HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/05/26 - Agenda Packet i..fl�� _ �,�
F `. �
� � j
.�:� �., ,
,�_
fi" ' �
�,� � `�`
,�� �,, ��
:;��
i"i.
;a
+��
.c�.
.any.
fy'
e�fr
J�
�.�
yi
,ay.
. r,
��(iil
;R
F�;
i
.�
` :
yi ..
�'y{
,;"
- ,5
,�
':�
;;`+,
'':.;i
z
,..:`N
.a.. ... ,x.,
:,-st, '
�.n
-'a�
7 .,,� _
i.
,_J:.C_
.:.`.
.I��
_ . .♦ .
� _
E ''
..� . ..
;�
t ��:�.
1
�? CITY OF
ftP•IVCHO CUCAMONGF,
PLANNING C;OlVIIViISSIOf
F' AGENDA
1977 WEDNESDAY MAY 2-0, 1982 7:00 P.M.
LION'S PARK'COM14UNITY CENTER
9161 SASE LINE,.RANCH0 CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roil Cali
Commissioner King Commissioner Sceranka
Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Stout
Commissioner Tolstoy
III. 'Approval of Minutes
May 3, 1982
May 12, 1982
IV. Announcements
V. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar it�rs are expected to
be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted
upon by the Commission at one time without diseussion.
If anyone has concern over any item, then it should be
removed for discussion.
A. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT 11734 - DLV - A change
in the number of ots, located on the northwest
corner of Arrow and Vineyard.
B. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT 12040 - PFEILER - A
change in the number of lots, located on the north-
east corner of Arrow Route and Turner Avenue.
VI. Public Hearings
The following items are Public Hearings in which concerned
indivi.dua2s may voice their opinion of the related project.
Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address
the commission from the public microphone by giving your
name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to
5 minutes per individual for each project.
C. TERRA VISTA STATUS REPORT
1
Pla4ing Commissior. Agendd"-- t
Page 2
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10246 -
ALKYJISEH/ASSAD - A custom lot subdivision of ten acres
of land into 16 lots located in the R-1-20,000 (Single
Family Residential/20,000 sq. ft. lot minimum) zone on
the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Haven Avenue -
APN 201-111-14.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-07 - CHURCH OF THE FOOTHILLS -
The location of a church in an existingg building in the
Rancho Cucamonga Business Park at 10722 Arrow Route in the
Industrial Park area - APN 208-622-24.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-08 - NEW WALK MINISTRY - The
proposed interim use of in ustrial buy dings in Subarea
4 for a church and related office facility located in
the General Industrial category at 9050 Archibald and
9606 7th Street - APN 209-171-46 & 47.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12171 -
STEPHENSON - A custom lot subdivision of 6 lots on 3.3
acres of-'rand in the R-1-20,000 zone located at the
northwest corner of Klusman Avenue and Whirlaway Street -
APN 1061-511-06 & 07.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7349 - LEWIS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A division of 20.45 acres into
Tots within General Industrial area located on
the north side of 4th Street, east of the I-15 Freeway -
APN 229-283-49.
I. STATUS REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
ETINANDA SPECIFIC PLAN - Determination on the scope
and content of the Environmental Impact Report for
the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Plan covers an area
of approximately 3,000 acres generally bounded by the
City Limits on the north and east, Arrow Route on the
south, and a line approximately 1000 feet west of
Etiwanda Avenue on the west (Victoria Planned Community
boundaries).
VI. Old Business
J. TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROVAL 79-09 - CABLE TV OF
ALTA LOMA - The development of a receiving site and
trailer on property. located at 8387 East 19th Street
in the A-1 zone - APN 202-021-36 & 37.
VII. Director's Reports
K. REPORT ON INITIATION OF ZONE CHANGE - A change. of zone
from R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) to R-1 (Single
Family Residential ) for approximately 34.4 acres of
land located east of Hellman Avenue, west of Amethyst,
north of La Mesa Drive, and south of Monte Vista Street.'
a
r
�. Planning Commission Agenda
May 26, 1982
Pace 3
XI. Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public
to address the Commission. Items to be discussed
here are those which do not already appear on this
agenda.
XII. Upcoming Agenda
XIII. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 11:00 p.ia. adjournment time.
If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard
only with the consent of the Commission.
e;
v;
h:
N
7;
1.
Jf
J1•.
,M(1-
VICINITY' MAP
E
• 0
f G
r °
a
:
wry COLLEGE. 4 .•
*-
B.r lw. U ■ � ■ ; ■
•yr t1GM P" CITT MRCL ■ ■ on
• ■ � � •/•yam A••�
j • • aY
iOOO.II — ■ y
C1
r
l • •
e
•a -
i 9
a
CVCA"Q G•-GuRsrr, onu■rr Y CW-It ■A11•
�a
•: O•LRep I■TEF■i°WL AM/O•r
CffY OF RAHCNO CMA M
L en y
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM �
of o
L977
DATE: May 26, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning C� i ion
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Plann
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12171 -
STEPNENSON
BACKGROUND: The Equestrian Advisory Comvittee has reviewed the above-
described project to examine drainage and equestrian easements along
the west and south project boundaries. The Committee felt that these
trail easements were necessary for a unified trail system throughout
Alta Loma.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Equestrian Advisory Committee therefore recommends that the follow-
ing condition be added: "That the existing drainage easement serve as
the equestrian easement along the west and south tract boundaries, and
that said easement be reflected on the final tract map and final grading
?:^ and drainage plan."
1
I
I
'h
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
iC
o
DATE: May 21 , 1982 �! Qj IZ
ci a
TG: Members of the Planning Commissior, 1977
FROM: Shinty Bose, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJE':T: Addendum to the Standard Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract No. 12171
The following condition is recommended to be added to Standard Conditions
of Approval for the subject tentative tract.
Item M-8
- All storm runoff from Lot 5 shall be intercepted and drained to the
easement at west project boundary by means of Catch Basins and pipe,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Respectfully submitted,
SB:bc
cc: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
Developer/Applicant
Project Engineer
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA`4ONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Regular Meeting
May 3, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Jeffrey King caila_d the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 1 :20 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park
Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman King
then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeff Sceranka, Peter Tolstoy, Jeff King
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel
STAFF PRESENT: Robert Dougherty, City Attorney; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Bill Polley, Director of Community Services; Jack Lam,
Community Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary;
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Michael Vairin,
Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman King began the public hearing to discuss the Terra Vista Planned
Community.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner reviewed Topic #1 concerning the Greenway
Concepts of the Terra Vista Plan. Mr. Vairin stated that staff was
recommending, four revisions to the Greenway Concept which included a
need for a comprehensive conceptual plan for the major and secondary
greenwayr:; secondly, that greenways be a minimum of 20 feet wide; thirdly,
fencing :.s to be provided along all the greenways and be consistent in
design; and fourth, that a phasing and implementation plan be required
for the in.:tallation of the greenways, all of which shall be included in
the final text.
Mr. William Holley, Community Services Director, reviewed the park plan
for the Terra Vista Planned Community. Mr. Holley indicated that as a
requirement of Ordinance No. 105 and the formula reached to determine
the number of acres required for parkland, Terra Vista bas a deficit of
40.7 acres. Mr. Holley stated that the Terra Vista plan did not fully
maximize the joint use of land between parks and schools, and offered
some recommendations on how this could be achieved. Mr. Holley also
discussed the park retention basins and explained that there were design,
maintenance and safety problems associated with this concept. It was
recommended that the retention/detention basin concept not be employed
in any park/school joint use project and that the Milliken/Church Street
park retentionidetention basin be reduced from 14.9 to 8.9 acres, be
Passive in design, and receive 50% credit towards the park requirements.
It was also suggested that as an alternate recommendation the Milliken/
Church Street park be eliminated entirely and replaced by a standard
retention basin.
With regard to the greenway and trail system, Mr. Holley indicated that
this was a definite asset to Terra Vista. He recommended that 6 acres
of the 22.6 acres claimed along the major greenway for parks be removed
from the total, a pedestrian bridge be constructed across Deer Creek
Channel as a continuation of the trail into the south section of Base
Line, and that a pedestrian bridge be constructed across Deer Creek
Channel from the section north of Base Lire into Deer Creek Park. It
was further recommended that Terra Vista be required to dedicate land
within Deer Creek park in as undeveloped state to the City, that up to
50% credit for private open space be available based upon Ordinance No.
105, and that the Terra Vista text show a.method for implementation of
the private open space plan.
Commissioner Tolstoy starred that if the other Commissioners concurred,
he would like to suggest that the parks and greemaay concepts be discussed
before going on to the flood control and drainage.
The Commissioners concurred with this suggestion.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what happens when the developer received a
density bonus for affordable housing.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, replied that in the Victoria Plan a
density distribution plan was devised to show the expected number of
dwelling units to be built in an area, with a margin of flexibility
included. Staff has been penciling in the tracts as they were approved
to keep a record of what was approved versus what uas expected and if
there were an exceeding factor, staff would be aware of this and additional
fees would be imposed.
Commissioner King asked if the concepts of density bonus and the re-
quirements for additional park space conflict.
Mr. Vairin replied that the City requires 5 acres per 1,000 people.
When a density bonus is added there are more peopl- added and this need
could be supplied either through fees or additional park land.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
1
Ralph Lewis, Lewis Development Company, addressed the Commission. Mr.
Lewis stated that his engineers were present tc show examples of park
retention/detention basins and to explain to the Commission how this
concept would work in Terra Vista. Mr. Lewis indicated that his main
concern was with the credit for private open space, and that he felt
that 50-100% credit should be given.
Planning Coms.Ission Minutes -2- May 3, 1982
Chairman King asked Mr. Lewis if he had any problems with the numbers
and amounts listed in Mr. Holley's report.
Mr. Lewis indicated that Elaine Carbrey would be presenting charts which
would show how the figures for Terra Vista had been calculated. He also
stated that he had no problem with moving some of the park sites to join
them with schools.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Lewis if he had discussed the calculations
for park dedication as proposed in the Terra Vista plan with staff.
Mr. Lewis replied that Kay Matlock had several meetings with the Community
Services Director to discuss these calculations.
Jeff Spornik of Gruen and Associates presented a slide show to the
Commission which presented several parks which used the retention/detention
basin concept in other cities. A questionnaire was also distributed to
the Commissioc, ,when had been sent to several cities who presently are
using this concept for retention basins.
8:35 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8:50 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Chairman King stated that he would like to stop the presentation at this
point and make sure the Commission understood the issues before them so
that they could be discussed on an issue-bv-issue basis. Chairman King
stated that he felt that the issues before them were (1) the amount of
park space that is actually shown in the plan and the amount of private
open space that will be provided along with the credit that should be
given; (2) the amount of apace that is being saved by joining two uses
together thus cutting down the amount of park space required in the
interior and placing that park space above Base Line; and (3) the amount
of acres that are present in the retention/detention basin areas as well
as the amount of credit that should be give.:.
Mr. Holley stated that the issue of the 124 acres of park land should be
discussed. The question was posed as to if the plan showed 124 acres or
not.
Elaine Carbrey presented a chart to the Commission which showed how the
figures for Terra Vista were reached.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the City Council stated that for every
F household the calculation of 3.1 would be used, why did Terra Vista use
1.5 and 2.36?
Ys. Carbrey replied that these figures were derived from their population
Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 3, 1982
5:'y
estimates.
Chairman King asked if this 3.1 figure was the one Coa^cil selected to
be used in the computation.
Staff stated that this was correct.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there were 124 acres of park land in the
plan as presented to the Commission.
Ms. rarbrey replied that there were not 124 acres but only 85 acres in
the revised plan were shown.
Ms. Carbrey explained the chart presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Sceranka asked Mr. Holley if the only points of contention
were the percentage of credit for joint use parks and detention and the
private open space.
Mr. Holley replied that this was correct. The figure of 100% credit for
70 acres of park land was not available under Ordinance No. '105.
Kay Nantlock of Lewis Homes read sections of Ordinance No. 105 to the
Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked Robert Dougherty, City Attorney, for a legal
interpretation of the Ordinance.
Mr. Dougherty replied that he would like to take a few minutes to study
the Ordinance and respond later in the meeting.
Chairman King asked for discussion of the issue of credit for the retention/
detention basin.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the detention basins were required to
build Terra Vista 'iecsise of flood control problems; however, the park
design would have ro be completely different and be designed as a passive
park. He stated that he could not see this area as an active play area
for children, therefore would not warrant a 100% credit_
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see a report done
that would discuss the increased cost to the City to maintain the facility
including increased liability insurance and the amount of time the
facility would not be in use given the criteria of how much water wc-Ad
be contained in the basin at peak times. This would give the Commis on
a foundation to base their decision on as to how much i` would cost the
City to maintain such a facility and aid them in determining how much
credit to grant.
Chairman King stated that, assuming the basin was properly ue�igred, be
did not see a reason why full credit would not be given.
Planning Co=nission Minutes -4- May 3, 1982
There was further discussion on the retention/detention basins and
Chairman Ring suggested that staff could further examine this concept
and report back to the Commission at a later meeting. Chairman Bing
stated that he would like to see the developer and staff sit down and
discuss the aspects of the concept and include the report suggested by
Commissioner Sceranka so that the Commission would have a better basis
to make a determination of how much credit to grant.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would also like to see a report cn
which projects were given private open space credit to see what the
precedent had been on that subject.
Chairman King stated that he would like to see one other issue examined
further and that was how much park space can be cut down in the interior
areas ane. be shifted to the "city" park above Base Line.
Bob Dougherty stated that before the Commission moved on to the next
item, he would like to give an interpretation of Ordinance No. 105. He
stated that the Commission was dealing with Lao subsections of the
Ordinance; one dealing with the credit for private open space in the
normal subdivision context and the other with the credit in the planned
co:munity. The controversy seemed to be what the words "park standards"
mean in Subsection F. Lewis contended that it meant the standards for
dedication as set forth in Subsection E and that section reads "standards
for dedication" which discusses the standard as being a ratio of 5 park
acres to 1,000 population. Staff indicates that park standards should
revert back to park credit in Subsection E. Mr. Dougherty stated that
he disagreed with staff on this issue. If the staff interpretation was
taken, there would be no reason for Subsection F in that it would be
rendered redundant as the maximum credit available under F would be 50%
maximum and the minimum 0%, which is the same as available in Subsection
E. He further stated that the Planning Commission would have the discretion
of granting credit from 0-100%.
9:55 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
10:05 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report regarding
flood control and drainage. Staff recommended that if there were a
change in the location and/or size of the parksites, additional detention
basins be provided, whether in a park or not. It was further recommended
that no occupancy perm_'.t be issued to any building in the project until
the improvements by the Army Corps of Engineers to the Deer Creek Channel
and the portion of Day Creek levee which would eliminate the major
source of flood hazard to the site.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 3, 1982
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would like to see staff take a
look at the liability and public safety issues of the joint use retention
basins as pointed out in the Engineering Staff Report. it was Commissioner
Sceranka's opinion that this issue was being blown out of proportion.
Chairman King stated that he would like to end the discussion tonight, if
the other Commissioners concurred, and have staff meet with the developer
to resolve some of the issues be-,-, . Commission this evening. It
was recommended that the hearing :. .. nued to May 26, 1982.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that }- id like to see the issue of
having the "City" Park moved to the west of Deer Creek dealt with as
he felt that this should be looked into before Terra Vista was approved.
Chairman King concurred with Commissioner Sceranka and asked that staff
look into the pros and cons of moving the "City" Park.
Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to
adjourn.
10:10 p.m. The Planning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 3, 1982
i
CITY OF BANCHC CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMKISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
May 12, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Jeffrey King called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meeting was held
at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga.
He then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Peter
Tolstoy, Jeffrey King
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF rRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City
Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack
Lam, Director of Community Development; Arlene Troup,
Assistant Planner; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimeasly, to
approve the Minutes of the April. 28, 1982 Planning Commission :teeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chairman icing recognized Boy Scout Troup 611 of Upland, which were in
attendance and invited them to ask questions on any irams before the
Commission.
Mr. Rick Gomez, City Planner, reminded the Commission of the Foothill
Community Property Owners meeting that would take place at the Lions
Park Center on Friday, May 14, 1982 at 10 a.m. He indicated that Mr.
Kenneth Topping, San Bernardino County Planning Director, would be
present to discuss the Foothill Community Plan..
Mr. Gomez stated that Item B listed an the Cor_sent Calendar would be
pulled for discussion at the request of the applicant.
Mr. Gomez indicated that after action taken by the Planning Commission
this evening, Items A and F would be forwarded to the Rancho Redevelopment
Agency for their adoption and approval as a result of recent adoption of
a resolution by the Agency requiring all such items to come before them
on the Agency Consent Calendar.
Mr. Gomez stated that Item I, Development Code, would be added to this
agenda.
vi
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman King indicated that Item B could be -emoved from the Consent
Calendar and placed under Public Hearings; hcaever, he doubted that the
Commission would be in a position at this meeting to render a decision
on this matter.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolsto-N , carried unanimously, to
approve Items A and C on the Consent Calendai , with Item A to be forwarded
to the Rancho Redevelopment Agency for their review and approval.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT:' REVIEW 82-10 - :.C.
INDUSTRIAL - A revision to ap?roved pla•s for Phase IB Rancho
Cucamonga Business Center to allow construction of a 205,000
square foot warehouse distribution buil•iing on approximately
12 acres of laud in the General Industr .al/Rail Served category
APN 229-261--29, 30.
C. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5525
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROVAL 79-09
_Kr. Gomez advised that the applicant has beet unable to locate a new site
for his receiving station and would therefor •. like some comments and clarifi-
cation from the Planning Commission as to wh:x constitutes a permanent
receiving station. Mr. Gomez added that the applicant was present and
would add additional comments for the Commission.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Phil Whistler, manager of the Alta Loma Tl Station, asked for re-
classification of the present equipment building from that of a trailer
to permanent building designation. He explaiiied how the equipment was
moved to its cement foundation and felt that he reclassification would
be in order. Further. , that this building would be moved to another site
although one has not yet been established. ?r. Whistler stated that
he presently is negotiating with the Cucamonga County Water District
for a site.
Chairman King asked the Commission what their reeling was relative to
this matter.
Commissioner Rempel stated that this item shou:.d be brought before the
Commission after a full evaluation has been mace. He indicated that he
felt this installation is similar to that of ar Edison substation on a
smaller scale and that the criteria would be of the same type.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would prefar to wait until an
evaluation has been completed.
i
Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 12, 1982
I
w y,
I
�I i�)..
Mr. Gomez stated that the time extension could be acted upon and that
staff could come back with a report relative to the issue of a permanent
structure.
Chairman King stated that he would rather continue the entire matter.
Following brief discussion among the Commission, it was moved by Sceranka,
seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the
next regular Planning Commission muting as a public hearing item.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AMID TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 9549 - LANDCO -
A custom lot subdivision of 22.4 acres of land in the R-1-20,000
zone into 40 lots located on the southwest corner of Hermosa and
Wilson - APN 201-172-14, 17.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report.
Caa=issioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Rougeau to discuss the drainage of this
proposed tract and the kind of drainage structures that would be required.
Mr. Rougeau stated that the current plan is to drain almost everything
into the street, and from there int- a storm drain over to Hermosa
Avenue to a point considerably south of the tract and below the next
street, to Manzanita.
Ca=issioner Tolstoy asked if this would be through a regular conduit.
Mr. Rougeau replied affirmatively, stating it then would exit south to
the Alta Lo-.a basins.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the lots on the south side.
Mr. Rougeau stated that the back portions only will drain to the property
line and into a concrete ditch at Hermosa.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Mr. Don Hornbeck, 150 S. El Molino, #101, Pasadena, representing the
Engineering Company and applicant indicated support for the approval of
this project.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman King raised concern on the preservation of eucalyptus trees
along the north and east perimeters of the property.
Planning, Comoission Minutes -3- May 12, 1982
Mr. Vairin replied that at this point in time no detailed survey has
been completed as to the health and condition of the trees; however,
this would be accomplished prior to development_
Commissioner Rempel stated that there is no problem with tree preservation
along the streets but he felt that where there were grade differentials,
this could be a proble,..n.
Chairman King stated that forgetting the trees on Hermosa and Wilson, he
ao'1ld like to gave as many trees in the east and west tree row saved.
He felt that the condition was vague and requested that as many eucalyptus
as possible be saved.
Mr_ Vairin indicated that Condition C-2 requires that this be done.
Mr. Frank Williams of Associated Engineers, stated that they will try to
save as many trees as possible.
Commissioner Sceranka asked if there had been discussion on the type of
fencing to be used, ,in terms of specific types of -fences and not block
walls, making reference to Condition I of the Planning Division as
stated on the resolution.
Mr_ Vairin replied that in terms of requirements for this tract, they
will be required to put in a concrete extruded fence in the split rail
style of Fox Hollow_ Further, that this condition is being installed so
that in the event a property owner comes along later he would be required
to comply wit:+ the condition_
Commissioner Tolstoy asked where a person wishing to install a fence
would come for approval.
Mr. Vairin replied that he would go to the Planning Division_ Mr.
Vairin stated that if the Planning Commission wanted more teeth in this,
they could do so through a condition requiring that this be reviewed by
Design Review.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that this should go before Design Review to be
sure that good design was being met.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sccranka, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 82-46, approving Tentative Tract 9649, issuing a
negative declaration and adding a requirement that fences be reviewed by
the Design Review Committee.
E
f
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 12, 1982
F..
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSvXNT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10246 - ALKHASEH/
ASSAD - A custom lot subdivision of ten acres of land into 16 lots
located in the R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residential/20,000 square
foot lot minimum) zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and
g. Haven Avenue - APN 201-111-14.
Assistant Planner, Arlene Troup, reviewed the staff repert.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would like to know where the water
on Masada goes because it appears that it would have to turn at a 90
degree angle.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it will go into a concrete gutter and it would
turn there, come of it goes down P-)plar Street to Mayberry, and down
from there.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that on Hillside Road, the elevation at Haven
Avenue is greater than the elevation to the east and right now there is
a drain that goes there to the brushland and it appears that it goes west
to Masada.
Mr. Rougeau stated that at the present time there is a break in the curb
that is not needed new or in the future.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he is worried about the land north of
Hillside and its development because it will sheet across into the gutter
and go onto Masada.
Mr. Rougeau stated that he had not looked at the north property in detail
but that it would be examined to see if the water should go underground
to Haven.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Mayberry already has a water problem
"+ which may become excessive if this tract is allowed to dispose of its
water this way.
i
Mr. Rougeau stated that further review and study would be given to this_
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
F Mr. Dave Sargis, representing the original owner, addressed the Commission.
Chairman King asked Mr. Sargis if he sees any way, given the acreage in
this tract, that a more creative design might be accomplished.
Mr. Dan Guerra, representing the developer, stated that this had been
researched very thorougUy and Commissioner Tolstoy's comments were well
taken relative to the drainage problem. He indicated that there is a
water barrier at Hillside just west of Haven and a drainage problem at
Mayberry.
Planning Commission Miautes -5- May 12, 1982
He indicated that in response to Chairman King's question, this is =he
best plan they could come up with.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would need more information before
he makes up his mind on this project because he felt it needs more
research concerning drainage.
Mr. Rougeau asked if the Commission would like Engineering to work with
the developer for additional improvmnents. He indicated that a drainage .
pipe could go through one of the s-.ngle family lot lines but it would
mean that they would have to tear ap an existing yard.
Mr. Guerra stated that this is the best plan that they could come up with.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that something must be done on Hillside Road.
He indicated that he also has a problem with the 90 degree turn because
of the difficulty of making the water turn in that direction.
Mr- A.L. Adkins, 10363 Hillside Road, spoke of his concern for water drainage
on Hillside Road and the bridle path along his fence line. He asked who
would be responsible for picking up the horse manure and indicated that
his dogs might make the horses skittish.
Mr. Rougeau indicated that it may be necessary to have an asphalt curb
along Mr. Adkins lot line and that a design could be made for those lots.
Mrs. Juliette Wallace, 5605 Masada, stated that Commissioner Tolstoy's
co:�ents are well taken because she lives in the Seivers tract and the water
is a great problem. She indicated that one of the lots in her subdivision_
must be pumped because of the water problem and that the water does not
turn in the street very well.
Mrs. Wallace also asked how dust would be kept down when the work proceeds
on this development and about the existing fence along the Seivers tract.
Mr. Rougeau stated that these are things that can be answered when staff
comes back to the Commission with their report. He indicated that dust
control is required now and would be controlled.
Chairman King stated that he felt there is a consensus that this matter
be brought back to the Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked that drainage at the signal for Chaffey College
where there is a cement cross at Wilson also be examined when this is
studied.
Chairman King stated that he felt the design of the street layout is
unimaginative and that it could be done better, perhaps without as much
yield, and asked if there would be support among the Commission for
better design.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- Mav 12, 1982
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Chairman King; however, Commissicners
Rempel and Sceranka did not agree.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, that
this item be continued to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
and that staff study a method to change the drainage system with the pro-
vision that if it entails the redesign or redivision of lots, that tract
design also be examined.
8:00 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed
8: 10 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened
F. ENVIRONI-TEN AL ASSESSNIENT AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7404 - DAON CORPORATION -
A division. of 14.36 acres into 4 parcels within the Industrial Park
area located on the north side of Arrow Route between Rea Oak and
4 White Oak Streets - APN 208-351-27.
Commissioner Sceranka stepped down from any participation on this item due
to a possible conflict of interest.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the proposed use for this property is
needed in the industrial area and he was glad that this ki d of use is
being planned. For the record, Commissioner Tolstoy stated it was his
hope that Mr. Corrigan would exercise his good taste in architectural
review as the Commission would, in review of the project.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 82-47, approving Parcel Map 7494 and issuing a
negative declaration, with the inclusion that this item be forwarded
to the Redevelopment Agency for their review.
G. ZONING ORDINANCE DETERMINATION NO. 82-01 - STELLA - A request to
develop a Nightclub/Cocktail Lounge in the C-2 zone.
i
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report_
Chairman King invited the applicant to speak, stating that it was probable
that the Commission would be unable to make a decision on this item at this
meeting as they are discussing the concept in general.
Planning Coeaaission Minutes -7- May 12, 1982
Mr. Peter Stella., the applicant, asked if parking requirements would
be one stall for every three persons in attendance.
Mr. Vairin restated the parking requirements in the Code indicating that
the ratio for the proposed use would be are stall for every three occupants.
Mr. Stella asked about the requirements at the Boar's Head and what is
s the difference between it and other C-1 areas.
Mr. Vairin replied that it was his recollection that the initial use of
the Boar's Head was that of a food server and in that respect they meet
r the code. However, he stated, the use proposed by Mr. Stella would not
s, meet the provisions of the existing code.
t Commissioner Tolstoy supported Mr. Vairin's response. Further, he
? indicated that the Boar's Head was proposed as a dinner house without
` anv alcholic beverages being served with entertainment being secondary
when it first came before the Commission.
Mr. Stella stated that the hours of operation fcr his proposal would be
8 p.m. to 2 a.m., when the mall shops would be closed.
e
Chairman King stated that the Commission is trying to establish if this
t� type of use is allowable in a C-2 zone and whether a Conditional Use
F` Permit would have to be issued in conjunction with allowance of this use
in a C-2 zone.
Mr. Stella stated that he did not understand where this leaves him.
` Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed that this site needs to be
looked at and that it would need a conditional use permit. He also
agreed that such a use would nave to be in a C-2 zone.
Commissioner Rempel stated that to some degree, the Industrial Specific
Plan covers this and he felt that this concept of locating in a C-2 zone
is applicable.
Chairman King asked if everyone is in agreement with this type of use
being located within a C-2 zone with the proper conditional use permit.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would go along with that but that he
probably has an unpoprelar view at this point. Further, that he has
nothing against cocktail lounges but he would like to see them built on
a single piece of land where there are no conflicts with surrounding
properties and cited the Club 66, as an example. He felt that there
should be some direct ingress and egress and cited the problems that
have arisen with the Boar's Head and the Bob's Big Boy parking lot,
stating that there should be no conflicts with other businesses.
Commissioner Tolstoy also stated that attention should be paid to the
surrounding residential area.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 12, 1982
:t'
Mr, vairin stated that the conditional use procedure would address these
concerns.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that since the Development Code is presently
being reviewed, this would be a good opportunity to establish study and
Icriteria for such a use.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, asked if the Commission is looking for specific
criteria to be placed in the code.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the applicant should be given some
guidelines when this would come before the Commission for their review.
Mr. Gomez stated that certain criteria of the Conditional Use Permit
process would have to be met as well as certain findings being made.
Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, that
staff prepare guidelines, and either place them in the new Development
Code, or prepare the guidelines sooner to meet with the requests of any
applicants.
Mr. Lam, Director of Community Development, explained the Commission's
actica to Mr. Stella and indicated that should he desire to proceed with
this, staff would work with him in the establishment of criteria for
this use.
H. FISCAL YEAR 1982-83 PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM/SCHEDULE
Mr. Gomez reviewed the staff report stressing that this is a preliminary
work program whiezh would be reevaluated in light of the Commission's
comments and the budgetary constraints of the City.
Commissicner Sceranka asked if the Tree Preseivation Ordinance would be
separate from the Development Code or be included in it.
Mr. Gomez stated that this would be a comprehensive ordinance and the
tree preservation aspects would be included in it.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that on page 9 he felt that the designation
of Urban Design Element update was insensitive and should be redesignated
to Community Design.
c'
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he knew that this is a small project, but
asked where street signs were going to fit.
Mr. Gomez replied that this is being worked on now.
Commissioner Tolstov stated that he is not going to be here long and
stated a need to have this completed.
r
Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 12, 1982
Commissioner Rempel stated that the Street Naming Ordinance is another
project that needs completion.
Commissioner Rempel suggested that these committees meet every Monday
evening until both of these projects are finished.
Chairman King asked if there was any further input the Commission could
give to the Work Program.
Commissioner Sceranka brought up the street naming in the industrial
area for eastern cities and felt the Coamittee should do the naming.
Commissioner Tolstov felt that some of the older families' names should
also be considered and felt that the Historical Commission should provide
some input.
Commissioner Sceranka agreed.
Mr. Gomez asked if there was any priority that would be given by the
Commission relative to the projects listed.
Chairman King felt that Foothill Boulevard in the Redevelopment area
should have some criteria established and a concept that is not done on
a piecemeal basis.
Mr_ Gomez stated that the development of a zoning map and the Foothill
Corridor study is essential and is a major undertaking of the Development
Code. He indicated that a new design studv might take place under the
Redevelopment Agency.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he has no problem with tI:e priorities
as listed.
The Commission asked why the regional shopping center was listed twice.
Commissioner Tempel stated that one listing was the 1980 project and the
second, the 1981 study.
Mr. Lam indicated that these listings were major projects that the
Commission wanted some work on and that the latest word is that this
coming year they will be bringing in some site plans.
I. DEVELOPMENT CODE
It. Gomez asked that the Commission review the work program, schedule of
events and asked if there was anything that trey wished to add. He
indicated that as this goes along, more detail would be added to the
format.
i,
Planning Commission :*.inutes -10- Hay 12, 1982
r;
r, ,
Mr. Lam stated that when looking at the priorities, the Commission should
keep in mind that there could be shifts depending on ?row the budget goes.
Further, that the Division would be down three staff members by attrition
by the time the City goes into the budgetary process. He indicated that
Mr. Gomez was examining how best to utilize the remaining staff.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is a problem in the industrial
area off of 9th Street in the Chaffey Vocational Training Center. He
indicated that the parking procedure has been revised witn the lot closed
off as Chaffey is charging for parking fees. This, he stated, has caused
a lot of parking in the street. Commissioner Sceranka suggested that
the conditional use permit be looked at to see what can be done about
the parking problem.
Mr. Vairin replied that two years ago the college was asked to correct
the narking situation and since there had not been any adverse comments,
it was assumed that the parking problem had been resolved.
Mr. Vairin stated that recently, ca=ents have been received and asked
that the college be contacted using the authority of the Commission to
ask that this be correcf'ed in terms of the conditional use permit. The
Commission concurred.
Chairman King asked what is happening in the Vanguard Center with the
New Walk Ministry.
Mr. Vairin replied that this will come before the Commission at their
next meeting.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that during the election there was a lot
of discussion about the notification process in conjunction with new
projects and asked if advance warning could be given to avoid some of
the controversies that have arisen in the past.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that many of the people who appeared before
the Council and Commission had hidden agendas and it was unlikely that
advance notice would do much to uncover the real motives_ He indicated
that there was no wav of knca-ing that density was the real problem.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that it was possible that if the Commission
had let them know of the project and the residents had given input, the
situation might have been resolved rather than handling it after the
fact.
Mr. Vairin advised of the current procedure and stated that notices
could be placed on subject property. He indicated that there is no
guarantee that an individual will read the notice, but it would get
exposure.
Commissioner Rempel stated that not all residents received notice, only
those who live within 300 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes -li- May 12, 1982
1
Mr. Vairin stated that the posting will help.
Commissioner Rempel suggested that a zoning map would take care of this.
There was discussion on notification procedures, including the certified
mail process and requirements of notification under the Subdivision Map
Act.
Yr. Lam stated that the City's policy of sending certified notices was
being amended and hereafter notices would be sent by first class postage.
The Commission discussed double notification and there was consensus that
this should be done with the developer assuming the cost of the second
mailing.
Mr. Lam indicated that this would necessitate an amendment of the fee
resolution.
Commissioner Sceranka asked if the Citizens Advisory Commission receives
the Monthly Status Report, and if they did not, if they would be put on
distribution to aid in advance notification of projects.
Mr. Lam indicated that staff would draft a notification procedure for the
first meeting in June for the Commission's review.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconder by Rempel, carried unanimously, to
adjourn.
9:07 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Secretary
.ti
Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 12, 1982
r
CITY OF-RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
z r
DATE: May 26, 1982 oI iC
> z
z
70: Members of the Planning Commission v a
t ,
I FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
` 3Y: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: REVISION TO TRACT MAP 11734 - DLV - located at the northwest
corner of Vineyard and Arrow. A change from 4-lot condominium
subdivision to 5-lot subdivision.
This tentative tract was approved by the Commission as a total development of
96 units on October 14, 1981 . The original proposal was for an air space
condominium project on four lots. Since that time, the developer has found
that proceeding with the project would be aided by changing the map to a 5-lot
subdivision to conform to the phasing sequence. This change affects the map
only and results in no ciznge whatever to the project itself.
The City's subdivison ordinance requires Planning Commission approval of all
increases in lot number, however, so this is being presented to you for your
review and approval tonight. The developer has paid administrative fees for
® processing the change and has also pail the difference between the fees
charged due to increase in number of lo-k.s.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the revision to the tentative map be approved and if
the Commission agrees, a resolution has Seen prepared providing for the change
and retaining the original conditions of approval and environmental ciearance.
Re�ctfully submitte ,
IBH:SB c
Attachments
ITEM A
a i W i
dnnuw � w/wnv
i
l i` ee
4 TLNT/f T/Vf NQ_O
/L`Al'TM//lSd
1
CITY OF RANCHO CLJCxV%1ONGA
ENGINEERING D SION
- — ` VICINITY IMAP
iv-7a� page
FUnttStandards
11 •.� ti :1 1, �/'! ../ •1 P/7ivAT:— _ _ _,/-.-� -=r, _` Y'�i11 ~_�. I
IL
Ix
1 [,Y 1�a\� •�• IIi1'"��`I ;�-�-'�-ws;�:< ' _ )j�YII� � i;�� I '-� �
_ 1 _ " "�. JAI � � �_. � •
' �, �� +1, �� �\ �\ — �-1 a\�^�:�i �,FI 'i.l �il' -'— le� ='� II-I!'�� � :�i.•_�� j ���
1 1 • \ a�. J
-♦no.Mra1.�e• a
AMENDED
.. --- - �r - •c..»..-. /JT..0 i I JE_T44C7:_N1175d -
— ___ �.!/O f.sK a0 _ n...-• .bwes+�-.y r ..!C i J i i' rC_O J�j,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIO\GA title;
,.t ENCINEERIN^ CIVISION
AMENDED N
pnoe
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11734
WHEREAS, Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 11734, hereinafter
"Map" submitteS oy DLV, applicant, for the purpose of amending the
approved Tentative Map situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County
of San Bernardino, State of California, described as Planned Development
of 96-unit condominiums on 8.5 acres of land, zoned for R-3, located at
the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Vineyard Avenue to contain 5
lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for action on
May 26, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Mao
subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering Division reports;
and
WHFREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considerRd the
Engineering Division Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings
in regard to Revised Tentative Tract No. 11734 and the Map thereof:
(a) The Map is consistent with all applicable interim
and proposed general and specific plans;
(b) The design or improvements of the Map is con_istent
with all applicable interim and proposed general
and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of
c
development proposed;
f
(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 flap is not likely to cause serious public health
problems;
(f) The design of the Map will not conflict with any ease-
ment acquired by the public at large, now of record,
r for access through or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision.
ry
Resolution No.
Page 2
(g) The environmental impact findings in Resolution No. 81-122
apply to this map. .
SECTION 2: The Conditions of Approval contained in Resolution
Na. 81-122 shall apply to this map.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1982.
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.Comnission o ' the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the P1. .nning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 26th day of May, 1982, by th; following vote-to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
R °
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA c00%
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 26, 1982 Fli iz
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Habbs, City Engineer
BY: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: REVISIGN OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12040 - PFEILER - located at the I
northeast corner of Arrow and Turner. A change from 7-lot
condominium subdivision to 13-lot conduminitmm subdivision
This tentative tract was approved by the Commission as a totai development of
328 units on November 25, 1981 . The original proposal was for an air space
condominium project on 7 lots. Since that time, the developer has found, as
j indicated in his letter, that proceeding with the project would be aided due to
the present marketing climate and V.A. and F.H.A. financing requirements, by
changing the :nap to a 13-lot tract map. This change affects the map only and
results in no change whatever to the project itself.
The City's subdivision ordinance requires Planning Commission approval of all
increases in lot number, how?ver, so this is being presented to you for your
review and approval tonight. The developer has paid adminsitrative fees for
processing the change and has also paid the difference between the fees charged
due to increase in lot numbers.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the revision to the tentative map be approved and if
the Commission agrees, a resolution has been prepared providing for the
charge and retaining the original conditions of approval and environmental
clearance.
Respectfully submitte
LnH•S� be
Attach-ments
ITEM B
HEILER & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS
C I V I L ENGINEERING • SURVEYING
FULLE TON ONTARIO
1559 Wei Commonwealth• Fuller on,Cawornia 92t1J3 1744B P.outh Euclid Avenue•Ontario.California 91761
Telephone pub e765B50 Telephone(7141 983.1101
March 23, 1992
l
{f
r Mr. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Arlene Troups-
Subject: Tentative Tract No. 12040
Dear Arlene Trouos:
This letter is in response to your request this mornirn. I talked to you
® and Shintu Bose about revising Tract 12040 to contain 13 lots. Enclosed
�l are two prints of our proposed revised tract map and two prints of a
revised phasing map.
The current extremely hostile marketing climate together with our use of
V.A. and F.H.A. financing make it necessary to have more phases than we
originally anticipated. The lot lines on tha tract map must coincide with
phase lines. " To accomodate this need, we split each of the six original
phases into two. These with the model phase make 13 phases. We wish to
record a final map of Tract No. 12040 with 13 lots as shown to „hatch these
phases.
We are proposing no changes in the project itself whatsoever_ You will note
we are providing easements and private street construction so that traffic
patterns during the construction will not be changed. The construction of
storm drains, public streets, and any other public facilities will not be
changed_ Bonding, traffic control , agreements, etc. will not oe affected.
The only change we propose will be an addition of six lot lines on the final
map.
Due to the fact that this change will not affect the condominium, we request
that we be permitted to record a final map of Tract No. 12040 with the 13
lcts shown, as being in substantial compliance with our presently approved
tentative map. We will pay any fees, both for the tentative map and final
map, as appropriate to a 13 lot map.
Mr. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tract No. 12040
March 23, 1982
Page 2
If you determine that something else is more appropriate, please call me
at (714) 983-1101 and 1 will provide any assistance that you require.
Thank you for your help in this matter.
Very truly yours,
PFEILER & ASS15I S ENGINEERS�C.
BY--
Pfillip Lan , P.E.
CPL:sae
Enc.
cc: The Anden Group
Attn: Mr. Joe Oleson - I print each enc.
Mr. Dave Magdych no enc.
Mr. Bill Fink - no enc.
{
I
t— I C IA
L.—I Y •L� 1.
-(� -11
fT '
m 11 r5 `' ' ZI
�; 11
1I I I 1y1 1 11 1j '•
a 'IC�:j�i.Ji d p.l� i.iili�i;!Illilibil III 1 I' .. I tTT'P z
I'll d L�lia,'�Iri1,�
i
ra I!,r�ll ill'1 �11uui ��� � 1 .MT'I[ . I I I
I II'��,I III II I L•�I II
1 -
o��`-�"•' Fro-,
e-
' CITY" OF RANCHO CUC�x-\IO\CA '
ENGINEERING DIVISION T
I . � CG` .z
i��r' VICINITY' ItLAP 1 �1
ge
1
� PK2�C41=Snip/ � _
1�
el S
4Miz
1f
o dUO�:•rt:- d�.ttj�1 -n.
iL
l L lZ
It
'It 71Q
. I Y3r^ 1\ 1� .; /. pae-tr_.•.. �.� 1ittr'CJ- y,_i
Pe
w0)i Afl✓Aip I 1 �S C�
y
Y wV�
�J>r
V VO�
leye♦•
� S �iiri
.t ai=sue ia• E� -� .>.�i . _ j'��
• f s.:—7i� s
i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12040
WHEREAS, Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 12040, hereinafter
"Map" submitted by Pfeiler & Associated Engineers, applicant, for the
purpose of amending the approved Tentative Map situated in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described
as Planned Development of 328 condominiums on 23.6 acres of land, zoned
for R-3, located at the northeast corner of Arrow Route arcd Turner
Avenue to contain 13 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission
for action on May 26, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Map
subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering Division reports ;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Engineering Division Report.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commissien of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
® SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings
in regard to Revised Tentative Tract No. 12040 and the Map thereof:
(a) The Map is consistent with all applicable interim
and proposed general and specific plans;
(b) The design or improvements of the tip is consistent
with all applicable interim and proposed general
and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of
development proposed;
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial enviror.ental damage and avoidable injury
to humans and wildlife or their habitat;
(e) The Map is not likely to cause serious public health
problems;
(f) The design of the Map will not conflict with any ease-
ment acquired by the public at large, now of record,
for access through or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision.
Resolution !1o.
Page 2
(9) The environmental impact finejines in Resolution No.
81-139 apply to this map.
SECTION 2: rye Conditions of Approval contained in Resoiution
No. 81-139 shall apply to this map.
APPROVEC AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1982.
PLANNING CON1MJSSION 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 26th day of May, 1982, by the following vote-to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COvMISSIONERS:
w
/ CITY
��O�F1�RANCHO
� C�7UjC�AMO�NGA �GvcaMp�C
11dL'td'd®R1�►i�ILiJM
OI �J
DATE: May 25, 3982 v� y
r;
TO: Members of the Planning Commission 07
K FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: TERRA VISTA STATUS REPORT
At the previous public hearing on Terra Vista on May 3, 1982, the Com-
mission began its discussion on the parks and greenway system and the
flood control system. Several aspects of the park and flood control
issues were not resolved and were intended to be wrapped up either
at this meeting or the:,first Terra Vista meeting in June, which will
be Junela 1982. Please refer to the attached report from Mr. Sill
Holley, Community Services Director.
We are nearing the end of the review process for the Terra Vista Planned
Community document and the draft Environmental Impact Report. We would
like to take this opportunity to provide the Commission with a projected
® schedule for the remainder of the review process. The first meeting in
June is intended to complete review of the parks, greenway and flood
control systems any to review the landscaping guidelines and energy
resource conservation guidelines of the PC text. At the first meeting
in July we intend to complete the review of the draft PC text and Envi-
ronmental Impact Report by reviewing the Community Development Standards
and Implementation, sections. Following that wrap up, we expect to re-
ceive a final revised draft planned community document from the applicant
and will present this to the Commission for their final review and aF-
proval for recommendation to the City Council . The time and receipt of
the final document from the applicant will determine the meeting at
which the Commission will be doing its final review. Staff will reed
adequate time to review the document to make any further recommenda-
tions or changes prio- to going on to the City Council . Most likely,
it will not be ready until a meeting in August at which time we expect
to present the Planning Commission with any final recommendations for
changes to the text and the EIR and consideration of a resolution rec-
ommending approval to the City Council . We then expect to move on to
the City Council at the end of August or beginning of September.
In the meantime, staff is preparing a detailed letter to the applicant
outlining al'. the previous discussions and issues which the Commission
has conducted.
ITEM C
May 26, 1982
Terra Vista Status Report _2_
We hope this will provide a guideline firm enough for the applicant
to prepare the final draft document in conformance with the desires
of the Planning Commission. If any of the Commissioners have any
particular issues or concerns relative to the planned community which
have not been raised, please contact us so that we may schedule an
appropriate discussion time for those issues.
R�pe ful subs:fitted,
Rick G mez
City P anner
i
R'MV:j k
}
CITY OA�F }}RANCHO CCUyyC�A�TM7�O�NGA. C,3C MO,y
OI � IO
s
Date: May 21 , 1982
1977
To: Planning Commission
From: Bill Holley, Director, Community Services Department
Subject: Terra Vista
The Lewis Company is continuing to compile information on the park system
for Questions arising from the meeting of May 3, 1982, primarily in regard
to the environmental concerns surrounding the detention basins. Therefore,
as information is as yet incomplete, we would request a continuance to .
future date determined appropriate by the Planning Commission.
1 As an aside, several meetings have been held between staff and the Lewis
l group for discussion of the private open space credit concept and imple-
mentation procedures, with F.,sitive results. Those meetings will continue
until as many of the issues wh'ch can be resolved, are resolved.
WLH:nm
i
Yy 1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �Gvc�r�yc'
MEMORANDUM �
off. c
DATE: May 26, 1982
vll�m�>
TO: Members of the Planning Commission 1977 I
i 1 FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ;AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10246 -
TL ASEH/ASSAD A custom jot residential subdivision of
ten acres of land into 16 lots located in the R-1-20,000
(Single Family Residential/20,000 sq. ft. lot Minimum)
zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Haven
Avenue - APN 201-111-14.
The Planning Commission, at its May 12, 1982 meeting, continued the
public hearing on this item to allow further study on the hydrology
of the site. Planning and Engineering staff have met with the appli-
cant and the project engineer to discuss the various alternatives.
We are presently reviewing these options to discuss tha pros and cons
of each design. Because of the lack of time between meetings, we were
® unable zo complete a comprehensive analysis of those alternatives for
the Commission's consideration at tonight's meeting. Therefore, the
applicant has voluntarily consented to the continuation of the public
hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1982.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue
the pu is hearii-gg on this matter to June 9, 1982.
R spectfully submitted,
Rick G ez
City Planner
RG:MV:jk
iI
9
I
ITEM 0
CM OF-RANCHO CMUIONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: ' May 26, 1982 0 0
A
Z_
TO: Members of the Planning Commission >
W1
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-07 - CHURCH OF THE FOOTHILLS
Theocation of a church in an existing building in the
Rancho Cucamonga Business Park located at 10722 Arrow
Route in the Industrial Park category - APN 208-622-24.
PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is requesting review and
approval for an interim church facility for a period of three (3) years
to be located in the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park located 3t 10722
Arrow Route, Suite 104. The church will occupy a 3456 square foot unit,
with a congregation of approximately 150 people. The church is proposing
to hold services on Sunday mornings and evenings, with church offices open
on week days between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The site is desig-
nated in the Industrial Specific Plan as Industrial Park. Church related
uses are allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the
® Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS: This request is similar to church applications previously ap-
proved by the Planning Commission within Industrial Parks. In the past
the Commission has approved similar applications as a temporary use to
allow the church time to find a permanent location. Church services
will be held on evenings and weekends, therefore would not conflict with
other industrial park activities. Ample parking is available for this
use.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan
and the Industrial Specific Plan. The proposed church use, together with
the recommended Conditions of Approval , would not be detrimental to the
public safety or environment.
CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was advertised in the Daily
Report newspaper and eleven public hearing notices were mailed to pro-
perty owners within 300 feet of the subject property. To date, no cor-
respondence has been received either for or against this project.
ITEM E
May 26, 1982
Conditional Use Permit 82-07 - Church of the Foothills
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review
and consider all input and material relative to this project. A Reso-
lution of Approval with Conditions is provided for your consideration.
R spectfully submitted,
a
Rick omez
City P,anner
RGiDC:jk
Attachments: Letter from Reverend Jerry Kuhns, Church of the Foothills
Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
r
chuRch of
f ThE fooThilts .
may 7, 1982
7942 Spine! Ave.
[ RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA.91730
1.
Dear Sirs;
Church of the Foothills o_ RarcY.o Cucamonga, Inc., has i.nte^_t:ons of
leasing Suite 104, :rancho Cucamonga Business Park, 10277 grow Route,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA, for a period of three years, to serve as a temporary
church facility. We have been an incorporated church in this community for
over five years, with our congregation composed primarily of residents of
Rancho Cucamonga.
® ae currently have a membership of approximately 150 people. Cur inten-
tions For the use of this building will be to serve the needs of the con-
gregation as a location for:
1. Church services
2. Church offices to be used for administration
and congregational counselina.
CY:urch services for the entire congregation will be held on Sunday
ornings and one evening during the week at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Church offices will operate weekdays between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to
6:00 p.:n. Anticipated daytime occupaicy w411 include one or two pastors,
plus those who have appointments during office hours.
Cur suite has :-even parking spaces allotted for our use during normal
business hours. Parkin; is sufficient for congregational meetings on
weekends and e;+eninas.
Thenk you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rev. Serxy L. Kuhns, pastor
�t
..r... 17-21
y
'7 •r.l..a.��a�rf 1 � ?�i s � :�i—.=1st u i:� �z
1 f?V t .�.. r1A+•'A 1.-�+.....� c �$�7 >� ] .3'1 FF•.� f• ^,�'i
1 � -1t � 1 ♦ �t.�> ��'-•L;. _'r'+..�" i ��.'�y^.' ''l�bl'� T •tu'O
!yii IS.
i`I•y� L- `` �.j' ai!- ai« r kr C. t raYct.' a L.�.�• .: _ l_jy.
��� � � 1 �51;Gr •�� r� .sue r� ww.�-t� �b ,y� V.
• 2
+! 11 �'.h M �_.•i'^t err-.��• :�J .tF„I Via.,_ i I
r III b I ,;• e ' ' >_'•�
NORTH
CITY OF rrE,;t, ;,Z�
RA_NCHQ CUCANIO. 'GA TITLE:
PULNNING DIVnaN EXHIF31 r: F-
r
a CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
_ r _
I I I i i63:0 a;Sr. 7`00 8.400 7,yn 7.2GD S.i00 � J, 6$'l r ft
^k, fit. agjt - •qft. qh. q.n. qSt ®g1Yil'1 I
t SWI.Om !i ! 1 , i ! ! , I I
I C ,I. Dili. Sift Fi.e B!i >11d�.k� J�D
Id
WLn
4_. .4.
.r Q
\_.\> ® �F$
LA
R.8!974 it.
SwlT "
ggwm v
[ _Iiiosooq.n.lji aj£! 1oamgitj�i! sAoo
ARROW HIGHWAY
NORTH
CITY OF rrE�i- C-op 4ZZV
RA'NCM CUCAMO GA TrrLE:_ ��? Pi, N
R-"LNNL LNG EXIVISK?N E\H!BIT-
4. Public assembly or other large group meetings may
not occur antil such time as all Uniform Building
Code and Title 19 of the State Fire Marshall 's
Regulations have been complied with.
5. Preschools or schools are not permitted by this
permit; however, this shall not preclude nurseries
or Sunday School .
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 261I: DAY OF MAY, 1982.
PLANMING COWIISSION OF —1HE 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 meting of the Planning
th Commission held on the 26 day of May, 1982, by the following vote-to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COWISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COt4MISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
82-07 FOR A CHURCH AND RELATED OFFICES LOCATED
AT 10722 ARROW ROUTE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK
ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 7th day of May, 1982, a complete application
was filed by Church of the Foothills for review of the above-described
project; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of May, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
resolved as follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the Generil
Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use
is proposed; and
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity; and
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82-07 is
approved subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. This use shall be permitted at this location for
three (3) years from the date of approval .
2. The offices may be used for group meetings only,
on weekends and after 6:00 p.m. on week nights.
3. No group meetings will be permitted which would
exceed the available parking or cause adverse
effects upon abutting businesses. Should any
problems arise, this CUP will be brought back
to the Commission for reconsideration.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA 1ONGA. �L 6mo�^
STAFF REPORT
o I 1
F
f F Z
Ui� >
l
DATE: May 26, i982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City planner
BY: Dan Colewan, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-08 - NEW WALK MINISTRY - The
proposed interim use of industrial buildings in Subarea 4
for a church and related office facility iocated in the
General Industrial category at 9050 Archibald and 9606 7th
Street - APN 209-171-46, 47.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting review and
approval of an interim church facility for a period of three (3) years.
The church is located in the Rancho Industrial Park in two separate units
located at the northwest corner of 7th Street and Archibald Avenue. The
New Walk Ministry has had its offices and have been holding services at
this location for more than a year without City approval . The sanctuary
is proposed to have a seating capacity of 454. The site is designated
in the Industrial Specific Plan as General Industrial . Church related
uses are allowed subject to approval of a Conditional Use Per-nit by the
Planning Commission. The church presently occupies a 9024 square foot
unit on Archibald Avenue. The church intends to expand to include a 3264
square foot unit on 7th Street for classrooms and offices.
ANALYSIS: The main issue relative to church uses is parking availability
and compatibility with surrounding tenants. In the past, the Commission
has approved similar applications as a temporary use to allow the church
time to find a permanent location. The attached Exhibit "D" lists the
hours of operation for services and office functions. Exhibit "E" is a
list of existing tenants and their hours of operation. Adequate parking
is available for the church use. Since the group meetings and activities
will take place during times other than normal business hours, ample
parking is available for regular services and large group meetings.
Pecause the church was established without City approval , the building
does not meet building code or fire code requirements for public assembly.
The Foothill Fire District and the Building and Safety Division of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga have been seeking correction of violations since
August 1981 - Therefore, because the building is not considered safe for
ITEM F
is
CUD 82-081'New Walk Ministry
May 26, 1982
Page 2
public assembly, it is recommended that public assembly not be permitted
until such time as bJlding code and fire code requirements have been
complied with.
FACTS FOP FINDING: The proposed use is consistent with the General
Plan and the policies of the Industrial Specific Plan. The proposed
use, together with the recommended Conditions of Approval , will not
be detrimental to the public safety or environment upon compliance with
Building and Safety and Fire District conditions.
CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was advertised in The Daily Report
newspaper and 34 public hearing notices were mailed to surrounding property
owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has
been received either for or against this project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the
above-described request and consider all input and material relative to
this project. A Resolution of Approval with Conditions is provided for
your review and consideration.
Rtseectfully submitted,
1
RICK c F1EZ
City Xni,e-
RG:DC:jr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location flap
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "D" - Potential 'Uses and Hours of Operation
Exhibit "E" - List of Existing Tenants & yours of Operation
Resolution of Approval
Conditions of Approval
==uunnR�
IH{glllll�ll>lli u�llpiNlhilGFill
ui Fil
iHlllllnl(�NIVI IIIG110111NII;!!!IWM:
IHHIIIBIItbIBINNIHN�NHIi�IiIIIN!Itl�
111
NR
• ,n�, � an�mnu
nunm N alIU11111EU1'H
lm j s l l aHUt
NORTH
CITY OF
r.
PLANNING . • Y .
i J a(��
3
Sze-�J} I
_ a'+.ar� w.''I sue. rt'� =,� G y •t l� '�.�.. '/
Sw
let
rag ll�
_ A. �� tom.• ..3
w.
-'r'K
I�'ORTl-i
CITY OF
RANCHO CLTCAlVIO\'GA mu
PL Al`•NitiG DIVM-N EXHIBIT- _scA
rc. :..
I K-0" ' II'.o { '�°x�.D° �.8t+�' 14'-�• t 7tll t?=+�
.�—►-f-._-.mot+ yf.— -- -
I 1 '
Tl-
r Awe ' ice. et R.Ti.fff N� ��+ 1 { •:{� �•�
~ --y
• r..c--T� _ -� .St.ctv�aY ; � ` �t+i:�' fo: .yo•
,'�.•`.'2" jai` -i
Y.e.: 5'►�'3' _,�! �;r. o ?� c ta.r c t a.o
IC. d
•t! S srcr: ��
w = L
o; PiMCiOtsa 1 !:
So.
o I Y H
'b�V' •-+T'- -earl "2-0- � 2z-c- I
1
V �I
INORTH
c I T Y of ITEM CLP Illros
tC�o CUCA��70`:�A TITLE-��
PLANPvL G DIX% 1M EXHIBIT- _SCAL.E=_'""�'�
C Exhibit j> C
Information regarding the request for a C.U.P.
for The New Walk Ministry Inc.
temorar site is
The application is for church facilities And offices.
The regular services are:
Sunday 9:30 a.m.-Bible studies , attendance of approximately
65 anticipated to grow to 225
Sunday 10:30 a.m. to 1 or 2 p.m. , attendance of approx. 190 ,
anticipated to grow to 450 within 2h years.
Sunday 6 :30p.m. -10 p.m. , attendance of approximately 140,
anticipated tc grow to 375 within 2h years.
Wednesday 7p.m.-lop.m. , attendance of approximately 100 ,
anticipated to grow to 300 within 2h years.
Occasionally we have seminars during the week in the evenings.
These are held 7p.m.-IOp.m. with an average attendance of 125,
anticipated to grow to 300 within 2' years.
We have nursery services during the various services, but
do not offer such availability during the day time hours during
the week.
We do not have a school or anticipate having a school for
children at this time, except for Sunday school during the
Sunday services.
The office hours are -
Monday - Friday 9a.m. to 4:30 p.m. We have an office staff
of 6 and anticipate it to grow to 12 within 23� years.
Existing Tenants and hours of operation :
Separate list Exhibit E
Parking See Exhibit C
Alterations:
9606 7th St Exhibit C Install crash bars on exterior doors,
Enlarge bathroom area, install partitions for classrooms 1-4
and for the office
9050 Archibald Exhibit C-install crash bars on exterior doors,
install additional bathroom areas , remove -wall 20 ' south of north
wall to increase sanctuary area.
Term
July 1 , 1982 to January 1 , 1985
.ry 1.
Exhibit G
dT OF EXISTING TENANTS
ARCHIBALD AVE.
�0 50
9038 ASGARD-SECURITY
M-F 8 :30-5p.m.
9032 WELDING INDUSTRIAL & TOOL SUPPLIES
M-F 8 -6p.m.
Sat 9 -4p.m.
9030 RANCHO PRINTING
M-F 9 -5p.m.
9028 THE TV SHOP
M-r- 9 -5 : 30p.m.
Sat 9 -NOON
9026 VACANT
9024 SHARE FOUNDATION
M-F 4 -10P.m.
9020 CIC INTERIORS
M-F 9:30-5 : 30p.m.
9016 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL. CLICNIC
M-F 7 -6p.m.
7 STREET
9552 ROYAL, CREATIONS
M-F 7 -4p.m.
9592 VACANT
9606 VACANT-proposed to use
9618 PETER POPOFF
M-F 8 -5p.m.
9620 PACIFIC COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE
M-F 8 -5p.m.
9038 VANGUARD
M-F 8 -5p.m.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
82-08 FOR A CHURCH AND RELATED OFFICES LOCATED
A 9050 ARCHIBALD AND 9606 7TH STREET IN THE
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 6th day of May, 1982, a complete application
was filed by New Walk Ministry for review of the above-described project;
and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of May, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
resolved as follows:
SECTION 1: That the following 7indings can be met:
I. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use
is proposed; and
2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable th,�reto, will not be detrimental to the
public health: safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity; and
3. That the proposed use will comply wit', each of the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82-08 is
approved subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
I. This use shall be permitted at this location for
three (3) years from the d::te of approval.
2. 'ihe offices may be used for group meetings only
on weekends and after 6:00 p.m. on week nights.
3. No group meetings will be permitted which would
exceed the available parking or cause adverse
effects upon abutting businesses. Should anv
problems arise, this CUP will be brought back
to the Commission for reconsideration.
Kesoiatlon m .
Page 2
I4. Public assembly or other large group meetings may
not occur until such time as all Uniform Building
Code and Title 19 of the State Fire Marshall 's
Regulations have been compl4ed with. Plans shall
be submitted to the Building & Safety Division to
show compliance.
5. Preschocis or schools are not permitted by this
permit; however, this shall not preclude nurseries
or Sunday School .
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1982.
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 26th day of May, 1982, by the following vote-to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Ff .
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ��,QC—AMo'b
MEMORANDUM
a r
O O
DATE: May 21 , 1982 F Iz
oil la
TO: Members of the Planning Commission 0"
FROM: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Addendum to the Standa-d Conditions of Approval for
Tentative Tract No. 12171
The following cc-dition is recommended to be added to Standard Conditions
of Approval for the subject tentative tract.
Item M-8 i
- All storm runoff from Lot 6 shall be intercepted and drained to the
easement at west project boundary by means of Catch Basins and pipe,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Respectfully submitted,
SB:bc
cc: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
Developer/Applicant
Project Engineer
a
1
i
1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMWITGA
STAFF REPORT
® C 19
z r
F L3 Z
U >
J
19777
DATE: May 26, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROT4: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12171
STEPHENSON - A custom lot subdivision of 6 lots on
3.3 acres of land in the R-1-20,000 zone located on
the northwest corner of Kiusman Avenue and Whirlaway
Street - APN 1061-511-06 & 07.
BACKGROUND: In early 1980, the Planning Commission and City Counc`l
s approved a zone change from R-1-1 to R-1-20,000 for this site. In
June 1980, Parcel Map 51266 was approved on the subject property and
will expire on June 11 , 1982. As shown on Exhibit "D" , the street
design and lot configuration for the Parcel Map is similar to the
Tract Map submitted with the exception of Lot 4.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This application is for a residential
custom lot subdivision in the R-1-20,000 zone located ncrth of Hill-
side Road between Amethyst and Archibald (Exhibits "A"-"C") . As
shown on Exhibit "E", the project consists of six lots on 3.3 acres.
A ten foot median island is Planned for the center of the 100 foot
wide cul-de-sac proposed.
The project site has a fall of 30 feet from north to south with an
average slope of approximately 10%. At the southeast corner of the
site, a cut of approximately 14 feet was created when Whiriaway Street
and Klusman Avenue were constructed. Vegetation on the site consists
of indigenous shrubs and grasses with no trees.
Single family homes on 20,000 square foot lots surround the property
on the east, south, and west. The property to the north is owned by
the Flood Control District. A 40-foot drainage easement runs along
the west project boundary. The General Plan designation for the site
is Very Low Density (2 or less dwelling units per acre) . i
i -
ITEM G
a
r'.
Tentative Tract 1217i/Stephenson
Planning Commissio. Agenda
stay ?6, 1932
Page 2
ANALYSIS: This project has been reviewed b3 the Design Review and Growth
'lanagement Committees and has passed the Residential Assessment System.
The limited access and slope of the propert., dictated the street design and
lot pattern. To meet the 9D-foot width regiirement in the R-1-20,000 zone,
Lots 2 and 3 require 75-foot building setba, .ks, while Lot 5 requires a 40-
foot setback. The 100-foot wide cul-de-sac will provide wider lots and
better circulation.
Equestrian easements have not been provided for this tract and the property
owner/applicant has stated that the keeping of horses will be prohibited in
the CCYZ's. None of the surround;ng property has existing feeder trails
which tie into this property. The Equestrian Advisory Committee will meet
to review this project prior to the Planninc Coimaission meeting and staff will
present their recommendations to the Commission durinc, the oral review of
the Staff Rerport.
® As shown on the Grading Plan (Exhibit "F"), .ots 1 through 5 will drain
to a 10' wide concrete channel located witti , the drainage easement a'.ong
the west project boundary. Concrete V-ditchts and appropriate easements
are provided for the cross-lot drainage. Lot 6 will drain to the street
-
Exhibit "S" illustrates the proposed direction of runoff for this project,
and Exhibit "H" illustrates t;;e s:.isting drainage pattern for the area.
Drainage to N,iusman Avenue will not increase by a significant amount.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: When reviewing this project, the Committee was
concerned with the number of lots proposed ant their shape. Some adjust-
ment of lots was made and the Committee felt :hat the changes provided a
better design. The Committee believes that i ' six lots are approved,
this proposal represents the best possible deign. The Committee found no
significant reason to furthar change the design or number of lots.
ENVIRO`I. NTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial S*rdy, as completed by the
Applicant, is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part II of
the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse impacts on the
environment as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of a Nega-
tive Declaration is appropriate.
F,
Tentative Tract 12171/Stephenson
Planning Commission Agenda
May 26, 1932
Page 2
FACTS FOR FI4DING: The Subdivision 'lap has been prepared in accordance
with the Subdivision slap Act and City Standards and Ordinances. The
project is also consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
Considering the ;;onstraints placed on the property by prer;cus develop-
ments, this design can be considered the best possible alternative.
CORRESPONDENCE: A Notice of ?ublic Hearing was published in The Daily
Report newspaper and 37 notices were sent to sLrrourding property owner
To
Also, public hearing notic owners.
es were posted at and arot-id the property.
date, no correspondence--has been received either or against this pro-
ject.
RECOWMENDATION: It is reco=ended that the Planninc; Commission conduct
a ouulic hzaring to consider puoiic input and other elements of this pro-
ject. If, after such consideration, the Coimnissior can support the facts
for finding and recotmnending Conditions of Approval , the adoption of the
attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Dec'.eration would be in
order.
R*GMEZ
submitted,
R
City Planner
RG`CJ:jr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity llap
Exhibit "B" - Natural Features Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Utilization
Exhibit "D" - Parcel yap 5126
Exh-'.bit "E" - Tentative Tract sap 12171
Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit `G" - P.unoff Direction Proposed
Exhibit "H" - Existing Drainage Pattern
Part I Initial Study
Resolution+. of Approval with Conditions
.Y Tt:
�S ! M;q c-rTir
NORTH
CITY OF IT'EN1: 1:1 -1-rr mu
RANCHO CL"'CA"NIO\'Grp T=: IF
PLANNING IXNgS aN EXHIB . A ALE=_,4 5,
s
ZOO
L i
Q�
*70
� C I
i
I
� Da✓EtLu�Y�j
I
U/W _Y�Ea T
NORTH
CT.T L OF ITEM: -D(:r f2r7>
RANCHO CLCAi�I0\'G-k Trru-
PLAN1VNG DIVIS'KON EXHIBIT- —SCAL E- uMs.
^-
f0✓V'mil' S b f,E7.7 6X t 9T ON
! I
. i
i
1 I i i 2 i�i� \ •— � L--
S�z
! /I�—_ _ _ 1 { I ��� �_ ,fro 1 i ✓LO l2✓2^/'G«
i
2tZ LtlL��C� 6l'%JN7_�.1i
• i r—i _. __ _ r93u
f
NURTI-I
j I I
CITY of M1-7s1
RAI'CHt3 CUCN!gO..NL aAL TITLE= srrs t 1?.s�Gl•w! MPP
PLA'yTTLNG DIVISION EXHIBIT- G SCALE: H: s_
TENTATIVE ""' ' '_r
PARCEL. "' NO 5126
IN T.-?= CITY OF RANCtiO ktCAMONGA
COUNTY OFSAN 6FRN4:nW0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA i
• ® i
�.El1,;=GL�ttStOl,S O=ZStE S7cI^.:ER'y 3ap
6',��•�-;l•••u o�-�2GGT1o1�nL=��^.•rlosa221Zc7n...f 1+1P
i Iw'�ru:�:aGC�wEST sn►i3-�t,:ncoltto t��cwl,
;u-u�[LU.S7y OF SsU-�►:ARrlt.io�4TQ7EGFC:.�UiL'RIuA
��.]v.ac -:�� l{SOV '�aD•emu D'�.TCD• V90�! /ibD
-.5�.b.?-..Oo7 Uv. Ziap�nxs o.�TE9u�v�pti
Vl �'6v+d,:iV:QC.L-�j •ICCf g1Q'.J.MwI _
\ r 11.l L;• � t I .
J � � tfiT � �• ` �Zzo — av -'
IA
LOT 4
lu
> N
lz 51;S..
4
�. _
a. T LOT 1 .r73. it
1 21,• FS. sl z, r t--�. I t Wu12LAN%=V �—
I`
Wl1,
Z g ?
.cam G= _.2C:to.EZR�Lvc¢ri \ .OI •it 1 �•.
ac.Fs - .mac NORTH
YI
CITY OF ITEM:
RA:\CHO CLCF�� 1G\GA
TITLE- 5112 L11Al- ."'l. Sim
PI.r1l�'�I\G DI<rMEN EYHIMT-D sGtiF: N.r- s.
p<�
> > Y
�1 ?> �� . _ ,.Gw. • �i \ 1 �ems' — — —
q�
o .� s=
70z"= 0 1.. � Zt � c 1� ��WL1RlP.WLY_
XI
JC ti
Q\-yrKe� L
-��/�,rTET NZAiAWE
f V-1v 1 1 QIN
THE
C�II'COUNTY CF SAN��
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LY
A 7.7^.t,`.O.a aCc'.ua^-t1Or..tl+L9FGnov122.�ov.ri3+Y� (V//\\Vl
a uc�'t>,a.Rnu�c�w><s�r sr..>,.�'a�nQotiweo�a1.
n:-r.+�c^.arr�cFsss��a��.�ns�ar�aau
NORTH
CITY OF
R r N;CHO CUCA TMONTGA TITLE_TT tZ47 f EINP
t_
PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT- raS^_aLE td.T.s_
2;
L
�ar• �1.`� �, W� LDGN�DV J
--
r� 1EI
J-, tom•-- � m'm`".w a} y\
'.M/af� i•\ nrar.a —�..T�.�_ .� 1C `C�i�r tw.L iLFe..
.. � Irylw.vf A i Uo Y 1 IS DIY
:fin .....c ,
H
��c h%,�v.. ILV BB SfC710N O-D
iris
e/ON A-A G.
w vrs
/.ECf/GY' Li
wn -LYL
NORTH
CITY OF ITE.NI:
RANG-10 Ci,�AMONGA Tnj_E:
PLAMMING DR ISON EXHIBIT F SCALE:_}t-r�.
—S E
f--�ii l�J•-T 2 4� � c �
a uTr : o :'=—
\l�.av ��a� •1 i I m�aL-a c_—
h.
_ - - - A,o—
i , e
II
vv�,vr✓_Man -
AREA DRAINING TO KLUSHIAN AVE.
AREA DRAINING TO EASEMENT TO WEST
Ncirm
CITY OF .IT-\I: v (-m 1
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TnU: Q,&� xmim=ir*+
PL ArifiINC IJNIS QN EXHYBrr- Ca+ SCALE=_L4-T5-
f.
I - , 1 1wYiry:.f✓irk 71 � I ' I � .
��.7u•
LJ III�I I
,
Red w Flor
I.l_ I I
r I I
,
I I
i
i
I
I I
++ j WILLSOCE. - - - - - -
NORTH
CITY OF ITF1,: ]2 �TTfLi�P l
RANCHO CLCAl%V'IO`'OAL TITLE: Eag„N/—
PL.ANNNING DIi'LSIO\T E.XI iIBIT:V. SCALE--
RESOLUTION NO.
P RE: .LUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITE ' ^"NCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITI''JNALLY
APPR+,Vlr,� -ENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12171
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 1-171, hereinafter "Map"
submitted ":y Thomas Stephenson, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing
the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga . Count; of
San Bernardino, State of California, described as a custom m;'Y subdivision
on 3.3 acres of land in the R-1-20,000 zonE located at the norL: w -
corner of Whirlaway Street and Klusman Avenue - APN 1061-511-06 and 07 into
6 lots, rey•ilarly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing
and action on flay 26, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recce nmendem; approval of the Map
subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning
Divisions reports; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other
evidence presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Co m4 ssion of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings
in regard to Tentative Tract No. 12171 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
aeneral and specific plans;
(c) The :ite is physically suitable for the type of de-
velo-)mrznt 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 envirortment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract ".ap No. 12171, a copy of which is
attached hereto, is hereby approved su:.ject to all of the following
conditions and the attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. The required setbacks a� shown on the Tentative Tract
Mao shall be shown on the recorded Final Tract Map.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1982.
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 Pianring Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 26th day of May, 1962, by the following vote-to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
V�
0
Y' � L •Or p V L. a _
V V L N � O
V b ✓ V J .Y. ^6 M 9 P J p A C � O O p .n N
f L
A C 9 �V C =a ry
,w 6
O p✓ 6 q y p y p^ L O L lOi 9 A
d lV M V a �✓ L 0 u �,�u6 � mid' Lr« cuL LF V
Q ✓ na L y L� � ✓ p r <r A „O ,C q 7✓L N rJ Q O N 6 ,n
C TA _ Y VAS . N >C 6 — OL LAIv w Ju
.•^ qw. O p ANJu d ✓ Q4 q� i � �T AQ6 =dQ LnO..0 ON
No .o. u --� q � ? ��ao w a ✓ _ 'y A ri
✓V S c✓ N W A V r ��L✓ L p � A
c ` a n _✓ � � Yc �i .ei.L
> S
Lf0 fi Pn
pl JO J_ 11 N r vC� n C >O_ Oun ✓ YL VTV ✓yCO G< J _ G
^✓ « ^ O ,,, G�✓ N .�0. � A �M r� C y 6 � d � G L O Cy «
�< dL JL � y N « C✓pN 6 n� ` EEFgqVY � n �^_✓ `eE `�` _ —
cY Y' pOn ryi O yy TNL� V A A= uW� VO OP✓1•O. LA
✓ � 6 P ail l rOi N � n
aA N � G V Y V✓p6 V _n y,W Cd ]� r AG l �4 Tin^ pS
v q _^ VV S £ dGn Y •�� � K NC u"• �W 6/ LL, C ][ G
V L^� cJ NV Z j wOIP O NL WL�Odn � 4n �> NSia',L Nm F
L o N c p
CNLL r V^ d_r fV nS L Ya dLp p✓{.JEOC dL y
c aoTo � i o� « ca a✓Go c a.� TY�� •- € �i n �dL. i:n y�
Z � G L J r C P O.2• N= A O n c A I C Y W ✓ ✓ L S n C C V J� p✓
Oo ,nC VG aVi SA � 1EJ1C GJ CL Lq VOO� �N aG•• Op �`' Lr qGp N
O.' ✓p GV V� > r VON �Ci YG ✓V Cr✓a «� 00✓ LV ddL4 « ^ y
NyGK ^y Mr qV p0 N✓ nn NG�^V J u G O V O Y C O d Dp u V t d V
N J9 V u r y V j A y O v _ g .02
r ✓G L A V V�J y 4 LE t >� C ✓
Lrnr � d 'JO L — — 2 Op « btu LC � naC_. •a A� Ld pa q ^� 14p = YG
^ G iJL OV 'p^ V j Oq P6Y OS� pL Y� ^ V_LQ rL utC = VNE Ed�p ^ aO Jp Mi Lu � � N V a ✓N�� 6p•lr� ] S w
ZL
J a N 6 ^Q A VOi O N "!• y0, iJ j F 2 W\. O L Y A L L 1�Y N 2 r r. E a F` V d � > ^ L
\I m cg a o d
I NI
OC
I 1 � I 1 1 NI 4I •I ryl
1 m
p n L•... L C � [n' C Q O 4� nlpCa
V S L C C y b O L✓ Q 9 O d L A C S l y N n L r V
N L ^
pC wo t� T PA nd u ✓ Ju iAp O r
Ac ors cE Win— i TS 8N u� S ZrN N`� qiY
n g i q i
p ✓ r V -O n V d N S p u a O a r N L O ^ O ^� p u = f
Wp I �y °� L ✓ � c i t ^.a v r w u G ,en w a s G — .+erg .d.T r"
~ O T O O e W d I o N✓ O y O G J t O V 1�! >R O n D L ✓ i 666W V p
V n O< d" �LY �„ VUC N wV N .vO q MA b^�O ✓ OV
as
O q � V r C S ^ Oq - L C c A ✓ G n ✓ !jL r.A O L L C V C
iL
Z � N c S ✓p^ p A M J Y �G � > T O�� gyC� d ✓p N G q� = _�
Q �r 1 n Oi M QV n� Ldrl y l SOY L � C"a= Jam✓ ,✓„ 6(C�
n /v`� y iV iG LV LNn A� SwS On LQ � O� —r �✓ 9 YL n�� C= �
c G oP Aar «� w � u Y�p n m— o ✓L i .
t; —N 9 N r Y N` V� n�^ �p•� L ,Wean �p u �� w ✓u p�
� A � oC .Y.Cd a0� 61 6VA A 6NN Tom✓ r O.a COS„ C 049
Nb V T L N a n O C m Q w u✓� O y =p✓ A 9 as S G✓S
Iv,
` GN C � J Y 4 E pY ` L �"• O� �H y O p l .Ln 2�.., q i i w M L d n A t VGA ✓N A SL i C S
> n.rj Yfi
• 1 S S � CAla 6r✓ �GC ti >M <� CL Ln+u �� r pTYA KOVVV
a O $O T Q_ S n <Yl LONw 6w F.Li `
7 — P
u O •9.
C p � q ry L Oyu G
N b a
a =v F� t o o qi O VLGG
wOi q rpL r� y Mu` NC
V • 'A V N G/-``I C y N OV ? S V O « L N u� LC y 0 � V ^ m V� V
Y I L w, r > T .rj an I r.A rN^
C d O V
� 4 n - N}�-� �mV M� 00 l U Ny IQ ?` r OZ« UN- m�
yu Llp O y O AN �•Orq V L Oz! . 7q
n « q m0'w m` qq y L y 1pV C7 - Ey V pYr LVO
N V = p 7 V` a L O m P O L y « • O >.N d r
^ .o j J O L^ O .' n C q .Oi •Oi A m N V F V O « O V L a d u q
S9C -_ Pq. � •-.n0 M^ GS i y Ld C.`. dri 6O.F� N✓«V�r
• � H
T- N 'O CFG M b r > L L l qy � n � VV 1 d __ rr LagN
v— cp N n P o P qN
c_^ q VE n q L p L L i D 4 I n Y N m C 2 u O V
L ICf q rq r u Cq - C d A Ow_rad PM
C'J P n � i G C m C � = nr N N m q T C i i n^_9 N N 9•L.r
V G N i Lq- � q vN .. �. I a •i « = r 2 I b � uc
L C a q.G.o -�� V� .r..� rp {n c E OG (LSO •-] ••C nco u nC
O„
Eyi •.� �yl 000 w`G � � q V cw � q � t c._VNN .��
o e
`L _ _ p
�?a o e''c Lm� q•' r' —q � .L- � �L+ vLL o v � a � oNo G.Iv �`•`
v— q f� `Mqp •Orr �' OQ L q Pt irm �p O r � E O
a
O = im n PN 41' a" O N .7 �COoZu'r
G C ✓•� - r = G m d N 6 G O Z J C g r=
Gp r •JLq OmG1 nOu�
V—r O� cA GyC > L �C Q Q ¢ E IG- =yq ter.L• Io 1yd m- NL
^ rN q= ,n •Ce N� 6 q �` •' c W r mo L cV G r LO`r "— To
n o=aIwqu`c>Niumvgn
�i L �
•nrC '� VG6A
y G a c a i
ZSa Gnm rq ^� 06 � •On GC LLY Fy0 9Y �^ � �_-u•Tr��
I { NI N �•f � r N
o �I
0
- � A
CIO
p 00 C 4• i V Oj_p n V d � C y O � 4 N- -V�V =d u C b g V
E« aq m=C q o.:ln Nu -� FN O b^nr PVO TLC �
n� a 3 7 q
S- G C y r L N w O G m p r G a N
L .4. N qr qMp E aG'ri= =Q� P a, � A yr cy.. Igm .»ic
« y +'c nL o« c L R i� _ no
n O u m
m �� w �a Nm
-
'C
CV O CL rqV •mrC brV n �' O P�lAa���y �q NC
WE L L S M F
d q O m u N m Q O✓ O N m `O V L V
� L� 9 0 _V m V O•O.. N a C«Q� `.� .w•L. «p' T b V L G O L y� ^i O r i
V � N f..l d�. E.u> L i L rCr V S P> N V 6 �••r
y NV _ N.Vu LO ONY P9 PTV Oe i tcO =r n L N qV0' Qy 4 L N ab-
l
V = gPo _ O
uC r V> V mL
=p O O
. z g=
CG p rp a w« 4�Nn w iq�r 9 Vrq 6N r - rP •J my M6� �r
i^ �Z NL m 7« O� PyV tY
q bC 4 q N Oq •.•v L VN- CFCr =u rO �AQOayayq 6gwLi
a A a i N yV rVq� y ZVO•q+ LT �` S •n - - eC -uOV ccW Vr eC•O. LO
>O O q y y q a '• V d g G V a - O r d b q V 9 T G 4 C �s
r O O Z q q m L q A P g g l = N r A G Q C C E L q V
Pt ' nv. - Ar Nm E • �yqL Vr q «
-� q R, VI- 9 L � -- -L V
L, dO -puN O VN _ V G« y mu Oq
G L P2 L 9 0 9�6 L O 0 p r C r F q
L r V nG•q 9 C L p r O g q O✓9 C l ^ C r^ V G C .Q 1 O l•
EE p » P l
C �� b L L L 9 G d O A� V• 5 .
O C f.
n n«� A V V O a- -a 4 T O
q y 9 w G • >O y O P N N V r 60 y t 1. O r V) J N L g N L 4 G C O
My i� << Ndrr V•VrP .•'NO NCO V•r 1 �aV <=C•+ P pG'^ rV
' CC � C = iTq a•/- N= �.N ^ CdJNICCt� Ny O«
pS T a N m C O t P y O n Q r r a t + b V a adi O L O q V ?PV w• 1
aa l�C O^" b T b q >•a
o c c PPd q w_
L Na� — c«.. o2N •' c - m v cm.N Pc o_ ��� iu ry
- `= ^ r P ~`r n9^' r Er r VL« r_J Ou C� = S C ��� C 4•• C d
p V L L N pn q ` O W r y p.` < Or 4 6 O >� G � T y N �e y� r,Y
P pC� N ri
ai
� uW w *. cam.` o ba •'✓i n.J.c' 2 ✓� rco_r .rc .. Vo
_ q✓ O d ^_O - L _ N r y `n V GV pp % ACC O- t0 LJy- 3 W_ L
r L �✓ q✓ C ✓ C✓ CW 7D Ap u �' L O b L✓
C- CC oV w O U n_✓ u.r M <•'-J 'y Gj O O
L 2� 3 V C� D.pL Poi 4pVq LILYN rO VTO __ �..� C C U qC
V V V V 6 q O Y ✓ .C b N r�r y j -�� V P O O q 3 N A O I I q N I .O.D
' PCF � tra iuY � DLO �Dp Sn� V L w L ✓ ✓ >. �„
V
v G c nw > . .. v : qN `o �`v� �n >.�u Y ✓ ✓ c'-.e c a.L. N y_ 8 Av E
A V V V O l L� L U " q N✓ l"A C O w V u¢ A L C S V• a A y
q ✓ O C u V rJ V `✓ a �- p P ( n I C
f.C ✓O c C h w V 4 2 � N CL q r L V J q
D A✓ Q•L D O P 2 > T 4 V D J O P _ L �V b O V� p P L
e q g �✓ mE
_p✓ q .�
r�o2 = '^" ,_a✓� - �� o o � „ Ace c+ nN cu c o r
c
q -D o>_ i� d. Gq ^ .+✓.. v vYi
r i n c, vt u ym 'noo cq i r. :�.q. -.2.°,
bN� 7C 6A .J�O ✓ q�qr i.+�- INNTq qL� p•� q�r� C OI � c 1.b.FV D ." OLV
n P G V L w q
C =D O qZ
_ M
V V N- D r w V ^O w � G q- V N O�- V y q O q r� d u✓ E 'O ]� V �..�- 9 r q V
D�qP q� Lu CAL D Cy` OL gV_ JV n> C YINy= P WI V� Vw E q�q .A. 9L
no ` uo �✓n .. — ',^: � J� qa E�q ��a vqq p� �� W a a m
V L U T n P P_ b A ~ A M� ^ I I ✓ > ' N L✓
C+ P u N O P q N w V 9 r O 9 V N u.O O ` _1/.= N O L �^C � w O C G N •• ' V✓
` b M V >• ✓ u N n L O I y L
A_ CC � A PV VOv q Q1ffOD .O V 91 = +�i Vb L Q VnR
V¢w. V 6N 4A HVw Q q q1 L` pL C LL GL i.
G V V ` NI C O w oo C ^ N .•f V N SO VI
ui Lr cil I
x
cn
G
.. u
�✓ yD e n v c .^'
wF0 ACLL uLi � .` O Vq Q� P>.✓ un✓ '� 9 p
L V G_� O . �� r O c� O V 7 uwi > I V � 6 C E- .7�C L... O G✓ d L �
•+ O N O N O_ q.�i� � n� q�0 - ]`C PL` V q� V L T r w L n. C L n V A` V
U✓ _ w r > i O V y O � O 1 O M N q N O G � l b
.o.q__ � �q�- E - c ac P.y. p � o^ c � oL - o✓ .� c N -.c ov
r rE.JA Vf0 aC .nr dt O �uE ? F -rC � N o00 ^ L_ C _ C CV OV
'�-+w�[ G= a.. " cam" oNa ari ¢^" ro � a'.oe ��✓ a aN .'.a _^ Aa
qbq N r bi ✓ x `c€L+L MA_ ' LPW
L`V G�^ qq✓ � _ {EE{�� cobgL " L �__ n y � o
` b�
OV VY LV � 00 V .�M r V ,OjV✓ rn cT�.g HGTL VO ON ✓ N
r _
4 r L t
r_ C N P r Q q S ✓q V= L V ! l N L L- ` q C J 6 C W P .r¢
Y w y N L � r "C b✓ V `L L C
k�-C J C V A n L C V✓ A n V b L` "V V C C C V W a O �� V 9 V O
�- Z V r b✓ L9 V q-+ > q
qV^ �V V7 ✓ {' dL q > V VGO .{p='WO ' A L �CC _^ L VO O D RC
-O V O 6 F N A .r Cb b q q J_ t+'•C .r_ O Y d `^ - L V O V O 2 L
b� Mn.. N PAP Gr L. J``V u wPN L�� rJNLq t� V CL �. c3 rGC c �JCF 99
V Ob'~L .. wO`J CST uA �' V _OL E P
T9 a;VV ` nL
Cu .Vr. OJ `y TOAD NCLu W qDq wd �.brV� a O:V .L.+ •- C � O VO .. V
_ _ J
O_w Q C c.V V✓ C C V ' J L u
= Q n` C ` 7 D✓q L C+ O y 6 V C�V C l P N 9 V � � ,�. A p � O V
6T Tr--aLN1tt
✓ Er .2 2.Viur jO 'c O� rC �P
I
>•) r-O9 6ST ^7_ qq YNF = V L FV 7C � C
i qua .-n- 6.e n_ q
0= SON J V^O iV br ✓4
CI
V >U C O O g g V T q �_ �O d 9 C q " �7 G q✓ T n C L .� L� q 6
L V✓ N.u�r ^ C..u u V _I 6 9 -G C V J A A✓ Y d p... ✓ a` ^ b
c2' '—'b'L� un� ub "Nc`�� o✓ b � v✓✓ N `o
yff q✓ ` c .a oq re �L. "C
^".-G �••= ty.�_T :. -o`a �''T4a ¢ ..-ne .�. o :p q'.�✓.'. y c--✓r _ ...°: N�� T ` .-.� n�
q E9LV LjOc00 L C Cggn W - V VGnuTi JAq.•L qO qN N ^ E C.r` N p
OLy VwNCQCT � NLbVa JAwCq PC OL
u PquOC pn cuu Onl V�Y 01L r =6n C. :JF--. T` O.� - O`� "tl d " i i o D �✓ C��
��] q yy „✓.^Lq nA7q GnII _r$! lL .. �« " L VOC ✓ VOW 7 Cq _ A C E ✓
.]r l
'C _ q L q0 " N'V4 J c' TOOV L^�C • y `_ p r00` u � w L V L� VV aL Pe�
NCOV`0-� � JV4 C E' O_.� L � .. dl > > >- V G .. 7 VCJ �� VC ✓ O
60q IC]�r �N VN rr fir✓ x is^4. L„N` l V_ G LPN V > N N =
N O H O A O L L D V V 4 V _
T O LL N G V Q O O rI 60
O < O K0
^ 1 W N W V
W
V
- M
S A � rpr q rL" p Tp
p � C O I � ✓ V ✓ C
O .V.. N r¢ C 0..�.r U L O r i V u C Y p t•— � .LP.•q..
V C V ^✓ i O r ` O.N q J] Vj�.; q CL NO J y N+�
O j ^N r q d N `✓ 8 � q C V O �
O 2 q J V N d q_ V V 3 • w V^ q= F.;, O `V
� ✓ P C — N V Y C � N q
Y NCV p C NAB L tp ; w r• pW qr• V � t
2 .LJn VG COL T A '� �•O.. qv Ln .`U��V.. V LY Oy w= J.N.r N LL Oa
y 4 �✓F VC O ; O' rrr �:� 01 EAC LV =•.' ^ C = - C OF
l N )
+O O w y y C V 9 L L F L > Q V V V A✓ A N N N b q e C
V O C V O V u ✓ q O O� � 4 L C,A C ? r J I rVn Y � V r^ .•G. = C ypr
J � O V C .� q q u V 1' N r O ¢ Pr V a � � n V ✓q A^ �W d W n r0 � VCJ LV VrJirr u ¢y d4 0 N V = q L
� C C C+ • �� Od A.0 V r N N = i F C O n � _' O_✓ y C y
•Tr `) � V✓ C V .VCo 6� d O L O L V q b L N L 9 V V • L
L V C u O ^ OC N ] A w V ¢ A =V O >
✓ 2 vN Mm L.`• p � e Z .. �o' y= A= g .
�2 a c Nr d� Inc o � o✓ N� =c o ,"�
q `
ar: qr. �.✓, .°iiL "' '^ L� �u G d o " n � .. � w « r
O ✓ IS I'C A ^� w� L N
^ d V NAUA I 1 Q O✓ C CJ NVr bLL O rV ,1, ✓ L ^ n _� NV LP • u
q V^ C�•�q C! C q _ V C O U N C V•r j q P� v L n ~� Z� C� .� L n
q q N T q p 'J `V N J N V.<C Q ¢i q U �� J C C � V L J V �✓ �^ L N • V
P N I N V G V O P✓ Z• •r L > > S V tV.✓ ^ V ✓ J N.n q � C
C N b d N O 1 C ur O C O C V 9 V L N L � � •O.r YO. q � q d J L « t V
S G V 9 C r 6 O q I L�j — F � G'Ll N a rrJi J Z ✓•Ti L.� L r' ) L N ` L✓ ^ U � L yd^ GCy q
N C1 ~✓ 6 6 Z '4� �N C J C�
� 1 � NI �I � �► �I ^I � � �I - N y
Y
J
C
E
O A l d r L ✓ ' V✓V q✓ q.r U✓ V LL `C C
cP d �M ✓ V.¢ ✓ O C •` L' dLLL reV✓ O q � .p�
q o ` b e ✓ _ d i •� �� >nL. 'c n N � r^ !n N �' r�
N >rN .7 q� v EL V L wN_ Sv� V P ✓ O O V � no i�
y V d ^ T P r V 9 N C N q�✓G N P q¢q ` C N
> C ^ SW u ✓ O C P I �y� LgI_ r✓n y� E T �Or. �� qD
N `G � � �U o✓ yn `u — � CLQ WORK Ci M E6r � VO�
•9 C✓ q O � = ¢ � � TOV =)r V yr✓V1 O V
�� PL AL L4�� h � � I `LL cO C^ OLO` Y C� ^ C✓rr.
V O L rr L ¢ ^ p C V L q L •'1' � I ^ O u J V O V Or' H d C N J Y C
•^ L 9 Vn — r at r0'O V �O VW V _O
D y O r ?V d Y \. L q G ✓q V C r V C N V J
�d a•✓
pz0 `Ou yo _Vn .N.`� uLL � u+ V 6c yTLL� N6�t = � r✓iro V4air
oy0 Vr. .r9 � CN <' d `6 r • V ONOV _ q= L� >� •r 1r py�p�
E — i✓ Z J a m Y,� f u pr � � I V ` W� y V Gu rp.L d V rr 0 V P
V L✓ M C P A 6 O Y G q > ` O C t- ` t V p L V L Z A C Y N L pO d W
N C L V L d g T O q n - ^6 ✓ 4 V
rJrrN✓ L Y ^V •d G q� JY
d> O d C p N L y V•Vw u 9 �9 ✓ T d C N' q � d y q W V O q F d 4 V u l J J Cy
Nq C V p dV� ✓L � �d •V• � C C �y
CTC qd VG i y� p = q`. 6r J L P VL EP L L
V^ L V = EyO 0 L y^^LL
6
n' �V q NN Neu • q ` ,� YOO CVO=C G� ¢9 } L PV rVn q0
LLO O dL Y r.� yV IOV rLir � V N Cy OC ¢.�� 4PE� OO.L �� tlV NC
IS
l 0� d P O ` A J V_•L.r V an y n �� q � ] L >l O.r W Y Y E L 6 L L =
p' i LL �Vy V W p I I I C V O.V.rN f ^ a jd �qr=q✓ 4 I �r Oi C Y ✓� �W I � P A Y= 6 N � 0.N ^w d 0 V C N V q O T qq O ✓� _ C N L` J C q � O 1Vj•Q 6— q � IP �P�q✓ NV iV dP N Pr L�
OL ri. � b NG4 N � t. d ON^ LL9 W bN rV PN
�u� m ^e qL Em cE c .Ti ie cr `r..w �� -0 .✓+�srq
0. .CC WZ V�r 6l y.� � rf� < ^ 4•i V NC� p� NOOr �Lf 6� WV VnV
2 3
A <O P
f
d
V
L7
v
u
-
-
-•o 'om o.o. i,e -'ate ' oo .o. abu
7��lOr OJ -- IC V I O OV^ ^Lla
w L EE C � Q y r `C 2✓ � d d
COS G •O _ L dL V u u d � �
73 a= a4 rS P' s° ed .L•. � v. ua._ ai• �.L.�..
d W Y L
Mc i Fd
d J r
b
N U L C 4 G
car
JGq y=�rd u ^ O rL0 Oq LiOU
I O r� 0 O r C O COO d Vy O g O q N� 9 J C G C g O r r
v C Y Y i N C =I � V V PN O t� G T V N E L u g y Y � E P�T,•n q
6. Cd
Oe OLD �I roc` GO Vp 0.6Lq ^d VC Nb� Gw V � qr
V r GPPI
LJ
YI
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �ycan�ovc
STAFF REPORT ,
j
I DATE: May 25, 1982
TC: Members of the Planning Commission III
1977
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall , Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Parcel n 7349 - Lewis Development
Company - a hvhshon a . 5 acres into 8 lots within the General
n ustrhal Area located on the north side of 4th Street, east of
the I-15 Freeway (229-283-49)
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Parcel Map 7349 is bein3 submitted by Lewis Development for the division. of
2C.45 acres into 8 iots, :rangino in size from 2.01 acres to 2.8 acres, for
General Industrial use within sub-area 14 of the Industrial Specific Plan.
This site is located on the north side of 4th Street, am oximateiy iCO'
east of the Interstate 15 Freeway ramp and west of Day Creek. The surrounding
area is zoned for General and Heavy Industrial use and is vacant.
ANALYSIS:
Lewis Development has no immediate plans fo- building on this site at this time.
Lots will be developed individually, subject to further Planning Commission
review. All off-site improvements are being required prior to the recording
I of the Parcel Map. This will include the additional dedication and partial
construction of Hyssop Drive for the portion between the existing Hyssop Drive
and the northerly parcel map boundary.
Since the freeway ramp is close to the emergency access required from the
southerly end of Hyssop Drive to 4th Street it will be constructed in such a
way as to prevent access by other than emergency vehicles.
An onsite retention basin will be required to collect and retain the excess
runoff from the project site to minimize the effect on Day Creek due to the
development.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study
as completed b; the dppiicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study,
the environncni.ai ,:hecklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon
completion ;-r° ---view of the initial Study and field investigation, Staff found
no signific;• t adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed
subdivision.
continued.. .
ITEM H
Planning Commission Staff Report
Parcel Map 7349
May 26, 1982
Page 2
FACTS OF FINDING:
This project isconsistent with the General Plan and has been found to have
no adverse affects on public safety or the environment.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners
and a Notice of Public Hearing has been placed ir. the Daily Report Newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Pianning Commission consider all elements of the
project. If, after said consideration, the Commission can recommend conditions
of approval , then adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:BK:bc
Attachments
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
s
FILED BY: Lewis Development Co. TENTATIVE MAP N0. 7349
LOCATION:_ North side of 4th Street, between the DATE FILED: 4/16/82
Devore Fwy. & Day Creek NUMBER OF LOTS: 8
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of the W } of lots 81 RECEIPT NU14BER:
to 88, Map of Rochester, recorded in Book 9 of FEE: 5273.00
Maps. Page 20 ZONE: General Industrial
TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Stanley C. Morse GROSS ACREAGE: 20.45
ADDRESS: 1125 East Stanford Ct. MINIMUM LOT AREA:
Anaheim, California MINIM M LOT FRONTAGE:
RECORD OWNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE €
Southern California Edison Co. P.O. Box 410
Long Beach Blvd.
Long Beach, California 90801
REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Dedications
X 1 . Dedication by final map of all interior street rights-of-way and al necessary
easements as shown on the tentative map.
2. Dedication by final map of the foliowing missing rights-of-way on the following
streets:
additional feet on
additional feet on
additional feet on
_ Corner P/L radius requireo on
X Other
3. Rights of vehicular access shall be limited as follows: Access control on
Qth CfrPPt
4. Street vacation required for:
5. Master Plan of Streets revision required for:
6. the following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows.
WE 20
Q^�
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7349 page 2
Improvements (Bonding is required prior to R3 Recording XW
❑ Building permit for a
X ? . Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all
inter-.or streets.
8. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets :
*incl—ing landscaping and irrigation on meter
CURB & A.C. I SIDE-II DRIVE STREET STREET MEDIAN
STREET NAME GUTTER PVMT. WALK SIDE-1
TREES LIGHTS ISLAND* OTHER
4th St. X cur X mWeme t
X 9. Construct all storm drain and drainage structures as shown on the tentative
map, or as required by the City Engineer.
X 10. Provide all utility services to each lot including sanitary sewers, water,
electric power, gas, telephone and cable television .conduit. All utilities
are to be underground.
X 11 . Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of
any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary.
X 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca-
tions and types approved by the City Engineer.
X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im-
provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer.
X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County Water
District standards. A letter of acceptance is required.
X 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern
CaliFornia Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative
poles with underground service.
16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an
A.C. overlay:
X 17. The E owing speci is dimensions, i.e. , cu -de-sac radius, street section
widths) are not approved: 150' Radius on Hyssop. (A minimum of 200' Radius
is reouired. I
_ 16. The fo. owing existing streets are substandard :
Thev will require:
Approvals and Fees
19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval from CALTR4NSJ
San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen-
cies in-olved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requirements
that may bE received from thew,.
RCE 20
TENTATIVE MAP ^10. 7349 Page 3
X 21 . Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
• _ A. Caltrans, for: Encroachment (if required) on Freeway right of way
Ci ty: _
X C. County gust Abatement District:
D. D. I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep:_
X E. Cucamonga County Water District: Sewer and Water
F. Other:
Map Control
22. If only a portion of this Nap is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro-
vide for two-way traffic and parking on all affected streets.
23. The following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area
and should be corrected on the final map:
24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at 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 r-reation of an unrecognized parcel located
20. the boundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as follows:
27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or
title explanation required.
® Parr_el P^ap 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 ;
Q Building permit for
29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood-
ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will hc-
subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24.
30. A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall along the entire north pro-
perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets.
Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts.
_ 31. If%-,,ater surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shaii 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 e reouired to assess impact of increased
runoff.
RCE 20
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7349 Page 4®
Miscellanc-ous `�
X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading
this project. 9 g permit for
k 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 -f sedimenta-
tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required.
40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow-
ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division
X prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division.
41 . The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that
sewer treatment :rapacity will be available at the time building permits are
requested. When bui Hing permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water
District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will
X not be issued unless said certificatior. is received in writing.
42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section
66436(C)(1 ) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division ana 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 sign
a�
ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the final'
map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina-
tion within the specified time limits of said Section.
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. Prior to recording a minimum 40' dedication from the adjacent property to the
north is required for the extension of the existing Hyssop Drive to the project.
A minimum of 26' wide pavement within the said dedication shall be constructed
to join the existing pavement.
X 46. A 20' water and sewer easement to be located on the north boundary of the
Parcel Map shall be delineated on the map. Cucamonga County Water District
is to be contacted for exact location.
X 47. An onsite retention basin per City Standard shall be constructed to retain all
excess runoff from the project site. The location of the basin, the design
of the inflow and outflow devices and required easements shall be approved by
' the City Engineer prior to recordation of the map.
RCE 20
Page 5
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7349
Miscellaneous
X 48. A C.C. & R for the map declaring the property owners' responsibility
for maintenance of the detention basin shall be required and a copy,
subject to City Attorney's approval ,shall be recorded concurrent with
the recordation of the map.
Site Development
X 49. Emergency access from the southerly terminus of Hyssop Drive to 4th
Street as shown on the Tentative Map shall be revised and constructed
per Foothill Fire District Standards, including but not limited to,
a sub-base of decomposed granite, covered with top soil and hydro
seeded with grass. This shall be installed or bonded to prior to
recordation of Parcel Map.
X 50. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be planted
to an average of every 15' on the west side of Hyssop adjacent to
Freeway right of way. In addition, shrubs shall be pianted 4' on
center underneath the trees. Said landscaping shall be installed
prior to recordation.
X 51 . A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning and Engineering Division prior to recordation.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
LLOYD 8. HU88S
CITY ENGINEER /!
�;ti:,
CITY OF RANCHO C'JCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form :rust be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
a-,plication, the Enviromnental Analysis staff will vreaare
-rt 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 w_ .1 make one of i three determnations: 1) The project will have no significant
environmental impact and a Negative 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: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 7349 .
APPLICAICT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: LEWIS DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, P.O. BOX 670 , UPLAND CA 91786 (714) 985 097
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE tDF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERlh'ING THIS PROJECT: (SAME AS ABOVE) PROJECT
COORDINATOR -- P.ON NOTTINGHAM
LOCRTION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS Aiv�i ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. )
NORTH OF 4th STREET, EAST OF DEVORE FREEWAY
A.P. -283-49
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
GRADING PERMIT -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SUBDIVISION OF 20 .45 ACRES
INTO 8 INDUSTRIAL PARCELS RANGING IN SIZE FROM
2 ACRES TO 2.8 ACRES.
ACREAGE OF PROJ"aCT ARsA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
NO BUILDINGS
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON21NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT STSE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANt CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) :
VINEYARD LAND VACANT OF STRUCTURES SLOPING SOUTHERLY
AT APPROXIMATELY 1% GRADE.
® BOUNDED: NORTHERLY BY VACANT LAND (VINEYARD)
WESTERLY BY DEVORE FREEWAY
EASTERLY BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ED.,SON
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SOUTHERLY BY 4th STREET
e
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
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES Nr3
_X _ 1. Create a substantial ground
change in i�nnntp++r 5?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
R 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewace, etc. )":
R 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X_ 5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flarmables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
1. SITE GRADING IN CONFORMANCE WITH --��
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the fazts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further under--and that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development
Review Committee.
Date_ P2 Sigratur �` �.
Title —LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
PROJECT COORDINATOR
T__
4
en-e1e[R ,2 t /iw•ueewwme0 wvaeue l
CO
I •,
alltZ
�,- I D►
ps
. c. } ` e . ' =� - •�� Y �� i' I$ I � };�I i•.�ti 11 I I C �
is a P • — _� � 31
yq
6` M
rS
s 1 ,
cl
Iz
I is
tlx: •Cm i I ^'�i __ =:i ,1.. .i,. ' i I ■
:c_ i j Iy
i A�
RESOLUTION 140.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO C!I'.,= -AT CALIFORNIA, apoPO.rin0^
PARCEL MAP NUMBE`. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
7349) LOCATED ON ': "'H SID-c OF 4TH STREET,
BETWEEN THE DEVORE.:—r AY AND DAY CREEK
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 7349, submitted by Lewis
Development Company and consisting of 8 parcels, located on the north
side of 4th Street, between the Devore Freeway and Day Creek, being a
division of a portion of the West 1/2 of lots 81-88, Map of Rochester,
recorded in Book 9 of Maps, Page 20, San Bernardino County; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 1982, a formal application was submitted
requesting review of the above-described tentative map; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 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 enviromnental damage, public
health problems or have adverse affects on abutting
property.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant
adverse environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on
May 26, 1982.
P
SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 7349 is approved
subject to the con itions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining
thereto.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Resolution No.
Page 2
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary o. 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 anti
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 26th day of May, 1982, by the following vote-to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
e . ' • • a L
• ;
J
L.�
�flm.
Y
rn
'e'•
11 '
4-1
lz
fir- A
�IIIIW' y
NNDt111110 el = lulm ��
11 !1 .LI
ppe�ww I I Oo. i
I /' :'''_ mot•��_ _ '��`^/ I O � � V Y/U
CL
olI . 4 . , 'r,' �� o e
g I i t I 'xr o
ti
ir
< Its x a
L'I I•J� ' i + �= � � b '= = �3 p .e.�
s x x x
Lu
�•.
I_;I
I I i,� ��'I' I I • `� � I I J
I I I I r �� � ; I � •I =_F
I 1 I x�,mwnwe o.oeeewe4 m+ IIII ;?'�, -'�s wie
z
- Cri-Y OF RANCHO CUC AMONGA
STAFF REPORT � 1
5
i �_
j 1977
DATE: May 25, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Otto Kroutil , Associate Planner
SUBJECT: STATUS P,EPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOP, THE ETIWANDA
SPECIFIC PLAN - Determination on the scope and content of the
Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
The Plan covers an area of approximately 3,000 acres generally
bounded by the City Limits on the north and east, Arrow Route
on the south, and a line approximately 1000 feet west of
j Etiwanda Avenue on the west (Victoria Planned Community
boundaries) .
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is twofold: (1 ) to update the Plan-
ning Collm—Issicn on the Etiwanda Specific Plan process, and (2) to make a
determination on the significance of potential environmental effects of
the Specific Plan as required by State law.
The attached environmental assessment forms indicate that the Specific
Plan has some potential of creating significant environmental effects in
specified areas, and as a result, the staff is recommending that a Focused
Environmental Impact Report be prepared in conjunction with the Specific
Plan.
BACKGROUND: The Specific Plan Advisory Committee and City staff are now
in the final stages of preparing the draft Specific Plan for the Etiwanda
area. The planning boundaries contain slightly over 3,000 acres and en-
compass all the land east of the Industrial Specific Plan area and the
Victoria Planned Community located within the City Limits (Exhibit "A") .
The focus of the Specific Plan is on the following major topic areas :
I
COMMUNITY CHARACTER, including community identity, open space,
architecture, landscaping, and windbreaks.
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION, including both major circulation linkages,
and local neighborhood streets.
COMKERCIAL SERVICES, including location and scope of all shopping
facilities.
ITEM I
Etiwanda Specific Plan
Planning Commission Agenda
May 26, 1982
Page 2
PARKS AND TRAILS, including park service areas, trail alignments
locations acid types.
LAND USE ADJUSTMENTS, including refinements and adjustments to
accomplish the objectives in the area of community character,
circulation, commercial services, and parks and trails.
The pOLICY AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN the first major part of the plan, has been
completed in draft form. Its purpose is to :
(1 ) outline the areas of concern;
(2) define a set of ground rules to be used in developing a
solution; and,
® (3) to present a conceptual solution, in simple terms and un-
cluttered with detail .
The staff is now developing STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS, along with the
IMPLE"1ENTATION portion of the document for presentation to the Advisory
Committee. We anticipate to complete this part of the draft by mid-July.
Once the entire draft document is completed and cleared through the Com-
mittee, it will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for your action.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The main purpose of environmental review as required
by State law is to identify potential environmental problems, and to develop
ways of mitigating them. This can be accomplished through either a full-
blown EIR, detailing all environmental topics (as was the case with our
General Plan) , or through a Focused EIR addressing only specific environ-
mental concerns.
Staff has reviewed the Specific Plan and completed the attached Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist (Exhibit "C") . The Specific Plan contains
a number of measures designed to *:itigate the impacts of future develop-
ment, and in this respect takes on one of the major functions of an EIR.
The Initial Study also indicates that there are some areas where the
Specific Plan nay have a significant effect on the environment, mostly
in the areas of Land Use, Transportation, Public Services, Cultural Re-
sources, and Aesthetics (see attached Initial Study for details) . How-
ever, the relatively limited extent of these potential impact areas does
not appear to warrant the preparation of a full-blown EIR.
Etiwanda Specific Plan
Planning Commission Agenda
May 26, 1982
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Based on our review of the potential environmental effects
of the Specific Plar., it is recommended that staff be directed to prepare a
FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, directed at those potential environ-
mental impacts outlined in the attached Initial Study, Part II, Discussion
of Environmental Evaluation.
R pectfull sutni2ted,
R ;CK MEZ
City Planner
i
RG!OK:jr
i
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Area
Exhibit "B" - Major Concepts Mar
Exhibit "C" - Initial Study/Environmental Check List
e
G
`rrC
f�. 1
E'
aIi �
it
I
Y. . r
1 �
i
�..... I
PLANNING AREA
I
-- -�' � BOUNDARIES
��r/mil � I ,� I•�
vip, -
II
Orr r�1"
MAJOR CONCEPTS MAR
24m.�-�- :1- r►
salwom
t /
ff
_ Major roads vim-
esign
Rural character
ETnvANDA
SI'1:( IFI(: PLAN197,701
{
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DATE: ulw
APPLICANT: f ewv- .j
FILI G DAIE• LOG NUMBER:
PROJECT: $%1,iJAAA74,A& _g 1�6Z
� —�_.
PRO.7ECT LOCATION: �L�ifi�./�l�►
1. E\JIRON'MNTAL DIPA.CTS
'Explanation of all ''yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets) .
YES MANBE NO
1. Soils and Geology. W!11 the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geologic relationships?
b. Disruptions, . displacements, compaction or
burial of the soil?
c, Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off —site conditons?
f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or
use of any mineral resource?
® 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant
e. results in:
is
it
YES MAYBE NO
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream
channels? R/
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water
runoff? — 1 —
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? —
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
body of water?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality?
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or with—
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality?
Quantity? t�
h. The reduction in the amount of water other— I�
wise available for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches?
3. Air Quality. hill the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
or indirect sources?
Stationary sources?
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or JC
interference with the attainment of applicable
air quality standards?
c. Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement, moisture
or temperature?
w. Biota
Flora. Will the proposal have significant results
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or number
of any species of plants?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
`Sr?:,iJs
:aye
YES MAYBE NO
C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
plants into an area?
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural —
s production?
R,
Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results
f
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or numbers —
of any species of animals?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
animals into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or wovement of animals?
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or -
wildlife habitat?
S. Population. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an area? -41
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or —
create a demand for additional housing?
6. Socio-Econosic Factors. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a_ Change in local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, including economic or
commercial diversity,�Awrmwm" and property —
values?
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed
among project beneficiaries, i_e., buyers, —
tax payers or project users?
7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the
proposal have significant results in?
a. A substantial alteration of the present or —
planned land use of an area?
b. A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any governmental
_ entities?
c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive
recreational opportunities? _
Page 4
YES MAYBE NO
8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement? B —
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for 1�
new street construction? i
C. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? ,l
d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- —
tior. Systems?
e. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement cf people and/or goods?
f. Alterations to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffic?
g. increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, _
bicy,lists or pedestrians?
9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant rE^ults in:
a. A disturbance tc the integrity of archaeological,
paleontological, and/or historical resources?
10. _Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health —
hazard?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances .in the event of an accident?
d. An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
organisms or the exposu,.e of people to such
organisms?
e. Increase in existing noise levels?
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels? v/
g. The creation of objectionable odors?
h. An increase in light or glare?
Page 5
YES MAYBE NO
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results- in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic —
vista or view?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors?
12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have a significant need for new systems, or
alterations to the following:
a. Electric power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
c. Communicaticns'systems?
d. Water ;supply?
e. WasLewatez facilities?
f. Flood control structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
h. Fire protection?
i. Police protection? _
i . Schools?
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including _
roads and flood control facilities?
M. other governmental services?
13. Energy an-i Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy?
c. An increase in the demand for development of
new sources of energy?
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption
of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible
renewable sources of energy are available?
MINE MONSOON
�;ige b
YES MAYBE NO
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
l +. ??ar.3ator: Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce t e a 1ta o is or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of ^
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-tern,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a rel,: ':ively
brief, definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the future) .
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, bur cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects, —
and probable futur projects) .
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which .ill cause substantial adversa effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 41
H. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e. , of affirmative answers to
the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures).
1 . SOILS AND GEOLOGY:
e. Relative increase ir, impervious surface ratios may have an effect on
soil erosion. The Report should assess water erosion potential and
propose adequate mitigation if appropriate.
g. The extreme northwest corner of the planning area is presumably
transversed by the Red Hill Fault. The Report should address
earthquake/seismic hazard potential and not possible mitigation
if appropriate.
2. HYDROLOGY
b. The Plan may affect drainage patterns and surface water runoff.
The Report should examine potential impacts and suggest ways of
mitigating any problems.
C. Joint use of Flood Control corridors and easements for recreational
` purposes may result in minor flood flow alterations.
x-.
4'
Page 7
�. BIOTA
Flora
a. ,b. ,c. The Plan may result in the introduction of new plants
and the reduction of some existing species. The Report
should assess the significance of such changes and propose
appropriate mitigation.
d. Current agricultural production, though very limited, may be
further reduced. The Report should examine the Plan's effect
on agriculture and proposed mitigation if appropriate.
5. POPULATION:
a. Land use adjustments and refinements will have some effect
on the distribution, density and diversity of population
in the area. The Report should examine these effects and,
if applicable. propose appropriate mitigation measures.
b. The Man will have a significant effect on existing housing.
The Report should propose ways of reducing or eliminating
any negative impacts.
6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS:
® a. The Plan may have some effect on commercial diversity and
property values. The Report should examine these effects
and note appropriate mitigation measures.
b. The Specific Plan may result in some public and quasi-public
expenditures for future improvements and maintenance. The
Report should outline ways of equitable distribution of such
costs.
7. LAND USE AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
a. The Plan will result in a substantial alteration of present
land uses. However, such alteration will be in substantial
conformance with the City's General Plan. The Report should
assess the impacts of land use adjustments and propose appro-
priate mitigation where necessary.
C. Recreational opportunities will also be affected through the
parks and trails section of the Plan. The Report should
assess the effects on the quality and quantity of recreational
opportunities.
Page 8
8. TRANSPORTATION:
a. On a project-wide basis, the level of additional vehicular
movement will be within the scope of the Circulation Element
of the General Plan. However, there may be localized areas
where additional movement will necessitate appropriate miti-
gation measures.
b.,c. ,e. ,g. The Plan proposes several new streets in order to limit
effects of future traffic on existing streets and resi-
dential areas. The Report should ass?ss the impacts of the
proposed street system and suggest additional measures for
mitigation of environmental or safety hazards where appro-
priate.
9. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
a. The Plar. may affect historical features such as Etiwanda
Avenue, and the windbreak system. The Report should address
any negative impacts and propose means of mitigation.
10. HEALTH, SAFETY AND NUISANCES:
b. See 1 .g. 0
e. Relative increase in traffic may result in an increase in
noise in some areas. The Report should propose ways of
reducing noise problem;, to acceptable levels.
11 . AESTHETICS:
a. Scenic views and vistas may be affected by future development.
The Report should suggest ways of mitigating adverse effects
cn the scenic qualities of Etiwanda wherever appropriate.
12 , UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES
a through m The Specific Plan will have an indirect effect on all of the
utilities and services. The Report should examine each of
these topics, identify significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated through established methods outside of the Specific
Plan, and propose mitigation measures as may be appropriate.
14. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The Specific Plan 9�1 have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment. The Report should assess this
potential , and propose measures to mitigate the adverse
effects .
I
I y
r, •
Page 9
i!
SpecificC The
limited, but cumulat-ively considera3le. The Report should
examine the significance of these cimulative impacts3 .
propose appropriate mitigation.
4.
i .
r
1
i
•
r
i-
t
.., r
r _ �
Page10
III- DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluaticn:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
r
I find that although the proposed troject could have a significant
j effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
1.--� in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
ll
I find the proposed project YA': have a signif'c4:� effect on the
envirnment, and an MMIRONX- ENT DTACT REPO R^ qed on the potential
T� o.:V:nonmu--1 effects outlined in tMs'Sti: 1"eC0^"^ended.
Date �J'fV�DFs i
Signature
Title
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
F, C3 Pz
U' >
1 �
I I
1 DATE: May 26, 1982
I TO: Members of the Planning Commission
1
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
j SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROVAL 79-09 - CABLE TV OF ALTA
LOMA - The development of a receiving site and trailer on
property located at 8387 East 19th Street in the A-1 zone -
APN 2G2-021-36, 37.
BACKGROUND: This was Conti^»ed from the May 12, 1982 Planning Comission
agenda to allow staff an opp.irtunity to meet with the applicant to discuss
construction of the permanent facility. The applicant has contacted the
Cucamonga County Hater District regarding leasing land south of the water
® tank for a permanent receiving site, as shorn on Exhibit "A" of the I
May 12, 1982 Staff Report.
The applicant intends to pour a permanent foundation upon which to place
the receiving station. Additionally, a satellite disk antenna may be
added to provide additional services to customers. The existing site
approval is for the temporary trailer, which expires without an extension.
A new CUP application is required for the permanent receiving site, which
would include placing the trailer (receiver) upon a permanent foundation,
antennas and a satellite disk antenna.
kIALYSIS: Installatior. of a receiving site requires review and approval
of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. This would typi-
cally include conditions for certain improvements, such as : access improve-
ments, building and screening improvements, and permanent landscaping and
irrigation. Staff is working with the applicant in preparing a Conditional
Use Permit application for the permanent receiving site south of the water
tank. The applicant will provide an update on negotiations for a lease
at the Planning Commission meeting. To avoid interruption of cable tele-
vision service, it is reasonable to grant an extension to allow Cable TV
of Aita Loma time to submit application for and construct a permanent
receiving site.
ITEF! J
Time Extension/SA 75-09
May 26, 1982
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: It is therefore recommended that a six (5) month extension
be granted for Site Approval 79-09 to run from the present expiration date
of April 15, 1982 to October 15, 1982. Further, it is recommended that
Cable TV of Alta Loma submit a Conditional Use Permit application for a
permanent facility within three (3) months of the May 2fi, 082 Planning
co!nieeion meeti-
Rdspectfully submitted,
RICK GgMEZ
City Planner
RG�DC:J r
Attachments: May 12, 1982 Planning Commission Staff Report
,4
F,C,
r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �t}cnl�rp�
STAFF REPORT
5
FI IZ
' DATE: May 12, 1982
ITO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROVAL 79-09 - CABLE TV 0:
ALTA LOMA - The development of a receiving site and trailer
on property located at 8387 East 19th Street in the A-1
zone - APN 202-021-36, 37.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The attached letter from Mr. Phil
Whisler requests ar. extension through the end of September for the
above-described project. Original approval for Site Approval 79-09
was granted on April 25, 1979, and was conditioned to require removal
of the trailer by April 15, 1982. The approved Site Plan and elevations
are shown on the .ttached Exhibits "B" and "", respectively.
ANALYSIS: As with all temporary trailers, the Planning Commission
approved the temporary use to allow the Applicant time to find or con-
struct permanent facilities. Therefore, Conditions were attached to
require submittal of plans for a permanent building at ieast six 1,6)
months prior to the required removal of the trailer. To date, no
such plans have been submitted to the City.
The Applicant, Cable TV of Alta Loma, had intended to vacate the site
and move the receiving site and trailer to their permanent office lo-
cation located in the building behind City Hall . However, they have
been unable to obtain clearance from General Telephone Company to
place distribution lines on existing telephone poles to their current
office location. Therefore, the Applicant is looking at other sites
in which *.o relocate the receiving site and trailer.
RECOWENDATION: To avoid interruption of cable television service, it
would seem reasonable to grant an extension to allow CATV of Alta Loma
time to develop plans and construct a permanent receiving site. Therefore,
AD
�� ITEM B
Site Approval 79-09/CAN
Planning Commission Agenda
May 12, 1982
Page 2
it is recommended that a six (6), month extension be granted for Site
Approval 79-09 to run from the present expiration date of April 15, 1982
to October 15, 1982. it is further recommended that plans for a perma-
nent facility be submitted within three (3) mcriths.
P, spectfully submitted,
R CYK GOME
C ty Planner
R :DC:jr
Attachments: Letter from Phil 'Whisler
Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Elevations
pKp
V.
F able TV of Alta Lom
P.O. Box 774
9360 Baxliue Road, 5uim 1
a`
Cuczz=onM CA 91730 Alta IA=&. CA 91701
E.. (:14)987-7122
April 14, 1982
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9320 Baseline Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
ntt- at iGn: car. Zeffery ling, Chairman
Planning Commission
Gentlemen:
We are submitting this request for an extension of time on our
" present antenna site located at C185 19th Street, Alta Loma.
We had intended to vacate the site as of April 15, 1982. Due
to the following delays, we have been unable to accomplish
these plans.
We were advised by General Telephone Company that the transmission
lines that we had applicated along and between Baseline & 19th
would not carry the additional load of another cable and therefore
those poles were not available to us.
As an alternate, we have selected a line on Amethyst and have asked
General Telephone to pre-survey it and have just been notified that
the line of poles are available and we see no problem as an
overload condition.
We are proceeding with the engineering and pole application on the
Amethyst lire. We expect at least 12C days before this line can be
made available to us. We need 45 days from that point in time to
complete our building of the trunk line.
Therefore, we are asking for an extension of time through the end
of September. Should we foresee another delay, we will be more
timely in our request for an extension.
We thank you for your patience in this matter.
Sincerely,
Phil T%7hisler /X�
M9nager
PW/pa,-
cc Mr. Dan Coleman, City of Rancho Cucamonga
Mr. Sim Ray, Operations Manager, CSI
Enclosure: Check #4386, Extension Fee
N7W
V
t9 a sr;:?J---sr- �--
w�mu,_L
IL
G
�F RdM►L15M �' �
y
iTE APP90 AL 72-0
Ely" FA
_ —psi :6ATF, .
IF 46
n �
3 D —
�_ � co
�Q 6N
Lf 1
Pt
F 111 `
L
T
x �f in
6
I
Z
G
T
n I,i, j
t� r, i
G m
i ` I
1 O T I
3 I
IDIAC �iTT
��OR
DESIGN SPACE INTERNATIONAL SUPPLEMENT
t �
vova� CSJ:.7fe i I i � rJ"ia.
S 620
-
nr
I ! ! i
823 re*v e 1 17i '
w ties..\•a.s...r �:`. _ .. '�''f;'',.'s:-.:. -- —
i
n r n =
0 ® 110 1 ; 1
I � II li 11
u ; i
s 1025
fl II I !
oil
li II II
f .,u U u
1035
a.a
C MCJTNL yY.T !
n n R
ii ! 1 ! i II II
oil mill
II tl II II
_ a r u �% ,. U 11
1045 w.woe.� eoea
fit;,. ••••ate sae Back tw�aeroaw k,aCe'�
C= OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
-
DATE: May 26, 1982 U
TO: Members of the Planning Commission L977
i
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REPORT ON INITIATION OF ZONE CHANGE - A change of zone from R-3 E
(Multi-Family Residential ) to R-1 Single Family Residential )
I for approximately 34.4 acres of land located east of Hellman
Avenue, west of Amethyst Avenue, north of La Mesa Drive, and
south of Monte Vista Street,
BACKb.:'1UND: Parcel Map 7441 was recently submitted for land located between
Lomita 'rive and La Grande Drive, just west of Amethyst Avenue. The map will
create four lots suitable for single family homes as shown on Exhibit "B"_
Since the property is zoned R-3, but the General Plan designation for this
area is Low Density (2-4 dweliing units per acre) , a zone change to R-1 would
be appropriate at this time. This is a reoccuring situation for this area
since the zoning is not consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, Staff
is recommending that the Planning Commission initiate a change of zone.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The zone change from R-3 to R-1 would involve
9 parcels totaling approximately 34.4 acres of land located between Hellman
and Amethyst, north of La Mesa Drive, and south of the homes on Monte Vista
Street (Exhibit "A") . A windshield survey recently conducted showed that
single family homes exist on approximately 80% of the subject parcels, 10%
of the lots are vacant, and about 10%, or approximately 15 iots have existing
multi-family dwellings.
ANALYSIS: During the review of the Genera, Plan, the decision was made to
preserve the single family character of the area. Therefore, when the plan
was approved the neighborhood was designated as Low Density Residential
(2-4 dwellings units per acre) . Since the current zoning is not consistent
with the General Plan, this zone change will eliminate the confusion created
by the R-3 zoning, which allows the construction of multi-family units. Also,
rezoning the 34.4 acres will save applicants both time and money, since zone
charges will no longer be necessary.
r4
ITEM K
Report on Initiation of Zone Change
May 26, 1982
Page 2
FACTS FOR FINDING: State Law requires that zoning be consistent with the
eneral Plan. Also, with approval of Parcel Map 7441, a finding of con-
sisten-y with the General Plan must be made.
If the Commission chooses not to rezone the entire 34.4 acres at this time,
a zone change would be required by the Applicant for the one acre parcel
map. Futhermore, future land divisions or development proposals in this
area will also require similar zone changes.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct
a hearing to consider all input and elements of this proposal . If, after
such consideration, the Commission chooses to initiate the proposed zone
change, this item will be placed on the next available agenda for review
at a legally advertised public hearing.
R pe fu y submitted,
P. CK OMEZ
C`ty fanner
Cad/kep
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Parcel Map 7441
?T• .
71
4 1-- A-f
$
• .. X-1
PD
A-F
.i !1
PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE BOUNDRY
N<)RTH
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCkjMo`.'GA TfnE: -
PLANNINC; DI`' D.N EXHlMT:A_.SCALE- -rs
TENTATIVE- MAP
IN THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RENG A REARRANGEMENT OF LOTS i82 OF TRACT 21SO -
Mp 31/!S.
1 I I I W
TJ�ACT I NO 12328 N
I I � • ,�� I I i I � e� I as
S __ _ � � f'YN.fIIM 3� b[tb OL COO[.[11➢. _ � I
L-A-GRAWDE -
f i
xar.b:nt a fn.aY .I I
7—
�Y:IS� 9.7JS�^ c : mxlxo.
1 3 zl�M
r
x
w
b• YYNCL1Yf 4}•-Yv[GnterLlM .�Ltl.tl 4. ��
—LOMITA g DRIVE
i
F— 1 oe la
1 I
Z
_ } I
pm S�Rz
1 �
_ ZI wa sVTs p
Ji NORTH
CITY OF rrENol: ;A
RAIN T D CTCAMONGA TITLE VEea., rcaP —L t
PLANNING DIVISnN EXHIBIT- 'S_SciLE: R.T.s_