that bisect the site near the easterly end. The character of this area, primarily half-acre single family residential. Any request fora change in land use that would bring about a change in the character of that area, would be inap- propriate without careful consideration of the environmental factors existing on-site --~ and off-site; both man made and natural. Staff suggests that no alterations be made in the Sedway/Cooke General Plan designations. RE COVI.fE NDAT[0N: c Retain the Sedway/Cooke designation PLAN. COP1M. ACTION: As Recommended (12-78-80) APPLICRNT: The Roberts Group A.P. N0. 1061-451-1 I-1 d ~ o ,oDO~ 5000 i 3 TrIE ROBERTS GROUP. INC. • November 25, 1980 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 9340 Baseline Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Att: Mr- Barry Nogan, City Planner Re: 86? Acres, Beryl and Almond Dear Mr. Hogan, The Roberts Group hereby requests the opportunity tc speak before the Planning Commission at its December 1 hearing to ask for consideration of a change in the General Plan on the above referenced property to allow for an overall density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre. Our reason for an increase in density is to allow a planned community with various product types producing a "village concept" of single family detached, low density townhomes and attached condominiums. Our approach to this site is to provide a planned development • which incorporates active and passive open space while providing housing types with a broad range of marketability. Approximately 44 percent of the site will be in open space. All housing types will be oriented for maximum solar benefit and will to prepared for future solar energy use. Village one and two will consist of single family detached, zero lot line homes, catering to growing families. Village three will appeal to the empty nesters and starter families as we propose to provide moderately priced attached townhomes. Village four and five will offer relatively higher density condominiums geared towards couples and professionals. Each village will include abundant open space and recreation facilities. Pools, spas, exterior meeting areas and parks will be featured. Green space corridors will connect the villages. A major recreation facility located in the south eastern portion of the site will offer an exclusive swim and tennis facility for use by the residents of the project community. • 6210 \\'ilshire 13ou1ecarJ. Suite 309 • Los r\ngcles. California 90018 • (213) 935-98n55 ~`- C~,.y of xana,no Cucamonga Page 2 • In addition, an equestrian center will be open to both the residents and to members of the neighboring community. A network of horse trails will cross the property and again, will be open to public use. It is our intent to establish a community providing the ambiance and feel of a private country club. Open spaces will be handsomely landscaped providing a totally useable exterior environment. Care will be exercised to tie in with the existing native landscape of the arroyo . We believe we are offering the City of Rancho Cucamonga and particular, the adjacent community, a project they can be proud o£ and enjoy along with its residents. Your respectful consideration of our request will be appreciated. Sincerely, THE ROBERTS GROUP, INC. nq p ~ p1i :C~.:4"` ~ ~ ~1~Q.lL~. Toni Quezad~ Project Manager TQ/a • `~ I -~~~ ~2 ~ .` / / ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ / ~ / ., ~~`I._ _/1~~ i ~ ~ ~ \ 1 ~ ~ /~ / / / ~ ` \ \r~~ I III ~ ~ ~ ` / ~ I/ \ ~TI\ /~ \/ ~, ~ ,a ~, , :-~- ~, ~ ,_~ ,,, ~, ~ ~~- ~ i ~ i ~~ ~~ - i i1.~ ~ i ~~i ~~ ~ ~ I i I i I i I i I•I I I • . • ~ . . . . . . . 11.1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I• ..... . 1111111 .:.....: ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ 111111 I .' ... . ~~ IIII 111111 IIII IIII ~- I~I~Iill'I I I` ~~ ....:.......:.. ~~ -- ~ I .............. . ...... ~ I II ~~~ > ::• II. •II..: -~. > II ... ..... ::.f~' :::::::::::::::~~I ....................... 1 ~ ~-_~ .~~,~ , \~~ / i ~ ~ ~I\\ ~ i ~1:~ a ~ / ~ ...... f I I i ,~I,I~I ~~I ~I~ I I I :::::::: ;f~i~7~t } .. .. .. . r~~~~~ ...... . ~......I. .~... ................. ................. ................ ................ ................ W ::::. 1 ~\1 ~ _ l ir~r\ ,-/\r\/-~ -i~'-`' `,' r~~- r,~ /mar\/ ~-\: i -~\ r'1 1.1 ~ /\ t, it ~ ~~.~_ t -1 ~1! lit ~~ t~i.lrt-/'/ ._~ _. \/ / ii t/~~~r/_~1\/I/~~~t I1t~_'t/ _i ~ ~ ! ~ ~t \tl~~ t . ~ ~ ~ i `\ 1 ' /_. l,_. 1_ t r~ ~~~' -~VI ~l~ ~~_ _ i /. \ \ ~ t ~ ~ r i . ~_- _ ~\ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ / ~ ' ^ -~ il_ ;\r \i~~ `- _ i, lei t ~ i_ -~ ~1 ~~'~ • - ~ I .`/JI i %~\ r\ \~ \ / ~ ~ ~ ~ / i ~~/Il~ ~ ~ \~11 1, IIIIIIIII.i.I I ...........~ - ........: 1111111 ~ _. II IIIIIIII111••:::::: ::::::::: ::::: I IIIIII :..:::: :: ... \ ~ IIIIII I~~ •' ~ /~ ..:: IIII IIIIII 1111.1:'. ..i l t ~~ :.. IIIllilil III IIIIIIII ::: -. ': ~ .....:... I I I I .. le ............. .. ~ ................ 111.1 'iU • .~~r'. ~ i .... .....:.......... ~/~.i!Y~ti . • . . . • • . . . • . . : ` V y • ~ 1 .........: ~ . .:L ;~ :::::• 11. .... .I.:: ::::::. r ::::~ ~~I .. .. ..... :::~. 1 .::::::::::: ::::::::: ......................... ..: . ~ ~jn ,X ,Qoa .X >«<::.: .<>H 4:/{~• ~ ~ QoaL 1~. 1 ~~ ~ • ~ ~~ ~ Hillside ~1 1 ai Qar~- --..~: ~.~.~. ~, Qf a a ~v 9h+ ~S~E .~ I-2 LOCATION: End of Hermosa (Groves) At the last Li ty Council meeting, this area was discussed. The property owner of the 95+ acres indicated a willingness to provide a 2 du/ac de- velopment within the "Groves" and provide a fully dedicated and improved 20 acre park as part of the development. The Council voted to retain the site as park land with the intent that the Groves be preserved. When the developer submits his plans, the park site could be scaled down and the development considered for approval if meets the City's desires. We would suggest that the Council may wish to consider the following • option as more effecient and reasonable: - Oesi gnate a 20 acre park site on the west side of Hermosa; and - outline the entire 80+ acre, including the park, and designate the ~~ site Very Low Residential with an asterisk to require master plan- ning. Wnder this option you should also indicate that it is the City's desire to see reasonable preservation of the "Groves" with extreme sensitivity to aestatetic design of the street pattern and the dwelling units. • THE PLANNING ~~ CENTER 240 NEV`lPORi CENTER DRIVE SUITE 215. NEWPORT BEACH. CA.92660 (714)6404911 Octoher 15, 1980 h1r. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga ..~ ~:~~.. . Planning Department :~. P.O. Box 793 "`1 - •• •_,~ - -' Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91130 r'`~`~'~•"~•'~ ~ ~ '-~u~V Dear Barry: • The Planning Center representing Woodland Pacif fc, the property owner of 97+ acres located at the north end of Hermosa Avenue, is requesting that said property be repre- sented in the General Plan as shown on the attached exhi- bit, the overall density requested is four (4) units per gross acre with the flexibility to transfer this density • within the project boundaries. It is our understanding that the proposed General Plan reflects "Park" on all or portions of this site. We have discussed this matter with the Director of Community Ser- vices, William Holley, and he is agreeable to our proposed change. This position was taken with the understanding that a park would be improved and dedicated as shown on the attached exhibit and that housing development within the eucalyptus groves would be sensitive to these trees. The intention within this area is to develop similar to projects developed in the Lake Forest area of Orange Coun- ty. Color xeroxs of the Lake Forest developments are pro- vided as examples of the intended development style. As we have discussed in prior meetings, the property owner is agreeable to 1) a development agreement or 2) special conditions within the General Plan to insure that the City is provided with a park and that the overall density of the site at ultimate development does not exceed 4 units per gross acre. It is also the intention of Woodland Pacific to process the development of this site via the Planned Community Ordinance. C~ 0.ANN1\'~.&RE~FAMH •ENVI'~N~VENm; SUDIES •UM!AN DES'~3v •14M1D5:4x <oCw'ECipvp .~AN~USF ECO^YJMiCS ~~ F~-'^, - .~ - _ _ =~ Very Low Residential F'.'` '~ ~ ~ - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _I:::::::~ Less than 2 du/ac I•"~ ~ ~ _ ' , ,`, ;_; - __ -__ Low Residential 2-4 du/ac ,~~„~. ~ ---_--- LOW-Medium Residentia' ~~• I ~ -_ ___ - - 4-8 du/ac '~(~`'~':_ ~-______-____- iMedium Residential .............. ,...~ .Medium High R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 14 24 du/ac ............ --_ :i ~ ::.:.i::ii~ ~ - ialdentr High Resident _ ._........ .... 24- du/ac !~___~ -~~ ~ _ _ Commercial VV ~ _ _ L= -~ ~~`•! ' - ,Community Commercial 'I ~ - '®~~Neighborhood Cononercia _ ...fEESlt~e~~!: Regional Commercial _ ~ _ i 1 ~.:i~r:.i:. ::: 1:. Office ~. - :VifiEson ryr/T,~~~-r~~~~~af ~~ 1' ~ ~~ Y.~LJ1~Indus trial Park i ~ ", ~~General Industrial ;: ~ ~_ ::':'~::: naffE ~jJJ~JJjJ~ ~f't~/1J~Gen/Indus. Rail Served C011MUNITY: ALTA LOMA YIIUL!!!J Heavy Industrial • INTE,RIt4 PLAN: HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL ~;, ~. ~;':;' Parks ~I SEDWAY/COO KE PLAN: PARKS, VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL, HILLSIDE . RESIDENTIAL • REQUEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS: The site currently enjoys a large and densely populated Eucalyptus grove on approximately 80,`b of the property. Along the western boundary, there is a natural drain- age swail which is an extension of the Alta Loma Channel. Immediately to the south, the land is currently undeveloped and to the north the land is currently undeveloped. Some small drainage swails exist within the property and flow during the winter months. Hermosa Avenue is fully improved along the entire frontage of the property. The plans under con- sideration by the developer indicate the desire to dedicate a 20 acre park within the Eucalyptus windrow area. Land use surrounding the park would be within the less than 2 units per acre catagory of very low residential. Higher density would be in the area of land that currently is void of Eucalyptus vegetation. While there may be some merit to a development proposal that preserves Eucalyptus grove and provides a park for the City, consideration of this request at this point in time would require specific detail of the `developm:ent proposal, For the purposes of the General Plan, Staff suggests no change in the General Plan designation. RECOMMENDATION: Retain Sedway/Cooke Designation PLAN. COMMISSION ACTION: As Recommended (12-18.80) © 0 1000' 5000' APPLICANT: The Planning Center A.P. N0.201-071-6, 6, 26, 26, 35, 36 201-091-3,23,17,16 1 2 ~~ ,C t,.~.1~ Mr. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner >~Y 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga '~''?~i`' October 15, 1980 • ~, P a g e 2 Should you need any additional information, please contact the undersigned or Diana Hoard of this office. Sincerely, THE PLANNING CENTER'^/~ , Peter R. Templeton Attached cc: Ditk Scott Woodland Pacific PRT:DH:sh • I ~ (~ ~. ,1 .F~i I,-~ II 1~ .~u ,) `, p 1 r t r I ~./~ ;~ \l l '~ ~r rI v 1 5't ~ ^~ Jr ^. n4 '~ ~ 1/,. v.r~"t', J/ Nr ~ ~l.i ~ ~ '~r_~ 13~ r . oNV.W -L ,:y ~/ t \',o ~vl. ^-i j`J~Jf 7~1~4 ~,~,...~/~~~~ /•`/C'Q b~ ~ ~ -/le.l r~ ~ ~ ~. {j !U ~ -•\ 1 51'1 Iltl IN';~~ M' J, J,h \ Well Y ~'' 11 ~ / \ I ~ ' ~ r ~ ' ,v 1 1~ 1~ 0~r h r~ l ~ Ilv ~' /'ll', U w 1 3 :N HIE R'N }.DING ~/ '`~ u , o- I--`~ ~^-` 1~\I~J~ l !"~Fj `I Oa ni~~ I hA'~'ION A-L-' Fi^R2ST:~ ~. r -- ,:_~ ~~ rte.-~ ;'* ~ n,.~ IN (' _1 --- o I 1 - -~-.~ K.ne,i . _ 1. / I ,~~__ ~ n _ ' x ~ n I r~,l ~; ~ ~~ rP ~.~ - -~ a sr 27 1 N_ .. _rC~ ;. ~ ~~~ -.;' ~I. it ___ -^ -",v~~..l---/`"~-,- ..... .I . i~~---~ .rr .....:::...... !: :' .come ...:... ... ~ nec . E' ti___:c~`~''._'_' :rl ..::iii; E .. _-',-_-- ~ 1`-", __ 4 ~r i ' it I, ;qra ,\~• U ,~ _ l ., Y- JI GC ND • aim," ,~ ~~.~:~,...~r_~~-,~ ^~ ~- ~OS ,.. _ . `~ 21 o , l \ '~ \ i ~ _ ; , _ ~° ~~~~~ _,, o ~ ~ -- j i ' -, t ' ~ ~ JI ~ ~ ~ ~~ O ,, ~~~ \- I} - i ` I~~ -- ~~ ~- -_ - ,~ ~ti = ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~. tfil' ~~. i,"_ !~ ,~~:, ~ _ _ _ Legend ~' ~ .. --~ /~~ ~~~ /.,. -_~~ ~ ~~ ~ i gTJY .~FCB . _ '.~,_-µ». ~...~ .. ~. ;~ ~91C~ USA P~~l A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. ~-•-t: Ja l,, ,~ - %',-- . .. ^~~ A Planned Community 6y Woodland Pacific Development, Iqc. ~ ^-~~-- n J I-5 LOCATION: East of Chaffey College between Wilson and the extension of Banyan. Adjacent property owners requested that the City Council consider ways to mitigate the impact of Low-Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac) east of Chaffey from the existing Very Low Residential density on the north side of Wilson Avenue. The matter of residential density in this area was considered 6y the Planning Commission during their review of land use considerations in the Alta Loma area. Initially the Draft General Plan prepared by Sedway/ Cooke had indicated this site as Medium Residential density (4-15 du/ac). The Planning Commission reconmended a reduction of the residential density to a Low-Medium (4-8 du/ac) with a master plan. The master plan concept could be used to incorporate mitigation measures to preclude any potential • impact on adjacent residential land. Currently the Staff is reviewing the Environmental Impact Report for the project on this site. The review of the Impact Report is considering such matters as impact on surrounding land use, drainage, and cf rculation pattern. Copies of this impact report are available for Council review. The project will require review of ap- proval by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to any construc- tion on the site. Consideration could be made at the project review re- garding specific ways to mitigate the impact on the surrounding properties. There should not be project level considerations made by Council at this time. II-1 LOCATION: Approximately 140 acres located between 4th Street, 6th Street, Archibald Avenue, and Hellman Avenue. This matter was given considerable attention by the Planning Commission. Attached to this report are Planning Commission Staff Reports which discuss all the major consideration made by the Commission. Briefly, the site was originally proposed by the Draft General Plan as Medium Density Residential (4-14 du/ac). A suggested revision was to include a commercial center (ap- proximately 10 acres) located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and • Archibald Avenue, Industrial Park along Archibald Avenue and 4th Street, and Medium Density Residential south of 6th Street with a 2'~ acre park site. Another alternative was to have Industrial Park category over alt land except for a 10 a re Cormercial designation at the northwest corner of Archibald and 4th. ~EVentually the Planning Commission adopted a plan which consisted of a modification very similar to that oroposed by the landowners and an alternative previously mentioned. This included Indus- trial Park fronting 4th Street and Archibald Avenue with Medium Density Residential south of 6th Street with an approximate 2; acre park located within the Medium Density Rest dentiall The Commission's decision on this recommendation was to provide for Ind stri al Park, along the major thorough- fares of 4th Street and Archibald Avenue to create a strong relationship to airport usage and related tourist/conm~ercial activity. Industrial Park allows office, light industrial, and tourist related activities. The Medium Density Residential was to provide fora transition between the Single Family Residential property located north of this area. In ad- dition, the park site was indicated to provide an opportunity for recrea- tion to those who reside in this area. u ~~ lJ Very Lov.~ Residential Less than 2 du/ac Low Residential 2-4 du/ac ~~ Low-Medium Residentia r :::::::..:::::~ 4-8 du/ac Medium Residential Q 4-14 du/ac Medium Nigh Re sidenti. ''.14-24 du/ac (High Residential 24-30 du/ac Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Commerc is Regional Conmercial Office Industrial Park General Industrial Rail Served LLL Heavy Industrial CO.+MUNiTy: CUCRMONGA "!!L!!J L~ • tt1T ERtt4 PLAN: SERVICE COMMERCIAL, LOW RESIDENTIAL ~~ ~;~;'~~'~:~,;' Parks .~ - _. . SEDWAY/COOKE PLAiL• MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-14 du/ac) . REQUEST: SEE LETTER ATTACHE D DATED 2-12-81 FROM WILLIAM R. PATTON Af1ALYSIS: SEE RTTACHEO STAFF REPORT (1-28-81) AND MEMO (2-17-81) RECOh1MEi1D: ;ION: SEE ATTACHED STAFF REPORT AND MEMO. t PLAN. C01?1. ACTT ON: Change to Industrial Park, Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac), and Parks as shown above (2-17-81). • APPLICANT: John D. Lusk, et al ~ ` A.P. N0.201-062-2,13,26,32,33 d ~ "-' _- 0 1000' 5000' . ly 2303 SANTIAGO DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH,CgLIFOq NIA 93660 Ol/) 6CA0/At February 12, 1981 CITY OF RAfiCHO CUCA6i0NGA P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ~~~ ~° L ~ ~~ 1`i~ 6 W CI ~ Y OF P,AitCYO CUCAil10MGA COMG!UN fEY DEb'E~ OPYENT DEPT, A6I ~ 7181911e 11111".11121314151 fi Attention: lir. Jack Lamb Planning Director Re: 1. De Berard Family - SWC 6th & Archibald 2. 160 acres bounded by 6th, Archibald, 4th & Hellman Rancho Cucamonga, California Gentlemen: As you know, I am a member and representative of the DeBerard • family and was authorized by a majority of [he property owners of the referenced 160 acres to speak on their behalf at several recent Commission hearings. IC inadvertently came [o my attention that a decision was apparently made at the January 10th Commission hearing to review the Light industrial zoning designation recently placed on Che entire 160 acres. AC the direction of the Commission on January 19th we were able to assemble 80% of the Land owners in order to present a united proposed plan as attached and as presented at the previous January 19th hearing and subsequent January 26th and 28th hearings. We remain united in support of our previously proposed and, due to the distance a few of us have to travel, we would appreciate advance notice of any further hearings on Che matter in order that all land owners may be present. Enclosed are copies of my letters of January 19th and 26th as well as copies of December 22nd and January 26th letters from Mr. Don Steffenson, Senior Vice President, John D. Lusk Company for your review. '- .'~ ~~ daaaar~ 12 ,~ 1981 • City of Rancho Cucamonga page 2 I will look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. The Letterhead telephone number is my residence. My 24-hour office telephone number is (714) 752-6434. V tru 7~ s, iam atto~ WRP/blm Encl. cc: Mr. Don Steffenson John D. Lusk Company Mr. Paul Byrnes Malborough Homes Corporation . Mr. Al Blessent DeBerard Family • ~ ~ 5= i10)SANTIAGO DgIVE NEWPO qT BEACN. CALIFO gNIP 91660 (AQ bbA06lb January 26, 1981 Covm(issioner Richard Dahl Commissioner Jeff King Commissioner Herman Rempel Commissioner Jeff Sceranka Commissioner Peter Tolstory RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION P.0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: SWC 6th and Archibald Rancho Cucamonga, California Honorable Commissioners: This letter is submitted as an addition to my January 19th le[[er requesting an Industrial Park zoning be incorporated into the General Plan to allow Che development of a Business Park on the DeBerard Ranch located at the southwest corner of 6th and Archibald and as shown on the attached revised plan. Similar zoning is requested fronting Archibald continuing south of the subject property transcending into a Commercial area at 4th and Archibald and continuing west fronting 4th Street. The balance of the approximate 155 net acres bounded by Hellman, 4th, Archibald and 6th is proposed as i!edi(m-High Residential. In accordance with the request made by [he Commission a[ [he January 19th hearing, the following land owners met on Friday the 23rd and unanimously agreed to support Che above referenced proposal as outlined on the attached revised plans: Properly Owners Approx, acres 1. Mr. Don Steffensen, Senior Vice President The John D. Luck Company 61.54 2. Mr. Paul Byrnes, Dir. of Planning & Engineering Marlborough Homes Corporation 19.54 acres 3. DeBerard Ranch 18.39 acres C= ,,~'~ ~_i „ January 26, 1981 • Planning Covmission page 2 ,4. Mr. Al Blessent 9.54 acres Although the Safeway property owners were not available, they have offered their support for the proposal in previous telephone conversations. 5. Safeway 19.54 acres Total Supporting Property Owner's Acreage 128.55 acres The available property owners supporting the proposal represent 86% of the total acreage involved. The remaining 14% were not available, however, from other general discussions over the past year, it is my belief they would also support the proposed plan. Respect£ ly Submitted, ~1 William R. Patton Enclosures: Revised Area Plan January 19th letter cc: Mr. Jack Lamb Director of Planning Rancho Cucamonga • L~~ ~~ JOHN D. LUSK & SON • w MEMIEE Of ]NE WS[ fAMllr Oi COMIANIES IISSO Gi11,N1 Ao., Inin~ Indmlri~l Campln 60, br GI15{0, Inin~, Llil, il]II BMI SSLgIO 11111 I}{~{HI January 26, 1981 C ITI' OF R~,`CHO CUCtLipNGA P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, C4 91730 Attn: Dtr. Jack Lamb Planning Director Re: Lusk Property Northwest Corner of Archibald E Forth Avenue Tax Parcels No. 210-062-02, 13, 26, 32 and 33 -- SJ.B Acres Gentlemen: On December 22, 1980, lae forwarded to you the attached letter in which l:e • requested your favorable consideration in providing commercial and medium high residential land-use for our property. On Friday, January 23, 1981 we met with three of the other property owners who oin property in the 160 acres bounded by Fourth Street, Sixth Street and Archibald to review various land-use alternatives. As a result of this meeting, we are writing to re-confirm you our request [hat the property olmed by JOIN D. LUSK $ SON as referenced above be favorably considered for crane rcial and medi~^a high density residential land uses. lie have requested Flr. Bill Patton, who represents one of the other landolmers in the area, to read both our letter of December 22, 1990 and this letter into the record inasmuch as we will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled for Dbnday, January 26, 1991. Thank you for your consideration of our request. l'e ry truly yours, Do~ Id D. S Senior Vice President DDS:sm I-1 U ;'.:- f • 310)SANTIAGO DRIVE NEWVORT BEACH~CA LIFOR NIA 92660 I)I t1 it3~Ottt January 19, 1981 Commissioc.er Richard Dahl Commissioner Jeff King Corm!i ss Toner Nerman Rempel Coc~aissioner Jeff Scer anka Cosm:issioner Peter Tolstory RANCHO CUCAMONGA PI.At7NINC COIMIISSTON P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Business Park Zoning SWC 6th and Archibald Westside Archibald between 4th and 6th Rancho Cucamonga, California Honorable Commissioners: • Please accept this letter as a formal request to incorporate into the proposed General Plan zoning to allow the development of a business park on the approximate twenty acre DeBerard Ranch located at the 4oVthwest corner of 6th and Archibald and as shown on the attached plan. Furthermore, similar compatible zoning is requested continuing south from the subject property on Archibald to 4th S[ree[. This request is based upon the following facts: The tenets of good planning theory would indicate that zoning compatible with Business Park, Industrial or Cosm~ercial uses would be the highest and best utilization of a high traffic, high identity major arterial such as Archibald Avenue where the bulk of existing development is already of, those types. Such uses would provide an effective, and aesthetically pleasing buffer to any residential development which might be planned west of Archibald with primary access from the secondary east-west arteria?s and/or Hellman Avenue. The proposed buffer zone would not inhibit immediate access to potential rapid transit along Archibald for potential residents to the west. As a matter of fact, many users of such business zoning are active in business from very early morning hours to mid-evening, a time rapid transit commuters are most prevelent. Such commuters would probably appreciate an attractive landscaped, ~, • well designed and lighted business area to walk through on their way to or from their homes. G-~ ~~ Tan uary 19, 1981 Planning Co~iss ion page 2 • Likewise, but in a negative vein, the tenets of good planning relative to the location of residential uses on an arterial with the attributes of Archibald Avenue (high traffic, relatively high speeds, propensity of non-residential uses) would require such a development to be oriented internally. In other words, the view which is provided to travelers along Archibald would be a wall or other barrier designed [o protect Che home owners, their families and pets from the potential traffic dangers of Archibald as well as to "buffer" them from the street noises ar.3 visual feeling that their home was located in an industrial park. Additional businesses mean additional sales and real property tax revznues, ar,d although [he covaiunity has excellent plans to maintain steady residential and business growth, it should not give vp any business opportunity to neighboring communities. 3. The owners of properties within the affected area have expressed support for this proposal as reflected in a nu:.b er of meetings and telephone conversations during recent months. 4. This proposal envisions a series of quality projects similar to the development by coc¢nunity conscious individuals or companies • like Mr. Henry Reiter whose business parks are of the highest quality and by their appearance alone have attracted new business to Rancho Cucamonga. 5. Last, and certainly leas[ in the overall interests of community planning but of concern and interest to the community a[ large is the fact that a portion of [he subject property has been in the DeB erazd family since 1903. The family has lived in the existing home on the southwest corner of 6th and Archibald for more than SO years and have been involved members of the coainunity of almost 80 years. I am of [he opinion this proposal embodies the best possible in- gredients for maintaining an attractive corridor on a major Rancho Cucamonga arterial, attracting new business, continuing to increase the city's tax base, protect families in the proposed residential areas. Re~spectfu submitted, - William R. Patton WRP/blm Enclosure: Area Plan cc: Mr. Jeck Lamb Director of Planning Rancho Cucamonga i,'`~~~ any PIE ~~~ ~~~ ~~ (~ L' ~ll ~~~ JL_ ~~ ~ .//~ . ~~ ~' •. • , I(~f~J~' 1L W ` ,' ~~ ~~• 1 4 ~ /' ~ i~ / u ~ C!iY~CFr;?i;~';' °UC;;i'Qi•!GA • CO?.',IP!a"/ CF4rl~^Pt;F'IT i'c('% ~q !:~ rra PFA JOHN D. LUSK & SON 7i8i9ii0i;lilEil~2~:;11~~i6 A MEMBER OF THE LUST( FAMILY OE COMIANIES ~ I)SSO 6iIIJ4 N~., Irriw Indutliul Cempler 1. 0. br GHSdY• Inin,, GII/. tt)O 0111 SER{IIO • tll )}{.{qi December 22, 1980 City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Attention: Mr. Jack Lamb Director of Planning Re: Lusk Property - Northwest Corner of Archibald & Fourth Avenue/Tax Parcels No. 210-062-02, 13, 26, 32 and 33 - 54.8 Gross Acres • Gentlemen: It is our understanding that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is currently considering revisions to the land use element of the General Plan. It is our further understanding that the current suggested land use for the subject property would be for residentia l use in the medium category; 5 to 14 units per acre. The property presently carries a land use designation of service com-ne rcial on the portion of property fronting on Fourth Avenue i,e tween e,rch.ibald and Cucamonga Creek with residential designation on the balance. Based upon our review of the subject property and i ts proximity to both the Cucamonga industrial area and the Ontario International Airport, we would respectfully request your favorable consideration of the following land uses (see attached map): 1. On Parcels 2, 13 and 25 which comprise approximately 30.54 gross acres and which have frontage on both Archibald Avenue and Fourth Avenue, we would request a continued commercial designation. It is our understanding that the service commercial designation has been changed to reflect straight commercial; however, our marketing indicates the potential `'. ~ t-0r. Jack Lamb Page 2 Decamber 22, 1990 use of this property would be for uses formerly considered as service conmercial. 2. Foc Parcels 32 and 33, we would request a designation for residential medium high density allowing 15 to 24 dwelling units per acre. This designation has been requested on the basis of our understanding that the City is interested in having more modestly priced housing available for employees in the adjacent industrial and commercial areas. Our experience ~oould indicate that densities of 15 to 20 units per acre will be necessary in order to provide housing in price ranges to • meet the income ranges for the employees for these areas. Your favorable consideration of the foregoing will be appreciated. Should you have any questions with regard to our request, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, JOHN D. LUSK & SDN - /T/ Donald D. St?ffensett Senior Vice President DDS:ks 1~ '~- GTY OF RA\G 10 Cl,'G~~K?\CA srArr xEPORT DATE: February 17, 1981 T0: 14embers of the Planning Commis Sion FROfI: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUBJECT: RECOt1SIDERAT ION OF LAND USE DECi5i0N ON PROPERTY BETWEEN FOURTH AND S1xTH STREET, HELLFWN AND ARCHIBALD BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission asked staff to bring back for fur- ther consideration land use designation on the above-described property. The Planning Commission previously considered this matter at their January 28 meeting, where they modified the land use to Industrial Park. Attached to this report is a copy of the January 28 staff report with recommenda- tions and exhibits. During that meeting representatives of property owners within that area discussed alternative land use recommendations of their own. This recom- mendation included commercial land use along Fourth Street and Industrial Park category along Archibald. The remaining property being shown as medium density residential. Rttached to this staff reROrt is an illus- tration prepared by staff which attempts to indicate those that were sug- gested by reprsentat fives of the property owners. It is interesting to note that the suggested recommendations by the property owners are similar to alternative No. 2 presented by staff at that meeting. Industrial Park designation allows motel, hotel, eating establishments and support com- mercial uses. Should the Commission wish to consider modifying their original land use decision, staff recommendation is the same as presented at the January 28 meeting. Preferably, that the Commission retain the medium density resi- dential or accept modification of the alternatives as discussed in that staff report. RECOt1MENDATION: Should the Planning Commission decide to revise the land use decision on property between Fourth and Sixth Street, and Hellman and Archibald Avenues, that they consider the recommendations made in the January 28 staff report. Respectfully submitted, Barry K. Hogan City Planner BKH:TJ B:jk L% ~-... yr gnl~l. rlV ~,L I.HI\'IV~V I,~ NII;v10RANDUNI l J DATE: January 28, 1981 TC: ttenb ers of the Planning Commission FRGi~1: Barry K. Hagan, City Planner SUBJECT: FOURTH AND ARCHIBA LD - NORTHWEST CORNER A85 TPP.C T: Contained within this mono and its atta cim ents are staff's suggestions for the 120 + acres of land located at the northwest cor- ner of Archibald and 4th Street. Action on this itam is requested. DISCUSSION: As the Planning Commission is aware, considerable dis- cussion occurred at the last meeting on the General Plan on January 15 relative Co the ahov e-referenced item. There were various options and plans presented by owners and people concerned with the property in question. lJhile the staff still feels that medium density resi- dential is appropriate for the abw e-referenced property, the Commis- sion may wish to consider the following options: • Designate the northwest corner of Archibald and 4th Street as a 10-acre commercial site fora neighborhood shopping center. This shopping center could service future residential and existing residential in the area of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario to the west, and the pro- posed Ontario International Centre. Continuing along 4th and along Rrchibald, a designation of industrial park 500 feet in depth may be considered. The renainder of said property should be left in the 5-14 du/ac designation of medium density residential. The designation would be con- sistent with adjacent land use in the City of Ontario at a 5-15 du/ac density. Additionally, there should be a park designation within the area as was the case on the Jahn B lay ney plan. (See exhibits.) At the northwest corner a 10-acre commercial site should be indicated and the remainder of the property should be in- dustrial park. In both of the two above-mentioned options, the text should be amended to include the following para- graph. "The City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes the im- portance of the northwest corner of Ar c hi6ald Avenue and Fourth StreeC and its significance as an entry to the City and its potential to provide for uses complimentary to the airport ar:d nearby industrial and residential property. The specific related uses that might occupy sites on 4th Street and Prchihald Avenue would be hotels, motels, res- taurants, offices, and related anciliary canmercial uses. • ~~ !~. !; ~, Lac->~i/ _Pr LC4. ~'2 ou/Ac ~~...~....-~-.,..,.. LOLJ 2-4 GU/AC 5-o CU/AC NEDIUi~I 5-14 GU/AC ~D. HIGH ~~ 15-24 DU/AC F~::~:~il HIGH ti-30 DU/AC ALTERNATIVE ONE w'. COhI>1UiIITY "~ COh1?1ERCIAL NEIGH30~ CO`ihiERC REG i UN,:L CO.;..ERCIAL OFFICE © I"ID'JSiP.IAL PARK iAL ~ „/ GEiIERAL INDUS. RAIL SERVED GENERAL I NDUSTR ® HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ALTERNATIVE TWO a HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL OPEi7 SPACE I~ FLOOD COOL I'- UTILITY R. /~„r 1~ ~I F,=i~ ~ro:i: ~ ia~. '!F_• 6, ', . iti°.iEiiE(:p... ~L _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ d ~ '•....... • ~ ~ L ___ _ ~., ~ ~ :::: _.::: ~ ,:,r._:.11_ qq 3 •: ~: _ .~. • __ - „ _ - i { ~. ~ wY . ~ _ _ _ _ •_•i - _ 1~ _ . ~,i _ .~, _ _ _ : •• _ Ni:. .`~~LL,•` _ _ _ -y _ _ __ i~ •~~ ~ ~Mt.: _~:• Course. - '7-•. ~ e ~ :,:,, , . __ -:.~--- t:. Y }. 4 . - r, _ _ -i - Y~ - y. K i - L' = J. :_~.~~ 1 rY=. ~~.?y~•. •-t:"" -'ter ~-~''.'~'OX.,i`-'4~~4~ii: r:.y<i~.iJ'r:3:[T: .-` ..c _ ~ _ ;._ - .+Y.~~...Y' A .. p41<~ it~hv: `: }:b. = ~.a: f •-_ . J. ~ :Ih"ai i~ / `'i el,.. e. ..;Aii::v'a. ::via• is-•' >_1:ii~`y,~= . - ~ •. _.. .` i. y .... .::. :: . . •C _ .~. ,y .1 - _ ~ _ _ _ ~•. t 't -_ :T :fin:.t .~ i .7 r .~.• C ~~ '' - :.F'. %'~' •~~ :~~' ,.I - ::7: ti ~ . .•~ ~ ~ ~ ..'~ - ri4~:~ - i t' ':'~ s:~ 'j •;~:; .r )'' - -.. ' - ~'~°' L / ~y''N {/ / / V ' L.~ /'~ ~ ri::iiir.•rr' ~.~/f///..,~ ~ ~i,3 ~~-1~_~""x..t:::::: ~~~~tJF;1..-.,.~,/~p 3"~i'...:.'f-.'~v it ~i ..............:~?W'?PV.~+~Y..~.~a.-.~. .'."t7'. .'~.~. .~i~i.. a' //r ~rrrr /t -vi/ /l.er o ,.'„ . :: ~ ~ --' QI ~ ~ -- ~ --- ---- ~~ .. . =' ~ ~ man P -O~:nl{~~dV ~~. .... r _ _ I -`. :?I~f~: I Jam' ,. ~ _ w ~; ~1~.:J' VY .... :. ~ ~' ~ . ~ ~" ~I ~;'„') I~ ~~ ~ Y ~ ' L - e ~ N N h ~y ~ ,y CJINI'1 ~' • CP~Y~~SC~C~~.[~. N4N^ .~ ~J (`"'` oli° J O N s_ ', ~~;~~~ IP-713~N~:L-y'~ I' ~' .~~. ~ C~ A ~ L~ N ~I ~ _. I I,VtI ti l.... ~~ :•::~::::~tG1 ,cam > e~~dy ~r~ ou>nt~Ps ~~coi~IM~N~~~V a ~- II-15 LOCATION: Approximately 40 acres located at the site of the La Mancha Golf Course. Revised General Plan indicates this site having Industrial Park fronting Haven Avenue and Arrow Highway with a ten acre park site at the south- west corner of the site. Public request before the Council was to con- sider increasing the park site to 20 acres. The Planning Commission considered the revision to the La Mancha Golf Course to an industrial use with the provision of an approximately 10 acre park site during the review of the Cucanan ga Planning Area. At that time, Dr. Milliken in- dicated that the golf course was no conger economically viable and he would prefer that the land use be changed from the Park to Industrial Park. He also indicated that he would be willing to provide between 5 and 10 acres of property to the City as a gift for park use. This park site provides a bonus for the City in two ways; (1) it is currently im- . proved (landscaped); and, (2) it would not normally be received under an industrial development (park dedication is not required from non-residential development). The Community Service Director has indicated that a 20 acre park site is inefficient to maintain for a neighborhood park and too small for a community park. It is recommended that the City Council leave the designation as is. I1 LJ d Ii-17 LOCATION: Approximately 10 acre park site located south of Church Street on Ramona Avenue. The property owners indicate that the proposed land use plan indicated park on a oorti on of the site now being planned for residential develop- ment (attached is a copy of the residential plan). They have requested that the City Council consider relocating the park site to an area with- in the general proximity which is already owned by them and is approx- imately 7 acres in size, which would 6e dedicated and developed with the projected fees for the proposed project; whereas, if the 10 acre park site remains as is, we would only have land dedicated due to the in- • creased land value. Although this site, as shown on the Draft General Plan, is preferrable in size, the other location and size would be ac- ceptable fora neighborhood park. • 2~ • E - 1 :: ~ • ~. 7F ~~ o ` _ fCh: e - ~~- - ::.. :•? v •:.~ E'-; .... ........ ...,~•C7:• ( ..~ Very Low Residential ~~~ Less than 2 du/ac Low Residential 2-4 du/ac Low-Medium Res identi a~ 4-8 du/ac Medium Residential 4-14 du/ac Medium High Residentit 14-24 du/ac High Residential 24-30 du/ac Commercial Connnunity Commercial - yp,~Neighborhood Connnercia .J Regional Commercial ._._."_. ._ Office Industrial Park General Industrial Gen/Indus. Rail Served Heavy Industrial Parks CO'4h1UNITY: CUCAMONGA INTERIM PLAT: LOW RESIDENTIAL SEO'dAY/COOKE PLAN: PARKS R EQUFSi: LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 du/ac) Ai;ALYSIS: The site is occupied by existing single family rest deuces and is not an approprirte park site. Another park site will be recommended at an upcoming meeting. RECOMPtEIIDATION: Change to Low Density Residential. S PLAfI, COi~il1. ACTION: As recemnended (1-19-81) • © ~ 0 1000' 5000' a~ APPLICANT: George Friedenbach A.P. N0. 1077-271-6 II-17 r mE P~Ar ``'' 1 ~~~'v~ O~Y[R/O[Y[LD[CR [M~[R Y~• 1^ ~ L/!.wca . wa.Rn . w>o..+.rs d .^ -' ~ ~. __~ ~- N. /~ a - [i 4 i 'I~ , ,~' .~~ f ~~ j~~>, v~F,__~i~•,; fff 1 ' _ - . ' - ~ I ' I { I `._'~~~/ L4~~4~;U v_ i ~ el i I I- Y~ ._ _ _ -.~ ... .... _~ ._.a, ~- - L1N..4 i u n l I L_ ~`~ LL I ~' L ~ N . Z ~-- aL ~~ LlL a Z ~ ~' ~ ~ - to ~-~/.,~--~i, _____________L___', ~:%~- .... _ ~ ~. ..... .- .~,_.~~- .y ~~ ~, ~'- EX~//B/T 'A" _.... ~ ~ I~~^.yl ~, ^ll ~ ^:~~~ A tl ~ 1. u i'4 - LEPiiLLL 4.. ~ i '--,;M ~-- ;' F R ~`~S~ D 4, tl i' Y I K JJ~~~ /~ r > a _xi.3L ''~ ..' ,:,' .. _. _. [oval ~,-~ 'coxxe~ ________ -f .,~ . P. ?I__-- _ ~ -, _"~ _-~ ro _ 1 ~ ~ ~_ I~ 3, r N _ \~• •Y i~ .. ~~ ~ .y~1/ ^~_ _~, :~: ~/ N3AT3q~- ,,. i _ R `T i ^. ~ y _ ~~ fix "~ ,r. - x i ~~ ~~3llff3f0 NtlON,Nall V11 ~>••'~~ - -., i '. y ~ I iy.'_~ Q `~._ ~I~ ~~~'ee ~ ~"~ ? .'. g'S __ _-C n _ 3/JUnV tl]NtlOI ~',`~ ~~~ ~, '~" .. rT U Very Low Residential :::::.'.:~ Less than 2 du/ac J COMMUNITY: CUCAMONGA • INTER Pd PLAN: NATURAL OPEN SPACE SECWAY/COOKE PLAN: GOLF COURSE Low Residential 2-4 du/ac Low-Medium Residentia 4-O du/ac i Medium Residential :4-14 du/ac "High Residential Z4-30 du/ac Commercial Community Commerr.ial ~!Nei9hborhood Commerciz Medium High Residen ti; 14-24 du/ac Regional Commercial :: :•: :•_ Office Industrial Park General Indus trf al Gen/(ndus. Rail Served Heavy Industrial Parks REQUEST: INDUSTRIAL PARK ANALYSIS: This is the site of the existing LaMancha Golf Course. It is felt that future usage as only open space is an under utilization due to the sur- rounding industrial park areas to the south and east. A 10 acre park is proposed on the southwest corner of the 40 acre parcel. RECOMMEfI DAYTON: Change to Industrial Park and a 10 acre park on the southwest t corner of the property. PLAN, COMM. ACTION: As recommended (2-2-II1) • ® ~ 0 7000' 5000' ~~ APPLICANT: Daniel Milliken A.P. N0. 209-092-4 II-15 ~„ C .:r; h's Tim 3eedle ~ " -' fa Sr Plznner „?.i Rancho Cucamonga 93<20 3aseline Rd Cucamonga Ca 917.30 Dear *.•:r Beedle: It has cone to my attention that the property occupied by La Mancha Golf Course has been tentatively zoned as open space, I ot~m and control said property and request that the open space ci-ssi£ica~ion be changed to M-1 ~ eaccept the north-east and scuth-east corners t~rhich should be C-1. Since I anticiuate se,.ling or develc-ing •: this pre•-.erty in the near ~future~ ~tlfillment of the above request will be greatly appreci~.ted. Sircer e.ty~ i Daniel B tali Yent T st-e P o Bx 811 Cucamonga Ca 91730 P.S. The above nronerty is listed as the asscsbr parcel 4 209 092 04, 37.89 Acres h:/L • ,~ II-18 LOCATION: Five acres located at the southeast corner of Church Street and Archibald Avenue. The City Council was requested to reconsider the Planning Commssion decision to designate the southeast corner of Church and Rrchf bald Avenue as Offiice Use. Originally the Draft General Plan indicated this site as Medium Oensi ty Residential (4-14 du/ac ). The property owner requested Office designation. The Planning Commission considered if the request ~,aould be incompatible with surrounding residential land. Ultimately they accepted the land use request and the property was des- ignated to Office Use. • ~~ • COP1I4UiIITY: CUCAMONGA • INTER Cd PLAN: MIXED USE AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL SE D'dAY/COOKE PLA"7: MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-14 du/ac) t Very Low Residential Less than 2 du/ac Low Residential 2-4 du/ac Low-Medium Residenti a~ 4-8 du/ac ~~Medium Residential ..:: 4-14 du/ac Medium High Residenti[ '114-24 du/ac High Residential 24-30 du/ac Commercial Community Commercial - sfc I~~Neighborhood Commercia Regional Corinne rcial ~'_ ~_~ •_ Office Industrial Park General Industrial Gen/Indus. Rail Served Heavy Industrial Parks REyUEST: OFFICE APlALYSIS: The site is located in a residential area. Commercial and office opportunities exist along Foothill and Base Line at Archibald. Inclusion of office at this site would be an inappropriate mixture of uses. North, south, east and west of the site is residential, both existing and planned (see attached). Not until south of the elementary school does commercial or office use exist on Archibald Avenue. 1f offices were designed for this site, it would not relate to any other office or commercial use in the area. RELOIS;IENOATIOR: Retain the Sedway/Cooke designation. PLAtI. COI4!4. ACTT0.1: Change to Office (7-19-81) 0 1000' 5000' 30 APPLICA77T: Associated Engineers A.P. N0. 1077-331-2 II-18 ~ ~~~. Associated Engineers CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS f; 31fi EAST 'E' STREET • ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 • p141 988-5816 • December 23, 1980 Planning Commission City of Ranchu Cucamonga 9340 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamnn ga; CA. 91701 Attention: Barry Hagan Subject: General Plan Hearing Gentlemen: I am one of the owners of approximately tour acres at the southeast corner of Church Street and Archibald Avenue. We originally purchased this property in 1963. Under the old General Plan, the Mixed Use designation permitted a restaurant as well • as office uses in addition to apartment huildings. Some time ago we had preliminary plans drawn for an o([i<e complex but concluded that there was a surplus o[ office space be- coming available. However we would like to retain the opportunities [or development which we had under the old General Plan, which we feel are appropriate at this corner. We would like the opportunity to present our views to the Planning Commission on January 12, 1981 iL that is the proper meeting date for such presentations. Please let me know if we can be heard on that date and the approximate time it might be considered. Very trul yours, ~~ ~:~~ R. E. Mills cc: hloyd Michael J '. U ~I;': 01'I:.'f' - .:rgGA C ~"~ , ~ "I'L v . t l ."' f~ P~l."'f ~DF PT. ~~:. _~'j ~L~~L~ ~I~In I!~Ih:'2=f=1Zl'~1415?6 • m ~l"1 PLANNING DESIGNING SURVEYING ' '.-..i ~' I~ ,c _ -_ .:. r ~" ,^ .~: ~~ at! ° ~ ~,~. _~~. _,. _......._ . ~~ F-~ ~--w ~ :-_~~.. e.r'~~ . o iy_ _i'- 1 -_ zi ~. ® ~ V c ®' ~ 1 ~ ~ .. _ %. --~11 ~.. <~ . . ~~~ ~'~ ~ :i :. ~ . .._ -;.~ I~?..------ ~__.. _~_ ... I SG~;%?L s,~ M~ ~ " n 31 x tI-24 LOCAT iON: 20 = acres located east of Vineyard Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet south of Foothill Boulevard. Staff recently received correspondence, which is attached, from the firm of Foothill Real Estate requesting permission to address the City Council at the March 30, 1981 public hearing. The parcel in question was originally shown on the Draft Land Use Plan as Low-Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac); the Planning Comni ssion, at the January 19, 1981 public hearing, amended the plan on this parcel and in the surrounding area to reflect Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) on the western one-half of this parcel and Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac) on the eastern one-half. The Planning Commission's consideration of this area was as a result of two alternatives which Staff had prepared for their con- sideration of this area was a result of two alternatives which Staff had prepared for their consideration; the alternatives, as presented to the Commission, are attached. Considerable public input was re- ceived by the Planning Commission copse ruing the effect of greater residential density on the existing and surrounding area. The Planning Commission action was to lower the Residential Density from Low-Medium Density to Low Density in order to avoid potential impact to the existing Low Density Residential east of the project area. Subsequently, a letter was received from Mr. Doyle Alexander concerning the Vineyard Green project (Tentative Tract 11737). This letter is also attached for your review. The development project in question proposes 384 units or approx- imately 20 du/ac; the Draft Land Use Plan, as approved by the Planning Commission, would only allow 180 dwelling units on the 20 acre parcel. For the proposed project to be con sf stmt with the General Plan, the density over the entire 20 acres would need to be raised to Medium High Residential category allowing 14-24 du/ac. It is recommended that the City Council retain the land Use Designations as revised by the Planning Comm ssion. • ~~ ;:, ~'~.., :a ~:,:? Very Low Residential Less than 2 du/ac Low Residential 2-4 du/ac Low-Medium Residential 4-8 du/ac Medium Residential 4-14 du/ac Medium High Residentia 14-24 du/ac High Residential 24-30 du/ac Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Conmercia Regional Commercial Office Industrial Park General Industrial Gen/Indus. Rail Served Heavy Industrial COMMUNITY: CUCAMONGA V~~~~~~~A INTERIM PLAIT: MIXED USE ~,Z~~; ;.'~ Parks SEDWAY/COOKE PLAN: ti.5 MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL AND LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL REgUEST: SEE ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 (ATTACHED) ANALYSIS: Alternative 1 best represents the appropriate land use along Vineyard between Foothill and Arrow Highway. RECOM~'4EN DATI O.1: Change plan as shown in Alternative 1. t PLAN. COMM. ACTION: As recommended (1-19-81) ® 0 1000' 5000' 3'~ APPLICANT: Staff Initiated A.P. N0. N/A It-24 ~~~ F~®TNIL~ .;,~~ ('~ :~~ ``U>~p~:: •• ,~ ~ f~~ .. .n:~.1`Z~~1~'10Vg ETA •,~ ~',.,. ,+1a1~.~y1 •~ 4 ~r~.,- .. a~E~L E~T~aTE ~.I:u .. ;..I_a =~ 889 EAST FOOTHILL 9OULEVAND SUITE E UPLANO, CALIFOfl NIA 91786 TELEPHONE. p141 9462651 March 16, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga P. o. Box 807 Aancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Attn: Director of City Planning Sub,~ect: Tentative Tract 11731-PB80-11-Sarafian Dear Mr. Lamb: We respectfully request permission to address the City Council at their public hearing to be held MondQy, March 30, 1981, relative to the purposed tentative tract, above referred to. The reason far the specific date of March 30, 1981, is that we need additional Lime to complete our meetings with the ad,~oining homeomers. It is our understanding the City Council is now holding hearings in regard to the overall general plea and the agenda does not spell out when the Vineyard Avenue area south of Foothill Boulevard will be presented for discussion. Sincerely •William'% Alexende'r • February 17, 1981 FORMAL REO'JEST FOR PRESENTATI OtJ TO 7HE CITY COUNCIL . CITY OF RANCHO CUCA!•IONGA ^. ~ •.~ VINEYARD GREEN COiIDOMINIUM PROJECT, TENTATIVE TRACT k 17731 Gli't :f !~',. CUCAN'ONGA Mayor SchlosseY & Councilmen i COCw; 6.i~,,ut uPtfrNT DEPT. City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ , , ju;~~, PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RM PM 71819110! 1111! 11213141 S Ili Gentlemen: f I am writing this letter of request on behalf of n1y client, Mr. Ha gop Sarafian, owner of the proposed Vineyard Green Condominium project. I am presently P1r. Sarafian's development consultant for the above referenced project. Since Mr. Ga ra fian is out of town at the present time. I am filing this request with his authorization. Our request fora presentation to the City Council is requested due to the following reasons: BACKG~RO'J;10 SUMMARY 1. A previous project, submitted 6y Mr. Arnold Anderson, fora mobile hon•~e park development of 8 units per acre, received preliminary land use approval some time during September of 1980. After receiving approval, hir. Anderson was unable to successfully finalize the development of his • mobile home park project. Consequently, my client, Mr. Sarafian, purchased the subject 20 acre parcel. Unfortunately, and unknown to both myself and Mr. Sarafian at the time, Mr. Anderson's application and approval for the mobile home park development was never withdrawn. Ou ring the time of h1r. Anderson's proposed mobile home park development and at the time of purchase of the subject property by Mr. Sarafian, the proposed interim general plan indicated a high density residential land use allowing up to 30 units per acre, Mr. Sarafian purchased the subject property at this time and shortly thereafter, retained the architectural firm of Barmakian-Wolff and Associates to develop an affe rda6le condominium project of approximately 20 units per acre. 3. During the period commencing from September, 1980 up to the first week of December, 1980, 8armak ian-Wolff and Associates proceeded with prel iinina ry designs and all related work required fcr the growth management application and review process. Our architects worked diligently with city staff during this time. Unknown to the oomer and his development team o-+o rking in conjunction on the project, the previous mobile home park development was forwarded to your general plan consultants as part of the normal input and review process. Subsequently, the mobile home park development was received as current input and the corresponding land use was revised to low to medium residential, allowing a density of only 5-8 units per acre. 3S ~- Mayor Schlosser 8 Councilmen February 17> 1981 Page 2 4. The actual change in land use designation was not realized by • myself, the owner, nor the architect, until the revised interim general plan was circulated on or about December }2, 198D. At this time, Ba rmakian-lJol ff and Associates were approximately 80" complete with the entire growth management package, and vast amounts of related time and expenditures had already been invested by the owner. Mr. Sa ra fian elected to complete the growth management package, which was submitted in the last week of December, 1980, to the Plann in9 Department. During this time, both myself and Mr. Sa rafian had hoped that we would be able to remedy the present situation during the general plan review process. It was felt that the proposed Vineyard Green Condominium project had substantial merits to warrant appropriate consideration. 5. To complicate matters further, during the third week of January, 1981, the subject property was discussed relative to general plan review re co.^miendations. Neither myself, the owner, nor the architects were notified that the subject parcel would be discussed at this meeting. The property was recommended by staff and approved by planning conunission to be reclassified as a combination of low density (1-4 units -- per acre) and medium residential (5-15 units per acre). The recommenda- tion as approved designates the rear 10 acre parcel as low residential, and the front 10 acre parcel as medium residential. In conclusion, due to the unfortunate chain of circumstances, we believe that an unfair situation has resulted. We do not believe, however, nor • do we lay blame or any fault whatsoever, to city staff, planning conmis- sioners, rr the general plan consultants. It was our understanding that any further discussion, recommendations, and/or approval must be reviewed and discussed by City Council. Therefore, based upon the unique circumstances surrounding the change in land use, and in consideration with the proposed Vineyard Green Project, we respectfully request due consideration and review by City Council. Ve////r~~~~y t//}}~lr///''u11l y y~ ursA'' - ~YLE1ALEXA DE~ Development Consultant WDA/np ec: Philip Schlosser, Mayor Art Bridge, Councilman James Frost, Councilman Michael Palumbo, Councilman John Mikels, Councilman Jack Lam, Planning Director Wa gop Sa rafian, Owner Larry Wolff, Architect AIA • I`7-l B:%~] :• •.•. •~_ . 3b ~..:`.` • ::. • - , . . , • • • • • • • • • .~ • • • • • 'i IA • _ (J A A •_•_ . E ~. • • ,~ CIT]' OF R~WCHO Ct1CA~tOUCA NIEVIORANDUM .~~~ c`cn.Hp~c' < ~~ ~~ o ,~» • DATE: March 30, 1981 T0: Members of the City Council FROM: Tim J. Beed le, Senior Planner SUBJECT: REVISION TO EQUESTRIAN TRAIL ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Late Thursday afternoon, March 27, 1981, the City Staff received a copy of the revision to the Trail Element as prepared by Mr. Bruce Chitiea. Enclosed is a copy of this material. City Staff has not had the oppor- tunity to review this particular draft, and therefore cannot offer any particular recomm~edation. The City Council has an opportunity to re- view the Trails~Element as part of the Land Use and Development Super Element during their meeting of March 30. Any substantial revision to the Equestrian Trail Element which was not considered by the Planning Commission, will have to be returned to them far their review prior to City Council adoption. TJ B:jr Attachment 31 V/ U"i Y CF Rai ~ICHO CL'CPdd014GA CChiidU":ITY CEVELOFPd"c NT DEPT. n±.i;l< ~ T I'JOI • AN Pii TRA i s gL8i9ilOLlli~i1i2L3i4i5L6 T'he precedin;; section describes a plan for providing parks and recreation facilities within the City. A key element of this plan is the provision of parks and recreations' facilities at three levels - regional, City, and neighborhncd. Regional facilities a include the Cucamonga - Cuasti and proposed Chaffey Regional Parks and the San Bernardino National. Forest. The plan also proposes a central City park and a series of multi- neiE;hborhond parks. The Trails Pian contemplates three elemental. goals: 1. Cooniimati,cm of the City's circulation and parks develop- ment programs to provide a consisten*, safe, non-vehicular multi-use trails system: 2. Preservation and expansion of the "rural" equestrian • community and lifestyle, and; J. Mitigation of deficiencies in the existing trails inventory A key to implementation of these elements lies in the under- standing that each is mutually supportive of the others as cub lined below. TRA L,S CONCEPT A unified trails concept satisfies all three major elemental goals through integration of public recreational £acilities - parks, open space and general recreation areas - with surrounding residential and industrial areas by means of a comprehensive network of non-vehicular public and private trails reserved for use by equestrians, pedestrians and bicyclists. lJ 39 _ -2- Bf,CKCR JUND 1. Ccord inat i.nn (See Coal l above). •_n addition to the • usual street en*ry, access to park foci :.i'ies via a non- vehicul.ar trai', sys`..em is critical. As au^.n-;riented recrea- tinnaL anon rtunities become mire costly, h^rse and bicyc'.t ridin ~, walking. and running will become even mnra widesnread *han currently observed. While routinE these activities nn to Cii.y s+reets en+.ails serious public safety concerns, these mobile ac'.ivi:ies wou'..d be severely iimi+ed if constrained within park b nundaries. A trail system designed for these r:~~n-vehicular uses, connecting parks and points of in'erest wi±h nei~hborin:,; c nmmunities would faci l.i+.ate and enenura~;e these uses while enhancing; park and open space access and niinimizin,~ hazardous __ exposures. 2. Preserva t.inn and exnansinn (See Goat 2 above). One may readily iden~ify cities wi t.h "rural" he ri+a;;e throughout Southern California where development rapidly overrode existing. infrastructures, isolating and eliminating; l.on(;-standing; eque9 • trian and ag;riculturat communities and forcing a?l non-vehicular modes of "travelling" recreation and passa€:e onto sidewalks and streets. The existing; and expanding equestrian community in Northern Alta Loma and Etiwanda is highly vulnerable to the same fra,;- mentation, displacement and eventual dissipation which charac- terize a majority of urbanized Southern California equestrian "communities". North Alta i,oma/Etiwanda, with a century old rural equestrian heritage, offers rare and fleeting potential. for preservation of this unique and increasingly desireable Lifesty l_e as one cf the last accessible horse-oriented locales within urbanized Southern California. \J n .. _. ....... ... .- -3- • A ennais*en'7ra ils network prcvidin,, ur.renl ric!~,d non-vehieu~ar travel within and between nei~;hbnrin comnmr.itic:e: and recrcati~~na'. faciiilies helps provide the infrast ruc'u re is •~ critical to survival of 'his community. 9. Eli tir a!inn (See Coal 9 above). @h~st exist iq~ res iduntial t rac k in m~Pthern Alta Loma (north of Danyan 5trect.) wore designed and partially occupied as equestrian propertiac: without re~,ard for any unifying, trails concept and wit }tool benefi r, of specific equestrian facility desi n standards. 'The needs of equestrians, runners, bicyciists and a significant number of school children were no` considered a significant factor in trail des i; n. °. he resultin:; trail system, held under fragmen^. ed pri va'e owner- ship within Tracts is often rendered useloss by disenn!inuities between and within tracts and is unsuitab~e for safe enjoyable useaEe due t~ serious erosion and obs!ruct inn by bon,dars and • debris dumped during and after tract. deveiopmeni. Where "parkway" trails along streets do exist, basic desim deficiencies are magnified by €•requently con£lic t.in;; uses, encroachment by private landowners, and by exposure to vehicu'ar traffic. Add it.inna lly, with the completion of concreted flood control channel improvements, existing and npi.imal. trails routes will be severed un'ess cooperative access and crossing a~reemenls are developed between San Bernardino Cnuni~y and the City, and improvements provided. The non-equestrian zoned areas of Alta Loma (south of Banyan Straet) and Cucamonga, typical of other formerly rural areas, have been developed without benefit of arty recreational trail system. All mobile recreational modes are pushed onto sidewalks and streets. • 3~ -4- • Wn_s such a trails system available within existing neighborhoods, equestrian use would likely be infrequent and limited primarily to the northern end of the zone on designated parkways and flood channel trails. The predominant modes of walkin+3, running and bicycling dictate a trails format different from that of the Equestrian Area, relying heavily on the paved service roads on flood channel corridors and street-side paths provided within the scone of the City's parkways and l,;adszauih,; pro ;rams. The existing trails "system" in Etiwanda, a loosely defined web of historical and customary routed in a largely equestrian oriented area will be dissected and eliminated by private development. The urbanized equestrian community will survive only through pro- U15ion ~ 0. fOfM0.Il ZCd }/bli~S aR,}tucr~• • The Victoria Planned Community proposal, while exeiudin~ equestrian zoned communities, does provide for parkway eques- trian access and significantly, sets a standard for an integ- rated network of pedestrian and bicycle "pathways" through alt higher density areas. This pathways system show l.d be extended to adjacent higher density areas, thereby providing the resi- dents of the non-equestrian Etiwanda area a recreational facility otherwise limited to the Planned Community areas alone. OBJECTIVES The objective of the Trails Plan is to foster deve l.npment of a trails policy satisfying all three elemental goals. Implemen- tation of this policy will create a Citywide trails system composed of three subystems: 1.) Regional trails 2.) Community trails and pathways • 3•) Neighborhood "feeder" trail. easements -5- 'ibe nb jec rive of the City regard in;; Ree;innal ^rails is to • incorporate those sections of the pre vi nusly designated county re~innal trails plan (within the City's boundary and sphere of iaC luence) into the City-Trails system. 'Phis w~utd a'lnw access t,n flood c>ntrnL and utility corridors (by special arran;;ement with the appropriate agencies) for simu'. tanenus use by horseback riders, hikers, joggers and bicyclists, and wnu'.d provide l.on distance linkage of re sidentiai enmmunit i.es with commercia~ and industrial areas and with outlying' recreational facilities and open space. C~mroianity Trails serve circulatory as we?'. as recreational func- tions by providing cross-community linker,>,e between distant sections of the Re~ionat Trai l.s and individual Seirhborhnnd 9'rail.s ~- systems. Flood Control and utility corridors sited nn public Ri„his-of- Way, street side parkways, and specially desi mated traits dedi- • cat.ed for public use between and/or through individua? tracts, the Community Trails wi ii also provide access to lac a~, parks, community facilities and open space. The objective of the City in regards to the Neighborhood "feeder" Trails system is to develop and implement design standards within the scope of its growth management and design review procedures which specify the provision of consistent, continuous privately owned trails within and between contiguous tracts. It is specifically intended that all trails in the North At.ta ~nma area myth of Banyan Street and in Etiwanda north of Hi.hland Avenue be so designed that equestrian use isemphasized and mt restricted due to considerations for other recreational uses. In addition to these standards, the City is to establish and designate certain "feeder" traits for inclusion into the Cnmmunit.y • trails subsystem to enhance overall access to recreational I-' 0 -6- fact'ii ies and the Re~,i ana' Trai' systems where there are not prac!Sca. a'terna:i~;es nn pubic iti ~.;h+s-~f-'day. • '.'his Nei,,hb ~rhuad Trails oU jec live als. c~miemp'a!es ss7,ec ii'ica !, i~~n ^f a "pathway" trails system in p!annin ~, ar~un e^.uth of Banyan Stree*. in A'ta Lemma, and Highland Avenue in Et iwand a, intended primarily for use by pedestrians and bic1'c'ist^„ This objective reca;n izes the viabil.i ty of the pa*hways/trams concept in the proposed Vic t.~ria Planned Community, and cnu'd be imp'emented with :his as a basis for City-developed design si andards. Y '~~:ICiES ". ha City sha i', create and imp'ement pn'icies designed to satisfy "' al.' three "'rat's e'emental p,o ats through adherance to the objec- tives out ~,ined above. The City shall estab :i sh a Master Trails Plan which prnvi.d es for the three trai!.s subsystems by means of the fn!'nwing policies: • 1.) Enenura:te and facilitate animal-oriented lifestv~es in the "rural equestrian" areas identified in Fi€._ of the of the Ceneral Plan. Pn l.icies shall mi'itate against exc :.usinn of horses and other animals from new deve lnpment in this area to prevent fragmentation of the community. Hi".side and very-low density land uae and zoning designations in addi lion sha'_; be used as a primary tool. in preventing many of the conflicts arising from encroaching urbanization upon the enmmuni.ty. 2.) Identify and man the City/Regional and Community trails sub- systems using, among other materials, the information contained in the "Proposal for the Riding and Hiking Traits Element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan" prepared by the Alta Loma Ridin, Club (accepted by the Planning Commission in December 1980) and the trams outlined in Fig. IIL 9 of the Parks and Recreation P:.an. • -7- j.) Actively pursue and establish an accord with the Cowtty of • San Bernardino which specifies .*.he le;,a' prnt^en's under which F'.nod Cnnt rn?. Rights-nf-Way and proposed Re;; i, ma' Parks facilities may be inc nrpora red into the City Trai's S~•stem. 'These accords wi l,'. be formalized into specific arran„caier.ts of ri~;h~s-^,f-access and divisi ~n -~f 'tab i'ities be*wecn t:he Ciiy rmd ~hc appropriate a;~encies. 4.) Pursue and establish similar accords and specific arran;;- ment.s with public and private utilities for the use of uti t.ity corridors and Rights-of-Uay. 5.) Adopt the City/Re;;ional and Community trails subsystems as nub'~ic facilities and incorporate fundin;; of improvements within the scope of appropriate recreation, circulation and parkway funding pr ,rams. 6.) Identify minimal necessary improvements, such as restricted- . access gates and flood channel crossings, and prepare consistent estimates of City/Reginna~, and Community trail systems improvement ens t.s. ~.) Provide for maintenance of City/Reginna? and Community Trails by inclusion in one nr more apprnpriate maini:enance Districts. 8.) Develop and implement standards within the scope of its growth management and design review procedures which snec ifv the nbli~atinns nf' develnners in providing improvements for designated Community Trails within or adjacent to new development. 9.) Assi~m an ecuestrian emphasis to al.l trails north of Banyan Street in .41ta Loma and Highland Avenue in Ei.iwanda with desi,;n standards facil.i~ating other recreationa~ uses while not restrict- inE equestrians' use out of consideration for these uses. • ~~ -8- 9.) Devetnp and implement des i;;n standards within the serape of • its ;;rowth management and design review procedures which specify prow isi;n ~;f consistent. continuous feeder 'rat's within and between a!~. new contiguous tracts and enr~mercia~ 'ncatinns in desi;,nated areas and where a deve'npmen+ is desired ~~; be inc'uded in •he trails sys'..em. '. C.) ;ri th the cooperation of Loca~ ci*izen s' ,;rnu_.~s, de~ennine >he er.t.ent of deficiencies in existing Nei„hbnrhnod feeder irai' easements and facilitate preparation of estimates of the casts ~~f remed ia'. work and mitigation measures necessary ~.~ render them safe and suitab l.e for equestrian, pedestrian and bi.cyc'e use. 1.'..) nequire coot inuin:• maintenance of Nei.;hbnrhnod feed trail easements by private 'andowners thrcu~h a "weed-abatement" type pr ,,ram io keep trams c'ear of weeds and hazardous obstructions. 12.) Investigate the formation of Henef it Assessment Districts • nr Special Assessment Districts by put l.ic agreement and/or referendum specifically targeted to those areas where feed trail improvements are necessary for safe and suitable equestrian, pedestrian and bicycle use. • The attached supplemental information for tonight's meeting is as follows: - Vicinity Map for known land use items for consideration on tonight's agenda. Letter from Planning Center on Hermosa Groves project (previously labeled "Item I-2"). - Staff interpretation of possible recomnendati on on Item I-2 -- (Hermosa Grnves area). - Memorandum and exhibit reporting on Planning Commission consideration of additional Neavy Industrial areas. • - Clarification of location on Church, east of Turner, of proposed park site. (~ U VICINITY MAP: . ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION MARCH 30,1981 PUBLIC HEARING CRY OF pANCHO CUCAMONOA 6fiNEML PLAN ~- .1 ~,1~ THE *Correspondence is in regards to item "11~ PLANNING I-2 which is included in tonight's packet under the title of Hermosa Groves. ~ ~~ CENTER 240NEWPCRTCENTERDRIVE SUIlE215. NEWPORTEEACH. CA.92660 (714)640-4911 March 26, 1981 Mayor Phillip Schlosser P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: 95.5 acres located at the north end of Hermosa Avenue Honorable Mayor and Council Members: On March lfi th you reviewed the request to amend the Gener- -- al Plan designation on the above cited property. Your discussion indicated that the Council would be favorable to a development proposal if such a proposal was sensitive to the unique forested conditions of the property while also addressfng the need for park land and trails. Following this discussion, the Council chose to retain the • current designation of Park on all of the site. Mayor and Councilmen, this action definitely clouds the development potential of the site. With the current designation of "Park" on both sides of Hermosa Avenue, the property does not have a development potential to which we can plan and hence be consistent with the intent of the General Plan. This condition will prevail until the prop- erty is redesignated on the General Plan. However, that request has been made before both the Planning Commfssion and the City Council -- to no avail. To merely apply again after completfon of the current proceeding would seem pointless and costly. In our opinion the property does indeed have a development potential but the City is seeking some assurance that the concept proposed will in fact occur. This is difficult to do at a General Plan level however, in response to this we offer the fallowing. Attached are three development concepts which are ready for the April filing under the Growth Management Ordin- ance. Each proposes an improved and dedicated park. Just the raw park land acreage in each concept, exclusive of improvement is more than double the Cfty's park ordinance requirements. Each concept includes, however, the improvement and dedication of [he park. As a result of any of the three concepts, [he City is the recipient of an PIANNINC aRESEAfCM •ENVInpryMENiA15tUDIES •Ur7BAN DESGN •LANDSCAPE AI.CHIiEC1U .rf •LAND US_ECONOMICS • Mayor Phillip Schlosser ~+~ March 26, 1981 - ' Page 2 ,V improved and dedicated park well in excess of any munici- pal standard. In exchange for this, the property owner is seeking the opportunity to develop a project which is responsive to the unique forested condition of the site. We propose that you review the three concepts and adopt for the General Plan a land use category antl density that is appropriate. Additionally, we recommend that the park designation and acreage correspond to the favored concept. And lastly, to insure development in a manner consistent with the selected alternative we propose the requirement of a Master Plan on the site. C~ Mayor, Councilmen the ability to provide the City with an improved and dedicated park corresponds directly to the type of development the remainder of the site yields. Careful selection of product types, sensitive siting of units, rural development standards and strict development standards within the eucalyptus groves can provide the City with a forest-like setting for a housing development plus an important element of your parks program and trail system. I will be available at your hearing on March 30th for further comment and discussion. I feel the site warrants special attention and special solutions if its unique quality and natural beauty is to be preserved, I trust and look forward to the opportunity to do just that. Sincerely, THE PLANNING CENTER Peter R. Templeton PRT:DMH :sh cc: Bill Holley Darry Hogan P1annSng Commission Chairman Dahl Dick Scott • ~ A ~ ~~~ ~1 4 r~ EQUESTRIAN IAAIL \ L' 1 ~ 6 ~/ J 1 ` ~ I _ -. RESIDENTIAL : ', ~. 36 20,000 S.F. LOTS _ - 148 12,000 S.F. LOTS ~ 1a4 TOTAL LOTS =_ _ ., POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL SITE ET,ooo s.F. Lars r, 20A00 _ I ` ~ ~ PARK: ,' ' 14.6 AC. PARK 8 EOUEST. CENTER _ ha,oao ~ ~ - ` _ .. ._ ~ _ . _, ~ ~ ~F. ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - ___ 95,5 TOTAL ACRES Lms -" x0,000 6F. lOTB ~• r- -_ 1.9 D.U./ACRE OVERALL - ~ I - ~, VOTENTIAL COMMERCUL SITE ~ I i I , PEOESTPoIN TRAM. - r ~ - . ,~ /~~~_ O' ~ I - --' _ 12,000 S,F. lOT9 \ 1 ~~ ~I ~ EQUESTRIAN TpA1L ~~ I J\ T >.f- , EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EOVESTpIAH CENTER ~ ; ~ ~~ 1 _ JVEO ]t~( l I f 1 ......_ .-.' . 1x,000 S.F. LOTS' ~ SS 1. 1 ' •~~. - I Ia oOO s F J 1 , , . LOT9 'aD,0005.F_LOTS `~; ,// ., - I // ., ~ -- ` / /f I {t 4 ~ y ovEn i `~ ~ ~' ~ I I ( , ' / ` 1 I 1 ' J. __ J,. ~ ~pARN .. ~ ~\, r / ~ t . ,~ r \~ ~~ ~ '. 1Tp00 S.F. LOTS ~ + ~~ ~ I 1x,000 9~F. LOT6 -- - `j ~ I l ~~:~ ~ J / \ ti (" I ~ ~ I( `~ ~~~ ' EQUESTRIAN TRAIL ~ ~ ~ •r~E u9oo~s aY ~anc~to cucamonca ~~ ~.~ A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. I -I.t~- ALTERNATIVE 1 ~`j u L~ ~'1 /l~~ - y _ FGAG EASEF£NT ._ ~' ~~'-'~;~~. t'•.LH~ .fit- ~ 1 f-` _1 ,,~ _ ;a • g11KgNG SETOAGK ,(^. ~~ A~1\',~ ?-ter r~~`_... ` -•~ '!,• -_~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~-I \ / / J~Y- DIIAWAGE FASEMEM -- - ~\ / / A `' li .i •' ~r SRANAOE r6 GEGS `/^.~/'~ % I_, y_ ~,` r ~ r A~ _ r_ t t. k I _ ) ^Y ~ y~ w ~1 l ~ ( ~ \\ r^ ~! ... I EMEIIGENCY ACCES9 '\. ~_~_ ~.. . ~ r ,.. ,, ~~ A i~ ~ ..~ „ .. H ~ i ' ~~ ii I` K / \ ~I` ~,~\ . `•` i ~I i lL.. VARK 6ITE ~~'~~ ~ ~~ h ~~ ~1_-~ I r/' K, 1ff' o-L 1 '~a-\ n ~~+~~ ~ umlAnr s ~) i. - ~ I I/ ~f ~ ~ I '~_ i.~? ~ I ~ ~~~. r i ~~1 ~ ;` - . r 'GRAIIMGE EASEMENT GRAINAGE EASEMENT ~ DRAINAGE EASEMENT rj lr ~H~ u~©©®s az eanc~o cucamonca D~pg~~ A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. ALTERNATIVE 7 EOUEST RlAN TRA IL - h SUMMARY ~:. . _.. ~ .. ... ... •:;;. ...•. r . , .. , . 1 RESIDENTIAL ~>> ~- 1 - VL- 23 VERY LOW 2 DU/AC • ~ 1'~.. ~ ~~~ L--200 LOW 2-4 DU/AC. ~\ . ' _., ~ , ... ' _ .ti°•• ••.•° ._- 223 707 'i -, .. ~, i~~ . ^• AL UNITS - ' - POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL SITE ~ .'"` `~ ~ •- ~. ; , 20,000 SOFT. '•~ ~= - , ~ - i - - - " ~ PARK ' '~~ .77.8 AC * 7 ~~ ~ ~ : _ -' L ~ - -- - -_ ~~ ~ . ~ 95.5 TOTAL ACRES ' - • ~~ - ~ VL - 2.3 DU/AC. OVERALL t~ ` ~ _ I i , ROTE NTIAL - • I ~ , ' COMMEACIAL SITE _ -1 ~ .. -~~ - - _ ~1 F F i ' i -- ~EOUESTRIAN TpgIL ~ EOUESTR)AN CENTER ~' ~~~ ~ F i ~~ f ~' i ~ • ~ 'ti, .': _ L ~e iJ -. ---- - ~ • ~ ~` VEDESTRIAN TRAIL - --VL. ~ _ _ '~ ~/ ~ ~IMVROVED j ~~ ~~ !: ~ •+~ •EOUESTRIAN TRAIL• ~ - _ ~~_'~- _ ~ -' ~~ woous az eanc~to cucamonca A Planned Community try Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. ~..: SIG -~_ ALTERNATIVE 2 eunowc sETa EOUESTPIAN LJ POTENTIAL COMMEPCIAI SITE EOUESTPIAN CENTEP i'~ ~~ eULwNG ,y ~. ~ y ~// I iii F _~'': - ; ,yJi . .~~~. ~~~ -~', •, ~~ . ~ (~At°'' ,'. ~~?ri 4rf1 ~f..i S I" N ~ C ~ '.'~y>t~' Y fir' i f ~`r: ~C '1 ; 35`x? < ~ I f. EOUESTPIAN TPML '~ ~HE WOODS AT RANCHO CUCAMOPiGA A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. EOVESTIIIAN TxA0. ~~c~ _ , ~' it pEOESTPIAN TflNI EOVESTPIAN TPAR ;!LEGEND 200-SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 23 LO'fS0 SQ. FT. 223 2 ~DU% C A G. 178 AC. PARK ,> 9MMG 3MEt ~~ ~ - ALTERNATIVE 2 f-- ;.. = . ,.;. , ~~~ .., ~~~ ~ ~% .~ i ,, ~ ~ ~_ -~ ~~ x - ~' :r,~F: A.. i ~~' J'~r~"_' ~_ ~,,. ' ~ E o rona / I r F ~ a ~ ` -. f ~1 , ~ ~ 1iy I ~f O ' / _ AR 1 ~ ' 1 . -~ - . ~ ~ ~; ,` , r ~ _- ,. _ ~£A _ _ _ O ,~ - - Legend i nx'`-„"` ~~~ '~ ~ ros ii °~' ~ ,~ .. ,~ wand Use Phan T ~ WC30D5 Ai' RA~9CB~0 CUCAQ'~fiOPlGA A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. „~~ ALTERNATIVE 3 ~-~, ~ yr nru~~nv ~,uV.~V IViVIVIuj ~~,~C.1.wq^C MEMORAivDliM 5 ~ t A " O ~ t DATE: March 30, 1981 lvn T0: Menbers of the City Council ' FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Plan BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior r SUBJECT: RECOhUIEN DAT IONS FOR INDUSTRIAL AREA ABSTRACT: This memorandum will considerations for approval of revisions to the industrial area land use. BACKGROUND: The City Council, at their last meeting on the General Plan, directed the Planning Commission to consider other areas for Heavy In- dustrial land use. The Planning Conmission considered this matter on March 26; they have reconmended that the industrial area be modified as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". The revi sipn_was_to change the area • to Heavv industrial.. Also, the Planning Commission directed that the industrial uses south of 8th Street in proximity to Rochester Avenue be allowed to continue and expand their use under direction of the Indus- trial Specific Plan. This yrovision, will be worked into the Industrial Specific Plan. ~ ~ ' ~ V The Planning Commission considered the matter of extending Heavy industrial classification south of the railroad tracks between Haven and Rochester. It was their determination that the railroad line along 8th Street pro- vided a logical termination for Heavy Industrial designation. It was also pointed out that the General Industrial/Rail Served which is cur- rently shown on the Draft General Plan is the only remaining large, un- developed area that could provide for large distribution facilities. The Planning Conmissi nn considered, but did not take action on, a revision to the text to the Heavy Industrial classification. This will be brought to the City Council when they consider final adoption of the General Plan on April 6. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission to modify land use plan in the industrial area as shown nn attached Exhihit "A" and to direct that the Industrial Specific Plan indicate that the existing industrial uses south of the railroad tracks in the proximity of Rochester Avenue be allowed to continue and expand, • BKH: TJ B:jr Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Revised Industrial Area Map -i a O~ rn m m z O C m m °c 3 C .O A VI m b A -1 A r r A n 2 O > a c z a r r in o 0 ti C C ~ A ~+ ~n A H -1 n b A A 7.' r .+ a n r r b r N m A G m 0 1 ~ 0 ~3 ,, n^ N V/ in m Z z ,~ a 0 ~ D ~' r 0 ~ ~ ~ n n r ~ ~ ~ D ~ . . = a s o .. ~ ~ N 9 I - Cl i r ~ ~ ~ ~rn ~~ r z . i ~_ ; __ ~ . 1 ; ®9 =~ ~NI~V ::;i-. :[::1:'. ~, ::1......... ~... i' : :: ' : 1 F ~`t'~-'YLF.~ . t~aa ':ac:j ~iiii'~ ..Lw:~. ~~ ~Nid :::::: ;o c .aa-~a~ ~ n-. x k~~:.. :::: ~ i I ::. ~, { I i9 '. ...' B' ~ .. _y ::. i .';:::. ~II~ :, Very Law Residential ;:~ Less than 2 du/ac ~~ Low Residential 2-4 du/ac n Low-Medium Residential Medium High Residentia ~,14-24 du/ac •• High Residential 24-30 du/at :: 4-8 du/ac • Medium Residential ' 4-14 du/ac Commercial Community Commercial Neighborhood Comnercia Regional Commercial Office Industrial Park General Industrial Rail Served COMMUNITY: CUCAMONGA L~L'(!!l~Heavy Industrial • INTERIM PLAfL• LOW RESIDENTIAL ~r:A'~.? ;~, Parks SEDWAY/COOKE PLAN: PARKS ~ ~ .~ REQUEST: LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 du/ac) ANALYSIS: The site is occupied 6y existing single family residences and is not an appropriate park site. Another park site will be recommended at an upcoming meeting. RECOSIMEPIDATION: Change to Low Density Residential. t u PLAN. COi1M. ACTION: Rs recommended (1-19-81) ® 0 1000' 5000' APPLICANT: George Friedenbach A,P. N0. 1077-271-6 II-17 .'~ Tease take action Hate aM file note nM return return v~th more detmL pteue nnxv~er (send me a cap7/l Jnr your ayprm~al Prepnre Jnr my sigrature Pleoao reyly promptly take nppropriate n<tion per your repueat Jnr your sigratvre for yaur infarmatbn inveafignt¢ and rePort aee m¢ nhovt this comments: ~i89- 65B s~ ~, L.~4°~ signed...... r!~`'' ................ ~ Q ~ ~~~ EQUEST ~ ~M ~(^~ ` V1 1 l ~ RIAN TRAIL ~ - - ,` ~ n J I U LL C LL _ ~ ,, ~ ( RESIDENTIAL: ' 36 20000 S.F. LOTS ~ 148 12,000 S.F. LOTS _ _ ,~ ~ t• 184 TOTAL LOTS =_ - -- ~ ~ ~ 1. i POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL SITE: ... - , _ ia,ooo s.F. Lms P, - ~~•; 20.000 , . I ~ `- _ _ PARK : ~.- _ ~ _ ... 14.6 AC. PARK 8 EOUEST. CENTER _ ~ ha.ooo - _ ~.. . lt.f. _. . . _ ~_ 95.5 TOTAL ACRES Lors, i ~- :o,ooo ss. Lots ~r-` 1.9 D.U./ACRE OVERALL - ~I it ~ , VOTENTIAL COMMERCIRL RITE j ', ,,,~ I ve°esTRUx rRAa _ _ ~~~ _ _. - Ia,000 S.R. LOT8 s, / ~ _ S1 \l ~i II ,; EQUESTRIAN TRAIL /// /'~ I , ~ - ~ ~~EOUESTRgN TRML ~ EQUESTRIAN CENTER ~ I ~I - JJ 1~ _ ` ~ ARREU Iy I ~ L ..._ . '. . -' ! T'7 Ia.000 S,F. LOT9 ~ ~ I/ 11 1.51 '~~ . ~ ~; ~ 1a.000 SF. ~ _ __~ . _ ~_ - ....__ / 20,000 S.F: LOTS ~~ ~ ~ I ~ j _ (J-- I V i ~ +__: ' ' ~. ~ oven ~ ~ =_ i ~~ PARR ~'~ ~ '; .. ~ ~ ..- r t / / ~\\ ~ 1a.000 S.F. LOTS ~~ 1 ~ ` ' ~ I t ' ~ >~ T ___' _..• 1 ~ a.ooo S.F. ; , LO S I I ( 1 \ • }$ I L ' EQUESTRIAN TRAIL " •r~a~ w©ocs aY ~anco-~o cucamonca 0~~° A Planned Community try Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. I -ti-~ 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 Nll LL 1~ L+ Lam({ y1µ l1 _ RUAC EASEMENT r, ~ ,r - .,_ r- _ , euawNG SETBACK ~/ .~ ~ y~~ -_ _ .. ~. „- a Y ` 1\ ~~~~~1/ /fir` ~ \L.~ ~~L000 CONf1101. MSW l.'. ;.-'' "~~~~~ ?~ "/ ~~, - oKAwAGE usEMEnr - _ i--EA6EMENf ~ ~~ ^ --. ~ ~. -~__ .y .. ~r ~ ~~~ ~ - ~ ~~~ ~'~,~ ~~ ~~ ~~w ~EMEIIGENCY ACCE69 s y - ' 'ti~/ li ~ ~'~~ _ 1 - ~~ ~ ~ ~ .~,. P i~.-e I '. l `. i _ ~ r ,_> /~~ t ~ ' ~ 1~' ~ - X11 ~-OBAItMGE/EASEMENT ONAINAGE EASEMENT ~~ DNAINAGE EASEMENT , ' •~E woos az eancNO cucam©nca ~~4 ~' A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. ~ -• ALTERNATIVE 1 ~f~Q~D MSC EQUESTRIAN TRAIL .SUMMARY ~;-= ~~ - -_- ~• RESIDENTIAL ~: ••j •,' `I__..,~'~ ' VL-23 VERY LOW 2 DU/AC '~~ ^\ L-200 LOW 2-4 DU/AC. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'i 223 TOTAL UNITS - , POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL SITE ~:7';~:::r.`_~+ ~ " - ~ - 20,000 SOFT. ~ _ - ,. - • / ~ 1 .. - _ ~ PARK i - l ,17.8 AC 1 ~ 5.5 TOTAL ACRES - ,~.~ I II ~ _ .. .. n uL - ~- ,. h: 2.3 DU/AC. OVERALL f _ • - - - -. I i ~: _ I AOTENTUL • COMME T ~ _~ ' i ~" r' j' RCIAL SI E _ ~ ., i " II i- ~EOUESTRIAN TRAIL i I°i , EOUESTR IAN CENT'cR ~ j ;I! ~ i '~~ - ~ '•' 1 N T A ~ ~ PEDESTpA R IL r - . _ fl I -,--..-- -VL ~. _ - . - . ~, - ,, • L: ~\ - ~'~j •~IMAROVED - f t~ '•t%/ PARK _ ' ~ ~ -' • y • ~f ~ 1 .ru.• .......• • . ~ yj-___y_~wuu :• Y. • s.J....~ • ii• + ~' ~ ~ EO UESTRIAN TRAIL ' ~y~ ~oo~s at eanco~o cucamonca A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. 0~~a~ ALTERNATIVE 2 ,~~~ ° A p ewEaNC sE*sacr. BUIWWG SETBACIf I ` Li • i:1 II i~ r_' ~ ti OOTENTIAL 'V?~~ ~~ {, COMMEFCIPL SITE ~~ G EOUESTNIAN ~~ A~ ~ y 1~~r` I 6~j~ ~i ](](yy 1 ~ N ~'. ~ 1 _' 'i'ce' . ~' ~`~^ `}' `.~',I ~ Ou t./n ti I < .. EOUESTPIAN TPAIL S :.j ~HE WC9©D5 AT RAMCHC3 CUCAM®PIGA A Planned Community by Woodland Pacitic Development, Inc. 1~ EOUESIAIAN TpA6 t ,. ',, ~~. / ~ 1~II1L/ EEOESTNIAN 1TIAIL II I~ ii EWESIPoIIN MAIL ~~ I - ~! LEGEND j /200-SINGLE FAMILY ATTgCHED 23 LO'~SO SO. FT. 1 223 TOTAL UNITS 2.3 Duiac avG. 1128 AC. PARK _',> ALTERNATIVE 2 ~ _ ~..~,»~,.mr 3jr.-. t.. - ...1.:. _ ~ ~ ;0 0 ~ , i! O 1 ~..'~ I L i ' _ 1/!~I - it ~ ~ ~ I ~ _ _ ~~ Ong ~YV 1 c/ Pte: .~ . ~ -~ ._ ^ ` I ~. JJ~ ` ~1~ .~ i -~ ; ~~. . ". r/ I . ~ ~ , - . ~ . I ~ y I I .1`?'C„ •-.- ! _: ~ ~ ,~ / ~ ~ ~) i; - Legend / J~ / I / / µ~t~i -OO ~~ ! OJ~ Hwy i - .--~ ~ r. /~ ~ • ~ti-y 11 ~ n s w hand Use Pin T E woo®s aT R69P9c~ o cucam©nca ~ A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific lkvelopment, Inc. ~,.,,, " " ALTERNATIVE 3 ~~~ ~ A r '~ ~~' ~~ -- -_A;., ..~„ ~ . ,,~...~ F~ .. ,.. ... f 4 a _ ~: 1 ~ ter y``'' pp n 1 ~' ~,~~ ~~~r 4 . ~~' t Y'~7 P !tea, 'Jhjl y '~ ~ ~' '.~ `ra~~r w,~~~~-~, µ , ~-~~ LEGEND ~ * ~ ~ { ~r ~ ~ ;r~ ~-~-'r- 176-SINGLE FAMILY ,. ~ ATTACHED 'i ~+•~'^+~ ~~ ~}~~^ ~ °~l . J c ~~ ~ 128-ATTACHED ~ } ` ' '- 304 TOTAL UNITS a r ~ ~. ;•'r~t~ 3.2 DU/AC AVG. ~.. ~ ~ r '""y t . ~ ~ ~ ~~ D~.ry.~~ `~~ 22 AC. PARK ,6 ~; ~E Id~OODS A7 RA~I(G~O (U(AIYiOPfGA i ~ ,,_,.: A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. ~-~_ ALTERNATIVE 3 /mil/`~\i\i -~-~t~'i\. .~~~/- /_\I~\~ =-_- ~' __ _ ./, / \il ~\/_ Jam: ~.. _ /\/ \.\ `~~`\il _-_ _ -__ / ~ i I ~ C`,~ i / \ ~., ~,.~y~ _ ... .. . . - : ~ _ t~ _ :::::I ::::~ ~ ..:l~~U~ _ ::: ~ ::::::: '' ~ ~ ; ; . ... F~1..4VI.t ~ ....:CtnCt1.. _ 5 :.. ~ ., ~~ .. `. i~ TN .. - .. .. ~41,. :..~.~ ..... .. ..... 1' _. ~ ~ . ~' .. •; ~:.,. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAivIONGA c~cnx MEMORANDUM ~~° ~, <, ,, • F DATE: March 30, 1981 ~~~~ T0: Members of the City Council FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Plan BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior la r SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR iNDU STRIAE AREA ABSTRACT: This memorandum will considerations for approval of revisions to the industrial area land use. 6A CKGROUNO: The City Council, at their last meeting on the General Plan, directed the Planning Comnissi on to consider other areas for Heavy In- dustrial land use. The Planning Commission considered this matter on March 26; they have recommended that the industrial area be modified as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". The revision was to change the area east of Oevore Freeway along the Oay Creek Channel from General Industrial • to Heavy Industrial. Also, the Planning Commission directed that the industrial uses south of 8th Street in proximity to Rochester Avenue be allowed to continue and expand their use under direction of the Indus- trial Specific Plan. This provision will be worked into the Industrial Specific Plan. The Planning Commission considered the matter of extending Heavy Industrial classification south of the railroad tracks between Haven and Rochester. It was their determination that the railroad line along 8th Street pro- vided a logical termination far Heavy Industrial designation. It was also pointed out that the General Industrial/Rail Served which is cur- rently shown on the Draft General Pi an is the only remaining large, un- developed area that could provide for large distribution facilities. The Planning Commission considered, but did not take action on, a revision to the text to the Heavy industrial classification. This will be brought to the City Council when they consider final adoption of the General Plan on April 6. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the re comnendati ons of the Planning Commission to modify land use plan in the industrial area as shown on attached Exhibit "A" and to direct that the Industrial Specific Plan indicate that the existing industrial uses south of the railroad tracks in the proximity of Rochester Avenue be allowed to continue and expand. BKH:TJ B:jr Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Revised Industrial Area Map i ~~-- ~ __ ;,;~ ~ ~ I i ~~~i n ~ '' I ...: ... . .. .. . . ....1 -rte r -' j I "'~'-_ ^ ~ •~l ~ ~ f A 7' ~ 1 ~ '2 ' i ~l x K '< ;:~ 1 t y 11 N.3`I1T7IW.. G. .. t ~ - o ~ a - ~ --- 4.. :i~ :,ri"iii ~:. V ~.. 3d6'H'~: :, ... A 'a l,.::.~I'.1.. '... I..:.:.-. ~,..I t. i_ ! _., 1 1~ ~ X' ~:;' ;~'' a J z ~ ¢ a I J M n W r~ T M n J > ~ r U N ~ r 1O ~ } F N } U _ W C I r ~~~ ~ ~ o 19i ~ o` N w z 00 r ~ f ~ of U £ Q W O 1' U 1 p w an J 4 K J J 4 G u J Y R' 2' Q K H H Q /1 of K 6 ~ ~ I- p p_ N Q G r w O a ~ ~ Q K w ~ w w O a ~ 2 O ~ W W W ~ ... co c~ x oaooa Q H m w E .;: ~ .. .~ ~ *' ~fCfK: . ... . .... •: Industrial Park General Industrial Gen/Indus. Rail Served Heavy Industrial Parks C0MPIUN ITY: CUCAMONGA • INTERIM PLAN: LOW RESI DENTIRL SEDWAY/COOKE PLAN: PARKS REQUEST: LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 du/ac) ANALYSIS: The site is occupied by existing single family residences and is not an appropriate Dark site. Another park site will 6e recommended at an upcoming meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Change to Low Density Residential. t • PLAN. COMM. ACTION: As recommended (1-19-81) 0 1000' 5000' APPLICANT: George Eriedenbach A.P. N0. 1077-271-6 II-17 ,~1 Very Low Residential :::::::::~:~ Less than 2 du/ac Low Residential :- 2-4 du/ac Low-Medium Residential 4-8 du/ac Medium Re sitlential '=~'~~=~~~'~4-14 du/ac ~^~'*''~'~'Medium High Residentia :: x;9;;;;;;;;9! 14-24 du/ac 'High Residential 24-30 du/ac Commercial Cortmunity Commercial ,Neighborhood Conmercia Regional Commercial ..._..._ Office . _'"-?~ :li`-?`~-` • ~~` ~ 6 ~ ~;.~ ir~ ~~.~~ TRH' ~ ,, ~~~ ~~~ ter,. ~;~ ~~~- • VICINITY MAP: ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION MARCH 30,1981 PUBLIC HEARING CRY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA GENERAL PLAN ~- 'd ' ~~> ~--IE Correspondence is in regards to item 1 ~•, PLANNING T-2 which is included in tonight's packet ,~~ under the title of Hermosa Groves. • `^~~ CENTER 240 NE\NFC(2T CENTER DRIVE SUITE 215. NEWPORT EEACN. CA.92660 (714)640-4911 March 26, 1981 Mayor Phillip Schlosser P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: 95.5 acres located at the north end of Hermosa Avenue Honorable Mayor and Council Members: On March 16th you reviewed the request to amend the Gener- al Plan designation on the above cited property. Your Discussion indicated that the Council would be favorable to a development proposal if such a proposal was sensitive to the unique forested conditions of the property while also addressing Lhe need for park land and trails. Following this discussion, the Council chose to retain the • current designation of Park on all of the site. Mayor and Councilmen, this action definitely clouds the development potential of the site, With the current designation of "Park" an both sides of Hermosa Avenue, the property does not have a development potential to which we can plan and hence be consistent with the intent of the General Plan. This condition will prevail until the prop- erty is redesignated on the General Plan. However, that request has been made before both the Planning Commission and the City Council -- to no avail. To merely apply again after completion of the current proceeding would seem pointless and costly. In our opinion the property does indeed have a development potential but the City is seeking some assurance that the concept proposed will in fact occur. This is difficult to do at a General Plan level however, in response to this we offer the following. Attached are three development concepts which are ready for the April filing under the Growth Management Ordin- ance. Each proposes an improved and dedicated park. Just the raw park land acreage in each concept, exclusive of improvement is more than double the City's park ordinance requirements. Each concept includes, however, the improvement and dedicatSon of the park, As a result of any of the three concepts, the City is the recipient of an •PLANN:NGARESEAnCw •ENVIRONMENTAL SNDiES •l1RBAN DE4GN •l,ANOSCAFE ARCMITECNnE •V.Nb US~ECONOMICS • ' Maycr Phillip Schlosser ~~ March 26, 1981 :: ~ ~ Page 2 improved and dedicated park well in excess of any munici- pal standard. In exchange for this, the property owner is seeking the opportunity to develop a project which is responsive to the unique forested condition of the site. We propose that you review the three concepts and adopt for the General Plan a land use category and density that is appropriate. Rdditionally, we recommend that the park designation and acreage correspond to the favored concept. And lastly, to insure development in a manner consistent with the selected alternative we propose the requirement of a Master Plan on the site. LJ Mayor, Councilmen the ability to provide the City with an improved and dedicated park corresponds directly to the type of development the remainder of the site yields. Careful selection of product types, sensitive siting of units, rural development standards and strict development standards within the eucalyptus groves can provide the City with a forest-like setting for a housing development plus an important element of your parks program and trail system. I will be available at your hearing on March 30th for further comment and discussion. I feel the site warrants special attention and special solutions if its unique quality and natural beauty is to be preserved. I trust and look forward to the opportunity to do just that. Sincerely, THE PLANNING CENTER Peter R. Templeton PRT:DMH:sh cc: Bill Holley Barry Hogan Planning Commission Chairman Dahl Dick Scott • 176-SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED 128-ATTACHED 304-TOTAL UNITS 3.2 DU/AC AVG. 22 AC. PARK ~~ w©o~s at ~ar~co-~o cucam©nca ~~~~~~:. A Planned Community by Woodland Pacific Development, Inc. ALTERNATIVE 3 ~~ ~ A 1! 11 l~ LrJL~I~U~I ~1 I~ ~ ~I ~/ \1 \\1/ _ ~ /l I ~ / _ _ 1 - _ - - _ ', v 1 ~ C '':' ~~ ~ _ - .:::: r ::::~ :::~~Ul - (' .1' ... ... .. ... .. fr ... . .. SSit ~°:" .. l ..... ~.. _ .. .. . ~, ~ ~,~1 ~ ' .... - !' •• ~~~ 3 fi~ ~~ James Keller: Resident on Levine Street, stated he had been asked by the local residents to address Council regarding the proposed land use of medium residential for the property bordered by Victoria on the North, Archibald on the Nest, Romona on the East and the railroad on the south, He stated that on February 9, 1981 they had presented a peition to the the Planning Commission with 187 signatures from concerned residents, 180 of whom stated they opposed the proposed medium residential zoning. Referred to two tracts of land contained within the area of question which have been proposed for development. He stated that they request that the City Council reject any plan proposing development exceeding the existing residential average density and approve only those proposals which maintain the established residential atmosphere with the construction of single family dwellings without exceeding a density of 3-5 dwelling units per acre. *Ba rry Hogan discussed the proposed developments, noting that one section in question was previously committed as a County project. *Frank Moerke: questioned reason for medium-high density in this area. *Jackie Di Monia expressed her concern about increased traffic, flooding problems nd crowding of schools. ~. , ~ * ~.evitt (one of the owners?) responded to Mrs. DiMonia's statements about flooding. Regarding schoools, he stated that developer must get a school letter befo~~q,~@ can get a permit, a~Stated they are coming in a 8.3 units per acre to }}Yi_-r~~o"4ide affordable housing in the E80,000 to E100,000 range. Doug Hone discussed the advantages of Planned Unit Developments and the ne~rrxk~x~xraxirte development of the area in question There being no further public input, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Moved by Jon~- Mikels to sustain the Planning Commission decision for this property. Seconded by Palombo and all voting aye. Motion Carried. PARK AND RECREATION DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TRA ILWAYS The question was raised before the Council to consider credit for park dedication requirements for the development of private improved trails for public use. The General Plan provides for that opportunity. Shown on page 97 of the General Plan Text is a graphic illustration which shows percentage of credit for park dedication based upon average private trail width. This does not include local feeder trails or trails on public property. In order to allow credit for improvements to public property, Ordinance 105 would have to 6e amended. Should the Council wish to consider this matter further, revision of Ordinance 105 would be necessary. • 3-2 MARCH 30, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Special Adi Darned Mee [inR 1. CALL TO ORDER A special public hearing on Che General Plan by the Ci[y Council was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Llne Road, on March 30, 1981. The meeting was called to order a[ 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser who led in the flag salute. A moment of prayer followed for the recovery of President Ronald Reagan. Present: Councilmen James C. Frost, Son D. Mikels, Michael A. Palombo and Mayor Phillip D. Schlosser Absent: • Arthur H. Bridge (arrived at 8:30 p.m.) Also Present: City Manager Lauren M. Wasserman; City Attorney Sam Crowe: Community Development director Sack Lam; Ci[y Planner Barry Hogan; Senior Planner Tim Beadle; City Engineer Lloyd Hubbs; Director of Community Services Bill Holley. 2. CONTINUATION OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUPER ELEMENT TIXT Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated that the format of the Agenda had been changed at the request and recommendation of the Citizen's Advisory Commission, with the items of specific interest being placed at the beginning of Che meeting. Barry Hogan, City Planner, gave a brief overview of what ehe Land L'se and Development Super Element encompassed. Ne noted that the Council had been presented with the changes requested at the March 16th meeting, as well as additional information for clarification. He referred to a memo addressed to Council dated March 26 regarding revisions to the equestrian troll element of [he General Plan. 'Mayor Schlosser stated the group presenting the revisions to the Equestrian Grails requested that this item be postponed until 8:00 p.m. Mr. Hogan referred to a latter directed to Council dated March 30, 1981 from Sharon Romero of the Citizen's Advisory Commission outlining proposed changes to the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Ne noted that in briefly reviewing the changes, he found some of them were minor in nature and some had major significance. He discussed the options available to Council and recommended [hat these items be placed on the April 6, 1981 agenda to allow Council additional time to review and staff the opportunity to prepare back- ground information and staff reports. After discussing the options, Council concurred [o postpone making any data siona on the changes until the April 6, 1981 General Plan Hearing. Recommendations for Industrial Area Mr. Hagan discussed the Planning Commission's report en the Industrial area, stating that there was a motion and favorable consideration of an area south of Arrow Route to the Atchinaon, Topeka, Santa Fe Railroad over to Rochester on the east and roughly Utica on the west for heavy industrial. He stated that Council had directed staff to bring back [o the Planning Commission considetation for any areas [hat should also be designated es heavy industrial. He stated [he Planning Coaunission reviewed three areas and are recommending that [he area east of Che Devaze Freeway along the Day Creek Channel he changed from General Industrial [o Heavy Industrial. He stated ehe Comma scion also directed that the industrial uses south of 8th Street in proximity Co Roche stet Avenue be allowed to continue and expand [heir use. The Planning ConmSseion reco~maended that [he heavy industrial designation not be extended south of the railroad tracks. ..r _... ,City Council MSnutes... March 30, 1981 Page '140 Mr. Hogan reviewed each area individually. In referring [o the area south of the railroad [tacks and west of the freeway, he stated the Planning Com- mission felt [hie area should remain general industrial. However, they wanted Co insure that the present three heavy industrial users in the area were protected by making sure that under the Industrial Specific Plan, [he zoning for Che area designate them specifically as an allowable use with ahiliCy to expand. He noted the reason for their reconmendation was for [he protection of the visual corridor along the interstate since heavy industrial might have outdoor storage, whereas general industrial would [end to restrict outdoor storage facilities. After much discussion regarding this area and the Planning Commission's recom- mendation, the Following motion was made. Motion: Moved by Mikels that this area be planned as heavy industrial with appropriate C. C. 6 R's developed through the Industrial Specific Plan to mitigate against the adverse impact created, expecfally with regard Co the freeway transversing across it. Seconded by Palombo In the discussion that followed, Councilman Frost stated [hat he could find nm compelling reason to vote again the Planning Commission recommendation. Mayor Schlosser opened [he meeting for Public Hearing. There being no response, the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Schlosser indicated he alahed to abstain from voting, since the area being considered is a neighbor of his. A[ Chis point, the question was called: Ayes: M£kels, Palombo Noes: Fzost Absent: Bridge Abstain: Schlosser Motion Carried. At Councilman Frost's request, Mr. Nogan read [he type of uses permitted under general industrial. Councilman Frost said he did not feel that general indus- trial and heavy industrial necessarily have to be incompatible. Mr. Nogan reviewed the second area, which is immediately east of the Freeway, along the Day Creek Channel. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing. There being nc response [he Public Nearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Mikela that the land use for this area be designated ae heavy industrial. Seconded by Palombo. Ayes: Proat, Hikele, Palamho Noes: None AbsenL• Bridge Abstaio: Schlosser Motion Carried. Mr. Hogan reviewed the third area, which ie located south of 8th Street and Santa Fe, in proximity to Aochester. He discussed the Planning Commisafon's recommendation to designate this area as general industrfal and grandfathez the existing uses in. However, he noted, that unlike normal grandfathering, they ~~ Gould be allowed to expand. Motion: Mikels stated he did not feel a special grandfather clause would be appropriate for this area and moved the area be designated ae heavy industrial. Seconded by Palombo. City Council Minutes March 30, 1981 Page Three Prior to voting on the motion, Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Nearing. * Jay Vianna stated they bough[ the property as heavy industrial and expressed his concern about the future if they are under any type of conditional use pemdts. * JefF Sceranka, Planning Conmifssioner, staced the position of Che Cormission was not co make iC a conditional use permit or non-conforming use, but simply that those uses would be conforming with the standards of that sub- area and would not be restricted in any way from expanding their facilities. * Ben Wick of Wagner Insul stated they bought the property 16 years ago as heavy industrial and they wanted St to remain as heavy industrial. * Betty McKay expressed her concern for those companies already there and haw the grandfather clause would affect them 20 years hence, noting that her understanding of grandfather clauses was that it no longer applied when the owner died or sold the property. Sam Crowe, City Attorney, replied that the words being used apply to Gen- eral Legislation and not to the designation it was given by the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning Commission merely stated that the uses are legal. Jack Lam confirmed [hat it is not really technically a grandfather clause, but merely means that there will be a regulation in the industrial specific plan that provides the protection. Since [here was no further response, the Public Hearing was closed and the question was called: Ayes: Mikels, Palombo Noes: Frost Absent: Bridge Abstain: Schlosser Motion Carried. AC this point (8:10 p.m.), Mayor Schlosser called a brief recess. The meeting resumed at 8:30 p.m. with all members of the Council present, including Councilman Bridge who arrived a[ 8:20 p.m. Revisionto the Equestrian Element of the General Plan Mr. Hogan, Clty Planner, indicated that a revised trails text had been presented to the Council for their information, which the staff had not yet had the oppor- tunity [o review. Ne stated that a trails element along with a trails map had been recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption. Be indicated it would be a multi-purpose trail for joggers, bicgclista and equestrians. Mr. Hogan stated [hat staff would recommend Council consider the map and text as approved by the Planning Commision for adoption and direct staff to work with the Alta Loma riding club end the author of the revised trails element to bring back any revisions at a later date. Mayor Schlosser opened Che meeting for a Public Nearing: * Dick Dahl, Chairman of the Planning Commission, requested Council expedite the [rails issue that evening, Ne stated the Equestrian Committee, which is comprised of Chris Benoit' Pam Henry and himself, recommended adoption of of [he trails element as approved by the Planning Commission. Ne stated [ha[ chat' felt chat any revs sfona would be better handled after the General Plan is approved, Sn view of the time schedule [he Council is on. City Council Minutes March 30, 1981 Page fiaur Notion: Moved by Palombo to approve the text and plans fora trails element ae brought forth by the Commission and the cammi [tee. Seconded by Mikels. Prior to voting on the motion, further discussion continued. Discussion regarding financing mechanisms within she plan clarified that approval of the [tails element would not commit [he Ci[y regarding financing but rather would leave the options open. Public Hearing continued. * Bruce Chitea stated he vas the author of the proposed language revision and that it was merely an incorporation of the plan the Council had before them. In reply to Councilman Hikels question, he stated he revised the language because until the December 1 meeting the Trail system was described in the language of Sedway Cooke. * Bill Evans inquired if the proposal limited the use of motorcycles. Barry Hogan replied that motorbikes would not be considered compatible with the existing use. * Pam Henry related her reasons for supporting the trails system as a valuable and unique asset to the community. She stated they concurred with Mr. Hogan's recommendation. Approximately 25 people stood up in the audience, indicating their support of the trails element. * Doug Hone stated that while he hoped the trails element would be adopted, he was concerned about who would assume liability and he suggested a clause be included that when a [rail crosses a mayor thoroughfare, flood control channel, etc, the City will indemnify the Develwer. * Betty McKay also expressed her concern regarding who would assume liability. * .Toe Fatinella stated that he enjoyed using the trails for dogging. * Sam Angona also expressed his concern about liability as a property owner and asked if City planned to indemni£y4 Sam Crowe, City Attorney replied that issue Ss not included in the proposed plea and that when a specific plan la adopted, it vlll be addressed. * Shari Thomas, representing 110 mmbera of [he "Rancho (rebel's" 4H Csoup, expressed their support of [he trails system. * Cina Kelly and Lisa Fairnell stated their support of the trails system from the viewpoint of Che young people who use it. There being no further comments, Mayor Schlosser closed the Public Heating. and Che question vas called on the motion. Motion: Moved by Palombo [o approve the text and plans for a trails element as brought forth by the Commission and the Committee. Seconded by Hikels. All Voting Aye. Motion Carried. Motion: Moved by Palombo to include all revisions end questions as submitted and return to Council wAth Planning Commf salon recommendatlona one moneh from the date of adoption of General Plan. All Voting Aye. Motion Carried. Councilman Bridge requested ChaC staff touch base with the bicycling element of the community. Barry Kogan indicated the next item of discussion would 6e any other Ltema of the land use and development super element that had no[ already been discussed. City Council Minu [es March 30, 1981 Page Five Councilman Mikels stated he had a few minor changes as follows: Page 28, 4th paragraph, 7th line- "integrately" is no[ a word. Page 42, Under Community Conine rcial, Second Paragraph -- Omit "the community commercial businesses tend Co provide food and food services" since it is repeated 1n the very next phrase. Page 49 -- Delete [he sentence which reads "The rapid development of land and the lack of control over land use and [ranspor[aC1on planning at the regional level add further to the problem of developing a transportation system". Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing. There being no response, Public Hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Palombo [o approve Land Use and Development Super Element Text as revised. Seconded by Mikels. All Voting Aye. Motion Carried. 3. CONSIDEAATION FOR ADOPTION OF LAND USE IN THE ALTA LAMA AREA I-1 LOCATION: 84 acres located north of Almond at the End of Dervl Avenue Mr. Hogan stated that Mr, Sievers, owner of the property, was requesting clarification regarding what his land use actually is and stated that the Planning Conmd.ssion recommendation was for very low density with less than two dwelling unit per acre. Councilman Bridge indicated he felt it was improper to classify this area as either open space or hillside development. Motion: Moved by Bridge to classify area for low density with less than two units per acre. Seconded by Palombo. Prior to voting on the motion, Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing, * Stan Sievers stated their desire was for the Council to reaffirm the desires of the Planning Concnission There being no further response, the Public Hearing was closed. Coucil voted on the motion as stated above. All voting aye. Motion Carried. I-2 LOCATZUN: End of Hermosa GYOye Mr. Hogan referred to a letter distributed to Council from Mr. Templeton of the Planning Center. Mr. Hogan reviewed the Council's previous decision to retain the site as parkland with the intent that the Groves be preserved. He stated the other option proposed by staff is to designate the area as master plan required and down size the park to approximately 20 acres. Another option he reviewed would be to indicate to the applicant the City's desire to consider a concurrent Filing of the General Plan amendment with the toning and development for the project. Councilman Frost seated that he had visited the site and noted [he area to 6e dedicated as parkland was undevelopable and subject to flooding. Councilman Bridge stated he also had reservation a. Mayoc Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing. ~ Peter Templeton from the Planning Center stated one of the unique things about the site is the beautiful Eucalyptus Grove which does require a certain sensitivity in planning. He referred to similar sites they had designed and 'offered to take Council to see some of these existing developments. He discussed their proposed plans and requested direction from Council. ,. City Council Minutes March 30, 1981 Page Six ~ Anne C. Calinsky noted that the proposed park is within flooding limits. She stated the potential conmx:rcial site bothered her and stressed the importance of preserving the Grove. There being no further response, the Public Hearznq was closed. In the discussion Ghat followed, the Council concurred to retain the desig- nation as parkland ai the present time. Since this motion is already on record, there Was no need to make a new motion. 2_5 LOCATION: East of Chaffey College between Wilson and the Extension of Banyan Mr. Hogan discussed the request of the adjacent property owners. He noted that the Planning Commission had reduced the land use for this parcel from the consultant's recommendation of medium (4-15 du/ac) to low-medium (4-B du/ac). Motion: Moved by Mikels that the land use for this azea be designated as low-medium (4-e du/ac) residential planned development. Seconded by Bridge for discussion, Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing. * Roger Bunreth expressed concern about tha higher density for this area referring to the low density in the surrounding area and Chaffey College's policy of openness. He questioned why everything above Banyan was low density except Haven. Councilman Frost replied that he naught the density ass an appropriate transition with the very high probability of a regional park, as well as further south below the College, the transition into the Foothi l). Freeway. Ne also discussed the need of ptrovidinq housing for people of middle income brackets. * Larry Wolfe, Architect with Barmakian and Wolfe, stated [hat his firm was the azchitectural firm that had prepared previous designs on this parcel. He stated he is preparing land urea right now which will he within the 4-e density. There being no further response, the Public Hearing was closed. The Council voted on the motion as indicated above, All voting aye. Motion Cazzied. Mayor Schlosser called a recess at 10:00 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:20 p. m. with all Councilmembers and staff present. Councll resumed discussion of the Alta Loma azea. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing. * James W. Keller, resident on Levine Street, stated he had been asked by the local residents to address the Council regarding the proposed land use of medium residential for the property bordered by Victoria on the north, Archibald on the west, Romona on the east and Lhe Railroad on the south. He stated they had presented a petition to the Planning Com- mission with 187 signatures from concerned residents, 180 of whom stated they opposed the proposed medium residential zoning. He stated that the residents request that the City Council reject any plan proposing development exceeding the existing residential average density and approve only those proposals which maintain the established residential atmos- phere with the construction of single family dwellings without exceeding a density of 3-5 dwelling units per acre. * Frank Moerke questioned the reason for medium-high density in this area. City Council Minutes March 70, 1981 Page Seven * Sackie DiMOnia expressed her concerns about increased traffic, flooding problems and crowding of schools. ~ Harley Levittr owner of one of the properties tieing developed, responded to Mzs. DiMOnia's statements about flooding, increased traffic and over- crowding of schools. Ne stated they are coming in with 8.3 units per acre with a planned unit development to provide affordable housing in the 580,000 to 5100,000 range. * Doug Hone discussed some of the advantages of Planned Unit Developments as opposed to single family. There being for further response, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Mikels to sustain the Planning Comm~ission decision for this property. Seconded by Palombo. All Voting aye. Motion Carried. Mayor Schlosser reropened Public Hearing far further discussion and input on the Alta Loma area. • Mel Pierson, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, requested that a parcel of land on the southwest corner of Haven and Wilson be designate3 as Convenience Commercial and related his reasons far this request: The concensus of Council was that this request should not be reviewed as part of the General Plan process and suggested that Mr. Pierson might file a specific request for the proposed land use at one of the times the Council would designate per yeas for revisions to the General Plan. However, the Council concurred that this would not be an appropriate site for commercial designation. There being no further response, Mayor Schlosser closed the Public Hearing on the Alta Loma azea. Motion: Moved by Palumbo to approve the land use for the Alta Loma area. Seconded by Mikels. All voting aye. Motion Carried. 4. CONSIDERATION FOA ADOPTION OF LAND USE IN THE CUCAMONGA AREA 11-24 LOCATION: 20 + acres located east of Vineyard Avenue, approximately X000 feet south of Foothill Boulevard. Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the parcel being considered and dis- cussed the Planning Commission recommendation at their 1-19-e1 meeting for Medium-Residential (4-19 du/ac) on the western one-half and Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac) on the eastern one-half of the parcel. He referred to a letter received from William D. Alexander, Foothill Real Estate, requesting permission to address the Council. He noted that prior to the Planning Commission's recommendation, the parcel was originally shown on the Draft Land Dse Plan as Low-Medivm Residential (4-8 du/ac). Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing. ~ William D. Alexander, Foothill Real Estate, indicated he represented the owner o£ the proposed Vineyard Green Condominium project. He disputed that the property was designated low-medium, stating it was originally high density. He referred to a mobile home park development which was planned for the site. City Council Minutes March 30, 1901 Page Eight * Larry Wolfe, Barmakian and Wolfe, discussed the Planning Commission recommendation and expressed his concern about circulation. He noted that the effect of the perimeter between multi-family and single family is significant. * Charles Toole stated he was Mr. Alexander's partner. He indicated they had contacted the Council fora Better Conununity, who had advised them they had nc objections to their plans. He stated they feel they have addressed all of the problems they objected to in the project which has been appr~_~~ed to the north. • William Runyand stated he represented the Homeowner's Association of the Centennial Home Tract. He stated [hey found the proposed development io the north of them totally offensive and requested that Council re-evaluate this development. He stated that if the proposed development to the north was eliminated, residents would be in favor of allowing the higher density zoning to the sides of their tract. However, he stated that the residents did not want to be completely blocked in by high density. Council discussed the parcel in question, as well as the adjacent parcels. After much discussion, the following motion was made: Motion: Moved by Jon Mikels to Change Parcel Number 1 to create a transition use and designate the low-medium (4-0) rather than low density (2-4). Seconded by Palombo. Prior to voting on the motion discussion regarding circulation and traffic continued with public input. * William Runyand stated they had asked the Planning Commission to provide them with another way out of their tract and referred to some of the problems during heavy rains. * Larry Wolfe, Barmakian and Wolfe, related some of the problems chat could occur when a parcel is split. • Mr. Antonya coswented that by dropping it down to 4-8, you have really split the parcels and hampered development * William Alexander commented that its easy to say reduce and stated they are trying to provide affordable housing. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. After further discussion, the previous motion and second were withdrawn and discussion of this item was continued until April 6, 1981. Mayor Schlosser called a brief recess at this point. (11:55 p.m.). The meeting was called back to order at 12:10 a.m. with all City Council members present. 11-1 LOCATION: Approximately 140 acres located between 4th Street, 6th Street, Archibald Avenue and Hellman Avenue. Tim Beedle reviewed the Planning Conmission's recommendation £or an Indus- trial park fronting on 4th Street and Archibald with medium density re~i- dential south of 6th Street with a 25 acre park site located within the Medium Density residential. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for public hearing: • Gerry Koski, resident on Layton Street, related homeowner's objections to [he Planning Convnission decision. He stated the proposal presented which is similar to Alternate 2 would be most favorable to [he residents. He stated that they had presented a petition which asked the Council to consider more residential in that area to continue the residential devel- opment that is noxh of 6th Street. ~: City Council Minutes March 30, 1981 Page Nine * Don Magnos related his objections to the Planning Commission rernm- mendation and stated he felt an industrial development would take away from their property values. * Frank Woerke discussed his reasons for opposing industrial development. * Collin Keith discussed his objection and stated that their community already felt isolated from the rest of Cucamonga. He also noted the lack of parks in their area. * Al Blessant stated that he felt that properly landscaped Industrial would be better than sinyle family. * Doug Hone stated that an industrial development with good design standards and proper buffering could be very attractive. * Ray Radcliff stated he owned five of the ten acres south of Al Blessant's properly and indicated that either way on the zoning was alright with him. There being for further response, Mayor Schlosser closed the Public Hearing. Councilman Bridge stated he had visited the area and felt that industrial development would be a much more desirable use than higher density resi- dential and cited some of the advantages. He said that staff would insure that the industrial development would be properly designed and landscaped. Councilman Mikels agreed and related why he felt that industrial would be the best possible use for the area. Barry Hogan described the type of development, landscaping and design control the City tvuld require. Motion: Moved by Bridge that the entire area be designated as industrial with a park site designated on the plan. Seconded by Mikels. Ayes: Bridge, Mikels, Palombo, Schlosser Noes: Frost Absent: None Motion Carried. 11-18 IACATION: 5 acres located at southeast corner of Church BtreeC and Archibald Tim Beedle discussed the area and the Planning Commission recommendation to designate the property for Office Use. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Hearing: * Anne Calinsky reyuested that the Council deny the Planning Commission recommendation for the reasons she had stated previously. * Bob Mills discussed why he felt the Council should uphold the Planning Commission recommendation noting they do not feel that office use is incompatible with medium density. * Lloyd Michael asked the Council to uphold Planning Commission recommen- dation. * Bruce Chitea questioned whether there was any local opposition. City Council Minutes March 30, 1981 Page Ten There being no further response, the Public Hearing was closed. Motron: Moved by Frost to reaffirm the Planning commission's decision. Seconded by Mikels. Ayes: Bridge. Frost, Mikels, Schlosser Noes: None Abstain: Palomho~ Motion Carried. • Councilman Palombo abstained since he was out of the room at the time the motion was made. 11-17 IACATTON: Approximately 10 acre park site located south of Church street on Romona, Tim Needle briefly discussed the dedication of the park site. Mayor Schlosser opened the meeting for Public Heazing: * Pau1.N. Byrnes of the Malborough Development Corporation indicated his support of this item and noted that it was a very good deal for the City. There being rto further response, the Public Nearing wag closed. Motion: Moved by Mikels to approve the dedication of the park site. Seconded by Palombo and all voting aye. Motion Carried. 11-15 7ACATION: Approximately 40 acres located at the site of the Ia Nancha Golf Course Tim Beedle indicated that the applicant was willing to dedicate a portion of the site for a five acre park and that the Council would not have to take any action if they concurred. The consensus of Council was to leave the designation as is. Mayor Schlossed asked if there were any other people who wished to speak regarding the Cucamonga area and opened the meeting for Public Hearing. * Robert Chambers stated he represented Dorothy and Dominic Pelgren who owned property at 9639 Baseline. He referred to five acre parcel with 328 feet of frontage on Baseline which is now zoned for low- medium density. He stated they are requesting an increase in density to next step and requested Council review and advise. Barry Hogan indicated that the original planning commission reconmmndation was for S-8. Council concurred that 5-e was an appropriate use, There being no further response, the Public Nearing was closed, At this point Mayor Schlosser called for a motion on the Industrial area which was discussed earlier. Motion: Moved bl' Palombo to approve the industrial plan, sernnded by Mikels and all voting aye. Motion Carried. Motion: Moved by Palombo and seconded by Mikels to adjourn to the April 1, 1981 City Council meeting. seconded by Mikels. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 1:50 a.m. Respectfully Sulmitted, Ginny 2lentara Acting Deputy Clerk