Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/12/08 - Agenda Packet �w •M�-' "r �1 l•1- _YRA a RCfAI1'YF�Qµ•F y^(y 1 O\ PLAIN IM Z C]lJillyak tan idEDNESC'Y OECEMBFR 8, 1-182 1:00 P.M. A C T I 0 N S I.ION'S PA.ri: CM4UNITY CE&TEk 9361 SASE .NE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Y� - I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call COWissioner Barker X Com. issioner Rempe� X Commissioner King X _ Commissioner Stout X Commissioner 14cNiel X III. Approval of Minutes Approved 5-0-0 October 27, 1b62 Approved 5-0-0 November 10, 1982 IV. Announcements r V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected -F: to be routine and non-controversial. they will be acted on by the Cou issior at one time without discussion_ If anyone has concern over any item, it should be:removed for discussior__ A. EtiVIRONME'NTAL ASSESSMENT FORDEVELOPMENT REVIEW_ Approved 5-C-0 82-20 - R - ire deve opment o a ,000 square foot industrial building on 1.26 acres of .and in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial category (Subarea 9) , lccaM- onthe east side of Utica, north of Jerse/ - APR 209-142-24, B. PARCEL- MAP fi726 - UOivQ_�C-1�kTKINS PROPERTIES evasion to . arceT map ocate at t e noast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Ave- r nue. A Change from 8 parcels to 70 panels - APR 1077-641-54-57. ,x u Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 2 VI. Public Hearings The fol2owinv items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. please wait to be revognized by the Chairman and address the Commission from: the public microphone by giving your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per Individual for each project. Staff recommendation to pre- C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12242 - pare focused EIR approved HUGHES - A residential tract subdivision of 18 5-0-0 lots on 4.96 acres of land in the R-'1-8,500 (Single Family Residential) zone to be located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Highland Avenue - APN 201-212-16. Staff recommendation to pre- D. ENVIRONWNTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 pare focused EIR with amendment SI VERS - A custom lot residertial subdivision o. to include transportation con- 96 Tots on 86.53 acres of land in the R-1-20,000 siderations approved 4-0-0-1. zone located on the north side of Almond Street at Beryl Street - APN 1061-411-03, 1061-451-01 ; 1061-171-Qi . Zone change to PD approved E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 5-0-0. 82-05 - TENTATIVE TRACT 12305 - ROY - A change of Tentative Tract approved 5-0-0 zone from R-3 Muitip a Family Residential) to with amendment to look at wall R-31PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned landscaping treatmert, design of Development) for the development of 59 condominium wall, roof material and color. units on 5.24 acres of lard located north of 19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue - APN 201-2. 2-34,54. Approved 5-0-0 with additional F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-27 - LESLIE & INFANTE - condition that letter of non-intent The establishment of an arcade in the C-1-T zone be received from previous CUP ap- to be located at 9685 Base Line in the Base Line plicant and that staff inspect Village Shopping Center - APN 238-031.74. premises prior to occupancy. Approved 5-0-0. G. ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7666 , He - A subdivision of 3.94 acres into 2 parce s within the C-2 zone (A-P pending) located.at the southeast corner of Foothill and Turner Avenue - APN 208-331-21 . w Planning Cowissioc Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 3 VII. New Business Approved S-O-O H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82-21 - R.C. ItiDUSTRIAL - The eve opment of a 223,500 sq. ft. warehouse/distribution building an 9 .79 acres of land in the General Industrial zone to be located in Subarea 11 at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and 6th Street - APR 229-261-50. Approved 5-0-0, as amended. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82- 5 - McM!lRRAYfSANOS - he development of a sq- ft. restaurant on 1.38 acres of and in the C-2 zone located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and "turner Avenue - APN 208-331-21. YII;. Pubic Comment This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda_ IX. Adjournment The Planning Co=ission has adopted Adninistaative Regulations that set an 21 P.m. time. if items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission- The Planning Comraissi.on will adjourn to a public hearing on December 9, 1982 to discuss the Draft Etiwanda Specific Plan. 3 : NOTE: THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF TSE S` PLANNING COMMISSION WILL BE HELD ON JANUARY 12, ,•a;_ 1983. �t . y • I ° f � � Y°M� MIW. p.QM..'C.JIEGdM,1�•.j CM. euU.a CCLLaur LtGC • ':s �•' ! . SuN�N �A at �. � �• i�T�JC �Z T e i i 3 � . f `a j 2cOF5 /Ya MaLL � ° i � 1 ' I 00 =ca w wf SS ml F •w � it i i j OUC•N A-CUAS" CCUNfr W610.ut /Ai. J C lT4*M MffELMAfIONAL tAD r CiYY OF RANCHO CUCAM Otip" � •I y ; - i+� u i t Gt.CA.L(ry,` .. C rY OF RAMB�OTNCUCAMONGAMNG *, gam, cI PLA J � ' AGENIA r' 1977 WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 8, 1982 7:00 p.m. LION'S PARK CON TITITY CMrM 9161 SASE LIY'E, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIeORNIA I, Pledge of Allegiance t Roil Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel Commissioner King Commissioner Stout Commissioner Mc4iel III. Approval of Minutes October 27, 1982 November 10, 1982 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar The following consent calendar items are expected to be routine ind non-controversial. They will be acted on by the commission at one time without discussion_ If anyone has co7cern over any item, it should be.removed for discussion. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW -L - WH E R - he eve opment o a QO square foYt industrial building on 1.26 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial category (Subarea 9) , located onthe east side of Utica, north of Jersey - APH 2O9-142-24. S. PARCEL- MAP 6726 - UONG-WAT'KINS PROPERTIES - evis�on to arse map ocate at a nort east corner of Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Ave- nue. A change from 8 parcels to 10 parcels - APN 1077-641-54-57. y .F Y- Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Pale 2 I VI. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to Be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission from the pablic microphone by giving your novae and address. All such opinions shall be limited -1.'0 5 minutes per individual for each project. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TE:1T,ATIVE TRACT 12242 - HUGHES - A residential tract subdivision of 18 lots on 4.96 acres of land in .the R-1-8,500 (Single Family Residential) zone to be located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Highland Avenue - APN 2GI-212-16. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 - SIEVERS - A custom lot residential su Zvision o 9b-ems on 86.53 acres of land in the R-'(-20,000 zone located or the north side of Almond `street at. Beryl Street - APN 1061-411-03, 1061-451-Cl ; 1061-171-01. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVEL.O.PMEtri 32-05 - TENTATIVE TRACT 12305 - ROY - A changa of zone efrrom R-3 Multiple Family Residential) to R-3/PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) for the development of 59 condominiu� units on 5.24 acres of land located north of 19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue - APH 201-237.-34,W F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-27 - LESLIE & INFANTE The establishment of an arcade in the -T zone to be located at 9685 Base Line in the Base Line Village Shopping Center - APN 208-031-74. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL RAP 7666 - HPTERT PMKINS - A subdivision o acres into 2 parcels within the C-2 zone (A-P pending) located at the southeast corner of Foothill and Turner Avenue - APN 208-331-21. r Planning Corwission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 3 VII. Ne•,: Business -•r; H. �h11IRl!, 'L ASSESSMENT AND �fuEVELOPMEKY REVIEW 2- - R.C. INDUSTRi - The development of a 223,500 sq. ft. warehouse/distribution building on 9.79 acres of land in the General Industrial zone to be located in Subarea 11 at the northeast 3 corner of Milliken Avenue and 6th Street APH 229-261-50. I. ENYIRORyENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPI?ENT REVIEW 82-15 - Mc�AURRAY/SANDS - The development of a sq. t. restaurant on .38 acres of land in the C-2 zone located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Turner Avenue - APN 208-331-21. VIII. Public Comment This is the time and place for the general p::blic to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear this agenda. IX. Adjourim ent ne Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Reguiations that set an 11 j%w- adjournment time. If items go beyond that tire. they shall be heard 01219 vith the consent of the Comas Gsion. ii The Planning Commis,lom will adjc=m to a psbzic herring on December 9, 1922 to discuss the Draft . Etiwanda Specific Plan- ME NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE ?CANNING CCXMISSTON WILL HE HELD OR JANOi.RP 12, ' 1983. i Y �'MOT AP j yi •� i i i 1JE �_i • •—' I s i coLuce \ -tl a RAY I+r ! a �� 410M DMA C 1,4 MALL • • L . F a l moo. 0 sm . 1 S COCAu .-W.Sll COJa♦ 6MOAAy D.0- T O. "M OA(R.AJIO.AL A OR•' Cr Y OF RAriCHo CUCAMON" Y r' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 27, 1982 r Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Of he d City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, to order at 1:o5 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman King then Zed in the pledge of allegiance. RGLL CALL- COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry McNiel, Berman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Rick Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Jack Lam, Commu.^.ity Development Director; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; and Michael Vairin, Senior Planner sssss CONSENT CALENDAR A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAPS 6863 AND 6726 Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Consent Calendar. ssa- ss PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE ERM 78-03 - BOARS HEAT', - 'This is a review o, p�tentiel mod ications to the Conditions of Approval, which are intended to resolve the complaints and disturbances created by this establishment. The business is within the Rancho Plaza located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, advised th.. Commission that the measures listed in the Staff Report were not intended to be all inclusive solutions to the problems; however, were intended to serve as a basis on which the Commission could act. Chairman Ding opened the public hearing. Frank Britton, Attorney representing the applicant, 399 W. Mission, Pomona, California, addressed the Commission stating that most of the conditions being placed dui "the establishment by the staff were meritorio•,s;, helpful and most of therm highly approved by the ownership; however, the present ownership acquired the business on June 15, 1982 and could not be responsible for problems which existed prior to that date. Further, that 'the applicant was not aware that the original Conditional Use Permit indicated that the, establishment would be a full dinner house, however had purchased the business with that intention in mind and are now in the process of training personnel and working up a suitable menu. in response to the Planning condition regarding peria'.ic policingof the outside area by security person gel, Mr. Britton stated that this was already effect. Also, a security guard had been placed by the front door who would be policing the outdoor area, seeing that all doors remain closed, verifying that no minors enter, and prohibiting any person coming into the establishment under the influence of alcohol_ In response to condition number three regarding blocking the entire northwest corner of the parking lot, Mr. Britton stated that this had already been approve) by both the owner of the center and the applicant. With regard to the condition requiring a five foot planter, he stated that this was something that would have to be accomplished with the owner of the center; however, suggested that the Commission might desire to wait and see if the blocking of the parking lot would alleviate the problem. The requirement for speedbumps had been approved by the owner of the center and Mr. Britton indicated that these would soon be installed. Further, that heavy insulation and stripping would be installed around the rear door in an effort to soften any sound escaping. Also, the applicant was agreeable to the condition requiring review at any time by the Commission; however, the business could not continue to operate under the condition requiring a reduction in business hours. Chairman King asked Mr. Britton if he could give the Commission the, percentage of business that fa done between the hours of 12 a.m. and 2 am. on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. Britton replied that he would not be able to provide that information; however, Mr. Arcinage might. La. Axeimige, 7650 Calle Casino, Rancho Cucamonga, one of the owners of the esta. ..nment, addressed the Commission and replied that approximately 68% of the establishment's business was generated between those hours; thus, it would be economically unfeasible to curtail the business hours as suggested by staff in the Resolution. Commissioner Stout asked if dinner is currently being served at the Boars Head. Mr. Arcinage replied that it is not currently being served; however, a cook had recently been hired and that the establishment is currently training personnel and creating a full dinner menu which would be served between the hours of 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Arcinage when he expects to have the dinner menu ready to go into effect. Mr. Arcinage replied that they had anticipated to begin in November, however not being able to find a suitable cook had delayed those plans. A new cook had recently been hired Planning Commission Minutes 2 October 27 , 1982 s and now he anticipated they would begin serving dinner in approximately two t, six months. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Arcinage if he was made aware of the conditions of the Corditioral Use Permit when he purchased the Boars Head in 1982. Mr. Arcinage replied that he was not and this was the second restaurant bought from the same person. As the fist restaurant purchased in Upland nas only served lunch for the past nine years, he felt that there were no problems. Doug Gergen, 7333 Hellman, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that he was agreeable to blocking off the northwest parking lot as suggested by staff; however, did not want to do the planting of the slope area suggested by staff as he felt it would not solve any problems. Further, that a wood fence had been placed behind the houses of the surrounding property owners, but the solution might be to put up a block wall. Also, he was agreeable to the installation of speedbumps in the parking lot, Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Gorgen if he was suggesting that a noise attenuation block wail should be built at the rear of the residential property, with the property owners' permission. Mr. Gorgen replied that he was and this would be much better than requiring more landscaping. Commission Barker asked how high would the wall be? Mr. Gorgon replied that he would suggest that it be 6 to 61/2feet high. Commissioner Barker asked if there would be any problems with that from an engineering point of view? Rick Gomez, City Planner, replied that the ultimate design would have to be analyzed from an engineering and sound attenuation viewpoint. Commissioner Barker asked Mr. Gorgen if he was intending to place the noise attenuation wall at the top of the hill with the property owners' consent. Mr. Gorgen replied that he would be agreeable to placing the wall on the properties which are exposed ;o their parking lot; however, this would have to be with the consent of the property owners. Mel Futrell, 6623 Topaz, addressed the Commission stating that most of the problem was with the noise in the parking lot late at night and not just noise coming from inside the building. Further, that it was unfortunate that the owner of the business could not curtail his hours of operation because a business should not be allowed to operate until 2 a.m. in an residential area. Bob Blascock, an adjacent shopowner located at 6636 Carnelian, addressed the Commission stating that while he could not attest to the noise problems at 2 s.m., he has occasionally worked at his business until 10 or it p.m. and had never been bothered by Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 2". , 1982 noise coming from the Boars Head. Further, that since the Boars Head has been under new ownership there has been an improvement especially with the litter in the parking lot, which had previously been a problem. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that he would like to address the issue of c ' _.,..vent of hours which staff had suggested in the Resolution because he was in favor of li:aiting the hours. Further, that when a use such as this was approved and allowed to operate L.n a residential a-ea. it should be understood by the applicant that this use would not be the same as it would be in a C-2 area on Foothill Boulevard. Commissioner McNiel stated that the majority of the problems seem to be created from the back parking area and the back door and asked Doug Gorgen if he could completely close off the back parking lot. Mr. Gorgen replied that he could close it off completely, but there might be a problem with fire access. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that it could be chained, which could be removed during an emergency. Commissioner McNiel then stated that if the back parking lot was completely blocked off and it was strictly enforced that the rear doors remained closed he did not think the problem would continue and this might be the solution. Further, that probably as much noise is generated from the Bob's Restaurant as the Boars Head, therefore had no -ibjections to the current operating hours. ':50 p.m. Planning Commission Recessed 7:55 p.m. Planning Commission Reconvened Chairman Ding stated that he agreed that the general usage within the area which is located should have some strict conditions placed on it to make it as amenable as possible with the surrounding area. Further, that based on the comments this evening, it appeared that the problems stem primarily from, or as a result of, the parking area behind the establishment. Also, that maybe an appropriate way to deal with the issue since there is a new ownership involved would be to pass all the conditions as recommended by staff with the exception of the condition dealing with the hours of operation. Chairman Bing stated that he was aware that the major grievance of the adjacent residents was the hours of operation; however felt that the problem of hours of operation in conjunction with the parking situation was what made the two uses inconsistent. Further, that he would be agreeable to passing the remaining conditions, chaining off the rear parking area, allowing the hours of operation to remain as they currently are, and requiring the Conditional Use Permit to come before the Commission for review in two months. He stated that in this way the Commission would not be acting in a precipitous fashion in limiting the hours to 12 a.m. when all of the complaints are generated from the rear parking area. Also, if it appeared that the complaints are not mitigated by the chaining off of the rear parking area, it would be back before the Commission and further action would be taken. ? Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 27 , 1982 J-; Commissioner Barker stated that he would have to agree with Commissioner Stout in that this is a use that borders on incompatibility and it is very difficult to place a use of this type, unless it was a restaurant, that close to a residential area. Further, that if it appeared that he would lose the vote on whether the permit is brought back to the Commission in sixty days rather than argue for an earlier closing time, he would like to amend the Resolution to include the sound attenuation wall so that some relief would be provided for the surrounding residen*s. Commissioner Rempel stated that he agreed with the amendment of the Resolution to include the sound attenuation wall. Further, that the wall could not be just a plain block wall but a wail with some type of deadening in it. Also, it should be a rough textured surface or be :slanted with some type of vine. He also agreed with Chairman. King that the Conditional Use Permit should come back before the Commission in sixty days. Commissioner Stout stated that ne would like to suggest that this approval be personal to Mr. Arcinage because he may be willing to make a good effort to solve the issues at hand, but should he desire to sell the business, a new owner may not. Commissioner Barker stated that he was still concerneG with the 2 a.m. closing time in a residential area when it is fifteen to twenty feet from someone's back yard. Commissioner McNiel stated that he felt it was both unfortunate and unfair that the new owner is in this situation since he has made some headway and put forth some effort in making this a more compatible situation. Further, that this owner was being subjected to penalties based on what happened prior to his purchase of the business and judgment should be made on what this man does with the property. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by King. carried, to modify the Conditional Use Permit to include Conditions 2, 3, and 5 through it as recommended by staff. Condition 10 would require review by the Commission in two months. Also to be added to the Conditions would be the requirement of a block sound attenuating wall and detailed plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to installation. Chairman King asked if the two months time period would bring the CUP back for Commission review at the first meeting in January. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that it would but the Commission might take into consideration that the first meeting in January may not give enough time for the negotiation of agreements with the property owners on tl-.e construction of the wall, the wail construction, or time to see if the wall does much good to alleviate the sound. Commissioner McNiel amended his motion. regarding Condition 10 requirir q review of the CUP by the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 26, 1983. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, King, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Bone Planning Commission Minutes 5 ' OcCober 27 , 1982 Commissioners Barker and Stout voted No cn this project because they felt the hours to be incompatible with the adjacent area. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would like it made clear that if he receives one complaint or personally saw that the Conditions were not being complied with, he would not hesitate to bring this item back before the Commission before the aa-eed time limit. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised the audience that the decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed to the City Council. within fourteen days of this meeting and that staff could be contacted for further information. Commissioner McNiel stated that he may have made an unpopular decision to some people tonight; however, would also like to go on record as say=ng he also would not hesitate to bring the CUP back before the Commission if a complaint is received. Chairman Ring recognized Edith Bartholomew, 5999 NPpa, Rancho Cucamonga, who wished to address the Commission. Ms. Bartholomew stated that she agreed with Commissioners Barker and Stout in that the hours of 2 a.m. are later than any other businessin the surrounding area and too late for a residential area. Further, that she was totally against the sale of alcoholic beverages in a residential area. ssssk C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7689 - STEPHENS - A division of 2.2 acres of land into 2 parcels within the R-1 zone EtFwanda Specific Plan), located at the northwest corner of Summit and East Avenues. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Commissioner Rempel asked if the area of local streets had been lJoied into with regard to the Etiwanda Specific Plan to know where they are going to alleviate the need for dedication of roadway at the side or back of this proper in the future. Mr. Rougeau replied that future dedication was not anticipated because the future streets would be installed so that the lotting patterns in a larger development would be developed to provide for the interior streets to be away from the border of this project. Commissioner Rempel stated that one of the shortcomings of the Specific Plan is that it does not lay out many of the streets, making it very difficult in approving parcel maps in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Chairman Xing opened the public hearing. Gary Sanderson, 9587 Arrow, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission stating that his client was in agreement with the conditions of both the Planning and Engineering Divisions. In response to the existing streets, Mr. Sanderson commented that East Avenue and Summit Avenue realignments should not have any affect on this parcel. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. t: Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 27, 1982 Commissioner Rempel stated that ;when he raised the previous question, it was not in opposition to this parcel map, but was to comment ths.t the Commission should be given more information regarding adjacent properties. Mr. nouveau asked if staff should prepare a conceptual street pattern showing surrounding properties for future orgjects? Commissioner Rempel replied that this is one of the areas of criticism on the Specific Plan in that this should have beer looked into and that a conceptual street pattern would be helpful du:ing Commission review. Commissioner Barker stated that the Commission is just now beginning the review of the proposed Etiwanda Spe4�,ific Plan and it is not known at this time just what changes, if any, will be made that would affect this property. Further, that the timing did not seem right in having this project before the Commission now when the Specific Plan should be adopted in iLhe very near future, giving the Commission more specific detail for de jelopment. Commissioner Rempel stated that the East Avenue street width shown on the trap is what is shown on the General Plan. Further, that if the Specific Plan is adopted as is, it would reduce the size of Fast Avenue, thus returning eleven feet of property back to the property owners. However, this map is showing what the General Flan now shows which is the correct way to do it. Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorn_y, stated that if the Commission could find consistency with what is being proposed, the development being proposed could be adoFit--<,. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7689. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7267 - LEivZS DEVELOPMENT COMPAKY - A division o 468 ± acres into 1 parcel with remainder within the A-2 zone vc 81-01 pending) located on the northsi side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Rochester - APN 227-151-1 throur'h 8, 10 through Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. 3eiry Bryant, representing Lewis Development Company, addressed the Commission static„ that he had a concern regarding Condition 8 of the City En-4ineer's Report. His concern was that if a tract was proposed at the corner of the parcel, it would be required to put in street improvements or. all of the perimeter streets with the first subdivision- Edward Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that as a practical matter this would not be done. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 27, 1982 Mr. Bryant replied that he realized this but was suggesting that the condition be reworded to state that these streets would be improved at such time as development begins on parcel one. Mr. Rougeau stated that if one building was constructed on one of the parcels, the entire parcel would have to be improved, thus the condition is in keeping with present regulations. Jack Lam, Community Development Director, stated that this was why the City Attorney indicateu that practical development would not be done in this way. -Mr. Rogeas stated that to do any smaller development, the property should be subdivided. Mr. Hopson stated that this is the City's consistent position that no development is going to occur inside a project on which a planned community is being submitted until that project has been approved and at that time the Lewis Company would be in a position to subdivide. Further, that when the parcels are subdivided, improvements would be required on each of the subdivisions. There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Rempei, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to rdopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7267. sssss E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 7864 - BIANE - A division of 14.88 acres into 3 parcels within Subarea 5 of the industrial Specific Plan area, located at the southwest corner of Turner Avenue and 8th Street - APN 209-201-08, 11-13, 16-17. Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Staff Report. Cnairman King opened the public hearing. George Mim Mack, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating that the M-2 use presently existing would remain, the only difference would be the change of ownership from one owner to two owners. Further, that the applicant agTeed with all conditions of apprcvaL There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel asked if siR the properties had rights-of-way to provide for driveways to each of them? Mr. Rougeau replied that there wer-- rights-of-way to all properties and that the smallest frontage on 8th Street is 145 feet, which would provide for further future access. Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 27 , 1982 Motion: ;Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 7864. arras 8:45 p.m. - Planning Commission Recessed 9:00 p.m. - Planning Commission Reconvened arras F. ENVIRONyiENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12090 - USA PROPERTIES - The total development of 12-townhouse units on 9.2 acres of land in the R-3/PD (Multiple Family/Planned Development) zone located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Peron Boulevard - APN 209-051-01. Michael Vairin, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report. Mr. Vairin stated that staff was recommending a rewording of Condition 3 to state rthe east wall' of the project shall be completed and landscaping installed with the second phase". The reason for this change was that the first phase will not have reached the east wall at this stage and the landscaping would be premature because units will be built at that location; however, it was felt that the wall should be constructed at that time for an appropriate barrier. Further, that the requirement of the perimeter fencing and landscaping along the streets included at this time would also be premature since they could be damaged with the installation of those units. It was also suggested that Engineering Division 5 be reworded to state "the developer shall install street improvements along Archibald and Feron Boulevard, including the interior loop street as needed for first phase construction." Mr. Vairin stated the reason for this rewording is that the Engineering staff would look at the needed circulatioi to meet Fire District circulation requirements as well as safety circulation on an off the site. Chairman King if full street landseapings along the Corder of the project weren't normally required on a street such as Archibald? Mr. Vairin replied that this had been done in some cases; however, in this instance the City Engineer is not requiring the street improvements at this time and it makes it somewhat difficult to install the street trees and landscaping and then go back and do the final grading and setting the curb heights. Chairman Ding stated that it seems that street improvements are normally required at this time, and, that this requirement seems to depart from the normal policy regarding phasing of development Kong major streets such as Archibald. Mr. Rougeau replied that staff is now in the process of changing some of the requirements due to the bad housing market and this is the reason entire frontages of projects recently have not been required to be improved. Further, in this project, the first phase is somewhat small in relation to the rest of the project; whereas in most cases, the first phase ?s normally one of the largest. Chairman King stated that he could not see where we would be guaranteed that anything would be done as far as street improvements at any given time. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 27 , 1982 Mr. Rougeau replied that currently on Archibald there is widening and full curb and gutter and the only thing missing is the sidewalk and street lighting, so the safety aspects and the majority of the visual affects are already taken care of. Mr. Vairin stated that the normal bonding would be required which would have the normal timing requirements to assure for installation. Commissioner Rempei stated that the chances of damage to the sidewalks if installed at this point is very great and agreed that allowing ix to also be phased is the correct position to take. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Surinder Kal-dos, representing USA Properties, addressed the Commission stating that he had been working with staff and agreed with the Conditions of Approval. Chairman King asked Mr. Kahlon if the reasoning behind the phasing was of a cost saving n&ture. Mr. Kahlon replied that one of the reasons for the chasing of the project was from an engineering standpoint in teat the ground slopes in the direction which the project is being phased. Also, this phasing was suggested and accepted by consensus at the Design Review Committee meeting. Chairman King stated that it would seem more appropriate to take the phasing straight down Archibald, over to Feron, with the last part of the phasing being the interior. Commissioner Hempel replied that-for appearance sake, this would be the right way to phase the project; however, from a construction and safety point of view it would be very _wrong because the construction people would interfere with the traffi coming in and out of the project. Commissioner Barker stated that there was one other consideration during Design Review which was that some of the amenities of the project such as the swimming pool and activity center be privided as early in the development as possible. Ray Trujillo, Cucamonga &;cool District Principal, addressed the Commiss a: slating that he was concerned about the children walking to school along the northeast corn•. of the project not having a safe passage to school. Also, that the type of wall construct around the perimeter nf the project be as graffiti proof as passible. Nacho Gracia, 10364 Humboldt, Rancho Cucamonga, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Participation Committee, addressed the Commission stating that the Committee had met with the developer and was also concerned about the type of wall to be consrructed. He stated that he felt the developer had done a fine job in mitigating this concern in that this wall was proposed to be wrought iron. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. r, Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 27 , 1982 Chairman King asked if any of the Commissioners agreed with his concern regarding the phasing of the project on Archibald and Peron. Commissioner Barker asked what changes the Chairman was advocating. Chairman King replied that his idea was to phase directly south on Archibald to Feron. Further, his concern was with t2he phasing on Archibald and that it would be the very last thing doree so that a person traveling down Feron to Archibald would have an unsightly view. Commissioner Rempel stated that he could not agree with this because hea-.'y equipment trucks would be coming into the project and these areas could not be fenced off. Further, that with people moving into the units with small children and all of the equipment would prove to be very unsafe. Also, this would make the cost jump considerably for these units. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative ;Tact 12090 with the suggested rewording by staff. ssssst DIRECTORS REPORTS G. REPORT ON SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING STRATEGIES Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the report to the Commission stating that a field trip was being arranged for the Commissioners to view other senior citizen housiag projects in the area. The Commissioners were given the dates of November 13 or November 20 as possible tour dates and asked to contact staff later in the week with their preference. sssss ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stout, unanimously carried to adjourn. 9:30 p.m. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully subriitted, Jack Lam, Secretary October 2T , 1982 Planning Commission Minutes 11 x?; CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION I+ZNUTES Regular Meeting November 10, 1982 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City of RanchoCucamooga Planning Commission was at called to order by Chairman Jeff ?fling at ,'.05 p.m. The meeting was the Lions Park Coma unity Center 9161 Base Line Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. After calling the meeting to order, Chairman King led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMR:SSIONERS: PRESENT. David Barker, Larry Mc Niel, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeffrey King COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Edward A. Hopson, Assistant City Attorney; Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to approve the Minutes of September 22, 1982. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes of the October 13, 1982 meeting. Chairman King abstained from the vote as he was absent from this meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to approve the Consent Calendar, adopting Resolution No. 82-103• A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 6595 * a ■ * i planning Commission Minutes -1- November 10, 1982 Y ANNOUNCEMMiT.S Nick Gomez, City Planner, advised that on October 6, 1982, the Planning Commission would meet at the Lions Park Community Center at 7 g.r?. to continue the hearing process on the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Mr. Gomez stated that thr date of the seconcr regular Planning Commission meeting would be changed to November 22 due to the Thanksgiving holiday. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82-03 - INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATED - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (4-14 dwelling units/acre) to Commercial on approximately 8.9 acres of land located in the northeast corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077421-31 . (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of Septzmber 22, 1982) Chairman King advised that Staff recommended that this project and the public hearing be continued to the meeting of January 26, 1983. a airman King opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the floor, the public hearing was closed. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to continue this item to the January 25, 1983 meeting. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-18 - HOWARD - The development of a ctrurch facility including two buildings which total 4,200 square feet into 4 ats within the R-1 zone, located approximately 660' north of Base Line and 660, west of East Avenue - APN 227-131-29. Chairman King advised that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the November 22, 1982 meeting. Chairman King opened the public hearing. there being no comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hempel indicated he had two things on which to comment. He further stated that when an item comes before the Planning Commission, it should be checked out by staff as the reason for this postponement revolves around a discovered cul-de-sac road that is one-half on the side of this proposal from a previously approved County tract. Commissioner Hempel sta. _ e' Planning Commission ilUnutes -2- November 10, 1982 tc that a developer must notify adjacent property owners when a street is being designed to only benefit him and he must also have the approval of the other property owners. Commissioner Hempel further stated that this is something that should never have happened in the Design of the street for the other piece of property and the dedication should have shown on the deed. ,airman King reopened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Guerra, E218 Kirkwood• Ct., representing the applicant, stated that during the four months of preparation prior to beinging this before the Commission for a conditional use permit they were not advised that the piece in gi+estion had anything to do with their property. Further, that the only information they received is that they would be dedicating a part of property on Archibald and Wilson and his understanding from the representative working with the church was that this map was discovered and not a part of any information that they had over the four-month period. Mr. Guerra stated that this discovery will create problems because they have already drawn up plans for use of the facilities on the eastern section of their property and might involve the movement of a building which they had not planned for. W. Guerra stated that this was a 5-acre piece of property when they bought it and with the dedications involved, it is getting to be more like a 4-acre piece of property. Mr. Guerra stated that inasmuch as the property to the east has not developed nor has plans to develop he feels that any cons`_deratior would be consideration to the church which is a non-profit organization and will not realize monetary value from the property. Mr. Guerra stated that the congregation would be taxed for any consideration of the property to the east. Mr. Vairin, Senior Planner, stated that in meeting with the City's Engineering Department to resolve this situation, it has been concluded that the building will not have to be moved nor will the church be responsible for any of the street improvements with the exception of a minor 4-foot offer of dedication. He indicated that it appears that the actual physical plans of the church will not have to be altered. Commissioner Hempel asked if the City can requi-s a developer to put in a street that there is not need for and is not a through street but a service street for another piece of property. t Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, replied by asking if this is for the existing approved tract. Mr. Hempel replied affirmatively. Planning Cosmissicn Minutes -3- November )0, 1982 Mr. Hopson stated that the problem with the approved tract, assuming that it is finaled is that you can't add more conditions or requirements to the original tract map. Further, you are stuck with whatever you asked for or what was imposed by the County. He indicated that it is abundantly clear that you cannot go back and add more things if you discover you have not asked for enough in the process. It is always possible, he stated, to make some arrangement if there were some redesign that would be cheaper and the City does not have to accept an offer of dedication, but the City cannot require any more than has already been done. Commissioner Rempel stated that you can require dedication from the church property. Mr. Hopson replied that you could if that was going to be a full street before dedication. Mr. Guerra stated that the questi-n is not whether the City has a right to do that but whether the City has a moral right to do it. I Chairman King closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adjourn this item to the November 22 Planning Commission meeting. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 3383 - BANKS - The division of 5 acres of land into 4 lots within the R-1 zone, located approximately 660, north of Base Line and 6601 west of East Avenue - APN 227-131-29. i (Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1982.) i Senior Civil Engineer, Paul Rougeau, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if this has been reviewed by the Trails Committee and whether they have any concern regarding impact on this property. Mr. Rougeau replied that it has been reviewed and no impacts have been found. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. dames Banks, applicant, stated that he has problems with four or five conditions. he indicated that the requirement to provide sewers would be difficult because there are none for miles and miles. Further, that there is a requirement to provide natural gas as well as cable television lines. He indicated that the latter is not realistic. Planning Commission Minutes -4- November 10, 1982 Mr. Banks stated that he wished to mainly foes on the 40-foot dedication and 26 feet of paving. W. Banks stated that this would be a problem because the nursery is not inclined to give 40 feet of easement. He further stated that what he has is a 30-foot easement for ingress and egress. Mr. Banks indicated that in January of 1979 the City adopted a Resolution which was a statement of policy that there should be these 40-foot dedications and 26-foot areas of pavement. He further indicated that he was unaware of this as he was probably out of town and stated that he would let the Commission know when he was informed of this. Mr. Banks stated that he knows the Planning Commission can vary requirements if .. variation is called for. Mr. Banks gave the Commission details of why the final map has not been filed on this property and that the previous map was approved without the requirements that are now being imposed. Mr. Bank:: stated that ne has difficulty in understanding why the map would have been acceptable previously and is unacceptable now as nothing has changed except the policy of the City. Further, that the City's Ergineeri.ng Division does not make the final approval. Mr. Banks statea that his application has been on file for 32 months and he was just notified of the regirements last month. He further stated that he has made a number of changes in the map at the City's request and has complied with all kinds of studies regarding th6 drainage. He indicated that he has paid the Engineer for all of these things and spent a fair amount of time in resolving any problems. He further indicated that if these requirements were going to be imposed on him, 32 months is a rather long time considering his financial investment to tell him about it. Mr. Hanks stated that his only request has been that he become a mirror image of the parcel to the west of this. Further, there would be more problems :involved in not approving this map than if it is approved because he will have to solve the street and drainage problems. Mr. Banks stated that the requirement for 40 feet for a street is only a temporary requirement inasmuch as the City does not have a street master plan for this ara. He felt that ultimately the rc2d would be 330 feet to the west. Mr. Banks stated that he is willing to minimize the traffic on this street by putting in a deed restriction restricting the number of Swelling units on the 5 acres if the person who is developing the adjacent 5 acres will do the same. He indicated that these would then be all the properties feeding in on this lane. Commissioner Mc Niel asked if Mr. Banks has had any discussion with the adjacent property owner. Planning Commission Minutes -5- November 10, 1982 Mr' Banks replied that he has not had in some time. He indicated that the property up for sale and he adjacent property owner nas several pieces oP tells those people who call and ask about not have to x he street and drainage that they do to take cart of them.about these problems bec Property the guy to the east will have Chairman King ?`bed if it is correct that at the present time there is no paved access +.o any portion of this property, Mr- Banks replied that this is correct. C2,airman King asked Mr. if get to them through the Bars he sells his lots, does he expect people to pre ent easement, Mr, Bw'ks replied affirmatively, adding t other streets are built. that this would be the case until the Mr- Louis Mora' part owner of the tract of land that the street is proposed to go through stated that the ,treet would be called Oak street and if what t�-. r back iysardy� is correct, Oak Street would literally be going through their back further stated that this they have no plans at the present tiro-- land not developed and discussion about a road 33O Peet to the west isp the land' Further ingress or egress to his premature and Mr. . that any property. Banks has nc Cc�l sioner MoNiel asked if Cak Street is proposed to go the entire length of what is shown on the map, Mr- Rougeau replied that it is conceptual and somewhat to the west along the narrow. niece of property. i rI andert that it is not a west and south street. Mr. Lauren Fritz, 10863 Beachwood Drive, nurse to the s-)uth Dunned only stated that he has sever complained abouthexaer who owns land y thing he is worried about is the drainage problem, whichoyyslit but the Mr. Fritz stated t Significant. widened the ditch , ever since Caltrans realigned Base Line Avenue and significant ng the north side of the stree•: they have had a Problem with water. Be further stated that he has taken his tractor and graded the r -Of -way his Property right because the irWress and egress has Passed P party to allow the people to get into that property and stop the cater from ruraiag into their front yard and in- their homes. 980 hie said that he had a study done by Linville-Sanderson-Horn in which he gave to Mr, Banks and 1�, Mosely. He indicated that he did not know whether this was considered by the City, but the flooding is a major problem. Mr, Fritz stated that the 20 acres north of the tracts also drains along the westerly portion of his property be a major problem. and indicated that this too %wu ld a- �s Planning Commission Minutes -6- Novemt er 10, 1982 r` t' 0 4. Mrs. :lice Flocker, property owner to the west, stated that since drainage is a problem, the lot split should wait until the Etiwanda Specific Plan is adopted. She felt that Mr. Banks should be bound by it because it would be best for everyone. Fir. Flocker indicated that there is no access to the middle part of the property, and that the estate type residential is rot suitable fo: this location. Ars. Klineman, property owner, asked if Mr. Banks has any eucalyptus trees on his property and if any will be displaced. Mr. Banks replied that none will be displaced. Mr. Fritz stated that since he has already dedicated 40 feet, he is not interested in dedicating another 10 feet. He further stated that if the dedication goes through, the utilities will have to be moved, fencing and some of his outdoor material will have to be eliminated. He indicated that currently there is just a dirt road to travel on and he maintains it somewhat on the north/south passing lane. He does not maintain it or the east/west. He reiterated that he is not about to give up any more land, There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rempel asked Mr. Banks if the trees on the south side are in the right-of-way. Mr. Banks replied that he thought they are, but in discussing this with staff said that he would move the boundary line on the south lot ten feet to the north- Commissioner Rempel stated that he did not think this feasible. Mr. Banks replied that there was a lot of discussion on this and staff was not sure what they wanted to do about the street. He indicated that they did not :LmDose a condition that the street be build because they did not know what they wanted tc do with it. Mr. Banks stated that he is will to give up another ten feel if it can be saved. Chairman King asked if, qs in item D on this agenda, the applicant is required to come in with some sort of conceptual plan showing possible ciruulation and also permanent type improvementz that are reimbursable when the land develops. Mr. P.ougeau replied that this is the case in larger tracts and it does not allow direct reimbursement to be made. Mr. Rougeau stated that they do have a circulation map that shows possible access. �r- Planning Commission Minutes -?- November 10, 1982 Chairman Ring stated that if the road to Base Lire is not going, to be a permanent road it would seem a waste of money to put it in and 4:;t would seem that at some point in time it is imperative that come access beiprovided to get into this area if it is going to be used for residential. y Mr. RDugeau stated that is why in 1980 the Planning Commission policy gave the City Engineer the ability to vary that. He indicated that now ;caps must be approved by the Planning Commission after public hearing. 1heigore, it would be the Plannin, Commission that would approve a variance if these is any. Chairman Ring asked how we can say that this will be the road wpen the surrounding area has not been looked at and further, what kind - precedent would be set. Mr. Rougeau indicated that an all weather road of s-1me type is deeded for this area and it could be vacated in the future if some future iircu')�-Lion pattern developed . Chairman Ring stated that if the Commission is saying this will4e temporary and only reqire 26 feet of paving, it doesn't matter if the City-:has 40 feet or 26 feet. Mr. Rougeau stated that the 40 feet is in the resolution because it could not be maintained by gas tax funds unless it is that wide. Otherwiage it would be considered a private drive and the responsibility of the homeol�rr to fix up. Commissioner Hempel stated that if the City is going to go that, route, then there moist be a homeowners association responsible for paying f r it. Mr. Hopson stated there is a procedure set up by law where toy is them is one private street and one of the owners cannot agree he may file an action and the judge will order the various people to pay for the cost of,tbe road in proportion to its use. Commissioner Hempel stated that it is not right to have to go court on this matter. Further, that this is similar to the item on the agenga two weeks ago with the property on Wilson. 0, Commissioner Hempel stated that it bothered him to set up roads without having final Flans for these roads and that the Commission must know whether Oak Street will go or not go. He indicated that the City will have to require dedication to put the street in and the Etiwanda Specific Plan .should show these items. Commissioner Barker stated that Commissioner Hempel is saying that part of the design is growing by accident instead of along specific design, which is frustrating. Planning Commission Minutes -8- November 10, 1982 .«1 Commissioner P.s.—cl reminded the Commission of the difficulty they encountered with the Kortepeter project a year ago. Further, that that was a far more complicated issue; the policy described by Mr. Rougeau grew out of it so that if there is no proper access, it would be provided. Chairman King stated he was uncomfortable in approving anything in terms of the access as it relates to this and felt that this iten: should be continued. Further, that the applicant in conjunction with this should supply the Commission with some conceptual plan showing circulation in the immediate vicinity; or, in the alternative, shown in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Chairman King stated it seems senseless to put in 26 feet of pavement with a curb and gutter and have it torn up. Mr. Rougeau stated that it would no; be em elaborate street as it would only be paving without curbs and gutters if temporary access iy to be provided. Chairman King asked Mr. Fritz if the paving would bother him. Mr. Fritz replied that he would not object to it. Chairman King stated that whichever way the road goes will have an effect on the drainage. Mr. Rougeau replied that the reason that Oak Street was not required at this time is that they do not know what the ultimate circulation will be. Further, that it is known that Pecan is needed for access to 8 lots and that the Planning Commission policy since 1979 has required dedicated and paved all weather access to this subdivision. Mr. Rougeau stated that the circulation plan does have value but the Engineering Division has found that whenever a circulation pattern is set, the first thing that happens is that the next person who comes in needs a change. Further, that what the City mint not do is establish permanent streets that will not work in the future and the question becomes one of putting in a street that may someday be vacated. Mr. Rougeau stated that Oak Street was never a factor and the developer will never be required to put Oak Street in until something happens to the lots on the south end. W. Rougeau stated that someday the nursery may be sold to a developer and everything will fall into place. Commissioner Rempel asked if this would be done through a lien agreement. Mr. Rougeau replied that some AC pavement is required between Pecan and Base Line access which is part of Oak Street. Commissioner Reauel stated that Mr. Banks had said that he would give 40 feet of his property in order to save the eucalyptus trees; he asked if there will be a 10-foot jog. Planning Commission Minutes -9- November 10, 1982 Z �t 4 Mr. Rougeau stated that it was put there to save the trees. Commissioner Hempel stated that it doesn't make sense and asked where the drainage will go. Mr. Rougeau replied that the second exhibit shows drainage courses and where the water will go. Further, that there is already a drainage ditch along ;he property line to Base Line. Mr. Rougeau stated that condition 34 requires improvement to the satisfaction of the engineering depaetment to the drainage problem. Commissioner Hempel asked where Pecan anC Oak will drain to. Mr. Rougeau replied that it would be to the west. Chairman King stated that this issue is being beaten to death. Further, .t may be better to say that pavement will be required to Bass Line and to 11ow the 26-foot easement which would exist until permanent access to the property is known. Commissioner Stout asked if the issue of sewage can be adiressed. Mr. Rougeau replied that the condition requires a sewage system which migtt be septic tanks. Further, that gas and cable TV is required on all lots in tte City. Commissioner Stout asked if it is the intent that utilities be plugged in :t Base Line. Mr. Rougeau replied affirmative_y on electrical power, but not on gas or V. Mr. Rougeau stated further that they were thinking in terms of providing ar easement so that it need not be torn up in order to get to them. Mr. Hopson asked if a dry line would be required. Mr. Hougeau replied that he was nct sure what will be required. Mr. Hempel asked if what Mr. Rougeau is saying is that natural gas will not be required if they use butane or bottled gas. W. Banks stated that he had just been informed that natural gas is nearby. Commissioner Hempel stated that there are no water services in that area either. Planning Commission Minute -10- November 33 . 1982 P� J 1 .14 i5r^' t.-o=issioner Stout stated that cable ',rV should be taken to the nearest telephone so that the trenching used for telephone installation could be used for the cable TV. Mr. Coleman stated tha,_ the policy statement from the Commission Which resulted from a study done last year is tiaat the developer will not be required to do this. 8:05 p.:z. The Planning commission recessed. 8:15 p.m. The Planning commission reconvened. Commissioner Barker stated that he is uncomfortable because he does not know what access will be and what the road will be and the commission would in effect be approving something in the middle of nowhere. Commissioner Stout stated that he agrees with that and he would also feel uncomfortable with a roadway that does not have permanent access. Commissioner MoNiel asked hoy. long it would take to develop a conceptual plan. W. Rougeau replied that it would only be a short time and could be done in two weeks. Commissioner Barker stated that he does not know the position of the rest of the Commission, but he needs something like that. Chairman King asked that if we take that approach would it be advisable to wait until after the Et'wenda Specific Plan is approved so that the Commission can determine what land use changes in that area are and have a better feeling for what the layout will be. Commissioner Hempel stated that he questions whether this can be done in a couple of hours because when you start to lay out a street it should be a public hearing item. He indicated that is➢.'nay he broug and it ht up having t come i�t i� the streets laid out on the Etiwanda Specific hearing process. Motion: Moved by Hempel, seconded by Stout, to delay this map until the layout of the streets can be determined through the Etiwanda Specific Plan hearing. Chairman King asked how long that would be as it could take as long as two years by the time it goes to the Council. He indicated that the Commission is not now dealing with that kind of detai- and if it goes to the City Council it may not be dealt with. Planning Commission Wnutes -11- November 10, 1982 Y 4•• Commissioner !"=Niel stated that the Commission is dealing with dangerous turf and perhaps if this land use designation were in direct conflict with the General Plan or the proposed Etiwanda Specific Plan then. it might be wise. He stated, however, that there is no conflict because the designation is less than what is shown and not more. He indicated that this might cause other problems down the line. Mr. Hopson stated that there is an ancillary problem to this in that there are some problems with that in regard to time requirements within which the City must act. If Mr. Banks joins in requesting that the matter be postponed until a decision is reached on the Etiwanda Specific Plan or until the Commission is more comfortable with a decision then obviously there is not a problem. However, if he does not Join in the request and the Commission continues the matter beyond a certain time period, the map may be deemed approved by failure to take action. Mr. Hopson stater, that either the Commission pushes the action tonight and is uncomfortable, or it votes to disapprove this. He indicated that if the Co=L:,sior. is uncomfortable, then the next question is addressed to Mr. Banks to concur or you will vote tonight. Mr,. Banks states that he doesn't mind if this matter is postponed to resolve some circulation_ concerns. Further, that he does not wish to wait until approval of the Etiwanda S�eciil^- Plan because it dues not say anything about this level of street. He i.i,dicated that he has no problem with the street so long as the City does not .-ut him off at the end and make him pay all the fees over again. Chairman King asked if it is possible to deal with this and bring :his item back to the Commission- at a meeting in January. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be continued to the second meeting in January. The Commission then completed its voting on the motion made by Rempel and seconded by Stout, that this item be continued to January 26, 1983. i % ! i D. ENVIROPFIENTAL ASSESSM.EhT AND DEVELOPMERIT REVIEW 82-16 - SL'BAFM 16 MASTED PLAN - SArFVdA_ - Conceptual review of the proposed aster Plan for Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan which is located between 4th and 61:h Streets, and between Hellman and Archibald Avenues. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Stout asked for an explanation of Exhibit 3, the proposed points of access on Archibald and Six:-h Streets. Planning Commission Minutes -12- lLwember 10, 1982 <r's 4Mr.. ole„a, replied t�zt those access points were arrived at during the development of the Master Plan and the General Plan. Commissioner Stout asked if there would be any other access points other than those four arrows and the four on the master plan. Mr. Coleman replied that tempora_y access, and possibly permanent, could be provided from the other streets; however, it would not be encouraged. Further, that under the plan any development that comes in would be encouraged to take access off of the proposeu local streets adjoining the project. Commissioner Stout asked if the first applicant will access off of Archibald . Mr. Rougeau explained that the arrows indicate the points where public streets would intersect The major streets. There tcould, hha owever, beeded oneivewayb at intermediate points depending on Mr. Rougeau further stated that what Dan has said wherever there is a local street that the portion of the property at that local is encouraged to access off of that local street and they would rather have a driveway off of a smaller street rat` ?r than a larger street. Mr. Rougeau stated that there could be driveways along Archibald and Sixth Street just the same. Commissioner Stout ast_ed if the implementation matrix on page 7 means that they will have a-,cess. Mr. P.ougeac replied that it indicates the minimum and that there is a condition in the Resolution stating what the minimum requirements would be on the property; however% it would not preclude normal improvement requirements. He indicated that they would not wart the map to exclude what they could ask for in the way of improvements. Commissioner Stout asked if that means this parcel will be oriented toward Archibald rather than an interior street:. Mr. Coleman replied that *ne applicant Fas told that they would not be looked on favorably to gain access from Archibald and not from the collector and that would be a temporary situation. He indicated that if it were allowed, it would have to line up where the arrow is directly across from the existing private drive. Commissioner Rempel stated that the City's access policy had better be explained because the access policy says every 300 feet and there are 2600 feet for the full length of this and would allow 8 entries into that property. Further, that where the arr"s are are street entries and not driveways. He indicated that the street could go clear through the collector on the inside. r November 10, 1982 Planning Commission Minutes -i3- s : O . Commissioner Stout stated that he was of concerned with the orientation_ buildings and the way they would face. tbe Mr. Coleman and Mr. Gomez explained the General Plan policies and how da1fm would be controlled through the Des1971 Review process. COmm=saior_er Rempel stated that if `here was a need for a business to karre access off of Archibald they would be able to get it. Further, it wouLl� depend on how large the parcel is and how the frontage would be. He ii¢L�c ttd that it would have to he all dre3sed up to be on Archibald. Commission.: Rempel stared that there o eArchibalcouple Of smaller pieces and there is nm � to stopthese from fronting d. Chairman King stated that during the General Plan hearings the Commiss5zt heard many discussions on what type of land uses should be here. He u,,+mted that it was the decision of the Park. Commission that this be designated ladusl.-tal Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Philip Schwartz, Phillips, Brandt, Reddick, representing the devel ,�rr explained the process in developing the master plan for his area. . that they believe the master plan they came up with respects the properlE lines and the ownership involved -- this area. He indicated that most a land holdings are owned by three groups. Safeway Enterprises, being o� T smaller groups. The Bask Company and Marlborough are the e3 , bjor ing landozaers and have been very flexible in 'the preparation of this master plan. Mr. Schwartz stated that they have taken a great deal of care in invoiv�.ng the people concerned in the 140 acres so that they would be aware of TeM t ;�s happening- Mr. McNiery, representing the Lusk Company, stated that he was not heyr.-..�.,�,y approve er disapprove the master plan. He expressed concern of the sized--+ alignment as it impacts the indicated that hissfirm irs and possibly the Marlborough property. rje g ttought there has been an equitable distribute a)T the interior streets and the property owners and Safeway should be cam in getting this project together. ma Mr. Paul Byrnes, representing Marlborough Development Company, stated tb2�d the only reason they do not stand there in support of this is because not mM Te the concerns have been addressed and perhaps in a year or two they may -A�Ik some minor changes. ience ic indicated nd .ted that this plan leaves flexibility and .1mm been a positive Involved. the total cooperation of the property oan Plaz3ing Commission Minutes -i4- November U. I.Sf r2 t owl Jerry Kioski, resident in the section North of this proposed project, stated that there is quite a bit of conflict with the industrial park and how the traffic conflicts will be resolved. He indicated that the circulation plan as presented tonight is acceptable and at a later date they will have more to say about the development. For clarification, he stated that be has spoken with City staff and they said that 500 feet applied to development; however{ they corrected themselves and just so it is understood, the 500-font requirement is from the whole area between 6th and 4th and not just 4th and Archibald. Commissioner Mc Niel commented that I"r. Kioski was speaking as one resident but asked him what the general mood is in the neighborhood regarding this industrial park. Mr. Kioski replied that they do not want this area designated industrial park because there will be more traffic off of 6th street and this is a major concern. Mr. D. Asterbaum, resident on north 6th Street, indicated that he had a misconception in that he thought the whole area and not just a small parcel would be discussed tonight. He commterdea the Safeway group for the way in which the information sessions were handled. He asked questions about the traffic and whether there would be a traffic signal at 4th and Archibald and 6th and Archibald. Mr. Asterbaum stated that he did not know this area had been designated industrial park. (7hariman King stated that some time ago the Commission at a General Plan =.:eting had dealt with this specifically and it was decided that this area would be industrial park. Further, that they are not ignoring the traffic and street signal probl¢ms but it is a matter of money and establishing priorities. Also, the City is dealing with another City at 4th and Archibald. Mr. dcpson stated that at some point the deer_-loper at the northwest corner may provid,a the money to put up a traffic light. Mr. Rougeau stated that the traffic sign was being designed and it was hoped that the City could go to bid an it in da:uary. He stated further that it will shortly be a reality and the priority list for other traffic signals is being updated. Mr. Tom Blessing, resident, stated that there was an error in F-chibit 2 furnished by Phillips, Brandt, Reddiak, relating to residential uses. He indicated that residential uses were shown on the wrong side of the property line which would not allow the 54-foot right-of-way. Mr. Schwartz stated that &. Blessing was correct. Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 10, 1582 z' 5 cci' i. Mr. Kioski stated that the sign displayed by Safeway Enterprises near Fourth Street and Archibald indicates that these could be residential properties. He indicated that the sign is in error. There was brief discussion an which piece of property would develop first. Chairman King stated that the master plan is not set in concrete and could change. Further, that this is just a starting point. Mr. Asterbaum asked if in the proposal there is a public park of some type because there is a need for one. Chas.^man King replied that during the General Plan hearings all aspects, including parks, were discussed. Further, that all of this would be developed at a fsture time when the Commission gets into specifics. He indicated that there could be other concepts such as private parks, parkways, open space, etc. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that the master plan should address those properties on the north side that basically border 6th Street in that the businesses should be turned to the interior streets and not 6th Street. He reiterated that they should not feed onto 6th Street. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would have a problem with saying they should not front there. He indicated that their nicest side could front there and maybe an access such as a single Little driveway could go down below. Commissioner Stout replied that he would not have a problem with the nicest landscaping fronting onto 6th Street, he just did not want the traffic on 6th Street. Commissioner Rempel stated that it will not be a small street, but rather, a major one. Mr. Coleman stated that it is proposed for an 88-foot right-of-way between Archibald and Hellman and will be designated a special boulevard. Commissioner Barker asked about a bridge and 2-lane road. Mr. Rougeau stated that the bridge across the creek was put at the width, which is 2 lanes, it is when the creek drainage project was done and only replaced what was there because of money constraints. Further, that both the City of Ontario and City of Rancho Cucamonga must decide if now is the time to come up with the money to expand the bridge as part of the widening and it has been decided that it could wait. He indicated that there is a possibility it could be widened In the future. Planning Commission Minutes -16- November 10, 1982 i Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Mc Niel, carried, to adopt Resolution No. 82-104, approving the master plan for the 160 acres between Archibald, Hellman, 6th Street and 4th Street. Commissioner Stout voted no beeaux.e of his concerns relative to traffic. 9:07 p.m- The Planning Commission recessed. 9:15 p.m- =Le Planning Commission reconvened. F- Eiw°SiZROWENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 82-03 - BIDCAL - A change of zone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Nliitiple Family Residential) for 2.02 acres of land located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, north of Monte Vista Street - APN 202-131-61 and 62. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Gene Karin, 20814 Roadside Drive, Agoura, representing the applicant, stated that all conditions are acceptable. there being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that some time ago the Planning Commission had more or less decided that tot lots should be included in developments such as this and asked if a tot lot has been provided for this project. W. Vairin replied that it has been and is shown on Exhibit "D". Commissioner Stout stated that there are no sidewalks from the pool in the tot lot area and wondered if a meandering sidewalk should be put in in that area. Mr. Johnston, Assistant Planner, replied that conditions 7 and 8 require sidewalks- It,. Hopson stated that the CCkR`s should set out that there will be no permanent structures on the turf block so that at some future time emergency access will not be obstructed. Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-05 approving zone change 82-03 and recommending such to the City Council. November 10, 7982 Planning Commission Minutes -17- s;y, M:itior.: Moved by Hempel, seconded by MP-Niel, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82-106 approving Tentative Tract 12256 with the added condition that the turf block access remain unobstructed and that this be shown in the CC&R's. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANC CONDITI0NAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-20 - SHARMA - The development of a 3,691 square foot elementary school on 3/4 acres in the R-1 zone, located at 9113 Foothill Boulevard - APN 208-241-09. Associate Planner, Dan Coleman, reviewed the staff report. Chairman Icing asked where the temporary trail6rs are and whether they woulei b- used during construction or to house new students in order to have nPw construction. M^. Coleman replied that the students in the existing school would not be affected in that the shift of playground area would be the only change. Chairman King asked what happens to the playground when he puts up the temporary facilities, he constructs the facility, where then is the playground. Mr. Coleman explained the required Qiniml of playground space for preschool children as mandated by th• State code indicating that there is more than double the space he needs or outside recreation. Chain King asked why the applicant can't construct the permanent facility before putting in the trailer. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Sharma, 7775 Sunstone, the applicant, replied that he needs the trailer for the time being as he does not have space and is not in a financial position to begin building right now. He indicated he must refuse children every day. Commissioner Mc Niel asked, aside from what is laid down in the text regarding conditions, what his plan is. Mr. Sharma replied it is to build a new school in Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner MoNiel asked how far into the future this would be. Mr. Sharma replied within 1-2 years. Planning Commission Minutes -18- November 10, 1982 Mr. Coleman stated that he would have to Bove the trailers on within 18 months. During the 18 months he would have to get permits and begin construction within one year with a permanent structure within two and a half years. Mr. Hopson stated that the trailer would be good for 18 months and could stay there for two years so what the Co=ission is looking at is a three and a half year total. Commissioner DhNiel ask'.a what time period Mr. Sharma is looking at. Mr. Sharma replied that he would like to do this in September. Commissioner Mc Niel asked what kind of trailer this would. be. F.r. Sharma replied that it would be 12 % 60 feet. Commissioner Mc Niel asked how many students there would be in the trailer. Mr. Sharma replied there would be approximately 30 in each trailer. Chairman King stated it would be his feeling that condition two should read that the building permit and the placement of the trailer on the premises should be simultaneous and the trailer should not be allowed on the premises any longer than 12 months. Commissioner Mc Niel stated that if he understands the condition, it would defeat the purpose. Chairman King replied that perhaps it does. Commissioner Mc Niel asked where it is proposed to put the trailer. Mr. Sharma pointed it out for Commissioner McNiel. Commissioner King stated that perhaps he is being unfair and unreasonable and that he does not want to push it but earlier there were many problems with a conditional use permit compliance with the Sharma school and he does not relish seeing a trailer on Foothill Boulevard for three and a half years considering the recent past history the City has had with Mr. Sharma. He indicated that given the fact that this is approved, there will be trailers with construction over a three and a half year period and he foresees the playground conditions to be extremely crowded. Commissioner Barker asked if staff could refer to the generation of funds and asked W. SY.arma if he could afford to do this in any other way. Planning Commission Minutes -19- November 10, 1982 W . Sharma replies that he only needs it for two years at the mist and coula perhaps go into construction within one year. Mr. Cole=-n asked if Mr. Sharma could generate the money. Mr. Sharma replied he probably could but it would be difficult. Commissioner Stout asked how long the building permit would be effective for a project like this. Commissioner Hempel stated that it depends on certain phases of work being performed within terrain periods of time. Dan Coleman stated that the City Attorney has requested that conditions 2 be modified to read that the temporray facility shall be removed within 2 years from the date of occupancy or shall be removed from the site within 30 days from the date of occupancy of the permit addition, whichever comes first. Commissioner Hempel stated that in other words, the trailer cannot be on the site for more than 2 years. There was brief discussion among the Commission an how long the trailer could occupy the site. Commissioner Barker stated that for 2 years of occupancy, or whichever came first is the wording that is not there. Mr. Vairin stated that if the applicant decided to build earlier, say a year from now, and he occupied it, then he is nut going to maintain the trailer, he will have to remove it and that is why it is worded in this manner. Motion: Moved by Hempel seconded by Stout, to adopt Resolution No. 82-107, with a revision to item one under Planning conditions, revising the time period to two years from 12 months. Commissioners Barker, IbNiel and Ring voted no and the motion did not carry. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Parker, carried, that the word occupancy be changed to the word installation in the previous motion. Chairman Ring voted no because of his previously stated concerns regarding the applicant's adherence to conditions imposed by the Commission. ■ • a r Planning Commission "Minutes -20- November 10, 1983 f;c= Mr. Gomez reminded the Commission that this meeting would adjourr to November 18 for an Etiwanda Specific Plan hearing. Mr. Gomez stated that on November 20 a tour has been arranged of several senior citizen facilities and invited all members of the Commission to attend. Chairman King stated that there has been a, recommendation that a meeting be held between the Commissioners regarding group dynamics, There was no further discussion on this item. Mr. Gomez indicated that because of the Christmas holiday, the second meeting in December could be cancelled. 'lie Commission agreed to cancel the December 22, 1982 meeting. W. Gomez stated that the City of Rancho Cucamonga employees are having a dinner/dance on December 10 at Griswolds and invited all Commissioners and their wives to attend. Mr. Gomez asked the Commission to submit their ideas for topics for the joint meeting with the City Council. Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by M;Niel, carried unanimously, to adjourn to November 18, 1982. a 3 t ■ _ Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -21- November 10, 1982 CITY OF R_ANC14-13 C CAMONGA �- STAFF REPORT yl Y 0 Oa F Z a 1977 DATE: December 8, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82-20 - WE L R - The develcpment of a 12,000 sgcare foot industrial building on 1.26 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial category (Subarea 9), located on the east side of Utica, north of Jersey - APN 209-142-24. . PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting review and approval of a 12,000 square foot warehouse building on approximately 1.26 acres of la„d. The project site is currently graded and contains no existing structures or vegetation. The project has completed the Devela naient and Design Review process and is now before the Planning Commission to receive environmental clearance only. The detailed site plan and elevatiors will be reviewed and approved with cGnditions by the City Planner, contingent upon approval of the Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the initial Study has been completed by the applicant and is attached for your review and consiGBration. Staff has completed Part II of the Envirorrrental Assessment and found no significant impacts on the environmen.- as a result of this project. RE^OMMENDATION: Based on analysis and the Initial Study, it appears that the project will not cause signficant adverse impacts on the environment. If the Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration for the project would be in order. R spectfuliy submitted, f ;1tICK UM . CITY LANNER RG:DC:jr ITEM A 1 4�, Development Review 82-20/Wheeler Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 2 Attachments: Exhibit W - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations Initial Study Part I s4•. L. s: Imlu�� =ulnm4 MEI nnu G IBW� IIIBiII°' 111111 ' 'ORTH CITY OF 4,.• I AAAAD PLANNING DIX"NON' EXHIBIT: SCALE- a ..' ass 4a , . II i • , f STATOTC3 � rr ��� en w:w.w•. �.. roe...... Y-• �_ -'`ram---�-r. "�^^. ��.� �i.w. c• �� n .. -�Q •H.Rr.� ^y'u. n'KCL�1i.{ f tiOVY •�Y.r Y .W! ..y V�-.rp fu•.n y=y�R aP NORTH CI"I'Y OI- RAl\CHO CUCAi'wvlo PLrkI'VNI\G DIVbiQN EXHIB17': —ALE, """" � , IIff w rnrl, o iCA ._ r i Nilp'A'FEATVE$ •:.cu.y� wC> LLLYGTO+:i.TCOY� 4�.�� • ��_ - O+ROLrl L N'r O 2r. /6J�Ea NORTH CITYCITY OI. ITEM- �aZ �Z 'rlD E PL ANN:\G DIVLSON EXHIBIT- SCALE- .Y T I 44 CITY OF rrE;y: . RA.N'CHO C(.)CAj I®\GA : PLANNING DIVISION EXHtI3�T- -T�SCALE:-_ NORTF 8"ATUN EAST EL±VA-M r 71L] La SOUN ELEVATM R MPIPPL WEST MEVATCK FORTH CITY OF RA.-NCHO CUCNXIONGA. TrrU-:_ e Jor L Fz v G Dj,%rM\� -ALE sow- PLkNNIN EXI HPAT- J5 S i , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFO.W4ATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. OG For all projects rern_iring environmental review, this form_ must be completed and submitted to the Development Feview Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant 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 informa:.ion report should be supplied by the applicant givin, further informa- tion lioncerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: BOWMAN WAREHOUSE APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: MR. ROBERT BOWMAN P.,), BOX 3231/98SS FAST TRIANGLE STREET SOUTH EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91733 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROTECT: HcDOWELL & WHEELER ARCHITECTS 1291 NORTH INDIAN HILL BOULEVARD CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA 91711 (714) 024-3525 LOCATION OF PROJECT (. RE£T ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) UTICA AY;NUE (NEAR JERSEY) PARCEL MAP 4s94 LOT 911 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGION'sL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PER.KITS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUILDING DEPARTMENT I-1 nI PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _WAREHOUSE S OFFICE - PHASE 1 = 12,000 WAREHOUSE S OFFICE - PHASE 2 = 10,328 ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: S1TE = 1.28 ACRES DESCRIBE THE: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRi'1PHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS; USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : THIS IS A SUBDIVIDED PARCEL IN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL ZONE. A FLAT BUILDING PAD 15 EXISTIN&. WE PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT A WAREHOUSE FOR STORAGE OF INSULATION AND INSULTION INSTALLING EQUIPMENT. Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? �>`� 1-2 z - <- 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, 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, flairmmables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers a,DJve: 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 ip:itial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of many knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitt before an adequate evaluation can be made by the DevelopmetjKev3.eW Committee. Date Oct. 29, 82 Signat r � Title ARCHITFCT ' Y1y I-3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o-3cnn10.v STAFF REPORT ? 9 ou >I' s DATE: December 8, 1982 i TO: Planning Commission tCn FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer f� BY: Barbara Krall , Engineering Technician 1 SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP 6726 - QUONG-WATKINS PROPERTIES - Revision to parce map located at the northeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and Archibald Ave. A change from 8 parcels to 10 parcels - APN 1077-641-54-57 Project and Site Description: This tentative parcel map was approved by the P anniijg Commission on April 22, 1981 for the division of 5.09 acres into 8 parcels for connercial use. The developer has requested a change to 10 parcels. A copy of the revised site plan along with the revised parcel map is attached. The revised site plan is being reviewed by the Planning Department at this time. This change does not affect the conditions previously approved. However, the City's subdivision ordinance requires Planning Commission approval for all increases in parcel number. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the revision to the tentative map be approved and if thA Corsnission agrees, a resolution has been prepared providing for the change and retaining the original conditions of approval and environment clearance. Respectfully sµbmitted, LB!i:BK:jaa Attachments: .tap City Engineer's Report Letter Resolution i ITEM B zi.; P.M. 6726 L13 H+--i 4- - ! i v PROJECT- j i1� SITE 11`' f; u� I u 11 ! �I '�1 YYYti � ' ECITY OF RANCHO CI CVNIONG title; ENGINEERING DIVISION `,JICINi"i'Y MAP �� page l 1 i -•1 1 1 --' "��• !.t��_ , 1 _ I lit /'-- '�.---_ I �'"� _ I • ..•'III .; 1 �_' �� t� l /:''�--1 - � I I11 . I - � 1 .• � I �_ - 2u ry - r � l I �� �' i j (��� i :I j I• ' w DI .m Ln o O Z. C rn .C-. O La -0 -i 3 r- m D In m U Nn f i 1 4 z 0 I - 1 T� �' a � i .:- I 1, - __ • _4 a._ 1 1 'f 1 .v..a�i ram• .... _ _��� __ I i r 0 OLn cn r,�l '� ' % �✓�� rn co rnD rri 73 I I r• q� -i .: � �-� �i�I—..fir �---�oo�ML -- - _—_. e _�Our,Lvw_. �.. � • ___�• -} CITY OF v::ak0 CL'CA:40 NUt ® CITY r"G"E=R'S R:PCRT FILED BY: Urban/0uong-Watkins Commercial Prooerti��s TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6726 LOCATION: NEC Archibald and Foothill DATE FILED: 2/6/81 NUMBER OF LOTS: 8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of RECEIPT NUMBER: 1/4 of section 2 TIS R7W FEE: $250.00 ZONE: C-2 TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Lockman & Associates GROSS ACREAGE: ADDRESS: 249 East Pomona Blvd. MINIPIUM LOT AREA: _Monterey Park CA 91754 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: RECORD 01•INER(S) ADDRESS PHONE r Urban/Ouong-Watkins 1414 ;ra�c�ewood Ave. , Suite 102 978-9377 Commercial Properties Orange, CA 92668 _ REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications 1 . Dedication by final map of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary easements as sho*vvn on the tentative map. X 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights-of-way on the following streets: 5 additional feet on Archibald Ave 10 additional feet on —Foothi-FF vd. additional feet on 24' Corner P/L radius required on--Archibald & Foothill Blvd. Other X 3. Rights of venicular access shall be limited as follows: one rive approac�i — on Foothill , two drive aooroaches on Ar hibald. 4. Street vacation required for: 5. :'aster Flan of Streets revision required or: _ 6. The foliovring perimeter intersections require rezlignment as follows: P.CE 20 ` I '® TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6725 Pane 2 Improvemerts {Bonding is required prior to 17 Record'ng for - Buildi jg permit for al I Parcels 7. Construct full street improvements (including urb a-ld gutter, A.C. sidewalk, one drive approach per lot pavement, interior streets. Parkway Trees and street lights) on all X B. Construct the following missing improvements on the following streets: *includinq landscaping and irrigation on meter CUR6 & A.C. SIDE- DRIVE STREET STREET MEDIAN STREET P;Ai•1E GJTTER PVMT. IJALK APPR. TREES LIGHTS ISLAND* OTHEP, X X Foothill X X X X Archibald X X X X * curb return i Al? existin dri ewa ao roache on A chibal Ave. s all be a laced ith curb and nutter *Lien agreement for landscaping of median island on Foothill Blvd. and median island on Archibald shall be required. X 9. Construct all storm drain a^d drainage structures as shown on the tentative map, or as required by the City Engineer. X 10. Provide all utility services to each electric power, gas, telephone and ca iat includi;.y sanitary seers: water, are to be underground. ble television.conduit. All utilities X 11 . Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existing public utilities as necessary.X 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with loca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. X 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Enaineer- X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County hater District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X 15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho CucaPolm service onga shall be decorative 16. The s with d hefollowingexist �ng streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The o owing specific dimensions i.=. , cu -de-sac radius street section widths) are not approved: > 10. The o lowing existing streets are substandard : They will require: Approvals and Fees X 19. This subdivision shall be subject to :cnditions of approval from CALTP,Ar:Sr San Bernardino County Flood Control District. X '20. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final map will be subject to any requi -ems that may be received from them. RCE 20 W ®' 11 :1TIATIVE MAP NO- 6725 Page 3 X 21 . Permits from other a(loncies will be required as follows: X A. Caltrars, for: Foothill X B. City: Arch Ihali _ C. County Dust Abatement District: D. D.I.S. Trencid ng Permit if any trenches are over 5 deep: —_ E. Cucamonga Canny Water District: _ F. Other: Map Control 22. If only a portion of this Map is recorded, adjustments shall be made to pro- - vide for two-way tralfic and parking on all affected streets. _ 23. The :'ollowing lots ilipear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corre(A ed on the final map: 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at t e right-of-way ine in accord- - ance with the City nI Rancho Cucamonga standards. 25. A Parcel Map shall i) ' recorded prior to the first phase subdivision t� prevent the creation of an 111irecognized parcel located 20. The boundary of the (t'ntative Map needs clarification as fo otas: _ 27. The border shall be .Noun to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation rell"ired. ®Parcel Map Waiver 28. Information submittr,cl at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issu.nic;e of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according to requirements of the %late Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Control (Bonding i•. required prior to 0 Recording for G Building permit for ) X 20. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the Nation-al Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to the provi•. lons of that program and Ordinance No. 24, Zone C. _ 30. A drainage channel r,n,l/or flood protection wall along the entire north pro- perty line may be r ,11,ired to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may Iw required to go under sidewalks through culverts. 31. If'water surface is shove top of curb, 30" walls shall be required at the back of the sidewalE at all downstream curb returns. 32. Culverts required Loire constructed across streets at following locations:_ 33. Groad scale hydro Lrl1. studies will De required to assass impact of increased runoff. X 34. Construct all draina-11' improvements as required at time of issuance of building permit. RCE 20 ;' s TENTATIVE MAP NO. 6726 Page 4 14i scel 1 aneous X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. X 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. 37 . This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. _ 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative trap is rot shown as re- quired X 39. Proper grading and erosion control , including the preventation of ccdimenta- ' tion or damace to offsite property shall be provided for as re.)uired. 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 v,ill 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 capacit; . Permits will not be issued unless said certificatior is received in writing. A 42. The City Engineer shall make the determ;Mation, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1 ) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity or public utility right-of-way or easement and the signa- ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the final map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to said determ�in Lion within the specified time limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final Map submittal , the foilowing shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets) , copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street snail use common drive approaches at lot lines. 45. Reciprocal access easement ensuring access to all parcels over private roads, drives or parking. areas and blanket drainage easements across all parcels shay. be recorded concurrent with the recordation of the Parcel Map. 46. All existing buildings crossing parcel lines shall be demolished prior to map recordation. _X 47. All traffic Signal equipment that will be affected by the improvements shall be relocated to the satisfaction of CALTRANS. K 48. Reciprocal access easement referred to in Item 45 shall include Parking and Maintenance. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ciiGINEER By: RCE 20 �7 - _.E.?GMONA BOULEVARD. N.;NTEPE'.PARK CAUFORKIA 91754 TELaia);24-=O PRINCIPALS RT"IcASSO BATH WJ.I.+)CKMA\ RCRTX'VZLA RATR NOREFPT•t•. ALREBTM. CIMMDFZ ROtiALD].LOFY.P::.D. DENRCS dJOHN&.aR.ICH November 2°, 1982 ]F°REW.Mer's TeOXAS a SAMED Ms. Barbara Krail — - Engineering Technician City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Ms. Keall ; Parcel Map No. 6726 Foothill and Archibald Due to site Flan revisions, it is now desirable to subdivide the property within the boundarirss of Parcel Map No. 6726 into ten (10) parcels rather than the eight (8) parcels requested on the original tentative map. By this letter, we request that the City ?lc�ri,15 Commission revie� Parcel Map No. 6726 and approve a change in tti- madder of parcels from eight to tta. Enclosed are the following required documents for the above request: 1 . Revised Tentative Map (5 prints and one 8-1/2" x 11" reduction); 2. Site Plan showing new lot lines (5 prints and one 8-1/2` x 11" reduction); 3. Check in the amount of $125.00. Very truly yours, rod ,;. Mey=r, P.E. FJM:mlr Enc. cc: Mr. Barry Watkins, Quong-Watkins Properties 4�iC M1Y� P RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE WiNNINU COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCH3 CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING REVISED TENTATIVE PARCE, MAP 6726 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map 6726, submitted by Quong-Watkins for F tLe purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San. Bernardino, State of California, described as 5.09 I acres into 10 parcels located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Archibald Avenue regularly came before the Planning Commission on December 8, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has rnconmanded approval of Parcel Map 6726 subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering Division Report- and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Engineering Division Report. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as follows SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 2. That t"- improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the proposed General Plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. ihat the proposed subdivision ano improvements will not cause substantial environmental damaqe, public health Nroblevz or have adverse affects on abutting property. 5. The environmental impact finding in Resolution No. 81-4u apply to this map. APPROVED AND PDOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman 1! gill!11 �1 I 'i Resolution No. Page 2 ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, aed adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of December, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMISSIONERS: NOES: COM ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMISSIONERS: 3 R. c., CITE' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA oG�ycrnr0 STAFF REPORT DATE: December 8, 1982 iTO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12242 - HU HES - esidential tract subdivision of 18 lots on 4.96 acres of lard :n the R-1-8,500 (Single Family Residential) zone to be located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Highland Avenue APN 201-212-16. i SUMMARY: Staff has prepared the Initial Study and has found that the propo',ad project may create significant adverse impacts. As such, steff is re:ormw_nding preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report which would focus upon the potential impacts surrounding tr ansporation, land use and pl;�:ining ccnsiderations. PROJECT AND SITE DCSCRIPTION: The project site consists of 4.9C acres and is located on the east side of Sapphire between Highland Avenue and 19th Street. The site is presently vacant and void of any major vegetation. The site is presently zoned R-1-8500, as well as the land isurrounding the pro ect site. The project site is shown on the General Plan as a major transporation corridor, which is known as the extension of the Foothili Freeway (Route 30) . To the south of the tract exists a single family residential subdivision, to the north exists a new church, and vacant land exists to the east and west of the project site. The project proposal is to divide the project site into 18 single family residential lots of not I ess that 9,450 square feet each. i ANALYSIS: The major issue regarding this project is the fact that the site--Ti—es within the projected freeway corridor for the extension of the Foothill Freeway. The City has had two other like proposals submitted within the freeway corridor at which time the Planning Commission and City Council adopted a position and policy to require the preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report which would analyze th-1 transportation, land use and planning issues of projects constructed within that corridor. The two previous projects, which were submitted and acied upon by the Commission, mere required to prepare these Focused Environmental Fact Reports. Those two projects have not prepared the ITEM C r.^ Tentative Tract 122421Hughes Planning Comcmission Agenda December 8, 198; Page 2 EIR since the State is presently purchasing both sites with freeway acquisition ironies. Attached is a letter from the City Engineer to CALTRANS indicating the submission of this project and requesting that appropriate steps be initiated to acquire the project site. Staff has prepared Part II of the Initial Study, which is the environmental checklist, and has found potential significant adverse impacts upon the environment as a result of this project in the area of trar.sportati:n, 'rand use and planning considerations. These topics are outlined in detail on the attach,nent to the Initial Study and are recommended as the focus of the Environmental Impact Report. As this project was recently submitted, it is being brought before the Planning Comp,'icsion prior to any review by the Growt'a Management or Design Review ttees it order that a determination can be made on the environmental aspects of the project. If the Planning Commission finds the need for the preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report, review of ;he design aspects of the project will occur concurrently during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report. The discussion on the environmental aspects of this project, as contained in Part II of the Initiai Study, found potential adverse impacts which are based mainly upon General Plan objectives and policies in the areas of the Circulation Element and other land use policies. it is intended that the preparation of the Focused Environmental Impact Report will analyze various alternatives regarding these issues. As an example, please find attached a copy of the contracts for the land use and traffic consultants that were prepared on the previous projects within the freeway corridor and which establishes the scope of the Environmental impact Report. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider input on this project. After such consideration, if the Commission concurs with the Findings of staff relative to the potential adverse impacts on the environment as a rest3lt of this project, it would -be appropriate to require the preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact Report. it is recommended that the scope of the Environmental Impact Report be similar to that which is contained r; within the contract prepared for the previous projects. Respectfully submitted, ,s j I C �'oME ! CITY 4LANN_R r RG:MY:jr r Ter.tati•:e Tract 12242/Hughes Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 3 Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "8" — Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" — Natiral Features Map/Grading Plan Initial Study, Part I Initial Study, Part II Letter to CALTRAAS Letter from Applicant Agreements �n Q 4 2ti f � i L I I I I ........ \ Ilk— r...siiskr I It a I i IT' Ll 7N1t• ! a` q� T i L? Ii� :/l.Yt/7 -�� v�� I ; I t I I�r t 1lf-17/il K j .irZVWA.1aor J I l % - i � Atib W F e� ii-a I et ,... �.0 « `h►man a W • � ri.Q � i� ` Y�.2 y C >>•O Tc 4._+�Ol a� .^.� • to , � v-'1' v `t i �T• '__ v v I t _ y LS2y'1 f ; 7371.fPJ.a7f } Cm Nr Trx �ow c cm ?;a ,' ��- Y � `"IQ�L V •�'ti�.i8 c�i. s �l r � t Fti i IL zt tar7rn c e a h d _ a __ 1 J7 YL 9 __JYi Alga t +i is r}. � C CITY :)F RANCHO CUCAMONGA 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 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 Stu"-Y. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three d_terminations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant 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 or 3) An additional information report prepared, should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Residential Development _ APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Hughes Development Corp. , _ 510 L'destCiteus Edo e Glendora California 91740 213-963-7666 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Everett Hughes, Hughes Development Cora. , 510 vilest Citras Edge,Z;ien ora, i rnw - - LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 1 Sapphire St. , 300' South of Highland Avenue �1JP 201-212-16 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS : Caitrans I-•1 r PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 18 R esecantia ts, fronting on 65 wide entrance road. - ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 4. 96 Acres. No existing buildings. - DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONXENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, ILANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OEM SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPI TIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : Area proposed for development is void of vegetation except `or low growing we s. Slopes are gem 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 inpact? No I-2 11. 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 demanfffor nmicipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning cr 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, £lammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: Present designation for genera! Plan is freeway right-of-way. I.MPORTANZT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the - - next page. CERTIFICATION: I ::ereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attache ' exhibits present the data and information required for tnis initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and r:orrect to the best of my knowledge and belief_ I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development view Committee. DatE��! �'2• Signa.ture Title ,r. 1-3 iU - RESIDE-NTiAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be Provided to the City of .Rancho Cucamonga Planring Division in or3_r to aid in assessing the ability of the school district i.v accommodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No. : Hucahes Development Corp. , 12242 Specific Eocat:.on of Project: Sapphire St. , 300' South of Hichland Avenue PHASE I PHASE; 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTA:. 1. Number of single family units: 78 18 2. N=lrber of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: To Be Determined 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model 4 and 4 of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Rangy Type Of Unit To Be Determined r I-4 �r CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART I1 - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: t t ) APPLICANT: FILING DATr: �U�¢�8'L. LCG ?aMSER: PROJECT: ZZ �f.//�-- PROJECT LOCATION: E 5 [1.K13L ' U I. ENVIRON-ENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets) . YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. will the propo,ai have significant resxilts in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in r geologic relationships? 1 b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or - burial of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, crvering or modification L of any uriV_ geologic or physical features? __ e. -kny potential increase is wind or water erosion of soils, affectirg either or_ or off / site conditons? .L f. Changes in erosion sil..ation, or depositiaa? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides L/ground Failure, or similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? i. Agdroloo will the proposal have significant. results in: n Page 2. YES MAYBE NO a. Changes in currents, or. thE course of Direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or tie rate and amount of surface water runo�-f? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? g. Change in the quantity of grcundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquiier? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or seiches? 3. Air Quality. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions froo mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? b. Deterioration of ambient air quality andlor interference with zhe attainment of a_onlicable air quality standards? C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, r—isture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a Change in the characteristics of species, ILI�Iuding diversity, distribution, or number ` of any species of plants? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Page l YES MAYBE NO C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of / _ plants into an area? _L d. Reduction in the potential for agticaltural production? -- Fauna. Will the proposal have signif: .cant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution., or numbers of any species of animals'. b. Reduction of the numbers of any inique, rare or endangered species of animals' c. Introeuction of new or disruptiv : species of animals into an area, or result .n a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? — d. Deterioration or removal of exis--iug fish or : -ldlife habitat? — 5. Population. Will. the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution., density, diversity, or g •owth rate of — the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect exi.stinj housing, or create a demand for additional housing? — b. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including econoaLc or commerci>' diversity, tax rate, aid property values? b. Wil.L pzoject costs be equitably d .stributed among project beneficiaries, i.e. buyers, / tax payers or project users? L 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in' a. A substantial alteration of the Resent or planre6 land use of an area? _ b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental _ entities? c. An inpact upon the qulaity or quan aty of existing consumptive or non-consumptive t reereatim:al opportunities? — Page 4 —YES HAYBE NO B- Transportation. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for �[ new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? _L / — e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and!or goods? f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? -Z — g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 1_ 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological, paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. health, Safety, and Nuisance Facte-s. Will the Proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? / d. An increase in the number of individuals yG or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the exposure of people to such organisms? —_— e. Increase in axfsting noise levels? L f. Exposure of people to potent`-ally dzngerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionablo odors? h. An increase in light or glare? V ?age 3 YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal 'nave significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? _ b. The creation of ar aesthztically offensive site? c. A conflict with the o-jective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for anew systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric poker? b. Natural or packaggd gas? C. Communications systems? 1 d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? L g. Solid waste facilities? L h. Fire protection? Police protection? j . Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? L 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? .� 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Wiil the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upnn existing sources of energy? 14 c. An increase in the demand for development of new .sources of energy? _ d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non—renewable forms of energ} , when feasible / e available?renewable sources of energy ar _ ,y.`f Page 6 C Y2S MYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of ar_y nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degcade the quality of the environment, substantia:.ly reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re--luce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future) . c. Does the project 'iave impacts which are individually limitad, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incr mer<tal effects of an individual project ai; considerable when viewed in connection with the effects cf past projects,and probable future projects) . d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENVIROV14ENTAL EVALUATION (i.e. , of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures) . Page 7 III. DETEKAINATION On the basis of this initial evaluatiun: j I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect 1 on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect L—s in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREtARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirrment, and an ENVIRON.MY"iT IMPACT REPORT is required. �1s Date v— r Signature pi Title 4q ' Ali ATTACHMENT TO FART II - I14ITIAL STUDY TENTATIVE TRACT 22242 PART II - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION E. Population - The construction of this r-rojE.L within thQ oroposed freeway corriaor would bloc a rain transportat ..:-n corridor for iils area and the entire City. This could alter the locatiu.. distribut4L•:, Jensity, diversity, or growth rata of the human popul,.tion of the area as planned under the General Plan. The land use patterns, density, and growth rates for the City co.atained an the General Plan are based upon completion of the proposed freeway. Tce impact of the construction of this project upon population of the area snould be analyzed f-on a land use/planning aspect as described below. 6. Socio-Economic - This project, if constructed within a proposed freeway corridor, could change the socio-economic characteristics of the area and the City, relative to tax rates and property values for the reasons stated above. Celetiea of the freeway would necesitate changes to the General Plan land use plan and zoning, which could in turn, effect property values and tax rates. These impacts should be analyzed in conjunction with land use/planning considerations as described below. 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations - The proposed subdivision is irk conflict with the General Plan designation of the site as a proprosed freeway corridor, and the objectives and policies of the General Plan and other local and regional governments. In addition, if the proposal is constructed it will substantially alter the present and planned land use of the area. The construction of this project will block the main transportation corridor which would have land use impacts throughout the City which could be cumulatively considerable. ( i .e. , land use/density, circulation, growth rate.) 8. Transportation - 'The construction of the project will substantially impact. on the existing and planned transportation systems since it would prevent the construction of the proposed freeway in a high volume transportation corridor, thur affecting traffic circulation patterns throughout the City and the a—a. It would also create a demand for new street construction and ;Alterations to existing streets to handle additional traffic volume. Further, it would alter the planned mass transit potential, and impact existing mass transit systems. The proposal could increase i:raffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians by placing additional traffic voiuca demand upon existing streets . M1 CITY OF RANCHO CIS CAMONGA V.1wJon D.Mikels CP czn � ii —C z Charles J.Brquet 11 James C.Frost V; Richard M.Dahl Phillip D.Schlosser 1917 Novenber 8, 1982 Mr. Robert 111orningstar CalTrans, District 8 P. O. Box 231 San Bernardino, California 92403 RE: Tentative Tract 12242 Deer Bob, Attached for your information are copies of the Sate Utilization Map, Tentative Tract :l9ap 12242 and pertinent correspondence. This map was previously sulmitted to the District on October 26, 1582 for normal review. As is apparent, this subdivision is within the F:oute 30 Freeway Corridor ® and is a candidate for right-of-way protection. In light of the Proposed dev:.loprnent and threatened legal action, we could like to request thLt you begin the appropriate steps to acquire this property. In the absence of acquisition, the City will be forced to continue the processing of this project or face litigation. If you have any questions, please call. Cordially, (XABLNITY DEVELOHt•1fN17 DEPARMERr EGINEEHl1 DEPAF2 0?r LLO`.'D 3. 14UBBS City Engineer LBH:jaa cc: City Council Jack Lam, Director, Ccmninity Development Rick Gcrmz, City Planner Lauren Wasserman, City Manager 9320 BASEMM ROAD.St=C • POST OFFICE BOX 807 RANCHO CCC AMONGA.CAUTORNIA 917 0 (• (714)989-1t51 ' y c HUGHES ® ° DEVELOPMENT 510 WEST CITRUS EDGE. GLENDORA. CALIFOR.NoA 91740 ` n r U 2 f�13) 963-7665 C.i7Y OF h Pe1 ".`'•� CUCAr+Gf:GA Noverioer 3, 1982 G0MMUNITY Mi ONV-07 DEPT. NOV 04 IyoL PIA IF .i C Ur. R_ck Gomez Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Gomez: I have received your letter, envircmental che_klist, and di.srussicn of environmental evaluation relative to our Tentative Tract 12242. It is a shade that you as a representative of the City have decided that individual property rights do not exist in the case at hand. The City has the property zoned as a residential property, while showing it on the general plan as a transportation corridor. It is our contention that this is a purposeful ploy to deny us our right to use the property. It is certainly less than honest to use these methods to hinder our project- It is evident that the cost of an environmental impact report is a prohibitive cost for a small project such as ours. Your assistant and it plain in oix telephone conversation that the cost which he estimated at over $30,000 would stop most pro- jects from proceeding. This is, of course, exactly what you evidently desire. You are taking our property without paying for it. This is contrary to the princi- pal and rights we should have and enjoy in this country. It appears we will have to take all steps possible to protect ourselves from your action. I have had discussion with Cal-trans, and they indicated that no funds were available during the present fiscal year to acquire property. The fiscal year does not end until July 1983. Additionally, they indicated that they ,ould not take any action until it was clear that a development was rezdy to begin a nctruction. Obviously, this ca-not be done until a tract map is approved. We are -herefore, seeking approval of our map without the umealist-'c condition of an mrvironmental impact report. Sincerely, Eterett 11. Hughes, Jr. President F r� HUGHES DEVELOPMENT MESCORPORATiON 510 WEST CITRUS EDGE. GLENDORA. CALIFORN:A 91740 (213) 963-7666 October 29, 1992 11 . Richard Gomez ;] Pianning Department ��^; .11.:"�:.,::,;•.' J. C'_ty of Rancho Cuc-conga 9328 Baseline Road a-vicho Cuzzmonga, CA Dear hip•. Gomez: As you Imow, Hughes Development Corporation has submitted a tentative tract map for our property which fronts on Sapphire Street in your City. Our submittal has been certif?.ed by your staff as complete, and we are now awaiting a public hearing re- garding this matter. In a letter from your department, it was stated that if we did not agree to waive the time limits to consider cur map, we would be required to prepare a fo-misod E.I.R. covering the impact our project would have the proposed freeway. In a fur- ther conversation it was stated that this cost would be in excess of 530,000. We have been very patient in developing our property. We have waited approxdma.tely five years since v+e developed property adjacent to this, but outside the proposed free+vay route. During that time, no :relief has been offered in the form of property 17archase. We must now proceed with this property as well as another smaller parcel or. Carnelian Street. To delay us fart'1er at this ti-se in cur opinion constitutes a taking of our property witf.iout due ca:lpensation. Our attomies fully agree with the conclusion. They are prepared to take what actions are considered appropriate if we are hindered with urus•.',1 and unnecessary conditions as the letter we received the 4tenad. We are looting fomard to an early resolution of this rrtter. Sincerely, HICGES DLZIIOPP•= CORFORAT N R'L�'c,J k,�, Everett R. Hu hes, Jr. President FVH:kv 1 \ CITY OF RAi�TCH® CUCAM®NGA Gr i p ar U Cil iz IZ Charm J.Bngnet I[ James C.Frost 13: Richard hL DrA Phillip D.Schlosser 191 October 27, 1982 Everett Hughes, President Hughes Development Corporation 510 Citrus Edge Glendora, California 91740 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12242 Dear Mr. Hughes: Thank you for your immediate response to our letter of October 14, 1982. Our letter was intended to seek some direction from you in the processing of this tract as is relates to the proposed Foothill Freeway corridor. Per your request, we will continue processing the project with the first step being completion of the initial study for consideration by the Planning Commission, Our preliminary initial study has shown that this project may cause significant adverse impacts and inconsistencies with regard to transportation and land use/planning relative to the City's General Plan goals and policies. We have finalized the initial study and copies of it are attached for your review. We will be presenting the study to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for a focused environmental impact report tentatively on December 8, 1982. Meanwhile, we are sending a letter to CALTRANS District 8 Office in San Bernardino indicating this fling --f your tentative map and the need to begin appraisal negotiations proceedings for purchase of this site by the State. We would also recommend that you continue your contacts with CALTRANS seeking their consideration for purchasing of your property. City Engineer, Lloyd Hubbs, has been working with the local communities' task force regarding the freeway corridor and has been in close contact with the Transportation Commission. We feel that we can facilitate the appraisal negotiating process. According to our conversation, acquisition by the Sate would also meet with your approval . 9M BASELLNE ROAD.SUITE C • POST OFFICE BOX 807 • RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CALIPORN[A 91730 • t:14D Mg-MI Everett Hughes October 27, 1482 Page two. . . We will continue to remain in contact with you on the pre- nssing and status of this project in hope of working together to meet both of our needs. If you have any further questions regarding the initial study or any othar related matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Anain, thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION , J � r RICK GOMEZ .City Planner RG/mv/kap attch_ cc: L. Wasserman J. Lam L. Hubbs R. Dougherty ry ' 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r _Jon D.Mikels >p a cmwert...an. U —� iz Charles J.Buquet II dames C.Froat 1977 Richard X Dahl Phillip D.Schlosser October 14, 1982 Everett Hughes, President Hughes Development Corporation 510 Citrus Edge Glendora, California 91740 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14AP 12242 Dear Mr. Hughes: Your application for the above-referenced project has been reviewed for completeness and accuracy of filing. As a result of the review, :he proposed application has been found to be complete and accepted for processing. However, this finding does not constitute final acceptance of the project. Final acceptance is not made until all environmental documents and findings are completed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Since this project lies within the proposed Foothill Freeway Cor- ridor, we would like to take this opportunity to explain Rancho Cucamonga's position on the freeway and its relationship to the City' s General Plan circulation goals. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council has taken the position to protect the freeway corridor and has adopted the City's General Plan Circulation Element which plans for its ultimate implementation. The City's policy is to work with each landowner within the freeway corridor in conjunction with CALTRANS, the State Department of Highways, for the protection of the corridor. We will be preparing a letter to CALTRANS which basically states that your company has submitted a tentative tract map within the corridor and it is pending final consideration. Hope- fully, this will start the appraisal process which will lead to acquisition of the sate by the State. There have been only two other tentative 'tract submissions wi .;in the freeway corridor ir. Rancho Cucamonga_ In each of these instances, the City has required the preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report. However, in both of these cases, the City was able to convince CALTRANS to work with the applicants in the acquisition of the properties. r' L SM BASELINE ROAD.SL'IYE C • POST OFFICE BOX 807 • RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CALIFOR!%U 91:90 • (71iq 4591&Sl G G AGREEMENT This Agreement, for professional services, dated 1982 is a contract betwean the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City", and the Planning Center, a California Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant". The City has also contracted with a separate consultant, hereinafter: referred to as "Traffic Consultant", to prepare a traffic report that will serve as a data base for the E.I.P. RECITALS A. The City desires to retain technical and professional services for the preparation of an Environmental impact Report for Tentative Tracts 11369 and 3.1581 to be leveloped by Alta Loma Meadows and Carnelian Investments, respectively, hereinafter referred to as the "Applicants". S. The City has approved the selection of the Consultant to perform the work described herein, under the direction of the City, and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement. The City, as the lead agency, is responsible for the preparation cf the E.Z.R. The Consultant shall act as an assistant to the City for the preparation of this E.I.R. The City is responsible for providing or clarifying any direction in regards to the preparation of the E.I.R. C. The Applicants are responsible for providing necessary data to the City for preparation of the E.Z.R. Any correspondence regarding the E.I.R. shall be directed to the City and rnt the City's Consultant. In addition, the Applicants are responsible to provide the City with the necessary funds for the completion of the F.I.R. THLitFFORE CITY AND CONSULTANT AGREE AS FOLLOWS: A. scope of Ylerk: The Consultant shall prepare, perform and complete the following professional services, specified in Exhibit "A", through completion of the Final Environmental Impact Report for Tentative Tracts 11369 and 11581. y :� - r- - B. Project Manager: Steve MCCutchan shall be Project I Manager for the Consultant and shall coordinate with the Proiect Manacez of the Traffic Consultant. City shall appoint a Project Director who shall be responsible for official direction of the study 1 on behalf of the City. C. Time Schedu; creencheck Draft E.:.R. shall be completed by the Consultant ' a weeks after receipt of the traf fie report. This assumes that inrormation and data generated by DKS Associates will be forwarded by the City to the Planning Center in the form of a traffic report within 15 weeks. The Consultant shall pro,-4de a Detailed Time Schedule to the City following approval of this agreement. The Time Schedule may be altered by mutual agreement of the City and Consultant. D. Payment: The Consultant shall be compensated for the services provided under this agreement with funds deposited in a trust account with the City by the project Applicants. Payment shall be on a monthly basis- based on work completed in accordance with the billinq rates shown in Exhibit "B", attached. Consultant shall bill the City every four (4) weeks, which shall include a progress report of the work completed and billed for. The total compensation payable to Consultant shall be $17,000. The City shall retain 10% of the total fees through completion and certification of the Final E.Z.R. to ensure completion of this agreement. in the event the F.I.R. is completed and certified, but the project is disapproved or withdrawn, the remaining 10E shall be paid within 30 days of the final completion of the terms of this agreement. Additional services requested beyond the scope of work `— in Fxhibit "A" or attendance at additional meetings shall be compensated through a separate Time and Materials Contract, per the attached billing rates, Exhibit "B". The Time and Materials Contract shall be drafted and signed prior to the release of the 10% retainer. E. Termination: The City may terminate this agreement by riving written notice thereof to the Consultant, provided that the .� City shall be obligated to pay Consultant for all work performed and g : for all direct costs incurred prier to receipt of Notice of Termination by the Consultant. a c 7 o- Gi t' I � F. Equal Employment opportunity: The Consultant is an Equal Opportunity :and Affirmative Action Employeer and agrees to comply with the applicable requirements governing equal employment opportunity. G. Inspection: This City in referrence to any requests for payment submitted by Consultant for services under this agreement shall have the right to examine and audit the re_ords of the Consultant to verify such payment. H. Authority: Each of the parties to this agreement represents that the person signing on behalf of such party has authority to do so. I. Relationship of Parties: It is understood that the contractual relationship of the Consultant to the City is that of an independent contractor and all persons working for or under the Consultant are their agents, servants, and employees not agents, servants, or employees of the City- ® IN N2='NF.SS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth herein. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONW. Lauren M. wasserman, City Manager ATTEST: Sac . Lam, AICP,, Director of Community Development Planning Centar, Principal DATE: =J i 177 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND COFTENT City Attorney- ems. f� r� v T1 c EXHIBIT "P" SCOPE OF WORK I. Proect Initiation/Data Collection (1 Week) y In the First week following a notice to proceed (exe:uted contract), the l City w:ll forward to The Planning Center all reports , dr.cumentations and other information pertinent to the preparation of th? EIR. Information j and data generated by DKS Associates will be forward>d to and coordinated with The Planning Center, due within 15 weeks in the form of a Traffic Repo,-t. II. Preoare Screencheck FIR r The Planning Center will prepare an administrative craft or Screencheck copy of the Focused EIR (2 copies) for review by the City. The Focused EIR will be prep-red in accordance e:ith tie reguirerents of CEQA and in the format de provid by the City. The main body of the Focused EIR will consist of three sections, as fellows: A. Land Use The Planning Center will review and analyze the land use planning considerations that come into focus with approvEl or denial of the two tentative tracts. This includes the following tasks: 1. Review of the City's General Plan. 2. Status of the Route 30 Corridor from the Stite, Regional and Local levels. 3- An assessment of cumulative impacts associated with 4 existing and proposed deselupment with the Corridor. 4. An analysis of the relationships between the proposed projects, current and future status of the Route 30 Corridor, and the City' s General Plan. 5. An assessment of the localized impacts that the con- rorsion of Route 30 to alternative transportation facilities may have on the Citv's lard use plans, as it relates to localized regional impacts. 6. Mitigation measures associated with impacts. �r' B. Circulation and Transportation Usi.,g information generated by DKS Associates, The. Planning Center will assess the impacts of the proposed project on a localized basis and will document any implication-, of project approval on a broader scale. This category includes the following tasks: 1. Report on existing and projected traffic conditions. p. An assessment of project-generated traffic. 3. lmpacts associated with existing plus project traffic conditions. 4. An assessment of future traffic conditions. 5. Other traffic considerations and mitioation measures adaptable foe the above. C. Alternatives The Planning Center will assess the impacts associated with alternatives as defined in our meeting with the City "i December 1, 1981. These are as follows: 1. No project - A "no tracts" scenario that assumes the ® Foothill Freeway will be built. 2. High-speed arterial , based upon a revised project plan. 3. Low-speed arterial , based upon a revised project plan. The above alternatives are in addition to the project alternative, which assumes approval of the tentative tracts and that the Foothill Freeway would not b3 Suilt. The above alternatives may be revised subsequent to preliminary right-of-way studies conducted by DKS Associates. D. Execut_ i��' The Draft EIR will be prefaced with an Executive Summary which will serve as a synopsis of impacts associated with the proposed l -oject. General findings of the Focused EIR will be reported here, as well as a description of the impacts associated with alternative actions . III. Despond to Screencheck Comments and Prepare Draft EIR e2 Weeks Within two weeks of the receipt of all corments on the Screenchn..c EIR, the Planning Center will provide 75 copies of the Draft EiR. (Allows once week for reproduction) . The Draft EIR will include revisions as requested in screencheck review. The City shall prepare the Notice of Completion and distribute the Draft EIR to appropriate agencies. IV. Respond to Draft EIR Comments and Prepare Final EIR 2 Weeks) r All comments on the Draft EIR wilt be channeled through the Planning Division and forwarded to the consultant. The consultant will be re- sponsible for responding to these comments. Ail comments and responses shall become an addendum to the Draft FIR. Upon conclusion of the review period and the consultant's response to all comments, the Draft EIR will be scheduled for Planning Commission review on- the adequacy of the report and its findings. Any changes or additions approved by the Planning Commission will be made by the consultant prior to printing the Final EIR. In the event that such changes or additions constitute a change in this scope of work, the existing Contract may be amended or a separate Time and Materials Contract negotiated. Within 2 weeks of certification of Draft EIR by the Planning Commission, The Planning Center will provide 5 copies of the Final EIR and a camera-ready copy for reproduction. The Final Focused EIR will include all revisions required subsequent to the review process for the draft document. V. Attendance at Public Hearings (6 Meetings) The consultant will attend up to three (3) meetings with the City and/ or Traffic Consultant to review and coordinate project work. Consultant shall also attend two (2) public hearings with the Planning Commission and one (1) public hearing with the City Council for the purpose of presenting the EIR and providing technical background for clarification, if necessary. L � . r k. sSS L, w 1 EXHIBIT "B" THE PLANNING CENTER: BILLING RATES PRINCIPR.L-IN-CHARGE: $75/hr. PRG.;ECT MANAGER: $40/hr. SENIOR PLANNER: $50/hr. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER: $40/hr. GRAPHICS: $25-$35/hr. E k�a x: r r' G: t t t, G r AGREE:'LzNT f;. ( This Agreement for professional services, dated • 1982, is a contract between the City o£ Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal r corporation of the State of California. hereinafter referred to as "City" and DIGS Associates, a California Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant". The City has also contracted with a t` i separate consultant, hereinafter referred to as "Plarning,'F.I.R. r: � Consultant", to prepare Lhe main body of the E.I.R. s �•. RECITALS li A. The City desires to retain techni,:al and professional i•1 services to prepare a traffic report for an Environmental Impact Report for Tentative Tracts 11581 and 11369 within the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and B. The City has approved the selection of Consultant to i assume responsibility for performance p£ Lhe work desired herein in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. THEREFORE, CITY AITJ CONSULTANT PZREE AS TO FOLLOWS: A. Scope of work: Consultant shall perform the profession- al services specified in Exhibit "A" attached to this document. B. Project Manager: Mike Kennedy shall be Project Manager for Consultant and shall coordinate with the Pzoject Manager of the Planning/E.I.R. Consultant. City shall appoint a Project Director who ,i shall be responsible for official direction of the study on behalf of tine City. C. Time Schedule: The Consultant shall make every reaso:,- able effort to complete the assignment within fifteen (15) weeks after _ receipt of authorization to proceed. This assumes that a three (3) ` week review period of the preliminary draft report. The time schedule may be altered by mutual agreement of the City and Consultant if additional time is needed for scheduling of meeting:, review of interim i materials, or other unforseen circumstances occur. MORE, D. Payment: The Consultant shall be compensated for the services provided under this agreement with funds deposited in a trust account with the City by the project applicants. Consultant shall bill the City every four (4) weeks for work done and direct expenses incurred (plus 56 for `candling) in accordance with the billing rates shown on Exhibit "8" attached. The bill shall include a progress report of the work completed and billed for. Ten percent of the total fee will be withheld from the final payment pending completion and certification of final E.I.R. Prompt approval of the Draft Traffic Report and payment of the final payment shall not be unreasonably withheld. Direct charges incurred in the performance of services specified by this Agreement shall include such items as purchase of maps and photographs, printing and reproduction costs, traffic and subsistence, long distance telephone, delivery costs, computer costs and any fees, insurance, permits, and licenses applicable to this Agreenent only. The fee- to be paid by the City for services by Consul- tant shall no, exceed $19,960. This fee includes attendance at up to three (3) meetings with City and/or Planning/E.I.&. Consultant staff to review and coordinate project work. Additional services requested beyond the Scope of work in Exhibit "A" or attendance at additional meetings shall be compensated t1^.rough a separate Time and materials Contract per the attached billing rates, Exhibit "S". The Time and Materials Contract shall be drafted and signed prior to release_.of the 101 retainer. The S19,960 not to exceed price includes all direct and indirect charges for the Consultant services. Any project charges incurred subsequent to June 1, -- 1982, shall be billed in accordance to the revised billing rate schedule effective June 1, 1982. A ccp_y thereof shall be submitted to the City prior to incurring any such charges. E. Termination= The City may terminate this agreement by giving writter. notice thereof to Consultant provided that the City shall be obligated to pay Consultant for all work performed and all direct costs incurred prior to receipt of Notice of Termination, by the — Consultant. A l F. Eaual Emplovmert Opportunity: The Consultant is an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer and agrees to comply with the applicable requirements governing equal employment opportune tv. G. Inspection: The City, in reference to any request for payment submitted by Consultant for services under this ;,greement, shall have the right to examine and audit the records of the Consultant to verify such payment. H. Authoritvx Each of the parties to this Agreement represents that the person signing on behalf of such part has the authority to do so. I. Relationship of Parties: It is understood that the eontractural relationship of the Consultant to the City is that of an independent contractor, and all persons working for and under the direction of the Consultant are the Consultant's agents, servants, and employees, and net agents, servants, or employees of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth below. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DRS ASSICIATESS, PRINCIPAL ATTEST: Lauren M. Wasse_rman. City Manager Jac% Lam, AICP, Director of Co=unity Development C DATE: FES 11 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT r City Attorney -'r 6 EXHIBIT A SCOPE Or SE!zVICES Task 1: Existing Conditions Consultant shall review existing traffic conditions in the project vicinity, including status of existing and planned roadways, traffic volumes and traffic control. This will be based on a brief field survey, traffic counts rbtained from the City and State, and review of prior relevant reports. Task 2: Define Project and Alternatives Consultant shall define project and project alternatives in terms of site traffic generation and transportation use of Route 30 corridor. The "project" shali conFist of the croposed tract plan; without development of any transportation facility within the Route 30 corridor. Three oltemat Ives will also be considered in the ana!ysis: I) No project — a "no tract" scenario that assumes Foothill Freeway will be built. , 2) A revised project incorporating a high sped arterial in the Route 30 corridor. 3) A revised project incorporating a loaner speed arterial in the Route 30 corridor. Site traffic generation will be estimated for the PM peak hour and over the day based on land use inputs by others. Traffic generotion elsewhere will be as utilized in the crgoirg Hchn/Victoria Traffic Study by DKS Associates. Alternative Route 30 corridor transportation facilities will be defined in terms of lane and right-of-way needs within the tracts and generalized number of lanes and rlyht-of- wcy widths elsewhe.-e, based or. previous Route 30 pianning studies. =indiings -aiii be submitted to the Plonning/E1R consultant for use in defining land uses within the tracts. Task 3: Impoct Assessment Consultant shell assess the long-term implications (i.e., at full build-out) on community- wide circulation of the proposed project and its alternatives. This will be done by performing up to three conacity-restrained assignments utilizing the city-wide traffic model and by comparing results of each run. The assessment will consider relative traf fic volumes and levels of service both in the Route 30 corridor and on other key facilities in the City, and any major shifts of travel patterns which may result. Any significant impacts on local circulation wiil alsobe identified. Task v: Mitination Ccnsulto-i shall identify possible measures to mitigate impacts of the project or its alternatives- This will inc!ude a reconnaissance level definition of major projects e necessary to upgrade 1 ,tli and Highland Avenues as an alternative arterial -oute. Such projects would be define:; in concept only; preliminary engineering design or detailed operational assessments of conceptual proposals is not included. Task S: Plannina snouts Consultcnt shot! provide inputs to the Planning/EiR Consultant on right-of-way implications of the various Route 30 alterntives. Consultant shall also provide projected traffic generation, cssigned volumes and speeds, and vehicle-miles of travel based on results of the City-wide traffic model rains. Task 6: Docu-nentation Consultant shall document analysis and results in a brief traffic report suitable for incorporation into the EIR as a technical appendix. This report will provide resource materio'. for the Impact Analysis being prepared by the Planning/EEIR Consultant for inclusion in the main body of the EIR. Five copies of the preliminary draft Troffic Report shall be submitted to the City far review and comment. Camera-ready originals of the revised draft shall be submitted to the City for appending to the Draft EIR. The City's Project Director shelf be responsible for providing Cansultant with a single, unified, unequivocal set of comments on the preliminary Draft Traffic Report on behalf of oil individuals and agencies commenting thereupon. Consultant shall not be responsible for response to any comments not inc'.uded in the set of comments forwarded by City's Project Director. Response to comment on the Draft EIR is not included within this scope of work. Task 7: Meetings Consultant shall attend up to three (3) meetings with City and/or Planning/EIR Consultcr:t steff to review and coordinate project work. J V . .f h~ DIED Associates Traffic Transportation Engineering EXHIBIT "B" BILLING PATES Effective June 1981 Personnel Hour{/ rate President $60.00 Vice President $55 n'0 Principol $47.00 Staff Principai Engineer $47.G0 Se-ior Engineer $43.00 Engineer $40.00 Associate Engineer $35.00 Assistont Engineer $32.00 Senior Droft'person $32.00 Drcfts,erson $23.00 rechnician $19.50 Word Processor $20'•50 4C5 tat° "'root. Stutc 610. Qak4'tnd. Cahfnrnia 9.1G12 415 763 2G,t -ITI' OF RANCHO CLiCAMONGA STAFF REPORT r C s_�� O I' II> �L DATE: Deceri,her 8, 1982 1977 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 11626 - SIEVERS - A custom lot residential subdivision of 96 lots on 86.63 acres of land in the R-1-20,000 zone located on the north side of Almond Street at Beryl Street - APN 1061-411-03; 1061-451-01; 1361-171-01. ABSTRACT: The project is a custom lot residential development submitted in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance. Since this project appears to have environmental concerns, an Initial Study was prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration and review. Therefore, staff is recommending preparation of a Focused Environmental Impact ® Report. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project is located on the north side of Almond Street, where Beryl Street intersects, Exhibit "A". The project site totals 86.53 acres. The subdivision would create 96 single family lots, while 22 acres are proposed for dedication as a public park site. The proposed Tentative Tract Map, Exhibit "C", indicates that the majority of the lots are 20,000+ square feet and the remainder will range upwards to J+ acres in size. Current zoning is R-1-20,000 and the General Plan designation is Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 dwell;ng units per acre) and open space (ExhiW "G") . The surrounding zoning and land use is provided on the attached site utilization map, Exhibit "B". ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: As shown on the natural features map, Exhibit "E", the project site is located adjacent to the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Cutting across the northern project boundary is the Cucamonga Fault. Approximately 50 percent of the site consists of two citrus groves: the larger occupies the southwest portion of the site, and a smaller grove sits atop a bluff at the eastern side of the project. Approximately 20 percent of the site is an existing vineyard located in the center of the property, with a smaller vineyard located at the southeastern corner of the site. Eucalyptus windbreaks separate the various groves and are located in the western portion of the site and atop the ridge lines. Oak and Sycamore trees along with other native shrubs and plants occur within the deeply incised drainage channel and along the northern property line. ITEM D Tentative Tract 11626/Sievers Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 2 Topography over the site moderately slopes from north to south at a 6 to 10 percent grade. A deeply incised drainage channel traverses easterly across the northern portion or the site and turns south acros- the eastern portion of the property. Slopes within the chan:iel exceed a 30 percent gradient. A small drainage course lies just west of the western ! project boundary. Another deeply incised channel lies adi-ac-ent to the eastern project boundary. The moderately sloping portion of the site sheet flows to the south. Several foothill canyons consisting of approximately 580 acres of tributary drainage area drain into the channel r.hich traverses the site. The 230 acre Thorp Canyon drains into the channel to the east. Both channels eventually drain into the newly improved Demens Channel basin. The project site is bounded on the north by the foothills and on the south by existing single family residences on half-acre lots. Tract 10277, along the western project boundary, is currently under construction. To the east is a natural drainage channel. Man-made improvements to this site include fences, irrigation lines, dirt roads, and one house with several associated out buildings in the northwest corner of the site. Almond Street exists as a half street with full street improvements. ENVIFONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Part I of the initial Study has been completed by :he applicant and is attached for your review. Further, the applicant has prepared preliminary soils, geology and drainage studies which are on file in the Planning Division. Staff has conducted field investigations and has completed+ the attached Part II of the Initial Study. Following is a brief discussion of the major issues and potential adverse impacts which may occur as a result of this project. 1. Soils and Geolo2Z.L The deeply incised drainage channel cantains slopes in excess of 30 percent, which the General Plan states have a high potential for slope failure. The erosion potential for the soils throughout the site range from sligi•,t iz the gently and moderately sloping areas to high where the sails are very sandy or the slopes are steep. The northern bo•ndary of the project site is the Cucamonga Fault which is corsidered active with a potential for a maximum credible earthquake of 7.0 on the Richter Scale. The proposed grading plan will fill a portion of the natural drainage channel for street improvements which could potentially increase water erosion of soils, on or off site. 2. H drolo : Approximately 580 acres of tributary drainage Brea rains into the deeply incised channel within this projeci. The grading plan proposes to fill a portion of this channel and provide a concrete storm drain underneath the public street. Further, this project could increase runoff by increasing the ;ti Tentative Tract 11626/Sievers Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 3 amount of impervious surfaces which do not allow r,_ to seep into the ground. The magnitude which the increased runoff will affect the ground water table and erosion potential , nor the extent of impacts which may be realized as a result of the grading and development of the site is not known. 3. Biota: The proposed subdivision design would preserve the majority of the existing Eucalyptus windbreaks. It is anticipated that grading improvements necessary in the deeply incised ;itannels would result in the removal of -1tural vegetation aild potentially cause the reduction or mi5 -n of animals from the channel. A detailed study should be H. _pared to determine whether development of the site mould create significant impacts relative to the loss of animal or pant life. 4. Land Use and Planning Considerations: The Genera! Plan encourages preparation of environmental studies to -jetermine the landholding capacity and site development constraints to ensure consistency with General Plan policies. These General Plan policies include concentration of development through clustering to preserve open spaces, protection of natural features and views, and minimal disruption of the natural ground form. One quarter of the project site is proposed to be dedicated to the City for a public park site. The General Plan Parks and Recreation Plan does not call for a park site in this area because of the proximity of Heritage Park. Environmental studies would help determine the appropriate land uses for this natural channel area. Further, a determination of the most appropriate land use configurations and density for the entire site can only be made upon cempletion of detailed analysis of environmental constraints. The possible alternatives could range from clustering of homes on smaller lots to maximize open space or to maintaining a minimum lot size of one acre or larger throughout the project site. i• 5. Public Safety: Public safety is a concern which must also be C a resse . As previously mentioned, the potential for slope failure exists in addition to high and frequency shaking of the ground. The potential fire hazard is increased for this site because the foothills abut the northern project boundary and the natural drainage channel with dense vegetation traverses the project site. Also of concern is the Cucamonga Fault which runs along the northern boundary of the property. Since the magnitude of an earthquake in this fault could reach 7.0 on the Richter Scale, there is a significant public safety concern. u �:' h Tentative Tract 1162E/Sievers Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 4 `• RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider input an this project. After such consideration, if the Commission concurs with the findings of staff relative to the potential adverse impacts, it would be appropriate to require the preparaion of a Focused Environmental Impact Report. It is recommended that the scope of the EIR focus upon soils and geology, hydrology, biota, land use and planning, and public safety. t ctfuliy su fitted, G&E� PLANNER :jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "8" - Site Utilizaticn Map Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Natural Features Map Exhibit "F" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "G" - General Plan Land Use Initial Study Part I Initial Study Part Il w- '1 �IiI1I `. , OT . d TO ■� ■ n Nrllll 11111I pl. I ----7L---- II 1 111 H11111,Ili. AIWIII pill l Itll!�; f11111 11 _ 11 t ■i� r 1111\ illlln '' =y Ii111i1L�luu C ��i/I � �lil 111E �IIi■ �RII 1111 )�� ■ ��IfI u -_ n u■u■.a� r NORTH CITY 01-7 f r rya 5t 1 rJ. u Z --Hoc a I I i z i k 1 •� I L Ulu y t Y Jr iwmZ - 46� qj. .......... 7y—1 j Ali. tt 'x "44 zn �j r 36 41 -V C; 72 T i T=ts !full —21 , at a— R a c dug g r -i. I- I 2 all 00 ;4�j a ij�S55II£pzgg T zi lial I 71 FXH ENT -rwT P%1P 11 •;r. $ - .J.,'� , S•1 1 - _� .� ss ri.. ' ii •t �•T+ . I ''�tJ �� 1 • e r "• w - f at I y �yy •I a :� II} 2K-� " 4 L fill ��♦♦ _ afp p _ iii ] a Of a 31 Pin M5 gui aa_ •• ...� 2a I 2� •+�. ' ,�� E tCy yE. �g 333E! ! - 3 � 3.y.j D p E ..•jam- � _ ° 3 ! i E L 1��• •.1 a ♦I t)• � a �' T �E�. �tiE1 •'cc_3_RE-] t���..�)?_ : " 1 •� � I 1 �J..,` a � ":EL �:]?�$SE=:ELl:!Sy2.._7: 14 qt}(' �,•� J. , . : . : ter--. , o �h ;; 01 / t�ej ( > "F�. i S i31i x � PVT w o � ice. � 1 t •- � .� 'c: �• t a u a is . ..... ja j..t 'o Sir' w m 0 C4 t ILI o Z It IN . 474t-I 0- x Fw Im Nrl Q m P..d Im Iz 21 2L v IC Jwt 2 jlj 0 3 fi, i I izl -Z-U U-29 1 is I I A 6�,Zw, Z� 4s lz� 3 oil j . I IM IT R7 5- If W54 t�stmrt�t..�s�sat�tmtt®sort�ta�tty \- `i /\/ -\�•'i ♦�'I\-/\,�\�J\ / \ �\ ,�1�r'li its\�t � i %I/�`%ItJ��l ���.. =�1 \/I\�Ir/ ; _/\�\�!_!�i` f \!mil\\/ •� `) f- \ /�J``. ��t \ YO_OG;:' :L _t t --I - f-1 �\ - ♦J�ri\`�\.:`/i� /-ra J.,ili �/�11�--� OC�GC'' ,� :. _/i�t'�l�\•`�``/`;-- . fi \\ mil�``\\J ♦�\.! � /i�1�-/f ,'..0 . cL =. ............................. ......................... .................._.........................._......._.... ......... ........................ - _- _�-•----.......... ..... .._... ..... ........ 0.. -.. .... ... . ... ...... .... ...... __C - ......... . :::::.. .. ... Hill ...... .......... . ............... . ...... ......... ... ...... . ............. FORTH CIT Y O QT��i: �� �O�Ge► I�AN T. CL'Cr1�'IO�("S�y TmU: ���f �, f PL \-NNI\G DIVISION Etf tilitT-_ _SCkLE- �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO;+GA INITIAL STUDY lam PACT Z - PROJECT IN'ORTATT_ON SEEBT - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects requiring environmental rev D velohis form must be completed and submitted to the Review CO=-Iittee tbrouc:Fr. the department where the ro -,.t application is made. Upon receipt of this P j application, the Environ.aental Analysis staff will prepare part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Co. �nitt2e will meet and taste action no later that, ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the pmaR roject is to be heard_ The Corm<iewi111'_ a e`nonsia ficant three determinations: 1) the profect an d a Negative Declaration will be environmental impact a filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental ivrpact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prPFared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concern-ing the proposed project. pROJ-Er•T TITLE: Tentative Tract Ne_ 11626 . R. L. Sievers & Sons,Inc APPLICA%Z' `S NP.%IE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: CA 90620 6481 Orangethrope Avenue, Suite 8 , Buena Park, Phone: (714) 522-7921 ImoA,-IE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PER<ON TO BE CONTACTED Col.;CERNINNG THIS PROJECT: Mr. Park,CA 90620 6481 Orangethorpe Avenue , Suite 8 , Buena Phone: k7143 522-7921 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET Aai•RESS AN'D ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) APNs 1061-451-1 1061-171-1 and 1061-411-3 - Nortl.side of Almond Avenue at intersection_ of Beryl Street LIST OTHER p--R.ti.TTS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGEICCIES AND TFE AGENCY ISSUING SUC3 PERMITS: Department of Transportation and Flood Control District Y-= i PROJECT DESCRIPTIO" DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 95 single family, 20 ,000 S.F. minimum residential custom lots plus Lot 96 for existing house and reservoir ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF AVY: 86. 53 acres . 162.0 S.F. of existing house. Reservoir and house to be designated as Lot 96. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFO R ATIOV ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SUR-OMMING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH YECESSARt SHEETS) The site is -an existing orchard and vineyard. Existing ground 'sine sloe= at 10%-12& generally in a north)-orth to southeasterly direction. The existing house, reservoir and out buildings to remain and be included in tentative - rap as Lot 96 existing windrow Eucalyptus trees to be saved and incorporated into plan where possible. The existing natural drainage courses are to remain natural with those areas being set aside possible dedicated open space. Is the project, wart of a larger project, one of a series of c,--zulative actions, v:hich although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? NO WILL TPIS PROJECT: YES M XXX I. Create a substantial change in gr:)und contours? XXX 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration, XXX 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) XXX 4. Create charges in the existing zoning or general plan designations? xxy_ 3: Remove any existing trees? How mar_y? Flnkaown XXX 5. Create the need for use or disposai of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, fla=Lables or exclosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: Eucalyptus trees existing fruit trees and grapevines to be removed only in those areas requ'Ei -g grading and construction o propose p is s• :ets. IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, coiaglete 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 ;.his initial evaluation to the best cf my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Signatufe Title �� y'i2pj _ t , P. SIDEt7TIAL COD:STMICTIOtd The follo:rina inforration should be provided to the City of Rancho :ucanonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accoimnodate the proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No. : R_ L. Sievers & Sons, Inc. Tract No. 11626 Specific Location of Project:torthside of Almond Avenue at the intersection of Beryl Street PHASE I I RASE 2 PEASE 3 PFASE 4 TOT=,L 1. Nu�ber of -sinclz ss 27 LZ' t 27 95 r : � 2. Numbcr of multiple fa-roily u^ir.s: 0 3 Dat v e rczosed to _ 10becinec^struction: 1983 4 . Earliest .'_awe O�_ oc an N.A. ;•:odcl ' and E of Tentative S. Bedro-Oros Price Re-cc c +s' om Lot Ra31Qs CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STCDY EN'71PONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICA:NT: • L . �jo soo FIiING DATE: /O/-a I /gL LOG NUMBER: PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION: >D I. MIROtiMENTAL IITACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "nayb2" answers are required on attached shzets) . YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and Geology. Will the proposal. have significant results in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in charges ir. geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase ir. wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site conditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? 1 g. Expcsure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, -Wud- — slides, ground failure, ur si=ilar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant �. results in: Page 2. YES MAYBE h0 a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream � — channels? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood — waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or any alteration of surface water quality? _ f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? _G _ g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interference with an aquifer? Quality? Quantity? h. The reduction in the amount of water other- / wise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water — related hazards such as flooding or seiches? f 3. AirQuality- Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sources? � b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of applicable air quality standards? 1 C. Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or temperature? 4. Biota Flora. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ 1_;y Page ? YES MAYBE No c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare _ or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier / to the migration or mo.•ement of animals? JC/ d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or — wildlife habitat? S. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or j create a demand for additional housing? 6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio-economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property / values b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e. , buyers, tax pavers or project users? / 7. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the �C proposal have siF-ificant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b_ A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental / E` entities C. •.L impact upon the qulairy or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational opportunities? I Fage + YFS MAYBE NO 8. Transportation.. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movo=-_nt? b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for — new street construction? c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta- tion systems? _ e. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? 1 f. Alterations to or effects on present and potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or air traffic? g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological. paleontological, and/or historical resources? 10. Health, Safety, and Nuisance Factors. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Creation of anv health hazard or potential health — hazard? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? C. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident? d. An increase in the number of individuals or species of vector or pathenogenic organisms or the expcsure of people to such _ organisms? e. Increase in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odors? h. An increase in light or glare? ,1, Page S ( YES '.MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results ?.n: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic — vista or view? b. T"be :ration of an aesthetically offensive site? c. A conflict with the objective of designated / or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: / a. Electric power? ` l b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? 1/ d. Water supply? -C e. Wastewater facilities? f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? — / 1 h. Fire protection? — �L i. Police protection? _ j. Schools? / k. Parks or other recreational facilities? / 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? / m. Other governmental services? ` 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? c. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non-renewable forms of er_ergy, when feasible /^ renewable sources of energy are available? /_ Pae6' l f YES MAYBE NO e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or scarce natural resource? / 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance. T a. Does the pr-ject have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project :lave the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future) . C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with L-he effects of past projects, and probable future projects) . d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. DISCUSSION OF ENVItRONMENTAL EVALUATION (i.e. , of affirmative answers to the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures) . 77 ,y. G �YA III. DETERMIN;_TION i On the basis of this initial evaluation: r—, I find the prcnosed ;•roject COULD NOT have a significant effect or. the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project coulee have a significant effect on the envircrme�t, there will not be a significant effect �-- in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A !NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PRKPARED_ 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirrnent, and an ENVIROM NT Dea $SPORT i required. Date Signature I Tftle i 1 -r C S c � i ATTACH4;E%T TO PART 2 - TT 11026 PP.RT II - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 1 . Soils and Geoloov - the project site lies at the base of the foothills,—with portions of the site sloping towards the south at a 5-10 percent grade, and the remainder portion consists of a deeply incised drainage channel with slopes exceeding 30 percent grade. The Public Health and Safety Element of the General Plan states that "the potential for slope failure on any slope greater 30 percent is moderate. Those slopes .facing east, hest, and especially north should be considered to have a high potential for failure beLause of the probability of adverse- oriented fractures in the rocks". The erosion potential for the soils ranees from slight in the gently sloping areas to high where the soils are very sandy or the slopes are steep. Bedrock is exposed along the northern boundary, of the site along the Cucamonga Fault which is in an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. The fault is considered active, and according to the General Plan, "the maxiaram credible 40 earthquake that can be expected from the fault is 7.0 cn the Richter scale'. Further, the General Plan states that high and lox frequency shaking can be expected on this site. The grading plan proposes to fill a portion of the natural drainage channel for street improvements which could potentially increase water erosion of soils (on or off-site) and chai:ge erosion siltation or deposition. See discussion under hydrology for analysis of potential impacts. . 2. Hvdrelogv - This project has the potential to change absorbtion rates, drainage patterns and the rate of surface water runoff for the area. The site is transversed by a deeply incised channel across the northern portion of the site and turns due south across the eastern central portion of the property. Several foothill canyons drain into this chanril. The Grading Plan proposes to fill a portion of this channel and provide a concrete storm drain. It is nct known the extent of impacts that may be realized as a result of the grading and development of the site. �. Biota - The project site consists of citrus groves, grape vineyards, eucalyptus windbreaks, and select mature trees. In addition, the deeply incised channel contains oak and sycamore trees and other native shrubs and plants. The project may ® alter the characteristics of plant and animal species. It is ( r not known whether this project would cause the reduction of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals. Development of this project would reduce the potential for agricultural production. The General Plan EIR analyzed the impact of phasing out agricultural production within the community and did not consider it a significant impact. A detailed study should be prepared to determine whether development of the site will create significant impacts relative to the loss of animal or plant life. ?. Land Use and Plannina Considerations - The development of this project wi 1 be a substantial alteration of the present land use as vineyards, citrus groves, and drainage channel . The General Plan states that "development in the foothills, defined as having slopes greater than. 10 percent, should relate to the slope in order to preserve the integrity of the hillside, minimize disruption of natural ground form, and be clustered to retain the maximum amount of open space". Further, "development should be concentrated to preserve open spaces, protect natural features, and offer views to residents, particularly to residents of the hillside area". Generally speaking, this project would continue the existing subdivision pattern to the south. The General Plan encourages preparation of environmental studies to determine lard holding capacity and site development constraints to ensure consistency with General Plan policies. o. Transportaticn - This proposal will create a demand for new street construction that will be developed at appropriate standards to handle the projected traffic volumes. It is not anticipated that any significant off-site impacts will be created on existing transportation systems. 11 . Aesthetics - The develpprrent of this site could potentially destruct or degrade scenic vistas or views of the foothills. In addition, grading of the site to fill portio,is of the natural channel could degrade the natural character of the channel. An analysis of the scenic vistas and views of the site should be made as it relates to the subdivision deiign, and General Plan policies. 12. Utilities and Public Services - The project is located adjacent to the roo nh is and a deeply incised natural channel containing dense vegetation. The project site is located in an area with approximately a five-minute fire response time. Therefore, the potential exists for an impact on fire protection services because of the hazard adjacent to the foothills. Dwelling units could be constructed with fire retardant material and non-combustible mof material to mitigate this impact. Et, C= or RANCHO CUCAMONGA G,)CA yob STAFF REPORT �I I U !> 19T; DATE: December 8, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM- Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 82-05 - TENTATIVE TRACT 12305 - ROY - A change of zone from R-3 ,h',i tip a Family Residential) to R-3/PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planned Development) for the development of 59 condominium units on 5.24 acres of lard located north of 19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue - APN 201-232-34,54, i Relates File: PD 81-11 (Tentative Tract 11969) - KLK PROJECT AND SsTE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a planned development in the R-3 zone (R-3/PD) pendinc, located on the north side of 19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue (Exhibit "A") . The property is presently vacant and slopes to the southeast at approximately a 3 percent. grade. A previous application was filed for this property, Tentative Tract 11969 - KLK, and was reviewed by the Planning Commission. on December 9, 1981, per the attached Minutes. The project site is bounded on the north by the proposed Foothill Freeway Corridor, on the south by single family residences, on the east by a citrus grove and single family residences and on the west by single family residences and water tanks, as indicated on the Site Utilization Map (Exhibit "I") . Tae proposed project density is approximately 11.3 dwelling units per acre and is therefore consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential (4-14 dwelling units per acre). ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewed by the Design Review, Growth Management, and Grading Committees. All the issues and concerns of these committees are reflected on the Tentative Tract map (Exhibit "B") , development i plans and recommended conditions of approval. This planner' development has been designed with a private street system, therefore there are no street connections proposed to future streets on surrounding properties. Access to the project is being provided from 19th Street and Hellman Avenue, as shown on I the detailed site plan, Exhibit "C". 19th Street will be widened to provide a left-turn lane to - isolve traffic circulation concerns. Drainage will be carried to the southeast corner of the project site with a combination of swaies, inlet structures, and under sidawalk drains at 19th Street where the water will then be directed to Amethyst, as shown on Exhibit "H". ITEM E Planned Development 82-OS/Roy Planning Cummission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 2 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Committee has worked with the applicant to resolve concerns re ative to the site plan configuration, recreational space, and previous Planning Commission concerns regarding project density. The Site Plan has been redesigned to provide an open space/recreation area in the center of the project with a large lawn area, pool and tot lot. Therefore, the Design Review Committee re'-o:rmends approval of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study, as completed by the applicant, is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study and found that the project will not have a significant effect on the environm�-;.t. Therefore, staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. FACTS FOR FINDING: The subdivision maps have beer, prepared in accordance with City standards and }policies and the project site is suitable for the proposed subdivision. The project design is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was placed in The Daily Report newspaper and approximately 28 public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Prior to the public hearing, the appl ;ca„L meL with surrounding property owners to discuss the project. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to consider public input and elements of this project. If after such consideration the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions of approval, the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Refsppctfu 11br:itted, o RICK�0u� CITY PLANNER r _ f RG:DC:jr 4. Planned Development 82-05/Roy Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 3 Att�:hments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit °B" - Subdivision Map Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Flan Exhibit "D" - Illustrative Si+e Plar. Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" - Floor Plans Exhibit "G" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit 9" - Off-Site Drainage Exhibit "I" - Site Utilization Map Minutes From December 9, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting Initial Study Part I Resolution of Approval with Conditions ,1 r Al►t � �,i::� �•�a E ..`'.: ���•"�,'��%� �:�;j ni' '��� fir' - �� �r fir■ `ao �AH�.a � • ill 1111lINilf ��' _ - • . . - L . . Hlntu! nuns n MEP - ' ��� rr+l�t ui��unfl IIIItitHin � - ` k J . NORTH .. CITY •r- WOW { RANCHO CUC�VMON"GA TITLE- PSI c L .I f 'Lt... I I .'1 ..7 'L ® *" SE WAY CCICK10dr. ........... � Ap e r.nlonw —.�—i+mr "'•C1L _!v!L ctpiy T1}KJL yEMIC 9iCfM TyPCAL T4T/WCTipN CT ._ ..-��-+a ..cc r�.ao c.+. ..vwc c.4a•.re.ma �iL c'6-T._C NORT [Z L RANC D CL'C-A-,N'10-NGA wMA PL1L.'\I\G DIVISION EXI HMT: SCALE- ,n o a - - ° q AIR ar e � a • q I TYPICAL 4-("T eua.aaa a • a® I 1 let o- a ® ® I I s - - ®a f •m � e �{ t ` S I TYPICAL 3illY BULDM t PROJECT ANALYSIS .acre.ay t O � • r t.nc.vrr azsaw.agw u°°tea O � f I •axa.I.0 xna r0 rlCsleO xaxafY •-a•axavoat _ •a...aew w was rlRypKp n S {l-� ~ ! .wI..0 awcea taurse ....r.qw y° a O O � AR A •rua..w a++cea.aw.taTa a ��°�asNafJ:s�n� rx 1• I I = I a ---III ��� as •� • c.aao •uaoq .a+0allm.�_fA.f•r!.•oaoa a° ... r �. .OKr y.�� b•e11.0a•awOIIeD� aaaaa!�„� • ° J «.y{ •wa•ar.a••ICa'Dfm noa! uaw • •° •�! TYPICAL 7-Wi BLO.Dw a • "�"""O— �� n wa!-R�aa TYPICAL 8(n Men PLANS .1 3\Vl\a l: CITY OF ITEM: T19U: PL1NNI\G DiE'LSjoV F�HIIiIT- SCiLE "E°--' - ' TYPICAL 4-Aavrt amma G is s ac^e�=3 c _ 9 'A. 1 5p t o. .?aS... to '� --- -- . t�. • sys -�.tvz'- •T••+•r..�..rr `�. 4- TYPIC 4:3-kW=GU DNG TREE LEGEND �`rti awuu..ua�s,w.riay. , E ��..r.��. ` f. 7i M w.ulic..,�.ract auu k46 ,lo � 2UN0/L.,t 1•C/utOMe> MI fl: TYPICAL till=&lIDNG �n n,us w.a+.¢rsa 4 . en PV n TYPICAL ROOF PLANS aL No&-EEMw STREET MC _ -- V V NORTH CITY OF IT'.M: TIZ 1>01 _ RANCHO HO C,'CANMO\G A TITLE: IL W RA4 1 . Pl-A" NI\G DIVISION' EXIIIIIiT: SG�LE- �r�Y Ut3T AA UtiT 6 UtIrT A. FRONT ELEVATION W4T A {AIAT a _.— UN.T GR UWT AR R-AR ELEVATION UWT AR — — END ELEVATION CITY OF RANCHO CL'G4.1 O\-G.-k THU: PUNNING Dlv%,NON EYE 1II3IT- SGALLE==�"�� w T_ v IT CIV „ m � L!EllIB { �, � 1 a I.q • m to to N IL cv /] Ct 1lfiti;i t✓ -. a s . . I: . g i ll� m - -71 w N ' N Uft c ' I N lk Co 111j El ct Lill " 7 �f- s1 -�1 1... �'IIL_SJ__i1 II'I�. 1z- ;1 t--- CITY OF ITE`I7 RANCHO C:U&NA-IO\GA TITLE- , I'L XNNI\G DIVMN E\I HBIT: SC,- LE. -o r . r r - .ram _-- / • O w / , ; -r lip FORTH CITE' OF ITE:\i: RA- CI-10 CUGki\10\GA TrrLE: h` PL kINNING DI VISIO\' EX!iIf3IT: . SGlLE: o ?.i r ' • T Ls z�•c+ ♦g /a� rr /o . , ••t , y �--� . ,, s ram- w-r � E ! w r�• � ti '{^�� :[.r � • • �► 6 � 4_ I v =I ��� JS is T� i 7 � o� � n ^• v es .er � /.� �cL ✓PLTA LO•i Ji T %C ✓` /ILTA LOY• Iw M I ++v.3.11a7 to °%2=tl z4/1 s e Oirr .v9 ! I•L e s 6 , r Z \, \ tot 6 'o V a C N • p open �s�•�ch NORTH CITY OF ® R..Ai1CI-I0 CUCAMO\GA I ME: 'S ; Id4cc PLcVNNI'\G DIVOON, EXHIt3M ALE �F LL IYQ R-I-8500 % y tU7hbnE Mt � +tom V. R/-8500 ! i� Slate ! Mig11.q IIII r••c..q GO(Ecn St ' ! / Z thOl//�i[C, w.wwi I0- crtc• 3 - T -1 85C 10 O Cr- 0 1GRf U � ��• - 4.1M I Krht f Q- o o Afrw1 l was A e i � a 6 e wr wm s �l NORTH CITY OF �LZSoS ITEM 1 RANCHO Q CL'CA, �%/j0. GA TULE:srcf PLANNING DNISUN Et.HiBrr-.--X I E: Y r D. ENVIR0`^'i.\'TAL ASS=3S1S.*7I AND PLANNED DEVELOPM= N0. 81-11 (1T 11969) - KLK - A change of zone from R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) to R-31?D (Multiple-Family ResidentiaiiPlanned Development) an,. the development of 67 tow.-house/condominium units on 5.24 acres :f land located on the aorta side of 19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue - APv 201-232-34 and 54. Senior Planner, Michael Vairin, reviewi>d the staff report and stated that the applicant has requested postponement on this in order to re- design the sire to include a piece of adjacent property which has recently been acquired. Mr. Vairin indicated that the pue:lic hearing should be opened `_n order to receive publi- comments and to provide co=eats to the applicant from the Planning Commission. Mr. Vairin indicated that this public hearing would not be continued to a specifi: date and would therefore be readvertised. Chairman King opened the publ::c hearing. The applicant indicated that he would rather not speak at this tire as E he preferred to wait until the project is redesigned before making a presentation. ` t^.r. Jim Frost, Councilmember, addressed the Con.-sission stating that he k had particular concern wit.: this project and the 155' x 300 strip that fronts on u; l9th Street, relative -o compatibility with future development both to the east and west. He asked that. the Commission take this into consideration in their deliberations as it appeared that the density �. cnange would be considerable and would be forcing total overall density into that strip. Chair--an King asked for a show of hands from those people in the audience who were interested in this project. Approximately six people raised their hands. Mr. Halsey Taylor, who stated he lives directly across from the Hellman Street entrance of this proposed project, asked if this was the begin-min.- of a complete change in the neighborhood and whether this was an isolated development or the beginning of a trend. Mr. Vairin stated that the property to the west is planned for lower dersity but that this project and the r-orner is zor.Pd R-3. Mr. Vairin indicated that the property to the west and north is of single family charac_�r and that Amethyst to the east will be higher density as this is the `reeay corridor. He further stated that Hellman is the dividing line b -tweea single family and m+:ltiple family. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 9, 19S1 >F` C; i Commissioner Sceranka stated that there is always a question of compati- bility on any development adjacent to single family and in this case they are dealing with 4-14 General Plan designation and the property to the east is planned at a higher density. He indicated that as he saw it, the biggest consideration here would be density but people will question the impact on streets and services and what the project will loon like. He indicated that the maj..r emphasis in this case when it came before Design Review, were the setbacks on 19th St--eet and Hallman and they were talking about setbacks from the curb of approxi- mately 50 feet. Another rer•_irement, he stated, is 50 trees per acre in order to minimize the effect of havirg 2-3 units together and that this requirement is higher than that of single family homes. He in- dicated chat with the heavy landscaping, the negative effects of higher density in terms of noise and traffic would be mitigated and that tney on Design Review were trying to make sure that the project would be an _4mprovement to the quality of the existing area. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when he first looked at this he felt this project was an innovative assemblage of parcels but that he had a couple of problems with it. He indicated that frontage on 19th Street was one because the existing neighborhood is single family and that the Proposed density is a little high and is not compatible because of the depature from single family homes. He felt that this could be mitigated by a really good buffering system. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he felt the architecture was dissimilar in what is presently in the neighborhood and is a little startling for it. Cc=issior.er ?ping stated that he disagreed Lath Commissioner Tolstoy about the architecture and felt that this is a good project. He further stated that in viewing the configuration of the site and location it appears that there is too much den itv and that the total planning has to relate it tc the site and existing neighborhood. Commissioner Fing asked if there were any further comments and eralained that this project would again be legally readvertised and residents would again be notified of the next ceariiig *where they would again be able to cocaent. There being no further coamlerts, it was moved by Tolstov, seconded by Rempel, carried unanimously, to continue this project as requested by the applicant and to readvertise this y:hen it again comes before the Commissicn for hearing. Cor^issioner Sceranka stated that he would like direction from the CO=ission so that when this comes before Design. Review he knows what their feelings are toward two story units. Planing Com_nission Minutes -L- December 9, 198I o Commissioner Tolstov stated that it was his personal opinion that blue roofs will be incompatible with the neighborhood. He also felt that the innovative design was out of character for the area. Possibly, more conventional designs would be more compatible. Co-csissioner king stated that he disagreed witn Commissioner Tolstoy on the color. M:. Lam stated that because some residents were reluctant to appear before the Commission, he wished them to know that they were welcome to come into the City offices to look at files and to have any questions that they may have, answered. He indicated the importance of doing this before the project gets further among so that staff would be able to communicate their feelings to the applicant. ENX1RO.^'L`.NTAL ASSFSS= AND PLA%.%-LD DT-wELOPTENT NO. 81-13 - (TT 12090) - USA PROPERTIES - A change of zone from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) o R-3/?.D. (Multiple-Family Residential/Planned Development) and t . development of 128 condominiums on 9.2 acres of land located on the _ rtheast corner of Archibald and Feron boulevard - APh 209- 051-0 Curtis Johnston Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. ® Cc^nissinner Tolsto asked if the wall to be put up along Archibald and Feron would La of a b ck wall and wrought iron combination. Further, if be^ing would oc pro Wed on the exterior of the wall and whether, if he were coming up on Arch ld, would be able to see any of the parking within the complex. Mr. Johnst,)n reD_ lied that with t setb!cks and broken wall, you would rot be aware of the -ark I,- Fairin stated that you may be able see the parl-ing coming in :znm the north to the south because of the st-eel grade. Mr. Johnston stated that last Tuesday night a m ting was held between the neighborhood resia_,its and the developer and re was no opposition; however, there were comments on traffic, access to , adjacent school and the wall. The conclusion was that most of the res eats were pleased with this project. Chai^.an King opered :he public hearing. Mr. mike Porto, re;.esenting the developer, addressed the Commissi and stated that it was their hope to offer affordable housing through thi project. He indicated that Commissioner Tolstov's comments relative to hei= able to see parked cars through the wall from the street would Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 9, 1981 CITY OF P.AtiCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $187. 00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this ford must be completed and submitted to tine Development Review Committee through the department wilere 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 i:l!e public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three dete_rmii:ations: 1) The project will have no signi- ficant 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 informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT '_'ITLE: Ai.=+ LOM :MOODS APPLICANT'S NAUME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Charles Roy Cons ruction Inc. , 3431 A . East Chapman Ave, orange, Za. . 92EE9 'T-14'-'D33-033b DAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHC:dE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Charles Roy, 3'+01 A. East Chapman Ave, Crange, Ca., 9cao9, ?14-0 -�Jco _T.00A ION OF PROJEC2 (SStZEET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. ) 938 19th Strea,., AP�,201-232-34- & 51. LIST OTHER PER,'t1ITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING STJCH PE"MITS: Cal Tans . Cali fcrnia Department of steal ."Estate ,`C t PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 59 Unit Tewnhome Condominium project witn pool, sna ana C1uD. ouse ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 5,24 Acres : l existing, dwellins- ^cn�se� buil3ires — c� units with s_ yQ1"a:e feet total covered area DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : prOiect s' te falls to the Southeazt . `1% site is currently util`_zed for single dwelling horse corral occupied trailer, vacant land nredcminates . ant 1, n;'. designated as state hic th%a'J. =ast - Orchard and older rural sin,_e family dwell-in?. Sow :`h and West - mixed use of old rural and commercial- aban^ion:?ed sheds, aonarent decaying area, sorely in -need of , --radinP. ^ultural, Historical or Scenic aspects Of no significance . 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 enviro=ental impact? No. I-2 C RESIDENTIAL. CONSTROCTIOF The following ini:rvation should :tee provided to zhe City of Rancho Cucanonga Planning Dirzscr, is ax ar to aid zz assessing the ability of the sciooi district to ec.c f;ate t e _SvPOSed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No- :Charles Roy Construction, Inc . Proposed Tentative Tract -hr12305 Specific Location of Projec_: q-388 19th St Ranch^ Cucanonga A y' r2C1-2. 2 34 54 PHASE I P! E 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 "'SAL 1- Ntunber of sin?le family units: 2- Number of multiple family units : 3. Date proposed to begin. construction: J a 1 3 4- Earliest date of occupancy: Feb 1984 Mode'_ # and # of Tentative S. Belrooms Price Range A - 2 8^, 000 3 C - 3 84, 000 I-4 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, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? _ X 3. Remove any existing trees? How many? 30 Approx .X G. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: #'5 - Removal of some existing trees is necessary due to site conau! cns . .r�or snail be made to preserve or re�oc ze specieens wne e o � Te . IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next pane. 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, stateme..te, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date .3v ZSignat,ire, �� •Y;r g_3 S RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING C"ISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 82-05 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE ZONING FROM R-3 TO R-3fPD FOR 59 CONDOMINIUMS, LOCATED NORTH OF 19TH STREET, FAST 0; HELLMAN AVENUE WHEREAS, on the 4th day of October, 1982, an application was filed and accepted on the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of December, 1982, the Planning -�omniss:on held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following in'gs: 1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area. 2. That the proposed Zone Change would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. That the proposed Zone Change is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTIOON 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on December 8, 1982. NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED: I. 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 8th day of December, 1982, Planned Development No. 82-05. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Planned Development No. 82-05. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commissior shall be forwarded to the City Council . Resolution No. Page 2 4. All Conditions of ApF. oval applicable to Tentative Tract No. 12305 shall apply to this Planned Development. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8T`H DAY OF DECEMBER, 1:32. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA M BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commiss4on I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of December, 1982, by the fol?owing vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMiSSIONERS: L v � t In.. .4„ G:. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCPMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12305 WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12305 hereinafter "Map° submitted by Charles Roy, applicant, for the purpose of subeividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, described as a residential subdivisio:i for condominium purposes of 5.24 acres of land, located on the north sides of 19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue into 1 lot, regularly came before the Planning Commission for public hearing and action on December 8, 1982; and WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's reports: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read a-r considered the Engineering and Planning Division's reF •ts and has considered other evidence presented at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does resolve as the SECTION 1: The Planning Cranission makes the following findings in regard to e� ntatTve Tract No. 12305 and the Map thereof: (a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific clans; (b) The design or imprcreiinents of the tentative tract is consistent with all applicable interim and proposed general and specific plans; (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; (e) The tentative tract is not likely to ca•ise serious public health problems; (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, d now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. Page 2 (9) That this project wi'l not create adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued. SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 12305, a copy of which is attached hereto, is hereby approved subj, zt to all of the following conditions and the attached Standarc Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION I . This approval shall Lbecr:.,e nn11 and void if the final subdivision map is not approved and recorded or building permits issued wt,en no map is involved, within twenty-four (24) months from the approval of this project unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Division. 2. Trees shall :)e planted between garage doors. 3. Directory signs shal? be provided at each project entry to the satisfaction of the City Planner, and appropriate sign permits shall be obtained. 4. A dense tree planting shall be continuously planted along the project perimeter as a landscape buffer. 5. The perimeter block wall shall begin stepping down approximately 30 feet from the public right-of-way on 19th Street and Hellman Avenue. ENGINEERING DIVISION 6. A left-turn lane, :,eluding necessary pavement widening shall to provi�+ed on 19th Street at the driveway to the satisfaction Of Caltrans. 7. Installation of a storm d•.•ain along 19th Street from the project boundary to the existing water course across 19th Street, east of Amethyst Street, shall be required. The applicant's Engineer shall submit additional detailed drainage analysis for the City Engineer to determine the scope and extent o: the work required. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1982. PLANNING COl+94ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCkIONGA s; Resolution No- Page 3 BY: of rey iCin9, Chairinan ATTEST: Secretary o the P arming ommission I, JACK. LAM, Secretary of the Planning Ce;miission of the City of Rancho Cucamcnga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly jntroduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting if he Planning Commission held on the 8th day of December, 1982, by the AYES: COMISSIONERS: " NOES: CONL^iiISSIONEF.S: ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: v P=e C C L N � NC_ J G .� „ l V � 00U py •• _ � ✓ V LG r G GJ .Jw� L NN ~. J ' >.0 VG nC� C �O qy N _ •%r E - nNL- .p. dup- aL ✓ T -L �+ eu d c N -� o N - N Lo L L•_ L _L � y $rI :_ „ _ u P O ✓ ✓ O OV Crtrt „� iD 4G Py�u N c ✓ c p 'S V b n ` q G O. .G D x p C �0.y .. G L c Y c ✓ � ct-� c= N-. 2 � O�OtC o L�iD L.0 4 m.E ✓ �� L „m E l0 C pd NtL 900E j 9✓^ L L � VV q 9� SJGT O �u uLV C�VrGo Co a S V N q C O L U LPL V .� C C l „ C u P O j C V 6 v 7 d r r ✓ _n C C V l _d �l d _ q � uE ✓C Lam✓ u _ Vt cV -�- G� SC CV Y✓ > _ VCrU ( P V C O r ^ O✓ ` CLCV r- V L_ nq do o Sy cx wr 9u- �m eE NOG d- „ c_o .o.� v: E- r _ _ -+V u c Y E r V.� L v V uL aT. r0 Jjm _ uA To O94 �� rc tmE u= 0 °� CV >� ¢I Pw ✓ G n4 = y CnC EOL LI C q NC G VAC -N P S q-J „ O _V V lL~ rrr GN jdrp 7� C G� N6 < o U N Ch au, LL rS urn .Oi�i..0 qGi LO- r� Opp Cd I o t O Ou 2 P qG dr O f ^ NV S4. - � v O•e �\ �L - ✓d ^ q LrP d N 'J ✓ N O N G- Y S � q IC NO ✓J P `... - � 4+� U G „ 4 C E.-L. ` d S O y d P r C= P n L V O CM �,LO - C + v DQ 9� Tq= �0 ✓.. C1� D.e o G 3� N u� r G V P C M✓ N _ q u✓ VO '_^ ��- d Vtdi Oj C O G C C__9 L -ry N✓ Gy L ^.e LOC -_ qCq = N } O m u w q= V - l l y >✓ O i C V .�y T O O T 3 L`ns O !'� N. G'.-� L✓ O V-I I �I -� h o� C p-.rw mqa i �� i .L.=� a y �✓ GN '^ S c^ G •\ �� VT V r CCC•, rLr MCP NV 6P` Oy G d Ov0 r3 = C_ V y V` .. li . r rV} „V Lr✓ q O rUN I V V a C .V. ` � ✓ V L V � V q ✓9 7 M q C2 � vi O G O V S v V OL G �> L• G� � C y b j V __N O C _ • C r C r V N d v� C 9 C� >- L D✓ O T L � G N V O T� { C Y J O _ G•I �� .00I ONO OQ L- V qL ^ Lr Ougi MrLi t-�.°.. q �- _ �.L _L✓ O - s u• y y C C ` T N ." O I q > O G = c d N }G r O -� -. N rO V a ..l 1 u l .- O _ ✓_J zf O u ✓ L QI� � .On 2 u C u I 1 N •'C V O Q = =� - .••,N•'` < Jw c __ no T y y I rNL ✓ � �- uoc � } zi t_ Wo O 2 ^ S N u u L L A T ` _ C ¢ v > L L' v •0 Oer _ _ ^�,I = E .'� C -• CN�94 ¢C � C q� �7yc{' c�.0.. 7� ✓u q L' 'VI qC c ¢ m = ON rM� c is �� Ny- V c+G L� .^ G a. zi CCC6VVI111 'y y 'o n �� m ��.L..`r.✓ 4¢ .L+ r : �r a• L.. o y — v.: �' f�� j- ^ .n=Vew r-' n_ ✓� O � Z, CV OVC C=u S^ I r �\ ^6 Nye � L y OEO` N <'yq a .4.. oo-� OC �'� E o } � c iE r -1 ors^ Lu _~ 'N`� V ✓ »�� 4� v1 � O- C ^ 4 G N d �� Q Y C ��-O W O V P U O i V a y] L )•V '�.Oi � 4- NVS CO ¢ Nq C VO Q _ 6 y L I rq 3= L `�O LV70 •' � Z c. � c O c< it k.� '01' .._-s G G.. ¢ -.i .a �' a..ti.._o `,.+ 4 __ — Nce. 1{ NL.: je� N 'e �j �= �> o `o'=Gcoi o'eu = o� 'm e'. ✓rr� r_ecaL`_r aN'. ¢a FL°• � �� W '�- ✓r Z✓ O W N� c o v - C aV0 " - G VO N� C NO n.V+ �- }• PVC T�� 'E L, a ' c•vc � cL � a_ � _vo °' r u awo- `;�° c._ — ca M zz - ^ Z V i = t N �= G G C V N Q V N O C L u G• O r 7 g O C 9 L L V .n .C'r.u N L � i O v✓ • 1 L C� � S Z� � O L ` V y.' N O Cr d � C V �O � G y ��jj V� .i J.C I P - �•v N g V Y' y L C C r u O ✓'� C r ` C •r O �^ 9 ` l G V E V w C 6 G 1 L ` �O Uv� � < CO^ - MV_r. O q _ VV t -Vj O .r• =-- =O ` un O t N •CO � = qC� J- uT y � S > .Li. OG •••.-r. `ru r✓ .o = � s VG WV✓ y Oti- GL= � o � aE _ — "-'E �� o� eL =r ". ` c P y �.� v .� c`o �... - P v� P^ °i o c f✓j ✓ c C..� >_ N •" .G,"� '- Fi O ✓ ` L V C r _^ V N ✓ _ C V O C' O < G-=3 i N p u l O V �¢ �bE q `ter Lq '7uq LN = - C�C� ^Lr Va w.C� q✓ C - n y N� G O v 0' A N i O OO. = Vd V O✓ 9 t V.G.9 9 u O �J G y E [ y � � N V u C P - d� O c d N - tt c �d a .n•C o s .O.r i O✓ - Cr CV Cd ✓y � � _ GS•.. C_ C q •P_ N J L q ✓O <r ✓.=_ C fCi C N C G Lr -J =•a Or PC V L V C R 7 _ V _ yr _ ^ Cr L T, O n .n LO �A DO� CCV �• •� o•' i z _ - e P c a n L = G v. .- n-O r �9 £ � .^ [.-22 t •w G - r � - CN -� C. V ¢ LL .O.r � � a C� P� l9u VgggC q0 ' - r C _ V �_ > E "l y C r � O .: S O u 6 L L C C ✓ N r �� .Oir u O �• C G L L O G `V' ✓ � r- c... VC wY4 �� E�tO rTJ•n VF - c_ Fr �� ON LPL cv _ vG � _ � �_ 7r U q N COe� q0 N VL] Vqu� "• .•�} V q q 'J S u ) ✓C v i ' C ` = T n)r' O • C V r 4 ✓ P � ¢ - r yZ� � C GO C OZ 'J 'CV .-+� VJ•.• �� C .Cj 1 P .7 CC •c " _ _ ¢� V` L^CCq q aN` ry Cam^ � .� ._f a_ GV � cuS _ G.rCV ..- �a rC �q � Gq O 4•N C� ru � C )G•'L 2L r� rt C V V� .r C ✓ P C � N =L . q . ^L � .-« � � G v `= _ •N G _✓ - G'O n- G -��J 4 G� � 4 C-^ � N.. C �.r ) 6± G C v u L r' G Ti 6.1 ...+ J v C✓u O .n S V N Q N O. c c c P C+r L p� O r <i O V � C p O •+� p ✓ =gipp ✓ O C O• l M � 6i 4 w0'V^q ` c 9LG 0•G • F d O �I,f ^L > •_ r"^ c6= .p..v yyno ou q �_i '° b ` � ' � vl � id r V ✓ O 4 V G 9 L r •J N•u Y P C O._� J C = ` l V o D b "LL E p ✓�� n��i c c�r L.• o I ` d i ro C V G p d 4 C• N 2 L r,.. . J V ' Yl � I I n• � I �. C • _ 9 4 OY DON D VC y�G O �. O J LM O � .J ♦ ,` ,` 7 a 9d . V � � � 9 i 4 _ y P�w p y �` � C V C G •� • O �� I r � 1 y D � y C.V � r V Q 9 y� •U"l� C l L a. N •'n O^ � � N r C r N i T ^ I n r � N� u __ -_� 'c " r � - N a V0✓9 � � J. ` cook oc F 1nl 1 � L♦• �L,> • G ^ �"� :: m N p_-is �yN. ".. L�.. 0 ♦„ {.r � 44ca _ L :. Y, '_ 5 I ' y_S O4 C O L V ^l V L C ^ q y .. j q v n O=�A N V •Ji•D C u O C F � i •G..• M I I ' � 1 I ?9� cCT n YC V V �'' l 6i.r GNV '_ =o._v d � ✓ ` 1 1 ` _. � L �-> �s � r•n o 'v ��mc^ w.o♦�♦� u;L--•�' Lam• _ o � � 1t v4 ` I ,>.•u- V o� " no• uo� � rvv _ .. o e - a d ' o ._t t� � _ p VV e 4 °"'.. y � __ 'ao L L C c a n q 4nz ' � fFi N• a` N ` c v ^ r G " C c L p •n� [. C•D J O � y G L b V r 0� -I N ^ O O O q �J[ L • Lr�.r J` il O - �= ^ V U.� O G� d_�='�= •La r O � N `C -I q V U D � O L J t � N � 9F •J"'♦ �V � q.�9 � { O �dr Cr'J 6A� w.DB 'Jb }I �� �••V-� _ GGy q y t N TnN Va V q ilV>r 9 qr� � nV rCVT L yu•LCn yI Ad O �rw > C > O � C COq EGO F. NO q` C Get V "• NI £ '^ E q d .V rNR NNE Z VT G n q L. •O.♦ L r q 9 N � O✓ 4 0 4 g G r J � G� � a L •On� L a.I =v D 11 � � • �?^ ' �u`H r •^ d ^ c^ v x y q o- ��`^ p^ c.b. o v >c .b. 'd GI r { � 1 .T. > •`f. �r dr✓ � .♦ coa •L♦• t -•✓ qp .Li• i O✓ POO N mow- �J� `} 6C� quT yo P� GN � .Lail w^ „ ' V p I 4 .0. C 0p Cr . � • O� Oy O•r� VN V �i d G •• 1 riL •n r_ ` r q � L.> O •qi• O W 9 O p V C.•� O q �D ` r •n q C t OL M f 1 q r O T� � 7V9 rNOOV ...V1N N=PU^q Qc 'J L Jq �� 11 L LV,•� I 74.. G V q V V rrC N L p✓ G NVp� ��� L •L 9...i 6N OA�•C T VS �4 d C LW V U V P C= •w O ^? C a •J.♦ VJi O ta 6•Oi i O 6 < n V c. G M GOi 4 9 Y O r y u 6 N C A �J •Ji• G q D �� � �I ^ N ^ f V> uo - ail I � I I cn ✓✓ 9 ^ v T q 9 Cd VU PT.> ✓GU C U^ � � I � ✓� - �V_ ✓' N � V O � �l �N V � �n 9 � ✓9 �� � � C C^ _ r >6 O_ A w u J �.♦c s V 0 Q s 4 ._ r �_ V C J O '� 4 " uG ._� _ C } Y UL � JVr L•'• �== VL VG= = r VO O' •'nN rJ ` �Or �C .r�r•CS ~ 6NO� - =W N9O N q O bT ` C C � GC L C` .. V _y 4 r Vve r .rCY V�� LdE IN �rNy O O •tee Or V^_ V� L _ _ �c G ' d'jN F• �09 4V6 2� NG` d b . p q q 4U � QC L V r_✓_ ✓ n r a 0 O `r � t r� � ' ✓ O C j u O 3 V r rJ L C L�L W L 3 j C V C P N }� 4 C >r Z •n � C✓OU � b 9^ � OV V. D `r JYd iON9 � .r Ci = N 1L D9 E L C r L •C •n C♦N V.r n d ` 9 V C 5 G' C N L W > V r 9 0 9 4 0 0 r V_ y J n•=' V ✓ J Z p r 9 _ r J r ? > V L O U L 3r6c N .fq r r� r C d _ r� �' i+[ VC'`� T Z D C' •wi• NO• � V � .. �. V �Cp OCi pL�D fY 9L9 y�2 O�LL. W GC L Y Uq €N V. 4 VC L ONON '•�C��J � D N� L� O r �JC wO^ p^9 CL =NVC 9 w yE " �� Jlf r V •Vr• O J r r ` 9 O• b r-.. = x O J ,� V • V r^ >�� E^ 4 x✓ i`I ` E w � �G� � -r O C V q D r { = 1 6 0 �' L l G� q r V� _ q q C O ✓ L 9 _ nC r�7 pCN J p`L' p V � O VW rV q car _ _ •> ". _ � G"�• V M L 4J T U CVO Cb7 V 4` N9 M ` JOLG r '� N�� Tt+.• �� �C O - C O O^q O {' O I O N O (♦ J V D y V Y 6'r r .a. V✓ � � �.. G'•r 9 V q r N � V T .{a• A r • V N N C• _ { N }.G)O C' ^;✓ d v G N N q Li 6 uJ• 9 u .' O c CN • N `_ V 6 �l F b E U r. 'J r L 2 CI C r V 1• V r J = V_L_ � N N 3 C 9 r a _ < 'r L•�r C y .. > r N L d u. a Pr {�J L `: G• = C l`U. 0 ^.F` r a q r O S i �• ✓r .• V i =• S > G nc G�9 yOT G OGL_ >•6 N^ E^ �� rY 4 �d VL o � Lbc q � > N N � L;3 � cl q` oL ^r n` �� �^ i � ia" u � °1 � cc i` o � •w•o. .:.o. _ 4I _ l G• < V L p V C J O ( L O� J _�r0 NCOC rV�r N .. O, >�OqO GNN`. LJ9 DO 69S LV c1 N • 'r _ ' _ l•�V 'NUJ L N \11l � � N n L O q r r t• = 'tit lF� • 1 s r a CVO y � J AqC ' p 1 1 C N� rV _y ✓ .n Y J d� ~ r0. O _ L v C O Q v � Q L C �N V O J _N✓ - V � � fr.." O v. �. L V � 9 � T S ✓ C V-® ..• � "'O O L � r ��_1 _ O 5 .n= S== aSi w D W 2' C tv � V r 'c - r r ✓l l C �4 C r c � �' 9 J r-O� I � 1 � r V V ✓ =V d V l W C ✓ O V Y V W V C p C O �I I I I V ✓� V .n O .'W .. ✓ n c a0i� y V J O C O T �V\ i �W l C V J ✓ C � �• 7 L V .O .e O= U Y 3,O, V V .e .n ^ d_ G C w C C � 9 '-e�V .bi � y L ' C V M u N ` �I ✓ L �.T• 4 L n � L.r c Q v S y • O l •n J O ; U V I A i q 0 ✓ V V 1-5 > T O L= V 9 l 10 C ✓ O _ ^ u-�_ L /yr�'� N V ` N T 7 L � _ L V V L ~L L � '�_(r .v O V [ 2- •-• O L � \L I I G 4 „- V T t, � �- q✓ c a � � _ '� c o a = c c i }= o c v II mo— _ ^ G` u N N � 4L _ 1 ._✓✓ Lr F d � II � � � d � L _ G .J•n 76: CVVU pl ✓ L OHO CJ � V ✓ 8 C07 u r0 ✓ ' �� y d VL_ � O L �n .f V d _I i- 9 .L. N q 4 L V � O ✓ ✓ 4 J- V ry .L„ '^ `NAG COi _ V ' 6P> P•=w9 f9 C 1TQ ^W Lr q O Lr N4 w ^ � N C. Cr j.n O� Gn V LCO =VO u4�o LY.4. u < Z2 C1 N Iry N �p p q V Y C U I+ - - 1 C � 4 'TC ` EV Qr p IV�i I JI I !QV PS q-� P C q - C Cr9C L9 Pur P i y •._ N _ oo z� c ! 1 I ✓rt V �. u r .. cLL+u '_JG 3•'� Or 9 Cq OV Q ..J � X� I II 1 PO ^v =-0GV r L-J l` V 4 LVv M = .O Gl W� 4- Ql0- y C� _ C✓ .51e .�` LC � � PL4 c ✓ I dn• O r X> Si PCV 2 `W N9V0 p`y r c i= L N- �� j r •+a v622 r VL rC`� Vm Q< .. u - —d —G c -v E C_a fI�I� I •4• y i� 0.2 o� 4� � SIC t O u� Gq i C IO'LI ( 1 I I E O ' OLUr` V_cL LC Wy c0 Qy N u2 q u r V C 1 7 __ O ✓ C r VCV 6 I•'i1 � C MOLC Cw � Or ... � Pv L _ ^l�_ -73 V7 4 L E 9 Vr_ I O NC rL O C S`V '-"• _ ja ! q LVP ?D Q 1N � 1 - OC` MG �LVP C EV � NLL� C .••C C � 4 t6- `= XI L '� q ^ TL ✓ LOC LO L �W O �+Q Ni N L 4 J N I✓j I(t I` \ I111 q N CQG_y V Pl-_ O G C 15 Or qL c > : �� = __ = == M� P-J Ci rn0.• Ir~ � ' I I I P 94ryC S�nCGN -rTr-C W� ✓ y V~�GN _ a N 9 . `Q w X! I �d C 4U9r VGO `P ✓ P ` - C' 4 j_ V„VI '.' ` 5'1 � 9N C✓ ✓� I v L_W V6O.nr uC C' � rW d- CwO PM E t y N_ 3 n W w •r T N R Y p r 6L V- � L ti NL� GY• NOO- SV 6+ VI e V LO 7 V Y _ _ V ter.. O• — d V dam- .O .L •n n�L p O Z; q q V = I✓ u 1 V p O w r r � �.�. G p� 0 L Y•'O p e C ` r�•n 4 VaVw. •1. r �r4 � � Oul L CqC =— V C7 �. j CO V pC may= V wG7V .Lu. o` a 0_ •n V 4 6 �G T i� _ G � r O C_.y C p P— 6 O q U V� G— O ' Or w a — _ � �u G •nOL 6q V9L� yC '� TCG `— q w c � �00 � C� O'-. •'JU 3-' �_ _ r OVA �• GO VO Tt GV _ u qP O—G ENO - U �1 • CQ � 9 rW i N .• V VUJ./ L a' lUv1• Lq 9P r �,I 6 q VG f( p 6�rL Cr JLCC 6 S — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAc STAFF REPORT oi: iz >�� z DATA: December 8, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner i BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-27 - LEDLIE &_7 'sANTE - The establishment of an arcade in the C-:, zone'tn ocated at 9585 Base Line in the Base Line Yillace Shoff.- •r Center - APN - 208-O:31-74. Related File: CUP 82-16 - Walls I PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a 1,250 square fool video arcade to be located at 9595 Base Line at the southwest corner of Base Line and Archibald. The Planning Commission has prev ausiy approved Conditional Use Permit 82-16 for an arcade to be located at 9667 Base Line, which has since been leased to a bicycle r:tailer. Therefore, the new applicants, Leslie and Infante, desire to establish an arcade as described. in the attached letter, Exhibit "D". The applicants intend to start with 20 machines and expand per demand. The arcade is proposed to be located in the middle of a retail shop building as shown on the Site Plan, Exhibit "B". The site is presently zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Corrnx'rciai) and contains a Pup 'N' Taco, Barros Pizza, Baskin Robbins, and retail/officf uses. ANALYSIS: As shown on Exhibit "A", the proposed arcade is located approximately 2,00-0 feet from Alta Loma Elementary and Cucamonga junior High Schools. Also, the arcade is located aproximately 100 feet from the nearest residence (Exhibit "E") . The surrounding lane, use is shown on Exhibit "E". The applicant intends to provide adult supervision and proposes that no person under 16 years of age will be permitted in the arcade during school hours. The recommended conditions of approval would limit the hours of operator to no earlier than 10 a.m. and no later than 11 p.m. A pay phone, change making, interior seating, vending machines, and restrooms will be provided to discouraae loitering. Bicycle racks will be provided per conditions of approval . FACTS FOR FINDING• Based upon review of the information provided by the applicant and tFe—site, the proposed arcade meets the criteria of Ordinance 174 and would not cause a nuisance or be materially injurious to property in the vicinity. The proposed arcade could be compatible with existing shopping center uses with the adoption of the recommended conditions of approval . ITEM F Conditional Use Permit 82-27fLeslie & Infante P"tanning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 2 orty owners Within 3v0 CQRRESPON ,EMCE: This project has been advertised as a public hearing item -nd in center as weNlo coras respondence either for or all tenants wi.h�n the shopping 9 feet have been notified of such hearing. against this project has been received to date. ATI1N: It is recommended that m- Planning Commission With nconditionser aof RECOMMEND regarding this item- input and material reg approval is attached for your review and consideration. Re p`ectfully submitted, RICK GOMEZ CITY PLANNER C ?RG:oC:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "8" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Exhibit "D" - Description of Arcade P.esolut, Conditions of Approval I F y N. ;. 1. . . , 1 ItiIi1NW HIM N i� t�innuunll IlBill tllimlmttll �IMM �ttNltlli - � n � • +tnn ■ was I{ r Y BE "f lag: Cm Mama tip r �u nttua■■■ .aax■■ �dlli �. in.�nt�s■m m��/ ��C � �v� C :: m nnr■ .VyJ■ � _ :� :_ _ ,C t4lin�n. V� CIA 1 ■ a t. . a r. . 10, y - ,. t 1 I 11 f LI Ar Sam aL . „ . .O p I j �f ti 3� F 1• I � •i ' � ell Ir �j f O '1 , ft a Aft -T NORTH CITY O r, EM: GO gZw7Z7 PL \,NNI\G DIVISION E\I IIMT: _ — E,:: LL: r.' r '�e{.n� 1 M.S� M 1 � '�•� , �'( '.. Jr �r � rr+jr.. � +.0 GSM rt '' -y � �,. �� '•` R_,� � ` .•; r �. �v�y r 14? ` `I gywl y �.w. w ••.ice '' •:C ':l�l ook i ar - i� ra t 1 V �n A � r _ • ` r ti ' c _ Vt :OVzI•T7R 15, )982 TT: ':c-hers of t*le Planning 'Commission FRO'-:. To!% Leslie and Mi -hael n.' I • ante S'J3J._;T: Video arcade Gentlemen: T-_ is a detail nor a gr000sed arcade cperat_on, suct—.5 a es^r:ntion of the number and t?ces of ��de0 sao2ia3s or ct;;ar vexes, '1o::rs Ji Ot;cr•3Li0 , provisic:c zor food service Of mach-n,.Z adult .-r1o2rV_sors On dut?, ^r10r 0Y nriC'P.Cc in operating an ar C3de, eGc. i 0. ;TIC^i 03 =,7C' LCnL�i TO ri ±J vL^ "T'l TO D A ILT ;-i T r _*• T i� 'r Dim: ' S n. "� araans causing a disturtance will hale a Field v ! i i11cu' Jut. Th'i;; card t0 rmr-ain On file } 7 the OiiiC^. NO incidents a c?j ^.ricd will result ir. :Zing Larred Prc r=Tseas rc =-itting a second aist;rbance 1n a 30 rariou _ uV.o vista har:a : i have their ?_rpniz calks to the Jr=reises to er Un +, e ^rOhlJ.a cr rem0Pe that c; rsOn Or s3rzo : lrnr ' v c 11.3:'e iailcd L.. .-3 >vlato t^3 will tale •=J `+..�.aJri`.i95 ue c011Sd. .:Ve y 3tt?".^.t -cill he :'�._ t•� +.. i.Crr.' i• in t.;;e ma—. , C -tzted ariov ;'c el:i1d :, ocr 15 year-, of aFe .:na11 : e 'flowed the arcade during seheol ;,curs urlcss accomaanied nv Pn =r4.u1t arit'.Zn •,e. - .sa_Jn with a phone fo- .r ir_._Gtilai :1lth n :iii.. n_r_nt. . .e naT :, C. -^-ny chllci 17ki 'mil SC OOL .i tl 1llbe turned in t,^, t1le aotrOpria a schcul _rd shall ` _ ed °c_ a ___ r :, J __;� crd . ot--fi•c=tics of �,2_=r+s. 77. 1( ?aients and athey adults are always wel:ore: aid to promote this a sa cial evanirg a ?cast once a week frca 5:30 ?.i: to 7) 'rrxn n czj ^'-- free u"an <lccomoani-.a cv a chS.1d. i Nor, r° i®ia i:e rv! W �P G CITY OFEF RANCHO C'UCAM0NGA p '� ra..Jor D.Mitch+ >. s F-!! a Chuia J. 1977 Rkr2$DaW JeP%i Wr PameiaJ.wrgbt CEE4'S'FIC•2B Op A�?ICII'Y ' MIS IS TO CEYxilY that the aierophotographs appearing an thss F;.lu-File are true, accurate and complete reproductions of the re- cords of th* Citw of Ranh* CoesIR0052, a canicipal corporation, as delivered to and in custody and control of the City Clerk. It is further certified that the mierophotographae pro-cases were aecoapli3hed in a canner and as falu which users with the require- ' UGats of the National Bureau of Standards for pesaaaent mierophotograahse copy. I Date hot P ographed• _ �� Camera Operator: ✓'i��ix�/I �iy�.y City Clerk: is MU BASSLIIdE ROAD.SUC • FM OFFICE WX U7 • IRANM CQCAIIONGA.CAUMRNIA 917M • (714F l�18S1 AA ( n .,r area i^ the bai_'.irg shall be ?ro7,. 'ed as a refresc-lent and loir4e a:ea for ``e cons-inntion of snacks and to re13-, t_bles and chairs ::J lM b4 )TC- in t'-i- 3rea• he iee3 Of Outt, t'•.'_@ 1CJn @ 3,E8 in tii, rear was Co reducc the ctl9n e cf loite,i-:7 in front of tite baild-ing. c-r r_cn2 tc be Installed as a conveniet.:n. P '•ail'_ D,o _,•3 t^•' chan6 3 iT) +te form of •+ Gas:ir. or a machi:1a so rA3 nct to C_isi.A"h our b-, sir'-'ss no-i-T.^.bors. .n _ :Lt auc�!-I-isor will be in the location. dlL'I;i_ all us1^23a ho _-S. .+ b1C "..l'? .=c'.: will be - C"i'iea In tine f _Cr Tnt t.i0 � iC STia:, stall- adjacent tC tC!e aresde. .> . :rs`. aid ,mot :':ill C:2 :'i34nt?i^.+ ;:a a cCnven4..^.ncc to CIS custo':_<.`-. -_ _ _t 1T_, -3 1.r:ri0 to 12:00 �._. _11 = 71--.-. _ '-. ..ono onnx.. t:nra lC: to L 1: to to , •7U p.m. '1 11 5::1 :Cots jll 71'rd., -ianc:ic Ca:n'onc3 ''cn my iar'a T1h=zday a.m. tC 10: �_C �1•:'. 3fi;7rcays & S;Sidars -0 p..... •'eat- ?oc:,3-:? ''_-!�. •'S.Si a'? t's_ i'^ISs:�3 3.-, . to 12 :00 a.-. - :c:. la - feat c��ill _'_'-_ ,land .:an��-- t'•r:: . _ .. 1, C � .. C _ ' I C.`.. .�.. � � r --mac . '— � 'I �r � � ��' ,.a r . .. :'".• i. - _ � 'yi-:r a' c � �� '- f/" � '. .. t: 1�. _ _ .���.., � �, { � �`'a .�*� � `j' . ::k: o. � . - '_. - �. . «. .`. �-- :> ;'; ;. .. ;' � __ .. i _ i:. � : . ' ,..� _ Q _ _ , �' . - ., .. :. -,. - �' _ _ _ � . - � _ ii r �r ri rr 'r r rr . . - ' � i � �. _ j r r _r i r l it r r ` _ _ . s e _ _ � Q � �,: 0 1- 4 �Ae .: S '•t a �f a3' L y PESOLUTICN NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82-27 FOR AN ARCADE LOCATED AT 9685 BASE LINE IN TFE C-1-T ZONE v WHEREAS, on the 17th day of N w<mber, 1982, a complete application was filed by Tor Leslie and Michael Infants for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of Vecember, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Ranc"a Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as fellows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of *:he zone in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions Aft applicable thereto, will not to detrimental. to the wr public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the Jcinity;. and 3. flat th^ proposed use will comply with each of the a^piicabie provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project wirl not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on December, 1982. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82-27 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. No person under 18 years of age may enter, be or remain in any part of a game arcade during the hours school is in regular session and after curfew. This limitation shall be prominently posted at the entrance of the facility, in letters not less than 1" in height, and shall be enforced by the adult supervisor. 2. The following levels of adult, 21 years of age or older, supervision shall be :maintained at all times during busin(ss hours: y ' 1 4 a N Resolution NO. Page 2 1-25 Amusement Devices: - , Adult Sipervisor 26-5G P.Tusemert Divices: - ? Aduit Supervisors 51 + Amu_6P:nt Devices - 2 Adult Supervisors, ptu i ':n4'Farmed Se�,s:r;ty Guard 3. Separata public restrooms for mer, and wc,,�en must be provided within thee approved building and controlled. 4. 2n interior waiting area with siting facilities H .' must be provided for patrons wishing to relax or wait for ar, amusement device to become available. r' 5. Change-making or token exchange facilities shall be provided for patron use inside the premises. 6. Adequate exterior lighting shall be provided for evening security adjacent to all entrances ar.•i .-x5-erior wslis of the building where the games are- located. ail lighting shill be arranqed aa.2 shielded so as to eli : ate excessive 9'are or reflection onto adjoining properties or businesses. 7. Access to the gate area must *e ;riki the ma-n entraice to the primary use and not `mm a -parat-a exterior entr:An-e. The rear L ;i: S'+all bb rt,' cre Exit On,,.% S. Adequate interior clear space ahall be provided f^- safe and convenient patron c'rculation and s:ha'l meet the following minimum standards: (a) Amusement devices srhall be located nc cioser than 32" • :cm any 11211 assembly separating the arcade from any ,;accent building or portion of a building. (b) Provide a minimum of 60r between amusement devices and any entrance or exit. (c) Where amusement devices are located along one side of as aisle, provide a minimum unobstructed aisle width of 66". Where amusement devices are located along both sides of any aisle, provide a minimum unobstructed ' aisle width of 90". i Resolution. No. Page 3 E (d) ldditior,a: interior clear space ':ay ba roouired by ine Building Off ieiai, Foot,ii11 Fire District, or Sheriff's Department in cr tier tr, ma;ntain public safeiy. g. Two parking stalls ad acent :� the arcade shall b, striped aao designated for "bicycle oi��, parking 1-:ad provided with security bicycle racks to the spi-isfaction of the City Planner. They stall he � :alled prior to occz:pan, . ;0. All sign- on the exterior of the buildi^p or visible from the outside, such as window signs, stall require Planning Division approv-:1 'n acco•-dancL with *he Si_r Ordinance. 11. No amuse:^ent device shall be us?..; for ?,:-poses of or in connection with gambling. The -.,inning of :.yc±• !g of value shall cons. tute csmbling, except the .:inning of a prize in a schedul;.j tournament. 12. Ho persons risall be permitted to (inter, be or remain .n any parr of the arcade while n 'the possession of, consuming, using under the inf o: any alcoholic beverage or drugs. Thi_ shall be Dreminantly posted inside the arcade in lett-rs not ' less than 1° in I,siq!it ane sh411 bt- a 'm cp: ')y the ad,:-. - supervisor. 13. The wall_, ceiliri,. floor, any cslntination zaereof, of the bitiluiug or struc.are, c,, ^o;tion a thereof; _hall be insulated or othe --wise cor.aL-rucr^d so that no vibration that is detec-able without tip aid of any mechanical device or instrument will Le allowed to be on the outer perimeter of the arcade. '•4. This approval snail become nn'l and void 3f a C,2rtificate of Occupanr, is not issued within 18 ..ths froir the date of approval , eniess an e:.tension has beer. granted by the Planning - Trission. ; iis CUP shall he monitored and brolriht u�-ck i., the Plaiv,inn Commission within six (t) moths from occuyarcy to review compliance with 11 Condil- or•• of Approval ar;d app-,cable city ordinanc.,-. Failure to oomph Wit, Conditions of Approval or dppii�able City Ordinances shall cause the suspension ,f the Conditional Use Permit and possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit oy Planning Commission. Resolution No. Par 4 15. Approval of th- -Equest shall not waive compliance pith all sections of the Zceing Ordinance and all .they applicable City Ordinarrss in effect at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is granted. 1 This approval shall run with the -pplicant and shall become void upon a change of owr-rship or if the business opera�ior ceases. 17. The V -kinn, jot shall be postid "No Loitering" ;n letters not less than 1" in he,, ' t c:� signs to the 'sfaction of the City Pl;nner ::d Sheriff's D ,,artment. 18. The hours of u} . ration shall be no _ than 10 a.m. eqd no later than 11 p.m. f_ ar• ides located in the C-1 zone.. A??POVED AND ADO?TED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1982. rL NNING COMMIS3101': OF 7HE ::,TT=.' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '•' BY y Jeffrey King, Chair?an ATTES_. Secrciary the Planning Cunimission r: x a=,LK LAM, '_�:etar� of the Planning Coirission of the City of ancho +' Cucamonga, do hersby certify that the fore;oing Resolution eas and s, : ems ' ^troduLed, ,:z:s? and adopted by the Planning Conn..ssion of the C.;V ;;i no CucaTir. :g .. at a :-E--plar meeting o•F the Planning Ccmnission held on the ?1::• say Of �*c �VbE 1982. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOEs'- CIMMISSIONERS: ii ABSiiNi: C;;,'4iSSIONERS: { CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Gvca+td ST.kFF REPORT I � DATE: December 8, 1982 >, TO: Planning Commission c:il FROM: L. _yd B. Hubbs, City Engineer BY: Barbara Krall , Engineering Technician 4 SUE 'ECT: ENVT,.RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL NAP 7666 - HEDBERT HAWK'- -` A subdivision of T ac es into 2 parcels within the C- zone (A-P pendinq) lo,_a`.ed at the southeast corner of Foethili Blvd. and Turner .,venue - APN 20S- 331-21 � I 1 Ii Prc :Zt and Site Description: Partin' ;day "•66, described above, is being I subr••itted by .4erber�ins Co., Inc. the division of 3.94 acres into 2 parcels. Parcel. 1 being the ; roposed si,-e for Michae* is R:.;taura.nt (FI, 82- ' 25) which is also on tonight's a0a-Ja frr review. This site is vacant and is boundel on L north by w o othill 31vd. , on -che ` south by a single family residential development, on tie east 7y existing I residence and an the west by vacant land. This surrounding area, with the oviception of an R-3 zone across Foothill Blvd, t_i the north. is zone C-2. Analy z^ The attached jotter Trom Califor ,a Land Title Cwnka.ri; indicates that t.Aere is a cloud on the title to thr subject project due to apr•gre errors ;r the legal ,,ascriptions conveying Par-' i Map 7666 and Trrict 9331 io the soU�1i. These errors have resr,t .-i in a 310 ' --2t strip of gieszionable ownership between two de- elopr--`.s. Because of the undesirability of creating an unusable strip ;. ra.,d, is staff's opinion that this issue be resolved before approval of Parcel Map 76G6 an, that the 3i foot strip should be 'ncluded rithin '~e map. If we are unable to resolve the issue prior to the "ommission meeting, a continuance will be requested_ If the Commission wishes to consider the matter, the appropriate resolutions and Engineer's Report are attached which allow approval subject to resolution of this issue. Environmental Review: Also attached for your review and consideration is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part 11 of the Initial Study, the environ—.—ntal i! ' ' list. and has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and revs-w of the Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision. I y ITEM G fd r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF aEPORT Ervironmentel Assessment and Parcel Map 7666 ^acember 8, 1982 Page 2 Correspondence: Notices of Fubl<t Hearing have been sent to surrounding Hrcperty owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the site has also been completed. Recammenaat.)n: It is recommended that the Planning Co:mnission co'.sic:;r all input and elements of the proj-ct. If, after such consideration. of Z-:;; Commis-,ion can support the recommended conditions of approval as written in �. the City Engineer's Report, then adoption of the attached resolution would be apprcprcate. Respectfully submitted, y . L64. K:jaa Attachments: Map _ City Engineer's Report Initial Study Resolution e � x t. I � T AL .•I ttint■{m - WIM N �nn■u � M a',-,� �h■ u o m UP �� n■m � � o■ n tm Is .n i. ■yam °' -_ '': •:' - .�' -rag WI MI • < N ^ � N WI t t _ NMI 77 - y F : I EMU to 11, tz LU 1a: WiltCIL 40 j 1;7 JUi:: z uj uc 7 I M U31llmni I NOR CIL tit- t . ZZI, C,jz CITY OF Rz1NCIiO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - -. INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant , r; , _ .nertal Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 Foi all projects requiring environmental review, this form :rust be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet -=s Laktr .�__ no. later than ten (10) days `-_:.ore the public meoting at wnici, prod- -;- is to be heard. The Con-nittee will niske one of ' :.ree determinations : 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration Will L_ filed, 2) The project will ha•.re 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 informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE- Michael is Restaurant APPLICANT' S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Mr. Michael J. Toolev 642 S. Second Ave. Su re 1 : Covina CAL 91723 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Michael Toolev 213/331-2274 _ LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Foothill Blvd: APN 208-331-21 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERviITS: Lccal : BuildiL Fermit County- Heaith Department - •K PROJECT DESCRIPTION VW DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A full service, sit down restaurant of approximately 7,700 SF. ; hours of operation - 24 hours a, y, apys Per week. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF P.v-- 1 .377 acres w, th proposed new construction of 7,700 sq. ft. no existing structures on site. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF' THE P—=—E .7T Sl'i INCLUDIi�G INFORMATION ON TOPOGRPD:iz, PLANTS (TREES) , ANI1.1ALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : 1) Site is a portion of an old, abandoned grape vineyard or, a yra -tval slop down and away from Foothill Blvd. sitQ is bounden on the rurth by Fg thilr Blvd one the south by a_ Ingle tat,` ry housing development (existing: on the east by an old hacienda style resideAce of potential _ h;i � ' and on the west by ^ vacant parcel which is . in rurn . bounded by Tur�r_ Z) Other than the existing Eucalyptus strae'_ trees al{f^c Foothill Blvd, no si nificart landsc-pe exists on site Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? The project is not a part of a larger project. I-2 WILL THIS PROJECT: `'T'S NO _ xxxx 1. Create u substantial change in grclund contours? xr.,;x 2. Create a Sulb! tantial change in existing -'Oise Or vib. -ation? xxxx 3. Create a sub: :tantial change in demand' for municipal se -vices (police, fire, water, sowage, etc. ? xxxx 4. Creates changes in the existing zoning cr general plan designations? xxx 5. Remove any a listing trees? How many? I xxxx 6.= Create the raed for use or disposal of potentially iazardous *materials such as toxic substaices, £laammables or explosives. Explanation of any YES answ+ :rs above:� -aynng Fnnthij $1gd_ may have to he removed to accomod^te the r ntir ctreet widening IiLICRTANT: It the project I evolves the construction_ of residential unit ;, complete the fora, on the next page CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits preze,`►t the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of ay ability, ani that the facts, statements, and information. presented are t=-aii and correct to the best of . ;y knowledge and belief. I further understand that additions information may be: required to be submitted before an adegAa_e evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee Date 8/11/82 _—Signature �. �,�- !� Y2Z . �.�•�_. Title 4r, hiteci 4v=4+tS!1YaX, A5,Uid-S &e= s� I-3 I j RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Whe following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate the proposed residential development. Nar.,e of Developer and Tentative Tract Nc. : Specific Location of Project: PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single fa.^ily units: 2. Number of multiple it family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: Earliest date of occupancy: Model and : of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range ® i-S , CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE COMPANY 7948 N.ARROWHEAD AVE. SAN eEANAADtNO,:JALIr. 92406 TELEPHOP7E (714) 8863052 OR 825J581 Kay 19, 1982 Jack Norris Engineering 17662 Irvine Blvd. 07 Tustin, CA 92680 Attn: Dennis .14rcum Re: Our 05-105430-03 and 05-105485-03 Your Escrow No_ 19520 - Hawkins Development Dear Den..is, we have concluded our researc:j and review of the documents affecting the property adjacent on the South, and ^oncluded that Harmony Horxes, a California corporation, retained title to the 30 feet in question. we had already established that the call for 325 feet was established by tie Deed from June Oppen Degnan recorded July 5, 1979, in Book 9721, Page 1472 of Official Recordr. This was a conveyance of Degran's re- maining property- By a prior deed recorded November 12, 1575, in Book 8803, Page 1825, Degnan conveyed the property adjacent on the South to Earmony Hodes by EXCEPTING from the description the North "325 feet". At this point, Harmony Homes became the record owner of the 30 foot strip and the property now known as Tract 9337. By deed recorded June 6, 1977 (92001i630) , Harmery Homes conveyed the property tc Hester Development Company and others_ Howc•er, this deed showed an ea_aption of the North "375 f`et". A "correction" deed was recorded July 2.0, 1977 (922311393) , changing U,e description to except the North "355 feet". By the "correction dc�ed", Harmony Homes retained record title to the South 30 .feet of the North 355 feet of the property. Hester Development Conoang, et aI, conveyed to Wian'.✓ood Estates Develop- ment (except the North 355 feet) and the aap of Tract 9337 was recorded shortly thereafter. As to the Map recorded in Book 5, Page 28, it ..emains unclear to us why the map appeared and disappeared. what is clear is t§at the description that has survived is the one shown on our report, which is supported by the recording of Tract No. 9337_ V Joe Aranda Asst_ manager 3a151 JA4vw "os, a RESOLUTION NO. A FtSOLUTION OF THE FLANNING COM�ISSIGN OF THE CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 7666 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7666) , LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND TURi?ER AVENUE WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Mdp Number 7666, submitted by Nee-bert Hawkins and consisting of 2 parcels, located at the southeast corn: of Foothill Boulevard and Tuner Avenue, being a division of the north 325 feet o'� the west 1/2 of the northwest 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 11, TownshiL South, Range 7, West as recorded in. Book 4, page 4, San Bernardino Cainty; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 1982, a formal ap.-lication was submitted requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 1982, the Planning Cor + issior, held s duly advertised public hearing for the above-described nap. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been ++wd-: 1. That the mar is consistent with the proposed Genera? Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subiWision is consistent with the proposed General Pla%. 3. That the site is physically suitatle for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvemnt: will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or hare adverse affects aii abLttirg property. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse Prvironmental impacts and a Negative Declaration -is issued Gn Decemb-:r 8, 1982. SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Mar No. 7666 is approved subject Lo the conditions of the City engineer's Report pertaining thereto. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Resolution No. Page 2 BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK !AM, Secretary of the Planning Comeaission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and reguiariy 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 8th day of December, 1982, by the following vote—to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: C%1MISSIONERS: e CITY OF RANCHO CU;;;"- & CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED BY:�jP ���^ ({aWi inc .c _ _ Int. TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7666 ``/ LnC , *pp�;�py.. H ;; r_nrnar of Foothill and Turner DATE FILED:_ 812/82 i NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 LEGAL DESCRIP710 '.: a division of the north 325 ft. of RECEIPT NUMBER.:_ tha w 1 /2 of the northwest 1 /4 of the northeast FEE: $186.00 1 %a �f ;Pctior ll _ TIS. R7W. S.B.B. upon the mao of "LONE: C-2 _ Cucamonga Lands recordedin Dnol: 4, Pane 9 of flaps * * * * X * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * * * k * TENTATIVE MAP PREPARED BY: Jack P. Norris . R.C.E. GROSS ACREAGE: ADDRESS: 17E6? Trvin� Blvd. , Ste. 7 MINIMUM LOT AREA: Tustin CA 92680 MINIMUM LOT FRO,!TAGE: RECORD O:dNER(S) ADDRESS PHONE Her ticr^ Haw1<in� ro ?nc. _5770 N. kosemead Blvd. 213/283-0200 . Temple City CA 91780 REPORT OF THE CITY ENGINEER Dedications Dedication by final map of all interior street rights-of-way and all necessary -- easements as shown on the tentative :iiap. 2. Dedication by final map of the following missing rights-of-way on the following streets: 10 additional feet on Foothill Blvd. additional feet on additional feet on �4 Corner P/L radius required = at Foothill aad Turner Other_ X 3. Riqhts of vehicuia- access shall be limited as foilcws: cne drive approach per narcpl on Foothill Blvd. 4. drive approaches to be a minimum of 300 t. Heart_ 5. 'Iaster PT"an of Streets revision recuired for: 6. The following perimeter intersections require realignment as follows: RCE 20 TENTATIVE VAP 140. 666 Page 2 Improvements (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recording for )� ® Building permit A)*X ) 7. Construct f:ll street improvements (including curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidcr..ilk . -,nedrive approach per lot, parkway trees and street lights) on all interior eats. X S. Construct tr..: following missing improvements on the following streets: *including landscapinq and irrigation en meter CURB & A.C. i SIDE-1 DRIVE STREET STREET I OEDIAN ST' .ET NAME G� ER PVMT. I WALK ' APPR. TREES LIGH1 J ! ISLAND*, OTHER r7 � C'nnthii - A f Y V ; Y X Y1 Turner Avenue —X X X X X X S *lien agreement for future landscaped median island on Foothill Blvd. _ 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 cervices to each lot lnclu^_iS: ; _cr-iitary sewers, water, electric power, gas & telep hone.XXXXHH)¢ U11 UXXWX&148M. All utilities are to be underground. _X il . Ceveloper shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the relocation of any power poles or other existin; public utilities as necessary. X_ 12. Install appropriate street name signs and traffic control signs with lgca- tions and types approved by the City Engineer. X. 13. Developer is to provide all construction plans for drainage and street im- provements. Such plans shall meet approval of the City Engineer. _ X 14. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga County I-later District standards. A letter of acceptance is required. X.15. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be decorative poles with underground service. 16. The following existing streets being torn up by new services will require an A.C. overlay: 17. The following specific dimensions, i.e. , cul-de-sac radius, street section widths) are not approved:_ 13. The following existing streets are substandard : They will require: Approvals and Fees _ 19. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval frcm CALTRANSf S�XX`�36i5%�d4-CD(�(XOd4l6i(4(jXX6CD�L'dL3)CX�d�'dJ�' '%Xf�i'.�(�d(i(�{d. - X— 2 Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agen- cies involved. Approval of the final nap will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 1� RCE 20 TEI ATIVE MAP NO. -76fi5 Page 4 ® Miscellaneous X 35. Dust abatement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. _ 37 . This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. _ 38. All n-,ormation required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: X 39. Proper grading and erosion control , including the preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite pionerty shall be provided for as required. _ 40. A preliminary soils report %ill 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 gJarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at the time building permits are requested. When building permits are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, it; accordance with Section 66436(C)(1) of the Subdivision Map Act, that division and development of the property will rot unreasonab:y interfere with the free and complete exercise or any public entity or public utilit, r•'.ght-of-way or easement and the signa- ture of any such public entity or public utility may be omitted from the final map unless the City is notified in writing of any objection to Said determina- tion within the specified time limits of said Section. X 43. At the time of Final Map submittal , the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets) , copies of recorded maps and :seeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks referenced. 44. Develcpment shall be limited :n one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street sha. I use common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. The 30 foot strip of land lying between the south property line of Tentative Parcel Map 7666 and the north property line of Tract 9337 s;iall be merged with the subject property prior to final Parcel Map -approval . X 46. Applicant to provide recorded reciprocal agreement for drainage over each parcel . X 47. Owner of Parcel =2 >; to provide written acknowledgement that appropt•iate drainage anc improvements for same will be provided at time of development of said parcel . X 48. Conceptual grading plates are to be submitted to the Building Department for approval at time of de,!elopment. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY E;:GINEER By: RCE 20 s ,ry i TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7666 Page x 21 . Permits from other agencies wi ;l be required as follow;: x A. Caltrans, for: Foothill 31vd. B. City: _ C. County Dust Abatement District: D. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: X E. Cucamonga County Water District: 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 following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and shoi.ld be corrected on the final map: 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right-of-way line in accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamor.;a standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the "rst phase subdivision, to prevent the creation of an unrecognized parcel located 26. The boundary of the Tentative Map needs clarification as fo ows: 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. i Parcel Mao Waiver _ 28. information submitted at the time of application is / is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Mapcertificate, according to is requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. c Flood Control ("conding is :c-1--ired prior to ❑ Recording for _) 0 Building ) permit for _ 29. Proposed subdivision falls within those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the National Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will he subject to the provisions of that program and Ordinance Va. 24. _ 30. A drainage channel and/or flood protection wall along the entire north pro- perty line may be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may be required to go under sidewalks through culverts. _ 32. If water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shali be required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. _ 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at feilowi::g locations: _ 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will be require to assess impact or increased runoff. TENTATIVE MAP NO. 7666 Page 3 ® X_ 21 . Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: x A. Caltrans, for: Foothill Blvd. _ B. City: _ C. County Dust Abatement District: 0. D.I.S. Trenching Permit if any trenches are over 5' deep: X E. Cucamonga County Water 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 following lots appear to be substandard in either frontage, depth or area and should be corrected on the final map:_ _ 24. All corner lots shall have a corner radius at the right-of-way line in accord- ance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga standards. _ 25. A Parcel Map shall be recorded prior to the first phase subdivision to prevent the credticn of an unrecognized parcel located 26. The boundary of the Tentative Mar needs clarification as follows: 27. The border shall be shown to centerline of existing perimeter streets, or title explanation required. ® Parcel Mao l,aiver _ 23. Information submitted at the time of application is ! is not sufficient to support the issuance of a waiver of Parcel Map Certificate, according to requirements of the State Map Act and local ordinances. Flood Ccrtrol (Bonding is required prior to ❑ Recording for ) 0 Building permit for } __ 29. Proposed subdivision fails lothin those areas indicated as subject to flood- ing under the Na ienai Flood Insurance Program. This subdivision will be subject to he provisions of that program and Ordinance El--. 24. _ 3 . A r': aiT:aqe channel and/or flood protection wall along the entire north pro- perty line t,ey be required to divert sheet runoff to streets. Such flow may be required co go under sidewaliks through culverts. K. f water surface is above top of curb, 30" walls shall lu required at the back of the sidewalk at all downstream curb returns. _ 32. Culverts required to be constructed across streets at following locations:_ _ 33. Broad scale hydrologic studies will e requir to assess impact of increased runoff. a, RCE 20 TENTATIVE MAP NO. �:,Fb Page 4 Miscellaneous X 35. Dust abztement will be made a condition of issuance of the grading permit for this project. ____ 36. Noise impact on this project will be mitigated in accordance with the Planning Division report on subject property. 37 . This property is not within the present City Boundary and will require annexation. _ 38. All information required to be shown on the tentative map is not shown as re- quired: X 39. Proper grading and erosion, control , including the preventation of sedimenta- tion or damage to offsite property shall be provided for as required. _ 40. A preliminary soil:. 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 avai?ability of capacity. Permits will not be issued unless said certification is received in writing. X 42. The City Engineer shall make the determination, in accordance with Section 66436(C)(1 ) of the Subdivisiun 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 tore of any such public entity or public utility may be rutted from the fina* 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 flap submittal , the following shall be submitted: Traverse calculations (sheets) , copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/ or showing original land division, tie notes .and bench marks referenced. 44. Development shall be limited to one drive approach per street. Multiple lots fronting on a single street shall use common drive approaches at lot lines. X 45. The 30 foot strip of land lying between the south property line of Tentative Parcel Map 7666 and the north property line of Tract 9337 shall be merged with the subject property prior to final Parcel Map approval . X 46. Applicant to provide recorded -eciprocal agreement for drainage over each parcel . X 47. Owner o Parcel n2 is to provide written ;acknowledgement that appropriate drainage and improvements for same will be provided at time of development of said parcel. X 48. Conceptual grading plans are to be submitted to the Building Department for approval at time of development. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LLOYD B. HUBBS CITY ENGINEER By: RCE 20 u. -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMO\TGA cucwtirolc STAFF REPORT 9. I � r LI IO O IZ 1977 DATE: December 8, 1932 i TO: Members of the Planning Co;mnission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJUT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82-21 - R.C. INDUSTRIAL - The deve opment of a 223,500 sq. TF warehouse/distribution building on 9.79 acres of land ter. the General Industrial zone to be located in _subarea 11 at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and 6th Street - APN 229-261-50. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant, R.C. Industrial, is seeking approval of a 223,500 square foot warehouse/distribution building in the General Industrial zone, located on the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue I and 6th Street (Exhibit "A") . The site is part of the Master Planned Rancho Business Center developed by the R.C. Industrial Company. The property is I presently vacant and slopes from the north to the south at approximately 2 percent grade, as shown on the Grading Plan (Exhibit "D") . To the north and east are existing industrial warehouse buildings. To the west and south are existing vineyards. The proposed concrete tilt-up building will he used as a warehouse and I, distribution facility for shoes and will not involve manufacturing. The building has been situated on the site so that the dock-high loading doors will be placed to the rear of the building to minimize public view from Milliken and 6th Street, Exhibit "B". The office portion of the building is i located at the southeast corner of the building, at the corner of 6th Street I and Pittsburgh Avenue. The majority of the street improvements have been installed along all three street frontages. ANALYSIS: The project has been reviewed by the Design Review, Development evit �, and Grading Committees. All the issues and concerns of these Committees are reflected in the attached detailed site plan (Exhibit "B"), development plans, and recommended conditions of approval. The Industrial Specific Plan indicates a parking requirement of one space per 1,000 square feet of floor area, which would mean a total of 224 parking spaces. The detailed site plan indicates that 245 parking spaces have been provided, generally along the east elevation of the building adjacent to Pittsburgh Avenue. Access to the parking lot and loading areas will be provided by two drive approaches on Pittsburgh Avenue. A secondary fire emergel.cy access will be provided from the loading area to Milliken Avenue. The loading area will be enclosed by an 8 foot concrete tilt-up wall and security gates. The ITEM H Development Review 82-21/R.C. Industrial Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 2 proposed grading plan, Exhibit "D", indicates that a portion of the loading area will be drained throLah a concrete "V" gutter a' the west elevation of the building. As a Special Boulevard, Milliken Avenui: will require moundinc and bt-ming against this elevation, which mould preclude construction of a "V" gutter at this location. Therefore, appropriate conditions have been attach-.d to require redesigning ti+c grading plan accordingly. The remainder of the property will be drained on to Pittsburgh Avenue. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITEE: The Committee was concerned witn the 'need for additional architects:ra treatment (i .e., articulation of the building planes, additional texture treatment, dense landscaping along +he west and south elevations of the building because of the size and of the building fronting upon two Special Boulevards) . Per the attached .er, the applicant has chosen to provide extensive mounding and specimen size t. -�s against the building, as shown on Elevation "A", Illustrative Site Plan, Exhibit "C". ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study, as completed by th'* applicant, is attached for your review. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. Therefore, staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. FACTS FOR FINDING: ;cased on review of the ;nformation provided by the applicant and t e site, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan, the Industrial Specific Plan, and applicabie Zoning Ord-nance provisions. The project site is suitable for the proposed building, and associated perking lo': and loading are?s. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider- all input and material relative to this project. If after such considerat:vn the Commission concurs with the findings and conditions of approval, tine adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectfully submitted, RICK GOME I i c CITYlPLANNER RG:DC:Jr OEM F. �i; Development _ Planning Commission • Page 3 Att Attachments: Exhibit "All - Location Map . Exhibit OCO — Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit "DO - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "Ell - Elevations Letter from ApplicantInitial p 1 Resolution of • ...:1:. Conditions of Approval d J. y y 17 • y .. • �. ;Ilia• 1 , o •^ L ANFTROPOLITAN AQUEDUCT' •i• l Al • r • CITY Or, ITEI �I - s 1 -�..-.• per..��n I z SIXTH f TgEfiT �y.0+• 6 f r rrr +•�+w � /+mow �. ` �J/�\\\� �.w ter+ r4 L V T 1 Qin-H ary or szooz 1 PL. \.NNII\G DIVISUN' E:{IRMT= _SCALE- o•• s. t 1; - t : is u d. M ! V d -iY�„' d• ryTiT�Y i •. •Vn t �.7 111V • • S i•' r �7 1is R J.Ir-J-)— L i . LF I _r i is Cl EXMI"G e 1 UnNG 1 ! i a swLpv.G n. � 1 Bu1t7N16 � � t � __j L-- t•. �` +aC Jr,nl1�' ��l V 4�r ,Y��n�l�` S ; � �t-1 � !1 iZ`•I�le�, 1. .111 HJ`I:I IIIIII111� I 1! , 1� Dill 1 01 Is do '1 cl ,t 1 //� / ��`— i , N FUTUA2 OEV(•:O,MENT `I Qi' I1. -f� / i1N1iN VI(}V_ 4—^'. f _ !i♦S�-, \ // / ���F ; �'�� �..- is ,: '. : • J i� i 1 `/ It SIXTH STREET NORTH CITY OF, ITEM- PLMN KING DIVMN EXli[MT- SCkLE- r:: Li- l.i .T •� J I L Ll Ll Ll 1 sa L. I Aj ♦Y� I L l i ! � Z p, J I p 1 41 f- ` I I I ; x ski I Z I• s ; �D 4 _ ♦ °- i I rt� i � � i� f In A,,-- L1 - ` III - rr � 1 � �I � 1/t• 1 UCll � CITY OF ITEM: Tw -` RANG 0 CUG-kiNIO ION \Ci Ulf"1S'tONL\fflI`iIT:_ ' -GALE: Mumma 4- - &PARTNERS/SOUTHERN Industrial Develope December 1 , 19�2 Mr. Dar. Coleman Associate Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department Planning D11ision P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 SUBJECT: Design & D .velop- ment Review #DR82- 21 Dear Mr. Coleman: Enclosed are two complete sets of the revised elevations , site plan and illustrative site plan, as well as transparencies of those aforementioned plans, as requester? by your letter of November 22 , 1982. The revisions contained in this submittal package are basically directed at satisfying the comments of paragraph two under the "Design_ Review Committee" comments that were the result of the Encineering Department' s strong position against any access to the site from Sixth Street or Milliken Avenue, that would have allowed us to put tze most architecturally prominent features of the building contiguous with an intersection of two special boulevards . We spent a fair amount of tune with our consultants trving to change the building by articulation_ of the building plane, additional texture treatment and dense landscaping for the west and south elevations. We feel that inasmuch as this is a distribution center for a specific user, and that the site specifically fits their needs , there was no reasonable wav to articulate the plane of the building by adding in/out projections or stepping out o� recessing alternate panels. We did not feel that just additional sand-blasted texture of the building would obtain the desir:d result. We choose to alter the landscaaiiia theme along both Sixth Street and Milliken Avenue and tc add a prominent landscape area at the northeast corner of Sixth Street and Milliken Avenue that would be further enhanced by the addition of larcer trees along the frontage of both streets . 1301 DOVE STREET. .clll?E 760 1 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 1 (714) 752.5-15 Mr. Dan Coleman December 1 , 1982 Page Two As developers with a history of developing quality buildings with an absolute minimum of architectural or fumctional obsolescence, we do not feel that we could arbitrarily change the floor plan of this Darticular builuiug by adding architectural projections or by stepping panels in and out in an attempt to disguise what is felt by the City to be a rather large concrete wall. We should reiterate the fact that this particular building is a specific design which has evolved through the experience of the Meldisco organization to be the most efficient and functionally operational building size and shape to best fit their operation . When we start to change the exterior appearance of the nuilding, there are interior structural changes that probably would hzrve to be accomplished in order to allow the building to be constructed. We do not feel that these changes which nav establish functional or architectural obsolescence, as well as a substantial increase in the cost of the building, should be something that should be dictated by the Design & Development Review Committee without some in-depth consultation with the develcper or the ultimate user. We would welcome the cpportunity, even on short notice, to discuss this with you before any arbitrary decision is made in an attempt to architecturally change the building. tie, as part of the original team of authors of the Industrial Specifi� Plan, are very much in, support of it and its ideals and especially the desired environment that the City is trying to create within . the industrial area. However, we feel that some consideration Should be given to the fact that trees, shrubs and other landscaping material when given some time to matu_e can do wonders towards creating the desired atmosphere that will surround this distri- bution building. We feel that this building at the time of its completion in October of 1983 will no doubt still be the only structure on the four .-�rners of Sixth Street and Milliken Avenue. We will have done the only development existing for a long way in either direction on those streets, and we are pleased with the results of our buildings within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Center. The quality of the master plan and the completed project is a definite asset to the City of Rancho Cucamonga_ After reviewing the enclosed drawings, should you have any questions or comments, or feel that a conference with ourselves or our consultants is necessary, please feel Free to cont1Ct us. Sinc*0016ly, W`C� IiAl, I PAN ?roject; Managef r3RW:as Enc. i.i. �1 'r OCT CITY OF RA74CHO CUCAMONG,1 INT-TIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00 For all projects requiring environmental review , this fora must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Cor.:mittee through the department where the project appl�.cation is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will .prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Co--mittee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard_ The C;:�Ttan_Lttee will make one of three determinations: 1) The roject will have no signi- ficant er_jironmental 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 informa- tinn concerning the proposed project_ PROJECT TITLE: Rancho Cucamonga Business Center APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: R.C_ INDUSTRIAL CW!PANY 1301 Dove Street - Suite 760 - Newport Beach, California 92A90 1714) 747_SS1S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: James R. Westling - R.C. Industrial Company - 1301 Dove Street - Suite 760 - Newport Beach, CA ? California 92660 (714) 752-5515 1 LOCATICN OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO_ ) Northeast corner of 6th Street & Milliken Avenue it APN: 229-261-50 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: None a-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Site development and construc- tion of a 220 000 square foot con rPtP tilt „n and distribution facility for MFrnrGrn r r:._: _ - Melville Corzoration ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ;Lny: Site area: 9.79 acres no exisp'ina_stru -c ,rps- r to be 220 . 000 R-�lla•'P_feet . DESCRIBE THE EN•JIROI'.?^NTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INIURM TION ON TOPOGRA-PEY, PIANTS �TRrES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTu AL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AIM THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXIST-112G STRUCTURES A\TD THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SH:=ET•S) The site is- part. of the m-eter planned 74 acre Rancho Business tenter developed by R- C. Industrial Company. -The spec5 ::_c site is basically flat with a 2% slope of th ra4u-al Qrade to the south Existing vegetation on the site is comprised sole1v of qraDe vines. The surrounding properties are vineyard with the exception _._nf tbp 64S . nno se-uAr- feet: of buildincs developed by R_(`_ Tndn etria1 ('n�ny Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series , of c=ulative actions, whic?: a'thcuy-h individually smai_, - =ay as a whole have significant environmental impact? jyjl--bnnnF a aonnratP } i-J 11 *nB i i i g part Of Rancho rucaynanoa Rusin sc Center, however, it is not felt that there would b4& any significant environmental impact 1� ff, WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration-, X 3. Create a substantial change in dem-rd 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, flam-mables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand tI-•st additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by Development .^.eview Coammittee. :E i ANY Date October 29, 1982 Signatu Jo n D. O 'Donnell Title M nacinca General Partner 1-3 r;: RESOLUTION Na. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA'lONGA PLANNING C=47 SSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 82-21 LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AND 6TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE WHEREAS, on the 29th day of October, 1982, a complete application was filed by R. C. Industrial for review of the above-described project; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day of December, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Co=nission held a meeting to consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cormission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use 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 December 8, 1982. SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 82-21 is approved subject to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within eighteen (18) months from the date of project approval. 2. The grading plans shall be revised to relocate the concrete gutter along the west side of the building to drain more directly from the pavement area to Milliken Avenue. Resolution No. Page 2 3. The security gates and emergency access gates shall be solid decorative metal with a painted finish compatible with the building elevations and tote perimeter wall. 4. The emergency access on Milliken shall be constructed with a layer of decomposed granite and covered by turf to the satisfaction of the foothill Fire District and City Planner. 5. Dense landscaping including specimen size trees and shrub material shall be planted along Milliken and 6th Street, particularly against the building face. ENGINEERING DIVISION 6. Al applicable portions of the conditions for Parcel Map 5760 shall also apply to this project. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHC CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of December, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: x ti? . • Q M - V V V O a q q L C a V u L C y C� 4 C i V V q q V— [—" ✓N d 4 •'�� a L W > O a _^V— q � qq =S9v >G .•� e 'V � � = ✓ T }9Vq.O.r G O� Lq�� OC Ow O• q = — 4 Nw� 4 ✓ lG sut � �'\ STO V4Gcr9 CP L_ 4 ✓ ✓ 9 C.C V T N G U y O l L —` q r n _ — ' q 0 r � q ✓� E d� � L y fa C N g L N i'I O V [' a q r J b V _r d C � O V —4. L w 4 4 ✓ O V 6 a p' `O 1 N — a T✓ w✓ — O a V✓ J L J L 7 «V L V C V _ _ v _C 4 L T V y V w � C 4 V 6 J ^ �+y 4! E C _ ✓ .� L�N C O T C V4 4O 9p ^ LJ O OV � N� V q � ryT VLPV�r _+ .+ } � c i � �0 q •. ✓ ..� 4r 2✓ a— uD u Tr4 Ny F L Fy — ✓ 1 _ C 2 _ a L w A C C O r V g p t L W W E C' K V P r 11ff1 52L 4 LV C` as J S dOlpr O w' Wr u�bp L LT 9 p aLSUGic L � Vi9 ��i L C — 6 � S4 �� w •'C L 00 w_ T� �Vr 9a `C L•i py GC1r VT u u V N �✓ ��.+v ✓^ LO Gqy •4y — ...� Vl+ C 7 «j � c L V �b — COa CJ L — Ea } o - E \ L w .J. c ` O oL .. O ` s C.�✓ c` CLou •�� u pY ✓9 C `r ' ✓ CC Ur �_ «6G ^^rp « `� �q •Li rj ao C_� iJ 9 Sy Oqub OJ TO 9 ' q V�� Jf GCE 0� 0 VVUCaw QI Pw ✓ — O 9 L = V ilv0 al P+O •� � V�l w ✓r VL £ 4 _ 4= 4 _I Lq P_ L V J y >L «J LJ q w J V a yp j. '_a — V O wd Nr ✓O � p- Np QS. vOsO N QN W� LS r2 W� J� LgLI rV NTH �� �a � �J ``y C. N L VLr > CO L � o N. cc c I I I « V r V } ' L V ✓ O L C i y c M o _ _ = LOa N V O a M C 2 « P= T P q G \• ._ y Y T—r j r i 7 w..L- p i o r J rvL N C —r 5e s, c m rn ✓ a e o L � e a O� _6'1 Cr V ' u.3 OLJ MLA O _� T a ✓ 'o c JN •�'-.o GW u "' qce Jao _m.T+ COS G C d •a •`+ N9w O V — O � � _ V O q � � �_O d•'> L�� C V CCCCCC > V LO P S l � V V ' �� C V p .[ r J ^V P __ S C 4�.L a� e` 7�c p ✓ + Lqq �� L r � 0 _ •� � O u`iG V\v V < a O' qC TAM S6 — >O. —L � 4•Lw WCu JT ✓� �aCV S « L O E a q J •^ C �= ->.'.r. w c_J } A ri. nr. •`.p Eby coo �o ` Fo - vz a L.c N \�`•�/{C(� qI G« Cs d •e OO N« T fiv uay dw4 c L �� snO SV s C 25 c i f y 9 J O ✓ G > _ O O� C` `\1 V +• 4 q C `6 ]I r V L r O S a J q q 0 0. .n } C G= 4 C w G r T V J _L L =•Oiy L •� =« M _ 4 •. _ -� C O _ � C V' �J L G� ti� q V L_ r a q C O L C V J G O« G N W r L • N - V O r q q �' O l OILL O L yV q OV _ _ r y .K.. L _ �✓ Q c u L r C ✓ « pq C O O � F �q � 6 �. ... \ R r O• C L L N _ L r v C 9 N r-p✓ q LI L J r y � L r L G O w D� q �, D O w� !•w 4 _ ✓ O_ r j� 9Vr -•r9 L r 9� �VqC r OGu QJNLq L L• G' y O C C C ✓ y O U N V •1.:. q y �' U✓ It OI T� T LL c..� w✓ r L L > O L L v �L I9 V > � £_C J �l G iJ w I^dD 20 V O � � L L L L.•I L L C N V � c. O V Ow < O 00 V V OV MP O aL-9CJ C4 ` - L � = qr rq CN _ � .'= OL p � 7 � ` .Li, TC � .-„•= P L C q v > .. V y 9 6 u� S EL I e E � L <� V p •L..� -r•y r io` o � i �� q o � � rN, ^ of I o Iq a u a u?= _E Q= b i N.K r � c>6 L� b Y ✓ I• � q L � ✓r L G� G L ✓ Vr rN VC. yV D D y I � m y0 �� 9 .�.r .n✓ .,� V o }. o � T o• o rL• � •� r. `•.v r >' pE IL L J '_ `^.r=9 e 4 L. o=e C�� y N= CL•,� < L �. .L.. = c J : O _i, I•.. L 1 D ` OG ZVOr � c o �Lc G Gc � c �� I > 2 ✓ 4cu cam, « � �i I � v -�, =q L -, d y 9 �.4. ✓ O [G+ O.�✓ � V m O C [L' �� p C ,r„ LCV L3q any CC K• C CE r ot'go L.r.L. cL 14.. 4. vo. ✓ �� to« L eNr F r N z vOc s «� c r ✓ o o i:• iy O• �' = i� »p O c " £ ad � c criy "I E .j4'i z .n� N C9 NO �� O✓ Off• L y✓ NC CC?_ O •f � fr �CO•V CN Y!J m_ L G d r I O 6 G w C O •� 2 r r 0 q ^ u C• _ � •• > O 0 I cc r c `LL• v r r_p 9 O i Z � V O V Y .-`r V _C. N n.. G. O r r - L^D G✓ � ^� w LV V 'Y O 4 rC L4✓ ^9 4COO N� 4C - O R aV Ley O .i• Y.V. ' G V L. •y C P D G < d` V .ri. r 'v O T t V C�. =r C•✓ R✓ ^ ' rrC^V c � �' e 4 �u c . E :• > g.r-.� _ or °1 �w G - no wy oc�:� ��:�. -•� G CC 0 V90• �N LLLr Q V✓ IS...r r VrL O�r<.•r C�V 7. L E v y Nm - zz a � io � o•ob '_„ y c 'm a` �� c�vor �= c y k q -O• r q L G \' L� t• 4ry Lq y CO LO: O � VG Cr L Om D 7 L L y ✓ >. �4 R r O r � „ L �� �r L ^ r C r-L O y P C_9 �- V C O S< >•� c2 -L Sc=a _ Om. � O✓ V � y rq b9 ]+ >c.-_ = pr e � N c4 i J L wM cL0 =� aV`r. t E r - 9T L 9L O z:2 - r C r L � � U 4 r f ` V L y � G r L S O.G C V U 6 _O O q q✓n q i �_ r c j E g y q 9 c � � 0 4 9 Cur� t �r C•.� n w r O ] C L l .n N ODN N > q•JC ��rK r NU Vd r 4CL 4� V C' V 1. C O « ir9 �> .e 09ui- qC C rb � ZG+ qY VDr OC� CJ� � C V' _r ci n � _ L•_N �r L� qiG c ` L�'<e EII-_ i �vu. m c_ i � _ ~:{� car au q 47 w _ > _J O• NNi _v - 4 q � Loy✓ tN C._L -9 VZV w rt L9WQ C= Nw✓r VGY qL NN ••�•�O 9..GG- r N- 4grrP OYN e n_ L O yCC N >zrL ` : TL i✓r N •` L qV ^ GJGi CCI� 4 9r •'..4,`. _ '- 4o cc< o vq` r Di-_' b � :�e o 9 D_ou=r °� G >. i � CJ j > .•t .� V m N 4 N r w q b C� j P 2 •Jn= R C N �L - C � =I C� R.�i y'.G c✓ C 4 4 L L 0.9 r ✓j N Q ^' 4�.L•- v � r_ y oz. -✓ _ on e : =' .Joi: =�E Bp r v r O L 4D u4 O•r✓ O NgV•✓i. QwO. SO < PG_i. •Li•I COL GCOL ;ES 11f • _ . a u a:= o o.: _ oN a oc Lam= r^L ✓_ PL.L. l o c.> � ... "$ r_ ^ V O� O r ni. N �jS POt rnr _OV._. rir._ C r LE ✓ T d .. � S o u , C' ✓ O y r o ~ n✓i C � O V 1 q O C Cy-- O 0✓ T C� r V C O � 7 D V C C C .P `= C `:: G. y`p N✓ C � L V - L �rOi S r > T W C� aJ L•W L 1 r r r '-• ^ V - 9 J V � � T C^ L P � N -�'- N � 11 I u M N 'P O� [. �Of �✓-i L V T` J V P l� O.`_ D r D ��O'J � = G V p I I V I V N G V � 4 �+ P > l.• O l N N O N C � •J T V✓ y`y� r G C -C ✓ �r r L ` C• E -a. VO � = G;: V VrN i^ NC ✓r UutipT 6 _ r I V r � T•Gy - - -^ .. N � m< c, c o e'^ o . ✓ `c-'•o�v _- L 4�no__ -I G = I o " + . N r q- � r 4-_ W NI E � _ ✓ I �_ Vq oc� O =- J C �'.V VV p� �. _._ LL 4:L V.'-.. V✓ L� \^ .'n e ^.-a 3 W I bOV VO _ u Ll __ G _ C.- p C✓ DrCP Lu GN u Dy` 4-Z N7_� Y G> O YL u9P �N� ✓_' '' _ rOL wV_C .�r. l .Oi✓ c` O w •-_ r C �C � L.. Cp.. C•Na LW VI - V D ' � � -4 T � o '• C ✓ � �� d0� N Ur -' L. � �. COr W a' � C I •_ L I ! G'D L ... cP �_ LO _j� {l � .Ln O ... T O y0 � N..Ti a. d T✓ rN ^. L' .^i._ q .T. Y l. 0_ ••C G �„O, L � YiW OPV L4 G[L-�� NI L r O o u v✓ C:. r c u- v O V o u>C L_ U'.`'] E - q G_r V I7j N r I L .. _ -N OV � J r 'Vh N `O� �VO Nr90y q♦l'. n0 E_ � it �-. C i � O .. � VV rq O v0. L N O < _ •-.. p a. L N v 6 N V..L w.OE J Q I N i V i i ` 4` PO V_ N cn [.:Upr V QN GA •-U .rOi W rI C L � O V V 4 b _ C U JCr- _ _ r 9 HOC VN_q Oq PN_O r_ O _ CN C 'J - V✓__ S r p _ O r_ Y DJ W `•_� V d w.. �q� 4 N v�S � u C � O_V'. 7_ V mr� r �O_ C ., CV ur0 ✓ _.r = u L P9 T .[ G._ V c4.-j._ _ Cy= Lq'JV W F_ J rC CSC �,r y6V ✓ ' r r CC '^�L U� L - MmN ^. CUV rSV •OW-.- _ .. = E • O p C � � =i �- � >d - G �V CD ✓v _ O _ - _ _ ✓ N _ •- O.rrON S �.OrN d` 6 dE9U VDEu r C C2 Or J O _G v� r'J✓ ✓ O 4 r G� V� O V � -] V D= V 4 L W p C �V 1Ur O O O `= >O �-f !L-i •- - VC7 _ � NO V ✓C:` ✓V Gr� yC CC`d P_ N r _ Ur `^ ✓ .JL G= .`Oc � GL+C �W�O 6 �V- y ✓ jNd4 WL , C` Pr _r U' U_ .-n � ...G=GC C �ir lyL V rPN Lib [� _✓ V � V C3 � 4 Ol D D O C _ __ S r N tC d � C P�.n • F C C • j O O O ._ O r_ -NOO ~ JT >C�D K�l•O• W �-09 r� � -< ✓ 4C^Jd r _ - VN ^fV _ C G C V D_ C L C O' V L O P-.O G.� P.J C✓ D O V N {C M O O O '7 G y✓ � V V [ N :S-L-1 _ a._ -,L - - c :c =•_ d.P -I t„ oc �-c NT � r.�✓-� � � m - 1 � - 4 .L. `c- � c r-D P O N O -- O _ O V - _ L G C n r p u V V V O u 0=4 p V d •V..V O L7Z7. 2 �C i •. O']V r��_J i O .[ r V_r V ' N ✓ 4 E V u W O V J .w .. u C C L � � � ^✓i �-� SOS -- CC✓ OG V -ASV 6 N a� 0 V C ✓ ub Va.r r� d - OrL G __ t -L-' = 4 c G � r_zL�= :c.Ji ♦- G NI � O. m ♦ r • - S r r_ � L 4�f w C � _O'-• Vl p d `V�p O � 9l Nj}}jLL.. = �O Cr C 9 -✓ u L `N .n O V V�u T l M C � y '^ w O � P G u (' - I •4.r O _V. _ 4 9 t G yr O •.r T P -J C O c cT y I to 4-L'• c cP .q C V C V u 9� � 6 V � ''�L V •C •j O I V u `. _ •'C y c n cr Vim ` `.J O 4Dr d� L� CO PVCA I TV ✓ L� .i4.W O �y-i m Z V ✓ w = l O T .r0.u V u _ _m o Ny L A N - c N - - N j '• N � Lp pT "� L a - P Ce aL. e✓ :.`•-(' r to ue p b ? G- '� CO.W � nN 9p NL .9r✓✓ Au ^- .� I� T N I r =q `P p ' ^ N4 G G c .O.r O r V _J N N ✓�.y .O L ` V� V N ro 9 O V - ✓ O _ O. . D N 9 L v v L -r r -r.r N r C d C �N L N pp ^ ` '• d ._ . ...__ - ✓ v` G` „o, c � w P m€ c p^ I � .D -' .oa .L.r.� t o o p c L-! -a \-J O V I V� _ V C H C L •O S•^ } `i L C C I I O N .'V _ C Jn _ L >•i r �NVN pl .^ d y 00_ PUN G9l WO dT Zy I � �� ry Vr G� „ O 4 = ^ V N C �r t O G P rpr• L C O ^u T y O L _ N C L r b _ J ti� - N C -7 Vq 4.'u4V ll .� � .G�r NyN ? p Nd bT ^ � O I � I rW [ VV rP J, GY 4T L a l✓ a= V O � - P J L ✓ L � 4 N L G S C� r 4-. y G Ev Y C - f V Cw L } n G O= .J O � O G C r✓ � V L 4 r .L.r N C _ P •` p -o"•. P- _u -} T � N ` � _' � � I } _Da c�✓ N �::rN « (, ` �yG d J � N _ •r L �� _ mob .: " e -c- � Y � o✓ cT0 �.: � $ N _.=✓. �= = �~ I 1 I •+moo uw "— dio� � c_ —�✓„" c � � o` i o =T.pL. Nc' •N• Lfl-� x� I it i c� v NLor 4 2 O �l C Y N.O N y� d �Ir✓ I'1��'1' I = I w u L q Oy C r^ i 'V 9 (r � n✓O. y CL G� T - V .� u O V 4 r _ C O G �} I X� I I L 4 C .-�.r=_ S•t G V N � r C V V N k l O C 2 4 -r 1 ^- F.•dr P U t I I r .�" C= o rtir I Y r=i A E G ✓ O O P IW n I cm F` ' .cv --rir.c cNL o_ �r o cjc•r A- 5t - y 4 y c . r,l N N C L V IG- I p � 6• P C y=. C V N V G y (r n. V ` 3 •. _L r GI .nO Cp^ C' �� ��1- 1 I I t-W r4 - T4CC \P. rC• - yr. _ 2 V r G N •.- r T�. I V L C •. C E ~--�•-f o O y N N M= GNp _ G N4 k O.� VI N C _ L �• 4 ^f � � NI I NI \� N I W �1 � C � \NI \� � � PIu • { 1 • •7 . i 0 u Ln 0 G p L ✓ ' I V V� O I p � �V= d = C ' 4 y O .— ✓ N p •� d .a � ✓ n _ V p b G n t d ` y i � � O V� S l. s✓ .`.. OV .� � V I nod G GO �� n O.� Ov `n � VV< 4�5� CI _ La_...r q d7 q< �n qM ✓ LC E L�-_] O.• O�J✓ S L N �_ I V �p ✓ � O �OHO ✓L' J Op � PJ < C d ` < '•p? _ O _ ^O � VO O F t0 pJ P4 � N OGrV Y Y ammm .n SI 4 Y L r G q O Q c✓ 6 ey-_ -<i t. - �n oL � nm Oo �� 09 aOc O— � ' <- ` CC VO p ✓p Ld ' te iV Pr .� � nr�✓ _ J PCy c iTY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 2� A� y�l z �1! ?� z v > i„ DATE: December 8, 1982 TO: Members of the Piaaning Coamission FROM: Rick Gomez, C=i.y Planner BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner i SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A,4D DEVELOPMENT �EVIERI 82-15 - McMUR".AY SANDS - The development of a 6728 sq. ft. restaurant on 1.38 aces of land in the C-2 zone located at the southeast corn2,r of Foothill Boulevard and Turner Avenue - APN 208-331-21. Related Fire: Parcel Map 7666 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting review and approval of development plans for a Michael J's Restaurant to be located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard a--d Turner Avenue (Exhibit This project requires full review u_ the Planning Commission since Foothill is designated as a Special Boulevard on the General Plan. A related public he;ring item, Parcel Map 7666, is also on this agenda for your review and consideration. 1 The 1.38 acre project site is currently a small unmaintained vineyard. Several trees, including three large Eucaiyp' us, are located on the Foothill Boulevard frontage (Exhibit "B") . On Turner Avenue, concrete drainage channels and rock curbs exist. The subject property is zoned C-2. R-1 property is located south of the I project site with R-3 and C-2 to the north, east, and west. Adjacent land uses include a large home to the we;t and a single family residential tract to the south. Vacant property surrounded by a block hall is situated to the east and a variety of commercial businesses are located to the north along Foothill Boulevard. The General Plan designates the subject pr=;arty as Office. Adjacent land use categories include General Commercial, Office, Low Density Residenti0 (24 dwelling units per acre) and Medium Density Residential (4-14 dwelling units per acre). Although the property is currently zoned C-2 and designated as Office on the General Plan, a zone change was not required because a restaurant is a permitted ;:se in both zones. l r', ITEM I Development Review 82-15 Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 2 The proposed restaurant totals 6728 square feet, with a seating capacity of 182. Ninety parking stalls will be provided on-site. In addition, full street improvements will be provided along the entire frontage of the property (Exhibits "C" and "D") . The existing concrete channels on Turner will be replaced by underground storm drains and the trees along Foot;iill Boulevard will be removed with the installation of the street improvements. The proposed elevations feature overhead trellis work with concrete columns, large window areas, and a metal roof (Exhibit "E") . ANALYSIS: The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. cased upGn the seating capacity of the restaurant, nearly 50 perLent more parking will be provided than required by the Zoning Ordinance. The location of the drive approach on Foothill Boulevard is consistent with the adopted access policies of the City. In addition, provisions are made for access and drainage to Turner Avenue from the adjacent property to the east. fin area of concern relative to this project and the corresponding Parcel Map, is the 30 foot strip of land to the south between the project and the single family homes (Exhibit "F") . A discussion of the circumstances surrounding this property is provided with the Staff Report for Parcel Map 7666. When the situation is resolved, the restaurant owner, Michael Tooley, has stated he will incorporate the extra 30 feet of land into his parking lot. Recormended conditions of approval, which require a revised Site Plar and buffering of the single family homes to the south, are provided for your review and consideration,. DESIGN REVIEW CORIMITTEE: The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the proposed project with minor changes to the parking lot and pedestrian access to the building. Following approval of the project by the Committee, the project architect stated that revisions to the buildiry design were being drawn up. Transparencies of the revisions were net available for this report, but colored renderings will be provided for your review and consideration at the Commission meeting. The shape of the building has been chanced slightly znd the metal roof has been wrapped completely arcund the back of the building. The revisions will only siightly change the north and west elevations visible from the street, but should improve the rear of the building. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Part I of the Initial Study, as completed by the applicant., is provided for your review and consideration. Staff 'pus completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment and found no a6-4erse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. If the Commission concurs with such findings, issuance of Negative Declaration would be it order. Development Review 82-15 Planning Commission Agenda December 8, 1982 Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDING: This use, as well as the proposed building design and site plan, is in accordance with the objectives of the General Plar. and Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the :ise together with the reconm:�ended conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the public or properties in the immediate vicinity. RECOKKENDAT10N: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of this project. If aft3r s.ich consideration the Commission can support the facts for finding and the recta mended conditions of approval, adoption of the attached Resolution would be appropriate. spectfuliySubmitted, Roe RICKrGOM: CITY PLANNER r t RG:CJ:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Zoning and General Plan Exhibit "8" - Existing Site Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "Do - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Architectural Elevations Exhibit "F" - Parcel Map 7666 Part I Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions g-3 rl I�IG�2 I , ------ 7v - iM �ll I I ZI �� 1 -!G-Z R-R i 4 R-3 GENERAL PLAN •••e• • . . . . . a • • • — �-� COMMERCIAL-, • • • DIV •:- �/ • a • + .• • • • . •fG• �� • ire LOiAt Of•• . . . . . . . •J�i • ••••• 40000 s o • • • • + . w • • • • • — ••f••• S • �w • • •0.O••e f /\ 09000 • • • • • • • • O • • ••••O•• S ]/ �J • • i • 0000 e J • •�• •••••• ' NORTH CT TY OF rrE> i- .� R:L _NCIHO CUC NIO\GA Tr.-LE: a-*4 v� 4. rLLNNING ai'\ Lsio*\' C HIW: „• Y SC_aLE- M-T_s. IOT/YL,, _ ,—�Ct FOOTHILL BL .VB9'o5.3D-E i _!__i�—•-2- N•`7.fS' I-'e-. 7 i� �iT- �I 'I_ Nn•Y ro'�Y..rl _ -- T- ei� � „ .fg• � --0-- �L —"L--f Party 9 n 4441 hh + I { " �I¢i I 9Cc 8PCC LINE \\ / i�i 9 PARCEL t f N ---- 1•� i-' j[/� r � / i.3B AC2ES�+YET i a/ � � / � •-JQ PIN866 STQUCTJ 6E e +� OLAN 2 �� F0e Ce O/N6 a Rls FARV i I 44• 1 �.-``- --+y—'�•r n. �N —+�SLf!/wE N'7bE.vLY 32'3�NZY U.VEa —ow •`f% ty`1f� V&91/9.32'w t �� f OTS:C'E� •BY ✓ /DES TA _2 H27- NORTH �.. • �� ! �j47 ' f.�� �ZC�"[ret�j CITY OF 40 RANCHO CL C NIONGA T=: �K� �� �m PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT- +rg;, SCALZ-- t•- q. J. ,g.;i ��tV Vw Nt[M•-YS 1\ ,.. � - MtG�d.►_v �15 cCl3'l.IJC41v: _lr_ v:___ �- .ia' 6 G 1 I I1 �� •_ a� ( :r•..o-:c.�•-+.ate. 1Ji-� 9 I c• ICRTH CITY OF rre�t. �z- is RA CI-10 CUCr1MO GA Trrm nr,�; z�o se-re fLAm PLtVNNING DIVISIOONT E\HIBdT= c-" SCALF= tdTs- f-. f,. TJ' R< a Alm Mf ��ry, � �t@1i !►��s�! if����� r11,'1r�q�y.^ .t,rouy � 1"IF It NKEKT ti.1Cr,,.d r• -� •JJ7 - �' .. J \ �' it a z � .,R � k 1 Ift 1 z VNEms � Fes;.. ,a „� „�� :i. t _ _:•.. now 4 1 2 'v • �. ` . � ;;' , I c t_i it i"I' �. r n - :,t ` :c, t+. .. a ,. i , . . '.. \`.. ..R... .. . 5� �' •.r•. a• TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 7666 r w en v+•oo oe•e�y tew�a w step mtt a�e0ere� PARCELS 4.37L ACRES JACK P. NORR18 ROE tEUE •��w I I Y•s N.. I A�.a •�..:. I s...• I FOOTHHALLL dLYD.;' !� (STATE HWY 00) � ILI 1�—'I���� s a._ • '- t •ate s____ .�� �...�. ! 1 TRa�T. r.�... l rrr I r.�,.. � .�..r��l.w.�a i�.•...... 1 rp; - r--.---- � :y1�Lj��'�j(�1L��➢.,,. f� 1' �M+ o um�..m•r.a v ovevs`. oe•i: � _ eitwo..rr w�•..+.aslra _�M t!ll"✓'•cw ,�.'dC l , , tl • � e+v� C�aa.rra�¢asvn IOO:hVI�li!/RRO Jam" y "no �`�'Ij�Y G� C.•000 ConaCn 1 ev m�acrie•. V v NORTH CII Y :0r ITE.%t: : �s RANCI-1-0 CUCALiNIO\GA, Tnu- a, MAp PL%,,,NNING DIVISION SCALE-ITS - ® CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY cAR'i 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 through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Envi=onmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Iriti%:l Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at w_-ich time the project is to be haard. The Committee %fill make one of three determinations : 1) The project will have no signi- ficant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2; The project w-41-1 nave a signifit;--nt environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the appl-icant giving further informa- tion concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Michael its Restaurant _ APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS , TELEPHONE: Mr. Michael J Toolev- 642 S. Second Ave Suite t : Covira CAL 91723 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON -20 BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Michael Tool ev 213/'131-2274 LOCATION C7 PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS P%ND R-SESSOR PARCEL iv'O. ) E Foothill, Blvd: ;,?!J 203-311-21 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGT.ONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY _ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Local : Building Permit County: Health DePa-tment �' i-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A full service, sit down rep aurant of appr--.;mately 7,750 SF. ; -hours of operation - 24 hours daily, I days per week. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXITING -ND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 1 .377 acres with proposed new construction of 7,700 sq. ft. no existing structures on sife. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFOR*4ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH 1, 3CESSAR`_' SHEETS) : 1) Site is a portion of an old, abandoned grape vineyard on a grar luil slop down and away from Foothill Blvd site is bounded on the Worth by Foothill Blvd on the south by a single family housing development (existing: on the east by an old hacienda style residence of potential historic d on the west by a vacant bounded by Turngr. 2) Other than. the Axisting Eucalyptus street tr-es along Foothill Blvd. no significant landscape exists on site Is lie 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? The project is not a part of a larger project. a: 1-2 Y: WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO _ xxxx 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? _ xxxx 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise cr vibration? rxxx 3. Create a substantial change in demand- for municipal services (police; fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ? xxxx 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? xxx 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? 7 i xxxx 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:-o, x_g iscincZEuralvptus A nna Fnorhill alvdmav have to bp rp moved to atcomodate the recuired _ idpnina IMPORTILNT: 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 his initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submil-ted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date 8/77/82 Signature Title_ Architect �tit�M�1�a'tttd j�13ot[ts �-i�Gs I- . RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school district to accommodate t.`%e proposed residential development. Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No. : Specific Location of Project: PHASE, I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL 1. Number of single family units : 2. Number of multiple family units: 3. Date proposed to begin construction: 4. Earliest date of occupancy: Model u am # of Tentative 5. Bedrooms Price Range I-4 RESOLU" ION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO ':UCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REViE4 NO. 82-15 LOCATED A- THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOGTHIU. BOULEVARD AND TURNER AVENUE IN THE C-2 ZONE 'WHEREAS, on the 8th day of August, 1982, a complete applicatic 1 was filed by McMun-ay/Sands Associates fir review of the above-described pr( ject; and WHEREAS, on the 8th day ,f December, 1982, the Rancho Cucanonga Planning Cpmaission held a meeting t ) consider the above-described project. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resol5 >_d as follows: SECTION 1: That the following can be met: 1. That the proposed Ise is in accord with the objectives o'i the Zon ng Ordinance and the purposes of the zone in which tie use is proposed; and ® 2. That the proposed use: together with the conditions applicable thereto, w- 11 not be detrimental to the public health, saFety , or welfare, or materially injurious to Hropert es or improvements in the viciniiy; znd 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisi -ins of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. That the proposed groiect is consistent with the General Plan. SECTION 2: That this proje :t will not create adverse impacts n the environment and that a Negative Decla •ation is issued on December 8, 198 . SECTION 3: That Developr,K,,+. Review No. 82-15 is approved subf -t to the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions: PLANNING DIVISION 1. A revised site plan incorporating the 30' strip of land, south of the iroject boundary into the restaurant parking sl, ;ll be submitted to the Planning Division for review anal approval prior to issuanne of building peraits. Resolution No. Page 2 2. Tc buffer the single family houses south of the restaurant, the block wall behiro the homes shall be increased in height a micimum of six (5' ) feet above the finish grade of the parking lot. Written approval from the none owners shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, ten (10) feet of dense landscaping, including trees Z,sd thorny shrubs shall be provided on the north side of said walls . 3. The final iandscape and irrigation plan submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits shall include numerous trees along the street frontages, in front of the loading area, ar.d the south elevator. 4. One additional finger planter with an outside diaaersion of 5' shall be provided midway down the row (-f parking stails along the east property line. Cempact car stalls may be used so a parking space will not be lost. ENGINEERING DIVISION 5. Tre developer shall nat obtain a building permit until the parcel msp is recorded, and the disposition of the 30' strip of land south of the site is resolved. 6. The drainage facility required as per Standard Cordi :ion K-1 mast al-so provide for drainage from Parcel: 2, to .he east, .o drain to Turner Avenue. !APPROVED ;VID ADOPTED THIS 87i DAY OF DECEMBER, 1982. PLA?:NINE CLWiISSION OF THE CITY OF RAf-CHO CUCAMONGA BY- J�:ffrey Kiig, Chapman ATTEST: Secretary oil :he Planning Commissinn Resolution No. Page 3 I, JACK LAM, Senretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do herEby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly i troduced, Messed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonyz, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of December, I932, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSI 'NERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i 1 - r O -l• LJ O L V G Cr V V Of• C^ q _ _O wVT T - .� 4 r. T � l C� L �•-J L C O l G '. � � � ' r �c '�✓ � u cut `ao O r 6 4 .n T ✓ q Y 9 v0 q _ G U` L T C• J M L r O O VgJI L ✓ �C-rl >.n T \G VV� C L- O_ r u 4 A C'�` J T N O �T i N V � O u d �� - ✓.) d- _ -f n T C �_ C V � J V L r w D u_ q Y•J G C A C q C S Q 4 V S D C L ✓ ` O T A J D l V V G �i r G G� 4 V ✓ O � �4 - P- C in O q r N C ` L C p 6 G J9� -J N - N Q q y j✓ N r y q V' A q 4 V C � _ ✓ V � j J - Dd TNC1G � Vw � �VZ d '� O Jam- ONp✓< n YC Co r o M !lv L G -G . - '� > L Q .\v ✓ S c N Ld a.J..o. - 4 � G J `o 0 o' . A c :-.>? � pL bum G_✓ : ._e a r 9 V M Ldb G G✓ ^ ELV � 9V r �� � up �p r -_-J dl JL ± r.-L� O VV C� �rV iy >• LP c L O 9 O _ r ✓ _A Dar V � q 7�• N b D G n u O N L 9 G J c qG y�'yr � ✓W G4 >. L 7 Ii3 L � S c ` L .� _ O � y 1y �. eG a �G aNi _�D d � C �r� �G L✓ c•u -- E F ` u.L... CO0 o E > D d: _ E c O Cq V O G G N _ G � N L L V r � S g q G O ✓ Y q > C G r n O �= L_P 4 � N u NJ j= d r Ar q =y'= A DL ✓ GO Gv•"• L Vie 79 � J ! �� CC V N ay✓t"r - •00 CS �qr � [CQ � �- vL ql Iz 10 0o N ` r� V LA = G� GJ 9tr 09 OOV q4 Lr✓ L` 4LCV NI ✓ V V > C N � ✓L � 7Y Ea �� ✓jV r.'n0 ` N✓ ^ O✓ C V� y� G` is9 � V V- d 21 Nd ^ K 6t N � V V✓ C M✓ NOG YV� ✓ y�O L ✓:aG N OG O 4 GrVV r✓ � q ' d7c 4tY• f� GI PN L> Vq � u yJ > u✓ Vl VV TO CCrt��u u= Eqr 9w. wG ^C^ OL it �9 [ O V 4 V =n L C r L V 2 O G D =4 V L u ✓✓� � _V d L G �� � A y6 A - _� G O l O•r r � w v r �V _ _ rO V J YSC -� VV 4V wy N4 `✓ ✓ r ✓C✓O VI G L U= Lc t L, G` L Y NZ✓ r � r 11 O p 117. 1 I 1 ^_ OV A � C q V ✓ J r_ b� V 1 I L C V O'• S O V O �-J L: G C I I j 9 i I I N ✓ O v ` Z � r `� d C L � L C r T L V d i m P v L ^ r ✓ i' t � G � NN A Nf Cw A�•N = A � =i T� G _ n I I ✓� �. r e� • 7 b G - A L w P G 1 I ti dl _✓i � GN �_q rm -� � LTG €V C- =�= } NG 11 � y O u c -o o L J =' ,t`� O yam �=• FE c i� � o Z AC VC M9 O "C"� tP ✓== P� v6 l' -� C i 1 V qy R= ^= rC YO• N � N�� T40 =r DN -.J V:Epp = qN u 1 � .`.. ✓' c= uL„- ^^ Md cJ� JCG - ✓i � L '� p ' � � ♦�-' r = L� q q f- V � - � u D r F a C L n V > ✓ cViC� r N✓ G 6 VO Y6 ZA NrOr OVL] Q1 = JC Oyb 0��1� F, C C UL >RR z L 41 O _r L d ✓ C u 4 M C O l- q 6 ~ O L A L N_ O L J i G r q V _wrNL AO ray C � C r✓ _ Gu q >y=I C �O �� N O- 9 ^ Mtl✓ i - > Y`•y f -9 _ 4�; d f ZEq1 q q i Nq✓ O y I r G I A J `d r N d D r O V O- ` ✓ D V N G G~ V C O fj 48 rOoC�P mCol NLOi��AC` V`G=�r-Jlr�°�' `VOM qjL> =�GqO L�q�b✓✓l.NVL, .MA0i..OAt:-r'NO w=AO.LUNLw -LcOv2 nLJ A CL G- G= t s- •LG`I_•i-imOI>`• r✓'==amL-✓CFw TrV-LV., 9-NrJ pi_pJ MJ•"O ' O N� Lq� <r✓ �L•2 r > M 6ti Z.5 6✓:S rwp_ •L4J <C] Nw w -• N < J ► C� Vy I �i •1 P C 1 = _ i� Tl 4 ••I I C � J •r e O O Y -f✓ G � r u� -~ Y u =� - eM 'J' L = v - j I CO G -JL O � v - ✓ V~`9 V LS -=� — a C -- 7— C G .0.. � '? I•^ U > u L O� C.0 O L c .. - C d D o .N•• � � Ip •' �4 �l L D�L -. -• r .. L c r _V „`. c + '_' G c. � � r, ` - c it rP .•o J- ]/I _ L O r D ✓ .C.. T 1 L d _v ��O L � 4 O J N✓.+C O �{L'•'I _ _V S T cfi .,, m c > c I Lc ._ L cau c ✓' u2 . < o •`+ < L O � Y e U V N G q C�• M r d q C .a• .. n C v r e.L.• L [r.. C ' T L- 0 0 0 � ? G2' � I I •G C � L v- r`e r`-r O� N r�D E_ ' J d ✓ G V •Oi 1 - � rOi e e � L N d-I � L>V _T✓ � U � v V •^,• a -i o i � � ' 'I" `>= E -moo r L eo o � .'• ce, e o 2 _- o i � " -_•_ � -cT�. C= d � �✓. - OG L� Lr j � � �< INN Y COY ✓✓ fi_O '✓ r J P r N L G OV1 � I.J ` nuu• T- GC O - di Vi S S u � 7TV `6 PI9✓ I � e3V. e9 G � Nam' ��I J w� o-c ;.� � v ccJ..'' c` ¢ E � f oc c LSD N �` v m o-voa•'. >o r` o F - -... = E' c`. Nc ^I c c o o - dr N.D. o INrq m � c `mac �v� ai• - V P d� ` - C F j i' � sS� y � T C d W u L �'V C � T r C r�V�`1 fi • _ V r. •nG -rd GC �� > Vr0 NV rO7V0• rC C�- UO-'O'• a r r q G •^_ G d pp -• a C Nr < SD C6c I CGS G .Ji• 60 �t�`+ tiGp ✓L+ o L7Cy V•_n`JG O I �i 1 LN,� I II GI ^ < •D W N - o [.L OC �l' G C_ G O C �O V ON_ O C� ✓• 6.- L?a .+ LV N •C>au o•.1 y € "N..• � ' O- C � V ^FGVV aLV NV .V.. � - _u y o �c� ^• L cT o u x .ia L r G c o. = -c N .J ,• v u_J r C L u c V S L D-Y•O L C j T 4 ? •L• ^ G^ OO_ N� ✓ 4O O e Ly lib- Nr �4 �O 4 e O � G U- � >• yK 9•• •a>•Lr•4iL d- `ram ui ` `' � � � due �J _ y c� r L gL., _ •` nvc ��. r- r G N J L T L i b r l - - b i u U V r O r C V L S c _ c - ✓... 11 a c N -o = 7 - .. c D = .•ec > >.or a vm o0 r - u nd �` -9.•L N e _y. c d d o:Deu=- - 9eL = G -J C ^ e N ='•O D.' � O O .e•T to Or V c. .n n - O T T 5 - _ c [+2l ✓ LN L p% -7 V I.: GT L` r Gr Oqd = I w _-- •� - - !-_ - ' c• � c �� <..D. _ _c Lci w� � i -_ uE=vv r a o� c�L rL✓ ? sc drn= `�-�c e .. dLY �'� L4 -Ci >•e�� "• oo =o '_ � _ � N� c �N N cdoTc _.^.�i N:✓. a •'c N✓^�+ >� Ica '.o lip Y_ L •' r-I nO� V "O._ � c L T eS C� i - _ 4� rr 04 4 TC C V •n � - 40 VO �_ � [-�n4 rpVs LE - S `r �� pN COS L9 - ✓. jL � � � � � > OL LP •:fe S=M- N•Vi l• pL •nNLLbe�rP �Mw � 4 'J nOt ^^T C. a rr lr � c ` 4 C C_ Gi ^' Y Ol� •I<'- a �• J Y•L S Yy� � ✓ _ G O C G - • V r _ ✓• _ Vvu � �` d �1 `�'� G ✓.•r u _ - N � - � 4=✓VMy •eV 2 `=y r� _ _ _ _C• �L. T PC C ^ r ^ U M ✓ N y� v O 7 U _ C e C V ud uL ev e r .•�.. N cq . _ L• s - ...'. r e^- c•c ��ovr �4iE `.e. G r O W t C L � �� 4� •Ln 0 K L W U l� _ r-O- D N e ti w G L C C 9 C C^>+w ^ C T g, G r d to � P � � u O'-'• O r O 4'! P � .Oi � P -•� G �w c � � gP rV� � O ��a r = ' Nc y l L.r✓ D Y n J J i G N a Z � r C L u p C ` I I � •• I i V� L � d •� CVO 0� 90 OC L C J L N V 9 1 J u U �^•{I I ` U I 1 G r '. _. � o `m.� Tar y r c .v.+c c_ - � I � L I c e• 9vV r •7P = C.� y O .nN r -� r9C � �� N VLy� w - � ? P•9Y VLCOC VLG r.� >VN .r ON C I J V d ` Z Sr bOC�- VG' Ot _ __ C 9 � �_ L• UO q�9 Cu 'J - v ' O Cr -I G 000 ! 7C V ` Gl -I EG y 1 'n '7 `.. N ` u N E G 9--y V C r 9 L G G L .A. l L✓V 9 S I V V V y i i y G C b V r O -- v C 9 q O N j M O L V O L �� _V V •Lr•u 9 T 9 r i 4 �� O N p� � J O d Gq= O.G � �! M? _. N rL u lVtu2 � VbONO� ✓I Gi O u.iu � C 1 r49 LVL;1 r . - C� O d!u LOd �.GUJ � 3jO a_ LN�� L ✓I VI � � E 9iJ4 O � �.o.•= "cv ve =-. q !r .2 L+• O n � V` �O P V Y l V •Ti G ✓ -I _ _ �• `� N OL �•V V V r ^V r V 6 V_7 O_ _ w L 9 Oc^? Y` Oi a9 N n � � i � M r LO� Y0 r � N _ C V O•O• G ♦ t $Yr E.o-. G .Y A G.O O J w.G V S� 9 T r �- ` t 0. CV r PO VGJ - 6 7 !` 9l I Nagy V � le 00+ GN G9 �V .Or• 6 9 O O Y N .. I CO V« � v 4w -" sOu N C( Oi q� A• n Y - _ � C .n "'J� � EO ri- N � C,J� CL 'OS O=GT LNE6 wC Np V =0 Gu V C'+ rC3- � � C �C PV CF � 7V0 OOL -wUN 0= `.> - On C .r• C �V V :+i ^O� � i � � uN• '^i�_ m V r u u - W V V G✓ V... V � L N _ _^ C r _z w u = R✓� ci o v�L Q._ qcE ._ p ,59 _e G`�GL- 9 � G V � L9 r Orr NG O TG - 6A. w0 CG rL V9T=4 � 4 V u ✓O n C - 7 oV _� . - [Yr Qe o •O Y0G LyE -J 1V uLS � 0V CC 4 � V•o O`J. �E L L B V 7 w 4� �c 7 V w O L r ` y ` n 9.+„ d 9 9 4✓ n C > i 9 V �O Q C - z6r, r» __—m � oa.o a—� Ly�✓ L $L. 'c �_ ` o� �o zt a.v O �� � COj 9LrOiJ �CW V Cc PY _C Ev� � y < ! C 'JC FO ^ 7r +J �!. O O 9L q .^ W '•' ti._ V r �_ ] � > V V 99 rC � O7 O� >'�� NC LOr V - JC uQG GM IIV GC �� I E� Ou 09 rV O _� CV GJGr r � CJ� d-_ � nr+j CL Pu�./ T• yi w r 15 Y.L > V -• r = G �.r O _ ii r 0 O _ C u c ` C � ' = 00-�"O d � r9^ O � G=^ -9•�� 9CV 09 _p.O. VO Y V� f rrJ rG C jt oLo « 0 a =c_.J'.-._ 7., m « _ G v. J 9 9 A- 4 V S.iTi - `_ ^!w T N E C�_` V 9 •..-N - V <y l 9 J H N C 6 G 7 V= «�G �- V L V � N O 9� r N i V C L G Y✓ r • L C Vi • � 4rN_V • � J9 0403 V 3E.C' 9 .O.L � � >._ ` •i :1�- C w �r �� �. Vl nL P^_ OOE:; ZZ __ _ _ _ d f1I 4 r= - 3 Y O=i Y i i t D i i > s _•C r Y c r n« yy 0 J� L V 7 J V M G V i 0 �i +j m P �� Ot N 7 Y. 0 •� C _ r, p - -O > _ r 7 U 4 yr -✓ O N I O+, Vy O � t�r� = i I 1 PN r 0lw� N ` 2 I ✓ J L O - 4 t y C I + 11 J r G T G � O 7 -✓r✓ O � I O A � rr•-'f p O V C � .• _O - N ✓ rr C L _ O Y N I is� �� - G T 2 „ ✓ rt O OC'.V F� Via � C ?L rp r l I I TV ' -_ �_ � J u v c c y V V �w• A J= VGn ^� C j r v A � + r0.� � T d A G O_M ` � u IC.-IJr '- c a. ✓ ` . EGG c r`•✓ N i d - - ✓ = <._ '-�.� y d Nv L r �� __ c od v �-� O 1_p O L D _ - Ca r p SJ r p✓ O._ -J r 11 I d= d r � C? � � G S O 9 N. V ` C d•i O ^1' 'DAY 7 I ✓ r y p\N w y ` 4 I a .' I I O y Z 2 =� rrC•V v J^.7 O v� 4 � ^ L Y p ✓ L O V � � n�>P _� � � V u � J N = u✓ �A p e 1I U V �ffJ L C' r C 4 J D rlw 9 L� � -I _ ✓ L {�J�ry Oy� O GL � 4 ✓ O J�J��1^OA rb � t ✓. O .� _ ✓_ N DC D✓ = V •J a] n7 vJ iI _r p � CLN .G.0 - n VS. \� G NY I iC �� 2� C� _ = 2 9 p_ _ N A r CI G V V 4 p O Y N O q �.r •J A O =1 I I I V V J L N- C�yi_ S .y � T� � N �. OI C-� r OCO G✓p ✓ V LL N u � � ✓� V _ 40 Ctp W I •J V G 9 G i d I= O L u L V V- c V.V I i _ T_d p - r.J .]••.P V _r 4 p V '� I V L ✓ d V pi 2 C v p 2.O•C O '=1 O C c N Y J G W 1 I1 I I V V O r0 -V. _ V =r r Vra reu .e- ✓ d O r ` O G= S .L.• •pu I .5 L r _ O rLrr .➢ G r=- IZi •coo ` G =�', ✓ _JiL i � �� � L:` o -N. `oo - P » �_'`. _i I i p L p'� •w o _ o f- N .n T N > � w � j 1''_`� I I G-✓ C N P n c 9 G ` u a+. - - r -v oN - I ,I ' O9 •N•• `q GM y c _ w r.• y J C S T p C ur p '!�\ P.O W Gr• V �'✓u N k b O✓ -pL ry O� C OV J I.✓� I 'I� I C ✓ O L V G + ✓ 1\I I G u. C V V - C � C L V p r� N am✓ r u L r -- n V ..� �� pL.r° a' .!� � E � L.•s _a C O B S A q V j S L C - L ✓ r c 2 __ p ... f� O- u• O r•-•� r t - ` = V T- A� L✓ O d u. L .Lu V y � V GG_ DQ Cur � N VIO O- l0 V [a rN= C7 > I\I pi pY, O � Pu=L bL L OryO v _. _ • r G u V ^ 4 q 6 N 4 Y � � � P` L O � y A -� � N C •i C^v -�y O - V r G P g L G T 1 � I I O d L A L :r.N c pr .•- �y C r` wL L �� •n O 4 _ ✓_ 2 V C V 13 I I ✓ � u V A .0.L d 4 ' 4 C ` C �� 4 J r ✓�. .'. -� c w � � mac• ✓D 2 r Jjj c'. 4 c_. -= L '^D. r. L oao �4_ E � c ..� i c .o ' M oGy � 4 do N � T °' f 1 T4b i� .Son -"- 4 Lu ✓ A� .. Y GC ♦ � '� _ VP OS uy KC \ I w AGE GmCCN ^•+~OO rC NG v •LN veJ ' __ _ _ rp l= u \ II i _ t 'Od _- V- ✓ A4Z- - c J eo po I--.`) j� 1 ' .or�W Lr rcer N�co c+ c+Y _✓ -� v <- u v - w �: •^ c✓ .:.4. '- - 2 LZ-7 �u� L9 CO' WS �� VVu CL V- 1J � �y�J � � I _ LwV .nt� O+ NOG~ 6V o.� WrVC✓ r ti C. 41 I ! MEN G 4 r CO . CrS N O u i 'ate 4 O V I C r 9 O ^y d C r a — =c •� � n= — — Boa st yo d _ -, F a CGT l I u �•dy G � P �C •ai- - —L VO 0 � ^ LCCE - -O,C r P G G d 0_ 4 V C � � C Si ` 6.Y.Pu,O r v O G V 6 i ` 9 d Y � 4 P•']a e ' '_'cc :°'_ f� .�. co \�o a m `'o .o.W •' •'.cd u ' eo�L.ci to Wz 6n aqua Q.- V� �_ 1