HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/02/10 - Agenda PacketAiiii
I
ac
�a c
a
a�
� 3
m
n �
(D Z
R
N r
i
S
Aiiii
I
ac
�a c
a
a�
� 3
m
n �
(D Z
R
N r
i
s
,;
1977
ACTION
r
MY of
RANCHO CUCAM0iN(3A, B TS T N
PLAINTNTING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 10, 1982 7:00 P.M.
LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LINE ;.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Commissioner Dahl Excused Commissioner Sceranka X
Commissioner King X Commissioner Tolstoy X
Commissioner Rempelx
III. Approval of Minutes
Approved 4-0 -1
pA proved 4-0 -1 as amended
Consent Calendar
APPROVED 4-0 -1
IV.
V.
January 27, 1982
February 1, 1982
Announcements
Consent Calendar
Tire fallowing consent calendar items are expected tc
be routine and non - controversial. ritey will be acted
upon by the Commission at one time without discussion_
Zf anyone has concern over any item, then it should be
res=ved for discussion.
A.
B. TIME EXTENSIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCEL MAPS:
Parcel Map 5260
Parcel Map 6114
Parcel Map 6076
Parcel Map 5997
Parcel Map 5144
C. ENVIROHME•M•AL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
N -02 - ART N - The development 7-5-5-W
square foot two- story office building on,.369 acre, .'.'
located generally on the south side of Civic Center,
Drive, west of Utica - Lot 23 of Parcel Map 6206.
�m
r
Planning Commission Agenda
February 10, 1982
Page 2
D.
E. REQUEST TO VACATE OFFER
VI. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which 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_ A11 such opinions shall be limited to
5 minutes per individual for each project.
CONTINUED to March 10, 1982 F. CONDITIONAL UCE FERMIT N0. 81 -08 - SHARMA - A
hearing to consider the possible revocation of the
3-1 -' Conditional Ose Permit for a preschool located at
9M Foothill, based on failure to comply with Con-
ditions of Approval.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82 -02 -
APPROVED TT 4-0 -1 TENTATIVE TRACT 11615 - LEWIS PROPERTIES - A change of
APPROVED PD 4-G-1 zone from C-1 CNeighborhood Commercia to R -3 /PD
(Multiple Family Residential /Planned Development)
and the development of 152 condominium units on 10.4
acres of land located north of Base Line and west of
Archibald - APN 202 - 161 -37 and 202 - 151 -34.
APPROVED 4-0 -1 H_ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7061 -4 -
KACOk - A division of 28.7 acres into 24 lots within
t -iFe M-2 zone located on the southwest corner of 6th
Street and Milliken Avenue - APN 210- 082 -8, 9, 10.
APPROVED 4-0 -1 I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7128 - EJL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A division of 6.2 acres
• into 2 lots within the R -1 zone located at the south-
west corner of Highland and Haven Avenue - APN 202- 19 -15.
VII. Old Business
VIII. New Business
Recommendation of Commission J. PROPOSED WEST VALLEY LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER
that architects work to improve
north & west sides of IX. Council Referrals
the building and to
continue park -like X. Director's Reports
setting to the rear
of the building.
XI. Public Comments
Planning Commission Agenda
February 10, 1932
Page s
Commission directed 7Ws is the time and place for the general oab21c to
staff to bring the address the Commission. Items to be discussed here
parking Standards Ord7narGe are hose which do not a2read4 appear on this agenda.
back for discussion at a
I
ater meeting date. XII. Upcoming Agenda
XIII. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted AAmin strat-'Ve
Regulations that set an 22:00 p.m. adjournment time.
If items go beyond that tim, they shr12 be heard
only with the consent of the Commission.
1
P
H
kit
w:.
r , " N
'. CI rv. OF
RANCHO CUCAMO,IGA
:£" " 1= PILA INTNING COMMIMSION
O
� z AGENDA
1977 WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 10, 1982 7:00 P.M.
LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LIN- e,.PANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roil Call
Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Sceranka
Commissioner King Comn:ssioner Tolstoy
Commissioner Rempel_
III, Approval of Minutes / ��,, p
January 21, 1982 7Z�-
February 1, 198 (p_
Cn
a kdl�
IV. Announcements It
V. Consent Calendar
The following consent ca3endar items are expected to
be 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 sho -:2d be
removed fcr discussion.
A.
8. TIME E.TENSIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING PARCEL MAPS:
Parcel.Map 5260
Parcel Man 611A
:-arcel Map 6076
Parcel Map 5997
Parcel Map 5144
C. ENVIRONMENT)',_ A:SESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
:TGN - The developmePt of a 5,
square fom t►ec -story office building on .369. acre,.
loca:.c: -,--° .illy on the south side of Civic.Center
Drive, west. of Utica Lot 23 of Parcel Map. 62O6_
Planning Commission Agenda
February 10, 1982
Page 2
D. REVISION TO RESOLUTION NO. 81 -80 CLARIFYING THE
�} RE¢UIRLMENT OF SIDEWALKS ON INDUSTRIAL LOCAL STREETS
IL E. RE UFSF TO VACATE OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR OAK ROAD
L3C - D NORT1 IJE, NEST OF USmkN-
VI. I. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned
\ ir•Bividuals 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. A2I such opinions shall be limited to
j 1 S. minutes per individual for each project.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -08 - SHARK - A
hearing to consider the possible revocation of the
Conditional Use Permit for a preschool located at
9113 Foothill, based on failure to comply with Con -
ditions of Approval.
r
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82 -02 -
i
-TENTATIVE. TRACT 11615 - LEWIS PROPERTIES - A change of
i zone from C- (Neighborhood Commerc a to R -3 /PD
(Multiple Family Resiaentiai /Planned Oevelopmen
\ and the development of 152 condominium units on 10.4
acres of land located north of Base Line and we of
Archibald - APN 202%461-37 and 202 - 151 -34.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7061 -4 -
����"""" KACOR - A division of 28.7 acres into 24 lots within
Cv-7� t�M-2 zone located on the southwest corner of 6th
0 Y Street and Milliken Avenue - APN 210 - 082 -8, 9, 10.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7128 - EJL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A division o 6.2 acres
into 2 lots within the R -1 zone located at the south-
west corner of Highland and Haven Avenue - APN 202- 19 -15.
VII. Old Business
.y1.1
.:. n
r VIII. New Business
.J. PROPOSED WEST VALLEY LAW AND JUSTICE CENTER
IX_ it
Counc Referrals
X. Director ReVrts r_ c
C.stt,�
I
I
Planning Commission Agenda
February 10, 1982
Page 3
XI. Public Comments
s
2:.is Is the ti=e ara place for the general public to
address the Commission. items to be discussed here
are those which do not already appear on this agenda_
XII. Upcoming Agenda
XIII. Adjournment
The planning Commission has adopted .Administrative
Regulations that set an 22:00 p.m. adjournment time.
if It go beyond that time, they stall be heard
only with the consent of the Commission.
M �
��
��,�,
��
.ir+
^�'
{yvp��
'.�
Y4��'
r�
1���
L� t
i 1
V
CITY OF RANCHO CIICPMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
January 27, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Jeff King called the regular meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m- The meeting was
held in the Forum of the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Ease Line
Road, Rancho Cucamenga. Chairman King then led in the pledge of
allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: CoMaSSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka,
Peter Tolstoy, Jeffrey King
(Commissioner Sceranka arrived at 7:10)
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT: Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston,
Assistant Planner; Jack Lam, Director of Community
Development; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau,
Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Dahl, seconded by Rempel, carried, to approve the Minutes
of January 13, 1982.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised the Commission that
the meeting tonight would adjourn to February 1, 1982 for the first
public hearing on the Terra Vista Planned Community - This meeting
would be held in the Forum of Lions Park Community Center at 7 p.m.
PUBLIC ARINGS
HE
A. REVISION S OF CONDITIONS FOR TRACT NO. 10277 - BAMOSIAN, WOLFF, AM
ASSOCIATES - A 30 unit single family subdivision located at the
northeast corner of Almond and Carnelian requesting a change from
public to private interior streets.
Chairman Jeff King stepped down at 7:10 p.m. and abstained from vote on
Iy, this item due to the fact that his family owns prop.rty in the area of
r „. this project.
:Y
,1 )
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau if he would explain Condition 2D
of the Resolution.
Mr. Rougeau explained that this Condition was to retain the access
eas unents provided for in the original subdivision. He pointed out on
the map the easements provided to the adjacent properties and indicated
that these are easements that would be provided whether the streets are
private or public. This Condition was intended to perpetuate this
easement. Mr. Rougeau also suggested that if the Resolution was approved,
the term northwest be changed to read north.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if people who would have to use the private
access would be forced to join the Homeowner's Association for this
tract.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, replied that the Department of Real
Estate would require reserves and maintenance to be part of the dues
paid by the lot owners. He indicated that problems sometimes come about
when the members of the Homeowner's Association do not want to share
their private streets with people who are not members and not paying the
Association dues.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if he were a property owner to the
north, he would not like to be forced to pay for the use of the private
road through the tract.
Mr. Rougeau stated that this would be dependent upon whether the property
to the north was subdivided or left as one large parcel.
Commissioner Sceranka asked about the property to the west of the tract
and if there was a street proposed to go to that lot.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it was a one or two acre lot with an existing
home on it and this was the reason for not placin.- Carnelian Street
straight north as it would cut right through this property.
Commissioner Sceranka asked if it would not normally be in the City's
best interest to have Carnelian go straight up to provide access to
property at the north.
Mr. Rougeau replied that to go straight up would be better than a jog in
the road.
Commissioner Sceranka asked how access would be provided to the Ping
property.
Mr. Rougeau replied that access would come from Almond Street.
Vice - chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
mr. Andrew Barmakian, owner of the tract, addressed the Commission. He
Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 27, 1982
stated that he was proposing a development which would offer a greater
cross - section of homes to the public. He further stated that he felt
that private tract and the type of homes being offered would increase
surrounding property values. Mr. Barmakiau responded to the statement
concerning the Homeowner's Association by saying that if the property to
the north of his tract remains a single-owner property, he would allow
that owner to use the private street; however, if that property were
subdivided, he felt thar --Mild be to the property owners advantage to
carry on the private -ract concept.
Commissioner Sce-.snka stated that he was confused as to why it was sig-
nificant to be oncerned about the access to the northern properties.
He asked Mr. R ageau if there was a problem with this.
Mr. Rougeau ±_plied that he did not see a problem as that when the
streets were public they were not providing access to the north.
:r. Barmakian stated that he did provide an easement- at the end of the
cul- de-sac for Mr. King and would retain that easement as it was promised
that way. He further stated that he would continue to work with the
King family and if need be, sign an Agreement with them on access.
Mr. Sam Angona, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that
he thought that the proposal by Mr. Barmakian was a very good project
and thought the idea of private streets would take the burden of main-
tenance and up keep from taxpayers.
Mr. Jeff icing, adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission stating
that he did not wish to speak in favor or opposition to the project and
wanted to indicate that there has been no contract or agreement relative
to other portions of the property joining into the private roadway
subdivision.
Commissioner Dahl asked if there had been no agreements between Mr.
Barmakian and Mr. King regarding access.
Mr. King replied that contract provided for two means of access from the
subdivision to northern portions of the property and that was the extent
of the contract. No commitment whatsoever was made that whether or not
the property to the north was subdivided if it would join into the
private roadway system.
Commissioner Rempel asked Mr. Hopson if that property owner would be
forced into joining the Association or could they exercise the option of
not joining.
Mr. Hopson replied that the Department of Real Estate would not allow
annexation of property. once the developer looses control of the property,
the homeowners will be able to determine who uses streets and this is
where the problem arises due to the fact that they sometimes do not want
outsiders to use their streets and will not allow future development to
join their association. He indicated that if it were recorded in the
CCSR's that property to the north would be provided access easements
Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 27, 1982
through the tract, it would be the legal right of those property owners
to use their streets. Mr_ Hopson indicated, however, that he could
foresee that problems would come up in the future.
Commissioner Sceraukz asked Mr_ Ring if he were c•-- -eraed about access
to the northern property if there were no access
tract. ed through this
Mr. King replied that he would not like to addresz
would be glad to answer questions question and
providi»o ba�kgr� and or factual information.
Commissioner Tolstoy raced Mr. King if he were the property owner or if
it was just in his family.
Mr. King replied that it was owned by the family.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the fact that this tract was to have
private streets and a Homeowner's Association bothered Mr. King_
Mr. King replied that he did not wish to address this question.
Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Barmakian if he would be opposed to
moving the gatehouse to allow the straight road to remain as a public
road.
Mr. Barmakian replied that this would not help Mr_ King's problem,
Commissioner Sceranka stated that his one solution was to allow the
street in question to go straight and have it become a public road and
make the rest a private development. Access to the other lot could be
Provided through the Siever's property. He stated that he did not feel
comfortable ir, making access all the way from the left to the one piece
of property with the notch cut out. He felt that this development mry
be blocking off too many adjacent property owners.
There were no others who spoke in favor or opposition to the project and
the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Sceranka proposed a motion for discussion. His motion was
that the street that goes up on the left become a public street and the
private development begin to the right of this street. He asked if this
motion would be appropriate. He asked Mr. Rougeau how this would affect
the access easement in Condition 2D.
Mr. Rougesil replied that this would require some rewriting of the Res-
olution as it would still be referring to the access easement on the
cul-de -sac.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that his intention was to not provide an
access easement to the private street_
Commissioner Rempel stated that this could not be done as it was provided
for in the purchasing agreement.
Planning Commission Minutes -4-
January 27, 1982
Mr. Lam stated that the Commission could allow the election that the
streets become public and not private cs this was proposed by the appli-
cant and not by the City.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated if the owner of the property to the north
waives their right to have public access to this project he was satisfied
with this project and asked if it was appropriate to include the agreement
between the property owner to the north and Mr. Barmakian in the +notion.
Mr. Hopson replied that it could be included as long as there was an
alternative if an agreement could not be reached to the satisfaction of
City staff and which met the intention of the motion and does not stale-
mate the project. He stated that it was not unusual to condition a
project in this manner and that if it were conditioned to state that in
the event that an agreement could be obtained from the property owner tc
the north that is satisfactory to the Commission. that runs with the land
if public access would be given up and in that event all the streets
would be private. If an agreement could not be obtained, then the
western street would be public and all the rest of the streets would be
private.
Commissioner Rempel asked if the map before them was the original map.
Mr. Lam replied that it was.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if is were understood in the conditions that
all the streets in this development would have to meet City standards
even if they were private streets.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it was understood.
Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the
revision of Conditions for Tentative Tract 10277 for the change from
public to private streets provided an acceptable agreement could be
reached with the property owner to the north of the project.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS-
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
SCERAW,k, TOLSTOY. DAHL. FJWEL
NONE
NONE
KING
Chairman King abstained for the previously stated reason and returned at
7:50 p.m.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TE_MTIVF TRACT N0. 9647 - COUNTRY ROME -
A custom /tract subdivision totaling 15 lots on 4.5 acres in the R -1
zone located at the northwest corner of Hellman and Church -
APN 208 - 021 -22.
Planning Commission Minutes -5-
January 27, 1982
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner reviewed tae Staff Report.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how _uch dedication was required on 2ellman.
Mr. Rougeau replied that eleven feet is the requirement for this street.
Chairman King opened the public 'hearing.
Ronald Martin, co -owner of the project, addressed the Commission stating
that he was in agreement with the Resolution and Conditions and would
answer any questions the Commissioners had
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he wantet. to commend the developer on
the creative design of the wall and felt teat it would be a favorable
imprm ement on the present situation.
There were no further public comments and he public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Scer.tnka, unanimously carried, to
adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Z-act 9647.
7:55 p.m. The Planning Commission re:=ssed
8:05 p.m. The Planning Commission rec ravened
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -08 - SE?.1MA - A hearing to consider
The possible revocation of the Conditicnal Use Permit for a pre-
school located at 9113 Foothill, based on failure to comply with
Conditions of Approval.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report.
Commissioner Dahl asked to date what conditi,ros were still to be met.
Mr. Vairin replied that the conditions not mct that were listed on the
attachment to the Staff Report were conditions not met as of the date of
the suspension.
Mr. Lam stared that the issue was not which conditions have not been
completed within the last few weeks, but was :he fact that staff had
cocperated with the applicant by giving him e::tensions and allowing him
to operate while completing conditions and the applicant was not making
progress towards their completion. Most of tie work that was completed
was of a sub- standarc rw ture and had to be redone.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Sharma, applicant, addressed the Commissions stating that he had been
in contact with the Building and Safety Division and bad been working
toward the completion of his Conditions of Approval.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 27, 1982
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
There was further discussion regarding the conditions and licensing of
this facility. It was the Commission's consensus to continue this item.
Motion: Moves: by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to
continue Conditional Use Permit No. 81 -08 to the February 10, 1982
Planning Commission meeting and t:�t the Building and Safety Official,
Jerry Grant, be in attendance to answer questions concerning which
conditions had and ha-1 not been met and to also answer questions cot:
cernir.g licensing ani occupancy of facilities of this type.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 2EMPEL, TOL =TOY, DAHL, SCERANKA, RING
NOES: Cm0aSSIONEBS: NONE
ABSENT: CO%ZaSSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMiISSIONER.S: NONE
D. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT N0. 82 -01 - A Resolution of the Planning
Commission recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No.
82 -01 modifying Section 61.0219 of the Zoning Code providing for
regulation of compact cars.
Jack Lam, Community Development Dire.:tor, reviewed the Staff Report.
Commissioner Rempel asked if the Commission could request the City
Council to draft an Ordinance to provide for the ticketing of cars
parked in compact car spaces that were regular size cars.
Mr. Hopson replied that the Commission could suggest this to the City
Council and felt it was worth mentioning.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if this would be possible since it would be
private property.
Mr. Hopson replied that if signs vere posted stating that a person could
be ticketed for parking in compact ?aces if not driving a compact car
and it was written in an ordinance, `hen the police could ticket those
individuals.
Commissioner Scerauka stated that there was a provision in the Industrial
Specific Plan to trade off compact car spaces for bicycle spaces and
felt that this might be a consideration of the Commission in this
Resolution.
The public hearing was opened. There were no comments in favor or
opposition and the public hearing was closed.
Planning Commission XAuutes
-7-
January 27, 1982
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had read a report that indicated
that half of the cars purchased in the United States last year were
larger cars and asked what would be done with these compact spaces when
they were no longer in demand. He also stated that he felt that it was
a dangerous situation when large cars park in the compact spaces and
encroach into the right -of -way.
Commissioner Re=pel stated that Design Review would regulate the placement
of compact spaces so that they would not encroach into the right- of-way
and that ticketing of cars would help eliminate people from parking in
compact spaces with regular size cars.
Chairman King asked if all the Commissioners concurred with the 20%
figure and that the Design Review should use a great amount of discretion
and sensitivity as to where compact spaces are placed end that City
Council should consider some type of a ticketing process as well as the
trade off for bicycle spaces.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried to adopt the
Resolution recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 82 -01
with the incorporation'of the bicycle use.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: RIIMPEL, SCERANKA, KING
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: DAIM, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMIISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioners Tolstoy and Dahl voted no on this project as they pelt on-
site circulation problems would be created by the approval of this
Resolution.
Motion: Moved by Re=pel, seconded by Sceranka, carried, that the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council the drafting of an Ordinance which
would authorize the posting of signs designating that persons parking in
compact car spaces with regular size cars would be ticketed and the
authorization of the police department to issue those tickets.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
REMPEL, SCF 4, TOLSTOY, KING
NONE
Commissioner Dahl stated that this would be at the discretion of the
police department to determine in some parking lots which were compact
spaces and which were not, therefore he was opposed.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 27, 1982
NEW BUSINESS
E. RESOLUTION 79-15A - 'LANDSCAPE STANDARDS - A Resolution revising
landscaping standards for Special Boulevards, Secondary and Collector
Streets to implement the General Plan.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report stating that
he wished to propose a change in the attachment to the Resolutiot under
the Special Boulevard section. He indicate3 that the cording in the
first two items did not come out as intended and the intention was to
have the frontages at 45' average depth and if parcels were not very
deep, the 20Z figure could be used. Mr. Vairin suggested that the
language be changed to read: A landscaped area along the Special
Boulevard frontage shall be provided at an average depth equal to 20% of
the depth of the property as measured from the face of the ultimate curb
location. The landscaped area need not exceed 45' in depth, however, in
no case shall these be less than 25' of landscaping measured from face
of the curb.
Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to
adopt the Resolution revising the landscape standards with the rewording
as suggested by ?sir. Vairia.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: SCERA -NKA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, REMPEL, KING
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Commissioner Tolstoy proposed that the Commission appoint a committee to
coordinate a street signing program. Be felt that street signs should
be designed to give a sense of pride in the Community.
Commissioner Dahl concurred with this suggestion and recommended that a
committee be formed to analyze designs for street signs.
The following committee members were selected: Rick Gomez, Jack Lam,
Herman Rempel and Peter Tolstoy. This committee is to report back to
the Commission with its findings as soon as possible.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously to
adjourn to special meeting on February 1, 1982.
8:53 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 27, 1982
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Secretary
e;.. Planning Commissicn.Minutes
-10-
January 27, 1982
CITS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Regular Meeting
February 1, 1982
CATS, TO ORDER
Chairman Jeff King opened the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planairg Commission at 7:05 p.m. The meeting, a public
hearing, discussed the Terra Vista Planned Community and Related Environ-
mental Impact Report and was held at the Lions Park Community Center,
9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIGNEP.S: Richard Dahl, Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka
Peter Tolstoy, and Jeff King
ABSENT: COMMI SIONM: None
STAFF PRESENT: Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam,
Director of Community Development; Paul Ro_:; . ,
Senior Civil Engineer; Joan Kruse, Administrative
Secretary; Arlene Troup, Assistant Planner; Michael
Vairin. Senior Planner
STAFF REPORTS
A. OVERVIEIJ OF PLANNED COMMONITY CONCEPTS AND THE TERRA VISTA REVIER PROCESS
t` Michael Vairin, Senior Planner provided the Commission with a definition
Cof a Planned Community and stated that Terra Vista, which is being
�. proposed, as well as the EIR, are to be reviewed by the Commission. He
indicated that the EIR is a draft document which will be enanged during
the course of the public hearings.
Mr. Lam stated that for those in the audience, the colored map on the
wall is not the one being discussed and indicated that the black and
white map contains the land use patterns for the Terra Vista Plan.
B. STAFF REPORT NO. 1
Mr. Vairin proceeded to review the staff report and stated that its
organization is important in order to achieve a smooth f; -'_ng document.
He recommended that the final Terra Vista text be reorganized to provide
a clear distinction between the Plan and Design Cuidelines. Further,
that there should be more focus on land use concepts, circulation and
statistics. Mr. Vairin stated that the level of diagrams that would be
erpected as a minimum would be that which was provided in the Victoria
Planned Community.
1 .
+wi'^
.V
7
Ray Matlock, representing Lewis Homes and the Terra Vista Project Manager,
stated that they would be happy to reorganize the text in any way that
staff wishes. She indicated that the material now requested would be
provided quickly.
Commissioner Dahl requested that under the designation Recreation/
Commercial that more clear and concise indication of what they are
looking at be provided when they get to that point.
Chairman Ring asked if it is the Planning Commission's opinion that
improved text can be accomplished as they go along.
Mr. Vairin replied that he felt it could and that it could be guided in
the right direction. He indicated that the text needed to be meshed
together with the design guidelines so that a reader could read it from
front to back and have a clear understanding of what this was all about.
Mr. Lam provided a booklet that had been prepared by another planning
consultant as an example to the Commission of how staff's request might
be accomplished with the guideline organization. He indicated that this
would provide a standard against which further development applications
beyond the planned community could be judged. He felt 'nat this would
aid the Design Review Committee.
commissioner Tolstoy stated that architectural design standards were not
included and that sign and graphic standards were not addressed.
Further, that he did not see anything relating to lighting standards.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that buffering between uses must be shown
and that different kinds of residential uses need to be looked at care-
fully. He indicated that buffering between users in the mixed use areas
where there is residential must also be shown.
He stated that he wanted to know how the mixed uses and residential
could exist within the same zone and did not see enough material to see
bow it would take place.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the landscape section did not have
enough visual or graphics and7that in order for it to be complete, these
must be included.
Commissioner Rempel stated that the brochure that Mr. Lam provided
answers a lot of questions and thought that this type of material should
be included in the text.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to see the areas of
discussion grouped in categories like landscaping, screening or buffering
and not run together in the text.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had some difficulty in reading the
plan and trying to find where certain areas were addressed within the
Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 1. 1982
r�� i
text. He indicated that when reference is made to a particular development
he was unable to find it in the design, section as there is no cross
reference.
Chairman Sing asked if the applicant was clear on what the Commission
desires.
Ms. Matlock stated that she would question what the Commission meant by
a theme for the architecture.
Commissioner Tolstoy replied that he world like to see something that
was not repetitive and indicated that there should b% some differences
but was unable to determine from the tent what the applicant's intentions
were. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that architecture :ould be discussed in
how they differ or may be similar. He indicated that the use of
pictures was interesting but questioned the note below them that stated
that they were used for illustrative purposes only and were not to be
interpreted to meat: that this is what to expect in Terra Vista. He
further indicated that almost every one of the pictures bore this dis-
claimer and he wanted to see what it was that Terra Vista will give to
the community. He indicated that he would like to see something special
for this area.
Ms. Matlock explained the disclaimer and graphics by stating that it was
there because it would take a number of years to develop the entire
planned community and what is portrayed at the present may not be what
ultimately develops. She stated their reluctance to base 1-t on an
actual site plan at this stage. She stated that the basic concepts that
are outlined for Foothill Boulevard will apply regardless of the specific
site plan that is developed and those concepts are that each center will
have a different emphasis of uses in it; the layout of each of them will
vary; that the landscape treatment will vary reflecting the site plan;
that there will be coordinated vehicular access within and between the
centers; and that there will be a pedestrian connection between all of
them.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he agreed with exactly all Ms. Matlock
said, but that he knew things would be changed. But, the way he would
see this is through the graphics and that is all that he is saying. He
further stated that he would like to see how things can be different as
they go along and this could be accomplished through the graphics.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he had difficulty with the village
cluster idea because the difinition in the book states that a plan of
interrelated villages will serve common recreational /institutional
functions. He asked if the applicant had any conceptual differences
between the four villages in terms of architecture or feelings or were
they to be differentiated only through location and where they are in
terms of the greenway system.
Ms. Matlock replied that they have more in mind in that area.
-3-
February i, 1982
Commissioner Sceranka asked if it is contained within the text.
Ms. Matlock replied that it was not but that it could be furnished next
week.
Commissioner Scerznlca stated that his concern when discussing the corporate
park concept is, that if the text shows a water element, that this be
included in the final plan. He indicated that if key elements of
architecture are the same they be listed and if the architecture needs
to be changed they will see hoc, it will change and fit in. He indicated
that he needs to know how that will be shown.
Mr. Vairin explained that he had included a sentence in the staff report
that would cover what Commissioner Sceranka was saying and asked the
Commission for direction.
Commissioner Dahl stated that the Commission is looking for a conceptual
plan in terms of architecture and to tie anyone down to one specific
style is ridiculous at this time.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the things he missed is how the
greenbelt might tie into the corner of Foothill and Haven. He stated
further that over the months there has been discussion that this should
be a special place and a focal point within the City and could be
accomplished through a greenbelt. He indicated that he may have missed
this but could not find anything on this within the text.
Chairman King explained that the Planning Commission is looking for more
detail and a little bit more in the way of explanation and there was
consensus that the text needs to be organized in a more cohesive manner.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that one concept that would be more dynamic
would be in the office park section. He indicated that he could not
find in the text how this will be addressed and stated that he wanted
the criteria for this including where housing would go.
Ms. Matlock stated that the planning consultant, Gruen and Associates, is
worki:b on this and will be able to tell more to the Commission at the
next meeting.
Chairman King went on to the use of graphics.
Mr- Vairin explained that these were basically covered and compared how
it was done in the Victoria Plan and indicated where this could be added
in the text.
Chairman King asked the Commission what their thoughts were on the
disclaimer.
Commissioner Dahl stated that this should be addressed just once in the
plan by stating that the architectural illustrations are conceptual
Planning Coa mission Minutes
-4-
February 1, 1982
and that it need nit be addressed on each illustration.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt that a point should be made in
the corporate park line drawing, which leads him to believe that it is
going to be a water - oriented area. He stated that if this is not their
intent then he would not want to find this out at a later date. He
:red that there would be a theme because it makes things stand out and
is more important. He indicated that they should not show something
that we are not going to get.
Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that he liked Commi ^sioner Dahl's idea of one
disclaimer and, if the Commission desired, he would be happy to write
just one o.aster disclaimer. However, he stated that they have certain
problems because it will take more than 10 years to finish Terra Vista
and it is very hard to know what they will need in later years. He
indicated that they are going to start with an office building in the
office part: ttat will be a two -story building and perhaps the next 8
will be of tke same type. He indicated that when they get to Milliken
they will be talking to banks but if they go with a major bank like Bank
of America, they may feel that they will want to have a restaurant row;
but, there is no way of mowing this now and did not wish to be pinned
down.
Commissioner Dahl stated that he agreed with Mr. Lewis but thought they
should look to certain architectural standards that would be adhered to.
He indicated that if a lake is shown on the preliminary plan he expects
it to be there in the final plan. He stated that he was very upset
about what had happened w'Lth the other project and did not want to see
it change.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that more graphics are needed in the resi-
dential design section. He further stated that the concept should be
-. clear and relate to the graphics.
Chairman King stated that his thoughts were along the same line and
there needs to be more correlation between the graphics and text.
There was no further discussion on Topic No. 1.
Mr. Vairin reviewed Topic No. 3, Residential Densities and Consistency
with the General Plan, contained in the staff report. He discussed
circulation and its implications comparing the differences between this
plan and the General Plan. He asked the Commission for their views on
`. these issues.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked how the figure of 25 percent rather than 43
percent was arrived at.
Mr. Vairin replied that the EIR projected a 43% increase in the number
of trips made in a day's time. This was calculated on the overall
density of the plan without taking into consideration internal orientation.
Plarning Commission Minutes -5-
February 1, 1982
When they looked at this they discovered that there was a 22 -272 trip
generation factor that was totally internal. By taking that and applying
it to th^ overall trip generation factors they reduced it to the 25%
figure which represents a more accurate view of the perimeter traffic
impacts.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the reason this is 25 percent is because
they are projecting that the rest of the traffic will all be trips
within the project and not impact_ the rest of the City.
Mr. Vairin replied that this is correct.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated, however, that the 43 percent figure represents
the true number of trips to be projected.
Mr. Vairin stated that the projections were the result of what was done
in the traffic model and are as accurate as possible. He indicated that
the Commission must determine whether the levels projected are acceptable.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked at what level the intersections would operate
at.
Mr. Vairin replied that if additional lanes are added as proposed in the
EIR.and if the densities are as proposed or slightly lower, without
mitigation measures they would be impacted. They would operate at no
lower than a "D" level if attention is paid to the mitigating factors.
Commissioner Sceranka asked if any studies have been done on 4nether, as
a result of Terra Vista, how much additional infrastructure would be
required for expansion or signalization or other streets. He asked
further what needed to be done to Haven, Milliken, Base Line, and
Rochester to increase capacities.
Mr. Rougeau replied that because of the long build out time these streets
will be improved through their own projects. Further, that the industrial
assessment district would help and by the time Terra Vista develops,
enough of the system will be there.
Commissioner Sceranka. asked if there was a figure that Mr. Rougeau could
give in terms of percentage of error in what is being proposed and what
is the worst case 10-15 years from now.
Mr. Rougeau replied that this is really based on certain assumptions of
traffic growth and they are still talking in fairly conservative figures;
however, they must figure to the worst case or close to it and they are
figuring on a growth of traffic.
Commissioner Sceranka asked if the Commission should comment on the
density at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 1, 1982
k,
Planning Commission Minutes
14.r. Vairin replied that if the Commission has feelings regarding density
sal
and what is being proposed, then comments would be appropriate. He
indicated that this is what was done with the Victoria Plan.
Commissioner Sceranka asked if Mr. Vairin's question is whether there is
enough difference between this and the General Plan to warrant a change
to the General Plan.
Mr. Vairin replied that it would not warrant a change to the General
Plan. Further, that in terms of conformance to the General Plan, under
the planned community ordinance the Commission has the ability to
&etermine what densities are acceptable and showed the Commission what
they were on the chart provided in the staff report. He indicated t %at
the General Plan at mie -point and higher projected figures that are
lower than what Terra Vista is proposing. Ultimately, the Commission
will have to make a determination of whether they feel the figure is
high, low or just right.
Commissioner Scerahka asked if they select a figure at the high point
they would have to insure that the quality of life and life style and
other elements are compatible for traffic.
Assistant City Attorney Hopson stated that what staff is saying is that
the Commission can use the General Plan as a guideline and compare the
high allowable under the General Plan and the high as proposed by the
Terra Vista Plan and you would get a higher density by a thousand units.
In theory, he stated, the Terra Vista Plan is supposed to be consistent
with the General Plan, not item for item, but within the ranges. He
continued that what Mr. Vairin is saying is that the fact that the
higher density in the General Plan is possible for Terra Vista does that
cant to make you cut down densities generally in Terra Vista; does it
bother you that if Terra Vista builds out at the lowest or medium ranges
still allowable within the ranges of the General Plsn? That's different
from the question that was stated, he said.
'r
8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Chairman King stated that assuming that the Commission's only concern
was circulation could they be assured that with a reduction of 1300
units, it would sufficiently compensate for traffic to concur with the
General Plan.
"
Mr. Rougeau replied that if the figures match we are working with all
the assumptions of the General Plan and it should work.
C:
Chairman King stated that what is being said is there is a 25 percent
surplus in traffic and yet if 1300 units are cut it is not 25 percent of
the total units.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7-
February 1, 1982
sal
-7-
February 1, 1982
Mr. Vairin stated that in part this deals with densities and they must
all relate together.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Commission has been talking about
circulation and that has a lot tr, do with densities. He stated that he
felt another issue would be what kinds of densities they are talking
about. He indicated that if the low and low medium figures were added
up as far as percentages you would get 50.1% and if you take Terra Vista
and add 7.8 and 31.7 you get 39% or a difference of 11%. He indicated
that you have to consider the high and medium high and you get a specific
number of density from the General Plan and project this and it distcrts
what is being proposed in Terra Vista because of a different quality of
density.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one reason he is critical of Terra
Vista's text is that if you are going to 'lave a lot of density you must
have a let of quality of design and that he has not been a foe of density
as long as there are mitigating factors. Commissioner Tolstoy further
stated that. this relates to what they have been talking about relative
to circulation design..
Chairman King asked if this is a correct statement -that if you reduce 13
you will have more impact in reducing traffic than if you reduce single
family detached homes verfaus reducing auantiti.ps of 14 rnnits nor nrre.
He asked if more trips are generated from single family houses than from
14 units per acre.
Mr. Rougeau replied that this is correct in that 9.5 trips per day are'
generated from detached housing versus 6.5 trips per day for the medium
high and high densities. He indicated that these have been reduced
because of traffic assumptions.
Ms. Matlock stated that overall densities of the project can be looked
at in a number of different ways and asked that this not be examined
solely from the standpoint of traffic. She stated further that they had
designed the circulation system to keep the trips inside the project and
this was based on the traffic modeling that bad been done previously
which was not too great. She stated that with the loop road there would
not be an effect on any of the other neighborhoods and the increase in
traffic over what is projected is.largely eliminated by the number in
the project according to the EIR.
Mr. Rougeau stated that this can be read two of three different ways.
He indicated that if table 7 is analyzed and you compare the number of
trips between the General Plan and Terra Vista, he iudicated staff wants
this clarified by the traffic consultant before they go along with the
EIR. Mr. Rougeau stated that on pages 3-70, using the uumber of trips
in the General Plan versus the project proposal and the assumptions used
in the General Plan versus those used in Terra Vista for internal circu-
lation it still comes out that you have 22,000 trips left over. He
indicated that if you take this and the table on the preceding page
Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 1, 1982
and following page, there are discrepancies and it is staff's opinion
that these should be determined by. the traffic consultant.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that what Mr. Rougeau is saying is that we
do not have enough data.
Y._ Rougeau replied that what they are saying is that the difference of
trips is 22,000 more but that they don't know if you can widen the roads
to handle this. The question would be how you want to mitigate this.
Commissioner Dahl asked where this is.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it is at Archibald and Foothill.
Mr. Vairin stated that the docuaent talks about internal traffic on the
loop road being a 22% figure. But they do not take into account that
the General Plan also had a percentage figured for internal traffic
which was not factored in which again creates a difference between the
two. He indicated that there are a number of items that must be looked
at closely.
Ms. Matlock stated that there is another reason that they hoped the
Commission would not make wholesale decisions on traffic grounds. She
indicated that if Terra Vista is never developed the traffic at Foothill
and Haven will be increased. She indicated that Foothill and Haven must
be developed to its full cross section if Terra Vista is never developed
at all.
Mr. Vairin stated that the City is in touch with its traffic consultant
to see what is proposed in the General Plan and how it is to be compared
if Terra Vista doesn't_ develop or remains ambient. He stated that this
would provide a firmer guideline.
Ms. Matlock addressed the issue of whether their density is consistent
with the General Plan. She indicated that the figure given in the staff
report relative to the General Plan gives a mid -range density figure for
their area and also a maximum- She stated that the figure that they
have always understood is the maximum and their figure goes both higher
and lower. She said that the base figure in this analysis that the
figure is starting from has always been questioned because it has been
based on planimeter readings. She stated they also have done planimeter
readiroe and have CMme vp with a `liffervnt f{V-- Cho stated tl. t thrj
feel that the maximum they propose is appropriate and within the General
Plan and cited reasons for it being related to affordable housing and
ability to live within the working area and transit centers. She asked
that the Commission look at the plan to see if it makes sense the way it
is and not make wholesale reductions in it.
Mr. Ki Suh Park, Gruen and Associates, consultant for the Lewis Company,
stated that the General Plan shows 7500 is the low density, and the
high is 9420. He indicated that they are proposing 8700 units. He
Planning Couniss'on Minutes -9- February 1, 1982
r�
indicated that they would provide more backup into what they feel their
land use interrelationship is. He indicated that the Commission could
not lool: at the traffic plan for absalste cocparison. He felt that
development would occur simultaneously in different sections of the City
and the net differential is what must be examined.
Commissioner Dahl asked if Mr. Park is looking at a figure of 8782 as
the high figure.
Mr. Park stated that this is the maximum they want to put in. He
indicated that the only exception is the point that deals with afford-
able housing.
Mr. Lam stated that in looking at these _figures and the low, medium and
high point, during discussion on the General Plan the densities were
W ways in the mid- range. The circulation section was done this way as
well and the reason for that is in the rest of the community you are not
going to accomplish these densities uecause of the streets, etc., -.4 the
reason you use the mid ranges in the planned communities is because :hey
are planned developments utilizing gross densities. That is why in
Victoria a maximum was established in the mid -range densities and he
believed that this is how densities should be compared.
Commissioner Dahl stated that we show 7502 as a medium density and 9420
as a maximum.
Mr. Vairin stated that the reason this was put in is because they did
not understand that this was the maximum number being used for Terra
Vista.
Commissioner Dahl asked if the applicant_ would be willing to make 8782
his maximum figure instead of 10457.
Mr. Lewis replied that Ms. Matlock alluded to the 7502 figure and he was
afraid that this would be burned into their memory and everything would
be compared to it. Lae stated that he felt that city staff calculated
incorrectly and asked if they could meet with staff to go over this. He
indicated that if they are wrong, they will correct their figures but he
felt that there is a discrepancy in the General Plan figures.
Commissioner Dahl stated that the only thing that he was alluding to was
the 8782 figure being mid- range. He indicated that if this would be
their maximum the other figures could be crossed off.
Chairman King asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the
Commission.
Mr. Lyons, Etiwanda resident, stated he hoped the Planning Concnission
would not go with t:.e maximum densities and that the community would
have that assurance. He stated that traffic had been discussed here
and at the General Plan hearings and 'ae was of the understanding that
Planning Co=ission Minutes -10- February 1, 1982
level D would be unacceptable to the community. He asked the Commission
to examine traffic on Mountain and Vineyard Avenues and be hoped that
there would be a more acceptable level of txaffic for Rancho Cucamonga.
He indicated that since Victoria has been approved and things are not as
they had been proposed he would caution thee. to go slow on Terra Vista.
Commissioner Re=pel stated that there is on:.y one lake that may have
disappeared in Victoria and is subject Io n:gotiation. He indicated
that it is not really a lake but a pond and that there are act any
discrepancies between what was proposed and what is being approved. He
did not think that the Commission has gone into the area of finalizing
densities and as far as the City of Rancho Cucamonga is concerned, he
hoped that they would never build a street like Mountain Av�mue.
Mr. Lyons stated that presently there are :1,000 dwelling units in the
City and that between. Victoria and Terra Vista that number is again
proposed which would increase the City 100 percent.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that both Terra Vista and Victoria will be
built over the next 20 years. He stated t%at they are trying to set
specific parameters and foresee what it will be like 20 years from now
and they are trying to do long -range planning.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not feel that the planning
process could be slowed down and that ther: is absolute urgency in
completing the planning process. He indicated that this build out will
not be determined by what this Commission decides but by what subsequent
Commissions do and it will be constantly ciangiug.
Commissioner Dahl stated that no matter what the Commission does in this
planned community or in the past planned cc=VUnity his position is
extremely clear that once he is comfortable with a project and supports
it that is what he expects to sPe come forward. He further stated that
if it moves from what was brought forward be will refuse to support any
phase of that development.
John Lyons Mated that Commissioner Dahl is to be commended for that.
Mr. Vairin stated that part of the overall discussion is tied into the
next topic which is residential distributiot,.
Chairman Ring stated that although the Commission was not talking ¢bout
circulation as the subject, it appeared to Jr. th,: bulk of the Commission's
conversation. He indicated that they need something to look at the
overall densities in Terra Vista and Victoria and need more explanation
of what is betrg proposed and whether it is consistent with the General
Plan; how it relates to the impact on traffi: and density; and where it
would be appropriate to reduce densities.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that what the C-mmIssion needs to do is
take a look at the plan and determine if the service level and design
Planning Commission Minutes -11- February 1, 1982
I
criteria densities are appropriate. He further stated that they will
get more data to look at the relative numbers but did not feel at this
time it is right to compare consistency with the General Plan until some
other determinations are made.
Commissioner Dahl stated that he felt that in light of the traffic
analysis and densities in the area around Base Line and Hawn it should
be changed to low density where medium is now shown. He felt that this
should be redesignated low and low- medium density as the people in the
area would feel more comfortable.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he felt the opposite and that there
would be angry residents going up to City Hall if that is single family
wilt, 40,000 cars going by on Haven. He indicated that the only way to
resolve the heavy traffic is to show that as medium -high density.
Commissioner Dahl asked how it would affect Haven if density was reduced.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it is hard to assess because it would be the
result of the development north of Base Line.
Commissioner Dahl stated that all along Haven there is low density type
housing although higher up there are higher density tracts. He indicated
that if there are 4 units per acre and this creates 6-7 trips a day x 14
units per acre you will still be cutting trips out and he felt that this
should continue to be of the same type units that are presently there.
Commissioner Rempel stated that Commissioner Dahl rinsed the point that
in keeping this low dersity residential you will have children trying to
cross the street. He stated that single family residential will add to
traffic and that single family residential should not take place along a
highly travelled street.
Commissioner Rempel stated that there are areas that need changing and
he was happily surprised when be saw that staff bad changed the interior
loo? in Terra Vista because he felt it should be changed.
Commissioner Dahl stated that the aesthetics of the surrounding area
shaa:ld be retained.
Chairman bring stated that he was in concurrence with Commissioners
Rempel and Sceranka in that it is more appropriate to structure a higher
density along Haven because it will provide for better landscaping and
buffering along Haven.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it would seem that all along Haven it
is a walled community without any ingress or egress and so this is
irrelevant. He indicated that if there is low density you will have
fewer people crossing the street and he agrees with Chairman King on
improved landscaping and buffering. lie felt that higher density there
would be better.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 1, 1982
For the clarification of those in the audience, Commissioner Sceranka
stated that what the Commission +.: talking about is not high density bit
medium density.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that higher density in this area would provide
an opportunity of making that area better and provide more open space.
He questioned how people would get away from congestion along Milliken
and asked that this he addressed.
Commissioner Rc=pel stated that on pages 4 -54 there is a good illustration
and this type of drawing needs to be elaborated on to provide more
visuals or graphics.
Mr. Ki Suh Park stated that they hoped to present more consistent plans
so that the Commission would more thoroughly know what they have in
mind. He indicated that they would provide more visuals and details to
discuss. He further indicated that since this is all in one color, they
would attempt to separate the public from the private greenways and show
this in more detail.
Commissioner Sceranka expressed his concern with the two neighborhood/
commercial shopping centers at Milliken, stating that he did not want
them there. He said that it would make perfect sense to have the MR's
in the northwest quadrant of the City because of the adjacency to tie
parks and RC. He stated that there are two high density sections in the
plan directly above the office park and commercial. He felt that the
high section north of the loop could be better located if the M was to
the east of that, next to the park.
Chairman King stated that it would appear that a lot of the issues that
the Commission will deal with revolve around density and the iss-•e of
density. From his standpoint he felt the best way of approach and focus
is through disc.:ssion of some sort and an oral presentation detailing
the organization and approach combined with a visual presentation. He
indicated that he would like to know why they have planned the way they
did and stated it would seem that it would be better focused if the
Commission could have conversation in back and in front and that he
would like this for the next meeting. He indicated if the applicant
came prepared to give an explanation rather than none or a very general
presentation, it would be better.
Mr. Park replied that he would be very happy to make a detailed presentation.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like a visual or graphic pre-
sentation to show how high density and the greei '.elt area relate.
Mr. Vairin suggested to the applicant that this be done for the Februc ry
22 meeting as there would be room on the agenda for it.
Mr. Lewis stated that he would be delighted to have .t moved up to the
February 22 agenda and asked if staff would like them to come in and
Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 1, 1982
explain how the plan was done or show how changes could be made based on
Co,w ission comment.
Chairman icing replied that it should be both ways and that if they feel
that they have the best thing going on wheels it should be shown so that
we know what the logic is behind it and incorporate it is the presentation.
Commissioner Rempel stated that Mr. Lewis h.sd observed a lot of consensus
tonight.
Mr. Lewis stated that they would try to get in before the 22nd in ordar
to have their material reviewed.
Mr. Lam stated that the Commission may ask why this bad not been done
and explained that it would be more meaningful to the applicant to have
the input from the Commission relative to land use. Mr. Lam suggested
that Mr. Park put something of that scale on the wall so that each
speaker could point to it rather than a slide projector which flips on
and off.
Mr. Park stated that this would be done.
Mr. Dan Russo, a resident near Haven and Base Line, _.ated that he
agreed completely with Commissioner Dahl's comments relative to the
density issue at Base Line and Haven. He indicated that they bad been
lead to believe that the area near them would be recreationally devel-
oped and then a neighborhood commercial shopping center was proposed.
He indicated that there had been negative reactions to the shopping
center and they wanted to see low density more in keeping with what is
already there. He stated that ne did not see how the Commission or the
developer could ignore the wishes of the people who are there.
Chairman King stated that the lower density and foot traffic on Milliken
makes much sense. He indicated that the point he and Commissioner
Tolstoy brought up relative to most quarter acre development on major
thoroughfares there is a block wall. He indicated that the point is not
necessarily that they are unsightly but that there are better ways of
landscaping and which would look better from the road. He seated that
if they say there should be quarter acre lots on the east side of Raven
they must ask how they can treat landscaping so that there are not block
walls on both sides of the street.
Commissioner Dahl stated that you can have a very good visual effect
with good landscaping and used as an example Mountain Avenue between
19th Street and Base Line. .He indicated that he was not convinced that
just because there would be 7200 square foot lots that there must also
be ugly landscaping.
Mr. Russo stated that the Commission could not ignore the houses that
are already there as some must face Haven and Base Line. He indicated
that most houses will face inside and there will be a lot that can
Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 1, 1982
�iy`
be done with landscaping but that there would be a lot of block walls,
too. He indicated that rock could also be used with shrubs and trees.
He felt that there should be some consistency to blend the old with the
new as the walls cannot be knocked down.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that the Commission understood his concern
but that one of the things that must be addressed is whether or not the
opinions that he has specifically and Mr. Russo's concerns are being
ignored or if they are being dealt with in a different way. He indicated
that if you take a 130 -foot street it will carry 50,000 cars and that is
a lot of impact on homes on the west side and that is something signifi-
cant to consider and far beyond what goes in on the east side. He
indicated that they do'not want to create the same frustration on the
east side of the street that will be on the west side of the street and
they will try to mitigate this with greater setbacks and different types
of housing stock. He indicated that Mr. Russo is sitting behind a block
wall and drainage channel, road, median, more "ad, setbacks and housing
stock and he stated that he cannot see in any way how those units could
be a detriment to the existing neighborhood. He indicated that this
Commission is dealing with problems that the County did not deal with
and that 4 -14 dwelling units per acre can provide more open space than 4
dwelling units per acre can.
Commissioner Rempel stated that whet the term medium density is used,
you think of apartment houses that will be right up against the street.
He indicated that the housing that goes in will be comparable to single
family residential and this is how development standards have been set
up in the City.
M;. Russo thanked the Commission for listening and asked that they
analyze what he said.
Mr. John Lyons stated that the Lewis Development Company should do
something to educate the Etiwanda community about the plan.
Mr. Lewis indicated that they held two open meetings and sent notices to
all residents along Haven and in Etiwanda but that they would be happy
to meet with any neighborhood group who wished to learn more about the
Terra Vista Plan.
Mr. Lyon replied that the meetings were held over the Christmas holidays
and many people were unable to attend or were out of town.
Commissioner Sceranka commented on the remarks about keeping the proposed
development in line with what is already there, and indicated that he
did not want a carbon copy of what is already there. He indicated that
he wanted to add or improve on what is already there with amenities and
type of landscape treatment. He indicated that they want to provide a
place that people can afford and he wished that some of the projects
that have been approved by this Commission would be built so that people
would see what they are like.
'`'
Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 1, 1982
Commissioner Dahl. stated that he felt the City's standards are very high
and that they are asking for quality in the City. He questioned a
statement made about improving the quality of life in the City and
whether or not each and every one of the Commission would be happy to
live in one of these units, he would refer back to his statement that a
750 square foot house centerlined on a 3000 square foot lot would be the
type of house that every one of us would want to live in and he did not
feel that everyone sitting in this room would want to call this home so
he has some problems with it. He indicated that he has no problem with
density in the right places. In Terra Vista, because it is in the
center of the City, this is where density is most appropriate. He
indicated that landscaping and appearance can be taken care of. He felt
that impacts should be lessened in single family area where there are
7200 square foot lots. He felt that no argument had been made against
what he said abcut not having 14 dwelling units per acre alon-1 Haven.
Commissioner Rempel stated that all you have to do is drive up Layton
which is the street just west of him and tell him that just because you
have a 7200 or 8000 square foot lot you will automatically have a nice
looking lot or that a home of 1700 -1800 square feet assures that it will
be nice. He indicated that these homes are degrading his property.
Commissioner Dahl stated that Commissioner Rempel was using a poor
illustration.
Commissioner Rempel L-tated that you can't have both. Further that
neither one of those are criteria for what he is saving.
Mr. Vairin summarized Topic No. 4 and asked for consensus among the
Commission in setting up specific guidelines. He indicated that the
standards are not standards as stated and there are many ambiguous terms
that are statements rather than guidelines. He indicated that more
diagrams and cross sections are needed fer grade separation and design
detail. He asked for the Commission's consensus.
Commissioner Dahl stated that the Commission had already provided
consensus through the green book that had been passed along with the
descriptions and emphasis it contained. He indicated that the emphasis
played on design standards was excellent and needed to be incorporated
into the text.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would concur with staff recommendation
on the last section of the report. The Commission gave their consensus
on this also.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously, to
adjourn to February 22, 1982 for the second Terra Vista public hearing.
Chairman Ring stated that he would encourage community participation
in the hearing process.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- February 1, 1982.
(,y
�4
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
l
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 10, 1982
Members of the Planning Commission
Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development
Karl Hill, Planning Aide
BACKGROUND: The attached letters from the Applicants request extensions
for the above - described projects. The requests are based on present mon-
etary problems and in regard to DR 80 -07, they do expect to start con-
struction by July of this year. None of the above - listed Development
Review projects have submitted plans for plan check to date. The approved
Sate Plans are shown on Exhibits "B" and "C ". Listed below are the pre-
sent expiration dates for each project.
Development Review
80 -07
81 -03
Expiration Date
March i 3, 1982
January 28, 1982
It has been the Planning Commission's policy to approve Development
Review extension requests for one year. The maximum time allowed by
the Zoning Ordinance for Development Review projects is two and one-
half years. Development Review 80 -07 has already received a one year
extension, and can only be extended for an additional six months.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a six month extension be granted
for Director Review 80 -07 and a twelve month extension be granted for
Director Review 81 -03 to run from the present expiration dates to the
dates listed on the attached Resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, AICP
Director of Community Development
JL:KH :jr
Attachments: Letters from Applicants; Exhibit "A" - Location Map;
Exhibits "B" & "C" - Site Plans
Resolution
CHARLES H. KALBACH
P. O. Box 387
Alfa Loma, California 91701
Bus. (714)987.2124
Res. (714) 982.4788
Januarvvv 21,1982
Mr Michael Va==, Senior Planner
City of Pancho t`t>emmmza
P.O. Pax 807
Rancho c]acalrcx1a, ( 93.730
Re: Director Review 1-10. 80-07
Develowe nt of Retail Center located at the
Southeast corner o£ Prrow and Archibald
Dear Nor. Vairin:
E
On February 25,1983.rw retail center described above was edven a one vear
extension to warch 1.3,79E2.
During this east year fjna=xAT was either not available or not available
at a rate consistent with the projected rental rates to be charged to tenants-
3: presently have the =eject out £or bid and I anticipate beincf under ccinstzuction
by smr -er. "be=e are halo lmcertanties in the f.; wnma3. mmamloets at this time
aril I would not want to lose my approval clue to cmxlitiens beyond riy c=tX01 .
I resnectfiiily r>a uest that you sc bedale before the '01annana Comv.ssican, at the
earliest possible date, a one (1) year extmsicn of this apvroval.
S' y,
C1larles E_
cSfc -ead
T 1n
" ���11114NC� t`l
IL212ig�4�
DEWAiN R. BUTLER
9753 ALONDRA BOULEVARD PAP.AMOUNT CALIFORNIA90723
January 19, 1982
(213) 5343330
Yx. Dan Coleman
CITY OF RANCHA CUCAM7NGA
Planning Division Re: Eavironmenul Assessment
Post Office Box 807 & Director Review No. 81 -03
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Coleman:
We were advised yesterday by Carl Hill in your office that the above
mentioned development review will expire on January 28, 1982.
This letter will serve as our request that this review be extended
for a period of one year. Enclosed is our check in the amount of
$62.00 to cover the cost of processing this extension request.
Please let me know if you require any further information. We would
appreciate written convi.rmation that this request has been granted.
Yo•.ars very truly,
11
Dewain R. Butler
DRB:sms
Enclosure
F;',' a (�, Z, an 7 I; �,
cITr of R; :r,cnr. JJVI�1�tii'IVI7
COMM�INITy CN ; l�Pi✓•cNT OF
j .
AM
71819,10111112,112,314, "
J
•' iQ
'a
nor_
rl.
1
1 I
nor_
rl.
1
1 I
I
n
i
J
I
n
n
n O
Rp
9
z
59
0
u
0
: ^y
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION, APPROVING THE EX7ENSIONS FOR D.R. 80 -07
AND D.R. 81 -03
WHEREAS, applications have been filed for time extensions for
the above - described projects, pursuant to Section 61.0219(n)(9)(A) of
the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Fianning Commission has held duly advertised
public hearings for the above - described projects: and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the
above- described projects.
SECTION 1: The Rr.ncho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made
the following findings:
A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a
lack of financing and high interest rates for con-
struction;
B. That these economic conditions make it unreasonable
to build at this time;
C. That external physical conditions have caused delay
in the start of construction.
D. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval
regarding expirations would not be consistent with
the intent of the Zoning Code;
E. That the granting of said time extensions will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby
grants time extensions for the above - described projects as follows:
Development Review
80 -07
81 -03
Expiration Date
September 13, 1982
January 28, 1983
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS LOTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982.
;l
Resolution No.
Page 2
PLRyNING COTM7ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeff King, hairman
ATTEST:
ecretary o the Planning COmmissicn
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify tt:at the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commis-,-ion of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of February, 1982,
vote -to -wit: by the following
AYES: COMMISSICNERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
�i
E
CrIrY OF RANCH( CUCAMONGA
STAFF R SPORT
DATE: February 10, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engi,.eer ,
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Techniciar
SUBJECT: Request for Time Extensions for Farcel Map Nos. 5260, 6114,
60761, 5997 and 514A
The attached letters from the applicants of th. above - referenced projects
request time extensions.
These requests are based on the economic condi•ions prevailing at this
time.
Parcel maps are approved for an initial period of 18 months and extended
for an additional one -;;ear period upon request. Two extensions can be
granted making a total of three and a half years possible. Parcel Map
5260 and 5144 are requesting their final extension. Listed below are
the new expiration dates for each project if a )ne -year extension is
granted:
PAP.CEL MAP EXP'RATION DATE
5260
January 16, 1983
5144
February 1, 1983
6114
April 16, 1983
6076
Zanuary 7, 1983
5997
Decenber 27, 1982
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that a ore -year extension be granted for
Tentative Pa Maps 5260, 5144, 6114, 6076 and 5997 as listed on the attach-
ed resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
18 1 LB.4:BK:jaa
Attachments
ITEM 8
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION, APPROVING THE EXTENSIONS FOR PARCEL
MAPS 5260, 5144; 6114, 6076 AND 5997
WHEREAS, applications have been filed for time extensions
for the zll�ve- described projects, pursuant to Section 1.501.8 of
Ordinance 28-8, the Subd °,vision Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly advertised
public hearings for the above - described projects; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, conditionally approved
the above - described Tentative Parcel Maps.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made
the foiiowing findings:
A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a
lack of financing and high interest rates for con-
struction;
B. That these economic conditions make it unreasonable
to build at this time;
C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval
regarding expirations would not be consistent with
the intent of the Zoning Code;
D. That the granting of said time extensions will not
be detrimental to the public he_lth, safety, or wel-
fare, or materially injurious to properties or improve-
ments in the vicinity.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby
grants time extensions for the above - described projects as follows:
Parcel Map
Expiration Date
5260
January 16, 1983
5144
February 1, 1983
6114
April 16, 1983
6076
January 7, 1983
5897
December 27, 1982
APPROVED AND ADJPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY. 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
0
9 .
xeso s utlon quo
Page 2
I* BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
i, JAC* 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 °lanning
Commission held on the 10th day of February, 1982, by the following
vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
01
1�
•
-�'rtY
rrr'
OF RANCHO UQ5L *TONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP
Lisle;
7arce
N page
171
il
-- , - r
7
-A; WC
'Z
AIL_ -
Symf f T
'C�Si title'
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAl\,IOiNGA Parc I Map 5144
ENGINEERING DIVISION A
I vu VICINITY MAP
N page
Sf � ZLVA
.� ��• _ I. - - ''fir
V
7
M i
n<i..rly
OF RAANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP
tit ei
A ��
N page
u
4-
Sf � ZLVA
.� ��• _ I. - - ''fir
V
7
M i
n<i..rly
OF RAANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP
tit ei
A ��
N page
u
;0
_ LA
- ---_SEROA_
ROAD
--
FA4Vt.Y kdZ-r 14i- -l'Jr1A4
I
PAR ELI
PARCEL 2 y
PARCEL 3 ,I
�-
►nRCEI
20.000 �•
y
�✓
0 /tp,000�
V' l2+.l f• p
li to.OVO t1
`i]
`jt
l
oaf^
Q�W
�
W1W
i• I
1
i_
�
I
H
{
...
OF RANCHO CUCk%CONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP
v l r/ A44A
N
page
24TH STREET - lv�...•
I
N.C�I \��
I/ a ✓InC
'9, `\•
?•
? _•�.. --�s7 6MBEF /G> LI.•<.. LANE— I 1
�x
i �.• = �.r. � /�,,�,��•• -�• � _.� .. — i.G� a >% -h� wit •'; �1
l h LI
__s� ^ "Ay�NUE
1 �
rG" w 1
rte— �I
w �
1 1
. i I
TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP
title'
P3; ce5 Marp 59
A
N page
cc:9
ti
N �
.x N
_ m
V
J .ti..
a
FC=
z n
z"
a °
IL
®0
o
U
Z 20
cr O
o
U
c
O
m
m
m
a
m
.n
u�
L
Lc-:Pjo
JANUARY 13. 1982
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
P.O. BOX 807
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730
DEAR BARBARA,;
iPARA;
u�ir�;;uU�liy
L;iT.Y OF Uj';CHC 70�!^
COMMNNITy DEVELOFWFNT DEPT.
����pp V T11G 1
INP pu
41819'1011hLt112.3a4i5i6
A
WE WOULD LIU TO EXTEND OUR PARCEL MAP NO. 5260.
DUE TO THE CURRENT RECESSION WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO
PROCEED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE PLANNING HOWEVER,
TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
SINCERELY YOURS
'GEORGE E. SHANKS
GES: jb
McKinnon -Bibb Properties, Inc.
January 18, 1982
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 92080
4tten; Barbara Crall
Dear Ms. Crall,
Rancho Cucamonga industrial Partners requests another
one -year extension for the recordation ai Parcel !daps
#5144 and 5144 -1 from February 1, 1982. Because of the
economic conditions prevailing at this time, it is not
feasible to start construction.
We have been working with various lending institutions
attempting to secure an equitable loan commitment but
have been unsuccessful.
Your approval of our request would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
d" �.ti16
Charles McKinnon
General Partner
enclosure; $62.00 fee for tentative map #5144 and 5144 -1
cc: Dale Price, engineer
2737 E. -'st Coost Higf -r o ■ Corono del Mor, CcVomio 92625 a (714) 675-2311
raab enaineerina inc.
land dasign subdivision engineering 14482 BEACH BiVD.
®
SUITE
WESTIJIINSTER, CA. 92626 83
(714) 6383522
(714)897-5412
City of Rancho Cucamonga January 3.2. 1982
P_ 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730
AT71=10:4: Shintu Bosc
RE: Parcel Map 6114
(Approved, October 16, 1930)
Gentlemen:
On behalf of our client, Vista Investment Properties, Inc., we hereby
request a twelve month extension of time with regard to the above
referenced project, generally located on the southwest corner of Foot-
hill Blvd, and Ramona Avenue.
Please find enclosed a check is the amount of $62.00, to cover the
processing costs of this request.
if you have any questions regarding the above, or if I can be of any
assistance to you, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RAAB GIIQEEMJt!N .
.1 k
Mark (I_. Raab,
President
CC: Vista Investment Properties, Inc_
Bill Campbell
CC: Bremco Construction
Steve Moline
rsb
December 24, 1981
5341 Carol Avenue
Alta. Lorna, Ca. 91701
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 93.730
Re: Parcel Map 6076
Attention: Barbara Kral1
Engineering Technician
We respectfully request an extension of time on the completion
of the above referenced improvement map. Existing economical
conditions have created some hardships requiring an extension
of time.
Cordially,
J. Don Anderson
�
0
11
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Atten: John L. Martin
Assistant Civil Engineer
RE: Parcel Map No. 5997
Expires 12 -27 -81
,i7Y OF MiCRC CUCAMONG,A
XO NIMI[WrY DEgl OPleFNT DEPT.
U C c , isa�
AM
7i8i9i�sus�s�s2t3t4s5 6
4
Dear Mr. Martin:
We would like to request a 6 to 12 month extension on above Parcel Map.
As you are aware, it has been difficult to sell real estate during the
last 13 months due to high interest rates.
Any consideration you give our request for extension will be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Wayne & Jo Anne Jacobs
5992 Etiwanda Avenue
P. 0. Box 291
Etiwanda, California 91739
Iv
till[
CJ
r]
CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
1982
197
T0: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development
BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW N0. 82 -02 -
BART N - The developilert of a 5,800 square foot two -story
office building on .369 acres, located generally on the
south side of Civic Center Drive, west of Utica - Lot 23 of
Parcel Map 6206
SUM14.ARY: The Applicant is requesting review and approval for the devel-
opment of a two -story office building as described above. The project
I
as completed the Development and Design Review process and is now before
the Planning Commission to receive environmental clearance.
BACKGROUND: This review is for environmentai assessment to determine any
sigrcant adverse impacts on the environment as a resuit of this pro-
ject. The site and architectural design is not considered at this time
unless it is related to environmental concerns. To determine significant
adverse impacts, an Initial Study on environmental concerns is completed.
Upon completion of that study, evidence would indicate either no signi-
ficant impacts or the potential for significant impacts. if a determi-
nation of no significant impacts is made based upon the Initial Study,
then a Negative Declaration may be issued for the project. If signifi-
cant impacts are found, then an Environmental Impact Report: shall be
required to fully analyze the impacts of the project.
The Detailed Site Plan and elevation will be reviewed and approvi!d with
approp:-iate Conditions by the City Planner, contingent upon approval of
the Negative Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed
by the Applicant and is attached for your review and consideration.
Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and found
no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this
project. If the Commission concurs with such findings, then a Negative
Declaration would be in order.
ITEM C
Environmental Assessment For DR 82 -02
Planning Commission Agenda
February 10, 1982
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon analysis of the Initial Study, it appears that the
project will not cause significant adverse impacts upon tha eovi*onment. If
the Commnission concurs, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration for the
project would be in order.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, AICP
Director of Community Development
JL: DC: j r
Attachments: Part I
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
[nit
"A's
.«B"
of Cn
I'D"
a' E"
ial Study
- Location Map
- Illustrative Site Plan
- Detailed Site Plan
- Elevations
- Conceptual Grading Plan
0
0
0
\J
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMCVGA
INITIAL, STUDY
PART I - PROJECT 1- NZFORMATIO'3 SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: 387.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and sutmitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take z ction no later than ten
(10) days before the public m(•etirg at which time the
project is to be hear a. Tree committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant
envircnmertal impact and a Ne4ative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An
additional information report should be supplied by the applicant
giving further information concerning the pronosed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Civic Center Office Buildina
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: James E. Barton
8409 Utica Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
714- 987 -0996
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: James E. Barton, 8409 Utica Avenue,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 :14- 987 -0996
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADD3'ESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
Civic Center Drive,
Lot 23 of Parcel Map 6206
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FRC M LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AN
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
Building permit, City of Rancho Cucamonga
- Y -t
l
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: One 2 -story office structure
0
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTA2E OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED B—U.LDI :'7GS, IF .AL Y: Land is equal to .369 acres,
_which is equal to 16,073 square feet. No existing buildings,
proposed structure is to be !>,e06 square teet.
DESCPSSE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF T.TTE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING MFORM TION7 ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTU?.t,L, h'ISTORICAL OR SCE*7IC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROTI-NDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRT- PTIO11 OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND TH,. -,IR USE (ATTACH NT£CESSnRY SETS):
Existing land is vacant. There are no trees, plants
animals, cultural or historical aspects. This site
was previously oermitt_ed to construct a 6.000 sauare foot ANk
industrial building. It has been araded oar Citv st_an ar.
aiiu.�i cxisuag permits ana mere pas peen no aacici.onai
construction. done.
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series
of cu.-aulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
prcviousiv approvea by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
WILL Tills PROJECT:
z rr S No
_ 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
x 2. Create a substantial charge 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?
5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
6. Create tae need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammabies or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTANT- If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the fora: on the
nest 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, stat ea-ants, and
informatic.: presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief_ I further und_rstand th::t
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evallation can be made by the Deveicpment
Review Committee.
Date January 8, 1982 Signature /
"
Title Owner
z
I'll
7
,= I ✓"=
CITY OF
RA.NLCI--TO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING MISKYN
0
m
E
i
.3
® a
r.rr_w w�nMh�IY N+'�
rimer • ..r i�M�[�M_
i1lY rwgr 4�_I�r'Y
rawir pw.T •T�
cl V
1WM
CITY or-
RANCHO C.,TCiTMONGA Tnu-fuouogaws St"m RM
® INNING DIVLSKIN HX} IMT, - -SCALE �"
� 1 - ..fir_; •,1�11� � ��� .w..yw w�iiT
��- ..ter,... .�w...�.^..n
�ltM =Y+r2 �.nlr.
r�r, w nr. n.•.w.. .n..,.,r.wr
w.�rr. wn
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCA�✓ION
GA
PLANNI \G DIVWNT
PTE,NI: ne, S Z. •OZ
TTrLE- 95M BAN
EX! iIFAT- _Ce SCALE-
9
V
I\ORlrl-i
F
.. � •�,p
'�
J.J
.rr
If
it
i , ..� .
f
t
I
I
r
Ah
NORTH
CITY Or
RANCHO CUCANID,, �G� IrF:�►:
I TLE.
PLA:vNtNc Dl,%rnav ®.
EXHI lT- _Z- SCALE =_
C
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAirICNI G°
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 10, 1982
TO: Planing Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Shirtu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: REVISION TO RESOLUTION NO. 81 -80 CLARI
[RYA
Resolution No. 81 -80 which establishes the location of sidewalks on City
streets, requires sidewalks on one side of collector streets in the
industrial area. Because industrial "collector" streets are the same as
industrial "local" streets (ail are 44' wide), this requirement is creat-
ing confusion as to whether all industrial /local streets require sidewalks.
The attached resolution to amend the original Resolution No. 81 -80 will
require that sidewalks be installed on one side only on local industrial
streets that lead to transportation corridors.
RECOMMENDATION: It is reccmnended that the attached resolution amending
Resolution Na. 80 -61 be approved.
lly submit1pd,
:jaa
Attachment
6
ITEM D
RESOLUTION NO. 0
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81 -30
ESTABLISHING THE LOCATION OF SIDEWALKS
The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: Resolution No. 81 -80 shall be amended to read
as follows:
Section 2: For industrial: Sidewalks will be required
in t� he industrial area, or both sides of the streets;
Haven, Turner, Archibald, Hellman, Vineyard, Milliken,
Rochester, New Rochester, Day Creek, Etiwanda, Arrow,
Foothill, 6th, 4th Streets, and any other streets that
would be added in the same classification as the afore-
mentioned. Sidewalks on one side only, will be required
at the discretion of the City Planner and City Engineer
on those local streets that lead to existing or proposed
transportation stops and pedestrian routes.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commiisslon
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
reoularly 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 10th day of February, 1982, by the following
vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: CO MISSIONERS:
A3SENT: COMMISSIONERS:
0
LJ
CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February lo, 1982
FR24: !.Loyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Shinto Hose, Associate Ckvi.l. s`+girleer
SuTO is F07JEST TO VA."9:R'
Fup
Mr. L orm Tyko of 5135 XL -=nan, Romeo ommonga is requesting the vacation
of an offer of dedication for oak Road as shown or. the attached map- TO get
approval of the Parcel Map 1o. ZR74 to split his land into two parcels, Mr.
Tyro made this offer of dedicatio¢_ to provide public access to Par..el 2. No
=Vrvvenerrt exists on this porno of oak Read nor has any offer of dedication
beer: made on the south side of the roo-i along the adjacent property-
The attached letter from M-. Tyko indicate.; that since that tine Parcel 2 has
been sold an access to it Has been provi.dei from Amethyst street through a
- ri-.ate easement.
Both Parcels 1 and 2 could, in the future, be fmther sabdivIded. Without any
public access, further subdivision would riot be possible under present City
policy. However, a possibility exists that access to Parcel 2 may be Provided
r ran the southerly vacant FsoPerty that develops.
FEcct m=l : Any request for street vacation is required to be sukmitt.,ed +
the— PT,=--ng FCmni.ssiAn for their review as to its cmfo=ity with the General
Plan. If the cYn.r; winners decide that the offer of dedication *_ray be vacated,
then trrs request to vacate will be submitted to the City Council in Public
hearing to begin the process of v4 % -ztion.
c�
i
ITEM E
1
i
„lord B. ?nbbs C! ^Y OF P „'riCK_ CUCRG90�i�4
CvilMUtdiTY DEVEI OrMENT DEM
City a Meer
9324 C Baseline Road NOV ? 4 1,81
3anchc Cuco on;a, C_: 917^1 AM PM
' � �
- - 7iL�t°il�ii= ilZi2iM2q�lstb”
_._ ...: Dew ".•Yr. Eubbs,
,.•�- p:.:'ir, . }:
r_:�.. _,:7 n oSe of this lette,'.` is a•',. r
I �.ro- =old. old
_
'11v- n to request aba_ qdcn
an o�xer
II4de oS a DIo -nosed deddc:7.ticn of Oat 3o•sd, Secor_al� •that
•
the city and 2lood CCn„rol Di ^„Y_ct LO '.1_„ o= =b=:T
....
Cn a, slo=t
e -=the =food control chc-, =tne1.
• .1..
The road I am r ^” e•r• -• =n to is P..=OP.I. m2� 1•TO•
2374 - so,-he--n 30 _ �
�n ry ,i
`'2' minor
subdivision
n_ .ne r zn d ...7 no i=^I- o,re-ents.
" -e p °=n °d nrc-;er t;7 o ::r12eT. do not
u- e 21.jr portion c ` this
�ro�os ^d road.. T± PT r1t ?o
nc continued thxo_>'h v0
b�eth rst :tihen the lard *,;as developed between the flood
-
control
ch.anmel a-nd AmsthJst. A ^orse has been built '_
--
....
ton :: I:mmuld be _
an extenc4on o= n
Qa'- Iioad to Amethir �, s 'M— - T X
-de
� 7
„zOy'..D' ^ the -
'-e- one -en,, od the road.
Oa'. 30:1 , o..e' ^.2t _
'C y0 'TCL
arOtil.,l O'`� 4
l Jt s�.it ..r,. _
Yf T
what time, to
.a1n access to
-- ...
—..
t ^e SOut::ern t410 _crsc. the soul, - --n IYIO
.^..C;^es II ^7G since • .
0c' -1Old=. T 1CCo55 to the ?�oet7 i h ^aVed SOZGz
t'- ^_ere °.'re, Q�>• Mo_.d i_.not
,.
foz
)Y
_
_
ccr_- idcrati on in this matte-. 3n l c"d ;; ov z: = ?.�. r`„� a
for the -°_i linz; fee.
Tae S^COrd - ;---1e i -mead i_ : :e to ., in, t^ �-::.L'" attention
is the aaaromimate 1400 feet lon_ eZ:_ -taen f'iood control caars_el.
it is =Lr understJndi": twat tae c..an" cl V JQ^ ee4 2 St0'J
g_p measure before t:.e Deme:ss :'food Contrei �: znel aa. _:urded
cmd built. The ho=e Oeners 1 have s ^c' er_ with do not fee" that
-- .-the Charnel is nov, McCeS' --r .!il" the Deme_�; C_ =^gel COQ :.eted.
?le ::Ould lute to See the channel =CruceC. f?-cr. ito C'O Feet
or Ci_:len -; Cd and t e T)rCrnrty retl'"_led to t -e _:ome o.....ers.
?- e ze L _ o = cnimOn _sed that ?.e � :,.-=c
Qualified to deco— ne t'r_e o4e=all needs of the city. So, I
C^_-^. n-c ';;iOn Our Cone_"_^_.^„ I10-)2 t": t tae-' .a4° L!?rit -mod 'rOU
J
".1J _ 4y?'.•: .`A a -'I r^v r.a l-. ct Oc' -icus =- --a u r
elinin_ tin;; the ca ^snel in c do .lot fee'_ it is neeesZr- - %-it a
t..e Derens L'a,_1Ln3l Co�=.l^ta2. Secondly, 11':oulG Tt be :'Gnat
. with yGu if 1 didn't 37-it mat we nroze-tY O• :-^1.^-._S :'IOL'l'A 11Le -. .
_ .
to n.^.4e at 1 ^mot a n_Trticn of t^e 30 foot wide c_i;7, nel = etu�^ed - ...
for our ot^_Z lice. ltird % :-, the claannel h ^nz became a rruis.-mce
v -- ,l;,,T iii
3c zr.... , ca _sir;, c� nie ^e
- " 0 3, the d-
d.."are to w_e icriry fro ^ertY o Mn s. , *irr _io^ _ -..
control ? ^amncl %c.. bee..:.: 4 Fire 1 �. ^_d. :e c'. �~Lnel te-
_..ir
at,s t 0ot:: n-"z ii-t o fic- ds C_ r
O_"i2 r�`? u"2a :'ee'aS. It ha �
beo ^
c^e CG:Zd:l1t _^_ Llr
_� e, ".CrY.._n =:,an j .,.„ -...n CO'C^T'.^.e� .0o• ?t --'---- �_ -
1
.. but a7ve ='t0t C011'CtiJ -,,'r t•,�_„n �� i- i
'=Y ac Lion .,o _e"Mrc tr��c i�
:ve are res -D:,rsibZe.
. �• ^ems- -i i'ue that t :e C2 tom' !' c -�
_ = 2„ r.rY ra, 5 �s ?nd re .,�;
ties that i not
2 �. _e o£ ard. it
V .: po ^sibie r_a,, Lam' '!"�G 1QSt
t be
-a`Y nO in tae bat ine - ° ^t o_ the city be
µ,' ro:: vie�� o= t
a r ,� ��.;., c Yneze Wa te?'3: FOi!eve t: e i ^ ..
f :.' o. ^i ons I have are vary
- mear1.'2�7.i7Z tO Se ?.nd I h0;.e t.. -'.k :lill con- de= t e11 in yIe .
-�aer I have mresented the=. V
I_ t
�n I c -, s a� ZY ;-OZz
sritz -':�
_ - c c 1I ae ^t home ?l >/p ^_?n
oZ or .:ors• 7ZG /gaol
Th. yy: J -�VZ.
You a�:.in.
0
t
� I
1 :1 Part
If 1
NVL
TE
I
1
1 ti I
G fl
v I
e 1
• 1
! 1
349 AC,
O
Par. 1
1.95 AC. -M /L
0
n�
Ji
!
`--- WHIRLAWAY --
ST
I z '
CF t
I fJJ i ,
I of f v 1
5
C
V.�
� I 1
.a
� E
1 1
I ;
1
1 1
i !
y.
n;
HILLSIDE— — — ROAD
r
9
DATE: February 10, 1982
B77
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Dire--tar of Community Development
BY: Joan A. Kruse, Admiristrative Secretary
SUBJECT: CONDIT'_ONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81 -08 - SHARMA - A hearing
to consider the pos!.i a revocation of the Conditional
Use Permit for a preschool located at 9113 Foothill.,
based on failure to comply with Conditions of Approval.
At its meeting of January 27, 19E ?, the Planning Commission continued
this hearing in order to allow The Building and Safety Officer,
Jerry Grant, to be in attendance and to answer questions relative
W conditions of approval, licensing and occupancy of this facility.
Mr. Grant will to present to provide input to the Commission regard-
ing this Conditional Use Permit, including the status of work that
has been accomplished.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM,, AICP
Comm';:nity Development Director
JL:JK:jk
ITEM F
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 10, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lan., AICP, Director of Community Development
BY: Dan Coleman, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:
TT 116 15) L WIS PROPERTIES - A change of zone from
C -1 Neighborhood Commercial) to R -3 /PD (Multiple Family
Residential /Planned Development) and the development of
152 condominium units en 10.4 acres of land located north
of Base Line and west of Archibald - APN 202 - 161 -37 and
202 - 151 -34.
SU*IARY: The Applicant is requesting review and approval of a Planned
Development and associated Tentative Tract Map (Exhibit "C "). The
project will consist of 152 air space condominium units on 3 lots to
be located north of Base Line and west of Archibald Avenue. ThiF pro-
ject was originally filed as tdo Tentative Tract Maps and a Zone Change
request by the Robert_ Warmington Company. The property owner, Lewis
Properties, acquired the project and combined all three applications
into a single Planned Development application. The proposed project
meets the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements and has passed
the City's Growth Management and Design Review process. Therefore the
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map, and issuance of a Negative
Declaration should be considered by the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND: The Applicant has requestea review and approval of a 152
unit project on 10.4 acres of land located north of Base Line and west
of Archibald Avenue (Exhibit "A "). The project site is currently vacant
and contains some nature vegetation as indicated on the Existing Tree
Plan, Exhibit "N ". The site is currently zoned C -1 (Neighborhood Commer-
cial) and'is designated for Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units
per acre) on the City's General Plan. The proposed project density is
approximately 14.6 dwelling units per acre and is therefore consistent
with the General Plan.
The project site is bounded on the north by the San Bernardino County
Flood Control Channel and the Pacific Electric right -of -way, on the
northeast by Hoyt Lumber /Ace Hardware, on the east by vacant land General
ITEM G
Planned Development 82 -02 /Lewis Properties
Planning Commission Agenda
February 10, 1982
Page 2
Planned for office uses, and on the south by an existing neighborhood shopping
center and an approved, but still undeveloped, two -story office building. On
the west, the project abuts single family residences and existing water reser-
voirs. The surrounding zoning and land uses are shown on the Site Utilization
Map (Exhibit "B ").
This project has been reviewed and rated by the Design and Growth Management
Review Committees in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance. The
project received a point rating in excess of the required threshold and is there-
fore eligible for Planning Commission review. In addition, the Conceptual Grading
Plan has been reviewed by the Grading Committee and received conceptual approval
contingent upon preparation of an on -site hydrologic and drainage study and con-
nection of the on -site drainage system to the existing basin in Archibald Avenue.
ANALYSIS: As noted above, the project would consist of 152 two -story condominiums
in tour-plex or eight -plex arrangements as indicated on the Detailed Site Plan,
Exhibit "D ". Only tom,, basic models are planned; a 1,080 square foot plan "A ",
and a 1320 square foot plan "B" (Exhibit "F "). The parking provided meets the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance as each of the dwellings has an attached two
car garage and thirty -nine additional open parking spaces have been provided
(thirty -one are required) throughout the project site. However, six of these
parking spaces at the southeast corner of the project site are located along the
south project boundary which is adjacent to the Alpha Beta loading dock area,
as shown on Exhibit "0 ". Staff recommends that these six parking stalls be
eliminated or relocated elsewhere on the site in order that dense landscaping
may occur at this location for screening purposes. Elevctions have been provided
in the attached Exhibits "E -1 and E -2 ".
Each unit has been provided with a 225 square foot ground floor patio enclosed
by fences. In addition to private open spaces, the 33, 977 square foot lot "A"
of the Tentative Tract Map is designated as a recreation area. Recreation facil-
ities in this area will include a swimming pool, spa, recreation building, and
tot lot as shown on Exhibit "I ". Common gre-enbelts with meandering sidewalks
have been provided throughout the project site.
Access to the project wi it be from a new street, Lomita Court, from the project
site to Arch)3aid Avenue. In addition, a secondary emergency access point has
been provided at the southwest corner of the project site and will include a
crash gate for emergency vehicles only. - Pedestrian access will also be provided
at the southwest corner of the project site as well as from Lomita Court. As
shown on Exhibit "L ", the Lomita Court_ cul -de -sac will include a circular land-
scape median island and stamped concrete. Private drives have been provided
through the project for interior circulation. As shown on the Conceptual Land-
scape Plan, Exhibit "H ", a continuous pedestrian circulation system has been
provided which includes meandering sidewalks and greenbelts and stamped concrete
pedestrian, crossings at appropriate locations. 0
Planned Development 82 -02 /Lewis Properties
Planning Commission Agenda
February 10, 1982
Page 3
Based upon the Grading Committee's recommendation, Conditions have beer provided
to require the project site to be drained to an existing basin in Archibald Ave-
nue. Originally, the project was designed to drain through the parking lot to the
south through a drainage easement adjacent to the Sizzler Restaurant. However,
the Sizzler Restaurant was constructed with an under - sidewalk drain which is not
adequate to handle the amount of water draining from the project site. The final
Grading Plan will be revised as described above.
The Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit "H ", provides for an abundance of land-
scaping throughout the project. The Design Review Committee recommended that
special attention be given to providing dense landscaping to screen and buffer
the project from adjacent land uses. In particular, the south project boundary
abuts an existing neighborhood shopping center and loading dock areas and re-
quires special landscape treatment including specimen size trees. The Appli-
cant has proposed a six -foot perimeter wall at this location to screen the first
story and vertical conifers and canopy accent trees to screen the second story
of the residential units, as shown on the cross section, Exhibit "J ".
The attached Exhibit "N" indicates existing on -site vegetation, proposed to
remain or be removed. There are a total of fourteen existing trees, twelve of
which are of the Blue Gum Eucalyptus variety. As shown on Exhibit "N ", thirteen
of the trees are proposed for removal because of conflicts with building or other
hardscape locations. Under the provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Planning Commission, could condition this project
to replace these trees with new trees of an appropriate variety and size.
The Design Review Committee reviewed the building elevations and architectural
design and has recommended approval of the project. Staff and the Design Re-
view Committee have worked extensively with the Applicant in revising the eleva-
tions as shown on Exhibit "E -1 and E -2". Colored renderings and elevations of
these buildings will be :available for review and comment at the Planning Can -
mission meeting.
Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the Applicant. In addi-
tion to Part I of the Initial Study, an expanded Initial Study was pre pared and
is on file. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study and found no sig-
nificant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: A Notice of Public Hearing was placed in The Daily Report
newspaper. in addition, approximately twenty -three public hearing notices were
mailed to surrounding property owners. To date, staff has received no public
input regarding this project.
Planned Development 82 -02 /Lewis Properties
Planning Commission Agenda
February 10, 1982
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the
proposed Planned Development and Tentative Map and conduct a public hearing to
-onsider all public comments. If, after such review, the Commission concurs
with the attached findings and proposed Conditions of Approval, a motion to
adopt the attached Resolution of Approval of the Tentative Tract Map and Reso-
lution of Approval for the Zone Change would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, AICP
Director of Community Development
JL: DC: j r
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Detailed Site Pian
Exhibit E -1 8 E -2" - Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "G" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "H" - Conceptual Landscape Pian
Exhibit "I" - Recreation Area
Exhibit "J" - Sections
Exhibit "K" - Typical Driveway
Exhibit "L" - Lomita Court
Exhibit "M" - Phasing Plan
Exhibit "N" - Existing T:-M Plan
Exhibit "C" - Proposed - Revision
Initial Study Part I
Resolutions of Approval
Conditions of Approval
0
9
C
11 H
(9. 0
INITIAL STUDY
PART I — PROJECT INE RMATION 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 tse Development
Review Committee through the department where the .
project application is made- Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part IT of the Initial study- . ThP Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later tern
(10) days before the public meeting at whit's time the
project is to be beard_ The committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, .') The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project_
PROJECT TITLE: rotative Tract No 11615
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: - - - -_
NAND, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Robe S l
Irvine. CA 92714 (714) 549
LOCATION OF PROJECT .(STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO -)
Baseline Read and Archibald Avemie -
LIST OTHER PE -MMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIL•S AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SLICE PERMITS=
N/A
-ii
s'
0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT= The
condominium units. in two nha,,
are
1-1
vl,dLis - L,uos_ar ane I -JZ6 SF The Project is in COnformance with the
_general Plan_ —
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ;LVY= Siro �. in , ,,,„,, -
Four -vlex: 4.875 SF. (. 75 x 60 -
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFIOPMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROMMING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF Ar-y
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR US£ (ATTACH I:ECFSSa RV csrF rep .
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series -
Of cvmUlative actions, which althougzu individually small,
may as a whole have significant envi.ron- rental impact?
No
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
_
noise or vibration.
X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
mranicipal services (police, fire, water,
serge, etc_)?
F (1) 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
(2)
X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 12
X 6. Create the" need for use'ci disposal Of
potentially hazardous materials such as .
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
mcplanaticn of any YES answers above:
(1) Zone chage request from "C -1 to P,-3;- consistent with interim pl.
see ail - '-ed let-ter fora =
IMPORTANT: I£ the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form c^ the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attacaed exhibits present the data and -
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulatlon can be made by the Development
Review Committee.
Date I�C� 1-2 . i 40 signature !ti` ,
®
Title Director - cared TDevelovmmnt
T
I*
RE IDZNTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The follotring information sho4ld be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division_ in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
school district to acco- mmodate the proposed residential development.
The Robert P. WaxmingWn Co.
i.zuae of Developer and .Tentative Tract No.: Tr+ No. 11615
Specific Location of Project: North of Busche. West of Archibald
PHASE I PEASE 2 PH;.sE 3 PiiASE 4 TOTAL
L. Numbe= of single
family units:
? %umber of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin. ceastrnction:
+. Earliest 'late of
occut.:anc -.
Ydodr_1 � -
and ? of Tentative
S. BedrooMs Price Rance
A. - 2bdrm $ 78,000
B- 3bdrm 86,900
76 76
3 -81 11 -8i
7-81 11-81
38
38
38
38
152
m�e�■ ■.
��.::.. rrf'��
..�.-
w 111111Ntlllfllllltlllltll moo'•&
®IIrU1111I[IIIIIIIIIIII1111N
mass
HIM.= �� umutu
Ov
sit
own
oV �
� ■ ■ "�/11OUpCy: � s ii
IIIIIFIII ■■IIIN■n ■■■1/■■■ N 111 .Ii /file {
V /,c/E
v
Q
V�
�o
ti
Q
�*' ccrQ ca�A � vococrs
v R— 3 M —R —T
CO,CfHEFC�AG
SCNCOG G40U�/OS � -g
o,,
well 4%
R- 3
RESiOE,tlCES
S /[IGCB
~lei
iL - 3
61MC4E
\� \�\\
`\ \ \\ \\
�\ \ \ \ \�
� a\.
C-1
VAcA4T
C -1
C -1
C —Y
C -1
C— I
vAcr►trr
7
A
S
V
Q
ij
�' — 't3A5E. L-lA1E .4YC1�E
c-� z PLOW — MEDIuM
ZONE BOU.(/GARY G //VE
V V
NORTH
CITY OF -aL 4i( r��;�j
1"i'E� 1: —
PL 'NCHO CUCALTNIONGA
PLANNING DIVLSK)tN EXHIIII"T:_ SCALE: 'j� /
0
Z'
I -� 1 L..— ✓ �.a. YYwIY'
A%
C;1'1•�' Oi
®
RANCHO CUC IVIaNGA
PLANNING Di'%rLqQN
:S
0
1
� I• i .Irll....+w .wr w
. u..
1
{
1
1
{
1
1
1
t
t
1
1
i
i
f
i
9
1
I I 1
�
t
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1 i
1
1
1
t
1
� +.sa.11yaln-
_ G1
NO,T
TrrLE: 'TL1LJTkTt�%� N6 P ''
ExHisrr. scALE-
o l Aa
C,TTV C)v
z5o,� AP1111, !�111
ao
P�kog t:7�
RANCHO CUCAM,
. ONGk
F—xHmrr SCALE=
0
i
FRONT ELEVATION BUILDING TYPE
M
z
�r
REAR ELEVATION BUILD.NO TOPE
�i
I "r
RANCHO C OgMiONI GA
PLA INTI \'G UNISON
n
FORTH
n-Bl: VP SZ -OZ 7 U615
EXHIBIT - 15 -F— SCALE=
:1
some" rmw
UNIT A.
A
*4w".
Udft ftmo
owe"
*
.I - - -.
UNIT B
cm
W. M-
Iwo
m
F.
NORTH
f'NTrT'N 7 � L A&
RANCHO CUCATNI04'\GA mTu:
ilBrr
PLANNING DIVNION w SCALL
�.Cfi�wy
c `
��IadV _ 4i •�
aim i
E '5
cv �
l
'I I�
c `
��IadV _ 4i •�
aim i
E '5
cv �
l
J
r
. I i � f.!•1: � TH
/ �� �, I• �' ..1E Vm � • � • �
.w
P
A
1 1 w
r' \
f =
1�r
, J
i'N`
P
s
s
1
i
1
S
. i
� f
,i
• I
1
t �
s 1
MAR \Mi �OiO'
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNLNG DIVI.SONT
T •1 .,t.
low,
rb�
Tr..a....a,e«• .r mar
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNLNG DIVI.SONT
T •1 .,t.
low,
t t►
!A ~i1•JI G _
i Fall- � -
I'M
CITY OF
R- AINC�HO�rtC�UCAT MONGA
S.
j/
NOUN
El
" +j
^..........�....
k
E
i 70 -
c�
SECTON 8 - 2
CITY OF
. RANCHO CUCA NIAO \'GA
PLANNII U DRISIGN
1we'r !4t
VkM`-
-•..- «
n'ORTH
TrrLE -__
MilBIT.- -.•J— SCALE:
Lt
Lt.
1,
-1
,ter.'./ �' �•' � :' �. I j .� -., � -- - ..._:. !
• � '/' � f,A .!1.. `.`. �. Pmt I
. v
NDRTH
1.
CITY Or' rrc�I- fit? SZ- OZZ %ti- I t b15�3
RANCHO CUCA MI ONGA TITLE. ?I06' iP..1A PLA AJ s
PLANTNLN'G DIVISION
EXtiII3a'Y'= — SCALE- �.
YV •
I i in Il 1 I 1
..1 I f 11,'Lf I f
L
-
�--_
a
Z
0
tu
N
Im aJMINAIS � RWWAA e
w /t,aaoiu�
LOAUIN G OOM —� __ l i
i'
'i
f�
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCA NGA
PLANNLNc >xNMOv
NORTH
EXHIBIT-
SCALE-
tT�t: QD �Z•tYZ �'iPilfe��� .
OPLASTER
TYPICAL
Nt
6' HIGH PE
WALL
4' WEE
CONCRETE
. `
• � I' - �' �
�
- TYPICAL.
ZVERGREt
TYPICAL. `•
�t
i
a
Z
0
tu
N
Im aJMINAIS � RWWAA e
w /t,aaoiu�
LOAUIN G OOM —� __ l i
i'
'i
f�
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCA NGA
PLANNLNc >xNMOv
NORTH
EXHIBIT-
SCALE-
tT�t: QD �Z•tYZ �'iPilfe��� .
U
r
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT NO. 82 -02 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN
THE ZONING FROM C -1 TO R-3/P.D. FOR 10.4 ACRES
LOCATED NORTH OF BASELINE, WEST OF ARCHIBALD
WHEREAS, on the 29th day of December, 1980, an application was
filed and accepted on the above - described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 10th day of February, 1982, the Planning
Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section
65854 of the California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made
the following findings:
1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses
permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access,
size, and compatibility with existing land use in
the surrounding area;
2. The proposed zone change would not have significant
impact on the environment nor the surrounding
properties; and
3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance
with the General Plan.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found
that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the
environment and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative
Declaration on February 10> 1982.
NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 10th day of February,
1982, Planned Development No. 82 -02.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt Planned Development
No. 82 -02.
6
.,
Resolution No.
Page 2
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
mater ?al hereby adopted by the.Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
4. Ail conditions of approval applicable to Tentative
Tract No. 11615 shall apply to this Planned Development.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
3Y:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Comm ssion
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regulariy 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 10th day of February, 1982, by the following
vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
FOES: COMMISSIONERS:
A3SENT: COMMISSIONERS:
"iY•
•
Ll
Lq
RESOLUTION NO.
O
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF Tuc
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11615
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 11615, hereinafter "Map"
submitted by Lewis Properties, applicant, fe- the purpose of subdividing
the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of
San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential Sub-
division of 10.4 acres, located north of Base Line, West of Archibald,
into 3 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public
hearing and action on February 2, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map
subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planing
Divisions reports; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other
evidence presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SEC'ION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings
in regard to entative Tract No. 11615 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable
interim and proposed general and specific plans;
(b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is
consistent with all applicable interim and proposed
general and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of de-
velopment proposed;
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury
to humans and wildlife or their habitat;
(e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious
public health problems;
(f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict
with any easement acquired by the public at large, now
of record, for access through or use of the property
within the proposed subdivision.
Resolution No.
Page 2
(g). That this project will not create adverse impacts
on the environment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Pap No. 11615, a copy of which is
attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following
conditions and the attached Standard Conditions:
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. The on -site drainage system shall be connected to the
existing basin in Archibald Avenue as approved by
the City Engineer.
2_ The east side of Archibald Avenue shall be widened
from Base Line to Lomita Court to provide for a left
turn pocket to the project.
3. Lomita Court from Archibald Avenue to the end of the
cul -de -sac shall be constructed with the project.
4. Private drives shall have a crown- section with a
rolled curb on both sides.
PLANNING DIVISION
5_ That pedestrian access must be provided at the south-
west corner of the project; details of which shall
be approved by the Planning Division prior to issu-
ance of building permits.
6. Dense landscaping shall be provided along the perimeter,
including columnar evergreens and deciduous canopy
trees, to screen and buffer the project from surrounding
land uses.
7. Samples of the roof and siding material shall be sub-
mitted to the Planning Division and approved by the
Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building
permits.
8. A variety of stain or paint colors shall be used on
the siding material to provide architectural interest
and shall be submitted and approved as above.
9. Emergency access fire lanes shall be constructed of
decomposed granite, covered with topsoil and planted
with grass in accordance with Foothill Fire District
requirements.
7
0
11
Resolution No.
Page 3
10. Trash enclosure wood overhead structure details shall
be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division
prior to issuance of Building Permits.
11. That a tot lot be provided in accordance with the
Recreation Area Plan, Exhibit "I ". Details shall be
submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior
to issuance of Building Permits.
12. This approval shall become null and void if the
tentative subdivision map is not approved and recorded
V14
thin twenty -four (24) months from the approval of
this project unless an extension has been granted
by the Planning Commniss ;on.
13. That the six parking spaces shown at the southeast
corner of the project site be eliminated or relocated
and the area landscaped.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBR'JARY, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Co�mission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of February, 1982, by the following
vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
v
w w
O
W °
C L
N 4 C
s ory
W p.
�• y 4 w
<
J Y
L N L
v
ri D w � Vr
O ti
V fJ -
V
y V L Y2
L.
O �•
O
C V
c
YN
O _
V ✓
q L
Oti
C
p +e
4 N
L G
_ P
M
V °1
V C
- V
w<- E
u �r
L
n r
O• t E
M w
Mrg
N
_ V
O Y
J
V
yy V
V••L•
_ W
wC
� C
C
C �
_ y
O.Y
SV
V
-yy O i
L . w
Y�-
j w e
4 V C
w_ P
�v =
q C V
`
.2 C V .�
< C Y 4 p O
p J P b
N L O .°.. L •r
Y
OM ✓4 Ol]
»�
ISO
Y_ N D O >.
iy �i} NC VyN.•
.• Cyp w J
-w 4 +C .Ci.V OpVO�
V •1>i° .^nom
V T
=go
ZZ
V w P w O 6 4 O V
C E V p y Z L
}Y Ly✓ T pL
zx
Y•6 H> <v <Zq
m
O
�
C• p
C G
_
V
L O
.2 =_
s
w
6
wL
p2P
L
Y1
r^
NV
}!
tt
•p
Cr
>.ry r
V
V
"1r
`
E.�C
•OI•
L V ~
Y
0
M6�
PAY
b
N°
AGO
.VOLN
pL)
w
�1`9w
�b
•4..Y
=
>
Y
.°imp
w
r
�
L
O�`
\'> --
L
O
C
b L
Yyy
V
✓
O
` L
L
4 0
6y
q y
x
t
`9
�P L
V4
-y0
°w
<PO
cv
OY
4
w 4GV
ct
kgY
t
V
W
lv�
Y�
t V ✓•1
iY
°pO
°
es�
r°.
z °
G
.-
L Q °
fi L I•
q� 2
y
V
-
° -C V
O
° V
M'zpy
PV
•1.
L
w
t-
V
Yw
w
y
V w .°
O L
✓
<
Z
CN�r w•0<
Ow
lYM
N
O Y
V
n
•-j.
O
Y M u>.
<_ Y L
w f. 0.
V z T•
c P
LCi
°YY
•�
<.,a
4
Y
•n C_V
N
✓
p>
VLp
p= Z-.3
r�
qO
4.�pL
0
N
4 4
OV{LL'.
D
E 0
G
V
N°
°V
j
O
C w G
y6 i 4
Ty
b.Li
L✓
w
Z
O.
L.
'V
w.tVC
`''
!b
_
YV
4Y.n yL
�- VL
y°
r
>..°.
..•G-
z
e
.r TC CP°
w�
L
w� w y
C
u`.C=
L
C
V
=
ma
v
Vi
L,y
°
FJ�
y°
✓CY
u
O
�
-G-
pL
wCr_�
r
O°
`4
pp
N
M
p
°.
H Vy
2
T�
��✓
Vwii -40
�r
zz
O
V
Cw
•'
-4iY
E
gq
°LO
Cw
`L
Cr.
'°
LP
V•
°`.
O
6
YVY°
n4c
V
°
�4
=a{.4Q
'�
be
✓�X
VLqur
�
�
_
o
�m
.�.
ct__ui°
a
yc
p-
CPyLL
p�
Vri�E ►Vq
uV
`-
w
t
4
L
w.r
Ci
=°a7C
•q C �
4
�OY
w✓<
-
12 Y
Z
•ry �
�v
`t
M
Z
2 b-
SW
d
hr
�y
vt'
`EBad
4
>
u W
°up
7c '
c
<Li
L. L
j
n
r
.�
.-
.
bwp
�
t°i
9p`i� •CV
••
_
L
d`VF
L
ra
I
Vqce w
P
-u'.S S `•
-�d
V
._j�
q
s 4
-pOyy.^V
O
Vj
4Y0
V
°•
Kv
N4
t9
NO
N
<•i°.
W��I
-vi .yV.
^1
yCyr
_N
LQ
Vt`
r_z
Y`w'rw
NuV
W•�
J•L•`�L�t
9
Y.V
N_eu
=I1
-lI
�LVL�41
l
<O
6
v
w w
O
W °
C L
N 4 C
s ory
W p.
�• y 4 w
<
J Y
L N L
v
ri D w � Vr
O ti
V fJ -
V
y V L Y2
L.
O �•
O
C V
c
YN
O _
V ✓
q L
Oti
C
p +e
4 N
L G
_ P
M
V °1
V C
- V
w<- E
u �r
L
n r
O• t E
M w
Mrg
N
_ V
O Y
J
V
yy V
V••L•
_ W
wC
� C
C
C �
_ y
O.Y
SV
V
-yy O i
L . w
Y�-
j w e
4 V C
w_ P
�v =
q C V
`
.2 C V .�
< C Y 4 p O
p J P b
N L O .°.. L •r
Y
OM ✓4 Ol]
»�
ISO
Y_ N D O >.
iy �i} NC VyN.•
.• Cyp w J
-w 4 +C .Ci.V OpVO�
V •1>i° .^nom
V T
=go
ZZ
V w P w O 6 4 O V
C E V p y Z L
}Y Ly✓ T pL
zx
Y•6 H> <v <Zq
m
O
�
C• p
C G
_
V
L O
.2 =_
s
6
wL
p2P
L
Y1
r^
NV
}!
tt
•p
Cr
>.ry r
.N.
: •��
4
p
L.L
y4
04
b
N°
AGO
.VOLN
pL)
�•°.r
�N�
�Y�
�>
r
wC
L
O
C
b L
Yyy
V
✓
O
` L
L
4 0
6y
q y
x
t
�P L
V4
-y0
°w
<PO
OY
LV
kgY
t
lv�
Y�
t V ✓•1
iY
°pO
°
es�
G
q� 2
y
V
-
° -C V
O
M'zpy
PV
•1.
ww�
O4
rr.y
LpVY
QCO.�V
OYppppC
lYM
wy
VSO.
1 .
pp
'2 L
2,
LCi
°YY
RE
<.,a
{ � O C0 4 •l v. _O q y.1r OOr �
p 9 ^G 1 •.` -••-. L "'O u y V �L O V ✓ .Oi.J `S wC
Cw . NC y� • OL r 4 O y C1w LyFL L� � Yr Yy LL_M
O r y V Y C u' O^ u I (^ W C I q` Y O y Fi r LO ` L •
yg
� CT L Lu Ca Mr OpC N O ✓ IO J\- 8
yy L G G O W I oC V b V+ J L • y 6 rr Z�` wl `•
fJ� 'O y d O Oy `P a+.V O✓ L CVO \N V^
' =V Y Vd L ✓S L N I C� ytW F- qq OO FO a�Y
ZZ P. V °L• r G}(�•w�5
r
= w _r Y C r^ O M p+ V Z l L ✓ V 9 r p 1 J✓ Z (d
L� Z Pq wu ui •> •� Y OL V L Ngia ^4
Y•�= ��tT � g C6 L L L' <O �� IV W� b CO }7
�V) v qC 9^ L +L O. 4 N L 00 uL9Y r Vr�p°��QV
tO IL+ t4t''Vri• �C Od L C »� ,aw• i� JiNC V i6r zNN ✓
LAC °i^
.• ` C W C O Y a^ u N •y u V O o �� O i 0 r q O N ^ r
y{� G C•tN S Y L ✓ t�uyN4•np
_�6 u wv 00� V6 V N p V O D - Y.. tTY� C
X-Sr V 4 q Y o y Ir ✓�.`. .r�.r �� L.
L � " " N r V ✓
y '0 .L•NC �CC4
n'.
1
L. r • O 44 y
O O N r [L Op L N O V L Y L C
T L
^l \�✓ Y�V l 40N .•4• 6• e� 1� L P 9ZN N
:E r °L { tW- nz
N Li+ Y �VjL_ (.0 Ctnr �f J ) TyO CN SOyr .�L4 N N �' nNy Gp`1r
V O O M C C'r 6 4 q N C O V t 4 1••4 = S C •� i C y~ Y C` i u L O
Y 04 N N C L W _✓ C x0� L �NYq 4L� V0t1
C N r ((C�� r�� N ^ E P fT C^ ^ y ([C,.• O �Ot� < V _u � i t• � 1 e/ G 1 V q
er 4 -may O..•9 T «u � lO Y` N rj� 14V 'A V�rO fl
N V N C b L ° Y V O g O J Y P ✓ C 'O'
y d QV VVr >.•�.•u cN� wp VS bF O I VV OV N gCLL y
^ 1 w •C r h r. C r )e J L' qL y ` (VY� 6 + y = �_ [
RLL L.LtY F• 04 G� 4r �FY F`V GO _ zY0
SO lr Z.L9 NO 6�ryZ�wQ (�
f�
L
a
� 9
it `✓ L V W r^ L P P
p ^ n O C } 4
�QVi •LV+'C L pt/ Y •-�V✓ �� y qSV �
9 LyLC IL WO N� C NO•Ce�OVPYO T`.•p r.
i� ^ VVC °G 04 =�r rLV= w wOr °ropy pGp »
q 4 L r✓ q L)' r a ` C2 N 6 y N � P ° G 4 p °� z 0 9 E C`
y ^ 9 r 6 4 r 7= V C C E O
NV M T✓ q�tL yir O.. Cr_O L
-
o mac^ La. °, oc V� L aJC
V V E V N 4 ✓ y P O V r p °`
G _
L'"" 6 �e.°•F N N»� yo q _ '9LVNv
N d O VC� ✓ V _� r�� V .L✓wr.V.• ' M rGt� f O nN �nr �✓ lO TAY VO� K t qt� V YC- �O �C Lr r �Y 2 N4 N V 4V2 L= r i .5 CVZ TZ r � u L
P Y �tY
O `
q p Cp R �C
5 tCi� b = �t"� TtO� �c�tf L4 4•�rEyC Or1V �w q S4y C�P�FVr� Lrw .. ry
bON LO CN LYYr L9 V ✓� cO_ �= Y =F ��`•oC 0^ nV L
p 9
IT w^ V 6 N V Or e 6 C C P� b tiZ
� L' N _ Y_O .O •� W V W�
C LV u q CL C. +� � V gduL Ny+ =W R YVp�Y O
V �P N pC
0= 4 9 » �+ inq� �� !� °it Vr �N9r VO ✓O v +O�LCWyr YLLy wV
r caL O L N V 4 V V ✓° O Y� V V p A O r 4 9 Y q Y V >. u> Q w G C y V 23
S i i ^� ie•-l� aL �aNL+V Pgyv Nm i - rqr V•sLY� 2
» tit• 4 O + VM V�qO yL uVY ^•VN `tVt 4r `Vyrat
15 OCV pi^ Lq
V•�r [< {r` d a.V4iO i6 6yi PC ^� OV� ^L'pOgV 40S 9
•� p r r > +l L 7 E pFr q A L L r O✓ O q N O u 6 L ` L L
_ y qY V O`er tt,� .!
V r o O L 4 y L N N a Pr 4 0 V G=
i 2qr u > N oa ..� �y_ rc Wer d��': N ^ N¢°. :aN ✓'_ »eat 2`o a' �.>
✓J N 4 l ON pro qY ZWNt.. +C � V `ZT •OZ Vr CCU NV9 9 ^
V P p y O
= l L >O $V O p V V N C r
+ Vv ° V r O ■ _FuN r r O p Nr V N L —2 :V ir,w- LS• r N Fw r ZC :r y - p C .
_t v= V 4 Y
ZZ
N q✓L N i > ^�CjV «VL L yW]�grv^ M qN 1`Op 4Y C�P9 r��j`C A' O�
S >• Y r Y F C O G C V O
yy'O T Y4 JtNpo O Pew .i NW rC� ` 6 CeV 4
E ci �crc+i v � Y
°tr V r L 4 t-- to r ✓ r V. pV u 0 7 r C .28 V r y `
M` _ y 09 T� N i° F � V Y O N r ✓^ p r s 4i 6 0 r V y
C i` g V
>� .4�`.� °>. : E :°� ay. a.`. •N^ ^= ^mq ay p 4w '
XL0 4{ <p Wa VPrrO NgVN t( G S'O <PO� »Y�OC ��00 ��
n
G
4 Y p
Q Y w L V O'•Vi A .11 O p r p V p
� O � r ii w �4 r•CUC V OMC J LV ° f � =4 � � I
= _ Y O Y •Ge V A 3
\Yi o L y y ` O •n O v N O
� A ° P T✓= ` C+ �' ° w Q .Ci D Z •L.. C ! Y O ✓ YJ P —O _ _V � � Y
yq� C pV QoV � -J =tA✓ y —O
E o eC{{yy�� ... CLc ENO LO •�q� O� y >pq� � �V d � � p ° � 4�
6 C•V O�L L�p Y —� Cam✓ =V wG LMiV `Y r O
L Z� Z C A u A V C J f N 4° q L L i Y N -• V q r✓ I{
°L wd^ T ✓�✓A r0.•. .ryr � r w9 O I �• � .O•�
—
q P C � O P c � VI C C ° l O Y L w_ L -- T N C N y W N �1 •
°° C �� A`V �v >. LEA C.d -L w VY`PC V •`� `
V
YE a Lq dSO L a°"
V C pP YL✓ F Yw\n OA^ �C�� ��— VYYOA � C r C� I PAY
-
^q ^ A� �4V P 4CIYA �Ltp w
(9 Y
7 A[S .••• NYV OC AS L I Y YI JLY
w44 O M°d
✓e✓ QLp 4O rbw S `NC — i V` >�C jO.V °�` OL G I � I � 4 I WAZ
AL VA
L O.• O Ar- `✓1� yr= 9 L —O -•Cr OI qN = 000 L I uCC
w 2 r r L t V ` Pip
N L a A— AGJ
-z "22 AwVC "22 LZ:!
VG =✓in 'Y ` Vmri Q y Ly
N
.�.✓ W yu V4 V Ced L•A-1� c r•r nC o_
N
c I cc Y.�•Vr r I E4c
A p
LNG C O•A 8J0 ✓ A`r VAV N =C°t YA \. NA L•n E2 V� `` Y r -- •^ OlV
`�Ll i t g0 � —d C � pV •Lw ; Cv -V V y WV V NyNPA Gn L A y w w I ✓Om
6d V _ O ✓__ OZ `•�— V O OL
4 —= wNq r'
C J — C C O a W
o.qr N r r ✓✓ —W
uuy�� u.o. ,LAer n "• > uA� `kLw �`.°�NO _emu rE
CN °✓ 10 40.�u ` WP tJ VI `A 1i NAq L
a� �— A r t ^ •VY d A � T �^ O N Y e t W I (( N N � Y V O t
% r r y
NV —r E.✓ = •w r >Y l> A COQ 07 Z= W <
NI n C = Y IV 0=
Y�VJCy ✓p^ L� ii ON ^ V0p Fj PV` 4� 6P�VVw •ti.— A I e•L•p
O —P CA Ar_ O. Y,O 1p� �.-i O � L r yl L— P`C � N {yYl. i aJi A Y• O• C ( VwL
O R t J L V p F ^ V— r ` A r V E N ry� O` T Vo 1 N N O P O= Q C� 4 q C ` N •n — A L
PC P6 NO OL �P— V J•`O oOV CL —� GeV —^ dLL V Y� O•• � 6 LP= plG
q AV d Wu>i J C YT VY f Y 4A
C C N q P° d n9• A I_ I L` p V
O' ✓ q 6 A TJj L n t
UCI •� 6N < —Uw ! A C V ° Y �/=i C� GO �w � 1 V <A I KOY
�J�f. �]�) `JQ_ Ij 5L• GI ( Nf ^I i M1
S _
M
a y
2 � 6 O - A p ' C� YO M 4 r • r A T M °
�roro =Lae .°. 2 =oc °
— la•O•� —c= - C —✓ �fC� V V`JN W]•L -- r �w C `6 — 7— a
N` n` r Y O� C� ^ d A A P V - A> W n� i. •Ln L 6 C r V n? V•
O p �• O a• V l d
rY brC6 —.nrr �L <�d4V J °LO Y r
4\. a-. O' F
Vr1260220 B`r� r/PNL O Ov� :r0 —\r .:r �.• w� >•-J �✓ <w
__V'^� C •>r•V_LN 4Np_V ��✓ ✓✓C CVCY` LOC` O L > O
A V L .d• V r r V ti W y R O— •^ P— v. •T V O u .:. O Y °
4tT qrd TZ c[ C°AY _ O —✓ VYY .n +TG pp r >.4 l AO ` ✓
LVl— V`V� �•°OV LV AN VA `V ` .r L' %VA :-t-,
OCr NY�Y 4r ✓•>wAV ryL >A — �0 A Y` Q y V GAN L_ C i ` C =� L✓ LY
4�T•L^re� wO �•i•
oL C 4y�N W °nV �VV Cr W�C Cr 4W p ✓ —
A
_y C ✓C� ✓NpC > A= V •dr v_ N`Q -V VL CV6 A A K — Yv
Z�Ad U`r ��— wEA6 --T•A� � 9VY• yWp Lr JYV OC >^ �_ VO VO Z✓ YJ
Tr Y�O
YO O O. �•wAA �IY..-•YC O —Y.° � �— V✓g `C „AW ` WL 6 — P— P•n L LS
V— �J -o;;; ry�L V aC6 `L - wV -C °� t Y C —
_
YiYd�O•� y RL -• —
G r �� Y �'� A w � r A A C N V E � n d Y V w A 4
pp OO �� OrO OC= —Sc ✓O� CN LL.y O. =LIr T i LL oM Y> HV
C�aaLvC VtO.rY A L rV 'C JL� °AlG OI ✓y0 A P —JCL P „nr ^ ' N �M O Nw
^
=oA °aY,^3eyv�Y —
O - $• E° c ^L .'. 8m�c 3 7 �: �O
YP CL S'Li`C V — J O > ± —_a
c ° N .Tee
ryry C A yWy L
VGr >Z =00 -90 �:Lr(� wAp= r L,✓V
' Vaum�Y `y-. •W” vviN ot6N O O p —c— Vr .r A — ^ r
Sd8 > ✓rN �O
•GO w.L.:ezwSii °— °`pL N`v= �f �g�.: .`.°..`..d. dCr>•E =—Z - .a.
�� —A C �W9 0 O °�T wOiAr-4 G°TT w— w ✓A l w�
�Ur^ V6'SN Y -- t N
�� >EOgV.Li} O OCI L��Jy. C OAwN F=• n V= 1f 4✓`G NO VV b wn VN M .nO =T• 6 C q C fCI 9Y
PI VLi— ^MN6�Cq —YLiu NLCL 1- ✓C —V 4•-_ V —��.•4 —LW.• N •n` •A� �M =✓ nY
AO y0 —K — �✓ V qtly w�`.r �W O �V ✓ fLG A w
r d Z Y > O < T N V y 4 M ✓✓✓ U C Y ° •—. q C J .- — <-
A C L A C i p- C r r— .V� L— W C O C C C V IL ° J— y Z 6 C 4 p w Z
$T:So. v <o S2-Z 3.o•.W .°.. tiVrw °o R° r�. Pl wm
`� YC ^ Cr O V V
rLL L�V`tY'e°Y�L `gin N.y.V �I J CI q`0a L —�� lr�C� L0V4� E —> VA2 •+I �� �• y
L e,.t`�.4V MCC ^ LY `^ F —= LL J� LC Varj yYT�CIYC ✓ VO ^'�G L� LC .�C
�O.0A 1G ✓r GVY - -> lr •• = jA0 0•NN•r p >°00 60°YV
T V
2O T�
�p
Y
a
d
Ctl
O
q
N
O
C
yi
a
OG
l
8�
N q
4
v
s'c
< O
C✓
ro
Vw
e
e&
q0
•«n l •Nr•
Y T C
4 •�
V J
�V L
P O
�O6
� O
V 7 n
�WY
L�
_ O
° C
27✓
zI I
yp
w3L
OC.E
V L
— O
OOY
afiL
� ✓ G
� V
V
l
v
L]
Y
s
°
O
V •J
C
F�
�• T
N V
s
ov
b q
�r
C C
9 x
ZZ
L
W w
V O
V
c
L
N •
p
az
q
1�
N p
O °
V
y�
L r
" C
N L
O
°
L
T V
4 c
au
Ory
'42
V^
1N
L C
6 q
°
Y�L
V p
L L V
V N C N O
as 'L
J NV 1. G •
aL p r d
r O V L O
✓ L r. w
G V O y
V C? L y V
d•..q r° L
9
r O
v�cz C qu
Tq °c
P N L N 73
4L ✓N —I VG
r= r y
N
Y
C
d
L
1
z�
4 V
q
T P
YW
0
PV
L 4
4 p
:d
�d
T.
G V
!C o
V O
Y V
�i
T
Y
r
.V.
V
°
o+
— 4
uLi °
V
J �
yn
O.Q
V✓
Y N
O
Z Q.
v L
V
NC
C N
L
W
T
S'
d
`
p
4
4
P L iC °
�YN
C 3 i
•FCy N'
W IyWC/ '
T O
Np:
.L
4VP
L S _
— y ryV
`PL
C V G q
q w
` W
y
N� I
7
Y
Oti
dN_
L
N O N
L
q
4r
° � O
l C
C ° °
C O
N J �
u
ev°
rg°
aW�
— P
N 9
q O 6
4 4 r
a-o
4 L N
p J M
<O
L.v o
g.L.
r>f
°
C
V
Ed
a �
q L N
f= L
6
cv
y Y P
+ ` r
°✓ w
_8 a
Z C
� O
N N
N
_ ^ b
C r
N ri
I
v r
4 L
L o
v..
ar
l
✓_ C
r0 °
�Y
O P
O d
o>
L >,
q J
4 V
C L
4 r q
C u °
90�
C nN
v
O
a
Ti s`
b W
V �
l' q
6f
d O
V
L T
`L
b
n
L L
^1 6
ycq `
C W
N ab.
_y
o �
b
N y
OV
< w
L
z4
NW`
� pn
C L
O °
Yr
l
C'. L
` 4
F C
q y
i
O
O
OS r
L �
4 L
y r
4
6�
>Vi �
q.r
� C
O
L
� 4
.°r V
i
r
P^ L
O p
V r
.V.• 6 M
T
O L
O r y
V
Z �9
a C wJ
q J V p
P +q r
_ C
•� d V q
Orr
=.2,5
N ✓ V L
C _ 4
�L�
�q ioV
P w q
C `
O
4_ 4
r <
G
0
L
r
q
b
a
C
� L
Nd
L
f W
O r
V V
r Z
0)
I NI N' NI I
V
C
q L
C L
7 L
eb
V
P
R C
V W
O
rV
L
' V
r
nN
ex
d_
oN
C ✓
O V
✓`
� a•
L
L
•� � T
GNL
°
P
V Y
C T
J _
P 9 G
C � �
r
� N
f
L C L
Ag 2�
Y G
4 V^
„� on
y N yL° 4
L
w
V = q
Y c N
r v _:5
r
7
`r rU
O• Y 6 �'
r'
�I
b
O
u L
n �
b P
� W
vu
or
°
°9
ow
M N
Y J
�a
r L
� M
1 1
a
u
P
r
d
O
V
b
4
a
E$ Y
L =
4 �
° v
Lq�
L N
O ✓
V=
7
Pi
L
M C
` V
O YT
✓ V
� O
_L W
d q
5"
L O
b y
r
p �
4✓
t J
°t
—i
•O b
wV
C
L Q
o°
b q
Z-5
i
N
dry
L _
V
orgr
r
✓O
t.
—
L<
G
M
n— rr C
w t
V V C
W C N
O
g
N
y
y=
L C
ti
P
..L,•
V
E
a O 4
V�
r
N
a C P
P06
w
V L •
°V�
'�rr4
err✓
N
VL
m`Or
c_
7Z
r
rB
✓a q
COLV
V
VyL
LL'
o
t
_
G
NnrV°
✓
yy
�
°N
>L
e
L V
V:LVI'V
=
WTV
O<
a c
L L
uv
w
P\ v W
d O C
4
q r N
_ _
V
• �•
= q
L_
l
✓
C N N
C W
Vq
u
tV
4
G✓
wP
x
r
nr
•V•• L P
V
°
Yq-�
JAY °•_..0
xn��
O6
��
V ✓LNC
T6C
4•Zw
T..V
rV
r6
�
q
GNC
N'
rtl�.�;
�V VU
V'Vw
q
✓Yy
b4C
q
V
Y
i_
P
Lr
=
TLOA
✓W
L
V¢Owr
rO M
CL�r
Vrrw
r
�`•TN_V
w.
rGL
Pi
L
M C
` V
O YT
✓ V
� O
_L W
d q
5"
L O
b y
r
p �
4✓
t J
°t
—i
•O b
wV
C
L Q
o°
b q
Z-5
i
1 r
11
v
LC
q
4
ra
o�
C 4
qL
r
u Z EE
O � <
rSd�
v
V ^d
�F
a
gar
l'r
Y �
C � r
6 4 Z•
C.PV
i q L
CI
1
rI
q
L
C
u�
0
pq
4
v
g
e.
9
L
�g
O
vc
C
6
1=
0
L O
O pp
4 Gig
y
� v
"l O
w
C
4 C
y
�Z� c
V q r
N J 6 q
y r,Ol
lq� j
9 O L
V V PN p
t b V O
i I i
n
_
��Z
1"
da�g
�V
ee//YYj
'
O Ngyj 8
V 0O LLL
O
u q
v
v wCr•
�qCe
P O L
r C
C�i
��4
6' ✓w
C
O
CYaI
or�gr
1 V q
OYL ,
0
a=r
O V
9
O q
V�� L
�VW06
,1t
v
p.
vial
�O'�°
v
LC
q
4
ra
o�
C 4
qL
r
u Z EE
O � <
rSd�
v
V ^d
�F
a
gar
l'r
Y �
C � r
6 4 Z•
C.PV
i q L
CI
1
rI
q
L
C
u�
0
pq
4
v
g
e.
9
L
�g
O
vc
C
6
1=
0
L O
O pp
4 Gig
y
� v
"l O
w
C
4 C
y
�Z� c
V q r
N J 6 q
y r,Ol
lq� j
9 O L
V V PN p
t b V O
i I i
u3
1"
C�i
��4
6' ✓w
C
O
CYaI
O q
v
p.
vial
�O'�°
Vr9v
A{
wqL
v
q
`iY
t O
V
y 6 L
u N
4 V
Y
L q
V
r w
9
q
£
✓
�°•�o
uv
off=
r4 '-r
E
w
V q.r G
p
P
WW
w�
-2GC
Y
yV L a
-pyw
V
u 6L 0
Y
L
q
4 v
w L� C
V
c
O •�
P
C N
L V
qL
Or
q
G
C•..r
M
= p> q
G
W.E V N
r
V
r0
G
V
l� 4
OC
-/PV .
C�
0
^a
<:
N o i
CO
q
y7 `O
L�
`V
�Vpp
V
VCY
fLV
� dr
O�qV
Z\
w
Oqw V'
ry
1
q>.CY
6(<: q
�• V
4
W�
pw
V ..L
r
V
qV
C
< O
VC
C
4 V
V
.•C
.0
Pw
+�q
jr
` -5
u3
0
E
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DAM: February 10
Planning Q.11 -IN i or
33Y- BarbExa - • .J
S a =: EWnMUz?mL AssESSKERr D PAR= MP
acres
210-W2-8,9,11
6t1: Street
1477
IqTFCDUGZZCN: The applicant is requestisig a further subdivision of toe fourth
phase of Parcel Map 7063. approved by Planning Crsmniissican on September 9. 1981-
All phases are shown on the attached tentative rep.
Each lot will be subject to fux".her review before development but all public
=wrove eats rosary for orderly development will be requirements of the
?-.reel Map. A conceptual grading plan, a requirement of Parcel Map 7061, has
been approved.
The lot sizes and circulation system of this subdivision are in accordance with
the Industrial Specific Plan, subarea #12. All sursrnading PrOPertY is within
the M-2 zone and is vacant at this time. Approved Parcel. Map 6085 (Koll Lyon)
lies to the east.
A ooncep ml site plan sbowing possible development of the lots is attached
for your review.
ECWn: zmr.AL X1ML)=: Also attached for your review and consideration =
Part I of the it tial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed
Part II of the Initial Study, t'xa envisormieital checklist, and has conducted a
field investigation. upon caVlelion and review of the Initial Study and field
investigation , Staff found no Significant adverse impacts on the envi=ament
as a result of the proposed Subdivision-
REMMIIE IIl CN: It is
to trz Ci Engineer's Report,
resolution is attached to �*ide
r�auamaxied that the tentative map be approved, subject
arxi that a Negative Declaration be issued. A
for approval should.the Gamnissicn concur-
ITEM H
RESOLUTION NO. 0
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7061 -4 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
7061 -4) LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH
STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7061 -4, submitted by
Kacor Development Company and consisting of 24 parcels, located on
the southwest corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue, being a division
of Lot 17 and the North 1/2 of Lot 24 Map of Cucamonga Lands, M.B. 4
Page 9; and
WHEREAS, on December 24, 1981, a formal application was
submitted requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1982, the Planning Commission held a
duly advertised public hearing for the above- described map.
NOW., THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the proposed
General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision
is consistent with the proposed General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements
will not cause substantial environmental damage,
public health problems or have adverse affects on
abutting property.
SECTION 2:
adverse environmental
February 10, 1982.
SECTION 3:
subject tc the condit
thereto.
That this project will not create significant
impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on
That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7061 -4 is approved
ions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining
APPROVED ARID ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Resolution No.
Page 2
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary o the Panning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of February, 1932, by the following
vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
0
W
M
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
0 CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
FILED BY: Racor Develornezrt Co. TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7061 -4
LOCATION: Southwest corner of 6th Street abd Milliken DATE FILED• 12 /24/81
Avenue NUMBER OF LOTS: 24
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lct 17 and the North 1/2 of ir-t 24, RECEIPT NUMBER:
y, • �l yr d
ZONE:
************* x * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** *k*
TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Derbish, Guerra & Assoc. GROSS ACREAGE: 28.7
ADDRESS: 124 East "F" Street, Suite 12 MINIMUM LOT AREA:
Q=KJo, VA 91764 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE:
************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
0 RECORD OWNER(S)
ADDRESS
PHONE
Racor Develoamnt Co. P. 0. Box 755, Temecula, CA 92390 676 -5641
REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER,
Dedications
g_ 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:
30 additional feet on 6th Street
30 additional feet on Milliken Avame
additional feet on
_ Corner P/L radius require on
Other
IL_ 3. Rights of vehicular access shall be de3imted alorig
lots contiguous to nn; liken Avenue and 6th Street except two 50 -foot opeungs on
4• Milliken and ths+ee 50 -foot on 6t1i Street.
5. Master Plan of Streets revision required or:
6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as -follows:
RCE 20
TENTATIVE MAP 140. 7061 -4
Page 2
Imorovemen ±s (Bonding is required prior toA2 Recording MN
1
x 7. Constm..;t full street imprcvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
sidewalk, one drive approach per iot, parkway trees and street lights) on all
interior streets.
X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets:
*includin landsca in aid irri ati
STREET MAME
CURB &
GUTTER
A.C.
PM.
ODE-
WALK
g
DRIVE
APPR.
on on meter
'STREET
TREES
STREET
LIGHTS
MEDIAN
ISLAND*
OTHER
6th Sit
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
" ik m Avenue
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative
map, or as required by the City Engineer.
X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water,
electric power, gas, telephone and cable teievision.conduit. All utilities
are to be underground. 0
x_11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of
any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary.
X 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca-
tions and types approved by the City Engineer.
x 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im-
provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer.
X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water
District standards. A letter of acceptance is required.
x_ 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern
California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative
poles with underqround service.
16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an
A.C. overlay:
_ 17. ThE lullriwing sped is dimensions, i.e., cu -de -sac radius, Street section
widths) are not approved
_ 18. The o owing existing streets are su starda
They will require:
Approvals and Fees
_ 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of
San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities
ties involved. Approval of the final map will be
that may be received from them.
RCE 20
approval from CALTRANS/
and other interested agen-
subject to any requirements
0
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7061 -4 Page 3
X 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
A. Caltrans, for:
_ B. City:
X C. County Dust Abatement District:
D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep:
� E. Cucamonga County Water District: sz%vs and water
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 parkina on all affected streets.
23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area
and should be corrected on the final map:
24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at 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 eni4`.ive 14ap needs clarification as follows:
T
_ 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 C Recording for )
G Building pern rit for )
X 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood -
irg under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be
subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24. zone A-0
_ 30.
31.
32.
_ 33.
X 34.
RCE 20
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.
If water surface is above t ,)p of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the
back of the sidewalk at all -lownstream curb returns.
Cuiverts required to be constructed enross streets at following loca,ions:_
Broad scale hydrologic studies will a reou•iirred to assess impact of increased
runoff.
Insstal aticn of a portion of he Master Pla=xed Stan Drain Ne. 7E may be
required at the discretion of the City FsVineer. The extent of the imprav t,
sball be as deteaained by the City Engineer and to be coozrlinated with Assessment
District 79-1 project
TENTATIVE MAP NO. _ZQg-4 Page 4
Miscellaneous
�_ 35. Dust abatement will be made a cundition of issuance of the grading permit for
this project.
W_ _ 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
anneyati on.
38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re-
quired:
y Proper grading and erosion control, including the preventation of sedimenta-
tion or damage to offsite property shalt be provided for as required.
40. A preliminary soils report mill not be required for this site for the follow-
ing reasons: A copy of the sails report furnished to the Building Division
prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division.
Y 41. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that
sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are
requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water
District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will
not be issued unless said certification is received in writing.
X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination., in accordance with Section
66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the
property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise
of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the signao
tore of any such -ibiic 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 shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots
fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines.
X 45. Applicable r=tions of the condition for Parcel Map 7061 shall also apply to
this project.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA
LLOYD B. HUBBS
CITY ENGINEER
By:
RCE 20
L_ J
I
L _1
dI ;1� •• v
Qul
M
a 1
t }•
[ [J
[II J
til- �
.t
i
111
'
•t III i
, h?
• 4
� tt
a
•
[
cg
Q
}1
CL
ca
AFIQMM
LLI
6�G.
AAz
LLIf
S
}i
F�
••1
• 1 a
k
•I [ [
iJ
tl
- :r
II{I .� III `
•t
'[ III [ a •tt�l
I. l •�� �
..
a ., _d_i
Lt
♦ Fa
1
.: tC•
fy,
i
x.1.1.':.: ..
b�
'- • 1 ciz
LU
� e
7r �l Z
in
i I t co
ui
CL
i• A k
a LN
CC
Lu
LAJ
. '' � 7 V • � � � x C I� ' t � +
J .: y• t x •� x I� .,
I
0
0:
0
� I
— e
s a
c
Cl)�
wo
z
= °z
ma�
a
u U
�aa
ui
0
Zr_
0
U
a
� ! z
's S as
s : :
4 E C
wo :nw -- —• �� = a
Y�
t-
a
w
U
m z
a :a
P }y)
k
1 I
c
r
- W
. :-0
w w"V
91
e i
� I
— e
s a
c
Cl)�
wo
z
= °z
ma�
a
u U
�aa
ui
0
Zr_
0
U
a
� ! z
's S as
s : :
4 E C
wo :nw -- —• �� = a
Y�
t-
a
w
U
m z
a :a
P }y)
k
1 I
c
r
- W
. :-0
w w"V
CITY C ? RANCHO CUCAMCWCA
I JITIAL STUDY
PART I — PROJECT INFORMATIC N SHEET — To be complLfed
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $80_00
r�
by applicant
For all projects :equiring environmental review, this
forn must be comp' .eted and submitted to the Development
Review Cormittee 4hrough the department where t-ie
project application is made. Upon receipt of tais
application, the ': nvironmental Analysis staff wLll prepare
Part II of the In -tial Study. The. Development Re riew
Committee will meet and take action no later thin ten
(10) days before :he public meeting at which tine the
project is to be ieard. 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 ervironmentaL impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prep•tred, or
3) An additional .. nformation report should be sipplied
by the applicant c;iving further information con Kerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Nosthview Business Park
APPLICAhi'S NAME, %DDRESS, TELEPHONE:
KACOR Development Com;any
P.O. Box 755 Temecula, California 92390 (714) 676 -5641
D" yME, ADDRESS, TE1J- :PHODTE OF PERSON TO BE CONTAC' ED
CONCERNING THIS PRCJECT: Mark Rowson c/o KACOR Devel ip ear Co.
- 0.'Box 755 Temecula, California 92390 (714) 676 -5641
Southwest or PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSO) PARCEL NO_)
Southwest corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue
A.P. No. 22C 08T 08, 09 and 10
LIST OTHER PERMITS "TECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIOZE L, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AN?: THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PEI kITS:
I
Y -!
0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Completion of Parcel Yap 7061
24 Lot - 28.7 Acre Industrial Lot Subdxvisxon
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 30 Gross Acres
DESCRIBE THE E1.JIRONA2EbTTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECT, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SIiEETS)
Existing mroiect site is Kraae vineyards
lopograpny raps at zz + to the soutn.
No existing structures on site
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
12
WILL TIIIS PROJECT:
YES NO
_ X 1_ Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.?'. I.
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan. designations?
X 5- Remove any existing trees? How many?
x 6. Create the need for use or disvosal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
tonic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPJRTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnishe
above and in the attached exhibits present the dato 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 ?- nowledge 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 Committeo.
Date Dec. / /9r/ Signature
W
Title
..
}
` 13
� f
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
school district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
Specific Location of Project:
PHASE I PHASE 2
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
Family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin. construction:
4. Earliest date of
occupancy:
Model .f
and II Of Tentative
S. Bedrooms Price Rance
r,J
's _ 4 A
PHASE ?
PHASE M
TOTAL
CITY OF RAMC HIO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jerry R. Grant, 3ut1ding Official
SUBJECT: Day Care Nursery, 9113 Foothill Boulevard
On February 9, 1982, the subject site was inspected by Building and
Safety Division representatives relative to it of -work necessary
for final completion.
At the conclusion of the investigation the following Building and
Safety Division items were yet to be completed:
1.) A landing is required at the office exit door opening onto the porch.
2.) The glazing in the office door is to be replaced with approved
shatter - resistant material.
3.) Screen openings for ventilation for the underfloor area are to
be restored.
4.) The ccrb along the southerly boundary of the panting lot is to be
removed and replaced with portland cement curb and gutter, as shown on the
approved grading plan.
5.) The drai. -age channel and opening thru the block wall are to be
instr-Iled tc provide an outlet for drainage water to the adjacent property.
E.) The depressions in the parking lot, that do not currently drain, are
to be repaved, so as to drain properly.
A to-the- minute verbal report will be provided at the ? lanning Commission
meeting.
JRG:ps
Y
M. .
fl` ^�
M
1,
�'V
PLANNING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE COMPLETED
2/10/82
1. Plant eight (8) 24" box size London Plane trees along Foothill.
2. Stake all trees with iodgepole stakes and cinch ties (remove
all nursery stakes and ties).
3. Spray soil along Foothill to kill weeds.
4. Soil preparation along Foothill (including mounding).
6. Removal of pavement and construction of new planter in parking
lot with 6" P.C.C. curbs.
7. Plant said planter with 36" box size tree (for shade) and ground cover.
8. Reconstruction of trash enclosure gate.
9. Installation of irrigation systems.
i0. Plant rose bushes beneath Walnut Trees.
11. Remove chain link fence.
i
4"
r
ale
C
CITY OF R t -
STA.I
DATE: February 10, 1982
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7128
EJL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - A division of 6.2
acres into 2 lots-within the R -1 zone located at
the southwest corner of Highland and Haven Avenue -
APN 202 -19 -15
INTRODUCTION: EJL Development Corp. is submitting this parcel map to divide
T.T-ac-r—es--F land into 2 lots as required by the conditions of approval of
Tract Map 11932, approved by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1981.
This subdivision divides the Freeway Corridor (Parcel 1) from the tract
development (Parcel 2).
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 Ini *_ial Study and field
investigation, Staff found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as
a result of the proposed subdivision.
?ECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tentative map be approved, subject
to the City Engineer's Report, and that a Negative Declaration be issued. A
resolution is attached to provide for approval should the Commission concur.
x,;;,. ITEM I
i
RESOLUTION NO. 0
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PARCEL OF HIGHLAND
NO.
HIGHLAND
AVENUE AND HAVEN AVENUE
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7128, submitted by
E.J.L. Development Corporation and consisting of 2 parcels, located
at the southwest corner of Highland and Haven Avenues, being a division
of Lot 12 of Prohibition Trust Fund Association recorded in Book 16,
Page 73 and W 1/2 of the E 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 114
of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35; and
WHEREAS, on January 1, 1982, a formal application was submitted
requesting review of the above - described tentative map; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1982, 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: Tnat the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the proposed
General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed sub-
division is consistent with the proposed
General Plan.
3. That the site 4s physically suitable for
the proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improve-
ments will not cause substantial environmental
damage, public health problems or have adverse
affects on abutting property.
SECTION 2:
adverse environmental
February 10, 1982-
SECTION 3:
subject to the condil
thereto.
That this project wili not create significant
impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on
That Tentative Parcel Nap No. 7128 is approved
:ions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining
APPROVED AND AWOTED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1982.
`i
CJ
C�
Resolution No_
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of February, 1982, by the following
vote -to -wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
e
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
9 CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
FILED BY: E.J.L. Development Corporation TENTATIVE MAP NO.
7128
LOCATION:_ Southwest corner of Haven and Highland DATE FILED: 1/11/82
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 12 of Prohibition Trust
Fund Association recorded Book 16, Page 73 and W 1/2
NUMBER OF LOTS: 2
RECEIPT NUMBER:
FEE: $137
of the E 1112 of the West 1112 of the Northeast 1/4 ZONE: R -1
of Section 35.
TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Anacal Engineering GROSS ACREAGE: 3.6
ADDRESS: 222 E. Old Lincoln Road, Suite 203 MINIMUM LOT AREA:
2.0. Box 3668. Anaheim, CA 92803 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE:
® RECORD OWNER(S)
ADDRESS
PHONE 0
E.J.L. Development Corp. 333 S. Beverly Drive 213/552 -1244
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Dedications
1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary
easements as shown on the tentative map.
2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following
streets:
additional feet
additional feet
additional feet
_ Corner P/L radius req
Other
3. Rights of vehicular access
on
on
on
ri red on
shall be limited as follows:
4. Street vacation required for:
5. Master Plan of Streets revision required or:
® 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment-as follows:
RCE 20
TENTATIVE MAP N0. 7128 Page 2
Improvements
(bonding is required prior to 0 Recording for )
)M Building permit or su
X 7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all
interior streets.
X 8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets:
*including lanricraninn anri irrinafinn nn a +�.
STREET NAME
CURB &
GJTTER
' A.C.
PVMl.
SIDE-
WALK
DRIVE
APPR.
SiREE -
iT REES
-S REET
LIGHTS
t4EDIAN
ISLAND*
i
OTHER
Haven
X
X
X
X
X
I X
Bandola
X
X
X
' X
X
X
Finch
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
Highland
X
X
X
X
X
9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative
map, or as required by the City Engineer.
_ 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water,
electric power, gas, telephone and cable television.conduit. All uti- lities
are to be underground.
11. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of
any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary.
_ 1 2. 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.
14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cuzamonga County Water
District standards. A letter of acceptance is required.
15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approvcd by the Southern
California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative
poles with underground service.
16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an
A.C. overlay:
17. The T011owing specific dimensions, �.e., cu - e -sac ra ius, street section
widths) are not approved:
_ 18. The tollowing existing streets are substandard:
They will require:
Approvais and Fees
X 19. This subdivision shall be sub ect to conditions of approval from CALTRANS/
X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen-
cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements
that may be received from them.
RCE 20
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7198 Page 3
® X 21. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
X • A. Caltrans, for: freeway corridor
_ B. City:
_ C. County Dust Abatement District:
D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep:
E. Cucamonga County Water District:
_ F. Other:
Map Control
22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro-
vide for two -tay traffic and parking on all affected streets.
-23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area
and should be corrected on the final map:
24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at 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 firs phase subdivision to prevent
the creation of an unrecognized parcel located
26. The boundary of the Tentative Map reeds clarification as follows:
27.
The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or
title explanation required-
0 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 0 Recording for )
0 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.
30. A drainage channel and /or flood protectior wall along the enti,e 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. mater surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the
back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns.
32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:_
33. Broad scale hydrologic.studies will a required to assess 'impacL off" nreased
runoff.
X 34. Adequate provisions steal] be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the {property from adjacent areas.
RCE 20
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7128 Page 4
Miscellareous 0
X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition cf issuance of the grading permit for
X this project.
36. noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning
Division report on subject property.
_ 37. This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require
annexation.
38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re-
quired:
_X 39. Proper grading and erosion control, including the preventation of sediment a-
tior. or damage to offsite property shay i 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
pr••or to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division.
X_ 41. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same dlies not guarantee that
sewer treatment capacity will be availabie at the time building permits are
requested. When building permits are requested, the ;;ucamonga County Nater
District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will
not be issued unless said certification is receiveo in writing.
X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section
66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the
property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise
of any public entity or public utility rigt.t -of -way or easement and the sign
ture of any such public entity or public utility �.. to �:ttwd f'-- •`-
map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina-
tior within the specified time limits of said Section.
x_ 43. At the time of Final Map submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse
calculations (sheets), copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/
or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. •
_ 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots
fronting an a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines.
y RCE 20
CiTY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA
LLOYD B. HUBBS
CITY ENGINEER
By:
tit'
El
r9NOCL1 "NCL' r - - -'
I
MSV E'• L!! \!
.
I ro+rean!E...pggry� wnv I'q
Srrs++Td�Fv
a
.r..
11N11WL ENWNEE1tING CA.
d'. ..
:w+.i a.dro�i
�; iE�i •� "
� xe
i fq� i
�
I
Ztq
Lw^•�wµ
�y lZ
yF'F
L R�
i�
i
r s
V
a
( Iy1F
�; iE�i •� "
� xe
i fq� i
�
I
Ztq
i�
i
r s
V
CI Y OF RANCHO CCCAMONC-A
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT I1'�z'ORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Envirom-ental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the departsent where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Envi-ronziental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
Project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant
environmental impact and a Nagative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will . ^.ave a significant environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An
additional information report should be supplied by the applicant
giving further information concerning the pronosed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Parcel Via-) No. 712$
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHOITE: 213/552 -1444
EJL DEEVEII.OF= CORPORATION
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CO�jTACTED
CONCERNYI7G THIS PROJECT= AMACAL a?CID=, COMPAMY
222 E. Cld Lincoln, P.O. Rox 36�i$, ArL2heim, CA 92 C
IACATION OF PROJECT (STR. -SET ADDRESS AA*J ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
A. °. No. 202 -19-15
S.il. Cc-. Hi7lfand Ave. & Haven Ave.
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TFIB AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
y
PRO'JECP DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 2 -lot parcel man necessary to s lit aprnoved
Tentative 'Tract No. 11932 (south ball) f1 omt the north half —
(proposed freeway rich *.. -of -qy ).
AMcEAGE OF PROJECT ARE9 AND S(7ARZ FOOTAGE OF EXIST: NG AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IV ANY: 6.2 AC.
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRO_TM: -NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT S7:E
INCLUDING INFO RiIMATION CN TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTLTR_yL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNTDING PROPERT TES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF AN r
EXISTING STRUCTURES P.i >> THEM USE (ATTACH NECESS?RY iHE=S)
Site is -tancant '..and 31or)in -7 at aarnroximately 2a to the South. lnitral
life consists of Rodents ant Birds. Mxwe is no awn cult
,
"istorica.l cr scenic value :o this property. The site is boundet on
on the Soutin, ?•Test and Nort! west by simple -family hones, to zhe ort� h
Northeast and Last across Fiver: Avenue is vacant land, -
Is the project, part of :t larger project, one of a series-
of cumulative actions, wLich although individually small,
may as a whole have sign'ficant environmental irspact,
I #2
WILL THIS PFOJ'ECT-
YES M
X
Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2_ Create a substantial change in existing
r. '3i.se 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?
k 5= Remove any existing t=ees? How many>
R 6- Create the need for use or disposal of
potentiaiiy hazardous materizls such as
toxic suLstances, flamma }ies or explosives?
Explanation_ of any _S answers above=
ZMPOIZTMT-- If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the forts on the
r_ext 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 tc 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
McIditional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evauuation can be made by
Review Committee_ the .Developoert
Date
Signature f
Title Avent L.S. 2988
i
11
h
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
November i3, 1981
TO: The City Managcr and Members of the City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager*
SUBJECT: Presentation of Alternatives for Development of
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Master Plan
As you are already aware, the City staff has been working with
the County and their architects to develop an alternative to the
originally submitted master plan scheme. Attached are both
alternatives (labeled Scheme I and Scheme II). Scheme I is a
revision of the original proposal submitted to tie City Council
earlier this year. Scheme II is a second alternative which
addresses most of staffs' concerns relating to the originally
submitted master plan (Scheme I).
Both alternatives will be presented at the City Council's
regularly scheduled meeting of November 13, 1981 by H.O.K.
and H.M.C. Architects. As part of their presentation, the
Architects will outline the evolution of these two alt^rnatives
and the merits of each scheme.
The objective of this presentation is to arrive at a consensus
of the most appropriate scheme for the master plan and receive
staff authorization to continue development of Council's preferred
alternative.
JRlvz
Enclosures
Alternatives Civic Ctr. Master Plan
Page Two
November 13, 1981
CIVIC CENTER MASTOR PLAN
AL�IIE,qZ
SCHEME I
I. Provides a central Courtyard surrounded by accessible
Parking and loop road circulation.
2. Creates a "singular" identity on site with City Hall and
Cultural Center part of a large Courtyard complex.
3. Joint development of a Courtyard would provide the City
with infrastructure we probably could not afford to develop
ourselves.
SCHEME II
I. Creates separate identity and "City" Courtyard scheme.
2. Provides haven Avenue exposure and reduces "sea" of parking
adjacent to Haven Avenue.
3. Provides City Hall and Cultural Center with more accessible
and "City" oriented parking. Under Scheme I, City Hall users
would be competing for "close in" parking.
4. Provides improved traffic circulation and with longer access
road off of Civic Center Drive, there is better stacking
(more time for drivers to orient themselves to the site, the
appropriate blnnCaccessible l .S. Separation fromCoutyo ddevecpmentof two "satellites"
City Courtyard /County Courtyard improves transition of the
scale of the buildings. Ci;v buildings are proposed two
stories and County buildings approximately five stories.
6. Provides more flexibility to the City for long -range planning
in development of its portion of the cite. Being part of a
large Courtyard scheme would limit the City's future alter-
natives.
7. Scheme II allows the City to move in development of its portion
of the Civic Center at its own pace.
E. Provides improved pedestrian circulation for City Hall clients
from accessiole parking to municipal buildings.
9. Scheme II represents a more suburban theme and less of a highly
urbanized therm with the joint Courtyard in Scheme I.
* Both Schemes would provide 300 parking spaces allocated for City
Hall and Cultural Center uses and development of a separate
City Police Facility.
0
9
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 2, 1932
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Robinson, Assistant City Manager
RE: Proposed West Valley Law And Justice Center /Haven Avenue/
Civic Center Drive
BACKGROUND:
The City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino
have entered inzr an agreement to jointly purchase a 25.5 acre
site located near trk: southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard
and Haven Avenue for the purpose of developing a :ivic Center/
Law & Justice Center. The City's share of the site is 3.5 acres
and could accommodate a 50,000 square foot City Nat'l, a 30,000
square foot Cultural Center, a 30,000 square foot police facility
and appropriate parking, courtyard and landscaping. The County
will initially construct a Court facility of some 220,000 square
feet and eventually a pre -trial detention center on their portion
of the site.
The attached memo of November 13, 1981 outlines the two pre-
liminary site plans submitted to the City Council. The City
Council ultimately selected the second alternatic: for reasons
stated in that report.
OBJECTIVE:
The County's architects responsible for the design and development
of the West Valley Law and Justice Center will be making a pre-
sentation to the Planning Commission outlining their progress to
date and in essence presenting the project for your review and
comment. In reality, the City cf Rancho Cucamonga has no legal
authority in terms of design review or development criteria; how-
ever this presentation will provide an opportunity for the Planning
Continued.....
ITEM J
Hest Valley Law and Justice Center
February 2, 1982
Page Two
Commission to °critique" the proposed Court facility and evaluate
its merits. The County, as are school districts, is exempt under
State lax from local building regulations and as such are also
exempt from the design review process.
Commission feels that there are some ser Ultimately, if the planning
ious deficiences or areas
for improvement that should be considered, the city Council can
hopefully resolve them through a joint meeting with the Board of
Supervisors or at a staff level tc insure a homogeneous project
that will complement both the City and the County.
Should you have any specific questions regarding the Civic Center/
West Valle Lax and Justice Center prior to the presentat— o Q
February 0, 982, please don't hesitate to
give me a tail.
JHR /vz
Enclosure
i
1
raffla-9-1
I,
Z
c
a r
N
V =,
J � Y
� t
,
W O Y 1
o�
j
N
Z
c
a r
N
V =,
J � Y
� t
,
W O Y 1
,t
II 5
s�
u�
s
0
W
yv
2
4
v 2
3 z ._