Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981/06/24 - Agenda Packet Q7E11 ' 2' Q4 3. ��P G Act pc Ce` . l9 ? o, ID clt CL r*a' ' =. r 7 f 1 o; � r 1. n. � t ? CITY OF ��: RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'd PLANNING COMMISSION O A A��NDA !sn WEDNESDAY JUNE 24, 1981 7:00 P.M. ACTION LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RANCHO>CUCAMONGA, %.ALIFORNIA Pledge of Allegiance I1. Roll Ca?? Commissioner Dahl K Commissions- Rempel Excused " Commissioner King � Commissione'r Tolstoy -X— Commmissioner Sceranko. X III. Invocation- Reverend J. Ralph'Usnger IV. Approval of Minutes Approved 4-0-1 January 12, 1981 Approved 4-0-1 January 13', 1981' Approved 3-0-•1-1 14av 13. .1R81 V. Announceftent5 Consent Calendar ',. The following consent eale!idar-:items,are expected to ba routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion, if anyone has concern over any item, then it should be .removed for discussion. Publ;c Hearings The following items are public hearings in whioh concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recogntzed by the Chairman and address the Commission from the public microphone by giving your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited-to 5 minutes per .individual for each project. Continued to 8/12/81, to alio4• ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT l Edison to provide more NO. 80-05 - SOUTHERN CALIF ORNiA EDISON COMPANY The, matien on available property Pent of deveio m an.electrical distributio,� substation Ett and selection process. on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Ave.. APN 1061-571-04 Approved 4-0-1B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6596 - A &-R E UIQ PMENT -.An industrial subdivision of T.08 acres of land into 2 parcels within the M-2 zone located on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Lucas Ranch Road - APN 210-07140 `JF Planning_Commission Agenda -2- June 24, 1981 Approved 4-0-1 C. VARIANCE NO. 81-01 - HALL - A request to subdivide a lot with less than the required depth and a request to deviate from the minimum froTt and rear yard,requirements, located at 7801 Turner (PM 6748) Aprpoved 4-0-1 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP-NO. 6748 HALL --A residential subdivision of .44 acres into twa'(Z) parcels in the R-1 zone 'located;on.the east side of Turner between Hemlock and. Norwick Streets APR 1077-381-14 Continued to 7/8/81 E. VARIANCE NO. 8,-02 - CHRISTIAN - Request to permit construction'., ,residence that will encroach into 'front and rerr lards on a 3,532 sq. ft. lot.i.n the R-3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst PN 202-131-04 Approved 4-0-1 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO, 5911 HELLER TRACTORS, INC. - An industrial subdivision of 36.6 acres into two C2) parcels in the M-2 zone located on the south side of ;Arrow Route, 1,698+ ft. east of Haven Avenue ANN kd9-142-07, and 13 VIII. Old Business P.C. selects possible IX. New Business elevations for Lewis Etiwanda tract. X. Council Referrals XI. Director's Reports Initial Presentation made. G. INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Public Hearing scheduled for 7/8/81.. XII. Public Comments P.C. directs staff to This is the time and place for the general public prepare Resolution for to address the Commission. Items to be discussed departing City Planrzr here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. XIII. Upcoming Agenda XIV. Adjournment. 1o:o8 I The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative, Regulations that set an I1:0?p.m, adjournment tirne. If items gn beyond that time, they shall be heard k only with the consent of the Commission ' Planning Commission Agenda -2- June 24, 1981 Approved 4-0-1 C. VARIANCE NO. 81-01' - HALL -. A request to subdivide a lot with less than the required depth and a request to t;' ".ate from the minimum front and rear yard requiremehcs, 'located at 7801 Turner (PM 6748) Aprpoved 4-0-1 D. 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6748 HALL = A residential subdivision of :44 acre'sinto two C2) parcels in the R-1 zone located on the east. side of Turner between Hemlockand Norwick Streets APN 1071-381-14 Continued to 7 8/81 E. VARIANCE NO. 81-02 = CHRISTIAN -�Request to permit construction` of residence that wilt encroach into front and rear yards on a 3,532 sq' 't. lot in the R-3 zone located at 6969"Amethyst - APN 202-131-04 Approved 4-0-1 F - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6911 HELLER TRACTORS, INC. - An industrial subdivision of 36.6 acres into two C2) parcels in 0e M-2 zone located on the southsideof Arrow Route;, 1,698+ ft. east of Haven Avenue >APN 209-14247, and 13 VIII. Old Business P.C. selects possiblelX. New Business ' eleva ions for Lewis Etiwanda tract. X. Council Referrals XI. Director's Reports ' Initial Presentation made. G. INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAT STUDY SESSION Public Hearing scheduled for 78/81. XII. Public Comments P.C. directs staff to This is the time and place for the general public prepare Resolution for to address the commission. Xtems ":o be discussed departing City Planner here are those which do not a'ready appear on this ag9nda. ' XIII. Upcoming Agenda IIV. Adjournment 10:08 The Planning Commissioi has adopted Administrative i. Regulations that set an ii..00 p.m. adjourmnent time. If items go beyond that time, they.shall be heard onlg,wifh the consent of the Commission :S CITY OF RANCI-10 CUCAMONGAA PLANNING COMMISSION, o� O AGEEND 1977 WEDNESDAY JUNE'24, 1981 7:00 P.M. A C T 1 0 N LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance IT. Rol l-Ca 11 Commissioner Dahl X Commissioner Rempel Excused Commissioner King X Commissioner 7olstoy' Commissioner Sceranka X III. Invocation- Reverend J. Ralph'Wenger . IV.<• Approval of Minutes" Approved 4-0_1 January,12, 1981 Approved 4-0-1 January. I3', 1981 Approved 3-�0-1-1 May.13,.198I V- Announcements Consept Calendar Th= yollawing consent calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial.. They will be acted upon by tht Comm ssfon at one time v=thout discussion. 2t anyone has concern cver any ate then it should be removed for disCl a.i On. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings In which con.erned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized r` by the Chairman and ade'wess .:he Commission from the . public microphone 7rt 5'viao`'you-- name and address. All such opinions shall be limtted•to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Continued to 8j12J81 to 01J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Continued dison ed provide more infor- NO. 80-0 - SOUTHERN CALI:FORNIA EDISON COMPANY - The mation on available property development of an electrical distribution sukstation on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Ave. and selection process. APN 1061-571-04 I Approved 4-0-1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6596 A & R EQUIPMENT '- An industrialsub Msion of .08 acres of land into 2 parcels within the M-?,'zone located on the northwest corner of San'3elmardinn Road and Lucas stanch Road - APN 210-07I-40 n_ t�c� CITY OF ..: E' RANCHO CUCAMI aNGA 0 PLANNING MISSION AG Dk I 1977 WEDNESDAY JUNE 24, %J,981 7:00 P.M. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE�,,RANCHO`CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call _ -• Commissioner-Dahl Commissioner Rempel Commissioner King Commissioner.To]stoy Commissioner Sceranka III. Invocation IV. Approval of Minutes January.12= 1981 - January'13, 1981 May.13, '19.8 , V. Announcements Consent.:Calendar The following consent.calendar .items are exgectec' to be routine and non-controversial: They will be acted upon by''the Commission at one time.without discussion. Sf anyone has conr,srn over any item', then it should be removed for discussion; ' Public Hearings The following items are public hearings inwhibli concerned 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 address. All such opinions shall be limited-to 5 minutes per individual for each project. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL„USE PERMIT NO. ,80-05 - SOUTHERN CAErFORNIA EDISON COMPANY The evelopmenv,)f an electrical distribution substation on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Ave. - APN 1061-571-04 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6596 - A,& R.EQUIPMENT -An industrial subdivision of 4.08 acres of land into 2 parcels within the,M-2 zon' located on the northwest corner of San Bernardino R.oad,,and Lucas Ranch Road -. APN 210-071-40 If \5 t Planning; Commission Agenda -2- June 24, 1981 C. VARIANCE NO. 81-01 - HALL - A request to subdivide a lot with less than the required depth and a' request to deviate from the minimum front and rear yard requirements,located at 7801 Turner (PM ,6748) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6748 HALL`-R residential subdivision of .44 acres into c two (2) parcels in.'the R-1 zone Iodated on the east side of Turner between Hemlock and Norwick Streets APN.;.1077=381-14 E VARIANCE NO. 81-02 - CHRISTIAN - Request to permit construction of residence that will, encroach into front and rear yards on a 3,532' sq. ft. lot in the R-3 zone located at 6969 Amethyst APN 202-131-C4 I F.� ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT,AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6911 HELLER TRACTORS INC. An industrial subdivision of; 6.6 acres into two C2) parcels in the M-2 zone located on the c_outh,,Weof Arrow Route, 1,698t ft. east of Haven Avenue - APN 209=142-07, and 13 ' VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. C(,uncil'Referrals XI. Director`s.Reports G. INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION XII. Puolkc Comments` This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to.be discussed `t here are those which do not already appear on this agenda, XIII. Upcoming''Agenda XIV. Adjournment The planning Commission has adopted;Administrative i Regulatit r-s that eet an ll:.00 p.,m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be Beard only with`"the consent o£ the' Commssion I �F LL 4 4 4 H • i QQ y 3AV Ak1l13H7 � 1 ••�• Q j C' =L 2:. W F r �]. Q li W O y= a a � 3m•rONw�Al13 � S W 2 O 3AV H3153H701i 01.0 W •a Ito uu Ci •� - 3AtlN3�11T�{Y o � • ,Y ! v 3hb N3AVH c 1.� 1 { 3AV GlVnm:12N r a � 6 ' 3AV OHVA3NIANV ¢ u Q ul l ! c ii 'y ,'lII(1N3AV 011 3 J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 14, 1981 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard Dahl called the regular meeting of `.he City of Rancho 4 Cucamonga, held pt the Lion Park Community Center, 91611 Base Line;Road, Rancho Cucamr;aSa, Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL ?PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey King, Jeff Sceranka, Herman Rempel, Peter Tolstoy, Richard Dahl, ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Barry Hogan, City Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney, Joan Kruse, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil' Engineer; Michael Vairiu, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by king, carried to adopt the minutes of November 10, 1980, as corrected. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy, Rempel, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Y ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka —carried- ANNOUNCEMENTS ' Barry Hogan, City Planner, annosnc.ad that Item "H" has been removed from this agenda. Further, that under Council Referrals, there would be discussion nn the Development Review procedure. Under the Director Report portion of the agenda, establishment of a meeting date for the k hearing on the Victoria Planned Community g would be added. Mr. Hogan further stated th2t the applican', had requested that Item "C", Environmental ' Assessment and Tentative Tract No. 10001 - Zicarelll, be continued to the January 28, 1981 meeting and that there would be discussion relative to the first Planning Commission meeting in February. , ;1 i�s CONSENT CALENDAR A. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION ON PARCEL MAP NO. 5260 - FARGO ENTERPRISES - A time extension request for an approved parcel map located in the M-2 zone an the west sideof Turner Avenue, north of 7th Street. r Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to adopt the %Consent. Calendar: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King,_Sce7 nka, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- PUBLIC HEARINGS' 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 103449 - KELBER - A total development on 33.1 acres of lard consisting of 58 single family residences in the R--1-20 zone, located on the west side of Sapphire Street between Rosebud Street and Vinmar Avenue. (APN 1043 121-03, 1062-011-03, 1062-161-01) Senie Tanner, Michael Vair3n, reviewed the staff report. He indicated that there would be three additional conditions requested by the Design Review Committee dealing with variation aild front yard setbacks on Tots 10-14; architectural treatment of homes .o wrap around corners; and treatment such as wood trim around upper story rear and side windows. At Commissioner Tolstq a request-, Mr. Vairin pointed out the stand of Eucalyptus trees directly north of this project. t Mr. Hogan stated that there was one addit?.,oral item that the Planning Commission might wish to consider. He stated that at the last City Council r meeting there was considerable discussion on a proposed change to the Building Code by the Building Official. relative to roofing material. He further stated that at this meeting the City Council would consider the second reading of an ordinance to change to a class 3 type roofing material for the entire city. He stated that if this is ado?ted, the Commission should consider a condition that would require this Pt the time the applicant is issued building permits and this way he would have to comply with the latest building code. Commissioner Rempel replied th&t he felt this unnecessary because there presently is a condition that states the applicant must be in compliance with the latest building code. Further, that the code would be in force at the time the applicant was issued the permits and that this parcel would have to go through the final map before permits are pulled. F` Commissioner King asked about, the topping of trees in this tract as a safety feature. Further that it does not seem right for the property owner k Planning Commission. 1-1inur• 4 -2- January 14, 1981 v _ WW to have to pay for the topping of trees. Additionally, he felt that it :could be better that the person creating the problem would pay for the h tappiang of trees, and not the adjacent property owner. '0immissioner Tolstoy, asked to change zue scenario and think-about what happens when the rains come'.and the trees topple on homes. Following, discussion on who assumes liability, Mr. Vairin replied that he and the County safety_officer must come out and determine that it is a hazard. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this occurs 4nd the trees are on the property to the north and the developer wants to build at the property line, and the property owner does not give permission to top the trees on his property, whose responsibility does it become? Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the assumption of liability is not limited to trees and would be similar to having to find a way to drain water. Further, that these would be considered a public nuisance and a way would have to be found to abate it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would rather formulate a poll '`t before the problem happens. Commissioner King stated that as a property owner he would not want to hav'r the liability, exposure, but he did not see why he would have to bear tfie co.Pt ox apping the trees. Mr. Hopson stated that the developer of the subdivision would bear the cost of topping the trees along with other costs. Commissioner 'olstoy!stated he would not want to see_a project approved where there is a hazard. He felt that since some of the trees were not trimmed, watered and were in poor health, this is a problem and while he does not have the answer, felt that it needs to be addressed, Mr. Hogan stated that the whole problem has not been resolved to any appreciable degree and is .one that needs to be addressed further by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Hogan asked if the trees are an attractive nuisance or a benefit. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that after the General Plan process is completed, the Commission should look at the tree ordinance. Chairman Dahl stated he would like to look at this at a later date. , Commissioner Sceranka asked where the trails were on;this project. Mr. Vairin pointed out the proposed trail. Chairman 'Dahl opened.th, ablic hearing, Planning Commission Minutes —3 January 14, 1981 Mr. Frank Williams, Associated Engineering, representing the developer, stated that he had no problem with any of the conditions proposed and was willing to answer any questions. Further, that he would comment on the trees to alleviate any fears stating that CC&R's would be required to f ensure that the homeowner will keep their trees trimmed and in good condition. Mr. Williams asked that the Planning Commission address Item"J1" and "J2" on street improvements, as to whether or not this subdivision should or should not have sidewalks. Further, that this would be the only tract in the entire area that would have this requirement and asked for clarification. j Commissioner Rempel stated that this question came up cwo weeks ago and the Commission required sidewalks on one side. He stated that he would -- agree to this so that the children going to school would have a place to walk. Commissioner King asked if Mr. Williams thought sidewalks were inappropriate. Mr. Williams replied that he does not feel it appropriate if the sidewalks they must put in do not lead to other sidewalks. - Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he lives in an area where no sidewalks were put in, in an area where children walk to school, and feels it necessary to have sidewalks; for safety and the peace of mind of drivers. Further, he felt that they are important to have on at least one side of the street. t Mr. Williams replied that if the have a choice one side is p y , preferable to both sides. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed, i Commissioner ring stated that the C^emission is continually confronted with r th' a sidewalks: issue. He felt that si.me kind of dirt sidewalk or tu rf 1 c b o k k migb_ solve the problem in the rural areas. h: Chairman Dahl stated that in his area they have sidewalks on one side of the street and it provides an opportunity for kids to play and walk. F Commissioner Hempel stated that the maintenance cost on dirt sidewalks could be prohibitive. Further, that if they want to put in stamped concrete, or color it, he would not object. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that turf block is not good because of weed encroachment. Commissioner Sceranka stated that on the street where he lives they have roll sidewalks. Commissioner Rempel stated that this is not good. Planning Commission Atnutes -4- January 14, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that he came frog a city where they did not have sidewalks, and prior to Proposition 13, they used various things for sidewalks. He stated that the ideal I.- concrete 'aecause it is low maintenance, Whether- - the sidewalk is deco=at .e or done, -,or aesthetics, it is the city's responsibility to maintain, he said;. He indicated that the City gets into problems when it is necessaryto replace, and if they are uniform,, there is easier maintenance. Further, the staff position would be that they put in sidewalks and that they should be concrete; however, there are some substitutes that can work and are pleasing and he invited the Commission to tour the City of Yorba Linda for examples that have made an area less urban and more rural. Mr. Rougeau stated that be would agree th.it, a concrete sidewalk would present fewer maintenance problems. Further, that stamped concrete might present problems with haelb getting caught and then they would have to consider liability. He felt, that sidewalks should be required ou both sides of the street but that sidewalks on one side of the stree, are prefer- able.to none. Mr. Rougeau conceded that in rural areas there is a lot less traffic and that his office does get a lot of calls. regarding pedestrians in the street. Mr. Rougeau stated that he wants to have.a sidewalk condition so that later there will be fewer improvements that the City will have to spend money on. Commissioner Tolstoy ask.` if Mr. Rougeau agreed that sidewalks on one side in the residential area 6tould be acceptable and that they should be on both sides of the street if it is a collector str:et. M.. Rougeau replied tAat it is human nature that people wil' not cross streets and that the_: will have sidewalks and still complain. Chairman Dahl asked if the Commission was considering children who ride horses. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there would be any objections to a brushed finish rather than a troweled finish on the ceme;'I. Further, that any k one who rides horses knows that they should not 'ride on cement or asphalt. Mr. Bob Nastase came forward and apologized for being late but as the developer on this project asked if he would be able'tr.. testify. Commissioner Tolstoy again asked about the brushed finish on the cement. Mr. Rougeau replied that this could be established as part of the condition.` Chairman Dahl asked if there were any objections to any of the conditions and asked the Planning Commission if they would consider reopening the hearing., There were no objections and Mr. Nastase stated his objections to an energy requirement of double glazing of the windows.. He indicated that this would not be feasible. Planniig Commission Minutes -5- January 14, 1981 Mr. Vairin stated d hat this condition was put in based an what the developer had stated a willingness to do and that is why it was there. Mr. Nastase stated that 3t was.-his understanding that not all of the conditions had to be met. Chairman Dahl asked Xr. Nastase if he met all the requirements'. Mr. Nastase replifzd that they have met all the rest of the requirements. Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see double-paned windows., Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he disagreed with-Mx. Nastase's prior statement that this is not energy efficient because windows are the number 1 loss of energy by heat transference. Mr. Nastase stated,that you can cut energy loss by putting in reflective windows Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is an option. 'Mr. Nastase stated that double glazing is a significant cost to be added to the construction of a homes Commissioner Sceranka asked what the ,cost of regular glazing is. Mr. Nastase replied that the typical cost of windows is between $1600-$1800 and that a requirement for double glazing would ,triple that cost. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is not advocating that this be done, but he becomes irritated when people say that it is not effective in energy saving. Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr. Nastase woulu be willing to try t\` double-paned windows in this project to see if, they would be energy effective. He indicated that this would give the people purchasit a home the option. Mr. Nastase repli? , ,hat he would be unwillitag to have double-glazing on a model home and that generally this type of window is used where there is a large temperature,differential. Chairman Dahl asked if they were going to pre-sell their product. Mr. Nastase replied that it is eifficult to say at this point but thought they might build 15 homes at a clip 'because of bank financing. Chairman Dahl asked if it wasn't possible to offer these type of windows as an option and see if they are accepted by the public. i i Planning Commission Minutes -6 SanuarY 9 14 81 1 E _ . f� Commissioner Rempel stated that if you allow people to open the windows, is the effect of double glazing. s lost. lie further felt that the Commission has to sort energy efficiencies out because some of them are not cost ' effective. Mr. Hastaae stated his agreement with Commissioner Rempel, He indicated that with the requirements imposed by different citiesthere could be a cost fluctuation in the home of a; much as $30,000 due to these kinds of requirements, Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr. Nastase was saying that it costs that much more to produce a home in this community. L, Mr. Nastase replied that he slid not have the exact figures but that the cost of homes has increased because of the requirements. Mr. Nastase stated that he also questioned Condition #4 under the Engineering Sectioa of Standard Conditions. tChairman Dahl asked him if he had gone over these with the Engineering Department. F' Mr. Nastase stated that he had just received these from his engineer that afternoon. There being no further comments, the public hearing wr -11sed, Motion; Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carriet _xy, to adopt Resolution No. 81-01 approving Tentative Tract No. 1034 _he, Environmental Assessment; with an amendment that: brushed sidewalks be provided on one side of the street, an option for double glazed windows on phase 2 of this project, and sidewalks on Sapphire and on one side j of the interior streets in this project. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka, Tolstoy, Rempel, Dahl C , NOES: COMMISSIONERS: King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Commissioner Ying qualified his no vote by stating his disagreement with the requirement for a brushed finish on the sidewalks for this project and as a regular requirement. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATTVE TRACT NO. 10001 ZICARRELLI A custom lot subdivision of 9.52 acres into 22 lots in the R-1-1.5,000 zone generally located on the north side of Lemon approximately 600 feet east of Archibald. (APN 201-251-09) Motion; Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to coil-nue tliln item to the January 29, 1981 meeting. t Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 14, 1981 i D, ENVTRONI=AL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT N0: 11700 DAON A one (1) lot industrial 70-unit condominium subdivision of 7.9 acres located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Haven Avenue in the M-2 zone.: (APN 208-351-13) Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Reugeau, reviewed the staff report and recommended that the tentative man be spproved.subject to the City Engineer's conditions. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Doug Mays, representing the L.D. King Co., the engineering firm representing the applicant, accepted the conditions without discussion. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed, Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by'Rempel, carried unanimously, to , } adopt Resolution No. 81-02 and issue a negative .dec.iaration on "ntative Tract No. 11700. j E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP FOR UNIVERSAL REAL PROPERTIES, INC. An industrial subdivision of 266 acres into 2 parcels within the M-2 zone located on the northwe;,t corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Fourth Street. (APN 229-L8..-9p & 30) ' Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report,, to recommending that the tentative map be approved subject to the City Engineer's 1 Report and conditions. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. William C. Ellis, of the firm Adams and Ellis, 3236 N. Peck Rd., El Monte, California, representing the applicant, stated that the,,-;were in agreement with the conditions of approval. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. ;4tion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried_unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-03, and approving the Negative Declaration for this project. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP WAIVER - SMITS - A residential �! subdivision of .96 acres into lots within the R-1-2Q,000'zone, located on the north side of Vivienda, west of Haven Avenue. (APN 201-101-37) Planning Commission Minutes -8 January 14, 1981 6 Mr. Paul Rougear, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Dahl asked where the extension of Almond Street is in relation i .. to this parcel. I Mr. Rougeau point to it orgy the map. Chairman Dahl requested that any time thi.; is brought forth to staff regarding minor development that attention be paid to egress and ingress of trails. Commissioner Sceranka questioned the statement on Section 1, No. l of the Resolution. Mr. Rougeau stated that this is the language that is required according to the Subdivision Map Act. Commissioner Sceranka asked how it is possible to comply with this. Mr. Ted Hopson, City Attorney, replied that as the condition is now constituted it is consistent with the General Plan. Chairman Dahl asked if there were any further gaestions. Mr. Hogan, Gity Planner, stated that another condition, No. 46, is 'being added to pay specific attention to trails and would be reviewed by the Equestrian Committee. Further, it would be determined ii feeder trails are required and if they are needed, they will be made a part of the requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this would become a standard requirement t on all the conditions. Mr. Rougeau replied that on small lot splits this is something that the City must give special attention to. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. There being no comments either for or against this parcel split, it was moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 81-04, approving the Parcel Map for Smits and issuing a negative declaration, with the addition of condition No. 46 as stated Commissioner Rempel asked 1L the requirement for sidewa...ks on one side of the street is going to be carried forward and if the Commission can make the assumption that this requirement is intended from now on. Mr.. Hogan replied that .this will be brought back to the Commission in Resolution form ac the next -yenning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -9 January 14, 1981 G. ENVIRONMENTA_L ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6585 - R.C. INDUSTRIES An industrial subdivision of 16.8 acres of land consisting of 7 lots with existing building in the M-2 zone located on the east side of Milliken Avenue;� south of 7th Street. (APN.224-261-45) Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report and provided background on one additional condition relating to sidewalks in industrial areas; however, the draft General Plan contains a requirement for a reduction of vehicular traffic in industrial areas. He indicated tha if the City is encouraging people to use other means of transportation, to walk, you need sidewalks. Mr. Rougeau also stated that these sidewalks would be of the meandering type that they have on Foothill Boulevard. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. James R. Weatliii-, 1301 Dove, #7 60, Newport Beach, California, rep- resenting R.C. Industries, indicated that they do not wish to put c:n sidewalks in this development as the landscaping and other improvements are already completed and this would create a burden for them but, rir. Westling stated that they will go along with the sidewalk requirement on one side of Milliken Avenue. Further, he felt that the continuity of the industrial area would be retained if there were no sidewalks. Commissioner Sceranka stated that the City will nee i have pedestrian walkways and explained that lien agreements are av, ble for this and the choice is whether to put the sidewalks in now, lacer. Mr. Westling replied that they would prefer to. -' .t t., -iidewalks in at a later date when -they can be tied into other ca...truction. He further stated that he understood Commissioner Sceranks's concern, but from a development standpoint, did not see any adverse effect from not putting them in. There being no further comments, -the public hearing was closed. Commi�sior-r Sceranka stated he thought it imp-rtrsnt that when the i industria. area is further developed that the Cor:mission establish ways that allow a place for people to w;.Ik where they go to eat, etc. He further stated that he did not think it a good idea tc put the sidewalks IJ In now but would like to have a lien agreement to enr;re that they will be put in at a later time. This, he stated, would be at the discretion of the Engineering Department. Mr. Hopson explained bow a lien agreehent works and indicated that this is how street improvements are usually done. i Commissioner Tolstoy stated his understanding of the applicant's concern,- but indicated that in the future more and more provisions must be made in order to conserve energy; providing sidewalks will give people an opportunity for alternatives. He further stated that in the near future, ' cars .All be out of reach of people because of increasing fuel costs, and that we need to encourage anything that we can to get people out of their cars:, Plar_ning Commission Minutes -10- January 14, 1981 '_ Commissioner Rempel 'stated his agreement with t;ie staff recommendation for sidewalks it this project. otion: Moved b, Akr"ka, seconded by R'empel, carried unanimously; to alopt Resolution No. 81-05, approving parcel map No. 6585, approve the negative declaration and enter into a lien agreement for future sidewalks in this project., Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a resolution is necessary to require the improvements at a future:time. Mr. Hogan replied that, this will be required in the industrial plan and a nndition for this can be made at that time. 1 OLD BUSINESS i H. CARNELIAN STREET PAP-WAY LANDSCAPING PROJECT,(Continued) fl Barry Hogan, City Planner, stated that staff had been instructed by the J� ! Planning Commission to bring back further designs for the Carneliaa I Street Parkway landscaping project. Mr. Hogan suggested that the 'Commission consider that instead of bringing back each section as it is completed j northward, that the design be reviewed by the 'Design Review Committee. +I He requested that the Commission advise staff :f their desire Fur.her, Mr. Hogan indicated that the landscaping plans are quite detail-.d and because of their large size would have to be reduced thereby losing considerable clarity. Chairman Dahl asked that a copy of the plan be made available to each of the Zommissioners and indicated that he would be in agreement of having the Design Review Committee make a determination on behalf of the full Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated his understanding for the reduction and asked why it couldn't be hung on a wall because he would like to see what would happen. Mr. Vairin'replied that a copy of the plan would he made available for each. of the Commissioners and it was their thought that since the Design: Review Commmittee was meeting next Tuesday, that they could make a dacision on it at that time. Chairman Dahl again stated that he would be comfortable with having the Design Review Committee review this. Mr. Hogan stated that the plans were available now for the Commission's review and if the Commission wished individual copies, they would also be made available: Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 14, 1981 Following brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. I. UPDATE ON STATUS OF TENTATIVE TRACTS NO. 9647 11595 11597 11598 11599, 11606, 11610 & 11614. Barry Hogan, City Planner, advised that Michael Vairin would review the staff report. Mr. Vairin explained the difficulties that were being exper.,'taced by various tracts in being consistent with the General clan. Further, review of the tracts was continued to a date specific which was established as this meeting because it was thought at the time of review that the General Plan would be well under way and that a determination on these projects would be able to be made. Mr. Vairin stated that in the interim, the City had to seek an exisuzion of the General Plan from.the state and several conditions were imposed with the extension, This has meant that consistency problems which were hoped to be resolved have become' further complicated. Commissioner Sceranka asked if when the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the General Plan and sends it to the City Council; the Planning Commission can approve these projects or must it first b_ approved by the City Council. Mr. Vairin stated that approval of these projects cannot take place until after the City Council has approved the General Plan. He further stated that what is being suggested is that when the Planning Commission has reached a recommendation on the General.Plan, we will begin review on the projects. Commissioner Sceranka asked what would happen if the letter from the State was interpreted as the opposite and what if they were not making that statement. Mr. Hogan replied that he did not see any benefit in debating the issue.' Commissioner Sceranka stated that the interpretation of what the State meant is debatable. Mr. Hopson replied that the City Attorneys office does not feel it to be debatable. Further, that if the excerpt in the staff report is read there is no fooling around with the language and that the City could be in violation, if the Office of Planning and Research finds that we are not in compliance with the Government Code section that required the City to have a General Plan some months ago. Commissioner Rempel stated that zot only CPR but private citizens could take the City to court and it could get quite involved. ' Planning Commission Minutes -12 January 14, 1981 Mr_ Hopson statad, that'at that point we would be a city without a General. Plan and that all the memos that have been put out and everything that ha, been done £low: from that statement. Vairin stated that the land•use element is the hangup with.these tracts. Chairman Dab' stated that according to the present schedule the Planning Commission w*u'!d be through the General Plan hearing-e, on February 17 and asked if a recommendation is made to the City Council can they then move directly into these projects, Mr. Flogan replied that what staff will do is being the review process if ' these tracts are consistent with the Planning Commission recommended General Plan that has been reviewed by the Planning Commission with the idea that the City Council will not make any major land'use revisions. However, . the tracts will not be put on an agenda until the General Plan has been approved by the City Council Commissioner Scerarl' asked if it hadn't been stared that the Commission could adopt these tracts in the General Plan was sent to the City Council. Mr, Hopson replied that he did not say that. Mr. Hogan explained the.review process to the Planning commission: Mr. Hopson stated that the conflict will not be eliminated until there is no interim plan. Further, that ehe Commission will not, be able to make findings on items "A', "B", or "C" of el:e State criteria until there is adoption of the General Plan. Chairman Dahl then asked if the tracts could be processed on the date that the City Council passes the plan. Mr. Hopson replied that they could then because the City would have a General .Plan. Mr. Ralph Lewis of Lewis Homes stated that be had some information that may change the 41scussion and he is not sure he is getting the full picture from staff. He indicated that he attended a meeting where there was considera7al4 discussion on the Foothill. corridor. He indicated that the developers yh.o have submitted these tracts are stuck and feel that staff could be 1rocessing,the tracts peneing adoption of the General Plan as this places a hardship on developers. Mr. Lewis indicated that 1,� is unfair to make the developers go through the growth management, procedures and then not process their tracts. Further, they have contacted Opt and OPR stated to them that the interpretation that staff is using is riot what they intended. Mr. Hopson stated that he did not care what OPR might have said,�to them and unless he saw that in writing, this is the interpretation that will stand. Further, that Mr. Lewis, as a lawyer -mould know this. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January,,'14, 1981 I Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he did not like what Mr. Lewis said about staff. Further, that the only way that r would have known about the OPR ruling is through information that staff provides to him. He stated that he did not like him making allegations regarding staff and does not think that staff has been remiss in their dealings. ` bit. Tolstoy stated that when Mr. Lewis makes a,statement as he did in public, he wants to have documentation on it. Mr. Lewis stated that it would have been appropriate to say that OPR is 7.noking into this. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if Mr. Lewis knew something;that he did not know he wants to hear it. Further, that he has not seen any evidence on this. Chairman Dahl stated that he felt that he Commission must move ahead on these projects; however', as of this meeting, their hands are tied until the Commission has a document in writing,. Mr. Dahl stated that theywill immediately begin the review through Design Review and the growth management program on all.of these tracts so that W,,en we have approval to go ahead these tracts will be.ready. Mr. Vairin provided the Commission with projections on when these projects would. come before the Commission. He further stated that those projects ' that did not have consistency problem,- could come before the commission sooner. Mr. Hogan stated that if there is a choice of putting as August submittal or a December submittal on a Planning,Commission Agenda, the August submittal will go in first. Chairman Dahl asked if there is a withdrawal and OPR rescinds their requirements, would it be possible to esca?ste these projects., Mr. Hopson stated that OPR is more stringent than the State Law. Under State Law, the land use problem would probably be handled by stating you have consistency and you could approve the projects. Further, you would, not have to wait until the General Plan was finalized. Mr. Hopson stated t}, t the OPR letter is more stringent than the State. Commissioner ScPranka stated that there is a filing period in December and ti another in Apri:i and that the Commission c6nn6t adopt any inconsistent tentative tract until May, when the City Ccuncil adopts the General Plan. He asked when it was proposed that review of these projects would b,4giu_ Mr. Hogan replied, in March, after the Planning Commission has ),ade their ' recommendaticns. Further, that looking at the time allocation, it was felt that it would be best to hold off on review of the projects until after the recommendation is made to the City Council. ' Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 14, 1981 r Commissioner Sceranka stated that his only concern is that these do not wait until after April. - Commissioner Tolstoy asked -if Mr. Lewis thought that staff was holding his projects up. He also asked if Mr. Lewis thought the Planning'Commission was trying to hold them,up. Mr. Lewis replied that he felt that they were. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if hg "+t that this is what he thinks is happening he would like to know abo., because he would like to deal with it. Mr. Lewis replied that he did not feel that the Planning Commission was holding him up. II Commissioner Sceranka stated that if Mr`. Lewis felt that this was a problem, who he felt he should tell, Mr. Lewis replied t1:at he has an appointment with the City Manager. Chairman Dahl states? that Mr. Lewis has told the Commission before that he thought staff waj doing him wrong and that there was no documentation of "specific items. i Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thinks that Mr. Lewis should bring this up at a meeting and that he would like to hear what, if any, the specific problems are. Chairman Dahl stated that he did, not;think it appropriate to bring this up in a public meeting. Further that he would like to leave this up,to Mr. Lewis and staff to resolve. Chairman Dahl indicated that he would like to see staff move along in the review process for these projects, and if the condition of OPR is rescinded, then the projects should move along even faster. Commissioner Rempel stated that he felt the Commission sho:tld move onto other items. Commissioner Rcmpel stated that under Old Business the street nemeing policy needed to be brought tip. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed. DIRECTOR`S REPORT Mr. Hogan stated that the Interim Zoning Ordinance has finally come;back to-Council for the second reading and, that considerable discussion was Planning Commission Minutes —15- January 14,_1981 aimed at the Directot Review section. Further, that Council wants to have notice of any staff development review approval. They wanted this to be done through carboning them on letters. Mr. Hogan stated that he thought it appropriate to do this for the Planning Commission as well. He stated !f that if the Commission also felt: this appropriate, they will be furnia-«d t copies. Mr. Hogan stated that another question that the Council had was what kinds' I of development review does the Commission look at. Mr. Hogan further stated that in February, staff would like to prepare a resolution or policy proposed to the Commission to,.indicate the type of development review that will be done o:t Foothill Boulevard ,and provide a detailed listing on this in re:,-,^nse to the Councii's last meeting. ` Chairman Dahl asked if the Commission will receive a copy of the Interim Zoning Ordinance after it has been adopted. Mr. Hogan replied that they w4;11 try to,get a tonpletely new ordinance to the Commission. Further, the zoning map will be updated and available for sale to the public When it is completed. Commissioner Rempel asked if the Commission will receive a copy of the Municipal Code. 7 Mr. Hogan replied that they would receive a copy. ^ Commissioner Sceranka asked if the zoning ordinance will be placed in a 3-ring binder. Chairman Dahl asked whether density bonuses have been removed. Mr. Hogan replied yes to both questions. Following brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that. they be copied on the Development Reviews, Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this will be reduced. Mr. Hogan replied that it would be and explained what would be contained.. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how often the zones arG Mr. Hogan explained the way that revisions take place. Discussion then centered on proposed hearing'dates for the Victoria Planned Community. Mr. Hogan reviewed,the Commission decision in December relative to the Victoria hearing process and indicated'that there were presently no dates available in January to begin the review. Mr. Hogan stated that on January 26 the Commission will'be- considering policy in Etiwanda and on February 2, land use in this area will be reviewed by the Commission. y - t . �: Planning Commission Minutes -1`6- January 14, 1981 1, x Mr. Hogan stated that it might be better received if a January date was not established and that two dates in Februry be set aside for review of Victoria. He ind:taated that perhaps February 5 would be a good first date after comments have been received and considered from Etiwandans and the Plan-Community area.• .He asked that February 26 be set aside as the second meeting date to oiscuss areas of concern and'infractructure. Mr. Hogan also asked that the,Commission cancel the date of February 11, the regular Planning Commission meeting date, due to the Planning Commissioners Conference in Sacramento. City Attorney Hopson asked the Commission not to forget that the Victoria Planned Community falls into the same trap that Mr. Lewis was talking about. He stated that Victoria will not he approved until, May or the adoption of the General Plan if earlier. There was discussion on,when the plan community could go before the Council for action, Motion: Moved by Pempel, seconded by Scerankn, carried unanimously, to set February 5 and 26 as hearing dates for the Victoria Planned Community, and to cancel the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 1981. ' Mr. Ragan stated that a site was not yet available and would be announced on January 28. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the Alta Loma Creek project was being cancelled, Mr. Rougeau replied that this will be semi-improved as this is not a wild state creek. He indicated that they need to get back and check with the Flood Control District anti see what would be satisfactory to them and to the City. He indicated that they desired to delay action until they have had an opportunity to look at this. Commissioner Tolstoy adked if the City is considering,leaving the channel unimproved; Mr. Rougeau replied that they are looking at what is needed. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that this is non-permanent. Mr. Rougeau replied that that was true, .but that it was better than nothing at all. Mr. Rougeau indica-Zed that at some time in the future the'Flood Control District feels that fees would have to be charged and would be credited to that improvement, He stated that this would be done by entering into a reimbursement agreement with the fees eventually going bacpm to the developer, He stated further that this is a long slow process both in put~ing in the improvements and explained how the reimbursement would take place each year. Planning Commission Minutes -13- January lit, 1981 :.. 1 Commissioner Tolstoy stated that as we improve the City north of that tract more water will be added to that creek. He stated what is there now is temporary at best and that he cannot imagine that it is adequate when you consider the water ✓fiat will be flowing from above,,: " Commissioner Sceranka stated that he lives right below that basin and is concerned with the amount and velocity of water that presently comes down and that any development will increase that water and velocity. He asked , if Mr. Rougeau saw the part of the channel that was improved. He stated that he would be uncomfortable if he had to leav- the creek the way that. it is. Mr. Rougeau replied that the improvements above the below are important considerations and that something would have to be done. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by 8ceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 9:45 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary 4i Planning Commission.Minutes -18- January 14, 1981 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Regular Meeting January 12, 1981 CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned Regular City of Raneho Cucamonga. Planning Commission Meeting, held at the Cucamonga Neighborhood Facility, Arrow Highway and Archibald Avenue, was called to order at 7;05 p.m. by Chairman Richard Dahl who led in the pledge to the flag, ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeffrey Icing, Jefferey Sceranka, Herman Rempel, ,ter Tolstoy, Ri.;hard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Robert Daugherty, Assistant City Attorney; Barry K. Hogan, CLty Planner, Joan Kruse, Secretary, Jack Lamm, Director of Community bevelopment; Steve McCutchan, Associate Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE Mr. 'tam, Director of Community Development, announced for the benefit of the audience, that the Executive Summary of the General Plan had b 2en. mailed to every resident of the City. Mr. Lam indicated that it contains a brief summary of the General Plan and that the complete text was available for the general public at the library and at City Hall. The schedule for future General Plan meetings had been completed for the Planning Commission. Mr. Lam explained that after the General Plan has bee--, heard by the Planning. Commission, it will be forwarded to the City Council for their ultimate decision. Mr. Lam stated that the next meeting of the General Flan will be on January 19, 1981 at the Lion's Park Community Building. HOUSING OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Mr.. Lam advised that the second item on this agenda would deal with the Cucamonga area. Further, that the Housing Objectives and Policies from the last general meeting would be discussed before the Planning Commission hears the Cucamonga Area.. Mv, Lam went into the specific goals of the Housing Objectives. He then asked for concurrence on two revisions: one to the Housing goal, and the other, to the Energy Goal, as follows; "The City shall provide decent housing and a satisfying living environment for all economic segments of the community". And, "The City shall commit itself to a energy efficient future by replacing, where appropriate, total dependence on imported non-renewable energy resources with increased reliance of renewable resources". Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the revisions as proposed. AYES: ComaSSIONERS: Rempel, Scerauka, King, Tolstoy, ➢ahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None carried PIr. Lam stated that the Planning Commission directed staff to bring back the policies and programs to discuss at this meeting relative to the Housing Element and to make recommendations on them. He indicated that staff has grouped the policies and programs under specific objectives and they are to be used as a shopping list from whcih the policies may be chosen. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was he who had asked that these policies and programs be spelled out. He further stated that it was imporcant that in the General Plan text these be explained as possible programs and that there may be other programs possible as time goes on, either as resulting from actions by the State Legislature, or the federal government. Commissioner Tolstoy also stated that he felt the uae of the word shall in the policy statements was too strong and thought that it should be modified so that at some point in tine, persons do not point to these policies and state that they must be done because the policy states that they shall be done. Following discussion by the Planning Commission, it was their consensus that the cord shall in the policy statements be changed. Commissioner Sceranka asked if the shopping list was just a list or if there are legal requirements that the items listed be included in the General Plan. l Mr. Lam replied that the State guidelines require that cities investigate I programs that are now available. "ommissioner Rempel commented that on page 73 of the General Plan text, relative to Obioctives, the'last item should be expanded to include open housing opportunities for persons regardless of age au- Income. Following discussion by the Commission, it was their consensus that this be added to the text. ! Motion: Moved by Tolstoy seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to adopt the Housing Element of the General Plan as amended. AYES: COMrM1SSICNERS: Tolstoy, Sceranka, Iing, Rempel, Dahl NOES: COMMISS11NERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Planning Commission :Minutes -2- January 12, 1981 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CUCAMONGA AREA 'w Mr. Barry Hogan, City Planner, went over the Cucamonga Plan, including the General Plan concept map and the Sedway/Cooke General Plan map. He in- dicated that both maps had similarities and that both maps keep the in- dustrial area intact, There was a brief slide presentation to orient the Commission with the areas to be discussed and the requested cbav es to the land use plan. Mr. Hrgan stated that no recommendations were being made at this time as this was an informational presentation and reviewed the requests that would be considered at the January 19, 1981 meeting. Those requests were: 1. Johm D. Lusk and Son 2. Thomas 0. McCutchan 3. Bill Lee, the Upland Company 4. William R. Skovgaard S. Kent C.K. Wu 6. Engineering Service Corporation 7a. Lucas Land Company 7b. Lucas Land Company f 7c. Lucas Land Company 7d. Lucas Land Company 8. Dominick Pellegrini 9. Harold Lovgren 10. Daniel Milliken 11. Staff Initiated 12. Andrew Barmakian 13. James Johnson 14. George Friedenbach 15. A request for change in the area of Foothill,,Base Line, Archibald to medium density residential. 16. A rew-eat from Mr. Frank Ambrosia for commercial frontage on F• ,thill. 17. A request from Pat Graham to be consistent with high density residential on the south side of Foothill. Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 12, 1981 Mr. Hogan stated that there was oneadritional item. Staff has provided a detailed analysis of land use designations along Foothill Boulevard from Grove Avenue to Haven Avenue. Further, that Foothill has a signif: cant impact as it may be the only portion of the City;that some people see. He indicated that if the Planning Commission desires, they would present to them the uses proposed that are currently available. Commissioner Rempel asked if the Commission went into a study, if it would preclude anyone from coming in with an application until the stud, is completed. Mr. Hogan replied that it would not, and that staff would attempt to nc2 £y tLe Planning Commission early on when applications come In for approval. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he 1'elt such a study would be in the best interest of the City'especially since it does not appear that therf would be time during the General Platt hearings to look at Foothill Boule in depth. He indicated that he woultt instruct staff to undertake such a study. Commissioner Rempel stated that he ajreed and that he would like to see statement to the effect that it does not preclude application along that area. He further indicated that he +could not like to sae good developme stopped by that. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded b} Tolstoy, to instruct Staff to develop a study area and come before `the Planning Commission following completion of the General Plan and still allow development to occur Witt the study area with Commission approval. Commissioner Sceranka, indicated that :1e would like the text to state tb. the land use will remain the same. Hi< expressed some .fear that people looking at this would not see that this is a study area of land uses in the plan. Mr. Hogan explained the process of the study, the necessity of a Genera] Plan amendment if changes were to occur, and if there were no changes necessary, the land use remaining the dame. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Hogan to explain the depth of the corrid to be studied. Mr. Hogan explained that it varied and was not intended to include the single family homes beyond San Bernardino Road. Commissioner Sceranka asG,ed that as part of the study a definite boundal be prepared by parcel so that problems ire not encountered. Mr. Hogan replied that staff car, coma- bitck with a definite boundary and process the map at a later time in orde*h to define a precise corridor. Planning Commission Minutes -4 January 12, 1981 i r. Ccmm",ssioners Rempel and Tolstoy stated that they %auld include this in their motion. ,• AYES: COMMISSIONERS::: Rempel, Tolstoy, P.irg; Sceranka, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMtuSSIONERS: None carried- Chariman-Dahl asked the Rancho'Cuc.lmonga Advisory Commission to come forward and bring up their recommendations, He also asked those people from Alta Loma to come forward and fill out the slips,so that they could address ,the Commission. ' Mr. Chuck. Buquet, representing the Rancho Cucamonga Advisory Commission, � stated that on January 8, they had met and discussed the Cucamonga portion of the General Plan. He indicated that the Commission expressed a particular concern about the character of Cucamonga and lack of Community identity. They recommended that discussion of character of Community continue beyond the completion of the 'General Plan. The Commission expressed support for landscape medians along Foothill Boulevard and stated a particular concern to attract recreation uses throughout the City, including the Community of Cucamonga. The Advisory Committee expressed a concern about too much commercial development a.Long Foothill and recommended improved setbacks and a better blend of development along Foothill Boulevard: Also of concern was the need to give :specific attention to i_bu blend between residential and commercial; too much commercial on Archibald south of 8th Street; and emphasized parks .as a priority because of lack of potential park land in Cucamonga. Commissioner Scerauka asked what Mr. Buquet had in mind as buffering between R-1 and Commercial, Mr. Buquet replied that he would like tP step up densities between the residential and commercial areas. He indicated that single family near commercial brings down residential property value e p p s due to the increas ed sed traffic and felt that higher densities as, a buffer would be advantageous to the City. Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Buquet if he way referring to design standards in his concern for character and lack ofcommunity identity. Mr. Buquet replied that some cities have a theme and he does not want to loose the City's heritage. He indicated that the Commission would like to see some things carried an like Thomas Winery, although not a carbon copy. He felt that this is necessary to tone down businesses and that they would further like to retain the rural character of development. Chairman Dahl opened the public portion of the hearir . Flann'ng Commission Minutes -5- January 12, 1981 ' . r r Mr. Bob Mills, 58 W. 1_:th Street, Up_', ' Ad Mr. Lloyd Michael, 6320 Haven Avenue, Alta Loma, discLsser their re_. at the southeast corner of Archibald and Church, which was for office use. They indicated their feeling that a hig1: quality office complew•would be better than apartment' . buildings for this area. Further, that �_iey wished to'retain the oppor- tunities that they have had in the past for this Property. Mr. Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humbold Avenue, Cucamonga, stated that he would like to see an,active code enforcement program within the housing element. He stated that out-of-town landlords who do uct Like care of th<a r property sl-nuld be required to take proper care., x1r. Bill Lee, The Upland Company, 390 N. 2ad !venue, Upland, stated that he felt a residential designation would not to L best use for this property and requested a commercial of A-P designati_n ',., alacF,d on this piece of land under the proposed General Plan. His propdr.ty is the 2-1/2 acres on Vineyard (west side) north of Foothill Louleva— � Mr. Jim 3ohnson, 7271 bexyl Avenue, Alta Loma, asked for office use on his property at Beryl and Base Line. He indicated that he wished to run his business from his home at that location. Mr. William Runyan, 8234 Eastwood Avenue asked that the land use density at Foothill, between Vineyard and Hellman be brought down to 15-24 dwelling units per acre. He indicated that he would like to see a more gradual transition between single family areas and high d:.nsity condominiums,. Mr. David Moffett, 8275 Eastwood Avenue, Cucamonga, California asked for lower densities for the area bounded by Foothill and Hellman. He cited the congestion of schools and increased traffic that would result from higher densities. Mr. Bill Jahn, representing Vanguard Builders, 9636 7:.h Street, Rancho Cucamonga, requeste,' a General Plan amendment from light industrial to commercial for parcels 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map 4912 at Seventh and Archibald. He indicated tba- his property was situated on the northwest c)rner, Mr. Jeff Hill, 9607 Cameron Street, stated that he felt that the designation for property at 4th and Archibald should include parks and that this area should become restaurant row. He further stated that he did not agree with the designation srown on the S?dway/Cooke map tht the densities should change to higher than were previously shown for this area. Chairman Dahl stated as'a point of clarification that the industrial designation does allow for restaurants in this area and that commercial designation is unnecessary in order to allow restaurants to be located here. Mr. Richard Graham, 10210 Base Line Road, Space 261, Alta Loma, requested a change from the current General Plan designation of R-3 to Commercial to aore­� with nearby designations to 'the north and to the east for the property located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard, Cucamonga. Planning Commission Minutes -6- Jan7utry 12, 1981 Mr. Bob McCauley, 6830 Hellman Avenue', Rancho Cucamonga, spoke of the Flood Control Conservation__ practices relative to :the'channel west of Hellman. He indicated that over the last five years this area has I gone through changes and that nothing has been lane to-reinstate the original'Flood Control•canal.. He'indicated thal, ne would like to see some trees planted and other conservation measures applied to this area. Mr. Steve Lucas, 9224 Footbill Boulevard, Cucamonga, indicated that he wished to male some corrections. He indicated that the desi?nation of I-P for Vineyard Avenue on the west side has been industrial and not residential. He indicated that the Otis Elevator Company was located there and he is requesting an'industrial park designation along Vineyard and Arrow. Mr. Lucas requested that the designation for the ptoperty from Foothill Boulevard from Caraclian'to Hellman be changed from R-1 to Commercial. Additionally, he requested that the area at the northeast corner of Arrow and Vineyard be changed from residential to office. Mr. Lucas stated that the property on the northeast corner of San Bernardino and Carnelian along Foothill is not compatible with low density residential and requested that this not be planned low density residential. The property on the north side of Foothill, west of Hellman ' ;__m Gemc:) to Hellman Avenue, he stated his understanding that the Planning Commission_ has already approved commercial use. Further, the owner of the property would like it kept for commercial and not changed to office. Mr. Andrew Barmakian, 9375 Archibald, Suite 101, Rancho Cucamonga, rep- resenting the Houtz Ranch, requested a density of a maximum of 10 units per acre. Mr. Barmakian stated that they have; done some preliminary work on a condominium project. He indicated that tkey are looking for 9.4 units per acre. Chairman Dahl stated that the public portion was concluded. Mr. Lam stated that he negl( :ted to advise the Planning Commission of another Stem contained on page b of the staff report dealing with the ' - Housing Element, Objectives, Policies and Programs. Mr. Lam indicated' that staff's recommendation relative to Neighborhood canning Groups should read "the City shall encourage participation of the CAC in Coum,^mlzy planning and provide continued feedback for the tfousing.Element". Motion:- Moved by Sceranka, seconded. by King, carried unanimously, to include this modification. AYES: COMMISSIONERS- Sceranka, King, Rempel, Tolctoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- li Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 12, 1981 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission':ecessed. 9:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened., IV. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA Chairman Dahl indicated that before proceeding with the land use recommendations of the industrial area they would like to review the letters and requests that - were presented earlier in order to provide direction to staff. There was considerable discussion among the Planning Commission relative to the designation of this property and the opportunity for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to accrue sales tax should this area develop commercially. Motion: Moved by Rempel seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to _ designate the area on the north side of Fourth Street and Archibald, commercial to a depth of 500 feet and depending upon the development Flan, the upper portion of this property up to Sixth Street, designated medium high residential. Following this motion it was decided that the othe�' Items"would be done E by consensus. Item 2 - Thomas McCutchan - It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this item be set aside and dealt with in the Parks and Recreation Element. Item 3 - Bill Lee - Upland Company - Following discussion, the consensus was that this item be carried over. i Item 4 - William R. Skovgaard -Following discussion, the consensus was that this item be brought back for further discussion. Item 5 --Ken C.K. Wu -This item to be continued because it is in the study area. i Item 6 - Engineering Service Corporation - The consensus = the Planning Commission is that the present designation stand. j Item 7 Lucas Land Company - i Commissioner Sceranka stepped down from discussion and voting on those items because of a possible conflict of interest. Items 7B and 7C - The consensus was that this be left as proposed in the draft General Plan. Item 7D - The consensus was that this should be included in the study area but any development application can be brought forward for evaluation. Item 7E - It was the consensus of the Commission that this area be designated office along Vineyard with residential use for the remainder. Planning Commission Minutes -8 dairoiiry 12, 1981 Iten 8 --Dominick Pellegrini The consensus of the Commission was that this area be designated medium density (5-8 dwelling units per acre), Item 9 -_Harrld Lovgren.- The.,-consensixa of the Commission was that this item be held over for special study on the Foothill Corridor. Item 10 - Daniel Milliken - The consensus of the Commission was that this item be deferred for study with the Parks ai_d Recreation Element and input from Mr. Bill Holley with the possibility of dedication of a park to the City. Item 11 -Staff Initiated - The consensus of the Commission this item be held over for The next General Plan meeting. Item 12 -Andrew BarmAian - Commissioner King did not participate in discussion or action on this matter. The consensus of the Commission was to defer this item to the next General Plan meeting. Item 13 - James Johnson- This iten. was deferred to the next General Plan meeting. Item 14 - George Friedenbach - "his request will be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Element on February 9, 1981. Item 15 Frank Ambrosia - The +;onsensus of the Panning Commission was to defer this item. Item 16 -Pat Graham - The consensus of the Commission was that this item be deferred until completion of the Foothill Corridor Study. Item 17 - Associated Engineering - The consensus of the Planning Commission was to defer th tem. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA Tim Beedle, Senior Planner, wade a presentation of the land use development potential in the industrial area. He indicated that the Industrial Specific Plan wilt be a means of implementing the General Plan. Further, that it would incorporate landscape design and'this_will be a first step which will ,set parameters in the industrial area. Mr. Beedla described to the Planning Commission the differences in the Industrial Park, General Industrial, General Industrial Rail<Served;and Heavy Industrial area and'their location on the map exhibited at this meeting, Planning Commission Minutes -9 January 12, 1981 r, Mr. Beedle further explained the Commercial classification for the,area ,- around the east side of Archibald extending from 8th Street to halfway t. between Fourth Street and Sixth Street. During the General Plan discussion it was felt that this area should be.geared more to commercial to support the industrial.. At'this time it was felt that a redesignation to Industrial Park this should be,accomplished and required Commercial uses as a conditional use. ' Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he personally would like the designation that was just suggested. He further stated that he would not like to see wholesale commercial uses along this area but 'something over which the Planning Commission has some control. He thought that some commercial uses in the industrial area such as a floor covering manufacturing with a small retail showroom might work well in such a setting. Chairman Dahl stated that he feared turning nonconforming uses into-commercial along Archibald. He Indicated that the City presently has a commercial use on the west side that would be classified as rail served. Further, that there were quite a few commercial establishments on theeast side. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that what the Commission must do is make it the best uses for the City and not the business that might already be there. Commissioner Rempel felt that the area ,along Archibald should not be pro— liferated with commercial. Chairman Dahl asked for a, point of clarification relative to commercial uses. He asked what would happen if an existing furniture store goes out of business and. the store is leased again, does the commercial category change to ,general industriidl Mr. Hogan replied that one question relates to implementation and how the City effects control of uses along Archibald and how aidizional commercial activities are prevented that may be inappropriate. Following further discussion, it, was the consena,ls of the Planning Commission that staff be instructed to look at the wording in the General Industrial category and come back to the commission with clarification. 10:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed. 11:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened. V. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES SUPER ELEMENT- Senior Planner, Tim Beedle, gave the presentation and indicated that the Planning Commission would consider this item at their January 19 meeting. Following_a slide presentation, Mr.. Beedle asked the Commission for their input so that the final recomendations could be brought back for their action. Planning Commission Minutes —10- January 12, 1981 Considerable discussion ensued among the Commission relative to the preserva- tion of agricultural uses. Mr. Lam explained the criteria for agricultural, preserves under the Williamson Act and the consensus of the Commission was that this item be brought back to the Commission with emphasis on en-- couragiiig the continuation of agricultural uses in t:ose areas wherever feasible. VI. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY SUPER ELEMENT Mr. Barry Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the staff report.and stated that the an,ly�is of public health and safety issues have been synthesized into nine rele�faut topicst geologic hazards; seismicity; flood hazards; fire hazards; noise; air quality;, crime prevention; and emergency services; l and miscellaneous hazards such as eucalyptus windrows. He indicated that l these areas were contained within the General`Plan text on pages 21 -269. He further explained the interface of the various elements in the: total Public Health and Safety Super Element. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that something mast be done with the crime prevention area. Further, that there were some things that developers and homeowners could do to combat crime in some way without adding substantially to the cost of the project. He also spoke about the type of:roofing material that should be used to withstand winds as well as wind protection. Commissioner Rempel asked staff to investigate the statistics that state" that 65 wild land fires occur annually. He also agked staff to review the statement that the 1969 flood produced water to the one-foot :level. He indicated his feeling that this was not a true statement. Chairman Dahl stated his agreexenc with.Commissioner Rempel. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion Moved by Rempel,' seconded by Eceranka, carried unanimously, to adjourn. 11:40 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK W1, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 12, 1981 1..- :l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLAP:NING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 13, 1981 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Richard,Dahl called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission, held at the Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rencho Cucamonga, California, to order at 7:05 p,m. Chairman Dahl then led in the pledge to the flag. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: 'Jeffery King, Herman Rempel„ Peter Tolstoyj. Richard Dahl ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Jefferey Sceranka (Excused) i STAFF PRESENT: Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Barry K. Hogan, City Planner; Michael Vairin, Seniar Planner; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Ted Hopson,.Assistant City Attorney; Janice Reynolds APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried, to approve the Minutes of December 22, 1980. AYES: COMMISSI014ERS: King, Rempel,_Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy -carried Commissioner Tolstoy abstained from the vote because he was not present for the December 22, 1980 meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by;Tolstoy, carried, to approve the Minutes of February 9, 1981. AYES: COMMISSIONERS, Rempel, Tolstoy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Dahl, King calmed— 4 Commissioners Dahl and King abstained from the vote because they were both absent from the February 9, 1981 meeting. Motion: Moved by Rempel, ,seconded,by•Ring, carried to adopt the Minutes of February 17, 1981. AXES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, King, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: C010USSIONERS; None -carried tr. A%OUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, announced that the City Council ° approved the first reading of the Street Naming Ordinance and also acted on the Ordinance approving the Victoria Planned Community., Mr. Lam also advised that the City Council adopted the first reading of an Ordinance which would create a Redevelopment Agency for the City. Mr. Lam also announced that the Citizens Advisory Commission would meet on May 21 1981, 7 p.m., at the Lions Park Cormur_ity Center to discuss the Community Design Element of the General Plan. Mr. Lam indicated that the Citizens Advisory Commission has been reviewing the adequacy- t of certain provisions in the Community Design Element and would be making # recommendations for improvements to the Planning Commission and City r Council. Mr. Lam further announced that,the applicant of Item "E", Southern California Edison- Environmental, Assessment and Conditional Use Permit 81-05, of this agenda had requested to be continued to the June 10, 1981 meeting. It was suggested that this be placed first on the public hearing agenda_ I A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 81-16 - CATTRAC The development of a truck maintenance yard and office on 4.23 acres of land in the M-2 zone located on the west side of Santa Anita Avenue, north of 4th Street. (APN 229-283-36) Chairman Cahl asked if there were Commission comments on this project. No one spoke. Chairman Dahl asked for a motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to approve Envirr,_ antal Assessment for Development eview No. 81-16: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Tolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: CO*3='ISSIONFRS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sce+;anka 'l ABSTAIN: COMMISSIOR`,;RS: None -carried- ,` Planning Coiruiission Minutes -2 May 13, 1981 {h B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10569 - WILLIAM LYON COMPANY A'residential subdivision of 42 lots on 10.1 acres of land in the R-R, zone, located north of Arrow highway and west of Archibald Avenue. (APN 208-311-1) Chairman Dahl asked if there were Commission comments on this project. Commissioner Rempel stated that he had a question directed, to Staff conc( 'ring the street name of Ramona not being consistent with the Street Namiwv; Ordinance and that it should be changed on the map to be consistent. Mr. Hogan stated that the Tract Map bad not been finaled yet and Staff would see that the street name be changed to correspond with the Street Naming Ordinance. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract 10569 with the correction of the street name to be changed to be consistent with the Street Naming Ordinance. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, Rolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSEUT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- PUBLIC HEARINGS E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-05 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY - The development of an electrical distribution substation on 4.78 acres of land in the R-1-20 'zone located on the northwest corner of Archibald and Wilson Airenues. (APN 1061-571-04) Chairman Dahl asked if there were Commission comments regarding the continuance of Item "E" to June 10, 1981. There were no Commission comments and Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing asking if there was anyone present who wished to spaak,either for or against the project. Mr. Randy Bond, Area Manager for Southern California Edison, stated that Southern California Edison had requested a continuance to meet with home- owners who expressed concern over the project and to answer any questions they h:-,d. There being no further discussion, Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried, to cont;,nue Environmental Asseesment and Conditional Use Permit 81-05 to June 10, 1V81. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 13, 1981 1< �. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, King, Tolstoy, Dabl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSICiNERSt Scesanka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried i C. MWIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SITE APPROVAL NO. 81-01 - IMMANUEL BAPTIST CHURCH - The construction of a 300 seat church building on 2.14 acres of land in the R 1 zone located on the south side- of 19th. Street between Amethyst and Archibald. (APN 202-111-19) D. REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6746 - 'IMMANUEL 'TIST CHURCH - A subdivision of 6.55 acres into two (2) parcels lot, ced on the south side of 19th Street 24&_ feet east of Amethyst Street. (APN 202-111-•19) Mr. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. He stated that at the time the Design Review Committee could no;t b2 sure of detailing materials. After revir:wing the plani; and discussions•wth the Architects, Staff proposed an amei event to strike Planning Condition #3 of the Resolution and replace with a revision to read. ,"Revised architectural plans that would incorpot_ a additional wood features or materials shall be submitted to and approvei by the Derign Review Committee prior to issuance of 6 building permits." ' Mr. Vairin also stated another area of the Staff Report needing clarification was the approval of walls around the perimeter of the entire church with s the exception of the street frontage for appropriate buffering from the residential development. M,-. Vairin stated that Staff had been advised that the west boundary is where the 10' storm drain easement will be located and therefore a block wall cannot be placed on that property line.. Staff recommended that she condition should be reworded to omit the fence on the west property lino.. Commissioner Tolstoy star a ,list the property line should also be landscaped not only with trees, but _ with shrubs to provide high,and low buffering. Mr. Vairin replied there w$Js an 8' strip being provided in addition to that already in existence, Commissioner King asked if it was correct that there was some distance 4' from flood control that you could plvie a block wall. Mr. Vairin replied that there was a 10' easement on the west property,line which must be totally unobstructed of any structure including block walls. If a wall was desired by the Commission on that property line it would have to be placed off the easement into the parking area resulting in everything being pulled back which would have a rippling effect throughout the project. f Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 13, 1981 9t Commissioner King asked if the wall would have to be placed where it was proposed to be parking. Mr. Vairin replied that it would have to be placed two feet into the parking area. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the parking was adequate for the project. Mr. Vairiu replied it was. Chairman Do,hl opened the public hearing. Mr. Carl Gaede of Gaede, Alcorn and Associates, Pasadena, California, representing the applicant stated that he wished to discuss the requirement of the good trim: He stated that the intent of the applicant to emphasize the cross. which is'a feature of the north elevation. He further stated that he felt that the simplicity of the north elevation wa« to accentuate the cross, not to diminish Its effect. Chairman Dahl asked Yr. Gaede if he would then agree with all the conditions x, made on the wood trim and the elimination. of the west wall.. a Mr. Gaede replied that they would agree to, those two changes. However, the applicant was concerned with the condition stating that the future 4' building area be turfed and irrigated. Mr.. Gaede stated that he felt this would create an additional, expense for the church in phase I de Aopment. and proposed that landscaping be limited to parking. ,id phase I building. " He was also concerned with the 'condition requiring street improvements across the entire street frontage along 19th Street from the culvert to the existinv.. homes and asked if they would be allowed to develop these improvement-- in phases.. He asked if they would also be allowed to develop the storm grain improvements w"thin the length of the property. Mr. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that the storm drain requirement is based on the fact that it is not feasible to develop in phasen. Mr. Rougeau stated that placing the storm drain only in front of church property would impose an expensive problem in transitioning back to the exist ,g ditch and would impose problems with the velocity of wager causing erosion. He further stated that the street improvements were a requirement of CALTRANS because it is a State Highway and CALTRANS has made it clear to Staff that they want their frontage developed. Chairman Dahl asked if anyo'-e wished to spew- for or against the project. Mr. Clarke Boeaen, Rancho Cucamonga resident, stated that he. lived immediately to the west of the property and was concerned about the floc,:, control. He asked how large the culvert would be. Mr. Rougeau stated that that it would probably be a 41--51 pipe. Mr. Boesen further stated that he felt there s'?ould be a wall along the west property line. Pl&- ning Commission.Xinutes -5- May 15, 1981 Chairman Dahl asked the applicant if he would like to respond. Mr. Gaede responded that it was his opinion that a chainlink fence with heavy, landscaping would sel,ve 'the same purpose as the block,wall without the expense and without the permat:ent obstruction to the storm drain. Chairman Dahl asked if there were further comments. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel asked how wide the easement actually was. He stated that the dimensions state a 10' easement, however at one point shows it on the adjacent property.- Mr. Rougeau replied that 10' was a nominal figure and that during design they would set the exact dimension and location. lie stated that it would probably be best to locate the storm drain under thy„ parking area. Commissioner Rempel stated that when the_drainage channel is constructed it would not only benefit this property owner, but other property owners as well and it was his opinion that requiring this property owner to bear the entire cost of the improvement was unfair. He further stated he felt that the easement should be on the property line rather than placed totally on the project property. Mr. Rougeau replied that Staff would have to work with adjacent property owners and he would pursue the matter. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the water shed on Amethyst should be taken into consideration. He suggested that a hydrology study be done on. the watershed, if one had not already been 'done. He further stated that if the water course is to be revised, that the City should approach CALTRANS to survey and work,with the City on the design of a storm drain for this area. Commissioner Rempej. stated that the constant walling ot_ of projects with 6' block walls was not desirable. He felt that a 3''-4' salid block 3.th a screen block addition would be more effective. C,mmissioners King, 'Tolstoy, and Dahl concurred with Commissioner Hempel on this statement. Chairman Dahl stated that the storm drain would benefit other property owners as well as the applicant and stated he did not feel the wall was necessary o. the west property line. He further stated that he preferred to see a landscape buffer. Commissioner King stated he felt there should be some type of barrier with heavy landscaping along the property line. There being no further discussion, Chairman Dahl;called for a motion on the Site Approval. 3 Planning Commission Minutes -6- .stay 13, 1981 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-48, approving Site Approval 81-01 with revisions to Planning Condition #3 regarding revised building elevations and condition #4 regarding the block wall on the east, -west, and south boundaries to be revieweii and , approved with the Site Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, King, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Nona -carried- Chairman Dahl then asked for a motion regarding the Tentative Parcel Map. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-49 approving Parcel Map No. 6246 with the direction to Staff to coordinate the design of an adequate storm drain system with CALTRANS. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, TcJstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS None carri d- 8:03 p.m. Planning Commission recessed. 8:15 p.m. Planning Commission reco-vend. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 6725 - DAON CORPORATION- A commercial subdivision of 176.86 acres into 10 parcels in the M-2 zone located east of Haven Avenue on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. Mr. Paul Rot Beau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed tb� Staff Report. Commissioner Tclatoy asked which street would be renamed 4ivic Center Drive. Mr. Hogan replied that Sequoia would be renamed Civic Center Drive. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Street and Avenue designations should be changed to coircide with the new Street Naming Ordinance. Mr. Hogan replied that they would be changed. Mr. Rougeau expressed Staff's recommendation that Engineering Condition #47 be removed, as that information had been received. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 13, 1981 t 4. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor of against the project and the pi )lic hearing was closed. . Motion: Mov::d by Rempel, seconded by King, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-50 approving Parcel Map No. 6725, with the dele ion of Condition #47. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, King, Tolstoy, D ihl NOES: COMMISSIONERS. None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AN IDMENT NO. 81-01 - Amending R-1 permitted uses to allow mobile home `in the R-1-7,200 zone pursuant to SB 1960. Mr. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, expl. ined that this Ordinance implements the provisions of SB 1960, which is a law that goes into effect July 1, 1981 regarding mobile homes in siigle family residential areas. Mr. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. He stated that it was Staff's opinion that 7200 square foot or s mller lots would be the most compatible areas for mobile homes. He staved that the amendment was to change the uses in the R-1 zone to include the gIlacement of mobile homes on permanent foundations and constructed in comp-iance with the Mobile Home Act. He further stated that a minimum width.requirement had been placed on any size home in the R-1 zone. Commissioner King asked how much undeveloped available land there is that is General Planned for 7200 square foot lots. Mr. Vairin replied that west of Haven there was available land that could be developed into 7200 square foot residential lots or a mobile home subdivision. East of Haven the majority of the land is within the planned communities area and would most likely be a feature of the Community plan if desired. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he could split a lot and place two mobile homes on it, making neither one a legal Iota Mr. Vairin replied no, that the legal lot sizes of that :one would have to be met, which would be 7200 square feet. Mr. Hogan stated that the Intent of the bill was to plane mobile,homes on the same level .es traditional stick built homes. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May',13, 1981 Mr. Lam stated that an ordinance is necessary prior to J-11y 1, 1981 ' when this bill takes effect so that citizens do not make their ocnu 1 , interpretation and place mobile homes an any lot they wish.. Commissioner Tolstoy stated't$at he wanted restrictions so that a person could not split a lot into two lots that are unbuildable and put in mobile humes. Mr. Lam replied that you could not create a new substandard lot. Commissioner King asked If these would be problems with a 20,000 square foot area if someone wanted to bring in a large mobile home. Mr. vairin replied that would not be possible given the proposed amendment. l' 1.Y Commissioner Rampel stated he thought there was a problem ve.th the wording regarding the minimum width condition. Mr. Hogan stated that it . ad been worded wo discourage the placement of r a 20' garage with a 12' single wide mobile home attached to it. Tl.ere was more discussion regarding the mobily_ home width requirement. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Robert Lawrence, mobile home manufacturer:..n Yermo, California, stated he thought there was some discrimination in the 7230 square foot lots and he felt that the bill'f; intent was -z not discriminate against the lot size. Mr. Lam replied that the law allows cities to make distinctions in compatibility. Mr. Lawrence asked that if what the Ordinance was stating was that regardless of design or refinement, mobile horns would not be allowed in places other than 7200 square foot R-1 zone,., lots. Mr. Lam replied that the 7200 square foot lot would be the most compatible in the City. Mr. Lawrence further stated that in regards ..0 '-lie�zdth requirement if it wouldn't be best to define it in terms of double 'and single wide as opposed to feet. Mr. Jairin replied that it would to.a,degree; however the requirements were being written to include all types of dwelling units. Mr. Lawrence asked what was meant by permanent foundation. II Mr. l'airin replied it'would have to be a foundation that met Building y Regulation Health and Safety Code Section 18551. Platkning Commission Minutes -9.— May 13, 1281 Y Mr. Lawrence asked if garages are required. Mr. Vairin replied that ;Zwo car garages are a-requirement for all single family dwellings within,,the'R-1 zone. Chairman Dahl asked if there were others who would like to speak. No one spoke and Chairman Dahl closed the public hearing. There was further discussion on the mobile home width requirement and it was suggested by Mr. Hogan that the item be continued until after Item "J" of this agenda to give-Staff a few minutes to Work out the wording of the condition. Chairman Dahl asked for a motion to continue the item. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to continue Environmental Assessment and Zoning ordinance & .adment No. 81-01 until after Item "d°-ef this agenda. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: kempel, Tolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ASSENT: COMMISSIONERSt Sceranka ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS: None carried H- ENVIRONMJ'",il, ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AHEND14ENT NO. 8?-01 TRAILS f .%ZtENT -A General Plan Amendment to more clearly define the existing Trails Element. Mr. Barry K. Hogan, City Planner, presented the Staff Report stating there was an additional sentence to be added to the fir_t paragraph of the Element under Community trails to reads "Community trails that extend southerly of the shaded area on Figure III-5a should not be required to provide for equestrian usage except in areas v >r: ,be continuity of the system is needed.." Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in favor or opposition to the Trails V'_lement of the General Plan. No one spoke for or against the Element and the public hearing was t:losed. Chairman Dahl stated that Staff !lad dor+3 an excellent job on the Trails Element and commend-d Staff for the design. There being no further discussion, Chairman Dahl asked for a motion, Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 13 1.981 s'; 1 c ; Motion: Moved by King, seconded by Rempel, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-52 amending the adopted Master Planned Trails Element of the General Plan with the addition of the sentence to the first paragraph ' under Community Trails. AYES, COMMISSION".?.S King, Rempel, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: CO.M_MISSIONERS Sceranka i 1 i.BSTAIN. COMMISSIONERS. None -carried- Barry C. Hogan, City P1,nner, presented the Design St:gndards to the Commission,. ` He stated that there ,ems a discrepancy in Exbibit "A" of the Resolution regarting feeder trail width of 10', he indicated that it should be changed to 15' width. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Section 8 of the Resolution under Street Crossines should have a change in wording. He indicated that in regards' to texturized paving the word should be changed from "desirable" to "required". Mr. Hogan and Mr. &.,ugeau replied they were in agreement with this change. Chairman Dahl op+ned th• public hearing. No one spoke ir, favor or opposition to the Design Standards and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Dahl asked for a motion:, Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81-53 estalilishing design standards for trails with the amendment in the feeder trail width to 15' and the requirement of texturized paving. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, King, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS; None carried- Mr. Ho3an statel that, for the record, would like to explain ;chat the revisions to the Trails Element are. He indicated that what'had been done was to take whct was previously called Community Hiking and Biking Trails in the City and private planned communities and Gemmunity Equestrian Trails and made them into twc categories; Community Trails and Community Multipurpose Trails and Regional Multi-purpose Trails. He further —ate that the Community Equestrian trails had been extended from Banyan Plann'ng Commission Minutes -ll Tay 13, 1981 :. } I to the Cucamonga,Channel, from Highland to the railroad right-of-way, on Archibald, from:B4r_Yan to the rail-road road right-of-way, ay, frGm Wilson to 4th Street, on Wilson from Archibald to Milliken, from Milliken to 4th Street, summit to-4th Street, and, the trail from Etiwanda to connect with 4th'Street. Mr. Hogan stated'that'the reason for this is to provide trail connections that Staff felt wotcld provide an alternative method of getting to work i-i the industrial area to places of residence.` Commissioner Tolstoy asked why Demers Channel was not included in the regional trail system. Mr. Rogan replied that it was Flood Control land and had been viewed as a local facility. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that,the reason for his asking was that if it were to be included in the regional trail system the City could receive funding for the maintenance. Chairman Dahl recognized Pam Henry of the Equestrian Committee to speak to the Commission. She statedthat the reason Demers Channel had not been included in the trail system was that 'the list was based on County proposal for their regional trails. She indicated that Staff may want to contact the County to see if they ..auld consider adding this trail to their regicnal trail system. Mr. Hogan stated that he felt this revision could be made. He then asked the Commission if that was their consensus thatthe revised Master Plan of Trails, with that revision, was to be included as part of the Element to the,General Plan. All members of. the Planning Commission consented to this inclusion of the Master Plan of Trails to be included in the Element of the General Plan with the revision that Demers Channel be added to the regional trails system. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10762 (PD 80-01) - ACA'3IA CONSTRUCTION, INC. A total development of 84 condominl-.,ums on 9.6 acres zoned R-3, located at the southwest corner of Baker Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. (APN 207-191-31 &'40) Michael Vairin, Senior Planner reviewed the Staff Report.- He indicated that a traffic study had been done on the intersection of Foothill and Baker ' and the results were that a traffic signal was not needed at this. time. Mr. Vairin stated that a,Commission _vision was needed on the fencing along Baker Avenue as to whether masonry pilasters or wcod posts would be used, and whether or not the garden sheds for the storage of garden equipment is needed. -' Commissioner Rempel asked that if building 7 was moved 15' northerly, how close to the street would it be placed. Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 13, 1981 Mr. Vairin replied that the closest corner would be 11' from the curb face. There being no further discussion,Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Snyder, representing the applicant, stated that he found no: mention in the Resolution of the storm drain to be constructed on the west side of the property. Mr. Vairin replied that it was in the Standard Conditiona, Section K--8. Mr. Snyder stated that the applicant would like to pay one-half of the storm drain cost as an assessment fee to be part of the building permi., and the other one-half to be collected when the adjacent land was developed. Mr. Rougeau,replied that would have to be completed in on_ phase as there would be noway of telling when the adjacent piece of property would be developed. Commissioner Rempel ettated that this was simi.;ar to a condition placed ` on a previous project and the finning should be consistent and that the ' improve-3ents must be done as the adjacent property owner cannot be forced to pay half of the costs therefore they must be done by the applicant. Commissioner Rempel asked Mr. Snyder if he would respond to the condition of moving building 7, 15' to the north., Mr. Snyder replied that he thought there was adequate space in the recreational area and thought that the building would be placed too close to the street.. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. George Litter, representing his mother who is a Rancho Cucamonga resident, spoke in opposition of the project, stating that his main concern was in regards to the drainage on Baker Avenue and if it would be blockAd forcing the water onto his mother's property. Mr. Hogan replied that it would not block the drainage. He indicated that there is a development in the preliminary stages that has access onto Baker that will be required to make improvements to the storm drain. Commissioner Lempel stated that this project would have no effect on the amount of drainage on Baker as it does not drain there ant never will.. Mr. Lightner stated that this was his concern that it would drain onto Baker or block access to Baker and have a direct affect on his mother's property. Mr. Hogan replied that the development of the open land north. of Mr. Lightnar's mother's property would require a public hearing and that they would be, notifiedby certified_mail if this property wac to be subdivided. Planning Commission Minutes -13- May _13, 1981 If it was not subdivided, Mr. Hogan advised that Mr. Nightner check the public notice section of the Daily Report newspaper or contact the City Staff periodically to see if development plans had been received. There being no fuither questions or comments, the public hearing;piss closed. Commissioner King stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rempel regarding building 7; Chairman Dahl expressed his agreement witt this. statement also. Chairman Dahl called for the motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, .carried to aic-•p.t,Resolution No. 81-54 conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 10762 with the amendment to delete the condition to move building P. Mr. Vairin asked Commissioner Rempel if he would also clarify the issue of the wooden posts or masonry pilasters on the fencing. Commissioner Rer,pel stated that he thought wood posts were sufficient. Commissioner Tblstoy stated tip, lie, disagreed as the masonry pilasters would be a more permanent structure. Chairman Dahl stated that he agree,.with masonry pilasters and asked Commissioner Hempel if he would agree to this amendment. Commissioner Rempel replied that he would. Mr. Vairin then asked rimmissioner Hempel-if he would also address the issue of the garden Structures. Commissioner Rempel then revised his motion. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by King, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 81-54 conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map No. 10762 with the amendment to delete the condition to v1ve building #7, accepting the condition of the garden "units and the inclusion of masonry pilasters on the fencing. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Rempel, .King, Tolstoy; Dahl 1 NOES COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONER$: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- P1ann'_ng Commission Minutes -14- May 13, 1981 Chairman Dahl then asked for the motion approving the Planned Development. Motion: Moved by Rempel,'seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-55 approving Pla-pdd Development No. 80-01 requesting a change in zoning from R-3 to R-3j11D. AYES: CGV14ISSIONERS: Mempel, Tolstoy, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None 9:40 p.m. Planning Commission recessed. 9:45 p.m. Planning Commission reconvened J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6051 = NELSON - a residential subdivision of 1.9 acres of land into four parcels within the R-1-20,000 zone located on the north,side of.Manzanita Avenue between Carnelian and Beryl Street. Mr. tarry K. Hogan, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report indicating that this item had been published as a four lot subdivision consisting of 20,000 square foot lots. Mr. Hogan stated that since that publication it had been brought to Staffs attention that: this s gure,also included the private road. Mr. Hogan further stated that he needed clarification on the Commission policy that stated the 20,000 square foot figure must exclude roads, therefore making it possible to only split this parcel into three lots rather than four. Chairman Dahl Stated that it had been a past policy of the Commission in a similar situation-where the Commission stated that r.-1-20,000 meant exclusive of any 'private streets and this decision was upheld by the City Council. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he thought that this should be a'policy of :he Commission to state that 20.000's,uare frnt lots Was a requirement in this zone exclusive of any road surface. Chairman Dahl stated that along with this policy was the inclusion of the necessary easements, such as trails and utility easements, in the 20,000 square foot area. Commissioner Rempel stated that it bad been Commission's pas, policy to discourage private streets with the exception of planned developments and he felt that they should remain in those areas, all others being public streets. Planning Commission Minutes -15- May'13, 1981 �l There bras further discussion relative to public vs. private streets. Mr. Hogan stated that it would be possible to make the street width 321 and he would, by Commission direction, issue a Minor Deviation for one foot on the street iiidth. Mr. Rougeau stated that the street may have to be slightly wider than that proposed as that would be a curb-to-curb width and it might be necessary to have additional right-of-way area., Mr. Hogan replied that he had the authority to issue a 10% variance on lot width creating some flexibility in the width of the street. Chairman Dahl asked if the applicant would agree to these conditions. Mr. Skip Nelson, applicant and resident of Rancho Cucamonga, replied that he would be agreeable to these conditions. Mr. Hogan stated that Staff would work with Engineering in adjusting the street and lot width through,a Minor Deviation. Mr. Hogan stated that it was his interpretation that Commission policy would be to d`itermine that the 20 000-s square foot o lot designation was 4 g exclusive of any pavement or road surface area, and that private streets- are not allowed except in planned developments or in special:cases where the Commission may deem appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the condition would have to be a pre- existing condition and not one manufactured at the time of thz lot split. There being no further iscussion, Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. Mr. John Beck, Rancho Cucamonga resident, asked if lots 1 and 3 would be fronting Manzanita. Mr. Hogan replied that they would• JI Mr. Beck stated that this was a very satisfactory project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved b Tol:�to to approve II y y, ppr ve the parcel..map as correcte„ Commissioner Rempel asked Commissioner Tolstoy if, he would amend the motion to state as finaling determined using the alternate criteria and ? including the Minor Deviation. _I F Commissioner Tolstoy modified his motion. Planning Commission'Minutes -16- May 13,. 1981 �f1 1 i r+ . j Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Rempel, carried to adopt Resolution No. 81-56 approving Parcel Ma No. 6051 as a three to pp $ p h e t subdivision with a public street as shown in exhibit "A" and a Minor Deviation shall be issued by the City Planner for lot widths on the lots fronting Manzanita, and the deletion of conditions t.r 45 an d 46. AYES: COMSSI HERS: Tolstoy, Re ra e1. King, Dahl NOES.. COMMISSIONERS: hone ' ABSENT k COMMI ST S O NERS: Sceranka I �;- ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None- -carried- G. (ITEM °G" WAS BROUMT BACK TO THE COMMISSION, BEING CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING) j Chairman Dahl asked if staff had a recommendation to make to the Planning Commission: Mr. Lam replied that Staff recommended striking, the last sentence of the j paragraph 5,egnrding minimum width and replacing it with the minimum width and minimum depth of 20' exclusive of garage. i Commissioner King stated that it was his opinionthat the City was not enforcing the law by this Ordinance in that this Ordinance was precluding where a mobile home could be placed by limiting them to 7209 squawe foot lots. He further stated that even though he did not agree with the law, he felt that the City was not applying the State Law in an even handed fashion, Commissioner Tolstoy asked Chairman Dahl if he would reopen the public hearing based upon Commissioner Kings statement. I Chairman Dahl then reopened the public hearing., No one spoke in favor or opposition and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lam stated that the State Law gave the Cities the authority to select the placement of mobile homes in their areas and after studying the City, found that the 7200 square foot lot was the most compatibly sized lot in the City for the placement of mobile homes. Commissioner King stated that it was his opinion that a design review process should be developed and allow mobile homes in other areas, making sure that they were compatible with the surrounding area, Mr: Lam replied that there were limitations on the types of review process available. Planning Commission Minutes -17- May 13, 1981 Mr. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that architectural review would be limited to roof overhang and siding material, therefore limiting the invcstigation of compatibility. Chairman Dahl stat=d that mobile homes may become one of the most`aff-ordable� types of housing available. If high design &tandards are placed on this type of manufactured housing, the prices must reflect this, thus making tha housing unaffordable. He furtht-r stated that the 7200 square foot or smaller lot is where a person could find the most affordable housing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Commissioner Hempel was satisfied with the wording of the Ordinance. Commissioner Rempel replied that it was satin Cory, Comm�.ssioner Tolstoy asked if Staff was satisfied -s2*1t the wording. M-. Lam replied that Staff had tried to make the wording as simple as possible and were satisfied. Chairman Dahl called for the motion, Motion: Moved by Rempel, secondc7 by Tolstoy, carried tc -'?.lopt Resolution No. 123-A. AYES: COMMISSIONERS; Hempel, Tolstoy, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS: King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None carried- h ' K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 6833 - LAWRENCE A residential subdivision of 7.17 acres into three (3) parcels within the R-1 zone located on the west side of East Avenue, north of �[ Southern Pacific Railroad.=(APN 227-121-30 & 43) Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer., reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Rempel asked if there was only one point of,access. Mr. Rougeau replied that iL parcel 3 were to be subdivided, there would be a requirement by Foothill Fire District for emergency access across other land to tie into a stub street and be connectedat a future date. Chairman Dahl asked if the applicant was present. Planning Commission Minutes -18 May 13, 1981 J i Mr.. Robert Lawrence applicant of this pp project, asked if it would be '} yermissible to go with an 80' street width on East Avenue until lots 1 and 2 were developed and a dedication for additional street width could be obtained. Mr. Rougeau replied that there had never been an 80' width standard. He stated that East Avenue was at one time classified as a collector street at a width, of 66 . Howev,,r, since adoption of the General flan, Ea;}t Avenue has ti an classified xis a collector street which is 88` wide. Mr. Rougeau further stated there would be an Etiwanda Specific Plan developed which may change some streets when completed. Mr,I- ougeau was of the opinion that the General Plan street designation at 88' shdild ba adhered to. He indicated that if the street were narrowed at a future date, the right-of-way could be vacated.back to tha. property owner. Mr. Rougeau stated that should either of the lots be developed, the street improvements would be deferred until completion of the Specific Plan. Mr. Lawrence asked for clarification,of condition 4.4 stating that it implied the land was on sewers. Mr. Rougeau replied �:aat it was a condition regr;ring a letter of acceptance from Cucamonga County Water District. Mr. Lawrence asked for clarification of conditions 2, 17 and 24, regarding the requirement of a 24' property line ,!adius north and south of parcel 3. He stated that it was his opinion that (be condition implied he could comply ! with the requiremenc however he did not own the adjacent property and could not guarantee compliance. - Chairman_ Dahl stated that if thera were no access other than the one proposed r by the applicant, major porble_ms would occur if he decided to furthe, subdivide parcel 3. Mr. Hogan stated that it is a Foothill Fire District requirement to have 2 means of access. Lot a, if it, stood alone, would only have one access. He further stated tF,w-'4evelopment on parcel I could be deferred until ;t access agreements were obtained from property to the north. A temporary means of access couW bo obtained over parcel 1. Mr. Rougeau stated that if a, aas the applicant's opinion that cordition 17 would preclude him from ever subdividing parcel 3, that reference could be made only to radius on the north prop rty line and delete the radius on the scath. Chairman Dahl opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the project and the public hearing was closed Commissioner Tolstoy >tated that tlae approval of parcel 3 with only one means of acces3 was et;ilar to apprcwals made by the County and he did not agree wits; those approvals. Planning Commission Minutes -19 May 13, 1961 lr�i 'a z Mr. Rougeau replied the problem would only arise if parcel 3 werr- sub- t divided and the applicant had been made aware of this problem. Motion: Moyed by Rempel;, seconded by King,. carriEd-to adopt Resolution No. 81=57 approving Parcel Map 6833 with the amendment of condition 17 regarding the radius on the north side of the property only and delation F of the south. AYES; COMMISSIONERS7` Rempel, King, Dahl NOES: COMMISSIONERS:- Tolstoy ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sceranka ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None -carried- Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was voting no on this project as he ! felt that the City was approving projects similar to the ones the County approved knowing there would be problems in the future. Chairman Dahl stated that he was only voting yes on the project to make It very clear to the,applicant where the Commission stood on the access on parcel 3. r; OLD BUSINESS Mr. Logan stated that the mini-kart sign had been removed from the roof of tie Arco station and had been replaced with a new sign. The project was fitally coming to an'end. PUBLIC COW&NTS Mr. Gil Rodriguez asked why the density was lowered on his property south F of the Gtmco Center. Mr. Hogan replied that the action was taken by the City Council and that he could nat answer for the City Council's actions. Chairman DaLl stated that this action was a result of public hearings held on the General Plan. He further stated that these were advertised public hearing, and had been heard by the Commission,-,it least'twice before being acted on. Mr. Rodriguez asked for the date of the change. Mr. Lam replied that it was adopted, April 6, 1981. Planning Commission Minutes -20 May 13, 1981' y ADJOURNMENT Motion, Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried to adjourn. II:04 P.M. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary `j Planning Commission Minutes -21 May 13, 1981 ` c CITY GF RAiNCH0 CCCG\.�IG\�Gt� �o��`C AI- �c7 S 'I' SPORT 1 O7� Z RATE: June 24, 1987 5: .. 19TT TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vai.•in, Se,ier Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-05 -- SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY - The develop- ment of an electrical distribution substation located on 4.78 acres of`land' in the R-1-20 zone, located on the northwest corner of Archibald. Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN 1061-571-04 ABSTRACT: The Planning Commission has continued the public hearing on ' this matter since May 13, 1981 to allow representatives of the Edison Company to meet with property owners in the immediate area of the project site to discuss their concerns and clarify the design of the project. Edison Company Officials met with approximately 30 people on June 9, 198, to present the project details and clarify any questions or issues. The project is now before the Planning Commission for your final review and consideration of the Conditional Use Permit.. Please find attached a copy of the original Staff Report outlining the details of this project. Also attached, is a Resolution of Approval asl suggested conditions of approval should the Commission wish to approve this project. BACKGROUND: The request for the development of an electrical sub- station requires review and approval by the Planning Commission to determine land use and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding and adjacent properties. Typical concerns related to a facility of this nature; generally focus upon aesthetics and views into the project site.. Some of the concerns that were brought out by the`resdents ;n the area relate to noise, views, and general aesthetics. Edison has conducted some noise studies to determine the existing ambient (surrounding) noise levels of the site. From this base, Edison has projected what the noise levels will be with the installation of transformers that would be required for this facility. The projected sound revels fos both day and night are weal within the normal acceptable .range for residential densities of this nature. The General Plan in- dicates a 45 to 55 dBA noise level as an acceptable level which would not interupt speech or normal activity in this type of zone. Edison has also prepared line of sight drawings from Klusman Avenue to show potential views from those precise 'vocations(These will be on display at meeting). Owners along Klusman were concerned that the difference in grade from their homes to the Edisonfacility would cause an objectionable vier into the interior of the facility. Based upon he sections that have been completed by Edison, the majority of the ITEM A Staff Report I CUD 81-05 - Edison R2- June.24, 1981 i facility will be screened through normal blockwall construction 4nd landscaping. As can b% seen from the Grading and Site Plan, Edison also proposes to sub-grade as much of the facility as possible 0 alleviate this problem. In addition, staff is recommending that(a dense screen of trees andshrubs be planted around the ps-imeterof the facility. The Commission could ou d further ether mitigate the immediate impa::t of these views, if it is a concern, by requiring specimen; size trees to be plarted,along these boundaries. This would prcvide stronger screening immediately upon installation. To improve the general aesthetics of the facilityt Edison has pCaposed decorative screenwalls on mounded earth around the entire perimillter of the site with significant amounts of landscaping. Sections andieleva- tions of the wall designs are attached ;for your review. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commissitp conduct a public hearing to consider all public input relative to the concerns of this project. Upon reviewing the concerns and considerations regarding this development, it is recommended that the Planning Commission take action to either find the development consistent and compatible kith the City policies and guidelines based upon the recommended conditiois of approval or deny the project should the Commission find that this! facility cannot be constructed to mitigate the concerns to an acceptable 'level. R76pectfu ly submitted, r ( IARY NOG pity PTanne BK .MV•cd Attachments: i t � - r;= RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHD CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-05 FOR ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CGRNER.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 Edfson Company For review of Zlhe above described project; and ;. WHEREAS, on the 24th'day .of June, 1981, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held f, 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 'Caneral Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use 'is proposed; r and, I; 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable tnereto, wil`s not be detrimental to the publi. health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comp' with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. I SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on thi environment ana that a Negative Declaration is issued or, June 24, 198E SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 81-05 is' approved subject to the following conditions and attached standard conditions: 1. That the detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall conform to the approved site plan, except as otherwise provided herein. Z. That trees be provided every 15 feet arovAd the outside perimeter wall on the west and north side with shr-ibS Dlanted between the trees for screening purposes: 3. That the California Black Oak be specimen size trees and':' that additional specimen size trees be provided 0 ong Archibald Avenue to mQet- ;pedal Boulevard standards. tt u Reso utiar•;No. Page 2 4. T`iat trees be planted at the base or both transmission fine poles to-i^educe visual .impact. " 5. Installation of a portion of the master 'planned storm drair on Wilson Avenue with adequate catch basin connections ' contiguous to the subject project shall be required. The drainage fee for the project shall be credited towards, the cost of this d'raiir. APPIOVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 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 City w Ranct:o AIM 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 Ce.mmissibn held on the 24th day of June, 1981. by the following vote to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS,: 'e m c•y C ,.`- ' 4- ME c A �Q T� E y � P.L-. Y p .O O' O fl L •1 � AC yL qV E06 .� C d t3 a 9 m N N u 4 'y aQ L u K g M1 a _d d Q «r U..rO- rA qq 9 uE L N6, U �Cj,� C y0d 3 OU 6 d d y0 �C`i.6 y�.acp dC. EP r � J..J tL _Y b G r�q� F VY -1q T L mr ANC.0 Cig ^ Y ME � � ? d n y rC •�H 6�C.. d VO d�� OJOGK:� LG F q C 00. d ^q D• D O^ •+ d rp O GO q G O C L •• e ao v' u o '" `a°1 ° �i u....oi =.d m a'7 .- ^ C a � d O-r• •"..1 m O. L�V O e Ot Ow z rG _ 0 66 • j .m�Ls�.wn b� N Otl .d 8 el .7 ,N ttL CC E A _dE N�y p�FJ f' 96E.% ..y U^. �UL.� L >Z dL9 ..4.,y t. O m t 0 N vim. LC a aG > q KL 2 L rpq La Cy yy6 U� d 91 tC 00 N Ly U T. O yLrOi U«. ' 3S � L Gq CO 9 O� [ll pd V•N .-N O J .`.V�� fl ��pp dY E V> OO NE % L �GEd EOE OL .j990uy Oyu O � U N C d' RR V O O• N 2 O_Y V-C t d p � a..U. 9 d IL N� X Ny .� Gam. y N d FF V�'O .• u u` Sa 9N 9r �a 9 u j qyVo > d G y q C OVe v�i LCga q V ^ 1■ o .�9 CCII m Y ;N NCI �«6M .NO+ � V_G C L 6 t X Na •Qq U N GN Wr 13 /-3 �4• jYM mdl I..._d V>>.SY � fLVdyq �. W 1 N14 •~• ~) NI NI N� N� N� N� NI. �! S ti�. NI i y a: w V' •^ 'O y qU G O t y? o. L O 3 > y d V t9i 6 y.p C r d V• L^ O V C a G • >h U. p ro u u k ro VO - r d GN V C Vo CO 9^C ay! ?N a d. C T U IC t� 9 Y L y` T L•° �n.. � Ts a d q O.•-G � N.e rjE aa.G do O.0 o'`p. cu C N9 y C 9CI CO CI6' Ea q,GN C NO. ?^ O W VU VV W:N p9 d Udd V'O V x m q C r• C 3 Oq VL > 7. J£ OI g G� d vN avq - o o v� �:; $_y — Yy. c r `Q �.. M Z Z N O dL ON ¢¢. V. •i T •6 Ld = U O vq`I•p.• 0. a L L NL O �L n i q V LC 6 M. 9 �y H �6 O.' »�,• N",'q fU.! C'1 a C d m TI O • O + C Z u 9 > O L C p N O O . 1 c N fO O d c p >S NO. EL OG E € V In'• biro ZZ���V dN d OO a JJd _ N GE c v E. v°: d o>>. n L Y CO Na q d gOfV C V Ow 8 .-S C E Cnr o- M . `o t d i-' ` a^ «�C' L d 0 M a .I O N q J V d E C.ca N =.Q aq a rm p v 9GOGI O J V � x V a V,IO L •-- Imo. d L ^v. iom- y C1 C G V E d J C.. dd N.09 Dfntu 9` � V EL � y Gi 6« 1O.r C 'Nd •»L 0.� I a 4 y N �•• O N..`. dN.00 6«arJ !�K N>N Kr Q+m L«.• 1r 40. Qd0 Q.ONH Kw hy,vu U S• I-z. 1 _ y d Vf' O N M O- VT. •D. �. '.Q OI. .C.a N .M.•i 77 6. q N 6L Sr q c o e� ro N .N..4 a O u 2Ly 2� O r- V- ✓ L ✓ + L. V =N nc u uN i d O � E Eu UM f O.Ua O L 6C •L G+ = c0 C G. 6 E o' ny N ryL '" 'L V O LN •6;..q y L m.6. Y N •N.D O a 0 A a y. a U. c L y E u � •9 D TN of+ a DL 9.aN G. uV � L' N NN ~.yro J" OVY 'uy^O, SY = bm w•m0 m... O 'O = pL ^n 9. a L CN 29j v Groa N9m NQ mi n _n YL-m W,G �?a o nC u 9.U w 9 GL LCa L YrN. D16 L� NN a �+.� «m jN Nu i. u u b .. nL+N G YO...0 L O J] d V +F..0 : a G G N.QL L.Y• td � D.3 OI: EE uL L CyF i p.L. Eu O ✓ A O uv d C O}N N L =O }� L V L m G =0.3� u Y o�n G a� > �v c ✓ u.c. L.' L w.-�U dca plp I.N ^ 3 3 ✓ �`LL + OI roY . 21n� ON �n L A O EL CI N uE ^ � >6 = L n u p ,n •u E O n•r� Ell. y5 C E O O N Y-Yv ^'E .f E+ Glua YLO.CY n'V. m � E.N m UN9 N� CCc�~ y uT Dnm�V O�LN CC G y.L P •- > O aGy 9n c.�. LTOwVj t-iN G.vni N C�id G6mm i- C OOa. ON GO fZY. 1-6_0 ND. 6d 4.iDJ3L N9a . C n o a.r CW Ou C A 4-U R6 .00 L.. b.O OIa G L N n` n E� Y-u6i au+c O a. Yo w�i N s Y+rnO E 9 uL �p GO Cy u u CL m3 d V hu W U+ 3 a L a 1 >I u q � 9 u TO r.F.dll C� 4 vT F•6 CL S U O O d L ro Y G. y� w L 9 L 9 L T U' O G n G L iL+.N UNN �M L 9. L LO O 4•� a« C� Y" OT � Y U^ UOV s'�,..�a=a a^ .L� ✓.p T V�, a N6 r✓"J ae �j N a Q C �6 LO U� .. .D N d E✓O OI Y-W o s {O Y r E T L. L.35 1 O i F,C L Y yl c a C R N p u N V L n N aD E�� O LN G CTO O m.L y L.Lm r �.r 9 rO bC.tj „ ^ '^� r0: ✓ ay'DC �� aQ161 � :�- L ti.' 'uC = u nu +)l L EE m 9Gq.. a OA G ^. as c✓ C N aG� vN0 tT t mu Fl: 5 U �9 ✓ „ .u-� 3LYn u Cu9 a�i9 4....� N.� c .vT n 6c Ev m N ^� 6Ci . a 9. NN m� ^.L JJ n.JN A9 1 Y up• V.G ''. l 09..� LN CdTORMim✓OOI c.aa0 Ca13.Q1 3 .-C. CmN04. �J. .i NaZJ V ^ J UN nou � � d��✓'O E AO L9tJT aE AE •L+ GmL c9 '. N m ... as n N L a maJL �j. � pYu rn �. a •u a.. >.o- cc caiu 3. uw. mZCN Y.ca �a mn aa.'�-L= ov L., d O DD= T T as L i T i c E I C c dd. L .N mp G ti n3 a low. E a aC CG O.uC C a 19 la fJ gnlL n ' N DLu n9 .' u. va.Y Uu dOL.6 O u= } 4 •- FY.+ o1.LnL. 4 1V OW 6 K Gl h>4� •e=•NO .� 4G WdVOtuuO NrVOUN QNOI G.O QLiQN tv1�.�OdGL 66 C .'�1 0 tR b 1� C 01 V � tV � • n �t w Lqp c c a do qn Lp 3 r LL c O. m v to F O 01c VOI cU.0 C Vim 3n dtdiN OON = , � ya b w m E y4W T On aL ,cV d c� u C 3 re u� 3 dLU lrtc o ^"' axa C OVE ti dd o G.. qG Ow 'Q o` c r 1 V= _•dc dr V.GM O c nL dV>OL O � C C= N n o n>.-. g� O p m •Y u _ x 3 L jOU n�•- • n F r r COY Edp3 � C xp� U.Y O. �. .L N c 9 �N. c q n nq+O >> n?O V 2 a d E xpt C C V F. y C+. y L OLI W U C1 y C U U ^ ^ Yn U o G q op aY W Q j x^ CO. V b E xO.N V V> L M. E d G A p. dU L O T^ 6 V d O TnE 1 6 ` O,C O, NO O Uoo N �w.0 nCp Volz ..- NC UE C U p C O O ddN �A Owf O C> U DY 4U L. Ouae0+a 4..pE 4"O.p m m'au GN 4q Hun O U ¢ V V LY- n.nb 4 a V V p V d 2 m 0 A. A wrl " T d T u _ a p = vxi> O.nv :O � _� Vx Cr- u. - L 4n d N ...r2 O U n E Co Yq. p xin0 yC' T' LL dY d u A b V I + we .ALL nY L, ✓ L �C O L xry�UY O�tl. c 4.�Y y O.Tc.0. EO.wTa. E p p� b t_V- sfa p 3 =T.A. d6 LdE E w y. :C q3 I OLcic �p b d 3 i G. N FF L d c N E Of 4 p o r + C L d L .� G b "� uY. Zj w U c C G T 0= _�. o c b '" c •. 'coy.. " xob' o—La xcL..o+ c q�:u o L� cp € Y •d 'Yc s> 4 Ca O d. u u 8 9'c uFFom '•°..0 'ti. a. ud ♦+ 91 q VO^I YnL C OU. tv uE �x V xOi OEO. Y €O. _ C NE �'• p p d d..C- uE ti p U EGG 3.`-.api c d ;� CpN aOa Cq^ do w - do qp^p, 13 n QO'N � E OO �y - CxiO d � • .-;. V �y wC E duu o ZT.��. W ax, p ua +T•,u " Y o.:; ;� r.� OLL.. Y p4.0 ...c OCd. xLU xLl tE bi p - LY. c~i d 6 p E N w d d n C13 b0 � c � n n 6 p U cu nd i p O yO Yo`+Y tj Ya F��3 dw Z L .- 1 c^1 2JLA0 z V p N L CU.1 b a07 N • �, O L c N c N a V O U ^ m Oy C>j �••' W OT m Nv o'RIw u� d ab 'i 6E d .-a A nl o LU q L T u.a q T au L E c N c rn ^c On rr0-t. ED bvni ,^c._ \ a,� cu au b n.^ don y d u� � � an vb• �.� `y O9 u0 r�06 O.p. ^a EU cU.d d^ urn •p'E � ' ^c 6 3 Y 2 ^c � c e u �y Q .L. « t r € CUl c N iN bC Ua' pb C YL N.p V Y ay y0 ..• 9 d� dY• '� C G�nor l o c aurn D co uv`. and of a. a Dr d �9 �a c dCic 0. 0.0n be tE. yi ab ri WU C ..12 9 �c 26 t019 ¢«40 ti dOd b dL �C at 'L T FV ':.y.as G.6 ruir 4v�i .a+3 uM 3.•`- HN' J� .2Na U + r Ord Y J C W V. W O L •L.r c ... q M E y O , i b n G. dC -IS O�Trn r Ed bL - 3b. O N 3 u p xco • }. GH t E IS y WOaX ~ N Epp Oro rn L 7? Or ..yO a Wbt7 b NO. j u2O C NJ Cap.•. ~ , O c b^ i G. -.1 3 ED c e N � D �O �� EC Ed ICJ E. E O{ 2 quL aT LD C 3 of O T OV di Uc N r T L O q GG b c� Y� �i n0. U. E �C • c y 3 t N3-. �LaO L L NO y T V. 3 eyi U .G o G.- N L OtvcULZi 6C 0.b L ct d. bE p ._ Z. r.. 6pT4w 'L O o p L E ct c+ ',� o •� d u T ta. •+ N GL U^ W U a'aT�ns v1DG+- CtU 4•rc- Wa+y Mi 71 r a Y p u W O p 9 gg U a y ICI. o ��i; m qwN may.. qa Y K.Eq E V- y tiyV U� a y r-.T+ y. OEC a Z TWA L'. Ld ^N S t.VN 'o tIz G6 T Q E� r n O Y C Y i s L.1L 7 C L C11 � 9 Z u q C SOY V ?O � p TCC `O�p �j L a tans Y � uu Gino da T u E 4mia E nT>n9.. - E Wy t1 ni QC 'cn c - u, W 06 ' L QNMN W p ^N j Febivary 12, 1981 SUBJECT: Alta Loma Substation Sito Noise Level Pre--jaction A noise level survey wa'rr made by Apparatus Engineering between January 28, and February 1, 1981, to determine the ambient noise levels at the site of Alta Loma Substation.- Projections have been calculated to ..ctermine the effect;of the planned 1984 facilities on the existing ambient levels. The Alta Loma Substation site is located in an area zoned R-1 (Residential) within the incorporated city limits of Rancho Cucamonga, in San Bernardino U'jnty. Substet ons are a permitted use with planning commission approval. It is bounded by Archibald Avenue on east, Wilson Avenue on the south and residential property on the west and north. ` The city of Rancho Cucamonga has no enacted noise ordinances at this time. San Bernarano County has a proposed noise ordinance which would limit noise levels to 50 dBA day and 45 dBA night when measured on any residential property line. These would be further reduced by 5 dBA for simple tone noises, such as from transformers, resulting in a proposed 45 dBA day and 4o dBA night limit. The measured ambient noise levels and the projected levels that have been calculated, assuming that two nsw Edison standard transformers willrbe installed,are: Sound Level - dBA Existing Ambient Projected Location Day Night Day Night_ North Site Line 35 33 36 34 North Wall 35 33 39 37 East Wall ( ,hibald Ave.) 35 33 Zia 41 South Wall (Wilson Ave.) 35 33 43 41 West Wail 35 33 39 37 West Site Line 35 33 35 34 Resid. Prop. West 35 33 36 34 Resad. Prop. South 35 33 40 38 The above table indicates that almost all of the projected noise levels are within the limits of the proposed San Bernardino County noise ordinance. Only the night time levels for the east andsouth property lines. are projected to be above the proposed limits by 1 dBA. This is not expected to cause any significant impact' becausa the station is buffered.from those residential properties by Archibald, and Wilson Avenues., There are increases projected above the existing ambient levels for all of the ` locations shown. These projections assume that there will be no increase in ambient noise le`rels between now and the time the station will be constructed. T,!iis is a conserve.ive assumption for it is apparent that the need for the station is depend- ent upca Suture growth, and future growth.will be accompanied by an,increasing noise level. "<r K CITY OF RANCI-10 `.GCS . ?\G+1. `oc�c^uolc STAFF REPQPT FIL Z DATE: May 13, 1981 �� a 1977 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Ban Coleman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENvIRONMC`_'TAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDI'TIGNAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-05 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY - 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 APR 1061-571-04 ABSTRACT: The applicant has ccmpleted tne-development and design review process for an eletrical distrubution substation to be located on the northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson 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 provided abundant landscaping and walls to provide a visual buffer between -tile facility and surrounding neighborhood. Staff has reviewed the project and has provided con- ditions of approval for your review and _ nsideration. BACKGROUND; the applicant is requesting review and approval fo,, the development of an electrical 'distrihittion 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, former banks, and other appurtenant equipment (Exhibit "B"). Two o=,erhead trans- mission lines will emanate from the substation,'but ail distrihution' 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 •Itris grove, and on the east + vacant land and a single-family i residence, as indicated on Exhibit "A". The project site is pre- sently a vacant field and contains no significant vegetation or structures. The e:: sting grade. slopes from the north to the.south at approximately a,5% grade. The property is presently zoned R-1- 20,000 (single-family resiiential), and the General Plan designates , this site as very low density residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre). J t ,, CUP 81-05 -2 May 13, 1981 ANALYSIS: The site development p(rn, Exhibit "B", has been developed in accordance with'Zoniny Ordinance standards and requirements. Electrical distri.butiin viLtations ar - allowed in the R-1 zone subject to a Conditional Use ;Permit. The building setbacks, parking area,, and landscaped areas are ail being provided in accordance with standards and policies set by the Planning Commission. Archibald Avt„ s is a Special Boulevard and 0e applicant has proposed to landscape it accord,ngly (Cxhibit "C"),- Access to the site is being provided by a singe driveway located approximately 200 feet north of Wilson Avenue on Archibald Avenue. In accordance v:ith the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, both streets aroma required to be improved along the entire length of the property. Striet improvements would include paving overlay, curbs, berming and landscaping, a meandering sidewalk or, Archibald Avenue, and sidewalk on Wiistln Avenue. The elevations, as shown on Exhibit "V, 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 cun;z^ete block with stucco finish and brown split-face block. The wails 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 Avenl.a 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 ,`.gees be planted 15 feet on center id ong the north and west boundaries of the facility. This will help ,provide screening for pro7perties 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 the site. Part I of the Initial Study a completed by the applicant is 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 en.-ironment from an aesthetic viewpoint, that adequate mitigation measures have been proposed to eliminate significant adverse impacts. If the `I E CUP 81-05 ..3 May 13, 1981 Commission concurs with such findings, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. ' CGRAESPONDENCE: - A_public hea;,ing notice was advertised in the Daily 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 proje(,.t site have expressed concern with the visual appearance of a substation. RECOMMENDATiON: :`t is recommended that the Plannin 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 apprcval are attached for your review and consideration. Respectfglly submitted, BARRY K. HOGAN City Planner B Kii:DC:cd' Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Elevations Exhibit "0" - Ccnceputal Site Development Plan Part I - Initial Study Resolution of Approval Conditions t t. WiMtbFati L l'�ttTAkn, alum R PRE T t NORTH CITY OF ITE,�1: Rt�i\C CI CL'Cf� IO 'C'ir�. TITLE: ' � MA? PLANNING DIVISION E.INIBIT= SCALE. '�, x� • —� �—.�Y.^ ' ♦ s miY[t�N4 i'111`A _..M r(.t _ 4'(x — `I�l�l.f j.: ' 12 Kf.SWiTtM¢AC - I t•`-'yl�v. l'M r ! \..r'7•nn rll y r / C T � �r'b�NK j r'I -O+.VK .1"�.NK 1 1 j4.wK`� !t I' •.r - ,.•' ..• f. ca KY aw,rw lCnCK 1 ,;. F '. -.fY ..F9. 1• w. . ' '�.. t.:�o..}*�'P.-.r,L.ai'rTw n"r'� ,,:• i I l�ask "�� il" "' NORM CITY or, ITL"•M= RANCHO CUCA.jVI®\TGA ' TITLE: PLANNING DIVISION EYHMIT- SCALE: ��sz t,•i�r+V4 a ryi �Iti� `-----a y •Q ia�" _ 1 Y � I�i t fL 2/500,F IF ff LOT! ' q ap, / s `- j_ aYa`frr7 STiZE9T IlDD/CA%Otil C5072/w1 ^ toj3 L� 4l5oot SF - a I _ So.ceuF E*Dnov I LOj¢ QOrGLbSF I. .. r 1 ren.m• -^J-- a5.no• � I'YlL.JO.Y .dYc1�'JF -_ NOR'] RANCHO CiJC 1dl �N-'A TITLE- PL.t►NNA' G L lVlSlO*-! EXHIBIT---D- • •C'^ 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCtV4ONCA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of .this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committer2 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 ?) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Alta Lome Substation APPLICANT 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Southern California _ Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Greve Avenue, Rosemead, Ca. 91770 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Don W. Bailey, Room : 06, (213)572-2879. LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) North West corner of Archibald Ave and Wilscn Ave. intersection. _ Assessocr Parcel No. 106/ -.57%- 04- LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAI, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS : Site Approval - City of Rancho Cucamonga Grading G Fencin. . Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga Encroachment Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga Y i -... -. PROJECT DESCRIPTTOIv DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alta Loma Subsite will be used for a new aesthetirally treated low profile 66/12kV distr but ion substation ultimate y consisting or a single story relal house. nine osi.tions of 66kV switchrack four 44.4MVS 66 12' V trans- former bark. nmventaen nn 'r of 19kV .winch*-rk' four 12kV �nacirn h- 1-c n,�7 o hnn _appurtenant P.QU1ArtIP.17t aS�nCl.ated With a di.stni'F>>ti On Stare Off-will be 15 feet above its pad level. All distribution lines emanating-fromt e e underground. _ the station will be ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BC "LDINGS, IF ANY: 'total parcel: 4.78 Acres-, Project Site: 2.42 Acres; Relay House: 699 so feet DESCRIBE THE •ENVIRONME^7TAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOPXATION ON TOPOGFAPHY, PLAIaTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPr-CTS, USE OF SURROUINDING PP.OPERTIES, AND TIIE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTID:G STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACK NECESSARY SHEETS) : The 4.78 Acre sitis vacant and used as pasture land for livestock PIo trees exist on the site and grazing has reduced the vegetation to _ li.vhtly covered weeds and eras The troiect site terrain slopes 40 IJorth to South with a relief of approximately 25 feet. No si ns of soil erosion exists. Any animals existing on the site would be _ crnfi.ned to .^,mall rcdents. There are no cultura historical or 1 scenic aspects known to exist on the site. Two -- i story single family �Z'P.i rlenCoc exicr� cOvrh of Vie -•v:+. ad • i �i._s,.�,n t to the c rh S"n.1 storv, single family, residences exists to the west of the 4.78 acre parcel. 10 the north the area contains a citrus ;rove with a two story farm house, barn and other small sheds. Across Archibald Avenue, adjacent to the east, the area is vacant -------------- Is the nroj`>_t, part of a large_ r_, p_ ,cct, one of a saris Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a ,whole have sigZificar-t environ.•nental impact? The oriy,inal interior installation will be the electrical^quipment and � ,. ........... n.• ra in.�rl cl n t .e currnnt needs of the area. Periodic additions may be made in the future, as required, to meet the electrical cemaao or t e area that is serve x- f� WILL T1i7S PROJP.CT: YI S NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc, ) ? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for nse 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 or 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 adcquZte evaulation can be made by the Develorwent Review Committee. Date 5ignaturel/ Title ?ROPFRTY L.bfrl?tE°R CITY 01- RANCHO CUC'LMONGt STAff', REPORT _< J f O, - p DATE: June 24, 1981 ul Ja 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall , Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIR014ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 6596 - A & R EQUIPMENT An industrial subdivision�o • acres of laR into parceTs within the 14-2 zone located at the northwest corner of San Bernardino Avenue and Lucas Ranch Road INTRODUCTION: This subdivision consists of 4.08 acres to be divided into 2 parce o nearly equal size within the rail served General Industrial Area. There is an existing commercial structure on parcel no. 2 with the proposed parcel 1 being vacant at this time. There are no plans for immediate develop- ment of parcel 1. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: A1sn attached for your review and consideration is Part I cf t e Initia Study as completed by the applicant. Staff tas 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 environ- ment as a result of the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tentative map be approved, subject s: tote City Engineer's Report, and that a Negative Declaration be issued. A resolution is attached to provide for approval should the Commission concur. 1f Respectfully submitted, ti ".. LBH:BK:jaa Attachments 4` ITEM B 7.. ._: _ - ti RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6596 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 40. i 65y6) LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAN BERNARDI_NO ROAD AHD LUCAS RANCH ROAD. r WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6596, submitted by A & R Equipment and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the northwest corner, and Lucas Rancho of San Bernardino Road Road, being a division of Lot 8 Tract 7936 as recorded in Book 118, pages 65-66, of San Bernardino County; and, WHEREAS, on April 23, 1981, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 1981, the Planning Conw.-ission 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 this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on June 24, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6596 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 1981. PLANNING, COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Ric hard 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 Commissior held on the 24th day of June, 1981, by the following vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: � Ir r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY; A & R Equipment CQpany TENTATIVE MAP NO. PM 6595 LOCATION;_jlg_1llwest cornerof San Bernardino Ave DATE FILED: 4/2.3 gl and Lucas Ranch Road NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:_Lot 8. Tract. 7936 RECEIPT NUMBER: 11102 FEE: 00 ZONE: M-2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TENTATIVE "AP PREPARED BY: _ J. Richard Newton GROSS ACREAGE:_ 4.08 acres ADDRESS: 624 -West "I" Street VINIMUM LOT AREA: 41 ,82a sg• ft. Ontario CA 91762 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE # ink RP A-2&_ R Equipment 9950 Fourth Street 2887-6295 Rancho Cucamonga 21730 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 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 Lucas Ranch Road Other X_ 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: San Bernardino Ave. 4. Street vacation requirtd for: 5. Master Plan of Streets revision required for: p 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: .r '. RCE 20 TENTATIVE f4AP NO. 6596 Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to ® Recording for all parcels ) - ❑ Building permit for ) 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 2. Construct tthe following missing improvements on the following streets: *includin 'landscaping and irrigation on meter CURB & A.L. SIDE- DRIVE STREET STREET MEDIAN STr.EET NAME GUTTER PVMT. WALK APPR. JTRZES LIGHTS ISLAND* OTHER uc an Y- i r X ): X Bnd A rexai X X _ X Lien _ 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. 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. 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 r•t-iuired. 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 ti -n up by new service, will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The following sped is dimensions, .e. , cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: _ lu. The ollowing existing streets are substandard They will require: Approvals and Fees 19. 'fhis subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interesred ?qen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requiremellLs that may be received from them. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP N0. 6596 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. Tre .hing 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: X 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right-of-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 clarification as follows: _ 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing 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 Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to EN Recording for all parcels l ❑ Building permit for ) X . 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. X 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. X 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 constricted across streets at following locations: 33. Broad scale hydrologic stud,es _rn _5! required to assess impact of increased runoff. X 34. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6596 Page 4 Miscellaneous X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. _ 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with 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 preventat ion of se imd enta- ' 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 rr. .e the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subd', ,sion 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 said determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. _X 43. At the time of Final Map submittal , the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets) , copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or- showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. Development shai-, be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street shall u<g common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. Requirements of Condition #30 may be reduced if improvements to Deer Creek are confirmed by awarding of construction contract by U.S. Corp of Engineers. . x 4, P: o. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA a : LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER f By: t'. ..:RCE 20 PARCEL MAP # 6596 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAPIONCA ® INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INM1ItiOATION 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 Vnere 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 Corr iittee will meet and tal-e 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 eavironmer.tal impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an 6nvironnental impact and all 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: PARCEL MAP # 6596 APPLICANT'S NAML', ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: 986 8707 n NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING TIJIS PROJECT: Above LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PAFP.CEL NO. ) _ A9�0 $•o +r'- Street Cucamonaa LIST OTHER PEW-11TS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONF.L, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PEPJ-ZITS: Y"0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: r �T,3�.F7 nan n_'rcr'rnrrTr_ Tnm fl mnrr. -�c.^� ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA A'ND U?�RE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF MY: TOTAL AREA 178M Sq Ft. F.xi atjAg Rui7A;»g�a '1A fi00 a s— DESCRIBE THE ENVIRO:-=-NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDIN'G INFOR2,11ATION ON TOPOGRa.Pii % PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE CF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : c!t4 Pn=ely covered with either buildings paving ar �laa '►'his is an exiting industrial lot P commercial bUildj ,,g and_a 12adin dock exists on Parcel # 3. _— SEE PARCEL MAP # 6596 for details ` Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although indiv: duall;, mall, maY as a whole have significant environmental impact? — - �s"��.�psi fically for this use. �i s�. t r ' f WILL TIIIS PROJECT: Yrs NO xx 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? xx 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? xx 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, outer, sewage, etc.)l xx 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? xx 5: Remove any existing tree:,? How many? xx 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammabies or explosives? Explanation of any Y,_S answers above: IMPORTAITT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form Un the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information reauired for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the beet of my knowledge and belief. I fu`:'ther und-rstand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evallation can be made by the Development Review Committee. / Date 4/22/81 �/ A � ' Signature Title LIt. #2386 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART lI — INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE:_ :%(IAJE /0, APPLICANT: FILING DATE: , ekl L 2-3� /ff-/ LUG NUMBER: / PROJECT: Pwca L 6�qP j6;96 PROJECT LOCATION; /V efi'L'. 'sow /jEPillWkV11VV AVc,UuE f/itJO LGICf)5 KA��f/ I. EP:VIRONMENTAL IMPACTS /ZoAD, (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets) . YES MAYBE NO i. 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 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 geol.ogi.c hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud— slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? x h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in; YES MAYbi NO a. Changes i.n currants, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? Z( � I b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? Z( c. Alterations to the course or flow of fl•iod waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water ii any body of water? �( e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics'? Z( g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters either through direct additions or wit) - drawals, or through interference with : n aquifer? Quality? Quantity? _ h. The reduction in the amount of water ot-ier- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seithes? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from nobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? I b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and,'or interference with the attainment of appl_ cable air quality standards? c. Alteration of local or regional climatic i conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? �( 4. Biota I Flora. Will the proposal have significant re:,ults a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numL•er of any species of plants? Z( b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare is or endangered species of plants? YES XAYBE NO C. Introduction of ne%+ or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Char:be in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distriouti.on, or numbers of ally species of animals? �( b. Reduction of the numbers of any unieue, rare or endangered species of animal ' 9 c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ' Z( d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal elter 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 v:slues? Will project costs be equitably distributed among project b,ineficiaries, i.e. , buyers, tax payers or project users? i 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 pl.,ns of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? v: _ YFS 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 existing parking facilities, or 4emand for new parking? v d. Substantial impact upon existing; transporta- tion systems? u 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? 10. Health, Safet and NuY.sance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health 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 number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? C. Increase in existing noise levels. u f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise le✓els? g• The creation of objectionable odors? ; h. An increase in light ur glare? x t YES MAYI�E NO r 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have signif=cant results in: y a. The obstruction or degradation of any sce^.ir vista or view? b. The creation of an aesthetic:_lly offensive site? ' c. A conflict with the objective of designated i •: or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utiliti es and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. El.ectric.power? b.. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. 'Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? --- g_ Solid waste far_iJities? LL h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? j , Schools? k. Parks or otiuer recreational facilities? 1. ,[aintenance of public facilities, including .roads and flood control facilities? -- �. Other governmental service:? — 13- Enr y and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or erCessive fuel or energy? b. S' _ancial increace in demand upon existing u sources of energy. -- C. Ar. �a.crease in the demand for development of ces of energy? d. A - increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non—renewable forms of energy, when feasible e available^ re:ieweble source^ of energy ar YES MAYBE 140 e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? Mandatory Findings of S:finificance. 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 fist, or wildlife 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 end"ngered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Cal.ifornikL histary or prehistory? b. Does the .project have the petential to achieve -port-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment iu one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future) . c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremanrai 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 tha above gt-testions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures). N1,4 i is 1 I ' 4 S'. 1 4'' M. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment; and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 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 caste• because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECL_SRATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. n Date —/(�-- R / , Signature ✓ 011[[r I nr 1 1.1, PnPnr.a a, UATi 319s/w1_ TENTATIVE MAP ✓HIMMIV f/lvlM bH' Oafal'a 6 l YEW it rmlo C62 Co 0)ezu,Y06 670" PA Pt MAP 6596 . o.ner Lowloxw IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON . On...r. Cllumm1..arx n a n, r 'Imwv enMtMR! 1 Gr�Mr InlRyl nlulm; x. elamrmunn, rsSo."W"I SPO= eLenMAll All I fA.WAR MmaNn:rt. LEGAL LAND DESCRIPTION m f11a1 '1C1 ain rYl'a WI ]•1!c• An m 'u?MWmnitO In MOM IIn O[s M nMc 3 MIM I•,nna Mr. MRPIOO Or a. ORN.W.IM,COIMR. 1 MeM NIpM1 . z zvM. /'JP G.R 6f.>,idfnrW.G�r/.P.i/ . ! rMIMI M.+M 1771 110 an! 4.00 At'• umIMI a+M 4"0.0 yeN Au.mlLMU MIT IN vw.c ILeurn,Mw ! A..1MCMr rp tlLRT1ICITr. iCLCNNICI. A.=, Mm. Tr,4�611/Iilr m (ea.��7-� CAS. Au- 7 M M M •OIN • 1 1 V 1 �- �� Locolmn Map,,_— —• — _, , 1 S\ i I ralr. tlul,n,MM. , ( I' Alf.. , x•ryel. ::rP r. �MLN111. _j ry IMf,nl.n11,1.n IM,. , � I . \� nl�ll l.lr•• 1 I�:Me trnxa ♦:a111 set,- .PO►C�� - � _ ' MCITAMr:vvu re.urrrrLra. .. 1, . . .._-. I ( 2 nrMtx orveM , e,rie, ser 1 1 r u +' 4 ar e ^ A[ P.:.9� 1 � 1 r,L" Ys nuiw,Ma. .• , U I nlcnxl'x /- -___ N,iMIMrp. 1 rSMICM N7iu. r tr tam 1 ` —WeMrur—C Di[ I • 1,7 1 r•r r.. �� '-1 fllnll:r.,l rCMCC. '•• •. j' naM M`r•[N nVbnCnn It4r9lfnn 1 raYLTnitnr.=- a•� "" — SAN BERNARONNO AVE F .J'�` vncnwr wvuMv CITY OF RANCHO CUC\,%10N'Gr'1 STAFF REPORT oI a F 2 DATE: June 24, 1981 1977 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE NO. 81-01 - HALL - A request to subdivide a lot, with less than the required depth and a request to deviate from the minimum front and rear yard require- ments, located at 8701 Turner - (PM 6748) ABSTRACT: Staff has reviewed this Variance request and has provided as detailed analysis within this report for your review and consideration. Staff has recommended approval of the Variance based upon the findings listed in the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval for the subdivision of a lot located at 7801 Turner Avenue (on the east 'side of Turner, south of Church Street, Exhibit "A") for the purp,)ses of constructing a dwelling. Because of the existing configuration of the site and the subsequent development that has transpired on the perimeter of the subdivision the lot created would not meet the minimum depth requirement of 100 feet. Exhibit "B", the site plan, shows the location of the existing house which fronts on Turner Avenue, and the rear portion of the site which could be subdivided from the front portion and gain access from Ashford Street. The applicants have, therefore, requested a Variance on the depth of the lot given the existing circumstances and on the front and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a new dwelling. ANALYSIS: Variances are granted for certain development standards which when literally interpreted or enforced would cause a pratical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, other findings are required to be made which show that enforcement of such regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of properties in the same zone and would not constitute the granting of special privileges. After review of this request, staff finds that deviation from the minimum depth requirement in this case would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community or area. The rear portion of the existing lot is undeveloped and physically separate from the front portion of the lot. The rear portion of the lot is oriented to Ashford Street and would most logically be developed with access fronting onto Ashford. Because of the surrounding lot pattern and location of Ashford, the applicant is left with no other alternative regarding the subdivision of this land. The proposed lot does contain the minimum sq. footage which is required for the R-1 zone; 7,200 sq. ft. Although the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20 foot rear yard setback, the County Code required ITEM C VA 81-01 - Hall -2- June 24, 1981 ANIL a 15-foot rear yard setback which is consistent with most of the dwelling units constructed in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the front yar ' setback reduction to 20 feet would not be incon- sistent with the neighborhood as the design of Ashford Street will physi- cally set the house back much further than other houses in the area. This Variance would require approval in order to a.ppirve the parcel map which is the next item on this agenda. Staff has prepared a Resolution of Approval with the necessary findings should the Commission concur with staff's findings and analysis. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing and notices have been mailed to property owners wihtin 300 feet of the subject property. To date, no correspondence has beer. received for or against this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission, conduct a public hearing to consider all public input. Upon conclusion of the public hearing, adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order if the Commission concurs with the findings of the Staff Reprot. Respectfully submitted, A % AR 0 I t Planned BKH:MV:cd Attachments : Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Resolution of Approval I t �-` .4 L v' r;:,� l 1".n G ri\LO�V _"p \,it 17 ,i iCf m7 • r �.1�1. B v 21 Q\r ' • 2Zfi 2 pri, w. w. t:�''M c I° . 7441 r 13 :7 \�yl ® gaff• i T.0 n Z':J -r i �y.. ro 2S'=` .'1' • � '` '1Y' /os+n'•^+ wa as 13 oe / 9 Is Bo ,o ,Yr9.0 � 13��R1/6 ' � �.� ':\� C1�r11 Dr ryU: :'�,St. Izt n yrw'4- oa nu. V" qv 19 't v+ nu 24-J3 : 'r v • 12 17 ,/ns ./OwYa_ ro . row a� ami iy al J . �._/ - ti•ry; h Nt�t ':J;V VIA •tc " al .Q lU "' � �14 ni` Fyn 11 � IB n b� �,l 2a�'7 VV . . 1t � �, q1� • _1 /n ro row 8 A) N/0 9 n119 iag ���.E+o // ..n^ L II f6 N 11tl` N 91On ,A 1 k�:y O u3 w, '• �n 12u 17 may` n\� 26y 7D _ipieo row vp 'avg. /o e^ y 10 19 M W`CO �.�<• �V Ok — •Vn N `JN:�' OM Vy I i! M ^ 2 ••. tiW•: �y�• 13" 18 27$i to YO log9 ro rL 6 _ �. • 9 2(1 Yi 1 .9l ,U r �r a 30 B , • w. wn t^1 y Gv 5V 9F '4 R. 7 PI O'j B X4 21 ( ••• ecpf $:.�� :?;. r-;:� ., 1-;: r-,;,-:: r;�'„-, r`)�.: .r.enr /eo •r .oa]? ro,z5 _ � -- 0 Q s ap .i 36 z> E o a a 9a t 33 ..@5 ® 3 ® ^ 0 ] 2 42 Q s. >y 44 43 Q41 e r. 40.0 I`39 r /a r r3 41�, (I�100 rll J9a iro�39u1 cl 37, (� 1V C' �1 3� 4 a a ' aa w 2 ( � O # e�o•�M. ry �1 6 4' i i' ' . 4 Y . l.�r?F Caw'�V.�. Sr^i'I eG.n G.:_;o :.r.• -s erh 'oi3e row • SO 4 /or. h 9m N�lorr lcrl atl c an:c� r/ lo177 5 ai rrr.- •.r. a/or57�2 m�•� p /�a( /0.731: IN Y3 /a3S3� 0 8 9> 29 O30 !9/31 u 32 t' 33 �2�134° /R� 33 36` �. '.��-115 0 ® 14 , �Q:.13% 12 r 0� 27 wp,26 17�,25 Ca.24 22 fa,r2! % 20g 19 16 snoa «xeV a eW /O/LL /0/74 le/Pb�/e/i,,,r. �0 90 �ai•a' /eat]. /o�YY GH L9 GA A•rN6 ga^.jr pr r/ /O]S y /GO'rYY3G"Q L/O7/ySL+A P rGoZ/LGS'qP G/7Y5lo1P..\�/c7'G /Ga7 r)4•Na /.•r � /0r]Y:3oa ix a /a S .77 3 3t ..I ww� V NORTH CITY OF ITrxI: VARIANOE S1 -01 JEZ��INCHO CL'GUN10\'GA TITLE LE: LOCH ION "AF PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT_ A SCALE: I ' i f. %Jzi lei is � r:e'd> jt.���.r� � I k �wl A NORTH CITY Or, ITENt VAR iAN,^,i✓ A-of RANCHO CUCAi\70\'GA TITLE: 61'TE PLA?j PLANNING D1ViSIoN1 EXHIBMT �—SCALE 1`=20' is RESOLUTION NO. ® A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 81-01 TO' DEVIATE FROM MINIMUM LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS AND FRONT AND REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS LOCATED AT 7801 TURNER AVENUE IN THE R-1 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of June, 1981., an application was filed and accepted on the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 24th day of June, 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' g findings: A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives 3f the Zoning Code. B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to ® the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. That 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. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. E. That the grantin; of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 1901. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard Dahl , Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission iJt yk iJ I ` Resolution No. Page 2 I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resoiution 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 24th day of June, 1981 by the following vote to- ::it: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r,. CITY OF RAiNCI-10 CUCAMOi`:GA SrAF R-E!?ORT - w- o Z DATE: June 24, 1981 r 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lluyd B.Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Y.rall , Engineering Technician SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MA'r NO. 6748 - HALL Vresidential su dtivision of -44 acres into two parcels in the R-1 zone located on the east side of Turner between Hemlock and Norwick Streets INTRODUCTION: This subdivision divides .44 acres into two (2) parcels. With t e exception of sidewalk on Turner Avenue, all off-site improvements are existing. The existing pine tree on Parcel 1 is within the subject property, however, because of the ground elevation, the developer has requested that the proposed sidewalk on Turner Avenue be curved and a retaining wall be constructed allowing the tree to remain as shown on the tentative map. The developer has requested a variance for Parcel 2, a lot with less than required depth. This Variance No. 81-01 is on this agenda for your consideration. Staff recommends that the retaining wall be no higher than top of slope and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial—Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed P. rt II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and hes 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 proposes subdivision. RECOMIENDATION: It is recommended that the tentative map be approved, subject to the Engineer's Report and approval of Variance No. 81-01 , and that a. Negative Declaration be issued. A resolution is attached to provide for appruval should the Commission concur. Respectfully submitted, LBH:B .jaa Attachments 1 ''•';: ITEM D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6748 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6748) LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TURNER BE111EEN HEMLOCK AND NORWICK (7801 TURNER AVENUE). WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6748, submitted by Berton and Sally Hall and consisting of 2 parcels, located on the east side of Turner between Hemlock and Norwick (7801 Turner Avenue) , being a division of the north 70' of the west 311.14' , south 1/2 of northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 2, T, T. 1S; R.7W, as recorded in Book 4, page 9; and, WHEREAS, on March 11, 1981., a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 1981, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEfEFORE, 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 this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on June 24, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative parcel Map No. 6748 is approved subject to the conditions of the City Eng.neer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA •,cr` Resolution No. Page 2 BY:•Richard Dahl , Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commissicn I, JACK. LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the for !go•ing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Pianning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regula - meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June, L981, by the f,)llowing vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMUMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i I I i, i I 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Berton and Sally Hall TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6748 LOCATION: E/S of Turner Avenue between Hemlock and DATE FILED: 3/11/81 Norwick Streets NUMBER. OF LOTS: 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A division of the north 70 feet RECEIPT NUMBER: 10501 of the west 311. 14 feet, s 1/2 of northwest 1/4 FEE: $250.00 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 2, TIS, R7W as re- ZONE: R-1-7200 corms- e an oo age * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * % * * * * * TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY:_Terrance A. Lane GROSS ACREAGE: .44 acres ADDRESS: 902 W. 9th Street MINIMUM LOT AREA: Upland, CA 91786 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE:_ * * * * * x * * * * !r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE # _Berton and Sally Hall 7801 Turner Avenue 987-2346 Rancho Cucamonga 91701 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 1 . Ded4cation by final map of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements as shown on the tPntative map. X 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights-of-way on the following streets: 11 additional feet on Turner Avenue additional feet on --- additional feet on Corner P/L radius required on F Other 3. Rights ef vehicular access shall be limited as follows: 4. Street vacation required for: — _ 5. Master Pi ,n of Streets revision required for: _ 5. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: 1 r;,..,. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6748 Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to 91 Recording for Parcel 1 ) XI Building permit for p rcel 2 ) 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) ov all. interior streets. X 8. Construct the followwing missing improvements on the following streets: *includin landsca in and irrigation on meter CURB & A.C. SIDE- DRIVE STREET STREET MEDIAN STREET NAME GUTTER PVMT. WALK APPR. TREES LIGHTS ISLAND* OTHER Turner Ave. X Ashford 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 utilities X are to be underground. 11. Deveinper shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for t!ie relocation of40 any power poles or other existing pub'.ic utilities as necessary. 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. x 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County .Water District standards. A l-tter of acceptance is required. _ 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and tiie 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: 1?. Tile o oeving spe;i is dimensio-is, i .e. , cu -de-sac— r d s, street section widths) are not apvw.uved: _ 18. The folluwing existing streets are substandard— They will require: Npprovals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/ San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X 20. Approvals have noc been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements ® 1e that may be received from them. 1 RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6748 Page 3 X_ 21 . Perrsiits from other ager,cies will be required as follows: _ A. Caltrans, for: _ B. city: _ C. ounty Dust Abatement District: _ D. i),I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep: X E. Cucamonga County Water District: for water and sewer F. Other: Map Control 22. If only a portion of this Map is recor&J , adjustments shall be made to pro- vide for two-way traffic and parking on a7i affected streets. 23. The following lots appear to be substanda, t+ in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map: 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right-of-way ine in accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map snarl 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 arificatiozi, as follows: 27. The border shall be shown to centerl`,ne of existing perimeter streei::; , 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 Certific te, according to reouireme, ts of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control {Bonding is required prior to 0 Recording t)r ) 0 Buildino pc,mif or ) _ X 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" wails shall be required at `he back of the sidewalk at all downstream curs returns. _ 32. Culverts required to be constv-ucted across streets at following location.;:_ 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will a require to assess impact of increased runoff. RCE 20 (l TENTATIVE MAP NO. 674E Page 4 I' e 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. 30�. All information required to Se shown on the tentative map is not shown as re•- quired•. g 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. 41 . The filing of the tentativ(. 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 Wa'er District will be asked to cer•ti `_i 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(-_`(1 ) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the pruperty 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 fina map unless the City is notified in writing of any ejection to said determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. fir_ 43. At the time of Final Map submittal , ti. following shall be submitted: Traverse c0 culations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or• showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lets fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. Variance for Parcel 2 to be approved by Planning Commission prior to recordation of the map, X 46. Locatl,n a: sidewalk and retaining wall on Turner Avenue shall be determined during constrLzLiun and to be approved by the City Engineer. X 47. A splash wall shall be provided at the side end of the existing driveway. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: RCE 20 i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY' PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - Tc� be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Pee: $80.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitte,, to the Development Review Committee through the department where the pxuject 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 ar•d t.nke 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 Gf three determinations: 1) The project will have no envirunmenta.l 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 applic,int giving further i.nfo: .aa.tion concerning the proposed liroject. PROJECT TITLE: h /a 7`i 0 eC e / 7 c/8 APPLICANT 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Se—A,`., C sg J a 11 / NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: AC�.eAAJC GAn/E - 1--- L 0%TTON OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) - - Apo! 'I go ! r ruri_'' � Aie . , 0'1 '7 - 371 - r� LIST OTHER PEFI%;ITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL. STATE AND FELERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: t S PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: O. `/'1dc/-e_.5 DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF TBE 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) : The s�/,, fe. is auiren,1/y o. <lSLacres W/7;,-k „�., // � le cli K/OL��� %/7 �[+ ? 422r[r/5 i/7 OX SeSte' rJ �ci20o _ _. Q// ivYl,V rOV M7 e'.�7t5 nr a?nc/ eJ rO e'xf/ �"r7 c' _51" -05 by �s o�C / rcPn Su/�di✓/-moons [,; t, .c: /, -�f ""77'�;;ccJ �0. . /r �rt/Ps f` 1 �' 't•/iP ex /-g l/N2 0 ose cah// / T /S C21eff /['rdVic' d hPW siC/ cnJol //G �o Inc /v �-fiP /reel i Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole hive significant environmental impact? ,..._..;.,Y - -- i WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X1. 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, J sewage, etc.)? 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? S= Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, £lammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTABTT: 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 fc% - 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 - Signature /F Title 7A-YsL . T- 3 ti , RESIDETiTIAL CONSTRUCTION The follo-uing 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 P;oposed residential development. tame of Developer and Tentative Tract No . : Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PRASE 2 PHASE 3 PRASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units : 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Late proposed to begin. construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Modal and u of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Rance 1 y 1 ' ®�s TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6748 a ns rnr or r��a �' erw.Nwrsrwww»rf.r.ev« wa�.wwrwo�wr - wwiMYlY• ermN>.Y.M..Tw.W iws.Ml�:•.w.w.eww..Yw1aO rO�ww�h�Wwh Ywn4rrY W Yws.1.►r•r fiJ..rh-a ww•Od M NY IYM�rt1�•L ' md.. r-w• � dA�i;AC � I 4,reer.r ..•w � � � i 42 I 36 OM..�r.Ywr fY1 Twr A... ■•M�aMwr•M.fJ. Vr•Y,C►N1M ' III r � �.•... � IIi 34 e.rt....r.r rwa.....•r.rr � M rwwx Ya r YMYiA wn-« \ I !. tiwY.Yti vw.�•OwR 1 aa .41 ur �. min _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIViONGA �`cnMr�,ic MEMORANDUM j '> CJ > DATE: June 24, 1981 1J77 TO: Members of the Planning Commission r' FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY- Dar, Coleman, Assistant Planner h. SUBJECT VARIANCE N0. 81-02 - CHRISTIAN - Request to permit construction of residence t at would encroach into front and rear yards on a 3,532 sq. ft. lot in the fro fro zone located at 6960, Amethyst - APN 202-131-04 +; BACKGROUND- The applicant is requesting a variance from the front and rear yard 'setbacks in order to permit the construction of a resi- his location. Upon detailed staff review of the request for dence at t variance,this has been determined that several problems remain to be resolved prior to review before the Planning Commission. Therefore, to mee we are requesting continuance of this item to allow jgcantehas cont with the applicant to resolve the problems . The app seated to the continuance. V. con�MM It is jRRecth Planning Commissnionefu ly submitted, H y Ian r BKH:DC:cd Attachments: Letter from applicant ITEM E CITY OF R.A.IN`CHO CUCAMONCvX o STAT'F REPORT C - p ')ATE: June 24, 1981 y 1977 .0: Planning Commission FVOM: Lloyd 8. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Joe St:ofa, Assistant Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL hiAP 6911 H-ELLER FACTORS, INC. An industriai subdivision of��6.6acres into two parcels in the M-2 zone located on the south side of Arrow Route, 1 ,698+ feet east of Haver. Avenue INTRODUCTION: This subdivision consists of a portion of the south one-half of Section 127iIS, R74I. The subdivision, as proposed, provides for 2 parcels for ind,.—trial use. The purpose of this application is to separate the existing building and improvements on proposed parcel 1 for the purpose of sale with the balance ® of the property, proposed parcel 2, not being developed at this time. There are presently two (2) assessor's parcels for this property, so in effect, this application consitutes a boundary line adjustment with no new parcels being created. The offer of dedication for the extension of Vincent Avenue to the north with a turn to the east on proposed parcel 2, as well as a 15-foot building setback distance on parcel 2 adjacent to the east iat line to provide for required building separation per Uniform Building Code (see attached Exhibit "A") , will be a condition of approval prior to recording of final map. 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 completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no significant adverse impacts on the enviroment as a result of, the proposed subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tentative map be approved, subject to tie C� Eyt ngineer's Report, and that a Negative Declaration be issued. A resolution is attached to provide for approval should the Commission concur. t i Respectfully submitted, LBH:JS:jaa '� Attachments ;t; ITEM F F`11 RESOLUTIOA NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 6911 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 6911) LOCATED SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE, 1.69e- FEET EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE. WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 6911, submitted by Walter E. Helier Factors, Inc. and consisting of 2 parcels, located south of Arrow Route, 1,698± feet east of Haven Avenue, being a division of a portion of the south one-half of section 12, T1S, R7W, San Bernardino Meridian, in the county of San Bernardino; and, WHEREAS, on May 13, 1981, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above-described tentative map; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 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 3n abutting property. l SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse environmental impacts and Negative Declaration is issued on June 24, 1981. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 6911 is approved subject to the tanaitions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 1981. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r. w, Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Richard Dahl, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commis scion 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 ir,4roduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June, 1981, by the following vote-to- wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: f , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ® CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY: Walter "c. Heller Factors, Ine. TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6911 LOCATION: South of Arrow Route, 1 ,698± feet east DATE FJLED: 5/13181 of Haven Ave. _ 14UMBER OF LOTS: 2 LLGAL DESCRIPTION: R portion of tFe south one-half RECEIPT NUMBER: 11371 of Sectinn 12, TIS, R7W, S.B.M. County of San Bernar- FEE: $250.00 dino. _ ZONE: M-2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED 67: C M Engineering GROSS ACREAGE: 37.73 ADDRESS: 225 E. Airport Drive MINIMUM LOT AREA: 9.71 acres San Bernardino, CA MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: --- * * * * * * * t• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE k Welter E. Heller Factors, Inc. 105 W. Adams Street (312) 621-7317 Chicago, Illinois 60603 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. 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights-of-way on the following streets: additional feet on addition l feet on -' additional feet on _ Corner P/L radius required on Other x_ 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: Arrow Route per Planning Comgr lion Resolution No. 78-29 4. Street vacation required tcr: 5. Master Pian of Streets revision required or: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as fo lows ' RCE 20 I 7NTATIVE MAP NO. 6911 PagF ,2 Improvements (Bonding is required priov to•13 Recording for parcel 1 )® IH Building permit for parcel 2 `} 7. Construct full street improvements (in :lulling curb and gutter, A.C. paveme :t, sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, 1: irkway trees ana street lights) on ill interior streets. X 8. Construct the following missing improv :ments on the following streets: *iticluding landsca inq and 4rrigation )n meter CURB & A. SIDE- DRIVE SITIT STREET MEDIAN STREET NAME 6JTTER PVMT. WALK APPR. Tf ES LIGHTS IS'.ANO* OTHER Arrow RouRouutteFcl X X. Lien Arrow Route c X X X X —1 X Lien Pcl 2 —� X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentativ, - map, or as required by the City Engintar. X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot includin�g� sanitary� sewers, water, electric power, gas, teleph one. Xdi�4iOrX> i�c 'F3'oYifd4xixtx All utilitie: arts to be underground. X 11. Developer shall coordinate, and where iecessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing publ 'c utilities as necessary. X_ 12. Install appropriate street name signs i,nd traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. -X, — 13. Developer is to provide all construct�icn plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. -X_ 14. Sanitary ::ewer and water systen,s shall be designed to Cucamonga County Watt District standards. A litter 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 a A.C. overlay: 17. The following specific dimim�sions, i.e. , cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved: 18. The�oTTo ng exiistinny streets are substrn ar : They will require: Approvals and Fees 19. This subdivision shall be subject to concitions of approval from CALTRANS/ ' San Bernardino County Flood Contr-)l District. X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all itilities and other interested age ties involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requi -emen that may be received from them. � 4 RCE 20 air I ?I Page 3 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6- 1 X _ 21 . Perini '"° from other agencies will be required as follows: A. Caltrans, fnr: B. City: X— C . County-Oust atement District:_ -- D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep:_______ --- E. Cucamonga County Water District: - F. Other:__ __ Map C_ o � 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• depth or area 23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, and should be corrected on the final map: 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the rigfit-of-way line in actor - 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 _ 25. The boundary of t e Tentative Map needscation as fo cvls: ll be shoran to 27. The border sha centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. Parcel Map +Naiver 28. Information submitted at the time of application is /r is not sufficient to support the issuance ei a waiver oflParcel MinaCertiflcate, according to requirements of the State Map ) Flood (bonding is required prior to 13 Recording forr yl, Building permit for�arcel_2) X _ 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 ptiavisions of that grogram and Ordinance No. 24. 30. pedtiyTline maynbe reyuireditoodivertection wall sheet runoff togsi,ne-tstire rior h pro- s 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 downs*ream curb returns . _ be constructed across streets at following locations 32. Culverts required to X 33. E3road scale hydrologi- stu ies wi e require co assess impac'� o increased runoff. X 34. Private drainace easements for cross-lot d-ainage shall be required and shall be delineated 'or noticed on the final map. RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6911 Page 4 Miscellaneous 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 infc;mation 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 sediur>nt&- ' tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. 40. A preliminary soils rnnort will not L2 required for this site for -the follow- ing reasons: A copy of the sods 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 certificaticn is received in writing. X 42. The City Engineer sha'il make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1 ) of the Subdivision "'dp 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 fina l 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. X 44. Development shall be limited to one Orive approach per street. Multiple 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 locatinn in special drainage impact area. drainage basins to City Standard will be required to retain interior increases in runoff, until completion of master planned storm drain system. X 46. A 30 foot wide irrevocale offer of dedication for Vincent Ave. with a knuckle at the end shall be provided along the east parcel line of parcel no. 2. X 47. Provide for a 15 foot building setback easement on proposed parcel 2 adjacent to the west proposed parcel 1 lot line, as approved by the Building Official and City Enqineer. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER. By. RCE 20 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONi,A. ® INITIAL STUDY PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET — To be completed by applicant l 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 anplicati.on is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environnental Ax.alvs: s staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Tevelopment Reviews 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. T.;-,a 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 givis:g further i.nformatior concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Industria! Parcel Map APPLICANT'S NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE: Walter E. Heller Factors, Inc. , 105 {4. Adams, Chicago, Ill, 60603 (312) 621-7317 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO L-'E CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: C M Engireering Associates, P.O. Box 6087, San Bernardino, CA 92412, (714) 882-68 3 IACAThIN OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 109135 Arrrna highway AP 209-142-07. 13 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY rROM LOCAL, REGIONAT STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PE.,mITS: -- Parcel map approval - City �-1 'r - PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: To divide a parcel into -L parcels for the purpose of selling existing uiIdmg site. ACREAGE OF P.n MCT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING FND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 37.73 acres. Bujlding of 114,800 sq. ft. exists on easterly portion of property. -'"— DESCRIBE THE ENVIROMIENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE. INCLUDING INFOP14hTION 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) : Vacant land except easterly portion where building, parking storage area and landscaping exist. Native asses ; rod.ents 6T typical. of area. ?40 cultural cor scenic aspects exist. Surrounding properties are: West - Vacant North - Industrial B1 gs, (new project) sue--Vacant'— South - Vacant, (Ind-. to south east) r, LI Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No. 77 i W=yI, THIS PRojECT: YSS NO X 1. Create a round substantial charge in g contours? X � bstantial change in existing . Create a suvirration? noise or a in demand for s v g. Create a substantial Chang fine, water. " - municipal services (police, r. sewage, etc.) . Create changes in the existing zoning or TM X4. at ions- q eneral plan design ees? How many?..-.------- 5: Remove any existing tz sal Of 6. Create the ngazardous ed for use materials osuch as X potentially £la, ables Or explosives? substances, toxic , YES planation answer=' above: of azy -- ion of Tf the project involves complete mpl to thesformt n the za-t RTA_Nt residential units, comp next page. that the statements £urn shed I hereby certify data and CER'rIFICAT;UNthe attached exhibits present the the above and in wired for this initial evstatementso and information re r the facts, and. �•=�= �o the best of best of my ability, a. true :^. cerr�c� information presented arefurther understand tha t e and belief. Ire required to be submitted a it3on dg the ,Development additional informative may FAQ`, ;�, before an adequate evaulation can be m?��E. HULER Review Committee. �- Signature Date_____ Title - M CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL' CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICANT: WALTEg_ F. �EL'L'EIZ F/ICT� S ! Tnlr FILING DATE:—�jR�/ 13 J9a'1 LOG NUMBER:_ PROJECT: P^OJECT LOCATION: SnirT/j OF F1iC' oiU� /G9,y� �,�7 �„S�F AI�Eti I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal have significant results in: ® a. Urstabie ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, . dispiarements, compaction or burial of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? ' d. The destruction, covering or modificati-:. of any unique geologic or physical fearures? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on ov: oi: site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people a- property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction _ind/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: YES MAYBE NO 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. Cha:ege in the amount of surface war_er in any body of water? e_ Discharge into surface water_-, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? -_ g_ Change in the quantity of groun.dwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifev? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i_ Exposure of people or property to water related 'hazards such -As flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? X Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regi: nal climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture, or temperature? i 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? r _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? w YES MAYBE NO ' c.. introduction of new or disruptive species of X plants ictto an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural — t production? .; Fauna. Will the propo sal have significant results 5 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 n.-w or disruptive species of animals into to area, or result -in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ' — d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 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, of — X create a demand for additional housing? _ 6. soci�is Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and I . -perty values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e. , buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and Planning, conside�st Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planne••1 land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations.nti ns. governmental policies, or adopted p AML entities? C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? --- YES MAYBE NO 8. Transportation. Will the proposal have sigaificant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular novement? _ iC b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for new street construction? c_ Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? _ >C 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 pe. :strians? 4. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological., and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety, and Nu-i..ance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health 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 number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dzngerous noise levels? _- g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? __ YES MAYBE NO 1 _ 11. Aesthetics- Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or d.egrsdation of any scenic vista or view, b. The creation of an sestbetically offensive site? c. A conflict with t.e ob.tective of designated or potential a,eni.c corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal : have c significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric.power? b. Natural or packaged gas? -- Z c. Communications systems? X d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f.. Flood control structures? —- g. Solid waste.facilities? -- h. Fire protection? i. Police protection? j . Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? m. other govecnmental services? 13. Ener y and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of s,at);:tantial or excessive fuel or. energy? b. Substantial increase in '^--mand upon existing sources of . nergy. c. An increase n the demand for development of new sources of energy. d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? _ XrS MAYBE NO e. Substa.tial depletion of any nonrenewable or ` scarce natural resource? 14. handatory Findings 'of SiAnificanre. kAML 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 wildlife 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 pariods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the.project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future) . _ x c. Does the 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 the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures) , '•rc rii IIx. DETERMINA' ION On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project cculd have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect L—J in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached eheet have ua .n added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL PE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. i• I Date tJUN� Signature U Title U . _ _ f w.t 4S �' � • 1 - . •i•v . .J. ..f,._41(- �•r.Y• 1 • _� .e W •6 n 2 j / 'Zn'' b / • t I ti. ,� � .M ,� ,,[.. s :✓� nCi ,'ir' t� a\• any r , tn .v CW �, a , Ir f- s N qY ow 40 t _ max.\ ate ' -+ ' � � f � " Ulm � a � • � _ y.. ej In rc �. = N �' :� •..o mac.-, lMitj LL si vim �• ':. � N : h a e.fn fq n fl y 1wJcN O 43 a . Cl) � • T U i CD YI•• - GI O ` J Y Aa, to 10 1 N$w N C • V • L A. N T Z Ila •' T + • �I r r C� 1tt / �� / 1 �• a q s Ilia z t c•A. i r• I 'I R ' Cl- r~ � I } rj �•,-:��a � • 1 •--� r- III I h V A y � G A T I • t �� w � A.wr �� Y ` t• �1 Ali CITY OF RANCI-:O CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM 0 0 a a DATE: June 24, 1981 U - > 1977 TO: Members of the Planning Commis<ion FROM: Barry K. Hogan, City Planner BY: Tim J. Beedie, Senior Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN The Industrial Committee has completed the r review of the Industrial . Specific Plar. and has recommended it for a-loption. The Planning Com- mission will begin their review at a study session Wednesday, June 24, 1981 . Copies of the Industrial Plan have )een forwarded to the printers and will be made available for your review late Friday afternoon., Staff is preparing a more detailed report for Planning Commission review; it will be available early next week and will provide an overview of t:ie history of the Industrial Plan, the legal requirements of the Specific Plan and a summary of what is contained within the Industrial Plan. The purpose of the study session is to provide the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the Industrial Plan. At this study session staff will make a brief presentation highlilhting what is contained within the Industrial Plan. July 2, and Ju 'y 2'2, have been scheduled for public hearings to receive public input on the Specific Plan and review the Draft Envirnnmentai impact Repor� . Our anticipation is that the Planning Commission will recommend the ilan for adoption by the City Council by July 2E 1981 . Upcn adoption of the Industrial Specific Plan by the City Councii , develo, lent standards and land use requii-ments with- in the Specific Plan will replace those contained under the county zoning regulations adopted by reference by the City . Shou;d you have any questions once you have :,ad a chance tom, review the Pla feel free to contact me prier to the meting. R spectful y submitted, I RR�l a HOG "titii/ Planne BKH:TJB:cd j I ITEM G < 1 t Planning COmMiSsion Meeting of RANCHO CICAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET r Please print your name, address, city, and indicate the item that S you wish to speak on- Thant you "' . NAME ADDRESS ------ CITY _ ITEM 2. 4. ---- s. 5. 6. 7. — 8. -- ------------- 9. — 10. --- — --------------- 12. 13. 14. -- -------------- 17. ------------- _ -------------- 1a 19. -- - -- 20. 21 . ?2. -- 24. s------ -� -------------- 25. _. 26. 27. --- 28. — ---- -------------- 29. 30. S r .