HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/03/14 - Agenda Packet..� .9 ,
i
_
a
r
�'
A,
- • C'•�
�.
-/,
C
��
- . , ;' <:,
'. � �
3
k -
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, March 14, 1979,•7:00 p.m.
Community Services Building
9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Cumnissioner Dahl
Commissioner Garcia
Commissioner Jones
III. Approval of Minutes
IV. Announcements
V. Consent Calendar
A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
Commissioner Rempel
Commissioner Tolstoy
KE➢/LLW /7 -LD - VKUWZILL VCWP&L --1'ne aivislon of 9.3 -acres
of land into three -lots a- the subsequent development of a pro-
fessional office complex; located on the southeast corner of
Baseline and Carnelian
VI, Public Hearings'
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -01 - ALTA
LOMA PROPERTIES- =• •Request. -for a change in zone from
R -1 -to R- 3-for- property located on the south side of
19th- Street between..Amethyst and Archibald.
[Business
DIRECTOR AEVZEW N0. 78 -12 - ALDERFER (Continued from 2/28/79)
Request-'for development of a two story 10,000 square foot
office building in the C -2 zone located at 8030 Vineyard.
/ r
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE APPROVAL N0. 79 -04 - MCiCEEVER -
VV Request for development of at4,400 square foot building and
outside play area for a child day care facility located at
6730 Hellman.
E. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO, 79 -04 - SUNSET PLAZA - Request for
construction ot one -story commerclal bulldIng totaling
16,000 square feet at the southwest corner of Ramona
Avenue and Foothill B:'vd. in the C -2 (general business)
District (Continued from 2/28/79).
t
c,
t
Pugs 2
Planning Cammisaioa Agenda
March. l4; 1979
!� F. NEGATIVE. DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. •79 -05 -
KETNER (Continued from 2/28179) - Request for develo
meat of apartment units on 10+- acres located south
Of the extension of Victoria Street on the east side
of Archibald in the R -3 (Multi-family) zone.
G. GREENROCK NURSERY - ALTHOUSE AM BAMBER - Request for
extension of time to cease operation of the Greenrock
a Nursery located on the north side of 19th Street, 400'
west of Amethyst Street.
1 n H. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9589 - BATES - Revision to tract map
11161.1 Lf regarding access located off Red Hill Country Club Drive
l near Camino Del Sur in the R -1 zone.
VIII. New Business
I. DIRECTOR REVIEW•NO. 79 -15 CROWELL/LEVENTHAL -.- Request
lug . for development of a Professional office complex located
at the southeast corn: *s of Base3 ine and Carnel .an.
IX. Council Referral
X. Director's Reports
Ja,CL J. MEMO regar Ing Campus/Baseline Proiect- in.the City of
Upland.
'[arty
XI.
X11.
K. COUNTY..GENERAL -PLAN PRESENTATION -- Presentation -of -consoli--
dated- County- -General• -Plan:
L. CITY /COUNTY YOLICY'for Coordination of Planning Activities
Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any items not
listed on the Agenda may do so at this time.
Commission Comment
XIII. Adjournment - The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 31:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items
go beyond that time, it shall be heard only with the consent of
the Commission.
XIV.
Upcoming Agenda - March 28, 1979
1. Site Approval No. 79 =05 - Wycoff
2. Site Approval No. 79 -07 - Brethren in Christ Church
3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 79-03 - p -3 and A -P zones -
City of Rancho Cucamonga
4. Zone Change No. 79 -02 - City of Rancho Cucamonga
5. Director Review No. 79 -18 - Room Builders
6. Director Review No. 79 -26 - Longley
7. Zoning Determination Veterinary Clinics
ACTION
Approved 5 -0
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING CO ?MISSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, March 14, 1979, 7:00 p.m.
Community Services Building
9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.
I. Pledge of Allegiance
Ii. Roll Cali
Commissioner Dahl
Commissioner Garcia
Commissioner Jones _T
III. Approval of Minutes
IV. Announcements
V. Consent Calendar
Commissioner Rempel ✓
Commissioner Tolsto —�
A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAY NO. 4009 A" DIRECTOR
REVIEW 79 -15 - CROWELL /LEVENTHAL - The division of 9.3 acres
of land into three lots S the subsequent development of a pro-
fessional office complex; located on the southeast corner of
Baseline and Carnelian
VI. Public Hearings
Cant. to 4/11 for
add'l info on traffic, B. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -01 - ALTA
[„,.land use compatibility LOMA PROPERTIES - Request for a change in zone from
6 drainage 5 -0 R -1 to R -3 for property located on the south side o,[
r' 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald.
VII. Old Business
Cant to 3/28 for revised
'' "plans with Garcia 6 C. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12 - ALDERFER (Continued from 2/28/70
Dahl, applicant & staff Request for development of a two story 10,000 square foot
5 -0 office building in the C -2 zone located at 8030 Vineyard.
Denial because of D. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 79-y4 - M1:FrEV= -
applicants refusal to Request for development of a 4,400 square foot building and
provide requested outside play area for a child day care facility located at
studies 5 -0 6730 Hellman.
Approved 5 -0 E. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -04 - SUNSET PLAZA - Request for
construction o one -story commerc M = ilding totaling
16,000 square feet at the southwest corner of Ramona
Avenue and Foothill Blvd. in the C -2 (general business)
District (Continued from 2/28/79).
Approved
5 -0
Page 2 1
Planning Commission Agenda
March 14, 1979
P. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -05 -
KETNER (Continued from 2/28/79) - Request for develo,
went of apartment units on 10+ acres located south
of the extension of Victoria Street on the east side
of Archibald in the R -3 (Multi - family) zone.
Extension granied for G. GREENROCK NURSERY - ALTHOUSE AIM BARBER - Request for
12 months with plans to extension of time to cease operation of the Greenrock
be submitted in 6 mos. Nursery located an the north side of 19th Street, 400'
to conform to Code 5 -0 west of Amethyst Street.
Approved 5 -0 H. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9589 - BATES - Revision to tract map
regarding access located off Red Hill Country Club Drive
near Camino Del Sur in the R -1 zone.
VIII. New Business
Approved in concept I DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -15 - CROWELL /LEVENTHAL - Request
with return. to P.C. for development of a professional office complex located
at 3/28 for Ontario at the southeast corner of Baseline and Carnelian.
Savings & Loan
P.C. Committee - Dahl 6 Tolstoy
5 -0 IX. Council Referral
X. Director's Reports
received and file J. MEMO regarding, Campus /Baseline Project in the City of
Upland.
Presented K. COUNTY GENERAL PLAN PRESENTATION - Presentation of consoli-
dated County General Plan.
=" Approved 5 -0 L. CITY /COUNTY POLICY for Coordination of Planning Activities
XI. Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any items not
listed on the Agenda may do so at this time.
XII. Commission Comment
XIII. Adjournment - The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items
go beyond that time, it shall be heard only with the consent of
the Commission.
XIV. Upcoming :+genda - March 28, 1979
1. Site Approval No. 79 -05 - Wycoff
' 2. Site Approval No. 79 -07 - Brethren in Christ Church
", 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 79 -03 - R -3 and A -P zones
City of Rancho Cucamonga
4. Zone Change No. 79 -02 - City of Rancho Cucamonga
5. Director Review No. 79 -18 - Room Builders
;,'.. 6. Director Review No. 79 -26 - Longley
7. Zoning Determination Veterinary Clinics
F .`
t
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: March 14, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4869 AND DIRECTOR
REVIEW NO. 79 -15 - CROWELL /LEVENTHAL - The division of 96.3
acres of land into three lots and the subsequent development
of a professional office complex; located on the southeast
corner of Baseline and Carnelian.
BACKGROUND: Crowell /Leventhal, Inc. requests the division of 9.3
acres of land into three lots at the above described location.
The division precedes the development of a professional office
complex at the site. This environmental review includes both the
land division and the professional office complex.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The site is presently vacant and has a
two percent southerly slope. Surficial grading has occurred on the
site as a result of a carnival held here last summer. No significant
flora or fauna exists on the site. Further, no cultural, historical
or visual resources are associated with the property.
The environmental checklist indicates no significant adverse environ-
mental effects resulting from this project. Staff has field checked
the site and finds no discrepancies with the checklist.
RECOMMENDATION: The environmental analysis staff has found no signi-
ficant adverse environmental impacts resulting from these projects and
therefore recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No.
4869 and Director Review No. 79 -15.
R I spec t Li submitted,
a au���
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:BNH:nm
tAttachments
1 Site Plan
' Initial Study
EXHIBIT "A"
0
TENTATIVE
PARC fL MAP NO* A9
IX TIE CITT OF EANCW COCANDWA
KING A DIVISION OF A PM1101 Or LOT 1 Or SALIVISIIN 'C' Of THE COC4 DWA VIIEMB
1PACT. AS MURDED IN MM 71 Or NAPS. PATE P. PECIFDS OF TIE C*F OF SAN MKIP0041
STATE OF CALIF3RNIA.
REMENCE; NDTE: w mun ling M
w u fna ann , N.nl. sm, LINT Y.IMU .1Nnt r
.PI in amo,
PIEPAIED•FOU UMi1up,mit. 1S
M N IM.Kit "WIM ha.
Sa+/f Ylta'.. tMimaINIr1.
�-/ 11, vv y l
ti Ye..a
r711.l:rhl'Jr .... 11.1 u T c - / -v
1 Loo.r.r t
.C. r pF tT
ati I �' .. I • f� `01
SCALE I.-loo,
Z• .= F��M I
V I I. IN.II�r. I:gll
. M ..1. Nn:'1
vic /,virr r�ay
jt
I
� LO ✓t
K -/
SMYETDP•S moms
IN Nn.gl ul Nn N Itl (Uaunl N
:nNUN PNN N If.O .. INI.•r a Mw.r �
IIi N \rl.l. Mr NIYN. . INr II N
N IN 11 •.:lii., 1•wrll N :i \::Xr r "1
• -worn. a...0 .1... u.No
p . nnNHt u1 1• M4. nn ur. \.1. r/
L /l. - IalUin GMN N.y11.9 a....l.l
h1.t.L u.nNO Y.rt Mn.lt•I InM .rN
61.L /.L.. • IFIrY 0.11.411. XIr.N1N IIMn -kw
oil. -06- Map em v ae a'n wa P!wN
w Mlwl M NNYI[M .I.. 41w wpm am
MI tNM\III no MI MMM iso MIN.. hit
YI111ML
1111,114.1 am."
EMEAT I GI 1 ANEETE
AAEOCIATEII INGINES25
ONTARIO, CAWOMA
4. 1 111.1 M1r4.
.4..r . am
4
.•
0
0
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 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_pub'ic meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact. Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further 'iformation concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: _Vmcsi M(p 16 `IBO *F- D% uc R.wtwN 79 -W
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
}d1L6 rA dill 86
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Aent"
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
`• . Nom
1�
i' .
0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
0
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Q ErA. 4669 e1i 3 • .
..cres efr %".,ok 12►T'0 3 lyrs, Q D R 7Y -IS d4�/4Le 3-
0
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE :DOTAGE OF EXISTING ANi)
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: _1.3 Rgg op LAMC
t o
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):;
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series-
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
N v
�• WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
X _ 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.):
, 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
_c_ 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:
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the .Development
Review Committee.
Date 7 1-701 Signature
l
Title _ Ass,i *a,�r A /ahwer
0
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.. !•'
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
school district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
Specific Location of Project:
PHASE I PIiASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to
0 begin construction:
4. Earliest date of
occupancy:
Model #
and # of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Ranae
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 14, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
0
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Negative Declaration and Zone Change Igo. 79 -01
Alta Loma Properties - Request for a change in zone
from R -1 to R -3 for property located on the south side
of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald.
BACKGROUND: The subject property is south of the proposed commercial office
complex on 19th and Amethyst. It is adjacent to an existing single family
residential on the east and west, south is a mobile home park. Two streets
stub into the project from the west side, they are Gala Street and Hamilton
Street. Presently the property is vacant. It has an existing windrow of
Eucalyptus on the western boundary and along 19th Street. The property
also has a drainage swail along the westerly boundary.
The adopted General Plan indicates the property for high density residential.
Currently, the zoning of the property is R -1 which is in conformance with
the adopted General Plan. A change in the zone from R -1 to R -3 would also
be in conformance with the General Plan as is required by State law.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: After a review of the initial study staff has found
that there is no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result
of this project. Staff recommr.nds a Negative Declaration be issued for the
project.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 79-23 recommending approval of Zone Change 79 -01 and issuance
of Negative Declaration to the City Council.
Rgspect£ull} submitted,
Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:BH :cc
Attachments: Initial Study
Site Plan
Resolution No. 79 -23
ITEM B
(:ITY Or RANC110 W('ATIONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJI -CT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Fart II of the Initial Stt;uy. The Iloveinhmcnt Review
Committee will. meet and take ar_ti.on no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
prof cct is to be heard. Th^ Committee will make one of
three- (Ieterminations: 1) The project will have no
envixonmental impact and a Negative 1 >(1claration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or
3) Ari additional information report should be supplied
by file applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PRO.TI'CT TITLE: Windrow Village
APP1,1CANrT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPIIONE:
Alta Loma Properties
701 So. Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, Ca. 41754
(213) 283 -9551
NAMr., AT'VRESS, TELr.PI10NE OF PLiRSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: John Manayian. (2131 377 -6276
w /Neil Stanton Palmer Architects and Planners,
672 Silver Spur-Road, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Ca .
LOC.ITION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS ANI) ASSESSOR PARCEI. NO,)
South side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald
Parcel #202 -11 -19
LIST OTHER PERI•ITTS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATn AND
FEDERAL, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None
s:•
Y -I
0
PROJECT Dr:SCI2IPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
(27.5 D.U.'s /Acre). TI
_parxing space; a miority Of the covered enarec are
unaer the units. The project is divided into several
communit space. n i y ri a common an scape
ACRI71AGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE MOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILUIIIGS, IF ANY: Site acreage -•6.6 acres. _
Proposed 184 units - 155,000 square feet
7
s
DI'SCRIPE TIM P:NVTPON "MS rm, ST :TTTNG OF TIM PROJECT SITE
INCL110I.IIG INFORIl1TION ON 'rorocr4muy, PI.4tTr5 (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCrI7IC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHRSTS) : .
eages of the site. Additionally there is a natural drainage
basin running north and south along the west property line.
North of this wash drainage is handled by a concrete channel.
To the soutFi, waters a is iverted and apparently controrlFU--
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a -
series-of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a wliol.e have significant enviroilmer,tal impact?
No
by underground and surface systems (i.e., paved private
driveways within the trailer park).
Y
i- 2
11
WILL •1113:, t�rc� ;liar:
1rS 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.)i
_ X 4. Create changes in the exiting zoning or
general plan designations?
.x _ 5. Remove any existing t
4 X 6. Create the need for u
potentially ha:_ardous
toxic substances, fla
Explanation of any yI= :S answers above:
Ilow many? 21
disposal of
xials such as
.es or explosives?
that are presently in 19th Street proposed r.o.w.
In compliance with Cal Trans requirements for 19th
Street, which is a desienatedi State Hinhwav_
anes on either side.
IMPORTAW : if the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
0
m
CrRTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information rcgaired for this initial evaluation to the
best of rag ability, and that t.ttc facts, statements, and
informnti.on presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
ndditional infnrmation may bQ required to he submitted
before nn adcquate evaulation can be made by the Development
Review Conunittee.
Date_ _ 20 February 1979 Signature KAl �
Title Project Planner
3
0
W"SI l E.NTIAL CONSTIUICTTOM
The follotring information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
school district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Alta Loma Properties
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Parcel No. .202 -11 -17
Specific Location of Project: South side of 19th Street,__ between
Amethyst and Archibald,
PHASi: I rimsr 2 riIAS)'. 3 PIIASP 4 TOTAL
1. Numi+er of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
family units: 184 emits
3. Date proposed to
begin construction: Sept. 1979
4. Uarli.est date of
occupancy: June 1980
Model A
and @ of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Rance Market analysis now in progress
will determine rental structure.
A -i 2 Bedrooms + 1 -3/4 Bath 950 s.f.
A -2 2 Bedrooms + 1 -3/4 Bath 950 s.f.
B 2 Bedrooms + 1 Bath 800 s.f.
C 1 Bedroom + 1 Bath 650 s.f.
VA
0
J s •
�hd 4.7h"�IH�?J`d
LLI
Uj
Irn
� t
I
�n� rrb w�m�l
� I t
i 1
I � �
,Laa ig 151• H ,l�Wd
0
rZ-
O I
t
0
111
o�
�v
0
0
Original Poor Qua11W
December 4. 1978
(�f
-RA N C
C UC A N I ON G'A
r
Robert Shibato
9420 1901 Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701.
SCBJF.CT: Operation (if il.l.egal nursery located at 9420 190 Strect.
Dear Mr. Shihato:
This ontice is to inform voIl if the t.ity•s position regardin), the illegc1l
Ilse or your nursery ;it the above deseribed location.
As, yon will recatI. the Rancho Cucamonga planning; Comm i::vion den led
your request for a change of zone. from (700) R -3 -T to A -1. at their meeting
of August 23, 1979. The Commission directed Staff to work with you in
order to allow ynu a raasnnahle length of time to relocate. Staff considered
six (G) months as a reasonable time for your relocation. It has been
three (3) months since tilts decision, thus, the City will allow ynu three (3)
additional months rn ce ;isc operation of your bosinoss. If ynu have not
rvased operation by F..•bronry 23. 1911, the Ci.ty will inittate Ieg:tl action.
If ynu have any further grie�,ttans •rei,:trdlnj, this matter• please cal l me
at this nfrl.vc.
CITY Or RANCIIO COCAMONf:A
JACK LAM, DtRFCTOR OF
COMR'NTTY DEVE1.011MUr
�� c�.
By: BTT,1. 110DJAN
Planning Assistant
.11.:811: em
1'nST fiPl h -F Illk 74 t, P.ANf11tI f•11CAMIINt:A. VA1.11-(IWNI1A't1': to
,
_ .1 `.r •x•.4.2.
_ OCity of
RANCHO
40 CUCAMONGA
February 15, 1979
Robert Shibata
9420 19th Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
RE: OPERATION OF AN ILLEGAL NURSERY; LOCATED AT 9420 19th STREET
Dear Mr. Shibata:
This is the final notice regarding the illegal operation of your nursery
before the matter is referred to the City Attorney.
As you will remember from my letter of December 4, 1978, the Planning
Commission on August 23, 1978 denied your request for a change of zone
on your property from (700) R -3 -T to A -1. Since the current zone of
(700) R -3 -T does not allow a commercial nursery, you were directed to
cease operation of your business. Staff allowed you six months to cease
operation during which time you were to find a new location.
® We feel that six months is a reasonable amount of time to find a new
site. We regret you have not found a new location, however, we cannot
extend this period any longer. Please note that if your operation has
not ceased by February 23, 1979, the matter will be referred to the
City Attorney.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call me
at this office.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
JACK LAM, DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BY: Bill Hofman
Planning Assistant
JL:BNH'
POST OFFICE BOX 793, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91730 (714) 989 -1951
ALTHOUSE & BAMBER
ATTORNICYS AT LAW
UPLAND SAVINGS AND LOAN SUILDINO
CHARLES A. ALTHOUPE NINTH STREET AND EUCLIO AVENUE
• JAI MS E. SANSEI w. O. SOU SStl
JC'NH R.■UDMIA
PATWICN J. 0009116 UPLAND. GALIwORN1A &MSO
RATHLE[M dIRWIND PLANM[RY '�I•
IT11T itli•tliq C
February 20, 1979
TO THE STAFF OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RELOCATE THE GREENROCK NURSERY % ?'.•
Our firm represents Messrs. Robert and Royce Shibata, operators .
of the Greenrock Nursery located at 9420 19th Street, Rancho Cuca-
monga, California. In your letter to Mr. Shibata, dated December
4, 1978 ( a copy of which letter is attached hereto), you have
indicated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga will initiate legal ,
action against the business unless he ceases operation of the nursery,.,,..,
at its present location by February 23., 1979. Please be advised
that request is hereby respectfully made-for an extension of time
in which to relocate that business.
This request is based on the following set of circumstances.',
Mr. Shibata,'in a good faith attempt to comply with the City of
Rancho Cucamonga's request that he cease the business operation
at its present location, has been diligently seeking another
location. Since September of 1978, the Shibatas have explored
several locations, and have finally located one which apparently
will be suitable for their operation from the standpoint of both
the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Shibatas. That location is
between Amethhyst Street and Archibald Avenue north of Baseline.
Mr. Shibata, upon his inquiry, has been informed by various employ -
ees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the proposed relocation
site would be suitable for the nursery enterprise. • He has also f,
been informed that the proposed site apparently is also the only
site in the entire City of Rancho Cucamonga which would be suitable."*;',
for the nursery enterprise.
Based on such circumstances, Mr. Shibata has entered into
an agreement with the owner of the proposed site to purchase it.
An escrow has been established concerning the sale transaction.
Thus, Mr. Shibata has made good faith efforts to comply with the
requent of tho City of Rancho Cucarnnnga to relocate his business.
In view of the dovelopinq cir.cumHtances a:: outlined above, the
current deadline of February 23, 1979 as the last date to relo-
cate would seem unduly short. A great hardship will be placed
upon the Shibatas without an extension. It is suggested that
R'.
•
0
STAFF OF THE PLANNING
11
February 20, 1979
an additional three month period would provide the time needed
to complete the necessary zoning or variance work and make the.
relocation.
In light of that deadline, it is requested that the
Staff consider this request and indicate forthwith whether
the period of time within which to relocate the business
will be extended, and if so, the new deadline date.
Very truly yours,
ALTHOUSE & BAMBER
lYCHARLES S. ALTHOUSE
CHARLES S. ALTHOUSE
CSA:klm
Enclosure
e
-2-
�° ANCHO
�+ December 4, 1978
��.�`.� • .• •.nom. : r
.,.,. Robert Shibato R'
JE` 9420 19th Street +
';. R_nchu Cucamonpa, CA 917nl +
SUBJECT: operation of illegal nursery located at-9420 19th Street. .
x .t
+1: Dear Mr. Shibato:
'. This notice is to inform you of the City's position regarding the illegal
fib•• use of your nursery at the above described location. 't
a As you will recall, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission denied .•'
' your requent for a r.hange of zone from (700) R -3 -T to A -1 at their meeting tiff
�•,, of August 23, 1978. The Commission directed Staff to work with you in
"'. order to allow you a rcasnnahle length of time to relocate. Staff considered
Rix. (6) months as a reasonable time for your relocation. It has been •n
three (3) months since this decision, thus, the City will nlluv you three (3)
nddlrJannl munthn to ream• aperatlon of your business. If you have not a
ceas4•d uperaliun by February 23, 1.979, the City will, initiate legal action.
If you have any further gnestiona regarding this matter, please call me :':•�
j;;• at this office. .
y CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
' JACK LA.M, DIRECTOR OF '
CDK4UNIT7 DEVELOPMEN'r
f6t ,pip
it
i... By: HILL IlOPMAN i
1'lannlnl, Asais+.ant A
} A
J1,: Rif: em
r•A
r'
,,.
it, 1: 1 i tX 7113, KANCHuCUCAMUNt:A, t'ALiF'oitN1A 4) 17.111 (7111989 1851
r.`- .'..�. .� ........._.... ._ ._.. __ ...� -..... .._._. _. ^.•,...,. _..- __- ..,rte. _
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 14, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVISION - TRACT 9589
•
Attached for Commission review and approval are copies of approved Tentative
Tract 9589 and the revised Tract Map 9589. The proposed revision involves
the deletion of the extension of Sierra Vista as a traffic carrying street
between Lots 18 and 19. This originally proposed access was a condition of
approval of the tentative tract which required the following:
"A standard 25' paved section shall be constructed on proposed Sierra
Vista including offsite easement to properly handle vehicular traffic
and drainage through this area.
Sierra Vista shall be offered for dedication with proper setback lines
established for future construction of standard street.
Typical section of Proposed "A" Street shall be to Collector Standards."
In his attempt to comply with this condition, the developer has been unable to
obtain the permission of the surrounding property owners to allow the extension
of Sierra Vista through their Y_- r�rties. These property owners wish to main-
tain the current private character of the area and will not allow the proposed
street extension.
The original access as required by the County was to serve two functions:
emergency access and additional traffic access. It is the opinion of the
Engineering Division that sufficient street access is available from Red Hill
Country Club Drive to service traffic generated by the development. The Foot-
hill Fire District will require that one additional emergency access be provided.
In order to insure sufficient emergency access and to eliminate access for
traffic to Sierra Vista, the proposed map change and an agreement has been
developed which meets with the approval of the developer, the Foothill Fire
District, surrounding property owners and the Community Development Department.
This agreement has been attached.
Briefly, it has been agreed that a fire lane will be provided for between Lots
18 and 19 as delineated on the map. That the f ire lane be constructed of turf
block capable of supporting 50,000 pounds. That a knock out wooden fence be
constructed across the fire lane on the south end and posted as a fire lane on
the fence (see attached picture) and with posts and a chain on the north end.
ITEM "H"
0 0
Planning Commission
Page 2
March 14, 1979
Conditions will be recorded with Parcel 18 requiring maintenance of a clear
fire lane at all times. A $5,000 trust will be established fcr fence replace-
ment by the City. In the event that the 55,000 is exhausted, the tract as a
whole will become responsible for fire lane subgrade maintenance and fence
replacement. Additional correspondence on this issue has been attached.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve re-
vised Tract Map 9589 with the provisions of the attached agreemimt.
Respectfully submi ted,
P
LLO BBS
City Engineer
LH:deb
0
"'0
0
T C N O. 9 54,91.
tIRNMI tgararatr• t-
•/ '. f Ttetlrl tT I IT t II •Yt t[ fr Tw teQ z
7 �. t r••e ■1 alflr[Pt i W Tassimi " mm $ AN{ t ,�
t 01■tTf lTMe
w CWgMIi. , t '
'Am aw wit
F i Jays "77
� f s.yE f k � , •
1
FI
y �•f•••f. Y. IL �h o,fafa a � 1' � J
If • 3' 4 4f �r iLa(I, IS
f 17 r t:r Y.
f on iiirw• 1l 17 i 12 t II t
to 1w n, IYY tuts ! •tf+ n „a• L L E ±: w 1 1.
aM w4 as aMr♦r T I Ia '. '!1L!�MA
S�HLfi61.�u wr+ r n. ~x«
Ail,
. ;trY•a w {. ,,. _Ptt� 'w ?..�/� !ty sw.•trn•a r•.
J n• Ylf«.L
\ M a... '_ •ifw lsL wt/f [f t: iw ,w,1j' f , t�4 16 ,.' gnu. a.en..w 73 •_
F+
7 r N O T A e �1 F ,�� 5- .aE FM a/Ifi um uMreart #
rk
i PART , to .- I yt
0 Jill Ile
OT
�(
It nN•,Ir IaL. IS PART
�. i .Menm wnf. �•.
7, + .tt Aa• 7: `� X L ,
In wa sa•aw•w f I, I . • ell Yy4. f .t• [
3
l aM•RIt-a j ��•• �'f.Yilifd'A/.y / � d�� .• M-
” u s;aTf• w i 1
V 1r �f il•I/y~� am •1F� ••
let
�' '' Iwrrw \•y RENllllf[ dt1[t
t ' Rf u.rccrc xitrt f tlatap TRACT 2386
couwQMLL ifQ oMw�i Qict�uii it t VLL 34/14-15-M L .�. •wttSf Fj `�% 21 p
Tft cnr aap E,Mtt lnlwL LllMCi�
. I Mlrt TMe w4MT 7p lllf(r OYtf a 1K '
R��bloMal 1 m�f eccr n� , �•I ' i'RA(7 1134•" \: v
R t. ry4 LLM� Vt QM Ulle a iwR UKIr f[le \ ,I tat
ewzw n am LIT y. 9 Rut1T Id,.2LIZ4 Iww y )� >� _ --�
�• LIIQ ICL•tPIMNLTT, /► Yf01116 ^' ^' war•
11l 5111 TMtc IRLIC •IC¢I. IM tlRee•T
i M Twe Qtilttl Or tiT 1.. Nviels w 't � n f •.1
• • fElaf,f a alasai I \w - ,,,� R
� .. Haan •rl..,.,
Luz ULM
t
•a-♦1 .: • �wpau,u I,wlnarryx .aiwo .. •.nf • TRAITn Ld *3f �. ` • ,
`••I •_ Q [ 'wMr11. 1 , .{ H, N IM IIY11M .vifM�t Eta( � Q %132 -],l f,I ibf u \M
IIYIII'•M
Iw.IlTi�°.:ib".IC:""MA{f: ■ I.• • e,,. .
Ar ' / iWa ••YfN1 Cot al?uTEa LWlrtt IRK'YfaT LY{sal[•,. ' n . fa• f V t
too IW Tt%~11 WMC,aCa AILD •CIL •at . .Tf,'fr {r aif
. I nr q O alaf
L.W. f[a, LItTI flutlM YL■rM{a IWaY �• •K• « WWI
-9w Till,
[a.l.loamwtar.uttim,uwc r« a a
IIFYM IY
bit r
i � 1 a.ft•,La fMaw bR• f4 • • VM AM CYlnw /IU � u p
''', L`L;•t�s il`�,i tif'�r7mi'fx°f�WtE6 mcLwflE 'r �
1 1 rw�wlT ■t RitT ■.i y. /tttlutH Curl uTL of nab @4 w ENM PLr K wv •1 • i
YI• ,•M T■•LT •p,aEw Mr LR•
( 1gf•fflM aa•a •Mi"y alf No •
ii M W■ NMI AL lams r au jpf M IN, f.m r
{ �• a IMR •DOM. MB41K MOM M me' Wp
0ii Kli ■It•fl'1I ORIMTt I7 7'"M%
�• ' twf
fit. snow noon!• "Alm Ltmtmm
�([ -= 1dt2arwfl.nl I/w wliruflp��.nw�Lrmic- yty��. ,— 1
—~ n
V1�T1�1 - �:Ir �\ o�d 7p'11'�rr ",� �r4.'r •i �� `.:�r.
JIK
As
ri i
Aa
Ar r4
.. 1- \r� �� 1t� � ,, tom. ' , �,� ��+�' , - 4,'{ f.' J• `�� / i r�2 _ r \ "i:�.';1
i'
m'• rn� ••�3' D 1 � to 1�•Z `
t) -i � -.n rho 6+4 7 :.sr7� � C 7: { '` d` •,
Oar ?• o. � ^_ AI , � • /' 11) � .�
��li �--oa \+ sly \s f' l9 �'o` I ill �• � ` tF,ti ��� `
N s
�� .n ri r � � Z ' � � p� � 1 1 � , c I•CV� � r.
i
e+ w LO t I
IS ....
i 1
:•:
Vi
JI 4 8, {, �1 � .0 , '� 57'j'7�- • ..cam f.',,c� •► z, �
i .
it
!-1
rl
0
Ip SO. EUCLID AVE.
UPLAND. CALIFORNM 91786
98a•aeA
PENCE ESTIMATING SHEET
MATERIALS
LMpoaa- •••••. --- �°
POSTS OtC.
LABOR
_ �Corn.r P.n.s... - -- ---
End Far +■
XGoals .....
G.te
X .. ._
Sets Gst. Hardware -
�fG n
5j IMA-Cwl
� 3,
7 0j
Sub Total �'r/
fry. �•
Sales TOM
Motorist Total
Job Totale�r
r
i �Yry
(rfT
We Proposo to (umiah the
rt- ' �A /dala and �ilabor latd sbeva.
W. F.J1�GLUMBER CO^.Y
L29
ThN agreement not bi "until tempted try W. V. Rupp Lumbar CadlMllw
Tho Undersigned aby requests and euthw4a! tv. F, Rugg Lymber Carn-
pany to patain. Iurnlsh and prarida all nK wry supplles. materlalf and
Nrricee Im the Installation ant eanriruetlon of the Improlrempt +tlasPttmd
above.
The undersigned 8s ,hat all rosponslbillty for the proper marking W relics
loratlort and prrperty $loss and thereby rel4nee UL F. Rugg I.amtter Cast
pony or any and all rospo sIbllity In this teMra.
In consideration or the rhoee w 14 the undersigned Sonde to pay w.. F.
Rugg Lumber Company the arm of
Dollars.
Parables
Total Prices S Datads
SIgnadl
Slgnedi
Na hereby, accept the (oregolog apaomont and area to porlarm .
tIA soda
M. P. RUGG LUMBER COMPANY
noted? -- byl
K AND B DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
160 CENTENNIALWAY, SUITE 6 • TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA !72680
W. RICHARD BATES, PRESIDENT
April 20, 1978
Mr. Lauren M. Wasserman
City Manager, Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 793•
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Wasserman:
Ms. Bess Atkinson and 'I as property owners in Red Hill Country
Club subdivision appreciated very much our conference with you
yesterday concerning the desire of Ms. Bess Atkinson, Mr. &
Mrs. George W. Porter, Jr. and other property neighbors to
maintain the "private road easement" nature of the private
road known as Sierra Vista between my property (Tract 9589)
and Camino Sur.
As per your suggestion, I am submitting the request that
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission review Tract 9589, which
has met all county subdivision required conditions except
securing the "offer of Dedication' of offsite easement for
Sierra Vista, as per De. 1976 tentative tract map 9589 San
Bernardino Planning Commission approval, and grant us relief
for offsite conditions ,page 4 of 7, line 1 -8 specifically:
"A standard 26' paved section shall be contracted on proposed
Sierra Vista including offsite easement to properly handle
vehicular traffic and drainage through this area. Sierra
Vista shall be offered for Dedication with proper setback
lines established for future construction of standard street.
Typical section of Proposed "A" street shall be to collection
standards ".
I am attahcing the following:
1. Tract 9589 (Cucamonga) Dec. 1976 San Bernardino
County requirements.
2. Copy of April 14, 1978 extension request.
3. One complete set of final tract map and street
improvement plans approved by various S.B. County
departments.
4. Copy of letter from S.B. County surveyor dated
Jan. 16, 1978 which indicated only outstanding items
"offsite indications and grants of accompanying easement ".
5. Copy of Ms. Bess Atkinson April 10, 1978 letter in
which is expressed: Ms. Atkinson and Mr. George Porter, Jr.
willingness to cooperate with development of Tract 9589,
April 20, 1978
Page 2
K AND 6 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
160 CENTENNIALWAY, SUITE 6 • TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA 92680
W. RICHARD BATES, PRESIDENT
provided offsite Sierra Vista remains as private road
under•cbntroi bf owners of said property and easement,
in granting water and sewer easement to Cucamonga
Water District for Sierra Vista in present 30' road
easement between 9589 tract on site Sierra Vista and
Camino Sur.
Ms. *Atkinson will provide for Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission any necessary documented expressions of Red
Hill property owners desire to maintain the Sierra Vista
as a private road.
6. Copy of S.B. item ordinance 2041 (subdivision code)
Division d. section 2, (F) which is basis for relief
to offsite conditions requirement.
As owner of Traci-. 9589, I have made every effort possible to
solve this impass with Mr. & Mrs. Porter and Ms. Atkinson.
I fully appreciate these property owners position expecially
in light of the fact that County of San Bernardino approved
a tract of 35 single family residences just northwest of
Tract 9589 property. Calle Feliz and Valle Visa, Rancho
Cucamonga. This subdivision has only one entrance and exit.
Ms. Atkinson and Mr. Porter pointed this out to me in Dec. 1977
conference in. office of Attorney Hopson. I had no answer but
"point to condition, as per requirement" for offsite "of far
of dedication Sierra Vista for Tract '9589.
III I fully realize the objective for ideal planning conditions.
regarding traffic circulation. However, I hope we can appre-
ciate the desire and advantages of private property rights
i
of owners and character of development such as Red Hill.
Ms. Atkinson and I met with Foot Hill Fire Department, Rancho
Cucamonga, Inspector Longo, yesterday concerning the effect
on fire protection and servin the area if Sierra Vista
would remain as private road tract 9589 offsite). Inspector
saw no adverse effect for fire pprotection safety and serving
the area. He suggested a gate be installed at Tract 9589 .
property line before entrance into private road eazemen*_
jointly owned by the Porters, Ms. Atkinson and myself provided
constructed in a manner to meet fire departments emergency
entrance requirements.
I am willing to meet required conditions, however due to
fact that:
1. Porters and Ms. Atkinson and their ndighbors desire
I
K AND'B DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
160 CENTENNIALWAY. SUITE 6 ■ TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
.W. RICHARD BATES. PRESIDENT
April 20, 1978
Page 3
That Sierra Vista be retained as private road.
2. Crash gate for emergency_onlly use installed
at Tract 9589 proe�y 1ne at entrance to Portex-
Atkinson -Bates 30? offsite private road easement
portion of Sierra Vista is accepted by Fire
Department.
3. Porter - Atkinson -Sates are agreeable to grant-
ing Cucamonga Water Company easement in present
30 private road Sierra Vista for construction and
maintenance of water and sewer line.
4. There is an established subdivision of 35 single
family residences in Rancho Cucamonga entrance Calle
Feliz and Valle Visa approved in recent years by
S.B. Countir with only a single ingress and egress
entrance to subdivison.
5. Present Sierra Vista private road easement is
paved and respective owners have maintained this
property for many years.
We are requesting that offsite condition as required in Tract
9589 Dec. 16, 1976 County of S.B. Planning Commission sub-
division requirement as per page of 7, line 1 -8 be waived
by City of Ranclla Cucamonga, as per above.
I As owner of Tract 9589 property, along with the Porters, Ms.
Bess Atkinson and other Red Hill property owners, we trust
the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will recommend the
waiver of requested offsite private road 'offer of dedication"
'i and improvement requirements for. final tract map 9589, as a
i condition for final tract map approval by City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
i Sincerely,
1
W. Richard Bates
Ah Encls.
0
K AND B DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
160 CENTENNIALWAY, SUITE 6 0 TUSTIN. CALIFORNIA 92680
W. RICHARD BATES. PRESIDENT
April 17, 1978
Mr. Kenneth Topping
Director of Planning
San Bernardino County
1111 Third Street
San Bernardino, CA
RE: Tract 9589
Dear Mr. Topping,
As owner of tract 9589 property, we are requesting that
San Bernardino planning Director and Planning Commission,
the acting Director of Planning and Rancho Cucamunga City
Council waive tract 9589 sub - division December 16, 1976
San Bernardino planning commission approved condition
page 4 of 7 line 1 - 8; namely:
"A standard 26' paved section shall be contracted on
proposed Sierra Vista including offsite easement to
properly handle vehiWlar traffic and drainage through
this area, Sierra Vista shall be offered for Dedication
with proper set back lines established for future con-
struction of standard street. Typical section of Pro-
posed "A" street shall be to collection standards ".
Owner /Developer is requesting that aforementioned apply
only to Sierra Vista, as per the County Suiveyor and
County Flood control, transportation, planning department
etc., approved final tract map 9589 and improvement plans
tract 9589 on site property.
Tract 9589 map and improvement conditions applicable to
private road off site improvements and offer of dedication
and accompanying requirements by County /City of Cucamunga,
affecting private road easement and property owned by
Mr. and Mrs. George Porter and Ms. Bess Atkinson shall not
be required for continued processing and final tract 9589
approval by S.B. County /City of Cucamunga by owner /developer
tract 9589.
The reasons for this request:
i:1 1. This relief is requested under S.B. County ordinance
0
Page '2
�o. 2041 C. San Bernardino County Sub - division design and improvement
tandards section (2) item (F) access to sub - division: "The sub-
division and each phase thereof shall have two points of vehicular inr
gress and egress from existing and surrounding streets one of which
may be emergency only. Where it can be shown that this requirement
is a physical impossibility on a'cul -de -sac of six hundred feet or
less is proposed, this requirement may be waived."
1. Sub- division owner has complied with all county sub- division
requirements except securing the "private road" easement offer of
dedication and driveway and drainage facility reconstruction, tract
9589, as per attached copies, for off site portion of Sierra Vista
from George W. and Lynette Porter and Mary Bess Atkinson.
2. K and B Development Company as successors to Tract 9589 tract
property previously owned by Mr and Mrs. Robert G. Beloud, owns
tight of ingress and egress via 30 ft. private road easement through
Porter - Atkinson property, between tract 9589 property and Camino
Sur via off site Sierra Vista.
The three owners of this private road easement are Porter, Atkinson
and Bates (K and B Development Company).
3. Mr.and Mrs. Porter and Ms Atkinson do not wish to give up this
private road easement control to S. B. County /City of Cucamunga by
flecuting 'offer of dedications" as per attachments. Even though
ese governmental bodies intend not to accept offer of dedications,
e present and or future governmental bodies have option to accept
and thus ability to change Sierra Vista from private road to public
street.
4. Mr. and Mrs. Porter and Ms Atkinson are willing to cooperate
with K and B Development Company in development of tract 9589 in
granting easement to Cucamunga water district to construct water
and sewer line in private road easement (off site Sierra Vista)
provided tract 9589 owner /developer will connect their respective
residences to sewer and water lines installed in Sierra Vista
private road off site).
5. Tract 9589 owner has been accurring extra ordinary developement
expenses and delays since November 1977, due to inability to secure
"off site offer of dedication signatures from Mr.and Mrs. Porter and
Ms Atkinson.
a. Clearance for this item by developer has prohibited S.B. County
.surveyor from processing tract 9589, since November 1977, for sewer.
certification under S.B. County Planning Director Kenneth C. Topping
"June 10, 1977, inter office memo " which constitutes directive for
County Surveyor Department of Building and Safety, Cucamunga water
District, Chino Water District and County Enviornmental Health Service
for any tract in West End of San Bernardino County, specifically tract
89.
b. This delay in processing, due to this problem, has endangered
position of tract 9589 for sewer allocation when sewer hook -up
page 3
becomes available for Rancho Cucamunga Projects.
5. County Transportation Department has cooperated with developer
in arssuring. that Sierra Vista (tract 9589 on site) will be private
street for.emer enc�yy u�sse��on�1�X by approvin "crash gate" installation
at Sierra ista en ran�from via Huerte tract 9589 street).
We respectfully and urgently request the granting of this waiver,
since it will permit:
1) The county surveyor to immediately procede with tract
9589 sewer position allocating processix.g.
2) Submission of tract 9589 to City of Cucamonga for
final tract approval and subsequent recording.
3) Off site portion of Sierra Vista to remain under control
of present property owners with right of ingress and egress
by owner of the present 30 ft'recorded easement between
tract 9589 property and Camino Sur Via offsite portion of
Sierra Vista.
We believe this is to the best interest of property owners George
and Lynette Porter, Mary Bess Atkinson and W. Richard Bates/ K
and B Development Company owner tract 9589 property..
® Sincere Sr
'W. Richard ates
`Yj v
k�tt
n
0
LAWRENCE C. BRAGG
A PROPCSSIONAI. LAW CORPORATION
;._ LAWRCNCC C. 5- ..G 7966 SOUTH PAIRTCR AVLHUC ,
JOSEPH A. v'R..11:0 WHIMIER, CALIrOR111A rO60R'
696 -s5SA I
January 25, 1979 PLCA69 RCPLT TO
15 +6+ CAST OALC AVCNUC
HACICNOA NC19NT6, CAUIORNM aw% 1
961 -lA51
Edward A. Hopson
Assistant City Attorney
City of Rancho Cucamonga
C.VINGTON & CROWE
-047 West Sixth Street
?ntario, CA 91762
RE: Tract No, 9589 '(K & S Development Company)
Dear fir • Hopson:
In accordance with the instructions in your letter of
J2.nsary 17, 1979, please find a revised "Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ". We have
made all the changes requested in your letter, There- .
fore please find the original of said Declaration.
for your perusal.
Should there be any further questions or changes please
let us know immediately.
Thr.nk you fo= your continued courtesy and cooperation
in this matter.
Yours truly,
P LAWRENCE C. PRAGG
tM
i
W
v
C
r
w
a
Y
E
r
Y
C
A
kL
�
1
e O Y •
M Y
Y
N Y N {•
y •yC�
• w
u ■
•�i N r
M FaY Y =O
r Y S
S s Y $
u
= V Y 0
E w S
� Y
� 5 b •
et
Y ] Y
A C Y
p • •
C M T
E
Mpy
6
M
5
O
8
■$g
u
O
L
O
a
O
F
r
S a Y M tl Y Y E C •.=pi M
~ m ~ E Y all
M r
(((C• C Y • q] 4p N W M
0 126
OM
�1 y� N M4a M ~ � O �Y6• Mb� M ntpM
9 YY ■ Y
7 IY pFr • M Y p ~
{Y O d ± •try '
M ■ W (fir. Y4 eU Sp M aY �a
u 1•M y uO J ■O1 r M ..Cb1 v •
P M C P + • 4 p • 11 • C
M C Y ,u■ M 0
E
e s w w • O w O
�+ >• n p C � p G Y L i Y y
M a1 q w
.~pi S U � y F w • .S 1+ Y e
L = Y ~ O M N w S
O
u
•
M
•
Y
..Yj
Y
F
M
•
�
O
w
M
Y
u
r
w
Y
Y
G
L
M
•
Y
V
Y
•
O
Y
O�
Y
Y
Y
y
w
Y
O
w
�`
u
O
K
W
•M
Y
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
F
■
Y
w
]
+�
>■
C
•
N
W
y
F
Y
yl
=
Y
Y
w
it
Y
r1
Y
F
Y
M
Y
go.
M
Y
C
C
Z
N
Y
�
O
Q
M
w
O
�
•
Y
■
Y
Y
M
•p
p
Y
ip
Y
w
C
Y
Y
Y
C
i
-•
Y
r
Y
x
w
V
Y
6
/x
w
L
Y
O
M
x
G
Y
Y
YY
Y
Y
Y
M
Y
M
Y
>
Y
r
0O
Y
C
■
O
Y
+
M
Y
~
Fy
�
6
Y
M
Y
'
p�C+
y'1
•
Y
.Y•
Y
N
W
O
9
M
W
M
tl
•
Y.•
Y
P
•/1
O
Y
O
Y
M
W
•
Y
Y
Y
w
M
•N
Y
G
6
O
�
w
•
~
w
w
w
w
a
u
YY
P
9
„ C
O
q
S
•H
V Q
F
a p }
V
,�.
•ui
A
•
w
Y
Y
w
Y
w
•
r
-�
C
a
Y
A
LY
Y
E
F!1
M
Y
b
•
•�
Y Y
i
W
v
C
r
w
a
Y
E
r
Y
C
A
kL
�
1
e O Y •
M Y
Y
N Y N {•
y •yC�
• w
u ■
•�i N r
M FaY Y =O
r Y S
S s Y $
u
= V Y 0
E w S
� Y
� 5 b •
et
Y ] Y
A C Y
p • •
C M T
E
Mpy
6
M
5
O
8
■$g
u
O
L
O
a
O
F
r
S a Y M tl Y Y E C •.=pi M
~ m ~ E Y all
M r
(((C• C Y • q] 4p N W M
0 126
OM
�1 y� N M4a M ~ � O �Y6• Mb� M ntpM
9 YY ■ Y
7 IY pFr • M Y p ~
{Y O d ± •try '
M ■ W (fir. Y4 eU Sp M aY �a
u 1•M y uO J ■O1 r M ..Cb1 v •
P M C P + • 4 p • 11 • C
M C Y ,u■ M 0
E
e s w w • O w O
�+ >• n p C � p G Y L i Y y
M a1 q w
.~pi S U � y F w • .S 1+ Y e
L = Y ~ O M N w S
O
1
1
N
i
F
M
•
�
O
M
�
M
Y
u
•~'•
Y
nAi
•y
Y
Y
•
9
O
L
M
•
Y
t
N
O
G
�
>•
O
Y
�
Y
ti
Y
Y
Y
Y
OJ
�`
u
O
•.•
y
9
W
•M
Y
S
Y
Y
x
Y
b
M
F
■
M
O
Y
w
IC
]
+�
>■
C
•
N
W
M
M
F
Y
yl
WOW
N
M
(Yp
Y
w
it
Y
r1
Y
F
Y
M
Y
go.
M
Y
C
C
Z
N
Y
�
O
Q
M
w
O
�
•
Y
■
Y
Y
M
•p
p
Y
ip
Y
w
C
Y
Y
Y
C
i
-•
Y
r
Y
x
w
V
Y
6
/x
w
L
Y
O
M
x
G
Y
Y
YY
Y
Y
M
C
M
Y
J
•
N
O w
■
O
Y
+
M
Y
~
Fy
l
Y
M
Y
'
p�C+
y'1
~
Y
~�•
l•
Y
N
W
O
9
M
W
M
tl
•
Y.•
Y
P
•/1
O
Y
O
Y
M
W
•
Y
Y
Y
w
M
•N
Y
G
Y
�
b
Y
O
~
O
O
Y
u
Y
u
YY
P
9
„ C
O
q
S
•H
V Q
F
a p }
u
,�.
Y
W
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
�
C
w
o
Y
�
A
•b M
N
M
Y
�
O
Y Y
'J5
D O
u
1.1
Q=J
L
w
Y
G
C
x
=
V
Yf
[K� •~-•
C
iTy
i
Y
SC
y
w
b
C
Y
Y
O•
A
�
Y
Y
x'
.r
M
6
L
M
.�1
�yJ
P
•
w
•
Y
Y
M
tl
L
Y
Y
N
w
F
Y
P
N
p
>
P
p �
�l
•L
s
y
M
N
w
Y
y
ip
Y
Y
pwp
eyye[�
w
O
L
•J
u
W
w
n1
O
.•p.
Y
.ti
w
N
•
w
Y
M
y
y
O
C
M
7
N
•
P
Y
>•
Y
C
Y
N
Y
Y
p
C
t{rw
1Yyfi
Y
.pi
•
Cy
E
N
x
Y
b
M
t
Y
Y
Y
y
Y
y
q
FZ <n
O
Y
Y
•
.•1
Y
O
L
Y
•Wi•
P
•Yy
Y
'CJ
O
•
N
Y
O
Y
•
j
M
W
�y'
N
Y
M
Y
w
Y
w
M
w
Y
Y
V
C
w
•
Lip
N
wn
(�
W_�r•
F•
W
K
Cc
••i
Y
y
ii
Y
Y
9
Y
C
i
i
M
Y
M
N
Y
5
�
y
w
f•,
w
O
Y
~
=
w
+
,
a
of
J�
N
>•
•
�
�
D
F
L
�
O.
�
w
u
�
N
C
M
w
V
O
C
w
Y
CO
w
6
w
•ti
�
Y
u
r
O
P.
p
Y
O
N
Y
uC
r1
E
4
N
y�•
N
M
.-
J•
u
u
aD
~
u
C
Y
U
u
Y
Y
4
O
w
M
C
Y
S
b
Y
9
4
w
O
oo
J
E
N
C
V
��••
N
Chi
P
Y
S
A
K
Z
�•
Y
r
_
y
'.\
A
C
hY
•
ti•
1
1
N
i
0
•
y � V C � • .+ T F r
n Y N L M
1 Y� p r Y {Qp \� C s• tl Y � V Y • • •J y 1 T
N tl Y n F 'JV 9 M Y
9c 6 A P M O A Y b T ✓ • Y � C R Y
K G L C Y L O Y tl O N y Y L Y L p M L Y y Y Y w W S Y 0 Y IrLi
/rj ti Y M L Y 9 L O Y Y R Y Y O •J N tl Y ✓ 'M O Y 4 C O 9
i N F Y Y
O Y L Y Y ti Y ✓ r O Y n Y M • W Y ! M Y 9 L ] • Y W Y Y
L Y N A +1 L K 9 JS C T L
.,. u VI a .•1 C C V W 9 ✓' u V• O u C F A Y• Y� tl tl'A Y W Y C R
Wu = O a • N O Cy u M 7 O L O e Y O r w •Oy = w O r u M Y
.•i w � 9 • O A L L u n
s u L O w u A y N b V tl i Y w a • ■ N N O ~ e 9 y w C
R 10 pHpCi C 9 ✓ w 9 V 7 d w 9 O Y w • Y C r O C Y Y Y tl M N Y «
w 9 C ? C u Y Y C Y u .tl• « w i G v < •y+ O u Y Y
'O C • y +"1 L Y y Y Y O N Y Y Y W Y ••1 W Y G U • O
�+ w• 9 Y C O 9 iK O L W Y W Y O • w Y
r •J Y MY Y {j' ,O • Y F C Y W Y 9 O i N O V M Y N
OU
O .� Y b w >o �• W R Y V y u 9 u v O 6 A N t
N Y C Y Y A aAi IL• Y A Y w • y Y • Y Y O ✓
� � N L O • Y Y C • u L Y
L ~ .• L u Y R C W L w Y w 9 w
�lTiS•. Y q W ■ V N ✓ Y Y q ✓ Y C Y C
O q tl O M y n ! .1 O « W • O Yp O u L w � C
4 r M Y w N Y 6 Y O O w L Y C Y « W nL « Y A 6 O w n +,•
O N Y O r •O Y 'O Y Y V u Y
y w r BY O « 7_ O Y A .L•� Y C M 9 VO ^ t M w O O O Y M V c
P V O A O Y Y n N y GY Y ✓ ti . Y Y M tl p u Y N Y A N
it e Y « y Y
C Y N �'• Y R Y n 1. Y •■y Y W Y Y Y Y O 9 O Y ■ •"1 L ti Y
Y F• • r+ y • M N Y F U Y G • O O Y Y J • Y ^' O y u q O
A W ! L O • O •YI H A O !. Y • ^ YG Y .,� Y W tl C W L Y
!C .i G •'• q •d W Y G Y O tl CY y O p Y
yl • 9 P L i C « L Y, « O Q V W Y O O � L a
� 9 i d •~ • Y M A ,
• • Y W Y w Y H i w V w P L L
�Y .•i w Y Y O • W q p y Cp •i. Y A Y y • O
N i M Ag Y N q G C Y H O O O C 0 L ✓ L • O •J !J L 'O
SL 9 Y Y M A W C Y cA 9 p /L C. 'Y W Wp p '. LO L
1+ Y C • V C « O � ~ y •
N 6 • Y u tl y Y w 9 Y F � A Y a C �
Fl .O 9 C tl T L Y w • Y
r y u
• Y M A O y Y O •'� i W
� ✓ w O N Y w .+ M 0. O O
T 1
U Y V tl
Y Y u C -� C Yt •
tl 4 � � W p ■ O T L Y W Y
Y • Y N Y F• 'O "'• y Y L • W
9 N Y C V Y Y 4 L s ;
L w• N C • 9 u r O • • i••
L • Y Y Y O Y 9 C q O Y � Y 9 I••
4 M « W O C Y N V ~ C C L F w 9 y
G T •J • � O V ■ W O P w • � ? •a
4 Y ti P Y~ O Y O N O e C w V C
q O Y !. � Y • .1 Y G Y p • N N • •• N
Y Y Y • Y y O V N „Y, • W Y rl Y F F
t 'I Y 9 Y Y L L V 1'• C Y • L Y ! U Y
Y j N• u O « V u y ? u o y d • A O u M u
Y P Y « W Y C O 9 Y A W u O
O T u k L � ■ _ � 0 w O ry !. Y ptl ■ O Y
= ± O $ � u N Y Y• l Y T Y
Y V Y ■ Y u
ti O Y Y e 9 • p O LO Y
Y P M Y 'Y U v Y • «
� G • w u C L
O y q V Y • Y C C O V Y L Y • tl
O tl V C O Y ti ' •
Q ~ 00 Y �'• A Y W Y Y M{ W
r p Y MY• 9 • « O « M w � P uQ C O u ; 6 9
Y ■U w Y OC Y C Y Y V w tl % L rj ^I !• W
�• 6 Y y Y Y N
Y � M L w C ■ F � Y A .+ • Y L N •
C Y H L T Y A
Y • V L �Y• � Wy C
tN o p � T N • .� Y •• L .0,
C Yuu Y M F Y 4 w Y Y - G • W Y N Y
O C G Y i • Y Y O t u • Y Y
Y Y C S
■■ Y t
W G ■ t Y T N y w M 9 7 u Y • Y N y,
O Y r+ u r � •� • M � .qYi � YI o C ■
P U q u W O
Y Y +l w O 0 0 M • V
0
I
J
A
C
O
u
CO
Y
Y F
OY
v
y
M Y Y
tl
W
8
MD
9
M
O
N
W
Y
C
•
Yw.N•OM'ON
A C1NCY
Y
Y
NY
b
yy
M
P
Y
N C Y 1p 4 N ■
�
�
rqYIfiY Pw
Lu
u
i
w
Cpl
N
MW
tYW YL
WN
U
H
•
Y
Ntl YFY
Nw
Y
P
Y
�N
w•
C A"
L V
N y Y
••� Y
C
M
Y
Y
R
••
N
OY
C�W YYw wW
vY
Y
O
•'1
w
� 4 0
Y
V
W
Y q
w Y N Y
MYOA)f
K
A
j
V
O
NP
MqJ
Y
O
W
WMU Y"Ce
J
N
^ly
V
y
y
MO.
q
iy
9 w YPN �r••n
y
N
w
w
uY
O.
N
�
4
Y
O
Y 0wLY Do c
4:
J
�
Phi
Y
w
z
Viu
a�•tiN�.�F
W
Y
?
Y
M
04
O
Y
Y
q
H
Y4
RwCwugw
N
•y
N
L
P
NL
YYe Yw
•!
F
11"o Y Y
Nwti
FO
Y
W
F
•M
V
a
O
u
«
Y~
uC MO OU -✓
Y W w Y 0
W
C
Np
Y
Y
i
•
Y L •
'o
.M
S
-0 C
u4 , •••KO
•+•�
,I
Y
q
Y
O
yCp
YW
ML{Y
u�FFyyY
Ui ONO
Y
M
O
F•
G
o.�-1
u
O yw
«
q
•
M
'•
L
P
�
Y
N
6
i
Y
q
C•
Y
W
Y
O
Y
O
Y
Y
tl
Y
Y
fl
P
••
0
I
J
A
T
u
r
u
•
r
o
e
~
.
O
Y
•
1V+
y
M
ay
c0000c
Y
v
+
•
v
u
a
O
W
-
.ui
w
r
u
w
P
w
w
b
u
..
+
v 1
Y
W
k
a
Y•
u N
'!• � 1
y
.1
F
Y
M
O
Y
ty
•
W
O
•
Y
O
a
Y
~
Y
+
w
n
T
•
a
>•
1+
c
Y
T
woo
7
u
L
'1
Y
Y
u
u
.
o
w
M
kkC
Y
C
„
•
O
t
yy�Yji
5
tl
O
G+
�
A
Y
uyr
w
n~i
u
A
u
�
p
u
*
•+i
u
F
T
>i
J.
EXHIBIT A
That portion of Lot 9, Red Hill Subdivision, as per plat recorded
in Book 21 of Maps, Page 33, Records of San Bernardino County,
described as follows:
,
E
COMMENCING at the northwest corner of said Lot 9; thence south
20 °24.48" east, 308.70 feet; thence south 89 °59'14" east, 63.35
feet to the TRUE POI14T OF BEGINNZNG; thence north 03 °35127" east,
77.11 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave to the
southeast and having a radius of 75.00 feet; zence northeasterly
along said curve through a central angle of 96 026119 ", a distance
of 126.24 feet; thence south 79 058114" east, 49.04 feet; thence
south 18 °41146" west,136.08 feet; thence north 89 059114" west,
146.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
i. o
COVINGTON & CROWE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MAURICE G. COVINGTON T4v�pHE
HAROLD A. BAILIN 1047 WC5T SIXTH STREET Ifl�l oR „1�,1
SAMUEL CROWE POST OFFICE SOX ISIS
GCORGE W. PORTER
ROBERT E. DOUGHERTY ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 01762
DONALD G. HASLAN '
ROBERT F. SCHAUER
EDWARD A. HOPSON December 2, 1977
J•AMTHONT SMITH
to
K & B Development Company s g
160 Centennial'Way, Suite 6
...���,,,��J Tustin, California 92680 RECEIV -�
g
Attention: W. Richard Bates, President DEC 61977' _
iw
W E pWiNING DUA&IVENT,
RE- George W. and Lynette Porter
Ma Bess Atkinson
ract No- 958
Dear Mr. Bates:
0
11
Please be advised that we represent Mr- and Mrs. George W.
Porter and Ms. Mary Bess Atkinson, owners of property contiguous
to your proposed Tract No. 9589. Our clients are in receipt of
your recent letters and enclosures regarding requested dedications
and easements relative to an existing private road, commonly
referred to as Sierra Vista, proposed to be used as southwest
ingress and egress to your tract. _
The easements created in 1957 by grant to Mr. and Mrs. Robert
G. Beloud clearly specify that they were confined "for private
roadway purposes” over the real property subject to the easements
(now owned by our clients).. The use of the private roadway
exercised by the Belouds for their single family residence has
never violated the spirit or letter of the easements and has
resulted in minimal impact on the privacy of our clients.
However, our clients have no
this private roadway easement to
person or entity. The proposed u
of your 36 -lot tract would impose
legal rights to the restricted us
desires to retain the relatively
state cf the property.
intention whatsoever of allowing
be overused by you or any other
se of the easemerlt by the residents
substantial burdens on both their
e of this roadway and their personal
secluded nature of the current
.i
Neither Mr. or Mrs. Porter nor Ms. Atkinson will offer to
dedicate any property to the County of San Bernardnno nor will
they grant an easement to K & B Development Company, as proposed,
which expands the current allowable use of the property- Therefore,
demand is hereby made that you redesign your subdivision to Eliminate
the proposed increased use of Sierra Vista. Additionally, you are
hereby on notice that this easement, for private roadway purposes only,
is not to be used for water mains, lines, water hook -up, or any
other use not expressly allowed in the 1.957 grants of easement.
X & B Development Company
Page Two
December 2, 1977
Ms. Atkinson and Mr. and Mrs. George W. Porter feel
strongly about this proposed unauthorized use of their property
subject to the existing limited easement and will oppose such use
by asserting any-and all legal rights which they may have under
the circumstances. As the requirement for this western ingress and
egress may have beer. placed upon you without consideration of the`
restricted nature of the legally authorized current use,'by copy
of this letter we are advising appropriate county officials and
departments of our demands and opposition.
Please feel free to contact me with regard to the foregoing
at your convenience.
i ectfully 4CE
rd A. HoCOVINGTO
l
EAH:sl
cc: Deputy County Counsel Clark Alsop
Ms. Mary Bess Atkinson
Mr. Robert Beloud
Mr. Joe Colley
Mr. John Egan, John Egan & Associates
Mr. and Mrs. George W. Porter
Mr. Tom Stephens✓
Ms. Lucile Lantz, Ontario Savings & Loan
Foothill Fire Protection District
Date:
To:
From:
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCPMONGA
STAFF REPORT
MarsSi 14, 1979
Planning Commission
Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
0
Subject: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -15 - CROWELL /LEVENTHAL, INC.
The development of a professional office complex on
8.94 acres of land located on the southeast corner of
Baseline and Carnelian
BACKGROUND: Crowell /Leventhal is requesting apprcval to develop a profes-
sional office complex consisting of a total of 76,780 square feet of building
area on 8.94 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Baseline and
Carnelian (Exhibit "A"). Exhibit "B" is a description of the project as
submitted by the applicant. The subject site is presently zoned C -1 and
General 21anned for mixed uses. As the Commission will recall, this site
was recently rezoned to C -1 with restrictions to the type of uses that would
be permitted in order to allow development that would be in conformance with
the General Plan. As caa be seen from the description provided by the appli-
cant, the proposed uses will conform with those restrictions.
ANALYSIS: The site as indicated on the development plan is adequate in size
and shape to accommodate the proposed lases, parking areas, landscaping and
other features of the development. The improvements as indicated on the plan
are located in such a manner that till properly relate to existing and proposed
street improvements.
Access is provided to the development by two driveways
driveways off of Carnelian appropriately spaced and in
access policy developed by the Planning Commission. Th
of the building areas on the site equals 76,780 square
384 parking spaces by the Zoning Ordinance. The plan
432 spaces; an excess of 48 parking spaces.
off of Baseline and two
conformance with the
e total square footage
feet which would require
as proposed is indicating
The preliminary landscaping plan shown in Exhibit "C" indicates a substantial
amount of landscaping around all perimeters of the development, along street
frontages and within the parking areas. The landscape plan was drawn on the
original site plan prior to revisions; however, the concept of landscaping
remains the same. Features along the street frontages include mounded turf and
meandering walkways. Dense landscaping will be provided along the south property
line to act as a buffer to residences to the south of the property. A detailed
section of the south property line will be on display at the Planning Commission
meeting for your review.
Exhibits D, B, F & G display the exterior elevations of the buildings. Materials
of the buildings will include red mission clay tile, tan slumpstone concrete
block, solar bronze glass with dark bronze annodized aluminum frames, redwood
facias with transparent stain and textured stucco. Harnish, Morgan and Causey
Architects are designing the Ontario Suvings and Loan Building and have coor-
dinated the materials with the other buildings on the site. Colored elevations
and site plat_ will be on display at the -;eeting.
ITEM "I"
Environmental review of this project was included with the environmental review
of the parcel map which is also on this agenda under the consent calendar items.
Staff could.find no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result
of this project and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends the Planning Commission approve
Director Review No. 79 -15 by the adoption of the attached Resolution No. 79 -24
R pectf W11 submitted,
Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:MV:cc
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Plan
Exhibit "B" Project Description
Exhibit "C" Preliminaty Landscaping
Exhibit D, E, P, G Building Elevations ;
Resolution No. 79 -24 _
0
3
1,
., . . ,
.y
'�
n
aFv
We propose to construct a top quality commercial center on a 10 acre parcel
at the southeast corner of Baseline and Carnelian. The proposed commercial site is
zoned C -1 and is in accordance with the City's General Plan. The City of Rancho
Cucamonga is a fast growing community and is in need of more commercial centers to
provide services for its' growing population.
The unique design of this center will be a focal point in the community and
will become a valuable asset in regards to providing services and aesthetical
appearance to the City.
The center will consist of the following:
1; A 64,620 s.f. office complex of which 20% will be leased as commercial
retail, and 80% will be professional
2) A 5,600 a.f. restaurant offering in -house eating facilities and the
serving of alcoholic beverages.
3) A 3,060 s.f. satellite building of which all or part will be a gourmet
delicatessen. There will be no food consumed on the premises and in
no way will it be considered to be a fast food restaurant.
4) A 3,292 s.f. savings and loan building.
Sufficient studies have been made to insure the need and capacity of the
surroundings to accept this center. All surrounding roads will be improved to
City standards, if not already completed, so as to provide for the optimum traffic
capacity.
•�1
I
1
1,.
L'
•
\�. rt �� � rEll tt t� tt r
i .
��_:
.: i" _'
it
': �
'f.•
\.
��_:
.: i" _'
w.
` Nr1d Iva
e
I
-
1
Iff I - �I•,1 :
r dr i
N111�1tyy�
ILI
V
' all& r.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -13
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12
LOCATED AT 8030 VINEYARD IN THE C-2 ZONE.
WHEREAS, on the 15th day of August, 1978, a complete application
was filed for review of
the above described project; and
WHL'REAS, on the
14th day of March, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held
a` meeting to consider the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1.
That the site indicated by the development plan is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate the pro-
posed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fenceP,
parking, landscaping, loading and other features
required by this section.
2.
That the improvements as indicated on the develop-
ment plan are located in such a manner as to be
.
properly related to existing and proposed streets
and highways.
3.
That the improvements as shown on the development
plan are consistent with all adopted standards and
policies as set forth in this section.
_.
SECTION 2: That this pro,Sect will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and
that a Yeaative Declaration is issued on March 14,
1979.
SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 78-12 is approved subject to the
following conditiruns:
ApI.,.icant shall
contact the Planning Division for compliance with the
following conditions:
1.
Compliance with all zoning ordinance provisions.
2.
The site shall be developed in accordance with the
approved site plan on file in the Planning Division
snd enndi'cions adopted by the Planning Commission. .
3.
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Plannin- Division
AVprior
to the issuance of building permits.
4.
The applicant shall maintain all landscaped areas in
a healthy and thriving condition, free from weed, trash 7'
i{fi
and debris. r'
v' 1
5.
Any roof mounted equipment shall be screened from
view from all adjacent properties. Screening
materiel anall blend with the architectural feature
of the buildings.
6.
Any proposed signs require review rnd approval by the
Planning Division prior to installation.
7.
This approval shall become null and void if building
permits are not issued for this project within one
year from tha date of approval of the zone change.
Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for
compliance with the following conditions:
8.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
applicant shall submit a cash deposit with the City
to cover the cost of landscaping and permanent
street improvements consisting of curb, gutter,
sidewalk and match -up paving on San Diego Avenue.
In addition, the applicant shall provide plans and
street improvements consisting of A.C. paving and
dike along the interim San Diego Avenue location
prior to occupancy.
9.
Prior to oczupany, revised street plans consisting
of curb, gutter, sidewalk and commercial drive
approach a minimum of 30 feet wide shall be provided
along Vineyard Avenue.
10.
Street dedication and improvements shall be in
conformance with the currently adopted Master Plan
of Streets and Highways and to the specification of the
City Engineer.
11.
Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer.
12.
All damaged off site public works 'facilities,
including parkway trees, shall be repaired prior
to occupancy to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13.
Water supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall be
provided to the speciacation of the Cucamonga
County Water District and the City Engineer with all
incidental fees paid by the developer. Written
verification that all requirements have been met shall
be supplied at the time of building permit application.
14.
All proposed utilities within ;:he project sldll be
installed underground.
-
15.
Developer shall coordinate and pay for the relocation
of any power poles or other existing public utilities
as required.
Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance
with the followi.np conditions: _.
•c:
tWr,
16. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance
with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National
Electric Code, and all other applicable City codes.
Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for
compliance with the following conditions:
17. Prior to the issuance of building permits verification
that all requirements of the Foothill Fire District
shall be met and submitted to the Building Official.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regula-. meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 14th day of March, 1979 by the following vote to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
W
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF F'.HPORT
DATE: March 14, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Site Approval No. 79 -04 - McKeever - The development of a
4,400 sq. ft. building for use as a child day care center,
located on the west side of Hellman Avenue aot,th of 19th
Street, 6730 Hellman Avenue.
BACKGROUND: As the Planning Commission will recall, this item was continued
from the February 28 meeting because the applicant wets asked to complete a
detailed traffic and h dr atu er. �e E2%ueat
was made ecause o the questionable ability of Rellmtan Avenue to andle
ncrease tratEic flow and water runott. since the e'8 th m0cing, trie
app LiCant has submitted a letter wit
_the Commission's re uest St�jpttrr ira + +' °�ha or
H- s�i�ila a F— a high cost of conducting such studies and the possibility
of denial after their completion. dye + aR lei *ot requests a decision
from the Planning Commission without further studies.
RECOMMENDATION: In light of the Planning Cormission's concerns expressed at
the February 28th meeting regarding traffic circulation and water flow, and
since the applicant is unwilling to supply studies to satisfy the Ca=:Lssion's
concerns, staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -17 denying Site
Approval No. 79 -04.
R pectf ly submitted,
Jack Lam, Director of
Co =ur±tty Development
JL:BNH:cc
Attach: Letter from Mr. Carl McKeever, dated March 6, 1979
Staff Report, dated February 28, 1979
Resolution No. 79 -17
ITEM "D"
r..
Mr. Bill Hoffman, City Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
California
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
0
March 61 1979
As you requested, we are notifying you of our decision not to provide
a study by a certified Traffic Engineer of the traffic flow on Hell-
man Street, nor will we provide a report from a certified Engineer on
the water flow that would result from the widening of Hellman Street
at the proposed site of Fbrest Park Preschool.
This decision was made _fter carefully considering the statements made
by the Planning Commissioners at the Public Hearing, as well as evalu-
ating other properties along Hellman. We would like to point out that
the Street has already been widened in front of several properties within
a block of the proposed site. If the water flow was not a problem in
widening the Street for these properties, it certainly could not be a
problem at the proposed preschool location sine it is at a higher ele-
vation and, therefore, would have less water accumulating.
The request for a study by a certified Traffic Engineer seems to be a
needless expense since the City's own Traffic Engineer had already pro-
vided such a study and on several occasions during the Hearing reported
that the Street presently had significantly less traffic each day than
it could accommodate, including the hours that the preschool would be
in operation. If the testimony of the City'a own Traffic Engineer is
not acceptable, most likely a report from someone wa hired and paid would
not be acceptable either.
In addition one of the Commissioners indicated that he would never vote
for the project if 50% of tha morning traffic for the preschool occurred
prior to 8 o'clock. Since the proposed facility would be a day care
center, it is obvious that thla would be the case.
For these reasons we would like the Commission to make its decision with -
out further studies. We still feel there is an urgent need for a pre -
school in your City and hope that it can be located on the proposed site.
Sincerely,
lad, l -1c, �ae�
Carl McKeever
19354 Abert
Rowland Heights, CA 91748
KI
wa&
William A. 11a rnhison
21237 Oerndal
Walnut, CA 91786
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
40 STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 28, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Site Approval No. 7q -04 - 141rKppver Thp development of a 4,400
sq. ft. building for use as a child day care center; located
on the west side of Hellman Avenue south of 19th Street, 6730
Hellman Avenue.
BACKGROUND: Mr. Carl McKeever proposes to build a 4,400 sq. ft. child day
care center on an 87 acre parcel at the above described location. The
center will accommodate 84 children who will be supervised by 8 employees.
The school's hours will be 6:30 a.m to 6:00 p.m.
The current zoning is R -1 (single family residential) and the general plar
designation is low density residential (2 -5 units per acre). A day care
facility is allowed in the R -1 zone upon Planning Commission approval.
ANALYSIS: The site is vacant and surrounded by single fnmily residences to
the north, south and east, and the Hellman wash to the west. A circular one -
way driveway will provide access to the site, the northern driveway serving as
the entrance. The required parking ratio is 1 space per employee plus one
space per students. The applicant proposes twenty -four spaces which meets
the zoning ordinance requirements.
The major issue associated with this project is the compatibility of a day
care center with single family residences. The Commission must 4ecide
whether this particular proposal would be detrimental to the surrounding
residences. Staff feels that a child day care center can t.? compe.tiole if
planned properly. The major problems associated with such centers are
traffic, noise generated by playing children, and location of play areas
in relation to neighboring properties.
The design of the parking drives and spaces will greatly reduce traffic
congestion on Hellman Avenue. Most traffic will occur between the hours of
7 :00 and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The, Enginecrinp Department tins
reviewed the potential traffic impact and has determine no significant
adverse impact will be created.
The play yard will be 6,800 sq. ft. in area and located to the rear of the
structure. A 5 foot chain link fence will enclose the yard and create a
setback of at least 20 feet from any adjacent property, thus, ensuring
protection for adjacent properties regarding noise and privacy intrusion.
The applicant proposes a dense landscape screen along both the northern
and southern property lines. Staff feels that landszaping will not provide
adequate noise reduction and recommends a 6' masonry ball be provided instead.
The total design of the center was intended to eliminate impacts on adjacent
residents.
ITEM "F"
-z-
Architecturally. the applicant proposes off -white stucco walls, with dark
wood trim and fascia, and a wood shingle roof (see elevation plans). A
colored rendition and a materiels display board will be on display at the
meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The parcel is devoid of any significant fauna or
flora. A Eucalyptus :Indrow located within the parkway will have to be
removed at the tfm street improvements are put in e..:? those trees w111 be
replaced on a one -for -one basis. Staff finds that removal of these trees
will not create a significant adverse environmental impact.
The environmental checklist indicates that no cultural, historical or scenic
resources are on this property. Staff has field checked the site and has
found no discrepancies with the checklist. Staff has found no other
significant nvironmental impacts associated with this project, therefore,
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in the Cucamonga
Times on February 16, 1979. Further, all property owners within 300' of
the subject site were notified by certified mail. At the time this report
was written, staff had received one phony call from an adjacent owner who
objected to the use. The caller was concerned about the center's impact on
the surrounding residents.
RECOMENDATIM Staff recommends adoption o.` Resolution No. 79 -17 approving
Site Approval No. 79 -04 allowing the development of a day care center at 6730
Hellman Avenue.
Res ectfully ubmltted,
J•.ck Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:BNR:cc
Attachments: Site Plan
Elevation Plar.
Initial Study
Resolution No. 79 -17
n
n
E
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -12
0
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -C4
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RAMONA AVENUE
AND FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE C -2 ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 9th day of January, 1979, a complete application
was filed for review of the above described project; and
WHEREAS on the 14th day of February, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described plEe-
ject and said project was continued to February 28, 1979.
FII:EREAS, on the 14th day of March, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planing Commission considered the revised project.
NCr;, THEEEFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING_-CnwMISSION RESOLVED
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following finc-,ags ha+e been made:
1. That the site indicated by the development plan is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate the pro-
posed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences,
parking, landscaping, loading and other features
required by this section.
2. That the = mprovenents as indicated on the develop -
went plan are located in such a manner as to be
properly related to existing and proposed street-.s
and highways.
3. That the improvements as shown on the development
plan are consistent with all adupted standards and
policies as set forth in this section.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on February 14,
1979.
�a
SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -04 is approved subject to the
following conditions:
Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for com-
pliance with the following conditions:
1. The landscape plan shall be resubmitted prior to the
issuance of building permits. It shall use Califor-
nia pvcamores, pine trees, other deciduove or ever -
green tries. Additionally, there shall be a substan-
tial number of speciman trees used along Foothill
3': Boulevard and Ramona Avr-,nue.
-2-
2. All parking lot trees shall be a mLnimum of 15
gallon size.
3. The sidewalk as shown on the landscape plan shall
,�:;�ander within the distance from the curb face to
the building setbac:. line. Approval of the coastruc-
tion of this sidewalk shall be to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and the Director of Community Develop-
ment.
4. Any lighting proposed for the parking lot area shall be
a maximum 12 feet high Yrom the finish grade of the
parking lot and shall be shielded from bleeding onto
adjacent properties or streets.
5. The applicant shall submit a uniform sign program
indicating the s -.ze, tocatiarn, material, colors,
and illumination if piaposed, of signing for the
center prior to occupancy. Included on this applica-
tion shall be the freestanding sign proposal. Signing
shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division.
6. Approval of this application shall expire one year
from the date of approval unless exercised by the
issuance of a building permit.
Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for com-
pliance with the following conditions:
7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit verifica-
tion that all requirements o' the Cucamonga County
Water District shall be met fa= sewer and water.
8. Prior to occupancy, drive approaches and street trees
shall be provided along Foothill blvd. and Ramona
Avemte in conformance with city standards. Street
lights are required along Foothill Blvd. The develcper
shall coordinate installation and location with the
Southern California Edison Company and the City.
9. Pri�c to the issuance of a building permit, grading
y and drainage plans shall be designed and approved
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Water
x shall not be gathered by artificial means, discharged,
damned, or surface flows obstructed so as to cause
p ,toblem for downstream properties. Concentrated flows
across drivedpys• ar sidewalks are prohibited. Park-
way drains per city standards shall be used.
10. Repair and paving of alleys and streets shall be in
conformance with city standards and completed prior
to occupancy.
M: . .
e 11. The driveway proposed on Foothill shall be redesigned
to provide joint access for the adjacent parcel with
reciprocal access agreements provided and recorded
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
City Attorney.
Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance
with the following conditions:
12. All building plans shall be prep:.red in compliance with
the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric
Code, and all other applicable city codes.
Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for
compliance with the following conditions:
13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, verifica-
tion that all requirements of the Foothill Fire Dis-
trict shall b= met for fire anti safety.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979.
PLANNING C(11MISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA14ONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planzi+;g Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolut'on 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 Commis-
sion halo on the 14th day of March, 1959, by the following vote to -wit;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ASSENT: COWITISSIONERS:
i
i
v ri
0
i'r,
aw or rARC110 I'M *Atli
INITIAL STUDY
PART S - PROJI• :C'r INFORMATION SKEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
For all projects requiring envi.rnnmrntil review, this
form must be completed and sul?mi.tted to the development
Review Committee through the department where the
project- application is made. Upon receipt of this i
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Drvcl (%anent review
Comm'"'" will meet and hake action no later than ten
(10) days before the public. mooting at which time the ,
project is t-o be heard. The Committee will make one of
throo determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative heclarntion will be
failed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an rnvironmental Impact Re)�ort will be prepared, or
3) An arlditi.onll info pact
report should be supplied
by the nPillicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Goli-IC : r �� L
- - - - -�
NMIr, All"IMSS, TF)•P..r1iom Or PERSON
CON�rLRl1��NG TIIIS _ FiiOJECT: AA11"111fl
I
°ILLr
Pt_°VECTt
'yicyi
( 7 llnnlll'S `nNl)
�
71SSIiSSGR PAR Cr•,L NO.)
i
,2 ,
LIST OTHLR
FEDERAI, ]1GLNCIL'sS
FrITTS
NECESSARY PROM LOCAL,
RrGIONAL- STATE AbM
AND
THE AGENCY ISiU NG
SUCli PEA4ITS-
I-
PROJ Ec•r i?rsclll P•r IoN '
DSSCRIr•rioN Or PROJECT
ACREAGE or rROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE or
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, Ir ANY: XISSTT1IING�AND
J �
DESCRIPT' TILE EMYIRONMEWA1, F1;1'rT*IG or 'rllE rROJECT SITE
INC111hIrIG 71IIZ?IMIMON ON ANIMALS, rl,Arrrs (TRC•.EC) ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF Sl1►rltnUNU1NG P1bPERTIEF, AND r1IL' T�ESC' J
' >;x STItIC. E/�'RUC UItES 1tA1p P *I�c�sgrl ANY ILA
_ Ss tiu
project, part of a
of cumulat3vc actions, wilichrnIthnugtteindividu�lly small,
"' as a whole have significant envirotm,ental impact?
6
wLl.l. rl :r•r:
rhs ru
Create i substantial change in ground
contours?
V2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
t! 3. Create n substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)!
r
�! 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
V 6: Remove any existing troes? (low many ?_�,.`
V6. Create the need for. use. or disposal OF
potentially Ivi- ardou^ IIIat:c -rials such as
toxic substances, flammable, or explosives?
Explanation of any Yr.s answers above
IMP31tTA!Jr: 7f the project involver the construction of
residential units, complete he form on the
next page.
• L.
CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above a d in Lhe attached rxhihit!-, ),recent the date and
information regnired for this ini.li.al. evaluation to the
n hest cf rtti al•i l it% and that t its fr.c t !ttat•emrnts, and
i nforpuali i f,n p -f- nonLrtl are true and cort•ncl: to the best of
my 1:nowlc6ge and belief. I further understand that
additiorr11 ittforrtaLien m.,1• 1•r rr7uirc,l to i,e submitterl
before ,-tt a,lr71rate nvaulation can be made by the Development
Review Committee. /
Date /J ( Signature aw T itle
Z �
yo" -
0
DATE:
TO:
U
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
March 14, 1979
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
0
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Director Review No. 79 -05 - Ken Ketner - The development
of a 138 unit apartment complex to be located on the
east side of Archibald Avenue where Monte Vista intersects
Archibald.
BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, this item was continued from
ita meeting of February 28, 1979. The Commission had concerns which focused
around the location of the tennis courts, the preliminary landscaping plan,
and design of the exterior buildings. The applicant has submitted colorer;
presentations of a preliminary landscape plan, building elevations, and sections
along Archibald Avenue showing views of proposed landscaping, walls, and
tennis courts. In addition, the applicant has submitted an alternative plan
showing the tennis court in another location. These plans will be available
for review prior to the meeting and will be on display at the meeting.
ANALYSIS: The preliminary landscaping plan shows an excellent landscape
design with an abundance of landscaping. The 50 tree per acre standard would
require approximately 414 trees on this site. The landscape plan shows
approximately 490 trees for the project. Further, the plan indicates the use
of mounding, meandering sidewalks and walls along Archibald. However, staff
feels that the use of a b' high block wall along Archibald is not appropriate
and is recommending that no walls be higher than 3'.
The detailed section showing views from Archibald to the tennis courts
indicates that the top of the fence will only be 3' higher than the grade of
the street. The finished elevation of the tennis court will be 7' below
the street grade. The remaining 3' of fencing can easily be screened with
mounding and landscaping as shown in the drawing. The alternate tennis court
location, which places the courts in the northeast corner of the development,
does not provide a total integrated development as one of the complexes
becomes seperated from the rest of the development.
The building elevations show an array of materials an!' colors that are most
compatible with the area. These drawings will be on display at the mcet'4 g.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Director Review No. 79 -05 and adopt Resolution No. 79 -19.
�spect ull submitted,
Jack Lam, Director r,f
Community Development
JL:MV:ce
ITEM "F"
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -04 FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD DAY CARE CENTER
LOCATED AT 6730 HELLMAN AVENUE
WHEREAS, on the 24th day of January, 1979, a complete application
was filed for review on the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 28th day of February, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a maeting to consider the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following fit dings have been made:
1. That sufficient information waa not provided
to determine the capability of Hellman Averdr
to handle the increased traffic generated L7
the use.
2. That suffic ?ent information was not provided
to determine the effects of water runoff from
she property on adjacent properties.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED :'HIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga do hereby certify that the foregoing lesoluti.or was duly and regulary
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the
14th day of March, 1979, by the following vote to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
� 1w_
PA
T.F
'44 I T
SUNSET PLAZA
*A
in
i
r
„1
Z
n
m
a
.i
c
r
G
Q� y�
0
n
Sucas u ■ P"ZA I
a u rxva 4 rArro +r tir
_ r �
1 I awls
Ns
I
r
• � IWW5
1 11111114 if
I Mill
•`;� w � � -III
ICI ll�
l
�11 RAN- �
rt� -
IN
^
i
•
4
Af
^
i
•
4
0
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: March 14, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -04 - SUNSET PLAZA - RequesL for construc-
tion of two commercial buildings at the southwest corner of
Ramona Avenue and Foothill Blvd. in the C -2 (General Businbss)
District - Canti,,ued from 2/28/79
BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, this item was continued from
the meeting of February 28, 1979 and p- viously continued from the meeting
of February 14, 1979 for a redeFign of the architectural plans for the
const:uctinn of the commerelr building. Staff has met with the applicant.
In addition, Commissioners Yolscoy and Rempel have met with the applicant
and staff to discuss the proposed changes on the plan. The applicant has
redesigned the project to now include one two -story building encompassing
16,000 square feet. The bottom floor would be used for retail space and
the top floor being used for office. The site plan now displays cwo parking
areas; one in the front and one b:,hind the building. The primary use of the
parking area in the front would be for the retail space with the remaining
parking in the rear used primarily for offs - :e space. Code requires the
applicant to provide one space per 200 square feet of floor area which
r� -Vires 80 spaces. The applicant has provided those 80 spaces. The building
elevations display use of a padre brick, wood shingle roofing and tan colored
stucco. A materials board w111 be available at the Planning Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS: We feal that the project as it is now proposed is a substantial
improvement over the previous submittals. The use of the two story building
and the extended mansard roof with the varying roof height and varying building
setbacks along the Foothill Blvd. frontage provides for the needed relief that
was not present on previous designs.
The environmental checklist did not indicate any significant adverse environ-
me:ital impacts as a result of the project. Staff has field checked the site
and found no discrepancies with the checklist and recommends issuance of a
Negative Declzzation.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 79 -12 approving Director Review No. 79 -04 with the conditions as delineated
in the Resolution.
R pectf 11 submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
.7x,:RKH:nm
Attachmentc: Resolution #79rl2
Initial Study, Part I
7TrM "r"
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -19
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -05
FOR A 138 UNIT APARTMENT Ca1PLEX LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD BETWEEN BASELINE AND 19TH
IN THE R -3 -2300 ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 9th day of January, 1979, a complete application
was filed for review of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 28th day of February, 1979, the Rancao Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the site indicated by the development plan is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate the pro-
posed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences,
parking, landscaping, loading and other features
required by this section.
2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop-
went plan are located in such a manner as to be pro-
perly related to existing and proposed streets and
highways.
3. That the improvements as shown on the development
plan are consistent with all adopted standards and
policies as set forth in this section.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on March 14,
1979.
SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -05 is approved subject to the
following conditions:
Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for compliance
with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all zoning ordinance provisions.
2. The site shall be developed in accordance with the
approved site plan on file in the Planning Division
and the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission.
L:..i,.
x1" _
0
0
3. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Division
prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. A minimum of fifty (50) trees per gross acre, com-
prised of the following sizes, shall be provided
within the development; 20% 24" box or larger, 70%
minimum 15 gallon, and 10% minimum 5 gallon.
5. The applicant shall maintain all landscaped areas
in a healthy -�,d thriving condition, free from weeds,
trash and debris.
6. Any roof mounted equipment shall be screened from
view frcm all adjacent properties with material
architecturally compatible with the design of
the building.
7. All carports shall be designed and constructed with
materials architecturally compatible with the dwelling
such as heavy wood trim and facias. Such design shall
be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division
prior to issuance of building permits.
8. All lighting, with the exception of tennis and volleyball
court lighting, shall be no higher than 12' from finished
grade of court, and shall not create glare to adjacent
properties or on -site dwellings. Tennis and volleyb ll
court lighting shall not exceed 22' in height.from
finished grade of court.
9. Any proposed signs require review and approval by the
Planning Division prior to installation.
10. The walls along Archibald shall be no higher than
3' in height.
11. The tennis court fencing shall not exceed 10' in height.
In addition, dense landscaping shall be provided along
the south and west fences of the court.
12. The parking stalls along the circular drive shall be a
minimum of 10' in width at the rear of tha stall.
13. The angle parking stalls around units 11, 12 and 15
shall be redesigned with 90o parking.
14. The trash enclosure located at the end of the carport
facing the Victoria Street driveway shall be relocated
within the development and replaced with a screen wall
and landscaping.
15. All trash enclosures shall be provided with 6' masonry
wills and view obstructing gates.
a,
The applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance
with the following conditions:
21. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with
J' the latesc adopted USC, Fire Code, National Electric Code,
and all other applicable city codes.
�r
16.
The 4' high block wall along Victoria Street frontage
shall be limited to 3' in height.
17.
Additional wood trim shall be provided around window
frames for units 1, 5, 7 and 13 which face Archibald
Avenue.
18.
This approval shall become null and void if building
permits are not issued for this project within one
year from the date of project approval.
The
applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for
compliance with the following conditions:
19.
Street dedication consisting of 20 foot corner cutoff,
30 feet along Archibald Avenue and 33 feet along Victoria
Street are required.
20.
Prior to issuance of building permits:
a. Sewer and water plans shall be coordinated with the
Cucamonga County Water District;
b. Site grading, curb, gutter, drive approaches, side-
walks, street trees, A.C. match -up paving shall be
shown on plans approved by the City Engineer;
c. All necessary plans for the installation of street
lights shall be approved by the Southern California
Edison Company.
d. Water carried through the site or runoff produced by
the site after development shall be carried to streets
or storm drains in structures approved by the City
Engineer.
e. Installation of a portion of the master planned storm
drains in Archibald Avenue, from its current terminus
to south of Monte Vista Avenue, and improvement of the
existing earth channel on the west side of Archibald
Avenue will be required. Street drainage structures
r.
necessary to assure proper Functioning of the storm
drain will also be required. The developer will be
responsible for 50X of the cost of this work. The
cost of'this storm drain will credit to storm drain
fees and a reimbursement agreement will be executed
to cover remaining contributions.
The applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance
with the following conditions:
21. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with
J' the latesc adopted USC, Fire Code, National Electric Code,
and all other applicable city codes.
�r
0
The applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for
compliance with the following condition:
22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, verification
that all requirements of the Foothill Fire District
shall be met, shall be submitted to the Building
` Official.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TR DAY OF MARCH, 1979.
PLANNING CCMMISSICN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of March,
1979.
AYES: CCWISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
0
E
0
r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: March 14, 1979
Toe Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: GREENROCK NURSERY - Request for an additional three month exten-
sion of time to cease operation of an illegal nursery; located
on the north side of 19th Street, 400' west of Amethyst Strhet -
Request submitted by Althouse and Bamber, representing Robert
Shibata
This item was continued from the February 28, 1979 meeting to allow addi-
tional time for the Planning Commission to consider the extension request.
Staff's previous recommendation was denial of a time extension becaure
sufficient time had been provided to the applicant to relocate his business
to a new site. The Planning Commission indicated their desire to keep the
use in Rancho Cucamonga.
The Planning Commission should weigh all the issues expressed at the February
28th meeting prior to making a decision. Staff wishes to add an additional
point for consideration. On August 23, 1978, Staff was directed by the
Planning Commission to alleviate the illegal situation. Staff allowed six
months time for the applicant to relocate the nursery, a more than reasonable
length of time. Possible further extension of time has the possibility of
putting staff in a compromising position regarding future enforcement of
illegal uses.
Respectfull• submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:BNH:nm
Attachment: Staff Report, February 28, 1979
ITEM " G f
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: February 28, 1979
To:
Planning
Commission
From:
Jack Lam,
Director of
Community Development
Subject: GREENROCK NURSERY - Request for an additional 3 month extension
of time to cease operation of an illegal nursery; located on the
north aide of 19th Street, 400' west of Amethyst Street - Request
submitted by Althouse and Bamber, representing Robert Shibata
DESCRIPTION: Mr. Althouse, representing Robert Shibata, is requesting an
additional 3 month extension of time to cease operation of the Greenrock
Nursery at the above described location. This request was made necessary
because the owners have been unable to find a new location for their business
in the six months since the Planning Commission request for their relocation.
BACKGROUND: On August 23, 1978, the Planning Commission heard a request for
a zone change from 7M -R -3 to A -1 on the subject property. The zone change
would have enabled the owner to maintain a wholesale nursery at the site.
The Planning Commission denied the request finding that the zone change would
constitute "spot zoning ", and that 19th Street was unable to handle the increased
traffic generated by the nursery. Staff was directed to work with the appli-
cant to give him reasonable time to relocate his business (See Planning Com-
mission minutes of August 23, 1978).
Staff met with Mr. Shibata on August 28, 1978 and it was agreed that a six_
month period to relocate his business (until February 23) was more than
reasonable. Mr. Shibata was told that legal action would be initiated
if the business was not relocated by the February 23 deadline. During
the six month period, staff sent two letters to Mr. Shibata reitering the
City's intent to take legal action if the operation was not ceased by the
deadline. (See attached letters dated December 4, 1978 and February 15, 1979)
ANALYSIS: The additional three month extension was requested by Mr. Althouse
to allow the owner to acquire new property within the city. A parcel has
been located and placed into escrow. Mr. Althouse feels that all the necessary
approvals will be attained within the three month period.
The new location is on Archibald Avenue; the current zone is R -3 and the
General Plan designation is high density residential. Since a nursery is
incompatible with the General Plan designation, Mr. Shibata would have to
request an amendment of the general plan, a zone change, and finally, obtain
a site approval. General Plan amendment hearing dates have not been estab-
lished yet. The first hearing may be several months away, and with all the
other approvals required, the total length of time will easily exceed three
months.
0 0
Page 2
Greenrock Nursery
February 28, 1979
Staff feels six months was a more than reasonable length of time to find
a aew site. The fact that one was not found within the six month period
does not have a bearing in this decision. As the Commission has found
previously, the 19th Street site is not suited for a nursery in ter.ms
of compatibility, spot zoning and traffic. An extension of time would
only aggravate the situation.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request for an additional
three month extension of time for the Greenrock Nursery and referral of
this item to the City Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:BNH:nm
Attachments: Minutes of Planning Commission meeting dated August 23,
Letter to Mr. Shibata, dated December 4, 1978
Letter to Mr. Shibata, dated February 15, 1979
Letter to City requesting extension,dated February 20,
1978
1979
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -3- AUGUST 23, 1978
3. That precise landscaping, irrigation
plans, and detailed building elevations '
be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Division prior to issuance
of building permits and that landscaping
be installed prior to final inspection
by the City.
PUBLIC HEARING
9. That a detailed trash enclosure plan be
submitted to and approved by the Planning
Division prior to the issuance of building
permits.
5.• That the most westerly building of Phase
A" maintain a 2�' setback from the pri-
ate drive and that such revision be
r viewed and approved by the Planning
D" ision prior- to the issuance of building
pe ts.
6. Tha the thr )ee (3) parking stalls located
on t e south} side of the most westerly.
buil 'ng of/ Phase "A" be eliminated.
7. That a coordinated sign program be designed
for th s 4evelopment and be submitted to
the Pla n ng Division for approval prior
to inst elation.
8.
at thus approval shall become null and
void if Z e Change No. 95 -85 is not
approv d a d adopted by the City Council.
En ineeri
9. Inst 1 curb, gutter, and drive approaches
alon the nor t boundary of the entire
Pa 1.
10. Eli inate most a sterly proposed drive
en ante as sho on site plan.
11. Pr or to issuance
s to grading plan
a
Pr al to the Cit
stall be designed t,
reation of damage
roperties.
E building permits, a
tall be submitted for
k- Engineer. Drainage
:Ninsure against the
Dr nuisance to adjacent
12. Drainage over drive approaches shall be
prohibited end sidewalk drains provided.
9
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -4_
AUGUST 23, 1978
iheJack Lam stated that since the zone change and '
t approval are directly related that they
be presented concurrently. He Presented
staff report in detail which is on file
in the Planning Division. Mr. Lam reported
that this request was submitted sn an attempt
to make the existing illegal use legal. He
stated that by granting such a change would
be inconsistent with the proposed General Plan
and would create significant traffic problems.
He asked Lloyd Hubbs to present the traffic
implications.
Lloyd Hubbs presented the traffic report.
HO-1-n-fo-r-m-ea the Commissioners that 19th
Street-is a State Highway and the major east -
west arterial which passes to the northern
section of the City. He further stated that
the Engineering Department recommended that
access to 19th Street be limited to as few
openings as possible and that no additional
commercial type zoning be allowed.
• Commissioner Garcia opened the public hearing
for comments from the applicant and other
interested persons.
Charles Althaus spoke on behalf of the
applicant for the zone change. He stated that
on the west side of the property there is a
refrigeration business and on the south side
it is zoned as A -1. This nursery does business
on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and
Sunday in the days only. He further stated
that on the east there is property that
Possibly may be acquired which is adjacent
to the present property and, therefore, have
traffic entering from Amethyst instead of 19th -
Street.
Lloyd Hubbs stated that Amethyst would be a
solution to the traffic problem but this
would still be "spot zoning- and would cause
future difficulty.
Gar Hall, the west property owner, asked what
he cou do to
protect himself if this is
approved to a commercial area, especially about
machinery noise.
Commissioner Garcia informed Mr. Hall that if
"spot
zoning" is allowed some sort of provisions
to protect the
property owners would be address-
ed.
Robert Shibato, one of :he owners of the
property, cla =if ied that the large equipment
that had beer.
on the property, belonged to one
of the partners and he is no longer affiliated
-}
with them. His business is offering plants
from the
grower to the public Robert Shibato
informed the Planning Commission
t at s
entire family is in the plant business. They,
have a business
located in Chino where these:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES _g_
AUGUST 23, 1978 •'
Plants are grown and brought over to 19th '
Street and sold. He further informed the
Commissioners that they do raise ground
cover and bedding plants at the nursery.
Commissioner Garcia closed the public
hearing after no further comments from the
public.
0
NOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner TTolst�oy,
seconded by Commissioner Jones, and unani
mously carried it was voted to deny Zone
Change No. 99 -66 acid adopt Resolution No. 78 -03.
wits an amen ment to the resolution to include•
an additional finding which states "that the
proposed zone change does not conform to the
proposed General Plan."
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Jones,
seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unani-
mously carried it was vot'ad to deny the
request for Site Approval No 99 -66 based on
improper zo:ing.
Jack Lam pr sented is report in detail,
w c ie on ile in the Planning Division.
He reported hat to proposed zone change
is not consis ent ith the proposed General
Plan and that suc "spot zoning" practices
cause land use c patibility and traffic
problems. Fur r, several objections to this
proposal were r eived from surrounding property
owners,
Commissioner Gad a opened the public hearing
to allow the a pl cant and other interested
persons speak �n Ve project.
rreaa snelle , the pplicant and owner of
the cu 7ect ite to ated at 8239 Archibald,
spoke on be alf of r project and explained
the improv ents tha she would make to the
project si a if this zone change is approved.
She stated that she p ans to use the site as
a real es ate office nd it could accommodate
another o fice.
Jose h G tta spoke on half of Freda Shelle ',s
pro ect. He stated tha he woul ce to ave
the area changed to a co ercial zone because
of the increased traffic noise. He further
mentioned that people usually don't rent more
than three (3) months at a time because of
traffic noise.
0 0
RESOLUTION NO - 79- 23
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE
CHANGE NO. 79--01 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING
FROM R -1 TO R -3 FOR 27.5 ACRES LOCATED AT SOUTH
SIDE OF 19TH STREET BETWEEN AMETHYST AND ARCHIBALD
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of February, 1979 an application was filed
and accepted on the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of March, 1979, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses
permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access,
size, and compatibility with existing land use in
the surrounding area;
2. The proposed zone change would not have significant
impact on the environment nor the surrounding pro -
perties; and
3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with
the proposed General Plan.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this
project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and has issued a Negative Declaration on March 14, 1979.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 14th day of March, 1979,
Zone Change No. 79-01.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 79 -01.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and re-
lated material hereby adopted by the Planning
Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF I4ARCH, 1979.
0
i.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: _
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, .TACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Cowruiselou of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that die foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of March, 1979,
by the following vote to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
0
40
DATE:
TO:
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
March 14, 1979
Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
0
FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Director Review No. 78 -12 - Alderfer Ranch Partnership
Request for development of a two story office building
located at 8030 Vineyard Avenue in the C -2 (General
Business) zone.
BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, this item has been before the
Commission on several occasions and cnntinued because of flood protection
problems. The applicant has been working with the City Engineer-and-the
as Exhibit 'A ". As has been indicated in previous staff reports, the site
is _zoned C - _and General Planned for service commercial uses. The site is
partially developed with an existing office building_(Gallery P,eai Estata
LqlLa—lling 2500 sgg= feat. The proposed project will add another 10 nnn-
square feet —of office space within a two story structure slightly behind
the existing office building (Exhibit "B ").
ANALYSIS: The site as it presently exists, has one driveway onto Vineyard
Avenue and a dirt road to the temporary location of San Diego Avenue on
the west end of the property. The project site will be totally improved up
to San Diego Avenue. However, the present physical location of San Diego
Avenue has been pushed slightly to the east because of p.►st floods. As a
result, full street improvements and landscaping cannot be installed
immediately until the channel and San Diego Avenue is realigned to its
original location. Engineering has proposed conditions that will require
complete street improvements and landscaping once San Diego can be realigned
to its original position. The project will be providing a total of 63
parking spaces as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Lands ^aping will be
provided within the parking areas around the existing building and proposed
building.
Exhibit "C" displays the elevations of the proposed building. The
design proposes the use of such materials as monray concrete tale roof,
textured stucco, wood beams and facial and wood handrails for the stairways
and balconies. The design of the propsed building will architectually
conform with the existing building.
Staff has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration since appropriate
mitigating measures are being taken to project the site from potential
flood hazards.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Director Review No. 78 -12 by the adoption of the attached Resolution
No. 78 -13.
TEEM 1101
9
espectful y submitted,
Jack Lam, Director of
Commuaity Development
L:MS': cc
Attachments: Exhibit "k," - Engineering Memo
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C " - "D "- Building Elevations
Resolution No. 78 -13
40
0
3
c
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 8, 1979
TO: Planning Division
FROM: Engineering Division
SUBJECT: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12 - ALDERFER RANCH - Request for
development of a two -story 10,000 square foot office
building located at 8030 Vineyard.
The Engineering Division has completed review of the above referenced Director
Review and has come to what we feel is a suitable design which will protect
the proposed structure in conformance with Federal Flood Insurance criteria
and not provide additional hazard to upstream or downstream properties.
The proposed structure shall be elevated to a finished floor elevation of
1252 and the east existing parking area shall be depressed to meet existing
ground on the scuth property line gradually sloping to the north property
line as approved by the City Engineer. Lowering of the existing parking
area is required to offset flow capacity removed by the placement of the
proposed structure.
Additional requirements on the proposed project are as follows:
1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit a cash dt:posit with the City to cover the cost of land• -
scaping and permanent street improvements consisting of curb,
gutter, sidewalk and match -up paving on San Diego Avenue. In
addition, the applicant shall provide plans and street improve-
ments consisting of A.C. paving and dike along the interim San
Diego Avenue location prior to occupancy.
2. Prior to occupancy, revised street plans consisting of curb,
gutter, sidewalk and a commercial drive approach a minimum of
30 feet wide shall be provided along Vineyard Avenue.
3. Street dedication and improvements shall be in conformance
with the currently adopted Master Plan of Streets and Highways
and to the specification of the City Engineer.
4. Street improvment plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer.
Planning Division
Page 2
March B. 1979
5. All damaged off site public works facilities, including parkway
trees, shall be repaired prior to occupancy to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
6. Water supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall. be provided to
the specification of the Cucamonga County Water District and the
City Engineer with all incidental fees paid by the developer.
Written verification that all requirements have been met shall be
supplied at the time of building permit application.
7. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed
underground.
8. Developer shall coordinate and pay for the relocation of any
power poles or other existing public utilities, as required.
t,
LOW, i e
i
�� j
i
�� it
�u3 6 5r30
pit
i
---- ...4
li
f
E
r
+
y
Ji1 n
11 NeY4AO
AV6. ---
---- -- �iit
LOW, i e
i
�� j
i
�� it
i
---- ...4
li
f
E
r
+
y
Ji1 n
11 NeY4AO
AV6. ---
---- -- �iit
6
_7
a
LOW, i e
i
�� j
i
�� it
- -. ,r ♦N Dress drt.
---- ...4
li
r
+
y
Ji1 n
11 NeY4AO
AV6. ---
---- -- �iit
6
_7
a
1Z j;
IL �•�a
�
� k
,
t
•
1
�
1%
LOW, i e
i
�� j
i
�� it
r+�'-
r
+
•
Ji1 n
11 NeY4AO
AV6. ---
---- -- �iit
LOW, i e
i
�� j
i
�� it
�� j
i
�� it
•a
�''
:'�'.
,'
�+
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -24
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANC60 CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -15
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASELINE
AND CARNELIAN IN THE C-1 ZONE.'
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of February, 1979, a complete application
was filed for review of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 14th day of March, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1- That the site indicated by the development.plan is
adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences,
parking, landscaping, loading and other features
required by this section.
2. That the improvements as indicated on the develop-
ment plans are located in such a manner as to be
properly related to existing and proposed streets
and highways.
3. That the improvements as shown on the development
plan are consistent with all adopted standards and
policies as set forth in this section.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on March 14,
1979.
SECTION 3: That Direcror Review No. 79 -15 is approved subject to the
following conditions:
Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for compliance
with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with all zoning ordinance provisions.
2. The site shall be developed in accordnace with the
approved site plan on file in the Planning Division and
conditions adopted by the Planning Commission.'
r- -w
3. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan .shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Division
prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. The applicant shall maintain all landscaped areas in
a healthy and thriving condition, free-from weeds, trash
h, and debris.
wf
uY
kd� '
0 0
5. Any roof mounted equipment shall be screened from
view from all adjacent properties. Screening material
shall blend with the architectural feature of the
buildings.
6. All lighting, saall be no higher than 12' and shall
not create glare to adjacent properties.
7. Any proposed signs require review and approval by
the Planning Division prior to installation.
8. Dense landscaping shall be provided along the south
property line.
9. This approval shall become null and void if building
permits are not issued for this project within one
year from the date of approval.
Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for
compliance with the following conditions:
10. Street dedication and improvements shall be in con -
fcrmance with the currently adopted Master Plan of
Streets and Highways and to the specification of
the City Engineer.
11. All exterior street improvements shall be constructed
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
occupancy.
12. Street improvement plans prepared on standard size sheets
by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for
approval by the City Engineer.
13. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public
improvements.
14. Street striping and signing shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. All damaged off site public_ works facilities,
including parkway trees, shall be repaired prior to
occupany to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
16. All street structural sections shall be submitted to,
and approved by the City Engineer.
17. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance
with the Grading Ordinance and to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. .
18. Surety shall be posted to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion
of the grading within the project.
a
0
Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance
with the following conditions:
25. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance
with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National
Electric Code, and all other applicable City codes.
Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for
compliance with the following conditions:
26. Prior to the issuance of building permits
verification that all requirements of the Foothill
Fire District shall be met and submitted to the
Building Official.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
3 .
19.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified
engineer to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
20.
Drainage facilities and easements shall be provided
to the specifications of the City Engineer.
21.
Water supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall be
provided to the specifications of the Cucamonga
County Water District and the City Engineer with
all incidental fees paid by the developer. Written
verification that all requirements have been met
shall be supplied at the time of building permit
application.
22.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for
combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire Chief that water supply for
fire protection is available.
23.
All proposed utilities within the project shall be
installed underground.
24.
Developer shall co- ordinate, and pay for, the
relocation of any power poles or other existing
public utilities, as required.
24.
Street lighting shall be installed by the applicant
and the advance energy charges paid.
Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance
with the following conditions:
25. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance
with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National
Electric Code, and all other applicable City codes.
Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for
compliance with the following conditions:
26. Prior to the issuance of building permits
verification that all requirements of the Foothill
Fire District shall be met and submitted to the
Building Official.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
3 .
I, JACK LAN, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Flanning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meetir,q of the Planning
Commission held on the 14th day of March, 1979, bst the following vote to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
FA_
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Dater March 14, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: CAMPUS /BASELINE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF UPLAND
We have contacted the Upland Planning Department and the EIR for the
Campus /Baseline project is not ready for distribution.
Respectfully submitted,
TACK irector of
Community Development
JL:BKH:nm
b
ITEM "J"
a
El
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 14, 1979
T0: Planning Commission
FIRM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
40
SUBJECT: County General Plan Presentation of Consolidated General Plan
By the Planning Department of the County of San Bernardino
BACKGROUND: Currently the County of San Bernardino has a conglomeration of
various approved elements of the General Plan. Over the last six to eight
months the county has been working towards a consolidation of these various
elements into one document. Policies, objectives and goals of each element have
been incorporated into one consolidated County General Plan. A representative
from County Planning Director's office will be available at the Planning
Commission meeting to make a brief presentation (not to exceed h hour) on the
Consolidated County General Plan.
Due to the paper shortage and the length of the plan, we have not copied the 214
rage document. However, there is a copy in the Planning office available for
review.
ted,
JackAam, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKH:cic
--7
lqo
wi t ITEM "V
L J
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March lk, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
PROY: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
40
SUBJECT: City /County Policy for Coordination of Planning Activities
BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, the City has had problems with
timely notification about projects within our planning area and those projects
that effect the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Regarding this situation the
Planning Directors of San Bernardino County have been meeting to develop a
City /County Policy for Coordination of Planning Activities. At the March 2
meeting of the Planning Director Committee the City/County Policy for
Coordination of Planning Activities was adopted unanimously by thnse members
present. We have attached the document for the Commission's review. We feel
that this policy is a major step forward to resolving the problems that have
plagued the City in the recent past. The policy goes beyond timely notifica-
tion to the point where our General Plan supercedes the County General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 79-22 recommending to the City Council approval of the City/
County Policy for Coordination of the Planning Activities,
R espectf 11 1 submitted,
Jack Lam, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKH: cic
Attachments: City Council Policy for Coordination of Planning Activities
Resolution No. 79 -22
0
'L-Z -A
CITY /COUNTY POLICY FOR
COORDINATION OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Background
The Cities and the County of San Bernardino have officially attempted to
coordinate planning and implementation measures in the past. Some of
these attempts have resulted in several mutually adopted community
plans; three joint powers planning agencies; the formation of the San
Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG); the establishment of the
City - County Planning Commissioners Association; and most recently, the
Joint adoption of several State mandated General Plan Elements.
The advent of legistation requiring spheres of influence around each
incorporated city, while solving old disputes over eventual annexation
limits, has created new concerns for cities, county and the local Agency
Formation Commission relative to immediate and long -range land use
planning decisions. These concerns center on inconsistencies between
city and county general plansi zoning, and development standards,
especially within spheres of nfluence.
Recognition of the need to deal positively with these concerns led to
meetings beginning in 1974-75 culminating in a proposed city- county
sphere of influence policy. After reveiw by the Board of Supervisors, a
sphere of influence poi icy was adoped during 1976. Juring this same
period of time this pol icy (or a similar one) was adopted by the Local
Agency Formation Commission and many cities. Experiences using this
sphere of influence policy during the past few years have shown the
merit in having this type of official coordination. These experiences
have also shown areas where this city- county coordination should be
strengthened.
During 1978 the Planning Directors' Committee met monthly studying ways
to ,strengthen and support the positive results of the adopted sphere of
influence policy. The follswing statement reflects a proposed revision
of the 1976 adopted sphere of influence policy.
CITY /COUNTY POLICY FOR
COORDINATION OF PLA14NIHG ACTIVITES
It is the intent of this statement to provide reasonable policies and
procedures which can provide the cities and county positive guidance in
bringing about effective planning cooperation.
A. There shall be several levels of cooperation in coordination of all
planning activities:
1. Timely notification of proposals of mutual concern by both
cities and the county;
2. Ongoing coordination of development standards and inipientenLation
policies.
B. There shall be several levels of cooperation in spheres of influence:
1. Continuous staff communication on all issues;
2. periodic formal joint adoption and updating of plans;
3. Ongoing coordination of development standards and imple
mentation policies.
C. Coordination and joint planning mechanisms should include:
i. Joint city /county /resident study committees;
2. Joint planning commission and /or legislative body hearing
or workshops;
3. City consultation and negotiation with unincorporated area
residents;
4. Joint staff agreement for recommendations on issues;
5. City inclusion of unincorporated area residents on city
planning commissions;
6. City planning commissioners sitting with the county planning
commission regarding matters of mutual concern on u consulting
basis;
7. Notification to the affected 2gency of planning and revelopment
proposals in advance of their hearing, and other means which
may be available.
8. Notification and consultation with affected cities in other
counties and other affected counties.
D. General plans and zoning shall be jointly adjusted within spheres
of influence to be made mutually compatible. This shall be ac-
complished through pursuit of a cooperF`ive area planning program
based upon a mutuallly agreeable schedule. Where two spheres abut,
there shall be joint represenation and discussion between the in-
volved jurisdictions to resolve conflicts of land use and develoment
standards.
E. When a city's adopted general plan is found by the Board of Super-
visors to be consistent with the adopted county general plan for
the city's sphere of influence:
1. The adopted city general plan will be used by the county as
the principal land use guide;
t: -3-
2. A11 development proposals A thin the unincorporated city
sphere of influence must be consistent with the adopted city
general plan;
3. City pre- zoning and county specific plans must be consistent
with the adopted city general plan.
F.
Specific plans will be developed for each LAFC adopted sphere of
influence. The development of these specific plans will be a
cooperative effort between each affected jurisdiction. These
specific plans will generally utilize the adopted goals, policies,
and standards of the city. When completed, these specific plans
should be adopted by the city and county. Subsequent pre- zoning by
the city should conforms to the adopted specific plans.
G.
Whenzver a revision or amendment is propcsed in an adopted general
or specific plan for LAFC adopted sphere of influence, the proposal
will be referred to the respective legislative and advisory
bodies for action.
H.
In order t1 provide for a proper blend of development, the general
development policies of a city and the county shall be adjusted to
result in an orderly transition of development standards along the
sphere of influence perimeter.
1.
Each jurisdiction shall review, prior to approval, proposed agricul-
tural preserve requests for consistency with city and county
general plans within and ajacent to spheres -of influence. Buffer
areas of less intense agricultural or rural residential uses should
be provided. These buffers may occur oa either side of the boundaries.
t: -3-
PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING PLAITS
1. Whenever a city general plan is proposed to be amended or adopted
the city will notify the county in a timely manner to permit timely
coordination and appropriate response to this amendment or plan.
2. Whenever the county proposes to amend its general plan the county
will notify each affected city in a timely manner to permit timely
ccordination and appropriate response to this amendment or plan.
E
RESOLUTION N0. 79- 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF THE CITY/COUNTY POLICY FOR COORDINATION OF
PLANNING ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has great concern
regarding projects within the City's planning area, and;
WHEREAS, there have been protlems in coordination of planning
activities in the past, and;
WHEREAS, it is the City's desire to create strong lines of communi-
cation.between the City and the County, and;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission does hereby recommend the attached Exhibit A, known as the City/
County Policy for Coordination of Planning Activities, to the City Council
for adoption.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979.
PLANNING COK41SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
,
I, .TACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of March,
1979 by the following vote to -wit:
F
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
U
0 . 0
Z- All development proposals within the unincorporated city
sphere of influence must be consistent with the adopted city
general plan;
3. City pre- zoning and county specific plans must be consistent
with the adopted city general plan.
F- Specific plans will be developed for each LAFC adopted sphere of
influence. The development of these specific plans will be a
cooperat;ve effort between each affected jurisdiction These
..
specific plans will generally uti:ize the adopted go policies,
and standards of the city. When Completed, these specific plans
should be adopted by the city and county. Subsequent pre - zoning by
the city should conform to the adopted specific nuns.
G. Whenever a revision or amendment is proposed in an adopted general
or specific plan for LAFC adopted sphere influence, the proposal
Will be referred to the respective legislatof ive and advisory
bodies for action.
H. In order to provide for a proper blend of development, the general
development policies of a city and the county shall be adjusted to
result in an orderly transition of development standards along the
sphere of influence perimeter.
I. Each jurisdiction shall review, prior to approval, proposed agricul-
tural preserve requests for consistency with cit and county
general plans within and ajacentto
spheresofinfluence. Buffer
areas of less intense agricultural or rural residential uses should
be provided. These buffers may occur on either side of the boundaries.
-3-
go g
POLICY FOR
COORDINATION OOFTPLANNING ACTIVITES
It is the intent of this statement to provide reasonable
procedures which can provide the cities and count policies and
bringing about effective planning cooperation. y p °sitive guidance in
A• There shall be several levelisiof cooperation in coordination of all
Planning activities:
I. Timely notification of proposals of mutual concern by both
cities and the county;
2. Ongoing coordination of development standards and implementation
Policies..
B. There shall be several levels of cooperation in spheres of influence:
I. Continuous staff communication on all issues;
2. Periodic formal joint adoption and updating of plans;
3. Ongoing coordination of development standards and imple
mentation policies.
C. Coordination and joint planning mechanisms should include:
I. Joint city /county ..resident study committees;
2. Joint planning commission and /or legislative body hearing
or workshops;
3. City consultation and negotiation with unincorporated area
residents;
4. Joint staff agreement for recormnendations on issues;
5. City inclusion of unincorporated area residents on city
planning commissions;
6. City planning commissioners sitting with the county planning
commission regarding meters of mutual concern on a consulting
basis;
7. Notification to the affected agency of planning and development
proposals in advance of their hearing, and other means which
may be available.
8. Notification and consultation with affected cities in other
counties and other affected counties.
D. General plans and zoning shall be jointly adjusted within spheres
Of influence to be made mutually compatible. This shall be ac-
complished through pursuit of a cooperative area planning program
based upon a mutuallly agreeable schedule. where two spheres abut,
there shall be joint represenation and discussion between the in-
volved jurisdictions to resolve conflicts
standards. of land use and develoment
E. when a city's adopted general plan is found by the Board of Super-
visors to be consistent with the adopted county general plan for
the city's sphere of influence:
I. The adopted city general plan will be used by the county as
the principal land use guide;
EXHIBIT "A"
PROCEDURES FOR PMENDING PLANS
1- Whenever a city general plan is proposed to be amended or adopted
the city will notify the county in a timely manner to permit timely
coordination and appropriate response to this amendment or plan.
2. Whenever the county proposes to amend its general plan the county
will notify each affected city in a timely manner to permit timely
coordination and appropriate response to this amendment or plan.
0