HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/06/24 - Agenda Packetv
US a
(D cq)
o ;
a
cu r
a
SW
S 3
n
n
m
rr m
a
r o
Nt0
co
f7
N
N
N
O
Z
CITY OF
R ANU-IO CUCgNIONGA
PLANNING CONWMISSION
.AGENDA
0-,/, 'Zz�
1777 WEDNESDAY JUNE 23, 1982 7:00 P.M.
LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LINE,.P.ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
A C T I O N I. Pledge of Allegiance
David Barber and iI Roll Call
Larry McNiel sworn
in as Commissioners Connissioner King--L— Commissioner Stout_
by Lauren Wasserman,
City Manager. Cemnissioner RempelX_ Commissioner TolstoyExcu_!d
COMMENDATION RESOLUTION - JEFF SCF_R ?k4
III. Approval of Minutes
APPROVED 3 -0 -0 -2 May 26, 1982
APPROVED 2 -0 -0 -3 June 9, 1932
IV. Announcements
V. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to
be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted
upon by the Commission at one tine without discussion.
If anyone has concern over any item, then it should be
removed for discussion.
APPROVED 5 -0 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82 -12 -
IL - The development of a 5,000 sq. ft. industrial
binding on a portion of a 3.47 acre lot in the General
Industrial category (Subarea 3) located at the north-
east corner of Industrial Lane and Feron Boulevard -
APN 209 - 031 -74.
V;. Public Hearings
The following items are Public hearings in which concerned
individuals may voice their opinion of the related project.
Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address
the Commission from the public microphone by giving your
name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to
5 2ainutes per individual for each project.
APPROVED 5 -0 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7373 - LEWIS
DEVELOPMENT CO14PANY - A one parcel subdivision of 2.05
acres located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approx-
imately 700' south of Church Street - APN 1077 - 421 -6.
APPROVED 5 -0
APPROVED 5 -0
VI_
VII.
E. Consensus of Comission
that staff begin posting of
signs and continue direct mailing
of notices.
F. (SEE OVER) VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
Direction giver. to Lewis'
to begin preparation of
final draft text. XiI.
Planning Commission Agendz
June 23, 1982
Page 2
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
82 -01 - LEWIS - A change of zone from A -1
Limited agriculture) to A -P (Administrative
Professional) for 2.045 acres of land within
the Terra Vista Planned Community located on
the east side of Haven Avenue, south of Church
CtreCfa nort. ". of F;,,;,t.';i ii tD.+VUiCYGid -
APN 1077 - X21 -06.
New Business
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEb: 82-04 - LEWIS - The development
of a 28,800 square foot two - story office
building on 2.045 acres of land proposed
to be zoned AP (Administrative Professional)
in a portion of the Terra Vista Planned Com-
munity area on the east side of Haven Avenue,
north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church
Street - APN 1077 - 421 -06.
Director's Reports
E. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
F.
, City Planner.
Public Comment
This is the time and place for the general public
to address the Co=- ;ssion. Iteas to be discussed
here are those which do not already appear on this
Agenda.
Upcoming Agenda
Recess
Adjourned Regular Meeting - Public Hearing Pracess
G. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY
Adjournment
Tile Planning Co=aission has adcoted Admin :st=ative
Regulations that set an Il:OC P.P:. adjournment
time. Xf items go beyond that time, they shall
be heard only with the consent of the Coamtission.
:
:
ONTMIO IMTfRMIT At MMQfT
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON"
F. : ia::ning Commission Chair7nan - Jeff Kirl'g
'Vice - Chairman - Herman Rempel
Design Review Cowittee - Rempel, Barker, Xing (Alternate)
Citizens Advisoly Committee - Rempel, Stout (Alternate)
Zoning Committee - HcNiei, King
Flood Control Committee - King, Stout
Street Naming Committee - Barker, McNiel
Equestrian /Trails Committee - Stout
QTY OF
? RAN'aiO CUCA1tV10i`GA
o PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
1977
MONDAY JUNE 14, 1982 7 -10 P.M.
LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9151 BASE LINE,. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL
iMPAC' REPORT
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Commissioner King x
Commissioner RempelEx. Ab.
A C T 1 0 N S III. Staff Report No. 5
Consensus for 100% A. Park Plan
credit on detention B. Landscape Guidelines
basin. P.C. to study C. Energy Conservation
further credit for private
open space and park im-
plementation. plan. IV. Adjourmmnt
With exception of No. 2,
to be studied, consensus
was to accept staff's re-
commendation on items I -5
of staff report on landscape
guidelines.
Energy conservation re-
cormnendations were accepted.
Commissioner Stout X
Commissioner Tolstoy X
O; r`
�? �• CITY OF
� f RANIMO CUCA MONIGA
c:. N:r � • O FLt].1 V N T��G Cr: Y - J1LJ �
Cry V� 1V1.1 1
AGENDA
177 WEDNESDAY JUNE 23, 1982 7:00 P.M.
LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
91661 BASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Commissioner King Commissioner Stout
Commissioner Rempel_ Commissioner Tolstoy
COMMENDATION RESOLUTION - JEFF SCERANKA
III. Approval of Minutes
May 26, 1982
June 9, 1982 � � �� 1q"�
Jar- -e Z�d�+
4:-36
IV. Announcements 6_� -A
-' d r-za# -gyp
V_ Consent Calendar J*A ��/++ -7 : O
The following Cons* G�uenaar•z� ems age expected to
be routine and non - con=troversial. They will be acted
upon by the Commission at one time without discussion_
_f anyone has concern_ over ar-y item, then it should be
removed for discussion.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82 -12 -
FILPI - The development of a 5,000 sq_ ft. industrial
bu lding on a portion of a 3.47 acre lot in the General
Industrial category (Subarea 3) located at the north-
east corner of Industrial Lane and Feron Boulevard -
APN 209 - 031 -74.
VI. Public Heirings
The following items are public hearings in which cone -rued
individuals may voice their opinion of the related project_
Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address
the Commission from the public microphone by giving your
name and address_ All such opinions shall be limited to
5 minutes per individual for each protect.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7373 - LEWIS
{` DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A one parcel subdivision of 2.05
acres located on the east side of Haven Avenue, approx-
imately 700' south of C „�u: rh Street - APN 1077 - 421-6.
fir- ,
Planning Commission Agenda
June 23, 1982
Page 2
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
82 -01 - LEWIS - A change of zone from A -1
Limited Agriculture) to A -P (Administrative
P,�fessianal) for 2.045 acres of land within
the Terra Vista Planned Community located on
the east side of Haven Avenue, south of Church
Street, north cf Foothill Boulevard Ann -
a
Ru 18nw wn�i n.
( 1V / /- Y1 —VD.
Vi. New Business
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 82 -04 - LEWIS - The development
of a 28,800 square foot two -story office
building on 2.045 acres of land proposed
to be zoned AP (Administrative Professional)
in a portion of the Terra Vista Planned Com-
munity area on the east side of Haven Avenue,
north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church
Street - APN 1077 - 421 -06.
VII. Director's Reports
E. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
F. PLANNING CO"ISSION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS -
Oral report by Rick Gomez, City Planner.
VIII. Public Comment
This is the time and place for the general public
to address the Commission.. Items to be dis:-ussed
here are those :rich do not already appear on this
Agenda.
IX. Upcoming Agenda
X. Recess
XI. Adjourned Regular Meeting - Public Hearing Process
G. TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY
X_I. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 11.00 P.H. adjournment
tine. if items ao beyond that time, they shall
be 'ward only with the consent of the Commission.
y l.'
'.y
1
1
Y
J
J
t�
.S V
�f
♦ J t
i
� J
r,
-
+
y l.'
'.y
1
1
Y
J
J
t�
.S V
�f
♦ J t
i
� J
CITY Or P,ANCHO CUCAMONGA
Pf.ANN=G CO3" KISSION ULNL^.'ES
Regular Meeting
May 26, 1982
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Jeffrey Ring called the Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at the
Lion's Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman King then led in the pledge of allegiance.
R07L CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herman Rempel, Jeff Sceranka, Dennis Stout,
Peter Tolstoy, Jeffrey King
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedle, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner;
Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Curt Johnston,
Assistant Planner; Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner;
Jack Lam, Community Development Director; Janice
Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer;
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the
Minutes of the meeting of May 3, 1982.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried, to approve the
Minutes of the meeting of May 12, 1982.
Commissioner Stout abstained from vote on the Minutes of May 3 and 12 as
he was not in attendance at these meetings. Commissioner Rempel also
abstained from vote on the Minutes of May 3, 1982, for the same reason.
ANNOUNCES Ey S
Chairman King welcomed Dennis Stout to the Commission and informed those
in attendance that this was Commissioner Stout's first meeting as a
Commissioner.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, announced that there would be a public hearing
to discuss the Terra Vista Planned Community on June 10, 1982, 7 p.m, at
the Lion's Park Community Center.
CONSENT CALENDAR
A. RE 71SION TO TENTATIVE TRACT jo. 11734 - DLV - A change in the
runber of lots located on the northwest corner of Arrow and
Vineyard.
B. REVISIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12040 - PFEILER - A c.zange in
the number of lots located on the northeast corner of Arrow
Route and Turner Avenue.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to
approve Items A and B of the Consent Calendar.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. TERRA VISTA STATUS REPORT
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the status of the Terra Vista
Planned Community, indicating that staff had been meeting with the
developer in an effort to resolve the Commissioner's concerns. Mr.
Vairin suggested that the publiz hearing be continued to June 10, 1982,
to allow staff and the developer additional time to resolve these concerns.
Both Chairman Ring and Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that they had
prior commitments on that date and requested that staff attempt to
set a new date for the public hearing.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Ralph Lewis, developer of Terra Vista addressed the Commission stating
that he felt that there-was a timing problem with the scheduling of
the hearings a=d wished to d'scuss ways to accelerate them. Mr. Lewis
offered the suggestion that something could be worked out so that portions
of Terra Vista could be submitted, triangle north of Base Line, so that
staff could begin checking the tentative maps before the Planned Community
text is adopted.
Chairman King stated that he felt that the C ,7incil was the proper body
to approach with this suggestion, not the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lewis replied that if this caas the Commission's feeling that the
Council was the proper body, then he would write a letter requesr;..g
to be placed on the City Council agenda.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that he felt that it
was important that Mr. Lewis be aware that the one time allotted for
General Plan amendments was used by Mr. Lewis' prior request on the
office complex and that the Council would not have another time slot
until the cycle begins again for submission at the end of July and
Plan. ^.ing Commission Minutes -2- May 25, 1982
hearings in September.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would still want to see the feasibility
of the park site relocated to the west of Deer Creek looked into before
any decisions on what map was to be filed was submitted.
There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the public hearing be con-
tinued to June 14, 1982.
D. E.VIRO -,NT1 %TTTAL ASSESSMENT 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 sq.
ft. lot minimum) zone on the south:aest corner of Hillside Road
and Haven Avenue - APN 201- 101 -14.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff Report, stating that this
item had been continued by the Commission at their meeting of May 12,
1982, to allow the staff and project engineers time to work cut problems
with the hydrology of the site. Staff had suggested several options to
the engineers which would result in a redesign of the tract. The
engineers have requested a continuance of the public hearing to the
June 9, 1982 Planning Commission agenda.
Chairman King opened the public hearing. No one wished to address the
Commission and the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Sceranka, seconded by Rempel to continue Environmental
Assessment and Tentative Tract 10246 to June 9, 1982.
AYES. COKMISSIONERS: SCERANKA, REMPEL, KING, STOUT, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CON1MISSIONERS: NONE
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -0' - CHURCH OF THE FOOTHILLS - The location
of a church in an existing building in the P.ancho Cucamonga Business
Park at 10722 Arrow Route in the industrial Park Area - AFN 208 -622-
24.
Commissioner Sceranka abstained from vote on this item due to conflict of
interest and left the podium at 7:20 p.m.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 26, 1982
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Pastor Jerry Kuhns of the Church of the Foothills addressed the Commission
str,.ting that his church was requesting the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to allow them the use of this facilir- a temporary meeting
place until they purchased land for a perm- cility.
There were no further comments and the publ.• :ng was closed.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried urrnimously, to
adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -07.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
REMPE'L, STOUT, KING, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE
SCERANKA
Commissioner Sceranka abstained from vote for the previously stated
reasons and returned to the podium at 7:30 p.m.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMnST N0. 82 -08 - NEW WALK MINISTRY - The proposed
interim use of industrial buildings in Subarea 4 for a church and
related office facility located in the General Industrial category
at 9050 Archibald and 9606 7th Street - APN 205- 171 -46 S 47.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report indicating that
this was a request for a use similar to the previous item with oneadditional
factor; New Walk Ministry has been operating in that facility without
Fire District approval and approval of certain building codes by the
City Building and Safety Division. Staff recommended to the Commission
that public assembly not be allowed at this facility until those con-
ditions imposed by the Fire District and Building and Safety Division
were met.
Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Vairin what types of code enforcement the
City had taken to seek compliance.
Mr. Vairin replied that the City Code Enforcement Officer had contacted
the church several times and informed them that they were in violation
of not having a Conditional Use Permit and the Building and Safety in-
spectors had also been in contact with them informing them of their
code and Fire District violations.
Chairman King opened the public hearing.
Ken Walker of the Foothill Fire District addressed the Commission
Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 26, 1982
stating that the Fire District wished to withhold approval of the Con-
ditional Use Permit until the District had met with the Applicant to
discuss their plan for 'the use of the building.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Walker what the Fire District had done
in their line of enforcement.
Mr. Walker replied that the Fire District had been working with the
Applicant since mid -1981 s=_aking code compliance.
Commissioner Stout asked if there had been any attempt at compliance
on any of the Fire District requirements.
Mr. Walker replied that compliance had been very slow and there were
some requirements that the Fire District felt needed to be complied
with before the issuance of the Permit.
Mr. Howard Sharp, 949 W. 4th Street, Ontario, representing New Walk
Ministry, addressed the Commission. Mr. Sharp indicated that he was
an elder in the Church and had recently been placed in the position of
complying with the requirements and seeking a Conditional Use Permit
Tor the expansion of the facility. He stated that he was fully aware
of the steps that needed to be taken to gain compliance with the re-
quirements of the Fire District which they fully intend to do. Mr.
Sharp stated that the requirements of the two hour fire wall was one
of the main requirements that they were waiting to put in until approval
of the Conditional Use Permit was granted in that this was a very costly
item and did not wish to install the wall and not have the approval
granted.
Chairman King asked Mr. Sharp if he was in full agreement with the
recommendation that no public assembly be allowed until the require-
ments were met.
Mr. Sharp replied that if the church were to stop public assembly until
all the requirements were met, it would mean the loss of their con-
gregation and he could not guarantee that the pastor -of the church would
comply with this recommendation.
Chairman King asked Mr. Sharp how long he thought it would take for
compliance.
Mr. Sharp replied that he felt it would take at least 30 days.
Commissioner Sceranka asked why the church did nct comply with these
requirements when they first occupied the building.
Mr.. Sharp replied that he did not hold that position in the church at
that time and that the individual who was responsible for obtaining
the permit in the beginning was no longer associated with the church.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 26, 1982
Commissioner Rempel stated that the fact that the d)ors did not have
panic safety devices alone was enough for him to vote no on this project
because this was placing the lives of all attendin,o functions in that
building in jeopardy.
Commissioner Sceranka stated that the Commission h ,..d a responsibility to
the church congregation just as the applicant does and that he had a
hard time believing that they would loose their congregation in the
thirty days it would take to comply with the requirements.
Chief Richard Feuerstein of the Foothil'. Fire District addressed the
Commission stating that the Fire District and the ;ity Building and
Safety Division had been attempting to meet with tie Applicant since
July of 1981, but that the Applicants would not co)perate and meet with
Lhem. He further stated that he did not feel that there was a problem
with the refusal to do the work but with communication. He indicated
that he felt a "Catch 22" situation waE being crested in that the Appli-
cant was saying that. they would not comply with tle codes until they had
a Conditional Use Permit and the Fire District was saying that they
would not have a Conditional Use Permit until they complied. The Fire
Chief suggested that the Applicants present the District with a plan
stating exactly what they intended to do with the Building and what the
configuration of the building would be along with :he time frame for the
completion of these items.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, indicated that this could be accomplished
with rewording of one of 'he conditions of approva:.
Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated ttat there was a problem
in doing this as the City would be granting approval of an unsafe building
for a certain amount of time and possibly be liable if something did
happen.
Commissioner Sceranka asked Ted Hopson, Assistant C'_ty Attorney, for
clarification as to the liability to the City if th!v granted approval
of this Conditional. Use Permit.
Mr. Hopson stated that there would be much more of <n argument that the
City allowed an unsafe use to exist if approval was granted with a
condition that they had been informed was an unsafe condition than if
the City granted, as suggested in item E of the Resolution, that the
building could not be used until the conditions had been complied with
because of public health and safety. He further stated that perhaps it
did work a hardship on the Applicant, however, it wa; also a hardship
created by the Applicant.
Dan Richards, Vice - President. of Pacific Commercial Brokerage and leasing
agent of the property, addressed the Commission. Mr. Richards .informed
the Commission that the Applicant had approached the City as to the
possibility of moving into the building in the first place and had been
told by the former City Planner that thev could move into the building
Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 26, 1982
but that the City was in the process of adopting an Industrial Specific
?Ian and that after its adoption their use would either ccmnly or not
comply and a Conditional Use Permit irould have to he obtained. The
Applicant desired to expand on their facility and the landlord informed
them that they would have to get a Conditional Use Permit before they
would agree to extend the lease and allow them to occupy additional
s:ace. Mr. Richards stated that the building is fire sprinklered and
has three exits in front and back which remain open when the building
is occupied. He suggested that the Co=icsion approve the permit and
present the Applicants with a priori ty list of items to be completed.
Art Pol, Associate Pastor, addressed the Commission stating that crash
bars could be installed on the doors before the next church services.
He further stated that funds had been raised to complete the require-
ments of the building and Safety Division and the Fire District and once
approval had been granted the church fully intended to comply with *_heir
requirements.
Taere were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tolstoy called the Commission's attention to the fact
that the Applicant seems to have a problem in complying with require -
rents as in the case of the County and as pointed out by the Fire Chief
in their request for meetings. He further stated that since the building
was fire sprinklered, if the panic oars were installed by the next
public assembly date and a list of priority items to be completed by
certain dates was complied he could vote to grant approval. He asked
the City Attorney what the liability to the City would be if approval
were granted under these conditions.
Ted 'Hopson, City attorney, replied that he would recommend that the
Commission do what they wished regarding compliance without t;ie City's
approval first. He stated that a tentative vote could be taken that
would state that in the event that Building and Safety and Fire District
conditions were met the Commission would be of a mind to grant approval
of the permit. *.r. Hopson stated that frcm the City's point of liability,
he would rather have the formal vote continued to a date giving the
Applicant time to comply with these requirements. In =his way the
City would not be granting approval to a project which they had been
told was unsafe.
Commissioner Rempel stated that he was agreeable to this t3De of vote
in that the Applicants would be using the building mowing that it was
unsafe for public assembly, but not with the approval of the Commissicn.
Chairman icing asked for a straw vote if that was the consensus of the
Commission.
Co=issioner Re=pel made the motion that the item be continued thirty
days to the June 23, 1952 meeting and that the formal vote for the
CLT would be made at that time.
Planning Lommission Minutes -7- May 26, 1982
Commissioner Sceranka stated that he would second the motion with a
stipulation that a work and progress report be brought back to the
Commission in two weeks and a calendar of events be established.
The straw vote was taken with only Commissioners Rempel and Sceranka
_asting aye votes. Commissioners King, Stout and Tolstoy voted Ito,
therefore the motion failed.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was voting no because public
safety was involved and that the Applicant seemed to have a problem
in compliance with jurisdictions which they were under.
Cl�air`ran Kin, grated
o tl t ' -:h:: a cndenc to favor r tile Resolution
as prepared by staff in granting approval of the CUP because of the
condition_ which stipulated that there would be no public assembly
until compliance of the requirements.
Commissioner. Sceranka sated that he felt that this was only antagonizing
the Applicant and felt that Commissioner Rebmel's motion would allow
them the opportunity to continue meeting without looking for other
facilities.
Chairman King stated that he felt this was the strongest statement that
the Commission could make in not allowing public assembly until the
building complies with code.
Commissioner Sceranka asked what would happen if the use was denied
until such time as they complied. Would they still be able to use the
building until tnat time?
Jack Lam, Cc=-,mitt' De-.7elopment Director, stated that they were in the
building now and that he than:ght that the point that the Chairman was
making was that the Applicant was in the building under those conditions
and the liability is now theirs and not the City's.
Commissioner Re=pel stated that he felt that the Commission was placing
the Applicant in the position of staying in the building, thus breaking
the law and this should not be the case.
Chairman King stated that it was a value judgement in that they would
be in the building at their own risk.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt the
Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 82-08.
AYES: CC?^IffSSIONERS:
FOES: C0�M. SSICNERS:
AySE'T: CO?2WSSSIC`E?tS:
TOLSTOz, STOt71, KING, SCEIRWNRA
RE'Si'EL
NONE
Planning Commission Minutes -S- May 26, 1482
Commissioner Rempel voted No for the previously stated reasons.
8:10 o.m. The Planning Commission Recessed
8:25 p.m. The Planning Commission Reconvened
G. ENVI ?QNME` -TAL ASSESSjE T AND T�'TATIVE - p-ACT N0. 12171 - STEP3ENgON -
A custom lot subdivision of 6 lots on S.3 acres of land in the
R-1- 20,000 zone located at the northwest corner of Klusman Avenue
and Wnirlaway Street - AP% 1061 - 511 -06 5 07.
Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner, reviewed the Staff Report.
Commissioner Sceranka asked what the reasoning was for the Equestrian
Committee's requirement of a 40' easement and the easement on the
south side of the property. It appeared to him that the Committee
was asking for an additional 15' for this particular project.
`{r. Johnston replied that they were not asking for additional area, but
that this area was to be a local feeder trail of 15 feet.
Michael Vairin, Senior Plarzer, explained that the Committee had reviewed
the tentative map and in their review saw that there was the ability to
use the drainage easement along the west boundary to coincide as one
trail for direct access and the one on the south to provide those people
to the east to comt down through those streets to get on the trail and
go north up through the Demens area which would allow them to connect
with the Regional Trail System.
Commissioner Tolstov stated that when the drainage easement was improved
it would most likely be concrete lined and this did not seem to be an
ideal situation to have people get in a concrete lined ditch to use it
as a trail. He asked Mr. Rougeau if it sheuid be designated that the
trail not be within the cemented ditch.
Mr. Rougeau stated that with the improvement of the Demens Channel the
amount of water going down that easement would be a great deal less
and that the improvement would more than likely not be a concrete ditch
but a V- gutter no more than ten feet total.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that be was all for equestrian easements,
however, felt that this one needed to have a little more thought put
into it so that it not be in corfiict with the drainage of water. lie
further stated that there was a problem with the trail proposed for
the south side of the project in that there was a 14 foot gap in the
street grade.
Chairman Icing opened the public 'rearing.
Planning Commission minutes -9- 3av 26, 1982
Bob Gilbert, engineer for the project, addressed the Commission stating
that he was in agreement with Commissioner Tolstoy's comment concerning
the trail to the south. He felt -that it would be almost impossible to
grade that area so that a horse could get from the bottom to the
existing trail system.
Michael Vairir., Senior Planner, stated that one of the Conditions of
Approval stated that a detailed equestrian system be submitted prior to
recordation of the map and these problems could be worked out at that
time and the solution would be brought back to the Commission for their
review.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the additional Condition
to be imposed on the tract that the Commission received just prior to
the meeting.
Bob Gilbert stated that he understood the drainage problem, however,
wished to have the condition worded so that it would be open enough to
allow the engineers and staff to work on a solution to the drainage
problem.
Tom Stephenson, developer of the project, addressed the Coc*.4:sion and
stated that he had wondered if Lewis Homes could be required tc go
back and redo the street as they caused the problem in the first place
with the 14 foot cut and if he could sue the County for this situation.
Ted Hopson, City Attorney, stated that in answer to the first question,
no. In response to the second question, the answer is probably yes
since that municipality had concentrated runoff onto the Applicant's
property.
There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed.
',Motion- Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to
adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map 12171 with a change
in Condition M-8 to be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
AYES: COMISSIO='S: REMYEL, STOUT, KING, SCEiLANKA, TOLSTOF
NOES: CO*TIISSIONEFS: NONE
ABSENT: COlenSSION -ERS: NONE
H. ENVIPOZ _ENT ?S. ASSESS'.rFNT &% PARCEL HAP NO. 7349 - LFwIS DEFEZOP*IE\*f
CDMPA\-Y - A division of 20.45 acres into 8 lots within the General
Industrial area, Iccated on the north side of 4th Street, east of
I -15 Preewav - APN 229 - 283 -49.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- May 26, 1982
Co=issioner Sceranka abstained from vote 3n this item due to conflict
of interest and left the podi'.r* at 9:05 p.
Commissioner Rempel asked if there would b a problem with the mainten-
ance of turf block in the industrial area.
Mr. Rougeau stated that this was the normal treatment and felt that
several hundred feet of turf block may ire a problem, hourever, the lower
section of Lot 8 would be a problem in what to do with that. He further
stated that the treatment would not necessarily have to be turf bloc's,
it could be decomposed granite or some other form of treatment.
Chairman Ring opened the public hearing.
Jerry Bryant, representing Lewis Hodes, addressed the Commission stating
that he had questions on same of the Conditions of Approval. He asked
for clarification of condition 45 of the City Engineer's report concerning
dedication of a minimum of 40 feet from the adjacent property owner to
the north. He stated that according to their records, this requirament
had already been met.
Mr. Rougeau replied that if the dedication already did ez:ist, then there
would be no reason for the condition; however, there was some i?oubt
on the part of the Engineering Division that dedication had b _-f:= rec::ived
by the City.
Mr. Bryant requested that the Applicant be allowed to install permanent
pavement on the emergency access road from Hysscp to the property until
such time as 5th and 7th Street interchange were const7_1:cted. As this
interchange was part of the Assessment District, i.he aco.!rs would tiled
revert back to an emergency access only at the time the int.ircharge is
constructed. Mr. Bryant also stated that in regards to couli tion 50 of
the Engineer's Report the wording be changed to read that landscaping
would be installed or bonded for prior to recordation.
Mr. Rougeau indicated that it should be understood that it would be
bonded for.
".r. Bryant asked for the Commission's comments on the access.
Chairman Icing stated that unless he could be persuaded otherwise, he
felt that the access should rennin for emergency use only and not be
used on a regular basis.
Mr. Rougeau stated that the interchange construction would not be underway
for a long time in the future. He further stated that the parcel pan as
shown would have access by going south on the existing frontage road to
the freeway so the 6th Street connection would not be that great of a
factor in the viability of this property. Mr. Rougeau stated that the
main concern was that when the industrial area was developed there would
be pressure brought about by individual owners to close the access off
Planning Commission Minutes -Ii- May 25, :.982
from 4th Street and the City would be stuck with a permanent access
there. The property owners and inquirers about the property had been
forewarned by the City that the access policy would not allow access at
that point.
There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed.
Cc.:Waissioner Rempel stated that he agreed with staff on bringing the
access off of 4th Street adjacent to the on and off ramp and felt that
there had to be an access from the north off Hyssop.
Mr. Rougeau stated that if the dedication was there as the Applicant had
in-plied, all the developer would have to do is put the pavement. If
the dedication or offer of dedication had not been made, there could be
a problem in obtaining ;t but without it the property would be inaccess-
ible_
Motion: Moved by Ring, seconded by Stout, carried, to adopt the Resolution
approving Parcel Map 7349 with the amendment to the condition regarding
emergency access. The amendment would be that the first 40` would be
decomposed granite or hydroseeded and the remainder would be included
into a paved parking lot.
AYES: COWISSIONERS: RING, STOVE, RE'TEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMUSSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: OOIOUSSIONEFS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COnlISSIONiRS: SCERANKA
Commissioner Sceranka returned to the podium at 9:30 p.m.
I. STATUS REPORT AND E iVIRO'.N? iL.P' 7TAL ASSESS?ENT FOR THE ETIVANDA
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 Co=nunity boundaries).
Ti=, Beedle, Senior Planner, reviewed the status of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan updating the Commission on the progress of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan Advisory Committee and indicating that the draft Plan was antici-
pated to begin public hearings in September of 1982.
Otto Kroutil, Associate Planner, reviewed the potential environmental
effects of the Specific Plan as outlined in the Initial Study and
stated staff was seeking the Commission's recommendation to prepare
Planning Commission Minutes -12- May 26, 1982
a Focused Environmental Impact Report.
Chairman_ King opened the public hearings.
Cecil Johnson, an Etiwanda property owner, addressed the Commission
and asked what the scope of the EIR would be to specific property
owners.
Otto Kroutil replied that the intent of this EIR would be to cover
specific areas that the Specific Plan addresses and would not cover
grading, for example, since the Specific Plan does not propose to do
grading in the area. If Mr. Johnson brought a development proposal
to the City, he would be asked for a report on effects of the grading,
but would not be asked for a report on the areas which the Specific
Plan EIR already covers.
`fr. Johnson_ asked if wildlife and endangered species and areas of
historical interest would be addressed in the EIR.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that these types of things would be
covered by the expanded Initial Study.
Alex Catania, Etiwanda property awner, addressed the CoEmlission and
asked if the effects of the East Avenue Bypass would be studied in
the EIR.
Co=nissioner Sceranka replied that circulation would be studied and
addressed on the Environmental Impact Report.
Notion_ `loved by Sceranka, seconded by 1empel, carried unanimously, to
recommend that staff prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report
for the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
OLD BUSLNESS
J.
AL 79 -09 - CABLE TV
The development of a receiving site and *_railer on property
located at 8387 East 19th Street in the A -1 zone - APT 202 -021-
36 & 37.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report stating that this
item was continued from the May 12, 1982 Planning Commission meeting
to allow staff and the applicant time to meet and discuss construction
of a permanent facility. The applicant is in the process of negotiations
with the Cucamonga County Water District and staff recommended approval
of a time extension for six (6) months.
Planning Commission Minutes -13-
May 26, 1982
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka, carried unanimously,
to adopt the Resolution approving the time extension for Site Approval
No. ?9 -09.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: COM*IISSIONERS:
DIRECTO%'S REPORTS
REMPEL, SCERANKA, RING, STOUT, TOLSTOY
NONE
WIR "
K. REPORT ON '.MITIATION OF ZONE CHANGE - A change of zone from R -3
(Multi - Farm:.: 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.
Pick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the Staff report stating that staff
was recommending that the Planning Commission initiate a zone change
in the above - described area in order to make it consistent with the
General Plan. The proposed zone change would then be legally adver-
tised and public hearings held to receive public input.
There was discussion by the Commission concerning the zone designation
and the desire to have special studies done in the area. It was the
consensus of the Commission that, given the demand of staff's work
schedule and the lack of time to complete the d =sired studies, the zoning
of this property remain R -3.
* * * t *
ADJOUFN?, N'T
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Sceranka to adjourn.
9:50 p.m. The 21anning Commission Adjourned
Respectfully submitte3.
JACK LAM, Secretary
Plannir..- Commission Minutes -14- May 26, 1982
CITY OF ^_ tiCHO CUCA` ONGA
PI-ba ric CO* ISS ?ON %MMTFS
Regu.' ar ; _-eting
June 9, 1982
CALL TO OPMER
Vice - chairman, Herman Rempel, called the Regular Meeting of the Ct -y of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 p.m. The meetit-^ was
held at the Lion's Park Community Cente'-, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho
Cucamonga. Vice- chairman Rempel then led in the pledge of alleYiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dennis L. Stout, Peter Talatoy,
Herman Rempel
ABSMZT: COMMISSIONERS: Jeff Ring
STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant
City Attorney; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary;
Jack La=, Director of Community Development; Paul
Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin,
Senior Planner
Mr. Lam .reminded the Commission of the upcoming Terra Vista public
hearing to be held on Pi-;nday, June 14, 1982.
Mr. Lam advised the Commission that the City had won another award for
the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The Merit Award, received from the
Inland Empire Section of the American Planning Association, will be
presented to the City at an awards banquet, June 24, 1982 at Bing's
Restaurant in San Bernardino. Mr. Lam further advised that the Indus-
trial Area Specific Plan would now be entered in the statewide com-
petition of the American Planning Association. He invited the Com-
mission to attend the banquet.
CONSM -.r CALENDAR
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to
adopt the Consent Calendar.
A. VACATION OF 22ND STREET AND 20' ALLEY - LUCAS LAND - The vacation.
of 22nd Street and 20' alley, located south of 8th Street and
east of Center Avenue - APN 209 - 241 -1, 2 & 9.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. 'i'VIRONKENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10246 - Ar.KR SEH /ASSAD -
A custom lot subdivision of ten acres of land into 15 lots located
in the R -1- 20,000 (Single - Family Residentiali20,000 square foot lot
minimum) zone on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Haven
Avenue - APN 201- 111 -14.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it was correct that in complying with the
requirements for the Community Trails, the applicant bad lost a lot.
Mr. Vairin replied that this was correct.
Commissioner Stout asked what the width of Mesada Street is.
Mr. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that it is 60 feet to the
right -of -way which is standard.
Commissioner Stout asked if it would be possible to put a slight curve
in the proposed street eliminating a straight run to Mesada.
Mr. Vairin replied that it is possible.
Mr. Stout asked if it would be possible to vary the width of some of the
lots to generate a more pleasing effect.
Mr. Vairin replied that this could be done.
Vice - chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dan luerra, the project engineer, addressed the Commission. He
stated that at the present time, the street does have a slight jog, but
this could be increased.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stout stated that on the alternative proposed there is an
existing problem with water ponding at Mesada and Mayberry. He asked if
alternative 2 would eliminate this problem.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the developer is comfortable with either
alternative.
Mr. Guerra replied that either one is suitable if the cost of installa-
tion of drainage is affordable, however, this is dependent upon the
property for which an easement is being obtained.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that it was his opinion that this particular
project presents a peculiar drainage problem and is one reason why
Planning Commission Minutes -2- .Tune 9, 1982
staff was asked to investigate. He indicated that his personal preference
is alternative "A" and he would press for that except that the developer
has already lost one lot because the City required a major trail. This,
he said, would not be fair and would not improve the drainage situation.
He stated that he would like to see some variation in the street and
that the project should be approved.
Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that another consideration is that lots
1, 4. 7, 8 and 9 will be used for drainage as they always have, and the
water will go to Mayberry Street as it always has, as this project will
not add any new water. He asked if this is true.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it was.
Mr. Tolstoy asked that this be shown in the record.
Vice- chairman Rempel stated that the developer is not being allowed to
come down Haven which would have given them a better chance to divide
the lots.
Commissioner Tolstov stated that hopefully, with alternative 2, this
will alleviate the problem.
Notion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to
adept Resolution No. 82 -54, app.:nving Tentative Tract No. 10246 with
additional conditions one and two set forth in the staff report.
C. E- LRVCrr1 N A.. ASSESS'rENT AIND PARCEL MAP NO. 7451 - CHURCH OF LATTER
DAY SAINTS - A division of 2.79 acres into 2 parcels within the
R -1- 20,000 zone, located on the sou_hwest corner of Wilson and
Haven Avenues - APN 201 - 181 -11.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked, if when there is discussion of equestrian
trails, this will allow right -of -way to be received on both parcels
one and two.
Mr. Rougeau replied that this is correct-
Vice-chairman Rempel opened the public hearing..
Mr. Floyd Zielke, 265 N. Saa Gabriel, Pasadena, the engineer representing
the owner, stated that the purpose of the land division is to allow the
church to sell the excess property. He stated that they were in agreement
with all of the conditions with the exception of Condition 3. Mr. Zielke
stated that staff indicated that at the time the proposed development is
submitted, the condition might be modified if it :s compatible with the
project to have access to Haven. He indicated that under the circum-
Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 9, 1982
stances, they would agree with all conditions.
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconder: by Stout, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 82 -55, approving parcel map 7451 with all conditions.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AND PARCEL MAP NO. 7441 - TACKETT - A
division of .91 acres into 4 lots for residential use located
between La Grande Drive and Lomita Drive, west of Amethyst Street -
APN 202- 081 -13 and 14.
Paul Rougeau reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that staff indicated the drainage on this
project ::ould go east and west but asked if it wasn't much farther to
Amethyst than it was to Hellman.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the drainage could go either way but that
could be an optical illusion. He indicated that it would drain to the
east side and then down to the street.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he would hate to overload Lomita.
Mr. Rougeau stated that even the south lots would drain the water.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that the street is already determined and
there isn't much that can be done because of this.
Vice - chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
Mr. Don Tackett, the applicant addressed the Commission stating that
he was ccncerned with the requirement for Condition 34. He provided
some photographs to the Commission showing the drainage to the south
and the east. He stated that he would like to avoid the installation
of the concrete "V" ditch because it appears that there is no ground
erosion and installation would be very costly.
Mr. Rougeau replied that the requirement takes effect only after the
first house is built. Further, that the concrete "V" ditch is not
required because of erosion problems but because of past City exper-
iences with obstruction to water flow paths. He indicated that when
obstruction occurs it creates problems downstream and a definite ease-
ment must be procured. Mr. Rougeau felt that the requirement for a
concrete 'Y' ditch would be the best way to prevent obstruction by
preventing property owners from building a wall over the drainage
path, or other similar diversions.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 9, 1982
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that staff indicated if they build on the
lower portion of Lomita they will rot have to put in a concrete "A"
ditch. He asked if it would have to be placed on the east side of
the lower lot.
Mr. Rougeau stated that that lot will have an easement and the concrete
ditch should probably be put in.
Mr. Tackett stated that he was not sure he understood Condition No. 8.
Mr. Rougeau indicated that the asterisk in the conditions refers down to
the median island category and did not pertain to this.
Mr. Tackett asked about the street light condition.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it is possible that this will not be required
if the street lights are in the right place; however, if the existing
street lights are on wooden poles, they would have to be replaced.
Mr. Tackett stated that he did not have to discuss this now as he could
talk to staff about this after tonight's meeting.
Co:mnissioner Tolstoy stated that Mr. Tackett had better speak about this
now because if the Commission sets the conditions, the applicant would
be bound by them.
Mr. Tackett stated that it is his feeling that the condition for the
concrete "V" ditch is not required as the water drainage has not created
a problem for the past several years and the photographs he provided
to the Commission show this.
Mrs. Evelyn Hall, 9430 Lomita, :Alta Loma, ocmer of property adjacent
to this proposed project asked what the maximum number of living
units would be allowed.
Mr. Rempel replied that one residence on each of the lots would be
allowed.
Mrs. Hall stated that she has been negligent in attending the Planning
Commissions meetings but that she could write a book on the crowning
of the street. She indicated that some consideration should be given
to the long -time residents.
Mrs. Hall provided some background to the placement of sewers in this
area. She indicated that with the project for installation of the sewers,
her property has suffered.
Vice - chairman Rempel replied to Mrs. Hall's original question that when
this was discussed at the last meeting, the Commission asked staff to
come back with a recommendation on a General Plan change to allow two
units per lot in this area and that it would be R -2 and not R -3.
Planning Commission, Minutes -5- .tune 9, 1982
Further, that this would have to come before Design Review the nest
time.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he was confused on the issue of density
and asked Mrs. Hall if she wanted only two units per lot. He asked
if in the future she were asked what should be done with this property,
would she say only duplexes should go in.
Mrs. Hall replied that the units on Le Grand have been done very nicely
but they are concerned with two story apartments that might go in like
those adjacent tu, Stater Brothers on Lomita Drive.
Mr. Tackett stated that he was urdar the impression that this is zoned
R -3. He further stated that he had been forbidden from doing anything
until after adoption of the General Plan because the General Plan shows
this area as R -1 and r_ot R -3. He indicated that this would mean a loss
of $40,000 and it appeared that this was not handled in his best interest.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that the General Plan shows this as R -1
whether this property is divided into 4 lots or I lot. Further, that
the General Plan will eventually be changed to allow additional units
or the zoning will be changed. Further, that staff did the only thing
they could. Vice- chairman Rempel stated that if Mr. Tackett wished,
he could request a General Plan Amendment to charge this.
Mr. Tackett stated that not everyone has liberal access to information
and if the piece of property was zoned R -3 and under the General Plan
is now zoned R -•1, it was very confusing to him.
Mr. Lam stated that anyone purchasine pronPrry 4, -u4c City
city should know that the state law has changed so that the GeneralUther.
Plan and not the zoning sap governs what classification the property
will have. He indicated that when anyone wished to buy property in the
City they should ask what the General Plan shows as this is the only
thing that governs.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the applicant questioned Condition No.
34 relating to drainage and asked Mr. Rougeau about this.
Mc. Rougeau replied that there is always a problem when cross drainage
is involved and the only way that the City can alleviate future problems
is through a requirement such as this.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if one of the desires is to put the property
owner on the south on the alert that he will be taking the runoff.
Mr. Rougeau stated that this is correct and that this is actually a
condition of the Grading Committee, a technicality, but is required
Of every parcel map and tract recorded in the Citv.
Planning COmmlission Minutes -6- June 9, 1982
Commissioner Tolstoy, referring to a question by ?ors. 4111 relative to
zoning„ asked if the zoning is increased beyond 2 dwell ng units per
lot might it produce an even greater water problem.
Mr. Rougeau replied that there would be because of more coverage on the
lot.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that Condition No. 34 was eery important.
Commissioner Stout stated his agreement with Commissioner Tolstoy's
comments. He indicated that he has seen what happens then there is
no drainage provision. He further indicated that it is easy for the
property owner who owns one piece to express concern w.th cost for
drainage, but this small problem can eventually become a very big
problem.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that 25-30 years ago this could not have
been brought up. These days, however, it does not tak! much for some-
one to go to court. He indicated that while this is etpensive, it is
really cheap insurance.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that if the applicant wisles to wait until
some time in the future relative to changing the General Plan, the
next hearings would be in about 3 -4 months.
Ccmmissioner Tolstoy stated that it appears there is c msensus that
Condition No. 34 remain.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy. seconded by Stout, carried ;manimous_.y, to
adopt Resolution No. 82 -52, approving parcel map 741`1 i1th the con-
ditions as noted.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PEi_14IT 82 -09 - WHITEHEAD - The prc3osed development
of a dog kennel for raising and breeding dogs in tie A -1 zone on
1.85 acres of land, located at 8405 Hamilton Stree: - APN 202 -021-
50.
City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. H indicated that
the Resolution of approval, if accepted by the Cocmnissien, should be
corrected to delete Condition 4 which is a repeat of Ce:dition 3, and
that another condition be added which defines the duratJon of the
Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Stout asked if there is any minimum size for a lot in tle
A -1 zone.
Mr. Vairin replied that this request exceeds the requireient and that
the minimum is one acre within the A -1 zone.
Planning Commission N.inutes -7- Jure 9, 1982
Vice - chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
Mr. Whitehead, the applicant, indicated that he had nothing to add to
staff's comments other than he wants to keep the dogs he presently has.
Commissioner Stout asked how many dogs the applicant presently has.
Mr. 'Whitehead replied that he has six.
Mrs. Judith Lengwenus, property owner to the south of the applicant's
property, presented a petition opposing this proposed use. She stated
that she works for the County of San Bernardino Environmental Health
Agency and knew from first -hand experience of what might occur if the
Conditional Use Permit is granted. She indicates: that once a kennel is
established, there is nothing that the County or City can do.
Co =issioner Stout asked if at the present time there have been any
problems with dogs.
Mrs. Lengwenus replied that she had found dogs in her back vard and that
they bark all night long. She indicated that this area has a lot of
dogs and this will increase the dog population of the area.
Marilyn Roth. 3415 Hamilton, stated that this area used ro be quiet, but
there is now a noise and sm =11 problem that needs to be settled. She
stated she felt that heap_ and safety standards are being violated.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it was Mss. Roth's contention that dogs or.
the applicant's property contribute to this problem.
Mrs. Roth answered affirmatively.
COTIMnissioner Tolstoy asked if this situation contributes to the noise in
the neighborhood.
Mrs. Rotlh and Mrs. Lengwenus replied that they thought so.
Mss. Whitehead, applicant, stated that they iZave installed a cement
ditch for waste and that it empties into their mess pool. She indicated
that their dogs are clean, they go to the veterinarian and are licensed.
She indicated that she did not understand what the fuss is abour.
Mrs. Roth asked if the kennel could be placed on the other side, away
from their lots.
M Mel Gable, an area resident, asked to
that he did not know Mr. I-rnitehead or any
who spoke tonight; hcwever, everyone has
He indicated that there are no particular
no dog uinich -poke a different language.
not i,egire that o dogs in a kennel would
see Exhibit "A ". He stated
of the other property owners
logs and they do bark at night.
dogs at fault and he knew of
Mr. Gable stated that he could
create additional
Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 9, 1982
problems for the area and that these dogs will probably be the best
treated in the area. fie asked why leash laws were not enforced and
further, if the kennels could be repositioned.
Mr. Gable indicated that horses in the area created as much a problem as
the dogs do.
Mrs. Lengwenus asked where and what the water is that drains fro:. the
Whitehead property.
Mr. Whitehead replied that the water they see is from the washing
machine. Further, that this is the way it was when he moved in four
years ago. Mr. Whitehead spoke of the improvements he had made to the
kennel indicating that the area would be neater and cleaner.
Mrs. Roth stated that she is not arguing about 4 dogs but did not want
them along her side of the house because of odors.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Co=issioner Tolstoy asked for the record how many dogs the applicant
was legally allowed to have.
Mr. Gomez replied that he is allowed to have 4 adult dogs 4 _+nths or
older.
Commissioner. Toistoy asked if this means that the dogs can whelp and
that the offspring can be kept for a period of four months.
Mr. Gomez replied that this is correct.
Mr. ihitehead stated that he has six adult dogs and 3 that are weaning.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he has two dogs over what is allowed
and it doesn't matter how much land he has, it is still only 4 dogs
allowed.
Cop -- issioner Stout stated that it is proposed that S dogs be authorized
but that the applicant is only asking for 6.
Mr. Gomez replied that this would allow some flexibility.
Commissioner Toistoy stated that it rounds to him like this is a neighbor-
hood full of dogs. Further, that on this piece of property with almost
two acres, and with a Conditional Use Permit, if there are any problems
they can be brought to the Commission and be dealt with.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he does not see anything wrong with
this request.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 9, 1982
Vice - chairman Rempel felt that the number of dogs allowed should be
changed back to the six presently owned by the applicant. Further,
that since this is not a public boarding facility which would cause
trouble he did not see a nroblem because there are presently so many
dogs in the neighborhood. He felt that if the applicant could have
placed the kennel on the other side of his property it would have been
better.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Tolstoy, carried unanimously, to
adopt lesolution No. 82 -57, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -09.
with a change in the number of dogs allowed to 5 and the addition of a
condition defining the time period of the permit.
8:13 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed.
8:35 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -05 EASON - The temporary use of an
existing structure for a church facility in the Industrial Park
Category (Subarea 7), located at 1183: 'oothill Boulevard -
APN 229- 011 -21.
Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report.
Vice - chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
Mr. Victor Eason, pastor of Victory Chapel, stated that they would
change the building to meet the requirements c.' the Foothill Fire
Protection District. He asked if the condition for the double entry
doors is retroactive as he did not ask this question of the Foothill
Fire District. He indicated that they are willing to have the break
away doors and are also willing to install panic hardware. Mr. Eason
asked whether the sign on top would be allowable as it would be diffi-
cult and costly to replace. He indicated that they are also willing
to meet the condition for parking lot striping but asked that the;: be
allowed to recoat the black top prior to the striping.
Mr. Vairin stated that the reasor. the sign must be removed is because
it does not conform to the City's Sign Ordinance relative to sign place-
ment being above the roof parapet. Mr. Vairin indicated that the sign
could be relocated to the side of the building and he would be willing
to work with the church on this.
Commissioner Tolz:toy asked about the size of the sign.
Mr. Vairin replier` that the size is within the requirements of the
Ordinance.
Planning Commmissicn P°.inutes -10- June 9, 1982
Mr. Vairin stated that he would like to clarify the Fire District's
reg+�lati ^ns. Be indicated *_ha*_ the Fire District is a separate entity
and operates i.nder Titles 19 and 24 of the State Fire Marshall's regu-
lations. Fe indicated that the rite District would tell Mr. Eason
what must be done based upon the occupancy of the building. Mr.
Vairin stated that whatever the regulations are for the existing
occupancy, they must be met.
Mr. Eason replied that it does not appear that there ivill be a problem.
Further, that there is a fireman in the congregation who will be
working with the Fire District on the regulations, aad safety is one
of their first considerations.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the only thing that bc•thers him is
the fire safety aspect of this request. He indicated that it is
good that a church is moving to where it finally cants to be and
asked if Mr. Eason is aware of the costs necessary to meet the re-
ouirements of the Fire District.
Mr. Eason stated that he has spoken with the District and the only
area in question at the present time is the sanctuary. He indicated
that the building has two very acceptable exits and that they will
bring the building up to four exits. Further, that they have a
handle on cost and it is not prohibitive.
Co=issioner Rempel stated that if nothing else, this will clean up
the building.
Commissioner Stout stated that this is almost poetic justice.
Motion: *Moved by Stout, seconded by Tols*_oy, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 82 -58 with the conditions as stated.
G. CDNDITZO'AL USE PERMIT N0. 82 -11 - 16TENZEL - The establishment of
a church in a 2628 square foot unit of an industrial complex
in the General Industrial area (Subarea 4), located on the
east side of Archibald Avenue, south o° 6th Street - ANN 210-
071-25.
Mr. Gomez reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Stout asked if Mr. Gomez knew how many of these requests
have been approved.
Mr. Gomez replied that there have been approximately one -half dozen
in the past 3-4 months.
Planning Co=mi.ssion minutes -11- June 9, 1982
Vice - chairman Rempel opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
COmmissioner Tolstoy stated that because of the economic situation in
the County, it appears that there isn't any money for churches to
go out within the community. He indicated that the industrial, area
should be left for industrial use. Beyond this, he felt that the
church should be allowed.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by ;tout, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 82 -59, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -11
with all conditions.
H_ P..ANNED DEVELOPMENT 82 -03 - TT 10826 - LESNY - A change of zone
from R -1 -20,000 (Single- Famiiv Residential, 112 acre lots) to
P,-2 /PD (Two Family Residential /Planned Development) and the
development of 27 single family units, 81 patio homes and 202
townhouse units on 57.7 acres of land, located between Haven
and Hermosa, approximately 660 feet south of Wilson - APN 201_
181 -12, 13, 14, 02, 63, 65 and 69.
Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report_. He indicated
that the applicant had been requested to meet with Deer Creek residents
and Chaffey College relative to this planned development. Mr. vairin
stated that a letter nas been received from the Deer Creek Homeowners
Association advising that they are pleased with this development.
Commissioner Tclsttoy stated that the median on Haven is designed to be
cut so that traffic coming up Haven will be able to go into the turn
pocket. He asked if this was correct.
Mr. Rougeau replied that there is an exit cut through the median for
the north driveway for Chaffey College and is north of the entrance
for this project. He .indicated that this could not be closed up to
Provide another entrance to the project but the thought is that the
project would construct a left -turn pocket that would provide the
ability for a U -turn_
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that what is there is inadequate and
asked if this would be redesigned.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if it can be redesigned without traffic snarls.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it can be and will provide a left -turn pocket
like the one down the street_.
Planning CL- a- fission Minutes -12- June 9, 1982
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if that should be a longer turn pocket.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it should be.
Commissioner Stout asked if somebody turning left into the project
will have to go past the entryway, make a U -turn and turn around.
Mr. Rougeau replied that this is what must happen. He stated that if
there were not already a driveway for the college, there could have
been one for the entrance. He indicated further that two entryways
so close together would create problems.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that one of the conditions of approval
states that there will be provisons for water generated above the
project to flow through to the basin. He further asked if the cal-
culation there is enough to handle the Mayberry water situation. He
felt this should be stated.
Mr. Rougeau replied that he would have to ask the applicant's engineer
to answer this question. He indicated that it probably hasn't been
sized for anything north of Wilson but that it could be. 'Further,
that this would be a very small additional amount of water in the way
that it pipes out.
Vice - chairs^_ Rempel opened the public hearing.
Mr. H. Ernest Reynolds, president of Reynolds Environmental Group,
NNewport Beach, spoke of the design of this planned development and the
amenities which would be contained within Havenwood. He indicated
that he would answer any questions the Commission or the community
may have.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what the capacity of the drain is.
Mr. Frank Williams of Associated Engineers, engineer for this project,
replied that a detailed hydrology analysis hae been submitted all the
way up to Carrari Street. He stated that it has been determined that
in a maximum flood cond'.tion, 200 cfs could be received at the north
boundary and the facility has been designed to carry that amount. He
indicated that this will probably become much less in the future,
particularly when Wilson is fully curbed with probably only orte- fourth
of that amo nt coming in a 100 -year storm. He stated that this report
is on file in the City Engineer's office to back up this claim.
Co.:nissioner Tclstoy asked if the grading plan is such that in case
the capacity which is foreseen were not met, the excess water would
go down the center section. He asked if the project is graded so
that there is a low spot.
Mr. Williams pointed out the hydrology to Commissioner Tolstoy in-
dicating four spots where the drainage system would be connected to
Planning Cor=d ssion Minutes -13- June 9, 1982
the channel. He pointed out where the water was divided within the
project stating that it would be almost impossible for the over flow
to direct itself in the direction of concern to Commissioner Tolstoy.
Cormissioner Tolstoy asked if there was capacity within the streets.
Mr. Williams replied that there is more than adequate capacity to carry
a maximum flow.
Coruaissioner Tolstoy asked if water directed down Haven flow down
Haven.
Mr. Williams replied that it would.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is a device that would take it
there or if one is needed.
Mr. Williams replied that he thought there is probably a small one
there.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated it was hi.s belief that a condition of
the project should be that water added to Haven by this project should
be taker, off at the settling basin.
Mr. Williams stated that if the condition does not already exist,
they would be amenable to doing this. He indicated that they would
accept this as a condition. He further indicated that whatever they
do would have to be after discussion with the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen to that water if Flood
Control does not agree.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it all ei is up at Highland Avenue.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that if the water is directed to the basin
it is then released in a controlled manner. He stated that if this
is not taken off Haven and goes down it is cver capacity at the ditch
as it goes over 19th Street.
Mr. Williams stated that he was quite sure that this can be worked
out and that they would accept the condition.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted this worked out because
Flood Control is sometimes not cooperative and that any additional
water must be controlled.
Mr. Rougeau stated that if Mr. Williams would accept this, staff will
explore whatever needs to be done.
Planning Commission lAdnutes -14- June 9, 1982
Mr. Williams stated that Flood Control is usually receptive to adding
water to their basin.
Mr. Alan Lowy, president of Lesny Development, 8200 Wilshire Boulevard,
Beverly Hills, California, stated his agreement with staff's conditions
commended conended staff for their professional manner and helpfullness in the
processing of this development. He advised that he or the engineering
and architectural consultants were willing to answer any questions.
Commissioner Stout asked for someone to address the safety of the U -turn
required by this project. Mr. Williams stated he felt that the best
solution might be a meeting between Chaffey College, the City and the
developer to work out whatever is necessary to ensure traffic safety.
Commissioner Stout asked if Mr. Williams had any feel for how many
people might make left-hand turns at this point.
Mr. Williams replied that most people would be using this particular
entrance; however, he stated, he was not conversant with the average
number of vehicle trips per unit.
Mr. Rougeau s=ated that approximately 2000 trips per day are anticipated
if they all use that entrance. He stated that this would all be con-
centrated at the rush hour and that the Hermosa entrance wculd also
get a lot of use.
Commissioner Stout asked if Mr. Rougeau thought that more people
would use Hermosa if this entrance becomes a problem.
Mr. Rougeau replied that most people coming from the south, going to
Chaffey, would use that entrance and that there wasn't any conflict
even with those people using the north entrance.
Commissioner Stout asked if the driveway at Chaffey College is a major
entrance.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it was not.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that people make illegal turns there.
Mr. Rougeau stated that you will get cheaters even if you keep the
configuration that is there now. He indicated that the visibility
is very good if you go to Wilson and is a safe place to make a L' -turn.
He felt that the extra distance that people would have to travel
wculd encourage them to cheat. He stated further that the turn pocket
presently is not designed for it and the best way would be to have it
designed well and let people use it.
C:;nmissioner Stout stated his concern for those motorists coming
south because of blocked view at the point where a U -turn would be
made.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 9, 1982
Mr. Rougeau stated that on the plans it does not appear to have much
distance but at ground level there is a reasonable amount. He stated
he has driven this to make sure.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that the Morman church building is quite
a distance down from the entrance and there is adequate room.
Commissioner Stout stated that this is such a beautiful project and
this is a heck of a way of getting into it.
Mr. Rougeau stated that it is a shame, and he wished that it could
have been designed to have a direct entrance. He indicated if this
had been pushed to the north property it would have destroyed the
effect of the entryway. He hoped that this could in some wav be
worked cut with the college in the future.
Mr. Williams stated his willingness to work, with the college on this.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he had some concern about this but
actually, the hours of the college are such that they would not conflict
with those people either going to or coming from work which would be
the rush times for use.
Mrs. Helen Whitehead, 397 Orchard Street, asked for clarification on
the kinds of units that were going up and whether they would be rentals
or for sale.
Mr. Lowy replied that to date they have not had rentals on any project
of this type. He indicated that a developer must make a judgement call
but they have no intention of making this a rental project.
There being no further questions, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Stout asked about the mechanics of the City, school and
developer getting together to work this out.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that they would work together to alleviate
the concern and it depends on how it is adopted.
Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to see the solution come
back to the Commission.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated his concern for directory signs within the
project because of its size. He asked that staff make sure that
directory signs be contained within the project.
Mr. Vairin replied that this is covered in Condition ho. 7.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted to make sure that it is
carried out.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 9, 1982
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that several months ago this project was
disc:assed with the college because they always had concern with the
General Plan and had therefore made a statement relative to open
space. Mr. Tolstoy commended the applicant for being sensitive to
their concern and c-eating open space on Haven. He also commended
the applicant for the meetings they held with Deer Creek residents
to advise them of the proposed project. He stated he also liked the
mixed use which is proposed.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that ancther plus is the fact that Haven
is served by a bus line. He indicated that the landscaping that will
be done will be outstanding and will blend in well with the existing
Carden apartments.
Motion- Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried nnanimcusl,,, to
adopt Resolution No. 82 -60, approving Tentative Tract No. 10826 with
the condition that within 60 days the developer meet w±—Ih Chaffey
College and City staff relative to circulation, and that their findings
be convayed to the Commission; that the drainage to the channel on
Haven Avenue be worked out between the Flood Control District and staff.
The public hearing was reot,�ned.
!-it. James Frost, Council member, stated that there might be some factors
that the Commission should consider relative to the U -turn. Mr. Frost
indicated that there is a visibility problem because of the grade
at Wilson and that it would be difficult to see a pedestrian. Further,
that this problem could be alleviated through installation of a signal.
He asked that careful consideration be g_ven to the grade problem.
vice- chairman Rempel asked hoc: wide Haven is at that point.
Mr. Rougeau replied that it is 94 feet including the median, and that
each side of the lane has 40 feet which is adequate room for U- turns.
fie indicated that it is doubtful that a signal would ever be required
at the entrance of the project, but that it is a possibility but it
was more realistic that there would be a signal at Wilson.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to
adopt Resolution No. 82 -61, approving Planned Development 82 -03, 'with
all existing conditions.
Mr. Lowy, again complimented staff stating that without their help
they could not have done such a good job. He further stated that
they will work with the college on the traffic problem.
Mr. Reynolds stated that he would like to share the same comments
relative to working with staff and pointed out that they could be
haopv to provide information concerning the project to anyone
Planning Commission Minutes -41- June 9, 1982
interested In knowing about it.
DIRECTOR'S REri.:tTS
I. RAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN DESIGN
Rick Gomez reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the sample of Bowmarite is very
acceptable and asked what assurances there would be that the quality
would be kept at the same level for the Bowmani'e.
Mr. Gomez replied that this can be controlled through design standards
and specifications. Further, that it would be inspected to assure that
the quality of design is what was anticipated.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that from his own experience it is not
necessarily true that each section is going to be identical.
Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern that some contractors might
lack the experience or expertise necessary to match the design.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that there are some companic. that only do
that type of work.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the City will specify that ther are looking
only for people who can do this kind of work.
Mr. Gomez replied that this can be worked into the specifications.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt_ this should be done.
Vice- chairmai Rempel stated that this could be overcome by asking for
samples.
CGramissioner Tolstov felt that this should be done.
Commissioner Tolstov also asked that Haven Avenue have a special
staking program for any tree that is used on the median. He indicated
that double staking is vital because of the wind conditions. Further,
that Jacarandas or any other tree, will take time to become established
and without double staking there may be snapped trees which would then
mean replacement. This could result in having trees of va -ying size
which would contribute to an irregular look for a period of years.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that some type of nut tree should also be
considered that would provide food for birds or other animals in suggested
that a pecan tree be considered. lie asked that nut trees be listed
with the other suitable trees.
Planning Commission Minutes -18- June 9, 1982
4
Commirsioner Tolstoy stated that any time a nut tree is around there
will be a rodent problem.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated it was true that squirrels love nuts.
Commissioner Tolstoy addressed one of the concerns expressed by the
Women's Club relative to trees freezing out. He stated that not only
the Jacaranda is susceptible, but any young tree. He indicated he did
not feel that this was a valid concern and further stated that he was
surprised that they were as amenable to change as they are.
Vice- c'ia!rman Rempel stated he felt it was because they realize that
it is intended that the median change because of the grading problem
that exists.
Mr. Vairin stated that they were very grateful that they were notified
of the proposed change.
Mr. Gomez provided Commissioner Stout with the background of the Haven
Avenue median.
Commissioner Stout stated his agreement on the selection of a Jacaranda
tree to be the dominant feature of the Haven median.
Following brief discussion, the Commission expressed consensus that the
Jacaranda tree be the choice for the Haven Avenue median.
PUBLIC COK%UNTS
Former Council member, Art Bridge, addressed the Commission stating that
he has received many comments from residents relative to the overplanting
of Carnelian Avenue. He felt that there are 2 -3 times as many eucalyptus
trees as are necessary. He indicated that while on the Council he approved
this project without his personal research and was relying primarily on
staff to do it. He felt that staff should look at this area carefully
for any trees that are to be planted in the future. Be felt that there
also might be a dcllar saving.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that he has also asked staff about the possi-
bility of overplanting in this area. He was given the answer provided
by the landscaping contractor that many trees were planted to compensate
for those which were expected to die. He did not feel this to be an
adequate answer.
Mr. Bridge commented that it appeared that the plantings were on a cost
plus basis.
Vicc- chairman Hempel stated that their design never showed this many
trees and that the Commissioner did not see the final design.
Planning Commission Minutes -19- 3une 9, 1982
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that one of the things he has consistently
heard since being a Commissioner is that the City wants to preserve its
rural character. One way to do this, he stated, is to have a lot of
trees. He indicated that this particular species of eucalyptus look
much better in a cluster planting and were not to be confused with the
Blue Gum. He indicated that these trees would be much more showy and
contribute to the rural feeling. He did not feel that they were over -
planted.
Vice - chairman Rempel stated that if they are to be dense they should be
clustered and not in rows because it is not a natural planting.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that in 10 years they would do battle to see
who is right. Commissioner Tolstoy fel.t that the answer provided by the
landscape architect relative to the number of trees planted because they
would die is not a good one.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked the Commission to consider a resolution for
former Commissioner Jeff Sceranka for all the work he has done over the
last two years for the City. He felt that the document should contain
some reference to the work he performed or. the Industrial Area Specific
Plan. He indicated further, that if anyone did something for the City,
Jeff did more.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the Industrial Specific Plar. has now
won two awards and he was instrumental in its formulation and deserves
to be commended.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, that
the chairman of the Planning Commission get together with staff and
draft a Commendation Resolution for Jeff Sceranka.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to
adjourn to the Terra Vista hearing on June 14, 1982 in the Lion's Park
Community Building, at 7 p.m.
9:55 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -20- June 9, 1982
I]
E
E.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
June 23,
1982
TO:
Members
of the
Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT
FILPI - The development of a 5,000 square toot industrial
Bu'i-ding on a portion of a 3.47 acre lot in the General
industrial Category (Subarea 3), located at the northeast
: order of Industrial Lane and Feron Boulevard - APN 209-
031-74.
likm
PROJECT SITE AND DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting review and approval
o a 5,000 square foot light ::zanufacturing building on approximately .4 acres
of a larger 3.47 acre parcel. The project site is currently paved with
asphalt. The project has completed the Development and Design Review process
and is now before the Planning Commission to receive environmental clearance
only. The Detailed Site Plan and Elevations will be reviewed and approved
with conditions by the City Planner contingent upon approval of the Negative
Declaration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Fart I of the Initial Study has been completed by
the applicant and is attached for your review and consideration. Staff has
completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and found no significant
adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project.
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon analysis and the Initial Study, it appears that
the project will not cause significant adverse impacts upon the environment.
If the Commission concurs, then the issuance of a Negative Declaration for
the project would be in order.
R CK OMEZ
C tv lanner
P. DC /keD
Attachments:
submitted,
Exhibit "A'- -
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Exhibit "D" -
Exhibit "E" -
Initial Study
Location flap
Elevations
Illustrative Site Plan
Detailed Site Plan
Conceptual Grading Plan
Part I
ITEM A
�I
tl
Okf4T+ sz.
-Y
,
JL�n
lo. 5
Mew �
it ;• r
I
ly
1.
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISIQN
ITEM- LLA
TITLE-
EXHIBIT - —A— 51 ALE*
E-- I
lit
A;*
m
MEW.:
t.
'Al. .,
=z
-i
� •h
. C
0-
�r
t
A
u
El
Af1lA�'l�1sY'�M� Mf�•MIY NY/ 'w,4�1YS 14w�
mxmri mrn _
'���3 ��• 7� AAA lA�.q� r
wry
��'�_ ^Mn� TOY9f�Of11
a
w w)J i
� F
� �
+
t
f
•i
�a
wry
��'�_ ^Mn� TOY9f�Of11
2
s
i .�
a
Lj
•i
2
s
i .�
1w
jr
0
40
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA74ONGA
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 must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee tl=ougn the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Reeiew
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to le heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant
environmental, impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have a significant enviromnental impact
and an Environmental Impact P.eport will be prepared, or 3) Ar.
additional information report should be supplied by the applicant
giving further information concerning the pronosed project.
PROJECT TITLE: _ �Gf'� �.VDd�T.e /s4G ENV /GIB /N�
APPLICANT'S .NA1MF, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE : 7/51--- 6.7- :9 �
C .fZ_.___ —Is L'7_ —.
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING =- S PROJECT: .2�/,�.✓.✓so�v 7� 8�¢-SS�S
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
LIST OTHER PER.MJTS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
iVONE
I -!
P- 20JECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
— GGU5T2i�rTiO�/
���% `5� �S'UicDiNr is / was
El
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUP_RE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AID
PROPOSED BUILDINGS,, IF ANY:
S ,E- 35�7�.ees
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON.%rc.NTAL SEimING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFO12J'1,T20N ON TOPOGRAPHY, m
ANIMALS, ANY CULTULAL, HISTORICAL OR SC£N1C ASF n5), c
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES m ECTS, U.,E
AND HE rESCR_IPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES A,4D THEIR USE (ATTACF? NECE J _ap
Y SHEETS)
�iHAG6"TEG>
SFif/AG 7 d T �, A
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 enviror_*aental ir..pact?
A��
I- 2.
•
El
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
_ - 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
i% 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. )?
*"f 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5: Remove any existing trees? F_ow many?
_ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, fla=ables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMP'ORTAN'T: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in.. the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief_ I further understand tha t
additional information may be required -co be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development
Revie:a Committee. /I
Date %j%.OY !D� /9BZ signature ' //
TitlerZWEQ u7i,ws�v icl�El°
Z -3
-
0
E
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 23, 1982
TO:
Members
of the
Planning Commission
FROM:
Lloyd B.
Hubbs,
City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 7373 - Lewis Develop
ComDanv - A one parcel subdivision of 2.05 acres located on
East side of Haven Avenue approximately 700' south of Church
Street (APN 1077 - 421 -6)
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Lewis Development Co. has submitted the above referenced Parcel Map to create
a parcel 2.05 acres of land located on the east side of Haven Avenue approxi-
mately 700 feet south of Church Street within the future Terra Vista Planned
Ccmmunity.
Director Review 82 -04 is on tonights agenda for approval of the construction of
corporate offices for Lewis Development Co. Also on tonight's agenda is zone
change 82 -01 requesting a change from A -1 to A -P for the site.
This site slopes approximately 3% from north to south and is used as a vineyard
at this time. Surrounding land is zoned A -1 and General Plan designation is
Office. The General Plan was amended a short time ago to allow development
review to proceed on this site prior to Terra Vista Planning Commission adoption.
ANALYSIS:
The remaining portion of this parcel map will be subject to further conditioning
at time of its development. Access on Haven Avenue will be dedicated to the
City with the exception of a 35' opening for a drive approach into the project.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Notices of Public Hearing have been mailed to property owners in the area and
a Notice has been placed in the Daily Report newspaper.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Also attached for your reveew and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study
as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study,
the environmental checklist, and has conducted a field investigation. Upon
completion and review of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found
no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed
subdivision.
continued...
ITEM B
Planning Commission Staff Report.
Re: P.M. 7373
June 23, 1982
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recomrended that the Planning Commission consider all input and
elements Of this project along with the elements of D.R. 82 -04 and Zere
Change 82 -01. If, after such consideration, the Commission can support
the recommended conditions of approval, then adoption of the attached
Resoluti-n would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
LBH:BK:bc
Attachments
11
E
E
0
CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT I1IF1?RMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmente.l Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the De- elopment
Review Cozmai -ttee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee 'will meet and talc; ac-.ion no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project w-411 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: THE LEWIS BUILDING
APPLICANT -S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Lewis Development Co.,
1156 17. Mountain Ave., P.. 0. Box 670, Upland, 1-K-7-11-79977
A 917 714-98J--U9
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Richard Lewis
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STR EET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
7957 Haven Avenue _
1077- 421-06
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM IACAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
CCWD isewer and water). Sat Bernardino County Soil Erosion and
Dust Control District (dust abatement), Foothill Fire District
- %d
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
Parcel Map No. 7373 which subdivides an area for the Lewis ui zng.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
2.045 acres.
DESCRIBE THE ET'VIRONMENPAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUiING INFOPMTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES ANM THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS,:
Torso: 2 -3% N —S Slope
Plants: No trees (except grape vines) on site
vineyard {except one farming garage
and small associated structures exist to the south of the site.M
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
I- T
11
t
WILL THIS PROZTECT:
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibratio-I
— X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc -)!
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
— X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
4_ Change existing zoning from A -1 to A -P to conform to the
General Plan designation of office."
IMP'ORTA'NT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my krowledge and belief . I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evallation can be ma a b} the D�ev,!�'°� �pent
Review Committee. A _
Date Janaary 29, 1982 Signature
0 Title
ia-
F S_TDE ?7T =a?, C01STP,tICTIO?
The follo: -ling information nforination shot:ld be
Provided to the City
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the
of Rancho cuca=Onga
school district to accorsiodate the Fropcsed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No,:
Specific Location of Project:
Pi?P�E I PHASE 2 PfiAS= 3
l• N:z-�be_ of single
family units:
Number of multiple
family units:
39 Date proposed to
begir. cc, truction:
4, Earliest date of
occ��,:ncs;
!lode'! z
and t of Tentative
S. B .00_s _Price�.,_
"r— 4
!'HA SE 9
TOTA L
11
Ll
TENTATIVE
SC.OlE /'tppI l4CC.! /cDe iJf¢r
PARCEL. MAP NO, 7575
IN TUE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA
{a:c a {Pe[n{aa{ av rur rwnw w Im.i, u {aDe w TYILS e, �]{:,
x{ Tr G•:r w sa.mD •�- -. [DwP[ w i.a am.aP[aD, rtm w ovsr-
DYalf.
wti6 w TIC [DItf! ff>9rD0 w YID f91{[[i. IIC )Wt lYValw w fDLZiv
1, TM {II[t a iq/! {, {Ilq. ) IyP, yy {L♦ypi{D IOSD[I1R. Y _p w
LIICMIwf.4 tPRS i/DD mIV1.[•{ YIICM {iw. 11{ M IK Yd>mCD fr O[t {
w w.rs. r, s, n TQ arr[¢ w tQ rlAii Immmu w [axD co[{er.
NADOLE AND ASSOCIATES. INC - AROART 1„2
yna . f.Se.l®1 GN' 1K'.ILLO ws ✓4.K
]. {rear KArrica
z_ YD
sm .or .Oast cDaR
III W arOf<Lr. C► Y _-+c —�.
[]ii1 T[Mia� �w
lewaae C..L� mites m. 77JIY+iC .i0= 71Ail- .U/!Ail.Oie.
aa1 ame 1® Y� w rcav
VMS1 6
nua wrva
i
moi�ismee v>wn
t7M)1 e a
nw W3D13
LRIE ROAD
59 ! M _ ART LDIfr a TY)1P✓/
3.VLATIon GULP
r. J~
Ayy
L
i
01P.�.a,..2 Y! wocimt
Jti
lc6r ROt.i]r _ GPC'rN[
I[aKtT�Jlat. YKN K /Y
SOOULLVARD
I
AfY]>•fp
gNCYAPD
LEGEND
�.- ,iy,Q ao.v�
e
�
JrArr
�— AftlC Jbli.I)'
CmtmCm sr-
_
/y7
OWNER a
,,�''•''.'y�,r
SUBDtVlVrR
� rr+crai? rt'
QI(/iCavw 3Yisf.
w
gse0
fir: llsMi
—�
•••••••a.er..r
A-i
ENGINEER
�
er arm
asu�anooa]ns
t ::pe�erm
\
ealr{rrn�tsn
I
� OA O•�i
V '�!!_�!� {IC�sPf
��'r
lle�Ow�W
Ayy
L
i
01P.�.a,..2 Y! wocimt
Jti
lc6r ROt.i]r _ GPC'rN[
I[aKtT�Jlat. YKN K /Y
SOOULLVARD
I
v,+VRVft CT
Q�w
�FDTURi'
- STREET �`" /
IKPROJECT/ \ \
SITE EXISTING �• \
' VINEYARDS
EXISTING
j VINEYARDS
FOOTHILL
OF RANCHO CUCAu1 -10NGA
RESOLUTION 140.
C1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COHNISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM. NGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
PARCEL HAP NUMBER 7373 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
7373) LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NA,VEN AVENUE,
APPROXT?% ELY 700' SOUTH OF CHRUCH STREET
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Hap Number 7373, submitted by
Le::is Development Company and consisting of 1 parcel, located on the
east side of Haven Avenue, approximately 700' south of Church Street,
being a division of a portion of Lot 1, Tract 2202 as recorded in Book
34, Pages 67 -67: and
4'HEDEAS, on January 30, 1982, a form) application was submitted
requesting review of the above - described tentativ^ map; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 1982, the Planninq Commission held a duly
adver-ised public hearing for the above - described m?N.
NON, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLAdNING COMMISSION
RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings hove 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 ",an.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed
deveioument.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will
not cause substantial environ-iertal damage, public
health problems or have adverse affects on abutting
properly.
SECTION 2:
adverse environmentZl
June 23. 1932.
SECTION 3:
subjact to thit
ther=to.
That this project will not create significant
impacts and a Negative Deciaration is issued on
That Tentative Parcel Men No. 7373 is approved
ions of the City Engineer's Report pertaining
:APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 10,82.
11
Resolution r {o.
Page 2
P ArIN7 NG COr? "ISSiON OF THE CITY OF RA:yCHC CUCMIONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman -
ATTEST:
Secretary of tfie Planning Carmission
I, JACK, LAM, Secretary of the Planning Co.TllissiOn of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
recularly introducers, passed, and adon *_ed by the Planning CCTImission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Comrission held on the 23rd day of June, 1982, by the following vote -to-
wit:
AYES: COMISSIONERS:
NOES: C0114ISSTONERS:
ABSENT: COWISSIONEP.S:
!-
L
u
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA'tONGA
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
Lewis Development Co. TENTATIVE- MAP NO.
East side of Haven, 700't south of Church DATE FILED: Jan. 30, 1982
NUMBER OF LOTS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot 1, Tr. 2202 as RECEIPT NUMBER:
recorded in Book 34, Pages 67 -671
TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Madole 8 Assoc. GROSS ACREAGE: 30.16
Mountain, Suite D -204 MINIMUM LOT AREA:
MINI"LT•9 LOT FRONTAGE:
RECO,D OWNER(S)
Lewis Development Cc.
REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER
Dedications
Mount -in Ave.
Upland, Ca. 91786
1. Dedication by final map of all interior street rights -of -way and all necessary
easements as shown on the tentative map.
2. Dedication, by final map of the following missing rights -of -way on the following
streets:
additional feet on
additional feet on
additional feet on
_ Corner P/L radius required on
Other
3. Rights of vehicular access shall to limited as follows: Haven Ave. except one
�5' ooeninq
4. :Street vacation -equi red for:
5. Master Plan of Streets revision required or:
6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows:
TENTATIVE MAP No. 7373
Page 2
Improvements (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recording for 0
El Building permit fo— r—Parci7T3 )
re:rzin er parcel
7. Construct full street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
sidewalk, one drive approach per lot, partway trees and street lights) on all
interior streets.
X S. Construct the followinj missing improvements on the following streets:
*includinc landscaping and irrinatinn nn matzr
STREET NAME
CURB 8
GU 7 ER
A.C.
PVMT.
SIDE-J
WALK
DRIVE
APPP,.
STREET
TREES
STREET
SLIGHTS
MEDIAN
ISLAND*
OTHER.
Haven Ave.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
�
!
a
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
ar.i 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.
12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca-
tions and types approved by the City Engineer.
13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im-
provements. Such plar�, 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 ,e approved by the Southern
California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shail be decorative
poles with underground service.
16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an
A.C. overlay:
17. Ine T011owing Specific dimensions, i.e., cul-de-sac rad)us, street section
widths', are not approved:
18. The TOiIOWIng existing streets are substandard:
They wil) require:
Approvals and Fees
_ 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of
San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
X 20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities
ci es involved. Approval of the final map will be
that mar be received from them.
RCE 20
approval from i:ALTRANSJ
aid ott,pr in'.erested agen-
suoject to any requirements
TUTATIV'c MAP NO. 7373 Page 3
0 X 21, Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
_ A. Caltrans, for:
B. City:
x C. County Dust Abatement District:
D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if anv trenches are over 5' deep:
x E. Cucamonga County 'dater District: Water and Sewer
F. Other:
Map Control
22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro-
vide for two -way traffic and parking on all affected streets.
23. The follocaing lots appear to be substand .--d in either frontage, depth or area
and should be corrected on the final map:
24. All corner lets shall have a corner radius at the right -of -way line in accord-
ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards.
25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent
the creation of an unrecognized parcel located
26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs c _-ificaticn as follows:
27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or
title explanation required.
Parcel Mau 4laiver
28. Information submitted at the time of applicatior, is / is not sufficient
to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map certificate, according to
requirements of the State P',ap Act and locai ordinances.
Flood Control (Bonding is required prior to 0 Recording for
G Building permit for )
29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood -
ing under the National Floc.d Insurance Program. This subdivision will be
subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance No. 24.
30. A drainage channel and /or flood protection
perty line may be required to divert sheet
Such flow may be required to go under
31. If water surface is above top of curb, 30"
back of the sidewalk at all downstream curl
32. Culverts required to be constructed across
wall along the antire north pro -
runoff to streets.
sidewalks t6rouah culverts.
walls shall be required at the
returns.
streets at folii.vir.g locations:_
33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will be required to assess impact-or increased
runoff.
RCE 20
TENTATIVE MAP NO. 73 ?3
Page 4
Miscellaneous
L 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for
X 36
J� .
M
this project.
Boise impact or,
Division report
This property is
annexation.
All information
quired•
this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning
on subject property.
not within the present City Boundary and will require
required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re-
X 39. Proper grading and fs
erosion, control, including the prevEntation of sedimenta-
tion, or damage to ofite property shall be provided for as required.
40. A preliminary soils report will not be required for this site for the follow-
ing reasons: A copy of the soils report furnished to the Building Division
prior to grading will be furnished to the Engineering Division.
X 41. The filing of the tentative map or approval of same does not guarantee that
sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are
requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water
District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will
not be issued unless said certification is received in writing.
X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determii.ation, in accordance with Section
66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the
property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise
of any public entity or public utility right -of -way or easement and the signa
ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the Tina*
map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determina-
tion within the specified time limits of said Section.
X 43. At the time of Final Riap submittal, the following shall be submitted: Traverse
caiculations (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 sha71 use common drive approaches at lot lines.
CITY OF RA;iCHC� CUCAMONGA
LLOYD B. HUBBS
CITY 0GINEER
By:
RCE 20
0
-J
LJ
11
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI4IONGA
STAF F REPORT
LATE: June 23, 1982
T0: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
„Y: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82 -01 - LEWIS -
A change of zone trom A -1 (Limited Agriculture) to AN
(Administrative Professional) for 2.045 acres of land
within the Terra Vista Planned Community located on the
east side of Haven Avenue between Church Street and
Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077- 421 -05.
Related Files: Development Review 82 -04
Parcel Map 7373
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is approximately two
acres located on the east of Haven within the Terra Vista Plan-
ned Community, approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of
Deer Creek and Haver. Avenue. The site is presently a vineyard with
no other significant forms of vegetation. The General Plan indicates
the area as office land use. The Planned Community also designates the
site as office park. The intent of the proposed zone change is to
allow development of office headquarters for the Lewis Comr_,iy.
ANALYSIS: The City Council authorized the filing of this zone change
and the processing of the office building through an amendment of
the General Plan which would allow consideration of this project
prior to final approval of the Planned Community. Consi.:eration
for consistency with the proposed Planned Community Land Use Map
and General Plan Land Use Map is required. The change of zone,
which is an Administrative Professional zone, is consistent with
the Lan^ Use Map of both the Planned Community and the General Plan.
The proposed use anticipated for this site, as shown in the develop-
ment _plans submitted under DR 82 -04, are consistent with the requested
zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Attached is Part I of the Initial Study,
which has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed
Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has found no significant
adverse impacts on the environment as a result_ of this project.
Therefore, staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
ITEM C
Zone Change 82 -01 /Lewis
Planning Commission Agenda
June 23, 1982
Paae 2
FACTS FOR FINDING: The subje-t property is suitable in terms of size an
shape to allow for adequate access and development of the parcel for com-
patibility with proposed uses in the immediate vicinity. The change of
zone is consistent with the General Plan, as well as the proposed Terra
Vista Planned Community, and the change will not cause significar.t adverse
impacts upon the environment or surrounding property.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised in the newspaper as a public
hearing, as well as notices sent to property owners witH n 300' of the
boundaries of the project. To date, no correspondence has been received
regarding this project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission conduct a public
^earing to consider all elements of the project. If, after such consider -
ation, the Commission can support the facts for finding, then adoption of
the attached Resolution would be appropriate.
R spec -ful submitted,
R CK G MEZ
C ty Planner
R :MV :jr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Part I Initial Study
Resolution
El
I-
40
�Z
t
/nm
r'
i
r ti.
Am��
�d
h�
P`T1
0
0
e
I
0
w
in
•2nd
-o
O j
g
in
et
Z ►
W
V
ci
r �� i 3 ��• j;�j C3 tQ
311 Z
x? v v z 23 zoouj
�
., e Z Q
�N
U x
f�
:z
��C
s
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAYONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT ,�gpTION SFEET - To be comt,letcd by applicant
Envire--r' :.nt- = __c ^- :sment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects reauirirg environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee t-r.rouSh the department where the
Project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Fnvironmer-tal A slysis staff will aremare
Part II of the Initial Study. T;_-- Development Review -
Co.;mittee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the .pu ^lic meeting at which tine the
project is to be heard. T^e Corm.._ttee will make ore cf
three determimations: 1) The aroject will have no significant
enviro: mental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have a Significant environmental impact
and an Environmental imparA Report will be prepared, or 3) An
additio =,a1 information report should be supplied by the applicant
giving fLrther information concerning the pronosed project.
PROJECT TITLE: THE LEWIS BUILDER
Apl'IICA`tii ,S L
MME, ADDRESS, TELPPFONE: Lewis Development Co.,
1155 N. N,ountai.-i Ave., P. 0. Box 670, Upland, CA 97.(86. ,14_ -U
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHOXE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Richard Lewis
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NJ -)
7957 Haven Avenue
1077 - 421-06 -
LIST OTTER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
CCSO (sewer and water). San Bernardino County Soil Erosion and
, rUUL"111 tide
. j_1
L]
E
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
with parking and landscaping.
A
2 story office building (plus basement)
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND ?,)UARE FOOTAGE OF EX2:STIFG P---TD, D BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 25,600 sq. ft. building
(approx. 80' X 160' X 2 sta=y) propos6a or Z.U4D = site.
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRON,N SZ - ":TAL SETT'i "7G OF THE PROJECT SITE
11%TCLUDING IiXFORTMSTION ON TOPOGP.AY.,3 , Pj�ANi- (TREES } ,
ANINA_rS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCE*7IC ASPECTS, L:SE
OF SURROUNDING PPDPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF AP+Y
EXISTINTG STRUCTURES AID THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEENS)
Plants: No trees (except grape vines) on site
Use of surrounding properties: Vineyard (except one farming garage
and small associated structures exist to Lhe south of the site )
Is the project, Part of a larger project, one of a series
of CUL,ulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
No
1-2.
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
-�_ R
1.
Create a substantial charge in
groan;:
contours?
--- R
2.
Create a substantial change in
existing
noise or vibration?
-- %
3.
Create a substantial change in
demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.)?
X
4.
Create changes in the existing
zoning or
general plan desi gnations ?
X
5--
Remove any existing trees? How
many?
X
6.
Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials
such
toxic subs'-ances, flarmiables or
as
erplos Ives?
Explanation
of
any YyS answers above -
4. Chaz: e esistinR zoning from A -1 to A -P to corfora to
the
General
Pian
desigz�tion of office.
ZM-- R_�v?- If the - Iect involves the co ;�struction of
next page. units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required fcr this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are tz'ue and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evallation can be made by the Devaent
Review Cc. ittee. li
Date January 29, 1982
Signature
Title authorized
%3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANChO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE
N0. 82 -01 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM
A -1 TO A -P FOR 2.045 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF HAVEN, BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND
CHURCH STREET - APN 1077 - 421 -06
WHEREAS, on the 29th day of 'anuary, 1982, an application was
filed and accepted on the above - described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of June, 1982, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made
the follo'oaing findings:
1. That the subject property is suitable For the uses
permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access,
size, and compatibility with existing land use in
the surrounding area; and
2. That the proposed zone change woula not have signifi-
cant impact or the -environment nor the surrounding
properties; and
3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with
the General Plan and proposed Terra Vista Planned
Community.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found
that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the
environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration on
June 23, 1982.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1• That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 23rd day of June,
1982, Zone Change No. 82 -01.
2- The Planning Commission hereby recommends that
the Cdty Council approve and adopt Zone Change
No. 82 -01.
E
Resolution Na.
Page 2
v
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and re-
lated material hereby adopted by the Planning
Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 1982.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoi::g 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 23rd day of June, 1982, by the followinq vote -to-
wit: 0
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
E]
E
E
CITY OF RAMC: 10 CUCAMONTGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 23, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
M12"
BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Pl:nner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82 -04 -
LEWIS - The development 'if a 28,800 square foot two -story
office building on 2.045 acres of land currently zoned
A -1 (AP zone change pending) in a portion of the Terra
Vista Planned Community a•ea on the east side of Haver,
Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, south of Church
Street - APN 1077- 421 -06.
Related Files: Zone Chan!,e 82 -01
Parcel Mai. 7373
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: This request is for a proposal to con -
struct a two -story 28,800 square foot )ffice building to be located
within the Terra Vista Planned Comrnuni:y on the east siae of Haven,
I.etween Foothill and Church Street. Tie office site is approximately
two acres and is part of a larger offi:e complex. The Applicant is
seeking specific approval for the one office building. A conceptual
layout of the remaining part of the of-'ice park is shown. The site
is presently a vineyard and contains nc other significant vegetation.
It is presently zoned A -1 with a zone change to AP (Administrative
Professional) pending. The development proposes to install all
associated parking, landscaping, street improvements and access that
will be necessary for the function of tie site. The General Plan
designates office usage in this area as well as the proposed Terra
Vista Planned Community, which indicate: the area as an office park.
Because of some har.:ships associated wi•h the Applicant's present
office lease, they are presenting this -or review and approval prior
to adoption of the Planned Community te) t for Terra Vista.
ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewec by the Development Review
Committee ana the Grading Committee and ias undergone appropriate
changes as a result of their review. Tha project is consistent
with the current development standards o" the City of Rancho Cucamonga
and those proposed within the Terra Vist,; Planned Community. Access
to the site will be primarily from Haven Avenue. The northerly
access will be for emergency access only and is proposed to be con-
structed in turf block. The Applicants Fave shown a conceptual master
plan of the entire ci Fice park area. The conceptual plan is shown
ITEM D
v
f�
7
d
�Iz
rd
Development Review 82- 04 /Lew,zi
Planning Commission Agenda
June 23, 1982
Page 2
only to indicate how the remaining part of the site can be developed into
an office park. The shapes, sizes, and placement of the other office
buildings on the site are only conceptual and not final.
The General Plan Amendment, which allowed the processing of this project,
requires that final approval or denial of the project be made by the City
Council on recommendation of the Planning Commission. Therefore, the
attached Resolution is a recommedation to the City Council.
DESIGN REVIEW: The Design Review Commit 'ea has reviewed several different
architectural designs for this office building. The Committee was concerned
that the use of the smooth stucco and the rough stucco would not provide a
distinct difference. It is the Co:;¢nittee's recommendation that a recognizable
difference be achieved between the two materials. Therefore, the Committee
has recommended that prior to the issuance of Building Permits, samples of
the final -aterials be submitted to the Planning Division for final review
and approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Attached is Part I of the initial Study, which has
been completed by the Applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial
Study and has provided the Commission with the attached recommended Conditions
of Approval. Based upon the recommended Conditions of Approval and evaluation
7f the Environmental Checklist, staff finds no significant adverse impacts
on the environment. Therefore, a recommendation to the City Council for the
issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The use as well as the design of the building and site
is in accordance with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, the General
Plan, and the proposed Planned Community text for Terra Vista. In addition,
the use together with the Conditions recommended herein, will not be detri-
mental to the uubiic health, safety, or general welfare of the public or
properties in the immediate vicinity.
REMTMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all
input and elements of the project. If, after such consideration, the Com-
mission can support the facts for find`:,ys and recommended Conditions of
Approval, then adoption of the attacheo Resolution would be appropriate.
RfgpeQtfulofiy submitted,
ICK JOMEZ
ty lanner
R :M:jr
Attachments
n
C
Ll
E.
ai
Iah
.- AS
1 40
o
ELI 09
L
z zi
P:u'^� a •- � --^�
r _
i
l
u
J
I
1
LE
9
`Ll
L
9
L6
Q
A
Q
t
s
i
—v.4Tr+aCiT. RHC
—i
f f
I
1
Y
Is L
9
`Ll
L
9
L6
Q
A
Q
t
s
i
i
9
`Ll
L
9
L6
Q
A
Q
t
s
i
�i
1
/
r./
�1
i
I
l
5�
L
� 1
i
El
all
� I
1 �
I S
1 � 1
— •11
t
a
a
O b
B �
B9 J
�s
�i
ffyyI
t�
�Y
0
Im
b 11'3'itf.Tin3C fiM3• 1_
r.
0
Im
]tta l.2tl2t
'.
:F, It Ilia s�isit��•� =! %f/
n
eIa
{C3 +1
1 �
i,
;i
QN; r t
F 30s � a
0 < ♦t:
=? ig a3;8
{
S
j�3
r.
Ir
]tta l.2tl2t
'.
:F, It Ilia s�isit��•� =! %f/
n
eIa
{C3 +1
1 �
i,
;i
QN; r t
F 30s � a
0 < ♦t:
=? ig a3;8
{
S
j�3
i 07'. - '!
---------------
!40.111
limit 11 H I
1- .1
0
E
CITY OF .O CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INMP14ATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department wnere the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which tinse the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant
environmental impact and a 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: THE LEWIS BUILDING
APPLIC'ANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Lewis Development Co.,
1156 N. Mountain Ave., P. 0. Box 670, Upland, CA 17 717--
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Richard Lewis
IACATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
7957 Haven Avenue _
1077- 421 -06
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
CCWD (sewer and water), San Bernardino County Soil Erosion and
Dust Control District (dust abatement), Foothill Fire District.
- Z �
V
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT-
with parking and landscaping.
2 story office building (plus basement)
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS; IF ANY: 25,600 sq. ft. building
(approx. 80' X 160' X 2 story) proposda on Z.043 ac. site.
DESCRIBE T-dE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFOPUMTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PJANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS):
_ Toao: 2 -3% N -S Slope
Plants: do trees (except grape vines) on site
Existing use of site: Vineyard
Use of surrounding properties: Vineyard except one farming garage
and small associated .structures exist to the south of the site.
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series-
of cumulative actions, which although individually small.,
may as a while have significant environmental impact?
No
I -2
E
El
� c
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
x 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fi -,-e, water,
sewage, etc.)'.
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5= Remove any existing trees? How many?
6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
4. Change existing zoning from A -1 to A -P to cor_fo:m to t e
General Plan desiznation of "off ice.
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page_
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are *_rue and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understap tiat
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulat.ion can be ma 1� a by the Dev�3 ent
Review Committee., % W 1
Date January 29, 1982 Signatur
Title
x� .
RESIDE1'7iIAL C01�TP,UCTIO^7
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucarronga
P Division in order to aid in assessing ne
sc::a .istrict to accommodate the pzoposedresidentialydevelopment.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No.:
Specific Location of Project:
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4
TOT: -L
-1 single
family units:
2• Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin. ccnstruction:
S• Earliest date of
occcpancy:
}4odc1 -
and ° Of Tentative
5• Bedrocas Price Rance
T_ 4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 82 -04, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
HAVEN AVENUE, NORTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN
THE A -1 ZONE, A -P PENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, on the Ist day of February, 1982, a complete appli-
cation was filed by Lewis Development Company for review of the above -
described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of June, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above - described
pro;;ect.
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 objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance and the ptirposes 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 in-
jurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity; and
3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of
the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance;
and
4. That the proposed project is consistent with the
General Plan.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse
impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on
June 23rd, 1982.
SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 82 -04 is approved
subject to the fol awing conditions and attached standard (_ onditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. A sample of the final building materials shall be
submitted to and aproeved by the City Planner prior
to issuance of building permits.
11
Resolution No.
Page 2
2. This approval shall not waive compliant? with the
final adopted Planned Community Text fo,• Terra
Vista.
3. This approval is subject to adoption of a change
of zone from A -1 to A -P by the City CD6ncil. Zone
Change d2 -Oi shall be approved by the City Council
prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Parcel Map No. 7373 shall be approved, recorded and
all conditions met, prior to occupancy of building.
5. This project falls within the Rancho Cucamonga
Redevelopment Area. Any participation by the Rancno
Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency on this project, will
require review and aoproval of the development pians
by the Agency.
6. This project requires review and approval by the City
Council.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
7. The access at the north property line stall be used
for temporary fire access only. It sha 1 be closed
when future development takes place.
8. An occupancy permit shall not be issued until San
Bernardino County Flood Control releases "Temporary
Easement" for Haven Avenue.
9. An occupancy permit shall not be issued mtil the
completion of Deer Creek Channel.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 1582.
PLANNING COFMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Jeffrey King, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Resolution 14c.
Page 3
I, JACK: LA11, 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 23rd day of June, 1482, by the following vote -to-
wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
l
11
7
G
u
u
0
i
O O
r ~
Ci
V
a e
V 6
tr O
o r;
N
ti
C
<
O
11
a
�
d
aI
y
n
q
y q
x.04_
O
p O
N
M
V
N
ylV
P -u
V
O
Lrr
=
c
q
q
n
v
2- m
ra
N
c
�O
u
C`.7
u
bCy ^U=
Y
L
PAL
l
°a.0
r•
r
m
q
�C �
racy
E
VO
bLL
�
J L
_ V
N
O
r
g NC1G v
m
as
NlLWL
O
d
W T V
J
C
L
= u
.b..
y r
P
Lu
~•r
6V
N�yy
D.2 6
pLp�V
u
C Gy
Lq
Cy
4LG0
r
L
.6
J
2
VrN A
�O
_J
.O.r
90
ir°
CZ
p4
L
IL
C
fir �
`u
c
_
ru
y
��
E
7ma G c
2
�
l
IV S iuL
N.Q..
G�
Ni.
vv
z
e
c�ea
a
�e
N._m
o
q
N..•
.Pig:°
A
L
L
N J
A
P'
ZE,
q
L
i
r
J L� T
A_
q
➢ L
r 6
V.L.. i
N`
LCy
J2
CC
l
POry
O
SAL
r•
.V
N
u
N
uL
O�
rOC��O
NOL
N<Cp
u°
Cm
V`
T
mp r� ESC
L',
��r
V.L.
V
y
LV
rL'
r.
V.. O
°Ca
C
L - A L U M
y
t
rb
L
y �
_
Q V
N C.
C Z
N
..
r
r
.-.
W
.P-•
N1
V
N
.O
O
WE
b�
b
c
b o
4D
Nq
_
rn
G
o
r
Y
6 ... v
.J N
L O �
L O
T N
Gam.
.G� V
L L L
d
.b•
p
LL
O
mO
NBC
ndm
q
-
qq
R' Cu
�N 9
T
°`
Cy0
C
�J�
4
A p
u
O> rV
Jq
.per yJ
=0
a'
9 °cc
-
n
co
�v�
ay
AJ
rr
qc
s6
n
uw
N
qr
`
qC
yL
CL_m
br
NOL
UrLL
y
VC
L',y
byO
Cq6
u
rCn
L`
q
V
d
T
_
1J'
L
= N L q O
y
y
q
C
_ A
p= d
p
T O
V•
C q
r
r V �^ N
V
L
i
a
L76°
E
EC°
��
7N
CL j
O
NNT Eq
N.rd
m?
�Or
VC
C�V
_
N
G
..r
�>
q.J. PVC
a"
V
G_N
►
e�
r
rN
iA.- Lo
G
I
i C
q C
e 0 e
A��
O H O
S
O r
o o+
\�
C°C
r
pN4 a V �
a^
i e
=
✓
�
L
•%
V•1
•�
G. p
r °Ca
l N N
J
� O_ C ._
p
J
i
U
L L
` y V
A O'
L G
Y
A w. e
u
A
^
�
L
Q�
T
V
`
V
Q
T. u
e`
p
V �� E`
P9
C y r
r G O P J
O
d O`
q p
A q •'�
`
C
Q
_
N
o
L
-
p L V
p r
LGV br
.r�L
.r
CN
C`O
COr'
wty
t
V
w
9qC ACr
y
EG
y
O •C
p
� l
l`
tLbJ
C
4q�
�
a G�
V
� N�
c�-
I�
L••
E
r�
N
6�
<dJ
QpN
Cw
y
•
4
N
_1
f•.
J
I
1
NJi
6
l�
6 w
NI
I
l
1
1
t
O
i
O.
11
N�
1'
p
G
9
Lq
J •F
0
r
Uy
V.
N
...•O
�O•Jr
p
�
Ya
r r
✓L
IC
Orr VN�vU
C
•.i
GLN
C
v
'^
r-
`�'
O
q L
CO�._,1
w
==
y
' 7
�
� y V
q�
•. y i
n_
V I O
]•
>L V
nI yV0
q
V i
v
�
4P•Ji�
°:•..
qq
C L
j OU
YUE�
roc
r
l
°c
^n
�f' _
=
=�
o
ovice
N vod
N=
rnP
�
�gD u.L.n
�
�
9 C
1
2.2
CO S
pq
�
L
On
TIV>
L
NJCL'Y
a�N
Lwu u�
Y
L 90
�L
G
�`Ld
q
CNb�PGOV
-1
�qC
9 C6
Nri�
NV
L n
P
LC
L'
_
}S> u
l��
{G�rLi
rqq 6
c
9
vv
`O
�
J �
NP G
I
v�pO U•
".. N✓
d
��
T
r '>
P J p L
U
u ^� � > q
V N
� �4
u
�>
O G
V
r L G •1 C
qq
•I
� 1N
NUgr
`Vq i
vLd
'v9L rd
V V
C�
q
T
J...•i
jq
L
6
r
Oi
�
I
rJi rC�
V C V �
N +[ �
N rn
f
V'
I ✓
�
O N
� y .�. N r u n
n t�
y a
u
rV�
L^
IL` Ij
N�V
•r
JSP
tNC �L
uL•
r
9
E
`
ONO =9
LOr
~
rOL N
� =�
`YN 9L
GP
LC�
.^L•J
QLj
qII Ir L.
LOOS�C�d
-
„ N
5£
N
C I
~
r
L
C C
V a y L g O
- -`O' F
°'
O°
T
c �=
O
v .+
d O
L
N4'^ c' ''•
cum X90
r
N �
_�
j
I'VC
C r t
�
pu
�O
tl �'
^ Cep
6
uV
qGq TV�rOE
•� N U C�
_
� N
`LC
fa
L >
O
r
} O •.• C
yVU
N C
C C
n of y
O� C N
u 4J
N
C� V
N O
O
a
{"• O
V
� O
L
J d P N
•O„ ='�
�
4.D £
V
V u
L�
ru
_
L I
� y
C D L V
J q�
d6
€
M UV
V q
�
� �•Ti N_V
yV Cd�
a>i
�?
✓s O
6� V
V S� .n � p
N
<
N
o
v
c c
0
°v
_
rc
F�
v
O
?7
=
E O
QV
"" S G O
9
•
q
L •+ O P
ioL
p
n u N G C
`^��•v
p
�°
oyc
a°
• -dicLn
29L
v
or �u�
Ti.
= =c`
.Nbi-
L.•
r
q
oc
vV.
��L
`,•.°.
a
oLU� =cN -
vsD
T
✓�
y r
��b�_q
� L 9�
C U
G
r 0 V C
C O
l y
a
S r �
q
G r
C
r
P
� C C>�
N7
G
N
O.E
�
O'>�
VdOCLi
Ji0
L
T
9 U7
MV
�L
wr
PLGr'��
Jn NL
O•
Ni Vq_rp
��
�
a
O'
V O
P V d
O c
i
V
q
M L•
L O
J' N ^'
d
O C r
n L
L.
uC��
^C
✓Cr
P V
L
pC_
d°
•Gn
9
C^V�COD`=
qq r
n
�=
u L Or
U Yj
yrL
d
Q E V
r
N
O
N d q C
6 V
t g d v
•O P
Lu•
V N C C r
` q _ `� V
C�
N
O
'-
C
...'•
PL
4_q qp
i
rn� i
N>
ZL•>J =E
�U� va
r O o
i
WT ,r
cL.n i
°V
G1 L U d
9 q
L q �>
O
L � V O
.r..
�
09
bN
9
D
d p
w N
1 d v Y
L L
y i
L L
p✓
L q
N U£_ _
' r {.
'J ry
DCi
L'��
Y Gi•
v LTN
i�
'>'J
VL �> L
i_
O. L
S7 qn
N D-
mc�=
°L.
SP
•Nei
c N::�
drec v
v �
o uo
'O'
3LC
c
=
�v.�
i
c =u
ce- °co
N
N i
LsN r =L..
.",•�
:,• q v
Nc'.J
�r�o
-qtr ._ =o•n
L -G.
V'
^' _
a> oL
c
-.-..w
q d
=`` oqr
r
oo °
q v
_y
�
•qL' ey:'
N ='
P
VSV
M r
N b •Li•V t.'2
r
SOS°
q
rr
c
•Li
r TD
,•, y
=inn
_EC
dqc
n.
C
Ny.
EL-
C
6
J P
VVL 4
GC
vO OV
OLC� ��L
>CN 4�
r
NO
C 6�
r4 Prc.o
•nq N
6NC
QO
<PLM MC�OG
��
G %O�
q°1i
•n
•o
ei
11
N�
1'
VV_ 9arq V--L n_ r _ � OV Crr•d_` � a cc
p > - ✓ 9 _ p
qEy UO „nOjlu _O�P `rCmP > ✓+O-c 0. d _4.'r V•L v yVJ, ry � Ea _F.
-J .^r V -�0.q_� G'U^C Oq� PUN > J�6 OCa� r > �t '• ^J
OCUi>N �'� OSVV N6CG O Taw v �' rnuo 9�wV 6 G O_ d�
WC .LJ000_'V ° u9.0= b LO 9C aU 4C d Yr '- L LE
L ✓�yy CW Cru v °vN OLON G m^0. v _ O ••, a ,�� uv �L
LV O e�� _ C`_ OvV a`•V� O�UVr OGb d_ L9 L9 -u -•°r
-J 2 -0-- � L N N C V� L Y -b N C_ 7 V V V V� a� u v `• >. E a y- V
C 9 N 7 u° _ G S' v m� ^ N O O N q v r G° q N N r N u 2 V �✓ G7
q_
N
O _o LL M O C O q i' J w` a -
n ✓_ n q
2 O_% °. r 9 Y ^ q G 6 N F L 1� r O O N N° L L- ^ •4n ✓ Cdi j
ov° °y °o' c.. v c n $.°.c�Cr- `''o"> = °`°^."+ �o uvc .L.c `vim t°'• �? � s' b c tea, u2
`".°. .a. cN =e "�G von a ns.'✓e mac` a «_�-"�' �F`rP P� `�� ' °i c+i rn�
�L4r `S Vpy�� NcrN rVC •.! cl 9-`60V Lr�n L��EO L. °£- _J OOL 11 =9 CC C__
�- G 4 a N � O - O V N J Q C1! O 1 O u i �� a- i O i d r V u r G ” L 2 ? I > N ✓ C ✓ S
° 9 L� i✓ a V L ] r 4. u u H O
=
-o i
C6 P v H Vi N rq < •N •O
` •� + V CI �I � �j u� j
u
•1f
C
4 M ^
^ d
d V C
C ✓ �
� v �
� �✓
_ _
_
o -O y
yV O
On 9
9S' y
O� o
oCG s
N T ry .
° •
yV O
sOw Pn •
• 2
2
.L. °
7 V S Q
= h
h C O �
�� N L
L d __ �
C u
u C O
J ✓
✓ V
Q P
T =
a d
� C
O r �
V W
� G
GV4 N L
dP u
u> •
•Oi•a p
p =
=lyr �
l P
P' �
� V
V I
W
� l
I L
u r V, L V 9
9 C d r
r q
u VL O
O- O L
W c
c V
V 9
9 °
° 1
1 n�
q L
L N a°i •p W
u- I
u V O
O Q
C• r
II °
- C
Q C
P^ d L
✓ .
.e u• N
°9i• -
2'2 d
N = P
L l L i N ✓
N` C
r u
d c.
`o> °
° =
•"�', w
V L
=�'^ ,
,cL ?'a E
Ea-C .
..aooe S
S •
w I
t I
^'
L 4
nia. .
a°__' °•� `
` o
ov a
a2. n
MeN i
i i a PG _
2 y
I t
9 F C _ 9
9 l_ E
E y L
L u °
° O L P a
w •
•✓ `
`• •
_off 2
•r _
I ^
y
w V
V .
L a
a
L 4` a
a w
g O 9 E Q
Q •
O V
_ w
F
.Li• 9
•° L
•`a y O
9 °
` I
i 9
9 V V
� Q
I U
Uqy
V V P l L
L�� L
L ✓ d° 9
9 N T
T' '_ a
V �
6 _
_ O P
P I
�"� `
O 9 _ C
OOd P
C N
N r O .
a F
l O V
Qu¢ia a 9
I �
N✓
u N
P 4q u
u.am a
� a
9 C l
l V
I I
V `
` � N
N N
aA: c"p a o u
NP i
°� °
i fLa..c_ =
=:rc .
.a. °
�n� `
`0`= 04 •
•` o
oL°- c
c I
I � -
-
a 4
•_ N n 9 L _ C
d. r
r 9
9 G✓ b
b O G .•. _ u
u C
C 1
1 q
4L3
-'=•' UN -
CuVw d
9�.� `
Gu0 V L
Lr�O '
'•adn C� �
�! n
nN ^
^ C
CGG l
l °
° d
dCW
i.`e �
°_ �
` ^. •r G
-�✓ o,C n
n'> m
° ° u
F' _
ti I
I v
� �
� °
� o
-O -
m •
•` °
N F
_ t
vy L
w V
�' L
o� °
•'•.q o
..9 i
c Lnc o
_"c >
>• 4
4.N_. `
L .
yq w
L "m •
o .
i c
o _
C •
`"� L
.°.. 0
01..
a] u
u 1
V9u G
qS _
_ '
,'.] C
- S
O
4Nr 0.? g•l a
aO 9
9LU V
Gd CvL d
N9 �I� O
O r
rCG u
u ^
N n
c a a` L O -
d G
G v °PO rr L
W =
` L <
< L a -
_ y
� q 9 2
2 a
a I I
I V p a
O0. c
-^ d
L W
=✓ •°i .� `
-_ 4 _
y q �
r� e
a
n n� q d° ^ t N
N LV'i r
e C
C O✓ [
[ 6 0 `r N
N G V
V 6° d � L
W I v
v l
^ >
t 1.2 r
N >
> D' �_ •
_ O� W � 9
L W
l y
° 9
> O
r J
•qn _
✓> n
9� 9 r
.rO M •L.• P O
OI L
L q E
ya ^
9 '
' }
}
..qy n
G9 L
L °yV �
Pn✓ ✓
n�C N
N a
dl N
E °
9 q 9
- N
_P `✓ w
w _
V.°.•✓ e
e-V��_ P
P-�° C
CVL >
aV V
V 1
`. a
w V- p
__ V
>4 a
6I w
a
p N
r rar 6
N ✓
✓ e ms t
t> V u 9 �
�° a d
d 9° d O
W 6
G _
I L
L W
W� a
`v °
6 u
u 9� N
r m
w G
_ �
1III `
c vL =_ `
=g °
°L.. o« :
:°.yv °
°-� o
9✓ q a
a i c�c9 r
m M
� I I
> + u
u yr
•LV- c
ob` 9
aqt o
o°�q -a� `
`u �
M_ .
.T. >
q N
a°nre e-a. c
c -- �
� L
L d
dac a
�I c
cL•. �
i q
N
ai'vq .
^�� �
obi r
rr°.•_o� _
_NN n
noL �S--c �
� c
cv c
c °
° N
C t y `
q N Y
Y p S
S C
�_ d
q _ _
P V^ L
L I O
O C =
N« a
I- 9 l
QZ
C V
d^�j q
_ P
= I
d y
V N O 6
6 V O
O u f] r0• S .
.r n v 6
6 N O L N V V
V } y
T 9
9 u 6
6 Z
Z'-
1
^ q d
y T
1`
I
I 6n%
U <
I S
N Gi
I U
<m I
SOr
•I I
'� %
� I
I 0
vV
I 1
(.J! 1 �
I G
0.O •
%�
1 '
C✓ ^v T d •
•� v
v m p
p T
L_LG �
O a
C•a+ P
rnu •
� t
v
� y
y6 O
a9CQ C
PQr r
• Q
Q �
t v
` '
° -
O V
VVw V
V'wl 4
4 v
v ^ ✓
C `
`6 �
� y
yr y
'LO C O
O V °
-q O
✓-GO C
c' _
qs T w
wnc a
Mo u
_ =
•. q
V °
° •
a M
u L
Lu
O= r
i E O P
P V p' aF O
O C
V O =
= O V
•L•• _N O
Orr C
Cv O°
� ✓
G O
w i
_' �
v L G
�[ w
e�.>•pO.r." T
o=
_-
a2 E u
uv .
C c
cc� _
_ u
uo o
T a
.9`. C
- �
�9u V
�O
tut- u� °
r-raO� y
^ G
G✓ •
Vra p
Ea L
pV>.i -
- .
.E.r �
s S
S� L
`.
OCJrN dJ[aY a
GLQO ^
O 9 d
d 4 n V
V N u
u 6 C
w. q
q s
C
aq•w_ G
LP `
C •
H� -J - "
e� a
r V
•` .
S E
c e
V c
u s O
O 4
a r
r^Vi r
m O P C
Q� t
P c
e. z •
° �
� .
"_6' C
4 u
4 e
OdV a
a_� Q
.y 9
E c
� `
` O
O O
•VJ °
._'� O
F O
.rr L
LpYC �
^vU0 S
••. d
'=v 2
9r0� O
OI`G •
•y_N�V r
O ^J9
J L
L P
P� P
S r
dLd
�
2 9
iP "
PN T
T✓ Vl
i2 L
� 9
�.- '
NPN _
_ "
"O i
"'y .
u c
ci
L o��v: .T, °_ -° °
° c oT m
i m
¢ .
CO' �
�.`•_ �
�cra. a
.° d
d u
rc• �
�° _m
.a. C
a�� F
.L. _
_9c r
°I N
NG L✓ s
s -
_ }
-a >
>.. ��a"s P
Pis _
T 2
_ o
o o
o_ N
NV
O J'2 uOVNCU_ v
v_ v
9 9
_ _
}^ u
u09 n
P -C CC P
P✓°u °
° 9
9
°N u
u0
G= V C
C _
_ P
•1f
V
Y
O
6
M
c
G
q
O
Y
V C
P
✓ W
G
Lu
w0.
d
Y r
L
C 9
M =
O'
d t
a
c s e
0
L — d
^ q A
W
ql r o
r
C
VI>4
Y
v
T
Y
W
_
Nt
Y
b
V
.9-• C• p
O C
t2 y OL
q
N
r
9
uO
y Y
C
V
v
✓
Mac
'n
r
O T
q
` Y
p
✓
L
�
i v_
^
✓
C O
q L
N T N
D
q d
9
rLw
r
✓E Or
•"
N�
-
ro
✓ >.
s
wa
c t o
V
b
_
v
J
n
✓ 9
eN
^
.vc
u
o_
m
✓S"
= O
Yg
W
}
Cv
ioa x
a> O
L V
J
r N
C 'C
Or L
L L
q
p O
i n
a
�
✓ O
°
r —
W
q
✓
va
O
nPr
w3F .w.✓
L L J
°d
W T
�G.
d
D N
-
q
O ✓
OrC
L
waar
�i
v`a
Nnw.a
�
t O
= 9
L q
r
r >
✓L V
-r
--t
y
N-
o y
i-�r
TgoM
T�
✓
PNy
V u
G-
O
q
yV
—
J°IV
l
C
P q
U`J
�
SG
q
G.O.•60
o
✓
1
M
c
G
q
O
Y
V C
P
✓ W
G
Lu
w0.
d
Y r
L
C 9
M =
O'
d t
a
c s e
0
L — d
^ q A
W
ql r o
r
C
VI>4
Y
T
Y
W
G
b
V N
O
O C
q
� V
9
uO
C
V
—
✓
C
'n
r
v
` Y
p
✓
.Oi
u
7��
w.
N
C O
q L
N T N
D
q d
9
rLw
r
✓E Or
•"
N�
-
ro
V
v �
V L
O
V
b
M
A
�
N
.vc
u
o_
m
✓S"
= O
Yg
L
}
Cv
ioa x
a> O
V C
J
r N
C 'C
Or L
L L
q
p O
i n
a
�
°
��
.'
✓
va
�
°
w3F .w.✓
°d
W T
�G.
rr0
r y Y
O ✓
OrC
L
LDU
♦ G
r.�.r
�
t O
= 9
L q
r
r >
✓L V
-r
--t
y
N-
o y
E p
W
°T
+[`lp
O
V u
G-
O
q
yV
—
J°IV
l
C
P q
G O
�
L 2
q
." J r
✓
Mir
�d
Nv
ar
r
Lp
r
Or.
C d
C
]A
�
.V.ry GpC
VC='
V
YrnLy`
OG qr
Y
C
A
N r
O
N L
q V
�Eq
N N
—6
ur
LC°9W
O
O
00
qLn
�
C
NpC
grMrnt
eo
2
G
^
a^
cL�
pN p
a
u
No
N^
N O
O q
q
a rn
L 6•r
C .Y
.L
LO
W
G
n
`
q o
S C
C
o
r'
GL
J
r
acr.
c� Nc
•V-•L P
q y
S
•Ga
Trdr
Q J y.w.
_
' LL' y
j
uN
m1
p
✓I
Cd°
[yF
i�
/�b�Y
p
L
Nd
L
Nrl
°V.Va
T
Y
W
b
V N
O
O C
q
� V
9
—
✓
C
'n
r
v
` Y
p
✓
.Oi
u
7��
w.
N
C O
q L
✓
.l
..
V
^
r
✓E Or
•"
N�
r
q
v �
V L
O
V
i V � 0
C
A
�
N
u
L q
O
✓S"
= O
`•-"
L
}
Cv
ioa x
a> O
V C
J
r N
u
•L
q
�_
�
°
��
.'
✓
va
�
°
w3F .w.✓
°d
W T
�G.
rr0
PpW
OrC
L
r
V °
£?
✓.0..
O C 9
t O
= 9
L q
✓L V
-r
--t
y
N-
o y
E p
W
°T
+[`lp
O
V u
G-
O
q
yV
—
J°IV
wL
_C
u
�
V
q
." J r
✓
Lp
r
Or.
°tO b>•
�yL—
]A
�
.V.ry GpC
VC='
V
YrnLy`
OG qr
Y
C
2
O
�Eq
C
—6
ur
LC°9W
O
O
¢dL
qLn
NpC
grMrnt
°
E
G
C Jr
a^
cL�
pN p
ev<E
No
L
r`
O q
20 a
a rn
L 6•r
C .Y
.L
LO
W
G
n
`
q o
S C
C
o
r'
GL
J
r
acr.
c� Nc
•V-•L P
q y
S
•Ga
Trdr
Q J y.w.
_
' LL' y
j
uN
V L
Y �.
= V
Cd°
[yF
i�
p
Nd
L
°
°V.Va
q
V
OyN
un.d
V
4L
� -_C✓
I
_
L
q
N L T
u y
q >'
L°
P� C 9
Nd
YgOIN
d N
y G
V
GO
uP
r
P G r
q
y
p G
✓
O
Ny
u r
L l
o
�
iA -qw
d ✓rM
w
�c�
a
M—
✓ Tim
L C V
o L
E C
4 V
ND.•6V
Nr>.
00�
GV
6�
u�L.r
—
a
O
n
u Y
N
S..p
EL
d
vv
L�
jFY
M✓9�
„
.O -r.O.r
to
dv
Nu
q
N
W
N
N
O
i
n A
N�
d
V
L
'� O
W p
O
C
�
L
✓
q L
d✓
N m
9
-
�
°'
W_b
v
NG
qVN
CV
Nd
•-O
y.Gr
`O
11)
_✓
C
L
OL .+O
Od
u0
C09
r
� •r0
—4
��
wJ
dL
ci
�
T20 N
d C=
y
r
°o
b_
Hari
A ✓i
•0e
iic
^`.'
�✓
�r
N°
Nc
O
O
_�J
W
N
.O
G V
J
E
V
✓
O
I
a
=
L L
V O O
✓ b
G d
�
I N TAB
T Z!
-
I L
N
r'f
f
Vf
r0
GI
m
P
_XV.' IY�'
T
Y
W
b
V N
O
O C
� V
9
C
c ¢
r
v
` Y
P l L
N
C O
q L
✓
r
✓E Or
9 V
O
r
q
v �
a
q
G
N
u
Or
re L
U
`•-"
c�
ioa x
a> O
V C
E
�
•L
U
�_
✓
V L
�
✓M
W T
Y
rr0
PpW
OrC
L
r
V °
£?
✓.0..
O C 9
t O
= 9
L q
✓L V
-r
--t
y
N-
o y
E p
c E
V
+[`lp
O
V u
CL
V—
q
O
U
N
0
b
9
r
✓E Or
9 V
q
q°
q
N
v
re L
`•-"
c�
ioa x
�O1
�
^�
LLq
PpW
L
D q O
✓ J O
= . G
Y
b C
w V C
6N >.
V C
+[`lp
O
.�uj
ONE✓
q
O
U
N
t�
� d Y r.
✓ l l
." J r
Lp
r
Or.
°tO b>•
�yL—
]A
�
.V.ry GpC
VC='
V
YrnLy`
OG qr
Y
C
2
O
�Eq
C
—6
ur
LC°9W
O
O
¢dL
qLn
NpC
grMrnt
7✓N✓
G
C Jr
cL�
pN p
ev<E
No
L•.
Urdu
PV -
qur ri
=
.L
LO
✓
� �
F`C
✓✓
_
GL
J
�
acr.
c� Nc
•V-•L P
[ter
�ND'��
L
_
✓ L r
N` O C
��
L
Y �.
Pr-
°
q
T -W
OyN
V�
EL
4L
� -_C✓
I
_
L
✓n
C
L...VC'
wV
Nd
YgOIN
.OiLC
VvTr
GO
uP
r
P G r
q
Ny
o
�
iA -qw
d ✓rM
w
�c�
a
M—
✓ Tim
N
>
Y
4 V
ND.•6V
Nr>.
00�
GV
6�
u�L.r
—
Wu
0
Y
d
O�6
0
LLO o
t
n
c
u
7 L
'O J
4
J
o
u_V
�u0
O r i C
Lr�OL
q �
6m VO
9
d
ar
v
q
L C •J
d
n'U
Vy� V
C
O
`y�
r
U
�
• O�
v
>
L V�
D
^L
=q0
O
p
N
c M
w 2
G
'
n
S W� d
OIL
N
c9.r3 _V a
i4 €
V
v
G
O E
L
o w
M C u O
O e W
y
V Jr V
`. ._.•O
% c °
V C V
W>
i
.°. a >.
4 G O
V O
r
G
CL
j
OC q
S
C L
u^
;
t %2
4
u�0�
P
N u W
C
y6T
NI:G<
s
°
fOi
Q
b `• �
E
6u e O r
O V r
4
4
Orl
^
L
N
EJ� N
C
>
�
O r
N
e W
b
7 Z'i
y
C+
r pL �
`OU
O
UJ
'e Pr
RCN
GOO
qd
u l G
PG>
u C —7
0
LLO o
t
n
c
u
7 L
'O J
4
J
o
u_V
�u0
O r i C
Lr�OL
q �
6m VO
L7
v
n'U
6wu
C
O
`y�
r
U
�
• O�
v
>
L V�
D
^L
=q0
O
p
N
q
N
b d
V
G
O E
L
o w
L d
V
% c °
w
� �
i
.°. a >.
•
.e.
vra
OC q
;
t %2
4
u�0�
P
Orl
^
L
N
EJ� N
r pL �
`OU
O
UJ
'e Pr
RCN
GOO
qd
u l G
PG>
u C —7
�r
V err
Q
_=
`JCd
9CrV
G
T
�-
zz
V
Lv
v c
qO�EG
T L d
66 A
d
Vu
V
V
�
n n
L7
11
11
I]
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
t
DATE: June 23, 1982
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FRONT: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
ABSTRACT: The City Planning staff has prepared a report, per the
Planning Commission's direction, on alternatives for expanding our
public notification procedures. This report presents a discussion
of the various issues and options concerning notification of sur-
rounding residents.
ANALYSIS: The California Government Code requires notification of
oublic hearings involving approval of tentative maps, zone changes,
CUPS, or variances. Said notice, in conjunction with newspaper ad-
vertisement, must be given by direct mailing, posting or any other
appropriate means.
There are several issues regarding notification procedures.
1. When should residents be given notice of pending projects?
There are two logical times for notification: (1) at the time
the project is accepted as complete for filing, and (2) prior
to the public hearing. An advantage of notifying residents
at the time of filing is that it provides an opportunity for
public input early in the review process.
2. What projects should be noticed?
All public hearing items are currently given notice prior to
the public hearing. The issue is what projects should be
noticed at the time of filing. Potentially any public hearing
item could have an impact on the surrounding area. It would
seem appropriate to notify residents concerning all public
hearing items.
ITE4 E
Public Noticing Procedures
Planning Commission Agenda
June 23, 1982
Page 2
3. flow should projects be notified in addition to legal advertise-
ent in the newspaper?
Notice may be given by direct mailing, posting the subject property
or any other means deemed appropriate. Currently, all public hear-
ing items are advertised in the newspaper and notices are mailed to
property owners within 300' ten (10) days prior to the meeting. The
City has the authority to use other methods of notification. Posting
the subject property at the time an application is filed, in addition
to the current policy, would provide notice to homeowners at two dif-
ferent times during the review process.
The Commission, as an alternative, can expand the notification procedure by
posting and /or mailing notices at the time of filing in conjunction with our
current procedure of direct mailing and legal advertising prior to public hearings.
RECOiMMENBATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and
consider all material and input regarding this item. Further, it is recom-
mended that the Planning Commission make a motion to continue the existing
procedure as described above, or expand the notification procedures.
El
NOT.CE OF PROJECT FILING
CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
An application has been filed with the City of Rancho Cucanonga
Community Development Department for the following project(s):
Anyone having concerns or
contact the City Planning
by visiting the offices 1I
Notices will be mailed to
project site at least ten
project(s).
questions on the project(s) are welcome to
Divsion at (714) 989 -1851, in writing, or
xated at 9340 Baseline, Suite B.
all property owners within 300 feet of the
days prior to any public hearing for this
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing
at 7:00 p.m. on at the Lion's Park Community Building,
located at 9161 Baseline, to consider the following project(s):
Anyone having concerns or questions
contact the City Planning Division
by visiting the offices located at
"LIT -- ',i�"f
on the project(s) are come to
at (714) 989 -1851, in writing, or
9340 Baseline, Suite B.
Anyone wishing to comment on the project(s) may come to the public
hearing or submit a letter to the Planning Division prior to the
meeting.
9 W31I
oq gxaq ayq aagLe oq 6ULLLLM sL pue UOLgnLndLgs ayq
oq paaa6e sey 4ue3LLddV ayl -uoLSSLUral.03 6uLUUeLd ayq
,,Cq ZLuuad asO Leuolglpu O a 30 LEAoadde pue MaLAaa ayq
a.zLrba.A sasn jo sadfg asayq geyq SL U0LgepuaWW03a.a AnO
-sasn oue.Aodwaq ao WLaagUL 6ULMaLAaa uagm ua)eg aq gsruu
UOLgne3 `.aanaMOy `aLgealsap SL quamdc,anap oq aOLad puEL
ayq io asn awos geyq aLgepuegsaapun SL ql -paggLWaad
aq 4m sasn tean3.tn3La6e Ueyl aauao sasn kntodujaq put
WLaagUL `ea.AP 4l=003 pauueLd ayq ULygLM quawdOLanap
oq aOL.Ad geyq ageoipUL spaepuegs quawdOLanap Leaaua6 ayi
spaepuegS guawOOLaAaC Leaaua� V
-SUOLgeLn6a.a 6ULjaed gaaa4s -3jo pug
`se0 LL3Ed AWWO03 `spaepu2gs quawdc,aAap LpLquaplsaa
`spaepuegs gUaWdoLaAap Leaau96 ayq butpnPuL s3Ldoggns
Leaanas }O UoLSSn:)sLp ayq oq pagonap aq LILM 3Ldog SL4.L
SC'dVCNV1S iN31- WO13A30 AiIN moo : L 'ON OId01
-SUOLg3as asayq 30 saLydosoLlgd pue suaa3uo3 Oiseq ayq uo snoo;
LLLM gaoda.z styi -4ue3LLddV ayq ygLM SUa93u03 awns aALosaa og
ngLungaoddo ayq pey aAZy am -seaae asayq UL gueOLLddV aq; ygLM
buLIaoM Uaaq say 3;egS -q.xaq ayq aO SUOLgoas uo. equawaLdWL pue
spaepuegs guawdo,ana0 AJq UnWWOJ ayq uodn snoo} oq papuaWL sL gaod
-aa SLyi -gxaq g }eap ayq }o SLSRIeUe put) MaLAaa s,UOISSLuwoO ay',
aga,dmo3 og papaau gaodaa gseL ayq sl gaodaa SLyi •gaodah 43edLil
Le4UaWUOJLAU3 q -4eap ayq Pug 4xaq.k-4 pnwwoO FauueLd egSLA eaaal
ayq 6uLZKLeue sgaodaa }o salaas a UL ygXLS ayg SL sLyl :AitVWWf1S
5 -ON EdOd3d A3V1S
AlIowwoO O3NNVld V1SIA WId31 :133r8(1S
aauueLd JOLUOS `Ut.LLeA Laey3LW :A8
aauueLd XgLO `zaWOS 13Ld :WOs;l
UOLSSLWW03 6ULUUeLd ayg 2.0 saagwaW :01
Z861 £Z aune :31VO
< r
a�
O C
a
0 mociau aaviS
'VO- Igowot10 OHDNVH 30 ADD
0
Terra Vista Staff Report No. 6
Planning Commission Agenda
Lune 23, 7982
Page 2
indicate such uses as required in a Conditional Use Permit.
Under this category, the Applicant is also thinking of de-
veloping information or sales centers within, the Planned
Community area. These would be considered ar interim or
temporary use and would require a Conditional Use Permit.
B. Residential Development Standards_
Staff's main criticism of the resideni evelopment standards
is the fact that the standards appear riytd and have set mini-
mums which appear very low. Many times, particularly over
several years after the adoption of such a document, minimums
tend to become maximums. While staff has no specific problem
with the minimums occurring on a minimal basis, we would have
a problem if all of these minimums were used as maximums which
creates a very tract -like appearance. It is our recommendation
that the standards be set up to allow variations in lot sizes,
widths, and setbacks. To eliminate the concern regarding the
minimums, the standards could be arranged to state that only
a certain percentage of the lots a.•e to be developed at the
minimum standard. We believe that the developer's consultant
could arrive at an innovative method to allow some flexibility
for the variation of these standards to create a subdivision
different from the typical tract.. The Applicant has indicated
that they are willing to work with us in this area as long
as the standards recognize that each individual neighborhood
needs to retain its own identity. tie recognize that there
are limitations to the variation of lot widths and sizes,
however, we believe that some mixing can occur which will
alleviate the tract look.
C. Community Facilities
The text indicates that community facilities will be regulated
through the standard Development Review process. This is not
the best way to control community facilities such as churches,
day care centers, public. itilities, etc., as each individual
facility and location presents a different set of concerns and
parameters. As such, the location of any community facility
should be reviewed on an individual basis through a Conditional
Use Permit process.
E
•sp.Aepuegs 6ULI.aed 8113 pagdops og apew
aq pino4s aDUaJa ;a.A pue pageucwLla aq pino4s gxal g;p.Ap
a41 uLg1LM paulzguoo sucLgeln6aA 6uL -4.Aed gaa.Ags - ; ;o a41 'b
•4Lm,Aad asn leuOL41PUO3 a ;o lenoudde pue
Ma LAa-A auq as Lnba.A pino4s sasn adkg Sjg Li :)e; kq Lunuauoo .£
•sl:)Pglas pup `sggP1n `saZ1s
got ;o UOLgeL.AEA a4g UL 4Z Ii gtxal; ;o wags4s E dolanaP
of paslAaa aq p1noL;s sp.iepuegs quawdolanap LeLluaplsad "Z
-4Lw,Aad asn
leuoLq 1Puo3 a ;o Leno.Adde pup Ma1Aa.A a.ALnba,A LLe4s s.caguaa
sales pup uollewAO ;uL BULPniauL sasr, Iae.aodwal pue nwi.aaluT L
•uolssnoslP anoge eta uodn paseq suoLzep
- uauwoaaa a41 ;o X.AZUwns a SL 6uLMOilo; aul :SNOI LVON3 3,100321
•S'gLo a41 UL sguaudolanap lie ao;
SUOLg1206aa 5uLI.Aed laa.Ags -; ;o ;o las auO kluO se4 SUO a44 ;L
UOLleluawaidwl guaLoL; ;a a.AOw s1 1L `uaLgLppe uI •SILO a41 �q
paldepe aae suOLge06a.A 6ULj.Aed Mau AaAaJV4M 41LM kLdwoO Ti1M
pL.10.40 A Pup ucsea.A awes N4 .AO; PaAOwa.A a.AaM suoLgeln6a.A
5ULI.Aed laa.Als -; ;o ayl `gxag A2Lunuruo3 pauueld eL.10I0LA
ayl ;o aseo a4g uI •apo3 guawdolana0 a4Z ;o uoLlpaao a41
gjjM ,An000 cg palnpa4as Xpea.Ale SL pup `awLZ ;o gunowe algp
- ,AaPlsuoo a altl PLnoM s141 -suoLgein6a.A 6UL�.Aed aails - ; ;o ;o
S LS4'Pue Pup RPnls a g0npuO3 og aAe4 p inoM ; ;egs ` asodo.Ad Ka41
ge4g suoLgeln6aa 6UL-�j.Aed laa.Ags -; ;o a4g uo uOLlePu odo d
e aAetu og ,AapAo uT •pagdope aq `lueoelddy a41 Xq P a
BULaq sL ge4M se 4ons `eL.AagL.A:) Mau OU le4g uOLgepuawLUO:)a.A
Ano sL gL `ua44 LLzun •sucLleln5aa 6uLI.Aed ;o sLsRLpup
alaldwoo a 6u1op aq Mm am 4OL4M UL apo3 luawdolana0 Mau e
6ULdolanap aq liLaT X163 a41 sasn Mou RlLo a41 4oL' ;M suoLleL
-r5a.A gua.AanO a4q ue4Z gua.Aa ;;Lp 41:JUPOL;Lu6Ls a.Ae `aALsua4
- a.adwo� aiL4M `suolslAoid asaul 1e41 puno; aAe4 ali •AI1Lunw
-woo pauueld SL44 u141LM SuLA.Avd laa.Als -; ;o .(oj suOLgeln5aJ
;o gas agaldwoo a sapnLOUL lxal 4-4lunwwo3 pauueld l;eaP agl
suoLgeln as uL )I.Aed gaa.AZS- _4d0 "0
£ a6ed
Z86L £Z aunp
epua6y UolssLww03 6ULUUPLd
9 •oN gaodali ;;elS EIsLA eJl,Aal
Terra Vista Staff Report No. 6
Planning Commission Agenda
June 23, 1932
Page 4
COIVISSION ACTION:
TOPIC NO. 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
This section of the plan mainly covers the issues of maintenance,
flexibility, density, land use and provisions for meeting
City park requirements.
A. Maintenance
Since maintenance is a costly item and is needed for the imple-
mentation of a Community of this nature, it has been recommended
that future discussion and concepts be discussed within the text
to indicate the kinds of maintenance tools available. We have
discussed this with the Applicant and they are willing to provide
further dis---ssion and ideas on the type of maintenance tools
that will be available within the Planned Community.
E Flexibility in Density and Land Use
Previously, we indicated that more discussion on how affordable
housing will be dealt with is needed. The developer has agreed
to vrovide additional definitions and guidelines for this section
which will indicate the commitment and incentives for providing
affordable housing.
2
This section of the text also discusses the area which is desig-
nated as the Community Park. The text includes a statement
which requires the City to enter into an agreement twelve (12)
months after the adoption of the Planned Community for the
acquisition of the 99 acre Community Park. The text further
indicates that if such agreement is not entered into within
that twelve month period, it would automatically revert
the land to uses which are shown within the text. This auto-
matic reversion cannot occur without appropriate General Plan is
•paleuLwLla aq pinoys spueLai
ueLpaw padP:,spueL a04 gLpaa:) ME a 6u!ue6 o_4 suoLsLno.d
pinoys ).Aed figi0 ayl ao. guawaaa6e
-Lamp ;);Z ao,} poLaad yguow (ZI)
•paleuLwLLa :.q
uoL4LSLnboe up ;o guawdo
anLaMg aul o} aouaaaj)a
•gxag ayl uL41 ua papLAoad aq pinoys
SLool a:)upuaguLew Jo sad,fl ayl uo uoLssnosLp LeucL4tM
•uoLssnsSLp anogp aq; uodn pasec suoLl
- epuawwacaa ayl jo ,A?WAns e SL 6uLMOLLod a41 =SNOI TIND54003ii
•walsAs �japd ayg jo gaed a se you °guawaLa u6Lsaj ueqan
up s2 paMaLn SL sLg1 •guP Lnsuoo SLy pup aadolanap ayg ,Cq
pag.Aoddns pue pasodoad seM yoLyM aangeai a SL 94 unusnoZ lauueld
ayg 30 ZOLJagUL ayg uo ReMlaed padooL ayg uL441M palLeluoZ)
suelpaw padeospupL a4l -Aa06ageo p.AenaLnog LeLoadS ayg 10 pup
uPLd Lpaaua0 ayg JO luawa.ALnbaa a a.e papnLouL aq LU-m :pueLsL
uplpaw ayl oaa4m sgaaags aq-4 Z�o gsow •sueLpar: a,ayg }o
aZLs ayg ua paseq Rs eLMLgaed `Rgcncgot) LeuoLleaaoa a aeLn
- oLg.aed P an.Aas g,uop pup wals,Cs lied ayg ;o g.zed se paM. LA gau
a.ip k- ,,unwwo0 pauueLd ay; uLygLM spuRM ueLpaw padsospuel
•gLpaao )aed AOOL a aALa3aa LLLM ,CgLunwwoD pauueLd a43 do
sgaaals ayg 444Lm spueLSL ueLpaw padpospueL geyg guaurjegs p
sapnLouL gxag ayg jo uoLgoas SLyg `paMaLnaa ,CpeaaLP ake4 aM
yoLyM suoLssnosLp ayg og uoLlLppP ul -SaILoH MG `sa)LnaaS
S4g un=o 40 aog3aac0 ayg kq sla::)ed anof UL papnLo IL aae
yoLyM swnpupaowaw y6no.Agj 6uLlaaw sLyg Xq oanlosa.A aq Anoys
pup uoLSSLuauoO ayg yILM uoLssnosLp UL Lli-:ZS ,flguaaanD s sLy,L
sguawa -qn aLl I.Aed ,;ILO uLgaaw AOJ SuoLSLno. d -0
- ,KgLO a4g
Rq paaLnboe aq you ).Apd AQ ay; pinoys uoLZdo up se uLPwaa
up:) sasn puPL aALgpu.AalLe ayl •paleuLwLLa aq gxal ayg UOMM
asn pueL anLgeuaagLe ayg 40 uoLgeguawaldwL oLgewogne Iguow
anLaMl ayg of aouaaa ;aa ayg geyg papuauwooaa SL 4L `a.AOlUayl
,k4jungaeddo geyl SsedlCq Ao `pupL ayg 3o ase4oand ayg aoj quaw
-aaa6e oguL Aalua aagjLa og sguaurllwwoo AO SuoLgeuLuualap puL}
awns aaew og an2y uayg LLLM R } L, ayl 19lLunwwo0 pauueLd a'4 }o
uoLgaod sLyg doLaAap og sapLoap AadolaAep ayl d5 geyg sn(LAgo
SL 41 •aaglew ;o puL) styg saanoo yoLyM goV deH uoLsLnppgnS
agelS ayl Aq ApeaaLp paloaload SL AadOLanap ayl •sguawpuawe
0
Z861 `£
PpuaBV uoLssLwwo'. 6u
ON gaodaB ;jr;S elstA
Terra Vista Staff Report No. 6
Planning Commission Agenda
June 23, 1982
Page 6
Co MISSION ACTION:
CONCLUSION: If the Commission is able to complete review of these
remaining issues at this meeting tonight, then the Applicant will
be able to prepare the final draft document for final Planning Com-
m-ission review and recommendation to the City Council. Most likely,
it will take the Applicant approximately three to four weeks to
prepare the final draft which will ba submitted to staff fcr review
based upon the Commission's previous comments and concerns and the
report on the final draft will b:? prepared by the staff and presented
to the Commission_
tlysubritted,
ty Planner
RS:MV:jr
E
r1
LJ
n
`J
E
Date:
To:
From:
Subject
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA2,IONCA
MEMORANDUM
June 17, 1982
i
Members of the Planning Commission
Bill Holley, Director, Commznity Services Department
TERRA VISTA: THE PARK PLAN (Continued from June 14, 1582)
The issues relative to the above subject have been discussed by the Planning
Commission on May 3 and June 14. Those issues, briefly recapped are as
follows:
Section 1: Parks /School Concept - Resolved to Commission's satisfaction
Section 2: Parks /Detention Basin - Resolved to Ccmmission's satisfaction
Section 3: Private Open Space Credit - Partially resolved - more information
requested by Commission
Section 4: Deer Creek - Resolved by the Commission that the park site should
be relocated to the west side of Deer Creek on both the north and
south sides of Basel--,. ^e
Section 5: Implementation - Unresolved - more information requested by Commis-
sion.
At this point we will attempt to clarify the issues concerning private open
space and the several direction options which may be employed by the Commis-
sion in coming to resolution. There are two distinct policy issues involved
here. Sizp].y stated they are:
A. How much credit should private open space in Terra Vista receive ?;
and,
B. Hcw much private open space should receive credit in Terra Vista?
The two issues at first reading appear the same, but they are very different.
In issue "A ", it is being ouesticned that if a proponent offers one acre of
private open space toward their park requirement, how much credit should that
one acre receive?
The Commission at the May 3rd meeting reached concensus that the one acre
should receive M credit toward the requirement through the land itself in
a turfed and treed state and that 25% credit would be ava9.!able depending
upon how well the additional recreation amenities met tine perceived need of
the future residents of the project in which the private open space was located.
Terra Vista: The Fark Plan
June 17, 1982
Page 2
Bottom line: Private open space which in the judgement of the Planning Commis-
sion well meets the recreational needs associated with the project's residents
will likely receive 100% credit...or said another way...the one acre of private
oper space would be granted one acre of credit toward the project total park
requirement.
in Issue "B" however, the Commission was not comfortable with the matter of
what percentage of Terra Vista should be allowed as credited open space and
continued the item for further discussion.
The policy issue here is this - Should there be an upper limit on the amount
of private open space permitted within Terra Vista which could be eligi lc for
credit under issue "A "?
For example, if the proponent wished to meet 10% of the +r total 124 acre park
requirement through private open space, would this be ' easonable' in addressing
the recreational needs of the residents? Would 25 %, 40`% or 75% be likewise
'reasonable " Taking it to the limit, would 100% be 'reasonable'?
A second issue arises here - If an upper limit is to be established for private
open space in Terra Vista, is it to be applied to the Planned Communitv as a
whole, considering all residential land uses and types, or, is it to be applied
to each project on a case by case basis? The following illustrated the differences
in the two concepts. The first example considers application to the Planned
Community as a whole. Currently, Terra Vista has a 124 acre park requirement.
Their current plan proposes to meet the requirement through 432, or 53± acres of
private open space. It however must be recognized that not all housing types
contain private open space, and therefore some higher density housing projects
may approach 75% of their park requirement through private open space.
Example: N S P - Requirement
300 X 5 X 3.1 4.65 acres
Private open space at 75% = 3.488 acres
Public park dedication remaining = 1.162 acres _.
Is rnis unregulated ratio oae which is satisfactory in the opinion of the
Commission, to meet the total recreation needs of the residents of this
specific project? Or will lower density housing be subsidizing some of the
public part: needs of the higher density housing?
The second example, considers he private open space looked at on a project -by
project basis. If a ratio of 507 maxi --= private and 50% minimum public were
felt proper, the previous formula would read like this:
Example: N S P = Requirement
300 X S X 3.1 4.65 acres
Private open space at 50% = 2.325 acres
Public open dedication remaining = 2.325 acres 40
Ghat the preceding paragraphs point out, is that the percentage number alone is
not significant without the methodology of application. Illustrating that state-
Terra Vista: The Park Plan
June 17, 1982
Page 3
ment, a cap of 43% private open space when applied to the Terra Vista Plan as
a whole, will result in more private open space then wo.:ld a 50% cap on private
open space when considered on a project by project basis.
1 believe that the preceding covers, and hopefully clarifies the issues that
were raised by the Planning Commission June 14th.
Commission options - Issue "S"
1. Determine if a "cap" level percentage of private open space is appropriate
versus open space at the discretion of the proponent. if a cap is not
appropriate, the following options are moot. If, however, a cap level
is felt approp' -' t`U t1,° following options are valid for Commission
��atz,
consideration.
2. Establish whether private open space eligibility is to be considered on
Terra Vista as a whole, or, is it to be considered on a project by project
basis?
3_ Depending upon the Conmission's direction on option 2, a cap percentage
figure should be determined. TY,e basis for that determination should
consider what percentage of the recreational needs can properly be met
through the private open space in the opinion of the Planning Co =ission.
The last issue that was unresolved at the meeting of June 14th was implementation.
The projects proponents will provide a more detailed analysis as requested by
the Planning Commission.
If T can provide further information., please advise.
WL3:nm
cc: city Council
City Manager
r
\.1 LL ur
RANC30 CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
ADOPTED LA&D USE ELEMENT OF THE RANCHO CUC,%M -ONGA
GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Citv Council has activated the optional General
Plan Amendment cycle; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly advertised public
heaz'_ng to consider all comments on the proposed General Plan Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rancho Cucamonga City
Council does hereby approve the _following amendments to the lr 3 use
element of the General Plan.
SECTION 1: General Plan Amendment No. 82 -01 -A: Under the
fir;;t policy stat- anent, paragraph 3 of the Land Use Element (page 30)
shall be changed :o read as follows:
"The City shall not generally ::onsider for approval,
any development plans located within the Planned
COmn:t_nitieS area, until such ti. ^--e as the Planned
Community has been reviewed and adopted by the City
Council. However, the City may approve minor exceptions
to this policy, if it its judgement, the plans are
consistent with the Planned Community and General
Plar. voa_s ". 'his exception shall be limited to
one t;nt only per planned community area and shall
not ence:upass rore than 5z or 50 acres of the
planned - :o= -urity area, whichever is less. Final
approval or r,enial of any proposed development or
derelopmettt plans submitted for approval under this
exceP' =1=� shall be made by the City Council on reco-
mmendation of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2: General Plan Amendment No. 82 -01 -C: An amendment
of the General Plan Land Use map in the area north of 4th Street extending
approximately 1400' east of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad
tracks and west of Etiwanda Avenue as shown on attached Exhibit "A ".
This area shall be shown on the General Plan as General Industrial Land
Use.
SECTION 3: <s Negative Dec'uration is hereby adopted for these
General Plan amendments, based upon the completion and findi:gs of the
Initial Study.
PASSED, APP?mnz, and ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 1982.
AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser
NOES: None
ABSENT: bone
ATTEST:
Lauren ?�I.�Wass�.an, City C'
Phill p D. Schlosser, Mayor