Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/05/13 - Agenda Packety :1 I �I � lV ji�•%V� �� i 1 2d� f: 4 � 1 w r _ 3 t0 � JJ I. QTY OF RANCHO CUC,A.MONGA, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. WEDNESDAY MAY 13, 1981 7:00 P.M. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.PANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Pledge of Allegiance Il. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rempel Commissioner King Commissioner Tolstoy Y Commissioner Sceranka Ill.. Approval.of Minutes Paz 0 " IF December 22, 1980 February 9, 1981��'°�'�'"'` February 17, 1.981 C A% �� -Z IS>i t :UL TV_ Annnunromonte U. Consent Calendar The following consent calendar items are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one tame without discussion. If anyone has concern cver any item, then it should be removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81 -16 CATT "AC - The development of a truck maintei;ance yard and office on 4.23 acres of land irr. the M -2 zone located on the west side of Santa Anita Avenue, north of 4th Street - APN 229- 283 -36 DESIGN REViEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10559 - WILLIAM i LYON COMPANY - A residential subdivision of two lots on `;• 10.1 acres of land in the R -R zone, located north of - Arrow Highway and west of Archibald Avenue - APN 208 311 -01 0 � r r t: y r' . r ' nM4iM. .1..!.q+F�q'!..yU..dp..n:..1.r1 .. ... vwlY IN r•r.r.'Ir'!`. ^tt I'i. r.,a f .: r i...�.r .r :. 'Lj _r... � -. _..- f�11..._. Planning Commission Agenda -2- May 13, 1981 VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which con- cerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission from the public microphone by giving your name and eddress. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes ,xar individual for each project. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 81 -01 MMAT NOEL BAPTIST CHURCH - The construction of d 00 s eat church building on 2.14 acres of land in the v R -1 zone located on the 4outh side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald - APN 202 - 111 -19 D. REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6246 - IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH - A subdivision of 6.55 acres into two 2 parcels located on the south side of 19th Street 240x• feet east of Amethyst Street - APN 202- 111 -19 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. II -05 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY - The development of an electrical distribution sub- station on 4.78 acres of land in the R -1 -20 zone located on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues - APN 1061 -571 -04 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6725 - DAON CORPORATION - A commercial subdivision of 176.85 acres into 10 parcels in the M -2 zone located east of Q,t Haven Avenue on the south side of Foothill Blvd. - (1" APN 208- 351 -03, 13 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT i4O. 81---OF --Amending R-1 permitted uses to Mow mobile homes in the R -1 -7,200 zone pursuant to SB 1960. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. -&M V-61 - TRAILS ELEMENT - A General Pan Amendmept to s more clearly define the existing Trails Element` 11 ,1 vI Planning Commission Agenda - May 13, 1981 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10762 P 0 0 -0 - CACIA CONSTRUCTION, INC. - d- tota v-e- development of. 84 condominiums on 9.6 acres zoned R -3, located at the southwest corner of Baker Avenue and Foothill Blvd. - APN 207 - 191 -31 & 40 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP N0. 6051 NELSON - A residential subdivision of 1.9 acres of and into four (4) parcels within the R- 1 -2e000 zone located on the north side of Manzanita Avenue between D Carnelian and Beryl Street. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AND PARCEL MAP N0. 6833 - C� LAWRENCE - A residential subdivision of 7.57 acres into three (3) parcels within the R -1 zone located A f E t Avenue north of Southern VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. on the west s e o as , Pacific Railroad - APN 227 - 121 -30 & 43 Old Business New Business Council Referrals Director's Reports Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear .I this agenda. Upcoming Agenda Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that .set an 11.00 p.m. adjournment time. if items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. nz W r 0 V U 0 W 4 �a K l° P x a= c M CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 9, 1981 Adjourned Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER 1 The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday, February 9, 1981. Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Vice Chairman Sceranka, who led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff Sceranka ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Richard Dahl STAFF PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, City Planner; Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner; William Holley, Director of Community Services; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner; Ed Villenueva, Planting Aide; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; and. Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNGUNCEMENTS: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development stated he would like to bring attention to an additional item inserted in the Commission's packet, which concerns land use recommendations in the alternative area. He requested that the Commission discuss this item tonight. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel, carried unanimously to add subject item to the Agenda as Item VIII. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DRAFT PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT Jack Lam, Director of Community Development stated at the last meeting, this element was discussed. This evening staff is requesting that the Commission finalize the recommendation for that element so that the final draft may be developed for the Council. Mr. Holley is present to review the Staff Report at this time. Bill Holley, Director of Community Services, reviewed the staff report in detail. He indicated the Commission, at their February 2, 1981 meeting, requested that revisions to the tent be made relating to the Park and Recreation Element. The changes have been made which he reviewed for the r Commission. c ;" Vice Chairman Sceranka asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated most of the trails end at Banyan. In the case where a water course comes below Banyan it be prudent to bring trails down the water course. Those trails could be used for other things rather than horse uses, such as walking or jogging trails. Mr. Holley stated it would be appropriate to investigate all possible areas where trail systems can be implemented. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see this investigated in an active manner. It is nice when going for a walk if you don't have to go onto the city street but could go up a natural water course. Commissioner Sceranka stated he would like to know whether or not the flood control district is actively working to coordinate uses along the flood control right -of -way. Mr. Holley stated there has been very recent correspondence between the City and County, with the county assuring us we will have access. The source of funding is always in question, but the availability of the land will be there. We will aggressively pursue implementing and using public facilities wherever possible. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when a project comes in that adjoins one of those courses, is there enough right -of -way so that when money becomes available that it can occur, or do we need to make special note of that. Mr. Hogan stated what he would suggest when a project comes in adjacent to a regional trail system, that as part of the conditions of approval that they be required to provide these improvements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated would it not be prudent to put that in the General Plan as one of our objectives. Commissioner Sceranka stated he would agree. He is concerned that we don't have more of a mention of Alta Loma Creek as well as Demens on the map. This i- a good time to clarify what is exactly the program for trails. In .erms of setting priorities for funding and grants, are you saying that the trails now shown on the map will receive priority over other trails that may be added later? Mr. Holley stated most of the trails have land that is in public right - of -way, along some type of a drainage area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was also thinking of the metropolitan water district right -of -way. Mr. Holley stated yes, that is another possibility. We are looking at MWD land and in several applications are considering park utilization., Planning Commmission Minutes -2- February 9, 1981 C Mr. Hogan stated one of the trails approximates the MWD right -of -way from Haven, east, just below the college. Commissioner Rempel stated there is one thing that we need to take into account, that :-s putting a trail along a concrete channel before that channel is properly fenced or maintained. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree but it is important for us to plan these now. Commissioner Rempel stated on page 97, second paragraph, the word "shall" should be changed to "may". Mr. Holley stated this will be changed. Commissioner Sceranka stated on page 103, the last policy, stated the City shall facilitate the development of local trails, special spur trails, and tertiary trails. This should be clarified. Mr. Hogan stated the terminology has not been changed as yet. Tertiary trails are what we would term local feeder "rails. The terminology will be changed for clarification. There being no further questions from the Commission of the staff, Vice Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Hill stated his concern is the lack of park land south of Arrow Highway. There is over 500 families currently living south of Arrow Highway. There is also the possibility of getting a few thousand more people in residential growth between 6th and 4th Streets. Park land should be designated in that area. Also, if the golf course, as mentioned at an earlier meeting is converted, it should be converted to a city park. Mr. Holley stated at our last meeting a display was reviewed that indicated that any residential location within the city was within a 15 minute walking distance to +a park. Regarding the golf course, the feasibility of using that as a park site has been examined and a portion of that site has been considered for park use. Mr. Bill asked if the Commission will recommend to the City Council that a certain amount of the City be mandated as park land. Mr. Holley stated the Council under Ordinance No. 105, established a ratio of 5 acres of park land per 1,000 population. The plan proposes these standards. The Ordinance meets the National Recreation and Park Association standards for the community and neighborhood park levels. A total of 740 acres of park land is planned for a total build out of .148,000 in population. Kay Matlock, Lewis Homes, stated in the park element, development of the park is at the expense of the developers. However, the way the element reads now there is a list of various facilities that would be included in parks such as swimming pools, tennis courts and all kinds of play fields. Planning Commissi.on Minutes -3- F<abruary 9, 1981 The way it is written it seems as though the developer is expected to provide those too. She understands from Mr. Holley that this is not the intent but she would feel more comfortable if the language were corrected to make that clear. Her second comment on the park ordi.nar.ce is she would feel more comfortable, if it were stated that other forms of "financing other than fees on new development could be possible for parks in new areas. She understands th2Lt the City has at this time no funding and no other rechanism but she woc.ld not like it enshrined in the General Plan as the only mechanism to be: considered for parks. She stated in relation to the proposed city park, they are aware of a number of possible funding mechanisms for funding the acquisition of the park. It would be to the City's interest to set a time frame so that if it cannot be done, the park program in the rest of the City be reevaluated and perhaps park sites could be enlarged or new sites picked. Otherwise, that land will be lost to development. They would ask that if the park cannot be developed, that some underlying alternative land use be establisl,:ad for that property that it could revert to in the event the City park cannot be developed. In their planned community they have proposed that part of the property be medium high density residential and part be medium density. They would request that the plan provide for that underlying land use if he park cannot be developed. She indicated they are proposing a green belt of approximately 90 acres within the Terra Vista project and they do not quite see the need for all of that if the 100 acre part: should be developed in the area. Mr. Marvin Shaw, Building Industry Association, reviewed a schedule of fees for the City of Rancho Cucamonga as well as other cities in the surrounding area. The standard for the City of Rancho Cucamonga requires a fee of about 4 times the regional average. Affordability of housing should be a high priority to be considered. Once the standard is im- plemented, the problems really just begin. Once park lands are developed, they have to be maintained. He asked if the City has applied for a recreation grant since the Roberti- Z'Berg Grant. Mr. Holley stated the City has applied for every grant which we have been eligible. Commissioner Tolstoy asked 'Mr. Shaw if the BIA. wants the City.to consider lowering their standards. Mr. Shaw stated he is pointing out there are alternate standards. lie is just identifying the cost but it i:; not for him to d^_termine the priorities. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the City is quite aware of this and the residents within the City have said this is what they wanted. Commissioner Rempel stated the Council has an ordinance already in effect. The ordinance already requires that we have fire acres of park per 1,000 population. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 9, 1981 Mr. Ralph Lewis stated in regard to the 100 acre park site, they would not want to get into the situation 'like they have had with O.P.R. on the alternative area, where inadvertently they were in a position that the s::aff could not process their maps as they thought O.P.R. would not allow it. A letter from O.P.R. was received which indicated this was never their intent. Their project was held up for quite a while and he trusts this will be worked out tonight and at the Council meeting next week. We may get into the same kind of thing with the par's site. The underlying land use should be designated for that land if the park should not be developed. If a land use is not provided then they will go through a period where there is no use designated and they will have the same kind y of delay. Mr. Jim Kobacki stated he lives in Alta Loma. He asked where the neighbor- hood and mini parks come from. He asked if it is up to the developers or what control does the City have over that. Mr. Holley reviewed this for Mr. Kobacki. There being no further comments from the audience, vice Chairman Sceranka closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolscoy stated the staff has done a good job in revising the park and recreation element. He would really like to see some revision of the tent that channels like Alta Loma Creek should be looked at and developed all the way to the end if feasible. If this is placed in the Ceaeral Plan it will give us a reminder to do that when the time comes which is very important. Commissioner Rempel stated a new city needs an adequate amount of open area. We do need to make sure that when we reserve park lands that it is usable park land. He stated the schools should also come one step further to allow the community to derive some benefit from them such as using the baseball diamom's and play fields. That should be counted as part of our parks. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there is an adequate definition of community recreation centers in the text. Mr. Holley stated this could be clarified as follows: after community recre' __on centers, add "and specialty facilities ". This would clarify and remove some of the concerns. It was the consensus of the Commission to clarify this and bring it back at the final adoption meeting. Commissioner Sceranka stated there is a statement under neighborhood parks that states all improvements and facilities shall be made and constructed by the ieveloper. Is that in actuality the only way we are going to fund parks? Mr. Holley stated no, it is not the only way. This will be reworded so that it does not imply this is the only method of funding. Planning Commission Minutes —5— February 9, 1981 C rs Commissioner Sceranka asked staff's opinion on the rnderlying land use for the 100 acre park if it would not be developed. Mr. Lam stated Staff would like to research this and come back to the next meeting with possible alternatives. Commissioner Sceranka believes, after being Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee, that one of the highest goals of the community is to have as maximum a park standard for parks and recreation as we can and to attempt to pay for those as diligently as we can. At this time, when beginning the process, it would not be appropriate to soften or lessen the amount of acreage before we have attempted to fund the improvements. We should establish the highest ideal and see how well we can achieve that goal. Commissioner Rempel asked if it would be possible to have a referendum type of vote in the community to see if there is enough interest to vote_ for a bond issue for nar_cs. Ar. Holley stated in most bond issues that have come up, we are talking about general obligation bonds. The bond is repaid tnrougb a tax assessment against the property owner. However, recent constitutional legislation has limited the ability to exceed the 1% property tax limitation. There- fore any type of bond that would be passed would have to be included within the already designated one percent, and some of the services that are being paid for at this time would have to be reduced. One of the alterna- tives that the City could look at is the Joint Powers Authority which is another form of bonding available which could be employed. At the staff level we have been continuously searching for methods of making and addressing this community's desires. Commissioner Tolstoy stated in regard to Mr. Lewis' concern about the 100 acre park designation, and what alternative might be put on that property, after hearing testimony from members of the CAC as well as Commission, he really questions whether the City ought to make a commitment. It would be better if we really believe that the park is essential to the city, not to dilute it by saying there can be alternative uses. When the city arrives at the point where it is no longer feasible, that is the time to have a General Plan Amendment. Iie would like to go on record that he would not want that designation shown as an alternative. That is a park and we should be committed to that as a park. We should change our mind only down the line if that cannot possibly be a park. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to accept the park and recreation element as presented with the clarificatiuns made tonight be brought back to the next meeting. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 9, 1981 i, Mr. Lam stated it would take a separate motion to see whether the Commission wants to request staff to bring • uderlying alternatives. Motion: Moved 'oy Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to request staff to come back with a'definitive statement on the possibility of placing an underlying land use on the 100 acre park. AYES: COM'"IISSIONER5: NOES: COM"O:SSIONERS: ABSENT: COWISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCEIVAKA TOLSTOY KING, DAHL 8:15 p.m. The Planning C -jmmission recessed 8:30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANNED COMMUNITY AREA Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail. Staff recommends that the Commission review and considr-r the analysis made by Staff on the Lewis Homes request and leave the designations presently shown on the Draft Land Use Plan as is. Vice Chairman Sceranka opened the public ht:cring. Kay Matlock, Lewis Homes, stated there is a need for higher density some- where within the City. Those are important not only to make affordable housing possible but also to make the City's transit goals within reach, the City's energy conservation goals within reach, and to meet the City's obligation to the state. Staff stated the density changes they have requested are not possible for traffic reasons. Those changes will not increase traffic on the streets above what was already allowed in the City Traffic Mosel and in the General Plan. Their study indicated that their project at higher density than this would out less traffic on Foothill, Base Tine, and Rochester than the DKS model came up with. The reason for this is they are talking about a planned community, where basically anything needed is inside the development. The second point of the staff report stated the request for increased density is too high andwould increase population by approximately 2,900 persons. Their opinion is that without those changes the overall density in the city will be too low. The City needs higher density somewhere and we feel this is the place for it, as it will be the bub of the circulation network. TY.e effect of this is to keep out of the City anyone who is not already here with the exception of the wealthy. The third point in the staff report stated the amount of high density proposed appears disproportionately large in comparison to the amount of commercial, office, or other residential densities propcsed. It is their opinion the planned community does not propose that much acreage in the high density category. They requested high density in order to have the flexibility to provide the right mix of densities throughout the project as a who ?.e. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 9, 1981 The fourth point in the staff report stated the high density proposed adjacent to the proposed elementary school may create traffic /pedestrian conflicts :nd increase the risk to school children. They are not proposing any high density next to any school within their project. The fifth point within the staff report stated the proposal. tends to concentrate density In a relatively small residential area between Foothill, Haven, Church and Rochester, increasing the overall residential area density on the Sedway/ Cooke plan. They do not propose to develop property in big building blocks of density shown on the General Plan. Densities have been mixed in usable size parcels. In almost every case in their plan, the areas of high and medium high density bave been clustered around key interior intersections. In regard to the sixth point, that the commercial designation at the southeast corner. of Milliken and Base Line should be moved to the northeast corner of Base. Line and Haven, she fails to see how a center at this location would create longer trips for the shoppers. They are asking that one center be left at Base Line and Milliken as that center would adequately service the residents of the eastern portion of their project and residents to the north, west and south. They have been in contact- with some of the neighboring residents of the site. Some of them do not favor this project but those- they talked to recently were unanimously in favor of it. Mr. Kulbacki stated it is pretty obvious that the majority of the people are against high density. The developer wants to make more money based on investments within the community and is not for the welfare of the community. To change the density would be a tragedy for the welfare of the people. Mr. Ralph Lewis of Lewis Development, stated people like to believe that density is the same as crime, but they do not go together. Also when talking about a shopping center being allowed on one corner or the other, what does that have to do with crime. The Council stated they wanted to see the rest of the Terra Vista Plan before they committed themselves to a center on the corner. They now know what Terra Vista is going to look like. It would be to everyone's benefit to start now oa a center at that corner rather rhan wait until Milliken is ready. The proposed tenants are getting very impatient as they believe there is a need 'w. In regard to the surrounding nei¢Hbors Lewis Homes had someone call approximately ten families that live around that corner and they all said they would prefer a center at Base Line and Haven. There was the implication that increase in densities are bad, but sometimes low density can look a lot worse than high d.:nsity. All over the country there is a trend toward greater densities to smaller living quarters and the main reason is affordability. Mr. John Vlasic stated he would refer anyone to the USC school of Social Sciences and ask them to discuss studies done on relationship to crime and density. There is a real relationship between the two. To remind you of the months past, the issue of density has come up and has started a lot of controversy and a lot of emotion and feelings from people. The Advisory Committee took a position on density. He applauds the staff recommendation in this case as it is well thought out in terms of traffic problems and other things presented. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 9, 1981 N kkIV a. t,l ' %AS! WA There being no further comments from the audience, Vice Chairman Sceranka closed the public hearing. Commnissioner Rempel asked what is the overall density_ in the plan, and asked if the Terra Vista Plan has been submitted. Mr. Hogan stated the Terra Vista Plan has na been submitted or presented to the Planning Staff as of yet. Commissioner Sceranka stated we, as planners, need to evaluate projects on the basis of data and input received to this point aid make the best decision we can cased on that information. He is not in favor of ircrease or change in density on the basis of a plan that he, does not have before him to evaluate. It is not appropriate to make any changes until the data has been submitted. Commissioner Sceranka stated it would be more appropriate to see Lewis' traffic study in order to verify what representatives of Lewis Development have stated, rather than to take their word for it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated traffic is a major problem. He would have a problem with more density at this time. In the future, if we find that we can handle more traffic, the Lewis Company can ask for a revision in the plan. Be personally does not feel at this point In time we can warrant more density within the Terra Vista Project. No evidence has been presented to back that up. The question needs to be answered of whether the project and surrounding community can support the density; at this point he doesn't beleive it can. Commissioner Rempel stated he would have a problem making a favorable decision tonight. Right now he cannot make the decision to increase the density and believes the Planned Community needs to come befcre us in order that we may have some definite answers. In regard to the shopping center, he believes there may possibly be a need for a center in that area of Haven and Base Line. lie would support the center at Haven and Base Line. Commissioner Tolstty stated if density is to be increased in the Terra Vista project, additional information needs to be submitted. At this time, with what has been presented he cannot support a favorable decision. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to retain density as shown on the Sedway /Cooke plan. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, SCERANKA, REMPEL NONE KING, DAHL Commissioner Rempel stated he supports the motion but he is not saying that when the Planned Community c=--s in if there is data that will show increased density is warranted, it does not mean this cannot be charged. Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 9, 1981 Commissioner Sceranka stated in regard !'o the shopping center, basically he believes that future consideration fcr a center on the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line could be brought before the Planning Commission. He would like staff to come back with a recommendation at the next meeting to -take a look at the tenter as proposed on the southwest corner of Base Line and Milliken and possibly '.orate that shopping center closer to the highest densities within the Terra Vista project, near the inter- sections of Church and Cleveland. The •eason for this is he doesn't believe in fostering development on intersectiois of more than one shopping center unless extreme conditions warrant that. If we are going to folloo: the Policy that we want to put our shopping as close to the residential areas as-we can. There is no ohoppinf; center proposed for any of the high density except those two corners so it could seem appropriate to take a look at putting one of those centers Lnto the interior of the density. Commissi.oner lolstoy stated Commissioner Sceranka has expressed his sentiments exactly. He does not know where the anopping center should go and he would have a hard time knowing where it would go unless we see the plan as it comes in. He is not saying there should not be a shopping center at Haven and Base Line but witholt seeing what Terra Vista is going to look like; it is really hard t> make a decision at this time. Commissioner Sceranka stated he believes that the southwest corner of Milliken and Base Line needs to be considered closer to the high density within the Terra Vista Plan. It would lake no sense to have both centers in the area of low medium density and hive no center near the high density development. He cannot make a .'ecision on Base Line and Haven at this time. Motion: Moved by Commissioner. Rempel tc authorize a shopping center on the northeast corner of Haven and Base Ltne in order to allow the site plan to come before us. Motion defeated. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka that the shopping center designation wouli not be appropriate with as much information as we have at this time. Further, staff to look at the location of a center on the interior of the Terra vista project and bring back their recommendation at the next meeting. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT.: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, SCIRANKA REMPEL KING, DAHL WRAP -UP OF REMAINING LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, revii2wed the staff report. Staff recommends that the Commission review and discuss the .-equests for changes in the Draft Land Use Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 9, 1981 NU Vice Chairman_ Sceranka asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. There being none, Vice Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Mr. Victor Koening stated he is representing his brother who recently purchased property on the southeast corner of Hermosa. and 19th Street. When his brother purchased the property he came to the City, and at that time, the area was planned for mixed use which staff indicated could be allowed for condominium usage or office usage. This particular property was changed to low density residential. 19th Street will be a high traffic street. They did not expect to use the entire 5 acres for office usage and have thought of higher density condominium usage mixed in. He requests that the interim plan be maintained on that corner. Mr. James Chase, stated he is concerned about the property located 300' north of 19th Street, east of Hermosa containing approximately 6 acres. He would request that the Commission consider the adoption of the interim general plan of mixed use for this property. He feels it is unreasonable and unfair to down zone from mired use to low density residential. He believes it would be more reasonable and appropriate to down zone this to medium density. The property directly to the west and adjacent to Hermosa is shown or. the proposed general plan as medium density. The property directly to the west is medium high density. It is his opinion subject property should be a transition between Lhe existing office designation to the south and existing R -1 to the north. Medium density zoning would provide that transition. Mr. Gary Kosky stated he is present to speak for the concerned citi. ^.ens that live in the area to the north of the area bounded by Archibald on the east, 6th Street on the south, and Hellman on the west. Their area of low density residential is alm eady surrounded by commercial on the north and west. The land use plan was changed from medium density to industrial park. A comment has been made that the existing residential area was a mistake; if this is the case, do the residents of this area have to pay for that mistake. It is his opinion this area should be returned to at least its original Sedway /Cooke proposal and preferably be lower than proposed. Another argument in favor of that would be the fact th,.t Ontario already has residential properties close to Hellman on the west side of their area. He asked that consideration be'given the residential pocket and that the area to the south not be changed to industrial park. Mr. Jam• ?s Keller stated he has been asked to address the medium density residential for properties bounded by Monte Vista, Archibald, Ramona, and the Southern Pacific Railroad. He submitted a petition from reuidents in the immediate area stating they are opposed to the proposed medium density residential in the draft general plan within subject area. Of those asked to sign the petition, 180 residents were opposed to medium density, 6 residents had no opinion, and - e resident was in favor of the medium residential. Several people questio.:ed the quality of life in the surrounding residential area, traffic flow and safety. They do not believe the residential streets can withstand impact of further development. Flood Control in the area of La Vine and south to the railroad crossing Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 9, 1981 L> is barely adequate during even a moderate rain. The question of children's safety is a major consideration. There is also the question of overcrowding in the schools. Commissioner Sceranka. stated the Commission cannot make any decisions on Mr. Keller.'s request tonight as this item has not been placed on the Agenda. He stated Mr. Keller may meet with staff prior to the next meeting. Mr. Arnold Anders -3n stated he would like to address the area located at the northwest corner of Haven and Arrow Route. He stated they would like to have an industrial park designation shown on the property with some commercial at the intersection of Foothill and Raven. He believes this would make a lot of sense as there is already industrial usage on Arrow east of the channel. There being no further comments from the audience, Vice Zhairman Sc--ranka closed the public hearing. Item 91: Less than one acre on the northeast corner of Grove and Arrow Route. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to change the designation of subject property to commercial. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA NONE KING, DAHL Item 912: Northwest corner of Haven and Arrow Route containing approximately 39 acres. Commissioner Rempel stated he does not believe residential use would be good at this location but the area should ';e looked at in the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study. At this time he would be in favor of the draft plan designation of office and medium residential until that study is completed. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to retain the draft plan of Office and Medium Residential (15 -24 dwelling units per acre) and that the area be included in the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Study. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT_: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA NONE KING, DAF.L Item #3: Approximately 5 acres on the southeast corner of Hermosa and 19th Street. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 9, 1981 Motion: 1 to retain per acre) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Item #4: Hermosa.. loved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel the draft plan designation of low residential (2 -4 dwelling units for subject propert,. COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL Approximately 6 acres, 300' nortli of 19th Street, east of Commissioner Scerarka stated he has serious questions about the office previously approved on the northeast corner. of Hermosa and 19th Street. The area is extremely difficult to negotiate any type of business without impacting traffic flows and he does not want to encourage further office use in that area. He stated if the rest of the Commission concurs, he would request that the entire corner come back to the next meeting for reconsideration. The area is low density, and there is flooding problems there. Any development considered in that area is going to have to be given careful consideration by the Commission. Commissioner Rempel stated you cannot necessarily say that it isn't good to have an office complex next to residential. It is quite often done and can be worthwhile to have an office adjacent to residential. Offices do not necessarily need to be in a total business complex. He believes it was a good decision for that property to be a medical office, and he would not want to have that changed at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree with Commissioner Rempel. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to change the residential designation on the six acres 300' north of 19th Street, east of Hermosa to low medium residential (5 -8 dwelling units per acre) and leave the office designation as shown. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DA11L Commissioner Sceranika stated he is opposed to the motion as he believes we need to look at the intersection more closely as he is convinced that ,;. office is appropriate at that particular location. Further, he does not believe that the six acres is the only area that should be low medium residential. Planning Com+,iission Minutes -13- February 9, 1981 lull Vice Chairman Sceranka stated the other items brought up at the meeting,; one being consideration for land use between Archibald, Ramona, Monte Vista and La Vine; with the other area being 4th and Archibald will be discussed at the next regular meeting. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to no longer consider auy additional requests for land use changes. AYES: COMKISSIONEi6: NOES: COMMISSIONERS-. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA NONE KING, DAHL Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to reconsider the decision main on 4th and Archibald at the next General Plan meeting. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA NONE KING, DAHL Vice Chairman Sceranka asked the Commission's desire on the property located between Archibald, Ramona, Monte Vista, and the Southern Pacific Railrcad. Commissioner Rempel asked how much of this property is currently in the development stage. Mr. Hogan stated the Commission has considered for approval approximately one half of the area. There is a submittal on approximately another third. There is still an opportunity if you wish to consider a change in a small portion of the area but most of it has already been committed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he really does not see any point in bringing this area back for consideration. Vice Chairman Sceranka stated he would concur with Commissioner Tolstoy. He would like to state that this does not mean that we won't take into consideration noise, school impacts, and traffic when development is considered. Developments will not be approved if they do not go along with policies established within the context of the General Plan. Develop- ment will not be approved unless they provide adequate services. Mr. Hogan stated staff is available to sit down with Mr. Keller or other interested people to explain how the city considered all items and what ordinances that have come into effect that the Commission must consider in approval of projects within the area. If Mr. Keller would like to contact us, we would sit down with him to discuss the area. 10:15 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 10:30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 9, 1981 REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail. Staff recommends that the Commission review and discuss the draft envirormental impact report and potential impacts and mitigation measures as discussed and contained within the report. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he does not have any questions at this time, and would concur with the staff report. Commissioner Rempel stated he would agree staff has done a good job on the measures as presented and the mitigation measures proposed. Commissioner Sceranka sated he believes that the mitigation measures need to be broad -based and serve as a foundation over time. We do not want to have them in concrete at this time. Therefore he is also in complete agreement with the draft environmental impact report as presented. Mr. Beedle stated staff has received few comments in regard to the report. One letter was received from the State Clearinghouse which indicated the General Plan was sent to selected state agencies for review. The review was complete and none of the state agencies had comments. Comments were received. from Cal Trans and the Regional Quality Control Board which were very general. in nature. Vice Chairman Sceranka opened the public hearing. Pam Henry stated her concern is when talking about traffic and circulation, it always refers to the automobile. Impacts do not take into consideration other methods of transportation in the residential areas. Mr. Beedle stated the equestrian trail revisions will come to the Commission for review at the next meeting. This addresses impacts other than automobiles and sets the policy recommendation that equestrian routes should be considered at the time new development projects come before the city. The equestrian committee and the staff will consider all. impacts. Commissioner Sceranka stated there is also a tremendous problem with motorcycles in the community, making noise in the neighborhoods, disrupting households, going up the horse trails, etc. It is important that this be seriously reviewed in the future. Mr. Beedle stated certain design mechanisms can be accomplished to address this. Mr. Rogan stated it is very important to point out that the EIR is written to be considered as part of the General Plan and many of the things brought up tonight and the mitigation measures are items which the Commission has added into the General Plan. There being no further comments from the audien ^_e, Vice Chairman Sceranka closed the public hearing. !.c Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 9, 1981 0 Commissioner T'olstoy stated he believes our EIR is better than any he has seen. The thing which makes it especially better is how well it ties in with the General Plan. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously to ad j ourn. 10:45 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 9, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 17, 1981 Adjourned Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER E The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, on Monday, February 17, 1981. Meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m. by Chairman Dahl, who led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Jack 'Lam, Director of Community Development_; Barry Rogan, City Planner; Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated the staff has passed out some items for Commission consideration tonight. This includes an acknowledgement list to the General Plan; policy on design considerations for Foothill and Haven; minor word changes to the draft General Plan; and minor word changes to the text of the riding, hiking and trails section of the Draft General Plan. FINAL WRAP -UP OF REMAINING LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated the Commission has, since last November, conducted public hearings throughout the community regarding different portions of the City regarding various elements of the Draft General Plan. This is now the final wrap -up meeting in which the Commission will make its final recommendations to the City Council. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed property on the northwest corner of 4th and Archibald. He stated while the staff feels that medium density residential. is appropriate for the above - referenced property, the Commission may wish to consider the options as indicated in the staff report. He reviewed, the options for the Commission. Chairman Dahl asked .fer questions from the Commission of the staff. There being none, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Koskyy presented the Commission with a petition which was circulated among home owners in the area that are concerned with the development of the area which was changed industrial from residential. They would like low- medium density, single family residential, and would basically go along with staff's #3 alternative which shows a combination of uses. The residents are concerned as they have been referred to as t "mistake "; and they felt it would be a serious problem to be enclosed by industrial in all directions. The proposal of a park area definitely would be a great improvement as there is no park in the area at this time. They do not want low income housing or high density adjacent to their tract. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Kosky bow the industrial classification which allows commercial, office and industrial development would conflict with the residential area? Mr. Kosky stated they would be in favor of usable park space along 6th Street within the residential area. As far as a buffer between the residential and industrial park classification he cannot say how much that should be; the Planners should determine this. All they are asking is for reasonable consideration. He does not believe industrial park would meet the type of development that all the home owners want in that area. Mr. Don Stevenson, representing .john D. Lusk and Sons, stated they feel medium density residential would allow an opportunity to provide moderately priced homes. Thcy would also be in favor of some commercial as previously shown. Therefore, they would be in favor of alternative #2 in the staff report. Commissioner Sceranka asked what kind of commercial would be proposed by Lusk. Mr. Stevenson stated with the expansion of the airport, 4th Street is going to become a major street. Archibald is now a major highway and will continue to be. Uses such as motels and restaurants would be compatible in the area. They have not looked at the area as a location for a neighborhood shopping center but more of the type of uses to service the industrial and airport users. Commissioner Ring asked Mr. Stevenson why he feels the commercial should be shown at the corner of Archibald and 4th Street. Mr. Stevenson stated the highest use should get the greatest exposure. The greatest exposure would be at that corner. Mr. Paul Burns, representing Marlborough Corporation, stated they would support what Mr. Stevenson has said. They also own property in the area and it is felt that staff's alternative #2 is the position that the land owners can most agree upon as being feasible. Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 17, 1981 Commissioner King stated assuming all the propertyw were indicated industrial park, how long do you think it would take for the land to reach such a point that the parcel could be profitably used as an industrial park? Mr. Burns stated from information they have, that might never occur at this location. Mr. Al Blessant stared he owns 10 acres at the southeast corner of 6th and Hellman. He sh .es the same concern as the property owners to the north. They would like to have a medium high density residential on their property. They would develop a high quality development. That designation would enable them to market something that would be aff:.cdable and something that the neighborhood would be proud of. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he indicated previously that the tract to the north of 6th Street approved by the County was a mistake. He still feels it is unfortunate the houses are there but we now need to do some good planning be:ause the homes are there. The park is a good idea, however, he does not believe a S acre park is a good idea. He would favor alternative X12 with some modification. Commissioner Dahl stated if an industrial park or office park designation is approved along 4th Street between Hellman and Archiblld, does he under- stand that motels and hotels are allowable? Mr. Hogan stated yes, restaurants would also be allowed. Commissioner Dahl stated he would go along with Commissioner Tolstoy. Alternative #2 is the best alternative with some modification. A smaller park of 2 -2k. acres would be very good but a large park is not needed. He does not think commercial is necessary at the corner of Archibald and 4th Street. The office park designation is good provided it allows the use of restaurants, hotels, and airport type services. Commissioner King stated the concept of a master plann_d i:idustrial park in that vicinity is a -lood concept to pursue. There is a need for buffering and transition between the residential to the north and on the south sidq of 6th Street but not to the extent as shown in Alternative #2. He would not be in favor of commerical at the corner of 4th and Archibald. The area shown as higher residential in the middle of the diagram could perhaps be converted to industrial park with residential to the north, south of 6th Street. Commissioner Rempel stated if low density residential is moved to the south of 6th Street, we will be faced with the situation of buffering residential with industrial. All. the streets would be collector streets. There should be no low or medium low density on the south side of 6th Street, as we.would be asking for trouble later on. He also agrees a small park is needed south of 6th Street. The industrial area should come much further north then shown now. He does not believe service commercial Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 17, 1981 at the northeast corner of Archibald and 4th Street would be viable. The industrial park designation would allow restaurants, hotels and other types of commercial. Commissioner Sceranka stated he would be in favor of the smaller 231 acre - park. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Rempel that a park of approximately 21 acres be designated on the south side of 6th Street, between Archibald and Hellman. The remaining property fronting 6th Street to be designated medium density. The frontage along the west side of Archibald from 6th Street to 4th Street to be designated light industrial park. Property fronting 4th Street between Archibald and Hellman to be designated light industrial park. An asterisk to be placed on the residential area, with an additional asterisk placed on the light industrial park to indicate tha:se areas are to be master planned. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, REMPEL, KING, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 8:1.0 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT - RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRAFT GENERAL PLAN Barry Hogan reviewed the Staff Report in detail. He stated three items as requested at the last meeting have been clarified. Also, at the last meeting, the Commission requested staff to return with a recommendation on the alternate land use for the 99 acre Base Line Park. State law recently has been changed to indicate the General Plan and zoning can be amended at the same time. Mr. Lewis is considering the submittal of the Terra Vista Planned Community which encompasses the location of the 99 acre park. When the City Council adopts the Planned Community, the applicant will have a "PC" designation on his property. The Commission can resolve its concern of the park or underlying designation on the park site if you direct staff to consider concurrently a General Plan Amendment and the Planned Community of Terra Vista. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission make two motions as follows: 1.) to adopt the three clarification items as indicated in the staff report; and if the Commission wishes to consider our proposal to deal with the underlying land use then 2.) direct staff to bring forth a concurrent General Platt Amendment with the Planned Community of Terra Vista. Chairman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 17, 1981 There being none. Motion: Moved by Commissio:n_c Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to adopt the foll.owirg clarifications: 1. Page 94, 1st line, "shall" to "may ". 2. Page 96, 2nd paragraph, clarification of the type of facilities a developer was not responsible for; and 3. Page 96, 8th paragraph, same type of clarification as item cited above. AYES: COM:ISSIONERS: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, ICING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Motion: Moved by Commissicner Sceranka and secorded by Commissioner Rempel to retain the present General Plan designation for the 99 acre park and instruct staff, concurrent to the Planned Community of Terra Vista, to have a General Plan Amendment for the entire Planned Community. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MrATTON FOR A 0F*0 SCERANKA, REMPEL, KINGr TOLSTOY, DAHL NONE NONE )OD SHOPPING CENTER W Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report. Should the Commission wish to locate a neighborhood shopping center in close proximity to higher residential. density, then they should consider acceptance of either alternative 1, 2 or 3. Chaiiman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission to the staff. There being none, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Dan Rosso stated he lives at 10475 Pepper Street. He stated he, as well as other residents in the area, are in complete opposition to the neighborhood service commercial on t,- northeast corner of Base Line and Haven. There is no need within the snity to have another shopping center. Many of the stores in --he ar_;. are not doing well. With the flow of traffic down. Haven and across Base Line it would make it completely out of the question for people to walk to the shopping center in this area. Planning Commission Minutes —5— February 17, 1981 ii,`.t. is C Commissioner King asked Mr. Rosso if he saw in the foreseeable future the need for a shopping center in this location. Mr. Rosso stated unless we have a giant influx of people he cannot see another store needs to be developed within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Dahl stated a petition has been submitted containing 181 signatures in favor of a center at the northeast corner of Haven and Base Line and two letters have been received ir. opposition. Kay Matlock, Lewis Development, stated they are in agreement- with the recommendation made by staff that if the site is approved for neighborhood commercial they would not expect to have two centers within Terra Vista. They have submitted a concept plan showing residential uses and circulation patterns so the Commission can evaluate this for themselves. A commercial center at Base Line and Haven is essential to their Planned Community as this is the only intersection which could develop a neighborhood center within the foreseeable future. As the Planned Community is developed they want to phase in amenities and services. She indicated Jerry Dicker is present to address some of the ecoromi,: and technical issues on viability of a center at this location. He does have several tenants who have been ready to develop for the last year in that location cm the grounds that existing population will support that center now. In regard to the petition they submitted, they found more people to the north of Base Line tended to be in favor of the center. Mr. Jerry Dicker stated Lewis Homes was asked to determine what quality center can go at Base Line and Haven. They have built over 30 centers in Southern California. The Base Line and Haven site is the best, the most reasonable, and the most practical development site in the immediate future. He would be willing to put in writing that there are many commercial tenants that have expressed interest in developing at this site. They are concerned with building a center that won't negatively affect the environment. They have what they think is one of the finest architectural firms and they are convinced they will work with staff and Lewis Homes to provide careful screening of problem areas. They are confident a center can be built to the satisfaction of the residents of the community. With two major tenants there will not be many other shops within the project. The proposed tenants do their own demographic study and everyone has said they will go on the site. The Terra Vista project will add a substantial amount of people to more thar, handle two markets. Commissioner Sceranka stated we have discussed benefit to the tenants but not benefits to the community. If another center is put in the City, there will be an impact on existing retail businesses and may force a lot of the people out of buisness. This is something he is extremely concerned about. Mr. Dicker stated 'having new tenants within the City generally has a tendency to keep prices down and is healthy competition. In the proposed center they would only contemplate 15- 20,000 square feet of small stores. The center will not be fully built for approximately two years. Plarning Commission Minutes -6- February 17, 1981 Commissioner King asked Mr -Dicker if he thinks it is crucial to have a center located at the corner of Haven and Base Line. Mr. Dicker stated they have only built one center which was not on a main. intersection or freeway off -ramp; that is the Gemco development on Foothill Boulevard. This is very important in getting the quality tenants. r ^-^ ssioner Tolstoy stated he doesn't envision Cleveland and Church ever U, � a large intersection. Mr. Dicker stated the Lewis family is concerned with the timeliness of the development project. Base Line and Haven is a better location for a commercial center. Milliken is a good long range location for a center, but not in his opinion the quality of Base Line and Haven. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated he would agree Cleveland is not the best location for a center as it is not intended to cross the railroad tracks and traffic is T, . mportant to the centers. They originally asked for four neighborhood coma._. 1 centers but they have been limited to two. In regard to Mr. Rosso's statemr_:its, the more busy the arterial, the more you have to say that is not the place to put additional houses. He has not heard any protest from tenants of other centers and they should speak for themselves. Doug Hone stated he has to agree with Mr. Lewis that Haven and Base Line is the ideal location for a center, but if Mr. Lewis is going to be allowed to develop this corner, then Mr. Sylvester and Mr. Glatt should be told they cannot_ do what they want to do. If you look at Terra Vista over a 20 year period of time, Milliken to him seems like it would best serve the Terra Vista community. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sceranka stated he doesn't want to look at this from the level of what is best for the tenants. The residents within the community have to take preference in terms of thei. need's and provide them with the right type of commercial. When he made the motion to take the triangle area west of Day Creek out of Terra Vista, it was not significant to the design or the practicality in our consideration of the overall project. He has been hearing tonight that consideration of a center on the northeast corner of Base Line and Haven is one of two or three centers to serve the Terra Vista project. He feels very uncomfortable making a decision outside of the boundaries for a project which will serve the residents within the Terra Vista project. Our General Plan designation shows high density residential near the intersection of Cleveland and Church. The philosophy of the General Plan is to locate services as close to major population areas as we can to mitigate pollution, traffic congestion and the like. It doesn't make sense to him to approve a center at Base Line and Haven to serve Terra Vista when no center is proposed near the high density within the Project. He would prefer to have that included in the Terra Vista plan. Planning Commission Minutes ,110.,,.. 1V -7- February 17, 1981 Commissioner Tolstoy stated the corner of Haven and Foothill is going to hopefully be quite a large merchant center. The Council approved the Watt Industry development at Highland and Haven and he personally doesn't thi:&k that a third center should be developed on Haven Avenue. Two good centers need to be developed within the Terra Vista project to serve the project. There are enough shops already in the City to serve the area west of Haven. Therefore, he cannot_ approve a center at Iiaven and Base Line. Commissioner Rempel stated Base Line and Haven is a very viable place to have a shopping area. This will be viable because there will be a lot of traffic going down these streets, and will give the Etiwanda area a very good place to shop. This is also a good location because of the mobile home park in Lhe area. Commissioner King stated when we start pushing too hard on the viability issue we are perhaps going a little 'sit too far in terms of our exercise of power. This should be left to priv:.te enterprise. He stated the Commission needs to consider whether a development is consistent with land uses In the area. He believes that the intersection, of Base Line and Haven is appropriate. The private enterprise needs to determine whether or not to build. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agrees with Commissioner King. The commercial development needs to determine whether the site is viable or not. In taking a look at the centers which haven't made it, it presents poor planning to a city. He can point out many centers which are empty and have been fer a long time. It. makes the neighborhood look bad. In that respect, he believes the Commission does h,•ve some reason to ponder the viability t,- too much commercial within the city. Commissioner Dahl stated he is a retailer and he would like to know wben he opens his store for business that he would have a guarantee that he will be in business this time next year but those guarantees are not there. Everyone takes a chance when he goes into business. A smart merchant will look to see if the area is viable for him. At the same time, the developer should determine whether or not the area is viable to put a center in and he will not put a center in unless he has tenants to have done studies to determine whether it is a viable location to locate their stores. His concern is whether or not the center would have good access and visibility, how it will serve an area within a one mile radius or better, and how it will provide the type of services that people want or need. Ile has heard comments from those opposed to the center but at the same time we have received a petition in favor of the center. He stated he is not opposed to this center based on the information brought forward tonight. Commissioner Rempel stated if a center. at Haven and Base Line is considered, they will be required to have landscap,.ng treatment to make an attractive and appealing center to the community. Commissioner Sceranka stated as we are going to consider approval of a commercial site that will serve a major part of the population of Terra Vista, he would personally like to reconsider the motion which took the triangle out of the planned community. If the center is to be considered Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 17, 1981 it should be included in the consideration of the overall development of the project to determine whether or not it meets the goals of th ; General Plan and the E.I.R. and other objectives of the City. He would like ':o put this triangle back '.nto the planned community and look it the commercial as part of the s)ecific plan. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stat,A it is his opinion, under the aAmi%istrative regulations which govern the Planning Commission, a motion to reconsider that particular vote is not app -opriate as a motion to reconsider mist be made on the date that action is taken. Further, it must be made by the Commissioner voting in favor. Motion: Moved by Commissioner. Rempel and seconded by Commissioner. )ahl to approve Alternative #4 as f( llows: A neighborhood shopping center located on the northeast cornet of Haven and Base Line surrounded bi low - medium density. The southwest .vrner of Base Line and Milliken is :hanged to low- medium residential. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: XMPEL, DAHL, ICING NOES: C=1ISSIONERS: ;CERANKX, TOLSOTY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BONE Commissioner Sceranka stated he does not suppoct the motion as he btlleves that development of centers in the community have been to the detriient of the City. Comments made about the competitive nature, the econoiic viability of the centers, all 4ompeting with each other he doesn't ;pink is healtby for this community. We are put under a lot of pressure :o reach a balance between the needs zf the retail people, the needs of the - esidential and also the industrial areas. There has to be a balance. The af_ict .:f the overall community needs will be determined and at this point in time he believes the affect would be ne3ative. It would further prol.iferat retail uses within the City and cause >ome businesses to go out of busines This development would provide a tra :fic situation that may or may net c eat- a problem but we do not know whet the impact would be. He cannot s pport the motion. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he igrees with Commissioner Sceranka's statements. 10:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 10:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. CONSIDERATION OF REVISED GENERAL PLAN AND E.I.R. Jack Lam, Director of Community ) evelopment, sated this is the wral -up meeting for the General Plan. A.1 changes that the Commission has requested have been inserted in the plan. For consideration this evening is t revised Draft General Plan and E.I.R. Iuclud ^d are all comments from the S late, responsible State agencies and other ,.eviewing agencies for the plai. We would recommend that the Planing Commission accept these revisions ind approve kesolution No. 81 -13 which would recommend to the City Coun':il the certification of the E.I.R. and Draft General Plan as revised, j Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 17, 1981 i j Chairman Dahl asked for comments 9 from the Commission of the .•taff. Commissioner Sceranka asked when the definition section will be included in the text. -hr. Hogan stated the definition section will be put in as a clarification item after the Plan is approved by the City Council. Commissioner Sceranka stated he is most concerned about classifications of land use and their interpretations. He is concerned that people understand what each of the land use designations mean. Commissioner King stated he does not agree with the definition of affordable housing. On page 73 of the revised General Plan text, under affordable hcusin-., he feels the use of the word "current" could be construed as meaning or referring to a period of time in which the General Plan is approved by the City Council. He feels as the General Plan is a flexible document perhaps "current" should be deleted so that we don't run into ambiguities as to what is "current ". Mr. Lam suggested 'current" be revised to "the most current ". Commissioner King stated that would be reasonable. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Banks stated 1:e- would like to speak to some specific items. (i) Streets and Highways - Streets are classified under several grades. He stated they have opted for one of the lower levels and programmed their streets that way. Projections are based on the completion of the Foothill Freeway. He believes the plan is inadequate in that it picks the middle level of street and that is based upon projections that we don't have any assurance that they are not grossly understated. (2) Flood Control - The probleir has been recognized but answers have not been provided. We could possibly be just a few years away from an enormous flood. If we aI'ow development in without resolving flood pro-)lems we are asking for enormous expense for the taxpayers in rescuing people. (3) Density - Ir. order to change density, '.t should be established that it is in the public good tc cLange it. In listening to disc+issions he has heard only three reasons for increasing density. First, it is legally required. He disputes this as state standards haven't been made clear. Second, energy efficiency. As two of the Planning Commissioners said tonight, when you put a slLopping center on the outside of a dense community and want the people to drive out there you are ignoring the energy efficiency goal. Third, is the affordable housing issue. Affordable housing is what he considers to be a term invented by the S.I.A. which allows them to build smaller houses with mother and apple pie labels on them. He believes all requirements can be met without bigh density. We have wound up with massive high density tracts in large areas of the City. A majority of the people that have spoke have unanimously been opposed to high density. Planning Commission Minutes -10- February 17, 1981 �r Mr. Joe DiIori.o stated he would like to speak to Mr. Banks statements. In regard to streets and highways, the acceptable service level which has been used is one which is a generally acceptL-d standard. If this standard is not found to be acceptable in the fuiture, it can be changed at any one of the three per year revisions of the General Plan. In regard to the Foothill Freeway, a lot of work needs to be done to See that some kind of transportation corridor can go through. If we should need to change that assumption we can then make the appropriate decisions that would follow such a change and assumption. In reg -rd to flood control, it is not necessary to completely resolve flood control items now as there is no land built on yet. It is critical that flood control generally pace development so that as development occurs the infrastructure needs can be taken care of. We are all working toward a long term solution to the Day Creek problem. Ir. regard to density, he would like to tali: about the 100 or so people that have shown up to speak against high density that Mr. Banks talks about. Mr. Dilorio stated he has been irvolved in the General Plan for five years and in those five years he has seen several hundred people discuss what the General Plan is supposed to be. Mr. Banks did not appear until the Commission talked about something next door to his mini estate. Density shown on the Sedway /Cooke Plan is within a few percentage points of the Blayney General Plan. If this plan would have been under the County, it would have been at least SO% higher. This plan has come'a long way ir. trying to save the heritage that is left in the area. Those that moved here within the last 3 or 4 years came here after the freeway was through, when the industrial area was very well known, and when Ontario Airport was sitting there. There should have been no doubt that this area was ready for urbanization as it was no longer agricultural. In terms of density now, by State standards it is not high density. He would hope that responsibility of the people who incorporated the City who now sit on the Commission and Council are not just to those who were fortunate enough to live here now but there is indeed a responsibility to those people who might want to live here in the future. On the subject of affordable housing, he believes we have a moral commitment to make sure we have affordable housing. The term affordable housing was not designated by the B.I.A. but is an official state term with ratios based upon median incomes as defined by official public authorities. For the record, be disagrees that this plan is being done in any way for the benefit of the builders. It should no more be done for the benefit of the builders than those who happen to have a sizeable piece of ground that want a sizeable house on it without taking regard to the fact that the area is no longer agricultural and the 'sousing needs for other people. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated, speaking as past President of the B.I.A., Mr. Dilorio has represented the view of the whole industry. Mr. John Vlasic stated as member of the Citizens Advisory Commission on the General Plan, he stated the process being completed was a public hearing process where the public has testified in various numbers on various issues. He testified to population and overall population in the city. He does not find this has been addressed in the final document being forwarded to the City Council. He asked is the final projected population for the City? Is there a difference between what was originally proposed by the Sedway /Cooke Plan first presented to you an now after the public hearing process? Planning Commission Minutes —11— February 17, 1981 A large percentage of the people in this community who have said they want to preserve the rural life style are not answering the question of where their children will live or were they will retire. Denaity will provide an alternate life style for people who do not want to live the same way as others live. High density should not equate to something bad. Another reason for high density is to conserve one of our valuable resources, that is land. High density will help retain open space within the community. It will provide housing for the commercial and industrial base. He feels there are many other reasons for providing dens :y. Chairman Dahl stated he believes we do need some a -aas of high density which we have shown. Some of the changes done are :acellent and there are others that probably need some improvement. The City Council will have a chance to make the General Plan even better so that when the document is completed it will be something every member of the community can be proud of. Open space is extremely their own private open space in their own back yard. He believes the General Plan has solved or is working toward solving many of the problems that were brought up regarding density throughout the area, some of the problems regarding industrial, and commercial. We have had to determine what the people wanted and he feels we have done that. He 1s proud of this document. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is happy to hsve been part of the democratic process of the General Plan. He believes it is a good document. Every- body didn't get what they wanted but they got some of what they wanted. Ile extended his thanks to all those that have attended the meetings. Barry Hogan stated on page 150 of :he General Plan text in regard to policy on design considerations for Foothill and Haven, it should be revised as follows: 01The City recognizes the significance of the inter - sect,.on of Foothill Boulevard, and Haven Avenue as the major geographic center of the City. Because the General Plan has a strong commitment to maintain an open atmosphere, development at this location should be reflective of that theme. Any plans for development at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue should integrate the use of an open space atmosphere and theme with a special landscape treatment. Commissioner Sceranka stated in regard to the acknowledgement list to the General Plan, an additional item should be added to the text: Individual members of the community that have taken time to participate in the public hearings. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to adopt all clarifications as presented tonight. This is to include the acknowledgement list to the General Plan, policy on design considerations for Foothill Boulevard and Haven, and minor word changes to the Graft General flan. AYES: COV�,iSSIONERS: NOES: COIOUSS'IONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Planning Commission Minutes a REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NONE NONE -13- February 17, 1981 Mr. Lam stated he does not have precise numbers on changes made at this time. Rough calculations through the public hearing of the Planning Commission and modifications made, it has been reduced by approximately 3,000 units. The net difference is a plus or minus 3500 dwelling units. What the cumulative affect of ail the decisions the Commission made' is . that in certain areas, especially the more established areas of the City, have been reduced in density in totai number of holding capacity. It is true the Planned Community areas have increased but that is where it was intended to provide the housing mix to meet housing needs of the area. There has been a net reduction of itnits primarily because John Blayney Plan established a reserve study area that it didn't assign any units to. However, the Commission's action has been to designate very low or hillside residential in those areas. The overall shifting in density has been in the Planned Communities area. Mr. Ron Tanenbaum stated he was a member of the Citizens Advisory Commission on the General Plan. In listening to the General Plan process wind down and when he thinks back to some of the discussions that occurred within meetings or, the Citizens Advisory Commission, he sees a large discrepancy between what was discussed and what he sees occurring. It was stated during meetings that they wanted to maintain a community that would main- tain its character as much as possible and yet have development. The plan he sees now encourages development as much as possible and if possible maintain some of the rural character. They do not want to maximize development and then, if we can, preserve open space. He hopes when this goes to the City Council they will attempt to see what makes this City unique. Commissioner King stated he basically feels the General Plan arrived at is good, however, there is still some particular problems with certain aspects. He personally does not believe our housing balance at the present time is proper. We do need more very low density and we need more very low density in the Etiwanda area. We do need to show some commercial in the Etiwanda area.. At the same time we do need more very low density to meet what he feels is a proper housing mix. We need more low density and more I-Agh density and it is his opinion that we have too much medium density. It is crucial that we are able to deliver housing to all segments of the community. He feels that the definition of affordable housing is not a good definition and should be more attached to the price of the housing unit which should be regulated on the cost of living index so that we deal with specific units as being affordable rather than define it as those within any income bracket. Commissioner Sceranka stated he feels we have done th; best job we could to gather all information in waking our decisions on the General Plan. He sees the plan as an attempt to promote a balance between life styles within the community. A lot of the decisions that have been made are out of necessity. It is extremely important to have density with the General Plan. lie wants to know where his children are going, to live in the future. He wants them to have a choice to live where they want to. If all we build in this community are the $300,000 homes, then we have a serious problem. He also wants tc know where he will be able to go when he retires. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 17, 1981 Mation: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy, and seconded by C ,)mmissioner Rempel to adopt Resolution No. 81 -13 recommending to the City Council certification of the E.Z.R. for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and approval of the General Plan as prepared by Sedway /Cooke and amended by the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSOTY, REMPFL, ICING, SCERANKA, DAHL NONE NONE Motio.:: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Dahl and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting. 11:25 p-m. The Flanning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, SACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -14- February l7, 1981 E CALL TO ORDER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Adjourned Regular Meeting February 2, 1981 E The adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday, February 2, 1981. Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Dahl, who led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Jeffrey King, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Edward A. Hopson, City Attorney; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engip.eer; Bill i:olley, Director of Community Services; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated Thursday, February 5, 19P1, there will be a continued public hearing on the Victoria Plan. This meeting is to bring everyone up to date on the program of the planned community. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., and the public is invited. a REVIEW OF LAND USE RECOM ENDATIONS FOR ETIWANDA AREA AND SURROUNDING AREA Chairman Dahl stated at the January 26, 1981 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed land use alternatives to the Draft General Plan for Etiwanda and surrounding areas. Based upon that discussion and analysis, recommendations for land use modifications are being forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the specific requests for the Commission. It is recommended that the Commission consider revisions or additions to the Draft General Plan as follows: That a Specific Plan for the Etiwanda community be developed; that revisions to the land use plan be made; and that action on items 1 through 15 be taken as recommended. He stated one additional item has been requested by Mr. Banks. Staff has not had the opportunity to consider that request at this time therefore it would be up for consideration at the next meeting with the specifics for the Commission to review. 0 Chairman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. There being none, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick .Elias, stated he lives on East Avenue, north of Highland. He is opposed to a community commercial center of East Avenue north of Highland. He, as well as others in the area, would like to keep the area rural, commercial free, safe and low density. Chairman Dahl stated the Commission wants to have more input from the citizenry to determine where a community center would be most effective to give the Etiwanda area more of a center of identity within the community. Jim Thompson stated he would like to speak to property on the south side of Highland, east of East Avenue which abuts against the flood control channel. Development- of this land would not destroy any eucalyptus trees as it is located cast of all the windrows. Highland Avenue is now one of the main arteries that carries traffic east and west and will remain that way. Their property is one half mile east of East Avenue and is close enough to be considered as the main community commercial focus center. The property backs to the flood control channel and because of its situation, it really seems to lend itself to a commercial type development without disturbing low density developments and would also keep the traffic light on existing streets. Therefore he would like to propose a neighborhood commercial center at this location as it would, in a positive way, attract residents and people from other areas which would help bring revenues into our city. Agatha Kleinman stated they sent a letter to the Planning Commission. She stated they came before the Commission at the last meeting requesting commercial or high density on their property located on East Avenue and Victoria. They have been advised that this would be a very impractical location for low density residential as the I -15 freeway is raised approximately 30 feet over their property. They live along the railroad and across from the proposed high school. They would like to change their request to indicate either commercial, high density, or medium density residential. They would like to develop luxury condos or townhouses where people would be proud to live. If the Commission cannot agree to at least consider medium density, they would request postponing any decision until staff could sit down and discuss this further. Kathy Elias stated she would be opposed to East Avenue becoming a 4 to 6 lane highway and asked if that is being proposed. Barry Hogan stated early in the process of the interim plan, Etiwanda Avenue appeared as though it was going to take more traffic. Through the process of review, Etiwanda Avenue has been declared a special boulevard and would be maintained as is. East Avenue is the same on the Sedway /Cooke plan as it was on the John Blayney plan and is termed a secondary highway. Normally a secondary highway is four l.nes. There has been a great deal of concern expressed about traffic on East Avenue. Staff has suggested that the specific plan in the area address this. Planning ',�mmission Minutes —2— February 2, 1981 11 Mrs. Elias stated if a secondary street is needed for Etiwanda, perhaps the Commission might consider putting it on the very edge of the City going toward San Bernardino.' In this way it would keep East Avenue nice, would save all the eucalyptus trees, and would make those living along this street a lot happier. Tim Kilty, stated he lives at 722 East Avenue. He would like to speak to the area bounded by Foothill on the south, Etiwanda on the west, and 1 -15 on the north, which is indicated as medium density residential. Along the area of Miller, between Etiwanda and East Avenues, most properties are half acre lots or more. If. the area adjacent to them is going to be zoned medium density they would be very upset as they do not want to have apartments adjacent to their backyards. Mr. A. Masi, stated he owns property on the southwest corner of Foothill near Rochester which has been indicated commercial since approximately 1920 and he has paid taxes on the property as a commercial lot. He would like the property to remain commercial at this time. Mr. Hogan stated the property on both the Interim Plan and the Sedway /Cooke plan indicated an industrial park in this area. In the industrial park, restaurants and some other coaiaercial uses are permitted. Mr. John Lyons asked if Rochester will be a through street through the Etiwanda area. Mr. Hogan stat %d Rochester does go through to Highland. Mr. Lyons stated his concern was that Rochester not be opened at the railroad tracks. He would also request that Church.Street to the east of Day Creek not be opened. With the shopping center proposed, the amount of traffic in this area would be astronomical. Mr. Andrew Barmakian stated he is interested in the property at the northwest corner of Etiwanda and Base Line. He would like to develop a neighborhood commercial center at this location and would like to develop one which the people of Etiwanda could be proud of. He stated one of the considerations for commercial is along Highland Avenue which he would feel is a poor consideration as Highland carries high speed traffic through the city, and is not conducive to the kind of local traffic that you think about when you build a neighborhood type of center. A street such. as Etiwanda Avenue is much more conducive to a neighborhood center because it runs basically north and south within the city and is also close to the freeway but cannot be seen from the freeway. It would allow for deliveries in close proximity to the freeway but doesn't carry traffic deep into the Etiwanda area. Raveen Kanokvechayant stated she owns property located at the northeast corner of Base Line and Rochester. Her original request was for commercial as Base Line and Rochester are busy streets and there is no commercial in that area.. However, if the Commission does not think commercial is appropriate at this time, she would ask the Commission to consider at least medium high or medium density so that condominiums could be built. Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 2, 1981 E 0 Mr. Jerry Hodson stated he represents the owner of the northeast corner of Rochester and Foothill. The property is indicated for office; however, the owner feels that there is too much potential office property zoned in that area. They would request high density residential and could then provide affordable housing in the area. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. 8:15 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl asked for recommendations on Items 1 through 15 at this time. Item 411: Approximately 4 acres north of Etiwanda Post Office on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranka, and seconded by Commissioner King to maintain the draft plan designation of Office for subject property. AYES: SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL, TCLSTOY., DAHL LACES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item 412: Approximately 10 acres on the northwest corner of Etiwanda and Base Line. Commissioner King stated he would abstain from review of tb!s item due to a possible conflict of interest. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranka, and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to retain the low density residential designation on subject property with the condition that this area be included in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. AYES: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: NONE, ABSTAIN: KING ABSENT: NONE commissioner Sceranka stated he would like to make a recommendation on Items 3 -5 at one time. Item 413: Approximately 10 acres on the southwest corner of Etiwanda and Base Line. Item 414: Approximately 6.5 acres directly north e4 :.he Buddhist Temple, west of Etiwanda Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 2, 1981 0 Item 115: Approximately 7 acres on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue between Base Line Avexiue ari the railroad tracks. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to retain low density residential on item 3, item 4, and item 5 and that subject areas be included in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. AYES: SCERANKA, HEMPEL, TO'LSTOY, DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner King stated he is not in support of the motion which he would direct more to items 3 and 5. He believes it would be appropriate somewhere in the vicinity of Base Line and Etiwanda Avenue to have a small commercial center, with basically a small store and one or two support stores. To romp-�nsate for the impact of traffic, he believes that a good portion of Etiwanda between Highland and base Line should be very low density. Item 116: Property located south of Highland Avenue adjacent to the Flood Control Channel and east of East Avenue. Motion: Motion by Commissioner King and seconded by Commissiorer Tolstoy to adopt staff recommendation of low residential on subject property. AYES: KING, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, SCERANKA., DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item 117: Approximately 20 acres south of Victoria, west of the Devore Freeway. Commissioner Sceranka stated he has a concern about low density next to the freeway but he does not see the appropriate place to determine the boundary at this time. He would prefer to maintain the low density designation at this time with the specific plan considering this property in its review. Commissioner Rempel stated he would agree that the low density residential in that area needs to be looked at with a critical eye. This does need to be included in the specific plan. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to retain low density residential on subject property with further review of property within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. AYES: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KIUG, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 2, 1981 E Item #8: Approximately 15 acres north of Foothill, between the Devore Freeway and Etiwanda IL . -.#9:. Less than one acre north of Foothill, between the Devore Freeway and Etiwanda. Item #10: Less than one acre north of Foothill, between the Devore Freeway and Etiwanda Avenue. Commissioner Rempel stated this property does not lend itself to housing of any type. He would like to see the first 500 to 600 feet, depending on where the property is split, have a straight line of commercial between subject property and the existing school, with the remainiug property retained as low density residential.. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka, and seconded by Commissioner King to designate approximately 20 acres north of Foothill between the Devore Freeway and Etiwanda to a neighborhood commercial designation and master planned. AYES: SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL NOES: TOLSTOY, DAHL ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is in opposition to the motion because this is too large an area for commercial. He would be in favor of the motion if it were a smaller area. Chairman Dahl stated he is opposed to the motion as it is too large a site and too close to the proposed regional center for that large a commercial area. Chairman Dahl asked for discussion concerning the southeast corner, containing 5 acres. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to d.e3ignate the southeast section office professional. AYES: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner King stated he believes the property should remain commercial. Item #11: Approximately 25 acres on the southwest corner of Foothill and Rochester. Commissioner Sceranka stated the industrial park designation wonld be to the owners benefit, as the industrial park designation would allow industrial as well as some commercial uses and would not restrict him to commercial uses only. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 2, 1981 ® 0 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tol.stoy to retain the draft plan designation of industrial park for subject property. AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item #12: Approximately 10 acres on the northwest corner of Etiwanda and Base L: e. Commissioner King stated he would abstain due to a possible conflict of interest. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to retain the draft plan designation of office and low density residential (2 -4 units per acre) for subject property. AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: KING ABSENT: NONE Item #13: Approximately 22 acres located at the northeast corner of Base Line and Rochester. Barry Hogan stated this item is also listed as Item "J" nn the Planned Community area. Perhaps the Commission might wish to defer any action on this item to the Planned Community Section. Motion: It was the consensus of the Commission to defer action on Item 1x13 to the Planned Community Section, Item "J ". Item #14: Approximately 8 acres on the northeast corner of Rochester and Foothill.. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to retain the draft plan designation of Office for subject property. AYES: P.EMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item #15: Approximately 8 acres north of the Pacific Railroad tracts and west of East Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February 2, 1981 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to retain the draft plan designation of low residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) for subject property. AYES: TOLSTOY, SCERANKA, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner. King stated he believes the area should be very low residential. Commissioner Sceranka staled it is his feeling that the Etiwanda Specific Plan is definitely going to address, as one of its points, the location of a neighborhood commercial center to serve the existing and future residents of Etiwanda. Some discussion and debate needs to be done in terms of where that center should go and what uses would be appropriate adjacent to it. He is not, at this particular time, in favor of designating the General Plan for commercial centers at Base Line and East Avenues. He would prefer that they be changed to the existing designations adjacent to them and at the time the Etiwanda Specific Plan is adopted, we then locate the commercial in the appropriate areas. Motion: Motion by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by to remove the designations for neighborhood commercial at On East and Base Line except where the approved site plan the office professional adjacent to them and substitute tl adjacent land use designation as shmm until such time as for Etiwanda is completed to further clarify the location in Etiwanda. AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Tolstoy two locations: is, as well as ie existing a Specific Plan of commercial Commissioner King stated in essence what we are doing is leaving Etiwanda with no commercial and there is no time frame as of y-t on the completion of the Specific Plan. Chairman Dahl stated at this time he would like to request that the Commission review and recommend the adoption of a Specific Planned area for Etiwanda and ask the staff to proceed in that direction. Commissioner Sceranka stated in addition to the items as listed in Lhe staff report for inclusion in the Specific Plan, he would also liKe to add one additional item; that being Development and refinement of Equestrian Trails System for Etiwanda. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is necessary that a time frame be set for the review and adoption of the :-:"iwanda Snacif:c Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 2, 1981 0 0 Mr. Lam stated he would recommend that the Commissicn carry forth the recommendation to the City Council that the Specific Plan be considered for the next fiscal year, as this will have to be considered.as part of the budgetary process. He would anticipate that this : ipecific Plan would take approximately ten months to complete, especially if there is to be citizen participation. Commissioner Dahl stated he would prefer that we take longer if necessary but retain this study in -house rather than through the consultant method of handling the entire plan. Commissioner King stated he would agree wholeheartedly. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to request the Council consider a Specific Plan f -r the Etiwanda area to include the fnllowing: Establish design standards Identify a community center Develop precise street plans Develop precise park plans Establish a location for commercial uses Adjust land use patterns where necessary Development aad refinement of equestrian trails system for Etiwanda Further, that the Council and staff look at forming an Advisory Committee from the Etiwanda Area as soon as possible. AYES: SCERANKA, DAHL, KING, REMPEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 9 :20 ,:.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 9:30 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl stated it has been requested by members of the audience, that due to the lateness of the meeting that those present to speak on the Parks and Recreation Element be allowed to do so at this time. Ir_ was the consensus of the Commission to open the public hearing for input on the Parks and Recreation Element. Pam Henry stated she would like to stress how much she supports the proposed trails system. The text was worked on by many volunteers that spent a lot of hours doing research and putting a lot of thought into it. There are many people that are concerned about preserving a lifestyle such as this which is extremely important to them. A trail system is essential and asked that the Commission implement- and accelerate its implementation. One of the things that concerns her is the lack of Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 2, 1981 El 1, J attention to the need for truly sc .nic recreational trails in. the foo -,hills. There are a lot of unique canyons .n the areas with natural running y( ar round streams and those will be last unless the City takes action to.freserve *_hem so that people in the future„ whether riding horses or walking, can enjoy the wonders of nature. Kathy Curtis stated she would like to speak for the public trails system. This is needed because a lot of tla new housing is blocking off the bridle paths. If we have a trail system that is well maintained it will be good for everyone. The motorc - :les need to be kept off of the trai'.s as this is very dangerous for the horses as well as those riding thew. Chris Snyder stated one of the larger problems here is the private property. People complain that tle horses are ruining their property but there is no place for them to ride. If a trail system is developer, the private property owners will le much happier. Lisa Calmbe and Karen Nelson stat A there are no adequate bridle traili to get from place to place in cas. of an emergencv. If they get stuck on a trail there is no way to get emergency systems there. ftccks and debris are causing problems for t eir horses. They stated more proper:y is needed to develop better trail.. Christine Nelson stated it is ver important that we have a connecting bridle trail system. With traff.i; increasing the way that it is, we need to have a usable trail. The horse owners at this time are forced to use the streets which is a hazard to both driver and rider. It is lot nicer to ride on dirt than on the street and it is also a lot safes: Chris Benoit stated one of the obj actives of the master trail system is to have an overall network of i:iterconnecting trailways which are integrated with the proposed Count;• Trails, parks, open spaces, resider :ial areas, and natural wildlife areas. 'these kinds of areas enhance the usefulness of the trail system. Heritage Park is a very Important part of this system. This park would be used a lot more if the trails were linked so the rider can get to the park safely. She would also think a park such as Heritage Park would )e very useful in the Etiwanda area.: If riders are forced off parkways o.ato busy paved roadways, such as nou exists, we will have,a serious safe.:y problem especially with the incr� se of traffic. She asked 'chat the Cortnission consider approving not only the proposed trail system but also the 70 page text submitted by the Alta Loma Riding Club. She would like to add that the proposed parks need to be looked at more closely as they are now very inadequate. Tracey Higgy stated she recently moved to Altd Loma after looking at other areas. She was pleased to fiml a place which had a trail system; however, after she moved here she watt unhappy with the trail system as I she frequently runs into dead ends, reas that people have fenced off, trails where r,:--Ile have dumped their rubbish, and she is frequertly forced out into the street. The noise from automobiles is quite etstre:Ging to some horses. This is a dangerous situation for the young people. Planning Commission Minutes F ,2bruary 2, 1981 Sandra Barker stated animal keeping T-^ been encouraged in this area. One of her primary conc..' rns is that +. .',ugh this area offers such a rich recreation potential ", not very much thought has been given to safety for horseback ride-:s, hikers, joggers, or motorists. Trail users, whether on foot o-: on horseback must be separated from vehicles. Considerr.tion should be given to requiring vehicular barriers in some areas, and enforcement of regulations pertaining to trail use, cautionary signs at dangerous locations, avoidanra of paved surfaces whenever possible, Establishment of safe roadway crossings, bridges over concrete drainage channels, the use of landscaping to provide a buffer between trails and undesirable areas and routine maintenance to reduce and remove various trail hazards. Sandra Webster stated the consideration of the private land owners is important. Most equestrians are considerate and do not tear up the private land owners property.. A lot of the time it is not known that you are on private property. The trail system would provide an area for the riders not to have to go through private property. Clyde Warner stated in consideration of the present and the future, he would also look to the past and some of the problems that the trail system has had. In the past, due to insufficient planning and some legal and financial problems, many of the trail systems have been lost due to various restraints such as bridges, gates and other problems. He asked the Commission consider in the General Plan, a goal by the City to attempt wherever possible, to open up some of the lost trails that now or could be existing which would expand the proposed system greatly. Sharon Romero stated, once we have the trailA that is fine, but they will have to go someplace. We want to make sure that we do have parks and trails. We should decide on the parks and the equestrian trails ignoring the utility corridors, the County land, and the private land, so that we don't end up with less than we really want. There being no further comments, Chairman Dahl closed t�-.a public bearing regarding the Parks and Recreation Element. We will be addressing these issues when we reach the park and recreation area of the Agenda. At th ?s time we will move to Item VI of the Agenda. I REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF GLNE".+L PLAN POLICIES FOR THE PLANNED COMMUNITIES AREA. — Barry Hogan, City Plan_rer reviewed slides and gave a brief presentation regarding the Planned Communities Are.. The 'Planned Community area includes the area bounded by Haven Avenue on the west, Foothill Boulevard on the south, the Foothill Freeway– right –of –way (or Highland Avenue) on the north, and on tre east approximately 1,000' from Etiwanda Avenue. `{ He reviewed the General Plan policies for the Planned Communities. I Chairman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. There being none, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes –11– February 2, 1981 Mr. Ralph Lewis, Lewis Homes, stated he would like to speak regarding the Terra Vista Planned Community. He stated they have brought a few slides - illustrate density and density related to quality. A lot of people feel that by lowering density we get a higher quality development. ae stated there have been recommendations to lower density in various parts of the City to preserve the character of the neighborhoods. It is i.mnortant that higher density be retained and expanded in the center of the City within the Terra Vista project. Three critical reasons for this are to allow affordable housing, to facilitate utilization of the city's transit and energy goals, and to retain a balanco of housing types within the General Plan. They would request a medium density area be shown between Milliken and Cleveland south of Church. They would ask that the western portion be redesignated for high density and the eastern portion closer to Milliken be designated medium high density. On the east side of Milliken behind the commercial area fronting Foothill, they would ask for i.edium high density. In the medium density area north of roothill, west of Rochester, they would request the portion fronting on Foothill be redesignated for medium high use. They do not favor the staff recommendation that the park adjoin the school on Rochester at Church. Staff recommends that the park be rotated to front on Rochester. They feel this would impair the development of their greenbelt. At the southeast corner of Milliken and Base Line the map shows a neighborhood shopping center. They request that this be relocated to the northeast corner of Haven an-` Base Line. Mr. Milton Francis reviewed a slide presentation. The slide presentation was to indicate that low density residential areas are not always of higher quality than high density residential developments. You can have good or bad design no matter what type of development is proposed. Mr. Gary Frye stated he is present to speak against the drop in density. In general, the gist of his concerns are similar to Mr. Lewis'. What is being inferred is that it is good for the city to cut density. He does not believe anyone should prevent a per.;on who does not own a home from owning a home. He does not believe that those who are opposed to density would want to prevent themselves or others from retiring in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Many people who now own a large home on a large lot at some point will want to retire and would preferably want to retire where they raised their families, and where their children may be raising their grandchildren. One of the major reasons for incorporation was that even though much of the city was low density, the quality was not at a level that pe.:ple were comfortable with and environmental things that existed were being destroyed. High density allows for the preservation of a nigh quality standard for development. Many people that buy large homes and large lots a ^ not able to afford to improve the property which lowers overall property values. To drop density arbitrarily, without recognizing the impact, will result in a loss to the city of revenues from new development. What they are proposing in Victoria meets the needs of the working man in a home that he car, afford. The Victoria plan is extremely sensitive to handling density not only in terms of aesthetics and environmental concerns, but also circulation, and the impact of circulation on surrounding areas. By reducing density in Victoria, he cannot see how it will benefit the city, the surrounding residents, or the people who will buy. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 2, 1981 r Mr. Donald Tomkins stated they have always said Etiwanda was important and they planned their community (Victoria) around Etiwanda. Etiwanda will be best served if there is a specific plan so they can get both quality and the quant "ty that is appropriate to housing. They have adjusted the Etiwanda side of their plan to provide a buffer for Etiwanda. They have agreed to the wishes that Victoria Street be closed. They also support the ides of using Highland and Base Line as the main east /west corridors for circulation. What they do not support is the idea of removing the density in their area where they have located it in the highest amenity area. He disagrees with the idea of locating their high density away from their lakes, parkways, trail systems, and between the two Southern California Edison corridors. The densities, as proposed by Sedway /Cooke, are appropriate and allow them to ghee the quality that is promised. They need density in order to give quality. John Lyons stated one of his major concerns with the planned communities is the level •_.°_ traffic. We may all er:d up in gas station lines again. He asked if there are horse trails proposed within the Terra Vista project. Mr. Lam stated the Vi.ctoria plan addresses horse trails. The Terra Vista plan has not been submitted as yet. Mr. Neil Weslotorn stated the citizens of Etiwanda nave met with different Commissions and have let everyone know of their concerns which he feels are legitimate. They do have concern about what is being developed for the larger area of Etiwanda, and those concerns have been expressed. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated they have had a traffic study made by a recognized traffic engineer. The study shows that the density they proposed in Terra Vista can be handled by the road system without any strain. This will be si';mitted with the text of the planned community. There being no frrth: comments from the audience, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. He stated at this time we will discuss the summary of staff initiated General Plan modifications. Item A: Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Retapel to adopt Item "A" as submitted - Modify Victoria Street from Day Creek Boulevard to Etiwanda Avenue so that it does not continue east of Etiwanda Avenue but instead intersects southerly with Bas! Line Road. AYES: SCERIANKA, RBMPEL, KING, TOLSTOY, DARL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 2, 1981 Item B: Commissioner Sceranka stated in regard to Item "B" and Item "C ", in consideration of the statements made, it may be .onceivable to take the sections west of the new Victoria Street and allow those to reta.n their old density. He disagrees with changing the density east of' Victoria and east of Day Creek. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to change Item "B" as follows: Change the area north of the extension of Victoria to the Foothill Freeway from medium density to low mediu,- density_ AYES: SCERANKA, RE1QEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: 14ONE Commissioner King stated it seems if you are going to add density back into Section "B ", the area that Commissioner Sceranka pointed out is an inappropriate area in '_hat the better area to add the density would be the northern section of Item "B ", as this would be closer to a major east /west corridor. Commissioner Rempel stated what you have to realize is that this is a special boulevard with a park. setting whereas that boulevard is not anticipated to go north. Commissioner Sceranka stated the Victoria Parkway is necessary to have densities that make sense for transit. That area is bounded by the flood control property, the railroad and Victoria. He cannot see an effect of significant measure or the Etiwanda community by allowing the density to retain its old designation. He can only see that it will help the transit goals. The area to the north of the park and the school does not have the benefit of that transit. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to charge the ramainder of area "B ", which includes the area to the south of the extension of Victoria to the railroad tracks to retain the previous designation of medium density (5 -14 dwelling units per acre). AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Item C: Commissioner Sceranka stated Victoria, th,= railroad tracks, Base Line and the flood control provide an adequate buffer for Etiwanda and for the purposes of the plan that this area can retain the previous designation. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 2, 1981 ti.. ;4 Ir: .. ... ... ..... I. r:: t: .... .: _• 4Vr.'�.`.:::: �.. _.......... ..... _ ..... /..LL 1I .w I] AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item F: Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to modify the area as follows - approximately 500' deep along Rochester, following the line south of the junior high school designation to low medium (5 -8 dwelling units per acre), with the remainder of the designation to be retained medium density (5 -14 dwelling units per acre) . AYES: SCERANKA, TOLSTOY, KINGG, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Item G: Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel to retain the park designation as now shown at Church Street. AYES: SCERANKA, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DARL NOES: KING ABSENT: NONE Commissioner King stated he is opposed to the motion as he is in favor of the staff recommendation as proposed. It6m H: Motion: Moved by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Sceranka to accept staff recommendation to urge the County to move forward on the Fcothills Specific Plan in order to properly plan the area north of Etiwanda. Urge close cooperation with the City. AYES: RavEL, SCERANKA, KING, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to add that the Council should be urged to write a few letters, along with staff, residents to the County urging them to take action on the Specific Plan. Item I: Previously acted on. Planning Commission I4inutes -16- February 2, 1981 ou Commissioner King stated he is opposed to Zhe motion for the same reason as Commissioner Tolstoy. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PARK AND RECREATION ELMM- T Bill Holley, Director of Community Services reviewed the staff report in detail. Chairman Dahl asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Holley if he plans to include the Alta Loma Riding Club recommendations in the text of the General Plan. Mr. Holley stated it would be appropriate to use their recommendations as supplement. Mr. Hogan stated there is going to be substantial revision to the trails and hiking element. The Commission indicated in the past they wanted to have the appropriate portions of the text proposed by the Alta Loma Riding Club to be included into the text with the *_rails map. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Holley if the plan as it is presently written addresses itself adequately to the acquisition of parks. Mr. Holley stated no. We have to explore every possible avenue towards generating revenue, including innovative and creative financing. There is the possibility of going through a system of revenue bonds through a joint power authority. That is something that will have to be considered very carefully by the City as being one of the methods that might be extremely likely for developing and retrofitting parks to the western part of our city. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it is his opinion this should be added to the General Plan as one of the policies to be considered by the City. Commissioner Sceranka asked that Mr. Holley prepare a list of financial considerations and bring this back to the Commission for consideration. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe DiIorio stated there is no significant problem with the goals it the General Plan but implementation is really the issue. As far as City parks, there has been a fairly decent effort put forth. In developing t tracts and planned communities it is necessary to look at the recreational aspects which traditionally tend to take a back seat. There being no further comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. i; Planning Commission Minutes -18- February 2, 1981 ffl'i 0 Item J: I] Commissioner Sceranka stated he does not see the purpose of reducing the density in the area. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner King to retain the existing densities of medium (5 -14 dwelling units per acre) for the area between Rochester Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard, on the west and east, and Victoria Avenue and Base Line on the north and south adjacent to Rochester; and to retain the existing designation for the area adjacent to Day Creek. Motion to also include medium density for the property located at the northeast corner of Base Line and Rochester (Approximately 22 acres). AYES: SCOLWA, KING, REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 11:35 p.r.. The Planning Commission recessed. 11:50 p.n.. The Planning Commission reconvened. Chairman Dahl asked that the Commission discuss the boundary areas of the Planned Community. There seems to be a certain amount of misunderstanding of what the boundaries for the Planned Communities area should be. Commissioner Tolstoy stated it would. be appropriate in the text of the General Plan that we spell out which areas are planned community areas. Staff outlined the boundaries of the planned communities for the Victoria and Terra Vista projects. After much discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Sceranka and seconded by Commissioner Rempel that the Planned Communities be defined as the boundaries shown with the exception of the area west of Deer Creek, to Haven from the railroad tracks to the r•rth, to Church on the south. Mr. Rogan stated we have recently received a boundary map of the Victoria planned community. Although it is generally shown 1,000' west o;: Etiwanda Avenue, the boundaries are not exactly that. It would be staff's intent to indicate the boundaries as shown precise from the William Lyon Company. Chairman Dahl called for the question. AYES: SCERANKA, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: KING, TOLSTOY ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -17- February 2, 1981 Motion: Move,' by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner King to accept the staff report as presented with the addition of the financial considerations to come back for further review. AYES: TOLSTOY, KING, REMPEL, SCERANKA., DAHL NOES: *TONE ABSENT: NONE REVIEW OF DRAPT ENVIRONIMU..AL IMPACT REPORT Motion: It was the consensus of the Commission to continue review of the drift environmental impact report to the next General Plan meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 1:00 a.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary s Planning Commission Minutes ij -1.9- February 2, 1981 ,i � Si '�• '„ i �•. � %'' .•:Ji � . y .i �, �' � .' j i r, . '�1 ,� � ^! CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1980 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the regular meeti.rg of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California, to order at 7 p.m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffery King, Herman Rempel, Jefferey Sceranka, Richard Daher ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Peter Tolstoy (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Barr; K. Hogan, City Plauner; Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Secretary; Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Rempel asked that the last page of the Minutes of November 1, 1980 be corrected to reflect that he is not chairman, and the motion to adjourn to be corrected to reflect that it was November 17 and not November 12, 1980. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried, to approve the Minutes of November 1, 1980. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA Commissioner Sceranka abstained from the vote because he was not.present for the second half of the November 1 meeting. Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, announced that the next General Plan meeting would be held on.January 12, 1981 at the Cucamonga Neighborhood Facility. Mr. Lam also advised that Item "J ", Tentative Tract No. 10349 - Keluer, of this agenda had been requested to be continued to the January 14, 1981 meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing and asked for a motion that Item "J" be continued. No one spoke for or against this item and the public hearing .::s closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to continue Item "J" to the January 14, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10349 - KELBER - A total of 33.1 acres of land consisting of 58 single family residences in the R -1 -20 zone, located on the west side of Sapphire Street between Rosebud Street and Vimmar Avenue - APN 1043 - 121 -03, 1062- 011 -03, 1062 - 161 -01. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, RE1PEL, KING, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carrieu- A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11459 - PRIME BUILDERS - A total development (multiple family residential, condominium) on 19.14 acres comprising 398 dwelling units on 3 lots in the R -3 zone located on the southwest corner o Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue. APN 208 - 241 -25 6 26. City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report indicating that the applicant had revised his plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission at their October 22 meeting to single story units along the southerly boundary.and a 20 -foot landscape setback. Further, this would reduce the total number of units from a 398 unit project to a 383 unit project. Mr. Hogan stated that if this project is approved, the applicant will be required to improve one -half of the intersection of Hellman and Foothill; however, the Engineering Division cannot, at this time, determine whether full improvements to the intersection will be required without seeing details of the engineering di&:�:ings. Hr.. Hogan further stated that this is relative to the possible incline of the inter- section and whether vehicles would be able to traverse it without difficulty. If full improvements are necessary, he said, the City would pay for the improvements to the east. Mr. Hogan stated that the question of water pressure to this development have been resolved and are contained in the staff report as well as the question of grading which were also coc':ai.ned in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 22, 1980 Mr. Hogan stated that in reply to the comment that the view of the mountains would be blocked by this project, the applicant had prepared some charts which indicated that there would be no obstruction of the view by this development. Mr. Hogan expressed some concerns that stai'f has with this project with the line -up of access to Lion Street and the visual impact this development would have in light of the Commission's concerns with another development at Hermosa and 19th at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hogan indicated that the setbacks and elevations were below street level and the Commission might like to consider the effect depressing the structures will have on its appearance on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Hogar. advised that two pieces of correspondence were attached to this report; one, from Mr. William R. Runyan, and another letter and petition from a group called the ABC, a con=1ttee for "A. Better Community ", voicing their disatisfaction with the project. Mr. Hogan stated that the Commission had two options: One, to consider the staff report and the comments at the public hearing, and, if upon due consideration the Commission wishes to approve the project, conditions of approval have been attached. If, however., it was felt that the concerns raised by staff are valid concerns, then staff felt it appropriate for the Commission to indicate to the applicant their desire to act upon the project either favorably or not. if the outcome is favorable, then the Commission might ask the applicant to work with the Design Review Committee to redesign or take another look at the units along Foothill in relation to their scale and setback and the realignment of the Foothill intersection across from Lion Street. Chairman Dahl stated that be had not noticed where the staff report addressed the request For wrought iron walling and fencing along Hellman Avenue. Mr. Hogan explained that Exhibit "E" shows taeee requirements and that Condition Al would include this. Commissioner King asked how many 12 -plex units there are in this project. Mr. Hogan replied that he was unable to determine the number; however, the architect replied that there were 28 for a total number of 336 units. Commissioner King asked if they were all. 3 -story. The applicant replied that they were. Commissioner King asked if anything had been submitted for the.east side of Hellman. Mr. Hogan replied that nothing had been submitted. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the letter submitted by Mr. Runyan and what had been done to mitigate his concerns. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 22, 1980 Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, explained the extensive traffic signing that would be done to assure safety, plus security fencing, and added that there were some requirements that would attenuate noise. Commissioner Sceranka asked what iyould happen if Caltrans belabors the point on traffic signals and the project wants to go ahead. Mr. Rougeau repliea that even if State warrants were not met, in all probability the signals would be installed. It was just that the State would not put any money into it. Mr. Rougeau also stated that he felt that guidelines would be met on this project. Chairman Dahl stated that when this was brought back through Design Review for the second time the applicant was very cooperative and was willing to cut to single family adjacent to the existing housing and he thanked the developer for this. Cbairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Jon Erlandson, of Barmakian Wolff, representing the applicant, advised that following the meeting with staff and the Design Review Committee, they had attempted to meet with the ABC Committee to discuss some of the areas of concern; however, they were unable to meet with them in time for this meeting. Mr. Erlandson explained to the Commission the drawings done to scale to show that the project would not detract from the view of the mountains. Fie further explained the wall that would be erected along Hellman, the traffic signal that would mitigate traffic at lion and Foothill and the water analysis that was done to mitigate drainage problems. Mr. Erlandson stated that they had met with Captain Walker of the Foothill Fire District to meet their requirements. Mr. Erlandson explained that his group had met with members of the ABC and felt that there was better understanding of the project since they had gone over it in detail with the group. Chairman Dahl asked if there was anyone in favor of this project who wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairman Dahl asked for those in opposition to this project to come forward. Mr. William Runyan, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that he was still concerned with the density of the project even though it had been reduced. He also stated that he presently has an 80% view of the mountains from his house and was fearful that the units, as proposed, would block his view. He indicated that he did not believe that the developer's drawings were correct and felt that the project would impair his view. Mr. Dave Moffett, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that the ABC Committee had been misled as they had been told that this would not come before the Planning Commission until mid- January. He further stated that the Planning Commission has not looked at this project and it appeared to him the approval had already been given to it. He indicated that much Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 22, 1980 planning would have to be done to 'limit the flow of water down Hel man Avenue, felt that the project Fas a potential fire hazard because f low water pressure in the area, and felt that only single family wits shouid be built next to the existing tract. Further, Mr. Moffett .lelt that property values would be :.oveied as-a result'of this project. Chairman Dahl asked Mr. Moffett if he was aware that this property hT.ci been zoned R -3. Mr.. Moffett replied that he hai not been aware as they had been told oy the Brock Development Co. that single family homes were proposed fir this land. Mrs. Berta Luckett, 8255 East,00d Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, was opposed to this project because of iri :reacsed densities. She indicated that they had met with the applicant wh,# had explained the project but was s:ill against the project. Comndssioner Sceranka asked i.e she was aware of the current markei :value of her property. Mrs. Luckett replied that she thought it would be in the neighbork.jod of $70,000. Mr. Idoffett stated that the Froperty worth was between $75,000 - $8(,000, znd in their tract it was in the mid to high 80's. Mrs. Sue Giliam, 8274 Eastwooi, was opposed to this project because of increased traffic aad the water situation on Hellman Avenue durinf the rains. Chairman Dahl askea the appli:ant if he had anything further to slI. Mr. Jon Erlandson stated that he differed with Mr. Runyan and indicated that he would not lose the view of the mountains that he presentl;!had. Mr. Erlandson refuted the vie,6 that property values would decreas(,and stated that he felt, with the quality of the project, property vas xes would increase. The Commission asked Mr. Erlandson what the units in the project i ould sell for. : He replied that they will be it the area of $75,000- $85,000. Mr. Erlandson also stated that traffic at Fo)thill and Hellman would not increa: 8 sub- stantially because of this pro.,ect; most cf the traffic would be ; Ding south in the morning arc north in the evening and would, therefor:, not complicate traffic at that int,:rsection. Commissioner Sceranka asked the traffic consultant,to discuss som Of the conclusions of the traffic study. Mr. Erlandson indicated that tle traffic consultant was not there so he could not discuss this, however, some of the figures would be .he dame as they were for the Gemco study. I Planning Commission Minutes -S- December 22 11980 I Mr. Rougeuu stated that the report concludes that there will not be a large amount of traffic as a result of this development at the Hellman intersection. Commissioner Sceranka asked about the recreation area proposed in thin. project. Mr. Erlandson replied that the courtyard shown on the conceptual plan would be a developed play area. He further indicated that one - quarter of the project will be open usable area. Commissioner Sceranka asked if he would discuss the roofing material. Mr. F.rlandcon replied that it woul' be class A shingles and will be fire retardant. Those units adjacent to the Brock development would be sprinklered. Comirisaioner King asked Mr. Erlandson if the 3 -story units would be interspersed throughout the development. Mr. Erlandson pointed out the 3 -story units on the conceptual map stating that the larger units were 12- plexes and the core of the project, the 3- story units. Commissioner King asked what the difference in height was between the 3- story and 2 -story units. Mr. Erlandson replied that he did not i.=ediatel.y know but thought it to be about 10 feet. l'h_ d.fference between the units was the garage level below. He explained °%e parking standards which governed this. Mr. Hogan stated that since there-had been discussion --r the Foothill. frontage, perhaps while the public hearing was still opt the architect might wish to discuss the relationship along Foothill for the Commission's information. Mr. Erlandson explained the graphic of the site plan wh' -:h had been submitted. Mr-. Lam indicated that lie apologized for what may have been a misconceptitn in review of tuc .Alta Loma area before the Planning Commission in the General Plan hearings. me indicated that he had received a telepl,,ne call requesting information on when this would take place and answered that it would be mid - January. He felt that there may have been mis- understanding between this project and the General Plan meeting and was not interided to confuse anyone. Mr. Hopson, the Assistant City Attorney, stated that a question had been put to him about certain time limits :nd as to when this project would be heard. He further stated that he had a very vivid recollection of this as Mr. Moffett had cogently argued that if this item were heard tonight, a number of people would not be here, and the decision bases. partially on his reconnne -idation was, th»: if it was not heard tonight, Planning Commission Minute. -6- December 11, 1980 3i a number of people would not be here, and the decision based partially on his recommendation was, that if it was not heard tonight, not to deny any citizenry a hearing, but because of tim'_ng requirements in the City's own ordinance, there could be p- oblems. He stated that he had a recollection that the hearing would ie tonight on this project because of this. Mr. Erlandson then pointed out the elevations of the buildings and setbacks to the Commission. Commissioner Sceranka asked where the water would flow. Mr. Erlandson responded that it would flow into a yet undesigred storm system on Hellman. Mr. Ken Linville, of Linville, Sanderson and Horn, spoke further of the drainage. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. There was considerable discussion among the Commission relative to the landscaping and elevations of th- .- ildings along Foothill and their setbacks. Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, to approve the resolution with a requirement of landscapi.nb on Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Hogan asked if a redesign on Foithili Boulevard entrance aligned directly with Lion Street to create a more dramatic entry into the project was included. Commissioner Sceranka stated it was. Mr. Eagan asked if there was any concern with Item 3 relative to the scale along Foothill. Mr. Sceranka indicated twat there was not in his motion. Chairman Dahl. asked if there was any concern with the cul -de -sacs in his motion. Commissioner Sceranka replied that there was not. Commissioner Re�npel seconded the motion. Zonmitssioner Sceranka called for t::::! question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERAivKA, RMl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL ABSENT: Ct,ilMI.SSIONERS: TOLSTOY Planning Con,-'ssion Minutes I - failed- -7- December 22, 1480 Motion: Moved by King to accept and approve the project with the concerns that were expressed by Mr. Sceranka adding to that that the 7 units along Foothill that are shown as 3--story be reduced to 2- story. Chairman Dahl asked if he would accept an amendment that without coming back to the Commission and'referring this to staff and the Design Review Committee that there be some reduction to 2 -story along Foothill and that they pay attention to the cul -de -sacs to the south of the project. Commissioner King stated that this amendment was agreeable to him. Mr.. Hopson asked if the Commission was concerned with the overall reduction of the 7,3 -story units to 2 -story units uniformly or 2 -story next to Foothill and 3 -story back. Commissioner King stated that they are dealing with minimum setbacks and by way of his motion he was not sure if the units which front along Foothill shown on the conceptual plan were 3 -story units, 2 -story units or even one. Commissioner Rempel asked for clarification of whether he meant all the units or just- those that front along Foothill. Commissioner King replied that he meant the first half of. it because the second half is fine. Chairman Dahl indicated that this meant that the project -ou7.d. not com, back before the Commission; however, the staff and the Design Review Committee can work this out and also the concerns of the two cul -de -sacs would be reviewed to see if anything could be worked out. Chairman Dahl stated that if Commissioner King accepted his amendment, he would second the motion. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, DAHL, REMPEL, SCERANKA NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried- 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 8:55 p.m. The Planning Cc.amission reconvened. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10 -f "L - ANDEN -The d-velopment of a tract subdivision of 27 lots on 18.9 acres in the R -1 -20 zone located on the north side of Hillside west of Hermosa - APN 201- 082 -03 & 04. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10047 - AY,EN -The development of 43 lots on 27.2 acres in the R -1 -20 zone, located on the south side of Hillside east of Archibald - APN 201 - 083 -41. Planning Commission Minutes ME December 22, 1980 Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviowed the staff report. Chairman Dahl asked if the entire p- .oject would drain into the flood control channel. Fir. Rougeau replied that it would. There was considerable discussion on what would happen to lot 8 of this tract and the maintenance of the easement behind this tract. The City Attorney advised that if the easement is provided to the County Flood Control District as a gift, they would be able to do anything they want with it. However, ne pointed out, that there would be problems in whatever the City will do with this piece of land because an easement must be crossed in order to get to utilities, etc. Further that if there are improvements to this easement, there would be no utili.ty service across. Chairman Dahl asked if there was something that could be put in the easement so as not to require maintenance. Mr. Rougeau replied that it could be a combination of an engineered slope and a natural slope. Mr. Bill Pauley, representing the developer, stated that this had beer. discussed with the Flood Control District who stated that they would accept this parcel along with right -of -way for the channel. That way, he indicated, they would be able to use this easement for storage or some similar use. Mr. Lam statea that this would be a problem no matter how you loi : at it because zf the tracts at the upper end =end the way that the channel cuts_ Mr. Kroutil then presented the staff report on Item C, which he stated, was a similar project. He indicated that Item C -4 dealing with. street trees was inadvertently omitted. Commissioner King asked if the developer must provide equestrian easement to some of the lots in this tract. Mr. Kroutil replied that the dkveloper would have to provide equestrian -tasement through CCSR's. .' Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Pauley, developer for this project, asked about condition No. 10 of the resolution which would regt,`_r, installatiot, of cable to accommodate cable TV. He indicated that he did ..ot wish to do this as it should not be a burden for the developer but for the cable television company. Mr. Lam explained the problem with existing tracts in t-e City- He indicated that the biggest complaint is that people cannot get cable unless they put it in and the cost is prohibitive after the home is built. ., °. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 22, 1980 Further, that this condition is to provide a means for homeowners to hook up to cable if they choose to do so. Mr. Lam stated that the City does riot have a franchise for the regulation of cable television; however, it will soon be deregulated and the franchise would be invalid. Mr. i,am stated that. it would be much better to provide the cable with the home at time of construction then it would be at a later date. Commissioner King stated thst Mr. Lam had a poir_t as the cable would not be put in unless it were conditionc-u. Mr. Lam stated that this would provide the homeowner an opportunity to have cable where otherwise it might be too expensive. He further stated t:t this raises a policy issue on - *:eether the homeowner should have Q cable without having to pay a lot to put it in. Commissioner Sceranka asked if there was any way a developer could be reimbursed for the cable hook up. Mr. Hopson replied that he and Mr. Hogan had discussed this issue and it would be possible for the de-eloper to reserve the underground cable rights so that it could be sold to the cable television company at the time of i_r!stallation of cable service. This would be an attempt to eliminate having the cable company get a free ride. He added, that the developer would retain the easement and this could be written in and would provide an equalized bargaining power between the developer and the cable television company. Chairman Dahl asked if he was right in assuming that the ultimate buyer pays for the cable in any event. Further, since the cost of putting it in at the time of home building is less than after the home is built. Mr. Hopson replied that the notion that the cost is more at a later date is absolutely correct and it may a -en be impossible. He stated then the question is who should pay, the applicant, the developer or `he cable company. Because there would be digging for utilities, the best time to install the cable would be at that time. The applicant stated that the Commission is asking the have buyer to absorb the cost of cable and conduit and it is a system he may not get any use of. He further stated that unless it is a continuous system, it is worthless if there is no plan for a total system and it may there- fore never be used. Chairman Dahl replied that the area this tract is in has very poor television repaption and in that area it has been found that most people have cable. Further, that he liked what the City Attorney had to say about the right to sell the easement to i�: :e cable companies. Mr. Pauley stated that anothcr of his concerns is that of the cordition for sidewalks being required for one - -half acre lots and said he strongly protests that, He indicated that he did not feel that sidewalks are compatible with the area because of its rural flavor. He also stated that the d.1sity is low and that the area is not a pedestrian area and in Planning Commission Minutes -10- D.zembe.. _2, 1980 his opinion there is not a need for sidewalks. Mr. Pauley stated that this condition would add approxim ly $1600 to the cost of each unit a,-.d $6000 with the Flood Uon.trol Chann��. Commissioner Dahl asked how the problem could be solved without sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Mr. Rougeau replied that sidewalks are really a consideration of pedestrian use. Mr. Rougeau indicated that the City Englneer is taking the view that the City should have sidewalks so that pe,-)ple do not have to walk in the streets. Kids need sidewalks to go to school bus stops. Also, without sidewalks, in areas like this you are telling people to take their cars. Mr. Lam stated that this is an important policy consideration to make. A condition can always be deleted, but it is often difficult to add. Commissioner Sceranka asked how it was proposed that safety would be mitigated if the only place for kids to walk is tt•e street. The applicant indicated that to the best of his knowledge, kids do not play on sidewalks bnt they do on the streets. Chairman Dahl stated that the situation on Carnelian �s very dangerous because there is no sidewalk and kids must go into the street and if sidewalks were there they would be used. Commissioner Rempel stated that sidewalks may not be wanted on botb sides but that you should have them on one side. He asked that this be looked at from a safety point of view because they are necessary in walking to bus stops. Mr. Pauley stz.4ed that he would find that acceptable. He also stated thit relative to bridle trails he felt that there was a conflict with one of the conditions between the two tracts. He stated be felt no problem with trails in Flood Control easement. He stated that the condition aaking for all rear lots to have easements for bridle trails would not be agreeable. Chairman Dahl stated that it had been stated that this would be covered in the CC &R's and you may restrict the tract to nun - equestrian uses. The applicant stated ttiat he would like to see this wri -ten into the conditions that if the lots are non -- equestrian, the bridle trails are not required. Commissioner Sceranka asked if it was intended to go into both conditions. Mr. Kroutil replied that both tracts are to be consistent in how they are dealt with. Ar. Hogan stated that the City would not like tt have a statement like that. If hcrses are not allowed in the tract, the City would want to have an easement on the Flood Control Channel. Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 22, 1980 Commissioner Sceranka asked if the equestrian condition was adequate. Mr. Hogan indicated that this would be adequate and if the equestrian use were restricted in the CC &R's it would be honored by the City. He indicated that it is not the i.nten *_'to put in equestrian trails if there will be no horses. Commissioner Rempel asked if the applicant was in agreement with this. The applicant indicated that he was somewhat in agreement. Mr. Hogan explained the master plan and how it worked. There was further discussion regarding the master plan for trails and maintenance of them. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing and asked if anyone was in favor of this project. No one spoke. Chairman Dahl asked if anyone was opposed to this project. Mr. Vir Cherbok, Alta Loma resident, stated his opposition to horse trails along Hillside as the only way that the trails could connect would be to go through his living room. Mr. Cherbok stated that relative to the discussion on cable TV he saw very little difference between this and water lines and that they have a very good working agreement with reimbursement provisions. Mr. Cherbok indicated his surprise that the developer had agreed with the Flood Control ditches and stated that he must be aware of the dam to be built on the east side of Hermosa that will drain into the settling basin on Hermosa. He indicated that this system must be coordinated and built to the same tims and standards. He was opposed to piecemeal development. Mr: Cherbok expressed his concern with lot A and the slope twat presently exists. He stated that this is a stablized slope and cautioned that it must be left alone. Mr. Cherbok indicated that lie did not want the Flood Control District to get the easement because it would not be maintained. Mr. George Ch -2rbok, 9935 Hillside, stated that his property is right in the center of this proposed project and he was not in favor of horse trails. He stated that he was also c,acerned with. flooding and resultant damage. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sceranka asked staff how they would handle horse trails in this tract if there is no room on the north side- Mr. Hogan replied that he can see a problem w1th the street improvements. Further, that there would have to be some modification in that area, if street improvements were to occur as ultimately planned. Planning Commission Kinutes -12- December 22, 1980 Mr. Sceranka asked if it would be possible to take some easement off of the south side extending straight across and have Hillside job so there would be adequate easement. Mr. Rougeau replied *that there is some private property in' that area and this would have to be worked out. Commissioner Rempel stated that underground utilities should be lc.t as far as the television cable was concerned and that he felt something needs to be worked out for the easement or a reimbursement agreement of some kind. Mr. Lam replied that the difference is that the water company has some- thing to reimburse whereas the City has nothing but he felt that some type of agreement could be worked out. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the City has a franchise agreement. Mr. Lam replied that it does not. Commissioner Rempel stated that there will be a need to know the conduit size and radius so that the cable can be pulled as there could be a lot of problems. Further, that unless the Commission has an answer now to make this a condition of approval., it may be prohibitive. Chairman Dahl stated that they could probably get the answer from the tract right next to them. Commissioner Rempel stated that if it is a coaxial cable there could be a problem. Mr. Lam stated that the purpose of the condition is that, at a minimum the cable companies would place a cable so you don't have to trench afterwards to put it in. The type of cable is not so important as the ability to put it in. Chairman Dahl stated that if the cable company were contacted they wc;uld know the right cable to put in. Commissioner Sceranka stated that one of the problems is that residents are told they have cable hook -up and then find out that they haven't. Further, if you see rn cutlet yrn• associate it with being able to hook up into cable. He felt that an agreement of some type could be worked out. Mr. Hogan stated that it appeared that the Planning Commission is looking for a modification in the condition. He suggested that staff work to get background information relative to cable televis n so as to extend the use to h7meowners. He indicated that staff will provide cost in- formation and bring this back to the Commission. Further, if the applicant wants approval of the project and the condition becomes too onerous, this will be brought back to the Commission as well. Planning Commission Minutes -13- December 22, 1930 The applicant stated that this would be acceptable to him. Mr. Rougeau drew the Commission's attention Lo condition K -4 and requested that an addition be made to this condition to require that if adjacent development should occur before this development goes, in that he can delete any portion of the wall that may be required. The Planning Commission, by consensus, was agreeable to this recommendation. Motion: Proved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80 -83 and the conditions for Tentative Tract No. 10046 and that relative to the north /south street proposed in the tract and the cul -de -sac area a sidewalk will. be provided on one side of the north /south street and on one side of the stub street. Further, the redesign ;,f Hillside and the underground utilities are to be studied and brought back to the Planning Commission, snd conditions A19 and E1 are to be deleted. Motion: Moved by King, eeconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80 -84 and the conditions for Tentative Tract- No. 1.0047, and relative to the north /south street proposed in the tract, and the cul -de -sac area have a sidewalk provided on one side of the north /south street and on one side of the stub street. The redesign of Hillside and the underground utilities are to be studied and brought back to the Planning Commission, and conditions A19 and E1 are to be deleted. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, REMPEL, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried- * 10:10 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 10:20 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TB4CT NO. 9659 - .CARNE7.I, A custom lot subdivision of 7.9 acres into 29 lots in the R -1 -8 zone g ,2nerally located on the southwest corner of Carnelian and Highland - APN 201- 214 -05. City Planner, Barry Hogan, reviewed the staff report indicating that the subdivision is not proposed for development at this time. Chairman Dahl opened the public herring. Mr. Cal Perrel, Anacal Engineering, representing the developer, stated that he concurred with the staff recommendations, and condition with the exception of condition No. 6, which he asked to be deleted. T Commissioner King asked, hypothetically, if the freeway never goes through would there be any problems ir. designing the second cul -dc -sac east of Jasner to allow the north/south street to go into Jasper and the stubbed street punched through. Planning Commission Minutes -14- December 22, 1980 The applicant advised that a map has been submitted to the City which is being held until the State acts to see if they want to acquire the property. They stated they would offer, dedication on the first cul -de- sac west of Carnel9.a._ because -that way it would not require a design change nor affect the lots. He stated further that it would just be a matter of punching the streets throug;i. Chairman Dahl asked if there was anyone in favor of or opposed to this project. There being no comments either for or against, it was moved by King, seconded by R+ -m, carried unanimously, to remove condition No. 6 and to i N.xire an offer of dedication for a punch through to Carnelian and ou the cul -de -sac east of Carnelian if it is required at some point in time. AIES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, P*EWEL, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLST_OY - carried- * E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 1,10. 80 -13 - NUBANK - A S2yuEot ivr u _bang. ... a �-- f--- a -P /Adminiarrative- Professional) to R -3 (Multi- Family Residential) for 6.4 acres generally located south of Base Line, on the west side of Hellman - AFN 208• - 011 -02 -03 & 04. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11605 - NUBANK - A total Development of 6.4 acres into 66 lots comprising 65 town- house units in the A -r zo'.a (pending zone change to R -3) generally located south of Base Line on the west side of Hellman - APN 208- 011-02, 03 & 04. Associate Planner, Otto Kroutil, reviewed the staff report indicating that secondary access will be required and that the railroad will be asked if access for emergency vehicles can be given at the grade crossings. Mr. Kroutil stated that staff recommended approval of this zone change and tentative tract with mitigation of the grading plan and landscaping that is requested. Following questions by the Commission relative to the type of grading that would be cmploved in this subdivision, Mr. Douglas Hone, general partner, provi�ed background ok: the style of the development. Mr. Paul Coombs, representative of the developer, provided additional backg -ound. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Edward Jelinek, a resident of Candlewood Lane, voiced concern over the possible obstruction of his view as a result of this development. Planning Commission Minutes -15- December 22, 1980 Mr. Jelinek also voiced concern about possible smoke emanating from the fireplaces in this tract that would affect the existing homes Mr. John Valeutolis, resident of Candlewood Avenue, voiced his concern on the stability of the hillside adjacent to this development and in- dicated that caution should be exercised so that landslides might be prevented. He also indicated that there would be adverse impact on :schools, increased pollution and traffic as well as crime as a result of this development. Chairman Dahl advised that prior to development, certification from the .!chool district would be necessary to ensure student capacity. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. Mr. Carrell of the Anacal Engineering G , consultant fdr this project, replied that the soil in this development is very good and that there should not be any problem with ground instability. Following discussion on fire emergency access, it was moved by Sceranka, seconded ny Rempel, carried unanimously, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 80 -86 approving Zone Change No. 00 -13 and the Environmental Assessment. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AB °.NT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carriad- Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80 -87 and Lpprove the Euvi.ronmental Assessment with the condition to have the emergency access worked out between the developer and staff. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, KING, REEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE NBSENT: COMMISSIOF.,RS: TOLSTOY - carried- W. Hogan stated that as a point of clarification the landscape plan shows the turnaround area as being turf block rather than pavem_nt. Motion: Moved by.Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to continue beyond the 11 p.m. curfew. 11:10 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 11:15 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. Planning Commission Minutes -16- December 22, 1980 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9665 - LAME - A custom 3.0t subdivs.'_on of 4.5 acres into 18 lots in the R -1 zone generally located on the south side of Arrow Route at Vinmar Avenue - APN 207- 34 -12. Barry Hogan, City Planne_, reviewed the staff report recommending that if the Planning Commission concurs with staff's findings, that a Resolution of Approval and approval of the Environmental Assessment should be adopted. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments for or against this project, the hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Sceranha, seconded by King, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80 -88, approving this project. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, KING, REMPEL, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSsNT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried- * ��.• *t a r..?JVTnn\lT?FNTAT. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10363 - ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION A land subdivision of 5.06 acres into 9 eingl.e family lots in the R -1 -20 zone, located on the north :side of Hillside Road, 1000 feet west of Sapphire St. Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development reviewed the staff report. Commissioner King asked if lots 7, 8 and 9 front along Hillbiie. Mr. Hogan replied that they did. F. Commissioner Rempel stated that the si.dewals are again marked on the site plan for this tract and he asked if sidewalks are required in the adjacent tract. Mr. Lam replied that all tracts have this condition. Mr. Rougeau ex- lained the sidewalk 'requirement and policy, indicating that it is better to have it in as it can always be changed in the future. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. .7erry Wilson, 387 N. 2nd Street. Upland, stated that his only question is the requirement for cable TV and, further, that he would be happy to acceFt the same condition that the first applicant on this agenda has. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments for or afrainst this, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -17- December 22, 1980 Commissioner King commented that it is important that the equestrian policy be worked out because he felt that it inappropriate to have equestrian easements along the frontage or Hillside and specifically in front of lots 7, 8 and 9 of this subdivision. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 80 -89 and the Environmental Assessment, with the amendment to the Cable TV requirement. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, SCERANKA, KING, 'MIL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CGi4fISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried- I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP r0. 6544 - SONLEN ENTERPRISES - the division of 19.9 acres into 3 parcels for Industrial Use located on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and 6th Street. Mr. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Following its presentation, Chairman Dahl asked the applicant if he wished to speak. Mr. John Valentine, 19276 MacArthur Blvd., Irwine, California, representing the applicant, stated that they would accept �!.I_ conditions proposed by the Engineering Department with the excepti ^n of Condition No. 46. His stated reason was that small parcels cause -mall Industries and that Haven Avenue should be dc.cl^ ^d t attr et la Ind." Lries. Mr. Vn lon rtno Indicated that he had an applicant interested in the property, the Coca Cola Company, and asked that Condition No. 46 be deleted. Mr. Hubbs responded by giving the reasons for the condition, stating that people working in the area and going to 61th Street would turn at Haven. Mr. Hubbs indicated that they will be channeled to the signalized intersecti.on and thay would also have the option of going out on 6th Street to various freeway ramps. He explained to the Commission that they spread out by using 6th and 4th Streets would allow the streets to be used to their available capacity. Further, that those people going southerly would be required to go to the next intersection and in the reverse direction of traffic flow. The reverse street would allot. them to move southerly and in the direction of the freeway fairly simply. Mr. Hubbs stated that under the proposed Industrial Plan there is a minimum of one acre parcels. He stated that he did not know exactly what would occur with the minimum acreage but would assume that the minimum require - menets would be accomplished and therefore they would be dealing with that circumstance along Haven Avenue. Mr. Iiubbs further indicated that the cul -de -sac arrangement would produce an excessive cul -de -sac. He felt there should be more continuity to protect Havex. Avenue --ccess. Commissioner Sceranka asked for clarification of the turn that would be allowed at 6th Street. Planning Commission Minutes -18- December 22, 1980 Mr. Hubbs explained that people would not be able to make left turns because of the me-lian island, they would be forced to turn right at 6th Street and tha intersection of Haven Avenue. Commissioner Sceranka asked if people would not be able to turn at the frontage street and go north? Mr. Hobbs replied that eastbound people on 6th Street would not be able to turn left. Northbound people would be able to turn le"t at Haven Avenue. Commissioner Sceranka asked for further clarification of people using the frontage road and whether they would be able to go lef.:. Mr. Hubbs replied that they would not be able to do so. Commissioner Rempel asked who the frontage road served other than the property on the north. Mr. Hubbs replied that it served only people from the north and explained the proper traffic progression and access policies that the City is attempting to n.eintain. There was further discussion among the Commission relative to the access road and the ability of people working in the industrial complex to get to Haven Avenue. Mr. Lam stated that what_ is being proposed is the protection of a traffic corridor along Haven fnr later, more intensive use, and that they are also talking about limiting access to Haven Avenue. He indicated that another alternative might be that everyone agree to dedic.te non - access to Haven. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the design of the street did not make sanse in light of the City's infrastructure. There was further discussion regarding the parcels that would be l.eit as a res_lt of the proposed local street. Commissio%er Rempel asked Mr. Hubbs why the roadway doesn't.bieak to the west and come down. Mr. Hubbs replied that staff is basically trying to maintain the one - eighth mile spacing for the traffic signals. Mr. Hubbs stated that if the City forecloses its traffic capacity along Haven Avenue, it will be difficult to have the kind of industrial it wants along the street and that all steps should be taken to protect the options that the City has for pro- viding good traffic flows. He further stated that one - quarter mile spacing is what is required if the City wants to assure capacity for that street. Mr. Hubbs indicated that if the Planning Commission is not willing to take these measures now, there will be a problem with traffic flows in that area when it builds out. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -19- Deccmbet 22, 1980 No one spoke in favor or against this project and the prirlic hearing was close:!. Motion: Moved by Kirg, seconded by Sceranka, to adopt R:solution No. 80 -92 and the City Engineer's Report for Parcel Map 551#4 with :he deletion of condition•No. 46 regtiring an additional street. City Attorney Hopson asked the Commission if reference to ingress or egress to the parcel; off of Haven or any of the parcels on this parcel map was desired. Mr. Lam replied that policy would be set on that basis wl.ether they did or did not address teat. Commissioner I:ing st rted that he did not know how the nee t of the Commission, felt, but Ire felt that the Commission should attempt to jr-hibit access on Haven Avenue. Chairman Dahl asked Lf he would include this in his motion. Commis -ioaer Sceranka stated that he did not think that chat they wanted to do was to preclude access on Haven Avenue, what they canted to do is to prevent people from making a left turn south and to avoid cuts in the mediar on haven Averue. Mr. Hopson stated that he felt what staff wants to do is t-) preclude access an Haven. Further, that if the Commission wants to do other t an thr.t, they should make it :lear because they have heard staff indicate that they do want to preclude .access on Haven and they are asking the Commission for direction. Commissi ,)ner K.'.ng stated that at this time he did not feel adequately prepared to ame -id hir. motion. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Hubbs for clarification. Mr. Hubbs replied tha: it was staff's opinion that. alternative access shoule be allowed at :he back for movement to the south without turning onto Haven Avenue. Commissioner Sceranka asked what about movement to the no'rh. Mr. Hubbs replied that this would not produce friction. There was further discrssion relative to the possibility if lo= division into one acre size. Commissioner Sceranka ,.sked the applicant if he would agr a to a condition that given the removal of that street, that parcel No. 1 Mould remain the size shown and not be subdivided. The applicant coated that this did not concern him. He w s concerned, however, with being given limited access at one point on I�arcel one and Planning Commission Min+ttes -20- Dec. mber 22, 1980 one point at the easterly end of parcel one on 6th Street because they did not.want a number of driveways coming out of that area. Commissioner Sceranka asked the City Attorney if there were any restrictions to putting this condition on the approval of this parcel map so that it could not be subdivided into smaller parcels. Mr. Ronson replied that he had never seen a condition barring further subdivision but that the Commission could, by CC&R's limit access. Mr. Hogan stateu that this still leaves the problem of access between the Caldwell property and Valentine property. Following further discussion on this issue, Commissioner King stated that it would seem that the Commission did not have to cross this b-idge at this time. Ht_ felt that this issue should be dealt with when the matter again comes before the Commission. Mr. Hubbs stated that there are quite a few ramifications in policy on this item and suggested that perhaps the best thing to do would be to continue this to allow more time to study the lot configurations and deal with the issue later. Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr. Hubbs disagreed with the recc- Oendation to limit access onto Haven Avenue off of parcel No. 1 only, or that by doing this, the Commission was limiting options for the future on haven Avenue. Mr. Hubbs stated that he felt that the Commission should act on the original recommendation to place the north —south street. Chairman Dahl asked for clarification on the motion and second and asked if there was any desire to withdraw the motion or second and continue this item to allow staff to work out a more agreeable solution and return to the Commission. Commissioner ',ceranka replied that because of the significance that this decision would have for the industrial area, he wished to withdraw his second and recomnended that this item be continued to allow further study. Mr. King stated t'--t he had no desire to withdraw his motion. Commission,,: :: =mpol asked what the intent was for putting in a street for the pr:vcr'.y to the north of this property and whether the street had been built yo- . Mr. Hubbs stated that it has been approved and that the plans were in plan check with recordation expected in January. Commissioner Rempel commented that perhaps the Commission had gotten themselves into a mess by predetermining the size of property because of something somebody north of this property did. Planning Commission Minutes —21— December 22, 1980 Mr. Lam stated that staff knows the way the Commission feels about the alternatives but there may be other ones and the options are up to the Commission as are the final policy decision. Commissioner Rempel. asked the app.lAcant if he had any objections to holding this up until a later time. The applicant replied that he did. He felt it surprising that the street issue would hold up bringing industry into the City and that if the street was so important, asked why it was not brought up on the property to the north of this. He felt it important to act on this because of the timeframe in bringing Coca Cola into the City, which was proposed to be in June. Commissioner Rempel stated that he wished to second the motion. Commissioner Sceranka spoke of the Industrial Specific Plan which would be coming before the Commission in the future and its importance in making policy determinations for such streers as Haven, Milliken. and Rochester. He did not feel it appropriate for the Commission to act on this item at this time when there was so much disagreement on the policy issue. Chairman Dahl called for the question. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KING, REWEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, DAHL ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - failed- Chairirvzn Dahl stated his reason for voting no as being the access problem on Haven Avenue. He felt that thin could be mitigated by allowing one access onto Haven Avenue. He further stated that the Commission would be violating the integrity of the Industrial Specific Plan in making this decision and indicated that he did not know enough about.this issue at this time. The applicant protested this indicating that unless there was access onto Haven Avenue, people would not want to come to the inductries that would be located there. There was further discussion relative to the City's access policy, and ingress and egress onto 6th Street as an alternative. Commissioner King stated that the Commission was here to deal only with a parcel map at this time and that the problem of ingress and egress could be dealt with at a later time when issues come to the Commission for specific approval of specific items. He felt that the westerly skewed -in -road that was shown on the map proposed was not needed. Chairman Dahl stated that if the Commission allows another entry onto Haven tlhev vi.11 have violated the Specific Plan for that area because tney will have dealt with it. Planning Commission Minutes -22- December 22, 1980 Y Commissioner Sceranka asked that this item be continued. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, to eliminate the north -south street between parcels No. l and 2 and that modification of access on the parcel map be shown, stating that this item will have to come before the Planning Commission to determine whether access onto Haven is available at a future date. Mr. Hogan asked for clarification of whether this was to be determined at the time of Director Review. The Commission replied affirmatively that the access onto Haven Avenue would be determined at that time. Mr. Hubbs stated that an alternative would be to dedicate non - access and recommended that tnis be done. The Planning Commission concurred with this recommendation. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, KING, SCERANKA, DAHL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT,. COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY - carried- * ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 12:20 a.m.. The Planning Commission Adjourned Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -23- December 22, 1980 CITY OF RANa-10 CUGk 10 \GA STAFF PLE PORT DATE: May 13, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROI4: -Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: LAITRAG - The aeveiopment or a trucK maintenance yarn anZ office on 4.23 acres of land in the M -2 zone located on the west side of Santa Anita Avenue, north or 4th Street - APN 229- 283 -36 ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting review and approval -for the development of a truck maintenance yard and office building as described above. The project has completed the development and design review. process and is now before the Planning Commission to receive environmental clearance. w BACKGROUND: This review is for environmental assessment to determine any significant adverse impacts on the environment as a'result of this project. The site and architectural design is not considered at this time unless it is related to environmental concerns. To determine significant adverse impacts, an Initial Study on environmental con- cerns is completed. upon completion of that study, evidence would indicate either no significant impacts or the potential for signi- ficant impacts. If a determination of no significant impacts is made based upon the Initial Study, then a Negative Declaration may be issued for the project. If significant impacts are found, then an Environmental Impact Report shall be required to fully analyze the impacts of the project. The detailed site plan and elevations will be reviewed and approved with the conditions by the City Planner, contingent upon approval o' the Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been com- pleted by the applicant and is attached for your review and consi- deration. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with such findings, then a Negative Declaration would be in order. ITEM A OR 81 -16 -2- May 13, 1981 RECOMMENDATION: _ased upon analysis of the Initial Study, it appears that tho project will not cause significant adverse impacts upon the environment. If the Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Negative 0eciaration for the project would be in order. Respectfully submitted, BARRY K. HOGAN City Planner BKH:DC:cd Attachments: Part I - Initial Study Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Elevations Exhibit "E" - Perspective Exhibit "r - Conceptual Grading Plan 0 13 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $D0.00 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 2nvironmental Analysis staff will prepare Pa t II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Coittee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The- Mroject will. have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, i) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: CATTRA..C*: CONSTRUCTION, INC, Office Building and Maintenance Facility APPLICANT'S NAME ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Mr. Mike Dineen, 994 Buffington Street, Upland, CA Y14-�Odt)-Zib6 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: _ Thomas D. Harris, AIA Architect, 130 East 9th Street, Upland LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Santa Anita Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: M. I.- i u 0 WILL TIIIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial. change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, setrage, etc.): 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 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, a -u �:'!Zat the facts, statements, and inform=ation present-ed are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand t t additional information may be required to be su m tted before an adequate evaulation can be made by t e Developmenx % Review Committee. 'y/ I / r �. Z -3 . • l M1f . PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Office building, truck parking an m— a 111Lenance acs 7 y ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 5 acres proposed square footgage SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND l4VVVV sq, #LJ — DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONZL ?7TAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOR14ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SUR?OUNDI":G PROPERTIES, A16 THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Existing industrial subdivision 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 envirormiantal impact? No 0 --'+scaav CITY OI., .TFN1: RANCH® CUCAMONGA TITLE: Sr -re PLAO PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT:--C-SCALE. -- LJ NORTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAjNIO\( ;A PLANNING DIVISION E. 0 ITEXI: TITLE EXI HIRT: _ __�_ SGkLE: I S� �►. aiJY r .• I I I K r t I �I � w NORTH CITY Or ITEM: RANCHO CUC/UVIO GA TITLE- CAMLLPTu� atomf��c�t� PLANNING Mr SION EXHIBIT. ___ �_� SCALE: _ ol .• I I I K r t I �I � w NORTH CITY Or ITEM: RANCHO CUC/UVIO GA TITLE- CAMLLPTu� atomf��c�t� PLANNING Mr SION EXHIBIT. ___ �_� SCALE: _ n CITY OF RAMC HO CLJCAMONGA DATE: May 13, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR TENTAT VE TRACT N0. 10569 - ib WILLIAM LYUf! COMPANY - Development and S: Plan review for a residential subdivision of 42 lots on 10.L acres of land in the R -1 zone, located east of Archibald Averue, north of Arrow Hwy. APN 108- 311 -01. i ABSTRACT: The Desion Review Committee reviewed and approved the Developmen. Review package for Tentative Tract No. 10`.69, subject to appropriate condition:. In addition, the project received a Growti Management rating in excess of the required threshold. As a result, approva' of the attached Resolution is recommended. BACKGROUND: The Tentative Tract Map for this project was reviewed and approved the Planning Commission on December 10, 1980. However, as a condition of approval, the developer was required to reapply for a point ratini relative to design and placement of propo <ed structures and landscaping, as outlined in the Growth Management Ordinance. Consequently, the required development package as shown on Exhibits "B" through "F ", was submitted for design review by the applicant. The Design Review Committee has reviewed tie submitted site plan, flocs plans, elevations ano materials, as well as lands -ape plans, and approved this develo'- ment - ZCkdge with appropriate conditions. In addition, the project received a Growth Management point rating in excess o' the required minimum. The con- ditions of approval, as recommended by the Design Review Committee, have been incorporated into the attached Resolution 4'or your consideration. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution approving the site plan and the design of proposed struc- tures for Tentative Tract No. 10569, with c.)nditions as recommended by the Design Review Committee. Respectfully submitted, Barry K. Hogan City Planner BKH:OK:kp Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilizatioi Map Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "B" - Site Plan, Phasa I Exhibit "F" - Elevations Exhibit "C" - Site Plan, Phase II Resolution of Approval Exhibit "D" - Elevations Conditions of Approval ITEM B •° I "- r - t k*� a =�,Afi >I rho �z I g� a b to . _' Y MIb QQ p0 NiN• Ic w 0 JAL l r i / i x �v�iv�a�4rpd�� a C 0 V 9) () i "Itzj c � � A�a w•y hO w 0 ET e G / \'J O � O © � J � � .anvsxr ricmry p LO O� ® a h tli sly e Q I a ® ® ® @ -bu I c A A ll p� +�•� !''i' �Y 111 t 6;2(33t tj�j iA: 4m R 4 yF IT i I V v F e 1 ri it �F V O 0 1 iI- h 1 y �y I S4. �4u�•J �F V 0 h y 6 S4. ti �F C 5Q 'c. O • 1 , J�F• 1 � O PER J Md f i z I w =��FIJ © © O Q� •O IS ,t4 V V 4 z � V >r 5Q 'c. O • 1 , J�F• 1 � O PER J Md f i F %MSG) I w =��FIJ , ,t4 4 vJ >r a E`D 5Q 'c. O • 1 , J�F• 1 � O PER J Md f i W] >r ty ! CAAt ti5 Cw �.wo�ao�ao v w w W] 4 E P � 4 Y G y 1 1' u ..-ft n zF S sa t� i .1 xulisi iii -siii - psi . Y 1 400 ) wl�m=mm Pt LEJ a 4P e� . . . . . . . . . . . risen . . . . . . . . .......... wl M62AT Ell 4T 0 It 6 4v a 4P e� . . . . . . . . . . . risen . . . . . . . . .......... wl �.r �n E r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION-OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10569, LOCATED NORTH OF ARROW HIGHWAY, EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE IN THE R -1 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of April, 1981, a complete application was filed by the William Lyon Company, applicant for the above - described project; and WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee has recommended approval of said project, with appropriate conditions; and WHEREAS, the project point rating exceeds the minimum threshold as required by the Growth Management ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Rancho Ca:camonga'Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:" SECTION 1: Findings: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, specific plans, community plan, boulevards, or planned developments. 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. 11] 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this Ordinance and the General Plan of the City. 4. The design of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. ®: Y E M J . t. Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION 2: Conditions ions of Approval: Site Plan and Design Review for Tentative Tract No. 10569 is approved subject to the following conditions and the attached standard conditions: 1. The Developer shall comply with all conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 10569. 2. The Developer shall include provisions to accommodate future front yard irrigation systems. As a minimum, such provisions shall include the installation of Sctiedule 40 PVC pipe loops under driveways and sidewalks. 3. All rafter tails shall be architecturally shielded by 2" x 8" or larger wood fasias. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .T BY: Richard Dahl, 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 Pancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: Y AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: a O n 6 V LL O G D Nr fj 0 3 Q a C G A C u u ••- i] p 6 V Vr Q J R r V o C V V ^ ^ Iy ✓ v D U A h V r �• u°1 V L V� N d O C — O V N M v V n 9✓ 9 C V y L V O A 6 VT N q W V ...r+ PV y. O u ^D N 00`Lrw � .V AN W •rC. V� — V I"y N C C V Y1A{S U pI OID N1°nf L � °r A ry LQ — L. > ^ •� b C L Y fT L C L V •ypI J P b »G o L C LN.Y NO N o P VI �M fV r pJ V MdC V••C•� QdY C6 py 6- N•�Ar `� ^ O Our b W 9w 9 V 11 9V .'• O J W T NO V•r}• � V V` M J VW G�� A N� rN� O ✓N ^n �j V Y ✓ J° �'btlr r 1T« N <tl1 yC C A O L C pO OJC JYC U�` L _� C+- ✓ 2 Z N � N � U A V v� O ^ uT ..Y.n SL JruY P LC� V w J P ✓ L V LN y ° d N V� H ^ L 4 N a d O y N C J y ^VqL O 'L V TV O ^ O ✓ J bNV n L^ CL'u N' PCB NT° q� i VM p1 — O y° N IS NY ,A6 L L O Vb •rC-Y by N U u L O S /Y °c'•ia "' U 7J•. u C '^ o' N� �' N ^ .w uu uC ..•°• V .LN L L L. noo r D✓ ✓�✓ YJ per, w^ �a Vo r ${ FT LOaLr .N' N C 9 tlO O J+C ° CN�Vd A N� — L NwD •J p4 W 41'^ O C Dv N P N O n A N b w V V O •� O iE -t OI N�V N..C.0 n. NN ppY JCL L q yOI' VTL dCC qq C.• N TY 4 XZ VOr V L C «r It � N fi N—q ✓ LW16 .b. i✓ UrW LG �P C � 9 • W X ^6 W O L P O L> N C T y pr q` V 7 N N•-• L• V N Cr l a f. N N d N W M V tl1 A .(r'j AY y A VC n Y 0= 01.1 v V N Y C •� 60 On y< iqqL. =Ntl w yLL dVXV nA O lV N N L P L V N L N O =X75; W KNy Q✓V H} HYU�• 41°r Q`•C•q LuV r� O N Y rC Y »} LLL 6VV NSl« �X VT y Y N Cy}b LN `O LL• V d O Y+ L u w 6• •Or ••- C 6 V J •V O J N WN pC/ O^ p-AV i L G L. 2I N W Y LA ✓. 6 6 C u °� 6 � N — X l .arr V CJ K t � «up 1 V— Cp W N V V✓ C q yVI y I ^1 C y L q v o o ✓ A u Lpp P N q nL L am' L NW _ O 3iu VV .^ CZ WLL �6dbA Ly CSC » u oi.' f�+, v c C oA L 7 q C.L o 9L L Pp r �.✓^ gr P "N ^ L V N r�0 rid V OV L✓ A V•^ rOirO N d d+CL Q v°r HuL i aY W- N6 �(A C Np yr .. 401 JU fI W•.L .^u p ti � V A A V y -L Z X O JVMNlJ Y I- W N X V ^ I^ ...rf .1°.r wbi .^., .O.•rr N N N N Iy C G A C u u ••- i] p 6 V Vr Q J R r L 0 r.m a O � V N A 'E c N 6 V N L M — A Y Jo H 6 O N o� N O i 4 . r ' � C V L N 6 (r yL- O ` N c C O C L C G 6 V � N C`r V K V J O K ^ J A .0 YY •rV 0. — V LLB J L � o n i G ° lyt V W c A C C t r w fJ V ^ G V G a U [ O «Y ✓ Y V D L utv µ l q L M L M C V fb N� V v_1r'.n "I. P C d c o .•- +� A Tr^ D M P L L N C ° C ry �VV N O„ O A v . p — G c C 4 N r `qy C J N v co V d n G � l ✓ —�• C V .• O O _ � O L Y J nw c v V N nL AC r yr5 N Lam• V L F N N d + G•� V T .Tr N C O N N E 0 o ^ Iy ✓ b O 6 VT N q L PV q0 Ow AN W V� — V I"y N C C V Y1A{S U pI OID N1°nf L � °r A ry LQ — L. > ^ •� b C L Y fT L C L V •ypI J P b »G o L C LN.Y NO N o P VI �M fV r pJ �^ MdC V••C•� QdY C6 py _ N•�Ar `� Our b W 9w ab.Q V 11 9V .'• O NO V•r}• o.d p �O G�� NL O ✓N ^n d Ay J° �'btlr r 1T« N <tl1 yC C A L „M pO OJC JYC LO V _� C+- V C V v� O uT ..Y.n SL JruY P LC� Cly VOLy ON WIC bNV CL'u N' PCB NT° q� i VM p1 — O •�1 C �CN NY ,A6 L L O AV •rC-Y N —....N N U L O S /Y V 6� NCp 4V U 7J•. C —N6 N� �.N.✓ �' .w O u N Y ..•°• V .LN L L L. noo r D✓ ✓�✓ YJ per, w^ �a Vo r ${ FT LOaLr nN CS VN1- 0. �9d J+C — L NwD •J W 41'^ O C l C 6 N P N O n A N b w V V O •� O iE -t OI N�V N..C.0 n. NN ppY JCL L q yOI' VTL dCC qq C.• N XZ V L C «r V N N fi V � N•-• L• V N f. N N y J Y 0= 01.1 v V N p L L N N N i u 4C y< N w l Nl y 9 OL y1. +C Nw NG•J 61'•.u- Ld Lam` p KNy Q✓V H} HYU�• 41°r Q`•C•q LuV r� O N Y K L 0 r.m a O � V N A 'E c N 6 V N L M — A Y Jo H 6 O N o� N O i 4 . r ' � C V L N 6 (r yL- O ` N c C O C L C G 6 V � N C`r V K V J O K ^ J A .0 YY •rV 0. — V LLB J L � o n i G ° lyt V W c A C C t r w fJ V ^ G V G a U [ O «Y ✓ Y V D L utv µ l q L M L M C V fb N� V v_1r'.n "I. P C d c o .•- +� A Tr^ D M P L L N C ° C ry �VV N O„ O A v . p — G c C 4 N r `qy C J N v co V d n G � l ✓ —�• C V .• O O _ � O L Y J nw c v V N nL AC r yr5 N Lam• V L F N N d + G•� V T .Tr N C O N N E 0 N L_P ✓ O C L y n �. 7 w l� ✓ V.✓ y A P b Z M T _ 4 N V ^ N \ ti V N n Y L � C b q N _ ` N Q O l C✓ LnL. G✓c q�JC u�L. N N d �p A r � u0 .� ✓ _ C P V.Li [Vi ] U V C. p br � 'yV^ b ✓ m C'_ O V C. A N (' L N N< q ` '' C U � S N 4 V t. L O V q V G •Li. ly C L q �� O L Z^ ✓ q Ya C N rnL' V C_ ✓ .^ L 6 O ✓ V C L�✓ ✓_ u u L d u u E D b 4 N V b T O 7 O N N L l0 L .CJ N^ ^ V L ••- N '� ✓ b; V- L B Y V N � �' C p U^ V [T L O 'C V G� O L .� d � b b r✓-i O L u W N � O o O wCi i ^ L N N V g s C 4 u V p' O u u 0 J V� �/ 'n Cp V C ✓ W n •W.. N b ^ � C L L V 6 uV• O• ^ N u ti LL ✓ Y N L O N q r L ..L. l b Y• L N a N L O W q ^ 'J Y R ✓ q� q N L N p. l ✓G .•. N ✓✓ q Y r q 4 N L d v ^ L P'V 62 P q C n N W W yV C O T• V C 0� Tq O O V O N O S n C l .p^L 4 N .0 6 O N V Ll q 6 O. N y •W.r � ( ."•' G N q C � C u � O ✓ �• P C !1 V „ C O N O q •- (�� V N L' v O W O C NO �V dL�� ✓q O� V 1J y-NV ��LV ^L ^LY V C✓ ON N VC fS L Gb✓ NY � U C d b L' r � q t. �C C✓�VC •O rna LlO NCL VT yW U - C g N N N q u N N w. n !C NY _ lA [Y LO V q y NN N upi O N, l! q d � I� O •- -' d MNC 4.L y ��OI,JJ ^�b^V qp4 it'-' V ` O2C p ✓ L d L q L d u A Q T N 9 d ✓ C O .•- �• O Y YV• F L p Q V C L: d q V 1r ••L- q d V N y L 4 d •� L ✓`.n A _ �N`(�•� .c.�tNq an w»c 'v o a w Wrn�i N• bye o�✓- y1 � q ObM N N lL'.�9` P. 4NN Y 'Od LL••r 'S4N q` N dV GAG LLL•^ .NV r V -C OWpI t11C �Z ] E Li Onq q a. 4 4 ✓ � � O q c LOt�Ob NAY yV•Lq H •J ^ CN✓ pry N.. Ij ..W yEY LC. T � �'P V}Ya O� TCO 6 C N�d �-q p c �Lq nNTCg c TC. S du W "QQ11 •e Ej] p! d ^fiW NV� ^ Q L L . C' Duy C G� �Ly cLln LQi6 LPP N c^ q L C•�^ '_ G "'NO qCq •Lp. V N ✓Y?� O. Cw 4' M'n -P�y try Y y• w.LU �vY 6 .Lr^ "' L v N i ... cc _°.'> N` ✓ ` Li•� .c: .-. i` " dN ^d W .n uNw 6W yL✓ •.\Y✓ �A_• �°• fl fVir Q « QPS NL'•�LYJ. y� NL• -ea 4ioC HY �L. L✓.y CN Vni ✓.,L• ¢Za Vfy � Qcm NA oaL v ari o W � � L b _ L C ••� q ✓ L 4 N � C L p ` 4 E d O O C?•�•Y^ ..4- �� N dVC 'V OfJ6 NQ VO gV�'p.Lv O q` Oq ON Crdi'.'q �C N�L L_•L ILL i • qdn d✓Li✓ NCO N 4 } L 01 N •--. d C N W L 4. C OC y � ¢ G na. L C O O „C A O S O q`= O1 � N YI •� C u 0 + b 44 u ��jj 3 C V .•. J] Y. C t P b_ Vb L ry LL C� uP' 2V qLL Hn ✓O ^' ✓.� ✓� �•� �' V O yNV L ^AV �Jr� N C O V40 � Lwi Y J UJO €✓ m CC O C ON O Py ✓ Nq r'. E4 Z T l O c b 4v L•u p Y^ V Na .d- 'lrLrY VLa `O. _ N u^ :a c. CAd q.°. do o ° �✓: uP an°i cameo PVp � d � Nu ^p 'n N1�'G �OgCV G O TV q L P L` �T.(�(''✓ �✓ C p07 CC' i O •.-. C J N ^n ✓L ✓W Y O1 � �!Y O ti .5CJJ NN ✓qL L^ p ✓q CL�� rq ti qy Lt'- y „� oCIq �N .p y0 n CN VUNU YV4 F'o C iGV M }✓} ^q ^AV✓.!, Wd N�•1V Nd qC ny' L Nyq V G f1+ q •J Y n� O q d 4 •.. V 'V i q p d ^ q N 1 u C Y G ^ L N V W l M L d O ^ p ✓V VI 4 L r Y ✓ V O L Ud` ✓V IN O Z �p nN • -•w-• q q q NN yC. LY. -•C. GY J. •�.VN 9 uCiLOnLC OnC• M nU VI O V Tip r•Lz •�l0 6✓ d V YL d4 10 � L..`q+Lp• ^ L✓C •- L u L p r «C be L u 6✓ L n C O �du tun •. N'^ r ^ .u` Y +f oL L q7 Ln •COQ G Yu••p•q^ �'cL nu YY. baq-• N o qT N c n Y aL Y,N N urn.. bn �sa x ^ V n N d L N oar G✓ vygvc -1 q C O BN „O WaC U ry V V uNi� ✓^ V N ✓' t 2 O Gam^ O V -•• d_OL „ ^ ^JOL SV 60L ' LSO V� �^ ✓ N •� • NC q�N VV VCV Y•. !- ann T U t L t.2 ^L 4d NNy] ✓^ 'S Cam' •t L' ✓ L .O C Y ^�4d q '� v COO `Cb6 q d^ V OS IdNL . •2 u l.0 VVN N P Ca C L •.- t V .•. qe V N P N C .- 6 ^�Y O. rn ✓� n- r S o C] c o =c I'm •6� - �c ci t `4C Nu_ -V-V .O Y LNV '1 ••rnw G`V WAN ui d OO✓ IJ F I L 1:5 a Y' N' ♦_ V L ^ •••. y d LW L n O N Y W V r✓ FGp b G a .p.• ♦ ✓ Ya �I LI�I •� � m u N L c O qC d ^ OCO - U� V N � C•Y.✓ uL✓ '� N L A V r O FV GC C }r.G N O V•� O' � C •_ O •. U V -Vf N 4 )• V n^ t^ G L' ` 4 •4- p � rt ^ u r L .^ C. •_ T✓ i 1 u L V L V �'O T q � r•J O V O V v N O J •p V Or � C9 � r rt, P O U U p^ u= Y✓ - rl .� Z 4 _ L U __ L C V T •7 iJ P c �' L N 4 •- _ �•-•� � .. N (i T r. �. j. � TLV u n. c - W N 6 G V T L L 8 Z r G V V V• 1� ° p �� } V 9 f O 6 d W y N V VV ` C 4•C L'J C L uN _ V^ V `` ^ �4 � wV. q C� C u i Y• V T 4 V_ _ rr V P q N L A P � � J L(y C ^Y J 2.2w Si49 V` n iLTC ^ dV VO FV l-J r ✓rte Y Fy} fi C `v U ✓ q C L P� PN C Z ]�Y C L q •f u` d V N P N L^ P C = 9 V w V �y yCN `L . Pyi V ^JC Cq W -ry V �LOU L uOT 4y«i ^1` LLC LIr T F Ii° IJ� .Vii O} !V Y[� O ✓ P N_ �' O N A Y 9 u C V X V U ` ••°• L T( C • C V ' u O p u q ._ q .•-' q q ^ b^ fl J d L r: y. —L. a PoN � n�a eT_. � .'+ 'r S. ^r •' } &cN =.•- G F'C N .C. Iw'u D u Y W' D q d L N L O .� Sl .�. V G. g q✓ ^ S N b 0 d n- w 0 C N S q a C) Y� V V ^ i ` OJ nW V °uLa+✓• OC W •O q w•_ „' rJ Lu ^4 C`O^ 1}.lu V P. VV .0 D ✓ N4 N C'•Y- �JI w • Y.Yw� Yi _✓ r d��ti .- d O W •rl ~ 4 Y • NN C L°'�P�n - 2 LV'f dYIGV. V „L NUL yp q N L� Vu VN N 4 ^rV` CC OL Y. L Np•-W NOd V •� V � O _JN Cy 6•✓ N \C` •• L• gwlC ✓ 2 6 ••°• d •. W •_ L. W •. • r .N .. O � o``� i „ cLO r1 w.� V N N N Y/�`u" Y• °`✓° v m M �� 'n Lin <° •V• q ..- �... _i u L T - V 4r +- N L Yp• ^`L✓ •R (1 u u✓ r L L 9 C 'J C a = A E' G7 J� L 4 y c F N f! 6 OV _Y y uD`L `IooLL yCy u.•. �!•F �rQr ~01 A 4 PV N w �' V.•• V N A LZ 1( C Y L o w '�U� J CI gOO•N L ^•�n L-�•°•Ii^ ULi F!'^ u V9L -I ^N 1-L✓✓ yrN V FOgO 4NNrr LL JVGS 6V GV �O u ~ VDV N f. LV WN 4ru O • Or V1� (1 N 4 �°�, N A N V VI LL V.• ✓ a L OHO L•C• Cy i:q C q N� O VgJ�j= - D O ^ ✓ ,_V'NF Nadw Y ^LC • C• ACV d O C O C q V 4 O �'4G �rO NU•�Q �✓ ✓ P'u.E ^4LUL ^�C4 �✓ V'«��Si qv.. ✓14 ° y� N _._Y �d.•4L]OC LC^ T uL 9 }rr V L.L44y Oq•� L ✓U YI:vVr V V %LFu L' V^ 6LLLt• -n r. Sr4 W V O d pK•+� q._ y C} ° D y u ° G r, C .+ O r}r� •_ 9 u N� ~_ V a rCO V U 0 k C u � cu= " «eN �� -' «^g i' rvJO im c� �y"„L, F iYLynT Rnj�'$ �VC� ��•�� V _ u Dp q SJ U r E'^p •� LLi u � q✓ d d I L yr q w N n I N V O Y q V (• q LV L PC qO P L y� CT OLY�N LJ fI Op.L O.�L._LYq Y O LV W ° O C L r'. �a � .Y kV Ni ``j4 ny `q °o JL N � d o. L .r O. d ✓ N •ya•yp�^q r T r d d N t. C m P ✓ f'. r. 9 C y q .^ � F• u C y O V N •Te V u T O L'r C � 9 V � u O O l }� f V �• D ^ PN Y N L ^V�PiC6 Y.r•V6 •e YVi` NC`bO DA O .G q � j u u ✓ u L^ 2 2 t P L • rt'•vG'•_~•V O.r ZEVg O NC 4 L E C O 9 fJ C y L O C C` T L V ; l •✓ y ^ L L O lit V C (4 u� ' 4 c r ✓ u CL m. o.N. 9 L _ •_ ^ •C N i q R V J N N 6 L!L T Y oVi LQ�� � � F .J L- V q✓N _ N y ^O C ✓L .pf O�Lt 6 j-✓��VO:q} �CY4 ' 4V ~LW r Y✓ gc'VnV` V/R CG C-y fVj G'�O. 1_.pC OC C NV�V '^l ("'O G�rC Lr•.✓ L q ✓U C `NN('•`Cq ac �e ° y`•—° c °� ` �_P "° �n Y 4��Yw�VV� $ :nmX W GLU OFu L' �S xNi o scY> ✓off ^.^l�� L m nw c v 9 m u✓ y C V O v._ y V A t _� . v_ � �^ C G :.'.r o✓ c r.a c cc c � �= c• :: .N. °O� u ^.a �c r _ gO =_V ✓� 9 r, V-_.✓ V ..LC ^. Gn LO PY� r�A V L VY�N R N O L I.• V N L L" r GOq Y_•u �L yL �...• p •I I Iri 7 O O Y r L n - au =� ^ V O yr C u > u V rr L ` q C O N L L y q V T� N °.°. u ^ N V O 1 q rl� L N C Y 4u a y .L Lb W V O !J N L d t7 N N n°cem L�-o ✓ ^ C��i G rn � V V ✓ 6 L t ^ N W d rLa N O c 7 C [V u a F_ P 2 p Y°. L V u O w C ti U •- �I O T O L Gl N q a•� 4•W_� -� L W IV 79 f .j ° C C V we a P iw✓ q •.°- l V q V L d u � O � d P L Y W ✓ V 4 a 4 4 C V C O •� y V O s �C rwrw GL d WG Vv OngO G Oq2 `ulC Xr� I rr 7 I Gu r P ^V L L L AC w AYVVwi A N J� V.a+ gar4a �OwgW "r0_ q rrC W V W W G p} VOrOGq ^ °rc N L «oo qye v a � fore qwc W W 4 O 5 t 6+ + y N A V u V O ~ L M Z q Oq•� P > L M q V O U 4 > P L L.•- iC uwa °wq AN••• C q d✓ a V._ y T.0 dm 4V g. N6'O.i n °r JL� rvir a. O' {Ll A � ✓ pr W G� O Qr N a« q 2 V A W W Y > V rrI C V NoN N nr Ado N.°oo °i� �° cr"i vac o� W ryu qc . C4Y A w0- AV l NN W r Vr4 V w i W W Ca y > u V �•^ N L N A L_ C•.. W „y rj W` I ^AO Y Orq q .. C p Y A L W d °y�E •` u °• q V C M N` G� Au G✓ C I N uW w` Yryy�> . .yr L O J ti u ry g }d N O r t L ^ ��„ q'O V=i V •� .r`. cv N� a'p N� = ✓n L L ✓ C C P V L f r n OV qq `V Vu rt�i� 4 r 4 N O V r> ` �cc w c.v b nLV V ✓ W� F�ri� Liu Tuai �rn 1� G V O L 9 N r q rr° L' Or A 4 0 e ^NA L A NaL ua �a w � NL.0 ✓ ylu cal N_c u° .N. .w NN L q O p A v w t Y y O L �L qqL 60L NA �ra�r 4t U y C• W G F! p 0. n y� 7� C L UwW rrOJJ �LV nt r0 ['. d 1VrW O N y Q N CC O++ 9z!;. _ L A 6 V W S NI f•II VI Vll •OI I+.I 0� ql Iri 7 O O Y r L n - au =� ^ V O yr C u > u V rr L ` q C O N L L y q V T� N °.°. u ^ N V O 1 q rl� L N C Y 4u a y .L Lb W V O !J N L d t7 N N n°cem L�-o ✓ ^ C��i G rn � V V ✓ 6 L t ^ N W d rLa N O c 7 C [V u a F_ P 2 p Y°. L V u O w C ti U •- �I O T O L Gl N q a•� 4•W_� -� L W IV 79 f .j ° C C V we a P iw✓ q •.°- l V q V L d u � O � d P L Y W ✓ V 4 a 4 4 C V C O •� y V O s �C rwrw GL d WG Vv OngO G Oq2 `ulC Xr� L 2 r V Or✓ V W r 4r V } p p V 0 ^V u4 °i W W AYVVwi A N J� V.a+ gar4a �OwgW "r0_ q rrC W V W W G p} VOrOGq ^ °rc N L «oo qye v a � fore qwc W W 4 O 5 t 6+ + y N A V u V O ~ L M Z q Oq•� P > L M q V O U 4 > P L L.•- iC uwa °wq AN••• C q d✓ a V._ y T.0 dm 4V g. N6'O.i L NLO» JL� rvir a. O' {Ll A � ✓ pr W G� O Qr N a« q 2 V A W W Y > V rrI C V NoN N nr Ado N.°oo °i� �° cr"i vac o� W ryu qc . C4Y A w0- AV l NN W r Vr4 V w i W W Ca y > u V �•^ N L N A L_ C•.. W „y rj W` p/4 ^AO Y Orq q .. C p Y A L d °y�E NC O V C G� Au G✓ C VI uW pluu Yryy�> fT�° Cdt O J ti u ry g }d N •N• q Or r t L L O. O ��„ q'O V=i V •� .r`. cv N� a'p N� = ✓n «o •.. L ✓ C C P V L f OV qq `V Vu rt�i� °✓� ` �cc w c.v b 1� Iri 7 O O Y r L n - au =� ^ V O yr C u > u V rr L ` q C O N L L y q V T� N °.°. u ^ N V O 1 q rl� L N C Y 4u a y .L Lb W V O !J N L d t7 N N n°cem L�-o ✓ ^ C��i G rn � V V ✓ 6 L t ^ N W d rLa N O c 7 C [V u a F_ P 2 p Y°. L V u O w C ti U •- �I C + O T O Gl � a•� 4•W_� -� L W IV 79 f .j ° C C V y U N+ O CL C- O N. q Ors q •.°- l V q V L q O � d P L Y +� ✓ V 4 G A Z C V C O •� N L �C rwrw GL d WG Vv OngO G Oq2 `ulC Xr� L PO TV aA 1 W V•_ L .O ^V u4 °i W W AYVVwi A N J� V.a+ gar4a �OwgW "r0_ q rrC 9> WN •L_2! v y'V VOrOGq N L «oo qye wL� y Nc.- wWwc+c V T W W Or t 6+ + y N A r g O b E W T4 q Oq•� y>+WM y uwa °wq AN••• tYgWC `N d✓ a V._ y T.0 dm 4V g. N6'O.i L NLO» JL� rvir YI�W rdrr L W •^ �> n V W G� O Qr '^ a « d O C 4 .� C V O W^ L r^ O > V rrI C V C + O T O Gl � a•� 4•W_� -� L W 79 f .j ° C C V y U N+ O CL C- O N. q Ors q •.°- l V q V L q O � d P L Y +� ✓ V 4 G A Z C V C O •� N L �C rwrw GL d WG Vv OngO G Oq2 `ulC Xr� L PO TV aA 1 W V•_ L .O ^V u4 °i W W AYVVwi A N J� V.a+ gar4a �OwgW "r0_ q rrC 9> WN •L_2! v y'V VOrOGq N L «oo qye wL� y Nc.- wWwc+c V T W W Or t 6+ + y N A r g O b E W T4 q Oq•� y>+WM y uwa °wq AN••• tYgWC `N d✓ a V._ y T.0 dm 4V g. N6'O.i L NLO» JL� rvir YI�W rdrr L W •^ �> n V W G� O Qr '^ a « d O C 4 .� C V O W^ L r^ O > V rrI C V Ado N.°oo °i� cr"i vac o� W ryu qc . C4Y A w0- AV l NN W r Vr4 V w i W W Ca y > u V �•^ N L N A L_ C•.. W „y � V COL Y Orq q .. C C a ElJp Z d °y�E NC O V C q •� b uW pluu Yryy�> fT�° Cdt �. }d N •N• � V � q_ W V q l AiOr✓6rG ��„ q'O }nC_ L •� O N aT q u T W V O 2i J r r L my W L ly F L SN rqr L c •L w c _C ✓ Y V q C K. P ° riir of n NI % •Ne of Y c 4 u qu v T L u yV :.I _ Cr ^ n _N Nc� co « Y V GI d V 4 c 0 v 4 v V C 11 CI CITY OF RANCHO Ca JCAMO;VGA Mr, IF REPORT DATE: May 13, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMFNTAI AT FSSMGNT ANn MTF church building on 2.14 acres of land in located on the north side of 19th Street and Archibald - APN 202- 111 -19. on of a 300 seat the R -1 zone, between Amethyst ABSTRACT: As the Commission is aware, this project has been before the tommission on two separate occasions relative to the subdivision of the overall site and development of a portion of it. From the direction that the Commission provided during its last review of this project, the applicants have redesigned the site plan and church facilities. The pro- ject has been revievied by the Design Review Committee which was satisfied with the Site Plan and exterior building design concepts. The applicant has also revised the tentative Parcel Map, which was previously approved by the Commission, to adjust the church site from the east side of the property to the west side. Both the Site Plan and the tentative Parcel Map are before the Commission for your final consideration. Attached is a Resolution of Approval with suggested conditions. BACKGROUND: Several months ago, the Planning Commission reviewed a Parcel Map for the division of the subject property as shown in Exhibit "B ". The approval of that map was contingent upon an acceptable design of the church site. The church submitted a Site Plan for Planning Commission review, which the Commission and the Design Review Committee felt was unacceptable due to the disruptive development pattern for potential surrounding devel- opment. The applicants have since redesigned the Site Plan and Parcel Map to relocate the church site to the far east side of the property. As can be seen on the attached Development Plans, the proposal is a much better development pattern and is more consistent with the desires voiced by the Planning Commission on the first review. ANALYSIS: The Site Plan, as presently proposed, indicates one access point to 19th Street which meets the Planning Commission Access Policy. The subdivision that could occur on the remaining portion of the site P ITEM C Environmental Assessment /Site Approval 81 -01 Planning Cormnission May 13, 1981 Page Two would not require any additional access points to 19th Street as that area can be logically tied into the adjacent subdivision. The church would like to construct one building for its first phase which will consist of a sanc- tuary with a capacity of 300 seats and a parking lot with a capacity of 75 vehicles. At some timein the future, additional buildings may be constructed for providing Christian education classroom space and fellowship hall space. This indication of the future building on the Site Plan is for conceptual purposes only and the specific Detailed Site Plan and architectural designs are required to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of Building Permits for those striectures. In conjunction with the revised Parcel Map and the Development Plan, Conditions of Approval are recommended that would require the installation of the storm drain along the east prop- erty line from 19th Street to the south of the total project site (i.e. all the way to the mobile home park). Also, street improvements are required to be installed across the entire street frontage along 19th Street from the culvert to the existing homes. The Design Review Committee reviewed conceptual elevations of the building type that is proposed and felt the concept as shown is adequate for the area. However, since the plans were shown to the Committee in sketch form, the Committee felt that some additional detailing may be needed. In th Staff's review of the elevations, we would recommend at 'additional wood trim be placed around the windows that are shown on the east and west ele- vations of the building and additional wood trim on the north and south elevations aloa:g the eave line. We believe that the additional wood trim will provide needed color, texture, and tie in to the other wood fasias which are shown on the building. Additionally, Staff has recommended that a roof material sample be supplied to the City Planner for review and ap- proval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. For appropriate buf- fering from the surrounding residential uses, it is recommended that a six -foot block wall with dense landscaping be provided around the peri- meter of the project. Part I of the Initial Study is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study and a field investigation and has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project pending the adoption of the recommended Conditions of Approval. Therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration is recommended for this project. Environmental Assessment /Site Approval 81 -01 Planning Commission May '13, 1981 Page Three " RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hear: ~; to consider all aspects of this project. Should the Planning Commission find that the project design and configurations conform to the development pattern desired by the community, then the Resolution of Apprcval with appropriate Conditions is provided for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, BARRY K. HOGAN City Planner BKH:MV:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - locat•ion Map Exhibit "B" - Previously Approved Parcel Map Exhibit "C" - Revised Parcel rlap Exhibit "D" - Revised Site Plan Exhibit "E" - illustrative Site Plan Exhibit "F" - Grading /Drainage Plan Exhibit I% - Building Elevations Exhibit "H" - Conceptual Subdivision Plan l:J 0 I� u�ra• � r �_,r. 1 r1111�O1i .111 ■■tom � � •11� ■^ ■1. �+.cl .ru � „�n. i ■IIII�. � .ulnulrl - . 1 �■ 1��:.� :: 1111111111111111111111111 IL r °� ���,�;un1.■u� nunmliwmniunn ■1 �, RANCHO NOR- M4 CITY 0147 ITENI: si-ol \. �F �1 1 .1�1 I t i i 1►Ff, f e L. I E J(. i ,r. 4 O�YY /I9tlY 9 1 !4 A 1� �J F yN 4� M •:... Ni 1' �Y a; C \w CITY OF ITEM: �-A PA - o I RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE k PLANNING GYx'Is!o. I EXHIBIT = E2 SCALE: y T� • Fri •J l� 'A p� A 1� �J F yN 4� M •:... Ni 1' �Y a; C \w CITY OF ITEM: �-A PA - o I RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE k PLANNING GYx'Is!o. I EXHIBIT = E2 SCALE: y T� • Fri •J l� SCALE: 1"- 80' PARCEL MAP IN THE CITY OF RANCHO COUNTY OF SAN nFI A OMSIMI OF A eCCOADt 01 LAM WMNARDINO COONTf ew uNOJ. AC NC TAT[ OI' CSLIaG pNW(NY• CEW11"CAr& bHloiN /n tWwtdwO OLhICfe ^R ltw(A /GRIM /!�n'A IK 4L I•IO II.W GNL ✓ %Lr/LJ NfV/Np INY - M //�MD(WXN /fODIw•/MAII OICL o'c" "DY4dCOr pK lM/i HKIL NI/ iN' NC uCNrnr (/!• rL p INf CITY Gx I/ /•v<I,p Cy(wnMrv4Y +/a -•�I /I df OrrCrN ON mp Mi•� JMMAN (/fL fnr>PoNc r'"W N On /OMNMA I( NON.rILY /I >MN IIVDfCI w KCwfl 1Nfr[C JLr [V[] /Nf IfVf rtL LyV fIL YY jIYgJVAL . >Na�Lt o re LW CaLNGwre COYr/ry JINA<.JWrlbq M pN rNI]��p<VM r /•/tlr At /IMIt IM, I•W ©Nrhy/C µ<Nyr(v.v.Y [WmfY ]rvp gryrL.IWxFC.wu. /(I.ftp INVL NtlGx.)..wn Lwynq .p.rylyNLrAUr4 NIKYMr rGNC /p NL IW /YrNpNJ NIp]C MIM ] Jy y/rfC'xnL0 m /NC W /Mµ.NM1)A/LyCYI INVICwMNN/pp(p IpNC )NIr /MCYf(C<yry'O llC iny//AO y4p rrlLa. w lNev Nrµ•rp/ND nrIC etY =— NNI,uV FNµrCµJrolpl.tdl0 C(N!•rry INp] ArA MYCGwlyalpytl/MrJ �I IOCN /fILO N •.re.•N ( /o: _'tom. �� ��i I tY LMmI LLrtwat I - �'iii� zo �u' r tl /I/.y1 �rNr lYr. I� � ,ON Nor Onp.:+MN -Tn, i1.i• lKew: ti /rw PARCEL 1 2.13 AC _'lIII�NaInw p fMOA Jex- Iarws: NDID GwKNIU.CJ K.wC l/p! L-LN/<N(.wI< GYNVGYCdVIiGL CYf,1LNINtIp tl•'L"Ttl SLgNNrD NO'I)'L /'NK.t IL<CIN17ltOr Mf IJ(•IIL.IY. capO - /NILCfILJ COI.M>Y.1fMN[YOI KaLOpL�(H: � - INO/CJll9/•(YNQNpyf/]N'NIIf tl1N. {L(I[LDD Orwi'NYYX J/N PNQ O ONW4 �N{SIIX'J ^YLNtl•)rK <O TfL NYtwrYY(L9! SHEET I OF I SHEETS N26246 / /ALD 0. ACCORDING To THC MAP t. nAOC eD OF MADG. %ANgIyTnN, GL /•LOON /I rw nx a. <nuoA ,rc.e. rfotG a r r fxaaaeN it ursnnu sz �K.WL /ca.+yw.a N•/N rw rcpinJwxn L✓A•I eywo-f•s•wNMlnen NOLyut pLwvaxcJ wxwc+r' : cYCAfprw.<cnrcDV,fcx cL.Lr//I/cAnT /Ian: �rCM /Nrr•:[rnW<•rr /ter...'- I<rnrrc.rv(J. NNNJ.o .+f/Nc ATI n.1r16V OW.✓' IMWYOIM4IYf1GOrIT.N NTG 1AYIwII IW I/W HLY pI� If /n.Iwp /Nn Nfe✓I<CLrr(WfY.W/i Gw IM]CIIYCL+KINCtn. 'v( MLWW IWp /pK,.L / /pryf rNMIW O//pR(; L N/IINW. Nllf/iNIN,CIL✓ CLINK u/r <KNN"cNGLYtuwANm lN' IttaewWS 0 Yu�ruwll�I �wliiyciu i.••:i[o'a•.L�iwurf.Nl n' NI /xr > ,T L M6 LYfYM.My1LNff.>WWIIILLIr r.M(IIf IOIL xiLMM Or MKL� %LI I/L( RxY wN(ANµ (LNK xC1(iAY lI~btltlL Of M /L/[IIGN /O YILI //: WpC(p R'LCerpfD µ O•p< D/ � m � 'Nn Y� {p M W'LrCL hKpxl Nu/p]Ls L.J]N Y K4rNrLIVI MNpCI MMff/f /Nr M MII(.T•IIiN /i /x 4LG L<- CMOIG y[IO[<x O.I)Op µ OO.1N DM. xwpl / f NyILNi. l N <Lx4L IW /(ILYr•YIY n[MIWIIMY NY Mf d NY/MI roKA I/IJ CYVYI /�ey1 MN .p'fLIWIMWi I�WLryL Ip (�J( Lyla /x OL {N A'CNOLD DL/ /INKY /lC )M] /N <NW I6I, MK d <J OF OL(pD. ro J - NIe f/• PARCEL E CtZ Al PARCEL 13y oN S� :L oxy� M El C� A ®1' Gp -coy �6 a DE. coca n 1 QQ 1 O F � � FXHIRIT U tae Be at) e a Y x j D 8 M' i 'fell Ed El 0 t f S u�l�! V u� 1;;� Vca lsF'r F3 I I ei11�9�ti�um. 'C a j . Uca "_ 5 m m381$X d16�B7i A x t G ! U, u 1 { t7 j qq I IIf � r rr :I rp• 4 rl AIf�'Ir l�l 11 ljl�ll� Y 7i x j1101, Ir f yih i, I�I,I III ylfl��llj l�.l�i —� �.1s7 aryl t ,I . - i S '•�} �I` r �l j a �I I I.I I , r' I �7� lil Illil . it l*lllf Jjhll�l�''� � A. BMW �. 0 ll D a Ia s z 9 CI'T'Y Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: 'e;A V-21- E,\1 11131T _R - SCALE- N •T -5 WA I w cU C , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project ar_plication is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staxf will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The - project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: SA 6/-01 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED COUCERNING THIS PROJECT: (oKO -SHa 4:'6Nsrgeafro s. 0 D�V /O WR/ DER, /828 W_ ai7,r/ 4 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGE17CIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Y -1 L] WILL THIS PROJECT: YES ISO %lam 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? x 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ 3. Create a substantial change iu demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IFDORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form an 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 evaulatio:. can be made by the .Development Review Committee. Date I,". 13;'K/ Signature Title,. . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE APPROVAL NO. 81 -01 FOR THE DEVELOP14ENT OF A CHURCH LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET, BETWEEN ARCHIbALD AND AMETHYST IN THE R -1 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 13th day of January, 1981, a complete application was filed by Immanuel Baptist Church fcr review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS., on the 13th day of May, 19x1, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Ccmmission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTICN 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and, 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaratior is issued on May 13, 1981. SECTION 3: That Site Approval No. 81 -01 is approved subject to the i fol owT ng conditions and the attached standard conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. The future buildings are shown and approved as conceptual only. Final site plans and architectural designs will require approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The future building areas shall be turfed and irriga-ed, and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. i`: L;J Resolution No. Page 2 3. Wood trim shall be added around windows and on the north and south elevations along the roof eave. Revised plans shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. A six (6) foot block wall shall be placed along the east, west and south boundaries of the project site. Wall details shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 5. Dense landscape buffers shall be planted along the east, west, and south boundaries of the project to the satisfaction of the City Planner. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard Dan , Chairman 0 ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission 1, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: H }'vy cAy -•n u. b.�.n , N n O Y• J ?� [i � •] w J r n �_ l u n 7 J J b_ n �•� r �� ro S•' r0... N 14 O 9 r 04n.•. ^ ?6 ��l O N Jn n 1 n •1 N 1C N� 'JJ uAW nJ 9 f � Nr4 n P J M n 7 ^u' A J froiOS �`- 'm.b- � J r n d 1. O O} •� N O •• G l7 N O N r.nn o w oa y`r o P c n ° d Oar pl uJ Odd �fTO O'r 6d Ol. dp ND A 1O CN p r N t A W •p N V r d m � N•c' �P u l -• A N Q ii N9 n ^d cu o 4 ? ... 10 j N A n n 1 O wcn N ^.N r O ^ n �r0 S n u X mn n r A y = r. U q p ^. w � ,f W N •• l n O � Y •i .J aj V. iA Io q N r J M•Jv • n C W n a. n o� S IJ N O � N b v O N U J O � J W O � G n � L W 7 o v uJt n 6 O J w U No -• n 4 ^ so A 6 n O ^ Cv A 9•s W -J �a 2 O 6 � Im l N A r. � N v V m Jl" O G N N . r f1 Q T m r z c] O Y n 9 Q p� Y ti m H z W n r n � 6 10 fp v O. N L a" r• ,nu^ NJA n�6dWf°l TrJ rS.. X•AJJ O� N J= �'� 9N T} 1r-1 6CJJ br C n•.. LLr �'^ �'� M1y^ .0.. j ^� i14� �w OgOOn,•/ �� ^r OO WJ NN � °° NP bP .P..N 4w ld� n >_ a >• o w n .. o_-- v•=N '1� on: J S. S. J �.^� '°fj ICJ ..: >r •: _ ^x N m� rro ne r�n �^'-' r fV7 nfOiy i� n 6x0.0 ^O N 1 ?C r L uroiTw ° ain ^� o uo� '? vn •. "J. � r'N � P r. 1jJ >• :jW ^ � O n W q G 1..1 •.. nO 10 LL y Cn m^ O P O > > YrN rl A n ^n r.n 1u •1 ^ .• W N P 'r N � �� N 1l'•(J '� � � y O .=-1 fy n n � Y l n] r � O � y O C � N n 06 W .uA nN X10 •J A n iw n� N1 n 1•C r J u. p lni. n O n r � d N r wt fOi jG r� a^� A r ON Cr 0 r O J W j �' 0. 'O � ^ � �p IJ ^ S n r j 0. O CC O N N r •_! 0 W O 6 n W ] O � O' ri O• ? r 11 N N O p O ` 7 f! 'G. L � q 1Wil = •. ^ r � � 7 � Y N O. ^ WW• � N .,i q C rn,.. O N ? P n 6 n . Y iJ iJ v O SO ti N V 'O. I Y \I t- 1O .1J d b T 0 e] v m O ;I, 0 W I ✓ V ! L e'. .� ' h V O y V y -Crr y q00 ✓ _ U~ C Y\ ^n ^JUCVU T. LO+ W N NLO p /j.• •w_^ � L.N� -4_ -q= °i_2�i � .n rY.I y' c4� cn ,� N a 4L UC�cnfCO av�. bn ,L�•q i:q ::p V m V °G• ' c')NnV Ldu °v nNW F7 t Or L ✓ y 9 C L ✓ 4 6. V q q L mCtTG VU• -..0 +✓p NN 6.- u i O�m uvi S O L - y WO q r O�N�. �V •P.V Vm O Lu uL\n �O 00 .Ca �' V V L L •n ^ L' O ✓ d C V✓ Y. A\ I m Y V L V •� n _ F.L. L M ✓ V ✓ V N CC V C u O q f~J O L✓ q C t _q w N j " Z O N N OT LT['V +hLMN y ✓.-O. L1 N >L �W" L uV � ,`� A �^ V P L C: r u= Y ./ r ✓ l S 6 v N L �• q' N Y L W w G✓ ✓ ✓ Or ,� NN d V L c W+ 9✓ f C V V b - U U4 C .••.bL LN V4•�N qNy �C yV � 1 ✓A ✓qu � qC O. V� CN _•A O.O+C LW V✓ VCy qb nr p. 24vj )•Cr dr nP 9 G L q a• > V •N A Y + = V✓` C .� C. ••• C N q. N V d W C N N C ••L• ^ N W S u u .0 4mV✓•L1 -e FLU VN LT ` V V O/'u V••W �. ". W C _ V G✓ \j C W V L r N' ; ✓ E W r' l L 4Yl G L 5 Pu _✓V OL L_r y70Nd NO� . L,'•i N•rL b00 �L NN G�-O � -44 V +✓ A �I irU OI �= Y• L � NC VG: ✓T Y - urL V4 .�� -C NCb �✓ O uuC OiN HL CO L yFP Nt W_CCtU rgrrq N ✓- u> TN N � =n Y-.N._ LO OQ ^ L✓ C-. V_ N ✓ b N q p Y pOr\r �j L V' ✓OV\ NV, .L -UN WT„ ^pVI OV6 U d•Jr vVi YJ CCI L N d t \IIVO Vu L�dA✓uT UN L T�JV L q•L^V pi 6 ^N q� yL� •I r . N N V J O� ✓ V L A 4 L C C •N F✓F v /-1 � q V b ✓._ _� C N C L d N V^ u 4._ TI+ L V U4E MF i1= .1 ^LVm C \ Y\O VY>\ O� V9V LO.cC N}W ••C-E KI Y i y N 7 p 4 a� A V V 6 y u b •� 1J N N L'. C4 4yy q7C qLq CM•N pr }y^ �W ^�Y.. CWL eTP C^ � L ^C -d " m�G ✓Y6! 4�pgI Vi-1r \r > T N .•N T�YV �._..C. P) 4 •Uir C+ •-. -` •.V I.�O V✓ �g`L ✓ -i ! -4 n yr NCu CqV +VrO L p 4LUr C+ �\.. -LNiC h iiU u dC tiq i..W iy\ T.✓ O r NC � CO'6N l t4 L L •^ 4 LJ C O 1� •r. Y� N 4 N N u .� Sr S a 4lL 1•J F. q < O L O u c c o � v c _ -_ ✓� by v ICY NU N �O V✓ ZC ` iS UO V o�n N� c 'cam WL oa n oWLL O ^_,gam 4 c oa cd rq 4_ o N UL� O A� OC \n «^ q✓ C JL \ N L a✓ +� N F W F N L �^ G 1i C � 4 Y _ cl oC._ v LN rn✓ NL. � GN.'k.q- .-c + ^ V L LYE Cp:� u V L Cb n0 V Or pC � O M72 VE 6 N V q.V V T< C ^ lJ� P A V O y i' _ . C •J... G✓ q N^ C •^i• V O aT G✓ C L� W q O V � �yN✓ i'E C OE N� HyI7 E 4V\�G`WIO CL N \Nr `T O V V V4u Nd !CITui+ � � L n V t U C O. m \O 4 N O «} L Lr V V \r• V L✓~ prT Y V OiC Cq q0 + N VO q L Owy p0 LNa'CVO V q C •� q V ✓ C 4• ••. L r`. p/r•VG. L u✓ • � C V P ^ M \r ✓L O rOir 'CU ryi V "6 rvl]L' LN 4✓ql Lq Oua V q U - ^q� •N.• C T C n •`F y L✓ � V V 6 q N d V N✓ \` 6 Ni 4 a V 6 J y'•'\T N q r L V „ G ^ N` N C, 6+ L U A V O U N y q 4 nln0 C- V V� QI q `N MNUb C� jVnp CY u•q •O V • Gq. i:✓4L A T d VL O wr• N T< Fq U� 'a✓ VtViE./�G 4�` IULL L N= Oy F T VPO. Y. r0 •n Lid nY ^•. /b,I✓ W✓ L ` d ... N N n C N W V N �"ir u..• q O ^ L u � L G O n ✓" E O C V m + ` n 4, L L N +✓ L � C �^ ✓ L N W n V V L y L n • V L n _O > Y L C= n C .• L Sl ✓ !; - > V C l (_✓ N ✓ \• q q 0� 6 l L V ✓`✓ G uV. q m V -- \. N O q C O q N IJ P 4 l~ b G f V u nCCUL= C< N Z /CAL 6 6 NJ W�.LO//J" fj .•. YN4NP -�aK -E- r� 4 LAO W d UN 4'-VT Y4o r °vz�o 6 =9 c�v v:• •°_n « e u =✓ .In, N •� AY ^L oa .LJ/ ✓cb qc L a 0 UVV �O� t CN >\ NAT P N Y C W N9t` •�C LV>•q v' ✓n NZCN O + ^e O N J[C S Ty r✓i� + •W.r C�O CCby CO VC ✓✓a l +�L VCgN G L •Li�i 1 LN P O CwV -.•. yJ .� q iVV YN44 �6 PPy •��V « =l Ny G✓` V n� � S V O y J a \UJVL/ W +N ✓L �V =FNq ✓ -; •N PY M C'` T V G L ^ N Y N d _ _ y/ Gb �+ W u N N n V` L✓ ` 4 n` C� •_ y L V _ V V ti L V S: u q }� C O L < � O \r C t G 1� Y 4 Cr ./C. N O +� ✓ q .• � � 6 V W V y C✓ T O N U N A f El 11 I]. cn t, F, ^ 'G t :1 12 Z e f•.ub« L t t; z CC E t V l� c V C'� t I ` � � i �i �I �i �i � �{ I �� I LL Iz E jc. O Ca jz; 41 c a fal 14 cn x tt u. . Il�ir�. l��. •• s � �['� I C. VI .Lir l 1 4 c y u_ L WV •• I •1I r L L C u L 2� C q v S r.0. O N O qtn • 1 O L q L 6 ^ O W q .._ 9 �• Vr C U^ q Ci'� V I{C r •� V N I V K q 2 O Y S V u G q K D• W S V V V u 4 L V ._ �JJJi((( I{ (� q � � P G _ 4' ._ 1f. y.p L9•N �q V+� ` .� -L°rG uCO�u Nr S u� c✓ L P O .i.. P' l O 9 L S .� Y x7s OY.N d91 LLL>'N u0 P9 L^ y7l P O ^...9 V9^VW u.., � NLV N i CP Cpw ti.nW 0 WC� 4WdPC VP $CJ a.2 ,Q�C W �y W vv sor `=' Vr` T A 9rr 060. 01 A{F_ Lv nU� Md Q�� VInJd N ` r..p 9 Q•L 'n 7 O Nuu vn.. G.ir V...W 4n n N n N 9:;: fNj =1 .On •T• c L ift 6 n.°o V a v � N L.. 0 `onv:. LO q� r:.MiA ai° r" -m`,C Cum rL _ 9 V i W CVL N9L� � O C N ` 'a `. .2 O 6 4 W V O W n O : W N L l 1 ✓� G L7^ C. r .. C: L n N�q °v OUrOC tej ° ' N NBC 1 COU YV�p..rL NC'__ L P: 4V A l eta —n Zi 2.:5 _ r._ �yj C_9 �4PL L dri O 9Tr O+ CrW OT �`0...p9 ;. 4C ^.[u, ... 'SAr.Cq •oN .L LO v nu L ?�� =P� °`N _ `•• 4 p in Z ...y z ZZ N x 4, to 3z 0 01 L 0 -2 t G C, :-; it ul ^I PI '� � �i � � XI �d � � xi �` � 12 I .4-- U c ✓ C Z F wif CIS Z V t Ps =.2 0 G gzz cC. :f G t 1: 0 c V� P xi e! 1 in E E f 1 d V T v •C D• y O L Y V •�, '1 V S V O •Jn r A ^ j• N N L _ L _ L V + u J V Vp c— v �•� C du GuC Y Op. .O ��� ^ l n L •rN C•� C m L � 'O c r _ •r'..• oVU t SOU Y V7 RCN „J •• O d r C•L'.r •7 Ic TS GJ �V•Cp Md nV?y 4YA yC V7up �P C�GU r � GCyi •O' E E A CITY OF RANCHO i NCf-1O CUCAMCXNGA ST11 A WPOK DATE: May 13, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 6246 - ImmanL?l Ba ti A. subdivision 6.55 acres into two Parcels I oca *eo on south side of 19th Street 240 + feet east of Amethyst Street 1977 INTRODUCTION: The applicant is requesting the division of 6.55 acres into two parcels as shown on the attached tentative map. The subdivision will facilitate the use of a church and Sunday school with the remaining parcel for a future single family subdivision. Parcel Map 6246 was previous- ly submitted to the Planning Commission on November 12, 1980 and approve: with the condition that a revised site plan be approved prior to recording. Site Approval 81 -01 is submitted as Item C for review on tonight's agenda. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The property is bounded on east and west by single fami y homes on the south by a trailer park and on the north by vacant land. The vacant land is zoned A -1 -5 and designated in the proposed General Plan as medium density residential. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the revised tentative map be approved subject to the City Engineer's Report and approval of S.A. 61 -01. If the Commission concurs, the attached resolution will provide for the approval. Respectfully submitted. I..Bi!. K: jaa Attachments ITEH D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6246 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6246) LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF 19TH STREET 240± FEET EAST OF AMETHYST STREET. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6246, submitted by Immanuel Baptist Church and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the south side cf 19th Street 240± feet east of Amethyst Street, being a division of a portion of the west one -half of Lot 1, Block 8, according to the map of Cucamonga Homestead Association Lands, as recorded in Book 6, Page 46 of Maps, Records of San Bernardino County, State of California; and, WHEREAS, on August 26, 1980, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed ° General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6246 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED -HIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSTON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard Dahl, Chairman Resolution No. Page Z 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 13th day of May, 1981, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SSA).E 1 ". eA SHEET IOFISHEETS PARCEL MAP No 524.6 IN TJ-IF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. S:<7UNTY OF SAN aERNAROIN0, IDllxp a bIVIOION 0I A PpIT10% OF 4NNCTwe9T oONe•IHALLT of LOT 1. VLOCN O. ACCORDING TO THE MAP OF CUCAMONGA (NJMCpT[AO/1 OCJATIGN LANOY.,As.NCCM060 µ 0006 6. PAUL 66 OF,MAPC. ACCON06 OP OMI OCYNAOOINO COUNTY.6TATC OF CALIFORNIA, OYN(N'S CEJr///CArr C."OsA•v4 IAµµrlrtrYO ,OC/r•!nI nrrgn/I-j/O CLCA/trgrJC4r G••L /FM•NK wA rwrs +CArtr�Yrxir Anb /u ANO rw(ury < ✓~KWK NA✓INO ANY RNO /NCAA'Q CPN> / //CI >F NCMO/r/:[Y/IIrY ( i)/N /K LenO J(/OdV /Ofn,YgW�NVON I/ /Y 1Y/PMAw w<G/MC /n NVO I✓M( M✓Nmm mr- YOCNOYAM,o 0(HO MIYµ4CWylrytmlM /•//Iry +I /RV✓"ON(CCAO•f1. ✓—.11,10A/e/(✓•N(ONr<NNINL'L N/INIriWn /.MCM/a 0, 1N( Px•rK<MY.IN ^F!Y!n!N✓WIIICAIC /O /NC C /)'YywNCil'J p✓ DON /Y /PV MIYQC)Ar &ac,L OnpN[NCO[r MC NLO ✓Q9r OPI[L yucL LNLJNDvJY JO /Nn /. JIDU)wn'Orv.- //1/OA•YP n'1n1•i_f'NACrY/N�VA J✓ pL• /nQD<nY Y)On fNAp ru/9 /ImmANUf.L Ix /rr3> CNYtcN pP PoMONA rYncr.</van nuvirJNn[ «✓coYlwM.f mr/w1ArNror[O<ACaND/rn•.rv- NovAKpY/r GLVrAOear/a/v A•, rArma.[O nN1A1nAMV..�u/r / AWaly w KGL+ , AVp Nr[ M /w<o ; <A✓OA.Q[.e._CQOEs JAV <JyNi TA✓erLQ NYOW NN iJYYOK.L - 'rAY!!K o'tr vuLNOw.0 m [vw/rAAxNarYY AQNO p✓rYD__DA✓r ,DQ/,atlpr�Ar, xo•[ + +(NwYCYVANYrwYAn v/NrrJNDYrrr(, AvwioNNLr YN. rrA +rD,✓.IL,+raJA.wAew..F Aro Naw.rl.v+..<rnr/nry mNrm Aff T/f I6 Yf P✓Y �.0 wN(T wN'!I/AYV<rYYp m bM /AYN .N}AMKYJ IN0+4wW ✓DCAO fYr! rrrT TY!✓ImLNIO /y'OIATAL rYVI /MI. AI'DAfIJ M✓yNDII.O W /C/VL Y[L LKTQMWNCQA'a CCN> /V/GK /MK MAY [Jnr4N,a N// rnY Agp✓MXMIM /•J Or /ML pyWi✓ /Yqv Ml//C/ /IM. /OGLIY/dN[NCQ IMren__ ut- LL3..T,•t�C:TCdde9'- A�NLYUC<TJMOr•[ crrrena•NfLe JINCIgLVCANONJe C ?Y,CVVNC/L pIRM lC.(TL /NQMI•GM /MrTUI)T/Y CTYq],x/C4 G•TY1a CT✓OIAyCrV CYC/MpNY/ AVI NOI/ pVL114Y�/ ptFp,I OJNDgI.Y✓JrJT+D ✓IOTW/ryYr.<W'rNr �y +r aN n•I /.IrW /JY•yA ✓JC((Tp✓geNN.pM 1.W C /I✓OnrIN6'iVO d•dMCMi[T ✓LrOFAT /OY•P TNMC /N pTA•11p. LJM/NN <4 /iMMANf/t.' 4M[ /WIW• m1Y[INVYMh.pWQ[r/W RJNJ.NMC YYAIVD •VII NA✓NR :rM IWANrY OwY. nwp YN! AfIY b /.IrY.swY Ywr,.er/ YLtl+,YAp [IWprnr•, /IYOL NNi.NyCNV fwa N /[rLAf,I+IY'�+Y +VKYn /YNKA OYMn/.Ti(y VY[ r rN, �r rw ANFNAAM/✓rAY AK y+r6+se ar rNyrNLwc m aR y. [ r +,.,W /JNU ICW NCy YN/ NgDrer[wrwbrrgr N[ru M1(<Jbl. NK(pp •YIN' +AFLML(OWlpwf P. // MM /T, prpL[PJ. (lJNY MfuYNi,L'tY /YaIYCAYnCYWYrr ryl•N,NAYwV/I yrmIO AC• fMnL� O<raOlY i. rlOay NpLV eIV. AYV(Inr .VMep. YY[.V/M NI[ .+CM1✓W /rxLM✓VIMhY'wNpllrl�l,/ra MK[Mr /v, CYrr ,wa rYx. vm✓rs Ts w+.rr AYO MYJrlyi roaaa.Y[C+YWD x+rrArrrA /; /Y/O •N IV✓r .YIr AICC l3)Y 4[(Lf). ✓J YV.YKL•L NwrOYGMewW rOWTY xI/.DQnT Dl t v rcDYNDarwe.lY6n /rV � �� NO'TYYr �� /Nrfi i+VY �r,1`i/V.��N,uNnV."b K•. IINCY//O /LD Ma+rsiY (IJarwi N[NA++ �{A�y I L YNV LyYINp/ ✓. +TIY rn "�Nj.�Ar.,,,� f . N W %:i; .• G T•w Nn 9V DC•, NA /YCVII�1 -. `, -c.�.. ylL 1+N I ��... ;1 V11. . 'a N W %:i; .• e Cj sy o +1 ii F{gzns-r -GJ Z AC. ;1 V11. . 'a -J � Z.13 AC. Y i o.IIW �ti•M / � � NPTL1✓ JMAYYJAJ AV TJ: DAOrOdeN +NCI DfYq >rq CQNTALMif WA'CYCPVIIrp/, OY /rCNr6AIO MYN iNOwNY NO•D'C/•N M.1 AbCINr 1M0. MI rJ0 /Ii.Ie CJ /D - M.OIGY>Qa CpNr✓.}N,yYyF AKI,p A(yl• 0 � rNhC[nJIpMO VdVr../Nr/i eir.W<L�OtYr1N•K 40x40 O ON[nWN M Q�(P'QLNJn, TANwCO +ICI..>OV1+Jr YN<N.Y YI4 VftV r..n• CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Immanuel Baptist Church TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6246 LOCATION: S/S of 19th Street W/O Archibald DATE FILED: 8126/80 Nui :BER OF LOTS: 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot 8 of Cucamonga RECEIPT NUMBER: 8295 Homestead Association FEE: $220.00 ZONE: TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Frank S. Lauda GROSS ACREAGE: 6.55 acres ADDRESS: MINIMUM LOT AREA: MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE # Immanuel Baptist Church 1567 S. Reservoir St. 714/623 -9543 Pomona, CA 91766 KI REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication by tinal map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: 11 additional feet on 19th Street additional feet on _ additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius require o� n Other 3. Rights of vehicu ar access shall be limited as follows: 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Master Plan of Streets revision require for: _ 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO.6 ?AL Page 2 Improvements (Bondino is required prior to ❑ Recording for Building permit for any parse ) 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior streets. _ X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *includin landscaping and irri ation on meter CURB & A.C. SIDE- DRIVE STR ET STRE T MEDIAN STREET NAME GUTTER PVMT WALK APPR TREES LIGHTS ISLAND* OTHER * X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, evision.conduit. All utiliti es electric power, gas, telephone and cable tel are to be underground. X 1). Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control s tions and types approved by the City Engineer. igns with loca- _ (X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga Courty.Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. _ X 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative 16. Theefollowingdexisting streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The o owing sped is �mens�ons, .e., cu -de -sac ra us, street section widths) are not approved:_ 18. TTiee_T owing existing street Substandard: They ill .require: Approvals and Fees X 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ HdaXX1Nd6Xtl( �lyYp( ypQXy( p4K1G3( D rOrdQ(NXrJfr)UX�(A1(1L9(Md(i( «. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 0 ROE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6216 Page 3 0 X 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as foilows: 2 A. -altrans, for: 19th Street _ B. City: C. County Dust Abatement District: D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: X E. Cucamonga County Water District:_ F. Other: Map Control _ 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro- vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected street.;. _ 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map:_ _ 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at t e�i right-of-way line fn accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as follows: _ 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. Allh�arcel Map Waiver Nw _ 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / is roi, sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recurding for ) U Building permit for any oarce s ) _ 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall along the entire north-'pro- perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. _ 31. If water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:_ X 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will a required to assess impact ot increased runoff. X 34. Storm drain facilities along the existing channel shall be required prior to building permit issuance or further subdivision of Parcel Map. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6246 Page 4 Miscellaneous 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired- X 39. Proper grading and erosion contro , inc ud7ng the preventation of sedimenta -' tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. _ 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for.the follow- ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division. X 41. The of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. X 42- The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the signa ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the fina4p map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- tion within the specified :ime limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final 14ap submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of racorded maps and deeds used as refet-ence and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. X 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. _X 45. Approval from CalTrans for drive approach on 19th Street must be received prior to final approval of the Parcel Map by City Council. X 46. Cerstruction of 19th Street, contiguous to the entire Parcel Map boundary, shall be required prior to issuance of building permit or further subidivsion of any parcel. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER CITY OF RANCI -10 CC;CA;.10 \GA STAFF REPORT O y DATE: May 13, 1981 T0: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N T-C -SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C MPANY - The development of an electrical distribution sub- station of 4.78 acres of land in the R -1 -20 zone, located on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Avenues - APh 1.061- 571 -04 ABSTRACT: The applicant has completed the development and design review process for an electrical distrubuttion substation to be ln,cated on the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Nilson Avenue. It is now before the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. Because of Its location in a residential neigh- borhood, the applicant has provides abundant landscaping and walls to provide a visual buffer between the facility and surrounding neighborhood. Staff has reviewed the project and has provided con- ditions of approval for ycu: review and consideration. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting review and approval for the eve opment of an electrical distribution substation; on 2.42 acres of the total parcel of 4.78 acres. The substation will con- sist of a single -story relay house, switchracks, transformer banks, and other appurtenant equipment (.Exhibit "B "). Two overhead trans- mission lines will =nate from the substation, 'but all distribution lines will be underground. The remainder portion of the project site could be subdivided into 4 single- family residential half -acre lots as shown in Exhibit "D ". The total project site is bounded on the west and south by single - family residences, on the north by a citrus grove, and on the east by vacant land and a single- family residence, as indicated on Exhibit "A ". :he project site is pre- sently a vacant field and contains no significant vegetation or structures. The existing grade slopes from the north to the south at approximately a 5% grade. The property is presently zoned R -1- 20,000 (single- family residential), and the General Plan designates this site as very low density residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). ITEM E Adkh CUP 81 -05 -2- May 13, 1981 ANALYSIS: The site development plan, Exhibit "B ", has been developed in accordance with Zoning Ordinance standards and requirements. Electrical distribution substations are allowed in the R -1 zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The building setbacks, parking areas, and landscaped areas are all being provided in accordance with standards and policies set by the Planning Commission. Archibald Avenue is a Special Boulevard and the applicant has proposed to landscape it accordingly (Exhibit "C "). Access to the site is being provided by a single driveway located approximately 200 feet north of Wilson Avenue on Archibald Avenue. In accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, both streets are required to be improved along the entire length of the property. Street improvements would include paving overlay, curbs, berming and landscaping, a meandering sidewalk on Archibald Avenue, and sidewalk on Wilson Avenue. The elevations, as shown on Exhibit "C ", indicate the use of abundant landscaping and decorative walls to screen the substation from view. The site will be graded such that the finished grade level of the substation is 8 to 10 feet below the land on the west and north. The proposed screen walls are to be constructed of concrete block with stucco finish and brown split -face block. The walls are designed with a minimum 8' height and will be placed atop berms to provide additional height for screening from the street level. As per the Design Review Committee comments, walls along Wilson Avenue and Archibald Avenue have been placed behind the 25 -foot building setback line. Colored elevations will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. The intent of the berming, sub - graded pad and walls is to limit the visibility and impact to adjacent areas. It is unlikely that the facility will be totally screened. Staff recommends that a row of dense trees be planted 15 feet on ce:iter along the north and west boundaries of the facility. This will help provide screening for properties to the north and west. The Design Review Committee worked with the applicant to formulate the design which is presently before the Commission. The Committee recommends approval of the design with emphasis on the landscaping around the perimeter of tho site. Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant !s provided for your review and consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and deter- mined that although the project could have an impact on the environment from an aesthetic viewpoint, that adequate mitigation measures have been proposed to eliminate significant adverse impacts. If the i} CUP 81 -05 -3- May 13, 1981 Commission concurs with such findings, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE. A public hearing notice was advertised in the Dairy Report newspaper on May 1, 1981, and 29 public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Residents living on both sides of Archibald and north of the project site have expressed concern with the visual zppearance of a substation. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commisison review and consider the various aspects of this project. If the Commission concurs with the findings and--analysis of Staff, the appropriate conditions of approval are attached for your review and consideration. Respectfully submitted, 0 BARRY K. HOGAN City Planner BKH:DC:cd Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevations Exhibit "D" - Conceputal Site Development Plan Part I - In?tial Study Resolution of Approval Conditions U �.� ■u■ E.0; NORTH CITY 0,147 ITEM: ,> r sl 'I Ina Nwa -M t/�'�r• ♦. � : j ti rcv swrtcns.en. � ' jf- ' R i • I -' ` ''� I rWt I '� I TRnK•� � I TM19 , TwVK i I TWY{ t. � .♦ • Yl.. I •. U{ KO iWITr'M M1'Ay'.K I II 1 ry ♦ ♦ -k� •ilnbtr '- n ♦y ��.v'µra °= w`..a,.�.. Iwr+_ iww �•f'J .: 1 ..� -� �TM1 .o.a ��!. n•._ ♦it una-1 lt".-Mn�n oa.n�Fi t w I ..s..a{..w.�an• Gaaa -K i 1 \M w_ .F.-aa VM. Nita a ♦Ma1 -/.. ... _• a.�w a..a waw .ter" Jq �k ♦.- � - t•NI 1 �a n4v • I NORTH CITY %f--JNr7 ITEM: Gup lRo o RANCHO C CATMONGA TITLE: 4-51-re pL40W PLANNING ®IVIS10N EXHIBIT; SCALE- VA. I �, it �+ :L., ,. .. '�� _,1 .3 �.. , � •'�'. ��^�: E 11 to 2 V 500! .1F t07 2 /snot rf ol JY /LSOAt d. ✓E�:.JE I C0r J 20ro0 5P e 37259! OE01CA7 1DN C502/,vJ t0r 5 .dtr4 tOM4 C JI..d!) .$O. Cd: /F. O/.zo.V /O.J, Oot) 5. Q q m 3 d Q I V FORTH CITE' OF ITC.%i: COUP 11 -05 RANCHO CL'CANIOIGA TITLE:4Nc6P'TiJ� AI'� Rj.� PLANNENG DIN' iCN EJCHll3!T: _. _ 1� SCALE: "` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI -TONGA INITIAL STUDY 0 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 apr'.icat:ion, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the Public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. �• PROJECT TITLE: Alta Loma Substation APPLICANT'S NAME, F.DDRESS, TELEPHONE: Southern California 7dison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, Ca. 91770 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING TT_iIS PROJECT: Don W. Bailey, Room 306, (213)572 -2879. LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOF. PARCF•.L NO.) North West corner of Archibald Av,.and Wilson Ave. intersection. Assessocr Parcel No. /OG . -..,"j - p.¢ _ LI, �T OTHER PERRIITS NECESSARY FROM, LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FELERAI, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Site Approval - City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading 8 Fencing Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Permit - City r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI -TONGA INITIAL STUDY 0 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 apr'.icat:ion, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the Public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. �• PROJECT TITLE: Alta Loma Substation APPLICANT'S NAME, F.DDRESS, TELEPHONE: Southern California 7dison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, Ca. 91770 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING TT_iIS PROJECT: Don W. Bailey, Room 306, (213)572 -2879. LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOF. PARCF•.L NO.) North West corner of Archibald Av,.and Wilson Ave. intersection. Assessocr Parcel No. /OG . -..,"j - p.¢ _ LI, �T OTHER PERRIITS NECESSARY FROM, LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FELERAI, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Site Approval - City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading 8 Fencing Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga �. Encroachment Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga Y -i c. PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alta Loma Subsite will be used for a new _ aesthetically treated low orofil.e 66/12kV distribution substation ultimately consisting or a singl.e_story rcla'✓ hnw;p, nine nositionp of 66kV switchrack, four 44.4MVA 66/12kV trans- former, bank-, !-,event--n nr ^+t +nn< of 1.2kV switchrark_ f..,_r 19kV rnnxlmitn^ banker anti of er aDDurtenant eouinme:it a- sociatod with a dj„rrihntjon station The hiahe r substation structure will be 15 feet above its pad level. All distribution lines emanating from the station will be underground. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTIPIG AND PROPOSED BU 'LDINGS, IF ANY: Total parcel- 4.76 Acres; Project Site: 2.42 Acres; Relav House: 693 so. feet. DESCRIBE THE •ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORKATION ON TOPOGRAPFY, PLAITS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEI•IIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURRO MMING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY . EXISTING STRUCEURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) The 4.78 Acre site is vacant and used as pasture land for livestock._ :lo trees exist on the site and grazing has reduced the vegetation to i nhtl" covered weed^ and grass The project site terrain slopes _ North to South with a relief of approximately 25 feet. No signs of soil erosion exists. Any animals existing cn the site would be _ confined to small rodents. There are no cultural„ historical or scenic aspects known to exist or the site. Two story single family 'Os;denc�.s exists south of Wilson Ave adjacent to the South Single _story, single family, residences exists to the west of the 4.78 acre parcel. To the north the area contains a citrus grove with a two story farm house, barn and othersmall sheds. Across Archibald Ave.iue, adjacent to the east, the area is vacent. yi 4 c Is the project, Part of ,'' 1--r ^cr project, or . e of a Seri ^s O£ cumulative ac*ions, which although individually small, may as a whole ha;c signitica.nt environmental impact? e The uriginal interior installation will be the electrical equipment and addition.; may be made in the future, as required, to meet the electrical E demand or the area tFiat is served. WILT.. THTS PRO,TP,CT: YES NO _ X 1. Create a substantia?. change in ground' contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)! _ X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees ?. How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTA'Tr: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the corm 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 titc facts, statements, and information presented are tr•ic 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 ma.de by the De%vLopment Review Committee. �� Date .r'.� tra-1 -e Signature Title PROPERTY ENGRICU 13 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF T'iE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -05 FOR ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AND WILSON AVENUE IN THE R -1 -20 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of March, 1981, a complete application was filed by Southern California Edison Company for review of the above - described project; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of May, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above - described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the Genera, Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and, 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public ®- health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on t e environment and tha.: a Negative Declaration is issued on May 13, 1981. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 81 -05 is apprc —ed subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: ;. That the detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall conform to the approved site plan, except as otherwise provided herein. 2. That tree wells be provided every 15 feet inside the perimeter wall on the west and north side and planted with E:ce,lyptus Hichollii, minimum 15 gallon size for screelin3 purposes. 3. That thi: California Black Oak be specimen size trees and that aaditional specimen size trees be provided along Archibald Avenue to meet special Boulevard standards. Resolution No. Page 2 4. That trees be planted at the base of both transmission line poles to ra,duce visual impact. 5. Construct the missing storm drain in Wilson Avenue to join existing stub outs at Klusman Avenue and Archibald Avenue with adequate catch basin connections to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The storm drain fee for the project shall be credited towards the cost of this drain. 6. Construct the mission street improvements on Wilson Avenue beyond the project limit from Klusman Avenue to westerly project boundary. The improvements shall include curb, gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, street lights and A.C. overlay. The system development fee for the project shall be credited towards the cost of the improvements. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 3981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Rich d Dah , Chainnan 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 forego'ng Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancno Cucamcnga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: y, A MZ� 6 0 W Y N O G 1 O u O V O N 6 0 4 � V L p6 U VI 6 J 11 �r C N v o G ' � L V T� q � ' y c rn.• o N... g o v ". � c i e c N• c L YO N 4yt � .Nw L rce .ter N � v V � ✓ K ^ _ V O _ ` V J 4 nt'wV- _ - C C C C, ^ OL yC V L' V = V P L A +• G li V� •A C qJ VNp y V Y L V•-• •L.. C y L N q T j + p (L V L O N _• • C n L ^iV.GC T q` = w VN W W A L q C ^ALL L CL ki W d Y •-•J � V O q it 0 .�C_ R � •q .� N L v ° L L qC � c o d n v� o � °^ q � q Lo V c N u P+O• Ems". ru C N 4d S L Y `p� V N•N• � �. V o_, +• Cr O'^ � •-.°o 6 i! O T V �G O b d Y u r N V V J r C i �6 � q •L' O THE L'•-• CC N Z EI LO N Or V�06 PE F6 NV W R•^ p d� rN E VC •V C A V d � 4 V N V V Rq 4N CY Y N Lob O p VM N O J V NyV Lam• Y.r O 'Or C O L q v J •c L U {O p O c V L J d • q9 VL .0. N= 9 J �C cc Yq q pM+• �O t.�C J�C �v V LM u N C 6 O O A ✓T 9^•. N V „q p L N v O .VLi u c.U.. U p NTa A A JO� qV `.• ^ V rr p ^ p S C NGPrl u t NFddty � Vs C'i�V UC T4 T V C'u } L A p G Y +C4 f: U•O � O d 7Y V V C P •-•' A q y r_,r i,^ NINYU r i4 ul N N V vOi� V PCB A N N FNF U2— 6 •�+ yy V w ._Y VVC y N^ •rEr ^A NO 4J L s W V G L q d � V N •• � V u O W N L V u Lr VR n L L- ..• L: N N� A 9^ .• d p N V �G A O V ' •_ L •^4 E T ..• L p J C .N L u N 0 C A is ^ -.• p K f V HJG u N O 4 G rCI Li:Y q rV LO „^ ... • u[' l � V� �C O dT N W U p K V P W rupL wT. yl TTW L40 M1 L -• NMV WgMp LM NNT ✓Y Wpl MGL VL� Lr ^� ALN VVC V PjO,LVWA C WA NJ y� ^V L 4,•__V V LO Y N V .• N •• O q V �'r ^_ L ii. n AY A 9 E d V S V R A O Y i 6O T V 6 C r^ N v R V N ? V 4 l N >r y �p�pjj M •p6J. G S OI A ••L^ d W V. q LLqq yLy � q �^ N f l rt Lam• •Oy •� N ^ N 4 N �C O� N G� O V I M O A V Y q� C C• 4u •^ �N y QO �9 N1 V� V^ Lq i N d �V CuJy V C CJ 9LL LG V�qV •�� O 1'Ny 4 VdJ VC Y•^ YT O�J m F M+ K r yA VL- { � �L QLr L•-^ OY yV•^00 LV �VI.• •_� Nq M� ` ^V OrV U.J^ 9 L W P dY T t V Y 4C 1r Vr C. O Nu V M Y4•^ Lu 9uG 4••V• GC �(LrG V tL „� W CK O••^ �C 1V O�C C q4 ( JL• � F V Np A •.L•N l 7 9 y C V V O d V 8 A V {cr N =� C f•>N 44 N^ •O ^ c 6W0 CON A V •La V^ L � C 3 V L Y = 5 09 yNj LLl dt 4 C N�4yd�•p9 Mu u� Nijy� A W u p L u 9 C G 4 Y O A W L L N P ? O L N d Pi' L J ^ Y^ y, N L N G V ✓ ^ Q N L WL W A ^ C OC V ^ n N V y9, C L qq py Y- g-- y1 p L'O9 d L O' w •-L N Y �-VL C� N6 4A p VI t. •^ l W O J J V N p L f W N f V =✓ t.-` 4 •4•r w ^ 16 ^ V ^ ^ ••� f`J`I N N N N N 0 4 � V L p6 U VI 6 J 11 C �r C N V T� L � l4 VO N �. NO OVy �`• O f.nL U' C O V V C, + V 6 yC V V = V P L O +• G GW L fJ > y V Y L V•-• y p (L V L O N _• • C n L T q` q C N q C ` W •-•J � V O q it 0 q.•• d O � N p V q C q N G '^W N L AL qC L Q Qaa `NQ P+O• ]•r 4d S L Y r ^G L V ^� V �G O YA LO L `..• YV �6 � J •L' O THE L'•-• CC N Z EI LO N Or V�06 PE F6 NV W R•^ p d� E VC •V C A V d � 4 V N V V Rq 4N CY Y N Lob LY YV VM N O NyV Lam• Y.r O 'Or d,••� O VW A L U {O p O c V L J d • q9 VL .0. V V �C NC Yq q pM+• �O t.�C J�C �v V LM ✓T uOiL „q py V`C N i .VLi u c.U.. NTa V LC� JO� qV G d V A •� q p S C O+ O yy !� ryryP C � O V T F � 6 r L V UC T4 T V M } L A p G Y +C4 q T � O d V V C P •-•' A q y r_,r c L O •C µ =` b d OV Vur PCB N N ^ 6 •�+ yy OrV CuV ._Y VVC iq` NY •.L•qL •rEr ^A NO JiJL4 L s LM ^O c n qq V_Y ql r 4.0-• ^ 0t4 ^Ji •C O V_ N N N V q L V L L q � r ; � pV ` �u OOJ LO • u[' CNV C 4 �I C br Vii V'O` YM EN rupL wT. yl TTW L40 M1 WgMp LM NNT I:A Y Wpl MGL VL� Lr ^� ALN VVC V L yrYp L E ^V L 4,•__V V y U v N V .• N •• O q V �'r V V ^_ C_ P. o i do caN v R V t N ? V 4 _. �• >r y �p�pjj M •p6J. i N q LLqq yLy � q �^ N f l rt Lam• •Oy •� N ^ N 4 N O P O C Q• O� N G� O V I M O A V Y q� C C• �• } C L� V y m 6 P �. b V N d� L• •V.r V _.�: [ N r E �_ C. � VO N b VqC Y•^ .CV }00 >V W^ LLY OU T pW qqL L ✓ Cu F.� C C u q � J C C N E^ O N 9 L W {? L V V LPN O •9 L 4, N t V V y r N q• N 4� U 3 .V+V M Y4•^ 4V a4 _V Wt gY1d NL �(LrG ••Y•L VLV 'C �i C b R 7 LL ••• F V L ••• ^r0 }:N N V N.• fL qn 6VV Y f•>N 44 C•Gnq 6Vr T•� 6W0 CON C ` o Nn fT OG r'G�r NIV'� VSa N ur 6' lq LA G\r N .r u ^ P l = u ' V L l a ✓ V N P� y 4 P y l• . W C •y Y. G ^ •Li V'C VC1:.0 - « ^O ^M� rlTiq q.. � .[' `WN u � O �t O Cr pLNA ^C LLB fVn C¢ Vn V LOr �.� �q d l� O � VgP�1V L 6..r ..J.rr p•..r -V A�j CLY L Nq t •� w L V y O V O•n d V L ° C q P N u. q C G° N ry L Ou V ` ^C OC C LrV V �Y G VVO V^ j� qL � _� C ¢O Va� qAU 6C YV rio- Cam. -.rS L^ CN vgOU CCV [1N VCO q9 A^ 6 `WW zS. L'C bq ON V NW -... WOE •. >¢urc ctV vV OL. +JC nNL ^S .Ira «b p .•n' O L a ... m V�- G Y C ^ U u t\ A L N L L (1 > V Y •r � N - vpr W V `Y n..Gq« oa•� m G L o... u uir W . L w [p° P� aV 09�FL VO r r' O'} urvL 90Y YL .JirW y N q08 . L c .o N PL a. E!b « Z n c i Y NO L4 °NP Y-� w V� y nL.� N N xa N.. ^.°. o �� y c.g `•� °1. `c" � '• a c t i n m c J N�JN +Ly +\Lir 96 ',+G WO.N NruO C • .� L OO�K qN N Z. O Cw r �VG N GNP Y.� J t. ¢L C C n } y. •• O V O. V 9 Jr H O 6+ Orr CVA 71.J 4NLVC9 ^T� �LN TJ - a �G..d• �A r06 NA fY PC NY J V6 `r^ Cy11 L PP C^ A L La . C` OL G•� VC dCN p� =uA �W _ Y _ oZ`w 4rinP Gr 6P¢NrLir G.�O� 6id4 1-r f�rLrrA 4N VY X20 46m HA C 04 O P N O s o W ® � G r t 9 - C r} u o ojn�- � cW LO off^ n WGLL n `j ✓G» Ct w-n4 N ^c q oa ndyq Yo oc c �N L V � . PY Tnn A•� Srr A ..160 9 O .1 N O +C G N4•�OG ON V Y9 < NN �cV �P sry G6 V ^ A ^ ^ a^C ^r ^P y M V -p d!\rya CL N �C 'O J U^ Vp« yJjJ NG'fV/d+ L E 4 � Tc Lo N r` N, i n i v ao ar+irY Pao PG }u A P y L Y C O r�o c`SJ tc n � g � ^T 90 -G yc LLd.P acic `y Lyyy.� n••q -. P •c '-cc � ° �« y.o.vn .Ge '^ ar aqi G.rr o. rdr e.G V 6 j +rY w q () E d rV r N Lr N C 6 N pL. A NYC N L J 4_ O ^ � q �pr F q N Mq ✓NU^ CM Grgir CCU CNtn �LnY Vq y _ �y }VO�Za +O py �1 c Y C .6 F L G_ L• N OY. L V O V � �AL nV �r.K .. rN0 q � ON V Y VP6L. PO Y6N p. 6O ^ ^O O LCL + N ¢V N V A Gn «C ¢O L•r a n V r •�' c 0 YCA ' N arG � 4E 4C LiT V¢u LrpA L^ mu k r T 'J y • i.+ ry N s J[ C. 3 4 n 4 a P« L V 6 i� Car « y H qY n 6 N« °OaN �VqV K _ GVlr NO r d•r ^ q.Y I _ _ E V .�-V N d N q P V a y O n N W O V O �„OWg Y• V C C nf.`C V✓ V n v A VVy yLj .� Y .L ^}OL CC n .G.•V 6OL qL n• _ n NrL Ggrvi$ P .' o O >r A pyV Cq G VEOO q J{G � L TV N � y CG OL PCCy°< �= rr .,9 2 -C� `d qG 6'LUYy .> LN P O VSO q C C O�pr �NLG 'n CC«PLrJ/rW �'1N ny buO n• +• i PO n J L I..iVU r\'O -' '^VC p. rO Q..r +C +BUG ^N VL a q.V r v V<� A• d q l.` + - ^ N L G O v N� 'O � ..n. A •OV ` a r L V V y • } 4 O 6 Q W O W Q Q p \. Y y,,, 4 O O� 6 � W V V O. r � O VI q V N .p c W 01 y wi i e V O � C p y V L J•. M V u9W CVGO/ 9N l_ N �. Yi C j b✓ ^LV 1� -N U p V a W L N C_ f4 L C -- C .� '. . C J C q r W N� � C •_ {•nr. C C .Q �1 4 � L V L U✓ p q � .+ f'. S N '7 P x« N W O �� N O p `p ✓ At lj A p W VL ` � V — U` Gu •� 4� ✓ tin.. tea^ 1 Tuff Gl JC C - •- q L C�... PN Y.0 4•Ca" -9 � L+- ✓J� - v_ �✓ L u ✓3N6� uC c x c G ✓LMA \� 9V G W'C-V �« dp u � ^ VO ' u p 4 N r O W '•- 1 'p + N N +� V ✓ Y v- L �• u {] �af :a G 'GLN o xrA cow �o.°.V4 nq°na ^ �� �4�c n. ✓N: °c qoo a x Y.�N vWC qM.✓•1} %a � �`�Y, ih ..L `E n _v =cam hoG•3.o o. � .a _ ..� L fi N o L o � ✓« o .� ro a. « a n d u .- G q � q N✓ n NTVO 4J L' h0 may(+ d• -.• 1' W.y« ^ � J� •-.� 4 n_< a =V: o cl'°Ja ✓.T+LW L1 .� «" N '- uq ErJ „ 6,. j. .- (" ^ ,a L« N q n q T •Q Ii - W q r r. .� C'rcL N L+ ^c d y fi p V N g NLN _ N N i . -•V ILi C _ Cy °.L-. C y r +CWULL C.✓ L — - \~J CL�4 313W« WUhud y p .-p •9�4 L3 ^� s M✓ I.4 K � W l�L� N„ V r LW L ✓ ✓ L' u« V L «L GL�Cp «CG9LL TJ C V J.- lE G N V l 6 V ¢ T G T •.- 6+ (/ C• L� v V = fl r llE L C L. -- \lJi 4« Lv.�.✓^ L ^a.^u a -.- N �..0 V Y �I ... ? �y j 4OL _ - V- Luu V1 •• 1-'J O 4 OGNWN rNG1G « 3b lJ CJ 699AV VI G 4t' ` C i3 G30 L nM1 V� W �. N H T WI NI •I I `V NI I I I I 1 1 1' WI LL O c a �- o•` a \+ W • q N✓ W '- Y• � y U L u U N d_ g 9 N C �' O -^ n G LC + L �`. ✓+ � N `J G .O+Cl7r �N y'.+W«F_G.��quLS: f O q u nO v� +N c w m� ,c oL. �YUVN NO •-nN O N \! i C U- -- a° y C 9 O h V L LOW L Y y^ p. E✓^ L i W r^J ✓ V T 4 L V A^ W C$ •.- �� .. V W y G V V~ - �j L .-. N R .- � q ' C W V •- C O y 9 Oa C 3 PGi y« y L O 1\N w OpE V L..- N '->- O a^ ••^V+_'C'✓ � .� „O ILV •'L qC yA W�� E h r fj G y C C •_N r✓6c L j0 VO C� S ECL�gT C•-L ' U 4 �Oi7 w rCl x �! N C L ^. C. A p V ✓ O✓ N uY nvu... G^ q Lb qo 9•3 .- q• - a N 3 a>y n ,! vu o. «•:o��+•p:�� O PO L9 00 •LA• w O `�L \r LC n�u`.�R �W �. N V ` q h J • J. L °V'v.6 d g N N q Y C+b V L U o P �� ✓y 6 d W Y, i N TQ._ d i {� ^✓ C+ i O N p N 2 � +°- L p T \ `-J N IL qC ..C-6 r p L ONNY NEEN ^[ UN3 LL`OVMC U•i- C + 1- LO PN q _ «q q L 4 C•y✓G\ an T O C•nC �4+h.- C'V\(.I�V O 9n. f• /L.+' L 4 N ° V Oq O 1' I rV«GlaC4 A v q C q •.• •n 6 q Y. j .�. l VLO r ✓N p .-.rLU N«Gh0 nl`«L�r✓�Urr C L P -� V up - L N 1• IJO L 3 .- N +Lp V 4 fG LGG N _'(.� O fJ f .• JG -] q d L V •- t p r � '- I� 4 = g ` Nc C✓ l + c c <' C L 1-' P G l •- V � ✓ -7� a N L_ O L N ac -L L .- d IV C G 3 Y Y IuF Vi C✓ A i u F .� V y y C C .+ N'•• � V -^ r• S L R O p V+ N qT 0^ 9$+ •� ..^ G� Z� \ ^LCVU. y' I 4V4 u gYO4iC m+m'O"C n q OnW P rON N n ^4 ..C- Ip nyy 0460 RrC ^G + ^.". _fr C' � 2 G C V FE � � r' .� ^ r G •\^+lJ� L N L 4 M L `- N G y G 4 •-• N p. � 1° n r� L ' V y j O O b G {• � N T• �- C Ut 4 U I�Cq P C ('. ` L LC W f .n G 64u ^per — •-n C'..0. OV u 40� ^ �T +C�� S1G+ OL 4 IV S.iC N 4I'hV(. C -O Rl'L>✓ ✓G - -x n4 o ✓c Nc ccc ,c - rj ` �+• > > c u o n a - 4 o W ,.. c a•o.o n n .-• n c G L o-✓ + .- :• c c � . N �O L,l 3p n0 L G._G. C L(..�+ ".V \u G' `✓ O nY✓ F-Lm Y.O nLw-V SrNN¢ 60q =i «r:.L [. -•Cj N f•1 O Y\ .O G O 4 E C = I{ W r _ 4 C p L LI y P �• I � L n A r � d p L 4 L 6 ' [l P L C A C W V d W Y y^ O r M N ^ r L n y K F UGG a y � lJ ..O O CC O•L N9Y u� ' '_- � I {1 W V� \.t = N LO.0 \k UV ...p ^u CNr IW9 ✓� , n QUO ° '� A +� W O A 9 d L N N N a• G� N N y. V y !' � Q O M C G L O OL ^ ^ u L • L n d O V d O u ^ 1V A y• ` � N •• ^ Y L CY .+ N L o 4 Y '^ P P G w Q W \ "I �- _•� pL6 :.Imo G -^A cIn "� ETA �0 00 °� 4` i �� ci[ pin AN a��d Si rod c.c u-Iiv uut I _ G N � V Q A Q O Y t V V (L q 6 P W G L aVJ V Y q L V ."- W •b N Yf V (O P V .y N a•1 ^ W ti L ti C O _ N q C i r P v O ✓ O •-1 •n G O C �i y IJ V_ O Jr O LGN .. U6 Aq<- yG. N` OC CVLQq «V y P^ O V « a G V G 0.1 04 a ✓ LGU O +TL p± _ C O « •W � C pp L L6Z W V� p >Y ty ^ Lu` .^Y OIOVP� 00 GNV.�L i. UN ° y P^I qA� O � dV� L CYN «O V�o •Oo^� H uq V` W W W 6 O i Y_ .` L Y L. � P G u N L a• L e y _ N✓ TyC L9C C �+ �V GI VVU ° � °fJ CN aN ML C«OOE G 6GI O ^`C W w•° 4�L � Wig IrWP C`+ .r�T ^ ...� O ^ L w � If T A O T. Ir T 1 � Y �^ •W,. C°�° J O 7 C AVM ^I JP d0•.'^ W UI NaO -� T.. SIC u^ dGl'PJT L < OA N NIr u6CV 01 yWN O n r. =p L4 � LIL„ O' NC U C G V m A ^O Y V W✓ L ^ V w ° 6✓ G O C h- O L C✓ OI qN Y.yL�N N 6rl TNIn GyI l4 NVl] W 4 NqC �A�J a'.L LlH Y.p ^'m T Au r y Y- °C w IV C.2. O9V '1{ M••Lm yqC H ^TyI�C �) ^V LN+ AC 1q e ^ y .O O W q U LL d COL If{�J O L• L40GPW d40. 1]O ^W CU O NNN P_LV -'•V- OO VNL NCIq L1 pV LL y wi _ UL ^ U Xry p y1 V 4°^ n6 r-.E NTnI vC COm diYl W`.pduw VI.mA 21 m nN '_ AO �04•l� HOC CNOy � � P..O >.4 O c-LL ✓>V VI aV 20 N W L G PL ✓ sp. lW. A '«� O L C T q W ^J .^ G y ° T> � G O1 u 4 N �- �I .� Y-ncP o^ —� [ pN _moo yr.•aii' �w uP.'.^q�N �� U "J •C ^ V N d T« L° O N P n• n N N p V= C !� L I C l] PC UIr L C ^ ^V' ^ QVUi -„ G •.Cy V NOU /.-VL V�L�L. a•T� QV10L NrC nT y I L'1¢V V 4N ¢A 1-UN Q q a V ° W I t P •• yl L O � ~ w C [4� fff W l c P O C rn c v ln! s V V n G !u ro �o L ��� i 4 � � � 4 O V i i {ffr1�1�1' O N .. �• I !: r u Y '7, L ryi• � « P r `. L V` 1. l) � 1 4 ✓ IV N y G I q s N ✓ V u G✓ r c' V •• Iq ✓ LL OW G CN � d .-q VV J n VG r y I ✓ °aw i v c o c a✓ rclo qty �•Nn r i.o v. .b. :. —[_ :.'q sir � �✓ � c^ r:r� � n� o�iw o �_ i r n •^ u4 y V i'. c4ii i mu bN y c d cW 2 < ^va. o. In GCO N �q N O✓ � +- OT 01 A UY 4r q +)' d V - 1• `• U L n 4 V✓✓ ••c- D; L [: Z u V V ✓ ✓ l R Cam• � ro Iv 'L� ✓N L LO N DOId 4 I:IL pN >uY `U_ i' ✓,.0 aN —_c„r° r �T�v J aL v.'Lr� � °N n� .°.m` N !u �� v.• aq N iii `Y i5, -� i 1 0"• v «4 q u� NuW. -. <pD TI 4 •;r.'L: v G V V J V N La . ip v lT N G N ai <- a G T + -• _ d N G L Lw Lr qi✓ .4 o q ✓` CY q+= p F C 4d J O >, pp2 d c �, ✓- ✓ 4 m q u 6 l O^ w q L 6 r. Y N Y D° D« 4 M p O✓ G N O V• ✓� ti •.f. L ✓' C V 4 Z^ T V> L « A .. G Y.. L 6 L Z2 4✓ ^ y� U C ° V P•^ N+- ^i N q d Y° u N a O N IC \ C VY rV •�J �� n'L NC •Vir✓•V- yy CY✓ q F nV' FW L L d^ A✓ ��LL C N _ VV C•••f0 >ro C O> IN l'� v .°. -•r0 N9' .nC C•-. CIO qCI +N'`�Y q= V GI N ✓VN VV �L yP �+- °V ✓f GIL VIb �•` INY 1l>•W >J •^� LLOAL OV•L- b, [ �2 W 4 I I Yr r✓ pNL 6Y .:� 'J Vi GJ Ur jI LV.06 <rtPi� `I � •O m P Y •n w r J 1 V � C d d •� • . u O ✓ T C� Vry O C ✓ D ✓ T q✓ d y •G N mL N •r>ir J LILY rwn O. Y N 6 q V -. v [I q 0 Tr P C� J d � [i l ✓ O O ✓ P 4 ••- O.Id P L N - D� b O ✓ � ✓ • -� N • G L C r Y Ll vi V 6 q r ° G N O 7 � N� r q V M V✓ C •II �q ✓r +C °' '� L-�N '� y ✓' n✓.LV p1 C " nOY P � q L� yq C D L 0 4 K W L ✓YN Ci G y Y -9 p0 O � ! -✓ COW `r^ d O •qir wL Jd LUwC N ^ r- i•I UC LWW q�� .O •= lC qy LdL C Cr DL LO qwL 9T0� W CC r^PO r q OFI /yu T` G -O � roLy CC w Nq 4•� V d W C q fCVI Y- « ^N•r A O f. Y r` G. �'^ •' rL LZ• ✓�P ✓P SLO y r Cr ✓f y c ` U ^q Dq0 .'TrJy") v�1 d v NW NroVO r N 6✓lLS uC •i [_� L2 >L • ^L'` -9{' y C N•^ N NN q•r... y p,.y C V O "I 4 d O V N N Y d • U_ O L -w f I. O C✓ " w � V q L w L L d L C L d « V V C U L {1 d F' • 2 u> G L 1] V O q G N O V C V Y •' ✓ q N i y n> V L 'V j c ^ V C6 TEA r �-'". Cd N q w u VyV d J f1 ✓ ' 2 L LI ` N .• V y N ✓ a l .^ C L.- O •- T 6✓ L •Il c '^ Y N W C d C- G N G P O L d ••°. l A� V O C•• C w V y i T L{ V L P✓ oL d —0 y 01 •^ q l U q ✓ C Y Cr O L V •�. V. L N L C�J Gr W N V L ✓- D •COf`j L' r 3 4 4 [ 'J qL ^> ✓rc L O U W V CNL✓ GOrn Cq•`^cT ;[ L ._ 4L_ y�v Npr V..uF MO �.Sw L n0 ^rL CUI L «ONV G OV vLr .• lT rL1 Oil' - CW Nu Y••- >' 4i 4^ c fj LT ^- C V d q M y n -J !: Cl Y L 'J r A Y } q r^ N U •^ �_✓ \ M L V r N j N C L V L N Cl LV ! ` P q O V� L L - -• C V Y 4 uqw yL ... oc HO L n LN N y`L. c .N90 CU•°^�C OO pU iL � vi —=o 1. r_c _. ,r .'. o.q.•P A N �V G L•Lw \' J CV C q N 9 L •^ r 4 •V- d P +._ £! p L L Y O J w_ -' C a y L N w p� �. W 4✓ d` I q `� O C `• " V L `° •^ L L W (i. 1_ L L ^ N S �' r O D N q ✓ •-• C n � C d co •.. L r =� .mod «b u q ✓Ly TA •.N .- c qy c C c� � V `'- ^2V l ✓✓u . LT 4c04r •-�rw N. ^DO C 4 N •^ W 'V C N q G� V�1 -••"- oL OI A V V_w I 4 • py L'C L_ ^' C. ` _ (� F•Y V P, al C' Y� C•'CC ` '^ ✓ N `N L n ! 4 V L[-} �'_' L L ro u Ll G C 4 q ..• V C •^ ^ U V -Y T L d UI G C L 4 M L' r_ 4' C 'I' C -.2 L � q L L L L' L .' -_ _y ^ L/ q'^ r T[. ^V V u✓ N �wwN � t -i N ••- N+ Y a V `^ 4q C Lam.✓ Vu•V NL• ^Lw V.00r <� AG L'-' NLAgL W ✓V LM qN '.2LL OL V9 GOry •C ✓QU QI ! hTJ ✓ /G•r. YN ql '•r _ Or Y !u KI — CITY Of RANCHO QrAlv1CkNGA STAN' REPORT DATE: May 13, 1931 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUCiECT: Environmental Assessment and Par A commercia subdivision of 176. M -2 zone located east of Haven Foothill Blvd. cel Map 6725 - 86 acres into Avenue on the ceis in side of on INTRODUCTION: The subdivision consists of Parcel 25 of recorded Parcel Map 6206. The subdivision, as proposed, ,pw :)vides for, ten parcels for commercial and industrial use. Daon Corporation has bonded for all off -site improve- ments under Parcel Map 6206. It is intended by the applicant to have a Corporate Plaza centrally located within the proposed subdivision, also incluue6 will be the future Rancho Cucamonga City Hall and San Bernardino County Courthouse as well as professional office, foodpark and light indus- trial users. The parcel map is in conformance with the previously approved master plan for the area. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS. An environmental impact report has been certified by the Planning Commission on April 23, 1980 for the entire project (Parcel Map 6206). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tentative map be approved subject to the City Engineer's Report. A resolution is attached to provide for approv- al should the Commission concur. Respectfully submitted, d LBH:JS:jaa Attachments ITEM F 0 0 3a C Q O or 4 G V T �- Uq0 9 2] TILL O �1]A l)V o u0i AuN A u =Y N .• 6 L u �` N t q{ « E N � � � � A nv out oN..r-. i. iG w. =v *arc..• �G • N .- � i NLya V u' 4 G O O O w i 4 l G• C q U u V U N O^ [1 a 4 i s •� V H O •u _ u V• T L G y r O +C- V V•�C> 9 C q C µ'Y �� 9J nd C V �u y OA OC LE Ty1C uGL4 V �� .'�E..- v V 4r u u y A Vp n> O b j C« C O L L G l L P L ^ A C P �qu N WG Q4 LJF�• K_ JL( Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Richard Dahl, 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 13th day o-1 Nay, 1981, by the following vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES' COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E _ - a_ + ^. _ ..._ •• rH(Y =all1 •- _ - HOUCCV.(F'D L \ _ •4 ,� NV U-1 \4 1 �t•�� i]m %i' �F ` -. �. .111 _ t / .rp.oYr \ - : , �`� -�._ . _ �� _ ., �, :,�� - • �. �`� 1;;x1 ��. — � - _ _ f. Y� �. .... �, �^ _ 'j�; `• ,�.' •� _�� � n � � \ \� iii }, i is J �s a },. Ali n IT 4.� 11 l ` '•III 'T' � r f�` ." J / �'. , 7 � 1, l"J� nrn ?n•Yr T. .a...1 .1 t.1 \i -... 1 }s r: 11 __-'.. _ '. ���''] czt ; �1.+.�.0 1 7r'ac�tLD.i :':'li:: � �'• :�,i' ! .if:. lu.• *I r i 1 � ("i1•• 1 Pn..;r'u. -w,.er :�m.n:, ^, rj i f____ •\ ; TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 6725 IN THE CITY OFI RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1 __ _ rwY wrr Yr.Y•.r ^.+•'�^�� i _ ' ' lY.WO•I.L� YMIINY WM YL(.IW r_•w� RrM.lYr '` f.•1Tf.•.FCer a. I � � • YII 1 VKpAT YY► .r.ewr ]r..wr.. .. r "' vi.ie] Jrr.r C rC J.anm. +rr Y) • l� cc/ If + 4:1 + Po'ce 9 � t3 I, poecei e. -Q ,j r Pace /'7 J 0 1 Fr 1% �, I WICNITY yap MtA r A, . :.-rro FL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6725 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Daon Corporation TENTATIVE MAP NO. PM 6725 LOCATION: NEC Haven and Arrow DATE FILED: 2/27/61 NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Subdivision of Parcel 25, Pa -cel RECEIPT NUMBER: 10347 Map 6206, as per map recorded in Book 59, Pages FEE: $170.00 91 -95 ZONE: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: L. D. King, Inc. GROSS ACREAGE: 176.85 ADDRESS: 517 N. Euclid Ave. ''MINIMUM LOT AREA: Ontario, CA 91762 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: ************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE # 46 Daon Corporation 4041 Mac Arthur Blvd. 714/988 -5492 Newport Beach, CA REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications X 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on Foothill Blvd. (see Note #47) additional feet on additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows:_ 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Naster Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersertions require realignment as follows: RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6725 Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to b Recording for Interior.Havgn.Arr�w,Foot 0 building permit for a17 parcels) hill X 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior str >ets. X 8. Construct th• "allowing missing improvements on the following streets: *'ncludin q lands caning and irrigation on meter 1 STREET NAME CURB & GUTTER A.C. PVMT. SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STP.EET TREES STREET LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER Haven Avenue Foothill Blvd X X X X X X X X X X X X ee : eem 46 in Arrow Route.._ X X X X X X X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilitie are to be underground. ® X 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. X 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga. County -Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative poles with underqround service. X 16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: Arrow Route Haven Avenue, Foothill Boulevard 17. The following speci is dimensions, i.e., cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: _ 18. The following existing streets are substandard: They will require: Approvals and Fees X 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of )6ra`4XX1�rX�,( did( a4Xd( XO�I49( i( jX) ��102 (�4id(rXD(X�i(�(4lrXi4d.(4(. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities ties involved. Approval of the final map will be that may be received from them. RCE 20 approval from CALTRANS/ and other interested agen- subject to any requ';rements TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6725 Page 3 x 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: X A. Caltrans, for: Foothill Blvd B. City: X C. County Dust !Ibatement District: X D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep: X E. Cucamonga County Water District: F. Ocher- 14ap Control 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro- vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected streets. 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map: x 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right -OT- -way line — in accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located _ 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs c arification as fo ows: 27. The border shal be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. 0 Parcel Map Waiver 28. Information submitted at the tirje of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certifticate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to D Recording for 0 Building permit for 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- - ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall along the entire north pro- - perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. 31. If water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:, 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will a requirea to assess 1111pac o increased `— runoff. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6725 Page 4 Miscel laneot,s X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. X 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require -- annexation. 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired Y, 39. Proper grading and erosion control, including thee preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow - ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division. X 41. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the signa- ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the final map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to seid determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final Map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multipl.e lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. Flows from the site will not be allowed to be increased to the south due to site development. Drainage basins to an approved City Standard will be required to retain interior increases in runoff, until completion of storm drain on Arrow Route. X 46. Construct entire median island on Haven Avenue. Developer will be in for one -half of the median island at the time the system development fee is collected. 7.) vVrequired. i a nc 4e S�d nme f F hil lv *r! ��ii wt of moose of t C' y ng' e t (/of e�h rese s th igh o d uir. an dd orof X 48. Applicabl e portions of the conditions for Parcel Map 6206 shall also apply to this project. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER �1 By: RCE 20 I t r� \ r .•y 1:. 1,. r, c•. ,t Yi '• w Col 1� I l� 1 J CITY OF RA \CI -10 CL;C1,%10 \GA STAFF 1 i PORT C Y DATE: May 13, 1331 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONIN wu. of -u.i - Amending the K -i permitted uses, adding a minimum dwelling unit width, and requiring Design Review for all single- family dwellings AE.,TRACT: As a result of the passage of Senate Bill 1960, which shell take effect July 1, 1981, Staff has prepared a proposed amend- ment to the Zoning Ordinance which would satisfy the requirements of the Senate Bill 1960. The Bill precludes i city from prohibiting the installation of specified mobilehomes on permanent foundation systems within lots zoned for single- family dwellings. Staff has prepared an ordinance which designates specific areas where mobile- homes would be permitted, based upon compatibility, and will be presenting the Ordinance to the City Council at their meeting of May 20, 1981. We have reviewed the Ordinance with the City Attorney and have made appropriate changes in accordance with his review. The Ordinance is p-esented to the Planning Commission for review, comment and recommendation to the City Council. Since SB 1960 becomes effective July 1, 1981 it is imperative that this Ordinance be acted upon expeditiously. Attached is a copy of the Ordinance and a Planning Commission Resolution recommending approval of said Ordinance to the City Council. BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1960 precludes cities from totally pro- hibiting the placement of specified mobilehomes on a permanent foundation within single- family zones. However, the Bill does allow cities to designate specific lots which are zoned for single - family dwellings, for placement of mobilehomes if the lots are determined to be compatible for such mobilehome use. The Bill further allows cities to subject mobilehome placement to all of the development standards to which a conventional single - family dwelling is subjected to; including, but not limited to building setback standards, side and rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, access, parking, minimum dwelling unit sq. footage, and architectural requirements. However, architectural requirements imposed on the mobilehome itself shall be limited to its roof overhang, roofing material and siding material. In addition, the City can require that such mobilehomes be placed on permanent foundations in accordance with appropriate building reg4lations. ITEM G ZOA E1 -01 -2- May 13; 1981 After attending several seminars and discussion groups relative to SB O, we have found various methods of implementation. The Bill can be implemented through many different approaches such as: 1. Specific plans, developed to designate specific areas where mobilehomes may be placed through determination of compatibility; 2. Mobilehome overlay or combining zone developed where specific findings of compatibility are applied. Any- one desiring to put a mobilehome on a single - family lot would be required to apply for the overlay zone; 3. Specific target areas designated for mobilehome use for purposes of providing affordable housing such as redevelopment areas or community development block grant areas. This would require certain amendments to the General Plan Housing Element for its imple- mentation; 4. The City also has the option not to adopt any desig- nated areas or review processes and allow mobilehomes to be placed on any lots on a city -wide basis; 5. Move-on permit process established whereby any dwelling unit that is moved onto a single - family lot would re- quire the application of a Conditional Use Permit. This requires an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to set up the Conditional Use Permit procedure for house move -ons, it would include conventional housing as well as mobilehomes; 6. Amendments to the single - family residential zone to designate a specific zoned category in which the mobilehomes would be permitted. This would allow our Design Review to occur as well as all other requireme -t^ After review of all of the alternatives for the implementation of SB 19.60 we felt that the most effective and immediate way to imple- ment the state law would be to amend th. current R -1 section of the Zoning Ordinance to add mobilehomes on single - family lots as a 11 0 ZOA 8101 -3- May 13, 1981 permitted use on 7,200 s . ft. lots or smaller. Mobilehomes are more compatible to conventional wef�ngs —on -7,200 sq. ft. lots or smaller as they are usually more closely related in terms of size and design. Mobile homes are not compatible to conventional housing on larger lots because of the significant difference in size and design. The amendment, as proposed, would allow the Design Review Committee to determine if the placement of a mobilehome is compatible with the existing area in which it is being proposed. In addition to the amendment to the permitted uses, staff is proposing that a dwelling unit width for all dwellings within the single- family residential zone be adopted at a minimum width of 240, excluding the garage. This establishes a design standard as it relates to the lot width and at the same time assists in creating better compatibility. The proposed amendment also is adding a paragraph within the R -1 zone which reinforces the Design Review Ordinance already in effect. The amendment merely clarifies that all dwelling units within the single - family residential zone are subject to design review by the Design Review Committee. We don't believe that there will be a significant influx of people requesting placement of mobilehomes throughout the City within the R -1 -7,200 ft. zone. Most of the existing lots of 7,200 sq. ft., or smaller legal nonconforming lots, either contain existing dwellings or the lots are located within an older area and would require infill which would be most likely compatible for mobilehome usage. The only other way which mobilehomes could be developed within the single - family zone, other than within a mobilehome park, would be through a mobilehome subdivision which would be subject to the review processes which any conventional housing subdivision is presently subjected to. Please find attached a copy of Part I of the Initial Study. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study and has not indicated any significant adverse impacts as a result of these amendments. There- fore, it is recommended that a Netative Declaration be issued for this project. CORRESPONDENCE: Thus item was advertized as a public hearing in the Daily Report Newspaper and we have received no written or oral communications renardina it_ �'dv ZOA 81 -01 ILI! May 13, 1981 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a pub is hearing to consider any public input relative to the proposed amendments. If the Commission concurs with the findings of the Staff Report and the proposed amendments, then it is recom- mended that they adopt the attached Resolution which recommends approval of the Ordinance to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, BARRY K. H06AN City Planner BKH :f,IV:cd Attachments: Senate Bill 1960 Initial Study Resolution of Approval Proposed Ordinance is 11 U C d E °' > 0 „_...T. o; C 0 0 w V 0 O >, 0 0,D aO.. '^ v' �„ 0' 0 0 n C 0 -- V .) W w .W Oo w -0 °• V C W .T. y y V 0 o p .O w a •3 .L.. C ...+ 0 C t ei C L y a O (] p y w O :E 4' O ;D > u L '= V 0 E 0 O C Ci L� F C. C r N N. �. ' 0 N u 'C: 0 w K aN.. 0 0 00 0_ :) w V.L.. O< O'7 N^. w 7 n C t.. •O.L. +✓ a+ i-Es ,nnc m � .. o.om uL vw�n .=°. c?� C�-u_ c dxunu a" w 9. .O N U ar' V 0 a N 0 e7 r••. N p N 0. W p W L w^ 0 <' C ,� y .D t� .O w r ` E .°J G V N .D N lW w as O . [.. _ _ n .-• a. L .0 p • W O ^� ,� � W �' u .7i, � .0 ,"' v ^a u d O c m c� m y f" � y = wp f'Un a -o 'w' v y U f m d pi•• '> m o •" o °'O e�, r .v a:.. -flyi, o E L .... o L o. �. on o > mu cE ^Y M -o- �a od >.r.r 3Cy y0 win Nm�� wcy °ice �a oe vuiC` c aUciv >a,a �y�°cEapicE0 o °w �vro� > eO�i cu >�m °0 wa o.C' > -�� uy 0 u H E • i C 6 7> C,, {f1j,L' i .-' w h0 4 ...D .0. w ` V C v C ...'O L E W, N O. i V] m w'O 0 L 0 V V 0 0 0 0 0 v� >, O 7 F C c V 7 O C .O p > O '� V '17 A 0 w u .L.. w¢ •J bD y y i '• C ^' +.. C a w t V ., N ()) ^ 7 y 0 t 'w t .". 'O L'O rCl . 7 •O td 'O w G w al 0 O N E d ro rO C O N C W i- E v y V m i 0 V .' y)'�vt' C, p' y N 11 O a0 7^ 'Q b 'A 0 too , 0. N .. dJ r C t_ 0� C W O w O S A ed 'V •n' a[ wp O C QI Oc X E q u 9L :3 c7 x C C C E 1 C w w i E' 'J y 0 wa... �. ` �"Q, i/7 i N C C V V^ �'t] C i eEc t0 o ti 0; h >• C 0 h i o�y4c� - :I be— N.0 � 3 oa � °,u...._y .. u- cv yeu :n ❑..v:�, °) �u= �N-°n, ueJO,Cp•�N�o,12 ,a.�':' C.O "7 r y °'O 4. C i.y .�i W C� y C. L w0 --o 0 C w w 0 G y N E g•V'Q 01 0 y ccCdd 0 iL :0 r- C 0— e- 0 [].am EFL^i a C.0 0 0'^ yyr atE�:TO.� C'ECOR.0 ��E7t':� 0 N0' u cx pro 3.Om O"C G7C CV1'..C' O °phPrV�p3 .u�7rV.� Gd�a�tCV .O y N'a L., m C• —'.+ 0 p v' _ e. ^ O'O 0 ._ a 0 .Li, C C �• v. F. i L 0 C 0 0 C. m Ny O..00 F�y.n 8 OCOi yty VCtO e''tlyy.�'�r_7O OV=O'GCCCiOOt� °E S.O 7�+eC'J c�.u° �wpM >�Ep, ay�oo �auic�'`dyd °a �n�a`mE`u° °'c7ouaci u�WOEw-Vto! vm3ro> �a° cmuym�o 'oEc°)wu�`oinuc�u ^�vs�'�cu.5 bo w am�yw4u�r7. u mom+ °2wc�i0E a��wEE w �. a'o•_000 �v > c iy o `° o `i m a c c E W o C ".� .5 d t c ai $ wo v r° v c" u E r `o « E r° w °^y'7_�Td Nr ....y0 ON.y.. C._ E vm0NO ON 0-0Y '^yr` WW Vr+L tC ew W �V f6 Y C. N L• E,.yEmq`ocv bo oil° � n cococeaoN5a� oE5o Eo or y _°. >. Ni >. 0 CJ m 'N r_'E m OO.L .� E" y u.._ ° = en:: ° •y > r•r N ro 0' C T)c� a o f 9. 0 v.> ^row Oct a �'�i E> a o'._,ro o. 3 ti 4 y G O D= �+ c o �b Cv aiM w 00.- En0.-.yyoE0 aaroE -C= -c� "cp�'�o�'000ccr, °OUod: U c_rua°.00' a0.2:: ° N"oo °ucy v°: c. E:3mr4 $0a8mAnnt -EOW2_ iic0,o C E a u u a 0 0 tz r_ _ 4 w F 'C.. 0 Nr' C .L C C V'D C p � S e'' C r ¢yr y�W "E6oL.._N ou yu ayD_cc) ".o'Eoo ivy ho n '7 d dm o o''Cc % v7ro 'V cu, - " ov_ C E'G C-O Q V t V O .2 a d _w E. - a N C � v W.- C w v '+. � .O C N D p p 0 C o z mho.. d` � oea D.,�" n° 0o> 01 �E ° °U'- ocEuou EU c�Wp mow` °� m �� c a ucn o T� aroL"ro`c°� m C .T. (i•��i •O C N 0 0 ++ jv T.L C y > ._-O Q >� � M0 a'ccv�. aoa rn .` `�Er --6 �OOmv)`� di OW G ="33 :° �'o.pN a 3 ECcr wL3 ,�• 6 C v' N 0= 0 .T. W O O C 0 "t7 0 10: 0� O r a .O A w n to p 0 w .O 7p�7.'. ca ..v 0 'O 0 0 L 'v O 'M tJ >; Tro .n >. C r- u ..r y a. E 0� a C a U .0.. w y F C 0 T C L 7 y m 0 w C E U'.C.. >: C; h C'-'' C ro C .Z E :: •n O .V � ° � y � _..° O +L.. ti b � �' E r' :: '.°".. N N 0 p 0. =I O i .0 m .0 .L t co .O iy ' at .N 0 C ._ i'O w et C C)+�i E u — ^O �e m o .. N c m w c m r. ^ v r.' E u 0 �. CV .� E+. W 7 >y �.., 0 3 'd :u �. yL C m 0 �^ �•eJ'Ou E d O '" L �+,� r....l. 5 7 O. `�i1 L G' p E 'V L • .. a'a r. M C V er .�Y o r-• we u..r p .ou° o (5 •�30�� muocr --u o•oyy° 0 i bo Q,W o m w 0 •y c 3 �' c to �= ° 0> m. E. w C E Co Co LS� �.SyLa $'ems N 0 0 �e v °- t%'w'n° a a ❑ 1-n n d i b E° n u > u W C u C pw v oCo ° f' Cr-p'� csocn,_o:�•E. °� c N N C2 p E E> d r' w � h E+ 0-0 o c oiU C 0'. a cLOv ro gvco �o8" C� o cmIOU0 ve.ao,vEa m o a 3 3 m y o O 3 NYr. a C flN u u oal C) �o.3!p:�L E oro 5 tG0 -rim 3,'o=°W" ° o W p ,¢c'�v c� ;vtm,o�y° c a� zw >.m..5N Q110w�h^3.O Oh EE Oboes b.O tc r2N RT �IN toc d L r'1, eV C to 0-0= l7 "Q eL G C ~ CV NL. y r" :6i O eo�r�� y fC .yt U tC 0 fi7 C �•Ut]'O t0 C 0 0 ^O-'•U p a3080wOr rnme^"ed�w c� oC=C= m V Ero i'n mro E 7< aN u'.ne 41 4, •O >.. Y m Y Y L Y N_ C) to W L N N L C ,.N..,' ••k - C-' v 0 0 m V 00 C a= G�tV i V_rYa:C ia:3 mVC VQC a d y '�, n Q. C0.C" _a W a 7 or. p u E > rX7 O C- 0 O a G N u m'G C Ya.. Y Oa0 V u u ayi C Q C 00 "E C' 7 C V�^. i T ° is C 0 u y V ti T U V O Y V 0 p V Y? N' «'O V ,V.. x'b N O Sf 0. %-d C X rn'C.. m OO) Go viOV mro o `•'(ce�y''`= 0. ohm C=CGw.� 0.v p C 0 N E _ = m o°' [ Gbh sn cc= >a ` N �• (� Y ,V � T' Y N ° a L7, N •� W y Cl V Y V V a T� y r. O w_ _y C :.E d ,1] m tim ru d and oN0 W3� EnYy a., 0 EO V Y-Y "' V S'aO.L OW �y •O d Y.:� E O.6J V w V L x 0 u a'r'. a L? . J ,,' O p 0' e 0-0 Q E y= m ° v Y u s° o o -'I a.- Y [ > o aE ° TQ T V C Yy a,. c u .a Tq) V E r-• a E U N W.0 N M y U m mY N..r ; V'ya 7 ti 4 cp .N �bE u a a bc c-O m a eY� o ,�w 0. u C yY, o Y i1Dc n .ct eo m 0 y '0 i 0Ca C E L00 o , °. c0EEcowsiE4a3:",- c �° m� s 3 N rY.n'u P. y� v Y c m O N Y o 0 m y o E E E; o .w° U Z o mu °o `° aG" m y Eak umao m� 4. m gy o o ° � �0.caW v'O,o w 0> w C L E m bo(• 3 o 92. o1: s o Ern 72 ^ V �• U Q�E " l Y G <Y,J t a .��C + "�.-O. � ' x o C d ti .T. '+O ^ '+ "y O .. C C . 'S7 � N « F ` «,u W o N � -ya-. •^u• 'v ° G o ; J i, 'Q n a c oc 1- , jbO o f , u a O > O by Q:a .o E -a m a V O'fl VC r v � i . C V E ym mu ° of Nco V 00 Q.0 d G - d C � .O ' � m p a > E :3 bD C ;='o � .�, -0 m u � � V G CG M �, C O O V' p N C O - R U —�- .` ` ,� O y 6�oocbo YC�aY, y =G �oro "�::P& C•70r- o -m c -� =� =ter Yc ° =bo « vuocau'COy -oE m r>.w N. ;zaUo v =LCV Yom'^ oNU ;fie Y C. d= ,.. u o a N V Y> Y r C1..T, .O. a .N .D "'L.. L .0 c C Y •3 y y x d .L.. O> V C y �. ❑^^-. O E V O' on ° •� C°= mW iw- F fi , i a V CL F in a E O V Y •`-'• 1.) 0^ N o-^ U d, Y C ` N'0 a R.N.. L.. ` N 7 >. N w i. N bo r°.. E 0.0 F O a" p a V ... .d m U 0 L'.,^ m m C m'0 Y G C N ... V TN O N u N C ¢�L 0.� r:-E 0 7 aC (y m.a `" OL rj _ � mL � .- p N a E Y y .t1 m C C y N V a V C O N aR. N N C O C -a C V bo V y O _x E OY mVV�.1�mVr CC °O `'_.N ON° u'L'�YRa m,a�r O�"E °.-n�0Uu CO 0 c o Y v E o R u y R _ •�_ 0.0 0. O r Y 7 •L • a C '-' v C m C W ba = y V• N �[ .� C C .. C C ti :Y m u o m ieop _ wpO �n0 c Y ap Y .0 V �, C 5 a. bU a V V C V V C O Y V ^' N Y C.V.. O O Y a u U Y R! O ti _= V O O y a ~ V . V Y T V C "a -^00 0 10 •ru• L p, m •'� .- p - 'ry Q, " a) 'fl ^�, , V o .a. y E_ .,; V E \. °aer'aRCC °.m `c'Eo� tO> ayi wcew =.p od o. >�q r .om a �J poGC'� °nY eoe r- oN -m OCmu ^ate Er,� �� c °a >ceEcy_m' �,i,u�>o'cr �oa gad• „e�E� ..t. uIj v..a c0.Rmso No c•E >>���:E �m ^Y >uta,_= � oY °' a. rn °m ao�: Y ymN��cC: 00 ,! F. Z,,�$24Q aEi�.flo� �• .•tea c°iwvYn".= a��oo +_ m 0OUEa u °_os m R Y.O E'O ..N. c c> :.. b:.. m 'g Y N o= Y o •.x p ... Y m m yL o T omu 2 Y°o� c� =>'> «ca•z E ;,'i�,t. . - . ��m m' L m w �Y, Y m CU,i C mp 'C❑+ '.a+' O Y �: +a + j0. Y 7• ��u �_ m L W u w p = C y TcC O O V w Y c R e u .•a u N ° E C) S m V YO u+ = Wd V V � V -0 O pp y m E V O o_ : - V L W p m O bC O 0 u ^.Y -. . . _ Y 'i 14 C L..L _.C.0 -0 bp a R O y C V L 0 LT�CE -0 -.0 L ° N ° N a Ea`° 0; Q) m oEc o ° Y �' m V o a E �cm 0 0 E« (ad S O ,m^ tV CV V m c � 0 - E E 'U .:, N ••n CI'P4 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMA'PION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $a0 -00 For all projects requiring ervironmeita7. review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the departm:nt where the project application is made. upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The lievelopment Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which Lime the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The - proje( t 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 sill be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: -zomme on. fE ub. 1� " ®I APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE, OF PEPSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: � IN p-P& - LOCATION OF, PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AAD ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCF.L, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGEN NS AND THE AGENCY ISSUIP'G SUCH PERMITS: 1� D - Y -1 r ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 2 ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANI_MALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURPOUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AIM THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): 09WOR L ► �l a '1►. r :L �'ii.:►�wZ ' Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, hole may as a w have significant environmental impact? I- 2 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. mate �•�`l�J� Signature Title 611q PLANAM t WILL THIS PROJECT: NO YES V/ 1. Create a substantial change in ground _ contours? Z2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) �! A. Create changes in the existing zoning or _ r general plan designations? 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? U/ 5. 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. mate �•�`l�J� Signature Title 611q PLANAM ORDINANCE NO. 123 -A C AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 61.024A OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 123 BY ADDING SECTIONS 61.L24A(a)(6), 61.024A(g), AND 61.024A(h) TO PROVIDE FOR MOBILEHOMES WITHIN THE R -1 ZONE, MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT WIDTHS, AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Section 61.024A(a) of the Rancho Cucamonga Interim Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding a new subsection consisting of 61.024A(a)(6), to read as follows: (6) One (1) mobilehome, which is certified under the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and which was constructed after October, 1976, is permitted on legal lots of record 7200 square feet or less in area and zoned R- 1- 7200,'if placed on a permanent foundation system in compliance with all applicable building regulations and the Health and Safety Code, Section 18551. The Design Review Committee shall determine if such placement is compatible to the immediate area in which it is being placed, in accordance with Design Review Ordinance No. 89 and the following criteria: (A) The design of the mobilehome unit shall be similar in character and appearance to other dwellings in the area for such things as unit size, roof over- hangs, roof materials and exterior materials. (B) All building setbacks, parking, coverage, height, width and sign requirements of the R -1 -7200 zone shall apply and shall be complied with. (C) Lots larger than 7200 square feet and zoned other than R -1 -7200 are found not to be compatible with mobilehome usage and are not permitted as such usage, based upon the significant difference in unit size, height and design associated with dwellings on large lots or within large lot subdivisions. SECTION 2: Section 61.024(A) of the Rancho Cucamonga Interim Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 61.024(A)(g) and sub- title, to read as follows: (g) DWELLING UNIT WIDTH this zone shall have feet, excluding the shall be considered structure. REQUIREMENT: All dwellings within a minimum width of twenty -four (24) garage. The width of the dwelling to be the narrowest portion of the El Ordinance No. 123 A Page 2 ® SECTION 3: Section 61.024(A) of the Rancho Cucamonga Interim Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding a new subsection, 61.024(A)(h) and sub - title, to read as follows: (h) DESIGN REVIE14 REQUIRED: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 69, all residentail dwellings and structures are subject to Design Review by the Design Review Committee and shall be reviewed in conformance with the criteria contained within that Ordinance. SECTION 4: The City Council of the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby finds that these amendments will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment and issues a Negative Declaration for this Amendmes,t SECTION 5: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The Daily Report_, .a newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Ontario, California', and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 12,81. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk 2 Phillip D. Sc osser, Mayor RESOLUTION 140. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PALNNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 81 -01 A14ENDING SECTION 61.024.4 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ZONING ORDINANCE. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: 1. That such amendment is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That such amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 3. That such amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. That the proposed, amendment would not have significant adverse environmental impacts. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration on May 13, 1981. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 64854 to 65847 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Coirmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 10th day of September 1980, of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 80 -02. 2. That Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt. Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 81 -01 as shown on the attached Ordinance No. 123 -A. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard Dahl, Chairman Lj E Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: E El CrfY OF RANCHO CUCANK '•P. SEA&F REPORT 4� DATE: May 13, 1981 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FRO14: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81 -01 - TRAILS ELEMENT - A revision to the adopt d Trails Element of the General Plan of Rancho Cucamonga. ABSTRACT: Attached to this report, please find copies of the revised Trails Element of the General Plan. In addition, please find Resolution of Design Standards for Trails. Approval is recommended. DISCUSSION: Over the last three to four weeks, Staff has reviewed the proposed Trails Element revision by Mr. Bruce Chitiea and the adopted Trails Element of the General Plan. The attached Trails Element has been revised to incorporate greater reference to the use of trails for bicycling, hiking, jogging, walking, and to clarify the particular usage of each of the three levels of trails. These three levels of trails include: - Regional Multi- Purpose Trails - to be used by equestrians, bicyclers, hikers, and pedestrains; - Community Trails - to be used by equestrians, pedestrians, and bicyclers; and, - Local Feeder Trails - to be used by equestrians and pedestrians. You will note there is a basic difference between the adopted Trails Element and the proposed revision. The basic difference is that the design standards which were part of the adopted Trails Element have been removed and are incorporated into the attached Resolution. These standards have been expanded substantially to include standards for the development of bicycle trails and includes signing for biking, hiking, and equestrian usage. ITEM H Planning Commission Gei'ieral Plan Amendment II1 -01 flay 13, 1981 Page Two RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recoimnendinq approval of the Trails Element revision to the City Council and that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution establishing design standards for trails. , Attachments: Revised Trails Element of the General Plan Resolution of Approval a El RIDING, HIKING, BICYCLING TRAILS Opportunities exist within Rancho Cucamonga for the provision of trails for transportation and recreation usage. Horseback riding, hiking, jogging, running, walking and bicycling can all be accommodated in some way within Rancho Cucamonga. One of the secondary benefits of the many flood control channels lacing through the City is the availability of right -of -way for trail purpose. These rights -of -way were once part of the San Bernardino County Recreation Plan, providing for multi - purpose usage; i.e. bicycles, hiking, and equestrian. In Northern Alta Loma residential development has provided for equestrian use. However, there were no consistent design standards employed resulting in inadequate trail systems, and a fragmented collection of easements within various tract develop- ments; the majority of which lack standard trail widths, uniform design, and develop- ment. Many trails empty into the street or dead -end at walls, fences, ravines, or flood control channels. The Trails Plan deals with two areas; the resolution of existing trail problem areas within developed residential areas; and, a consistent policy for a trail system for new development where appropriate. Trail Concept The objective of the trail system is to delineate an overall network of interconnect- ing trails which are integrated with recreation areas, parks, open spaces, residential and commercial and industrial areas. The overall trail concept is based upon three components: - Regional Multi- purpose trails - Community trails - Local Feeder trails The Regional Multi - purpose Trails are the backbone of the system. They are reserved, extended long distance corridors, and serve as the main connectors to the regional parks, scenic canyons, the national forest, other major open spaces, residential, commercial and industrial areas. Yf r , i ri The Community Trails provides the user with access to the Regional Multi- purpose Trails to community facilities such as Heritage Park, Alta Loma Park, Base Line Park, Elementary,.Junior• and Senior High Schools, Shopping Centers and the Regional Shopping Center. Community Trails extend through the community along water ways, utility corridors, public, rights -of -way, easements, and along streets having adequate parkway width. These trails form loops of varying length and act as the initial link in unifying the existing disjointed Local Feeder Trails. Local Feeder trails, not identified on the map, are contained within subdivisions and enable the user access from thei aesidential lot to the Community or Regional Multi- purpose Trail, residential neighborhoods, schools, and parks. Emphasis should be placed on establishing appropriate Local Feeder Trails at the time of subdivision approval or development review. OBJECTIVE The objective below and subsequent policia' in conjunction with those expressed in the circulation sub - element, shall be used to develop the Trail System. Provide an interconnected system of riding, bicycling and hiking trails which. Have safe access and travel to neighborhood, city, regional parks; recreational facilities, scenic areas, residential, commercial and industrial areas; are aesthetically pleasing and create a "country and rural atmosphere" by integrating natural areas and urban areas with well planned linear open spaces. POLICIES o That the area as shown on Figure III - 5a provide for: The keeping and protection of animals on private property, in- cluding equine, bovine, cleft - hoofed animals, and poultry. l -•�:�r.. •ar: -� :•r: -•rrr i:.« _ r• -:-:a rS':.;..r. rte. r r/ w.- ....- •r...- .�...�...r•- . ^"'... _ .. -.r._, / wl t:- �: Wll.. .. • r.1i.L.a. �. • �� -� /. .4 . /. . I.. PCl/ /IN • M.L. ru " Figure 691 -5a EQUESTRIAN/ RURAL AREA DESIGNATION o The City should promote programs for improving existing trails such as removing existing barriers on trail systems to make the trails safer, more functional, and accessible to adjacent trails. o The City shall establish a master trail system which provides for: Regional Muiti- Purpose Trails which connect to regional recreation areas, residential, commercial and indust 1 areas. Community Trails which connect resi- dential areas, .ical activity centers, and the regional shopping center and the Regional Multi- Purpose Trail System. - Local Feeder Trails which connect individual residential lots to the - Community and Regional Trail System. o The City shall facilitate the development of a Regional Multi- Purpose Trail System as shown on figure :II -5. All segments of the regional Multi- Purpose trail system, shall be available for use as equestrian, pedestrian and bike trails where feasible. o The City shall establish an agreement r� ^C with San Bernardino County for the CJ r,�-- �•i use and maintenance of the Flood Control Rights -of -Way for the Trails. o The City shall establish an agreement sroe wke with public and private utilities for the use and maintenance of utility corridors and Rights -of -Way for trail purposes. L - Require that all development within the area relate to exis ing and future areas occupied by equine, bovine, cleft- hoofed animals 7 and poultry by providing trail - a^L connections through easements in order to connect disconnected trails and for needed access to recreation activities. s - That all trail easements shall � , l be maintained through an active ' program of weed abatement in a neat and orderly manner on all developments. o The City should promote programs for improving existing trails such as removing existing barriers on trail systems to make the trails safer, more functional, and accessible to adjacent trails. o The City shall establish a master trail system which provides for: Regional Muiti- Purpose Trails which connect to regional recreation areas, residential, commercial and indust 1 areas. Community Trails which connect resi- dential areas, .ical activity centers, and the regional shopping center and the Regional Multi- Purpose Trail System. - Local Feeder Trails which connect individual residential lots to the - Community and Regional Trail System. o The City shall facilitate the development of a Regional Multi- Purpose Trail System as shown on figure :II -5. All segments of the regional Multi- Purpose trail system, shall be available for use as equestrian, pedestrian and bike trails where feasible. o The City shall establish an agreement r� ^C with San Bernardino County for the CJ r,�-- �•i use and maintenance of the Flood Control Rights -of -Way for the Trails. o The City shall establish an agreement sroe wke with public and private utilities for the use and maintenance of utility corridors and Rights -of -Way for trail purposes. L C i P. Cv. o Whenever possible, along Community Trails, street trees and landscaping should be included into the design adjoining the trails. The pallet of trees should conform to street tree standards but be low maintenance and drought tolerant. c The City shall consider a program for the maintenance, and where necessary, construction and rehabilitation, of Community Trails. o Whenever possible and feasible, the City shall require that all residential lets in the equestrian rural area have Local Feeder Trails on the rear of the lot. o All new development shall be developed in accordance with the Master Plan of Trails and adopted City Uesign Standards. o Trails shall be maintained on natural surfaces and located along natural, nr„r..r physical features where ever possible. N•� �+� ,j �� o The City shall establish a 1 i ason committee including members from the local riding club, the Planning Commission, I i the City Council, the City Staff and " other members at large to review all residential projects in the City for trail usage. o Any new development should consider prior existing bicycling, pedestrian and equestrian access and traditional travel routes through the property. o Non- residential development should consider use of amenities, for equestrian, pedestrian and bicycling activities such as hitching posts, benches, rest areas, drinking fountains and bike stands. Cv. o Whenever possible, along Community Trails, street trees and landscaping should be included into the design adjoining the trails. The pallet of trees should conform to street tree standards but be low maintenance and drought tolerant. c The City shall consider a program for the maintenance, and where necessary, construction and rehabilitation, of Community Trails. o Whenever possible and feasible, the City shall require that all residential lets in the equestrian rural area have Local Feeder Trails on the rear of the lot. o Whenever possible, along Community Trails, street trees and landscaping should be included into the design adjoining the trails. The pallet of trees should conform to street tree standards but be low maintenance and drought tolerant. c The City shall consider a program for the maintenance, and where necessary, construction and rehabilitation, of Community Trails. o Whenever possible and feasible, the City shall require that all residential lets in the equestrian rural area have Local Feeder Trails on the rear of the lot. 0 J' • 9�� ^ J F + 1 w J, y .. ti r y • N M 1 1 � 1 �L 1 � 5 1 L 4 � � 5 1 •\ A5110N.4G NZ11 / -PIA)" 4C 7A4,11. /- --- E71 O 5 "--I 2s1 r „ r - ti • N 1 � 1 I r „ r - ti Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION 2: Design Requirements: a. For equestrian usage the foiiowing requirements shall be met: I. Vertical Grade: 0 -5% optimum 10% maximum for distances ov >r 500' 15% maximum for distances linited to 500' 20% permitted only in extrerr2 cases and for short distances under 100' 2. ':r--)5s Section: 1 -4% optimum 6% maximum in approved lacetions only 3. Drainage: Avoid erosion by proper grading. Where necessary, use diversionary devices such as water bars ani berms. 4. Side Slope Cuts and Fill: 2:1 maximum 5. Su'facin : Native soil, decomposed granite or chopped tree trimmings. Re l of rocks and debris and grade surface smooth. b. For bicycle usage the following requirements shall be met: I. Vertical Grade: 0 -5% optimum 10% maximum for distances limited to 200' 2. Cross Section: 2% maximum 3. Surfacing- 3" asphaltic concrete or 4" pori1 and concrete cement 4. Design Speed: 11 MPH average, 7 -15 MPH a. Curvature: 15 MPH maximum SECTION 3: Fencing a. For Regional Multi- Purpose Trails: Along Flood Channels fencing shall consist of a 6T chainlink fence installed by the Flood Cont-ol District, Corps of Engineers or the City of Rancho Cucamonga atop the flood control channel wall. The adjacent developer shall be responsible for the installation of a 6' high chainlink fence dd installed at the joint property line for the length of the co - te us boundary. Openings shall be made for access at approved points an for where local Feeder Trails and Community Trails intersect. Resolution No. Page 3 b. For Cj0 punity Trails: Fencing along, street trails (i.e. parkways shall consist of 4' -5' liigh two-rail white extruded concrete fence installed along the ultimate right -of -way line for the street, where there are no existing block walls; otherwise fencing shall be located at curb line. Openings shall be provided where Local Feeder Trails or Regional Multi- Purpose Trails intersect. For trails not along streets, no fencing shall be required. c.' Local Feeder Trails: Fencing shall consist of one rail, w high, wood split rail fencing, installed along the co- terminus boundary of the easem^_rt and the non - easement property of the tract or lot. SECTION 4: Trail Entrance: Trail entrances shall be designed to provide f o equestrian, bicycling and hitting use and discourage motor vehicle access (See Exhibit B), except Local Feeder Trails shall provide one means of unobstructed vehicular access for service vehicles. SECTION 5: below: I I al UI TYPE I SHARED OtKEWAY Bicycling Trail req,lirements shall be as shown Pa!krd Car 8' or 10' TYPE 11 SHARED BIKEWAY TYPE 111 RESTRICTED BIKEWAY I NI 1 Bicvcla I Motor Vehicle 4 I Operating I Operating I I 1 10'or 11' t I I i I I Bicycle I klolgr Verticle I '2 i n- ,era: :ngI Operaang I UI I tl 1 5' i I 10' Or 11' I I NI 1 ra I I m I BiCYCIn m Motor Yehic6. n I Parked Car © Operating m Operating =+ j8 v u'1 81 Wor 10' .I 5' IF 10' or 11' fw,- vmxmJ& 1 luIuIWA -{ � ,�+ l�ilL TRPdt d woo, gFtolJ R -�qL RAIL SIN, Q !' gA7.7:lER�nU ®� pit H BinGjF Wnu S U PIT RAIL QMD VECHICLE BARRIERS DESIGN ALTERNATIVES MATERIALS' CF OLmq -Z 'S ��w :61 V ACe �.� 1r4TtL M. Fok lc Wu gag WOwo �R f�acrl�� sTC� -oVF2 L, 11 ��ff /BIT r3 0 2 `❑' L_ n 0 /C'Niwi 44kMS Wfi- +54ora,AC46WS5 jCXyc)cX)C)C)' 10f-K-cPCY1CKKKvxv ve 4r .1114Pfj "k v, 14° WQOS p1oiC: 146TW(�•'• m&M t3 Hw4eo 7L 3SC4 Uhl* GAIS Resolution No. Page 4 a. Shared Bikeways: The shared bikeway has no barrier, either symbolic or physical, to delineate the roadway for bicycles. The bikeway is identified by signs posted along the side of the roadway or by pavement markings painted on the roadway. The outside traffic lane becomes the width required for motor vehicle travel, usually 10 or 11 feet, plus the 5 -foot bikeway. Bicycle -flow is always the same direction as motor - vehicle -flow, since this is much safer. Shared bikeways can be developed in conjunction with pedestrian traffic. However, this practice is discouraged, since pedestrian -flow and bicycle - flow are not very compatible. b. Restricted Bikeway: It is clearly delineated by a barrier an signing. Adequate delineation is an 'essential re- quirement for the development of a restricted bikeway. Barriers are symbols, such as those made with paint on a pavement. C. Symbol barriers include :griping, full -width coloring and reflectorized raised pavement markers. ng criteria shall be cons 1. Average daily traffic (motor vehicle) 2. Bicycle volume 3. Posted speed limit 4. Truck Traffic 5. Adequate right -of -way b. Safety SECTION 6: Flood an( Drainage Channel Crossings: Where Community Trai —Ts cross existing or proposed drainage channels the continuity of the trail shall be maintained by the construction of an appropriate crossing such as bridges, ramp ways, culverts, etc. SECTION 7: Signing: Signing is required to let the user and the public know where the trails are. a. Equestrian: r 11 �J I'. ., � � � - :;r ,1' 1 ` . � } r ;. .. � � _ %. :,.:::. �i�s,:: , ,:� ;'. ;'. 0 e a<. Resolution No. Page 7 SECTION 8: Street Cross�in_gs: street stripping and signing. texturized paving is desirable. Shall be at grade with appropriate In cases of equestrian usage, SECTION 9: Waivers: The Planning Commission may grant a waiver from the requirements of this Resolution except Section I when: (a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Resolution. (b) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to other properties.' (c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. (d) The granting of the waiver will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. (e) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Any request for waiver shall be presented In writing and be made as part of the development application for the project which involves the trail. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard Dahl, Chairman ATTEST: secretary the Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 1, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held oin the 13th day of May, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: r. 1 .. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY G PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $90.00 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 public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee- will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an Environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: 4�✓Seld4- &- 04A-10-4Afn 4"7MIo ~8/ -^C1/ APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: %144 rp 9.9 -•/85/- LOCATION OF' PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PETAITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: MMAZE - I -0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: %?./C- 11 ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: t,CTy' �Z�st//CS.tc� 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? 1-2. El l ' r. 0 C ri WILL THIS PROJECT: 1`l *40010W 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ 7Z 2. Create a, substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? _ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? .� 5: Remove any existing trees? Hors many? 6. lanation of Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as tonic substances, flamma-brlr�eis or explosives? anv YES answers above: 7X- 9 -$__6 !¢_�►VA� 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 y the .Development Review Committee. Date �' %91 signs Title CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: S` 7- 6I APPLICANT: Gi%� d?-� FILING DATE: -6 -q--&/ LOG NUMBER: —4 %QQ*- PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATION: CZ75-OW(45= I. ENVIRCNMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all '.'yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). J, YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification ZZ of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? T h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: `lllV r YES MAYBE NO a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? _ b. Deterioration of ambient air quali.t.• and /or interference with the attainment of :applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local. or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moLsture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: IVA 7Z IZ 7Z i ZZ ZZ � / z 0 ZZ a. Change in the ch ?:acteristi :.s of species, including dtversity, distribution, or number ^f =^ spc-cies of plants? / b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? _ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage . patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water.? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amccnt of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related ha=ards such as flooding or :.--iches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? _ b. Deterioration of ambient air quali.t.• and /or interference with the attainment of :applicable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local. or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moLsture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: IVA 7Z IZ 7Z i ZZ ZZ � / z 0 ZZ a. Change in the ch ?:acteristi :.s of species, including dtversity, distribution, or number ^f =^ spc-cies of plants? / b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will. the pi ;a1 have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals i:..:o an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 1. 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio- Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non- consumptive recreational opportunities? YES MAYBE NO 7Z 40 N L T ZZ zz D YES MAYBE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c. Effects on exiiating parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? �/ e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and /or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water - borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? — 9. Cultural Resources. Will. the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and /or historical resources? 7` 10. Health, Scf.ety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results i•a: a. Creatinn of any beal.th hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the mimber of individLal.s or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure cf people to such organisms? r_. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionab.e odors? / h. An increase in light or glare? /`Z ji YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of an s.tsthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated or potential scenic corridors? _ 12. Utilities and Pub1'�e Services. U.I.I. the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? _ b. Natural or packaged gas? _ c. Communications systems? _ d. Water supply? _ e. Wastewater facilities? _ f. Flood control structures? _ E. Solid waste facilities? _ h. Fire protection? _ i. Police protection? j. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilitirs, including roads and flood control facilities? m. Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce F.csources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy ": b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-'ng sources of energy? _ c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable farms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? _ T/ 1� 7z 7Z .e f 7z [I Lr'�I Ll YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or / scarce natural resource? / 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. G` a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildli °e population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of / California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -tarn, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive periol of time while long- term impacts will endure "well into the future). _ c. Does 6he project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, and probable future projects). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e., of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a dis::,ssion of proposed mitigation measures). C i � q t' III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT ha.,e a sign ant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION w.' ue prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ElI find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature Title , L J ri RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF 'THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ADOPTED MASTER PLANNED TRAILS ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1931 GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Master Plan of Tracts of the General Plan and this Proposed General Plan Amendmant provides fo -• an amendment of said element; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider this amendment to the Master Plan. of Trails of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, comments were heard and considered both pro and con regarding the requested General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that a Negative Declaration be issued for GPA 81 -01; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council amendment to the Master Plan of Trails as attached an Exhibit "A" and contained in the Public Facilities portion of the Land Use and Development Super Element. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard Dahl , Chairman ATTEST: Secrei:ary 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 13th day of May, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 0 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 11 CITY Or RANCHO CL'CAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE; May 13, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner SUBJECT: P.D. 80 -01 - TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 10762 - ACACIA CONSTRUCTION - A Planne Deve opment of 84 con omim ums on 9. acres o and, zoned for R -3, located at the southwest corner of Baker Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, APN 207 - 191 -31 and 40. ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting approval of 84 condominium units to be ocated just south of the immediate corner of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue. The proposed project meets the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements, and has passed the City's Growth Management and Design Review process. Consequently, approval of the Planned Development, the Tentative Map, and associated Negative Declaration is recommended. BACKGR0'Nu The applicant is requesting review and approval of n 84 unit condominium The to be located on 9.6 acres of land immediately south of the southwest corner of Baker Avenue and Foothill Boulevard (Exhibit "A "). The property is relatively level, and is currently in use as a citrus orchard. A Bluegum eucalyptus windrow abuts the project site along the northerly boundary. The proposal has been reviewed as a total development package by the Growth Management and Design Review Committees in accordance with Growth Management Ordinance, and received a point rating in excess of the required minimum. The zonceptual grading plan has also been reviewed 1ny the Grading Committee and received approval in concept only. ANALYSIS: The project, as proposed and shown on the attached Exhibits "B" and "Cis consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of medium density residential 1%4 -14 dwelling units per acre), as well as with the Provisions of the Planned Development Ordinance. The surrounding land uses and zoning are described as follows: ITEM I Staff Report May 13, 1981 Page 2 Site North East South West LAND USE ZONING Citrus Grove R -3 S.P. Railroad, Commercial Single Family Residence C -2 vacant Single Family Residence Mobile Home Park R -3 vacant Single Family Residential R -3 vacant Single Family Residential R -3, R -1 The proposed project would consist of 84 condomin ?um units arranged in building clusters of 2 -6 dwellings per building. Dwelling types include one and two - story units, 2 and 3 bedroom, all with private, fenced rear patios and attached double car garages. In addition to private patio areas, a co mnon recreation center is also provided. Common facilities include a swimming pool, spa, cabana, and a tot lot (Exhibit "D "). Vehicular access into the project is provided at two points on Baker Avenue. A private drive 'loop system provides access to all dwellings within the project. Pedestrian circulation is accommodated by a series of four -foot wide walks located on at least one side of all drives. Most units have 20' long garage aprons to accommodate overflow parking. In addition, 40 guest parking spaces are also shown on the plan. The total amount of parking provided exceeds City standards. As a condition of approval, Staff is requesting the elimination of 9 parking spaces in order to provide additional open space and landscaping in two critical areas (Exhibit "B "). In addition, it is also recommended that building 7 be moved northerly about 15' in order to expand the common recreational area. As a result of this review process, the applicant was requested to prepare a traffic study to address the impact of the proposed project on the intersection of Baker Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Such a study was prepared by the applicant's Engineer, and its conclusions indicate that the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection is not warranted by the projected traffic increase that may be generated by this development. (See the attached City Engineer's memo). n Staff Report May 13, 1981 Page 3 The City Engineer's office indicates that the project site does not depend on the existing open channel located to the west of the project for drainage. The site curren�.ly drains, and will continue to drain into Baker Avenue. The attached conditions of approval would require the Developer to provide certain improvements in Baker Avenue to accommodate such runoff. In ac- lition, a storm drain along the westernmost tract boundary and a flood protection wall along the entire west boundary will be required of this developer. During the Design Review stages, the applicant was requested by the Committee to mndify the design of the fencing along Baker Avenue to incjude masonry pilasters or other permanent features rather than grape - stake fencing as originally proposed. The fence design has since been modified to solid, all- wood construction, which the applicant feels is more compati!+le O th the design of the overall project. After review of more detailed drawing. (Exhibit "E"), Staff concurs with the applicant and recommends that the fence Cesign be approved as submitted. The Design Review Committee also requested that provisions for garden equipment storage be designed into all units whose patios have no direct access to the common open areas. Due to the layout if the dwellings, such storage facilities cannot be integrated into the design of the building without substantial modifications of the floor plans. As a result, the applicant is proposing that garden equipment storage sheds be incorporated in the rear yard fence design (Exhibit "F "). The Commission may wish to consider approval of these storage sheds as proposed by the applicant, if it is felt that such storage sheds are necessary. The attached Resolution of approval includes a condition which would enable the Staff and the applicant to resolve the precise location and design of the structures prior to the issuance of building permits. ThQ project site is located within a designated special studies zone, the Red Hill Fault Zone. As required, a report prepared by a certified Engineering Geologist has been submitted to the City. The results of the report indicate that no topographical evidence of active faulting was observed during the subsurface trench explorations. Consequently, the report concludes that ground rupture within the site associated with faulting is not considered likely during the life of the development. However, the report does recommend that seismic design criteria be utilized for the design of the structures, as outlined in the most current addition of the Uniform Building Code. 13 r:7 "I Staff Report May 13, 1981 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that that the Commission review the proposed project and the attached Exhibits, and that a public hearing be conducted. If, after such review and hearing, the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions as recommended by Staff, adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval for both Tentative Tract No. 10762 and P.D. 80 -01 would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Barry K. Hogan City Planner P,KH :OK: kp Attachments: City Engineer's report Exhibit "A" - Vicinity and Tract Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Preliminary Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Recreational Center Exhibit "E" - Baker Avenue /Details Exhibit "F" - Garden Equipment Storage /Details Exhibit "G" - Perspectives - Typical Exhibit "H" - Duplex/ Elevations Exhibit "I" - Elevations Exhibit "J" - Floor Plans Exhibit "K" - Floor Plans Exhibit "L" - Drainage Pattern Initial Study, Part I Conditions of Approval Resolutions of Approval 0 CITY OF RANVJ -10 CUCAMONGA STAIT REPORT DATE: May 13, 1581 T0: Barry Hogan, City Planner FRON: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Traffic Study for Tentative Tract No. 10762 As was requested of the developer for the subject tract, a study prepared by Mohle, Perry & Associates of Fullerton, analyzing traffic impact at the inter- section of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue due to the proposed development - was received by us. The study focused on the possible need for a traffic sig- nal at the intersection. It concludes that that signalization of the intersec- tion will not be warranted due to the traffic to-be generated by the proposed development and we concur with this finding. However, based on the study, it is our opinion that widening of Baker Avenue at the intersection with Foothill is needed for uninterrupted flow of traffic as well as to avoid conflicts in turning movements ir and out of Foothill Boule- vard. Necessary conditions in this regard have been incorporated in the "Condi- tions of Approval" for the subject tract. PAR: jaa LA l4. L N rWJr..va. L .M.rran._a.t�w �awW ��Owt• rn.r a : -ww1O wca :aoew LML- IES Otwaw - CVl.°.D�.1,. CO. w.Tp° OIIM w.tew- CUr�w.erw•. eo.wetoe wbr. yL�a°..o.ua- aw...rw.°, TlLawwpwa Op aa.ccrw.c - aout.�cww u4�a mown WSMUM star. We r.a ' -- ._�_.— _ _mot _ , — Juj�l•I v wmo aw Dq n_� 4 • RO _` CITE' Ol' RANCHO CUCr1l,I0\'Gh PLANNING DIN'iSIO.N M1 Q w' +ww •TR ' 1M 4 i 1' ��, NORTH ITEM: TITLE: Vie-, EXI III IT: SCALE JY O �1- •.+-- •J77V1lrFT_4 CITE' Ol' RANCHO CUCr1l,I0\'Gh PLANNING DIN'iSIO.N M1 Q w' +ww •TR ' 1M 4 i 1' ��, NORTH ITEM: TITLE: Vie-, EXI III IT: SCALE m D 11 / FOOTMII.L �-�• � D 1,y� i"�iimic•nwimnw �. �. i Z \A I Jam_ ti IPORTH ° CITY OF ITEM: -i AC749v z RANCHO CUCAT IOtGA TITLE:: `glTr, PLANNING DIVISION' SCALE: �•7�S• 1 r � I of J ,tiy"t1 WTI 'Y�' 1P'Ilr.. NMI�IA! u wA nerd, • r'• i ":I" GYP T�I as 47411y. a -y;' to p9n la` T� $ �ar/��1. ■' � -o .Fit +a {r! Ire is I '4 + •�Q` IA � t01. Q1. ITI �i /� 1r *� ,r w ;k. 0 Jijts pi NJ �. n\ Ow.Q a r., `;c 1 D � �q D+i'4 ,' Ro �4 � �� tip♦ W.tb�i se.• � 1,1 ARM 1 �:j� � � � � _ 1• CITY OF ITC\ 1. RAN iC� CI�TCl�i�'IO.��G[� TITLE° �����C�1�•C�i� Lam" %�� PLANNING DIVISION E \i 11131T _�_ SCALE: ��' 11 � � � U ! /14 � |2 [2| k z k ■ k §tu 2 § kra [ � � t` CITY O/ RANCHO O CUC.jI0.XGA » PLANNING VISION // jE §- �B ■■ k§ §■ � mEN1._ TITLE:, GH3r £ SCL� --- � - -�� -- -! § (� - § k ; �. � �| • & 2 k§ 4 � � t` CITY O/ RANCHO O CUC.jI0.XGA » PLANNING VISION // jE §- �B ■■ k§ §■ � mEN1._ TITLE:, GH3r £ SCL� U` ( 04 r CITY O RANCHO CUCANIM .NEGA PLANNING DIVISION ( oli �'G 2k (a rAE; ,N, T-�' M,� 7 0P F GA -0 Gtrn �ai..v Nar.S ITEII- _%62 TITLE: EXIIIIIIT�i_SCALL. T.S 11 r'1 �J CITY OF ITEM: RA -N` HO CLCALN ION Cy, k TITLE :� - PLANNING DIVISION N•75 CITY O RA-NCI-10 CUCA' IONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: 1 TITLE: EXHIBIT: I SCALE- 's' 0 0 'U'— .. .. ~ 1 PLAN Nt , s.r Y e r or CITY Or ITEM. `/ /O 7G 2 RANCHO C.'C` NIONGA TITLI: =_ IF' _ PLANNING DIVISION xi 11BIT -L SG�L1: =�:,�� 6w - c � A 1 RoPoa�.r> Sjo�M Dizfrinl,: E•x/sf . onos� D ryQ to762 \� . ,. __ - �+RIOY / /I! /ALlvj r I I L2 t • Exis>. 42y pipe Y2D. AG M/L ® I{!. AG M/L .O 1rcS: F,`= 7 7 : fi•vatiT ia.J, `ti �`�" FORTH CITY OF _ ITL•.\I: _ RANCHO CUC AMILONCYA TITLE__ PL-rMN INN DiVJSrav -r E,\11113IT= � SCALE: k' c� CITY OF RANCHO CCCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $60.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and _abmitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt oR 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) clays before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Crv=ittee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negat've Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied ® by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Rancho V411asn s _ APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Acacia Construction, Inc. 270 Laguna Road, Suite 1 ]je I)- tea- 92631; 1734) P92 -OARO NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: JFmes Staver LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) SW Corner of Foothill and BaVer APN 207 - 191 -31 & 40 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Standard subdivisien approvals and building, ermits El PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 84 unit condominium project on 9.6 two story, 2 and 3 bedroom, all wit}i private fenced rear yard patio and attached double car garage. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 9.6 acres - 84 condominiums with vprgge size of 1-119; qq, ft _ DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMExrPAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE IVCL[ DING 111rOR1%1ATiON Ole TOPOGRAPHY, PI-ANTS (TREES) „ ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCE14-IC ASPECTS, -USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE' (ATTACK 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 `mpact? No Y 2 WILL THIS PROJECT: ® YES N13 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.)? S. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 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 cf any YES answers above: (4) Pr_nnnPr -tgj s-zcaed R -1 and wiI "et V_II_n_ zo _ (5) Older lemor. orchard- be removed IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. .^-ERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attac'_-ied exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my abilii:y, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge anr, belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation car be made ),y the Development Review Committee. Date ��% - -� !�' � � Signature Title 'Proiect Manager 7C-� RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be p,-ovided 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.: Acacia Construction; Inc. #10702 Specific Location of Project: S.W. Corner of Ba -er and foothill PHASE I PHASE 2 . PHASE 3 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 84 3. Date nr000sed to hPgir. construction_: 9 -1 -81 4. Earliest ',ate of occupancy: 3-f-82 Model and u of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price P.ance A - 2 BR mid $60's B - ; 8R low $80's PI'ASE 4 TOTAL RESOLUTION . A RESO!;;TION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 80 -01 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM R -3 TO P. -3 /PD FOR 9.6 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BAKER AVENUE, SCUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. APN 107 - 191 -31 and 40 WHEREAS, on the 29th day of December, 1980, an application was filed and accepted on the above described .4roject; and WHEREAS, on the 13th day of May, 1981, 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 inf d5ngs: 1. That the subject prooerty 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; r 2. T►;� proposed zone change would not have significant .'mpict on the environment nor the surrounding properties; 40 and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the existing and proposed General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not eate a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on May 13, 1981. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESCL.VED: 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 1?th day of May, 1981, Planned Development No. 80 -01. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Planned Development No. 80 -01. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material he -eby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. 4. All conditions of approval applicable to Tentative Tract No. 10762 shall apply to this Planned Development. r Resolution No. Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. 40 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard Dahl, 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 feregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMJSSI ":cEpS: ABSENT: COMMISS(`.;NERS- RESOLUTION NO. LIJ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITICNALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 10762 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 10762, hereinafter "Map" submitted by Acacia Construction, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a Planned Development of 34 condominiums on 9.6 acres ff land, zoned for R -3, located at the southwest corner of Balser Avenue and Foothill Boulevard into 2 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and actijn on May 13, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follo.:s: SECTION ': The Planning Commission makes the fellowing findings in regard to Tentative Tract No. 10762 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (b) The design or iml.ovements of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, 'or access through or use of the property wi`:hin the proposed subdivision. '.esolution No. age 2 (g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 10762, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved. subject_ to all of the following conditions and the attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING, DIVISION 1. The site plan shall be modified to include the following: (a) Eliminate the two parking stalls located within the required front yard setback along Baker, east of Building #16. (b) R�:.ise parking area located east of Building #17 to utilize parallel parking and to provide 10' minimum wide landscaped buffer along the westerly property line of the existing single family residences. (c) Building #7 shall be moved about 15' in the northerly direction to increase the size of the common recreational area. 2. Automatic garage door openers shall be provided for all dwellings with garage apron, less than 20' in length. 3. Precise design, and s.�ecific location of garden equipiaent storage sheds shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 4. A 6' high concrete block wall shall be constructed along the portion of the northerly boundary adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad. Sidewalks within he project shall be of Portland Cement or equivalent material. ENGINEERING DIVISION: 5. Construct the missing street improvements to include curb, gutter, A.C. pavement, driveway approach around the parcel at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Baiter Avenue. 6. Widen the east side of Baker With A.C. pavement at the intersection with Foothill Boulevard for separate turn lane. 7. Construct A.C. berm along the edge of the existing pavement on the west side of Baker Avenue from southerly project boundary to the proposed patch basin. to El Resolution No. Page 3 8. Construct flood protection wall along the west side of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9. Any conditions imposed by Cal Trans for the project, shall be a part of the "conditions of approval" for 0e Tentative Tract. 10. Seismic design criteria, as defined by the Uniform Building Code, shall be utilized for the design of all structures. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard Dahl, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the Citv of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adupted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1981 by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F� V N N s • O �° R V OI lT A W N •� l .N O ti 1 p O m a l Y 1 L ^0790 T15 T >> O In O >� W +� i 1 n •.1 ON.W. fai �. 76nN rr n 4r b N tNi SF •• n..p Sdm rOI O 7 �, -j 6 N� N NN m �O .� W >9 .P.rN _S O `N W o m> r0 N nl r0 1O� _ N m,.D_ :2 mr n.0 610 p' y �. N� n> N •K u ,T '• n �n n S^ n S V i n u l 6 ,y = r' J fD -1 O NNn 0 ,0,. •D� �S O >nR 10 j C a: on -` r4r. N Sn r J S O B 7 M 6S O WLnS ram O N >1>'Ur 6 n 9l0D O 7N fJ> UO• r p zr F F' V zt n N N y T b IAD N 4t� r TO nO � r 06 2 Ii N an.. rW. u• W 106 � .i PfOf t n l (D 1.'J. .. .- r. Y O <s O y 0. r• T d° n� O m N O N C� G �. >> Li O, 4 nd O ^ N • V�C•i e•v la lloN mNO k J l .0 u J V N O r l 10 r N OJ' nN u "> � n =ter• a N A n 1 N rG. p1 > 10 n r N � vO •>i �V O-fr �. > b166 S n rr. W n^i ID • y 4 �.qj NS CI n .>. 6 -`•� O. >_� O cl Obi Q^ �N 10„ S r Y, n m 4 �• � to n S .nw OCJ iD Cr^ n r n a J O i~J O> ff S 3_ n. , 0 l O l 1 1f, O� N Y � - >N N> R 0. N Ob 1 �> r l O> W O H •'•' u W Qoa V l N• n N S' b. OV O >r 10 > n N O' � u N p ` n >l n� � nPA NOr -J� D, O tN y 0u0 r•S m '°✓.0 VN n> >d. V^Nr .. >� Nn ' N 6> T 6 Di'1C1 � n O 1• ID > (�p� r d O O .W..y� Q^ � ON^wC r o N O• � n0 r � lX n0 q N r A _O N N • O �° OI V OI lT A W N •� l .N O ti 1 p O m a l Y 1 L ^0790 T15 T >> O In O >� W +� i 1 n •.1 ON.W. fai �. 76nN rr n 4r b tNi SF �. 6 N� N NN m �O .� W >9 .P.rN _S O `N W m> r0 N nl r0 1O� cnN >:1rK r W mr �� n.0 610 r N� n> N '• 1D> nn9 +l 0.010 '> w. NJ 60 YV NNn 0 r.Nr •D� �S O >nR 10 j C a: on -` r4r. N Sn r J S O B 7 M 6S O WLnS ram O N >1>'Ur 6 n 9l0D O 7N fJ> UO• r p �S6 V f "V n N N y T b IAD N ;w0 106 K PfOf ^n Y O 1p.1� OW N C•Nn� 9 O Wl l = 9< p ^ N • k J l .0 u J V N O r l 10 r N V � � l C N A n 1 N rG. p1 r N � vO •>i �V O-fr �. > b166 S n rr. W n^i ID vW��O r • J > 'R 3_ n. , 0 l O l 1 1f, O� N Y � - >N N> R 0. N Ob 1 �> r l O> W O H •'•' u W Qoa n b. go ' N 6> T 6 Di'1C1 � n O 1• ID > O r d O O .W..y� Q^ � ON^wC r o N O• � n0 r lX q O � A E ]my. %D m O ti G r= 11 O 6 G •'• 9 r y0 C N� ^.•JL TdT AEA =y d p urr V L.rr4`Crr OU D °IJ � Cp � L O N N,._ OL N yy ` C V C ° O`^ ` _ ` E L r ° VI r N ? YO' � N •°.r y N ldJ � q c�q C.] u �� ^, q ✓YI Z ° ^q OICLS4 NG • b q� LLrN VT C6 a' }> C I.O.L LO•n �` sb � E Ep pi� 5� O 9 V l.rV� v N CWN Nom' EL y• L qV.l >.Li•LG d.•N• ° �' V rnu G ^r+ N (. O V g P V 6 V0 r •O- P ✓_ �� L^ y U L N q d G D G,� C T c N Vyp_ _ 6 ^ EPODE' ^qy My qV D•^C tq VS N q TMV °'IU X6 _w u LN � [Tp WL NdV P wIN Vl q} L 6• wC OY dl LZ rr•1 CmT q L4 NN d Aw OrV AV p rt^" T VC d •^ GqO AVV q� Q Su •di -J� L y `� 'q � t' 0. 1[,, � 6 E V D •.• � 6 L' V y q a G p V A 6 Or Lp u Vw VqJ qTJ qN �. WN r.q 1J u�gOM�CW qY }Ja�baC`Sr^�r N •[_Jq L N d [y LI N r C .� q l✓ Mt� d'- r u l ^ `d Aq pV L V D Ur N b L N N 0. IJ E d G V ` V" 6M O C b 1 r�j q C ^r ?+ „•r L V O � L q P� qu qy'" OA r^ w•r P> _O N V _A ^ q UpV 'i q �• Or6 L•r V N C C N� Y r N u O N O ••� 6 6 N! n V L q � Y V) C � L � L d LD T9 wV 01 n0 d'iC L -rYOa DNJ „Orr LO „W u C _ O• N L W^ a 'V N V ~ l C C q N q Y p C VN u Cq V W Cb Y• •^ q O M •O IW N Y PY°. 9 L p = y V�10 L qV „y_ L .i +irA OrnN ^ 1J p. N U1PN NWCI LL ^ V L N � ^wr N o vb N L�Nnuypr ON w Y YEVId y qn+`•C O W P 6TN qr r x ”" L O~ ' ry W • E - � .WJ C [� C b V Y 0 Y �LJ ry NL•P N nL =N•cc E Lf N 0 C q C q i\ V M• p p^ C Y C T p (L 6 C V •-. L •� V b m q L C D p1 V q C] 4 r0 Y O: L' � V 6 O V C W q y ^ S f. N C C � c� G O L C •C _. W� �.•p•L L�}N ✓5 Or GD^ FiW ^4� OrC6 4cC f^ �q ) O• `•�P �d N✓N ^?C }6L 4grrf 4q Iwi._p nq. rnC N S •^Cp NO E "�/r' V ( {W V C ^orr•yy d r✓n d g l6 =••VR E d V � ]•. w• �' r E GNP GL S. •QCVA L W J q ` T +'J d 4 C Lq S -d QP6r=rr Nl'^VD 6L0�1 1�+ HNq Y[N VMr 42D 44m ,� 06 ti m ^I Ni I O !!II O LI CO C ac L +n tq ✓ v p v c r c w u L i YWi o m .L- P� wu0i t!a uu �C E 32err0 L�`.� V ^O OpNNN G 4°L 4W.0 OTC 6 Ir WECiIn• tL ' _C l EL 4Nn d q OD6V Lu" =C +q CfYV`M MCO AW��t�p p 'VS N.L.rp qM5 °ryq C b Ld d4 PM qdn nN✓Sni C2V +4C +L• y.JW Ypb r^ q N L LII. c0•>I «G d L Cb O N °+ Ls nn ✓i0 W �N . C u0 App 6 ydO Cd•� 4V'�>•L Say L• L g4••`•yC ON p_ Vp Nd qqV YL �p �V• dT<C p P n� ° yE O.L u(p qLV• .Y L!r•a Dy qG q �Y O � Ow Y`q✓LVN N•L.r 7• a W' J�[ 'd✓ b -pV6 VL cL N rr '°O U ° n n Tla o L o C e q o a' + P •� o .« N D o v N q rnv C T g C q q y Y•r l' L• O LV L Y. C EL L V N V`gL rp-• d N V Y C .� d O v L•C Y n T. i O ppJO VGe qC _ CO L � V ^6 MC G L7 8�NLLq OAP L u y=i rr0• V P - � d Y N W N S g N V N V _ L ur ur C N 6 •-•qi N C_ .^ .qyL nY LUp °• N� YP OL +V' n1 � L .. 1 4 0 q L q Lq V L^ N u '� V 0. P✓ E G U V N Q •-• N d q C O q W✓ G n O r! °' V q L L q!� L 6Y E 'O C d A^ b d+ ^ N N u>• q V:2 •q.• 1 L G X L ! L Y N t _`p Z M� rM Up 4ip V b l L - Oqd C .•C• O � •�" q g 'fJU�u° Nm E� O Vy OP6rr �O �n"aV nY 1(a •�.VN 1IIItttUO7� L E • q 6 d d q A d N u .i q° L �^ • D l E n' L d L L O C b m M >Z CO•� DVC n 'U 'U O �lun qC _ L •nL ( > Jf L qj L6YR CO d�'O `•4 qN DO..• A6 r•yny .J Jr NV 6Vyt A Aq q V ^W N q L NM 6L TN Cygpq L DR \a V qyP D ° p1 NY.b VgMp Gy ^U •� TNV L: D L d ry � Y N M V N +_WM r"nO V ^ l N ` N C Oy •� 1y N d L W ^•� + y•O N _ •� N .� • q >EL qC NN✓"npP q j O C w p Y q V q V q •.• N � N p W 0 N d �• V✓ • V V V C 4 A _ C P rLrr ✓ A q +"• Or L > C CC •V.• W L ^ C y« L l' D" q d� q p G, C O�{C p b 1 >r d N e� `N cwr � N � u C O dN ^ L PrUC '•� b _ 6 Cf��YYOiL .`^ Y u y qC 0.rny O q M 2 V C, q G O -L •V " N VV E Y °.Yr _J V ^V GC's ✓L ✓V w NVC GLP✓ +Cn.b Wn ^ LNd + t L ` � „ dLL T N VIJ r�Op `DV «V'VL rVC•i4 _ W 6 2•`n J✓ L.•q 60 Q WOIL Q G L] fi1.°• rLrrU 4L WdVP ✓ML O N g V N b L � .E �� q N1j1 C N1 ,•a V Va V ,Y M 01 y'``AV•1 \t/Vy'� !'i � V � u Y V 9 C V VpN G` !•r L nJq .L.r m i FJVN t C V C� JLV'r N L q CN L'•c -c CO `9 a cwq vu r•: P y c y j r V 4 V P'N J C C. 6 L! q � W N .r• O � br�•� A- ' A ^ � q qp �L C O O Y r •^ ^^ u G' m M y C y r ['- q O q N� Y. C TfY p C•r Vy C c V - � V- O VN V d L ^ W SLUR Y GC �r 0 `G `V L J E2- a, d 1� 6 Y G N U I N W O 9 C ` N O 9 9 C G• y 4 V y b m� - V C C G' •V V P q A � 1 •^ n _ 4 «L u a W q `C r d C u Y W M (P( Y q N<•d (1r9 O✓O V �. �� ✓ O N N c L u q 90i LL r t m •- L u0^ - ry Vry n^ i LL >, <.�XTIGL PJ!JJ L I rJ 9 N �'r O r'•J NP p7 Lc 6 L,SC a9 -'- G NLr E4 f JJWEr N �.ca � mn . =i�F3. ° ` NwL. w �.u. C[ } ME° V L o N•! h � o rG b �^ .={� L 1' _ Or N O � •� O G q LE y r u0<'. yCCr O CA ^LL.n !Jy tip Lqu n C NG• r n= ^ y} A A u •� L V b y ~ C NG 9 6 L d G � C o m q d O � q n V O Cd0 JrM O�d WJ OG4r 4L NC NL C`O` rY 'J6 n- W• ^J r W�uW i. ° � u� NT�o � ��� Ld °GV -.•N+ I` n Drug �vr N rVd O `N d N c'bJUU .^u Grr N E ••• •` N N v N t y !- R: L .^ ^J T q ro ••• 4 p T N M LW bL GuJ G N IV yAq� WyGN N V �b N° ^Tl6 G � rr [:D w LL C ✓r S J L O ° W L W • udi L ^ O •n C N •! V .. •�. .PC .G. LT fiP Tr>T L'Y. F '-I Y !- L L✓ GY LCbC 91L b O M� q Y P Ur L W d y= P- C9L N O .L 9u� � - dM ud4p 6 r L A L L �yj y « � G 6 �•^ C `I J ` 1'J N V V � V 6 q q L T 0. N O G G O U G •! � O q G � V� J V L '^ P J •^ V' E J C ` O ` L.^n- n d Lvr-.n n. L.. r.n Jr d •� O- L > » a L a [� .- P N �J1 0 o nC µ ✓ NY H�:AO G 4 LC Ny WdL 6Op 1.10 R9pLV N 4 6V SOO 4V N J W W 1^4uJ Vr •• V1 O N a � ^I LL GJ ® !� M nw c uw N L N t- •� � O N u i p O (C � b 6 •q O •r- W G� V L� L � V- �CGC `: {.ru �Jr L VV<J =°N n ugJJV4q u O �C' NL WW.Jnoo g' �.r- E$gLLJl6 ?LNw p '.y Aq I•.r•� + Y Lui'r l N CnN N�L-N •°.r c 'J".L. n YJJVN NO °N� qn0^ �rU Y[GY -T+ U FVin°. -'G Lu A u-• aI f. u ?�` C7p Up TNdA LV L�urV�V^ �V OV Y � rrE °d qK LLY Pd L " J °Ga.CL V FL"uNC V A .> u •V b G T W A .G E u .. (t C N Y C U N p J N ��OruL � GOr[NUJ�uwi GJ IN Y �- W 9 v4! P� •Z IUY G ! N L u L d 9 C r � J a E l+ W A T q c NJ ia�u G •n 9� � ^ L 7 �.+ L t Nry C• q � V V L •^ q W A � Z V O M �. L r 6 r N•+ - J G .•� p •� � J q 0.¢ N G. N n rn N L O +- G: G N CCr" L L d Jd V i J.nN V^ TG^ b >� A G T •^ 2 9 J L V C 6 N C L9f�/gJ > d N 91-21 CO O^ d � T/ � �•� OG O Tu ^y 'Q( n N L V O Iu I d oo AL L V 6A TN'^rL GG.. p A .•. ° r jt •] A lJ N N r 0 N E ^ y r � • N ML W JO T p IV � LVOi •n L^J N`d '! O O V V JC .J }N..L4.. :; LO L ~ :G�� O C r�` CVNV V` G• N V a<i +•' Vin 9LU 9t 1 V- VO V OC C` +LV vV r% L H W P W 4 N L O S E C J N L u M C c u 0-7. C Cc G• N N > far c `L -a ungN �cr` r > -i ri N`4 oN •v L'`o`uo .:r: qN c W'LJ Al f'caG�., •ate NC O� u. =c zG q ^ •nLW N 9�N b >.•r •Gi_d•^ G �• O -'J V•^u Tq rn r L J V C. C E V Ll L L O<J'�N r= •- •^ N N G C N Gtj 6 > V L C M N D U �C� P W 6LVyy Vp I 6 J -O�- TU GP!A 9u - -r•nb IL -Y LV NG r u O L pr fi 6V•.'O�V C L`� N NnA O 2�A }u C!_.+l C� G:O O. +•a4 9 b: •^ ONM L L. I N OI c « T T V L. O- q c ^^ ^ LN .� C•^9 dNU 9N�r- AV ✓Or•� -J OVNy yp TT C'v •'^N V �r:p A VJC > C ^CCn JC Cr- "' �WJ. �• C +'m � �Y u•� > V •^ C U 4 W N N U O W P N 9 C_ G l > U r +N GW .CLl b mU G, p` V•N- LU4����G \L G' n°q 2 aL �rCC •^ O CI O f- ZJ f- 6q VrO 61] V Ir ND ..4 NI AI NI (emu \C 1I 'Ski 1 'WI 0 ' N L L J P i p T 6 M C p n 4: E A O C d M ^ V W C11 .C.0 V Cu p y C• C (CpO[s L UI •` W q Fi O r-.- u O U• Ef• O- q�C ^ C\q �. .o GI` .. V� aWNy JIW_ vIrTG I I I Y w y ✓ aq. � .fl+ ^q W du. uuy CNL uC LUU Y J L C_`•C L r` � QI CI 9 OIL y `O GALW'. C °Y _ q u, L Y d L d w. q C yI + C L• u C 0 O •.• U 4 t N U N O W L 6 V G G O (� r C C N •� T P C O\ C V d \. r U d BTU n [V p tuv t qu•w0. 1VW �uACd yV M r CI)P `> S'^ L V � � P V ✓ O V q� Ir S T^ N I v� �� + N G O A d p � V „ N 7 N 4 Y• p L r u Y L L CTC I I ` � A p 9 l O �V ` Y C d W •L ' d d W P^ yw N Y � N . � N n L p C• ✓ V J I IrO. yr U p p� I .. r + CI 9 'p d N G N N •n a Y Y O^ (L C AIL M d V � V ^ q _ L •+• o 4. L C ` w- L +• C p? p N •. L I I I W W L N coa i w. L� u V u y; R O q T l L V q q L Y V Y I+•• C L l� WO L N r w^ T N C N d✓ Y V C O W ✓ L' E f z Npj ^ q•r 06d V� ✓ � y d_ O✓ � u ••`•��uW � �� .� L A Y'. W i O •: C C I'D O d L wJ • OI NG [V. 2 dL OOT n ��yY..N L y CNN P� G,O_ LAY .r V C yC p +Oi ^ qt Vu VuC Wf: O Tr9 p6u VC•••+ O r C✓' p l.-.O Y•:IUCV N � i' q T Q G T L 6 r 4 C O • d u T'•. 6 i •- V. L+ W U 4. 'J 4q 1 N f:.OV ylCA 4C [\r �yOC^ QI d Y u S A M n 4 UOO �+ •^ v T � N p J] • N L C •) L L i \ruu ^q O rC• L Y L' V N N rAiuC LF 6A fj S]UV Y pq° `• L ( N qq V ^RIr C O l VI •^ a O N J 4 n U V C p L q .:1 N q l •w• � u J `� •q C- n.00 L =—w wim N olo� e v Nv xw V %° � W ? 9 yC Wu V ^•U n u g T N u .G rV C'r• CO •.•[ InNC O l' W110N✓l ` !Il y •� tP V�•pY Oc� W.G. NO 9Y C y VQ^ •rr ^ ••1 q V t] r Ll ✓ L u ^ In y 4 4q. y L� �OW d u q N N ^O i� ... •. p _ I N � .I. N C• 6 NV 4. N N C �r I rLrr 4r O L V O° T. •.L. fJ T O O N y7 J Vv C •• L L e Y [t^ L i � v w 34 5i CWL yN pr Vi o `)6A NC =10 _ q�° ��� ✓� Y�G N Y y (5 k VY •w F 4 dY6 uOr l..L. .L.•q �p Cn Lu �O Y' OIL L +• 9 �' 4 ro�L u„ K� 9C1 `rLe'N Vd I V L` L6A u F 1'Y C V� P� [� U °,p CL J ^ I Ju Vp� 4V TV � 6;V y �•�Lr q •Y'• .wL i •C V� Y CJ N I V ti q iY O M Q V V L A Q Q W 2 ` V V r•[ L V r TC Cru q N N GCV .L Cpl rrmV ql U `yr G' LwGj NI �I NI rOl ^I U•r,j .°i4 I.. qv QV10L: NIC rl NI !:... �d ON �1 `) nL'lo 1 1 N N. GO Um4v 4N GN G q 11 V 9 7 ✓••• N L L J P i p T 6 M C p n 4: E A O C d M ^ V W C11 .C.0 V Cu p y C• C (CpO[s L UI •` W q Fi O r-.- u O U• Ef• O- q�C ^ C\q �. .o GI` .. V� aWNy JIW_ vIrTG � ^q W du. uuy CNL uC LUU Y J L C_`•C L r` � QI CI 9 OIL y `O GALW'. C °Y _ q u, L Y d L d w. q C yI + C L• u C 0 O •.• U 4 t N U N O W L 6 V G G O (� r C C N •� T P C O\ C V d \. r U d BTU n [V p tuv t qu•w0. 1VW �uACd yV M r CI)P `> S'^ L V � � P V ✓ O V q� Ir S T^ q V� + N G O A d E N L r L L CTC •°i 9T C V U Gy [y�I 9 l O �V 9 NY Y C d W •L C N N d d W P^ yw W V Y N . R I` Y A p tf p p� C .. r + CI 9 'p d N G N N •n a Y Y O^ (L C M d V � V ^ q _ L V 4. L C ` w- L +• C p? p •. V y C N W q 0. • 1_ Y r W N N O q O V g u V u y; R O q y Y C V Y I+•• C L l� WO L N r w^ T N C N d✓ U V f z Npj ^ q•r 06d V� OI C Cq OIV Ca N 6 AO{p ••`•��uW 4' dlV OY. ]IC OI NG [V. 2 dL OOT w�iy ��yY..N L ~L O CNN P� G,O_ LAY .r V C yC p +Oi ^ qt Vu VuC Wf: O Tr9 p6u VC•••+ O r C✓' p l.-.O Y•:IUCV N � i' q T Q G ' L 6 r 4 C O • d u T'•. 6 i •- V. L+ W N 'J 4q 1 N rr^°.. C r J N V N l V g 9 O q QI d Y u _ 9N NN ^ `6 7 V 1] d N.. CI n C qlY uN CL C/ l+ Llu VCCC \ruu ^q O rC• tiI q.0 CC rAiuC LF 6A fj S]UV Y pq° `• L ( N qq V ^RIr C O l VI •^ a O N J 4 n U V C p L q .:1 N q l •w• � u J `� 6 OI W d y G =—w V V N O O /� O N W N •° L N t 4 4 n u g T N i C'r• CO •.•[ InNC O l' W110N✓l ` !Il p+C-C COU 4 £. C..Ou1 r 0 4 Nf. C y � � r,. ••1 q V t] r Ll ✓ L u ^ In y 4 4q. y L� �OW d u q N N ^O i� ... •. p _ I N � .I. N C• 6 NV C•^ N N C �r I u8G u ylpN N PLU1d C'�C N y7 J Vv O�qC TvO Wuu �4 r.>• OI'•>•° CWL yN W1 Vi u[l `)6A NC C✓G IOiI Y�G Op DU✓ V .G F Wq uOr l..L. .L.•q Lu `I Y' OIL L +• 9 �' 4 n V N rV'I u CT pr N q u F 1'Y C V� P� [� U °,p CL J ^ I � q Vp� 4V TV � 6;V y �•�Lr q •Y'• .wL i •C V� Y L =M ,T r_Z dq✓ �VO ON Ny NN NVLG• -• •••1 Cp TC Cru q N N GCV .L Cpl rrmV ql U `yr G' LwGj LrJrG NOU GVL U•r,j .°i4 I.. qv QV10L: NIC !:... �d ON v�yy `) nL'lo N. GO Um4v 4N GN G q 11 V 9 W ✓••• Di `I •t Li �I N L L J P i p T 6 M C p n 4: E A C S - o 5 4 �I ]: ••fin q f C !' L n VLC 9 V• V c V L ya Y L U e p cn u S •` l + C• ^ O + a G O ✓ O L l N t C C G L G_ `• l tir•u I` p:. \'J p `IL at = V ✓ `V _ C• l ✓ f � G G r L V C N O G Cl V C] xi � I r f. La G s ` r V - C 1 ` r V O n L+ O Y � 9 t T ca c u G V_ C_ C C u ^ •. N 0 w 9 C S L' C •V 4 u •' 4 d q y L G uo E° 4 L' r r C n i C4 N t+ � C V L l L 9 t� r tit n � c �� L4 T� or`•_ __� b `1 �Jl ^ Cp n � 1(1 V•Jp ✓q <.N yW V CW 2•CY..� V V _ ✓ r ✓ O •• L LO v Cn� `Y•�. a G O f.� r•O. � b✓ U •� r l i E 1.1 W U W ' y 0 ` G > V.2 ff'•O'r L p 1J 4 r ', G N N; S• .^ V L l f 10 q � q rn L N •- C} 'aJ o p � (I <rT ��1 CY'V ° ['V W CN _ uF L1. LN CVyQ ✓ 4 lm I•� o i. u o .;: $ L d v a'b u L .A -.LW' ° ✓ . 1 ✓_ COn d NZ l r_V NU L` !Jr GV Ti •ju Cp✓ L 4r_ v �- � C V 4 1. � C� -• l C IL •� L w. M1" i L c`J` I�GL rn- J rU ^ �'.• and s�W✓p L 4 ^.. Yo`a o� .^ N O !4 U9 L~ O •� .�T vLLII L'V �W •�W AV •. I L L q �� y L ^ l' p � L, �• T TJ � u V C V ^ V T O^ V L u'V `� •� INS Y S.W L`T L' � Uu r A b OVrO _J 1 N 1' n 1- u GNL C G, /_ u„ U✓ J p0 �I c fj.^ yC L t YLW OO -Ov n4 0 J p W •Y V >• W 'O V C � G• y L •�VG •_ _^ C t u v %+4 P G V O L O L Y J � _• 2 V C L L •f'AJ L C O G N r r C u� 6 q O C aJ C O O •�• q Vp u _- u O••Q V < C� �l C •-r/• N Q q < i•_ •rl y C U L C 'h ! Fl '� .0.• 4ya V N ' v V • N O L C O WG C V G W C V V rqi� i `Cep/ � 4 C p O C. y V '" h' V L• .0 N O V Y L d C� C � •r L d r;'•' U L C• o L i o V WZ�A o " N 1 ^u .� 9 ^ V O 'J Cy NI v V N• V qq O _T' 4 W 9 O 9 V L L' LLi� T V L C ✓ i L tj p u� d� N N 9 q a' r L O N o w j N GJ 4Y � V •"•y V L •r � uy C� ld ^ pU 6 V�� C W O •T• •_ G C r��^ G i l Y ^ u N d G N C P V piJ p ✓_ C N O N_ y l }• r ru L' V C C C OuCr:.•T �LI 1 L _ L UU a�0 fWyj .emu Or dr ^ ' I. 'i ✓•� A.^OL UL� LN l� 9W CuTi� L1 V LC _N G " pC •VV••i LV v C• U L 'D N d r J V C L Y ..l O 1± N L :.bC �._•n L v' p✓wV 'rlv Cn'b�+ `I11 L L ^ P v. C. C V� N O C Z.r p L u V V U �•� p `h.'•V L a•. LJ L u _V. G O ^ 1 C W V• O wr p 4 u r � l L ^ W ••- L � = 1 .V.• W L +70 �V�dC C•L la: i�_ ^O L..L. ✓y-'L ^w �� Gp c+a y i G A •J L� y U C•L :� S? G C � O✓= N= ••. q Y Y V 'E ' `J l Y � _ O •_• W v •� V Y iJ C LI •r 1 .. I G:u6N Y� •L-.' L L \.� .^. _ V C_d •-. r•�V d �G '�N l^ y^ p�V� VI CV G y - r Y. T L c. i t r N.T.• fi _... ° .� d L ... u �: u `I •• c � •" •.+ T t^ N '^ '^ ^ G' •J u '. AML LNU Nom_. -G� C V, O O r GIJ L.n WV V L.L.r y [4._ 4 ` C J uG SI j Hp � 1 VV ti TI C S - o 5 4 �I ]: ••fin q f C !' L n VLC 9 V• V c V L ya Y L U e p cn u S •` l + C• ^ O + a G O ✓ O L l N t C C G L G_ `• l tir•u I` p:. \'J p `IL at = V ✓ `V _ C• l ✓ f � G G r L V C N O G Cl V C] xi � I r f. La G s ` r V - C 1 ` r V O n L+ O Y � 9 t T ca c u G V_ C_ C C u ^ •. N 0 w 9 C S L' C •V 4 u •' 4 d q y L G uo E° 4 L' r r C n i C4 N t+ � C V L l L 9 t� r f� N �ll y =•�.� JL � > >9 • „� �°3 G.y� A Y O ro ATV G S d C � � u v y y •O V�pi b ? .c b•de OU= N n t f.• L V 4 • b O L u 91N u^ L J u6Y •Ow V .4i O O L l n C u � L C u L V O � 9 V IVO J r, C4u �•^ V Vb 1'r C W fC O V b S � j y '� V +• l J. �•A �^ V 7 J ^� f •N-. r b S � V G O •E O N N L � (j O 1 N O .`r �- 6 A V C L •per N \-1 y • AG1 .O. 4NG'y u` Pr _4 � Et N _V l v G q� A o 6 < G G� � i G� J L L•S- U 11 CITY / ��O ,e�F� ♦ ♦ ♦ylt���1+kyyyi--`�OiiO „TCUCAMOINGA STAFF 11 l 1 E OW DATE: May 13, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: A residential subdivision of 1.9 acres of lane into your (4) parcels within the R- 1- 20,000 zone located on the north side of Manzanita Avenue between Carnelian and Beryl Street INTRODUCTION: The applicant is requestlra a subdivision of 1.9 acres of land into four 4) single family parcels as si.;wn on attached map. The property is presently vacant and is surrounded by single family residences on large lots. Because of the nearly 2 acre size of the property, the applicant has proposed a division into 4 house lots. However, in order to obtain 4 lots of 20,000 S.F. size, flag lets would be necessary for the two rear parcels. This configuration satisfies requirements for legal access to Manzanita Drive and provides an attractive layout fronting the street, particularly if the front lots also take access from the private drive. The alternatives which are possible using a public street for access to the rear of the property reduce the yield to three lots. The minimum 40 -root right -of -way, 36 foot wide street can be placed on either side of the parcel, or in the middle. The centered arrangement would provide the best appearance, as shown in the con- cept plan provided for your information. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of tNe Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tentative map be approved as submitted, including all private drive improvements as shown, and that a Negative Declaration be issued. If the Commission concurs, the attached resolution will provide for the approval. The conditions of approval in the Engineer's Report provide for improvement of the private drive. Respectfully submitted, LSH :P :jaa Attachments ITEM J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANt'110 CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6051 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6051) LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF MANZANITA BETWEEN SACRAMENTO AND BERYL. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6051, submitted by Skip Nelson and consisting of 4 parcels, located on the north side of Manzanita between Scaramento and Beryl, being a division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 1843 as recorded in book 22, Page 44; and, WHEREAS, on December 4, 1980, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described tentative ,nap; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: I. That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse envirT on`menfal impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on May 13, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6051 is approved Subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C1 I 9 U Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Richard Dahl, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary or 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 Commis_`or of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Plannin; Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1981, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: l I., TIiC.TY fA 1YYCMO CVCMnOI,wA /COUYTV P W,YCwYUOIYO�{TI�1�:I CY.1,•O�N,/� T E NTATIV -MAP PARCEL MAP N2 60 1„\p\L pCi['AIRVN: tiwCK D.IM. Itl�b Mi�V•ryY iM✓ I.Vm .Y Ywt CC eW MCCL MV'e w. tiOL w'i VO:tiM.w M CrY,Y OV VY MIfiMO�MO/ 1v9Cp WlR \YI. wawse tiv: �gRU+.,FV. ,sbo vl r YII I. vpOY. rIVIL Nzwy lrw% YR�NO.CY.I..nr,4 Y.lri fwil w {.CrFe NpT C1 T M 9. W< SWI.: RISD.OVO D. MCA: ,.VM K1K0 4 �iRC�. t(D TO D{w. C�M.VC..f{ n1 ROO .oe ..\..Ta•. n a•c wro'.. \..FOW)Kn VGC' / \�./6J: IlVU.y MG {IOCN.�M. i.YJiCNCIrtb: •• t/.\wu.T .cw �w.w.Taw I ..•v wryl.pV..q q..lfyw�..y.(n COVw \.n 1!/.Rfv T. Y.w�OC:- �VxnM�l Vi.OM�{RTf.V 1K1�4 T�Ya{ � K Y 4M6D1 tl .YC {w.0 MA YIYV /..R.i.t .O MC'/K {..v {.Gf I/•�. r S. r ) . Y, 1. r.Yzv I O I wrsrwco Ien: VwyYV. C/W IVMI�. 11YIi tvr� tle, -reel 1 - r i VI['IY.TY MAP 11 I• �e E4 .' l .. V VJ 1 rh ` x Li Lil Lla- r.Yzv I O I wrsrwco Ien: VwyYV. C/W IVMI�. 11YIi tvr� tle, -reel 1 - r i VI['IY.TY MAP 11 m CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Skit) Nelson TENTATIVE MAP NO.PM 6051 LOCATION: N/S Manzanita betwjPen Sacramento and DATE FILED: 1214/80 RPryl I NUMBER OF LOTS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel 3 of PM 1843 as rerorded in RECEIPT NUMBER: 09298 Bn p Pane 44. FEE: $250.00 ZONE: * * it * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * it * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: J. M. Wilson GROSS ACREAGE: 1.94 ADDRESS: 387 North 2nd Avenue -14fNIMUM LOT UREA: 20,000 Upland, CA 91786 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE # 0 Skin Nelson 6810 Ramona Ave. 714/989 -1059 echo Cucamonga. CA REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: additional feet on additional feet on additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other 3. Rights of vehicu ar access shall be limited as follows: 4. Street vacation required for: 5. Master Plan of Streets revision required or: _ 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP N0. fi Page 2 Improvements (Banding is required prior to 0 Recording for ) iZ Building permit for all parcels ) _ 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior streets. X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *inrludinn landsraoina and irrigation on meter STREET NAME CURB & GUTTER A.C. PVMT. SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STREET TREES STREET LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER { 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. x_ 10. Provide 041 utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.cond0 t. All utilities are to be underground. 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. _ 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Ccmpany and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative poles with underqround service. 16. Fhe following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The a owing specific dimensioris, i.e., cu -de -sac radius, street section `— widths) ,:re not approved: _ 13. The ollowing existing streets are su Int an ar They will require: Approvals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall be sr!bject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ San Bernardino County Floor; Control District. 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements that may be received fro'n them. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6051 Page 3 x_ 21. Permits.from other agencies will be required as fo lows: _ A. Caltrans, for: _ B. City: _ C. County Dust Abatement District: D. C.T.S. Trenching Permit if any trencres are over 5 deep: x E. Cucamonga County Water District: F. Other: - -'— Map Ccntrol _ 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustrents shall be made to pro vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affec'ed streets. — 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in ei�.her frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map: All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right-of-way ine n accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25 A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located_ _ 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs c arifica:ion as follows: 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existirg perimeter streets, or title explanation required. - Parcel Map Waiver _ 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map ertificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is r- quired prior to ❑ Recordirg for ) ❑ Buildinc permit 'for ) _ 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to the provisions of the` program and Ordinimce No. 24. 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall alorg the entire north pro- perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff tc streets. Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. 31. f water surface is above top of curb, 30" wall:, shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets aL following locations:_ _ 33 a.„ RCE 20 is''r: Broad scale hydrologic stu ies will a require to a <_sess impac of increased runoff. h6�do 4. , r , , M ,nnd ,.,.• n, n, •,n 't lot I a",,,,., qqr/ `1 W t M TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6051 Page 4 :t will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning )rt on subject property. is not within the present City Boundary and will require ion required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- ig and erosion control, includ-ing the preventation of sedimenta- ge to offsite property shall be provided for as required. soils report will not be required for this site f9r the follow - A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division ling will be furnished to the Engineering Division. -F the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that ant capacity will be available at the time building permits are Ahen building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Vater 1 be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will J unless said certification is received in writing. ineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of she 1 not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the sig n a- such public entity or public utility may be omitted `rom the final he City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- the specified time limits of said Section. )f Final Map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse (sheets;, copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ riginal land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. ch shall be 30 foot wide and constructed per Engineering Standard ,ccess, parking and maintenance easement ensuring access to all private drives shall be recorded concurrent with recordation of the Private drive improvements shall be substantially as shown on the 1 1 be reviewed by the Equestrian Committee to determine what local :rails are required, if any, prior to recordation of map. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA l_LOtiO B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY E. PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $60.00 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 taFe action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: PaQc -- a L . M b f-' M-S o'j&> t APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: t4s%-5CDRA _�nSlO &1_T0. _ CT l4-1 4 S°9 �• l O S°J NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: J.M. C1 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) hAd►�> A �! •TA eti.Pl \uS aiiw = A%jc -- — -P-&1ZCC-L his- gal -ISI- LIST OTHER PERUfITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: un me t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY E. PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $60.00 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 taFe action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: PaQc -- a L . M b f-' M-S o'j&> t APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: t4s%-5CDRA _�nSlO &1_T0. _ CT l4-1 4 S°9 �• l O S°J NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: J.M. C1 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) hAd►�> A �! •TA eti.Pl \uS aiiw = A%jc -- — -P-&1ZCC-L his- gal -ISI- LIST OTHER PERUfITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: un me i i1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: DVVE!.GN'MC.IS`i Tv GQfSr6. r(= C4-) `!'� t' °r= L nTS Fc2 <dtwfGl( C-'/l h4t% -mil Q%s:S%QdStAe , ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ARTY: 1.2-74. p� g -9 PSFbP'aS`O VIL31 y� \w Cry AT YiJ \S �7 M •� DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROP::RTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): nF d�.3Y Tt�cttc..5.. t���►.�L'tS a2 p�1��T�e�4L �lC-G�4Td.'�C'tON. p�PAE r• -�, ,� 4 �x s't' Jus'!` Vjo7'Tf-4 orr= mss` t2r P�(z-�•Y S(>>tLouo,ogr-O O(V -rUIF, MOWM Ea_�16 4�2,'P'{1 A.tifb w�-4•[' Stbc �Y S1*3G1..t:. 1= �M.fL�1 tZES- �V 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? 1nl b I- 2 • tS PRA- RESIDMITIAL CO:JSTRUCTION 1, Create a substanti; contours? The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the 2. Create a substanti; school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. noise or vibration Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.: Specific Location of Project: 1. Number of single family units: '2. Number of multiple family units- 3 Date proposed to . . �oegir. construction: 4. Earliest late of o ccup an. cy : Model 4 and n of Tentative 5. Bed_. -Ohms Price Rance PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 T -4 PHASE 4 TOTAL i 3. create a substant municipal services sewage, etc.)? Ix 4, Create charms :i general p 5: Remove any exists _X_- r. Create the need'J potentially baxal toxic substances hatioa o£ any YES answers': Ii the project inv residential unit4m next page- IFICATION: I hereby ce7 e and in the attached e� rmation required for th:. Of my ability, and thw irmation prese.ited are ti Knowledge and belief. _ �tional information MY:': re an adequate evaulati dew Committee. i M y WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? _ 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? E X _ S 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: IMPORTAbTP: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTI.rICATION. 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 * W/401 Signature •A u, Title VRCZ� / %%Q I -3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 4E�Vt;4A['MEtST To CQ0.�/aTt t9---t LAT•S =nn2 S�t.1L.Lt= = /iYrt.tv�l dt5xec�C -a1Gl= ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, it ANY: .i . `2) .Z �!d QQCVd$tsE? t3uta -.Ot wJ GS �hT ttl9S T1 Mc� 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): ® ,�F A41Y 'i"2cL4�,b►.yT� 6R at.aty�t'�I�E:2 Vc:- -GtsT�a"C'►GtN. KtST Jvs'r ALot-TL" o f ilAe V410.4 F't2o P� 2T"+P � c, Sc� IZcz.c,v Np6 � cat 't'tt a= i�1 o tL'rea., E, i.STr 'V+uT't1 ,Q.tlO ���'ST SttJ� R.Y Sa►yGl�t e= Qaaal,.�l e Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series' of cumulative actions, which although iudividually small, may as a whole have significant environriental impact? 16 1-2. ® ZESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION -he 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 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PIiaSE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units: 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to . wegir. construction: 4. Earliest date of occupanc: Model and °- of Tentative S. Bedrooms Price Rance E CITY OF RANCI -10 0 'CAM01%IGA STAFF, REPORT DATE: May 13, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Parcel Ma 6x33 - Lawrc_ A residential subdivision of .5 acres into 3 parce within the R -1 zone located on the east side of East Avenue between the SPRR and Victoria Avenue t ^7? INTRODUCTION: The applicant is requesting a division of 7.5 acres into three parcels. Parcel No. 3 will be redivided for further residential use in the future. The area is presently vacant. To the north and south is mainly undeveloped land with two -.ingle family residences; to the west is a lemon grove and to the east vacant land. The SPRR is adjacent to the south. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and has conducted a. field investigation. Upon comoletion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no significant adverse impacts on the environ- ment as a result of the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tentative map be approved, subject to the City Engineer's Report, and that a Negative Declaration be issued. A resolution is attached to provide for approval should the Commission concur. Respectfully submitted, � LBH:BK:jaa ITEM K RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6833 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6833) LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF EAST AVENUE, BETWEEN SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD AND VICTORIA AVENUE. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6833, submitted by Robert R. and Barbara Lawrence and consisting of 3 parcels, located on the east side of the Southern Pacific Railroad and Victoria Avenue, being a division of Lot 8, Block "K" Etiwanda Colony Lands as Recorded in Book 2, Page 24, Records of San Bernardino County California; and, WHEREAS, on April 1, 1981, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public_ hearing for the above - described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 9 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on May 13, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6833 is approved subject to t e conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I] Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Richard Dahl, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamunga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1981, by the following vote -to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TFNTAT/ VE - PARCEL MAP CVO. 6833 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SkIf16 At""SIOM MLOT 6 ELOCC_!'K: ETIWANAA COLONY LANaSAfnLCCAppO IN OOO L.PANP L{. _"Con"" LAO AY)WA15G100.CDMTV CAUTOAWA 3411TY7dt / SMUTS T 1tl R I. \I«/K 11C0. lzf. _ TYMIO. CALIRgA41w '114 2K4 µe1S /•.AACw 1901 L_ �.12ftYCV uoTl+ • • «01G1T \) w0•WMl«T •01«0 N «VfOO o•yomwn, q• a4 nu« Iqt uxlwi .L wCU a% SG U.I.J a n \wVNN y011.. w Twa .ww 1liy �IVGL.I1tlry v1111 V«\l.) «M...I.r\ww.M` OwNi1.- Ot V t LOPFM : Bit.. KDA Ylwh•O .fJ.a F wl4u• 14- x44 -L4%% IwMu.I�lyiO M«O «!i. 1.yG�G IwM.IK \. wC .1K.i Y lt Sl ♦taul5l. fpCIC TI�41y � 41p 4101 IMt'.lT R/Ky - Ml14 p.I4M -1d & M19 OIMALMF tti Y � I 'N 1'-60• 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAT40NGA CITY ENG•,INEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Robert R. Lawre.,ce TENTATIVE MAP NO. PM 6333 LOCATION: NWC East Avenue SPRR DATE FILED: 4/1/81 NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Division of Lot 8, Block "K" RECEIPT NUMBER Etiwanda Colony_ Lands Recorded in Book 2, Page 24, FEE: $250.00 san Bernardino County * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ZONE: R -1 10817 TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Robert R. Lawrence GROSS ACREAGE ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 908 MINIMUM LOT AREA: 7.5 Yermo. CA 92398____ MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: ECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE is Robert R and Barbara B. P. 0. Dox 908, Yermo, CA 92390 7141254 -2488 Lawrence REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications ez:v — 1. Dedication by final map of ail interior street rights -of -way and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map. x_ 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following streets: East Avenue additional feet on _ additional feet on additional feet on 94, Corner P/L radius required on Fact AvPnuP Other 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: 4. Street vacation required for: 5. tlaster Plan of Streets revision required for: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows. 0 RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. fLM Page 2 improvements (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recording for Building permit fo'— r'a'fI p�zr —mac T�; ) 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior streets. X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *including landscaping and irr� ation on meter STREET NAMI CURB & GUTTER A.r,. PUMT. SIDE- WALK DRIVE APPR. STREE TREES STREET LIGHTS MEDIAN ISLAND* OTHER .EsIst Avenue T b0ul I 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All utilities are to be underground. X 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of is any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary. _ (x 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs w'Ith loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Mater District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative poles with underqround service. 16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay X 17. The fOl lcwl—ng specific dimensions, i.e., Cul-de-sac rk rus, street section widths) are not approved:_ property line corner radii at the access to uarcel _�,��0 18. The ifo llowing existing streets are su standar : _ — They will require: Approvals and Fees _ 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities ties involved. Approval of the final map will be that may be received from them. RCE 20 approval from CALTRANS/ and other interested agen- subject to any requirements TENTATIVE MAP NO. Page 3 X 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: _ A. Caltrans, for: _ _ B. City: _ C. County Dust Abatement District: _ D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep: _ E. Cucamonga County Water District: _ F. Other: Map Control 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected streets. 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map: 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at t eFi — right -of -way line in a;cord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga sta;idards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to p•event the creation of an unrecognized parcel located_ 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs c arification as fol oiws: 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, of title explanation required. A91parcel Map Waiver _ 28. Information submitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according :o requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Rmrding for ) ❑ Building permit for _) 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flocs- - ing under the National Flood Insurance Prcgram. This subdivision will be subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. _ 30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection wall along the entire north pro• perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. _ 31. If water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:__ 33. Broad scale hydrologic stu ies will a required to assess impact of Increas;d runoff. Y. 34. Private drainage easements for crosslot drainage shall be provided and shal' be delineated on the map. RCE 20 jlY l. TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6833 Page 4 MW Miscellaneous 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: X 39. Proper grading and erosion control, including the preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. _ 40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow- ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division. X 41. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or puH is utility right -of -way or easement and the signal ture of any such public er•.ity or public utility may be omitted from the final map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final Map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. D2 velopment shall be limit_d to one drive approach per street. Multipl.e lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. Developer will be required to upgrade existing waterline at the time of development. `X- 46. Improvement. of East Avenue shall be required as follows: a. Contiguous to parcel no. i or parcel no. 2 prior to issuance of building permit for respective parcels. b_ Contiguous to the entire length of the subject parcel map includinq the frontage of that parcel south of parcel no. % prior to further subdivision of parcel no. 3. X 47. Certificate of Improvement for Lot Line Adjustment No. 115 is also a condition of approval of subject map. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER '* 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must, be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Conunitt °_e will make one of three determinations_ 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration •aill be filed, 2) The project will have an er•.:•ironmental impact and an Environnnental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed pro -ject. PROJECT TITLE: _?A(C -Et- K%AP >%;bpIV)518N ON FA -o- uE' j PPLICANT NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: 1AI,(1 ,^'T i• L.Aw0,r -N 5;Px 9019 YL-dkmAo rs4 C12m-cis w S u-;) . OC _ -_ Ra r v Ih^-; COQ !MME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSC-iN TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: P10P?FNT- N LAwl- C- -t%lCS. 0 O 610 '2VLyu10 GA gZ359. '11tF•bSY•2�bfl Gil zosw SM � C* 0161 0 ► LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TIM AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: N 0M - - 1 -1 r - PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF , ROJECT: Yvi;JCcn • PRI2CEG AM P Atr.Ar PA�CC -LL a ,e_�zVf,e,V,D!°•s T4FC 4�a4e,G ,rJtO r,.:n ` /�, '4_arxr- L0rf; 4•,!1 e LAD, r, r- r1 LA. Try bA77c . ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ARTY: _ 7 �%2 A L DESCRIBE THE EX71RONME *TTAL 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): '+• +OiJI^r.r 9AoOP/LTY �[ A4N fi.R w _ yA�°,GEc� f1OVNAF,9 AY Fr d. t � a. /A,n tle�r n/y �=,�vy t, e. Two Fv,�'r, •i /A T,nr _k• '17-M Amg SO,�Tti di /D d••.+� -.mow w AL%&LLS-1WJALbJ2C2m'C Ad �.Y2.la F'T FO�N •1'A__CF �U1 Y.I III/ n , ��r ry 44T,WP1T AA_n '5 �. -�T PQD0�5- A= AAF A.OJALGFnIr F rF e-- Rr n d h /S1An 4 n.FMN4.raTC ntc 7F{G6 C .tin a.a � ADJ.fi. r -ter DAD prrrT n H.A_ r'uiTH�oyrF c�rcT of rA_AGkS dA /A dTr�A,s ti'.�rST AIfE, ._ . 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? T►t14 ll%.tll.ce` 41,4G , r 6lFwrt= ,n 7 Ar llr Ti.PAg_(F�_ Try Ar_ S ✓f1 Di ViDG.O A,?• w ,t /'1�'n n `jam. lC- 2 i WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO Create a substantial change in g ground contours? 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal servic. (police, fire, water, sewage, et-c.)? 4_ Create changes in the ex.istir±g zonincr or general plan designations? 5. Remove any exist.f.ra trees? How many? G. Create the need for use or disposal of Potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES an;.vers abc,ve: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of resider='.'i.al units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the state cents 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 '1 600 Signature Title yw,ve% , &b!EE✓�� RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The £ollowinq information should be provided to the City �f Rancho Cucamon;a 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: 1. Number of single family units: I i 2. Number of multiple family units: 3.. Date proposed to begir, construction: 4. Earliest Ovate of 0 c cup an c_r : Model and'- of Tentative S. Bedrooms Price Rance I tp PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PRASE 4 TOTAL