Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/01/03 - Agenda PacketAGENDA CITY OF RAIICHO CUCAMONGA Regular Meeting January 3, 1979 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE TO FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL: Ilikels_, Palombo_, Schlosser_, Oest_, Frost_ 4. APPROVAL OF MINJTES: 1 S. AIOIOUNCEMENTS 6 CONSENT CALENDAR: The following, Consant Calendar Stezis are expected to be ro,tlne and non - contrcvursial. They will be acted upcv by the Council at coo Lima vltmut discussion. Any Council member, staff member, or interested lv,rty mare =- closer that .W itam be ramwed from the Consent Calendar for later discussion. a Approval of Warrants in the emaunt of $380,918 63 ..... ... ..... ..1_ b. Authorization for Lauren Wasserman, City (tanager, and Jim RobinsoL, Assistant to the City Manarer, to attend 1979 City Managers Spring greeting n Ikaterey February 7 -9 Funds have been budgeted f)r *.his conference ............ ...... ... .. ... .. .... ...... _ c. Denial of claim of Mr. and Mrs. James Rat sfer as recommended by County Counsel . .... ... ... . ... .. . ... .. _ ....il_ d Tract 9586: Release cash staking deposi to Thomptrn Associates - $2.600 ... .......... ..... ... .... ... 17 e Tract 9432 Accept roads and release bonds to Chevron Construction Performance Bond (road) $162,000 ..... ....... ..... ... .. .. .... ..., 20 _ f Tract 9401: Release of bonds to Olympus Pacific Corp Performance bond (Sewer - on site) $45,000.00 Performance bond {Sewer - off site) $22,000.00 Performance bond Wtter - on Sitg) $70,000.00 ( Performance bond (Water - off sire) $49,000.00 ... .. ........ .... 23 _ g. Tract 9409: Release of bonds to Coral Investment, Inc. Performance bond ((Sewer))... .::$41,000.00 Performance bond (Nate'). ... $27,000.00 ....... ...... ....26 h. Tract 9158: Release of bonds to Fred Schneider Performamce bond (Sewer) ... . ...$20,000 00 Perrormance bond (Water) .. ..... $35,000.00 .... . .... ......29 i. Tract 9484: Release of bond: to David W. Long Perfcrnance bond ( Water) ............ $26,000.00 ................. .... 31 J. Tract 9602: Release of bond to Matreyek Homes, Inc. Perfoncance bond mer .. . .......$43,000.00 neriormatice bond Water .. .... $44,000.00 .... ....... . ....33 �7 - I City Council Agenda -2- Januiry 3, 1579 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A Zone Change No. 78 -03 submitted by IRIt Seigl. The change of zone from R -1 to A -P on 4.2 acres of load located on thi northeast corner of llermosa and 19th Street. ORDINANCE NU. 49 (Second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY of R.WCHO CUCAIIONCA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSO "'S JARCEL NO 202 - 191 -13 FROM R -1 to A -P GENERALLY LOCATED 011 THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND HERMOSA AVENUE... .. .. . ..... _3�' 8 Zone Chzngc No. 78 -05 - Southern-California Lu0ern Chum To change the zone from R -1 (single- family residential) to A -P (administrative /professional) for 5 51 acres of land located on the hest side or Haven Ave., north of Lemon .. .... . .... . ... .. .... .. .._ ORDINANCE 110. 51 (first reading) AN BRDINAHCC OF THE Ci7Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 201 - 261 -08 FROM R -1 TO A -P .... .. .. ...... ..... ... .. ... STL C. Zone Change No. 78 -06 submitted by Hone /Gorgen To change the zone from R -1 (single family residential) to A -P ( adninistrative/profissionsl) for 9.7 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Baseline and Hellaur. ... . .... ... ..... . ...... .. ... .. . . ...SL_ ORDINANCE 110 52 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUIICIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSOR-5 PARCEL NO. 208 - 011 -02 AND 04. 0. Draft Environmental Impact Report and Proposed Interim Land Use, Circulation and Public Facilities Elements of the General Plan..... .. .. ... ... ... .74 8 CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS: A. Revision of the Compreh=.nsive Fr:e Resolution (No. 78.25) by Jack Lam RESOLUTION NO. 78 -75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Oi Tilt CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78 -25 ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCIIEDULE .... ... .... .. ...... 78 B. Ca ital Ion rovement Pro ect Arch a',' Avenue and base ne Day Care Centrr b./ a— np E Young ... ... . 7 C. A regiment to a Municf al Reor a•u zut_ion to include Zeta[ rent oft ree arce s at wand g_enerafftocated n the southwest ort an n thee cit ads scribed on xh D t and annexation a sane Dropert %s ed to t—TieZltV of imtar— io........... .. ........................ 89 RESOLUTION 78 -76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AGREEING TO A MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO GOV0VIMENT CODE SECTION 35300 et. seq. 10 INCLUCE BETACILME14T OF PROPERTIES AS DESCRIBED ON AT'ACHED EX14IBIT "A" AND ANNEXATION OF SAME PROPERTIES TO THE CITY OF OITIARIO. a 0 I A�neda, -3- January 3, 1979 D. Fo'eral Aid Urban (F A.U) project selection - report by Lloyd Ilubbs .. ............ .. ... I........... . .. ... 92 9. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Council b. Audience 11. ANOUPNMENT: to Monuay .tanuary 15, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. I "A °a6�f;lY•• }rt!.07 i'i�.. .,,e.�l.g•.; ... �I, }`t(� a m O Js � u x � N N N °• Q ti Sf L d O U _ q � OI C I" N N IJ s z � � Y �a U = O d rn L v u = u 4 O T LL Lu U Ulri Ib(1 .��I.iM1b ti N Imo 1°IG � '.'1 N t7 Z N N Ybf N .10° N CI N N yl N M O N tV N O tM1fl U t„I d p�j j C Wl CJ N Mel M (V (tl O p 000 O IIIIIINNNNNN UN COjH 1 C O O On • p n W! C, yl p pp pp �nO OOOOP bb(r11..) Y 2 �t100 OO M1Gt h Gl m t) INI. '� pC ti h °0 S vl IJ IO O n N mObVVV(OI� 0 C Q ^ CI pj °I G M1 C) V N tV OI Nc; de c G CL T b Q 4 ya W ' C LLU' O U 7C i rl N ,qi t7 •° � [C WO N N• nj ° OY 2S a m O Js � u x � N N N °• Q ti Sf L d O U _ q � OI C I" N N IJ s J � � Y �a U = O d rn L v u = u 4 O T LL Lu L ,G 'rNIWA7�77t1�7irtfl .��I.iM1b ti - ♦ s a NCINNS a ti .-. _. rl .•. o u CI IL O yl C O 0000000 O po1 IO'1O�1.0'I�Ntt O Ii U N N N �I .•• W P1 d p�j j C Wl CJ N Mel M N Ca m O ^. 01. o s s e s COjH 1 C O O On O Y J m ry Of .T S CT °I (J U t) _ S _ xK o 1 de c G CL T b Q 4 ya W LLU' O U 7C i •° � [C WO N• nj ° OY 2S p Q ¢ y•'i 6 U NN N m0 OIT I I I NN N N O NN Oh •yH I I I 11 4 C O O O OO O V 00 N Y L u u N � _ L 4 � I I C C = f: " N U d d N N N 6 p d IC W a m N Js � u x � N N N °• Q Sf L d O U _ q � OI C I" N N s J � � O N U q O d rn u v u = u N T LL Lu L ,G 'rNIWA7�77t1�7irtfl .��I.iM1b ti a NCINNS a ti .-. _. rl .•. Lys iL ~ O lJ •II O 0000000 O po1 IO'1O�1.0'I�Ntt O Ii U N N N �I .•• W P1 d p�j j C Wl CJ N Mel M N Ca m O ^. 01. o s s e s COjH 1 C O O On N u N Js � u v K � N 1 O_ N °• Q Sf L d O U _ q � OI C L m N C � L N U E O d rn u o 'rNIWA7�77t1�7irtfl 'r� 0 { , I ( 4_.;, 1 �fii .p.}' «1 . I_ . -iF . •1'v Y '�.uVn::. +�,,, ��4 Fro: 9 Ili( U$ O q 411�I, L N a J m m .r U � U N 6 1 U O uNOi � •ni Q GI d l' U S N N N N N C! Yl h N N L ^ S N 111 N N N N m (� N N I N N K CI N N N OI N N N U W T C U A C JE CL pl L C (1 C L Y U ♦? G � a � N J I r\y Z M1 O N O O UOOpO pp������pppppp OOpOO b W OJM MNIIO i L�IIL..yyy v a'f Nan nC7ln O MMt0O OO1M /m-( N CnN OD M NlD O L>mnMM MM N 4 _ I C N N +1 N Ys (D Nt. n Yl NN�NNN�N C r y�LL y L JJ A ^'��vND �l r y1 tG F C �� U$ O q L N a J m m .r U � U N 6 1 U O uNOi � •ni CIA P GI d l' V 6 U M A V a L ^ S N J21 « 'M d 17 N N K 7 U L N •� yl 1 b b0 J W T C U A C JE CL pl L C (1 C L Y U ♦? G � a � N J I r\y Z PY Pj� O = N a L a n - O V � O�.p: l •�IiJ. _ v a'f Nan C N � m r y�LL y L JJ A �l r y1 tG C �� d W A ' .7 N U N A N M tD 1 1 •U ~ n YIaU •-� as O pulp N O P_ U �IWJY u.^ % • Q1 t! fI J U }L', VNCIN n C A C!J JJ A y A a C LL La >• 01 "' titiH A a d Y LLB 0 u 6Y du W O >nl Y d o � 4 O�0O U^ MAA Q a C OtDm {IDmn [: U 9 LL 66 V13E Cl 7 nmv N c O ^YMI` L M �+ W L • n }dl ITNNC q 4 NL, Q B'1 tD N G 01 4" I. a • f O a L L O /- C'1 m L OI aNJ T.r VV 11 X I A V d m LdC1�KV L C• L' i Q M a f- C) d G a d N+ 'JI OIF 1 d[O C55 •1, C q n O,+ 9 LA J d hd Lp n a C A C c C T a d +. L'•N CJ1 61'SLH 1.1 LJ a 4 n O U L n LC. h G U[OWO•i U6 )-U ._ C L. 6a G /A V 111 O tD N N rl w q' O V O N N ,i)H bl CIA N N f l N N \ N p N N N ti 1 ~N1 ) 1�0 V O, U OU ti q IJ'/NNC .U'4 nmy rm4a .+ Q O Cl O O p 00 00 a o C. o_ o 0 0000 0 U$ A q m m .r U U 1 U O uNOi •ni CIA P d I T A V 6 U M A C L ^ S N J21 « 'M 17 N K 7 U N b b0 J W T C U A C JE CL pl L C (1 C L Y U ♦? G � a � N J I Y Z PY Pj� O = N a r O V � O�.p: l •�IiJ. _ form • � ii 1 q. I C'1•Y\ YI r W m O M u u •• M1 m A C L� L• L L Ymf N O OI OI O) T OI F O OI Of J fJ N l7 C In O 0 N N N N N N nl R N N U tJ N N N N N V N N N p OOU N 6 i� O OO O CC''p v00 Op h Opf O O O N q+.m O O W Obi IA -I-I N Q�IYI m (O sL? pO SI Cy CI C N O p y~ QI N M1 ^ N a• N ^ N N .0 ^ w G h� O N M1 d Y ^ N 3 � O C W 1 q tl \ IN 0 \ J U N 0 G 4 p N Gl N UI 1 p b L J M1 6 \ L •^ C M N In q O Y C V U O. N C j qE 1Y •1 6 L C a e, ti O C N y O n IV Y _G p •E a O J O u. C N L m L li u O p A W 1- p O 1 1 u w Y Q O A D N S m 6' W m S u u A L' GI U C O N J L li v It; V d N O. ` v L ! TH N A u A u al O. w IJ m 4 CI GI j H y L u O 3] m u p• U p, 2 z O d y U tL O [y1 W In In ^ In m M1 Its I(1 m PI l' 1 1 1 V (. "P N -1 IO N N N O f ti T of N IN IL O 11 H 1 1 .T 1 I N N N O l(f N ^ N .CIa U 1 1 .Q-. r-a IGtll —I .ii O Cj Q O 0 0 O O O O G O 0 0 m p q "1• rl O M1 O v O U O E a [n N C i m u U J •Aj M d N a C MI M u u N 0 N A C L� L• L L N A N o W h CI A O N F N O 0 N C U •- N v v A 2 vI Q a O 0 0 O v U U N In C } O f C N 0 d u N A o N o W h O N VI C U •- N v v A 2 � IJ O A Z C J• i T 1l N to N C ~ 6 �N. •y N J J A Z U tY L N n • .J tC N L d 14 9 •J N f I {.�t�• �?��' ��r'�?r;, ,� 1 �' i � y ,�.+., `�. •a a � .n- ��1•N�n.m.. ,. . l`,�,y1 t # �,.;4' i i A i 1 I` �f t�1 '.t: .., :� _i 4lr�t�', •t.,•. t. ual 1- 4 U O O � IOp fV N O H .N•• Ill b f11 L) VI S N N fV N N N NVV) N u N •T I°WQU�H I tn•In Hb NO bNT O Cr i T /c4 h Vv) S n O f1 O m f9n Y`l mY1!l ) cltV tV I IO NPI NY)p•{D •• ^M t M N 1.13 m N ti 6�p M � = iT p H "y ffi f\ O 4 1 p M ti Ll h p L 1 fT m L ]' T A H Y N W Y H b r N T U bb G O] O L b v ly � N p L •+ .n ,J V r,I � •O Y H p tia N •t Ul O L p � ] \ ° dN N \N K)H \NN Ia "'1 d fl L H ti U In H•� L Ca titi C p ° O1 nMi OITH.. 1 M[p o1 J li ~ d L 20 Cll \\r•Ir �•�HfJ MH Or\I a 3 >S- C L t. V T Off..• CN N� .\w O \ \ \ \Gni t�Tf�D1 H•� .1 L JI N d 41-1 4 A � IL q 6 i Il IO IM •O V i Y- • • A 6 7 m Q A AC IF N C. A N 01 d G V O d Y :' 2 L° L C9 O Al- q cl •rG. ••G. L p L 4+ L N a N O J J6 UWIOo�W W1� d Lr- W n O� F L L d NN 9nn.°ti fWO f^•1 N N.CIGI R e V b d O Y. Ql tifTnnn•.•OCI m [T• Q1�A h (!•W WWWNpI OC b � ? c a bOOOOON bN Ey N O U L L 'Mew Y2C ❑ MMMMM 1 MIN'1 fIaNNNNbM bCn TOE ` d y U ••• a 6 d O Yl S VI <Y N M N n n N ;j N N W r4 Os O O .Ni 1 IMD v i • Ni p •T••a .O1-IC c n Yi4 .y O fT U1 p. r^+ •N-• •T.I N •-1 H r'1 H O O p O UO H 1 O O O O 4 v U O O 'O cc c c c (e V n L L N G o ° C L i ;I W W N Y Y Y N d qc A V • L N G C C ti II �;•� �' q LO � •d V qgG E ~ �N O O O L n Y .n.- O HLH c V u 4 U R = j I. i� E z c c � 1° c ro p ;¢ S N SLICE IW ErI C.fllh m�v c J O b VI N Y J � Nro CAl 1•C ei •l ^Y�14 0 u- i r n �i .•• u H 11 1f i .n u 1 Ia •l� t� Il !l T 1, fn CI a1 VI i i a0 •C 4�1 {l. H O O Y1 W m D] J v 1aCa� o ,-• m C J � F hp• O !- i •�I ati 1� •1 '1 L S N U zl t1, m G , u v In c U W N N N N Ul V u 3 i N N L , � atnsarr�teai�an.�:r:iw o oa e a e tD oocoo o00pp0o mornq, 11JOcC rn.. on t2. H NOI(GI IAA IO q'� 0311 1 aN�nC iDINWIn OI ONE M N ^ P N l7 .nIN N C N q 1• F- i+ c \ IY C S r^•1 C 1 O IN � a W '3 1• N i Y \ .Ni O uDi d m w L O :c 1C YYIIIII E V 0 M ^ N c C C c { • N q • _� A q a -o a a y ct O •� q 1 O O 0 N c c ' O L O N NS � 4 .N O � d q pd L C 6 y a O1 � •• • b` a e m e 1� N ar 4 l L. 01 �1 O1 c pL1 r 'NLdO O J Y LL J LL� h Ill J.. ]d 3C1 1qJ 1 10 M N ti Y NID YI NNtVN pY'I I.ly llI 0,•I tD0 NNnIN � 2i � •-• .y O N1{l Y•1(f a'1 �I ri Cl � O P O11 OI lJ .ai 1 .N-1 1 rai t 1 •1 • N•- V Nti�1•+N Q O O O 1� 1��•'�"••1•^�" i7000�OOGO it OC•00 0 I y I N N 111 �1 C g N q q • u q u L yrla 1 L jpj. 1 O CI ') • f S r JC a 1 i r n �i .•• u H 11 1f i .n u 1 Ia •l� t� Il !l T 1, fn CI a1 VI i i a0 •C 4�1 {l. H O O Y1 W m D] J v 1aCa� o ,-• m C J � F hp• O !- i •�I 1� •1 '1 L S N U > £ O L , u r c tM V W 3 i N � L , � atnsarr�teai�an.�:r:iw yI q�i' -fir 1 .�i v+ �� rr+ Pt, e�ty�''"' ��- tl; I�{? rMr�� '�._�...„,:,.•R.v„r�,.�e•,n. -'- �.. litA is NIL 1 nB Iii sill 1,oCi��c'� A ti Leagua (f California Citle DEC 2 11978 iY ltlFlni AM n n °w io a' 7llilnlp 1113j2lo 5rf ANhGJNf,1 NG ice hi'S �L � Kry t G` IJ79 CITY MANAGERS SPRING MEETING,,ny1�� Doubletree Inn, Monterey f February 7 -9, 1979 "LIFE DEGI%S AFCER 13" _r Proposition 13 can ho viewed by rho city manager as a bano or a boom, a curse or a rhalleni,. At the very least it can present new opportunities for managers to j)ropol.e and pursue iaeas and programs which heretofore were not so feasihic ' neeed, as has been suggested, California's city managers ar•r now face¢ with their biggest challonge since. Meyers Milirs -grown passed 11 yours ago. This year's Crty Managers 5pring Mooting program has been doslened to provide you with the opportunity to closely examin. the issues and challenges presented In the wake of Proposition 13 and to begin to formulute plans to help make your city even (lore efficient and itsponsive to the needs of your citizens The program will include reports on the Post Commission recommrndatiuns, the League's Pities Tomorrow Comnittec, a legi,lative briefing, and horklni sessions intended to produce specific recommendation; for action fr. a variety of topic area.,. The program will +.Iso include sessions on personal growth and parsunal filancrul planning, as well as the annual business session Join us in Monterey and take a fresh look at the challenges a head I Registration To facilitate the registration procass, you are encouraged to register in advance and a blue registration form 1s attacl,d for this Furpose Should you wish to rcgioter In advance please complete rho Advance Registration Form and return it virll a check or money ordar (Pleaeo no Purehste ordora) in the appropriate amounL to the LEAGUE OF CALI111RIIIA CITIES, HOTEL CLARFAOL7•, nERKELEY, CA 94705 TO PROCESS .11E ADVANCE HEGISTRATIOx, FAYMENr OF 711E REGIGTRATIOu FEE IIUST ACCOuPANY THIS FOW4. 10X1 CLAN fwr,YVw41u 1T gulf to .1H AµtrlF6 k?71r 1 I .. "��`Y�'tj - ,'pit, ;;... _.. tl l.y-V ^'; h•;.'1. ! ,; y At the bottom of the ltaglattatlon ports 1s a queaLlennelra lot tlusc oho clan to attend the Naeting but do not wish to register in advance 111 m 'lux ter rho Icaaue to ,.hake appropriate arrangetwv,tt 'or this meeting, at 15 noce7uary that we havt an a.luratc Oatiouto of the numbar of officials who 1,111 Lo attuDling. If you expect Lo attend, pluaaa fill out either tha Ahanco Pagietrat.lon secrla- (return with Payaont) or the Attendance Nus.1onnalru let ion, Ord re,el'„ the m,LICu foci, to the Barsilcy office of the Ltraguo run' LATER TI All JAMARY _, 11'9 Registration facilities will Ira available it the luml ntg for those not rogisterang In advance Rem.. tratitn I -cc The Iwiletratioo fee is Int1Val Ve of thu IrogranoLd luul functions Thu following registration fee dill apply at thu City Pomagers Spring lloetinc, CITY OPF'ICIALS 555 00 NON -Cl1'y POBLIC OFFICIALS $55 00 Hotel Reservatiors The Doubletree Inn has agreed to huuau delegates and will provide mectL g factlYt'_ts for the eessiona. Whun making your 1-otel r..sotvationa, please u.tt the brown hotel reservation form attached whoa lueludas the r rates :hat will Prevail daring the seat.ng I: you are planning to share u romp u 1 -other city official, only one form with, oi.th names Indicated on it sllaeid be sent ,n For theoo Planning to chuck in later than 9:00 p.m , a deposit In the t.mtalt of the first night's rontal will bu required to guar.mtuo lour accarrandetaons All teaervatiroa should Lo rucalved Ly the Doubintrea inn ao later Ilan Jal.uary, :4, 19711 Ilr•tol rouorvatior form[ uhould be rotnr -ed dlrrttly to the Doublatree Inn at the addrs.a Indicated on the fore, At tcltdance AC tip• _ns-Akct ink A.!- r,tostrative not latants, As jay hocorw ruutomary, you are strol,clly encouraged to have yo•ir udmini- trativ.- aoalstants attend thu Sprinn ttouting A goal of thu dopartmajl is to involve a »lard ttx in dnpartmer,L activities and ro,fostional devulopment oPport,nitlus. Their furticipatlni In the Spring Muting can bu of belief t to yo1, mur agate Cant, and to all cltios County Chief Adminletrativo ofiieursl Due to Lila emerging pattorno of city - courty coopera� ion ato thu recxiul•1cn [hat many urban problems are of mutual Interest t.o Lity Imnagert call County Adminrocrativu Officers, thu Executive Commlttte of tha City Naraq,xx, Oopartry nt encouragos the attandanca of County Chief Adminlntr.,tiv Officers at -ha City Yanagor Spriul fieettng Arco MLnagar groups are urqud to par- am Ily invite their County Chief Administrative Otficcru to the Spring Flcccln9 TLle will sup;semu,t the invitation the :ouuty exum,civos will roaolvo f jm the Llty flanar,eis Executive rgctdttoo C.O.G. Executive Directors, Executive ntrectors of Ccuncila of Goternnenti, are encouraged to attend the Spring WdLing to Interact with city tad county or lef executives Retired or l0n- Practicing Ctry ltanagurar Purouanl to long atanilnn Magee and Departman7 Policy, retired city managcu s atd former managers who have ro &Mci.,tlol with coar,ercial products or GOMeas used by loom governments are Lnvltml to attend thu Sptinl misting ' -'k=a partatltm Ito Ooublotrou Inn is louuod at Fisverman'a 411 rf, near dodntow, Monterey Frequant airport commuter msrvi, in ov.Illoblo Lion tht 'bntotuy Airport to the llotel Program In order to ass.st you in naking plans to attend this muet>ng there is attached a preiin- innry program outl•no P.eass note the followtngt 1 dtegistration w, IL olen at 9130 a n. on Wednesday, February 7 its thb Lobby of the rcubt,:treo Inn it Fisherman'•f Wharf. 2 From 10:`1 a n to 12 t00 noon on wadr%nday, February 7 there will be two personal Jrowtl workshops, slim on personal financial punning and one on council- a- tnagtr relations and cantor alternatives 3 Sp;.usns -u cvtdially Invited to attud rte Silting l:oatinq said to attund the various ltlartnunt programs 1ncJudlal a ruusion on financial planning for women ami a tour of seem of the unique attractions in the Mmnrerey area. 4 Golf and tens Lat for those wishing to play golf or tennis prior to or after the Spirit-) Hearing, the Nest Services office of tho ooublotree Inn w131- make appsopriite arrangements .:cost SOA71t111 is in the Lobby of the Ioubletree Inn or 4.,ll 408 -649 -4511 Alut Nail I•Lartdrlal lwanl Bomindert •.fie Joan it Nail Manorial Award will be presented for the first time at the nuslneas Sasuion on Ptlday, norning, 7Ybruery 9 This award rewgnises an outbtandtng canielpal assistant. wlo has contributed aigniffe,vitly to his or liar city government and -o the •dvaneament of the crrmtunity as a vholo. A mumo was sent to all city tanagers on tbverher 27 dmtac Lang the critut /a and nomination procedures for the w4ard. The dcaeline for subsiaclen of nominations As Jaaumry 15 You are urged to act row and bubnit you+ nominatonn Invitations for thu 191.1 DJCUth!& w>uld you lito to hive the City Muwigsrs Cupattmunt of thu League ncet in your city in 19817 Cntio, interast.d in hostinq the 1981 noting nhould oboervu the following general rtgulatione .depted by Lhu txecuLivu Comdtte.et L. Fo1LJwing Utt t adltion of rotating with ant south, the 1981 mooting will be held to Nort turn Cali tondo 2 All bids rw,t be si:nt to the Sacr"onto offLro of the League not later than January 12, 197: 3. neuic facilities required tires -- minimum of 250 sleeping roans -- one meeting room which will acccmodato a minimum of 400 people theater 1 styles ore nesting room for mail fun -lions ec:omnodating 400 ptoplol six minting rooms to accommodate eoncurctnt sessions ranging from 50 to 200 persons per moss 4 Thu prineioat criteria connidured in making a t'eclaion %ill be slteping room rost3, el Lertd food cos-o, auJlo- wheal costs mooting roam flaxibLlity and costs of any) *n4 airl. >,t tannsportetion `t Location of the 1981 nnoLlrg is wldr open tihy dnn'L roview your facilities and 4 1- P 1979 CITY !lA?LIGGRS SPRIbG 11LUTAG 1'MI DW ARY 1 ymm "LHe Begins After lb" WEDNESDAY. F@1RUARY 7 9:30 a.m. - 5130 p.m. REGISTRATION - Lol-by. Roubletree Inn 11100 o.n_ - 12,00 nc1„n PRE- ODNFERZNCE WORKSHOPS I. Personal FSnanuial planning II Council Manager Relations and Coming to Grips wit), Cnrrer Alternatives 1.:30 n.n• OPENING GENERAL SESSION - "LIFE BEGINS AFTER 13' - Tho Past Cemmisulon Report - League of Callfurnia Cltlen Fiscal Rasponslbllr,g Task Fcrce Report - Cities r0wrr Committee Report 6,00 P.M. NO HOST CET ACQUAIGTM RECEPTIO13 THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 8 9:00 a.m. - 11,30 a.m. WORKING SIS:IONS I Piw• l Issues II Roorguniration of Locr.l FAVornnent III. Employer- Employee Neg0tlatlons 12,90 noon CFNERA LUNCHEON An 1pLervlew tw, , represontativos from Cou.ttloo, School Districts and Special ^ st " .s 2,30 p.m. COV.LIU}Vr SESSIONS I Crackarbarrul S.,alun II Urbau Design /His rlc Preservation Tovr III •State of the Arcs" - Briefs on Getting Cbc, Job Done 6100 P.M. NO HOST RECEPTION FRIDAY, MRUARY 9 7165 a.m. CONCURRENT BREAKFAST SESSIONS - LI- ISLIITIVE REPORTS AND CURRENT ISSUES DISCUSSION - Cities under 10,000 population - Cities 10,000 to 25,000 population - Cities 25,000 to 75,000 population - Cities over 75,000 population "1 .x "T.v, n FRIDAY, pESRtIARY 9 (continued) MOO a.m. GINERU. SESSICH - Plpartmmc '- slness Session - Cost Cu�ang Ideas - An Up -Late t - 1CMA its a Horizons - IOWA - 4nproving the Utilization of Women in the Work Foxe 12100 Nuon GENERAL LUNCHEON t 'Future Horizons for Fiscal Solvency - A Leglsldtive Parspecll:o• !� 2100 p.m. Adjourn �I -5- 1 _ P= E i_%; t]u +i." M' ! L 1, ' V 1 [� 0177 OF RANCLO CUCAMONGA , �'A:II II:,7R..TIOti fl EMo n A N D OM fl(_f., 151978 A!f PM '71814• Illlllltl1113131A151G TO: James C Front, Mayor Charles A Last, Councilman Jon D. MLkela, Councilman Michael A Palombo, Councilman Phillip D Schlosser, Councilman FROM: Robert E. Dougherty, Assistant City Attorney DATE: December 13, 1978 RE: Claim of Mr and Mrs. James Ransfer. Please find enclosed herewith a copy of J letter received _ from ?aul A. Grube, Jr., Deputy County Counsel fcr the Coenty of San Bernardino, wherein he has asked us to advise ,au that the claim of Mr. and Mrs. James Ransfer be denied RED:sgg Enclosure cc: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Manager cc: Fred Smith The Empire Co. 8 , ^'t-,!J��i9^7 J�'�'•�il�p1�' � fd� 1?1ri(�\:N�!r" i jy7 1.4. ., d t•., 1 ' 1 _I OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL Canty C4. BUJON 157 Wnt FIIIA Stn.l S.n Bwnr6" CA 914IS I7I41 33l'7.1 ALAN K LIARKS Ca.nry CO..W ROGER :1 KEHEWJR Auntm, Co.nry Co~ •.1 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN IIERNARDI NO, CA LIFO RIIIA November 28, 1978 Itt 1,79 S. t•• <:• t µA't m. • .. CAM, bpvt�I COVnry rWnlYt Eyitw L_ NAN., WC.t♦. every Cwnv, ECAHC H A~. WiIIWn5.11 . P"A G.W., J, RKAmC 1Ym. SHOnp CArR, A. D.H , LwwAO 81W., DF.nN z.b.61. CN,. H. AHOG D.wtSU11WU L,W R.N,rcA Alw, , L.n R Lbmn CM ' J I k., Fir. Samuel Crowe V Attorney at Law _ J'lll�l•J Covington a Crowe 1047 West Sixth Street Ontario, CA 91762 Re: Claim to City of Ran•Jho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Crowe: Will you please advise the City Cc Rancho Cucamonga that the County of San R._ requests that the claim by Mr, and Mrs. James R......fer be denied. Yours very truly, ALA17 K' MARKS N County Counsel .. .V PAUL A. GRU32, JR. Deputy County Counsel PAG:vk 9 ` T1yi+� i 'r '�,r':;I�r�t'- i^'•5' (�: • �4. aT. 5111 t� r k • R ' 11i l.. •7 1 O'CONNOR & QUICK EL [i C: 6 [ 11 c 0 Altomey at L,ry C;fY C7 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2 /i 141NISTRkTION 7233 Gord ian Menue 3 Alta Loma. G. 91701 OCT 27 1976 714/991.2543 Am Pli 4 71_8191i0d1112tlt2A41516 ' 5 A11omr/ For ILansfer .� t 6 7 g CLAM 10 SIRE CITY Oa Suwon axw utrA 9 10 11 City Hall _ _ 9340 Baaelirae FYI. 12 Rancho C,avlonga, California 91701 13 14 In the Natter of the Claim of 15 Mr. a Mrs. James Ransfer, Claimant's 16 Mbast J. O'Connor, Attorney at law, hereby f5rsents this claim to 17 the City of Rancho cucuonga, pur:anant to California Covenrnent Cbde Sectim 910. 18 1. The name and Post office address of R4r. 6 Nrs.Ransfer, claimants, 19 Ili as follotans: 20 6237 Quartz Y1 Alta Irva, California 91701 22 2. 'lie post office address to KaLch Robert J. O'Connor, attorney Y3 for claimants, aksires notice of this claim to be sent to as follows: 24 7253 Chin tla.. Ave. 2$ Alta Loma, ©lifbrnia 91701 r `H 26 3. Om � or about July 26, 1978, the City of Rancho , »1; e 27 Building OLpartr p m to :ent, ins atai the 20' x 20' roam addition 6237 Quarts ave. - :; c 28 Alta Ioma, California and deter7minr3 it S.ds not in oz.Qliannoe with the local t1! {iii ir. EQ J-'r 'fi'� Y, 1 lousing Mde., thereby witi0aldav the issuance of a canietion certificate 2 until corrections were made. 3 4. On or .dint August 1, 1978, without milking Inspection, Mr. 4 van Pelt of the Wilding depsrtient. certified that the 20' x 20' roan g addition to 6237 Qiart:z Avenue, Alta taw, California, was in carpliance 6 with the local housing code, an' certification was submitted to escrow for 7 th= S:xpo,;e of rr_leasl o matey in satisfaction of the contract. The city 8 of llanclr, Cucmrorga, la•fw or shauki have known that monies would be released 9I uFu their certif!cation. 101 S. Upon remipt of tle certification escrow released all re- 11 maim monies due on Vic contract and he?d by escrow. - 12 7ne contract had not been corpleted and the required corrections 13 noted on the 7 -26 -78 inspection had mat boar corrected. 14 Said it--ms still have not lenit corrected making said 20' x 20' 1.5� room addition unamitable for the purposes it was built for. 16 6. £o far as it is known to Robert J. O'Connor, attorney for 17 claimants, at the date of filing this claim, Mr. 6 Mrs. Rancfer have incurred 16 damages in the mmtmt of $19,676.00 due to the unsuitability of the 20' r. 20' 19 room addition and the attendant cost of making said roan addition habitable 20 and in conformity with the local housing code. 21 7. The Chief Building Official, City of Rancho Cucamonga Building 22 Department, VAN P1:.1', his agent:u arployees and officers and Roes i through )a 23 caused the injury and dartage to claimant. Claimant is informed and believes 24 and alleges that each of the Rees designated herein are legally responsible 25 in seine manner for the events and happenings herainabove referred to, and 26 illegally caused injury aryl damage to claimant. 27� S. At the time of presentation of this claim, Mx. 6 Mrs. 28� Pansfar claim dvwgEs in the amount of $19,676.00 for repair and or replacer.e:nt I l 111 of the 20' x 20' roan additiur. 211 /// el ` 4 II rated: l t - a 3 - IX 7 8 9 10 11� 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ' 111. � 1 ..e ,a .d _ ra♦'� -c-re s i ' r . VE( ICATION BY PARTY (466, 2015 r, C•P,) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF 1 am the In the Adme.,filled action or prdaedin9a have read the for om e9 9__ and know the conte,ts thereof, and I Carllt which are Illere,n stared upon my Infotmelion Belt the vme is true of my own knowledge, e.tept as tp thou mtteri or bell*', and as to incur rnatlels. I believe It :oUe Loe. 1 doctor., under penalt; of perjury. itRC I na foregoing u e 110 correct. EXECUTEDON _. — AT CALK ORNIA PROOF OF SERVICE BY hiAII. (1013a,20l S.SC.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, :OUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 1 am a MY Lust of the Coonty 7253 akin 1 am urer the age of 091'1e1n Yuri and not a party to the .,thin entitled action my buamesf add•ns h, 7133 Curelian Avenue, Alta Loma Calllorma. On Octoter 25. 1gT8 Iseroad thaw lhl Claim to tJ Cit On the City of 1La ctn CLcT-M C'itY 1ta11 + N toed action. at placing a true Copy thereof cnUOfed In a styled enrdopa with pdita • thereon lull In the United Statn mall addresud as fy there g Y prepaid, r93� 0 Bare' line lu.�� hall RAnchD CticmlDnga, California 91730 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that Me fore9oing Is true and Correct. EXECUTED ON COWIXx 25, 1978 �� 1�7 ) / AT CALIFORNIA /Ji2lE I A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Lloyd Nubbs. City Engineer SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR TRACT 9586 - Release cash staking deposit of $2,600 00 Location: Northeast corner of Nineteenth Street and Haven Avenue Subdivider: Thompdon Aasoeiates Development Corporation P. 0 Box 778 Carlsbad, California NOTE: Certiflcate• for J It. Medals, Engineer, states that all final annuments have been net and he has been paid in full. i 2 00 TRACT NO. 9,S e G IN TILE COUNTY OF SAN DPR14AADINO V:[i . •Y4•]v :[< 7I L N .DI G T.0 C• /l.:. Li I{. 4nLMi. vOY WLL - •L� ll< L. \ - \..b I Li JrLir tt :.1 (q4 >t G L \i (f WU.10. [ L:t V Iti:I WIL M1eelL L IiLOCI[III IK. .n: w u ,+Ila aGr rrrl • H/G,LA �dG"P -��� • - rte � . -. •"D-sa" r 1 J POI - -ii.ivo.+- PEAS' .__✓ 1-141 S ID ♦ I-Mu I I ij/ '� sossn =�J• y� ^ ^♦L\_9_ ,' �� ww\ � ': let 1 ri x x e n S3 n r i r v W ,r Y 4 ytl, j : u Lt arse ar 1 r+ .E of 9t ar �t ar del �' vrt L Leal ra�,+et4•����' -�aw�r �_` ea it i • +R` .. jj ter- it It i t e It ? s N e• [ � i IY e n - i- •-¢ —'Y- r.a,+rrti - -. �..�.nsen• -_a ws+ \ `� 'r ." .v - matr •� =;,� a "ai N/NE7EEN7N S7FtEE7 It it L cr ImIFy •LSt LLL m s to vsn un b n �ro- >L Lnl.[ . t•u b- Ln a n. �.n n m,rc a n..0 • LLL . . ei ueY.LD a nmraroumt. s+ur[vr\. - umnns - r.v-rn rwvD LL .(n e. • unom .n [• e e r o- nn, uGm L.r e. ILLG wur . .. . ...... n[a nrlwD rwWn qe. .•n [ wne. •'L LVi t1L . [.[. Ir[IL r. rD1 :.IL ILyIn10V b LID[ [P 1. LIIV a IWR LVr [OUt LL. � .. n• vaD Lau. ruraD •w:n .o uG /D • r.[. sal. em r \n rwi u. IrR.LU ay.•G[ L.umD. I' J.. ..DIraL[ WILIK LnM[. tif[ NOV 17 I rt w.. ., Lan. ...I....In"r r•s �oY /, rf..l...L ,rlrir 1977 V ' vrr •,L .ae[ n ax.«�r _..aa r�Ims..u[.• B �L "M wO LITIIAS ' b nrL. INI b tltt YILL L[ r11LD 'CyR =ct a in[ rw Li1 L1'. LirM ^= x•�i, - .i•J. ..>� . IYDI[.rU LoMn u'pnNO I•.M.r n. i ^�_� Y �,q +. r a •I•L, INIU}n. Nn LW.ItT't Illln FO. r`<. - :� - I� J•I, ^I�i �•} dr N�t�n•v}'!1 iPl€ �'�R $?ir .y,. ... i ,,. i _ ;Y,`' i•� ''i' a': 1 • 89 ..ur � �/('�{��� d o• O a,.nn `k'��:.'�(�T Rol i IN TIM COUNTY 07 SAN L•t:NNAfIC NO u•rs • mnrwa•r w. ,x..c v :.� •• w uc .a u .. -n ax+••r w w ravry r• .x.0 n ... r.• u. uwU • .6ptu•la uK. a7u�° .iY,r rn t� vp` Jr F — a 1r.if t ' irk •1•� �' ` +; t, " �� t, 1� °, u � � d Q y Y, � ./•[�l�y. �( ' \` \t1 �.• Y1 t \ \,. •t, t , •� o � �l — ;ii'�;it:•t -T n " •� i a r`a � °. [•','/rte r Y ., n• • 1i; � �,. . � ����%:� . / . tic `�� � + 7w ll. Lj�e•L.- _.alw. •Y..�` f ,[�` ..Y!• ✓'• ����1 1 •" ►1 ± ! L f 1Ljj / 1 1t�.14 • -wi�� IL[ .L• F 00 1' NOV 171977 _-MYrr. �.. a, ���Y+r sYR _.'yr.`r!r�T's.•li'R"rA�.•.^.7 �- �a•!_�gG�r�.{..� -- w. 9 ww f f r ' n ' "P WON CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1979 TOc City Council PROM: Lloyd Nubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: CONSf.Nr CALLSDAR TRACT 9432 - Accept Roads and Release Ronda Located on the southeast corner of Raven and 19th Street 0WNER: Chevron Construction _ 1512 Eleventh Streat, Suite 101 Santa Monica, California 90401 Performance Bar.! %Z ^ad) $162,000.00 (Surety) NOTE: The coal construction has been approved as being In accorda:•ce with the Road Improvement Plana and it is reco=cu•d that the roads be accepted. The improve- ments InciLde curb and gutter, sidewalks, paving, walls and sheet signs. I 3x I •!Q':sly ' .. ., : _ ._, v ra1717711 i:+ r "l. - - -•-- -• _ s . , TRACT NO,. 9452 .a; �•.,%yllll IN TIM COUNTY OF BERNARDINO ae.c • rvaevuwn n . ro.n,r n sa W er lam,a Ia. `2 1� t. I.II 1 Kf. W,fi� uaR. W KW.,,Llril IO,N, V `I u ,c cov.vf a w . ,vt, aun a uu nu.K. „aeeu p gsobau I,K. .a.... `` � f'!' /(,Piad)�'S/geC �r.�i.frrLC�le -•• f � � stm. r Ym W, }..� M_a•P1^ •w N♦ r . ov 6b' ) ii::N� 1 I'Il -' �il tulrc.tear ,,,,, .. ., .,a+:Ir 3IFCET m'+1 �,.. -Y'•f� ' ac i' 22 yt�: 23 i�24 25 t= 26i !' 29 �1 i �v d irl�a •n 7n• JMi�.,l y - 30 . t 'XI-A •IJ { 4VENUE m-r° a ya t 5Z s ' 20 36 u.•. —! i 33 is 1 L•�. ¢'� <.:.. 'e s d t a! 35 l : 34 R ,219 1 il.•�yl.• I f 37 Ei P ski - ` -0�:N... .»... f jflU ^•� ,...... ., 7 i:l 3e• Cl 17 D ^ „=:: 'r-,I' i ` ii ? • 33 E. k ne ! O I! p' • 40 7 6 41 t 44 i a t2 ~• 9 i Q t1 ^r't4k )gip+ • a r _� � -1 pNwlwmi �S3rafis: s! '•_: 3 • i '•'Y'!.I y 4B Y 47 ne ' • / u+ 1 49 � "p ]EE L.SLf w0= W t, pyy $ .`'1+ .t°ar }rl�. +SY� +L� '����riPfi:•..;lW lr..�Lar.- i�r -... t :•. _v .y �.,,. -.. !; APR ACT NO. H 9452 IN THE COUNTY OP SAN DERNAHDINO ulK • wvlrind q • ranld n TK N .. nRld u. uu.wua wblo. 1. l.. rwrtr n W nw.wlK, {Taa q 4tlrG.LL. / .f Deu • .uobnR lxc nwu.rr nn J �\ F t 3 x v M.M l.. 3[; SHUT ... . /C e a rate +[ eev(e TC -nu uw��fl<v 0 ,.L4 I Of 1 1.1.11 1TEI.- �� nw .✓NIn R.M •ten �i r . nr S6 � v tl W:i jwNV'r. a 11 y G� � . / / /YM•I Jf1 //Y s - $U4.VEY LL(TA/LS f 7 /o/nvvyf/'/irrpf. lc� i �• •••. w•KU4 ♦u wLL d iA Rm wK a uR u<LKwu VI K• L• 1.• ! K Vq.l. d V[9O q µ.K11{ .fttl�p 4L11W 11 IIDIf {I . C] qtf q y\. {lWw1.D (4NTT 1 IYDIGTV FYWYr Igyp I.[ lyllD. G Ifel4ltL tR i' O. D, 11D. KK, i.40 f.C. [. 11CIr i.mm'i'[i:Yi a i1••'ir. .iveeaiii,"ei> uv.r[, auu .n.e .orlf. {R 111L IY. 1.0 . C r I.CIr I. la1 DI NUt�.xaL <1L/ {Df y(' tl.[t. lY lllY G I.Ve! Iq (G[!K. ,if ['•f•.b I[V..4p V.If. ILIRID A11C LVD TL[4tD C C.L. IVIr IDL .t It.. {1 (DL•S K. N4f{ gbFlµ IOI41 N. f 111 TMR Nl N Vl!{. :P.it w1<V .Lt fl% R 1 .u0 : L1 fit0[I.i[f, l d.yC (.PI. 8 I.�I4Ttf Iy.A'R lIN OVI fC f.M d {I LL 13. t 1.l4{! q Tlft. µYlP1[ q YILL 1 fC . TR GK(a n rK (wL T Lvniw. [.} 11. .1171411{ IAaTr CV.\1\p1't fgM'lK. f.1.1. {. IR14tR tY}lr CY.VRq•{ II[b I.C{. I. V V.I.11il (P.Jl1 DYVK[ Yµ.LYT n sr/v Y -.t c Kra ;fr I 9 � ` r 1\ nW 8 � M p O 0 i• Q =i a r; �w V � 122 W u � sum Q J �\ F t 3 x v M.M l.. 3[; SHUT ... . /C e a rate +[ eev(e TC -nu uw��fl<v 0 ,.L4 I Of 1 1.1.11 1TEI.- �� nw .✓NIn R.M •ten �i r . nr S6 � v tl W:i jwNV'r. a 11 y G� � . / / /YM•I Jf1 //Y s - $U4.VEY LL(TA/LS f 7 /o/nvvyf/'/irrpf. lc� i �• •••. w•KU4 ♦u wLL d iA Rm wK a uR u<LKwu VI K• L• 1.• ! K Vq.l. d V[9O q µ.K11{ .fttl�p 4L11W 11 IIDIf {I . C] qtf q y\. {lWw1.D (4NTT 1 IYDIGTV FYWYr Igyp I.[ lyllD. G Ifel4ltL tR i' O. D, 11D. KK, i.40 f.C. [. 11CIr i.mm'i'[i:Yi a i1••'ir. .iveeaiii,"ei> uv.r[, auu .n.e .orlf. {R 111L IY. 1.0 . C r I.CIr I. la1 DI NUt�.xaL <1L/ {Df y(' tl.[t. lY lllY G I.Ve! Iq (G[!K. ,if ['•f•.b I[V..4p V.If. ILIRID A11C LVD TL[4tD C C.L. IVIr IDL .t It.. {1 (DL•S K. N4f{ gbFlµ IOI41 N. f 111 TMR Nl N Vl!{. :P.it w1<V .Lt fl% R 1 .u0 : L1 fit0[I.i[f, l d.yC (.PI. 8 I.�I4Ttf Iy.A'R lIN OVI fC f.M d {I LL 13. t 1.l4{! q Tlft. µYlP1[ q YILL 1 fC . TR GK(a n rK (wL T Lvniw. [.} 11. .1171411{ IAaTr CV.\1\p1't fgM'lK. f.1.1. {. IR14tR tY}lr CY.VRq•{ II[b I.C{. I. V V.I.11il (P.Jl1 DYVK[ Yµ.LYT n sr/v Y -.t c Kra ;fr .0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1979 TO: City Cou:.ell FROM: Lloyd Futba, City Engineer SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR TRACT 940) - Release of Bonds Located on the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and Lemon Avenue OWNER: Olympus Pucific Corporation 2110 East Katella Avenue Anubeim, Californta 92803 Performance Bond (Sever - on site) $45,000 00 (Surety) Performance Bond (Sever -off site) $22,000 00 (Surety) Performance Bond (Water - on site) $70,000 00 (Surety) Performance Bond (Water -off site) $49,C00.00 (Surety) NDTE: The sanitary tever End water systems were approved by the Cucamonga County Wets- District on 11/17/78 poi II W I M, PoJ' _. .� .,. _ a a mod, 1.� — �t?'(:l •.5i "i::!Yt`�;` ll ��� � •� •�i is rf�•C :1?�rt fRA1Cl NO 9401 IN THE LM14CORPORATED TERRITORY OF COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDNOrSTATE OF CALFORMA NACA SKVtIttRf L /ARO/AYN(O!S Ql,OAAH I,APOT 1gvGl67.. S! q JVAR xxvr LPVAO ICATS ) AS StlO W N ON A MAPOF FWTI U PCOSTLEYO TROT CANAYi 3 IRA; I M 7, .3 P!R hA/ q[(Of010 tx IwR fA eI hJ /J RrC( T I, R!(OfAS A"UYplq. JlgpO (OYxq J ✓ XAPP../ A S LOCAJTl9. JNc. AJVfHjr.v, TL i ImiLT 6LIki I ••� •�• �'S' .�" i •'!( C: Sv_e4 jil" I 1 . emnru it .. � wu•nY'i nu �r prr rYn _ lr RI1 l• w •� %��'�w T/.Ar� �ITJ u.Td����- Vr. -ur +yrltr J��� 19 1 10 f Jq JI c V !! iX 0 2q '1 49 49 n�;5 H I rA�lI1N1:'�- V !! iX 0 2q M,s .. {�"+`Y'.,A• IIaT ( A' }. •., !'.: Y.,' • .:is iY•� IG�: aj �: - "� .1 :�•' . ,'(��r � 6�;. '�' l:• ' mil' r. •• i•:;.u; '.• 41r /.t0 TRACT NO 9401 IN THE UNINCORPORATED OF SAN NAMNO,ST T F CaLIFOANUA"X A fYHI..VA Rb L(q( A/0O/1N00 A]Yvt/ tIDrOU R /LNhy.yir(YA(ATtp) r•6fwo MN W AMNPOF }DOTNI" fCOSnBA fCJR (ONIAw) y ]r4') NO 1,Lf rrR M.N tie "pro /N /L,N )a •I /YII, /K[ ]� A((OIOi Y LN/ /ANIIFW (W.YIY XP MA/I xy ASSOCU]rF,,wo Amrrnsn•q,c W X ^arr o r•.rrs ••�D..., r F k S Ii r} I I .� ",Y,r ✓, - ,avcvuc —1 w _ L6MG• r - - ___ _�_n.•� - 1�' =��� / Her (• /C'� " ia, n es • �« 7�i. tel: f3 4 4s v ss t2 • 3s i = i iii �4•,•a 't 4i •� s ! 1 3s r o f v rA'.{^•itil' Ni�i /l.Y -� �..rir. •.rr�� r �'.ri• •. S'r fir ; , i �a � ." "+ 'Harr Baru �- _..rr.. Yu. r"r.•w. / _ 20 23 30 31 3] i o-µ- - ur >'• NYY x. .. ^. �i 4. se y� ^•�6_ " r ^Y�NS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January J. 1979 TO: City Council PROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: CGNSENT CALENDAR TRACT 9409 — Releaso cf Bonds Located on the vest aide of Ramona Avenue north of Foothill OWNER: Coral Investment, Iuc. 540 South Pasadena Avenue Glendora, California 91740 Performmee Bond (Sever) $41,000.00 Performance Bond (Hater) $27,000.00 NOTE: The sanitary sever and water systems were approved by the Cucamonga County W2.--r U1etrlet on 11/21/78. 26 N IIIIIi �r IIIIII, W TRACT NO. 9409 WAR;;�m1f;M, IN rv[ COUNTY or s)R tt ANANOINO 61 IN: N LpVrnla V )AAQL ] V tar4C wl No ])f As RLUiYO IN 801 ] or /A WK. /Ar( 19. &C Q lit Cif,I a CAM KNWA]OO• SAVE d CK1rU4IlA > j i! It if . rNn• TRACT NO. 9409 WAR;;�m1f;M, IN rv[ COUNTY or s)R tt ANANOINO 61 IN: N LpVrnla V )AAQL ] V tar4C wl No ])f As RLUiYO IN 801 ] or /A WK. /Ar( 19. &C Q lit Cif,I a CAM KNWA]OO• SAVE d CK1rU4IlA a.r � 1 •• wxln. )t t ±AR riAml .2. I 1 • ^• Yom- ._ql -J t .lu.. ri.Y y,,t: ccuNr 411 t 0 I Is • . Nrr.l•. It if . rNn• i NI� /O_OINNI Il1AlL RIGHMA/ ROUT[ NO ii1 � Nllli: Y •N O; YlrK 2 it �KK m i i /f•rn MIF4 r Cr )) 4 �.r 31 •Nrn n. O fir,...• � _ >f•:. ,�• i L uM f.r tr •u Raven �l:i$i• r.wr L• M1+.w.nMY t 1 ya y +�f u ^.0 rNl w w•wIr •rn w•.YN uxxn. it ! t fj • nl .Nr N.w «rwr.nYw,w.lrrlrlY r arm N....•... l.n•) nrrrrmuY.N ONI NNN..W .1 �wY111 .Nr1aYUNI1«xn N.•wW IwY nt • n • Y••U UIU UW N•U w11•nl rrw I!1 Wn1•n•U. INI.• ,• �F�Cr ✓• N ib • . •I. YNr rrWl O Y :wn Nw A'Iw1 Y rI. N•rwY . IN, nY M r�.li �l•"i Mi.11 M K i 1 a.r � 1 •• wxln. )t t ±AR riAml .2. I 1 • ^• Yom- ._ql -J t .lu.. ri.Y y,,t: ccuNr 411 t 0 I Is • � zl— •Hirt i� )y T i •I/ • M.I l � l i� Arrii �i� A� n4 � zl— iIt i 1 .��r /•` •r NI� /O_OINNI Il1AlL RIGHMA/ ROUT[ NO ii1 � Nllli: Y •N • YrrN 1lRO 2 i /f•rn MIF4 r Cr .. w•ri �wm w w.w�3N w4MatW'w n , r'r.•�r. rxllwr • • 1�n a. .'N IW I.0 Yr r. .M wn••. WYI f.r tr •u Raven 11 W1 rY... r.wr L• M1+.w.nMY • •. ul.•rl va•wq..wn. M• rwY• rNl w w•wIr •rn w•.YN uxxn. •.•..I Ave•... •» ..•• . • nl .Nr N.w «rwr.nYw,w.lrrlrlY r arm N....•... l.n•) nrrrrmuY.N ONI NNN..W .1 �wY111 .Nr1aYUNI1«xn N.•wW IwY nt • n • Y••U UIU UW N•U w11•nl rrw I!1 Wn1•n•U. INI.• N • . •I. YNr rrWl O Y :wn Nw A'Iw1 Y rI. N•rwY . IN, nY M r�.li �l•"i Mi.11 M 27 m v.:r;a •I:, 'Y 11• • G11:. mil n1:.SI11 I{ TRACT NO. 9409 IN 1N[ LOUNIT Of SAM .(.NL.OIMO YINO A AP/IrISIN o )LNQl I Q PIWL w W is u WCOUO I, 5001 SW fARaL WAS rM< IS. W02%7S IF 1N (a+MT V SAN 6'/MA0IiO STAR 6 culfwA SAW a O a WITS =110 (IOIIaLAi Q'ILA10. "Llf"U 1: ^Ylll�n`wiwi`�S S •+ • •• AV V { rvvATj L 1 _ t' f 1, {9 d has .. '� � � r`N• 1 YI ar A •Ot to 2 w • • • L'.' ✓g' II xut 'S.0 i II as eI I Is It ; n fill Las . .. ✓n =,�� tC of 4 = P aO y•' to � � i •+ • •• AV V { rvvATj L 1 _ t' f 1, {9 d has .. '� � � r`N• 1 YI ar A •Ot to 2 w • • • L'.' ✓g' II xut 'S.0 i II as eI I Is It ; n ` v o F tat IL y•' to � � t. t .•...r IYy.r iIL �� i I ` rwi i S c ' la wM J It 11 b num . .... �' �• �sl:t�: ...j FOOTHILL •OULIVANS licit NIGNNAI AWE A0. 69)_i • • a:N. .IB 44,4." 1. S. Nr J ■, 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January J, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: CCNSENT CALENDAR TRACT 9458 - Release of Bonds Located on the southeast corner of Ivy 4u:e dnd Baseline OWNER: Fred Schneider 1907 Olenvood Lana Newport Beach, California 92660 Performance Bond (Sever) $20,000.[0 Performance Bond (Water) (Surety) $35,000.00 ( Surety) NOTE: The sanitary aawer and water systems were approved by the Cucamonga County Water District on 12/14/78. `� l 757977f �7�.7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1979 TO: City Council FROf: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR TRACT 9484 — Release of Bonds Located between beryl Street end Hellman Avenue, south of Hillside Road and north of Banyan Street 0UNER: David N. Long 1321 Vista Street Etiwanda, California 91739 Performance Bond (Water) $26,000.00 (Surety) NOTE: The sanitary enter system was approved by the Cucamonga County ',later District on 12/12/78 3� • 1 e } ? a I 3; OIL 1— °ii ftLLIYt d[[ L \a•, LAkC t Ril• I tt FF;� 411 11k '� ,_ 'O �� �•. �� ? a i�lf- I = 9},. + /1 t 10 OD ' iit• � t << �♦ � [ 1 I: ju YM t'l:J• S '� - M[lLY1Mn NIMV[ c��iM[ I`�t` } ? a I 3; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: CONSENT CALENDAR TRACT 9602 — Ralease of Bonds Located on the north side of San Bernardino Road cant of Carnelian Street OWNER: Matrayek Naees, Inc. 655 North. Mountain Avenue, P. 0. Box 1410 Upland, California 91786 Performance Bond (Sewer) $43,000.00 (Surety) Perfocnance Bond (Water) $44,OCO.00 (Surety) NOTE: The sanitary sever and water systems were approved by the Cucamonga County Water District on 11/9/78. 33 T•R 41 NO. 9602 i IN THE COUNTY OF SAIL BERNARDINO SLIKO A SUSCMLON Of LOT s, SUSWVJS10R•5•, CUCAMONOA \UIEYARD TOACE. As PER MAR RECORDED n OOON 30, PAGE 45. Of MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN OERNARC.NO COUNTY. CALIFORNIA �J S.Mg,••.d JPry Nt ENGOICER•S NOTES • 4d d/f ,eJ /•as. ....rn, hgld'Atl fU}.: rrn.•., .non .Mer...,e /w /rd 5.0 l j .d pr J..a.. /.s. h/ A.,,.n A,. .s M. b,u ./ b..ruryyrr I bry JM rwJrLns ./J.n Oa•/or.lr. i'r*, lt..I N. )t b/, WET OF LANDMARK CO %WLTANTS UPLAND, CALIFORNIA M /a, n.d b /••id n /b . / /r. csl, /..d. ✓! , Corn // S.•.ryw -7 n.w....a,J L.Y A•„ . n,a•.. p..d I Enlry/./.J /w+,py+ndbi PSM•d AR /H IUSL..H., RAM /U! CLC s/ / ,6 /N J!!! i A .T O `O t P n O C V O • i M < r Y � :kf 3�1 ,:;jy eNEU A OF t SHECTS Tfii;WT N0. 9602 • IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DERNARDIr70 BCINO A SUPOMSRIN OF LOT S. 9401YISION'0'. CUCAMONCA YNICYARD TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK :D. PAGE N. LANOM[RK CONSULTANTS Of NAM. N[COROS Of SAN BERNARNNO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA UPLAND. CALIFORNIA A.A /RApf Nn T:<J Ara FI I.' trA �..H Y��.• Jr/N � \V .+sr. •NJei ix'd r/,/ , I I I � I I � JY N ii Ar. 'A •�. N i :e i 1 At C z : ` . 'ti. ; \ 1t• Z7.N inn I `'• �jii LS .ate .I)��N wN °., ,(,qa' \�..rr'r I N Nv tl r "i,� /f ryM AS •'I a ',•r•H" -- ��i M {t i.•...;ts,•,•,:1 CHI I pop- fV r: {f `dre dw <er < t- ORDINANCE N0. 49 AN ORDINANCE OF THI CITY OF RANCHO t11C4HONCA, CALIFORNIA REZONING ASSESSOR'O FARCEL NO. 202 - 191 -13 FROM R -1 TO AP GENERALLY LOCATED (:N THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 19TH SF AND HERMOSA AVE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 01' RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOOS: FICTION 1. The City Council hereby finds awl detnrmines the following: a. That the Pla -tning Coomission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing teld in the time and manner prescribed by law, recommends the rezoning of the property hereinafter described, and this City Council hap held a public hearing in tae time and manner prescribed oy les and has duly hc.�O and considered setd recommendation. b. Tha- thin rezoning to consistent with the Central Plea of the City of Rancho Cucamonga present and Proposed. e. That this retuning will have no significant environ- mental impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed herein. SECTION 2. The following described real property is hereby rezoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map to hereby amended accordingly. R -1 (single family residential) to AP (administrative professional) Said property is located on the northeast corner of 19th St. and Hermosa Ave. known as Assessor Parcel No. 202 - 191 -13. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF ,1978 k h .yl ATTEST: �tr$ pY•1rt Mayor Reecho Cucamonga I 3G r V e re CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 19)8 TO: CITY MANACER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JACK LAN, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Zane change No. 78 -05 - Southern Califorria Lutheran Church -- to chb,.do the zone from R -1 (single family residential) to A -P (administrative /professional) for 5 51 acres of land located on the vest aide of Haven Ave., north of Lemon. At the December 13, 1978 Planning Commission meeting the Commission recommendec approval of ZC 78 -05. The discus3lon centered around the future alignment of Banyan Avenue and the resulting property. The City Engineer's office has Indicated that the best alignment of Banyan Ave. uould be that as shnwn on Exhibit "A ". The church concurs with this alignment bnd has tentative plans to use the remaining property on the north side of Bbryan Ave. as a chapel Any development of the site will require site approval and review by the Planning Commission. Doug None, representing the Southern California Lutheran Church, is requesting approval to change the zone from R -1 to A -P on 5 51 acres of land located an the west side of Haven Ave., north of Lemon Ave. (Exhibit "A "). The eventual intentions of the Church is the development of a church facility. Such develop- ment would come before the Planning Commission at the time they submit a site plan. The proposed Ceneral Plan indicates this area as mixed use development. The subject site is presently zoned R -1 and Is vacant. The surrounding zoning and land use on adjacent property In as follows: The proposed cone change is consistent with the proposed General Plan and the aite is suitable in size and shape to accommodate the ones permitted in the prolmued zone The uses permitted in Bard tone are compatible with adjacent land uses and future development In the fazediate area. The Planning Commission has reviewed this project for significant adverse impacts on the environment. Attached is the environmental analysis staff report which recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration 37 Zoning Land Use North R -1 Flood control basins South R -3 Vacant land East R -1 Chaffey College and vacant land West R -1 Single family residential The proposed cone change is consistent with the proposed General Plan and the aite is suitable in size and shape to accommodate the ones permitted in the prolmued zone The uses permitted in Bard tone are compatible with adjacent land uses and future development In the fazediate area. The Planning Commission has reviewed this project for significant adverse impacts on the environment. Attached is the environmental analysis staff report which recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration 37 r® —'44a,.P''�' Page 2 A Notice of Public hearing was pt.blished in the Cucamonga Times on December 21, 1978 In addition, notice of sai4 hearing was moiled to property owners within 300 ft. of subject property. No correspondence has been received In regard to such notice. The Planning Co=iaoion rsco®enits approval of ZC 78 -05, Respectfully submitted, 1 JACK LAh, DIRECTO:c P _ _ CMQMI'IY DEVEIAP'MUIT JL:NV:olm Attachments: Location map Environmental analysis RcEolutlol 78 -34 Ordinance Pi 1 0 Zo1JE MO. 78-05- LOGATIOW MAP L42AwaJ ■ Z !1! a .qDRTR F��-Xwff,-'W- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT Date: December 13, 1978 To: Planning Commissia: From: Director of Community Development Subject: EUVIRONHENfAL ANALYSIS OF ZONE CHANCE NO 78 -05 - A change of zone from R -1 to A -P for 5 51 acres of land located an the vest side of Haven, north of Lemon BACKGROUND/ENVIRORfENTAL SETTING: The apt,iicants are proposing a chance of zone from R -1 (single family residential) to A -P (Administrative Pro- fessional) for 5.51 acres of land located on the vest side of Haven north of Lemon. the applicant's lntedd to eventually develop a church which shall Include an elementary school to grade 8 and a day care center. The site which alopea in a southerly direction, fronts on pavan Avenue which is a major thoroughfare. The site presently contains an abandoned vineyard, no other significant vegetation Is visible, nor a significant amount of wild- life ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The following is the discussion relative to the environmental checklist: 4 -d: This change of zone will reduce the potential for further agrl- culLure production on this site This is not a significanc impact as the existing vineyard was abandoned prior to this project and the site is mastur planned for mixed use develop - meet 7 -a: This project will subutantially .hani;e the potential land use of the site from single family r ?sidentisl to mixed uses Staff feels this is rot significant as he general plan projects this type of use and that the site fronts on a majot arterial. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds, after review of tha Initial Study, that this project will nut result in significant adverse impacts on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Re f pectfully?subbmitted, JACK LAN, Director of Attachment: Initial Study Community Development 116 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant ' Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form nust be completed and submitted to the Development ' Review Committee through the department where the pro3ect application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten - (10) days before the public meeting dt which time the project.is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied l by the applicant giving further information concerning y the proposed project, PROJECT TITLE: Southern California Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: P.O. Box 6880, Los Angeles, California 90022 (213)728 -0228 Attn: Mr. Tom Butz, F,,..ness Adninistrator NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE COFTTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: NONE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Mr. Doug Hone 7333 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cuc=aonga, California LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Went side of Haven Avenue, north of Lemon Avenue, contiguous to tract 9427 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE ARE FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TILE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Flood Control District-Flood Hazard Report, Local Fire Protect Ion -X9EfEy- Water PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _ Worship_ facility forShetherd of the Hills ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY- 1 51 It" Square footage of proposed buildings shall be submitted at a late-• data upon submission of afTn nonrnvnl. DESCRIBE THE ENVIROMENTAL SETTING OF TILE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING -PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Abandoned vineyards setting south of Metropolitan Lines and San Bernardi Connty Flood Con[rnl hnai f 111 II A 111ZA­Dir9JttJV vast of ad acent prP lnele fnmlly rpg1danCes der construr.Zlon. Property io4 of sublecc yroverty 1- vacant, tl R -3 5 ble Property ill have master Planned Bnnyan Street ext di through said site. thereby opening vital east /wear link to Rancho Cucamonga Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? NO �Z WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO , X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? x 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)! X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? x 5: Remove any existing trees? How many ?_ ,X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: 04 with the attached zone change request -- Requesting zone change from R1 to IMFORTTNT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnish, above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted 1; before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date /O- 2- 78 �i Signature //� f �7 , _ I.,, Title _ ,Fill. dA i 1_le_ ri ZOMC- 60+f6fi MO. -78,05- Loc/siri ,) MAID . Y �MIY %'J MOM T' 1- ylll y 3 A:- • , • ( l CITY OF RANCHO CUCA)IONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: I 11jachg r .L APPLICANT: �.'4(.[iROpN If�ISOFNIA �S,I.IIPYfl.VI [�LVt 4fi1 ADDRESS: - PHONE NUMBER: FILING DATE: �(�( LOG NU.-t8_os PROJECT S me 6 �YYYL---"""r eYl1,(���i P 1� AP PROJECT LOCATION: VJA If j:kV AA n4 �J=.m I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the the proposal result in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? / 7" b. Distruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil ?_ / C. Change in topography or ground T surface contour intervals? T d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? / e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off / site conditions? / I � /!1' OF RANCHO l 1 . Page 7 a YES MAYBE NO , f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? 71 g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Ii. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology Will the proposal result int a. Changes in currents, or the • course or direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? / , i b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? 7t 3 c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood wr,ters? / d. Change in the amount of sur- face water in any body of water ?_ V o. Discharge into surface waters, or r,,, alteration cf surfacst wat• r y iality? _ _ [ 7 f. Alteration of groundwater • characteristics? _ g ,'. g. Change in the quantity of • groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through inter- ference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? T > #r (( h. Tlie reduction in the amount of water otherwise available p,;;• for public water supplies? _ _ �t Page 2 �6'Y OF RANCHO CUCANONCA /PART II - TNTTLAI r.,...... (-i Page 3 i. Ex YES posure of people ar property MAYBE NO to water related hazards such as flooding or seicl,rs? _ _- 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal result in: a. Constant or periodic air emission from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary source3? _ b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of appli- cable air quality standards? T ... Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or tem- perature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ f C. Introduction of new or dis- ruptive species of plants into an area? _ 7f- Y^ d. Reduction in the potential F, for agricultural production? _ x' Fauna. Will the proposal result in:^ �r a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? e , b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered �.* "> species of animals? 0 Q Y OF RANClio CUCANONGA i PART II - INITIAL STUDY t Page 4 1 YES MAYDE NO c. Introduction of new or disruptive ' species of animals into an area, or result In a l.arricr to the migration or movement of animals? — -- d. Deterioration or removal of exist- ing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Will the proposal alter the loca- tion, distribution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the - -- human population of an area? - b. Will the proposal affect exist- ing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? -- I 6. Socig- Economic Factors. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property -- values? b, Will project costs be equitably distributed among project baneficiaries,i e., buyers, -- tax payers or protect users? 7. Lantl Use and Planninc Considerations. W 11 the proposal result in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? I -7L — — b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities ?_ — c. An impact upon the quality or quan- �,_ ttsy of existing consumptive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? — 1 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . PART II - INITIAL STUDY L Pape 5 / l ' YES MAYBE NO 8. T_rans ort�a Lion. will the proposal result�n: a. Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? 11 ' c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? 7C. d Substantial impact upon exist- ing transportation systems? e. Alteration% to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? -f C. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? _- _ g. Increasm in traffic hazards,to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result tn: a a. A disturbance to the integrity ;. of archaeological, paleontolo- .r gical, and /o, istoricalresources? -' 10. health, Safety', and Nuisance Factors. .`a,. 4ITTY the ptopos. 1 result in: i?s a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ?c; b Exposure of people to potential ' health hazards? __ 1 ' c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of mt accident" 4' ai =Y1 " i OF RANC110 CUWiONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY / r d An increase in the number of / individuals or species of / vector or patbenngcnic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increases in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? 11. Aesthetics. will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b The creation of an aesthetically i offensive site? c A conflict with the objective o designated or potential scenic C corridors? a 12. Utilities and Public Services. will tile proposal resu t in a need for new systems, or in alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c Communications systems? d water supply? +a, e. wastewater facilities? f Flood control structures? I{ C g Solid waste facilities? `l h. Fire protection? •� i Police protection? s: i•_ k �• Schools? k. P.u•ko us atlior reerrauonal 4." rar I11t it 12. I I Page 6 YES MAYBE NO f — — 7r- — f s , • r� OF WIC'd0 CUCAlJollGA ART TI IiIITIAL STUDY T _ _�.�.. w.a.•in.t iCT —� Page 7 YES MAYBE NO Maintenance flood control - including roads and -- / facilities? T ;{ Other governmental services? m. arce Resources 13. } tll then proposal Use of substantial or excessive a. -- fuel or energy? -- b. Substantial increase in demand dY? -f ' uron existing creases 1 ' c. An increase do the demand for • develop•cnt of new sources of ' energy? — — d. An increase or perpetuation of - renewable t the consumption of non when feasible forms of energy, renewable sources of energy �' •'� are available? — 1: Substantial depletion of any e. nonrenewable or scare natural -- resource? — f la. Mandatory Find in s of Si nificance. Does the project have the potential a. to degrade the quality Of the envirosalent:, substantially reduce the habitat Of a fish or wildlife fish or wildlife species, cause a population to drop below self suntaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or {tter endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of > the major periods of California history or prehistory? _ -- °t b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, " environmental goals? to short- the environment is sj term impact on W � �f. Il. u YY�-I e`) I c i t. J page 8 one whic;l occura in YES MA— YBC NO a relatively brief, definitiv„ period of tlmc while long -term ilnl,a cts will endure well into the future.) - c Does the project havr. impacts which / —_ 7 are individually limited, but cumulatively ccnsiderable? (Cumulatively cons,derable means that the ineremontal effect. of an individual project are con- siderable when 71cicd >n conner.Lion with the effects of Past projects, o`hor current Projects* and probable future Projects ) -- 1z I. IUCa ill.' Iq'U )l•Cl 1:1 \'e t'11J11'Jb- :c•cntal rl ll CLa Llllc•h 1.1)I rauar II ❑tin 1.1 lit 1,.1 v. .l.i , al pl I votn on hlpp(I t� l•,•I ilf.. I I.hr1 d)1•ectly or 111111•'• LIB'• I1. DISCUSSION OF EIIVIRONMF.NTAL EVALUATION. (1 e., of affirmative answers LO the above questions plus a discussion of proposecl mitigation measures. °wee cl#acG,nled. �f. Il. u 4 L I'J I11•'1•I.I,IIIIL,'I 111:! ('1'0 be I rtl Gy I hl. L•;Id 41•unry On Lhc tetra :; 1 Y Ih1 IIi11111 rva luul l n: 1 I'In.l 111V prllpu rd pl•0jVCL 111111.0 1101' II:I I'L• ;11;u11'1 rant cfl l•cL u, ILt• ,nvl roi u.e:el, '111.1 ., II!Cl.'1'IVIi UIiCII,R4'I lull tll l l la 1.1 •, Lu•I d i 1 1.11.1 h.l ., Ithlny,h Lhr Ir.y 1 „•p•,L ,.u)k111:•0 :.Il,ul 1 1,.,111 , YI'ort un Lltc cavil,.luo�•nl, Lhevu ul l] noL L, ,1 Ipull't,.uil OT. C4 In L,i: , 6rY a,iau hr m1L11,.ILl.u1 i,e,:.ures dr::cr161••1 tl11 ..n oll;,chvd Lhcul h,tvr I•„n 4 Lo the In WILL IhO /l1PIi ULlIAn4T1011 . `% ( 111.11 Iho n n i• effect ] n " LCCII. 111P4C1 1!11011r NItI l ct-d !!! P _d��� /'�” �s.•C. ( V�'GY•V�`i,7S(i'f� %.Y�Rdt]fr✓ I�ul• W , RESOLUTION NO. 78 -34 A RESOLUTIOr OF TAE RANCHO CIICAMDhGA PLANNING COMISSION FOR TIIE ADOPTION OF ZONE CIIANGE NO 78 -05 TO ORDINANCE NO 17 61 CNA4GINC TIIC ZONE I'9011 R -1 to A -P FOR 5.51 ACRES LOCATED ON INC NEST SIDE OF HAVEN, NORTH OF LEMON - ASSESSORS PARCEL :10 201- 821 -48 URCREAS, on the 15th day of November 1978, an applicntlon vas filed and accepted on the above described project; and IDICREAS, on the 13th day of Dccmber, 1978, the Planning Commission ield a duly advertised public hearing pursunnt to Section 65854 of the California Government Code SELTf ON i_: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cnamisnion has made the following findings: 1 That the subject property is suitable for the uses Pero tted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surround - ing area; 2 The proposed zone change would not have significant im- pact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3 That tie proposed zone change is reasonobly in conformance with the proposed Gencrol Plan SIXTIO_N _ ": The Rancho Cuanmmnnen Planning Covmisaton has frund that this project will not create a significant adverse Impart on the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration on December 13, 1978 NMI, THEREFORE, RE IT RCSOLVED: 1. That parsuant to Sertfon 65850 to 65855 of the California Covernment Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 13th day of December, 1978, 7ono Change No 78 -05 2 The Planning Cnmmisslnn hereby reeommcndn that the City Cnuncil npprnve and adapt 7onc Chnngc No. 78 -05 3 That a Certtfird t'npv of HOP ResoWtWn and related mntcrial hcrvby ndupted b/ the Planning Commission .hnll be forwarded to the Citv Counrll APPROVED AND AOOPTEII THIS 13TH DAY 111' h_CGIRER, 1978 PLANKING COtD1ISSION OF TIM C17Y OF RANC110 CUCAiIONGA fr 'Y v I Yl i• a 'F ti I _ BY: ' A Hermon Rempol, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission It Jack Lnm, Secretary of the Planning Commission of tiie City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of December, 1978. a i AYES: C(k81i SSIONERS: NOES: COIRIISSIONCRS: ABSENT: CO18115SIONERS: des r i gg, N; t 4m :Z Ll • , 0 ORDINANCE NO. 51 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REZONING ASSESSORS PARCEL 110. 201- 261 -08 FROM R -1 TO A -P. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Cicy Council hereby finds and determines as follows: a. That the Planning Co ®ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time and place and manner described by law, reco®ends the rezoning of property hereinafter described, and the City Council has held a public hearing in the time an4 manner described by law and has duly heard and considered that recommendation b. That this rezoning is consistent with the Ceneral Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga present and proposed. c. That this rezoning will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Dec:aration 1s hereby adopted. SECTION 2: The following described property is hereby zoned in the manner stated, and the zoning map is hereby amended accordingly: The subject property which is generally located on the west aide of Haven Ave north of Lemon Ave. adjacent to the south side of the H W 0 right of way. Parcel number 201- 261 -08 is rezoned according to the following designation: From R -1 (single family resider,.Ial) to A -P (,,Aminf9trative /professional). This ordinance shall be in full force effective at 12:01 a.m. on the 012t day after it is adopted PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _ DAY OF 1979. Mayor • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1979 TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Zone Change No 78 -06 Hcne /Gorgen -- to change the zone from R -1 (single family residential) to A -P (administr•-�ve /profeealonal) for 9 7 acres of land located on the southw orner of Baseline and Hellman The Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 13, 1978, held a public basting to consider the above zone change and recommended approval by the City Council as indicated on the attached resolution. Mr None and Mr Gorgen, joint applicants, are requesting approval to change the zone from R -1 to A -P on 9.7 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Baseline and ]dellman (Exhibit "A "). The applicants would eventually like to develop th's area as a professional office complex that could be integrated with the existing library and Community Services building located on the south side of Baseline. The proposed General Plan Indicates this area for developnent as mixed uses The subject site is currently zoned R -1 and 1s vacant. Surrounding zoning and land use of adjacent property Is as follows: Zoning Land Use North R -1 single family residential South R -1 single family residential and vacant land East. A -P vacant and professional offices Neat R -2 residential, community facilities The proposed zone change Is consistent with the proposed General Plan and the site is suitable in size and shape to accommodate the uses permitted in the proposed zone. The uses permitted in said zone are compatible with adjacent land uses and future development In the immediate area Further, adjacent streets are designed to accommodate uses that would be permitted in the proposed zone. The Planning Com;misalon has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration for this project based on the attached Initial Study No significant adverse impacts on the environment were found as a result of this project. A notice of public hearing was published In the Cucamonga Times on December 21, 1978 In addition, notice of said hearing was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property During the public hearing before the Planning Commission there was on public opposition expressed. 0 Page 2 RECD- WENDATION: The Planni,,g Co=Ission recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 78.06 b/ udopting tha attached ordinance. fReacc tfully hubmitted, JACK VjD,,RiT R OP COMMUNITY DEVELOPHENT JL:T:V i elm Attachments: Exhibit "A" Environmental Analysis Resolution 78 -35 Ordinance ` �n z 0 a�uN� I /Zo8�1t� 7 0 't hubjecf J�; :. ZONE GNANGr= NO. -713—o& L—OLATION MAP NORTA T;w tl-->rr `A` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT Date: December 13, 1978 To: Planning Commission From: Director of Community Development Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF ZONE CHANGE NO 78 -06 — A change of zone from R -1 (single family residential) to A -P (administrative profeealonal) for 9 7 acres of land located on the souttweat comer of Baseline and Hellman BACKGROUND /ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The applicant is proposing to change the zone far 9 acres of load located on the southwest corner of Baseline aid Hellman Avenue from R -1 to A -P. Tha Site is presently vacant containing per- ennial grasses native to the nreu, some rodents, gophers and lizards. There are also some native non - migratory birds observed Such trove, sparrows, doves and mockingbirds. The site contains several avocado trees and walnut trees. There is a water course through the property which abuts San Bernardino Couity Flood Control District to the south and provisions have been made for the drainage within said facility. The site slopes dently southwesterly and includes a hill on the South end of the property arising approximately 45 ft. in height from the arreet level. Residential development abuts the south and vest portions of the site, Hellman Ave. borders the east edge of the site, and Baseline borders an the north edge of the Site. There are no known cultural or historical values on the Site. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The environmental checklist did not indicate any Significant aspects as a result of this project ERVIR02M AL ANALYSIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds, after reviewing the initial n[udy, that thin projert will not result in Significant adverse impact on the environment und, therefore, recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration. submitted, --_J ;--�ww' -a JACK I-AM, Director of Community Development JL:HV: em Attachment: Initial Study CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONCA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PP.:)JECP INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring onvironmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review - - Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meetinq at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report 3) An additional information report wshould beesupplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the ro p posed project. PROJECT TITLE: RANCIIn PROFESSIONAL OFFICES -PHASE II APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE- NONE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. - C. Doa lag GOL en (714)989-1 g 8 7333 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 - PARCEL (208 -011 -1 NAME. ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Ilona and Associates, Inc at 7333 Hellmal ASSESSOR PARCEL N0.) on baseline Road and LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGFNCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Flood Control Dlitrict -Flood hazard Report, Local Fire Protection ae.......,- 4 t i PROJECT DESCRIPTION squat'. ESCRIPTION OF PROJECTi The described proposed lay -out shall be e arden-office complex with adm n s ra along - izo medical con4owtarams, r zizw -:e a {ta et• =� -- - -- -el-r— ell {a{6i LY I--- -- ----------- serve the -e*e,-&nA+y._and..p, or-Ps' n,1 _�fflrp sisarg 4n nonrhy area. Banking and L!^- eW nannulting n.r.Hr a na well as stock brokers. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:parcel (208- 011 -02 ) sere EI.801 Parcel (208 - 011 -04) acreaga� 1 9" The exact dimansions and act- u—s= square footage shall ba aumitte at hoeeo site opprova appliCUtT DESCRIBE. THE ElAhRONMYNTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMRTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLA14TS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a aeries of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may an a whole have significant environmental impact? This project includes the entire parcel numbers (209- 011 -02 and 04) being ...ter, a....... r.. ....e ,.o­, .._ i , 0 WILT, THIS PROJECTS YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration! X 3. Creato a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, X sewage, etc.)! 4. create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees! How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of 'potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: ti —The rear of the proper shall be elevated. Port== of the property shall be— lunied'based air sci parcels. 05 The removal of any existing trees snail oe aeteminea a Ptime of sfte approval. XMPORTA1rr: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. charIneNrIONt I hereby certify that the statements furnist abo -e and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowiedgo and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can to made by the Davalgpm�yt Review Committee. Date ssnyr nn 14 1978 Signature Date Noveober 16 1 978 _ MHJV 0 ` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: ,p�29T�9 APPLICANT:�Q)VE /(7nREj4A[ •r ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: FILING DATE: 11h /7 0 LOG NU -MBER 76 It 78 -06 PROJECT: -7,,,u ci" 4,rm a -( TD A -P PROJECT LOCATION: fjw( p� &a&((fVV } 1EA�n1Q/)'I I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" an^wers are •'t required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology, will the — the proposal result in: `- a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? 1 ' b. Distruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soi17_ / c. Change in topography or ground i surface contour intervals? -- j T d The destruction, cover'nq or ,i modification of any unique g. geologic or physical features? �( 9yw � 9 e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, ? s affecting either on or•off °;•�: site conditions? / M, M. Ctfy DF RANCitO CUCA1tONGA PART ti - It1IT1pL STUDY ...vuTAL G1IECKLIST , Page 2 f. Changes in erosion siltation, YES NAYDE NO _ or deposition? 9 Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, :mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 1:. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any nineral resource? 2 Ilyd rology. Will the proposal result in: a Chanqcs in Currents, or the - course or direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? 1 T b. Chanties in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amnunt of surface water runoff? _^ C. Alterations, to the course or flow Of flood waters? Y d. Change in the amount of sur- face water in any body of water?_ _ C. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? — f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? q. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either th,•Ough direct additions or with- drawals, or through inter- ference with an aquifer? Oual ity? Ouantity? — t h. Tile rcA-:ction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? v \yp,N� \O 11p\.5� 15T 'IS OF ci tt V G It - -- ��v1YOt — - – - PIAN41NC CWRIISSION OF TIIF. CITY OF RANCHO r.vrIQIONr.A , 0 0 C) Pare 3 i. Exposure of people or property YES NAYDE NO to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal result in: a Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? _ 4 b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and /or interference with the attainment of appli- cable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or tem- perature? -h 4. Diota _ Flora. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any sl:ccies of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction or new or dis- ruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? FAuna. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the characteristics Of species, including diversity, distribution, or members of any species of animals? b Reduction of the nnmbors of any unique, rare or endangered species or animals? PIAN41NC CWRIISSION OF TIIF. CITY OF RANCHO r.vrIQIONr.A , 0 r' 1� I f 1 A 11FSOC "SOLUr10ft N0. 78-35 rte.,,.__ orlon nV __ , Pa ;e 4 C. Introduction of new or disruptive YES MAYBE NO species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the Migration or movement of animals? d Deterioration or removal of exist- ing fish or wildlife habitat? S. POPUlatfon. Will the proposal result in: a Will the proposal alter the loca- tion, distribution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? - b W111 t.ic proposal affect exist- ing housing, or create a demand for diditional housing? G. SOCie- Cconomic Fa: tors. Will the proposal resu-f[Tn: a. Clianue in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including aconomic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? — — b Will project costs be equitably disc. ibuted among project beneficiaries, i c., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7 Land Use and Planning Considerations Will the proposal result in: a. A suhstantinl alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? . b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted Onus of any governmental entities?_ C. An impact upon the quality or quan- tity of existing Consumptive or non- consumptive recreational opportunities? --467 , e 0 10. Page 5 Transportation. Will the Proposal YES MAY13E No result in. a. Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for -- new street construction? c -- Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial - impact upon exist- ing transportation systems? e• Alterations to Present patterns of circulation or movement if People and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on -- present and Potential water- borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g• Increaacz in traffic hazard o motor s�t ..L -- / vehi =les, bicyclists or Pedestrians? Cultural Hesourccs. Will the - Pro)iosa re.s L pp a A disturbance to the 'ntegrity of archaeological, palcontolo- gical, and /or III storical resources? _ -- Health, Safet , r,nd Nuisance Factors. till Li1c Po sal resU tom' -'lno a. Creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to pot entia) health hazards? _— C. A risk of explosion or releaso Of 11a2nMous _ substances in the event of an accident? 0 I i 1 rare G r ` f ' YES NAYLE NO d. An Increase in the number of individuals at .^.lu.cles of vector at pathvno.c ^nic organisms or the- exposure of People to such organisms? e. Increases Ll existing / noise levels? f. Exposure of peapie to Potentially dangerous noise levels? i g. The crert.on of objectionable actors? h An increase in light or glare? 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction or degradaLion of any scenic vista or view? T b. T,•e creation of an aesthetically affenslvc site? C. A conflict with the objective of denignale.t or yotential scenic corridors? 12 t1t1litlee and Public Services. fJiTl [6c pc�opnaTrcnu7t 1n a need for now systems. or in alterations to the following: a. Electric power? b. Natural or packaged gas? c. Colemunica L ions systems? d. Water supply? C- lfastcwater.facilltiesY f. rino:t control strurtures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? I- P011ce i.rutoc Llan? I. k. Schouls? 1 /L,�•7 Parks m' other recroaLlonal (art 1111e4 � 1• Pa c? r ^ • YES MAYBE NJ 1. Maintenance of public facilities, ; Flj including roads and flood control facilities? " m. Other governmental services? r 11. Enneer and Scarce Resources. tf -min: Will Clio propose msu a. u3c of substantial or excessive ' fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon esistinq sources of energy? -- c. An increase in the demand for dnvelopuent of•new sources of - energy? — -- d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of onergy are available? -{ e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or bc3re natural resource? _--- �- I' la. Mandator Findings of Significance a. Does the prolecl have the potential to Icgrado th^ quality of the environment, nnbstantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop helow self 1' susLnininy levels, threaten to j� eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the ranqe of a rare or endannerrd lilant or animal or eliminate important examples of the mayor periods of California {(� hintorj or prehistory? _ —_ kYj b. noes the project have the potenLial to achieve snorL- term, ` to the disadvantage of Tony .ern, a� envirnnmontal goals? IA short- term impact on the environment is Fi.f4*I i:F••�:w ceh1Y.y e�✓r � - IV (^ - Pare 8 one which occurs in a relatively YES IMME 110 brief, definitive Ircriod of time while long -term i•I.t•acts will endure , v,11 into the future.) C. troll s the project )lave impacts which :ire individually limited, buL cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the Incremental effects of an individual Project are con- ' siderable when viewed in connection with the effects of Past projects, other current i Projects, and probable future Projects.) 1 •'I�•rl bnt•e �n;•livli- - � a.enl.11 1 11. 1 � r.hlrl, .11 I .•ml: r i :m h�.l dl t 1..I ...R ..1. .. .•1lrrl :: ,1 hwa.l. 1.•1u, n, rllL.�1 ,i11•vel p ai LISI1 l iy __ It a ti II. DI!iCUSS OII OF Y.tPJIrONMF.NTAI. EVALUATIbN, (i c., (of affirmaLive answets Lo the AbnvC querlions plus a discussion trf propocca riitigaLlon measures, l 1 ® r 0 RESOLUTION 110. 78 -35 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCRO CIIC,U%ONCA PLANNING CO1INISSION FOR ME ADOPTION OF ZONE CHANGE No 78 -06 TO ORDINANCE HO. 17 BY CIIANGINC TIIE ZONE FROM R -1 TO A -P FOR 9 7 ACRES LOCATED ON TIIE SOIMWEST COMR OF BASELINE. AND IIELUTAN - ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 208- 011 -02 and 04 MIE.9EAS, an tine 16th day of Nov :ember, 1978, nn application was filed and accepted on the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of Decrmher, 1978, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised Public hearing puraunnt to Section 65854 of to California Governnent Codc tile SECTION 1: The Rancho Cocaeongn Planning Coo-alsslon has made the fallouinp, findings: 1. That the subject property is suitable for tine uses Ppermitted In the proposed zone in terms of access, lze and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; 2. The proposed zone change would not hnve significant Impact on the environment nor the surrounding props, tics; and 3 Thnt the proposed zone change is reasonably in con- formance with the proposed General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rnr:cho Cucnmongn Planning Commisninn by a e found that this prof er[ will not nra[u a significant adverse impact on the envirerrment and has issued a Negativa Declaration on December 13, 1978 MI, THEREFORE. RE IT RESOLVED: 1 That Pursuant to Section 65850 to 55855 of the California Governmeot Ccde, that the Planning Commlaaion of the City of Rnnch�r Cucamonga hereby recomounda approval on the 13Lh day of December, 1978, Zone Chani:e No 78 -06 2 Tim Planning Cuvaisnlnn hereby rernmmenda that the City Cmrnc li nppmvr .nn.l adopt Zvrr Charmr Nn_ 7a_nc -11 3 That a Cert if fed Cnpv of this Resolution and related j, material hereby odupted by the PlanninN Crmrafsslnn Rho 11 be forwardnl to tliu City Cm.ncil APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF DECEIIDFR, 1978 PLANNING C01DI1SSION ,A' TIE CITY OF RANCIin mrmn:IGA "17 77 BY. Herman dompel, Chairman ATIESi: Secretary of the P1 snning Coamiaslan I. Jack I.om, Secretary of the Planning Co.aalom ton of thu City of Rancho Cucar,unga, do hereby certify that the foregoing re,alutien vas duly and Tognlarly Introduced, i' panned, and adopted by the Planning Comnt:wiuu of the _City of Rancho Cucatwrga at a regular meeting of the Pl:n,ning Ccmotosion held on the 17th day December, 1976, Al ES COIDIISSIONE": n� "r NC ES: COMISSIONER.St _ ABSENT: C@MISSIONERS: 1 •7 . 73) O , 0 ORDINANCE NO. 52 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFCF'.rA, REZONING ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO 208 - 011 -02 and 04. THE CITY COUNC -L OF THE CITE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLIO04: SECT20N 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines no follows: a. That Lhe Planning Cxmdusion of the City of Ldnche Cucamonga, following a public hearing bold _n -the time and place and manner deocribed by law, rocommecds the reconing of property hereinafter described, and the City Council has held a public hearing in the time amt marner described by law and ham dilly hoard and cdnaidared that recoe:endatior. b. net this rezoning Is com:iatenc vith the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucnmonga present zed proposal e. Thst thla rezoning W11 have no signif!cant envlrom ntal impact and it Negative Declaration is hereby adopted. SECTION 2: The follevini described property Is hereby zones in the manner stated, and the toitng map in hereby Amerind accordingly: The subject property which In generally located on the s :nathvest corner of Baseline Rd. and Hellman Ave, know as Assaunor's Parcel Huebere 208 - 011 -02 and 04 Is rezoned according to .he following dmsignatlon: Prom R -1 (aingle fmaf]y resliantial) to A -P (a-1min1intrative 1prnfeeaIo ^al). This ordinance shall be in full force effective at 12:01 a.m. on the 31st day after it is adopted PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF ._, 1979. �f ;i R tir rl ,{ P�� < W'j �:' -'fw: �..G�+�; Y,r4��1$... s n . r� a .. ... si,:: ,• r.r. nn.�lz.5 :$'"%P�iM1 It`�Y�Ct�iw l�lr ~w`�:�)�:~dat x'.. • w � ..a �. �,.� � • NS '�.vi• <:4(tl�.,� .:CSC:' "jr 4 �.`•.1r .�i b:Y�! ::. uau �• �+:.y.�.r.rc .r • a t C117 OF RABCRO CUCAR'=A STAFF REPORT Date: January 3, 1979 To: City Manager and City Counc,12 From: Jack Lan, Director of Comaanity Develop ant Sub,Ject: DRAFT EIR AND PRDPUSED Il1fEiD1 L4M USE, CERCOUTM AND PUBLIC FACILT.'IES MMMUS DP THE CLTM&L FLty The Staff Report and necessary eahibico were already give, to you prior to the completion of the city Comletl paapets. This w dear I, order to e11e you the matlmu, amcwt of time possible to r"hne the materials 7tfor co the City Council wearing. Respectfully submitted, JACK IAM, Director of Community Development JL: me 75 a s CM OF RANCHO CUCAYOI:.!A 10MORANDUM Date: Deember 20, 1971 To: City Council and City Haeager From: Jack lam, Director of Community Drielapment Subject: REVIS1011 OF RTSO=ION NO. 78 -25 ADOPTMIC A COMPREHENSIVE FEE RESOUMOR FCR TEE CITE OF RMCt10 CVCANCNCA On June 21, 1978, City Cmatcil adopted Resolution No. 78 -25 adopting the Comprehensive Schedule for the City of 6ancho Cueamingi; howtver, at the time the ive resalution was adopted, ry Schur the Planning, En3lncer_ing, nor Building fusectioos of the laity were establishA. Many of the fens adopted were merely copies of County fees vhirh ac the time may or may not have net the needs of the City Stuff is promoting that Resolution flo.78 25 be modified so that crrtffin faros may be adjusted to better reflect current needs an well as better crgani4ation of the r.!aolutlon to eliminate ccn- flicting feet as well as fees the City world uevur collect because tiieso have to barring whatsoever to anything a:eurring in tho City. The first =lot revision to this Resolution is s readjustment of all the build- 1-.g and safety fees; that fa, Nectiors 1 0 thret8h 1.9 These s•ictdoas cantsin fees for building pemits and icspe, tionn as put the Uniform 9u11ding Code, ]fechanira. Cr.de, Plumbing Code aid Natiaml Electrical Code. The lnterritional Conferee :a of Buildin;p Officials vhieh sImt1ops the Uniform Butleing Coda for the State of Califcrnl.a has recently revtsai the valuation flpores for nei CotStruL_ion in their 1979 code tditlon. Those valuatlo or have tit boa changed in about 5 or 6 years. The modification was mods to better reflacr the aunvt oast of construction which has mcimsed conniderably •&face air years ago. Since the I.C.B.O. Isis adopted this, fee schedule and w•11 be fotthtoming in the 1977 code, Staff .ages the City Council to adopt these tredifirations effective January 1, 1979 so that these Eery viii be rirrait as of that date. Furthermore, since the :uildln3 feet are :ajusted :o reflect current conditions, the mechanical, plumbing and electrical !sea should Bleu be modified consistent with tie wilding free. A grr74jD)Lp /a.e eheckfam Its has been added (Section 1.9.1). Slrtlal 2.0 through 2.14 pertains to all feev relative to the Plamin3 anJ Zonirg Of this section, the only fees rodified ate: Condltiatal Use Permits Hinter ftirtatioa and Environmental Impact Aepatts Specific plan (addition). These fees are adjusted in order to bettor reflect the cost of proccreing these a#plications. %6 Memorandum - Resolution No. 78 -25 December 20, 1978 Page 2 Sections 3.0 through 3.2 concerns the fees relative to subdivisions and engineering inspection. There has been an addition of: street vacation requests and removal of Notice of vlalation, and a modification of the engineering plan - checking fees from 1112 to 212. The additional fees would cover the processes that were overlooked when the first Resolution was adopted and the plan checking fee is modified to better reflect ti:e cost of providing plan - checking services. These services as the Council will recall are being performed by Engineering Consultants since the City has no plan checking staff. The 2112 is only intended to cover the mat of the consultants revi v. The AX currently does net. The advantages of hsving Engineering Consultants perform Lhe engineering plan -ebeck are speed and professional quality review. The uthet remaining portions of the Resolution are act modified except for changes in the section numbers to better organize the resolution. Non appur- tenant fees such ae mobile home park fees have been eliminated since these fees have no relationship to Rancho Cucamonga. (The County had these tees - because the County performed inspections of mobile home parks. Since the City does not bave responsibility for that there is no need for these fees). In summary, Staff recommends that the fee resolution be modified to better reflect current conditions of valuations of construction all well as modifica- tions to better meet the current needs of the City. NcSpect! 1 y submitted, JAACC11117K LAN, Dir -cc Community Development JL: an Attichments: Resolution V 0 0 -2- - rev For the issuance of each permit ............... I.. ....... ... ......$ 7.00 For the instillation or relocation of each forced air or gravity type furneco or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appli- ance, or and including 100,000 Stu /hr ...... ....I .. ... . .......... 6 00 For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity type furnance or burner, Including ducts and vents attached to such appli- ance over 100,000 Btu /hr . . . . . 10.00 For the installation or relocation of each floor furance, including vent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heat:;, re- cessetl wall heater or floor mounted unit heater . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit . . . . . . . . 6 00 For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each hating appli- ance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporation cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Code . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,00 For the installation or relocation of each Miler or compressor to and including three horsepower, or each absorption sytem to and including 100,000 Btu /hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 00 Fur the installation or relocation of each boiler or cunproasor over three horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu /hr to and including 1,000,000 Btu /hr . . . .10.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption sys- tem oter 1,000,000 Btu /hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/hr to and including 1;750,000 Btu /hr . . . .30.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor aver 50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu /hr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %40 00 For each air Handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 NOTE: 71tis fee shnll not apply to an air handling unit which is a portion of a factory assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a pormit is required elsewhere in this Codn For each -ir handling unit over 10,000 cfm . . . . . . . . . . . .10.00 For each evaporative cooler other than portable type . , . . . . . . . 6.00 For such ventilation fan connected to a single duct . . . . . . . 4.00 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air conditimdng system authorized by a permit . . . . . . . . . . 8.00 fur each alteration to a duct system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 ]:or each commercial spray booth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.00 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts of such hood . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,00 For the installation or relocation of each domestic type incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;.00 For the installation or relocation of etch commercial or industrial type incinerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,00 F For each appliance or place of equ!pment regulated by this Code n but not classes in other appliance categories, or for which no f other fee is listed in this Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 00 1.6.1, Additional inspections Nhere additional inspections are made necessary due to work not being ready at the time specified or due to work not corrected �Y. f i' °ti 0 me 0 after prior written correction notice, an additional fee cf $20.00 may be required by tix Building Official prior to rvinspection 1.6.2 Mechanical Plan Chec %ing Fees When plans are requlred n plan checking fee equal to 751 of the permit fee shall be paid to the Building Official at the time of plan suhmisslun. 1.7 Electrical Permit Fees A fee for each electrical permit shall be paid to the BuilC5ng Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Permit Issuance Fee for each permit issued 7.00 Services: For servics of 600 V or less and not over 2n0 amps, in rating, including 1 meter, each 10,00 For services of 600 V er less and over 200 amps, to 18000 amps, in rating, including 1 meter, each 25,00 For services over 600 V or over 1,000 apps in rating, including 1 meter, each S0 CO For each additional motor 5.00 New Resideatial Building - In addition to the fees for permit issuance and services as outlined in. Permit Issuance Fee and Services: For new, single'. duplex, end vultiple family dwelling for each square foot of gross 'loor area 01 For buildings accessory to new residential taildings con. strutted in conjunction with those residential buildings for each square foot of gross floor area ,OOS Other Construction - IN addition to the fees for permit issuance and services oulined above, fees for residential additions anti alterations and other buildings shall be us fnllowst Outlets and Fixtures - For receptacle, switch, lighting outlets, first 20 each 50 Additional, each .30 For lighting fixtures, sockets, or other lamp devices, first 20, each .50 Additional fixtures, each .30 Per Tole or platfova mounted lightingl fixtures, each .50 For theatrical.type lighting fixtures or assemblies, each .50 For fixed residential appliances not exceeding 1 HP, each 4.00 NO2Et For other tlpes of air conditioners and other rotor driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see power apparatus, For fined factpry wired non - residential appliances not exceeding 1 lip, kT or KVA, earl. 2.0 NM For other tlpos of air conditioners and other motor driven appliance having largor electrical ratings, see power apparatus, power Apparatus For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers; converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners, and heat purrs, cooking or baking equipment, and other apparatus, as fol.ows: Rating in lip, y.N, KNA, or WAR 2150 Up to and including 1, each Over 1 and not over 10, each :i.00 Over 10 and not over 5G, et.eh 12.50 Over SO and not over 100, each 25.00 136 -a- Over 100, each 30 00 NOTEt For equipment or appliance, having mart than ono motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the ' combined ratings may be used. NOTE: These fees include all switches, circuit breakers; contactors, thermostats, relays and other directly related control equipment Dulways For trolley and plug -in type busways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof 3.00 NOTE: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors, and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug -in type basways. No fee is r equired for portable tools, Signs Signs, outline lighting and marquee; For one sign and one branch circuit, each 10,00 For additional branch circuits, each 2,00 Carnivals and Circuses for eluctric Generators and electrically dr!ven rides, each 10.00 Fer mechanically driven rides and walk- through attractions with izghtin,,, mach 3,00 For area and booth lighting, each 3.00 ' For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use UNIT FEE SCHEDULE Temporary Power For temporary service polo or pedestal and appurtenances, each 10,00 For it teanorary distribution system for construction sites, decorative lighting, Christnas tree sales lots, fireworks stands, sales booths, etc„ each S.00 Miscellaneous For miscellaneous'conduits and conductors IS,OD For swimming pools, each 20.00 NOTEt ;wUming Pool fee Includes pump voters, integral lighting fixtures, and all wIT1111; and outlets necessary for operation of same. For additional electrical outlets or equipment, see UNIT FEE SCHEDULE above. 1.7,1 Gthar _ nspections For an extra inspection Wade necessary die to work not being ready at the time specified or due to work not corrected after prior written notice, each 20,00 For inspection of electrical equipment for which no fee is herein set forth ant, for atergency inspections for the time consume-d per hour 211,00 With a uinimum charge for is hour or loss 10,00 1,7,2, Elcctricnl Plan Checking Fees Nhet service switch size excmeds 000 amperes or 300 -jolts or �( whet, connected load exceeds 100 ®perms, a plan checkimll fee e equal to 7St of the el ectsictl permit fee shall he Pais to the Building Official at the ilme plans are submitted for a' checking, �s 1,7,3, Annual Electrical Maintenance peltapt 25 too V • -5- 0 1.8 Plumbing Permits A fee for each plumbing permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Permit Issuance Fee for each permit issued 7 00 For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping and backflow protection there- fore) 3.50 Rainwater systems encl sed within building structure /per drain 3.50 For each cesspool, seepage pit or supplemental leach line system 11 00 For each private sewage disposal system 22 00 For each building sewer 10.00 For each water heater and /or vent 3.50 For each gas piping system of one (1) to five (5) outlets 3.50 For each gas piping system of six (6) or more, per outlet .70 For each industrial waste pre - treatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen type grease interceptors function- Ing as fixture traps 5.00 For installation, alteration or repair of water piping and /or water treatment equipment 3.50 For repair or alteration of lrainage or vent piping 3.50 For each latm sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow protection devices on tanks, vats, etc , one (1) to five (S) 3.50 For vacuum breakers or backflow protective devices on tanks, vats, etc., one (1) to five (5) 3.50 Over five (S), each .70 For swimming pool piping, including water supply piping, backflow prevention devices, drainage piping, but excluding pool water heaters or gas piping 10.00 1 8 l Additional Inspections Where additional inspections are made necessary due to work not being ready at the time specified or due to'work not corrected after prior written cor.ection notice, an additional fee of $20.00 may be required by the Building Official Friar to re- inspection. 1 8.2 Plumbin6 Plan Checking Fees When plans are required a plan checking fee equal to 75% of the Plumbing permit fee shall be paid to the Building Official at the time plans are submitted for plan checking. 1.9 GradingPermit Fees 1, fee for each grading permit shall be paid to-,the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Feast antity of Cut and Fill Fee 50 Cubic yards or less $ 20.00 SO to 100 cubic yards 25 00 101 to 1,C00 cubic yards 100 cubit yards plus $7.00 for each add- itional 100 cubic )ds or fraction there- of 25.00 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $6 00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 88.00 an - _ I -6- Quantity of Cut and Fill Fee 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards or the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $27.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof, $142.00 100,001 cubic yards or Dora for the first 100,000 cubic yards plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic Yards or fraction thereof. 385.00 1 9 1 Grading P1An Checking Fees A prading plan checking fee in accord,ncr with the following 3cheu,._e shall be paid: Quantity of Cut and Fill Fee 50 -100 yards $ SOAP 101 -500 yards 100,00 501 -1,000 yards 200,00 1,001 -2,000 yards 250,00 - 2,001 -3,000 yards 300,00 3,001 -4,000 yards 350,00 4,001 -3,000 yards 400,00 5,001 -and up 450.00 The sum of co.t and fill yardages shall be used in computiug grading permit and plan checking fees 2 0 PLANNING REVIEW FEES 2.1 Site Approval $ 300.00 2.2 Director Review - - 2.2 1 Site development review 200.00 2 2 2 Signs, additions, alterations 25 00 2 2.3 Coordinated unlform sign programs 75.OD 2.3 Cunditlonal Use Permit ' 300.00 2.4 Teaporary Occupancy Permit Pee 25.00 2.4.1 Sales G2fice Cash Deposit 2,000.00 2.4.2 On -site subdivision sign cash deposit on sign 500.00 2.4.3 Off -alto subdivisiun signs cash deposit for all signs 500.00 2.5 Planned Unit Development 1,000.00 2.6 Minor Deviation 50.00 2.7 Variance 200.00 2.8 Zone Change 500.00 + 25.00Jac 2.9 General Plan Amendment 1.000.00 2.10 Specific Plan 1.000.00 2.11 Temporary Construction Offica 100.OD 2.12 Environmental Assessment 70.00 2.13 Environmental Impact Report Actual cost plus 20Z 2.14 Appeals 2 14.1 Appeal of a Director decision 50.00 2.14.2 Appeal of a Planning Comviusion Decision 100.00 �� P t i 1.0 SUBDNISION� PARCEL MAPS. FAT LINE ADJUSTMENTS IHPROVFMNT PLANS, PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION FEES 3.1 Applications 3.1.1 Tentative Tract Filing Fee S 500.00 + 25.00 /lot 3.7.2 Tentative Parcel Map 150.00 3.1.3 Parcel Map Waiver 150.00 3.1.4 Lot Line Adjustments 150.00 3.1.3 Certificate of compliance 150.00 3.1 6 Revert subdivided land to acreage 50.00'+ 1.00 /acre 3.1.7 Tentative Tract Map Appeal 200.00 3.1.8 Parcel Map Appeal 100.00 3.1.9 Tentative Hap Extension Request 50.00 3.1.10 Subdivision Agreement Time Extension 200,00 3.1.11 Street Vacation requests 100.00 3.1.12 Removal of Notice of Violation 100,00 3 2 Plan Checking Fees 3 2 1 Final Hap checking Fee $ 500.00 + 25.00 /lot or actual cost + 202, whichever is greater. 3.2 2 Parcel Hap checking fee 250.00 + 15.00 /lot or acttal cost + 202, 3.2.3 Improvement Plan Checking ee whichever 1s greater. B 24 l crceat of eat ,mated improvement coat or actual cost + 202 whichever is greater. 3.2.4 Engineering Inspection Pie 52 of improV�ement coat to $25,000 4yX of improvment cost nett $75,000 42 of Improvement cost over $100,000 4 0 Movina Buildings and,other extra Legal Load, (T) -- 4 1 House Moving and Transportation Deposit: Before Issuing the transportation permit, the City Engineer shall require of the applicant a deposit of a sum of money equal to twice the mount of the estimated expense to indemnify the City for such expenses, as wall as against Any loss or damage which the City may sustain by reason of damage or injury to any street, sidewalk, fire hydrant or other property of the City. Such deposit shall not be less than $500.00 or a Certificate of Insurance on file In the office of the City Engineer. 4 2 House Moving Permit: A fee for four (4) sections are subject to permit fee of $25.00 per caravan shall he paid by the applicant who applies for a house moving permit. 4.3 Wide Loads: Less than fourteen (14) feet - $3.00 per truck. Fourteen (14) feet and more - 510.00 per truck. 4 4 Annual permits: For loads not more than fourteen (14) feet - $25.00 par truck per year (any route) V 1 � b -g- 5.0 Repair or Emergency Work and Sehe lulad Jobe (V) — 5.1 Repair or Emergency Work by City: Work accomplished by the City to repair facilities damaged by a Contractor, agency or other Party and other emergency work shall be charged for in accordance with thu following schedule: 5.1.1 When work is accomplished by a Contractor engaged by the City, the charges shall be those established in the contract by: (a) Formal bid procedure, (b) Informal bid procedure, (e) Purchase Order, plus administrative coats in the amount of twenty-five percent (252) of the basic charge. When emergency repairs are necessitated due to darage to City facilities by a Contractor, City crews will be utilized - and charged at the then prevailing par diem wage rate as _ established by the department of employment for this area. 5 1 2 Mien scheduled or mutual aid work Is accomplished by City crews utilizing city equipment, the basic charge shall be computed on a time required basis during normal working hours. labor charges exceeding the normal working hours will be charged at time and a half (A times the labor rates listed below): labor Rates Maintenance Worker I $6.25 per hour Maintenance Works. II $7.00 per hour Equipment Operator $7.50 per hour Equipment Mechanic $8.00 per hour Lead Operator $8.00 per hour Field Supervi nor $9.00 per hour 6.0 Miscellaneous Fees 6.1 Returned Check Charge: A charge of ten dollars ($1C) will ho made for all checked returned by the customer's bank, 6.2 Penalty for Failure to Pay License Fees A penalty of 10% per month of the license fee due shall be paid for fnilure to pay a license fee within 30 days after the sme shall become due. !(axioum penalty 50% of license fee. The City shall collect in addition to the penalty due any coats incurred by the necessity to file suit for collection In the Courts 6.3 Replacement for lost or Destroyed Licenses A fee of $5.00 shall be paid for the rnplacment of lost or destroyed licenses. 7 0 Fen for Community Beautification: Community Beautification fees shall be as follows: 7.1 For each single family structure and m0ti -f ®Sly structure or in a hotel, motel, or dormitory, 20 cents per square foot of gross buildiig area under root, or two hundred dollars per each duelling unit, which- ever is the greater total aim. S5' •y -9- a a h 7 2 For each addition to a duelling unit In a single family condominium, apartment, duplex, or multiple - dwalling structure, or In a hotel cr dormitory, which addition consists of 650 square fact or more under roof, or which addition creates an additional duelling unit, 20 cents per square foot of gross building area under roof, or two hundred dollars per each duelling unit, which- ever is thn greater total sum. 7.1 For each trailer space, two hundred dollars with no additional sum for any directly accessory structure. 8.0 Cost of Living Adjustment: Planning Fees and Subdivision fees and the beautification fee shall be subject to an annual cost of living adjustment based on the Los Angeles /Long Beach connamer price indaa. For purposes of computation, the tweleve month period shall be from March to March. Adjustment to begin with fiscal year 1980 and annually thereafter PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1978. ATTEST: City Clerk i :` • s CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3, 1979 TO: City Manager !. City Council FROM: Lloyd Hobbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: FUNDING BASELINE AVENUE WIDENING EAST OF ARCHIBALD At the December 6, 1978, meeting of the City Council, the Engineering Division recommended that the Council allocate $5,000 towards the construction of street improvements located at 9817 Baseline fronting the proposed nursery/day care facility. These funds would cover a City portion of the construction of Improve- ments equal to 3/5 of the cost. The remaining 2/5 to be shared equally by she• property inner and the adjacent shopping center development. The Council continued this item to the January 3, 1979, meeting, to explore other options with the property owner and other additional facts. Staff has discussed with the property owner [ha possibility of a modified assessment proceeding in which the City will cover the cost of the improvement to be reimbursed over a ten year period through An agreement to be prepared by the City Attorney. The property owner has indicated that this is not satisfactory and that he will not participate other than the original split proposal RECOMMENDATION: The street improvements covered by this issue will be badly needed by the City in the near future. In lieu of the proposed cost split, the City will face acquisition of the property, preparation of Engineering contracts and au Independent contract for construction. The estimated cost of Improvements, under this method, would exceed $20,000 For this reason, the Engineering Division recommends that the most cost effective approach to this project would be the current proposed cost split. Respectfully submitted, LI.O HUBBS City Engineer LH:deb a'•W*�F.�y "' ='. t - - _ _ _ _ __ _ .. - - -. _ . -fir CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LATE: Jan 3, 1979 STAFF REPORT TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JACK LAM. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: AGREEMENT TO A MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECIIO1 75300 et. seq. TO INCLUDE DETACHMENT OF THREE PARCELS OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SO'JTW11EST PORTION OF THE CITY AS DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT 'A' AND ANNEXATION OF SAME PROPERTIES TO THE CITY OF ONTARIO. The City Council, at their meeting of December 6, 1978, directed staff to initiate proceedings to transfer three parcels of land to the City of Ontario. As the Council will recall, the City of Rancho Cucamonga mist adopt a Resclution of Reorganization to dcannex the parcels. Essentially. this resolution confirms the agreement between Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario to transfer the land. The City of Ontario will act as the lead agency. The pretoning, enviromentel revlew and filing action with the Loam Agency Formation Commission will be pro -asseo by Ontario. The ultimate decision will be with WOO and will depend on the agreement between the n•o cities and the property owners of the affected parcels. RECOMMENDATION: Staff reco®^_nda adopcion of Resolution No. agreeing to a municipal reorganization to include detachment of three parcels described on Exhibit 'A' and annexation of same properties to the City of Ontario. I , CT OR LAM. DIR C7'OR OR OF CO?0UNITY DEVELOPMENT JL:BMIi:elm Attachments: Resolution Exhibit 'A' — legal description of three parcels. Exhibit 'B' — location map. LqWLM a RESOLUTION NO. 78 -76 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AGREEING TO A MUNICIPAL REOWANIZAATION PUEStUNT TO COVERMKENT CODE SECTION 35300 et, seq. TO INCLUCE DETACIBLENT OF PROPERTIES AS DESCRIBED ON ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" AND ANNEXATION Or SAME PROPP..aTIES to P2 CITY OF ONTARIO. 6MMI'AS, the subject properties are separated fron Rancho Cucauen-.a by pbyslwl larriern including the Cura000ga Rash, =Jor streets and the AT 6 SF Railroai, IIHIMAS, tLe City of Ontario can more efficiently and adequately pro- vide autic Lpal setvir ca to said properties, taus benefiting property owners of said propO, tics, and Ltil7L:AS, the subject properties are core contiguous with the City of Ontario, acd future land uses of said properties should be compatible to existing land uses cf adjacent properties in Ontario, IOU, THEREFORE* BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Rancho Cucaconga, California, es follows: ATTEST: 1. The City of Rancho Cutaonnga agrees to the municipal reorganL- zation pursuant to Caverestnt Code Section 35300, et. seq. to Include detacbment of properties as described on the attached Exhibit "A" and annezation of same propertieS to the City of Ontario. 2. That the City of Rancho Cucamonga authorizes the City of Ontario to act as 1+•3d agency for the prezoning, environmental assessment and filing of action with the Local Agency Fottsation C....aLssios for said properties. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 1978. Mayor • I • EXHIBIT ' A' PARCEL 1 - That portion of Lot 4, Cucamonga Fruit Lands, Section 1S, T1S, R711, SBBM, as recorded in Book 4 of Maps, Page 9, Records of San Bernardino County, described as follows: Beginning at the intersections of the centerline of Vine- yard Avenue (60 feet wide) and Eighth Street (74 feat wide) ; thence South along ti , centerline of Vineyard Avenue 6S4.53 feet to a )mint on the South line of Lot 4, said point also being the Ontario City Limits; thence East along the existing Ontario City Limits 1,321 90 feet to the centerline of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; thence Northwesterly along said centerline to the centerline of Eighth Street; thence Nest along the centerline of Eighth Street to the point of beginslivg. IS 141 acres. PARCEL 2 - That portion of Lot 14, Cucamonga Fruit Lands, Section 1S, T1S, R7N, SBBM, as recorded In Book 4 of Maps, Page % Records of San Bernardino County, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Sixth Strect and the Nest line of the East one -half of Lot 14; thence North along said Nest line SS3.43 feet; thence Southeasterly along tho Nest line of the Cucamonga Creek Flocd Control Channel to the centerline of Sixth Street; thence Nest 262.56 feet to the point of beginning 1 67= acres. PARCEL 3 - Those portions of Lots 23 and 26, Cucamonga Fruit Lands, Section 1S, T1S, M, SBBM as recorded in Book 4 of Maps, Page 9, Records of San Bernardino County, describel as follows: Beginning at a point at the intersection of He)l- man Avenue (66 feet wide) and the prolongation of the South line of Lot 26; thence East along the S.ruth line of said Lot 26, 209 08 feet, said line also being the Ontario city Limits to its intersection with the westerly line of the Cueissonga Creel Flood Control Channel right -of -way; thence Northwesterly along slid westerly line and ats Northwesterly extension to a point where it intersects with the centerline of Hellman Avenue (66 feet wide); thence South along the centerline of Hellman Avenuo, said centerline also being the existing, Ontario City Limits, to the point of beginning. 2.162 acres. C..t .- PORTYON CUCAMONGA FRUIT LANDS M B. 4/9 z� PARCEL I- > I > East h a Lot 14 < b, IXTH t = x ST. PARCEL 2 3 " :JL LOCATION awl, xli_1__ __J. L MAP T� ? Cucarcanga Creek Flood ! Control Channel ales "Existing City Limits 1 i Proposed Annexation a� ' = 51 iT_ 7T. L �7�� f SCa.LH - _ L.�'� .�• .' I 411 -lot 400' — PARCEL 3 egend ( 1 F 0. W 0 M Z 2 Q v • • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATCt January 3, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: FEDERAL AID URBAN (PAU) PROJECT SELECTION The Congress of the United Staten recently passed the 1978 Federal Highway Act authorizing 800 m111on dollars per year for a four year period to th.. urban areas throughout the nation. These funds are to be distributed on a population basis. The distribution In our area In allocated by the San Bernardino Association of Governments ( SANBAG) through the Southern Californka Association of Governments (SCAC). SANBAG then splits these funds between the East and Went Valley portions of the Co.mty. The West Valley fund apportion -. ment of the 1978 Hlhgway Act will be $870,120 per year for the four year period The attached funds distribution show how these funds arc to be divided between the West Valley agencted The City of Rancho Cucamonga has been allocnted $275,812. These funds are to be assigned to specific projects prior to January 31, 1979, for submittal to the SANBAC Executive Board for adoption and submittal to the SCAG Transportation Improvement Program. The Engineering Division has been working with the Advisory Councils on the five -year Capital Improvements Program for several weeks and staff has developed a recommended FAU project lint and will report on the findings of the Advisory Councils at the January 3, meeting of the City Council. This matter will be reviewed at this meeting and continued for approval of project selections at the January 17, [resting. Attached for Council review, Is the current project needs inventory with eligible FAU projects identified and a list of the designated FAU routes upon which expenditures may be made The Federal Aid Urban program is a categorical program subject to all Federal Guidelines and the procedures of the Federal Highway Administration. In the selection of specific projects, these regulations are best given full consid- eration to enable the rapid development of projects and to nliminate lengthy Project review times Those elements which .an r -st impact the processing of projects ate significant environmental constraints and right of wav aeouisi- tion. With these constraints in mind, it is best not to use these funds in widening projects which add traffic capacity and require right of way acquisi- tion. Typical processing times for this type of project could be 2 to 3 years. Given current inflationary trends, it is best to not allow funds to be dissi- pated by unnecessary delays in construction. i J City Council Page 2 Januar7 7, 1979 The City In addition to its allocation of $275,812, is eligible. to compete for an additional $1,740,000 in Regional Projects funda. The West Valley Transperation Technical Advisory Committee (TTA(.') is currently reviewing project applications in this area and will be establishing project priorities on January 10 Rancho Cucamonga has submitted two projects to compete for these funds: Vineyard Avenue - From Arrow Route to the south City Limit widening, railroad crossing signal protection and signalization of Vineyard and Arrow Route cove Avenue - Foothill to rho south City Limit widening, railroad crossing signal modificarions, and Installation of signals at Eighth and Grove. - A liet of other West Valley City submittals Is also attached. Ine projects submitted were selected for their regional nature, high traffic volumes and significant traffic. accident experience RECCFAMDATION: It is recommended that Council review all of the attached information Including Advisory Council recoomendations for final selection of PAU projects at its January 17, meeting Respectfully aybm'lt /[ed, LL09 @BBS City Enaincor 111:deb s PAU FUND DISTRIBUTION NEST VALLEY (ANNUAL ALLOCATION) FOUR YEAR PROGRAM Total per year based on 1977/78 $870,120 R:gioual projects 50% 435,060 rransit projects 5% 43,506 Agencies- allocated by population 45% 391,554 Chino Montclair Ont..rlo Upland Rancho Cuuuaonga San Bernardino County LOCAL AGENCY FUNDS PER YEAR Population Percent Funds 31,000 13 49 52,821 22,651 9.86 38,607 66.600 28.98 113,472 40,450 17.60 68,914 40,470 17 61 68,953 28,659 12_46 48,787 229,830 100.00 391,554 17 STREET 1 Haven Avenue 2 Vineyard /Carnellan 3 Baseline 4 Foothill 5. Arras Route 6. Hellman Avenue 7 Archibald Avenue S. Turner Avenue I i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FAU ROUTES LIMITS Highland to Wilson Arrow Route to AT 6 SF Railroad South City Limit to Route 30 Neat City Limit to Haven West City Limit to Haven Etivanda Avenue to East City Limit Grove to Haven Arrow Route to Beselina Fourth Street to Route 30 Arrow Route to Badellne ;3 REC0104E11DED FEDERAL AID URBAN PROJECT LIST ? 1. Baseline — Vineyard to Hellman/Archlbold to Hermosa $100,000 Major resurfacing 2. Archibald Avenue and Church Street 60,000 Signals 7. Baseline and Hellman Avenue 60,000 Signals 4. Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street 60,000 Signals a S. Alternate Project — Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route 60,000 Signals a This project could be constructed in conjunction with the priv3sed regional project if approved by the Technlral Advisory Co ®ittee on January 10 W M 1000i STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ME YEAR FUNDS PROJECTION TABLE I Capital Improvement $440,000 $385,000 $382,000 $381,000 $330,000 $225,006 Funds Available HUB Block Grant Funds $250,000 raunty Budget $ 150,000 Carryover Estimated CIP Funds 2.573,000 (5 yeats) Available WO Fun! - 250,000 Funds Committee to - 700,090 Cucamonva Creek (Estimated) Funds Committed to - 400.000 Deer Creek (Estimated) $1,223.000 Available Funds for Maintenance 6 Construction Frojects. 78_79 7979 =80 80 -81 81_82 82 -83 83_84 Gas Tn, $380,000 $40,000 $462,000 $486,000 $510,000 $535,000 SB 325 00,000 375,000 400,000 425,000 450,00 450,000 Federal Aid Urban 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Subtotal $820,000 $885,000 $932,000 $981,000 $1.030,000 $1,055,000 Normal Haintenancu 3110,000 500,000 550,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 Capital Improvement $440,000 $385,000 $382,000 $381,000 $330,000 $225,006 Funds Available HUB Block Grant Funds $250,000 raunty Budget $ 150,000 Carryover Estimated CIP Funds 2.573,000 (5 yeats) Available WO Fun! - 250,000 Funds Committee to - 700,090 Cucamonva Creek (Estimated) Funds Committed to - 400.000 Deer Creek (Estimated) $1,223.000 Available Funds for Maintenance 6 Construction Frojects. LONG RANGE ROADWAY NEED INVENTORY MAINTENTANCE 1. Resurfacing 2. Hiner Widening 3. Mire. — Maintenance MAJOR PROJECTS TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND CONTROL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS �Y TOTAL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT NEEDS • 1 NEED $ 994,000 483,000 180,000 4,275,000 930,000 UNDETERMINED $ 6,862,000 $ 485,000 $ 38,000,000 L`V: ^;a•Z: Ji a��n woz..?•H �sy �';,,i ,s"e, �.-: .� .. <._ L� li_- t�•� _ _ __.� -I PROPOSED FIVE YEAR PROCRAII FISCAL YEAR 78 -79 1. Cucamonga Channel Bridge $ 440,000 79 -80 1. Cucamonga Channgal Bridges $ 26C,000 2. Baseline Overlay (FAD) 100,000 3. Signal - Archibald 6 Church (PAU) 60,000 4. Signal - Baseline 6 Hellman (FAU) 60,000 5. Signal - Archibald d Fourth (FAU) 60,000 6. North Town Street Improvements (ROD) 250,000 7 Baseline Widening - Beryl to Lion 30,000 B. Baseline Widening - 600' east of 30,000 Archibald - north side 850,000 80 -81 1. Deer Creek Bridges 300',000 81 -82 1. Deer Creek Bridge S 100,000 2 Carnelian Street Overlay 30,000 Banyan to Orange 3. Archibald Avenue Misc. Maintenance 100,000 4. Misc. Maintenance Overlay 88,000 from Priority List 718,000 82 -83 1 Majov Maintenance Projects $ 200,000 from Priority List 7. Major Project Design 60,000 260,000 83 -S4 1. Major Maintenance Projects $ 185,000 from Priority List 2. PAU Program Development for 70,000 New Highway Act 255,000 TOTAL $ 2,423,000 COUNTY CARRYOVER CONT. 150,000 TOTAL $ 2,573,000 I MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECTS STREET • 1. Baseline Avenue 2. Carnelian Street • 3 Archibald Avenue 4. Alta Cuesta 5. Arrow Route 6. Victoria Street • 7. Etlwanda Avenue • H. Etlwanda Avenue 9. East Avenue 10. Hermosa Avenue 11. Hallman Avenue 12. Baseline 13. Baseline 14. Various Local Streets s Eligible for PAU Funding LU41TS ESTIMATED COST Vineyard to Hollman/Archlbald to Ramom $ 100,000 Banyan to Orange 30,000 4th Street to 19th - Hisc. 400,000 Red Hill to Camino :forte 12,000 Hadraaa to Vineyard 20,000 Etivanda to Pecan 12,000 19th Strent to 23rd Street 40,000 I -15 to Baseline 35,000 19th Street to Sunmlt 25,000 Lemon to Banyan 15,000 100' south Alta Lama to Orange 10,000 Day Creek to Rochester 15,000 Etlwanda Avenue to City LWt 20,000 260,000 TOTAL $ 994,000 a ■ RECOMMMED !MINOR WIDENING PRIORITY a Eligible for PAO Funding STREET LIMITS ESTIMATED COST a 1. Baseline Beryl to Lion $ 30,000 • 2. Baseline 600' east of Archibald — north side 30,000 3. Ninth Street Grove to Viccjrard 30,000 A. Archibald Avenue Hillside to Banyon 25,000 • 5. Arrow Routs Archibald to Haven 60,000 6. Carnelian Street Wilson to Beachwood 10,000 7. Hillside Road Sapphite to Pearl 15,000 _ S. Turner Avenue Stafford to Effren 15,000 9. Highland Avenue Hermosa to Haven 35,000 10. Beryl Avenue Q PooLIl Freeway right of way 15,000 11. Hillside Road Beryl to Hellman 12,000 12. Church Street Center to Haven 2 Church Street Basin 40,000 13. Beryl Avenue Lemon to 500' north 35,000 14. Hermosa Avenue 300' south to Kignanette 10,000 15. Eighth Street Orange to Karin 20,000 16. Hillside Road Amethyst to Archibald 16,000 a 17. Turner Avenuo 700' south to Baseline 35,900 18. Hermosa Avenue Wirth of BM= — Realign 6 Widen 50,000 TOTAL $ 483,000 a Eligible for PAO Funding RECO114FRDID MAJOR PROJECT PRIORITY STREET: LIMITS CSTIMATED COST a 1. Grove Avenue 8th Street to Foothill S 540,000 Widening signal modifications a 2. Vineyard Avenue Art" Route to City Limit 300,000 a 3. Hellman Avenue San Bernardino Road to Church Street 75,000 4. 19th Street Carnelian to Haven 1,500,OU0 Various widening to 4 lanes - drainage improvement SPECIFIC PLAN 30,000 a 5. Hellman Avenue @ Foothill Boulevard 300,000 Widening 6 drainage a 6. Baseline @ Hermosa 350,OuO Widening 6 drainage a 7. Baseline Hermosa to Haven 70,000 Widening a S. Turner Avenue @ Foothill Boulevard 300,000 Widening 6 drainage a 9. Hellman Avenue Baseline to SPRR 250,000 Widening 6 drainage 10. Ramona Avenue @ SPRR 150,000 Widening 6 drainage 11. Hermosa Avenue @ SPRR 150,000 Widening 6 drainage 12. Hellman Avenue @ AT 6 SFRR 150,000 Widening 6 drainage 13. Turner Avenue 0 AT 6 SFRR 6 8th Street 175,000 14. Hellman Avenue Baseline to 19th Street 200,000 Widening 15. Amethyst Street Baseline to 19th Street 100,000 Widening 16. Hermosa Avenue South of Bristol 75,000 Widening 6 drainage i 17. Archibald Avenue 19th Street to Highland 100.000 :taallgn rt� `. • Eligible for FAU Funding U 1 • RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY • 1. Archibald and Church a 2. Baseline and Hellman a 3. Archibald and Fourth • 4. Raven and Amber a 5. Foothill and Hellman 6. Sapphire and 19th a 7. Modify Crowe and Arrow Modify Grove and Ninth _ Modify Grove and San Bernardino Road Central School and Archibald a B. Archibald and 19th Street Vineyard and Arrow a 9. Baseline and Beryl a 10. Carnelian and San Bernardino Road • 11. Foothill and Turner a 12. Crove and 8th a 13. Foothill and Red Hill Country Club Drive a - estimated • Eligible for PAU Funding TOTAL VOLUME MINOR LEG ACCS 100000 1400e 3 120008 4000e 0 18900 4600 0 13400 6800 1 15200 2000 3 15000 4400 0 120008 5000e 5 110008 4000e 6 90000 40008 3 meets school pedestrian warrants 78GOe 2400a 0 9800 3600 2 12000o 30008 1 12400 1600 2 11600 2000 0 12000 2000 0 16800 1400 0 e'r', e AGENCY Upland Chino Chino CALTRA`iS i Montclair San Bernardino County San Bernardino County San Bernardino County Rancho Cucamonga Ontario Ontario /Rancho Cucamonga m, REGIONAL PROJECTS PAU DISCRETIONARY PROJECT H014UTATIONS ESTIMATED PROJECT LIMITS COST 250,000 16th Street Between Campus 6 6,540 (Baseline Road) feet east 580,0;:0 Riverside Drive Benson Avenue to eastern city limits 320,000 Schaefer Avenue Ramona Avenue to East End Avenue 1,300,000 Euclid Avenue Pine Avenue to Merrill (Route 83) 517,356 §en Bernardino Street Montclair Basin to Route Vista Avenue 262,500 Pipeline Avenue State Highway 71 to Schaefer Avenue 317,300 Peyton Drive State Highway 142 to State Highway 71 261,400 Pipeline Avenue State Highway 142 to State Highway 71 500,000 Grove Avenue 8th Street to Foothill Route 66 321,000 Mission Boulevard San Antonio to Archibald Avenue 836,000 Vineyard Avenue fourth Street to Arrcw Highway . 1� I LOI'DILl�'• G011l's\�Y �aGv "• LOAIAIERCL%L/INnUSTPIAL UEVEI.OPFltS . REAL EUrATn W,ORI:ItS • o w. vo . v.... Te .. c... Mp. r..4 v.... — ... .. "—.. n. eas •.TT April 6, 1978 Mr. Lauren M. Wasserman City ldanager Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: NEC of 19th S Amethyst Dear Mr. Wasserman: It was a pleasure menting with you at your office on April 5, 1978 and discussing our proposed development on the northeast corner Of 19th and Amethyst In the new Incorporatod City of Rancho Cucamonga. Vanlr Development Company :omploted constructlon Of the Alta Loma post Office on tho northeast corner of 19th and Amethy:a In late 1974. The existing zoning limitation of C -1 -T was applied to this entire powl!) providing for any development on this site to he limited to a U.S. Office. Vanir Development Company has, In fact, roustrurted much .• facility on the northern 115 feet of this site. The entire pereel was not used for the purpose due to the redeml Governments ttrcislon to reduce r•.'•apintlally tiro size of the post office that was originally planned. This decision has resulted in the corner lot remaloing undoveloped to,mly. The subject corner encompasses approximately 33,200 r,lleare feel. Approx^ Imately 225 feet along 19th Street and 148 feet along Amethyst. As yell will note, per the enclo::ed site plans, it Isconttqunusto the Lrf.;ting po'.t Office and to the proposed facility of the Cucamonna Comity Water District We propose to construct a 7,500 uquoro feet otflee/retall LOmpler. On Ihfs site. The space will N leasrd to such svrvir.• operations as: medical denteI offices, barber shop, real estate offices, o10. i•[tt l•, 1J Page Two (2) It is our contention that this type of development would lie compatible with the existing land use of the surrounding site as wall as the proposed commercial developments at the northwest and northeast corners of 19th and Archibald. We have attempted to have a consistency determination rendered relative to the current C -I -T zoning since August 1977. We have gone before the County Planning Commission and County Board of Supervisors for a decision. The minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting an December 1077, reflect the decision of the Board to continue for 120 days the proposed C -) zoning and they referred the matter to the newly- lormed City Council of Rnncho Cucamonga for decision. They Indicated that the Council should conalder the Item within this 120 day period. We are requesting that the Council remove the 'r st,imliid end elimine!v 1110 requirement to build another post office. Our request Is consistent with the general. ' I am enclosing five (5) site plans as requsste-3, and 1ha minutes to hi III(.) you up -to -date on this situation. After you teed and argnalnt yournelt with our problem, I hope you will encourage: the Itanchn Cucamongu (aly Council to move on this and put this matter nn the City Council Agenda as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation and Interest in this m,eltor. Sincerely, VANIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY BENJAMIN DOMINCUl" RD /slw Enclosures Site 1'lous Minutes cc: Pommy Stephens i. C. City Council Minutes -g- April 19, 1979 Palombo felt the traffic flow problems would be a problem in that area Mtkels felt the Council should not remove the zoning until Vnnir had a proposed development tlr Wasserman explained the Commission would be dealing with the traffic flow issue, type of development, signs, etc Tho executive vice - president and general counsol for Vanir Development Company spoke on die I %Sue Ile explained they were only askingfor the T- standards to be removed, then they would go to the Planning Commission for a suitable dovolupmrnt Unless the T- standards are removed, the Planning Commisd on rannot approve any development palumbe felt he should go attend. Act the plans unproved, thco _ come to the Council for ruaoval of the T- standards timets asked if ha was wilting to go through ilia steps on m, informal hasis with the Planning Co". r.vnn lie said they had come through It informally already They had previously thought of a 7 -11 store for the particular spot; had nn ngreenent already files, hat the planning Commission felt it was not appropriate for the area To.wty Stephens from County Planning vas asked by f:mmrilm"n Wrist If the T- standards were removed, wh.rt control would !hr city have over the area " Answer: thry mad passed in ortihmiler that such matters would have to have the review by tiro Planning Director Mr Crowe explained that a developer could opproarh the rmtter fron either end Ile could fi, %t hwe the %tie plan app) —e-I by the Pluming Commission then go to the Council for ncnmval of T- standards or, it could be revr.sed, come In ilia. Cnuneil for removal of the T- %tnndards tile,, go to the Planning Comuission htr site approval A developer prohably would prefer the htttur method P.,lumh,r fell the lounrnl should M.vr to rstahlish n tr.ulutiun of Intent to remove the T- standards upon approval of IN' 1'1-1111111111 Commi,stnn of the plans Vint inn: ttoved by Palumbo, seconded by tlikel•, that the City of lunch; Cucamonga deelnre its intention to remove the T- standards on the property being developed by Vanir Development Company at the northeast corner of 19th and Amethyst upon npprnvnl of the Planning Camntsston of an alteronte site plan a a City Coun cil Minutes 9 April 19, 1978 Discussion: fir. Clark Bosco, one of the residents In tlae area spoke. Ile said the post office was not approved in the verybeginning Ile said he could sec no reason for removing the T- standards; other residents felt the same. Thcy were afraid a fast food place, all night market, or gas station might go in Also, another problem is the flood control system in the area which is not adequate Tommy Stephens suggested thu arer be zoned AI•, office and professional. It might be more arrtopriato than the C -1 zone Council felt the AP zone would not be uhat they wanted Recommendation that the motion l.efore the Council be adopted The motion unanimously carried Appeal for Appeal for Sewer Iardship Allocation by Kcnt land CA"lany. sewer hardship It wa> recommended that this be forwarded to the Olauniug Commission for consideration IWtion: Iloved by Nlkelx, recunded by Schlosser to forward this to the Planning Comisslon Tommy Stephens said it would he best to rri a date for all the hardship eases and have all the developers present at the Planning Commission meeting at one time Ken Gland, representing the i;cut Land Company, said they hall been before the County Plannuag nepartment ?boy weir rrfprred to the Council of Rancho Cucawonga, and would like to be heard as soon ns possible Stephens said they had a list of developrrs for SO hotel +hip cases They will set tap n hcan nR, notify developers, then hear all cases nt one time ?Ins would 1r preferred rather than pit in individual Iasi•. Asked when this uould be? Answer: the stuff could tell him within tlm next few days Ilotton was unanimously carried to forunrd this to the I'lnnning Co=iscion. Archibald Ilr Shone reported on the H.nua of the luntel on Atrhlbald tunnel Avenue under the Ontario airport Ile sold ti... City al 1.0% Angeles had atoarded a enntratt hat Ihr drvelolnent a: Or runway at Ontario International Airport nud It aid nut include a tunnel at Archibald 3 1. •:r mIIIh. l rr ••rr,ti broi ^_raps Gompanw flay 23, 1978 fir. John lilayney John Blayney a Associates 177 Post Street, Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94108 \•ihur Ik•uL:arc'. S•:dro 100 1 •��•: is • mh, Cnldomla 92P9_ 714103 -7]00 Subjects kaiser Steel Property SEC Foothill Boulevard and haven Avenue Rancho Cucamonga (tear fir. Blaynay: Per our recent discussions, this letter will provide it formal request for you to considce modification of the existing Rancho Cucamonga General Plan to provido that 4 portion of the subject property located at the imppdiate corner should bo modified fron heavy Industrial use on Lite existing General Plan to Commercial use on the revised General Plan, which you nre now ptepnring. Specifically, we are requesting the following modification: 1) A redc•signation of Lhe exlstinrl reneral Plan for the itmiediace corner to provide for Commercial land use ^f between 14 and 20 acres. 2) This Commercial property should have a depth of approximately G00 feet on haven Avenue and a frontage of between 1,000 and 1,500 feet on Foothill Boulevard. 3) We would like Lo have Lhe Cvnoral Plan provide for the Commercial denignation at the corner with the follow -up zoning to cu'ablish the exact size of the Commercial patcol. W th regard Lo your consideration of this request, the following lnfornation should be of interest Lo you: 1) La': •r Sl ool Corpnt.tl 1011 bt': au Lhorl.:,.d u:: to proceed with the stvPS necessary to codify Lite veining Rcneral Plan per our above request. Tlti:. iutormaLion can be verified by contacting fir onic I. rilz, vice 1•residoul of t•inance for Rainer Stcel Corporation, at raiser Steel Olhrrr Ihrmmn mt ra4'omAi. Also N nrmr,, 11matdo. Pho'oh Md Se,U19 f1r. John lUoyncy / flay 23, 1970 Page 2 Corporation, 300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland, California 94666, (415) 271 -2713. 2) Dick Oberholt:er, President of The Strand Companies, has reached agreement with Aaiser Steel to purchase the commercial property discussed above for the purpose of developing a shopping center anchored by a K -!tart Depart- ment Store. 3) This proposed Commercial development could buffer the immediate intersection from the heavy industrial use proposed for the adjacent properties. since this intersection will represent one of the primary intersections in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a heavy industrial use on thin immediate corner would not seem consistent with gcod planning principles. 4) The proposed development is not compatible with - the combined commercial /office project planned for the Levis Ifomes development at the Northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. Additionally, because of the hiato:ical monumant designation for the. tlinery property at the fItIC of this intersection, K -hart Corporation has no interest in locating on that property. 5) This proposed project should result in a finished shopping center with a valuation of somewhere be.LlIPen $4.5 and $6 million. eased on Lhe current property tax rate, this development should create property tax revenues of bctcoen $120,Oon and $170,000 per year Additionally, 0o ci Ly's 1, portion of the State sales, tax should exceed $100,000 per year. 6) In the event you incorporate an architectural theme for the commercial properties on Foothill Boulevard, I n confident that tmr proposed cle- velopment courd incorporate the nocv�sary archi- tectural facade to satisfy Lho city's design re,fo f, cnents. Considorinq your .current eontrrca ,v,d the planniuq problems as,ociatrJ with th.• aublecl Jnl,•, .eclirnt, I heliove !hat our p,opocal provide:; an oxcelim,i solntlon to Lho Lroalment Of the innedi to corner, and ndtlitionally, provlc,es an excellent fivancinl p,- ,akage for the city. N 4' a ~ 1 L , 'r~ fir John Dlayney My 23, 1978 Page 3 fir Dlayney, after you hava on opportunity to rovi_a this letter, I will give you a call so we can make arrangements to pursue this proposal. In the mean - tine if you have any questions after reviewing thin letter or if I can he of assistance, please give me n call. Very truly yourG, GRUBB d ELLIS COMMERCIAL BROXCRAGE COMPAMY John O'lteara , J041: 11w cc: Mr. Dale P. Pilz - Kaiser Steel Corporation fir. I. J. 11cKee - Kaiser Steel Corporation fir. Ray Robinson - Kaiser Steel Corporation fir. Lauren Wa ^aerman - City of Rancho Curamonga fir. Dick Oberholtter W'ZOW. --/ — o-)U F •r RCAL tATA't AOPOA"CR A %. COV'MkOIR CAwRCVCC O. RRO" IOCC 90V LOS ROOILR AVCVVC TCt MJ NC '} • LMIS W "OO RAOAO"& CAYIORN•A 9110 11101 051 5341 July 14, 1978 •f-A 9: nv c JUS ;r• Mr. William Hofman - �FRa7Clp Assistant Planner City'of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. Hofman: Thank you for sending no a copy of the mn_morandun of June 29, 1978 regarding Alternative General Plan Sketch \u.-. -er 4. in my opinion the r_emorandin is doficient in two,pos- sibly three areas. No reference is made to•tho development restrictions im- posed on land adjacent to active enr_hquake faults by the Alquist- Priolo legislation. This law would serve to re- strict development along the Cucamonga fault. Naps delin- eating the restricted area are on file at the Bureau of Nines s Geology in Los Angeles. -%a General Plan must give consideration to this State mandated constraint on develop- ment A separate residential eatepo_ry should be set up re- stricting if not prohibiting all buildings within that area. The memorandum coaaents on industrial development need con- siderably greater attention. The attanot to lump together all kinds of industrial activity in one lnrge designated area is unrealistic. Certain types or heavy industry re- quire rail service. The loeatio- of the Atchison, Tonnka & Santa Fe Raillery lines, particularly the cast -west lino, pro - viCc natural areas for heavy industrial development. ;x- tending the industrial area to Foothill Boulevard poses sn-v- eral problems for cutrrc resident_a: fcvelopren on CG •or.h side of Foothill. Even with a berm, on gaga side of tin street, sound and atmospheric pollution fron heavy industrial plants would have a significant adverse impact on residonces on the north side of the street. Responsible plsnning would provide not only for a buffer on the south side of tho street, but nlso for an interrediato cone of light industrial activi- ty along both sides of Arrow Route. 11cavy industrial plants would be located soot :T of Arro'r :route to the city l' ^!t ^, largely adjacent to the east -west Santa Fo Railroad rig'Tt -of- way. The proposed industrial lard use @o. ^.'xat!on •:gold act•jnlly per- mit the construction of a steel ri:l, ^tamping plant, elauah- ter house, anC similar heavy ind'strial facilities to -ithin 300 feet of Foothill noulovard. "••o. ••`_th a narking lot b-,ffnr 300 Coat deep, nuisance odors nni. ^c+'nds could pervcdc t5e area. A ticrn_d sY' %Lon with '•n,ty1 ^a ^s` ^: n'_ �- vclop ^cnt content -ated in ..:.n gall.•• fin. -..J On nl t11 nlAN. a :n• —,I' a to and Tt .1... ' r' i Mr. Williaa Bo:oan - ?ago 2 :.u:7 14, 147a v industrial development along both aides of Arrow Route, and research and develorxat type uses along the south side of Foothill Boulevard would provide a touch greater degree of envi.ronzental protection for residential neigh- borhood on the north side of Foothill than ar• 12 foot berm. The location of the regional shopping center appears to be causing confusion. One of the rost successful regicaal fa- cilities in Los Angeles is the Del 7=o Regional .+napping Cen- ter in Torrnnca. This facility ,s located a considerable dis- tance from the nearest freeway, yet is 4ighly successful. The center drawn from areas of population concentration surround- ing it. The recently opened Santa Anita Fashion Park in Ar- cadia is also quite successful without being adjacent to a freeway. The location of the shopping center should be orient- ed to existing and future population concentration in the city rather than in the sparsely populated eastern portion next to Interstate 15. Thcnk you again for your courtesy and assistance during my recent visit to the city offices arm to the eocaunity center. I look forward to attending the psilir hearings on the General Plan in Sept.ebor. Very truly yours, Lewis IS. Trout LW /fd cc. Y.ayur City ••, --agor ri :actor of ?lamming f i t' am. • t.cvr ° }, •u�, rsrr�c n.+avco ,.o rouru o•s ® Tile Atefiiaonjop2ka and SantarenallnayCompany rr A Sanu le h ±v r,n co-p,ry 121 EGO Sixth Sheet, to% Angeles. tolirernio 90014, Telephone 217/6280111 August 3, 1978 JP- Rancho Cucamonga F 1111VF.p 0-Y (T WiCMO CUCAMONGA Mr. Jack Lam C.. t.0,17Y OEYUOPMENT DEPT, Community Development Director aUU 1978 City of Rancho Cucamonga P. 0. Box 793 Al( PM Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 g161U1t11111Ii11121314t51G Dear Mr. Lttm: II This refers to your recent dt.,cussion with Mr. Pene of this office concerning Alternative Sketch Plan 14 prepared by John Blayney Associates -. - - Under the title of INDUSTRIAL, pages 4 and 5 of the memorandum of June 28 prepared by Mr. Blayney addressed to the City Counc +l and City Planning Commission, we note that the plan envisions a 300 foot setback southerly of Foothill Blvd. in the proposed industrial area as a buffer zone provided as n sound and sight barrier to proposed developments north of Foothill Blvd. Such a setback would hamper the proposed development of our 282 acres of property, 2,157 feet of which fronts on foothill Blvd. We feel that the width of Foothill Blvd, plus the proposed commercial development northerly of Foothill Blvd., would be more than sufficient to nullify any sound and sight problems that could conceivably ensue in the industrial com- munity southerly of Foothill Blvd. The majority of our developments already have setback restrictions from streets, but we feel 300 feet to be extremely excessive and would restrict our ability to interest industry in occupying this fine industrial property, thus eliminating a potential source of employment for the community as well as a good tax base. It is felt that the proposed commercial development on the north side of Foothill Blvd. will meet the needs of inhabitants without encroaching onto the industrial area south of Foothill Blvd. ;w i„ t.• J c Mr. Jack Lam August 3, 1978 page tvo We respectfully request that such setback features be eliminated from all future plans involving the industrial community. JP /P Very truly yours, r 1,, //.r 7�� R. H. Uauptli, Manager Real Estate and _ Industrial Development .= f - .\1i 11 I1n II 111.11 ,f;l� 0715 L,•+t4YA11 sn0 LI LIT'. L• I 1 • ^ ALTA LOMA. CALIF 01701 1141 -b LUCAAIGNGA �II�II,Itil, IIUN ' AUG 8 1918 Auruct 5, 1978 TW '1101 71111�11111111l1112191� W IG I Ile. ,icr"n vemprl, Chairman 1'lonninr, L'onmisclon City of Rancho cucamonra bear I,emmn Ind Members of the Coemnie0ion, it in nv undernlandinr tent n tract m p i•+ heinr rrr- r,re• fot prorrrt•, no -th of Almond nnl vcrt or Aprhire In f,lla loin (11-ct 10d01). 1 "0011 1 i to rn -r•nt on the atilir.,11o11 of ],"It In 11- r -,, , 1 an n .,1- inrtrnl 1 1.1 rwner of tv -m y -tvr cle%l ho,n+•Ir' h5 the Cuetron n \s1+ on tlr, +.cot, Almeml cu 'h, neulll, .ird hT the rroporod trneE on the corth ,nil nnr•t. ]t 1•' •+, 2nt -ration to plant the nanRl, 1 nit on my Pro- perty to IvIcalloa .vld L•nons, nr' to rit-O it Ira's the frrrnrenblr fut+rre. 1 reallrc III t even Litany rarminr this Pronrrty nnv 1•rcom- Imrr,ctic,l, .n I,rmlor nn+# in Oft ray eilnle prepertr on r,nynn .Irrrl. 1 hive olr.ndy cmplovrd in rn-ine -rinr rirn In .1-o ra lot, fro•+ two to five acres en Ihr Omond property no 'b,t frith dr'.ven Ind water nystrtl will h• enmratsblo with future hone site all arall -aenle nrrieultore. 1 ur • 111, retention of thin unlnnr re,•t of 'hc c.,m'n,0- ify for l,rrr in-n and lo+r it •, it, of one hom• err two In five ores, as 1 believe the John 'In-try naster pinn proponco. Vnrrvv tr�ol�v Yotttrro, rthur II. rridro 0 I t 11• ••. f^ CITY Of RANCHO LUCAMONGA C"UNITY DCVE1011AENT DEPT. AUG '1197d AT IN q L8191pJ 111112111219 L9t51G !t . MADOLE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSOLrINO CNIL ENGINEERING AND LAND rLANNINO 1633 E. FOURTH STREET, SU!TE 280, SANTA ANA, CALIF 02701 TELEPHONE (714) 835.2548 August 18, 1976 Mighland -Haven Associates 84 Rivo Alto Canal Long Reach, California 90803 ' fl, f IFFF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY DEVEMPAIINT DEPT, AUG 3 11978 AM rll 7A900i111@11A51415113 Attn: Harvey Stone, H.D Re: Prorerty at the Southeast Corner of Highland Avenue and Haven Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Dr. Stone: After reviewing the existing and proposed dcvciopment in Lire vicinity and surrounding the abovereforenced property, there seers to be justification for considering some sort of restricted ecrnorcial use of the property for at least the following reasons: 1) It seen. just as logical, if not more so, for eomnerr.tal (Ir_ relopMelt to be on thin property than on' the north side of the pnssible potential Foothill Freeway an thI City's consultant on the master plan is apparently inlicating eorvierc)nl development to be This propert) is certainly closer to Lho greater amount of residen Li.rl development with the cvn. orcial needs than the ot',cr with no more apparent problems 2) Should the Foothill rrccwm• finally just Prove to be a passing dream, which it appears to be more and more each dav, the subleet ptoperty could have extremely good access from Highland Avenue. Therc •+oull certainly be iLems to be worl: -d out should tho site be connercial but, with the proper tyre of development, it could prove to be a benefit to the cermunity. Very truly yourn, PIADOLE b ASSOCIATES, INC. NL' � oic R.C.E. 14814 MI.. 1g ALAN C. NVEIVICK, 1 ulamTn nsAL CI'" I APPM18rn AND CONSULTANT $60 ANT 1AU 991.1t AN IN{TI1Vi[ 4I ff00 f COLOPADO 10.0 {411[ ff0 VIAL 11n'PAI {[P6 ipfAO[IIIL CALIfOPMIA HIO) August 8, 1978 Mr Dill liofman Planning Department City of Rancho Cucumonga P.O Box 793 Rancho Cucumonga, California 91730 foreParcel a r 1, M1 4286 Oa,IC[ N[COMONL au• )ns mal Dear Mr. norman: This letter is to request your earnest consideration of retaining the general commercial use in the city general plan for the area between Alta Loma Town Center and the intersection of Base Line and Archibald Avenue. I represent 1.leirick Properties Limited which is now entering escrow to purchase 100% interest in Parcel 1, Parcel Avenue commencing This is t11.62 acres saon the west side of Archibald we plan to develop this property soon to community commercial buse serving all of the presently developed area of the city. our uses are in urgent demand and will be an important bencrit to the present community The reasons we strongly urge the retention of the general comm use designation are as follows: 1. Development has been planned for a long period under the existing C -1 zone. 2 The parcel is bordered on the west by the f;ater Company facilities in on 14 -1 zone and the Alta Loma Torn Center. i the Town Center property T nd retain d p it as a communitycenter.of 3. or arer now s developed tohcommercialouse. The five l to the fiveacre parcel adjacent on the north (Parcel 2, Parcel Map 4286, zoned Cl) is being developed by Boyt Lumber Company as a t 1 - 2 - Re: General plan request for Parcel 1, PM 4286 lumber outlet and home improvement center. Contact Bayne Nelson, 986 -2721. 4. Two parcels adjacent on the south fronting on Base Line will be or are developed to retail commereial use in the Cl zone. 5. Our plan of development soon to be presented to the City will be a dinner restaurant (a compliment to the one to be built on at the southeast corner of Archibald and Base Line) and a proposed financial building to front on Archibald. Between these two uses there will be a private street built to public standards extending west to serve a well landscaped office part: and a mini- _ storage center to serve residents of the area The development we plan will be of good quality and attractive. lie %now of the demand for these uses from our own study and from requests for the property by other developers such as henry Reiter lie urge your favorable consideration in retaining a general commercial use for this parcel, Parcel 1, Parcel Map 4286. cc: Paul Nordberg y, Yours sincerely, Alan C. Weirick August 21, 19 %8 John Olaney Jr Associates 177 post St. San Francisco, Calif 94108 Dear Sir: We are owners of a parcel of property in Rancho Cucamonga at the Intersection of Highland and Haven avenues In San Bernardino County. This is the southeast corner fronting on Haven avenue with Highland avenue (1 -30), the northern boundry. A large portion of the surrounding property is being developed at present as single family dwellings by Lewis Homes and by Chevron Construction Co. These developments are being roads on property we have owned for several years and have sold in the recent past for development. Our entire property was engineered for the above devclopnicnt, leaving a 7.99 acre parcel for furture commercial development at the southeast corner of highland and Haven Avenues. We would very much appreciate your Including this ^nrcel in the masts plan for Raicho Cucamonga for commercial development 2, would offer the following substantial reasons for this consi &ration: - I. high. ind Avenue (or possibly the future Foothill Freeway) is a natural population barrier in the rorth /south direction. There is, lower density population north of Highland as the foothills are approached and higher density south of Highland Avenue. 2. This parcel is more distant from Chaffey College then file two alternative commercial areas being considered Just north of I hghland Avenue, both cast and west. This, therefore, would tend to maintain the non- commercial ambient^- of the property north of Highland Avenue. 3. The property has been thoroughly set out and engineered by Aiadole Engineering A3soc., and a recent letter from them is enclosed. 4 This site will be more accessible for the larger population group south of Highland Avenue. S. This will add no further burden to the sewage disposal systrm. This would not be true if the .dtrrnative development into singiv faintly dwrllmgs were continued at this site. There wiil also be no nerd for additional scinaol development. In clew of all of the above we would be most apprrnalivr it you wmild strongly consider our site on thr soutlnrast corner of Highland and linen avenues for commercial development on the Master plan for Rancho Cucamonga. We await your decision and sincerely hope it will be favorable s Sincerely, Iltghl nd- linen Assor. /Ifaney Al. S rn HS /mr x Turunt 30 1970 ' Snel: Lam, Dlrrctnr , 1, Cormunity Development �•'*,` 9340 Darclino cali£ornin G1Y p: AD'A ISteGTGONJNGA Rancho cucamongn, IC'78 near 11r. Lams 1N fM 718 ��J1a11h11111218141516 An I have already conveyed to your nrcretnr4 ninnA, An" have (3i; -.! #_eft_ 41th Tssintnnt city 7'tornr`• Anl,ert Pnun"er , my wife r°- I , no o•ennrn of prnpor --- in rtiwan.'n, Arr in serious - 7agrecvant with the "nrti-nnl "Aster Plnn" for 1 that Are -= Ltiwanda an diserihed Alnv2 f _ 1) --c parcel# of land ortendi -n 'forth of the Pnvn rr Freewz• to the S F Railroad tracla, bounilpe on the rrnt by Cast 7-:.(Tax agncssor parcel.^• #7n_1 - 227 - 141 -14, 227 - 141 -65): i 21 —!t land South of Victorir, test .° rant Tveare And 11crt`1 of the Devorc rrcowny, (Tax Ate. ^•rn ,no's PArmin 227 - 141 - 66,227- 141 -42, 227 - 141- 46.). #7011-227-143-44, rarcol 91 should be appropriately an extension of Servivo Conr:ereial Zoning, no it will be irsom -Ible to Put ern -naive hares in tiis area, tic feel that Mane- 6 A °gncinte, in their originnl plan have discririnrtrd not nnl•+ ngriagt ur An owners but neninst thc people of rtiwnnde *or not hrvla.: Mn.r Service Corncrcinl Zones in thin vital Freavw., 10c,11:401. Farcel #2e There arc presently here, located on the .rnuth site of Victoria street which are on approxriately 12,Onn ne ft lots. %,c believe thnt the rereinder of the drveloprr,t of thin area should be consistent with 2 -5 uni s per acre 1nntred of the present projected optional Mrs. tto pinn to rttent the ❑caring cn SApterber 13, At 7 -•r when the plan in prnnented by Dlnney 1, *.- .,nrl.,ten. >1a also wish to be notified of nn,, future neetinf, reerrdinq the barter plan% of the rit:• of nacho Cucnronga. x \'K tray we please hear from you al your c.Arliost eonvonianca. r sincerely yours, A at IA R vaif?n .' a mmM (n.,mcrs) 2500 3. Euclid Ave. Upland, CA 91786 cesnobart Dougherty - rdw. Itopnon Lauren Wasserman, City t:gr. I Chairman of the Plnnning Camrisnion of Rancho Cucarrnon r n 1? 'n ;1 4".TL¢ ,,,+- ,x�i•• -._ � -: -.; .,.>,_..s �- a -h.: -. �, - -- _'- ``..t -. -yr �_- v "r.�::. w:-r ?-C �.* -e ^': r�k:k " ♦� ems, . I i :IV -e.: AVENUE ; nnn i•� ��+ ^ f `r m � '•' ^ Ir t \1J w •' _^ ?ell m`A p W ^ X M \ m to o I k ou .f — G± - - -� - o 4i ^ \ U I e ` v 'oa\ Ot i L L plfn r \ � �N OiL� N ` v �• A 8 { 1IllTgxi ' e r!r . xnB •Vf TYRCx t14. CI'.nll^ vivtf pAxt N 9 CUCAMONGA PIONEER VINEYARD ASSOCIATION ull uAnx •vtxut f; Cl10AMONGA GIIiOF4U t'' I � � : Fn; ;'1 11 I ry '•:' CA ` 177 � \ itiL.t.t•C,� �Jc.IJ- •, {, n .l ,., A'•1 l H � , r.tG {.wllC lCC•,,,,�•\ rc ^ i` 11 t P 1 r it_v ->„L� �. �a eta- f.r.. —� .t t \.- •.,�J.. �� 2 '� jj �..0 ` •.. It t1 �- '. r I' ���.�10 a�cl'ayP,i.. �� CA.7 {1lCC \• ♦.� fC \t &i .t lA.. 1 ...-A-` k �r Ills a , .1.0 �fL•bC i - l I n c t E�,;.�>,,,,t'TLLLV� \_\' \( i.� �•/ :_l.eat \Ll i� t, I r �° RlVI4MI r luR 11 wa.n � ' • CUCMIONGA PIONEER VINEYARD ASSOCIATION M ROW A1j CUCAUW*6 CAEIFOKMA �.1..1.L*- liL�,-V1 J � ��. --a. l.'..�tu'�•-�1 :� � S.>s_c., � (Tla�la.�il lllE[I� 4t ryE04 i 40 e�y CUCAMONGA PIONEER VINEYARD ASSOCIATION Wi1u NAVI.Uj CLICAMUGA. CALIFORNIA PAUL B. IIOPL'IL ll 7 Olwl DOO.0300 1139. a ?.a. wK. il[♦ .7141 000.71� OH1wM0. UVTwNu H "!J 19N[il }IM 01$1'11,C I'll:" 1 p l 7 ` f , I1 1F 1 \\ 1 1 September 12, 1978 Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Commission 9340 Baseline Road, Unit A Ranchc Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Planning Reserve Area Dear Mrs. Jones and Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, representing the ownerships.nf the plan roughly defined by Summit Avenue on xhe south, the Devore Freeway on the east, the National Forest on the north and the flood control property west of Edwanda Avenue on the west, wish to take this opportunity to express our concern regarding the Planning "Reserve" designation shown for these properties. We agree with Mr. John Blayney that before development in this area is allowed to begin certain major planning concerns must be addressed as follows: 1. Effective flood control measures, particulariy as related to Etiwanda and San Sevalne Creeks. 2. The extension of utilities to the area. 3. The desired characteristics of land planning to avoid major scarring of the hillsides. Perhaps the Planning "Reserve" designation is meant to emphasize that these concerns must be addressed, however, the written definition would indicate that there is no proposed schedule for addressing these concerns. Since there Is interest in developing at least part of these properties, particularly from the east where here is immediate access to the Devore Freeway, we are con- cerned the "Reserve" designation, in essence, amounts to a moratorium which would be a conflict with the desire for development. Since these properties are almost entirely neither within the City of Rancho Cucamonga nor it's present zone of Influence, we believe that anything resembling a moratorium on developmem of the area could result in a conflict with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the property owners before the LAFCO Board as the City pro- ceeds to attempt an expansion of it's zone of influence to include these prop- erties. It co•.tld result in a further conflict between the City and County should development proposals for these "now" County territories be submitted to County Staff and Administration. Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either' re- moved from these properties or re- defined with the following constraints: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood control be analyzed to mare clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the Lard Plan for the area designate further development constraints to insure the preservation of the natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ulthn_te development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Fubstantlal study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached We realize that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's, consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accmpl ahed by the private sector as development is proposed for the approval of specific development, with the above - mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability of such proposals. It is our desire to nd County In these matters. We appreciate ind look forward to a cooperative planning n Y90 yY ,Iwa S-wc 1 -� RDSt6T C. Rung �^ 2316 M C6T6C,M6 ST ' nDttivDOD. Cat. . i °pia CFr°J'79y Yours truly, Property Owner Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category t. Bather re- moved from these properties or re- defined with the following , ,Mtraints: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood control be analyzed to more clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the land Plan for the area designate further development constraints to insure the preservation of the natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached. We reallie that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accomplished by the private sector as development is proposed for the approval of specific development, with the abcve- mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability of such proposals. It is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County In these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a cooperative planning effort. cc: Mr. Lauren Wasserman Mr. Jack Lam Mr John Blayney •r Yours truly, Property Owner Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from Lhese properties or re- defined with the following constraints: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood contro! be analyzed to more clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the Land Plan for the area designate further development constraints to Insure the preservation of the natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached. We realize that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accomplished by the privarP sector as development is proposal for the approval of specific development, with the above-mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability of such proposals. It is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County in these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a cooperative planning effort. Yo ru}� (�oh, T. Brady 5 1 Pi3p�r ?yo�wnOr 5 acreotal eacYibed cc- Mr. Lauren Wasserman Mr. Jack Lam Mr. John I)layney NW 1/4 SR 1/4 SW 1/4 S 29 T 1 N R 6 W SBBM except the westerly 330' thereof. We have owned this land for more than forty years. For the first time now there will be ample water to develop it. it is adjacent to the power line easement (unbuilt) and not even within the boundaries of the City Of Rancho Cucamonga. Yet the Proposed General Plan describes it as Reserve ; - -an undefined category which smacks of inverse condemnation a clever new type in which an adjacent incorporated entity (the City of ? %tcho Cucamonga)indirectly (through the county) prohibits land use wails avoiding direct legal confrontation with the injured land owner& using the county as a straw man It's clever but basically unfair to the land owners affected. Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, th:refura, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from these properties or re- defined with the following constraints: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary fluid control be analyzed to more clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the Land Plan for the area designate further development constraints to insure the preservation of the natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached. We realize - that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accomplished by &,a private sector as development is proposed for the appkaval of specific development, with the above - mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability of such proposals. It is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County In these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a cooperative planning effort. Yours truly, a Property Cwner cc: Mr. Lauren Wasserman Mr. Jack lam Mr. John Blayney I Planning Reservc Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from these properties or re- defined with the following constraints: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood control be analyzed to more clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the Land Plan for the area designate further development constraints to insure die preservation of the natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached. We realize - that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it'v consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accompllshed by the private sector as development to proposed for the apprara'. of specific development, with the above - mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability of such proposals. It is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County In these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a cooperative planning effort. cc: Mr. Lauren Wasserman Mr. Jack Lam Mr. Joan 8layney Yours truly, Property Owner Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from these properties or re- deflned with the following constraints. 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood control be analyzed to more clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the Land Plan for the area designate further development constraints to insure the preservation of the natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached. We feallze that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accomplished :y the private sector as development is proposed for the approval of specific development, with the above - mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability of such proposals. It is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County In these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a cooperative planning effort. Yours truly, Ah,fAhl hd-t,4 G./Jeu�aa,ta's .r c.c.>= .t,f�ys Property Owners cc. Mr. Lauren Wasuerman Mr. Jack Lam Mr. John 83ayney 2 %, ' 4 A-C, 45S( SZWLS /Jo. 094 G 9 4 Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from these properties or re- defined with the following constraints: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood control be analyzed to more clearly define th'e necessary constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the Land Plan for the area designate further development constraints to insure the preservation of the natural land fortes. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached. We realize - that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accomplished by the private sector as development is proposed for the approval of specific development, with the above - mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability of such proposals. It Is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County in these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a cooperative planning effort. cc: Mr. Lauren Wasserman Mr. Jack Lam Mr. john Blayney Yours truly, (CEC'r.(iGJ� Property ONner ,tRs- pfd / —oS �T It 6941 - o / •49 t -1,9A - ,A 3ovi,s6 a., n�c 39.79 _ 3s g0 /96.6/ Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from these properties or re- deflnod with the following constraints: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood control be analyzed to mote clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the Land Plan for the area designate fui Cher development constraints to insure the preservation of the natural land forms Wt; Rio not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached. We reallza that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of It's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accomplished by the private sector as development is proposed for the approval of specific development, with the above - mentioned con - stretnrs determining the acceptability of such proposals. It Is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County in these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a cooperative planning effort. Yours truly, Property Owner cc: Mr. Lauren Wasserman Mr. Jack Lam Mr. John Blayney Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from these properties or re- deflned with the following c�nstralnts: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood control be anilyzed to more clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. Thtt development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the land Plan for the area designate further development constraints to insure the preservation of the natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characroristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before-such corclusinas can be reached. We realize that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be vccomplished by the private sector as development Is proposed for the approval of specific development, with the above-mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability a such proposals. It Is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County In these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to a cooperative planning effort. Yours truly, (6�L Y) Property Owner cc, Mr. Lauren Wasserman PajVLL -9: 1-a.5- 083 -/S Mr. Jack Lames Mr John 8layney tppll C a.n' &Le, Ah':'� C"" ,rt.anw On ���i D�AFit. •,t Planning Reserve At ea September 12, 1478 Vage TWO We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from these properties or re-defma! with the following constraints, I That develuiunent constraints pnqurtal by necessary flozl control be analyzed to more clearly define the necessary constraints. 2. 'that development In the area fulluw a logical pattern no def!ncd by access and ncccasiblllty of utilities 3. Tint tine Usti flan for the area designate fill tile,, development constraints to insure the preservation of du mrtnral load for,ns We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this thne what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will Ix. Substantial study will be necessary before such conclusions can be reached. We realize that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the fumis or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to iw acainnplishcd by the private sector as development is proponcd for the approval of spvcffic development, with the above- mentiomul con- straints dctermining the acceptability of such proposals It Is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County In these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and book forward to n ctooperative planning effort. cc: hir. Lauren Wnssorman Mr. lack Um Mr. lnhn Rlayney .ours _vIItru��ly, I'ronerty (3wncr sifCRe4 Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 I: "ge I'wo We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be citltur rc- moved from these properties or re- defined with the following constraints 1 That development cmastralnts proposed by necessary flood control In, analyzed to more clearly define tine necessary constraints. 2. 'llat development In the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the land Plan for the area designate further development constraints to insure the preservation of We natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densities or specific design characteristics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before -quch conclusions can be reached. We realize that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either Elie funds or the time of It's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be ncetimplished by the private sector as development Is proposed for the approval of specific development, with the alwve-nentleaud con- straints determining Elie acceptability of such proposals. It is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County In these matters. We apprL late your consideration of this matter and hook forward to a cooperative planning effort. cc: Mr. Lnuren Wasserman Mr. Jack lane Mr John Illayney Yours truly,) 7- Property Owner dm . R�6 -oyi- oy[ /y o9/ —� 0 - HR ,DSO wL 2.7� vLi -oy oci - 3s' oai— 36 [a aL M .t F� �•a -w a Planning Reserve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, propose that the Planning "Reserve" category be either re- moved from these properties or re- dellned with the foliowing constraints: 1. That development constraints proposed by necessary flood control be analyzed to more clearly define the nrcessacy constraints. 2. That development in the area follow a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. 3. That the land Plan for the area designate further drvc: pment constraints to insure the preservation of the natural land forms. We do not believe that anyone can forecast at this time what the ultimate development densit!�:.: or specific design cheracrerlstics will be. Substantial study will be necessary before-such conclusions can be reached. We realize that the City of Rancho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to be accomplishcd by the private sector as development is proposed for the approval of specific development, with the above - mentioned con- straints determining the acceptability of such proposals. It is our deaise to work cooperatively with the City and County in these matters. W,, appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forwa_d to a cooperative planning effort. Yours truly, Property Owner cc: Mr, Lauren Wasserman N $ 3 a/_At Mr. Jack Lam +/ L� 2 o'urti` a t Mr. Johr. 8layney dot { Lk vj,$ -n X-J,4,1� , Planning Reterve Area September 12, 1978 Page Two We, therefore, •oposc that the Pinar ; "Reserve" category be either re- moved trim) 1h%-o iropertics or rc-d lr -eJ .-1111 cite folluwlttg constraints• 1 '1710t development constraint - J)"Imsed by necessary flow control be I :.alyted to more clearly d01.1le 1,10 necessary constraints. 2 'Mat development in the area fu!low a logical pattern as defined by access and accessibility of utilities. a. 7'lat the ban a Plan for the area designate further devulupnent constraints to insvrc the preservation of the natural land forms We do not believe that nnyor.- can forecast at this tittle what the ultimate development densities or specific design chlimcterlsticn will be. Substantial _ study will be necessary before such conclusiuns can be reached. We realize that the City of Rnncho Cucamonga probably cannot afford either the funds or the time of it's consultants to accomplish these studies. Such work would have to Ix: accul)phshed by the private sector as develq)nem Is profesed for the approval of specific duvelopinent, with the above- nleatitned cutt- straints determining tilt, acceptability of such proposals. It is our desire to work cooperatively with the City and County in these matters. We appreciate your consideration of this matter and h-tok forward to n Cooperative planning effort. cc: Mr Utiren Wasserman Mr. Jack law Mr Jahn Illayney Yours truly, '�Jfsi� �.Kl�seviJ Property Owner SSO du -xev-/ f 2RL - el6/ - -A Ri a�/ 03 O� O) 06 oB /,:rS� 04f -o3 /L e? Planning Itesa•v. Arta Septenllier U. 147s Page No We, therk fore, proplwe that the Planning " Itesurve" entegury lie either re- Illavtd 11 0111 dtc:,u puqun tus or ru- dchntd with ille following constraints I That .luvelijiment constraints prigxastd by necessary flout control Ix an.rly NI to attire clearly defuse the necessary constraints 2. 1'.•u d •v.ly:nlent in the area follow a lugicnl patu'n as defilnNl by at -v i .rut accessibility of utilities. 3. 'N-A .11v I lW Plan lot- (Ile area designate flrrtill•r dvvelopment constraints to Insu-e the preset vutiun of the natural land farms We Jo not bulr•vu tllat anyone can forecast at tlds. time what the ultimate develupmcnt tMISItlus or siwelfic design characteristics will be. Substantial study will hu nuccssaiy before such conclusions .m n lie reached. We renllrc OUR 1110 City of 11-111[60 Cucanlongn prulably cannot afford either the funds or the tone ol it's cixlsultants to accomplish these stullus. Such work would have h) Iu, ackumpliahmd by the private. sector as devu11ynncnt lu prolumed for tho approval of slwclffc d0vuluINIMIL. wilt the above ntontkxtui cun- straillui dt-teunodog de., acceptabfllty of stwh prupusuls. It is our desire to work ulgteratively with the City nlld County In these niat[urs. We apprcautc your cons durnthxn of this matter and ltxik forward t, it ctxgn-rative planning effort Yours truly, Property (tuner cc Air Lantcn Wassermmn hlr Jnck Elul J A Ccp c Air Jnlul Illayncy ids- d9 /— /S ass- d*? /.sue Z ^ "s' D%/ — 5/ r. A I I'latnting licsorvc Atca Septcniller 12, 1978 higt I'm) We. therefore, propose that file planning "Rot.rtvo" cioegoty Ix: eithct te- nloecxl front Ibese properties or re- definul w•ilit the following cousrralnts• 1 71tat devcIoimlent LOuSttnints prlglusai by n,•ccssaty fltxxl control Ile analyzed to mote clearly define Lite necessary cnnsrtalnts 2. That dc• t- lopntcnl In the area follow a 1•191caI pattern as deflncd by access and accessibility of utilities. :1. That the Lattd flan fol Lite area designate hauler doveltpntcut constraints to 1114IIM the preservation of die natural laud forms We do not believe that anyone can forecast at thin tune what lite ultitmue develupinvilt densities or Specific desit'll clwracictisttes will Ile. Sulstnntlnl sooty will Ile nlxcs,.ary lvfo•• such conciuvlunc lilt Ix: tcachctl. lVt u•nlVu that the City of limtrhu Cucmnonga prolvlh.v t•annot :brad cilliel the funds or the tone of it's coils uita[its to accomplish tho•n ,.t,alicu. Such work would have to tic accomplisln•d by the prlvatc scour av dcveloilincnt Is pr,rylosul for the approval of apccIfla develupmenl, will, the ubnv. _,net I1Mled coil shmmts determining the accepiahllity of such ,nupu::als It is cxir Josn, to work cotqu•lativc•IV nth the City an,l County h, tbos, u,nitets. We apptecutto your concldel alien of this malt -+r and look lot •yard to a cog qu•rativu planning f� 1'uurc Ituh•, � t C. A ..... e -c F���.. ` Ste• J e .r %11..- < rc� CcL/i S t•tgtcriv Uwncr r 1 t! ?!1� cc Air. I Auran Wassrt ratan r t� I, A'Ir Jack 1, ill = t r 1. Ct. %. L Ce.. A,. L. e Air Joint lilayucy c�a...•n,�.:lo` ' ' �!L 1'hutning l(vscrvt At ca September 12, I978 Pagc I wo We, thncfore, propose Ihat the 1'latuung "RCSt•t It'" catcgery Ile cl(hct re- ntoved from these prolvides or re- defntal with the following Constraints. I 'Iltat development constraints prollostd by nccesmu•y flood coutrul Ix analyzed to more clearly Mine llte necessary constt:nints. 2. That develolrincst in the wren follow a lulu al a pattern as dcfhaJ by ccCSS and accemmbility of uttliticS, a. Thal ute Ialul plan fill' the area dccign•ut Iutthvl dt•vcltgl,acat constraints to haute the preservation of the natutal land forms We do not b,-licve that atfvone Clio forecast at Ihi, tuns wll.0 file ulttnI'llc dcvclopntt•nt dens it tcS m Specific dcf.ign choI ac[( I fstit r. wIII IC. SIIIW to I 11.11 sttnly will IV necessary liefori such coat lusitm, , an IK roachtd lvt I callze [lint the city or Itanrhu cucanwnga prol>,ably c,tnt:nl :Ifluid Other tilt' funds or the time of it s, ctmcultants to accomplish tiled ✓tnitt :c Such Work w:aihl 1111110 to IV accantpllsht-tl by tilt prlv:nt crcnn ;IS dt'vchrytmcnt IS p1 opont•tl for the approval of specific dcvt•lopolvill, wash tilt :Ihuvt nit•ntiooul cun- straints dctt•nnhliug the acceptability of euch pr•Ipo ;a L•: It is out• dcsirt' to work ctnrylcrafivolV will) tilt city and County in ihesc nmita't :s. Wt• appreciate your consnleiatiuu of tins omitet Ono 1tKIk I'm .card nI a ciNqu'rative pinuniug effort. CC Mr. I lurca W:ISnI.•I'lllall Mr Jack I•anI fvlr Jahn 111;1vnct• i 14•tq¢•Yly owner i "1-111111119 R"VI'V. At ,a Scptcullier 12, 197H We. therefore, prop. ise tint Elie 1'Imutinit'•Ite—I've" cnlegory Ix cltln•I Ic- nloved front these properties or re- (IcOnttl will, the following constraints• 1 'Inns dceclopmcnt constraints prupttslal by IlecesHaiv Illnxl control Ile analyzed to more cleat ly define Lite necevsaly constraints -float develcillm nl In tits area fulioty a access and acect.sibllliy of utilities Thal 1111. I -nix! I'lnn feet the area designate file tier dt to Imlure the prrs.awation of ute Ila tit rr.l Innd fill Ilia We do not I)elicvc that anyone •011 forecast at (1114 tinlr allot If,, ultiumlt development dcnsitr•t, or Spvcdic (1081911 MaI )clot [Shea wf!I Ile. Sl1lASto111Ln1 study will lee aeceshniy I)efori such conciu•:inu can Ix Ivachal W( Icnlizr that the CIli• of Rant lit) Cucamonga pt elllnbly t ntlu +t affottl euher the hutds or the little of It's consultants to accontpllsh lht-gt KhkI1CS. Such work arndd have to he accun•plh.hcll by the private reelul 11 8 devt ltq+nmttt Is pugxtstd for Elie approval of spc1.•Ific devchqunC11t, will tit anovc•Incntlulud Celli straints determining tit:- accepta III II[V of sucl plelposaIs. It Is out• dosirt u) work couliclat Ive IV t ^I(It the t:Ity a led t:nu11ty In It IvK( luall •t S. We app eeialt your Conslderatioil of I III P III it tern Ikl Itx)I. foi ward It a c,k)perntive planu1III, effort. I'tit cu Wa,'t rnl.tn Jock I elm Jniu1 Itlaym v N, nning Reserve At ca Septcmlx:r 12, 1978 page 1•wo We, therefore, propose tllar the pl:ttnung "IlcscrIe" category Ile elther re- moved from these properties or re- definitl with the following constraints; L That development constrmnts protiosed by necessary flood control be analyzed to more clearly define the necessat v constraints 2. 'flint d,wulopineat is the nrcn follow a logical pattern ad doff, by occers and accessibility of utilitcs. 3. That the I.alxl plan for Elie nrcn deslgnme it rther developlacnt constraints to insure tits preservation of the natural land farms We (lo not believe Ihat aayunc can fm coast at Oils UnIC what the ultlnmtc development dca"Ien of 9pcClfiC (ICS(YI) 0Ia I.ICtL rl9tiVS will Ile. sldl.9ttllltia1 studv will IV nccesgaty More such conclusionv Lail he rcachal We Ical& that the My of Han(ho Cvcatlumga prolclbly cannot affoltl citllcr the funds ur the tittle of it's Consultants to acc(1I11p I1S11 dll'Sl• SItKIIeS Sulk wog k ww uuld have to be accoi 1ptiehal by the PI ivate sector os dcvUlop,ncot Is proposal for the approval of specific devclapnlcat, wilh III( abnvl -mcutionud con- straints deter mfaing tilt accepinblliry of such i I opusals. It Is our desire to work sooner :atively with the, (aty, alxl County in (base nnttets. WC upprck -late your consideration or Wis matter nix] It1r)k fill wind to a ctioli vrativc planniupt effort. cr, pir laurenwne,�etnlm•, Mr lack I.nu Alr John Illayncy Yours tvhv, 11 � I'rupcuv ( wider .Z:. j — Ci, — /4/ '.1 . 10ANGUAR l► COMPANIES 9211 ARCHIBALD AVE. • CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 • (714) 987.6376 ' City o-a Rancho Cucamonga Pjaining Coandsslon 9310 Baseline Cucamonga, California 91730 Door Sirs, Soptcriber 13, 1978 4E GeneraI Plan- VOnguard Property - North side of 19th. frelm Ramona Avenue Extension - westerly to commercial corner vanguard is the owner of approximately 1r acres located cast of the - - existing eomaoreial center at Archibald Avenue and 19th'street, south of the proposed freeway Iva have been involved with this ownership fe- over 2 yearsm during which we have ottained R -3 roning and further maintained It It was first provided through the County of San nor - nardino and later confirmed by the Citg Council or Poncho Cucamonga The development Plan has been reviawcd avd revised by rho County staff and a great deal of time end money &is beer spent going through tlmse procedures The Proposed General rlan slows high densite for similmar property located westerly of Archibald Avenue, and this would be both a natural extension and the reasonable cut -oft for the high density area Also, th- General Plan tex� emntlons multi- famtlu areas to ho considered ajoinlaq shopping centers and major thorofares This property meta tvth of these criteria and further prmddas a good buffor to lath the commercial center and the adjoining free vy We hereby reguest that the high density designation be shown on the next 10 acres easterly of the commercial area destgnnted at the nortl- c.,st comer of 19th and Archibald Your eonsiderarten would he greatly appro. fated Miles Your- "'r-1 truly, Ron N,t t unhmn Di r, motor of h vt lcl)mont vanguard rrmpanres I a ti � rrr�r� V► o.a. a z 3�1 ftb -� e Waa,, D�If M- [—i O �V,a° Will o •i�1 � .° •1 i q�?ld's mil• � a ti � rrr�r� V► o.a. a z 3�1 ftb -� e Waa,, D�If M- [—i O �V,a° o mil• —A, no ftb -� a b wl I It �� = fe o • JM• dye � i._ Betty Ann, Inc. 2620 South Mayflor.er Avenue Arcadia, California 91006 SepLcmbcr 13, 1976 R.mcho Cucamonga Planning Commission 9140 Baseline Road R.:ncho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attention: Cr. Richard Dahl Re: Assessor's Parcel No 202 141 11 Geltlemen: Betty Ann, Inc. owns approximately 0 568 acres of undrwlopce property lying between Archibald Avenue and Anethyst Avenue between Baseline and 19th Street, lying approxin:toly 220 feet north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way. Presently the property is zoned R3. In reviewing the proposed general plan, it appears that the Planning, Commission night be contemplating changing the zoning from R7 to R1 ;te res�cctfully request that the zoning be maintained as R3 (hl or in the alternative AP. The intersection of Baseline and Archibale Avenues include two well established shopping centers .nd a th rd shopping center breaking grorind shortly. Between Baseline and the Southern. Pacific railroad right of way is a large commercial home improvement center under construction. There is also the American Can Corporation factory lying jusL south to our property and Steel ',iebb Corporation (a manufacturer of wood trusses) and a recently completed rental equipment yard, both contiguous to our property Immediately to the north is a large mobile home park and at the intersection of 19th Street and Archibald Avenue there is a large Stater Brothers shopping center and another shopping center to soon get under way. Rancho Cucamonga planning Commission September 13, Page 2 To andesorable by withill area would result in spot zoning not We are enclosing a plot plan locating our prorarty for your ease of reference. We resp„ctfully urge you, there £ore, to maintain the existing zoning, or in the alternative change the zoning to AP. Rnspectfully submitted, lil••C�'x' ;Sttt� By V t., 311 u- y iy"" :v S•. r r - A— AMETHYST AVENUE �yji,= ,ia• • 27000 900 °26'00" E �.�.� {t 70.00 120.00 80,00 �\ O R p N O p0 O: N 7000 E 110.00 a s w N - p N 4 • b J �r7 N O F �- P N N �> O m •n o (D v0, nJi •, 30 _ s frOa • sS rAO�rt 11 C .34744(Ree347.44) 500°26'00E T o 41 z j 25144 96.00 a N L //�\ I�c`��`"r saes o Qi °p >' 4 so Jv G ga° ; J b � •C 0.07 3(6.01 a �� ' '.. 06725 S 00 0'645° E cnu w of t. <i 4 1 _ s"; ARCHIBALD AVENUE 22 10385 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 September 13, 1978 1 r r CITY Uf C8p ' c R!J[ cc]:numrr fntio zCa,'A9ACA ull n[Pt, SEP 1 G 1978 AAI fir Jack Lam, Director of Community Dove lopment!l $IgII�II)IItIi121�)I,(I: e� City of Rancho Cucamonga k 9320 -C Baseline Fiad Post Office Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. Lam: r own approximately thirty -five (35) acros on the south- west corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue As I un- derstand your Master Plan, you ire proposing a mixed use on some small frontage with the majority of property used for medium density residential. I feel this use is both disadvantageous to me and to the City. fly property is bounded on the west by Day Creek Channel Immediately to the east will be major industtial and to the north, probably conmxircial. My property is best suited to de- velop larger commercial activities and I think it is a mistake to have residential zoning in this area. I therefore •-equest that the Raster Plan reflect suffic- ient alternatives to allow full commercial development on this property. Very truly yours, Frank DeAmbrogio cc: Jeimes C. Frost, Mayor CC: Charles A West, Councilman cc: Jo% D Mikels, Councilman Cc: Mi hael A Palombo, Councilman cc: Phillip 0 Schlosser, Councilman c Curai of a Chair,Ger of Commerce c 9354 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 T ELEPI I ON E: 714.987.1012 Sept. 13, 1'73 To: Plannint: Commicsion City of Rancho Cucamongo From: Tho Poard of Directors Rancho Cucmeongi Clnnber of Commerce Subject: lnduatr :al Area of the Land Ure Element of Gee Cenral Plnn. It 1. I ^ reggcat of the Rancho Cucamoni-) Chamber of Commerce nc'i "- urer the recc- endation of it¢ Inl "ctrial Cc-nit ee t.1-it the lerign-tio, o '4tin1murl 4 -p'rt tndv,trial" ¢ad "'labor indtrt'• " to dr' ^tom) r ^or t're r , ,1 lnn•l ire alre ^nl, In their rincca we an% thn, ," m1 .iitutr life more r. re, 1 doilrnition •r "rnduc'rill" (Mir Tn1w tr 11 Crnitlre intendn to ruimt' to 'h•• rlty t!t o,rir t e- C t'r rlrnnrir rep'rtmcnt rprcif', olanninr coe•trnr 'br 'nl,.,trial 't i of ' u• •o Cut - 'onrr •r v it int -rented in forth,- a ^•reel• rt and de tea .I r ^d: tot ''te indn'tri,l a,et- T' 'a not t4r tr',•nt of the Cumber to d,,) v lie adoption or Itu' laid ice element of the General °Lan, but rather to wm1 will, the Cilv'n Pla'•nirr Pep ^r•ter11' !e a , "e if the htrhn t and ', ,:r for au•• City' indut.trial Lind. Lvery effort will be mane to accompllrh the pmjecl pilhur cix to ei Cht montic. lot the'ioti,t of Dlr,•cto, 1. hnmphrcy k,ec. Ptrector J �� 11 EXCLUSIVE GALLERY OF h0MESr REALTORS &M V-W -1 1802 September 16, 1976 Mr. Jack lam, Plarning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga Baseline Road at Hellman Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Lama j • 4 r l (17Y or HAr.CHO VXAMOBGA loLiL1�E11TP DCVilopwNr DCP1. SEP 11i 1978 AM ':181 Oil Ii121i 12181.11516 R With regard to the General Plan proposed for the City, may I say that in the whole., the plan show considerable fore- sight and insight, anu is in the community's best interest. I attended the drafting session and the first public hearing last Wednesday evening, and was impressed with the results of both. Two items on the plan, I believe, need amendment prior to adoption. One was mentioned Wednesday evening, and one has just come to my attention. First, the Joseph Filippi property surrounding the Winery at the NEC Foothill and Vineyard should not be re -zoned or considered as suitable land for P. -3 type development. The citizens group representing surrounding homeowners objects, Mr. Filippi objects, I (as a resident of the City and th•- operator and owner of a business and land across the street) object, and it seems that common sense would dictate d C zolio for this land. Co.mnercial zoning is the logical use for the land, and one which should serve the best interests of all the community. Apartments on two busy Lhotufares Is not the highest and best use, and will detract from the esthetic appeal of California's oldest Winery. Second, it appears that on the Coneral Plan that the :and on which my business is now operating (and is now •tuned C -2, and on which we anticipate development of an office bultding under DR 78 -12) has been planned as R -3 zone. This should be amended to reflect current and proposed utio of this parcel, whichi-s immediately north of the wwc Foothill and Vineyard. Thank /yat r your consideration. W. M. Schultz, P�esidont eel Joseph A. Filippi IVA RRG\' a OdIP I \ I! S Cnnlndon Uemio;in I ! y 7 I> CITY OF RAN PO CIICAGIOIIG,1 616 So. SemnJ . \.en�r Cmtna. California 91723 CCIN,iWdfy ClYl10NIU1f 000. 12131331-22-511,114) 599 14 21 :11, 11 19 1978 AM PSI 71S 19110 Ill 112111213141516 September 18, 1978 A Planning Commission and Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 9340 Baseline, Suite A Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91701 Attention: Mr. Jack Lam Dear Sirs, Arthur A. warren entered into an escrow to purchase the attached land for industrial use on rear with commercial on the front approximately 1 -1 -78. We were assured at that time that this use would be acceptable to the "to be formed" Rancho Cucamonga. We therefore prepared complete plans, secured fin- ancing, and are prepared upon issuing of building permits , to begin construction on the site. We walked into the County offices in Ontario, to file for plan check Sept. 1, 1978, and were told all plans are now being checked by "the City ". We then went to the City, spoke with Mr. Bill Hoffman re- garding our project, discussed our plans and agreed to make changes acceptable to both us and the City. As we were about to leave, he turned to "The proposed general plan " - which shows our property R -1 We have incurred considerable expense to bring our project to this point. Plans, loan fees, etc. are approximately $20,000. We feel we are being deprived of a property right in having the land down- zoned, especially since we were assured by the County, our nroject would go in the City. The land in question has been zoned M -1 for 20+ years. The site to the south, in the City of Onatario where the new R -1 sub- division is, was zoned Commercial until the R -1 use was proposed to the City of Ontario We, therefore, request that the zoning remain as is M -1, as to permit our development and that the planning 11' I RRLA'f'U IIP Conlncims lk-1 -ra, 6765o. second Awnue CoHoa. Uifomb 91721 12111111.2211 1171411047471 Page 2 department to be directed to accept our plans for plan check and building permits. We request immediate action on this as we are up against time limit on our financing commitment. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, (�} Arthur A. Warren AW:ga Enclosure r �. !2 &z ,d&& 5}g!, ¥ J / � J d ! z 5 � , r • T r , J p r p r, , , �'r�l�tr, ur'.� r,r.nr i\r t,tvr cx►nit �1:� rYl \tJnllrl AL, INIlOY1111,11 yr Vll ort'ns itr \I. r'O% 1 itnrcr11s r o no. vo . v.wv ,n... ,... u.,, ,..., +ry n vr,• +..o r.. .�., nn, vn September` 71, 1978 Flanning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga r o Pov 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California 9173^ Fe: Obj ^ction to G -nrral Plan utr denigra for for Northea•,t corner of 19th E fmcthyst and ttorthuc.•r rcrner of 19th 6 Archibald Dear tlembers Thir letter in to rrtablish our Crmlanyit, objection, in ,riling, to the proposed Fcnrral Plan I1if1, •It n-it, residential it I n- gnation on our, prcl•. rty Our Comp.rin ••wn:. I.ot1• the North• corner of 19th f Am, thynt and Lhn Ilo -thu, •n coiner of 1711 Archibald We have .r•rcured the oninr m ,;:racy to devrl,•1 thr„o two project nearly two y,:,, aeo •,nd have been will :, -r closely with the County of San Sr ru ,rdino to get those p,.*% -,tc approved We arr currently goiof throrrb the dircrtor r vi,w• process with your rity on both pen jcr t•. and anticipate t rtnninp constructiou in th, near future As You know, th• rluposed r.ener,Il plan with on, .•r rent r1 rnr and ;l•• + •1 jcct' 'or 1.• , . t1 ref ore, w, .L1 liI•c for the pt.•pn:r•1 Go ncral rIeti t rnf l rrl c•ormrrcial on out, prnpot•l ic; I bavc crcic -rd a crr• of thr let ,l to Itr. Wo—t• to n, .•n April n, 1117 ^, t.• Itevile Cc,- uitl 1 , if. ...... .+ on lh., 1 •, +•`,.:4 corner of I'lll 1rrthi,,t It, i ^,I i i•'N' rn•lo••r.l a ,.1r f Ilu: Ram b.• Cn, :,on.a lily Counri] r, c, .rrorn l,lt irn rcl Lrc.t• : ••1 the minute. rf Apt it l9, 1978, mc—fe 1,- 'inco that r„c,• �• ••e- tion we Iii- vk L—i. - •r ,v: +,p -cn ^ , for hi:. input a- to the site Plan rviteri.l required by if.. ,•ity r. Plinninr cc,nninn101• City of Rancho Cucamonga Srotemhn1, 71, 1978 Page Two (7) We have also met with Planning Assistant Bill Irofman to dincuns the project and I,vn revised the Plan arrording to his recom- mendations We Lave also c,mplicd wi lh the changes requr.tr•d in the Director review meeting of 4rptember 7, 1978, inrinding another 11 feet set hark requirenu•nt f,n 11•t Intl, Avenue I, cot widening This project is schodul •11 for lhr• Plaumini, Commt Pion so that we mac finally move forward on the project 7h•' northwest corner of 19th E Ar_htlI nl pro;ect is zonr•I r -1 pfnding : ite plan apptevll :hie ,•I "•.t ha; followed mu ,, the sdme course .. that •rllicl I have out I ine,l rhuve and has r. nnired -ore than two wars of time, offnr•l nod money to date h 1. Ive owne•1 the property for •,ome time and nrve fully nerotint, 1 r lelse with Urky Supermarket and I chain restnrrant bai,ed ulon the fact tit, t tlip property was zone I '•y 'h,• Coonty of Fan - Bernardino o rrovi,le for a commcr• i 1-1 h,•ppinr e, -ntrr I. mrnt We hav,- submit•ed a site P11111 to fPike Vairan, P1annlr•r Assistant, that we ha+e revised per tl „• c Ivs planning I- - II I- mrnt request to meet with vaviou, 7 nl,lsc'ap,nv r•equiremrtrl ntr Lollow;ng their rncommrndationc, we at, prerat ^d to fire not the site plan before the rlanning Conoi on a- -„on a% pop: ,bl, fo, their Iinal Ipprrvol I thin): you can •ee from the explanition Ilnfe that wt- have beer, uorkinr for year: in 1-0011 faith with in; Cruply of Fan P,•rn n'dino Ilid now lately .rith the newly inrorl'orete'l Vity of Rancho Cucamonga to grt there projects a;pr•nverl We feel that with the zoning that cu ^rontly exists ind the cen,:iderable li'r•• tad effort already nxr•nded to meet tit,. requirnmrnts as set rut by the Count? Ind Cit alike, it is liar lly the time 'o d1- id, to place high d••nsi tv Iportments as n 1 ­Id u•:o designation I think ) nn• I l Inni it 1, Irtment tat' -.ill I ^r that an 1•,v- been v,ry ro,,prrot,,. h. Ieinr to r1-,•' v,,,r Irthrt is I 'a- oir-, thercl , "t)lJ Iiku the , ,,r it plan, when it i adopted, to bn ,ont i •rnt Witn our 7on;nn on the property Ind we will croperate in an;wav feasible to u'complish thi: goal Very Lr,r1v vnur„ VAUIP, M.VLI,0Pr1CNT CUHPPHY i GARY III 1't AU GW /dmo Enclosure: (1) L'ttcr dalcrl April h, 117,1 �y City Manager- Rancho C'rcamonFa (1) City Coundil ninl.tra datr,l April 19, 1978 1-y ?,,anchv Cucamo 'ya Chamber O f Commerce 9:154 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 TELEPHONE. 714. 987.1012 October 24, 1978 A Proposal To The Coeraunity Development ')irector From The Industrial Committee Of The Chamber Of Commerce Regarding The General Plan For 'The Industrial Area Of Rancho Cucamonga. The Purpose of this proposal in to provide input from a concerned Troup of Industrial users and land owners through the Industrial Co,mnittce of the Rancho Cueamonga Chamber of Coowerce, no that the city may develop a more specific plan for the Industrial aren within Rancho Cucamonga. The propnaal is meant to be an wtline of concerns ani directions for study, rathao t.un a position leper on specific recormendntiow for solutions. It in •wt the intention of the Industrial formittee of the Chamber to act no profesniond planners, nor in it our intention to imply that we are qualified to undertake the detailed studies required to come up with a comprehensive, as well us specific plan for the industrial area of Rancho Cucamonga. The committee can, though, through our experience an Industrial Developers, land owners, and Industrial users, provide professional information an to specific problems of development in certain key areas; and we may provide our own insights into possible solutions to the general problems of development in the Industrial area of Rancho Cucwonga. Through the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Con;ierce, various industrial it-ern, land owners, and developers have rot weekly, for 3 months, to find how we could beat provide input to the city on the Industrial portion of the land use element of the General Plum. A lint of those participating in provided in thin proposal package. In these meetings we *avc agreed upon the following: A more detailed plan for the Industrial area in needed, and we recarmend that a planner be hired by the City to undertake this inok. If the City so chooses we will endorse Jnhn Binney an tint planner. It is the intent of the members of the committee and other interested Parties to provide the financial support for this plan. Said funding is to be administered by the city, according to an agreed upon scope of work. The cost phasing of this plan will follow two steps 4 Page 2 continued We have at hand 82,000.0o, which Should be sufficient to pay for the costa involved for an initial meeting with the planning consultant, the city staff, and the members of the committee. The purpose of thin meeting is to diseuso with the planning consultant what studies will be needed, the phasing of these studies, and their specific costa. The committee has discussed the total coats and it in believed the coomitmenta for this total funding will be at hand pending the auccessful outcome of the proposed initial meeting. The committee bas, for the purposes of study, divided the industrial area Into 3 mayor zones. And it has invited comment and information from the industries, land owners, residents, and developers in these areas. Vith this information we have drafted three specific outlines for the planner to use Or a boom for his studies of the industrial area. You will find a map outlining the 3 zones and a separate outline for each zone included in this proposal package. There are certain items of area vide concern which include the following: I. What method will be used to classify and segregate industrial uses within the zone? 2. Commercial Development A. What kinds of commercial development will be allowed? 8. What locations will be suitable for commercial development? C. What amount of commercial development will be allowed in the area? 3. What atnndards of development Will beat nerve as a buffer to surrounding uses? 4. How can we preserve and protect existing uses? 5 What specific studies will be needed to generate a successful detailed plan? (examples: traffic studies, storm drain studies, and financial sources studies) ]AST COa4mrfs It is the Iwpc of the industrial eommittec thvl the plan, as prepared, will nerve en u guideline in oddreaning the services and infra structure required for the area. And for the fundlvf there of in order that we ensure the long term economic stability of the Induatrial tax bane. As mentioned previously, thin in where we feel our Input can be of moat service. We feel this industrial detailed plan 16 of citywide Importance and we look forward to our continued invol%ement with ntaff and eommisoion and we hope that this proposal stimulates input from other interested par,tcn. k= Chnirman TYancho Cucamoa Cha i»6er o f Commerce Chnirmat Paul Hindnaa Joe Di7orio David Humphrey Robert Salazar Robert Gutton Charles Neat Jack HcHay, Steve Limn till Gordon Randy Bond Frank Black Jock Ian Ray Robinnon Tony Cover Jim Soirl Paul Sullivan Jain Pene Art Romandy Crater Filpi Henry Reiter Richard Lewis John Alstrom Us Carelli Dona Columbero Leonard Levy Jeff Sceranka Richard 11. Wagner Frank Cooney 9354 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD RAN -:HO CUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA 91730 TUI.EPI LONE: 714.987.1012 INDUSTRIAL CNLIl1iTSE V:ndrum Preclsior. Products Trinity De +ulopn,ent Co. RL.cbo Cuemm3n_ra Chambor of Commerce Su. Col. Gin Co. Sutton Place Abitftl Corp. HcHay Realtor Lucaa Tnnd Co. Brat D.tspoval Co. So. GQ. FAIlaon Co. RATA Com=nity Development Iirector Kaiser Steel Corp. Stoner Communications Vanguard Buildern Frito -lay, Inc. Santa Fe 3Ltllway Cc. Economic Development Dept. G.B. County Cucamonga Industrial Center A.H. Reiter Development Co. IPVin homes of California J.D. Lusk Co. Carlaberg Construction Co. Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Center Jarnel Inventmenta, LTD Lasso Land Co. Rirhard R. Wagner Realt ,ir Economic Development Dept. S.D. County AY CATLIHE TO BE USED MR DEVELOPJ, f OP AN 13DUSTRIAL, KASTEH PLAN FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA INCORPORATING ZONE A Zone A includes land presently used for mixed commercial, residential and industrial develtlpmert. Its western boundary extends to Baker Stree- and Its Casten' to Haven Avenue. 7b the north it is bounded by Array Hwy. and to Me south by 6th Street. I. Preservation of Exls.`.ing Urea Y.aoy of the industries In this area have uses which would need • to be incorporated into roping classification that would allow the following: A. Outside Storam (Curnmtly unscreened) S. Heavy Tmz*c Traffic C. Hall Users D. Odors E. P. C. II. Development of Boulevard Prcotan- Zone A : ncludes parts of Vineyard, Hellman, Archibald, and naves Avenues, ruining myth- south, and Arrow, 9Lh, 8th, and 16th Streets. ram'Inc east -vent The Sao Bernardino Tretvay bas off ranrys on hares. Archibald and Vineyard Avenues. Paven and Archibaid Aveaws are designated on the proposed OCeml Plan for Rancho Cucamonga w "Special Boulevards". 7be a are two pastor consideration for frontaCe development In this area: "r Y A. Traffic Plow 1 Access - Restrictions and Requirements 2. Setback - Requirements 3. landscaping - Requirements 4. Development Standards for Special Boulevards 5. 6. B. Usage 1. Commercial Use - Restricted to What Areas? Commercial Development eiie�Jd be restricted to Archibald and Raven Avenueyl and 4th Street? 2. What Kind of Commercial Use - Service Commercial or Supportive Commcrcial? As it exists now, service commercial is intermixed with supportive commercial and this mixture t= lia,,f{' L - - necessltated by the close proximity of residential users and the Ontario International Airport 3. Would Other Uses be Appropriute for Bonlevard Development? The General Plan has affirmed the City's rejection of block walls along boulevards. Access would not be allowed for individual residences There is no provision in the General Plan for high density zoning in this area. Therefore, there Is no alternative to commercial and Industrial development of the major thoroughfarts in this zone and these appear to be the highest and beat use for the area. III. Buffer Zones This zone to interspersed with residential, commercial and Industrial development, with an emphasis on industrial It Is of prima concern to industrial commmercinl and maidential users to provide for development restrictions that would allow for the intrgrity of each and at the name time have adequate provision for landscaping setback and boulevard development restrictions to act as a buffer zone between users IV. General Notes Zone A'a design goal In to alloy service and supportive commercial on the boundarlen of ?anr A on well as industries that would be appropriwte for transition between residential and Industrial In the Interior of this zone, users would be allowed minimum restrictions as to their uses bul 111:.: 1. ....i n, , .m It 15 important to dcoignate restrictions that vill allow office buildings and professional uses for this zone on its boundaries. AN OUTLINE TO BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL MASTER PLAN FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA INOORPORA nNC ZONE B Zone B Includes land presently and primarily vacant with existing heavy industrial and probability of major office uses along Foothill Boulevard and some forms of commercial. Boundaries are Foothill Boulevard on the north, Fourth Street on the south, haven Avenue on the west and Devore Freeway on the cast. I. Preservation of Existing Uses Many of the industries In this area have uses which would need to be incorporated into zoning classifications Jhat would allow the following: A Outside storage (currently unscrcened). B. l lcavy truck traffic. C. Rall users. D. Odors. IL Development of Boulevard Frontages Zone B lncluden parts or Haven Avenue, runnina,nortll /south, nrd Arrow, Ninth, Eighth and F -urth Streets, running cant /went 1 71st• San Bernardino trcev.•),y has an uff tamp on Haven Avenue II•tvrn and rrnlhtil dveunen nre dc:arn•d.t•tI on the plc)Innod General rinn fnr nanchn Cuvam,ne•n •t. "y n•, lal I4mlrvnrd:." There are tvm mn,lnr rnnsfdernh loon far frnntnl.e dcvelnpmrnt in this nraa: A. Traffic Flow I. Access - restrictions oirl requirements. 2. Setback - requirements. 3. Landscaping - rcquircnhcnts 4 Development standards for Special Boulevards. S. Consideration should be given ton traffic study for the entire area so that tcfhhltfons may be made to insure the separateness and efficiency of both truck andl other related Industrial traffic and the necessity of nwin- mining through traffic to serve the rest of the City. aftril Outline - Industrial Master Pla i, Zone II Page 2 B. Usage I. Commercial Use - Restricted to what Areas? ommorcla developmcfht should be reatrlcted to certain areas on the perimeter of Zone B and grouped In such a manner as to minimize the impact of coin - mercial traffic against the industrial and through traffic. 2. What Kind of Commercial Use - Service Commercial or u ortiva Commarc a t may a best to rev ew the total amount of service commercial shown on the existing version of the General Plan to determine whether as a practical matter such service commercial would have to be introduced into Zone B In order to fulfill the total service commercial needs of to City. It has been the majority opinion of property owners In this area that service commercial should be kept at an absolute minimum but that supportive commercial is a needed clement and should be arranged to most efficiently service the lndustrial area. 3. What other uses to be A ro rlate for Doulevard eve opmont Ufflcc type use is most appropriate along Foothill Boulevard as an alternative to commercial loses. A more defined set of landscaping standards to buffer industrial Imes from the major boulevards needs to be determined. III. Buffer Zones The Gencral industrial category shown for Zone B needs to be better defined so that the existing heavy industrial can be buffered, par- ticularly along the Zone's perimeters from other land uses and to Insure that there arc no conflicting ]and uses within the Zone. It Is proposed that a greater number of use categories he established, IV. General Notes A. Zone B's design goal Is to allow expansion of existing honvy Industrial uses at the same time that adequate and reasonable development standards are Instituted to Insure the long term attractiveness of the area, both within the Zone and along It's perimeters. a•ta� I Y Outline - Industrial Nbutcr Plan, Zone 11 Page 3 B. 'Ap major infra - structure problem In this area is ine resolution of storm drainage which Is a matter of separate analysts, but which must be done to order to allow ongoing development.. t•y AN OUTLINE TO BE USED FOR DEVEOMENr OF AN INDUSTRIAL FASTER PLAN FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA INCORPORATING ZONE C lone C. Included land presently and primarily held by three Urge ownerst e.l, Ameron, Southern California Edison and DOW Chemical, although none of these properties are totally developed at this time. Balance of land in Zone C is In smaller parcels, mostly industrial, some cosmercial on Foothill Boulevard, and a small non - conforming housing trait, which does have Its own sewer plant. Boundaries ars Foothill Boulevard on the North, Fouth Street on the South, Devore Freeway on the Vest and Hickory Street on the Fast, I. II, Preservation of Wistinz Uses Many of the industries in this area have uses which would need to be Incorporated into zoning classifications that would allow the following, A. Outside storage (currently unscreened). B. Heavy truck traffic C. Rail users D. Cdorn Developoent of Boulevard Frontamea Zone C. Includes parts of Ptivanda Avenue running north /south and Foothill Boulevard and Fourth Street running east /west. Devore Freeway has off ramps on Fourth Street and Foothill Boulevard, Which to designated an a Special Boulevard. Arrow Route is designated as a Secondary Thoroughfare, Etlwanda Avenue and Fourth Street as Major Thoroughfares. A. Traffic Flow 1, Consideration should be given to a traffic study for the entire area so that definitions may be cede to insure the separateness and efficiency of both truck and other related Industrial traffic and the necessity of maintaining through traffic to serve the rent of the City, 2. With the extension of Devore Freeway a question arisen an to the designated use of Etiwanda Avenue, rod the possible diversion of Industrial traffic from the residential area. Also a possibility - Arrow F.cuto, which is row 104' B/V canter planned, could be extended to 120' R/H to accomodate Industrial traffic generated by Increasing development, Outline - Industrial Neater Plan, Zone C Page 2 B. Usage 1, Commercial Use Pms;bIY Should be restricted to certain areas on Foothill Bouvhi led, with awe consideration given to t1�a off -ramp from Devore Freeway ca Fourth Street, III, Buffer Zones A. A defined set of landscaping standards, along with awe lighter Industrial use, could effectively buffer the sajor Industrial area from the Possible commercial and existing tract on Foothill Boulevard, B. Southern California Edison Boulder Transmlcaion separates and divided the north /east quadrant of Zone C - also will - provide an effective buffer for the existing housing tract, C, Flood control projects along Etlwnnda Creek and between Hickory and Ilex Street will also provide a buffer from the neighboring city, although the general growth in that area is certainly oriented toward heavy industry, IV, Ceneral Notes A. Zone C's design goal is to allow expansion of existing heavy Industrial uses at the same time that adequate and reasonable development standards are Instituted to incurs the long term attractiveness of the area, both within the Zone and along its perimeters, Win .Lnvrrmn 9�rn,dfi 9/an,u xJi t`ml . Imrur yq .API. x .ra, J19,11.. (wi/mnia gW31 Soptcrbor 25rd, I'M City Council of Rancha Cucamonga c/o Lucca Land C¢rpaJy 9224 Foothill Boulevard Foot office Dox 275 Cuamonga, California 91730 Fes rrotoat acainot cone chnnro of Phnolo 2 and 3 of Farcol Yep 4270 Boar Sire: I have become auare that there is a proporod roneral plan of the area urdor conaideration before your council. Doinr the lardo•mer of Ihrcol 2 and 3 of lnrcol Xnp _ 4270, for Adch thin cmmral plan currants chancinc of the mcninr frau C-2 to rovidential uro, I vohomont- 17 protect! This pmperty han boon subdivided, purehneod aryl dovel— oped on the bavin of a Commercial ucaco. It is ironic thr.t, at a time when thia corunity in olru, eling to survive under UP influx of tl,oucandc of people oral that there had to be a moritorirn nppinct more ha oo in the area, that anyone would surroot chang- ing :y property fret ccrnercinl to rocidantin2 urc. The coeto or nervicen demanded by residential in not oololy paid for by raeiuontial propert7 tams. The city ncoda and world benefit far more fret oaloc tax rovonuou from a cormorcial usago. I atrongly !vota.t thin proposed chnneo Tram its procont commercial uno, which In the hrtrhoct and boat uro of this land. Ac you me uoll mmro, there are scot momtn of fallow, empty land all m -cr the area W nhich you nirht uinh to Addroso your attontlon. I uould apprecL:te your lnnvinr uino for the Ivrlxvo for which it Inc boon Ilvurcd end developed. Crnrrninl property IIOT roridontinl. Sincerely, Leonora Thence ,J , n ry to RANCHO 1 rfAilmlGA tm.a hrl+ rvw-o':1vlT DEPT. September 27, 1978 51 p "' 1178 Atl 41 A1911011111r11141111 !1516 Hr. Jack lam Director of Community Development City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Hr. Lam, I have reviewed the Proposed General Plan for the city and the eirata of �epteoher 11, 1976, and have the f--llnaing cements and requests for additions and changes. There are six or seven main thoroughfares in the city and all have become traffic problems with the recent 9toath in the city I believe the General Plan should state the city's plan fur each of these streets in terms of width, number or lane; and access per- mitted In most cases these parameters have .•Ireddy been determined and are specified in county planning The General Plan shows " mixed use" for certain strips and spots along these major thoroughfares when in reality most, if not all, or Lhe ondevelored frontage could be designated "nixed" and be controlled ac to lugmft through limiia Lions on accass required landscaping, minimum architectural stand- ards, etc at the tirie the zoning ordinance Is approved The lens "mixed" should be mare explicitly defined in the General Plan and I would lite to se it defined Pvrc In Lena, of impact (traffic, ascetics, noise, etc ) and include low impact conmercial Some comrercial enterprises have far less Omfact than institutions such as church schools or medical clinics and high rise apartmenis The very linited amount Of both mixed and commercial area in the General Plan has made the area a speculators paradise and has, in come cpcos, crelt,'' 4rnd;hlps to nnnoinn to fit, cos The "Windrow" ai "a of Etnranda and the "vefv lint" designations to the North and Lo,t of the city seem to be wr'••,resarlly iestilcih^ since these area, afe not serviced by corers and arc, U¢refore, aheady tcstri.led 10'0.0no square font I,t< iry file W,*Q(7G. Ily specific retort radations are as follmr• 1 ) A ;ertion be ddded to the Gennf,l Plan describing the city's plan for majo tfmroughfarP; (Ilohy 30, Dacelinr, roothill, Arrow, Archibald, Haven and Itiwarda.)' M 2 ) lhat all undeveloped land along the major tha roughfares on or South of Ilghy 30 be permitted a mixed or comnercial designation. 3 ) The term "mixed" be expanded to include very low impact commercial 4 ) The designation "very lot" and "Windrow" be combined with Thank you for considering these reconmendations. St17c "n ely, (\ Don R Shipley r' k _ y SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT DIEORICT 8MAUAAIE CHAVEZ ` (' L •� W16 Aalnt.W A., dNE O /WMunopr Coup CITY Of HANCIiD CUCASiCYGl1 cww . w.CA 01)30 010 937 OA ADMINIStl?,mr,N SEP 29 1918 fit Q� Wv`acC• ntD��U^o�fT�"�'I'r�vin�� "".�U � _ 9:,a lke „z�`J n_t% G6tiYtPit fi G[4. �U •wcPiL u c fuel J CvH.Gp ,(] / -�4z% z �I -I�19 Lczv�t -t fu ZKc1.f' Gpn�Rar�0'% ehl j 44c r",l v' .6-c CITY t•,r o,.•(At:Ii-A Al cfHuh- CC1:L,Unr, r•alo:;'t r.t GtP1 ���0 1918 ;u �.; 7t81�1pIIlIL'11i.',t3C1(515 ALTA LOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT 92" RAf[tJNL ROAD. OURC I, P. O. COX 070 ALTA LOMA. GtIIORNl^ 0170, MAP 007 -0700 Septemb,•r 19, 197fl ilia ('I f q ,I •,tS A Iq lack Lao, Community p•vclopment DIn•ctor �lO1Ct�t „ah;ljl ^hjt tfihE City of Rancho Cucamonga P O. Box 793 ✓A Poncho !`icamnga, California Dear Sir: Your department and Jots Slayney Aasor Tatra ire to be rongratulal.•d on the excellent work time on the levro :ed C.•neral Plan The school district 8inn•r Plan and the city's Cenr-ral Plan t•oth a}p•rr that It la prudent In our planning to use the "love f jectlon flrures rather ttwa the cu•rent students per house ratio. The adoption of me of the thry alternatives Into the Gencral Plan will af,. I the final location of two of our pi ,,osad school sltea. The adop'Itst of Altcnmtive B will cartel the n,•••,1 for one elementary school net al :n vrot•ahly ndjuit tie_ location of our second junior high. The reinol di-triet Is going, to proceed with Ilans to purchase an elementary (Y -G) aci.00l itte It the location where the OnPeral Plan show a 7 -A srrwol The location of an addltion,ii junior high (7 -0) school loll 1%,en complicated by the questionable status of the roothill rreewiv Dvsl'le the comment, made by fir. Rh loei IWntir rrptro,ult lnr the JOnrs this 1- an excellent neh•nl -ft, location able to a rve a large walk -in area. The Jonas Ccrpen7 wl:hts to develop the same area Into a suixllvfejon of fifty -ono b m.- It Is unfertunile that the Alta lrnoa School District mved Into Vnat :ng a site In the 11••rmosa area n late Ilmevar• two :rat, Cu. t I: .t r,•nttlt of the d, feat of the state school tmJs, the Platt, refused tc, advance any mot- funds for advance site parcha•w•. Th., school dlstrlet will have fundu to pet)Cn111 with the cite pnrcia:c only If ••,u vi h, ) would Iv hirpv to review whb • ;ten the Plitt, aelertlt,n mt r,I.r,• It's great to love a city and a planninr d, partw•nt so close It hod ;in „•rv•Iv, I'Lopt !! Stork, Mnint;tritor f••r.:onnrl / :np(•ort 5•rvlcc. rFG:nd 8 BRUMMETT & DEMBLON, iNCL 89"uA1. OUICOIMO CONTRAOTONS 9TAT2 L.C. 9609, 9129 uO rUNAi O41vc T9.,L1 OI . CA. 91700 1 12121 207•097• m .J t' 1.1 1•:iU , Ilii'c C' cl' O • I- nnln;- llwncho CItca- Otifia, Ca. 0 'o„ ,; Ltv, o•u p- oi`o,;c alo •, _ ;r 1 a Of G At ..n :' 1_ _ .o� a -- :.a i - alc, _ ^ JIQ �rn4r ., .. a i, o'. ♦„ .. o Lir p. o-„• , ha`_o °o (1) •' r• r ., .. h•ta hot 1 indu „ri.:`1 ..c dh T0.a1• : r1 • ..:1^ i 1- 1 1 ,J U'Lion. 1 •' il, ^P.,, O•ln• I hnt, r'..0 no 1 1, : cA h,• o ,l rrt ,v1 : i iti 1 ..IicL �h• d1- top..�WS ,1 •ra 1„ ill •' • q,Mr;:i;lc to 1 and ^.ho•,10 b•• •r, in• 1IT" 1 , �, p tY CI RANCEO U•fl.MIMCA � cu;,+:u•nr•, orvnaru':fa�rr. 7 SCP 29 I913 Aft ra �" � 'iiAifll�tllt�tjl2t91`jljtG i .� f• � 0 1' 110YI COMPANY Jack Lam Director of Planning P U. 3ax 7931 91730 C mongn Co11F. 1 , 1, „ Scptnmz,er 21, 1978 d t' CITY CF RANCPO CCCANIOIIOA CO!WUHITY I IVI I OMq 1:1 OCPI, S1 p 2 1 1918 Rancho uce , All rat Door Mr. Lauri 71P1900illiViI12131-1151G regards to the Rancho and an the wont oidor�or ntly o Archibald and _ north of ioealino (behind the Alpha loin horkot and south to the flood central channel and the Southern Poclfle Hollroed TrecL.l la zoned High Density Reaidentlol. As aro under construction of a Frrdwaro and Homo Centur Jullding on the northernly five acres= which is Just below the Flood control chnnnel. Thin would put the High Density Residential zone in between Alph .1eto and our Hardware store. as Foal this property and that rema(n[ng south of uo to the Alpha ants Shapping Canter should be ratolnad as a eom- morclollY Archibald and ;n6olin the zoned. th�5lest (f you bolicva mars o,roogv Ir nuc7,•d for High Dcneity linoidontinl, pvaRlb(y the land an the vest aidu or Archibald both North and South of 7asoline could be vo designated. At no construction hno been otorted there yet 31r caroly, i :l(' f� Mayne F. liaison, Pronidant ... H, Hoyt Lumber Co III .I Ir (I I' IP II, r�� J, ,r•�, � i. __ i, i A September 25, 1916 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 193 Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91130 Sub: Proposed General Plan Revision Atten: Mr. Jack cant Gentlemen: The owner of the property that lies adjacent to, and East of Chaffey College has retained Landmark Consultants to request a change to the pro- posed General Plan. At present the prnpore•: General Plan indicates low residential land use In Into area (2 to 5 units per gross a -rc). We feel It is appropriate to change this designation to high (15 to 30 units per gross acre) residential land use for the following reasons: 1. The land adjacent to the college on the West and South is already indicated as high density, we feel It is a natural extension of II.at concept to Include the above mentioned property in that high den - ally zone. 2. The college will require more multi faintly type housing than to othcr,less dense, areas, 3 If the property is classified high density on the General Plan, more latthlde is available for zoning to less dense Lind uses than if the land is General Planned at low density and higher density Is desired ,. •�J'7 opsn;t.tns PI nNNFnt crrRVCY085 re��,WW, -/fV LANDMARK CONSULTANTS t ^ " ° ^�r,: ^r=; ";,,,... — - -CIVIL ENGINEERS---- - - - - -- n,t.iem ww.cm September 25, 1916 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 193 Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91130 Sub: Proposed General Plan Revision Atten: Mr. Jack cant Gentlemen: The owner of the property that lies adjacent to, and East of Chaffey College has retained Landmark Consultants to request a change to the pro- posed General Plan. At present the prnpore•: General Plan indicates low residential land use In Into area (2 to 5 units per gross a -rc). We feel It is appropriate to change this designation to high (15 to 30 units per gross acre) residential land use for the following reasons: 1. The land adjacent to the college on the West and South is already indicated as high density, we feel It is a natural extension of II.at concept to Include the above mentioned property in that high den - ally zone. 2. The college will require more multi faintly type housing than to othcr,less dense, areas, 3 If the property is classified high density on the General Plan, more latthlde is available for zoning to less dense Lind uses than if the land is General Planned at low density and higher density Is desired ,. •�J'7 opsn;t.tns PI nNNFnt crrRVCY085 re��,WW, -/fV Therefore, for the above stated reasons we feel it is necessary to revise the proposed General Plan to increase the land use to high density. If you have any question+ please contact me at this office. RSCO /bj J.N. t7 -2t Very Truly Yours, LANDMARK CONSULT.INTS Roger'•S. Cuntiffe -Owen Y h.eGGree„ Ave lapmcut Co,npanJ 363 SAN MIGUEE DRIVE. SUITE E NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 MM L ROI a 47141 731410 ram. September 27, 1978 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Vembers of the Planning Commission: At issue is the right Ga develop a neighborhood commercial center - cn the ten acre property at the Southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Nineteenth Strect in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Present zoning is C -1 -7 granted by the San Bernardino county Board of Supervisors January 12, 1976 and extended to January, 1979. En- ablement to C -1 zoning was only conditional on site plan approval. Considerable delay to site plan approval was encountered at the county authority because of the Chino Basin Municipal dater Diatrict sower moratorium and consequent reluctance on the part of major tenants to commit to a project when neither a firm development schedule was possible nor a trade area popuiation be accurately projected. Time and circumstance have combined to solve parts of the dilenaa and give better visibility as to the requiremencs for, and potential of, • shopping center at this location. tie are now in a position to offer • proposed site plan for review and approval. Notwithstanding the transfer of jurisdiction in this natter from County to City agency, we anticipated that the zoning and conscquent valuation previously established would be protected and preserved. We therefore ask that our petition for site plan approval and con- comitant zonim3 be acted on without prejudice from the Master Plan now being considered for adoption by the City of Rancho Cucamonga Further, we feel that t1lo January it 1979 expiration date of the C -1 -T zoning must be open to extention if the site plan approval does not precede that date, owing to the delays occasioned by the transfer of zoning authority. City of Rancho Cucamonga September 27, 1978 Pago 2 In reviewing the proposed Master Plan and rationale for limits and location of proposed neighborhood commercial centers we offer the following comment: The John Blaney Associates conclusion that multiple quadrant commercial development at major intersections should be avoided based on the compound premise of (1) overbuilding (2) unnecessary automobile starts and (3) intersection congestion is not valid The same number of automobiles will he shopping the same area, ox- cept that they will not be forced into shopping only one center and create a more concentrated congestion. When implemented to the extent that only one quadrant is allowed commercial retail development, the conclusion becomes more invalid. It becores a restraint on the mer- chant and anticompetitive in the perspective of the consumer In effect it grants rronopoly rights to the first merchant in the trade area, whether or not that market or merchant is preferred by the population. - - Basically, the conclusion infers that the bulk of the consumers needs will be adequately served by one market, one restaurant and perhaps fifteen shops for 9000 people. If not so served the buyer must go to another center at another major intersection. Mist does this do to tr_ffic starts and intersection congestion? At the very least the same vehicle would have an impact on at least two and perhaps more intersections, and creates more driving time and exhaust within this area. Regarding the specitic case of Archibald Avenue and Nineteenth Street and the merits of one commercial quadrant opposite high density, medium density and low density residential quadrants, as proposed in the master plan: The very capacity of the streets and central loca- tion require a more varied commercial development than accomplished by the Stater Brothers center, If only Stater Brothers is allowed on Archibald north of the Southern Pacific Railroad, traffic is accelerating away from a signal and uphill adjacent to the utheast quadrant, limiting its desirability for medium density residential. If only one other commercial center were allowed at this intersection, it should be at one of Lire south corners. If it were allowed at the northwest corner, that places another center next to the Freeway, compounding tire traffic situation there, wh^_reas at the southeast corner the southerly population would not then be required to cross 19th street In aa^viatron, a commicrcial intersection is riot usually resLricLed to only one corner, if for no other reason than tc provide the immaAiate population with more than Stater Brothers market as a choice. And, in this instance, the City would lie taking away zoning which the owners had legally obtained approval for through the preceding governmental agencies. The adoption of a i)wered zone on this property ould be unfair to both the landowner and tire developer, who have c:.pcndcd a great deal of time and resources on this land, and to tire population of Rancho Cucamonga who might wish a greater choice in their shopping opportunities. a* city of Rancho Cucamonga September 27, 1978 Page 3 F; Your consideration of Elie comments in this !attar would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, i Edward B. Robinbon EBR/bz }i F Y: iM } r` t 1 r i r r� r Y p ty v t• , THE GARDEN APARTMENTS CITY 0; PAN',-' Cl r' �t• ( HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIO14 I''•n:I.lIATIONOHGA I ConrcaATr° OCT 11 1978 0 WAV 070EN AVENUE AM AEIA EO /,\A, CA. 91701 71819111111112111213191516 PU September 29, 1978 Planning Commiosion City of Rancho Cucnrionga 9740 Rase Line Road Alta Lona, California 91701 Bear Sirs: Tito under9il•ned, all ]t.rcownrrr of cite Alta Loca Onrdrn Caadomiaitime, Y351t to votce their crncorn rind displensure with the proposal trntained in the pr0roeeml General flan for Rancho - Cuennonga to erect a shopping center on the '•east or west" cornor Of Haven end 1!i Chlned Avenues. Ve .ry kl lil,e to recommend n mollification of the plall such thnt nr•r llur cast, west, north or south of lliphland and Ilaien he deielt•ped ns a shopping center. i'irst of nil, the Cenornl plan •,howv this area as rerident- inl in character. le do mat agree that n :4101••ine center is cnmpntible with the indicated rise, t,•.rinl shepling ccutrt•s n]i cady exist on 1r"tb and Bare Line .,v. lilies , •o that there is simply no need for in additional 0101-11trtr confer only two bloclts nwny from the Stairr's Supermarket corplev. C.en John Moyne)-, nt the public heoriug on Septenbor 13, admitted that there were already 100 rally shopping centers for Alin Loma. Second, the existence of Chaffty College north of the 1•tojected sholring crater with its 1•resent 10,000 students, faculty and stuff rembers poinC up acrd down I!aven Avenue at ]east twicr a silty munns that, nlrendy, a nininum of 20,000 vehicles "st atilize this rajor thor0ughfnrr only. t.er6dny. This does n••t include trnffir that will result iron 11.c o;rurntion of the .1rer Creel-, develop:• at north of the colloCe rind the apartmutt Lull dings r.round the college Visit tiro Connissfon had corn fit to approve It stands to reason ihct a shtyq,ing center on either stile of Ha, en ..% :•i.t rind e� ecinlly at ;m intersection such es '!i1•hl and at.nuc till a ncerbnte 11•is problrm If, as runorrJ, Bat ell venue it It,,nr 1•toomed as it -conic roil,] much liLr r,rt•tit Euclid 'vet«te, Ceod residences, out rvl.rt s, nrn tore in crn•a- unnce tith the 1•lv•t, unlrns the cor ^i rioll plan to nape Eaton nvrnuo 1001, like (1— ntoun fntnrio on rucl it] . It serms that rnther than further ronCcst, the city should deflect trnffic from '!even Avenue by locating nnrhr /s rl :evitere. The third reason which we Lrl tv0 the cote• asion should be static reuteiv nwnre of is the positive correlation bciwren the establishment of shopping centers and the inrrense in eonrestion, noise, air pollution and, most reriuus of all, crime. le, 1110 hnu,r ucnws of the All, Lana Garden Conti oni ni ems, 'tom purchnsed our hones because, lung before )he creation of n ums, Pancho Cucauongs, the Lund around us vas zoned as residential. Our nmlcl candominiun development is entnblished in the conr..unity. 1:c lilike w1jer0 we live and would li1:o to preserve the residcntlnl nu:turc of our environment. To this end va ask the Planning Com- mission to delete the projected shopping center on the northeast and northwest corners of Highland and Haven Avenue. It is the responsibility of an acre, responsible and forward- looking city commission to resolutely avoid and eliminate problems as now exist in all too nnny %nericnn cities. Alin Loma still has a chnnco to maintain its rrstic nature. Lot nu: tic, pastoral chalra be til identity, the associative imngo of our city, not the elut0r of shopping centers hlocl: nftor bloc!: that is the mark of Annytovn, U.S.A. ✓ ��.� _u� 1. !��„ /- J n C, co,/ J(: "iL�.i r 1414( ) Sincerely, / `0LC`. / /��C.Cl file Lf Jat� �IIE•fi!(' C<jct _ V a r t' + t r. Pill 11of -mon rlanninG AGai•ltant r.0. ROr. 7�3 Rancho anrnm.nura, rA M^jl n Va.- ^nn ^ern: `!o hereby rc^rectfnlly anb-,il n • I r •• I'ln Rnnr rn ('ncnmon^9 flnnninr Co•nnirston conrl Irr tI r, ,.„i1•lin^ or no ittrnc Live Real F,atnte office rid Art 1311ery on thr �1 northeast corner or rnn Bornnrdir.o I'onr' ,.nd oineynnl. .I T. acosonc ror r: m ^ileripr ^.n;a -•.r rn.• mired umn 1, 'r, • en, r r,rnnrity . rroptc•, ,.r ^tnn•:11 pl ^.n. The ma Joel �i or •lrnn nlon• _ vi,•n•',M --rd Carnelian A­. LM orr 1 r^ ^cline •• Arro, in alrcnd•• ^n•,r'. frr ,i:nd man. i II. A kcal Estate office and Arl Callcry on mild �•t „ r [, Q t ^offer•. , I - 1 r ^In,,l ir' '„ 10 ••. -•: if ;.',e arc,. a r 1, I nllr O Ilo^rr ; >r •1 ' ,1, ncl,o r:,l; 4 'n rl•L •,n l ial, Rc^•I I: r .r� ,•11 J : t1GCnm , 11 e Iq .t rn• I'Lln'' , n •,t.l frnfnr{ h p r. 190.171 nr frr rrlief frn 1 I'•, r., •n rr,e bl ne, '^ ,,I 11 •Inlr•„ nn1•rr' ' nlnnr, r'arn ^• r 1, n', , i rr rn ..I Lr,❑ „ r rvty em "I .rr E „r ,.. nl' ofn•, r ..., v:n• Y I,r 1 1 it ,•: 1. I r,•, nt prn];,• orrirr I ., it ', .o1,11 �. rnati•rcly to tho rrnn. C 4' p, i� , r n•r ., nrrlco'gllrl {ni; 'i TI. ilc'-e1 i,^ "� lit, "Id cfrc ^I^ -..,. T-.,..;., ^., irl property lender p^eaen` ,-on^ cin ^n.iricrtionr A. Size and location of prorrr`y '•roni•1 prohibit urn no a residential property. �. T,nrre amount of comm^•^.11 �rnfftr (over '1',nnll r ^^ "I hovra) would hn ,in ^nfc rnr ^hlldr ^r and pet ,:mean ,urir i —I 1n r^.,^e or bin^' vnll is co�stnl ^`r1. eP. Revenue from a resi' ^c 'o'llr' --of, be 1 ^r;-r nod would put Tore rrearur^ on nlready n'•orinnric•I school r' i r i .1 ^, . e„ 'Iin n^iA gT ^rt„. u I Ifl UiCA 1 'd 1 t J � 9•. \ gsttT Sd A t/Ifi' E yn 76cd a• 0 o ^P a Z- 4 °s e s 0 SAN BERNARDINO tTnT I TR 8988 R 8 J INVESTORS Sao S PASADENA AVE GLENDORA, CA 9F740 APO 208-752-01 Scale i ! 40' LOS 8 TRACT vlrl_ O,V A YARD ! / A O O .ry ,'® fit. isi _ V Ai Y � • ASS a.a 9G ^L 70. •: •J :il Ls 7G •co b � M d. ot°�LG't ✓. ROAD DEPARTMENT CARNELIAN S7 contoFns0.0930cres M/L . � .... �•,:'.;..,:,; :�;L�Y:+4 .. `..;...,.........•sue -. ";. i, i= To: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Dept. Attention Mr. Jack Lan Oct. 2,197P Re; A portion of lot 6, block 20 In Cucamonga Homestead Association Lands according to plat thereof recorded In In book n.6 of naps, page 46, re- cords of county. He, as owners of the above property, respectfully request that th- zoning be maintained as R -1 that we receive confirmation of sane. Thank Youi _ James U. Cloud Hadelyn S. Cloud rvr / VI �` c - ' r 1Pr'cf Cr 0 �4 C.P. Constvuction Co., Inc. SEWER e0 Box 1M6 r ONTARIO. CALIFORNIA RHONE, WATER Sirb Cd'V KIOp LK N. 30.11, 71.141114001 October 2, 1978 City Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Attention: Hr Jack Lem, Community Development Director. Dear Sir: The uniereiglmd 1. the owner of an odd - shaped parcel of real estate, being at the southwest corner of the intersection of Arrow Route and Vineyard Avenue. It consists of approximately sixten (16) acres. It is bordered on the south- westerly boundary by Cucamonga Crack, Rnd bordered at the south end, being in substance the southeast corner of tM sixteen acres by 9th Street I submit for y.3ur consideration the thought that appropriate, and probably the best, planning and coning for this sixteen acres of land is for Industrial time. Land is now planned according to the proposed Gencrnl Plan, for major industrial usage, to the east of ry parcel, also to the southeast, also to the south and to the southwest. Ry parcel is ecntlguoum and in fact partially surrounded by land proposed for industrial use. Jmd thus that is the logical use for ay parcel. I would also point out that what appears to be ample park area is already planned according to the proposed General Plan, including the parcel just north of Foot- hill and cast of Grove, a parcel just north of Arrow and west of Vineyard, a parcel at the southwest corner of the intersection of Arrow Route and at Haven Avenue, and the County ReGional Park south of San Bernardino Avenue, east of Archibald and west of Haven. It would appear that the reasonable application of Ceneral planning poucro which resides with your Board, should be directed toward the uses I have suggested above. Also that the logical use of my property is as suggested above. Prior to my purchase of this land, my dnfor:t,tion placed it in unincorporated territory and that it had beer. planned for industrial Ilse, together with the land surrounding it. And I bought it with that intended use in mind. I have engaged Andreascn Engineering of Pomona to make a study for a tentative tract map, however this study has been tempararily nucpcnded until final right of way acquisition by San Bernardino Flood Control for Cucamonga Creck Channel - i -ation has bce:l completed. We estimate our final acreage will be approximately thirteen (13) acres I would further suCrest the thought that with Arrow and Vineyard being major thorwighfarea, and that they carry a heavy traffic load, with prospects of that increasing, that it may be well to avoid placing n parlt for children to frequent, that close to major thoroughfares anal with the passibility or even likelihood that kids would crosa these streets. I therefore urgently request your coops ration with this, thinking fiempect� � GhaTlem Pfis Cr, JJl I a- Pne0oCEA9 OF / FINE VIINES Beneb K7" ^7 ALTA LOLIA, CALIFORNIA 91701 Liam J)A mioN 711 107.7710 October 6, 1978 Planning Coamiesloners Rancho Cucamonga California Dear Ccemissionora: Ito re3pectrully request a comoretal zoning on land owned by fpici Winery, Inc., located at Hermosa and highland, aid Itlpbcrry Avenues, Alta I.coa, California, oxcluding 2081 north and 223.961 oast por the attached Plot plan. It is planned that a small restaurant will develop. He wish to express our gratitude and appreciation for the time, effort and duties which you are puttung forth in bohalf of the people of Rancho Cucamonga. Sincerely yours, i r c {ary Cp1c1 til7anergut lrCthadc cc: Planning staff Attactmcnt 0 i, s a J 1 k ro N m L t: P ` N� 1. 1 rF f?S: } n j \ulwl ww�. N a•1/ i F..�7 ' R O _ lu uI • n G. v •I"FF L) 1 0) Own QI R :�I l R • n I (' r. T, 8 i' l^ A 1 y r _ L) 1 0) Own Y� f \iN a1�Ngn.fu.y +Ln.�w.'.on�w.w l...url h'1 "ha''••......•y� I" I rv.•Lr • 1 :�I l I -\ 8 i' l^ A 1 y Y� f \iN a1�Ngn.fu.y +Ln.�w.'.on�w.w l...url h'1 "ha''••......•y� I" I rv.•Lr • 1 r � MANGUARU COMPANIES 9211 ARCHIBALD AVE. • CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 • (714)907 -6376 October 6, 1978 r 1IY i1T Itd1(1 i IY is 3^tiGA t ,t �: U'ulr "1't r'• :1 ^t DEPI. City of Rancho Cucamonga OIiT 1, 1 I':1 9320 Baseline All T51 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 ilgl�IMl11(l ?(11` ?I:EI 1ptIG ATTN: Jack Lam, Planning Director RE: General Plan - North side 19th Street 10 acres West of Ramona Avenue Dear Me tam, We appreciate the staff recommendation to show the high density on the subject property. In support of our request and our proposed multi - family Project, I would like to Provide the following additional information: 1 Attached is a 3 pare seauence of events which show-, the activity on this nrciect ever thr last 7 yearn, Particularly, the heavy envolvementa over the pact three years 2 The Rancho Cucamonga Citv Council at its meeting of January 4, 1 ^78 approved our request for zone change extension 3 We have developed a site plan with the input of marketing, engineering and the Countv staff, which has coat us 57,000 in consulting, fees only Our in -house manhcur cost would Probably exceed $5,000, Plus there has been an additional land holding cost (S12,000) 4 Our latest plan details 172 apartment units on the site The engineering and Planning is 904 complete We hope the above information will assist you in a positive decision towards the high densitv designation on the subject property. /Very /�tJr"ly Yo�urrss,, �\+ / VL Ate-,. �LUT/ " r•�"' Ron Nott(ngham Director of Development Vanguard Builders, Inc ti fi' RNIcs I vu141l OF SAN 911 +uaDINO Aan&4na*drrlaCorknty PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY ;1 en test rm.a 91,001 as +e,.ee.m.e,e +ax +ie •a.r..•. rr 41 565-1665 Ciry of lioNt f0 fl'CA!ANX,1 CN:rlUnil'+ 1CVl'De`.IEOT DEPT, October 9, 1978 Me Jack Limb Director of Planning City of Rancho CucnM Pont Office Box 797 Rancho Cucamonga, CA Gentlemen: MID t 1970 A11 n rPll File: 1- 501,502,601,602 /1 00 i 131�I�i11i12111 «13P1i,11(i nga 91770 Re: Zone 1 - Deer -Day Crock Spreading Grounds Thank you for sending us a copy of the proposed general pinn for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to understand that hearings have already been held dealihQ with local issues and that the hearings will cmti•mo ftr the next few months dealing with the Sslues on a more regional basin. From a cursory review of the plan, it appears that a larfe block of the land lying generally between Deer and Day Creeks north of Highland Avenue was designated as open apace forthe site of a proposed Rngianal Park. The plan calls for the use of Flood Control District. lands for hiking and riding and for the basins to be kept in their natural state The designation of Regional Park could imply a use more intensive than a joint use of a wilderness area In order to insure compatible long term use of the lands by both Flood control District for its flood control and water conservation purpnaes and the Regional Parke, we would like to be notified of all future hearings so that we miv he represented and furnish adequate input it does appear that n compatible use of the area can be nrranged,but, only after adequate attention has been given to such details as public safety, liability, And the protection of District's facilities for their intended use. Again, we will appreciate being notified of any future hearings, on this matter Anv questions may be directed to the undersigned at 7113-2684 JEK:It cc: Regional Parke Very truly yours, C 3. DI PICTRO Fl od Control Enngilneeeelr--O By nmon F Kindle nst1 Flood Control Engine Planning - Engineering v fqM 03. eon na U. wmrvnno smagwa* cucnNQUnn, tour 1,1.91 +V I lnl + ++ Ie., c1 Cctaber n, 197P Rancho Cucatronga Planning Collunission Rancho Cucaltnnca, California Subjects Lots 5 S 6, Block K. Etiwnnoa Colony tends Parcels 227 - 121 -16 S 227 - 121 -17 Location hcLwcvn the Sou'l,._rn 11irtric Station anA the Junior St School 7n the P1rL si•lp of Etiwanda Avenue, consisting or 1.19•♦ Sliwnnd3 °rcntage ani 1320+ depth. AFprol.itratnly 13.5 ac. Its J ill ,+t ns Ar• onp nr torn nw•�cr. or she move 1••rrr 1 ry -1 pt •p n Ly. I wink to till to vonr aLtrntton t'c lo••i lvr ronl!' i •nn as - rortalnlna to "11r 1>lrti emir locatt .n 9t•,tnrir11ly, 11 ... rrnnpr-y hi, berm r. •.p1 for rrn,TorcInl ns1• ,- - 3,00r1v.I In 1•ptwoen "hp r 11-1 rrnrrrly sill the h• -1 .,r 1,1io Snnfhptn C7 ^trie proprrrt 11, Iho sollh Pr•rent .,so or flip ^11 3h•n,sn hrur n tl r.i r s wr of tll^ ororprty 1 r.nn -r ^Ial wlto to. '•r r ^ial user nn owner nnd-r ,p -r let ^,1^ of ntpr ^<, 1• Ty 11111'sel ft.. •11 1inI an•l t11. how;o, 1•pn -linq a bill •111,1 z 1n, or sub - llviston, sire•^ :).rvmt,cr, l',7r ^hp colon, ly rl +,or of ill retrt.r. on, o•ul•1 to tolainc,l if the nse (1t I,% I to rho n• nr 1' .11 till Iv +1 -r twan•la A•1; wore continnPI In I , .rl I •,it, ell r• ni••fto to at ^hl•rcl ut to 1ptntl '., rtcn r th, .1 lni•nl hinlorle value of wl,L war. tt•o ^plA.• ill Lf ttnrltla• It is nnrealtstic to assum0 1:11a L, WWI Loop rre5vnt cost • • -r 1 a• .�t r. .1 -. t,r r +: `lo- '1 t,.,- +1 1•'• ., Pt1 I1rr' r.. 1 rav+t l b,• ^ ,,vr I'•1 1 ' +,, rirr•n pr 11 ri• ns for rat ^qtl u 1 ' t•+•r' ,µ• of h'n'1 rn t•ioI 11 Lt i 11 A 5n ^lrrpI t r .111 Ir 1 • Ilit or tl. P.••Ip•, ,.`ul IV, , I,y •t,y br arras prrwm•frd no 4nnnoa nrm mO4(n1bc. elwnl nlnl. enrn,ln4lt nwrM +•, lot n+VlY nnnL �••r •rrn�•1•n • �►+i�ll� ; {IOD POOTIrILL IYJUI L VAga CU<A4OMl1 A. CALI M'l 1, 1 9m 11111 �!) IUI CCGOber In, 1n7P Rancho Cucalronga Planning Cotgmissinn Rancho Cucamonga. California Sah jectI Trianitlinr hlocl; bounded on 'h, m,,,th I•y Foothill Boulevard, on Lhe &art by C•)untry Club Drlv1, oe, the South l,y Sit, 2nrnirdino Roa•i, and on the Wert by Gr •v 4.1111,10, 0,0 eastern boutdary of upland. , 1 . , , n• 1, m I I As owner .,.• n Ih- ere,. ,tI,n n I 1 ')rl •0, I ,••r G'nlly I1rlD ^cr that „u mtlof, t,• the most corr,tn prow -h pattern of ih•• al)ove 1,•r, rlbn•I ' vrT,r,err t Frosont ,1r^ Jr. t • ^.l 1••nr lal rcr 1'•a- )'I , 1-Ilt block.. Tito lalnn•'^ is ^,n)p11 G'1Y 'tut [Dander 1•t crvn•, •, ri al nsr,l,otr• nr,rtlh and ao,rth and alona ;, Iv^ A -nnur I' o •,,I I r.•.m I•),1 a11. .•a`ian •• l 1• ,1 I ' ^t `h1 rn•,r• '"cv.. I tI1 IJ,ro „l,u 1-1....... r, 1, rr ua'rtt inn wh1••,• mrn,1 r zcrI It n, tt)r1u In the I I '�}.. r.., tr•,11. /t c /^ .r }nil �r •z' BCYry - a,• J •r111Orq N11Ag1O UCLAND gpggD nl M, lllr "1'.An1Ur- IND,n +plot IONNLgC1Al. IRVI tr Vl bl ell •dMgllnl f .nl nl�rl. .n,r 1 pp )ir I r - • • LIR`.tt' O i � +s �I -1 pm � o ^ if f I S n I C,;, I t I 1 L i4 ■ e� October 10, 1978 { •' Planning Commission The City of Rancho Cucamonga 9340 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, Calif 91730 Dear Commissioners, This letter is to ask tRat you seriously cor,aider for amendment the proposed General Plan in relation to the proposed land uses surrounding Chaffey College We are the developers and builders of the Deer Crack Community An equestrian oriented, acre lot, single family Iwma area that will have a beneficial effect on the surrounding areas, including Chaffoy College Our development covers 293 acros and 293 troves An you arc aware, there are other large -lot hones under construction in thin area. We believe that high density apartments along Haven Avenue cannot benefit the existing and planned largo -lot homes We do not desire a change from the prior indicated largo -lot zoning in any way close to Wilson Avenue or Chaffey College, and We do not believe any major frontage on Havan Avenue should be no designated we are also questloniny a density up to 30 units per acre as this Would indicate no open space or garden type development The 2 to 5 unit zone lying iMOdiataly cost of Chaffey College appears quostion.olo due to the type of land and location adjacent to flood lands This would seem to support no more than two per acre We will support this position in person at the public hearing that will be hold in the future i Very truly your By,_ William V Gri cce Hr. Jack Lam, Public Works Director Hr Lloyd Hubbs, City Manager .it Lauren Wasserman, City Hanagor Dr Cantonzeto, President, Coaffoy College e 1 ' TKE DEER CREEK COMPANY POSFOFFICE IM1 488 AHA I.OMA.CM FORNIA 9IM (714)989-3323 .al „ \GiI II PIUII� 1•.• 3311225 October 11, 1978 Planning Commission and Council r City of Rancho Cucamonga 9340 Baseline, Suite A Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91701 i• Dear Sirs: Re: Property in book 209- 151 -19 Ir When I purchased this property it was zoned M -1, and has been zone N -1 for more than twenty years, and I object to the proposed change j to zone R -1. I have an intended buyer for this M -1 property and he has proceeded C with permits, planning etc, Cor development of thr property as 1•t -1, �t Npedless to say, he has incurred considerable expense in his planning. The change to R -1 zoning will actually work a hardship on me, so I t am requesting immediate action on this Proposed zone change y May I hear from you as quickly as possitle, please? F Very truly yours, (R M. Martinez, and l Nancy Martinez ( n , : t• , r (t Whl •' n' 1!'I •j1 I � ly,r All ;,gte 111111 1IIJl;il 11411, 1. 0 — one- SIAII R1:1411t1 Dill: Octobvr 11, 1978 In: Planning C.mmtrisinn I ltllll: Jack Lam, Director of Cammltnlly I.evelolatul MOM CI; DISCIISS1oN or mwF•RAL PLAN ISSUES At the first Pinnn irp (k•lnminsion Public hcarhig n. Ili, t.aneral Plan nnmermp. Input was rer,-Ivc,l rcitarJing certain dosignat lotus cn tin prepnsrd Cencrii PI la. As n resell of tllis Input. Staff has org.ml•.d Uu apecif lc Jr,.... r.-gardlug spot If Iv it - .er .unl Isis develop,d r...rumrnd .l I •n•: In regards to ...m. Of these Issues. Il-crc ar,as have been diseivll vJ vlth the Planning Gmsoll All and the fat loving Is a de -wr apt inn of each In,ur fol l.n: I.y tilt. Staff•% r.. nmsrndat Inn fh.a.r I- : .ties are not nil Inc luslve all son. It ass not elabornLed lice, u I I by Ilncusaod pt the next Pl a:nis, F.reniaslnn meet ing (I v "reserve' ar. e.., as h, r, resident ant and 1rmm. r. I.,I areas, etc.) it iv hoped that lh.• PI .m.. ing (IMMIsslon can di <. ass earl, ,"I• of thine Ishiie- ud mike d,-ristous on each - .v till[ the rOMIaslon ran m.l t lo.,-r to a formal nrrmn•ml.n ton In the City Claim 11 leg m11ng a land use plan FSIDEN'fiAL ISSUESth : 1. Area: Norxlde of Fuolhlil Dmilevard brtviceo Vlm•vard and Neuman General Plan IA .Ignntion: High Density Rrsldontlal issue: Residents nearby oppose multi - family bb;h d.•nsity designatlou C11w1.I, I,1 list, rests ho.aver feel :bv ..r. I houid be service clmncrclal Paetors: 1111.1 .0 .•.1 has hero rhnvn is .,-evil., Ilrn '-rc lal In previrnl. WIDA. COMM14ifin Goo,ral 171111 alltlrsett Ni•st hovtv,r, ,.,m.• Gs ®IsslpnaTS• WA 'J,, /� La�k/mad WA felt It d,.irahlr to limit clw -rclal •1-- ipnatinn along F JIUFf .... "'ll l• -,-vnbl tile devr:nym.nt of strip rupnun¢nde(1w11. St-111 In ,I.Nfning tills partlruier sr,n I Inds Ili.. lot d I'll- Inllcnit i,ant for mniti -f xil, l,,. Iapmenl Fnrrmt 1, ,\1 I ail• I- Ill'- area ore tilt fell... r, i.0 -,If 1, l••: of N,caa I.aj,! C--r, .p\ .111.1 Ile flll,irl• developmtol of l ""tor cycle 6a1 @n .l.I rrh Ilr ..rvice un the nartInteat Orn,r of 11,11man and Fts,thill ntlnr ,aP•NL•rC l.lf IIWq near Vineyard A,uui• are also prevalent e ItFfU14t1 ?1 If let: I"' .f .•l .hulled br dt •1It•net..t -., ry h.v rummer .l clal c,si i•ent vllb -r, v i ... w .ketch plan N -` .Arco: Area last Of_Cimff vy Co11efie Bernal PI.In Ik it nn ion: toe Drnniry R• Id. nli ll t.. �� In.u.: CIv.-Id 11•• n , I IJgb Lu it I I - Ix y KOTOFF Lc COAWANy, INC. Aletal final,nt • Plating and Pnlobmg 2620 NO OUrFEC AVENUC n. MONTE. CALIFO,INIA 01732 •How a 4 4 3 7 1 1 5 Y' Oct. 14, 1978 4? City Clerk City Ball Ba_ -line Road nRnncbo Cucamonga, Calif. Dear sir; 1 would like t� vrotest the proposed rezoning of my property, two five -acre parcels on Bnscllne Rood ad,incent to and coot or the county fire service cano. rheze are parcels 1!227- 091 -20 and - ;,.` 4'227- 091 -21. x1 1 purctased the property more than 10 yenrn ovo prim -rely >~ because the property 1s zoned 11 -1 and I have nnticipated b'jilding an additional pilot expansion on the bite no the induatrt,l area developed around the ::uc=ongn area. 1 protest the proposed rozoning baud on two fnctn. The proposed rezoning despriven me of the preacnt InJu -0 rial zone meeded for my onticipnted expnncion nn-1 places the additional financial burden rn ne of seeking new N -1 Irnd In the Cuennongn area. ri e by lnnd isrflanked rezoning wisci bJ onpfir- servicetcaar, aih,ci: tension pow,;r line and .r_v wash, on tho ca t by a neconi proposed Ntva tension power line, on the nor.h by ,. :ailro,! and cn '.he south b; a winery. This property wcs zoned ycarc eE;' for a specific purpese, that of H -1. The rezoning of tsc parcels to R -1 would lower the v•Itue or the property nod is incompatible with the surrounding lnnd. • ••',•1 1 '.• '11s '-tter to Lr I.• ,•h1 t` fore -Ir C1' unc11 and Iwuald a;. I••t ,r "r7- ait.,u fr.-. 'rl it} 'le,'c't; '.c 1'n to how I a h " —i 1:r pr,c. ed with r. :.ote -t. 31urerly, I nocotif o- t ' i DISMISSION (1F Gllll•NAI. PLAN ISSUES Page 2 September 27, 1978 2 Factor: The are., Js close to Gaffey Gillege •,ud I•, buffered by flond G•tM:1' .CDAillik(D Plan- directly cast and south mid by the future Wilson Avenue ,zt,nslun Met, density resident loll mold Iv rarpat lble will. Ckd&26 Wt + 616i mirrnnvllag luu,•r denr.lt Y rrnlJrul [it .1. w 11 as rn•aty :m 47•9litJ Oil 11l6�.°. 01 UtSt roe, Ilrut tut it•gt• residential ,avinam.ul. Iilgher density Q� 1OfIt{� 5W:5 lj f, ranldetl I.,] all he:onsi stent wl th ,r, .stn. udat ions for hitill dennity vest and south of Cbaffcl (ell,nt• Me6t Q�' ►f�lia{�. RECO_M_IENDATION: This area should be designate] high density resident[.,). 3 Arm: Fast hank of Cucnmonna C:unnel northeast corner of the City above Ilillalde Rom) General Plan Uovipnatlou: Very Low Dcistty Issue: (Ale ladividunl asked for couslderntlon of ]tower density for thin area Factor: The b•nt r11 Plan deslgnntion Is .I maeisuum sold tines not Imply Ilea Aetlin: Jhe COCAXI15U0 ll p,optny will and should ho Jov, ltopnl 11 diode densities (aneflrreid With Tlo r, o-r.sl Plnn unhp• lower does not prohibit Atwt•, denslly d�isity In regards t„ .m.1 arming dlsll icl- tin he developed fm t'0W rLCOn1lI',Joat1On tlll a .3111 nl liter areas were density r,nl ht maintained at lee% t1, u, I ....... rsl Plan desl,inatlnn Thin t.r, he accomplished throtgls sou Ing REC011NCNI)ATl till: Retain the proposed very Iow drnnity residential designation. 4 \ Area: North aide of 19th Street between Ramona and the cotmarefal des lEndt tan \ \JI nn [hv corner. of I7t1. and Arehlhnld General Plan Destgnition: Low Density Resldrnti., �1 �.,_• Issue: Vanlsu.l apparently lias R -d multi - filly 7,110119 and desires t1 tssnln �f/'R(lit 111! fommlKlal the -,.we The area Is adjacent to a ,mr.ntly develouing shall Ing crnt.•r, and -.1 net the plan fosters roil t -f till I Mlacent to CanCUrrpi twit ,onto, it I,I fa, 11 I tt•a nut, star" mutt l -1 nml ly devt loprent can Im adegnrl rlv Dull tad Intl, by tin• prm,uuel I, oewav, the ctcavorrI iI r�iDmn1�11XAl iOr1• fs, s1s1, d It'll, Street. the putt tit I.,I s.l, naou of Ram,a.t, unl I", tie. the 11, Ins adequate access, the area can he considvrtl for high i.neity rr Rldential qL\� RECOIRIENI)AT1011: Chnnie tills area to hip•[. Jonclty r,•sldentlal Arm: llerrloat Avcnur_nclnol- lomtlana Wait 19th Strait. Issue: The I,•.. Vmq•„v objects to Elio lovatim, of ptnposed schools w, their •t.q•r, {y DISCUSSION OF GINI RAT PIAN ISSIII'S Page T September 27, 1978 5. Factors: The Srhwol District lus yx.Imintd st ho0l site selection very �bfli j�iQ CAliffU56IM carefully mud Indicates Nut th•_ geu,ual lorntiuns showuu nre ,` oxtyllnit sites able to Svrv. a large w.rik -in area. The Coreurred (411p1 cylt Srlvml Ill strict IS Dalul: to pruer,J with plan•: to purchn•w• at Pet wilev",A. Ie.lal an vI-weutary srhool slit- ntvnyJ.ru• In tills location REMWENDATION: ket tin General Plan deslg lint tun for selmal site. OArm: Pork alto Sf_fStntlon east of Archibald nbove Foathill. General Plan Dev lgnat Intl: Park Site. Issue: Itarlh0rwugh C'"lwny I$ Concerned with lust lull of park site. Factor: The irrolnnls coneerning the lncatlon of park site had liven ', '(�� �ONth1ltSlpO dela'1l od 1,,•r anJ over In the paal These dc••tlgnntlonx nre not m,.•ssarlly site speclfl� It de•IrM.Itys a runcept thnl 1-01111- �Of1�l4VF(Q �W�,,l,,{yy�i SW pnrk area ovar the vicinity would ha J.- Ilrobly frm the ntandpnlut ymlii111UYYAt h- of a Public fncillty REMIDIENUAT1UN: Retain park site dcelgnm inn COMERCIN. ISSUES! A (D Area: Julcl Hlnvrj Gerivral Plmu Ik•nir",lLiom L. d Density Rosidt•ni Inl Issue: 0111a1 Wintry desires cernercial dyslgwatlun Factors: If .w, commviclal uses are In br w•.1-, imod with exist In(; unr•r �y^ thought to he Important to tlx• ht rit.o•r or hts:ur- of ibr fin' '1L k111fN6Sldit nevmmlty, J,tailed cxaminalion ,r ih., ,• nsev should he Jnruc t(r�eurred will �trr� Pl le, It, InJl..crlminalely ereal lug rmuu,tt lal dvslgnntleus ,,/,,,,, Crltvrla and wtandards for such st-l••, [Iona r.: well as alhyr M hill 16aktfial PI 11111hr. C•maldcrations must be ccule at .I site I.peciflc I,v. I Lr(yt. any ,,ueh decisions are maar The General Non rurr, +rt Iv provides for p• 11, l.v, eint would allow for a •, o h, 1,1,•, vdurr to m, uses In n•lhhnt lJ Irr.1•; provided That r.t uslird and criteria are It m,J olhtr planning eousl.L rtunly have beam examined m,d if ,,well 111 s are found to be In fact Important to the heritage or hh.lary of file ctvmauulty RflXIMENDAT I ON: It,1 r... tI,,• t.rneraI PI in ,1. if... It hm unlit futher study. ��� III,- 1'lau duos preclu.i -till, nminr prtn•tvlure f 2. Nreo: Are.' tlwtnslt,l I.v t6_ Southergl'_iClflc _itnl_Ir,aIJ trncks. Archibald I and file worth_nidn of Ifaicllnc Ctut,al I.1... I. .1-.t I .... Illgh Dee It, 1 •11 atl.l t DISCUSSION OF CFNIRAI 1'1.111 1SSIIF.S Page 4 SuPLember 27, 1976 Insuc: 11lt rt• or, exist Ing commercial uses In this area ns well as developing commercial uses Factors: 11,4 au•., of Iho ex Inn Init ust•s and the uew oats h, Ing bu 111 Iu I�G ,'�� J �m.ndlh, .,n ., wJ lln> lacnliml of Lhr Snut h, ru I'.0 11 it fL Iiw.lr .tnJ i�u QYQQ Ip L55lYF(j 152, 11 tls Juncture of two major arterials joll tIn, locallall of a ,f shopping linter on the corner of RavII,,, and Archllwld, it fyQUitrnll {(hp� N(p�Y�leAs}(p,Yvir it IN t- --t tenable whether this area In vou,inslve for resident Lit uv& rA1G1'4tKU Ul(($ tNe4e`r level a,xn,•nnt 0 Olio] use• RECI @RIF71O61ION: Closure Ceneral Plan to reflect •:trvfce c,xrmt'rcial deNh:uation �Area: thomas Yh,t.YorJ Wlncry General Plan Uvnll:ootion: Scrvlce Cummor, Inl (4chen' fdlnmitciolt CeYtlHYflQ WlIh 4V Isnue: Thomas Winery ][)tends to expaml tilt, mill commercial center Factors: The G•uernl Plan duce not prohibit lht., mare the designat loll Is N, nvle,„ c, m,rcial whether a free ulnading use or a center RECtpUff770A1'1U11: 14, t.ntilet. Retain Gvnernl Plnn deslgnsrion 4 Arent AlteruaUve A. r General Plan OcHIJtuat Ion: Regional Center Altrrn,n lve, Ill Individual nhlects to regional gl,oppl[)g cellter conce•t at- a (oral Point for cormnuifty, dealros more open ,.pare Factors: Oil„ oho rnnrNe of rotor[• City ,Itvelnpm,nl, lilt' catmvunll) can nr,prorr a r, gLma1 type cr,merc lal coals which cnn love ben, f its /Fi1WA: tG %1t{pS5�01•J Inn In List- vonmnnity In tem,t if till. .jv.tllnbIljty of tnmacr, I.,, C0M(y(d Wlpj G f I'll Mills m. ,.ell an contrlbullonn it, tilt- ve P,.ot ty lax b,mt 111, qurellon of central IdeutlLy for tine, rennlaity wag a topl, Ye(Af1ti11...IrF�n of pnvlous dincustion and t,i act It Iv ,IifllculL to profcct VUf1tY�tt���l pot i•.• I. Inln :ht future still p,njt• 1 preelsv locations of a„, I, ,,nttr proposal It waq j,,t.rljge In s1,,w the tltr,•o me, I n , ,•,•,I•I• ,It,roativen for pun, ,tl.,l tontt-r Niter. nod la Indl,ate o till•,,, lu Ih, General Plan n ,tln•t Ihv, to rrflreL one sit, 16.n u w •.]rang agn•trient by the Planul,p• Covralssion In prtwfous dis,•tn.. LVV tlmt n shopping rmror if designed properly nad phun,•d fill prnptrly can provldo n nlrool; ern Lral identity fur the nrb,u, area .RECCRIINUATION: FWI„I.,i„ pntiey pn•+Itluu of the I'Lnming Gmonlsgian I 5 /Area: Soulhealt_ rurncr nC Ilellmin moll Fun(hlll Ceuant: Pla., pr•, yu.d ton icri, It .e Cn n.en l.,1 I11SI]ISS104 OF I:1 NI IL %I. PLAN IS:;tII:S Page 5 September 22, 1418 S IgglIC: IAIC.lN d,vltell commercial eviller dealguatlan {{��.ff.i�� Factor•,,,1Thvre L, no (Inf I let bCtwern thllt drtilr,• .md the Ceneral Nall =Jll.la Covo �t(s�i�otn COINlUllji l l e l p n. I t l on more ""lrc ,"morn Ind ,b„ , I w L di srr lm l na t: b. Iwrrn WA Wi• frv,slandihl %ut•on and multi -ten till rrnl,r RECC RIENUATION: Nu eonfl lct Keep Ceneral Pl,n, designation. 5. Area: East side of Vineyard between Arrow Ratite and Foothill. General Plan Designal ion: Mixed Use ' Issue: Spval,r doslroa comocrelal uses rather Iltln mixed useu A* , -chi issfil1 Vln".lyd I -I .I major arterial and ., major ,utry Into till- City Conetlrred ltidtl staff It Is undesirable M encournge usoq lh.Il would rb.mge the chararl,r of the street to a cunmereial strip wilco there Is .' an opport till l ty to control develoinent of the aria by allowing t only oars which develop less velll,ular turn movements from Vlnelar.l REC_[N_RIF.NUATil1N: Hatd In ntxcd use deslgnat inn 0 7. Area: Area ab,n„u1rJ by Snulhern Pad[tc trackaiUrvore Freeway and ' T.ost Avonho'rniF.tiwanda. - -- .vneral Plan Designation: Blndro . Issue: Properly owner feels property In Ix,t cuuduslve for rcutd"Lial ro.n,FA15:(n efrould developmrnt and Instead desires cu�rrrlal deaigtwtlun. WA -fa. Factors: Bernune of the area's relative small size and Is,ffertng fr,v, the tr.u,sport lion corridors and tin cxpm.ure and accenvlbllity, servlte connercial can be comp.itlbir tin thhl site. This wait onu•e a proposal an n provlous sketch Plan RECOC11ENi1,1TR0N: Mollify the General Plan to reflect service commerclal espeetfully Suhm l t l ed, 1. 9 1 ANLX Yr 'V1. Jn k a, I r tti. ,.r Cemaunity Devrloirlont. JL:dm AMrttom( Acfron' The eofrtm ak dwAW * rorW, 'eoutOlL t cud Solt mst orlefs of emeW, a +d klllusa frA1t mi-nd use to 111ediusl deflfi'tfj ru*(&tjtw. I a —fWO- STAFI• RI:POItr 04 rI :: Ortobor 17, 1778 10: Planning Cotmisslon I II(!U: Jack Lim, Itlrector of Lommnnity tA•vllopm,•nt SIOLILM CENERAL PIAN ISSUES RESIDENTIAL I Area: ^Reaervv Arvn° Issue: A number of property owuvrs expcesp,d concern regarding the meaning of reserve area Factors: Th1 laud use element designates thk rvaerve arnn primarily 1,n suet It In remote from urban svrvl,e•, Ind lived not be dvvllop,d lit tilt, near future Furlhlrmon•, there Is lack of lotnrnit ion atmut ounerahlp; I v tilt- nice of hnldlogs and 1.111 it 1, ., ravimnmrntnl c,Nlvtralntt„ lie Furthermore, there In 000cvro al,nut tio• .11,11 ily of lb, etty to exert any anal ml liver dl.velopmer,t nnrlh,1I tilt elly boamdary• especial iv slwt the sphere of influence lnsnl ha, lint been resolved uol will not Is• revolved ontll aft, r the .Idopl lull of tine laud on,• v ement It must ho pointed nut that t1tvre Is nn marked claul:e In 1,Ipography it thin city boundary, ON•refore, the development north of the city Ilmtts ralpve till. Intel, of compatlbtlily wilt$ Lead nsc within the city limits. I1,, n•fln Lmellt In delh$.a- tLOrI of Land use may he made at tills time with these onitnueo factors It no•,ma nbvlous Ilan rile land Ir.:o will he iesldenttal but bellt•r ,uvlrunmontnl data is nc,ded 614,11'14 aov approvnlu art. granted and there should be na <unuu•a•n lh.rt there will he a large u.cugb ,rrnunlle built over a slu,tl Ilme to support the crwl •,f pr••v ld lnl• u•rvlcos to such devclol",11t. Ihvrrfore, In it,,- lultrlm 01111 1 lip, pin elp should lee n•NoIr.J I41s means that non r,•ulo , 1-11.11•,hed for lhls oro.a •done id n llrct larger pnret-k Thin h. Ip, to -.uro lleit there iv on punnllrre conversion to orbu deo•+Itiv, until tlm envLrormetItal uW fl•tal Imparts of develop - mlot ,.n h1 assessed In tills arI•.1 11 pa igrevd that owners art Ill Ill,d Ili know utldet what emNIU Iunl Ih,•v will I,e aLlr It, d., ..lop it-, It, 1 uId but itch condlllnn•, t.n$ iu.l I•• do•l.111VII vllhout Nr11aer n11.Je, lion 1411M the devvinpes11. id d gr, <cth nuagament pride.", AMT III. ..I,ut .�f uy ale goallly m.ua.q;nr., ul program Inns Lrdlnlu nu Ile As mf pruwth In knowo I P.n v 2 STAFF RE:.':4 "rOMT10N: etaff recemoendw that the Planning Cmmisslnn delete the resCrvv atri de•Ilgllatlons and r.•ploc. the Iwme kith "l.tudy area ". Ili.• text to he rI,nj,,I to indicate predemlmitviv Inver dvnitity residential i•"•x but shat rapid urbanization of land within the Iran ix to be dlscourag•d until: 1. A firm r(sutntlon of the LAFCO sphere of Influence for the City ciml afire men, Willi the County on development xtandlrds and densltlex, etc Oil both '.Ides of the city lino 2 Id"Iltifi..11 Iml of c Ivlroomentnl conntralnt, .uul their mltlgatiun ur rexolutiun; I v , the reuolu Lion of flood contlol designs for thin area should 1•c vstoblixlicd or determined 7 The flxc.11 Inglaets to the city f developm.,nt Including the critledl issues of timing and utility ex`cnslonx need a be detcm!ncd 4. The completion of a city zoning ordinance and completion of the remaining Cvm ral Plan elements 5. The city will Initiate a study and general plan amendment within three )e.er" fawn clott of adoption of a nnliug mop or unless such a sUUly ankh .1mrlulment .an he made will, properly owners bearing the emrl III "Ch 1.lady pI`inr to tic• Ihu`e y.•dl tine prrl,.l ling• parcvI tonlul; "boldd be rt• ;abed to dilikel r.ig.` premature conversion to urban 1,1% Idea In the Int.-lm 2 Arcs: Area i.enuJ.,l by the 0.•vore Frv,vay .Old Ym Avenue sonth of VIt furl., SII,.•1 In Llivonda It npl.r.ir" Ellett Mllnt property %wnvr% an• in genernl agrelmt -ot till lbore III` Ilel':II Mul OIIVIr11In9ellt.11 I,nistrain L4 to devplal.- p� ^� - lAlnS meat In the wren In the short Ill" MII III,-, are crncernlvl that "r, ,vrvI, arc," wncl.lw Iles n comsat It 1-1 It that deVel opmvnl r.ul p��,r'1 tFl {.µf�fti WA SW nrv,r 4%-tur on such property I ivrofule, it Is r ....... III, I"1 Y[t01111�YflYN1wn. the PLinnhla ComIll,ton to ftlllfi hlef .1 °w1Udy .Iren" deslgn.ltion Inetet.l of "r....elVc". The toil .ould t kn Indicate that a 111 deml u..lr One vuuld be low de•n"ite re• Id of tat and tlrt Elk 111% wmlJ lultlate an ;wendoent lu the plan ,.labllxhing the pattern of land uses within It rtlpu Late., tfo"• p.rlod For Inst rn-o, three years The three years h.l" lO•en sl Meted In Order to allow line for the Planning G.mml`.r.i,sl to de•volop growth m.11l.11:elm•lit Iwllcics, d,velopnvnt ntnud.nd. and other necesxaly otdinvl,ev Old remaining dceumenls of the General Plan It xh,n,l.l be noted that o1`y growth rnival,neut p"l leten may detor- Ellu. the time and conditions of development approval for tbo area am-wly An asae..menl dint ell l lot .ul nun large cnnigh It, nuppurl. srlmals, parks and shopping laight be conaldered pr.l•.. vldinl; thlt this uvuld meet Elie venue orientations of properI5 ovuern and resflenta In the Ialwauda aroa. This approach rnplires Initintive nn the property ownero part and coamltment to Cfuau- clilly •,opport necdes studies STAFF RE:.':4 "rOMT10N: etaff recemoendw that the Planning Cmmisslnn delete the resCrvv atri de•Ilgllatlons and r.•ploc. the Iwme kith "l.tudy area ". Ili.• text to he rI,nj,,I to indicate predemlmitviv Inver dvnitity residential i•"•x but shat rapid urbanization of land within the Iran ix to be dlscourag•d until: 1. A firm r(sutntlon of the LAFCO sphere of Influence for the City ciml afire men, Willi the County on development xtandlrds and densltlex, etc Oil both '.Ides of the city lino 2 Id"Iltifi..11 Iml of c Ivlroomentnl conntralnt, .uul their mltlgatiun ur rexolutiun; I v , the reuolu Lion of flood contlol designs for thin area should 1•c vstoblixlicd or determined 7 The flxc.11 Inglaets to the city f developm.,nt Including the critledl issues of timing and utility ex`cnslonx need a be detcm!ncd 4. The completion of a city zoning ordinance and completion of the remaining Cvm ral Plan elements 5. The city will Initiate a study and general plan amendment within three )e.er" fawn clott of adoption of a nnliug mop or unless such a sUUly ankh .1mrlulment .an he made will, properly owners bearing the emrl III "Ch 1.lady pI`inr to tic• Ihu`e y.•dl tine prrl,.l ling• parcvI tonlul; "boldd be rt• ;abed to dilikel r.ig.` premature conversion to urban 1,1% Idea In the Int.-lm 2 Arcs: Area i.enuJ.,l by the 0.•vore Frv,vay .Old Ym Avenue sonth of VIt furl., SII,.•1 In Llivonda ' cl to n;nl b•laa tS� In • r.ya 7 General Plan Dcslltuallon: Windrow TsBue: The properly uwnere disagrees with the Windrow designation and de, arcs it ilth dvust ty ��,,.,tt,,��"" Factors: 7b,1 question of density In the• Et It, Oda nr,•a Iona been dlscusOr,l (rrylltt olv ('ommam nua••rnus times In tilt past and revldrnt•. of the area deslry ., ( Cpl ►Fft1 with °Fitt' nvl torn land use pattvru retool rtil; to the Windrw density des - °�1 erllw•d within the General Flan RECOHMENDATI Oil: Retain the Windrow dcslgnallan for this area. CQUI ERCIAL ISSUES ( 4: Area: Betvtvn the Southern Pacif lc Station and the Junior High School I on the cast "tile of Ettwando Avenue Feneral Pln•t Designation: Windrow lanue: The property owner desires creaurclal Factors: 71ie an•perty awner indicates there Iw ,nn opportunity to cleale r�1,� p���� u c,mearrclal envirotunent conducive to if-- eret tlon of an idtil,n lc A ction, N talrlpisiOn villaco for tilt, Etlwnnda area and tivtf rurit an opportunity aheuld ,�l'n no rttojjnln•J on llht land use plan, IIW ;MeePt of a historic CONCIVQd WI{YI oifSl• vil I nn frh•uning upon any unlqus urehltr•cturc of the area and providing oplontunitles for mnpportiva „tnnerclal vnterpr L, v r.'nt hq; Ihervto Is one which rqulnvt math advance phoning and dttall development proposals M pending nn the size of Purl, a proposal a specific plan m,ny lit n ;rtssary In explore tilt rultiplc facets of land two reiatlon.bipP, traffic and rill-0.111uu, rhmpntibility of Imd ur.,•s nthl the ue.lquencss Of Ill, d,v,•Inpment to the hlstorlenl ..lunacter of the ctmmunity RECWRIENDATIoN• Staff recommendn that the Windrow designatlon be retain.d until such time ut n sinelf le proposal whelhor tin a project basis er nu n plan basis be suliaitted for city consideration UArea: rthw_est and southeast corner of 19th and Archibald General Flan D•••,I l :n.0 loo: WIRIt density resldeutial, rcdlmm ocnslty ro.l- deutpal Issue: Froperty owners desire co=crctal dealgnation Factors: 7hr I'1 "mill; Consultant was din rt cA nut to recognize those nor, i•, vide h .ir• not dcslrable for u•nmh to pal center use mile All., v.n, •:p,: If Ically comaltt,J fill d.v,lupmcnt .ns a rc•1111 of silt It Lin approval or the Ist.nao•v of building permits CI "ll I Al. I 1 VI 1'.b1 1 P.pl. 4 It Is however, recognized that there are siren wIth In tom illy tAlleh Jtvolupers have announced plow; for future development Tllr Planning rstmmisslon his yet to mok.• d firm statement reparding lb I•,tiur of surh neighborhood slwpphp: rr ,tors wiivLltvr wort, should le allowed to he constructed within the concentrated Ilia of Alt I,ma A withhold zone Is not 1,p 11 until the orlllu.e.... h,s hl,u uJolitvd and nu vrstod rll;htu In continuing dlwl lu,nn tit alt pt r•u•nt unions n building: permit Its 1; been lseued an a pull I- rular plrro of Property. Tim 1'launiog dnriminsion ahuuld t,ntald Ish a firm policy no to the rejection or n,•lvrtlou of multiple coiner sites RECRUIENTIATION: If lhr Planning Commission rejet to the sites, the Cent rill Plait designs!lons I.henld he rein tied If tin• "Inuuing Clmmtsslon desln•s in some rl•spr.l to revognize outstanding vory n 14 colter projects, vrl- Lorin should 1, ,L lrl mined •lo t.at n nrllYtluu mly n,• made. �� D. �ACeat Southeast corner onJ southwest corner of Foothill and lltwen \` /� General pl..n D.-milo,it ion: Southeant corner mizord ono Southeast curul r Industrial Ioourn: Tlu• pouts Pty wunern want enemelrlal etotvr design.ltions. No pru)rct1. h.lvr boon approved for oe... too sites although withhold cone Phones ary pt,udluq uu Im�lu p.lreeis Both property rwnet i tire current l] In the I.1 .••. +s lit dovrlopin;; u %tic• plait for approval although us ipprovnia have bean givell at this; time. Tile Consultant and Phoning 1\mmlenl0n ILII•l• discussed the IXau- ol mill l- roruer development and III, f •rl llLlt the gre.lter uumd•.r of vanu•rl• Jvvelop,J for retall ceLrvl, 1.11 uties, Lite groatvr A�' t IM• lotentinl for eonseatlon of nu lutervmetion Such court.,; - frGTIWIV tluo Iv v,lpoclally true 19th of .uld Arehlhald Furthermore, ns ,,1� y Wed 'op htlliin Ote such sltro are directly ncro,o the otrlvt from another developed sh -pping center of a similar Mature It h.•o(mes questionable whether preitlof Q�ttral Plan l6r rily haw rile ability to support mull iplc commercial rcuh-r•: of this miture within such eloge prozimlly unpec /ally allies, the• 6tv, dim Oil MA t,mh.l big .Itwl rho cl)"Ittod cenlvts are otimerous In the Alta Lemi.l ana. 1,101v this I..ttcr factai Is a market rollalderatlwll It 1+ pa r.�� Imlm'rinut to Um community slnn• lark of once Less of a commerrldl llww caner lea low future nulvanrc farturs fur tilt, avmunity Ilo. cutunitint Indicates tint nelgithorlln @I rMllmuolty shopping evot Pra anrlw ,,st by a mijor uupertmrkel requires .In average of 9,0P' ro•.Idtats Id Its trade ii tiu•reby juttifylug IJ centers in B.mcl, rurmJUga at full development Alta Lump now has throe In npetnt gnu and two more under coustrultlon Cucamonga has the .•uivalrnt of tine therefore nJdlllow l centers of this nature lu Alto Loma could result In "uverbuttdtng" for the arei. It Is however, recognized that there are siren wIth In tom illy tAlleh Jtvolupers have announced plow; for future development Tllr Planning rstmmisslon his yet to mok.• d firm statement reparding lb I•,tiur of surh neighborhood slwpphp: rr ,tors wiivLltvr wort, should le allowed to he constructed within the concentrated Ilia of Alt I,ma A withhold zone Is not 1,p 11 until the orlllu.e.... h,s hl,u uJolitvd and nu vrstod rll;htu In continuing dlwl lu,nn tit alt pt r•u•nt unions n building: permit Its 1; been lseued an a pull I- rular plrro of Property. Tim 1'launiog dnriminsion ahuuld t,ntald Ish a firm policy no to the rejection or n,•lvrtlou of multiple coiner sites RECRUIENTIATION: If lhr Planning Commission rejet to the sites, the Cent rill Plait designs!lons I.henld he rein tied If tin• "Inuuing Clmmtsslon desln•s in some rl•spr.l to revognize outstanding vory n 14 colter projects, vrl- Lorin should 1, ,L lrl mined •lo t.at n nrllYtluu mly n,• made. �� D. �ACeat Southeast corner onJ southwest corner of Foothill and lltwen \` /� General pl..n D.-milo,it ion: Southeant corner mizord ono Southeast curul r Industrial Ioourn: Tlu• pouts Pty wunern want enemelrlal etotvr design.ltions. 1. t:INCRAI I'IAN !' rqw 5 i Factors: The L»r1'rretlnn of Foothill And Riven le a critical one slnrr It IM a Juncture Of two, major at ter l,Is 11, the romnun It II II nlsa n Inrnt Ion for a rrg IoutI slmpp lop a•rnt a•r aIternat I v. I In reby WIJ:Ill, Ilse Inter sect Ian sory rrIl heal In terms of acrr,,, and efflc lv Ile y flaw or Graff la• The rrn•a,ltant Inllenten tint n ,.Itv In nny quadrant of the F,wt hl ll /Ilavrn Intersection W."ild he rultahle If a regional sinyq.ing rent", ,.It, iv not to he rrertvvd In the northeast qu•llrdnt. A n•glonal center at tills lo•ntlau weld generate additional trafl le to and from the center augmenting time normal traffic tint Would br utilized at this Intersection going to and from (]Liffey College an w,•11 all lenldentLtl traffic and Indnatrlal trnftic of the area and A�tbn, ��%I111$tl6lQl� lntcrresmunity traffic thruugh Fenthill pled Based upon an older traffic model that tine county Iwd developed, He Blayney Atalc, that "twit centers across the strut wuuld overland an fulrrneetluu that barely mould he ndequ•,to with double left turn lane! ,Lid an 8 phase slgn.,l. If a r:l:lorcti center Is . _ bull '�'. Furtl,cimore, there remains the Issue of the dealgn and ternnl" gnallty of any subordinate center that might advernely affect the future vinblilty of a regional center. 611111- tln• nr"tlictic influences of n :malier center might be adJte +•:1-d through maintaining high development standards, the traffic Isom ramalns an ottatandlnp One Irrt%zirdleas of prolort de vq:n Therefore any development „f ehorpfng renters on r,rnier shoe ul her than the sorthen,t oon,rr ulw„ld be on a "slow mr" hash•+ With full traffic studies RF.COIQIENUATION: Retain General Plan designation on all four corners. ti r••a: West side or Etlwanla Avelino north of Highland Avenue General Plan II•slgu.Itlon: Windrow Issue: Property o,ntol destres neighborhood commercial center. Facture: Cenvral flan establishes altenm,itive allies for neighborho d omnuulty renter, and catabll,lma three alternatives Issued «�W-. JhL Canni�sia� ulv„ theft n In iculmldp to other nisi -+ as uvll as to their ��II �I� lorat fan la relationship to the puF,tlotlsn distribution of (�1k(twed WIWi Mlli• the rom"nnity Given the present ranrrpt of the Etlwandn Av,un. u,,, lit• cemv,ltm.t has a•nlal"hshrd alternative shnp- pfug,. Ill. r slim Mouth of the prnpu•url I'vothill Freeway. Until other far t ors change, tine general plan designation should be rrtalned RECOMIENIIATIM R"Win Windrow designation a�. a t 61 111 IG11 PI .I; 1'.:.In s r.igv h Area: rArea,ahmtnJed by the Southern Pnelf lc,nnro llad [•arks. Archibald Avcnur' Atwi'lhe rear portion or AIPInI ilntn Sliopping Center ff)(Rent-ral Plait Hraigu.ttlun: Illgh heavily Issue: Properly owner desires commercial Factors.: Currvutly under construction on if,, sorb vile of the Soulh, tit Plelfir tra,i.a Is a retail Lmh.•r .,I,v outlet Furtberaun, glorage uses at adjacent to the tray A:, 1�uard rise rear of this Plnpnsed Hite. Since Lite alto iv stLmlyd b�twecn two cnmm,•r Aptlor.- 01.11 us,•s .u,d the SOwthcrn Pacific tricks., it hecrmen licenlLm.,ble _1 uhother this environment can be uwlurlvt• toward high dvns11% resldrnt lal to concept of cnurne hlglur densities are onvout.q ;n1 �Jf near cunmrrglat development In order to ;ruvlde n supportive n�q(pQ. �( Lh Agtf�I rolal lonvhip between two types of Inud uses :t, vvll as create dalY�d y is soar vihr.mt clmrncltr armmd focal n.vh•n General retail vJ. eomn, r, 1 tl us.•st how,ver, genrrats 1 r Ip general loo and turn. Ilarti>�l6t forilty rf ineVrmenlS off the major artrrlal further that Impose a burden y �/ ul 'oti IJ,.• Interboctlon Archibald .m.l Itunllne Is n critical Ehs¢lu�tllyuN Int,r,n,tlnn.,nl currently genel.nev a gnat dent of traffic VANA W This trafffe v. "ild further inerovvr will. tile construction of TO Iht• ",,1m ittod" slopping center on ll., t.ertbam.r corner of Archibald .uul nasallne. It Is timrtlur'r• dvvlrably that If the .ilr IH uOt conducive for resid,ut 1.11 tine, Inver trafflr gon ration conmrrciol oven he .1II„w.nl llu•lehy redu.,ng the Inq,m•t spun that Portion of Arrhlh.1ttl Av,uu,•. Proper rolling curt addruvv this particular Issue. ,\pother alternative IH ndmintstrative professional type uses tilt could he related Iel list' exist dry; commercial Thus an A -P type zoning under a mixed use dvsigtntlon can be nrhleveul RECA}RItTJ%T P all: Modify general plan with t ilher Own, commercial dvvlPu.,- \\:ions ..r ,Ixul use designation central otxtlhesut corner of Highland and Haven Central Plan nesignatlon: Mixed O.1e IHSne: Prol.•riv ,rover drnlres commercial desls,mitlnn Other resldent•t dou'I wnri oIV Commercial on nnV ins er.e, t inn Factors: ThI :us rt lru l a tire,, cents Inv n trrpnt.Ill. tie lghhrrhood slopp lnG AP "I",' ..It,•s .1% supportive uses to the mixed use slid higher den - . ! 1p1i11P8S11(1 Islt Pr ^. 1" well off Ch.1f fcy Cott vgv Itself wort 1, of the proposed bassi F....11.111 N..w.ty Vu- re•1sot. nu all, n,..t lie .site vas not '1 J ^z +Ip ni..l .n, rho mmthvast ruro, r yl Ilighlaud and llaven is tint r(('OI1H1}Q1f1((r@!I, ' ...•.....t, 1,1 env skn•ubl hr u.VOI ,, f it Isom an lnt erchaul;o Aft" 11 dun n Po' slhlo to nvo Id Iref1 P. topf diet Furt liemur,•. Ws t. 111, W, ,Ilernativr 01 .•.I alrt.ply nhowu on the northers, n Ti ;S nHAEIIFL A ") I'. U IY r.,+ lh1S FIFTw )•uJ„Stl{ —'Jr/L • � • Ian 0- 049978EV3003 10/10/78 ICS IPHRNC2 CSI, LSAR ^ 2 4150537121 HGP TURN S4N 44F4EL CA 10.10 0I59P JEST i 1 CITY Gr Rr1 N' r, • CUCAM0UGA �': AI( I•,I µ710N PLANNIVG CrH•1)SSTON LCT 11 1978 ^ CITY OF PANCw0 C(ICAMnt.GA PU Snx 793 718101m111111111�IJ1'11516 RAlIC HO C14 AwpH6A C6 01730 ^ } n THIS IS A rOnF TWIATION COPY OF A PREVInUSLY PHONE- PELIVEPEn TEI F.GRAH THE UNDERSIGNED, OWNER- TPUS-TEE OF APPPnzIIIATELY 59 ACRES (AP NOggERS 225 - 083 -05, n7, 22 -20) OPPnQFS DESIGNATION OF THESF PARCELS AS RESTRICTFO GROwTH ARFA -E nu NOT 8ELIFVE THAT SUFFICILUT STUnY HAS SEEN ^ADE TO SO CHAFACiERT+F THESE PROPERTIES THIS PPOPEPTY HAS QEEN HELD SY THE SANE PEOPLE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS Ann wE HAVE ONLY LEARNED OF TwE PROPOSED PEZONING POMIiN THE LAST THRFE WEEKS ROBERT P 11RAETZEL (10615 FIFTH AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901) 14:01 EST HGHCnVP Mr,M n n n n n TD nrnr pY OAK Gn Rr •'r -+�rnc. cmr ren vr• "r� n•., •i- r.•n r or nrv:r maw, -• 1.1 1 1:11 I'1 :I 1 1 Hill" of 1110dand Avenue, III ...... Lave L„•a Indicated on tilt. ll..rltl Hide of 1•Hnlh(11 GTe.vly Lrrw., .,, the site relarien- el.I;.: will' IIW 1`1.nti1111 Frvuviy.111,1 III" olhrl "Iles already m,n1l,•nrd idlatvnt to .Ind a ^dr 1'Inif.•t c%IIIet;" Ilouever, C'"'rey G1111ge ills raised ill,' isl.ur al proper land use 1114IIMl file ral I"ge from Lila cullogrH' pvr.Ipcct1vc. Tile alt.•no11 iv1• slulpPing center I1111n It pn -enLed In Lite Cl,uri.,l Plan r•heuld he retained unletlH the 1'Lumlu7; C<molsslon drlvr- mine IILIL other land uses around Clwlf,•y Coll,•ge are not appropriate RECCIVEIZATURI: retain Cracral Plan dead :laden h•tt ro- tvaleah• If any addlllnull rlwngrn are mad, In tilt had 111. ,tr,•and Clwffey Colltgr cad the arm L "twece Clwffcy College and till, t1Vllllll Freeway Respectfu Illy sul"Ittel, L JACK 1dN, Director of Ccvmunity DcvoLamtat JL:nm •r E r city „r ^uo „ -n,• ,, ^,n rn�r ^�•,• c•,u r. .r 1 �••r 1`• rt )rfor ^rd 1',ot , it ,•n r co_. I” 'r, on t,,l r•., rr .•.. rr '1 r r : 11 -1 in vo "r ••• 'Ir nrr IhC ••• rl' )•� ,I1 to 1.3 rni A ttrnl) oil l x•01 1 J••, f nd rr.. 1 //l •L y�J / /{J/ I , 11, • � , I _ i „lilt OI IL'P^ 11 • • I ' �' l�n'rI "' Octrbcr 13, loth hti Flt ..1K ?I71111L•I lwdSL.pSII. G City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 793 9320 -C Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, MN 0.173n Attn: Jack. Lam comrunity Development Director ^.e: r7encral Plan property oesignatiou Dear 'Ir. Lam: Pleaan be advicud t`•at, as one of t-P co- o'anarn of prol`r1' _ lying within the City of Rancho cucnnon9a for which the I,4n current r:eneral Plan nhoan a major nsn c4an9o, I wish I this opportunity to advise you of our dirarrrcnent and t request your consideration of the foin it-,q urrent form .l of this portion of the Ooneral rlan in it-, current form 'r property conaistr Of arproximetclv'111 ticlt a lroad ^trail• ll north east of tbo D••cnaorr Inn and vest of roothill Bonlevard and south of the ea ^II;••jt rrtc:nszr`n f the. as ServiceiCon •:.IrrcialjvcWO- thirdn,01 r-j(,,jIj oil or ii: plan property is r ^rresnnl nl by ttt•sclf and 11 ^I to Del, lloldel . '1� +• also own the land upon which tile S• 7111 ^otr Inn is locate I the Inn itself This proprrt +• in cutrrntly rliown an ItIn,, nrrcity Rosid, n• + •1 on the proposed C' "eral Plan, al Ulough •:v understand tt•n its current- ^onto • in eer•nercial, ns t; • n L ,%l for "he tn.• I••radr it may he that t•^ r;'n••ral lllan co•� ultant, I••c•dng tl`•1r cc "an som^ buildit••I 'Cl lvi tv l,!oiliq on °;...n thlHil:l, asto:•11� this activity •••• Ild lo�lca_ly e+` foothill Iloul and tic. -noel , tN ! . ai+ ° vr1 ^1 r^anor l •P11c11 :'^ h ^7i 11:•P n••n ^il•• "101 coald atilt w W 7e1 +lo onto it!, 11 at•z s in clue-.1 ion, 'a n rfnrrl ll•`sies' II .,o,• retain the. 3, r, ice Curanrrcial dr•a i•Im Initiallv, th ^re are some natural 1•oun.iizv rearons wh•• ' residential devclorment occurr,I slow^ the Svcomore in, ^II Red Rill will not continue dc,, 'c••at•1 tl.r railioad tea i I <, "Id Foothill T`111PIrUrmt CromaCount.LVI CI1d +tnlrivc, nor tat th• room property in , for access on the prop ^rtv in nu^ntirn ilon Fouthi7l, only �Y `i Ly it I'd ...... n3 t n •, na 1 October 13, 1 ^7n Pane 2 conceivable access to the subject plootlty is over land unied and occupied by th^ Svcarore Inn thro'IOh some form of shatnd ingress and egress casement. This caspsrent would neem workable with commercial or office professional uses or the 11 acres. The shared easement, however, is totally imprac,tcal with apartment or high density home construction on the i,,operty and would create a burden and safety hazard on patrons of the Sycamore Inn and the parking area surroundinq the business Additionally, we believe that, because this land is slope or the bottom of slope, the construction of apartment units on the subject property would be impractical or impossible and L•1 not a logical extension of the residential development occurring north at the top of slope. Finally, the railroad tracks and the traffic on Foothill make such residential use questionable if its only methc+ of ingrens and e,ror^ is onto voothill noulcvard. The lacy of visibility on Foothill alter SL curves und.IneaLh the railroad crossing and pnsses t11•It small portion of t n subject property before the Fvcarlor^ Inn, as .-ell as U•e dangerouanesn of making. a left -hand turn given the curr,••!t _ street configuration Lrould make Lrrf fic generation by Id density residential dangerous in the extreme. Ile have envisioned development of the subject property I nvr- solves or some successor purchaser to be in a use rlenerall compatible with that of the Svcamore Inn, enrtainly an 1•4.••orical landmark, for the Citv of Rancho 1•uraronga and the pn1 t r !a •:t End The thoaght of high density r- sidrntial on the Lr!dnl r„ with its access Lhrough our parUliq groan and the incorrrn!�nce caused to our husinenn and cunton.v n in tr +t a logical o, a,:eepL- akle treatment of this property Wp hpliove !.hat, onc, in•1 viewed the property, you will ngrre that its phvnical i `IIL1on from the balance. of Pod Hill arms -s f••1 —t -ntion of th, tlice. Commercial denignp Linn to allow 12•. pv8 •3pvolopllont o •' propertv consistent wit!, the continue,. oreralion •f t1•- Sycamore Inn. v11 /j f 1 nrat,ect fill 1", IN-no It I fit I ch••V11 rr,•nia, r• , Svcanniv Inn v KOTOFF & COMPANY, INC. Metal pinhhor a ptdditsand Potbhlns 2620 MO OUnFEE AVENUC EL MONTE. CAUFORNR fil7a2 ♦ N O N a 4 1. 7 1 1 6 Got. 131 1978 ' City Clark City Hall Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. i Dear a #r{ I I would like to protest the propoaad rezoning of aq propert , two fire -acre parcels oa Baseline Road ad acont to and gnat of t�a count fire service camp. These are parce'le .p2217- 091 -20' and #227- 91-21. 1 purchased the pproperty nors than 10 yearn aaggo primarily beoause.the property is zoned H -1 and I have nntioipated building an additibnal plant expansion on the site as the industrial area developed around the Cucamonga area. I protest the proposed rea3nicg based on two facts. The proposed rezoning dosprivee me of the present industrial sons seeded for my anticipated expansion and places the additional financial burden on me of seeking new M -1 land in the Cucamonga area. The proposed rezoning is incompatible with thn imnddiste area. My land is flanked on the west by a fire eervios caul, a 'gh cgaaion power line and drn wash. on the sec: try s .;•� re1 prnrnae! bimb "mri-% power lime, on chit nortc by a rai Irond. acd on t :;s c by aIviva This properti was zunod yes+, ego for n Ay .)nit'1. rrpoaa tba0 .f H -1. The rasa, ug 3t the yyrxo*..t to R -1 would loY7r'.' he re3ua of Jh1 rlos "n S lb a this1l tterLto batbrouaht 'j�fsrc ',hG.Sity nounail end I would acprecisca inforration f_on the City 'tlm:k'e office as t0 JOw I can 3,rsally prposed with my protest. Oiacerly' 9. J. Xotoff WHOLESALE LUMBE H J,ff PO. BO% 326 — 7705 ROC RANCHO CUCAMO October 17, 197n 1/111 489.1881 HEPER AVENUE NGA. CALIFORNIA 91739 CERTIFIED MAIL - PEMP11 RECEIPT /0 "' vU/ CITY OF RANCHO C+CAMONGA Planning Commission P O. Box 793 Rancho Cucaeonaa, Ca. 91730 Centlemon, We request our name be placed on the agenda, and we to notified the date, time and place, for a Planning Comissicn hearing ra- garding protests of the rezoning of our industrial property from the exlstllq M -1 to R -1 zone as shown In the proposed new General Plan Yours truly, H i M h710LE5ALE LURDER, INC. A 1 J/ Edvar,5 J' Feduniw President f I i Y I IF PAM: .' I. f� :• . C' rG dll Vtr I• V,.I Pr ;q+,+ IIL11. 111:T AM Fi+ il�1�d71111Fi11.`'1;11.1 rid ' EJF /ams 4 i 924 VEST NINTH STREET •' ` L I= W I S 14 O M Q S P.O. BOX 670 UPLAND. CALIFORNIA 91706 (714( 985 -0971 BUILDERS OF FINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS October 24, 1978 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA RE: Pronosed Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Gentlemen: We wish at this time to sit forth In detail Levis Homes' spceifle - views on the general planning of Footh .1 Boulevard, particularly the frontage owned by us on the north side between Waren and Rochester We are aware that the City regards this as a prime part of Lcs window on the world, and we Joiu the City in the desire that that vi odci prancer an image which truly reflects the character of a well - plannad city. Members of the Planning (mvission have indicated on several occa- sions their intention to adopt a p at containing (but not selecting among) alternatives A, B. and C for this ttmt We have not objected to this procedure, but we do not believe that this prattl r should cause the Commission to defer a decision on a =Jet issue to be vtetived by the General Plan We ask that each of alternatives A, B. and C be amended to provide commercial, service commercial, and mtxed use along the entire north frontage of Foothill between Haven and Rochester. In sup,wrt of thin request: I The City ties total control over planning in the suoJect area. ThLrC is no need to let the spectre of unfortunate strip development in other cities deter proper planning The City will zone and have design control 2. The entire length between Haven and Rochester has the bunefit of a single responsible ownership. Levis Homes Ices repeatedly given assurances that we do not Intend to sell off smell parcels to developers to do what they will. It Is in our interest, as much as the City's, to assure attractive, sound design, and a facade of which the City can be proud As the owners of all the land behind this land, as It is viewed from Foothill, we would be it!- serving our Intorestn if we allowed chopped -up strip development Page 1 of 3 V .t ty r' Plan ring Commission CIE, of Rancho Cucamonga Pagt 2 of J Ortn•er 24, 1978 7 lie have attempted to present to the Commission examples of the kind of development that we regard as likely to occur along Foothill, as well as phatographn of the kind of development to he avoided. We believe that development along the lines of tha good examples will enhance the City's imag, d We will also make every effort to avoid the duplication of present usages We will not lust add three "ore market., and drug stores We will try to bring in new ueea, such as automobile dealerships, office comolexes, and medical conplea The grouping of mutually supportive busi- nesses should act to reduce uineeessary traffic, and help bring tit attrac- tive tenants 5. These assn will not detract from the rnmmuo,ty focus at Haven ant' r,othlll, but will supplement and enhance It The foc.rs cannot stand it one, and wh..te.cr form It eltlrm.0 rakes, the proxintty of high - quality - nixed tines .111 add to its role as oe terser of public and private business in Rm,chc Cucamonga 6 Inherent in them points is the fact that •. ingle- faitiv resi- dential housing doe, not belong on roothin B,ulevard AvotCing the walled city, and creating ittractlte resident at areas are twt sajor ¢ms of the planning process, aid both art inconshtent with thu present designatlona r•f tilts are. Dr Bla+nvv has clearly expressed these concerns; they arc staled tit ti,e Plan documcsr, and th,v have been repeatod Iv stiteJ at public meeclmps and the Commission's hcarinpi As a goner..l statement, Inmebuvcrn do rot Wart to live along a motor Nrorough fare ke knew this from our 2' years In tit( hoc,-building business Utilizing a fRfty -foot landarnptd it ffer (as le s,tg•- geste(I under "Major lot ,s[ -y ") in wasteful of open spit_, and will not serve to mike Foothill front.ge attractive tc homebuyers 7 Much attention has teen given to the buffering of industry from residential areas Car•erclal usages are far urd awav the best buffer, .,-cause thev constltut� a pe•mine use, not an artificial, unattractive, and useless barrier We have been given .a understand t.,at the reference, under "ll,jor Industrv' (p 6) to a "12 -foot higl earth berm nn the north" moans nartn of the Industrial d•voltpm.•nt, not tite north side of foothill Boulevard We will nut repeit +ur ca r l I a reticent a that sorb a Lean bas no just if l Eat ton on the nurth side of rile street, but we would add (perhaps Rratuitousiv) that we believe it tll be a irrrlble wav to buffer indu.try tf placed on the south ..lde of the Boulevard a Ile believe the planning concerts oxpresned to the propus.•d General Plan suppotrt r.nnrrr i.il uanue The drsrr'ptlon of nixed use st.Kes that "This destrnrt b,n is proposed along major th,rminhfares "In nd•ittien to providing relief from the concrete block -wall treatment, large sites with Planning Cum'slss,on city of Rancho Cucamonva Page 1 of 3 O^tober 24, 1918 aderuate narking can be pro, tiled. Proper trnfflc control will avoid barking late the street These pray ets could also :rove their own internal connections, as Utca178 In vnrious shopp'rg centers on Foothill Boulevard to Upland, t that the constant use of the major thoroughfare for short trips is a•'oided " We would further point out that whatever cimocrrlal uses are es- tablished in the area wt 1 generate sales tax revenue Eot the City and bring Into the City sales taxes which would othorwine gu to Fontana, Ontarte, or bplind 'Cc know tha, the CommLssion is fanlli.ir with tilt high quality of our new shopping cue, r at 19th and Vinevard, aid wa should point out that the Center was Lewis Homes' first eomercinl eff,rt As we gain more ctm,crelal experirn e, vnu ran he sure that the nighest standards will be used to develop land whlrh is being Cold by our comp roles as on investment - The Spe Lflc Plan previously submirtcd by its showed land Intended for use as a nob' .t home pitk north of lase I Lee, and cast of flaven We contfuuv to bel',ve that to l -e an approprlet use for this load If the ,Late's mandarr, that the housing element of the Ccnertl Plan "make adequate provision for to housirp ,,•eds of all eton,Mc sepmants mf the cnmmun Lt%" is to be realizes provision of this fain of Inuging is vital flobile homes can he ittra. tively built, Ind as house price, escalate, their affordabll Ltv will attract cane of those priced out of clot single- fam11v market , t City's staff has dircusntd vi.h us ti), possibility of submit- ting a qpt, fie plan for our property ii believe hat quell a document Is nppr „p -ia foe agsuring proper zonlny and we will suppiv one We will attempt. I our spreift plan, to delineite the areas which should be zon,d for eacl isape. In midttion, we will supplemtnt rlc traffic information contained in our •.Irller Envlrenmental Impact Report with whatever further traffic studien of the ecothlll /llaveo axis are felt to be neces,lar by the Commisslor, Nwnethvllaa, eo do not bellevo that tilt, foal that a specific plan will a Lntrodut.ed at I liter dam' suould defer g,ntral pl.mning: planning for his aroa is a '•a, Ic part of tilt Ftnc rat p1nn.Iing process We urge the So” Issiun to red ,w the three of to root Ives, to snow the uses we have requested In the areas indu,I,d Il,,w: Foothill Boulevard Very trine vonr,, The 1.EVI5 finlil:S Campanirs BY CSO:ab 101'!4/73 - three - SIAtF III I'OltI DAII : October :5, 1778 111 Planning Carnisslon i IBM JOCk lam, Dircrtur or romentty Iltvclutvlcllt NIMII Cl : GEN11A1. PIAN - INDUSTRIAL ISSUES �Areao Lewis property north of 1700th111, .1st of ildven General Plan Designation: Various Issue, Various ns per Lewlll connunlcatlon Factors: The prtnclpal Iw•wis objection to tlw• Innd list, ellmnmr Is rusi- p� dent 1.0 I.IIIJ use dealgnat Ions Bill th ill feat h l II. Nnjor dlvl- Aetrnn: lrl IAly♦ %Jfll slum lactore for Such dt-slgnatiaus v.IS n deolro to temp utrip (Cf1Ll(f {yIi WI}S1 qqff ems +. ra•I it alotV Fnothlll to .t min loom 6,8 well nn conccnlydt. ,1,, �,(•1 rata ll runmrr.•Iai In a central eunt.pt 11 Ilk, uarthtnst eor,,l remilleerkilf0h aghn of Ifmcn an.I F'to1h111 It Is ruupnl ed. however, that a Ik Illlun uV, /Of I[,, [,k,Ih11 frontage ",,III n.1.1-0i Ipleltty ado 1,11 611.,I lee (UMIA40" ki mil pu.tessluoal 6,8 well 6,S Urge r. 1.111 emnivrelal catnbU �lunnite Jl„t l� tut fir de 01.11 hive a character unlike strip a.mev•rr lal Deep lundacnlsd nu�'N T ISO U ��;{, Setb.lcks and aggregate parking can ht, developed LN YfliflU%S S�bGld ( {1dlrAf(T11111, Lowever, Is usually depenJant upon eltller large OA filvivi* 4;Kdfr, tine 6,r few uvner•shltw to arllla•vl P E rnrcel I:n- rucd J. alga control as urll as FA¢nfilg dlyl ftlQallZ#� nvlie"Ilu11 Sit'" the Levis Luul holdings me lnrgt-, more yf �� sryalfh Iaud us• planning C.114 he a hlt•varl with a specifir 111,111 lama ((W err V11St arras. wllirh rat, .Iddr.•sa develupuent lnsmva .11 .1 more crlticnl level and 1.-ore pret Ike dt,lint,atinll any b, made concurrent with dvv.•lap- m:at lit pro. IBC design control Ts• Itwin'p intent to sullmll I propaSal to tilt- Phoning CWMISSlun tor nprctllc p nnul g of n.ItJ aria. If a time frm+e and sra•eifle 11t,11-0 It can he offered. Staff wuel.l -npl •It a ''study area" description mlder each altt•rn.tt. It-Plunll .Ito to recognize private vIfort,, to achleve s:mCtfir p1.uullkl;, hilt the Caueral PIm1 dtsb•mtllens slmuld remain mall a ;.Ix, n Ic plan call be accumpl Imi,,I RCCOIUIENUATION: Retain C.meral Plan conct-p.s nntlt a specific plan is suh- m fitted. C/ Ares: 'East nida of Sycamore Inn below RLAWLI Country Club and north or J FaoL11111 Rlvd General Plnu 1) ... lttn It 16,111: Iligh DensILV Rasldenl lilt 611.11.•11. III An IIPa (AI Pala• 2 Issue: Tile property ointers devlru ctmwtrcl..il denitn.ltion ?actors: The ulte In queatloo l,vks adequate d,ptll f-or props piace- Aeb : -1VIL CIMMNIOV mtnll It lnnitl- family developnenl rulth,rrhn'e, access to the '.u, site Is very critical since any additlmlal uceran off of 1'nnt- CeNClIYQri µµti , hill Is very Jnul;crous and highly impr . t lrt•I given the nnlur. of Funlhll l Blvd. It !m cone. IV lblr Ill, I.,m, typo of low tail. pen,tatlog u•Ie can be developed en the it, Access of ,our,,, Auld have to he Carefully contrull.,l mul Ideally, a loutt m•a t•xe With Syramure Inn should be developel 'Ill" rnnsultant concur,. /,f \ REC(IMOVATIPN: t!antlnuation of service ctmmerelal. + 7• (Area: Southwest corner of Arrow Rmle sal Vtne++nrd General Flan Octilitnallon: Alternate park mite _ Issue: Property owner desires clnril'lcntton of proper base land uue designation Factors: Tilt, 1•l.uming C.tmrnisslon has previously ill +cussed numerous tim,q tit; , ime of park 11-11.1nn nud alternative sites. This area ._1- tprylll((rj(fdll reps•:+. ulx nnc uC few anus where a Bark may be developed; 1 0 tit, Cucwougn nrea ifwevel, mrry Importantly Is the h.I \ v1lV+(U Uri Q�Kl tb daslllo.0 Ion ul, wit lch this mirk al termit iv\ overlays Thu n• u.- 111If1l1tllGrry �,tptd Itap,r Insert did not "how nm• bat Jt, Ignatlon; htnever, till, 1 uge r,nilervd mail show, low density r +sldei,ttal Residentt l dcvelop- V 1441 at ml-ht on a Hite of title small erme Is I,ot appropriate given till, lea lilon lu relationship to s\condary hlr\ets and Its rclatluw.h Lp In th0 minimua impact Industrial Tin• ill I'luing Consultant couture and rer,vrunds that the base desigu.Itlo.l ;diould be a contlauallts, of mixed use RECW:IENUATION: 1101ety low density residential and replace with mlxed use '.•� Aica: Induntrlal areas below Foothill Blvd Factors: The "I'lustr'al Commit ec of [be Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Cuvn;r„ bn. 601-11 mectllg With conitnatsl Industrial Intervstn to d.v. I.q. I coupe of work ur hpecttlt planning In the ln,him- tria, .0 r.ls 5peclfie ylanu till Would addr.•as I,SWea such an trnif l,, arc east development standards, landscaping standards, drnlnage, specific uses, ge[bnckx, xp.cial boulevard treatment. otrt , dery•udfllg sawn the speclflc need ,I,LIn•nmrd Thin klnd .•1 plannllq: t.ul n•flne Imld use rrtdatiun'•hips and deal more dl„ ,Iv with taw., Iml.ul•h at n mote crlllenl 1••v, 1 dear. a G,aera! I•Lu, tau III- C,mu lU rr !lam d011tn•.Ilyd e. p, elf it almle and Idrn[111ed Pill' III, 11.....•s to be addreamul by . I'i.uwiry; Consultaut and •.nun III. ,et.rnnlec will b, concludful' II Ilberat lea anti WIII hulnall .I ill npl+s.11 ht lilt• City It,, Intends to au•1 .wl obi Ju ptiv.uo colt.ullulls it "I fell •omit d nt,ldv. Ilu•rel•. • ld all Ildq i'Im 1 \I I,:.IIS pa, . 1 Aotun ju Cculoi14 cnnuut2d WiW1 lafeff 1n addoade 7cnt %tag Arms/ as tihidwed by ° 8a krAmirldf doll% l �u he amrim on IV �.�rtxaP Putt. aM.Ist Itip. IIty City as Yell .1,. It' •b•(II Inn• Iho InduitrinI srvt.,r A per It is pl all wl lb ,.,,mp o. iIW Indu•rt trial devclupuvnl stm,dards can provide •1 ,tn 1,1,1, advantage to markeLlug plupertles• The Cemm,lttee seems to be progrens Oq; rapidly toward cosple- Lt.n, .,I a grope of work, anti hinr,• •,pp, II It planning can .n h lave hrn.•I its to the City, .11 WII I In Lino; industrl ll s:, torn, tiro hind list, plan should itropu a.• as well its encour.p:v npvciflr pinnnlnl, efforts In live huhv,tl lal areas ince Imlu.- tri.,l lalkl use represents a bubsdtntl,tl L,rtlon of Rancho Cuenmmlgn land area RECONIF.tillATl111j: ldligo,go In tale land uac vlpm,n1 nhoeld recognize the Clamber lndu•,ti I.,I (,Nmit Lel.•'S efforts aryl c,couralp specific planning for City ludustrl,il .reds i )Area: M'Oleanle l.unbor, Inc. - Rochester Avenue - General Plan: i.ow lenslty ResidMILIal Issue: Property owner opposes General Plan bvs(gnat ion Factors: F.xistlug on the site Is n ]=her .:alvs yard with vacant lnlul sur,u.mdl,p; It RanlCally the ante in I•.olnLcd There are AF%LoY! The Comnuuak. m., y I ,•I at rd ,, w,-I) nit non- Ibnl:ued sit,•, throoglw,ur the Idai �,1 ('ol'ft/lftd tliial staff rnrpunity whpre :It, la"d tine elcmvot. rerug:tlzes n predoninant lan,l u e ruuc,•pt that dots ML rolneldc with existing land u+.,, r�„Od111:a11�'L1'ICAt. In Ili, is h,s Lances, zoning would rerognln• these existing unvs as nuuennf arm lug If the propoevd in.11o, Lod use concept is an.• which Iv mipportcvl, then It would by ,aulegirable to spot iunv Indlvidu.11 n,nlconfmmhry; sll,+ $11.1 to encourage expan•,ion or .ontinurd longevity thraul;h inn ivy; liver the long tern, existing nuvs would not be cump,1tibl, will, the overall plan - Slog cnnr••pt for the area amt Ih••n•fnro tbelr continued exls- ten,c -should not be rrrognlz,d n,, ...tit to In ary event, a non,onformtug tine can be contlnnad provided the Clty dove not adopt nit nnorlirntlon Schedule and the us,- does not zxpand RECOINQIIJATION: ltetnin General Plan designation G, -Area: Area bnnndt•d I.y Vineyard, 81th•St3'oect, Cucomonga Wash, and City Jlimir line General Plan llvs q;n.lt inn: I.ow Density iisidcnlial Issue: Prupetty owutr desires toduStrlal Factors: JI I, I;an, I.Illy tvcognized by the In.bnl t ldl sector that reel dvutl.tl .3 11". ad 1acenl to hklustly 1•I•ut rally c.uu•vI Inrompil ibllity Ili-It -It-,, ,r•all LS In confllrtl; 11.11 ate dvtrJmultnl to hrpr I. u, t 11 i•. 1, ""'lt Ltl av n, 'I„I I. t.l., h,dv II: n,•ar n• ld n- 11.0 o I•,,,,0 1- d,,.lt., dl I I. u. I. . . , 1, nI t,ya I • rr 11 r1AY 1".r lal 11'1'^. Ado - lf.•r ""me-TI Me tw dirtival I.uW w(A. In 6aQi�fi7 tat [ula. ra -., IIIr .rrea is dlt..-tly adji, -.t Io an area of pr.d.minafaly I,s JdIri,tial uK, -... 11s• .d1a a,Isw1J loglesl lv be the cual laa•.at loo of «slst iaa land usa-t un the Ontario %if(ITI:V'JfL (( u "U' of tale City halts and ""Ili' .•I Industrial lan,1 iatn a r.rldeatlnl area Is. mda•.Nnhlr a.•w should ant iMR1�LLl. br 1..•d, rod. Its- prapu'rt) ovn�, Isi.,W I✓ canal turf In.In•.- triwl rr... am "id psalm", ILti,•a.•I, m. Site Approval wr Lvil4lrr� a"a" has Clam appravN fer .-iid develolaaa•ut Tik- nwI•r as %,,-11 as developer 11wref,rre fn c,.wernrj tlwt Indua- tri.d ute t.• ai los.•J. Iiwnver, ...ale ova•^. at tha location is emtrara 1. good lard use pl.:antrg. 2t•AW4:CMATI(sn: Hrlala Garters) tlan deslgaatl.v.. lirsprcf.fu L)! autolttcd, - _ JA[G LM, Olrcrror of Ganaunity Davclapnaat JL: ss CFIiXFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT , 'v r 11 CITY OF CAI;CCO CUGIMOCC.1 CDP'6091TY 11VCI0fi'1NT DEPT -,JV 01 1979 A41 1,11 71819dOd11L (112131,11510 :! Hr Jack Lam, Director Community planniNg Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Lam, 5885 HAVEN AVENUE. ALTA LOL I IFOq 91701 TELEPHONE: (714) 987.:737, _ 877.1484, 715-0247 - C 17 it octolwl2li• gqgqNriuo cuCAr'-OFIGA 71,17,(f ISTRA71ON OCT 30 1978 AN Pu 7E8191100144112(319E5 G Enclosed is the official Board adopted resolution dated O:tobor 19, 1978 As you can see, the Board took no position regarding the specific development of land contiguous to tho College I plan to read the Board's resoluLion at the NOVembOr 8 meting of the Planning Cocraission I will make no further comments faculty from the College may individually or as representatives of the faculty Senate address the Planning Co=ission They will cake it clear that their aranee is not an official College stance but the position of the faculty at the College Thank you for continuing to work with us to ensure that the traffic, security and environmental needs of the College are taken into account in community planning Sincerely, James L. Catnnaaro Superintendent/President encl cot lestor Stroh, President, , Board of Trustees W-foren Wasserman, City Manager, Rancho Cucamonga James frost, Mayor, Rancho Cucamonga BOARD of TRUSTEES Lauer Stralh M.D.. P,..id.nr Kenneth C. Ketner, v.,. P,e.udenr A•. A111`-9w Amen /Cam• Doe >ron,rr E.ple.., ...d D Sham. t R. Glen Srrnrer S.1n1n9 Aha L..r, Ch., , C-.n., Cero..ap., Cl..wnde, imnal L. Catm¢or0. PILO. �+ Elenchel R. Clam Pentane, W...., uo—r <1..,, Nr. Oe1Jr. SwnlnvMmr of rb owarr iy CIsrHK6 Saunders Nnoe, Onrn,e a.l Untm.d P,rudrnr nl rh. C.IIn9n 2 CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT November 2, 1978 5885 TELEPHONE— (7 4) T 8701777 822.4409 , 7150242 H Dear r Lam: Dear Mr fa a written statement of the position of the faculty of Chaffey College concerning our raecovme�� ci tequceCaofiOc [oberu 27,o 197Bt.d We appreciate to the college campus* per this opportunity to expruss our concerns and to provide input. ego . pMlip L IiattlOY Fh: D. Chairman Chaffcy College Faculty Senato BOARD OF TRUSTEES' Narsdd R. Clem Pre ndenr Lefler Stroh, M.D.• Vi.. P,.fd.nr An All ...... Aermn'Ewel O..a.mn-ry Ellm,• and ID.uat Sharon W. Jeffers. S.a,.tar 5...,ro Alta Loma. Ch,rb, Corm', C ... �go, Ea..,.da, Kemeth C. HlnrIchSM `• KcmAlath C. Kdrar Fonl..n, f7a. ✓y Mmtnlan, Mr, n"J" S......I l".P"04rt ' Clarence Sanders Nar<., Om... an! UPia•d _! , h V Of R NCHU ME AllOP A 11MORANDl91 DATE: _ November ], 1978_ Ili: Planning Commission FROM Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: PROGRESS OF 711E GENERAL PLAN TIME SCHEDULE: Thc time r. chpdule that the Planning Commission had agreed to several weeks ngo envisioned completion of the General Plan public hearings on the 8th of Novraber thereby enabling the City Council to conduct A n,mber of public hearings prior to January 1st and perhaps adopt tl:e plan prior to that date Ilowaver. It has become apparent that it will not be possible for the Planning, Commission to conclude its deliberations on the 8th of November for a masher of reasons: 1 Interests connected with Chaffey College desire to make A presen- tation and love a meaningful discussion regarding land use sur- rounding the facility 2. Staff has received indications that o number of sources will be responding to tl,e draft Envimmuentni Impact Report; thereby requiring incorporation of any Information submitted for the enviromnvntal Impact report prior to any decisions made by the Planning Comm lssion Staff would reco:mrend that the Planning Commission plan on conducting Its last public hearing on November 22, 1978 at which time all the informntlon regarding the E.I R may be incorporated into n ftnnl environtlentol impact report and have it reviewed by the Planning Commission no that a decision may be made. C(MUNITY INPUT: The Planning Commission fins been conducting public hearings at many meetings and has considered individual Input regnrdtng specific prA- pertles throughout the City This was an Attempt by the Planning Calera lnsiun to try and have as much input as possible Becanse A decision must be made, Input must break off nt a .ertain time The PlnnnLng CLmmisalon should consider November 8, 1978 ,. the lnst date In which Individual agendized concerns may be voiced about RN rifle ,roperties It is possible the Planning Commission ran lose site of th, major land use concepts within the plan If It continually focuses upor 1,.,Jvidual considerations In fact, It is possible to continuo the hearing process adinfinlnm and still never consider every Individual conaiderati on. Therefore, Staff would recommend that the 8th be the flnnl date In which Individunl Agenda items may be nceepted for Planning Comminslon consideration and that November 22, 1978 be estnhltshn` as the final public hearing date at the Planning Commission level Staff will, however, send to the Planning Cammiseton aivi City Council any letters that may be submitted at the last dote for Planning Commission Snfomatlun; however, these Items will not be Agendizd t� tb rn - 1'rogrrs9 0( the General Plan November 7, 1978 Page 2 ENVIROMIENfAL DIPACT REPORT: The Planning Commission is aware that It most consider the draft Environmental Impact Report of the Land Use Element prior to making any decisions on the plan itself. I would like to make a distinc- tion between the General Plan E I.R and a project E.I.R Project E.I R.'s are much more detailed and address specific considerations of a particular development or project. A General Plan E I.R Is more general, does not address site specific considerations and contains staterrnts that reference other E I.R is or other information A General Plan deals with land usL planning) at a conceptual level, but does take Into eon9lderation major environmental considerations However, such considerations are In the form of broad politics rather than specific area concerns The State guidelines relating to General Plans have evolved to the point where General Plan C I R.'s are encouraged to be very general in nature since It is difficult if not impossible to assess every ramification of development on every pike of property thoughout the City. The State guidelines recognize the different levels of analysis that must be mndc regarding development in any community; that is beyond the major Imtd u9c concepts, there must be analysis on a project by project basis. That vas the prime motive for CEQA Approving the Gc„aral Plan Land Use Element and adopting Its Ell R , does not open the door for any development whatsoever Development must conform to any Implementation devices that may be established through tuning or other ordinances These ordinances vstablLsh the parameters by which development may occur and even beyond thin, environmental review must address specific environmental considerations prior to any project approval. Mille It may he said that the City does not have !t9 own Seismic Safety Element, it has adopted all the County laws In regard to planning including the County Seismic Safety Element It is obvious that as a new City It lacks the financial resources to develop all the mandatory elements of the general plan Without pha9Lng its development over n period of time Tint Is why the Staff has developed the planning program that the Planning Ccm- minnlon has already reviewed It is desirnblc In the Ideal sense to have nil the plannlnp mirk conpleted it once, eon9lderina all factors of com- munity development at tie same time such as bossing, environmental hazards, land use, noise, etc Ile ever, there in seldom the Ideal process within any community preciagv because of resource ron9traings Other, more established communities have had years In which to develop their elements and even then not in the ideal order nor all at once Elements are nodifl"I through annual review to reflect any policy changes that may be affected by further development of Individual elements It Is the Intent If Ibr State guidelines to luv, all the clementa as roh,wivr as possible and ML frngmented with no Interrelationship at all Therefore, the task of tie City Is to develop these clments In a coordinated manner lrre- gardless of their scquenre of development or timing It must be remembered that Lrregnrdles9 of which cl=mcnt is adopted first or when It Is adopted, good planning dictatcv all the element considorations anyway in project ravtew, Thin City had elected, at the time of its Incorporation, to develop Its Land Use El emrnt first In order to quickly adopt a framework for plan- ning and gable a new zoning ordinance to be developed It is recognized flmo - )'regress of the General Plan • Hovcnbcr 3, 1978 Page 3 that any plan adopted is not a perfect document nor can it be considered a Pe vea for every problem that the City currently has It merely func- L1' •, : general guide for planning and the "meat" of any planning is In ♦ao act review. To conclude then, any comments received concerning the E.I.R. must be incorporated or referenced as com•,ents in the final draft If you havt any questions about the environmental review process or the nature of the current General Plan program, please don't hesitate to con- tact me before the licvember 8th meeting Rrspectfully submitted, fi( J - bi ector r► f , Community Developnent JL:nm ee i . KO`fOFF &F COMPANY, INC girl, Fsnhims• Plosing Lnd Polishing �- M MONV DeaF R IA ENVE P1 0 1. C CMU4 3 7 911 5 • NON L { 4] ] 1 1 0 Nov. 3, 1978 Jack Loa Palnning Commission Rancho Cucamonga C•ilit. L1 Lam; I would like to protest the proposed master plan for Rancho .,ucomongs in regards to my prop ^rty, two .rive —acre pnrcols on Baseline Road ujacent to and east of the county fire service camp. I had previously written a letter to the City Clerk explaining my position. I have enclosed a copy of my letter. I am opposed to this proposed down zoning of my property in the master p'an because it will cause me financial hardship and the planned rezoning is incompatible with the surrounding arc!). If my presence is required to fomally protest the proposed master plan as it regards to my property, ple-se notify me. F:: 1•;, •j 1,In1 ,;1;:1� 1;1 �I IIJIL Cordially, / W. J. Moto t Mr John Blayncy November 6, 1978 Page Two Where workers cannot rind affordable housing in reasonable proximity to their place of employment they are forced to commute longer distances to work which results in the increased usage of limited fuel resources and increases air Pollution. As the DEIR points out, Rancho Cucamonga already experiences air pollution as severe is any in Southern California The above example illustrates the critical interrelationship between irdustrial- conmercial development, housing, land use and the environment In addition, it Points out the importance of the inclusion of a housing element which assesses the level of current and future housing need and sets forth a prog,am to address such needs In rur view, it is imprss.ble to assess adequately the environmental impacts of he Rancho Cucamurtga land use, circulation, and public facilities elements in the absence of a housing elemant. Similarly, to be effective, mitigation. _ measures should be based upon land use, circulation, public facilities and housing planning. In conclusion, where the proposed General Plan does not adequately conform to state requirerents, the EIR on that inadeluate General Plan will reflect these same inadequacies Developed in the absence of an adecuate housing element (as well ms other mandate elements), the DEIR on Rancho Cucamonga's proposed General Plan fails to adequately consider the socio-economic impacts of the project or mitigating measures to address such Impacts. especially with respect to the housing nerds of low- moderate income households We would appreciate receiving a response to the concerns expressed above. If you have any questions, please contact Teri Dressler at (9 16) 445 -4725 Sincerely, Dave Williamson �Y Supervisor, Urban Section cc: Office of Planning and Research ,Lauren Wasserman, City Manager City of Rancho rucamonga --6ur - I \I1 It111111 x111 November B. I'M III Planning CPInmi —loo Intl lack I.vn. lillttter of Cawnunity tlevalnlaneul nl' II iT CIIAFFEY t ou mr. rHE'SRNTATIQV i'l caae find the lotloviug %t'dc"ments to your Staff Rtport: •;lu (fLn1M�,J,S�hWK. Communitntion from or Catonrnro 1"A"2. ResoluUe"' by the Board of TTUVLCQ• of Chaffay College - i1Pb"ra clYnu.91 3 Position atattmrnt and Joint resolutlou by the Facol Ly Senate A al Ja e6t, Ile, of Cltaffa•r C'IIICge j 4NL{{1 6l�'.S it is apparent Ill ar..+mining the material s%hnittad tlat there may be varlou•• JW C[i114t levvla of tnput ,+t•rvldnl tine Planning CL'Mlllnalnl+ by I1sl Iv lJuu la or groupx 1N et-unvrted With C11.ni Collvg, TIR• Board of Tram t•.•.. %11Ich orf lrlany rt•proncets t:haffcy Irl la gc, h.Ia made n general xt aty pit ning cooccroing process and �p inutreal .111,1 dcslry f,+r PartlelteStlon In a comet"' Planning P 111�11�11tt • tileir de%lrr to •trt• .n+v dt'velo,nnrn[ around lhr rollrga hr cnvimnmentnily ..%nod and not Impose I1ir46•nx upon tine collrgt• I 11+in6 the rlan"'Ing Com- mlxslan will agrtR• OIL the thoughts enutnhu•d withlo tills Resolution al .o Mao- reflect lilt- de%ln••t of the Planning Comae laxiou and P.Ity Couurfl The Roltax ,,it irn+ to bavi: nine I otatvmvul for good pill "'Ing '1br board. Ip•...ver. not taken any IR•s It lou u11.1tsovver regarding the dvnnity or Lind use sur- rounding the wilt I.e On l el Io ( Facility l pn v s that. low a' ity residential h tilt' prvh"I'ata 111111 alJaat tothe callge11111, ln fosttLon Is suplwrtvd by the attached material Ih•Nl den the academic avn %t••, I' is possible that InJlvidual professors may ,xpreas their owl, vj,vs rvgnrding either developnent around the college or tale Glly's pinnning process The Staff po�ttien. Ir•Iln, In regard to 1.111,1 unt- or"oud Ilse college Is ill.), .1%111 Mill. f aelpian+lrJ .Ind r%dvrrsc +lmpactlNam ltlg.1t.•d lhroul;ha proper ade1vvtiupl- sent control This roans t11at the planing CammlehmllJ let era lnesWhallklmlll tilt- expression) el Vans Poororning tilt- rulirgv, of el%lraeter n tor!1xn+11a lul•IlchllhedPI...V, IIt, 1l1.1o'hnelea lahmllJ deicide nf1tvr al n major fan icy I t ro lyditl the t.uhi V,L all input Ias bwa r.•o t•IvrJ Pre• g Respect[ ly sl&ail {Id. + �J ? Ctaununllt Ilrva Lq•r•ul . — f eve — .I ]l I RI 1% It I IMI t7uvcmbcr S. 1778 III planning Ci.misal un I IRrI Jack I.un, Dllrrtur of C,mmunlly PvvvIoI• %•al nbPrf CENERAI. PINT ISSUES D Aron: South aide of Foothill, cast oC Vineyard Ceneral Kral Drslpu .1t toil: High Density V ]asue: Owner desires hmmerclel Factors: The Planning Como B.alotl lino diacunved the Is,ate of eoamerelal on IV III th,• north nnJ south Bidv of foothill Rivd with an eye toward L•.trlctlng the develalment of the vmmerclal strip .I long t�151� 1�, its cutlrety this In acempllnhed by varying commercial and (ApkUFf�l YJA4 . residrttini lit ley areas to maintain a dlmmic halaure of land �sv� uses lhr 8011th stilt• of Foothill In this, area Is large tnnugt• nod drrp enough Lit support high denslly use­, and Inrorporato adequatt buffers fr:n Foothill. Ctmmercldl use could worsen the Ingle~,, and egress probltans off of Foothill Blvd between Vineyard and Hellman. Reco,mserda Llotl: Retain General Plan designation Q' Southeast earner of Vineyard and San Bernardino Hoad neral Plan Designation: Low Denslly HosidenLlal Issue: Owner dentres commercial office Factors: Said prup,rty tun,,iots of several marginal pieces of land foimtrly owned by two County for rlghl -uf -way lmproctme..ts According to the r"ser, Ibr r.,unty to longer wanted to retain thty land and hold It al nu, tlnn to the present utmrr llu northern portion fLllP1�• ' (tLMhUS loC two land Is too narrow for Lite Jrvrl upmcnt of nny tete whatnul l•er conc�irnd with ` r((f. The wulhern portion that (rents at S..n Ilona rdlnu Road is 78 fc, t wide at Its widest Part and existing res listen abut the pr0poriv, The uorlh, lit portlou la a greater .lope t7nt mat k , snail el lvi Of publi, la.ld are purchased by Illn,.o s„•klnit to enlarge all ndlatiat pareeI mill IIt V:aI u• .us to land h, tv Lrlml•IY rt•vt r I c t oil In list- by [lit f. slzv. Ilu .Iwo t ion value In qul1, law Ali, otaaltiltgt vacnal p.trv.l a ndlao rill 10 a Ii -idt lit laI nrii•ISnrhuwl -dwald ho continued ni t d ..I -• I' ent lal It Lt e0nct-lvnblc 16.11. a Imall It,,idruce with across ,It • i I'M Pldh 1:7i71i S �• ❑•. Maher R, 1978 It,gh• 2 of San IB•nnrdito Ibud tovardo ill, .•mtrhn I., .,,illy line may hh• dceh lep.vl It should b, uoL to II,A .... h. other thin tell[ dentlal antld create traffic conflicts d-•trimentat to the Inter- sort ion mild create conf Ilets wit It ad Inc lot r.•sident l al use Iteco m"I'lnl loll: Rh4alu L.w Deuslty Rcsldvn :inl 7 1 )Aron: West side of Haven Avenue, north of the AT&SF Railroad General Plan Designation: .nw Density Residential I"site: Tile owner of this property feels low density ret,ldentlal is Inappro- priate for tlhly h.ile and world prefer an Indhwtrial dchignation Currentl. , Isting on the proptrty In tlw Cucamonga Pioneer Vin.y.ud Factors: Tile area in bounded to the south by the Kr&Sl Railroad which has n spur runuing Into the property To Lite want it, an older tenldt'n- 'VI)a'1y lµ (Otti1M%jQp._1 to 1 ure.h huffcred by Patine Avenue and to Lhc north Is an existing �! �1, r..•ij'�[[(( light Induxtri.11 building. Inc •hitrn pnhximity to ibiven Avenue, �rCtlfY4i WA fAff the ATdSF 1,ailvond, and an existing Industrial bonding mikes it non- cum11a'1ve to low density tosidhntlol dhvalopment If plann..l well, n minimoin Iohmet Industrinl uvo would be cumpatlbhe with thh- mirrsonding area Recommendation: Nndify the general Plnn to reflect it ninlmta Impact Indut.lrlal on that property bmindnl by Ilumboldq Rarine, 26th Strait and Haven Rh .peen Cully sul.�lt trd, IAfR LUI, Director of Community Development it :It, i, — r � {motto ,'r�rJ'r -a+�i�• 921 Tenth Street, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOP. 921 Tenth Street, Sa (916) 445 -4775 rCSi�� 4'l•I�'li i�;dOliGA CCIiS:•'dr /fYL eIAtir DEPT. 'y Dr RAhta,q LUfAtwOriGd I,,,V 1t) 19 /l3 November 6, 1978 'tttH £ig lL,w All PM IIglrJllOdiI�11L;:L3L4L5LG f .r fit '/ 19i i � 7t &t91k1t1ij,etltFr,.tdt5t6 Hr John Blayney John Glayney Associates Urban and Regional Planners 631 Clay Street San,rrancisco, CA 94111 Re SCH #16100264 - Draft Environmental Im,act Report on the Proposed General Plan, City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Hr Blayney: ender the provision, of the Cal Ifornia Environmental Quality Act, the Der art- ment of Housing and Canmunity Development has reviewed the "raft Environmcntal Impact leport (DEIR) on the Proposed General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamanga We offer the following conments regarding these documents. Our primary interes- in examining EIRS on local general plans is to review the assessment of the socio- economic factors that relate to housing As you know, state planning law requires each incorporated city to prepare a General Plan consisting of nine integrated and internally consistent elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, seismic safety, noise, scenic highways, and safety Grvernment Code Sections 65302 and 65300 5 State zoning law and the Subdivision flap Act also condition review and aporoval of development proposals upon the adoption of a complete and adequate General Plan and upon a finding of consistency with such a plan The proposed General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga described in the DEIR consists of land use, circulation and public facilities elements. the does not include the seven other mandatory elements Of particular concern to this derartment i- Rancho Cucmmonga's failure to include a housing elern which makes adcqurte Provision for the housing needs of all a housin segments of the comrunity as required by state law. The adoption of a proposed General flan that larks a housing element defeats the purpose of the General Plan requirement ihich is to elicit a "comprehensive" and "Integrated" plan for local physical development Rancho Cucamonga's failure to include a housing element is especially important given the n:mrerous references in the DEIR to the Interrelationship between land us -, housing and the environment For example, the DEIR suggests that the proposed General Plan is expected to stimulate increased employment opportunities within the city Pt th•t same time the proposed General Plan "may result in higher housing prices." Although the DEIR does not contain any information on the salaries of future emplovtrs, it seers likely that housing prices will for tho . most part be out of the tea.fu of the future low - moderate - salaried workers who are employed in this area. t, CITT OF RMW CDL9$ 1LA VMKOFAMM Date: Rosmber 14, 1978 Tor City Council Froa: Jack as, Director of cacmunity Development Subject: I'VOGQESS OF THE GEM AL PIAH Please find the following Infotaatfm attacbed to this Homo: A listing of tbose changes which the Planslug Cot®Lssfon has made to the Proposed waster plan relating to individual sties as reviewed thrcugh the- - hearlog process. 2. Copies of all correspondence submitted to the City regarding the proposed master plan. 7. Copies of correcpcodeoce subritted in response to the draft mviroommtal lupact report (DEIS) for the proposed master plan land use element. The Planning Coaminsim by been meeting diligently for a number of months to cans(der Input Into the proposed land use element of the luster plan. In Its deliberations the Gdmisslnm has conducted vomernus public hearings uncerning Individual Issues wbere individuals having certain strong feelings abcvt low his or her properties should be treated on the proposed plan. While the Com- nisslon desires camtamlty input, it also recognlzea the fact that the process could conceivably oev� end stare propertfey change hands and there is always gatvg to be somebody ubo may, not have heard about the hearing process Irr%ird- less of how long it 'us taken place. Therefore, after a long consideration perfod, the Commission bag fainted itself In the direction of making a decision The Platting :nealssfon has selected Hovenber 22, 1978 as the last Comissim public hearing and because of the slgnifleance of the Plan and the modiflwtlons which the Planning C nrls four has made up to this point, and the Coaisntons' desire to have a Plan adopted either before Jaranry lot or shortly aftenords. thr Planning Commission tcwatd like to invite each Council atmber to attend the 7ovrnber L', 197A -r. tirx and voice nary Individual pr 9;- valves concerning the Plan In ao effort to allot the process to emutinde , smoothly as possible since as: tmdifleativs t'+ C11M.^II flay Ilk, dust bt returned to the Planning Corals - don before final adoption by the Commil. The Ccaari.shm does not necessarily mPect avy conflict between their views and Council's vlP+s, however, the Comdia- ahm frels the Cwrv11 should have ad opportunity to look at Mast has been done 80 far and [¢$rent If arty Individual so desires. 'IF110 - PRLXTI.SS OF TIM CFNtHAI. PLAN Ilovvmber 14, 1978 Page 2 In Its deliberations, the Planning Commission has made it a Point to consider the various Individual items as objectively as possible from the perspective of what it considers to be In the beat interest of the community. In order to take an objective viewpoint the Commission has had to segregate the collec- tive interest from the individual interest and to recognize the roles of the players In the hearing process As can be expected, an Individual property would be looking after his own individual interests; therefore, by ncknowledgtng tale fact that Individual property owners may take ruck a perspective one can then respond accordingly by ones own viii about community consensus In nil cases, the Planning Commission has dismissed the Individual emotional or moral appeal by certain property owners and looked at the facts regarding development of this community and what would be in the long term Interest of the coamuntty List is the toughest decision? It is one in which the emotion Is an intervening factor; when the pertinent facts and issues at hand are clouded by emotional appeal about certain rights that "mot be guaranteed to anyone, more specifically future expectations of profit from property ownership flow much credibility one [ins regarding such no emotional appeal depends upon each Individuals values about property ownership and planning The Commission has carefully avoided responding to the emotional aspects of an Issue and has tried to address the Citywide consequences of a decision. Since the Planning Commission has met frequently to discuss individual cuncernv and has made decisions reeomonding certain types of land use an certain proper- ties, It is nlmost assured that those Individuals who did not receive satiafne- tion at the Planning Commission level would "take their beat shot" at the City Council level hoping to undo what the Commission has clone The Council can take one of cwo approaches. One is to individually ngendize each Stem people are unhappy with lust ns the Commission has done fiowover, tills method would entail months of public hearings and repeating the some hearing schedule as the Planning Commission The second alternative Is to allow those Individuals who have sperf- fIc concerns to cosmunfeate these to the Council either in writing or during the public hearing portion of a particular meeting. In -ach instance, the Hayor can ask the Council whether a particular item need be further discussed at lengtlm. If not, the meeting proceeds While the Council is free to determine whichever method it wishes to conduct Its public hearings, I believe It advisable to not agendize individual Issues othtrwise the Planning Comtssloa work my become leas memningful and the process can be lenghtened cm iderably to the point where Staff, Commission and Council looses sight of the overall Picture and get bogged down with Individual 19xmle9 It must be recognized that the Plan as well as any other planning Jomument is not a panacea of every single problem In the City hot nerves as it gnideliue for problem solving and for future planning. The Plan Is not fixed in cenerete There will be future oecnalom where the Plan may he further refined or modified, but It is imperative to adopt some form of planning framework The Council might notice that the comments received regarding the draft Envlron- mental Impact Report are a] I critical from two perspectives: the enviro:mental constraints sector and on the housing sector It must be recognized that tills t11N0 - PROGRFSS Of 11W GRIERAL PLAN November 14, 1778 Page 3 type of criticism call he expected whenever n coamunity dues net complete all its General Plan elements at one time In Rancho Cucamouga's case, the community did not have the resources by which all the elcmeats may bo completed or or once but the City recognizes that these elements may be completed within 30 months after incorporation. The staff has drafted a planning program that would incorporate this work in the next fiscal year and have the advanced pinn- ning budgeted however, the environmentalists maintain that the City has not sufficiently addre:.sed the issues of environmental hazards, more specifically geologic hazards, and the housing people maintain that there is not enough housin¢ In the City and therefore we have nut addteaacd tt-a community's res- penstbslity ;o provide housing for all soriet levels Bach alo of these issues how. et i-c intended to be addressed more apecif ically during the preparation of the Seismic Safety and Safety Element and the preparation of a (lousing Element. When these elements have been developed, the land use clement may be modified to reflect any policies the City might want to adopt in regard to the-c two policy areas however, everyone ban "jumped on the bandwagon" at) to speak to be crlt lent at the onset -of the planning process This only points to _I need to Insure that tiro other elements are completed within the requeaite time period and coney be allocated for the work next fiscal year. The strategy of both these groups has beer to attack the environmental impact report as being Inadequate for the reasons as described in their comments Since a DEIR is Intended to solicit comments of various interested groups or individuals we have tried to Incorporate as much of the relevant Information as possible in our final EIR llovcver, the basic argument that no EIR can be developed until all the various elements of the General Plan are completed clearly tins no basis In low. It only tins basis in terns of the logic of an ideal process; however, few cities have the resources to develop its general plan in an ideal roamer Furthermorz, we feel that the EIR is adequate in relationship to the CEQG Bulde- lines which state that the apectflcit, of an 31R is related to the specif.city th of the project and in at general plans by their nature are not specific, any EIR developed for n general plan is recognized as being general The foregoing Iniormation regarding the EIR and the convents rcreivrd are Intended to inform the Council of the sensitivity of the Issues at hand and to enable the Council to recognize what Is a special interest objective and the strategy employed by will 11 these interests in attempting to make their desires known. Staff has atempted to convince enrh group that the City tins not neglected Its respon- albilitfer. to , •el,arr the ester general plan clericals but that t' a City Intends to have them , ni tred and to have each one of the Issues addressed in detail prior to the 3.1 month deadline 1 sense in my discusalonr. with these groups that there tends, Lo eo wn. distrust of the City and a lack of confidence that the City would follow through with the legal requirements of the State planning Law. In no way should the City apologize for its dectai.on to develop its Land Use Element first Given ;he circumstances at the time of incorporation and the available resourccs at hand for general plan work, this City tins made more pro- gress than most recently incorporated cities over the last ten years HIM - PROORISS OF InE urtamm. PLR Roccnhrr 14, 1978 Page 4 If you have any questions in regard to any of Vic issues discussed above, please don't hesitate to contact me for further discussion I will send subsequent memos to the Council as needed to keep the Council Informed of the General Plan proccse. Respectful y submitted, J1CR , Director C - - --- Community Development JL:nm yaa�RTO",''°,� {b Rpoi auti'� - .. #'was•.. : Q _Varrm�nit'Tnt°d"°p°oeaov�`t'"" ni�a om ,�„tiauu 30%16t& Rti9 A t1W ZAv%-.._..- . -..�__ -_ '• , - _ no. Callrornliei° t%4 -:m oaa+s,...:� - >l :: "�?�- '�RC.'rr4. k^iYa<^r'tt^ C 9ectionl Nn b y Cat • " -By BI• VC3 gO.LT j ! sin we w He RANCHO CUCAMONGA — The City . + lumber yard to renal¢ in a residential The Pla toing Cemmlssien recom• GUCaMo, n9; - _IV; area but would not grant an exception mended sticking with the residential no. Callrornliei° t%4 -:m oaa+s,...:� - >l :: "�?�- '�RC.'rr4. k^iYa<^r'tt^ C 9ectionl Nn matters Wednesday; uguatmg•It cUned to adhere to planning gmb er than make exceptioets for In And It held fast an those cboites face of some strong appeals from erty owners, Including one buslaa who Bald the council's decMOy� drive film out of business. Dunc1 t.. i er th9ran. tT, beesuvt the counensrN !'be•in-san Fva¢ctta nut Wednesday,. , attending a sent... on lshor rcleUOOa_ - :,.The council heard frog a sut'cmion i . of property owners In to It dfs 'luvlou oa the pfan...;-, -: `.• I I The-strangest app.eal of a Punning• , Commission- decision Came from F.d- 'ward Fednew, owner of HAM Role: 'safe Lumber. He located his business on. the northmt core" of Base Line and Rochester Avenue •wbeiI San b y Cat • " -By BI• VC3 gO.LT j ! sin we w He RANCHO CUCAMONGA — The City matters Wednesday; uguatmg•It cUned to adhere to planning gmb er than make exceptioets for In And It held fast an those cboites face of some strong appeals from erty owners, Including one buslaa who Bald the council's decMOy� drive film out of business. Dunc1 t.. i er th9ran. tT, beesuvt the counensrN !'be•in-san Fva¢ctta nut Wednesday,. , attending a sent... on lshor rcleUOOa_ - :,.The council heard frog a sut'cmion i . of property owners In to It dfs 'luvlou oa the pfan...;-, -: `.• I I The-strangest app.eal of a Punning• , Commission- decision Came from F.d- 'ward Fednew, owner of HAM Role: 'safe Lumber. He located his business on. the northmt core" of Base Line and Rochester Avenue •wbeiI San n >'Among actions taken at Wednesday's use Now.tha -city PrOPmes using the, public hearing. the council Wowed a area for slagla family homes. . + lumber yard to renal¢ in a residential The Pla toing Cemmlssien recom• area but would not grant an exception mended sticking with the residential n y �� to allow my substantial expans Ion. The designation. But because Fednevesbml- 44 cmmeB also rejected the location of a am was already there. It could reautin •, , proposed shopping center because It — but as a "non<onforml.g" use. That agreed with the concept that the city meads that some day, U the business Would have fewer intersections with' closed. the land would be returned to shopping centers on all four corners .residential use. in the meantime, the Wednesday's meeting was the first busmen could not undergo substantial public hearing for the council on the expansion. - .:- 11, , r s proposed general plan elemeats regard. Fednew has 10 of his 23 acres do- LDS land use. circulation and public veloped on Use site and wanted per. facilities. This Is an part of the process mlsolon to expand within the 10 acres. of completing a general plan for future He argued that be is "buffered"on each development that must be done within side from future realdentid develop, 30 months of incorporation. J 1 '+• -:'v , The next hearing will as Jan. td rash- (Continued on C-Z Col. B - ewes ss+w N ra,sr A,w,e.aa usinessmenr trade - -- teir two-bed. oome . dar Ave., and Its ' tortty .tier noes ` f a a s ' ir"'�•,.j i • a r -Ti7511 4I 'f ? 3 r= Ir - t i �j- f (' erotectionDistrict oven license, rates The tenants were i, Officials said. %.1 rsA+: •r see(,.:,, _,. s tr^ to Br CATBYARbLSTRONO- t'.•* ybewould Listantothabiuinessmenand •s "' "t �,.sl.' -. sn saw vnae .�: s` ..- . attempt tp clarify the new schedule. but FONTANA r: Some local busi- �gp can the fed will have m tlr+• r•'Lt ,.v LLm.i ;.�"T:.3 �. F -any ¢essmecandl+meyed'ovei this eltyes�me frosgthe counclL ",.e,� .... new Duslnesi License rates and Thurs, a He refused to idmit'newipapec t.' + ■ Pa VP _ :' day they let the city know about m _'.' oporteia m the meeflvg ; S .. 1+' n I N ceune drp on m sibic fin- �oyca w nu _f ttlK H v t e� feat tan't dam. ct Lt 1ldd • �� 7_ y `obi .¢ I' co Y ._� two IL vs IIO(it �e thud• iry< • fine aev repo N ceune drp on m sibic fin- �oyca w nu _f r 1" ' f•'WE, THE RESIDENTS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN REGARDS TO THE ZONICG OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. AND VINEYARD AVE (SWIM OF SAIL BERNARDINO RD ), WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH DENSITY 15 to 30 units per gross acre). THIS MEANS NUMEROUS APARTMENTS CAN BE BUILT INN THIS SMALL AREA WHERE CURRENTLY WE HAVE STRICTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AS WE ARE ALL AWARE, OUR SCHOOLS ARE NOW GROSSLY OVERCROWDED AMC APARTMENTS WILL ADD A FAR GREATER A140UlT OF NEW STUDENTS THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ALSO THERE WILL BE A GREATER NUMBER OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON SAIL BERNARDINO AND VINEYARD AVENUES, THUS ADDING TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND INCREASED CREATI0N OF SMOG WE DEFINATELY FEEL THAT THE CONSTRUCTI0N OF HIGH DENSITY APARTMENTS IN THIS AREA WILL HOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDINGS OF THE GENERAL AREA, MAINLY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. %+/ / fi'.0 --67I1l'fcyA 14 ell-10 Al <% /:CII � �r 'il'� / /�C � Vii•, •— , �ct.c�•— /�. NE, THE RESIDENTS OF RANCHO CUCM:ONGA, ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMIONGA IN REGARDS TO THE ZONING OF THE HORTIIEASf CORNER OF f IlLVD j�lll� ell(E HD; $OUTII OF SAII DERINRU:HO RD.), Kt1ERE IT IS LURREIITLY PRO SE OR IIIGII /// Itoo 30 units per gross acre). 1 3. — P r .ice l �9 .ice r., c " • _c' C./ 7-d/ T L 5. TV t - $ c-S 3 ) "r,t lMitt IIVI n2dd 7. aot.l /,c( )) Z UL i 911017F &� 7 - 7••�i[t` /Q� _[Y r_1. Y'^' i•�[J ��� (.S <S �' rC� Jr /•iT /llC�i ` L / ? /Jd.»• nr� L % /.P qt 14c1... 4C� � 10 7,1: k3'`17 %�»tCoc.0 SI � ut rb723c .F 10. i 7 -/U• 7r e �/ 1 10. inr /„ , : 'c S' Y71 7 fld>nlrot4 S_t• C[.rn _ 11 LX4 4i I HE, THE RESIDENTS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN Or THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCMONGA IN REGARDS TO THE ZONING OF THE NORTHEAST CONNER , OF FOOTHILL BLVD AND VINEYARD (SOUTH OF SAN BERUARUINO RD ), WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH DENSITY (15 to 30 units per gross acre). tt n 14 14 3r) .a • WE, IIIE RESIDENTS OF RANCHO CUC910NGA, ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN • Of THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAONGA III REGARDS TO THE ZONING OF THE NORTHEAST CORNIER OF FOOTHILL BLVO ANU VINEYARD AVE. (SOUTII OF SAN OERNARDIND RD.), WIiERE IT is CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH DENSITY 15 to 30 units Per Drosa acre). THIS MEXIS NUMEROUS APtATMENTS CAN BE BUILT III THIS SMALL AREA WHERE CURRENTLY HE HAVE STRICTLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. AS UE ARE ALL AWARE, CUR SCHOOLS ARE Nril GROSSLY OVERCROHDED AND APARTMENTS WILL ADD A FAR GREATER AMOUNT OF NEH STUDENTS THAN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ALSO THERE WILL DE A GREATER HUMBER OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON SAN BERNARDINO AND VINEYARD AVENUES, TAUS ADDING TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND INCREASED CREATION OF SMOG. WE DEFIHATELY FEEL THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGH DENSITY APART14EIlTS IN THIS AREA HILL NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDINGS OF THE GENERAL AREA, MAINLY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. e0p7j;,.o. "- i NE, T +R RESIDENTS OF RANCHO CUCAF:ONGA, ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN OF 111E CITY OF RANCIIO CUCAIIONGA Ill REGARDS TO THE ZONING OF fill' NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD AIID VIIIEYARD (SOUTH OF SAN 0111MROINO RD ), WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY PROFOSEO FOR NIGH DENSITY (15 to 70 units per gross acre). IZX41Mt11 (US- RIVIll . -W -11 . 'L 14.1 /l"f��J F. Y_I LC�ii oinaii !�P ✓�/ � � ✓ 4 � - /rc '�. %� i .e. ✓JI )c�.L� , c v .n USA x� WF, INE RESIDEUTS OF RAIILHO CUCAHONGA, ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN • OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN REGARDS TO THE ZONING OF TIIE RORTIHEAST CORNIER OF I DOTHILL BLVD. N10 VINEYARD AVE. (SOUTH OF SA!I BERNARDINO RD.), WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH DEIISITY (15 to 30 units per gross acre). THIS WENS IIIFi£20US APARTMEIRS CAII BE BUILT IN THIS SWILL AREA WHERE CURRENTLY WE HAVE STRICTLY SINGLE FNIILY RESIDENCES AS WE ARE ALL AWARE, OUR SCHOOLS ARF IV'.W GROSSLY OVCRCRVdOED AN APARINEITTS WILL ADD A FAR GREATER NHODUT OF NEW STUDENTS THNI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. ALSO THERE HILL BE A GREATER NUMBER OF TRAFFIC COII:ESTIOII O11 SNI BERHARDINO AND VINEYARD AVEIIUES, THUS ADDING TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AIID (INCREASED CREATION OF SMOG. WE DEFIRATELY FEEL THAT THE CONSTRUCTION (r HIGH OERSITY APARTHEIRS III TIIIS AREA HILL HOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDINGS OF THE GENERAL AREA, MAINLY SIIIGLE FAMILY OWELLIRGS. WE, THE RFSIOEIITS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAIT OF THE CITY OF RAUCHO CUCPJIOIIGA IN REGARDS TO TIIE ZONING OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD AND VINEYARD (SOUTH OF SAII BERNARDINO RD ), WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH DENSITY (15 to 30 uplts per grass acre). 1 �. /. .: • .' J� �iie'. /fib ";: � ✓ 3.• ear ..t, r\ �N 14 14 /r'!'( r�)rtfm•i,� �t( /�7.gn.t .x % /': rt , /9 �;e�9., ✓� /mss' 197� O�5 7e X889 WlivCr2r QIDSC D2 '18 a1 4 -f-79 if i, o_� ,U �.n s1'/. ?G' Sn' i SBUT Wd'2C4'1;0 . < 'Y ✓ >! � 27 I WE, THE RESIDENTS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAIT OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA IN REGARDS TO THE ZONING OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD AND VINEYARD (SOUTH OF SAN BERNARDINO RD ), WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH DENSITY (15 to 30 units per gross acre) 2. 117f! e,* [[1 /) LILA f ij 7,1 / i a .7 1 ,:1 ///7,�:. 1 2. 1 3. /�.[ /It � / 1 /•lit /. ! iF i.' [ n. i ! . rin[i .yf /1 3. 4. / ! J 4. L 'l .b lotV / �i • ..r4 S 8. f 9., iv. : ILIA r i L \ ? Vo.Mc, , 0 ,v . , .I P )I I 7 a . r.l ra l`,. (.t.r,,...- HE, THE RESIOERTS OF RAIICIH7 CUCA11ORGA, ARE OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSEU GUILRAL PLAIT OF THE CITY OF MIICIIO CULAHONGA IN RrGARDS TO THE Z011ING OF THE RORTHEAST CORNER , PROPOSED FOR HIGH AND i VI1E(15 toSn30TunitsSAH DErolssOI�BOL,D J, HHERE 1T IS CURREtITLY OF FOOTHILL BLVD 1. %✓ ws1 .l>ir iii 9i')r% 1 (Yt (�tY ^n'rr / -:L�'� /. try' /r- 25 J•ia/ / //i>' ('r 2. /l.t r ' iittr n 3. c. lL, i' l 5. 6 7 7 Z�q 6. 9. �Ct 11. r it yi 12 14.E .' ELAN OF THE CI'T'Y OF RAGCIxO CUCANIONGA IN REGARDS TO TICE ZONING OF THE } NORTIIEA *T CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. AND VINEYARD (SOUTH OF SAN BERNARDINO RD.), WHERE IT I5 CURRFNTLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH DENSITY (15 to 30 unite per gross acre). I/t(_Q /,V d if ��i/Cij- /flcfS /C% y — C /•N y �� //,,....., eee t(d � J ,. , /ew -�/ -Tt /ir14/ f. t44m Cn,00nct i0 _1o5eP k �, r -Ms- %n /v ST C- L e q/yo 1LC4 7kt/7 I-lek 51 C(<[cLV116, : P'/ Gf•., J111(f %(CC A17 tea. . /J-1� /jell r -Ms- %n /v ST C- L e q/yo 1LC4 7kt/7 I-lek 51 C(<[cLV116, : P'/ Gf•., „4 � 'PLA t OF THE 'C I1 "i O°k i RANCHO CU�' '•°•' 10 1IU IkUPOSED GEIJERAL IN 0AMONGA RM TO TIM ZONING OF TKE 'f •NORTIMAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. AND VINEYARD (SOUTH OF SAN BERNARDINO RD.), WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR HIGH DENSITY (15 to 30 unite per groan acre). . J �osEFZi E �vRtr,�e S2+1E ltc,,.' ST �qk />w f..t qn�t Jt ^�1 -`� �a /��Nc�N {� - Y�` /l ,S� /rJFc �'r�•� � � Gr //o L'uP�l.r/ii ✓�.,�- .3 7 �t Ji ef`e a "D L_' ��jJ7l :: �rt� /,��`- rif JD v%LN�-t ! /tip -Yvi •/�, wea��Set.Fr y \1•.(- ,c-cav /��n..� �7/ �StNC /H �' �[tcA.ncn�.s� Ko�722( C%nmhc-ST 9/35" /F-T%^GrA 00eAM4n0•'t 1 cc,1a `4� kettJ/ t,CAme4�.4 a IJAITCR FSIn(Iry euctgmuNCrtl &K_, _A, ��0 � ",, r�� ;" 4�� +G. � moN�A�� e�.._A.m„N•,� cr,t +F ” A16#4 (Aft CucA0lo"Cfq C/II,�- - ry C(lc vtlo).•�f� �� tV3 I u Ul'. U' �•. t - :A _ 1 n, S'O:ILLI. 01' 1.IS `1C:93T•CO41R:: OF r0OV:1LL GL7�'. AlIT) ','•1.:.:i ') (`'WglI CP VIII ly""INAIDI110 RD.), L' IT IS CD4•L:i1TLY PlVP0 -',SU PC; 1111111 DI ;II-W'Y (15 to 30 unita per rr000 T1DN S 7- A,- e-,-CZ- /11C- i0jgGn A0 .j r—& tnn,e,,..j w C./.9 /73a lee E�/' �_S�fG /J C %.6� ^f/f(�lr��ir�%%i.•. � /lt%1/�yir:✓(�' � /�.�r" L'LIC -4414 it t'. I�iLT^� � �i2 tGY _41e 4�e " CHAFFEY COMMUNITY ,COLLEGE C1ISTRICT FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION LARD USE IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA 5885 HAVEN AVCNUL ALTA LOMA. CAL1ron NIA g1701 TELEPHONE, (110987-1737.117244114,735.0242 Chaffey College supports the principle of a %cell thought out and documented general plan for Rancho Cucamonga based on all elements necessary for the development of a plan Including traffic, seismic, public safety, fire, flood and a proper environmental impact report. Because of the available expertise at Chaffey Collage and the location of the CO11090 within the boundaries of Rancho Cucamonga, the College shoul,l take an active role in the planning of the community. Chaffey College is directly affected by the development of the land adjacenE to the campus. The College should be consulted and have a voice in the decision making process prior to the davolo(mlont of the land Any adverse affects of such development of these lands should be mitigated prior to development. Adopted October 19, 1970 Board of Trustees Chaffcy Community C013090 District BOARD OF TRUSTEr, Letter W04 M.D., Pur,d.m KeMOth C. retner. v.,. P.•udrn, M Allnneu.e A<nm /C,u.l peen ro.., rr GC•ly C. .•J D•q,.<r ShOron KIrg.Jellers, 5•vra.r Sa,ruy Ab. Lw , Ch... Ca••.., C.c.�..naa, Cn.e.d•, Jamet L. Catantaro„ Ph.D. NCrubat A. morn F.,.., G.•,n, N.nrc la•., w 0•IJr, S.Paw4nJmr.1 the DnM,i C101O to Sa radars H .C•. O........1 UPI•nd P.• .Jem .1 d•e Cell. p• CFIAFITEY COMMUNITY SSSS IIAVCN AVENUE. ALTA 101dA G1Ii0RN1A 91101 COLLEGE DISTRICT TELCr11ONE- (714) 967-1737 $77.4484,715.0741 Chaffey College Joint Fatuity Senate And Board Of Trustees Resolution Chaffey College supports the principle of a well thought out and documented general plan for Rancho Cucamonga based rn all elements necessary for the development of a plan including daffier ma Lsmic, public safety, fire, flood and a proper environmental impact report. Because of the available expertise at Chaffey College and the location of Lhe college within the boundaries of Rancho Cucamonga, the cullego should take an active role in the planning of the community. Chaffey College is directly affected by the development of the land adjacent to the campus. The college should be consulted and have a voice in the decision making process prior to the development of the _ land. Any adverse effects of-such development of these lands should be mitigated prior to development. 90Ane OF TPUSTE ES Letter Stroh, 1.1,0., R.W.m M Alla n•r..w Au.m EM ^I Oof +'� ^•ry C•.I•I <r e. e.d D,sn,n Kenneth C. Ketner, v,ce Preud.wr f,<,rn G <•.•c•• James L. Comram, Ph.D. Sharon King-Jeffers. Sn u.ray S, —, All, Lmw, Cl—.. 7a [r,.ewAe, Herschel R. Glenn Fehr ^,.^, Ovwr,, Ne+,<'e^, W. O.ldy, S•.ren n,.nd.nr el 14. i),.rrl<r Clarence Saunders Ib< nwr,.,e and uOtt"d Prr Ud rnr sl rM Cells. w . CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 51N85 HAVEN AVU.UC. ALTA LOMA. CALIrORNIA 91701 TELrVHONE (714) "7.1737, sn• 41e4, 735-0717 CIIAFFEY COLLEGE FACULTY SEiIATE RESOLUTION The faculty of Chaffey College supports the Idea that development cf the community should proceed without significant envlornmental impact and disruption. Further, the faculty believes that the community should be safe from natural and artificial hazards. BOARD Or TRUSTEES Letter SNah, M.D., P,..,J.., Klnieth C. Ketner, v„e Pi.odeni Sharon King-Jeffers, Yr.eiay HereHwl A. Of" Clarence Sounders Q An All.t , liwe A.ea, Ey.al OPPea .... q I.,rl.n. and Dnh•u S.,­" All. L.—. Ch,.m, C.aw, Gua,n..q.. Fe.e „Aa, James L. Catenate, Ph.D. Fenian; Cu.. , Meniri..., W. Oe11y, S.ee..nund.” el the Dbrvie Nate, 0.......1 UPI" n..,idrn, el IM C.O.'. CHUM L / COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT V95 IIAVtN AVENUE, ALIA LOMA. CALIFORNIA 91701 TCLEPNONIC (7111987-1737. 82:4181, 775-0212 CHAFFEY COLLEGE FACULTY SENATE Recommendation Regarding Land lnsedlatoly Adjacent To Chaffey College Campus The Chaffey College Faculty Senate, in its role as the official, elected representative of the faculty of Chaffey College, proposes the following recomsendation concerning land use in the area adjacent to the college campus. The property to the cast of the College is owned by the Metropolitan Hater District and San Bernardino County Flood Control Dlairict, and therefore, not subject to urban development. The land use plan should reflect natural open apace in this area which would preserve a natural corridor from the College to the Chaffey Regional Park. The use of the properties, north, vast and south, within 2000 feat of the - College should be residential, very low density, for the following reasons: a. This is consistent with the design and physical layout of the College. b, The earliest plans for the Alta Loma area (the Chaffey College Plan) were consistent with this principle, c, Tho College's industrial- technical complex generates noise levels that would cause too great of an impact on heavier development, d. Higher density development would pose burdeneomr security problems and would require additional expenditures for security services and fencing, e. Higher density development would create detrimental usage of the College grounds And increased vandalism. f. Higher density development would place unacceptable demands on existing utilities requiring extension of and upgrading of utility lines. g. Iligher density development will Increase traffic around the College requiring upgrading of streets and signals. Ir. Ileavier developnent would pose heavy demand and usage of open lands east of the College that should be preserved. I. Very low density zoning would not Preclude application for variance or conditional use in thn future. Each application could be evaluated on its merit and with na eye to conditions, trends and demands of that tim. BOARD OF TRUST { ES 9 Laver Slloh.1A.D., Kemeth C. Kmftr, V,<. hnldm, h AIL,...IL a 4r.m f w.l O,F,.,r ,, r, r t.,., . d U....... Shoran KIn9•Jetierrs, S.<.arur S.,.•y All. L." CO.— 4.• ,... 9•. • I•....da, James L. Cremvora, PAD, Herschel R Gino Fear...,, Gw•u, Lrmrvl.,., n. veld,, S.PMm.ndT<.1 da D,•rncr Clarence Saodere Nn<., 0.., ... ..aJ 1."..4 P.. ud.nr 4 0.a Callep. -2- j. heavier development would not be in the best interest of community safety due to large concentrated population in the proximity of the Red HUI fault located immediately South of the College campus. V24 WEST NINTH STREET LC-\l/IS NOMC-S I P.O. BOX 670 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91786 (714) 985-0971 BUILDERS OF FINE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS City of Rancho Cucamonga: Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission .IoM Blayney 6 Associates RE: Proposed Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Gmticmcn: Lewis Homes wishes to corancad the planners, both 'fissional and civic, who have combined to produce the Proposed Ranci aeonga Gen- eral Plan. Working under great time pressure, and with a image and complex area to be planned, they have succeeded in making a presentation which will serve the comm.nity well. Moreover, they have done this by a process which has utilized maximum public input, and has encouraged the community to make its views know. As a long -time developer and builder in the area, Lewis Bares has a direct and immediate interest in several parcels, through several of its entities. In addition, as citizens of the area, we will also make convents directed toward the plan in general, whether or not our direct interests are affected, in the Interest of a document which can better serve the entire community Foothill Boulevard poses both problems and opportunities for the planners As the major east -west artery of the city, it carries a large volume of both Internal and through traffic, which will only increase until the Foothill Freeway is completed. We urge that particular attention be paid to Foothill Boulevard, and offer the following specific comments: (1) We believe that the Planning Commission's action, based on the city staff's recommendation, changing the plan designation of the north side of Foothill between Vineyard acd Hellman from high - density residential to service commercial In a conatructive step, and will result in proper utilization of that section of Foothill Boulevard. (2) The suggestion of a berm along Foothill as a buffer for the industrial area is discussed balm under Land Use, Yajor Industry—we find It difficult to imagine a worse idea, or a poorer image for the City. The need for this buffer disappears if the simple expedient of keeping singly family housing the hell off Foothill Boulevard is adopted. (3) The plan speaks of avoiding the walled -city impression by mixed user along major thoroughfares. We concur, and urge mixed -use, com- mercial, service commercial, and high- density housing along Foothill RE: Proposed Rancho Cucamonga Genernl Plan Page 2 (4) In general, we believe that the planners have shown command- able realism in the plan, In recognizing the city's inability to isolate ite "lf from its neighbors We think that this principle should be applied to Foothill Boulevard, and that elaborate landscaping is less desirable than properly planned commercial or mixed -use development The area which is most capable of bringing sales and sales tax revenue in to the city should be exploited as a civic asset The following specific comments are addressed to the "Issues and Options" segment of the General Plan publication: issue 2, "Establish a strong image for Rancho Cucamonga as a city ": Option C, "Create a greenbelt at City edges or ma In points of entry (Yes, but with minimal land acquisition )" We disagree Insofar as.a policy of non - acquisition results in _ Increased costs being imposed on landowners. Use of greenbelt In this manner results in consuming land which could be utilized for park p.:rposes Issue J, "The sameness of residential development in large areas of the City and the correlation between lot size and elevation often are criti- cized": Option A, "Require a mix of lot sizes. (Should be encouraged in large subdivisions, but smaller lots meet opposition in developed neighborhoods )" and issue 4, "Because the City has little old housing, many persons employed in its stores and plants cannot afford to live In Rancho Cucamonga ": Op- tion C. "Require a mix of low - moderate income housing In all new subdivisions (To be considered during preparation of Housing Element.)" We favor mixtures o: lot sizes, but not necessarily within each subdivision. Buyers will not purchase a alx- figure house located next door to one offered at half that price Issue 5, "The emerging pattern of neighborhood shopping centers at four corners of major Intersections ". This is a difficult issue- -each of the three options leaves some- thing to be desired. We agree that there are problems when all four corners are zoned commercial On the other hand, to allow a center on one corner gives that developer an unfair advantage We recently encountered this problem at the intersection of 19th and Comelian The Southeast corner had been zoned commercial for ten years We sought zoning on qur corner (the Northeast) and met a great deal of opposition because the other corner was already zoned. We finally prevailed on the zoning, and had the grand opening of Von's market in August The other developer has yet to start construction. We believe the solution to this problem to be to let the market direct the need Major tenants will ultimately mandate the selection of commercial locations. No monopoly should be granted to any one developer Monopoly can only work to the detriment of n resident deprived of the bene- fits of competition. RE: Proponed Rancho Cucamonga *General Plan Page 3 Issue 6, "Strip cocmarcial development ": Option C, "Group mutually suppor- tive businesses in 'centers', such as an auto center. (Yes, but will re- quire developer initiative )" We support tht concept of mutually supportive businesses grouped in multi- owne•ship districts We would be willing to try to develop some- thing like a nev car dealership center on our Foothill Boulevard frontage. Issue B, "Location, size, and buffering of industrial arms ": Option C, "Require industrial land to provide buffer zones to soften the visual and land use impacts on adjoining industrial and residential uses (Yea )" We support the principle that industrial land should provide the buffer which it necessitates through varying types of uses. Offices and light industrial of a non - noxious nature should eliminate the need for berms on either side of the street. Foothill frontage with its prime visibility is too valuable to be used as open space Issue tl, "Means of minimizing congestion and total vehicular travel ": op- tion C, "Increase transit usage. (Yes, by locating apartments, offices, and Institutions along major thoroughfares )" Increased public transit usage can only come from locating high - density residential and employment areas on major thoroughfares. We support this concept, and believe that higher- density usages along Foothill may represent the only practical means of achieving this goal Issue 13, "School overcrowding Is a problem now and is likely to becom. worse ": Option A, "Collect fees from developers to provide temporary class- room space (Ordinance has been adopted )" The fees referred to in this option provide only temporary bene- fit, and must be earmarked for interim facilities They result in the im- position of substantial costs an new homebuyers, making low and moderate - cost housing very difficult Issue 15, "Should residential development occur in phased steps, filling in near existing development, or should a developer's willingness to finance service extensions be the determinant as long as the location is conststent with the General Plan's land use patter,? ": Option B, 'Limit development cast of Maven Avenue as long as ample land Is available to the vest. (Should be considered as part of phasing system. General Plan proposes reserve area in northeast portion of the City ) The plan notes elsewhere that mast of the land vest of Maven has already been consumed The city has already reached the point vhoto such land is not available (See our comments below under Open Space ) RE: Proposed 7ancho Cucamonga General Plan Page 4 HAJOR POLICIES (Proposed for Adoption). Citywide and Community Identit . We have supported and continue to support the concept of a focal point for the community one of the three regional center shopping sites propose] is on property owned by Lewis Homes, and we continue to believe that it roastitutes the beat potential focal point for Rancho Cucamonga. We crdcur that the focal poin. will be enhanced by the proximate location of other •ivlc fac'lities We do not concur that a "large park" is necessarily r-.e enhancement the community needs We wonder why in place of the word "larr,e" the word "distinctive" was not used A center does not necessarily rave to be big, and a large park is not necessarily a community focus, e.g., Or ffita Park in Los Angeles. We have questioned, and continue to question, t'.e utility and aesthetics of a large park on flat land in the middle of the city, when outlying areas in a far more natural state are available Our representatives have attended all the city's public hearings, and we have detected very little public auipurt for such a park, and significant opposition thereto Nonetheless, the park continues to appear in each draft of th•, plan, Where resources are as limited as they are expected to be in the ,ear future, proper allocation becomes a critical planning and legislative o)jective. The funds, we submit, could better be expended for other park facilities. Regional Retail Center. We have expressed our views on this sub- Jeer many times; we support the multiple alternative location approach taken by the Plan, although it Si our conviction that the Foothill /Haven intersec- tion represents the best location from almost all standpoints. Open Space. As um have stated above, the statement 1s =do that west of Haven Avenue, the city Is already running out of open space We assume that this statement .s intended to neutralize Issue 15, Option B ( "Growth Hanagement)', which calls for limiting development east of Haven as long as ample land is available to the west As a fact, the statement that the city Is running ou of space west of Haven is an accurate one, and we are pleased that a %e city recognizes that development must occur east of Haven Housing Choice We concur with the planners' reading that a zoning pattetn Tricieas Mj lot size requirements with elevation (or, as the houses are located further north) has strong support It in supported not only by people speaking in public meetings, but by the pattern of develop- ment in Rancho Cucamonga itself, and neighboring coom:unities. We, concur with the planners in the view that each of the city'a comue Cciea should contain law, medium, and high - density housing The plan states that it doeb in fact locate medium and hiRh- density housing in each. We submit that themap as submitted does not carry out this principle, particularly In the Etiwnda area. We would further submit that the housing choice area is one susceptible of tieing expanded greatly As is pointed out under the heading "Other General Plan Elements ", tb, housing element of the General Plan twat "make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community ". We urge that this concept be given more than lip service, and expressed on the nip by the active encouragement of smaller. lot, lower -cost housing. RE: Proposed Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Page 5 Mnximum Industrial Development. Lewis lloceq ^wpports Industrial developmenF in Rancho Cucamonga, although we do not presently awn any in- dustrial land In the city We look forward to the day that the city Is a major Industrial center. We concur with Commissioner Garcia that this development must be accounted for in residential planning- -that the city must recognize that not all employees arc ex- cutives who can be expectar' to purchase six- figare houses. There should be housing In the city that workers in these plants can afford Urban Des3 n Qu n llty. The statement is made that "The single message the planners have heard most often is a demand for high standards of community design and development ". As stated, the demand In unobjection- able If It is a plea for limitation of development to high -end housing, it takes on a more sinister meaning. We hope that the city will resist those citizens who believe that they and only they have the right to live in Rancho Cucamonga Further, avoiding the "walled city" is a desirable objective —but Its avoidance should not take the form of demanding exec - sive greenbelt. LAND USE (Proposed for Adoption) Re Tonal ShpppinfcfBusiness Center. The statement 's first made "Owners shuuld be encouraged to keep the regional center options open, and the city should consult With the owners before taking anv action that would elicitor. a site ", then "To keep this site in the running, the developer must forego a present opportunity to develop a community shopping center on this site, and must hold the adjoining proposed park site open" We like the word 'encouraged' - -hut we feel that the "encouragement" provided Levis Homes under Option A is akin to the encouragement given a bridegroom at a shotgun wedding The park site, if a large park is to be developed, should stand on Its own financial feet The city cannot lawfully demand a public use for which it is not prepared to pay, nor may It condition a lawful land use on the non -use of adjacent property Community Shpppina Center. The R- Mart -type discount center re- ferred to could well be located on the Foothill Boulevard location referred to In paragraph (1) on the first page, between Vineyard (Carnelian) and Hellman on the north side of Foothill. for Industry. The draft plan recommends that the residential area nc.-h of Foothill be buffered from lndsutry to the south by a 12 -foot high earth berm on the north We believe this to be an extremely poor solu- tion to this problem. In the first instance, the problem does not exist if R -1 area is eliminated from Foothill Boulevard, and replaced by service commercial, or other mixed uses capable of providing n buffer In the second place, it Is a much sounder practice to require the industrial area which necessitates the buffer to provide the land which will do the buffering. This can be done simply by setback on the industrial side, without the necessity of a thoroughly artificial and unaesthetic construction which can ,..L RE: Proposed Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Page 6 only add to the walled quality which is nought to be avoided in the Plan (Our engineers estimate the cost of thr berm at $250,000, with an additional $50,000 or more if landscaping is required This would be a terrible burden to impose on the few houses behind the berm.) A rriculture. We concur with the planners' view that the preserva- Son of ag "!culture in the city of Rancho Cucamonga Ss an illusion In this arban environment, agriculture should neither be protected nor encouraged laab.e open space should be provided Flood Control Lands Lewis lfo =cs is among those landnwners who have retained engineers in an attempt to find an alternative method of han- dling flows Crom the Deer and Day Lreck basins We believe that these efforts should be continued, and that if a core practical solution than that of the Corps of Engineers can be achieved, it should be explored, and the attempt made to implement it. Reserve. We believe that the landowners notch of the city limits - need considerably more guidance as to the ultimate destiny of this land than the two paragraphs in the plan provide While we concur with the charac- terizatioc of land itself, the stntement that there is "plenty of land in the City to the south and vest" to maintain the housing market would not seem to be a complete answer to the problem If development could occur on a sound basis in these areas without an undue burden on services, there is nn rcagon why the natural beauty of these areas could not be protected and enhnnced by proper planning Many of these landowners have held this land far .. ,ny years, and they have asked for a more definite statement of its future use We would urge that the small houses on the map which designate hillside development be ex- tended eastward across thin area We further que on why the city needs at this time to make anv statement with respect to thin area fAFCO has recently refused to grant the city a sphere of influence over -he area, and it would appear that on that balls, the city would be justified in making no iefinite planning statement COILIMITY FACILITIES (Proposed for Adoption) Intensive Use Regional Parks. As stated above, we do not detect a great deal of public support for the lurge central park concept. Yet, we are now looking at references to "a two - hundred acre urban regional park ", which appears to have grown a golf course We would suggest that if a golf course is built, it would be better located on the south and east borders of the property indi- cated, with the noisier, more intensive use picnic, tennis, assembly, pet Conning arts, etc., area located nearer Raven and Base Line Civic Center. We have previously endorsed the concept of a civic center in the area suggested by the planners The plan need not at this time define the exact lncation, which will come with more definite planning We would further suggest that the civic center area would be appropriate for office buildings If this is to be a true business and cultural center for the community, all these uses should be provided within a reasonable radius of Foothill and haven RE: Proposed Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Page 7 Commissioners Garcia and Jones have commente,. at public hearings on the need for a hospital. At a certain stage of growth Rancho Cucamonga will probably require such a facility, with attendant svpporting medical offices, and it should be planned as part of this process The civic cen- ter area may not be the best location for such a complex We would he pleased to hold some of the land cast of Maven, closer to Milliken, for example, for these uses CIRCULATION (Proposed for Adoption) Trafficways; Collector Streets We concur with the general plan proposal to reduce widths of streets in residential areas We agree with the planners that neighborhoods with farrow and shaded streets have savings In development costs, and envlronnental and ecological values. Seeefal Boulevards. The plan recommends the usual 120 -foot right- of-way and required setbacks for landscaping, and then makes the statement that "wider right -of -way may be needed at some locations but acquisition _ of subdivided land is not proposed" If this constitutes a statement that developers will be asked to contribute such land, the city should consider with some care whether it wishes to have its park exaction in the form of strips of this nature or In larger, more usable parcels Fifty -foot strips, on one side only of the area bounded by Foothill, ilaven, Base Line, and Rochester, and on Haven and the north side of Base Line along Levis property would total 41 acres. We believe [he same considerations apply to land- scaping median strips under Major Ihoroughfares Collector Streets. Ve agree (as we state above) with the narrower, 72 -foot streets within regident.lrl areas. CARRYING OUT THE GENERAL PINT (Proposed for Adoption) Ocvolopment Regulations. The plan states that "lack of alterna- tive revenue sources makes it necessary to charge a new development for all or a large part of the cost of public facilities needed to serve it" We urge the basic unfairness of imposing all these costs on the newcomers to the community. The community facilities which will be developed in con- nection with any such growth will be used by the entire community, and that cost should not be concentrated, by building fees or o *herwise, strictly anon the new hare buyers - -whu are in many eases nlreadv citlzenB of the community, their children, or others who have an equal right to live in Rancho Cuca- mon8•r "lthnut undue burden Ocgt n Standards. We do not argue with "upgrade design standards to build a superior community" Aga'n, we would caution that if this is used to raise costs unduly, lower -cost housing will beco- impossible, and the burden on that housing which 1s being built will become extreme The next paragraph of the Plan reflects -his concern, and we would urge that the city be extremely conscious of this in setting design standards RE: Proposed Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Page 8 We look forward to discuvsinR these comments with Dr. Blayney, the Planning Coaafssion, the City Council, and the City's staff, and we stand readv to provide whatever assistance we can CSD:ab:10 /6178 f 7 dj LEWIS HONES ,e ,,W � P". Ralph H. Lewis i i :x Job 13 -0 -0101 VANGUARD L.S ILP. SEQUEIK:E OF EVENTS On or About 11 -11 -71 Zone Change, C U P. and L.S.11.P applications filed by John F Anderson for entire parcel from Archibald to Ramona Proposal for L.S.N.P. (apartments) discussed with represen- tativo from Vanguard Duplex project proposed by Vanguard through Maxwell Brown e Mullins with requirement that a L S II.P be filed 11 -13 -75 L.S.M.P. filed by Vanguard for duplex develoMent Continued review by County of both duplex ari apartment project. 11 -24 -75 Conditions of approval prepared on duplex project for Planning Cocmiaeion meeting of December 1975 11 -24-75 Maxwell, Drown and Mullino notified of expired zoning (by King, County) 11 -25 -75 Duscuaoion with Phil Drawn rot otattla of projects and zoning rat which (apartment or duplex) will proceed, and ecti.m on zouo change, letter to follow (by King, County). 1 -30 -76 Ratroactivo zone change extension granted by Board to 9 -5 -76. 1 -30 -76 Phil Brown of Raxwell, Drown and Mullins requests an fudefinito continuance of time to resolve zoning and to determino scopo of project. 2 -19 -76 Planning Commission approves zones change an remainder parcel to north and recommends Board withhold final action until 1- 26 -71. L.S.II.P, and Tentative Tract continued till 1 -26 -77 by same action 5 -3 -76 Board acts to approva withhold zona change on remainder parcel and to extend existing zona change to 1 -76 -77 6 -1 -77 Processing re- initiated by R.11 A. 6 -7 -77 D1rcuvalon with Tommy Stephana rat processing and modirications of existing plan Page 1 0 E: t S i'j '� J„b 0170 -OI UI 6 -29 -77 Review with Tommy Stephens of preliminary modifications to existing plan (minor changes suggested, basically O K.) 7 -12 -77 Ruview of Dick Scott of modifications and processing re- quirements per Tommy Stephens on L.S ILP 0 -11 -77 Submission of revised plans to Planning and E R.C. B-16-77 E.R.O. review of revised plan - O.K. for single use of an existing E.I R. 8-2S-77 Notice of 9 -1 -77 Subdivision Cemmittee meeting 9 -1 -77 Subdivision Committee heating (notat plan 3 cubnitted on 0 -11 -77 were not passed out and were apparently loot, thou no in -depth review and no conditions). Den Nackell of Foothill Fire District indicated plan did not comply with districts requirements as to access to rear of building in spite of previous clearance and verbal recognition by Joe Longo Tommy Stephens indicated that he would schedule item on 9 -29-77 Planning Commission agenda 9 -6 -77 floating with Tommy Stephens on proposed revisions per Fuuthill Firo District and fact that is should not cause delay in processing. 9 -9 -77 Letter from Don Rockall (Foothill Fire District) ret .ton acceptance of existing plan as proposed, request of Tommy Stephens that plan not be approved If Laken to Planning Commission on 9 -29 -77 until clearance from him 9 -14 -77 Letter from Joe Longo, Foothill Fire District, rot additional conditions. 9 -19 -17 Latter from Joe Longo, Foothill Fire District, further conditions. 9 -15 -77 Frank Molina on vacation with note on top of file requesting through raw property- 9-30-77 Owners list 9 -26 -77 Ifotified by Doug Payne that a new prnporty owner -a li,.t will be required prior to Planning Commissicn land it is too etc to get an 9 -29 -77 agenda). 10-3-7.7 Revised property owners list to San Bernardino County I'.I•I. 2 n n r I v Jot. 1370 -0101 30 -6 -77 Subdivision Ccrmittco Meeting. 10 -7 -77 Noise Control Plan submitted per staff condition. 10 -20 -77 Planning Commission floating continued to 11 -17 -77 Page 3 " 1'.O. I ox 7) I :I PAIICII0 CCCRiIO::CN, CA1,Ir '31771 L'FItR SIR: tic are owners of t parcel of pro{ ^rtv i,• ^'irc'to C•uear'onga at intersection of Iliglitan end iravrn in San neretrrlr, f•ounty. This is t'tc -oatho,-t cr,rnrr frnnti ^y Cr Ila —, av ^nuc wits. avenue (I -10), t!te northern houndry. nh largi I r, tion of for surrounding I "or, r ry i• 1• ir•r 117^1 +' - present o - ingl f "'ily dvvllinT' I" t, • 'ti .- v,0 I% It , Construction Co. Mhos: •'c ,lc Iojmrnt� „ ri -• de nn pr•1 1 we have of licit for several years and hat• obi in Liu: recen• trt for development. Our entire property was engineered for the a$ m,r rlrvcicp•^rn' , I ^awing a^ I tic' 1 fi•r futvr„ r, r- Ir •.r r •r;. -1 Corner of ,ly'it.,.'' and I!at•rtl ',Vcn•i , • ^t" r • -n•- °. . •.•i ir•• your ineiulin•I this Prrr,•1 in th, r., r 1•r• r. r"n ' •n, ,t for corms, 1 1. :­101-0111 . Ve o:onl•1 r, r t'.r I,..• i ^q r reeruns tilt tl i- cons lttcrotions _ t. Iii 'i lan•1 w,•nur (or rz,asil,ly ti, nil,•. "t••tFilt Fr• 1 `- a natural popul'ttioa barrier in t nor th, (.•••19 •'i —cf1 ; 7r• re r� ih, lower don,ity rorulatiott nrrtl ^f ui7hlar•1 ,- t•• , f'•i l In arc­ aprro4clurl and higher drn ^'t -line of I"iglrland n•, ^. 7. Th, I•n" r•1 i ^. ^' ^r• lintant r,nr 4rff•y nnllrrn• tha• t•^• nn rn.,•ir 'tlr••. rciol :Tna ^. I 1.. -09 11.1 .• yr ^t n,.r ' .r ,`.! jtlar,r 1 "^ Iv-Ih oast tnd y - "iii- th ^refer ••I•I ton •' •O na inl tin he lion -cam', •rri ,,t N i ••• ^• of th^ r' ^ rt% �, aor 14 ••{ ligh".;•,d "vrn t•+ ^br -n• r , , h ^rn thoro„ 1'• 1^ • l t` ^ 1••1 -ar' rn•iinn ^r ' r :'a 6,, t+ LnlinnrYlnR arnnC„ ar•• .., .... l 1••tter from ,t. .... i- rrt r "Ve r' r i• ' 4 Thi - sil^ rill Inc flier, acre. ^. ^i'Jn for Ihr i"rg ^r {n { + ^t ' ••, •{rosy :'nt•ri of I•ia`•I,nP ;i- r i "In "^ �•rrr f •i a• ' 1 Jn r IIa vi 11 u. r i.� 1 • , i r . Fan ,'lv 4 ..aSL r, t rn,, 1 r t• , ;t, ^inns rl {,it I• •'i '3'1.1.1 "Lf•l io•,l .. •n aor. Alt ',,;j.)I�fi'f1•I SI 11a•!t �' •J.lt t �;•� MAOOLE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. =14SUETUIDCN71 ENGINEERING AND LAND PIANMNG 1633 E. FOURTH STREET, SUITE 280, SANTA ANA, CALIF. 92701 TELEPHONE (7141835-2648 August 18, 1978 CITY OF RANCHO CUA ONGA COMMUNITY OMLOPAIEHI OEPF. Highland -Haven Associates AUG 31 1978 04 Rivo Alto Canal Rt1 rN Long Beach, California 90803 718191m11111?111218141516 Attn: Harvey Stone, H.D. A Re: Property at the Southeast Corner of Highland Avenue and Haven Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dear Dr. Stone: - After reviewing the existing and proposed development in tile vicinity and surrounding the abovereferenced property, there seems to be justification for considering some sort of restricted co=ercial use of the property for at least the following reasons: 1) It seems just as logiral, if not more su, for col=ereial development to be on this property than on the north side of the possible potential Foothill Freeway as the City's consultant on the master plan is apparently indicating commercial development to be This property is certainly closer to the greater anount of res 'ential development with the commercial needs than the other with no more apparent problems 2) Should the Foothill Freeway finally just prove to be a passing dream, which it appears to be more and more each day, the subject property could have extremely good access from Highland Avenue There would certainly be items to be worl:ed out should th, site be co:r•orcial but, with the proper tyre of development, it could prove to be a benefit to the community. Very truly yours, 14ADOIL : ASSOCIATES, INC. ,lilt Ilado e R.C.E. 14814 HH:lg ,! f Sohn Blaney & Associates August 21, 1978 177 Post St. San Francisco, Calif. 99103 Dear Sirs We are owners of a parcel of property In Rancho Cucamonga at the Intersection or Highland and Haven avenues in San Bernardino County. This is the southeast corner fronting on Haven avenue with Highland avenue (1 -30), the northern boundrv. A large portion of the surrounding property Is being developed at present as single family dwellings by Lewis Homes and by Chevron Construction Co. These developments are being mode on property we have owned for several years and have sold In the recent past for development. Our entire property was engineered for the above development, leaving a 7.99 acre oarecl for furture commercial development at the southeast corner of Highland and Haven Avenues. We would very much appreciate your including this parcel in the muter plan for Rancho Cucamonga for commercial development. We would offer the following substantial reasons for this considerations 1. Highland Avenue (or possibly the future Foothill Freeway) Is a natural population barrier in the north /south direction. There is, lower density population north of Highland as the foothills arc approached and hlgher density south of Highland Avenue. 2. This parcel Is more distant from Chaffey College then the two alternative commercial areas being considered just north of Highland Avenue, both cast and west. This, therefore, would tend to maintain the ron- commercial ambience of the property north of Highland Avenue. 3. The property has been thoroughly set out and engineered by bladole Engineering Assoc., and a recent letter from them is enclosed. it. This site will be more accessible for the larger population group south of Highland Avenue. 3. This will add no further burden to the sewage disposal system. This would not be true If the alternative dovclupment Into single family dwellings were .untinucd at this site. There will also be no need for additional school development. In view of all of the above we would be most appreciative it you would strongly consider our site on the southeast corner of Highland and Ilaven avenues for commercial development on the blaster Plan for Rancho Cucamonga. We await your decision and sincerely hope it will be favorable. Sincerely, Hight nd- Iiaven Assoc. t1arvcy W 5)brll• HS /mr V Sr 11C-C �/`Fy -z- 64 / /.r• �n• r•r)< rs FJ•of�: AcrYl.oes>° Ot CSC C<./•irrY of Eiee •e�•I lr /A/eZ 2 <t9/ .Irf r.S (. �< Cr•t CY'W4•M4 z!i. •1<l i S C•,l s' r��'ca (i3'c'�C J!m /t %F �r� Y /t• frnaY.t C' /,rC.. e✓n roes r /:• l - v <!�✓<�Irr yam" <`/ 'tvr 2- /tC �� y �N1Y r<i` ✓ CJ / ✓'!t ✓ )C� / y. rC ./ /..Y Ctf rt•grY'Y hellt /l:tNi e�ex ttJ�Nl� // j�rfq•lro,.tr'X /�)NI ON /rCn 6r,.i lr /<r(rJ•a•r (C: S lC•<r r� /� / Y /cC'riJ-..nS; 1Cl we' u./ <rr fcI" rfr. f>..Ilr �c v r A. u 6ric/ic3tic' a rr< %irtifan �� y��a�.6. /.�•ru(h�frr j,es,1.� :�A hy4sr:< i.ra� </ral•� t7rni f(rc.�rt r- /r<•ffh:/ eslAC,IT� sfYYU•Z% `w < / r•u�e Klnr'JS /••rr•r•Y.r i�P� <•u / r e,. <,�.,� r �,.� fy m a J/ii rr 3 /.•rr /CYaI /. erns J•ti Y•.<C:rr• c+.l<7i.<r�,�••M15 ..,a _ / ♦ / /r G° ✓C'C W. -.o�r LI-F C �t �l /- /LYr ✓� /C Cr �'l /�G� f r /jam zry%i< a �rv.•.J�' <s •t G' o!r %�+'.<1 • C -�4Y:i fzY %frs< rrr Y r /rr�,,3n rta/S� /•ffJrj / /<�l' rr !! <r/i'i•I. <Y.)r Sa rr',�.�:K1�r,rsi GEY�IU / / Cr• //1 n/• Cf Ck<J C- A- e4r /lyC� r ! �F I N If.CIY 'l plil�Rlllt"•`ne 'ldl U.�'t. ,, ,t I; 1 t Ift 1914 Nif z f >�eil, //0,7//0,79 • �rtat�t�d�dtl1t`a,a,a,.,� asp' ailt'� � �• 1� e �f r C!Q/�� /J/tJt�1B�1/Itf)•,. osC fj�erii/ �.0 L • Sr 11C-C �/`Fy -z- 64 / /.r• �n• r•r)< rs FJ•of�: AcrYl.oes>° Ot CSC C<./•irrY of Eiee •e�•I lr /A/eZ 2 <t9/ .Irf r.S (. �< Cr•t CY'W4•M4 z!i. •1<l i S C•,l s' r��'ca (i3'c'�C J!m /t %F �r� Y /t• frnaY.t C' /,rC.. e✓n roes r /:• l - v <!�✓<�Irr yam" <`/ 'tvr 2- /tC �� y �N1Y r<i` ✓ CJ / ✓'!t ✓ )C� / y. rC ./ /..Y Ctf rt•grY'Y hellt /l:tNi e�ex ttJ�Nl� // j�rfq•lro,.tr'X /�)NI ON /rCn 6r,.i lr /<r(rJ•a•r (C: S lC•<r r� /� / Y /cC'riJ-..nS; 1Cl we' u./ <rr fcI" rfr. f>..Ilr �c v r A. u 6ric/ic3tic' a rr< %irtifan �� y��a�.6. /.�•ru(h�frr j,es,1.� :�A hy4sr:< i.ra� </ral•� t7rni f(rc.�rt r- /r<•ffh:/ eslAC,IT� sfYYU•Z% `w < / r•u�e Klnr'JS /••rr•r•Y.r i�P� <•u / r e,. <,�.,� r �,.� fy m a J/ii rr 3 /.•rr /CYaI /. erns J•ti Y•.<C:rr• c+.l<7i.<r�,�••M15 ..,a _ / ♦ / /r G° ✓C'C W. -.o�r LI-F C �t �l /- /LYr ✓� /C Cr �'l /�G� f r /jam zry%i< a �rv.•.J�' <s •t G' o!r %�+'.<1 • C -�4Y:i fzY %frs< rrr Y r /rr�,,3n rta/S� /•ffJrj / /<�l' rr !! <r/i'i•I. <Y.)r Sa rr',�.�:K1�r,rsi GEY�IU / / Cr• //1 n/• Cf Ck<J C- A- e4r /lyC� r ! �F I i ■ 9 /I oil �nrn(b) r • , , II II I // •!'i/Il,ir_.<.— T�r'..<•r[k r;�Cli l�•S� GVt�� [lr / q c Klc « l 77,c, �% rcts ec rr c[L s�e</�•• tll Jt %Jre• P{ ✓r� 2rP ��[�n�Ple•..S [vP{'C / ✓ {- ..c I'na 1, .1� fixer, ✓ey T+/C)/f /.•- c-o}��t //. h,-tV �, //<' ; /'r ej <JS,. Q /[.r e•rC > C! rca :JapS .r r- C�w«a /.fin . /cer C /zt7` %G fi wattt.�q rE9t ��c-C.a/ �vu��n. n! C.- •JJrr��'+ -� .i�oct %( E/t -,Plc /h %Pf cj i�r fxe•1/�� �r J••/r�r<taa� �f�st` as /�helr•�Ta /� l)- rt✓e'!� eeJ+�/� / / /,•/1'�: ar✓s • %�' r•e <a r'C' Cl yiiP c.'t� c�/�n<i<, < <r,r[.<.n� -q [ s /.'/Y- �.�•:rr.�. .:J e f rl<' C .,,( v, [:/c•,Lry e� j �e /A (/ /e. ! //ey /y%/}VV���p er•it /[r•I• /tS •C /tom/ rNl<^ e/f�eKftl•TI.1 J+ "'I"'e �i'•� °Y' f'/ t /tcYrr� >',r /f r�cvtYgs I