HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984/09/27 - Agenda Packet __ _. _ _
..,, , . ..
�w _ ��i
J ��A<� �.
� r�1 L _
...i•.
.-�-"
f �� � +
:�'
�,'
f
�\�
� T
r�
— }'. 'ti\
\`\� �
` �i
� ��r.
.,`
� '`�.5
4 .�'�
�'r.
.,
t _
r'
, �.: � . '
,:. '. . .
+ . : .
i
1
.-\/.
4..
�.
{... '�..
.1\
� \
Y
c . . ...
��.•. . .
.. � .�. _'
,_,r .
4-%
'd crrY or
` � > RANCHO
y� o �'T�.�N7- �1L�;G CC,vIiI�ISsioN,
i > AGENDA
1. A
1977 WEDNESDAY September 26, 1984 7:60 p.m.
LIONS PARK COMM>lNjTy CENTER
9161 BASE LAZE
RANCHO CIICAMONGA, CALIFORNjA
A C T 1 0 N L Ply of Allegiance
II. Roll can
Commissioner Barker X Commissioner Rempel X
Commissioner Chitiea X Commissioner Stout -K —
Commissioner NleNiei X
III. Announcements
IV. Approval of Minutes
APPROVED 5-0 July 25, 19b4
Y. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine
and non-controversial, 21hey will be acted on by the Commission at
one time without discrossion. If anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
APPROVED 5-0 A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11804 & 11805 TI�TM -
DISC B REMOVED FOR L lO �s development a 76 condominiums on 11.03 acres o
DISCUSSION) land located at the northwest Avenues. corner of Highland and Haven
B. APPROVED 5-0 B. PD 83-01 - CALIMARK
gateCoffgfi�sslcnopens required from Herita a Park to the shopping
to provide access
gate opening to g Aping center.
be a minimu-n of 36" C. ENVIRONMENTAL for handicapped access. ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT
REYIEty 84-43 - BARYON - The developme11
nt o two 2-story
and one 3-story office buildiind totaling 65,000 sq. ft. on 4.1
adzes of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) District
located on the west side of Utica between Aspen Street and
Civic Center Drive -APN 208-351-21.
D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE ' TRACT 11853 -
BARRATT. IRVINE DIVISION - A total development of 72
condominiums on 5.71 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located on the north side of
19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202-171-41.
VL 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
by stating your name and address. AIII such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project.
APPROVED 5-0 E. VARIANCE 84-03 - AMERICAN SENTINEL SELF STORAGE,
INC. - t request to reduce the front yard setback of 25 .feet
to a mini-num of 20 feet along 8th Street for a 45.546 sq. ft.
self-stori,ge facility on 2.45 acres of land located at the
northeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue -
207-271-01.
APPROVED 5-0 F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-17 - AMERICAN SENTINEL
SELF-,STORAGE INC. - The development of a 45,546 square
foot self-storage facility and 1040 sq. ft. caretaker's quarters
on 2.45 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1)
category, located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and
Baker Avenue -APN 207-271-01.
APPROVED 5-0 G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PER-MIT 84-27 - BARMAKIAN - The total development o
five multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 60,000 sq. ft., a
70,300 sq. ft. mini-warehouse facility, and a gas staticn on
11.03 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1)
category Iocat= . on the hest side of Vineyard, between
Arrow and 9th Street -APN 207-262-44.
APPROVED 5-0 H. ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8587 -
REVITI - A division a 1.04 acres into 2 parcels in the Very
Low T2 dulac) Development District located on the southeast
corner of Mayberry Avenue and Rancho Street - APN 201-
111-35.
APPROVED 5-0 L ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8680 -
MOHRLS & SEARLES -A division of 3.177 acres of land into 3
parcels within the Low Medium (4-8 du/ac) Development
District located on the east side of Ramona Avenue, south of
Baseline Road -APN 1077-03I-3.
irr,.
APPROVED 5-0 J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TE NATIVE TRACT
12809 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COtIPAW, - A division of
100.16 acres of land into 11 lots within the Terra Vista
Planned Community for City park purposes, located on the
North side of Baseline Road, between Milliken Avenue and the
Deer Creek Channel - APN 202-221-142-25.
REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL Ii. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
IMPACT REPORT FOCUS114G APJiENDMENT 84-03-A - H & H INVESTMENTS -A request to
ON TRANSPORTATIONICIR- amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density
CULATION; HEALTH, SAFETY Residential (2-4 du/ac) to Medium High Residential (14-24
AND NUISANCE FACTORS; du/ac) on 13.55 acres of land, located on the south side of
UTILITIES & PUBLIC Feron Boulevard, between Turner and Ramona - APN 209-
SERVICES; AND LAND USE 085-02, 03, 14.
ALTERNATIVES 5-0
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
APPROVED 5-0 AMENDMENT 84-03-C -VOLBEDA - A request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (2-
4 du/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac) on
4.78 acres of land located on the south side of Arrow
Highway, between Sierra Madre and Comet - APN 207-222-
08.
APPROVED 5-0 M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-03-C - VOLBEDA---A request to
amend the Development District Map from "L" 2-4 du/ac) to
"LM" (4-8 du/ac) for 4.78 acres of land generally located on
the south side of Arrow Highway between Comet and Sierra
Madre -APN 207-222-08.
APPROVED 5-0 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03-8 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
A request to amend the General Plan Land Use asap from
Medium Density Residential (4-14 du/ac)/General Industrial
to Industrial Park on 18.8 acres of land located on the south
side of 9th Street and Baker -APN 207-271-04 through 10, 17
through 20, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44.
APPROVED 5-0 O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-03-13 - CITY Os RANCHO
CAMONGA - A request to amend the Development
District Map from "M;-- (8-14 du/ac) and Industrial Specific
Plan (General Industriai Subarea 1) to Industrial Speck Plan
(Industrial Park) for 18.8 acres of land located at the south
side of 9th Street and Baker - APN 207-271-04 through 10, 17
through 20, 35, 37, 38, 43, and 44.
w
4
1
APPROVED 5-0 P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03 - D - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
- A request to amcnd the General Plan Ltaid Use ?..Sap from
Medium Density Residential (4-14 du/ac) to Low Mediur.
Density Residential (4-8 du/ac) on 15.8 acres of land located
on the west side of HeL'man Avenue south of 7th Street -
APN 209-161-04, 16, 23 and 210-341-72.
VIL New Business
APPROVED 5-0 Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 84-34 - O'DONNELL - The development of a 91,700
sq. €t. warehouse/distribution building on 4.5 acres of land in
the General Industrial (Subarea 11) category located at the
northeast corner of 6th and Pittsburgh - APN 229-261-44.
VUL Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public to address the
Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not
already appear on this agenda.
9:40 P.M. EL Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations
that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that
time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission.
Planning Commission adjourned to Saturday, September 29, 1984, 8:30 a.m.
for a tour of approved projects in the City.
`I I ITY MAP
wrs • � �
Mnr.Ic � � CIrAII.Y rChOIYLMK' .
• 1
[MAEEE. i �.• `
E a 4 i
Uom PA" LITTj MALL • A
op
r _
or
r
q 4 �
� 2 F
z 5 d f
'Y
.'UCA�rOx6A-rWSTr tOu.rT oEGrO.0 sA:� !
CMA.IC LiER.RIOxAL Aut►pa'
.i
CITY OF RANCHC CAA
_c��PI_
���• `�. CTT'Y OF
�,•; �,, RANCHO rL'CAi:I�J\Cud
PLANNING COLWMISSION
E y AGENDA
1277 WEDNESDAY September 26, 1984 7:00 p.m.
LIONS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER
9161 BASE LINE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALWORNIA
L Pledge of Allegiance
1L. Ron can
Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempel
Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Stout
Commissioner McNiel
IH. Announcements
IV. Approval of Minutes
July 25, 1984
V. went Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine
and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at
one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
A, TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11804 do 11805 -
®LLEN -A development of 76 condominiu:as on 11.03 acres of
land located at the northwest corner. of highland and Haven
Avenues.
B. PD 83-01 - CALMARK - An agreement to provide access
from Heritage Park to the shopping center.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT
VIEW 84-43 - BARTON - The development of one 2-story
and one 3-story office building totaling 50,000 sq. ft. on 3.2
acres of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) District
located on the west side of Utica between Aspen Street and
Civic Center Drive - APN 208-351-21.
j,
r
D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11853 -
BARRATT. IRVINE DIVISION - A total sevelopment of 72
condominiums on 5.71 acres of land in the hIedium
Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located on the north side of
19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202-171-41.
VL Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned
individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Flease
wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission
by stating your name and address. All such opinions shaI1 be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project.
E. VARIANCE 84-03 - AMERICAN SENTINEL SELF STORAGE,
LNG. - A request to reduce the front yard setback of 25 feet
to a minimum of 20 feet along Sth Street for a 45,546 sq. ft.
self-storage facility on 2.45 acres of land 'located at the
northeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue -
207-271-01.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-17 - AMERICAN SENTINEL
SELF-STORAGE. INC. - The development of a 45,546 square
oot self-storage facility and 1040 sq. ft. caretaker's quarters
on 2.45 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1)
category, locat.:d at the northeast corner of 8th Street and
Baker Avenue - APN 207-271-01.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
ERiti 84-27 - BARMAKIAN - The total development o
five multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 60,000 sq. ft.., a
70,300 sq. ft. mini-warehouse facility, and a gas station on
11.03 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1)
category located on the west side of Vineyare, between
Arrow and 9th Street - APN 207-262-44.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL 10AP 8587 -
REVITI - ti, division of 1.04 acres into 2 parcels in the Very
Low 2 du/ac) Development District located on the southeast
corner of Mayberry Avenue and Rancho Street - APN 201-
111-35.
L ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8680 -
Mi5RFJS & SEARLES -A division of 3.177 acres of Iand into 3
parcels within the Low Medium (4-8 du/ac) Development
District located on the east side of Ramona Avenue, south of
Baseline Road - APN 1077-031-3.
r
ht
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
12809 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A division of
100.16 acres of land into 11 lots within the Terra Vista
Planned Community for City park purposes, located on the
north side of Baseline Road, between Milliken Avenue and the
Deer Creek Channel - APN 202-221-142-25.
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03-A - H x H INVESTMENTS - A request to
amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density
Residential (2-4 du/ac) to Medium High Residential (14-24
du/ac) on 13.55 acres of land, located on the south side of
Feron Boulevard, between Turner and Ramona APN 209-
085-02, 03, 14.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL FLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03-C -VOLBEDA - A request to amend the
General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residentin'. (2-
4 du/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac) on
4.78 acres of land located on the south side of Arrow
Highway, between Sierra Madre and Comet - APN 207-222-
08.
M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-03-C - VOLBEDA - A request to
amend the Development District Map from "L" 2-4 du/ac) to
"LM" (4-8 du/ac) for 4.78 acres of land generally located on
the south side of Arrow highway between Comet and Sierra
Madre - APN 207-222-08.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMYD NT 84-03-B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
A request to amend the General Plan. Land Use Map from
Medium Density resideantial (4-14 du/ac)/General Industrial
to Industrial Park on 13.8 acres of land located on the south
side of 9th Street and Baker -APN 207-211-04 through 10, 17
through 20, 359 37, 38, 432 44.
O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-03-B - CITY OF RANCHO
UCAMO. A - A request to amend the Development
District Map from "M" (8-14 du/ac) and Industrial Specific
Plan (General Industrial Subarea 1) to Industrial Spec.-ifie Plan
(Industrial Park) for 18.8 acres of land located at the south
side of 9th Street and Baker - APN 207-211-04 through 10, 17
through 20, 35, 379 38, 43, and 44.
zi
P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03 - D - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
—AA request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from
Medium Density Residential (4-14 du/ec) to Low Medium
Density Residential (4-8 du/ac) on 15.8 acres of land located
on the west side of Hellman Avenue south of 7th Street. -
APN 209-161-040 16, 23 and 210-341-72.
VIL New Business
Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 84-34 - O`DONNELL - The development of a 91,700
sq. ft. warehouse/distribution building on 4.5 acres of land in
the General Industrial (Subarea 11) category located at the
northeast corner of 6th and Pittsburgh - APN 229-261-44.
VHL Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public to address the
Commission. Items to be discussed he , are those which do not
already appear on this agenda.
M Adjoanment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations
that set an 11 p.m. adjournment Limo If items go beyond that
time, they shall be heard onlywith the consent of the Commission.
IL .
y _
• ti
'VICIN17Y MAP
t I j j i t j �.ryr.�.�.�• �
j •ram +.�. I • t
•� t i I
J •• s`j j
r '
i
i
MrIWb � � CWfK111CGWNLL NPRy t
I
1 Mil • 1 _ •/
COLLEGE j'�� `�
COLLEGE • •
B.www ALL
,.•.a F•wT.r..�.�!-• ur.l
• e :
• • vna. N/
'L.GOS ..Nw CITY "ALL
. 60 t,
fit
e
m Y •• 1F1
CUCL.00UA-CULSt, COUNty RrOFO.LL wLM. /
CRTLRIO !RTCRRABORAL LOMORt'
3+ CTrY OF RAW F9O CUCAMOM(`J►
S�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
July 25, 1984
Chairman Dennis Stout called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held at
Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Chairman Stout then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Suzanne Chitiea,
Larry McNiel , Herman Rempel and
Dennis Stout
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Beedie, Senior Planner; Shintu Bose, Associate Civil
Engineer; Dan Coleman, Associate Planner; Frank Dreckman,
Assistant Planner; Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner; Rick
Gomez, City Planner; Edward Hopson, Assistant City
Attorney; Janice Reynolds, Secretary; Paul Rougeau, Senior
Ci,. il Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Rempel requested an amendment to page 18 of the June 13, 1984
Minutes. He stated that the Commission suggested priority changes which were
not reflected in the motion and requested that the motion include the priority
changes.
Motion:. Moved by Rempel , seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes
of June 13, 1984 meeting with the above amendment.
Commissioner Chitiea abstained as she was not on the Commission at that time.
f0i:5ENT CALENDAR
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-20 - GABRIC - The
development of a 50,972 square foo* industrial building on 2.64 acres of
land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1) designation located on the
south side of 7th Street and east of Utica Avenue - APN 209-411-06 and 07.
Motion: Moved by McNiel , seconded by Rempel , unanimously carried, to adopt
the Consent Calendar.
Planting Commission Minutes -1- July 25, 1984
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-22 - BENTSEN LYNNHAVEN
APARTMENTS - A review of the environmental assessment for a proposed
master plan for 936 apartment units located on approximately 58.3 acres on
the north side of Highland Avenue, east of Haver, Avenue in the Medium-High
Development District - APN 202-271-59, 69.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report and explained that the
purpose of the hearing this evening was to make an environmental determination
and not a decision on the project at this time.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Don King, 9375 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, representing the applicant,
addressed the Conmission. Mr. King advised that the environmental document
prepared and distributed prior to this meeting was the third such document to
be prepared for this site. He further stated that the Commission has adequate
environmental documentation to make a decision now without the requirement for
additional environmental ir!fcrmation. Mr. King stated that this project would
generate school fees for school expansion and would also contribute towards
the construction of a new fire stdiion. He further stated the Sheriff's
Department advised that this project would not create crime problems in this
area and would not have a significant impact on the Sheriff's Department.
Gordon Brickan, 1621 E. 17th, Santa Ana, California, representing the
applicant, addressed the Commission stating that traffic noise level studies
were prepared for this site and that there are no problems associated with
this project which cannot be mitigated.
Herman Kemmel , 3300 Irvine Avenue, Newport Beach, California, representing the
applicant, addressed the Commission stating that his firm had prepared traffic
studies for the enviromnental document presented to the Commission. Mr.
Kemmel reviewed the traffic impacts and mitigation measures.
Peter Pfeiler, Pfeiler Engineering, 1749 Euclid, Ontario, California,
representing the applicant addressed the Commission regarding the drainage and
hydrology impacts and mitigation measures for the project.
Jahn Futscher, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, Rancho Cucamonga
Substation, addressed the Comnoi. Sion to clarify Mr. King's statement regarding
crime impacts. He stated that `he fact that the 900 units were apartments
would not be significant; however, 900 units would have an impact on law
enforcement capabilities.
The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the
project based on concerns regarding increased crime, impacts on schools,
compatibility, traffic, access on Lemon Avenue, and drainage.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 25, 1984
Cathy 9rees, Rancho Cucamonga
Daryl Micolay, 6245 Dakota.; Rancho Cucamonga
Chary Dodds, 6709 Mango, Rancho Cucamonga
James Hill , Rancho Cucamonga
John Gandra, 9633 Hichland, Rancho Cucamonga
Craig Nelson, 10560 Lemon, Rancho Cucamonga
Laura Nelson, 10560 Lemon, Rancho Cucamonga
Mrs. Beckman, 1031 Liberty, Rancho Cucamonga
Additionally, a petition was presented to the Commission which contained the
names of over 200 individuals opposing the project.
Don King responded to the concerns of the residents. He stated that those
concerns expressed regarding apartments could not be addressed because
apartments are provided in the General Plan for the City and this applicant is
trying to design this project in a manner consistent with those goals. He
advised that this project would mitigate traffic and drainage for the entire
area. Additionally, the apartments are 82% adult units and would only
generate approximately 40 school childreia, of which only about 25 would be K-8
grade students. He further stated that market studies show that there is a
need for apartments in the City.
Commissioner Chitiea asked if the thought had been given to working with the
coiinercial group next to the project to provide a second access to the
southwestern portion of the project.
Mr. King replied that this option had been explored; however, from the City's
traffic standpoint this would not be desirable due to the location of the
freeway on and off ramps.
Paul Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer, clarified that the alternate presented to e
the City proposed an access point at the southerly access of the shopping a
center; however, an access point at the center access might be a good
secondary access.
Mr. King stated that this site is a neighborhood commercial center and to put
a read through the center would make that particular site unusable as a
neighborhood convenience center because there would not be adequate space for
parking or good marketing.
Chairman Stout closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Barker stated that taking into consideration the surrounding
properties including the recent change in the sphere of influence to the east
he would feel more comfortable if the issues were looked at it in greater
detail . He additionally stated that he would like to see other alternatives
explored and discussed so that they could be compared and would recommend a
focused Environmental Impact Report.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 25, 1984
Commissioner Rempel agreed with Commissioner Barker and stated that the
traffic and circulation needed to be further explored. He additionally
requested that more definitive data be provided on how fire and police
response tires were arrived at and a comparison of these calls between single
family housing and apartment units.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that she would like to know whether the fire
responses were keyed to exterior or interior fires. She further requested
more information on the type of formula used to determine the number of
students generated by this project.
Commissioner Barker explained that there are standard formulas used by the
school districts to determine the estimated number of students.
Commissioner MzNiel stated that his concerns were the same expressed by the
other Commissioners in that the density is excessive and that traffic is a
problem.
Chairman Stout stated that he could not make a dec,lsion on this project
without the requirement for a focused Environmental Impact Report.
Motion: Moved by Stout that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for
this project focusing on the issues of land use, traffic and circulation, and
density and additionally should identify other land use alternatives. Motion
seconded by Barker, carried unanimously.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONEERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
C. TENTATIVE TRACT 12365 - LEWIS •- A request for approval of carport
screening material and modifications to conditions of approval for same.
Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Planning Connission Minutes -4- July 25, 1984
Stan Bela, representing Lewis Homes, addressed the Conunission stating
concurrence with the conditions of approval.
There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public
hearing.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Chitiea, unanimously carried to adopt
the Resolution approving the use of lattice screening material , to be
maintained by the management company, on the end of carports nearest public
streets for Tentative Tract 12365. Additionally, the details for the carports
are to be included in the construction plans for review and approval by the
City Planner.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, REMPEL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 10827 - PACIFIC LIGHTING - A
total residential development of 294singe family homes on 57.7 acres of
land in the Low (2-4 du/ac) and low-Medium (4-8 du/ac) Residential
Districts generally located between. Haven and Hermosa, south of Wilson
Avenue - APN 201-181-02, 12, 13, 14, 63, 65, 69, and 79.
Dan Coleman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Ernie Reynolds, representing Pacific Lighting, addressed the Commission
requesting that sidewalks be required on one side of the street only.
Additionally, Mr. Reynolds displayed a slide presentation of other Pacific
Lighting projects. He also addressed the grading issue and referred the
Commission's questions to Frank Williams.
Frank Williams, Associated Engineers, addressed the Commission regarding the
grading issue and steep slope embankments. Mr. Williams explained that the
grade could not be taken up in 8-foot increments due to the size of the
parcel; however, suggested there are other ways to mitigate the situation.
There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public
hearina.
Commissioner Stout suggested that an alternative drainage method could be
explored which would drain the lower lots on the south side of the street to
the rear through other lots. He suggested that this method might reduce slope
heights.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 25, 1984
K'q
Commissioner Barker stated that he preferred the east-west orientation but had
concerns with the backyard slope; however, preferred the 12-15 foot slopes to
` the north-south sawtooth orientation.
Commissioner Mc Niel stated concerns with the slope heights and stated he also
was not an advocate of north-south streets.
Commissioner Chitiea expressed agreement with the east-west street
orientation, but stated she would lake to see the •ope height reduced by
2-feet if possible.
Commissioner Stout suggested that design measures could be taken to break the
street orientation east and west along the rorth-south streets. He further
stated that the plan appears to be a sea of houses and suggested that
different street trees might be used to divide it into four different
neighborhoods as opposed to one large neighborhood.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by Rempel, unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving 10827, with conditions requiring sidewalks on one
side of the street only, landscaping with a theme to appear as 3 or 4 separate
neighborhoods. Commissioner Rempel proposed a condition to require the
applicant to work with staff on an alternative drainage system to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney,
suggested that the drainage could possibly be channeled to an area which would
be maintained by a homeowners' association. Motion unanimo'sly passed.
f
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, REMPEL, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, STOUT
I NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-12 - CORNWALL ASSOCIATES - Proposed office
addition of 625 square feet to an existing church with other minor
landscape, retaining wall, parking lot improvements, security gates and
storage building on 3.1 acres of land located in the Low Residential
Development District located on the south side of Base Line Road, east of
Vineyard Avenue - APN 208-593-08.
Nancy Fong, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report. Ms. Fong advised
that an addition condition should be placed on the resolution which would
require installation of fire hydrants at locations to be determined by the
Foohtili Fire District.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
I
f Dave Anderson, representing Cornwall Associates, addressed the Commission
concurring with the conditions and the resolution.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 25, 1984
Raymond Walton, 7355 Agate, Rancho Cucamonga, addressed the Commission
regarding the block wall on the south. side of the property. Mr. Walton
explained that he was the 'adjacent property owner and asked if he would be
able to utilize the area between the property line and the wall to improve his
eptrance.
Ted Hopson, Assistant City Attorney, advised that this matter would have to be
discussed with the applicant as this issue is a private matter acid is not one
the City could address.
There were not further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public
hearing.
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to adopt
the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 84-12 with an additional
condition to the Resolution requiring the installation of fire hydrants per
Foothill Fire District.
9:50 - Planning Commission Recessed
10:00 - Planning Commission Reconvened
F. EN'JIRONMENTP,'_ ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-02-A - 19TH STREET
ORRIDOR STUDY LAND USE AMENDMENT - An amendment to the Land Use Plan of
the Rancho Cucamonga General Pan to modify the land use designations for
certain properties located within the 19th Street Corridor Study area.
Curt Johnston, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
The following sites were submitted for :onsideration by the Commission:
Site 1 - West side of Beryl Street, south of Hamilton Street - APN 202-032-20,
21, and 22.
Site 2 -Southwest corner of 19th Street avid Beryl Street - APN 202-461-61
through 65.
Site 3 - Northwest corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street - APN 201-221-08-
Site 4 - North side of 19th Street, between Amethyst Street and Archibald -
APN 202-101-07, 21 and 22.
Site 5 - North side of 19th Street, from Ramona to Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-
171-25, 26, 31, 32, 35, 42, 58, 59. 60, 61.
Site 6 - Northeast corner of 19th Street and Hermosa Avenue - APN 202-191-13,
14, 23.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing. The following individuals addressed
the Commission:
Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 25, 198b.
Larry Lewis, 6739 Cambridge, Rancho Cucamonga, requested down zoning on sites
4, 5, and 6.
Jim Ellers, 10206 Ring, Rancho Cucamonga, requested that all densities be
lowered.
Mary Dodds, Rancho Cucamonga resident, requested lower densities and removal
of OP designations.
Jim Reams, Sarratt Irvine Corporation, requested that site number 5 remain as
now designated.
John Gardner, Highland Avenue resident, requested down zoning on site number
4.
Tom Winfield, Robert Group representative, requested no action be taken on
site 5 at this time.
Richard Dickson, Lincoln Properties representative, requested that no action
be taken on site 4 until the proposed project is reviewed.
Greg Enthrop, 6791 Berkshire, Rancho Cucamonga, requested sites 5 and 6 be
single family residential.
Jack Causey, Rancho Cucamonga resident representing owner of site 6, stated
that it is not appropriate to ask a property owner to down zone his property
in order to raise the property values of others.
Bruce Ann Hahn, Rancho Cucamonga resident, requested down zoning on sites 4,
5, and 6.
marry Bliss, 6632 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that apartments are an
appropriate land use for site 4.
Additionally, three other Rancho Cucamonga residents addressed the Commission
requesting down zoning on sites 4, 5, and 6.
There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public
hearing.
After review of each of the sites, the Commission directed staff to prepare
further analysis and alternative land uses for sites 3, 4, and 6. These sites
will again be reviewed by the Planning Comm. ission for possible General Plan
and Development Code Land Use amendments. Additionally, the Commission
directed that should the map expire on site number 5, it will be reviewed by
the Commission at that time for a possible land use amendment.
11:15 - Planning Comission Recessed
11:25 - Planning Commission Reconvened
Planning Commission Minutes -8- July 25, 1984
In
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel , unanimously carried, to continue
past the 11:00 p.m. adjournment time.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-10 - BECK - The
development of a fu y automated carwash on approximately one acre of
land in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 6) located at the northeast
corner of Haven Avenue and Jersey Boulevard - APN 209-142-32.
Dan Coleman, :associate Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Larry Beck, applicant, addressed the Commission stating concurrence with the
staff report and Resolution of approval.
There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stcut closed the public
hearing.
Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue a
Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit
84-10.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, MCN/EL, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by Rempel , seconded by McNiel, unani^,..-cly carried, to continue
past 11:00 p.m. adjournment time.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8550 - WAGNER - A division of
2 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13)
located on the southeast corner of Rochester and 7th Street - APN 229-261-
65 and 66.
Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report.
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
Doug Mayes, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating
concurrence with the Resolution and Conditions of Approval .
There were no further comments, therefore Chairman Stout closed the public
hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 25, 1984
Motion: Moved by Rempei, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to issue a
Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8550.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, MCNIEL, BARKER, CHITIEA, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Motion: Moved by Barker, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried, to
continue.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCLE MAP 8549 - SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY
division of 10.169 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy
Industria, category (Subarea 9) located on the south side of Jersey
Boulevard, east of Vincent Avenue - APN 209-143-28.
Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff repo
Chairman Stout opened the public hearing.
George MimMack, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating
concurrence with the staff report and Resolution.
Commissioner Chitiea stated that the landscaping is around the larger
building, while building number two is mostly parking area with little
landscaping.
Chairman Stout asked if the landscaping around the two buildings would be
consistent.
Mr. Mid^lack replied that the landscaping would be consistent in style. He
stated that the problem is that the bulk of parking area is in front of
building one and at the side of building two.
There was further discussion regarding landscaping, at the conclusion of which
Mr. MimMack agreed that the applicant would improve the landscaping around
parcel two.
Motion: Moved by Stout, seconded by Chitiea, to issue a Negative Declartion
and adopt the Resolution approving Parcel Map 8549 with an additional
condition to require improved landscaping around parcel two.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: STOUT, CHITIEA, BARKER, MCNIEL, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 25, 1984
%lotion: Moved by McNiel , seconded. by Rempel, .unanimously carried, to
continue.
* * :< * *
NEW BUSINESS
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-13 - BARMAKIAN - The
development of two warehouse distribution buildings tota ing 78,940
square feet on 4.9 acres of land in the General Industrial category
(Subarea 4) iocated approximately 250 feet east of Archibald, south side
of 5th Street - APN 210-071-50.
Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report.
Motion: Moved by ^empel , seconded by Barker, unanimously carried, to issue a
Negative Declaration and adopt the Resolution approving Development Review 84-
13.
* i * * *
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Rempei , second-id by McNiel, unanimously carried, to adjourn.
11:55 p.m. - Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 25, 1984
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Gvc en�o
STAFF REPORT
<q >
DATE: September 26, 1984 197
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 11804 & 11805 - ALLEN
development of 76 condominiums on 1 acres of land
located at the northwest corner of Highland and Haven
Avenues.
I. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting an eighteen (18) month
time extension for Tentative Tracts 11804 & 11805, as described
above. The project was originally approved by the Planning
Commission on October 13, 1982 and expires on October 13, 1984.
The maximum time limit that may be ranted by the Planning
Commission for these maps is twenty-four (24) months.
II. ANALYSIS: Since the approval of this project, the new Development
Code was adopted. Therefore, in order to consider a time
extension, the project was reviewed for conformance with the
Development Code requirements. Based upon this review, the
following inconsistencies with the basic development standards for
the Medium Resid::ntial District were noted:
STANDARD RE UIRED PROVIDED
1. Building Setback
Haven Avo_rue 55' 45'
Alta Loma Avenue 45' 35'
2. Parking Setback
Alta Loma Avenue 25' 14'
3. Landscape Setback
j Haven Avenue 55, 45,
Alta Loma Avenue 35' 25'
4. Perimeter Setback 25' 201
,';. ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Time Extension for TT 11804 & TT 11805
September 25, 1984
Page 2
19
Also, the Development Code prohibits two-story multiple family
dwellings within 100 feet of westerly property line and adjacent
single-family residential. Building 2 comprising six units is
located between 20 and 120 feet from the westerly boundary.
In many cases, buildings have been provided with staggered setbacks
from the streets; therefore, the discrepancies represent the "worst
case" and the portions of buildings may exceed the new Development
Code Standards.
In granting the time extension, the Planning Commission must find
under Development Code Section 17.02.020 C7 that the subdivision
and development of the property pursuant to the approved tentative
tract map which was prepared pursuant to the provisions of an early
ordinance of the City, and which is in conflict with the
Development Code, may be continued and completed in accordance with
the provisions of the original approval. If the Commission
determines that the above inconsistencies are not significant,
approval of the time extension would be appropriate.
III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
grant a twenty-°our (24) month extension for this project through
adoption of the attached Resolution.
Re ectful" Oubmitted,
`r
fRG
ck/ mez
t}/ P er
:DC:ns
Attachments: Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Approved Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Approved Site Plan
Exhibit "0" - Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Time Extension Resolution of Approval
4=r
A 2,
alan snS
archi Eel
t� � CIEO �➢ � 3�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
AIDE 2 21984
August 22, 1984 AN PM
Mr. Dan Coleman
A>:sociate Planner
Community Development Dept.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P . O . Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Extension of Site :lan/Planning Commission
Approvals for Highland and Haven Garden
Condominiums (Allen Development Co . )
Dear Sir:
The owner and developer of the above referenced project ,
TT 11804 and 11805 (P .D. 81-09) (APN 201-262-28 , 30, 31 ,
37 , 40) , requests that an 18-month time extension be
approved by the Planning Commission for the approvals
granted originally on November 17 , 1982. The existing
approvals expire in October according to our records.
To the best of our knowledge: 1) the conditions of the
site, 2) the basic zoning considerations in force, and
3) the acceptance in principle of the design concept by
the residents of the Alta Loma Garden Apartments, have
sot changed since the original approvals were voted by
the Planning Commission. Mr. Allen has consistantly
indicated to me his desire for the completion of the
project. Y am at present starting to prepare working
drawings and specifications and Mr. Allen is exploring
avenues of discussion with CAL/TRANS regarding the Free-
way R.O .W. portion of the project. These matters have
all been delayed by economic conditions and other
situations beyond our control .
Aft
3400 irvine ave M 205 newpw beach, cdit 92660 714 979-8842
a �t
C
Mr- Dan Coleman
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
We request your staff consider our application for time
extension and take the necessary steps to put the matter
on the next convenient Planning Commission agenda. Please
let me know if any more information is required by your
office in regards to this submission.
Very truly yours , ,(
Alan Snapp
AES:bt
cc: Peter Allen
Allen Development Co .
Paul Golfos
Ron Williams Realty
f
;r:; A u
r. .LiM z
lt 1 �- - III
n Iu ❑ i E - rt ``
J- 1
_LCMON AV�tQ1E � •�--• �{-
`'7' ! !II ^��.J k ""' I.i rl L s'e.' l ae••—ems...:.-�-..:-..er
^•�._-�— ��� �C��p1QII :��rat,--t- �f-1c�`�4,• i' ��� . y Y� I2 Q_�i.
."ARTY �,y P11►9!4 � L \.+i.� � �_..-o�. ^:�
HIGHLAND AND HAVEN-, ry i
GARDEN CONDOMINIUMS-'
�`[71L7QikQ 1If~ly T. r 0 Li
Lt T-I -•ss 3_.
I F ./���� fti . � LP/IASEI .•1'9�� � r I l VM._s_:
In�-,ILQr�-'ni❑ �� 7;•t"� i '=_ �:4..:r•.'e"" oi...... 1` � ���y: �.n�G�
k Li
i 4Pd�a•.r0 =-..�+ • - NIDNLAND AVEWE
�.os+M.ww+T� � •`•��---C/4•V Yfir.r'J°ro�
. -- • .. -T
k
t>
NOTM
CITY Or lift5
RA1CHO CUCAdIONGA TITLE: s
PLANNING DIVIRON EYHIIirr- A_ SG1LE=
A5
i' �_
_ - .,`•'���'�'= ..— .^. � ! �..i1 1 it
PH
--��^-
T\ 4
-- �ear� i
NORTH
clTv OF ITEM: rr lid_ �
RANCHO CUCAj'vIO\GA TITLE:_
PLANNING DIVLSIC)lN EXHIRM SCALE-
A io
1
phaser `'
_ Q� N
••..�t......•...e 2r,f
iP,.1...b•M A• K'�..Cf...Q ,../�1�=l' -G/ TI , I N /�'�-NW'. _A 4.0
- ikr 1 / /�f �1j-%,\I���: .Y ® , (;•] y11tiY.L Yu.iVwD�
.ww...,,.r'.,� -. .�.-_...,•gym j.'^� - J �i _ � F_,:-`�•"fi=. l�d.i � a
D1L-.SC IJI µgo ' •.__
(.l•.t.�rao L•a�.
;:St05e 1�
ti+h..p/..<) v -.�.�'-+u..�....w • � y � . Imo' �7 Itl w�y.�i.o Vt
M
•,�.y '`semi. i •• C -i � '" � - < �.'/1 -s...—.-:•—^
.2 - '2 _ _ -� i'.•r ..,..,o,,,e.....vim.
_Im..o. --"--•`I MiGMLAND AVE.
�-s.«.o..a «ors.-v— •r v-.w+.•o rio.w,+v
V V
NORTH
MY Y OF f 19o4s 11WI5
RANCHO CUC=VN,10\GA TITLE:TZrAILEMD =
PLNINNING DIVISION EXHIBIT._�_SCALE:
it
ry .•
F. A-
l
RESOLUTION NO. 82-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 11804 AND 11805
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Maps No. 11804 and 11805 hereinafter "Map"
Submitted by Peter 8. Allen, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the
reai property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, described as a subdivision for a totdl
planned development of 76 condominium units on 11.03 acres of lad in the R-1
n
ad R-3 zones (R-3/PD pending), located at the northwest corner of Highland and
Haven Avenues, into 3 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission for
Public hearing and action on October 13, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject
to a?1 conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's
reports; and
i
EngineeringEa dSPlanneingPDivision'so eportsnandahasread consideredcother evidence
the
presented at the public hearing. o evidence
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
fSECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in
regard to -Tentative Tract No's. 11804 and 11805 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentative tract -is consistent with all
applicable interim and proposed general and specific
plans;
(b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is
consistent with all applicable interim and proposed
general and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of
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 i� not likely to cause serious
public health problems;
(f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict
with any easement acquired by the public at large,
flow of record, for access through or use of the
property within the proposed subdivision.
as
Resolution No. 82-94(
Page 2
(g) That th'Is project will not create adverse impacts on
the environment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11804 and 1180-, a copy of which
is attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following
conditions and the attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. Elevations of all sides of all buildings and garages
shall be provided in the final construction drawings
and reviewed and approved by the Design Review
Committee prior to issuance of building permits.
2. Temporary street tree landscaping shall be provided
along Highland and indicated on the detailed
landscape plans.
3. Trees shall be planted between garage doors.
4. This approval shall become null and void if the
final subdivision map is not approved and recorded
within twenty-four (24) months from the approval of
this project unless an extension has been granted by
the Planning Commisslo,?.
5. Directory signs shall be provided at the project
entries to the satisfaction of the City Planner, and
appropriate sign permits shall be obtained.
6. Details and typical elevations of walls and fences
shall be included in the final construction package.
7. The meandering sidewalk on Haven Avenue shall be
redesigned to confozm to City standards.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
8. Alta Loma Avenue stre='_ improvements shall be
installed with the first phase of construction. The
portion west of the westerly private_ street
connections shall include all street improvements
except pavement and shall include a temporary
traffic barrier of a design to be approved by the
City Engineer. The paving in this portion shall be
replaced with hydroseeded crass, provided with an
irrigation system and maintained by the Homeowner's
Associaton. A cash deposit will be required to
provide for the cost of the future paving.
A9
r
Resolution No. 82-94",
Page 3
9. The sidewalk along Alta Loma '.venue shall be
adjacent to the property line.
10. Emergency access to Highland Avenue shall be
provided with first phase of construction.
11. A reimbursement agreement for the construction. of
the east half of the Haven Avenue median island
shall be executed per City Ordinance No. 170.
12. installations of a stormdrain pipe system from the
westend of ',ita Loma Avenue to the existing drEinage
pipe in Highland Avenue including all catch basins
shall be required to the satisfaction of the city
Engineer.
13. A lot line adjustment with the property to the north
shall be recorded concurrent with or prior to
recordation of the traf7t map.
14. access control shall be required along Haver, Avenue
except at the extension of Alta Loma Avenue.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF G;TOBER, 1932.
PLA;iNI;tG CO:ahISSION OF HE TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG:;
411
BY:
Jetr zg, Chirp
ATTV)T
Secretary of the Planning Commission
1, JACK LAM, Secretary of the ?larnirg Co„Mission 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 Cog-mission held
cn the 13th day of October, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, McNiel, Rempel, Stout
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSI0NERS: King
A10
o
V _
Ya M •i0
9 i J D - •• b v -70
7F_ cL
y y C 9rD C ✓ CLr^ a G =<. > 92 .�.
Y Y O � C i i C J y -r r p E V L G• O - F
is qo L c r..
r y 4 - O V E4 r n_>• O t'a '� i O
r L i c d -2 V u =
O� -J9L �^ O� ✓ V- OIL) � TN
-IL r �
_ . w V O L S
u< PC.�r C
� L M q C 11 J _ C � •r rI i 6 V .l G r P E V >• r 9 4 V N V `I q •$ L L� O
«y EY . wd > V •• t.G d LcL4jp
wY 2 Y IOLo O uL`.L Vp c arE .n n• > k.J�
L r C 7 O
n Ve ci oc
J S r C C Py jO V•= O p V q V -• .. <i L� C j `= 7r w
s- O > C V= V Cr G •.rC _ CV. u �N VO rnry CC
V > o «!q V L_V a=Cc C 'J LO-� _J9- o0 _� '�V �✓� Ev ».rr.V �>� �V w
d- -•9 P Yr - L JV L r r« Lr 00•• CL C4 L«rJ OLqL �- •dn VLC C.d�. r3` •V^VY CX- i�-m_ VMrO e�_ V•• `��O Nr�o 4 9 } y�!�� Vr .1 rO+_ _V
J y -02
o 24 CI c•w r
:Sc
_ ` -J > _ OnC •nV L,r _ � � r.n � d4L G •Lr�u =� 9 P
<y NG Ge vDiG r Wc9
G 4V q v`> O w4 4y� r •-n.r r�4a.r0 V p•
O VVi G F.r u 9 •OVJ a _ .� > l V C ...C M >[LS 3 r ..r iLL p•4 r-L V= �` ^ C` _ u_ C L, ^ L
= •O `\\^\ •D PP\I c\\1 N r L V G�9 S <O 6
�? I � ` • ? 1 � � �t N N N � ^ ��
1, I N •V
0
4r <. C v c D
C. A L 4 9
r C -Z l •u..r a� r P
d r O
ott
L Vq
_ oJ L
�L• P L= tL.T Pi L4 ..r�u £r jr'• t C-J OC ^ M
^ T V Z >O L fC L „ Lp VL MyO -L <.
uC0
5L O ? rV c6 •OL �J w4_ _ O C C� O
r I• 6 r=1
G r=
•- �/S •n yv i 'q q 2� w�� 4C VOL 6CF M.L.r YO � LCV b � S
O �VI JI� �i i co uL S r 2aa0 JM ram- OVVS i o` P9L E V9
• O ' w_S11}'• i V+? V um �n V c « q < ��� � w Gvp V V O ^I I • U\I •" P..• _ O qC L L C i w u py r 01 q r O a J L G '• V C I r O� i0 = iJ Vr •� LVL 4�V V r� _L .• r iy
ZZ
EL
y � < L« � F•i u .a.� �O r« T 'S G 9 V «4 V � t C U 9 r 4
N t�1`CI l' 4I P m 4 L
`G RAJ •n _� -� C Gr. .•' = ' O
O L r C �•^ a _Q_ •^ C G ..- L HNC Lr _ ..••O..r ^ r «
l� i '-' a c 4- L o L u ."e�� se LN,. Jam? = d i E_ s .. >• o �.04
I (\ V _'^ o o�� oc �.:.0, o>, ^y'.•". ee�° > r�� _ F_ coo 4� 0
�2:s C•O- ` vu MSr. ECL OtLP« LUM qL VC ' rF.• qL -S�
_ rr V 1� L!' F V i=L �n _ C ••r S .T 4n.
• � C `NO ` 4 6tir �C � Tw 6� 6�i Orr r� < V > LO r.� �O Vt `
u r M V_ O N •"• P .
D G � O �� � � t � O P C N n •
V I • P •
V � + V C - I •
-
rD
o e _ 4•c�`?`'!' c e c� .L. e G � � �_ i ao a _`_� c4N-_
y AM w��I V2 1C C r I _ r SJ IF
r ` 7 C ♦ C N C O { L O l _ _O C L ` ✓ V.
O. � � ` A/ Cl� _ O; G V ' 1- < < I' V•" G OVCr Cwr
O nr.., V V L V � �c A 10[ �r — O_•L+= r^� cr
S .Vn � np�l Lr r— C9 y V CG .' V rV 2 'p y OC �• �- y?
�- _ ` Gqp cMq " ` > � � � V `L i '•' ` z to�- ec Tco
�i 541i c^ c c wy L c c� '" o cc i-.�J i u ... •^: ^-
: .o .e 'i" '♦ ny n _ v «G c9 o r `Lry c c +yc cc� o'v
V e_` G t > a' C C� v 9 ' n r V♦ �_ Q T C.� r_ T u.� > `
- L $ A� > u C y �_ W •.r 4 r � I L i Oar 0 0 r.. . _ _ C O c
�_. ` >.D...t a't i ^ a V { = Va I �-- O y L y G M `^
`fit L ~ - mac L� ...N o A $i'-"mac-" ou o ♦� � �� D _- y•'�-.� cE
15 e`Go=v2A' e-e
c
c n L
bu Iy — Lyc GGr a 1 —p MG i=r Vry,e L•c.
c L�� V hr. '7•' v _ oy�� G� •o•
•' L C- - ..` - - 4i /� - V � L L Ib f' N q -_�.Lv90
^ i .^ CM N ^- T. C ♦JO VG Ei G •= O VrV _J V OJ4P C VO..>Cw
G SSI C6O � c C� G0. Oa Or Lid GlA 9v � nC_♦- L OV
P O � yI O ^ S�♦ rL- G 9 � G 1 .-
.no-
G C � O O G � �V "- O.L G� C L S��� --• _ 4 v V O
^G vrr r Lr2N C V � C
r �= _C a Y 4 r � G C O_1 w� L_G O O A L'�N A= > O�y � •^ A
p r Y r `C LO D ~aCVP P` V Oa s =� F_.ET_� •^ Vr0 YL
E CR _
G V __G a n d �> C-o r _ C O.Y+ V r•l 4 C r e.. c 1. ^L L V ~
F V 'i ^'•' r0`. G Cw L VLr`G VO _ _ON _ C'C-�__ d� .^rrC� '_♦
b r4 - LV7P � >� MO f�r 7`Y VV 9� 0♦-' C'V �f
w N q _ C 6V l 7�_ 4 ^ VC LJ r Cr7 � C PV G
CV4 OV
r a7 f — G T V=� O 94drYL 0?-♦ `O �S_ r♦A Cy CCz4r VCO A9
s
4 Yot c�- s i 4vT .ac'` �r eaoi
= CCO � O � pG m�.yr u~.L FQ - L�o�rv� 5Fm
L� L t i G r
M - O _ O GC ^JC -♦ ♦--, On9 OG 7
w C= = C r 4 r p r O J =1 V
� O L_ T V r�♦ . O w - G
✓ C � .V-. L � V ^_ i. o u o ! O 7 U C J C C V- G u 2 P � Y G L�O C� .0.. >� `=r V 4
s =_ r .. L -_ > cr -iw "' •^ u Y- l`'♦? o :.v.n " E a^ i - � .. �-r. `^ v u
-� ..L-?N `oL Ac
au Y J C � 00 P=CG •= 1 ��L IL-^ G � �~ ` `O COV i ♦.�V � C� Y� O '^V Or
i i�d P4•- V LG� � C V42C � GC 'CV L'.O `�r J= C ♦ V L
-73-
^ Y h G _ P �♦ r 4_ � G r P 2 ✓• r L C`q j= A �0. 4 w �. C 4 n_ y� '• •n ` >��
:2.c'r
�� 6L G V P�� c .rA<v`n CL„ ^= r•o- > cv yr E t Y_'♦
V V \l N
Ada
C s .L. P C �S Y• ` Y T � " u
O O.V- L O J � y •-C
- . _r
o .- = c �^ 4 Ln• .. - o u4 .cry _ aL _ M - C .L. I - ..
" � u .• n o > '•• c b > c d N :._... - o"" - y .�.` c C �`.� o c u ! e
c cc c - J - = - cr •.y^= > C .u. .. �_• c`ocn S •"-'. ! ten, i oa
_ C� C l+• q -i� L S l
•-
.`�. _.o. a .- Ig u >.�' ` ` o• y� i.-� a«c c _: ca =_ � _iu •` ! 1 '^ I urn
♦. � C V O a O n� �n d _C_ L O V � � V
S J O �P 6 4- 4 Y N = r ��r •O.O M r O C L C- I L S C E
c c = = L_ q � .. Gn � .,._ L_ nu _ `• "L.•iGm � - = n 1 I � o. � I I o•$�
an - '^ onc• P <, _". e «- c :L coi '- < uw v _ u ! � 1 G «_r 1
11 I -� ✓ i .:�
- y Nay o c c o. 1 I 4 L « n
a uo cJ.= � n � -ou ` uc c II 1 c =i
� �� jL _- DLL ` r� VrV O✓� r!ia �^ O rV .'ftr OI •`. 1 C = - 7 Y � VO-'•
> M '�_ « _ � U O V r � 4>� •- „ L� G � � 4 0 0 � L 4 C V
4 -G VG 3CL L �-Qi byres - �• S I I b •`. L
�'` •. ` G9 V L^� CS L •'.Jn Vq= Or- 7C �� a 44 4 ✓ tl �
c c+d tGi� d.` r'd'' o r o`er �qri �uoVL• v n- " „ E_ G „ u Y Lr� = « I LC.0
27C _ _d30 « ua+ OLVyL VVV uM ym Pn LI ]a' r Cn 2 ` iI{ V_ OV
� «•-i• M - « CG ` O•.• LO i VVO✓ OC VI 4C C ___ = P a
rV� r•O.• •Li•r q > OSO y n r0•r «y q� nCf ��4�r � E ` p rr•.• «a
G n r V. -a « - -7r 40 « 4n"M"r « •n EraV 21 E � b Caa q i I G
V_ G LL Or PYO � rrS Yc•'• C4 __ nT0 + L .O•� L GI V.i L « L I ~aL
L� « 4T -_. n .. - ;^r u p� mac`._ym cod• _� o� 'o.Y. cj r <• n '`4I c 1 r .4
o= "om
-
��
o J
J _ „i-• O j 0 •n 9 O y -N w «O r « 4 O M
Ca V N` O On _ate •�^ TVnE O
V-- O-• G L O-.L.rC QY�` VM V }� .• S rw C_ C+�� I 'OHO
y.O� V GN 6s �V •Or• � q C_ S� C � � yv �yt
L V a Y ✓1 O O G« V ! v 4 4
LV G I • G q � 3 0-.
IN
cn
4
� _ a � Or =� � v L=- V `� dJ.= -^ .ter• �- - C 4L � - L
is - ._ _ •^4"= or _a ao � � � - G-
« a � 4.-�C ✓ �L « G O V L r _O C_V ,` V P- y b 7 r c P
L V V V a u V E W Y C� i O ^.�'O
n Orr O'
O _ _ _ 4 Y V L S ± V L y S W «y T_Q y V«4 r r � -p ` � r ✓
_"^-_ _�- _ o c ✓ c c v c' � Fo 4 Y`Yn` Lmf `_.n L � � �_ c c cc � � ��
- f�rrOn - 4G i� G< W •n-.a �y0 2 ✓ Vr«p O b OC y _ -E
E ler �_ 9 ••Oi �= t n0 4L` Gr_ La CrZ.J` y9 _
- ... _ nab r E �� r-- _co_ud i-� L�aLi` •w qtL « a d • b4 ra o -
V 2.2
.4.OM �,' .�G C- ate+ i�p ✓a` it -• � r r > C V CS C•rw �� 4'
>pZL w='L.O. � acc �.:Y EC�`C E7�a• � L _9c vc !o �V
C =_ < 4iV �J t' •_ `r P -� tC -r..On nr y` p nC T Z 00 0- w n7
V C Pr -• b b_ L_F I_ « 7 •�P_ _ NI - V O V ` ✓ 4 V
� o=i �:• . y=_ 4-- � Sin-_- G' s_ .e cam yy L'-L oqq.2
LS
-r L .' c ✓ a. -� of `aciY ���.4.. u --rS 4��y r - we -r ��
_ C L C < « G L_ 4 r ` C 4 r ✓C S C _r Y_ - w p V V � w a N « _` � L Y 4 n C •� C•
-1= � � � « 90' T •[ -r V ' - GG f �_ O` L4.. _ r ✓O _ YO � 4 LC G
..JCS _ • _ _
S = 3 a - C '' 4 OLIO � �� - vOV •n�`V 4-• Cr_ 4Or�4 V � LG O =•'n C.y
w ` z .•
�' wr L nO « - 4" J_ L; S` CY L- L LvO yC EP r •rn r V C_ p =L � 1
+ O « C O V
- J ^ =' -L 9 O G_ •-i•«� G_� Y > L 4 U 4 L L n✓ ]• ` w - V
I
L
- A i3 •
L ' r� � � � ► - -- - � :�N'" _M L ` O.9n i f � v v `V J ` C m
N a ✓�]O O C I .n^h G' .Ln -J q w r i N A .�j M V C, �� V� O .r.. l`J
4 _ _
w l l C u L C � C 4' •-Ji V V a r U � C =� _ C O 'er
V 2
L
9 ~ OC.9 OV 4 SVL _- C•y O OVL �JV y4 r �i � �r
O
Cu �r q4y b Oy .uw V •+ q C .n NJ
Cr N }� U LN
_ •f VD GI 9 O.LN N ^ 4� C09 � V r0 - J .L. C• v - V.r..
-_O - ... -' V4 rI q= y GCL 9yf � q _V Ir•J9 � t�1 I � O qy .- P _40 L .n
C O � r I _4 •i L. P_ l I° N O \ f I r � �= r P U V t O
O r N `I rV� C r1 INrj ._r III LNI On _ C .. a_ � q
x N'sNil
ANIk
7 I _
•' O ` 4 u � � G j V r C I I I 1 ` � J 4 v � q<�. C C u ��G r r J y V O O N
G O 7 V
Et
�`` Cc rV 9i L `u J I .yl ( I �OV C� LW 4V w •• eCPU
e~..�� L 4
uP= N
C
C C - C J L Neu G. C -G V r L y V 4� ` T :q v V am
y L L
^.t .. u_ .-` ra � �-c.. �� E G� I np .�..,�� "c-c �� •'v � Lo
ur
^ C
_ x ...✓ 7 � G = �C I I C 4 C N y �L a C1 G P � J�.-.
cn
SJG � � � CI . q i0 = V _ I y C =� :. ��� 0 JC rC" Vr •- ^.
i l C �_ r V Y 4 P N .-L .r.r •' I �I � i � V `� C r C V 4 N V Y V .:.r C. r d C S
=c Z-
2 ;7 G� J V r "• _- a s � f 4_
b `\ P I
1 I 4 311 -1 I 1
Z mI Pr Vrr ,
A 14
0
C-]
G
y W _
G C V l •" ~S N • G n V
M y
A s_b SEE W It O � .•s d aT
L "' � O VO._ Ir 4 rOui O.O Ow� T ���•J
O >r > �� J �� T V •J V j � M L J u
C
CVVC
"_ _ _ l ql O 4C� t NOG — 0.9 O9•J � lC CTL
� G•V Oy�O r� LT y qV Wordy .Vi qTL i_
t C J
d —i -
A t s
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION,
APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACTS 11804
AND 11805.
WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the
above-described project, pursuant to Section 1.401.11.2 of Ordinance 28-B, the
Subdivision Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the
above-described tentative tract map.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a
distressed market climate for residential projects.
B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory
conditions make it unreasonable to record the
tentative tract map at this time.
C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval
® regarding expirations would not be consistent with
the intent of the Development Code.
D. That the granting of said time extension, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or mate.-ially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity.
E. That subdivision and development of this property
_ pursuant to the tentative tract map which was
approved pursuant to the provisions of an earlier
ordinance of the City, and which is in conflict with
the Development Code, may be continued and completed
in accordance with the provisions of the approval,
provided it is completed within the time limit in
effect at the time of its approval, pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.02-02OC-7.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamr,;,ga Planning Commission hereby grants a
time extension for:
Tracts Applicant Expiration
11804 & 11805 Peter B. Allen October 13, 1986
A lh
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY•
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy ecretary
I, Pick Gomez, Deputy Secreta-y of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
I
CITY CF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CAtiroyc
STAFF REPORT
IC/ 711
1
0
DATE: September 26, 1984 1977,
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY- Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 83-01 - CALMARK - An agreement to
provide access from Heritage "ark to the shopping -enter.
I. BACKGROUND: The conditions of approval require that pedestrian
access be provided from the Heritage Park senior citizen units to
shopping areas along the south property line, including fencing,
security access, and appropriate ramps. Pursuant to this condition
of approval , the applicant, Calmark Development Corporation, has
prepared an "Agreement and Permit for Access" with the property
owners of the Alpha Beta Shopping Center. The agreement grants
Calmark Development Corporation and its successors the right and
privilege to install and maintain a pedestrian access gate and to
enter subject property for the purpose of providing pedestrian
e access to and from the Heritage Park Senior Citizen Project and the
Alpha Beta Shopping Center. However, the agreement contains a
clause that gives the property owners the right to terminate the
agreement at any time by written termination thirty (30) days in
advance.
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed access agreement in
terms of form and content and indicates that the agreement provides
sufficient guarantees that access will be provided; however, noted
that it can be terminated with thirty (30) days notice. Further,
the City Attorney indicates that this termination clause is not
unusual and merely establishes the right of the property owners to
deny access to Heritage Park residents in the same manner that the
property owner has a legal right to bar public access to their
parking lot. therefore, the City Attorney has indicated that this
agreement represents a good faith effort on the part of the
developer, Calmark Development Corporation, to comply with the
intent of the Conditions of Approval.
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Planned Development 83-01 - Calmark
September 26, 1984
Page 2
II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
accept the agreement through minute action as meeting the intent of
the Conditions of Approval .
R ect ly i
bmitted,
i c Got. z
ity Planner
RG:DC:ns
Attachments: Agreement and Permit for Access
Proposed Access and Gate Details
Exhibit "A" - Approved Site Pian
Exhibit "8" - Site Utilization Map
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
e-
P. z
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
AGREEMENT AND PERMIT FOR ACCESS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of t. is
day of 1984 , by and between Alphr Beta Acme
Markets, Inc. , a corporation, and Benjamin J. Franklin and
Melba R. Franklin, (collectively referred to as
"Grantors") , and CAL RANCHO I. INC., a California corpo-
ration ("Grantee") .
WHEREAS, Benjamin J. Franklin and lielba R. Franklin,
are the fee owners, and Alpha Beta Company, formerly Alpha
Beta Acme Markets, Inc., is the lessee of the certain real
property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of
San Bernardino, State of California (the "Subject Proper-
ty") , which property is legally described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein,
and which property is improved as a Commercial stopping
complex; and
WHEREAS, Grantee is the owner of that certain real
property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of
San Bernardino State of California (the "Adjacent Proper-
ty") , "which property is legally described in Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein,
and which property is improved or is to be improves with a
233 unit senior citizen residential apartment project;. and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property and the Adjacent
Property are adjacent to one another; and
WHEREAS, Grantee des-zes and intends to install a
pedestrian access gate of the Subject Property to provide a
convenient pedestrian access to and from the Subject Proper-
ty for the owners, occupants, residents and tenants of the
Adjacent Property and their guests, invitees and licensees,
4
t
and Grantors are willing and intend to gra:,t such rights and
privileges as arooided herein;
NOW, THEREFOR-"_, in consideration of the premises, and
the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid by Grantee to
Grantors, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows;
1. Granters hereby grant to Grantee, its successors
and assigns, the right and privilege to install and maintain
a pedestrian access gate on the Subject Property and to
enter the Subject Property at such location and in such
manner as is more particularly shown in the diagram attached
hereto as Exhibit 'C' and incorporated by this reference
herein, which gate and entry shall be for the purpose of
providing pedestrian access to and from and through the
Subject Property in favor of and app_rtenant to the Adjacent
Property, and which gate and entry shall be for the benefit-
and use of tl.e owners, occupants, residents and tenants of
the Adjacent Property and their guests, invitees and licens-
ees as may be determined by Grantee in its use and operation
of the Adjacent Property.
2. Grantee agrees as a condition hereof_ to pay all
costs for the installation of such pedestrian access gate,
to repair any st_^uctnra'_ damage to any surrounding wall= or
fences which may be caused by the installation of such gate
and to maintain such gate in good condition and repair.
Such gate may be a self-locking gate, with access to the
Adjacent Property from the Subject Property via the gate
restricted, and requiring the use of a key to enter the gate
from the Subject Property.
3. Granters shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement at any time and without prior notice to Grantee.
Subject to the foregoing, the rights and privileges granted
herein shall continue for a term of 30 years from the date
hereof, and shall be automatically extended for successive
periods of 10 years each unless Witten notice of
L
t (
termination is delivered by Grantors t. Grantee. Grantee
agrees that use or exercise of the privilege conferred
herein during the original term or any extension thereof
shall not give rise to or create any claim for any prescrip-
tive right or easement in the Subject Property.
3. This Agreement and the covenants and provisions
hereof shall benefit and run with the land, and shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of all pa.-ties having
or acquiring any right, title or interest in the real
property described herein, or any portion thereof, and shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors
and assigns of such party for so long as each such succes-
sive transferee retains its respective interest in the
property.
S. Grantee further Agrees that is shall, for the
mutual benefit of Grantee and Grantor, maintain public
liZ`'ility insurance against claims for bodily injury, death,
nr property damage occurring in or about the Subject Proper-
ty or the pedestrian access gate. Such insurance shall
afford protection in the combined single limit of not less
than $1,000,000 for perscr.al injury and property damage.
Grantors shall be named as an insured under such insurance,
and Grantee agrees tha` the policy for such insurance shall
provide that the coverrge described therein shall not be
caL._elled or reduced in amount without first providing
(thirty) 30 days advance writtea notice to Grantors. Such
insurance shall be primary and noncontributing with any
ether insurance. Grantee agrees to provide Grantors evi-
dence of such insurance within thirty (301 days of execution
of this agreement.C. Nothing contained herein shall imposes any liability
upon the holder of any bona fide mortgr3e or. deed , f trust
obtained for value which is a lien against all or any
portion of the property herein described. No violation of
any covenant, condition or restriction herein or provision
hereof shall defeat or render invalid the lien of any
3
K 5
C
nortgage or deed of t_....t against all or any portion of the
property herein described made in good faith and for value.
This Agreemenz contains the antire uncle rstand_ag
between the parties relating to the rights anC. privileges
herein granted, and may not be modified or amended without
the written consent of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Agreewent as of the day and year first herein;bove
written.
GRANTORS:
Ben)a.-un J. Franklin
Melba R. Franklin
ALPFA BETA COMPAvY, formerly
Alpha Beta Acme Markets, Inc.
a Delaware Corporation
By
Its
ATTEST:
GRA%=- :
CAL-RAf CEO 1, INC_, a
Cali_for::ia Corporation
By
its
ATTEST:
Q
STATE OF )
: ss
COUNTY OF I
On the day of 1984, before me, a
Notary Public in and For saic State and County, appeared
BENJAMIN J. FRA1ALIN and MELBA R. FRANKLIN, personally known
to me to be the persons who executed tt.e foregoing
instrument.
NOtory ku�blic
Residing In•
My Commissior. Expires:
STATE OF UTAR )
ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
On 1 1984. before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared and
personally known to me to be the persons who executed the
within instrument as and
on beha_£ or ALPFA BETA COMPANY, t.
corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its
by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
Residing at:
MY cOMmi.ssior, expires:
STATE OF UTAH j
: ss.
COUNTY OF SALT L3LCE }
on 1984, before me, the
undersig , a o Ntary F lic in y.d for said State,
personally appeared and
personally known to me to be the persons who executed the
within instr=ert as and
, or beha�o£ CAL-RANCHO I, INC., the
corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the within instrument pursuant _o its
by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary P ti:
Residing at:
My commission expires:
S
k:
= " b"7
f-
EXHIBIT "A"
PP.BCEL A: PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 793, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER NAP, FILED IN BOOK 8, PAGE
10, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF ^•.HE COLTN— RECORDER OF SAID
Cou"TY.
PARCEL 3: AN EASW NT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES 15.00 FEET IN WIDTH
LYING ADjACE,%-r TO AND IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE MOST WESTERLY LINES
OF PARCELS 1, 2, AND 3, OF SAID PARCEL MAP'NO. 793, AS PROVIDED
IN THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 7112, PAGE 147, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN
HE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORYZA_
PARCEL C: AN EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES OVER THE WESTERLY
15.00 FEET OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 793, AS PRO-
VIDED IN THE DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 7112, PACE 147, OFFICIAL RE-
CORDS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORSI:�_
PARCEL D: AN EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAY PURPOSES OVER THE WESTERLY
15.00 FEET OF PARCEL 5 OF SAID PI RCEL MAP NO. 793, IN THE COU:7TY
OF SAN 8£RNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
I
7/li/84
V
EXHIBIT "B"
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5792, IN THE CITY OF 7=;CHO
CUC:,":ONGA, COUNTY Or SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER :LAP RECORDED IN B00% 59, PAGES 74 ANn 75 OF PARCEL
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
J.N. 701-002-0
7/10184
P.
7
69
11.0
TW '70 r1 I
•t+ //r�- pp
u-
W% n
L—
lox
t �S
F-
FAAIVK l' Y�� -�! V1 t� � n•�iti' 1• � i
AADMLAn
ciscaACHEA
ASSOCIATES- INC. t /
Archrttcri 0
812-t774 c.cc. °� J
Cw 916110
Iatla+ Ydt..5+..+w•SVna 10a
7
!I
2 Spe S, ! 21%g 121 2��2
i ail I ;
JAI
I,
s�
1 �
i
t
fjFRANK
RAD,MACHER
ASSOCIATES, INC. F= i�p A••t
LA1Kiscape Atclne.cts oe••• G,(� n
(7541$1;-2771
• 18641 lrcvw sue".S"t 204 .Tw^CA 9'.6l,O "�'•�`^' twtc+
REcD 11AY2 3
TLI�INU WEL
Alt. W E-ixx� SNlovr}.1 ►�'J Gl life.
Z4 NG G
..... . Z coa s HRoMa-r'-
= z!�/�O E�L.14�_ s �'L�UM OFF
�
i
WASFRANK
,
RAAMACHER
ASSOCIATES. INC. raj :
UnAsc<sPeArcArtcctc Iz�TJG.+r"�Q /A t w Joaro .. k-
NuC! tp:M StrM.5u+le$at . Tuaiwl - 1'iL-i�/� ` O.N� L@ 46
.c���ana t. .�i.
cnc.
l
ORDINANCE NO. 201
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITT COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF P.ANCNO
CUC;L%027GA, CALIFORNIA, REZ0:112IG A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S
PARCc,. =BER 202-151-3t DFSCRIBJ As PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL
MAP 7,827, AND LOCATED WEST OF ARCHI3ALD AND NORTH OF BAcE
LINE, FRC1 R-3/PD TO P.-3/50
The City Council of the City of Fancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as foilows:
S_CT=ON 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. -hat the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, following a public heari.g held in the
time and mahcer prescribed by law, recommends the
rezoning of the property hereinafter described, and
this City Council has held a public hearing in the
time and manner prescribed by law as duly heard and
considered said recomsendation.
. S. That this rezoning is consistent with the Genertl
Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. This rezoning will have no significant environmental
impact as provided in the Negative Declaration filed
L.rein.
D. That the conditions recc^_ended by Planning
Co—lssion Resolution No. 83-25, and attached hereto
as Exhibit ^A", shall be complied with as amended by
City Council action as shown. on Eibibit -S.-
SECTION 2: The following described real property is hereby rezoned
in the man::er stated, and the zoning cap is hereby amended accordingly.
Assessor's Parcel Number 202-151-3b, a portion thereof,
described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 7827, approximately
a.55 acres in size and generally located west of
Archlbald and north of Base Lire, is hereby charged from
R-3/PD (Multiple Family Residential/Planzed Development)
to R-3/SO (Multiple Family Residential,'Senicr Overlay).
((( SEC-IL 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published witYin fifteen (15) days after, its-
Passage at least once in, The Dailv Report, a newspaper or general circulation
pub11shed in the City of O,^ar.o, California, and circulated in the City of
R no Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of April, 1183-
AYES: Dahl, Buruet, Schlosser, Frost, Mikels
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
on D. Mikels, .11ayor
i
Ordinance No- 201,
Page :? >r�
A==-
Wren M. 8aaserr-aa, city Clerk
EXB1'I7 "A"
RESOUST.OII N0. 83-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANrdG CU=-',O',:GA PLAR7InG CON.M1SSIO:: 111
RECO: :E%0IP:G APPROVAL ',F PLA UED DEYELOMMENT NO. 83-01
FOR 9.78 ACRES, ;NU KEOUESTING A CHANGE IN TF` ZONING
FROM R-3/PO TO R-3/S0 FOR 6.1 ACRE PORTIOU OF THE SITE,
PARCEL 1 AND 3, SOLELY OCCUPIED BY SEC7i0R CITIc11 HOUSING
UNITS OF PARCEL MAP 7827, LOCATED NEST OF ARCHIBALD AND
NORTH OF BASE LINE
WHEREAS, on the 25th day of January, 1923, an application was f
and accepted on the above-described project; and il
WHEREAS, on the 9th day of March, 1983, the Planning Ccmmission held
duty advertised public herrings pursuant to Section 65354 of the California
Government Code.
SECTi0'1 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Co-fission has made the
following rinoingsc
1. That the subject property is suitable for tb+ ess,uses
permitted in the proposz^_ zone in terns of acc '-
size, and conoatibility with existing lano Cc in -
the Surrounding area. use
2- That the proposed Zone Change would rbt have
significant impact on the _nvironment nor the
surrounding properties.
3. That the proposed Zone Change is in conformance with
the General Plan.
• SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comaission has found that
this projeZT-wIT7not create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and recormends to City Council the issuance of a ae gati•:e Declaration on atiort on
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the `
California Government Code, that the Planning
[omission of the City of Rancho CUCamonna hereby L recc.:.,enas approval rn the 9th day of March, 1983,
Planned Development .;o. 83-01.
2. The Planning Comteission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt Planned Development
No. 33-Cl and the zone change repuest.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planneno Ccm iSS ion
shall be forwarded to the City Council_
rg.
Ordinance No. 201
Page 3
EXHIBIT "A"
Resolution No. 83-29
Page 2
SECTIO% 3: planned Development llo. 83-01 is hereby approved subject
to all of the roiio%: r.; conditions and the attached Stanaartl Conditions:
PLAflBI:G CC:•41ISSITI
1. Approval of Planned Development S3-01 is granted
subject to approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment
83-02, Ceneral Plan Amendment 83-03, and Parcel
Map 7E27.
2. All conditions of approval applicable to Parcel Map
7827 shall apply to this Planned Development.
3. Approval of Planned Development 83-01 is granted
subject to approval of a Development Agreement
granting a density bonus to allow the Heritage Park
project density net to exceed 37.5 DUJAC and the
parking ratio shall not be less than .75
Spaces/unit.
4. All walkway fascia boards within the Heritage Park
Pmjecc shall be designed to provide a larger
architectural element.
5. Benches shall be provided throughout Heritage Park
along Lie sidewalks.
6_ Pedestrian access to shopping areas must be provided
along the south and west property lines; details of
xhich shall be approved by the Planning Division
prior to issuance of Building Permits. (i.e.,
- fencing, security access, ramping).
7_ Dense landscaping shall be provided along the
perimeter, including columnar evergreens and
deciduous trees, to screen and buffer the project
from surrounding land uses.
L S. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted
indicating adequate lighting along Heritage Park
walkways.
9. Heritage Park landscaping shall minimize impact from
surrounding neighborHood and provide adequate
security and buffering.
10. Handrails that can be used as "crab-bars" shall be
provided on all Stairxays within Heritage Park.
OrG:nan_ No. 201
Page +
EB8?3IT "A"
i
Resolution No. 83-29
Page 3
EINGINEERTNG DIVISION
11. All pertinent conditions of Parcel Map 5792 shall
apply to this project.
12- The east side of Archibald Avenue shall be widened
as required by the City Engineer to provide for a
left-turn pocket to Lomita Court.
13. Construction. of either an AC Swale or cc-b and
gutter and connecting paving on west site of
Archibald Avenue shall be required to protect the
shoulder from drainage erosion fron Lomita Curt to
the existing curb and gutter-
APPROVED AND ADOPT-_D THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1983.
PLANNING PZ-4ISSION OF TYE CITY OF P.ANC40 CJCA:MN-5A
By: �,� :Lv+u7
Jett,
ett rey Rrn3, crtai-maa
f or the Planning LG.. I551011
i
I, OAM LAM, Secretary of the Planning Co=ission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning (o.-m4ssion of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Co=ission held
on the 23rd day of February, 1933. by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: C=4ISSIMIERS: STOUT, MCIIEL, BARKER, REMPEL, K.l%G
;;OES: CC"4iSSID:ERS: NO*1E
A8SE7:T: C". ISSIO::ERS: NONE
S= ..TTAC1::':ZNTS TO r._SOLi:tOd 33-29 riJ aim c4iMI5S1c:7 rMcs.
`( `1111111mt1it. " i3 ib
Ordinance No. 201
Page 7
EXHIB'T "B"
CITY COJ::CIL ACTT-Oil
The City Council, in addition to accepting the conditions
rece--ended by Planning Commission Resoluticn No. 83-29, added the
following items:
1 . Eliminate driveway and parking spaces between
Sunrise and Heritage Park located west of the
terminus of Lomita Court. Parking spaces
shall be relocated throughout perimeter of
Sunrise. Provide an "ewer.-ency only" acCESs
]ane, constructed of decomposed granite
covered with soil and turf, in place of
driveway.
2. Providee self-locking gate with master keylock,
for Heritage Park residents; at the westerly
terminus of the driveway turn around adjacent
to westerly boundary.
6 1-7
SUNRISE
GENERAL OCCUPANCY
APARTMENTS
—,
VRTl�T1NR5 i ~r �- � r�� V \ •� S: I •�� I� �I
I�' s ' Lr�� L a •' ' � a�I
lit,., _;�.�� 4,• G r � �I,
y y -
i�_ \` 7.
�,. HERITAGE PARK
ELDERLY APARTN,EN7'S
L. lili 1 —
II�f� (0.75 a,,r✓,��.
col..an.� ✓�-`7
=7-7 1:7 a
tCGE55
�J
i`'Ot7TH
CITY or ITr,I: Q -D
RANCHO CHO CUC-� IG\GA tjTLE:
'I U I NNING DIVISION E.XHIMT.- Sr-,:,LE:_�
r
i
LEeEN'.7
C = SINGLE FAMILY
twsLi
1 � 1
1 VACANT
° �..� 4xt•Es
PLAY r_lr
j R-3 �-
/ rtn, raan isra R-l-s
LA VINE ST-
Ci:J.p
1-7 --J LJ J R-3
---
R-j-S
30
t
LA GRAx7E C I - S.P.R.R.
y
i vt+A.c:.aat srt..cc
s' <
C-z I ` Iy ��cFh vauw: R-3/?D\
_ S
1T X LGI:.A �
LC12TA C22v� -_ 1.
o I Ve
o� _
�? ����3 C-1 -,.-3IPD
v
j ! 0 R-3 R-3/PD
Q'
Z 1 O 1 v - - ra r A-P
I
uoxz R-3x,.rxr �_j -
`-� C 1 0 O. I t] rater 1
tttt 1 I � n
Ca
R_3 1-- 1, „r I I PAJM, 1 � h-P/
1 1 sec 'C'
vm
BASE ROAD /
I R-i ;_..o O i
FORTH
® cn,y OF ITEM,
R "CH O CUCA1 O GA �:eye �t��- M�f
PLC \'?vI.\G Did SiQNT F�Hl�t3= _ALE: .�•
R`>
CITY OF RANCHO CUCATAONGA
STAFF REPORT �" 3�
� r
O IO
�' IZ
DATE: September 26, 1984 tgn I
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
j FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
ppg� BY: Nan:y Fong, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW G4-43 _
ARTON - jhe dove opment of two 2 -`ory and one 3-story
office building totaling 65,000 square feet on 4.1 acres
of land in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) District
located on the west side of Utica Avenue, between Aspen
Street and Civic Center Drive - APN 208-351-21.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Issuance of a Negative Declaration
B. Purpose: Construction of 3 office buildings totaling 65,000
square feet.
C. Location: West side of Utica Avenue between Asnen Street and
- Civic Cei%ter Drive
D. Parcel Size: 4.1 acres
E. Existinq Zoning: Industrial Park (Subarea 7)
F. Existing Land Use: Vacant
9 G. Surrounding Lan6 Use and Zoning:
North - Vacant, County Court and Professional offices under
construction,; Industrial Park (Subarea 7)
South - Light Industrial, offices, commercial; Industrial
Park (Subarea 7), Commercial
East - Vacant; Industrial Park (Subarea 7)
West - Vacant; Industrial ParK (Subarea 7)
H. General Plan Desi inajions:
rcject Site - Industrial Park
North - Industrial Park
South - Industrial Park
East - Industrial Park
West - Industrial Park
0
ITEM r,
PLANNING CO'HISS,ON STAFF REPORT
DR 84-43/Barton
` September 26, 1984
Page 2
I
I. Site Characteristics: The project site is vacant and rough
graded with no structures or significant vegetation. Street
improvements for Utica Avenue, Civic Center Drive and Aspen
Street have beer. completed with the exception of drive
approaches and sidewalks.
II. ANALYSIS:
A. General: The developer is requesting an environmental
assessment for the construction of three office buildings.
Presently, only precise plans and architecture for buildings
number one and two are submitted for Development Review.
Therefore, a separate development review wiil be required for
building number 3. Part I of the Initial Study h%,s been
completed by the applicant and is attached for your review and
consideration. Staff has completed Part II of the
Environmental Assessment and foind no significant im3acts on
the environment as a rP-tilt of this project. Upon approval of
a Negative Declaration, staff will grant final approval of the
proje=+ based upon conditions recommended by the Desic+n and
Techri 1 Review Committees.
B. Impacts: envelopment of the project will generate additional
traff,c and 'ncrease the amount of water runoff from the
property. However, these increases are insignificant sine the
surrouncing streets and drainage facilities have been iny,.alled
tG handle the. project increases.
To mitigate the circulation conflict between the proposed
development and the Future developments on the east side of
Utica Avenue, an area access plan of ingress and egress for
Utica Avenue should be submitted to the Design/Technical Review
Cor-anittees for review and approval.
III. RECOMMENDATION: Based u- site analysis and the Initial Study,
thT—project v 11 not c -_se significant adverse imparts on the
environment. It the Commission concurs, issuance of a Negative
Declaration for this project would be i, order.
pectf submitted,
rRi
R-:NF:jr
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 84-43/Barton
September 26, 1984
Page 3
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan
Exhibit "CG - Site Plan & Srat'ng Plan
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Elev: ions
Exhibit "F" - Floor Plan
Initial Study, Part I
.r
Y,
_ •11.
�v�^..:�jS�t�'Yv� f^'-c•C.i�, �y�-fxe�Y S"4�i�x'lx �Y M�'k+nt�.ft t
avk'� s'�1.1 .��?�'�s r•'V.`iv . t "��. J"�s.. ,r s u >z ..�` s
F t '�T✓ t'^ fb }f � � �
r.:: � - •-�'' r � r.,.Y,:nN x,+•4-'-k.-^ ..�Y-,-.u.,'u.S... ,r�-y 1.-..c'.,4.r Y4�••J+ r`"�An j`C`.�y"�':'��•.., y`
i—'�..�•y,;),,,,.+s-.e...�e.'E.:e^'Yst.�,F:ai~'.s..'auw:d':.' �.ud'.....;:1�,, r v. ; � � .; ,,,� J� ;� -�.:t.'!i.Y..:;.
....9�. ° s•i f '... ..moo yz�� c ,�o �,,,� r� �yo,,..-..> ,i�i: oi�S.�...�
J-
t
i
EXHIBIT B
1 PROFESSIONAL
` I I RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK MAST�R`ILAN OFFICES
f
•
PROFESSIONAL
COLINTY_cogaTs s� r •�1 �"j 1 OFFICES/R & D
CIVIC ENTER
_ —
�CnrMAttOFFICE
1 -.
-151
_I• -Kn - - - i.'7 _•. OKCICE
5 sir^• ��}+ , e GFFiCE i EAINIS
\`
OFFICE EXECUTIVE CENT 1
.ti. ��11Z1111'lM1 2. , �/^ Jr•:. �I �• '" fj L'� 1 1
—� fl COMMERCIAL' - t
i
:n Dfl ;;:Pm I
K-\•.ART L` `
1
i LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
1 � iij
_
LIP
R-
A
1k
.4 fill
V1j
fir.. y ` f M1
:, "`� 'r'��,�•t �y It
�wy�y G
a�YYs mil.. • - r''••��"• `� ' �'+1.`}�': ` •� ..:-rF�in, '...it..- �-�
�. ....�.
�•l'licl7ntttntl�u f�� f,(n�gl ,
I a14 . n ``� I,f • , ua�.a
•�M : nN rr�(4T�ie.Jt �fFfit�iya--� q �.,.[. �.:I1.ML41A�474i(fi}���.. 1.liA .•.�. ' ..
PLC' 11414tTX1 4' 2 �I Ills •ni �- •� . ~� •• �ILl rlr urti 1~�I Ylrll. �-,
•r
T
r
a'
NORTH
'f.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,. .'
ITME-
.e' tl-1 _l, I. �h ICY' Il J I7'•.
'... �.. - .. .., ! ..� _ r 1 r-1 ,1.I .q 1 •mil � ..
r
1
• r
•
16
,s M -�
EAST ELEVATIOR
NORTH
aTY OF
,.
CUCAM
r�
i♦
.'"
'1M
i
li
■. J
: 1
,�'r�V y„�; !!Il � '"', , 1'I I i _i lj � `� ,�..� � ��, ,. 'ate''•. .
, ro Fe ili' I ro
{
•"•"• _ 1X1 Ft r r €
ITTI1 r old
',. '"BB'x.h [ 1 i ! f (�:.�fi!��j`` aE/f�, t_C' i i � 11 i•i 1� � ,.
� I r � _ � - L �� `� .7wi z•-t L -Mom• J '.
aI
■
♦ s'.
r
l '
� � s,
`r l'
u
'i4Yy" r�nn^
r '
y\�nyt�,41.M y
f e �
• • • "� t
" t•
j . .
�J
M� 4
AV
n4
A/
a'
CITY %C)IF
s J
i
n � '
PLANNING DIVISION _71
8
CITY 0} Fv=\C iO CUC ,MCr\'GA
_TI:ITZnL STUDY
PART I - pROJSC1, I-VORMIAT1-ON SHEET - To be completed
Enviro. mental ASSe55-.,ient `� bV applicanc-
P.eview Fee: S87.00
For all arnjec`_s recurring envisor_•nental review, this
i CJr'I^ M1,1St be completed and sabnlitted tD the Devel opaent
Re:72EW CO-, lttee tl]r01]gR the c'epart;.ent o_;±2re �?le
Project ' lication is ,-,,=de_ -
Upon rc.•eio= or this
ub011Cat=On, the F'nSiir.^- _mental Analysis Swazi Will rrEDc re
Fart 11 Or the Initial Jti:�V_ Tie lievelOp...�. -
-
Co: r.it_ee will meet ar-5 -a--e aC`, Lon no later
(10) days ::efor_- the PLbli than ten
meeti, at w} ich tine _r,e
arcject is to be heard_ The Co.aitte= will r,.ake one cf
three d< erZ.nations- 1) T2is project will lave no �i or.i fi -an
envirc-_re^t_Z irmact and e Negative e
he-
led., - D cla_aca Will be-
ri1 , 2) The project -. ill have a sicn;;icant envircu-M-er , l a
and an Environmental Impact P.eport w:11 be prepared, or 3) An a��a :ditional information report should be supplied by the app'.icapt
civina further informatier. COncernino the prnncsed proj,.ti._
PRO BECT TITLE: Civic Center Office Br4.1ding
APPLI.C�\^ 'S 1U;r.E, ADDRESS . TEZEPaON : Bartcm Development
8409 Utica Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91-30
714-987-0y96
IZ-_tf-M, ADDR ES, TELEPHONE_- OF PERSON TJ BE CCI.'TACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: ,lames E. Barton, 8409 Mica Avenue,
Rancho Cucamonga , Ca 91730 719-98-7
-0996
a LOCATION OF PRO�-.-_cCT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO_ )
civic Center Drive and Utica Avenue, Lots 2 and 3 of Parcel Map 8568
LIST OTHER _vER111TS hcCESS-ARY F ON; LOCAL, REG�I0%^- L, STATE A\i
FEDERAL AGENCIEF AND T?^ AGENCY ISSUING SL'Cri PER?,ITS:
Buildina permit , Citv pf Rancho Cucamonga
pRn.7EC_D-cCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Cne 2--story zff ice structure
-2�rgr in`atpiy ?n_nnn cnliare Eeet anri nnp +h rpP of r�r 'f-
-structure of anproxi.-nately 30.000 scuare feet.
ACP.ERGE OF PROJECT 7-R A AN-D SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EY.ISTIIdG r��D
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, I, NY: Land is eeual to 3 acres
which is ecual to 137,900 scuare feet- - No existing buildings,
prcncsed structures are to be approximately 50 , 000 square feet
DESCRIBE .:F—E -NVIRO_. _`-PL SE^ ItiG OF TPA PROJECT SITE
INCLUDI`G IN='Or^.=15TT_O_�Z ON TOPOGR;AP:Y, PLAT_v'PS (TREES) ,
ANIi-=LS, ANY CUI;1U-7�L, HISTORICAL OR SCE—X C ASP:C='S, USE
0 SSUR?OTa:DIL,ZG PP.OP�PERT_ES, AND THE DESCRIPT10- OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTUIREES ANM THEIR USE (ATTACH X-ECESSARY S:"E'_S)
Exist-inn lard is vacant_ There are no trees, plants
animals . cultural or historical aspects-
It has been graded per City standards under existing permits
_dS]d rh TP lh G Padd- t 1 canqt=ictinn i
S
Is the project, Part of a larger project, one of a series-
of c•U:nulative actions, Vnich alt ouch individually small,
may as a whole nave significant environmental impact?
^ nrniact is Dart of a 300 acre master Dlan develooment
Dreviously approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonoa-
r
WILL 71175 ?ROo ';^_T:
YES 170
1 . Create a substantial change in ground
conto::rs?
x 2 . Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration:
} 3 _ Create a suDsta;.tial c^ange in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) '.
x 4. Create canoes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
?_ 5: Remove any existing trees? =low many?_
6 _ Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially haZardcus !,-.aterials such as
toxic su=stances, flaa.:�ables or explosives?
F_xDlanatlon of any 1__c ansWers above-
- I1d11JRTy1.TI : If the Dro]ect involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next pace.
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 ccrrect to the best of
my knowledge and belief_ I further understand t1a t
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the .Developnent
Revic-w Committee_
Date September 6, 1984 Signature• �4P
Title Owner
_ _-
CI;'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONsA
STAFF REPORT C'�a
C, O
yi S
F• $ Z
DATE: September 26, 1984
1977
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR TENTATIVE TRACT. 11853 -
ARRATT, IRVINE DIVIS_ON - A total development of 2'
condominiums on 5. 1 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located on the north
side of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202-171-42.
1. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension
for Tentative Tract 11853, as described above. The project was
originally approved by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1981
and currently expires on October 28, 1984. The developer is
requesting the maximum time extension that may be granted for this
map.
11. ANALYSIS: Since the approval of this project the Cevelopment Code
has been adopted. Therefore, in order to consider a time extension
the project was reviewed for conformance with the Development Code
requirements. Due to the density of the project being 12.61 du/ac,
the project is being reviewed against the Optional Development
Standards. Baser. upon this review, there were two areas found to
be inconsistent between present Code standards and the approved
plans. These inconsistencies are described as follews:
1. Interior site boundar setback to dwellino unit: The present
Developme�:c Code requires a minimum -foot setback from an
interior site boundary line to a dwelling unit. The project
has 5 instances where a setback distance is 15 feet. This is
the worse case in the project. Other setbacks proposed between
a dwelling unit and an interior site boundary vary between 38
feet and 22 feet. These 15-foot setback locations are
identified on Exhibit "C" of the staff repor'G.
2. Under the Optional Standards of the Development Code a solar
energy system for the residential units domestic water needs is
required. Although the units would be pre-plumbed for a solar
energy system, the solar energy collectors are not required
with the original approval in 1981.
ITEM D
,f,
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Time Extension - Tentative Tract 11853/8arratt
September 26, 1984
Page 2
These two inconsistencies in the past have not been considered by
the Panning Commission to be significant and if corrections were
made they would not alter the appearance or function of the
project. The Commission does have the authority to grant a time
extension under Deveiopment Code Section 17.02.020 C-7 for a map
even though the project may not conform to present Code standards
in total. -
Staff would also like to note that this particular tract and land
area was not part of the 19th Street Corridor Study.
III. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that a one (1)
year final extension be granted by .he Planning Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
RickjGemez
City Pl�mner
1
IG:LD:jr
Attachments: Letter from Applicant Requesting Extension
Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Approved Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan
Planning Commission Staff Report - October 28, 1981
Original Resolution of Approval
Time Extension Resoluticn of Approval
.r
•r�
August 22, 1984
City of Rancho Cucamonga
S 320 Baseline Rcad
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attn: Rick Gomez
Planning Director
Re: Tract 11853
19th Street & Ramona
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Mr. Gomez:
Please accept this letter as Barratt Irvine's written request to extend
the referenced Tentative Map for one (1) year commencing October 24,
1984.
Due to the preparation and discussion of the 19th Street Study, we dec;ded
not to proceed with the Final Map. Now that the Study has been completed,
we cannot complete the map in the time allotted. Therefore, we respectfully
request a one (1) year extension. Should you have any questions, please
call the undersigned.
Sincerely,
BAR TT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
Robert A. Hukee
Vice President
Planning & Engineering
RAH:ik
BatB#t nw=D:vmom)7752Skypark Bou)evarci, Suite 160,Irvine,Caliiornia 92714,(714)250-0440
Contractcrs : icense No. 402424
n .�
TENTATIVE TRACT NO 11853
SITE UTILIZATION AND RADIUS MAP
I I I \. \N <.M�••.t O�1 I
1 I '
�1. wRRf.•n �Rt � i `. '
l\Qil 1 -1
CITY OF ITEM: TT Ilg�3
RAINCHO CL'Gr jN,I0\'GA, TITLE:
yIClVllfll 111a�
PLANNI\G DIVISIU�I E\i itI31T: ���~SG+LE
:
D4
R.1 IL.],
Oil
� 1
t
r
i
G�
i 'ORTH
CITY OF ITEM:
R�\Cg-10 C,LC..�-�\,10,NGA TITLE: $c�bdid tii IrutO
PLANNING DIVLSI(-)N EXI-IIBIT-- !�G SCALE-
p! b 5
I
TYPICAL UMT CONF sK'URATgN 161M.UlC•RJ
t :e �•..�
RECREATION ARER ....�.
AREA �NifalzF-
.-%
?! —BUILIMIS NUMBER
RCCSTR•w f.AOZT•wC�-{�{=——� -� •. _. • - -
j
,*cTreMIw STgEEr -V
V
NORTH
CITY OF ITr\1:
RANCHO CL'C1�I0XGA TITLE=S.�Fdi
PLANNING DI%IISK '\ ILM IIG1T= "G�• SCALE:
D co
r"
— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA cucn 40
STAFF REPORT
O� O
OCTOBER 28, 1981 Ul ^� >
1977
TO: Members of the Planning Commission i
FROM: Jack Lam, AICP, Director of Community Development
BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 81-01
TT 11853i - AMERICAN NATIONAL - A change of zone from R-I-
8,500 to R-3/PD for a total planned development of 72 condo-
minimum snits on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side
of 19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202-171-42
ABSTRACT: The applicants have submitted development plans and a tract
map for the above-described project in order to gain consideration for
approval by the Planning Commission. Approval of this project will neces-
sitate the approval of 4 intergai parts of the project; a Negative Decla-
ration, the rezoning of the site from R-1-8,500 (Single Family Residential )
to the R-3/PD (Multi-family Residential/Planned Development) zone, the site
plan and building design, and the tentative tract map. The project has been
reviewed by both the Design and Growth Management Review Committees and has
passed the Residential Assessment System. Staff has prepared a detailed
Staff Report, related Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval for your
review and consideration_
BACKGROUND: The appiicant, American ;National Housing Corporation, is
requesting approval of their proposal in order to develop 72 condominiums
on 5.71 acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street at Ramona
Avenue (Exhibits A, B, and C). The application is for a Planned Develop-
ment with a density of 13.6 dwelling units per acre. The project site is
in the R-1-8,500 zone and General Planned for medium density residential
(4-14 dwelling units per acre).
The project site has two existing residences which will be removed or
demolished. Thy property slopes uniformly from the north to the south
at approximately 4a except at the north property line where the southern
boundary of a steep knoll exists. The site is a former citrus grove with
Eucalyptus windbreaks along the east boundary line. Approximatley 91 trees u
of various types will be removed with 11 Oak trees to be preserved. The
surrounding Ian( uses and zoning is described as follows:
PD 81-01 (TT 11853)
Staff Report -2- October 28, 198i
LAND USE ZONING
North Existing single family residence with R-1-8,500
Foothill Freeway right-of-way approxi-
mately 150' to the north.
South Single Family Residential R-1
East Church and Vacant Land R-1-8,500
West Vacant with approved 200-unit apartment R-3
complex
ANALYSIS: The project is being developed in accordance with the State
Subdivision Map Act as well as the City`s Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning
Ordinance. The proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan.
All setbacks, building separation, height, parking, and open space require-
ments in the Zoning Ordinance will be complied with.
The project will -include 12 six-plex structures. Each structure will
have four.-2-story, two-bedroom units and two one-bedroom units (Exhibits
D and E). All units include a 2-car attached garage. Thirty (30) addi-
tional guest parking spaces are provided throughout the development.
Texturized pedestrian crosswalks have been provided as shown on the site
plan, but Staff recommends that additional crosswalks and a texturized entry-
way into the development be provides: to form a continuous pedestrian system.
Recreation facilities include a pool , spa, and 2 play areas for children,
one with an improved tot lot (Exhibit F).
Two points of access have beer`, provided into the project off of 19tn Street;
the main entrance at the southwest corner, and an emergency access at the
southeast corner. Full street improvements will be required along 19th
Street, including dedication of 21 feet of additional right-of-way. The
interior road system meets the minimum design standards of the Zoning Ordi-
nance with 26 feet curb-to-curb. The streets, landscaping, and open space
will be maintained by a Homeowners Association. The preliminary grading
and drainage plan has been reviewed by the Grading Committee and riven
conceptual approval (Exhibit G). -
Landscaping will be provided throughout the development in accordance with
standards and policies set by the Planning Commission (Exhibit H). The
applicant proposes to install landscaping with patio fences along 19th St.
The fence setbacks will vary from 26' to 45' from the face of the curb on
19th Street. Staff recommends that the maximum height of fences here be
5 feet. Alsc, additional landscaping treatment will be required to buffer
the grade difference between the street and building pad Clevations.
b8
P. D. 21-01 (TT 11553)
Staff Report -3- October 28, 1981
37 Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees exist along the east project boundary and
are slated to be removed by the applicant. Staff recommends that they
be rerlaced with a species of Eucalyptus more suitable to residential
land use at 15' on center. Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans
will be submitted to the Planning Divisinn prior to issuance of building
permits tc assure compliance with these conditions.
The Design, Review Committee reviewed this project finding it an acceptable
style for this area. Detailed colorec renderings, site plan and building
material samples will be available for your review at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting.
Please find attached Part I of the Initial Study, completed by the applicant,
which discusses various environmental factors relative to the project. Staff
has completed Part I1 of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts on the
environment due to this development have been found. If the Commission
concurs with this determination, recommendation of a Negative Declaration
would be appropriate.
CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was advertised in the Daily Report
newspaper on October 16, 1981 . 28 public hearing notices were sent to sur-
rounding property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no
correspondence has been received either for or against this project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct
a public hearing to consider all matters relative to this project. If the
Commission concurs with the findings of the Staff, adoption of the attached
Resolutions with Conditions of Approval would be appropriate.
Respectfully suT-'tted,t� t ... 1
JACK LAM, AICP, Director
of Community Development
JL:CJ:cd
Attachments : Exhibit A - Vicinity Map Part I - Initial Study.
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Plan Resolution approving Z.C.
Exhibit C - Tract Map Resolution approving Tract
Exhibit D - Elevations map with conditions.
Exhibit E - Floor Plans(2 sheets)
Exhibit F - Recreation Center
Exhibit G - Conceptual Grading and Drainage
Exhibit H - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit I - Phasing Plan
*T1
RESOLUTION NO. 81-128
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF P.ANCHC CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAC .1853
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No ",3, hereinafter "Map"
submitted by American National Housing Corporation, applicant, for the
purpose of subdividing the real property situated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonaa, Countv of San Bernardino, State of California , described as
a residential development of 72 Condc�mir.ium dwellings cn 5.71 acres of
?art', located on the north side of lgth Street at Ramona Avenue -APN
202-171-42 into 5 lots, regularly came before the Planning Commission
for public hearing and action on October 28, 1j8_; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Mao
subject to all conditions set forth in the Engineering and Planning
Divisions reports; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Engineering and Planning Divisions reports and has considered other
evidence presented at the public hearing.
N01.1, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga does resolve as follows :
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings
in recard to Tentative Tract No. 11353 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with all applicable
interim and proposed general and specific plans;
(b) The desian or improvements of the tentative tract is
consistent with all applicable interim and proposed
general and specific plans;
(c) The site is physically suitable for the type of devel-
opment proposed;
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to
humans and wildlife or their habitat;
(e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public
health problems ;
(f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with
any easement acquired by the public at larqe, now of
record, for access through or use of the property within
the proposed subdivision.
;r
D to
Paae 2
(g) That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and a Negative Declaration is issued.
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract Map No. 11853, a copy of which is
attached hereto, is hereby approved subject to all of the following
conditions and the attached Standard Conditions :
PLANNING DIVISION
1. The design and material of the patio fences along
19th Street shall be restricted -to a maximum height
of 5 feet from the finished grade of the building
pad. The design, of the fences shall be subject
to the approval of the Planning Division., prior to
issuance of building permits.
2. The iandscapE treatment along 19th Street shall be
improved to incorporate mounding which steps up to
an low profile natural rock walls, as a means to
soften the grade difference between the street and
the building pad elevations. Details shall be in-
cluded in the final landscape plans.
3. The Eucalyptus trees on the east property line shall
be replaced 15' on center with a species of clean,
fast crowing trees compatible with residential land
use.
4. The continuous interior uedestrian circulation system
shall be improved with additional texturized cross-
walks at key locations and at the main entrance to
the project.
5. The meandering sidewalk al -)ng 19th Street shall
maintain a minimum distance of 2' from the curb,
except at the drive approach.
6. A director,; shall be placed at the entrance to the
project subject to Planning Division approval .
7. All ground floor units shall have a contigunus 225
square feet of patio area.
8. The tot lot shall be contained within a defined area
through design features such as landscaping and earth
rounds.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
9. Revision or reconstruction of intersection drain. at
Ramona and 19th Street shall be done peg- Cal Trans
standards and policies .
:1"rI i� t1
us., `
Page 3 .. ..
10. Vacation of Ramui;a Avenue north of 19th Stre -t shall
be accomplished prior to recordation.
11. Flood protec;:ion wall shall be installed along east
property line to protect structures from overflow
of Alta Loma Channel .
12. A joint use driveway agreement shall be made with
adjacent property owner to the west.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1981.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
f 7e King, Chairma
J
r �
Sec' ary 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 28th day of October, 1981, by the. following vote-
to-wit:
AYES : W-1,�111ISSIONERS: Rempel , Sceranka, Dahl , King
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tolstoy
�q
_ e
" O Y
-
n. S nL r
. n _
_ _ o, - n � x u : — — o � �' . SL• o .cep i '� G n.__ o «— —
72
Iic�� � n _ [
� G L10 «C OO n 9- 9u 6 _ CL700� y > C 9O_UC OC 7' O
YP 7 « J G � vy2V6�a O �� d09 7 J
«.- V C J t y- M - P J r 0 Q y L
L- 0 .1
« e �� V .^ T C C 4 7 'i e v � V 'r - « O p �• n v
—
�u s�i0
Ln? 9 a_i L v «.'•.. V s u V n v
� o
CC t � J 9n l � L CO.G ! 9 4_O N G4=vq _ L= �iE Omani V9 y C
C� NG G9 ✓Ot0 N Cw WCIC L .f - � �<-_O« O � > r0 «uT �orc �I LN �
N N N N N N N K
® o
c
e o 's o _ c d•• r �
o _
_
ZZ
cu
em
C•C
r Y C t dL G f� bn O• lC0 _..n 40 O 4 4
{lI 9 � - >6 Z T « O`O J N L d� O V i c G'•q ! E V"J'
l"•]• O "i t O= O V
6 e p' ^j y� '—I `o"a' _� —� ` = u_• c �� v «oL =`o �4-"�Lda
F �I O �I « � - _Jr - � G� V ��• _ t C T Lw� f/ C �7 LOC7 � 2
� J Oi Y( C ' O r9__« a G.+ V 6 L ROO a 0 FT.• >•V=1 _ Lr
Y N �� _ N• O O � _ b O _ ` 4 _ -J r c
o. l+.]: C,^11 u G >C O „ _ 'Li•+ -- nPi � � c�fCi ��"O C F `L V �- �� � n_.
C O 9 __ M G o`o o G ' o q
1Z L _ P«
•n r L9G wrr _ O C� Pb «4 Y roJill iiiiiiiiii
C j rO VI C 4w 6-n G.L... .L.i Ku0 C.lw .n qw �
4 _ r __ C' N n• Y• �O N
D i3
rC
•- = G r 6 G � � _ C
- d i
zo
_« C• o V= < •n^ C G « = '` C� .e O O O 1' c C G .. - L n .n
q L
co
•
O e 1-I` C C.V V t > O•- T v _l. « .-r. I p C LV C O J V L O C_ O O C.O. U
•l ^ G C C C .n_ Y ` .qu 1' y-� .� L = � n �N � ^ o� �
`+ `•- J 6_ P' a -_ - � 4 G C =^I c L « C. oL w « - � V L .•-.
- O O•+^ 4 u c-+'' _'- 4 - - L' C p E .-4.�` y 4 -t t « ' y - ^. n :. c O _ a_
qc..- � c - - ••"- _Gp ce «1 c " c � I '.. c Lor u rcv c c �' � ��rro
� . , G „4 C q O� Or 'S ��• C O VUu p b � C LCC
ri tiro «� Conn �" >• Jc-- T'�Cc .
l G - -]_ -� C' : U.-. O L.J - - •- O J V P `•' �`V O`V C .n
^ 2 p •n.- C S C C G O r q G > V } N `c, _
G (V
-
_ +•L V_ _ q -- � _ -Lc- - moo -... «.' L'.-i.•' -cL -mac _�. - ,e-? uc J_ .. V c c o
U p �_ .-.'C �q -_J E-J 'O _= _ LO i C V-3Nq- >LL - •^ -
` � .n r .V.._ C i� C •n `
.E _V c' - ...r yo'u __ cLr `-"-.- ur ' __ -•'-Pc o.`__L ou - -_
.Oi - r O _ O. -"n -^ « - O C _ _ V ✓ 7 L ` ` V V o r _ _ L k
'� ?= « 7 7 q C v _ G V _ i 4 u L ✓ _ ; L 4 L _ n 00� O \O r C V_ _ O V
„Q-E `«
- L L V4 ..•4q_ O � V- cT - � lO �O ....q OyC CO 4�• VCJ n7
w a N O •.-.C.- C = _ _4 C_ r Q ...'Q C_ v _ C 4 O V
- _ .n � V M L C L O - O u _ _ u.-J f L .. ...G _ - E - •. .V- q V
- -� j -_ L- 4 � y •_N L 4 0 •n 'J V > S r L-. O _ _ C q
__� N c'o � - � cam ? _� �._o __ _ - - " c c - � .^,_- u.'. i -ci .•.� L = oL
^ - q L G j•n G 4 -J _ _ ' J�. _ _� «9 `V O' =v_y « O •� C 4
Ly
C L w _ > O ' P n r V_ t2 9 O _V _ C _ 4 U_ •n .Gi ^ - ' >
« r` V «� C- N •" � _ ` J .n '• CN Lem CO
.•.. CO C •��� rC 44 rn»�2 a✓_ .n -O � ««_GV � P O+ - fj
SS Pnl, p C LLJL _- V -
_Lva -
�
I 1
L 14
_ - c� \o _ - = C P 4-`V e• u �.--. n � \ v �- �'L .di. W C L N 1 V ` a V.L..
wG.5
< _ ; -O
✓9 .n 4 .n 4 G -•y d « u C r C C L O r �. � C r-. _^I _ ` �v V r i '� � _ l
- Cy O.4 _ O V 4c0 .r. - � ` V v - 9 P.I _t j7 r O•- C 40V
f
- Q n _ r f q D r,y :'v u _ � _.- c .•.o. P « E -L Y i•n � s a L aY.
„�_� LA. c _.. r•u `o .J. r_`r, dGr -c = � �' ' cuL > � ul ` - � a .p' = � «
-- � C O A _V.. ` • 'n O « _ a "_. L-.V V -- T V 4 A� L .. � I I � > I '
�c�� L o5 '".. r,. _ Ar `cam 1' '"� 0 " 7"'= '^ 0 - 3— � o^ c CJ c .� •• u'd'V
4 c0 'c •> O
CL
L
t�
O .n G _ O C C .,,. C• _ .-. O C U u J A _ r� T7 �� 9 V
O " ✓ 4 Y V � v 4 O A � A V r _ •^,LJ T 9 1 V q T4 _ ✓ U O C ✓ h
i� cn
t 9 Q
VC
uV.^ s ` G.j 4 _•e..^`� _ ,c V` V< C `� ` O O J
oec
u eN-�� ..`= o- =� AP ¢ �c � ` _ ec• _ P Eo c. - c - vo au F[ n
= - cca _ro _ - - •- " cl -tea
Lg rn
•-. �-.. G � _ G r � C' U G C L''I C_ C P 7 r j y^ V G ? C G O O y a � l E V r
_
YL �� Ci �Y. 4^
t.Lr
.:: .I ❑�eo < .. � L �vLuu cvv�.L-, C.:v � �o =.i cpi �..}:b.'.�
•�_'� CI ry N r. _ _
L v
I
,s
Ln
-- 4 r
C r= C
O_
c
d s r O C I C l < � ✓ ` O r I I 1 _ T V O - -
a• .n V C I V L .: - C_ S .a y� • y' O 4 u I I L V C _ •- C � 7
D C 4 C V O 7 u V •]t C• V I I L • r _V ' V
_ C c V
6 V C ; V T ! n r � V� O Y P' • C 9 I - V C f� � �M
VC r c n ` U V C .-- V-w .�. d j •n V V.a v I -f V -•' i- W l
Q l�r CCVO' a ` 2 •'• 4 -u Iu IO ' I I � •ra > Q CC -Or CU
G r _J n C v �' _ � � [• 4 u '.J„ •^ C •Vi u V 4 V � I I O u <. _ r� _u d �
_- 'l Y r V OI 2� � O r O C J C V .n.. J n n C � .. O •! y d C V C. t• L y �VOi
L '4- `fir•V a `' = 9 G i r � L r t ` I C O -a u V I u 0 O L 4
`••ce v_0= c] 4 c .., vT,, y (IL - ^ � oo _- e - a j 9c
]may .., `• U •n cI <, u OJ_ .i_ G♦ _TO \ •Cv 1 OU 'Jl r� � 2
� `• <• C CL� 4 `I P V � Oc0 Vuy uC 05 b > y ^ Lr _ V _VJ S nU
U O � U-•_ C ,-,� � LrG 1V £ ` T V`
Zz
' ! � � N •7 C Yf •p -� -- r
Q
E
u Z. is >•c <c' � = <' u: a - NI I I 1 fc�c cr`m N$ o P o.=?:�
9 V 7 ` 4 l T-__ � •n C u C
V 4 1 w p :W - O O _ O �• }�; C T'.•
;t p c' uuE VLu L - O -rS0
•r'l` q� -V L ,da O V
� ` V V G
ccr '^= L� ! a`o .>.s v °•= •^ y .. c. L Lvo
uu or � r _ •" �= u _ X n.L• eEa. ;=W •^�
car = V r.V. L un T ~` I C VLC.- bVOV V r s •� 4r
O
�71
ucr mL.. o 4 " . yL_ a: - 077
cc•� c o
- cc.a c zu c I I i cu _ 9y_-� c-.c � •" o L '`�i
_
_ n ' .•� o � mac_ --_ ?
-c - t'co
p 0 >• C4 Vo `= =� 4 n. r i� � � � 1 I t - -
i- c �= r y r= _ P•^ a _: - .. 1-I��' a a.�o c y,,;o.- `u V S a - �r r_
o u - ._ �I ,,. e E r 1-¢ t a _ ., r 2 _ _ ,L, jam•'-_.
d n •`r• � r l � O I •O.• c.P F C 4 - a O " C
4 �!1 _� <' V i, •+y., � C � �� '_ � I ,� it u c it r •n V c V v P y P 9 C 2 •n
a 16
v
o "
r_V� _ T C -V•:] GG �
=ram
a
-
T t;G
024� � O CJ.V CO' CG „ l µ �UV C Yi'iV
, NIA o cL.. ` oc -_o c _
r-
C9 ry d Vv Sr ^'OCO
1 cv c: oar `_� G - 4_�� .i.. .• or _ _ - _
4 r _ �'�NO GT V94i
—
c4- 3.`
V
oc - � � I I I _ oq •. -q o..-..
b
D t?
RESOLUTION NO. 81-128-A
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION,
APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOP. TENTATIVE TRACT 11853
WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the
above-described project, pursuant to Section 1.401.11.2 of Ordinance 28-B of
the Subdivision Ordinance: and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissiop. conditionally approved the
above-described Tentative Tract Map.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a
distressed market climate for residential projects.
B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory
conditions make it unreasonable to record the
Tentative Tract Man at this time.
C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval
regarding expirations would not be consistent with
the intent of the Development Code.
D. That the granting of said time extension will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity.
-le Tentative Tract Map may be granted an extension
of time as author-;zed by Section 17.02.020 C-7 of the
Development Code.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a
time extension for:
Tract Applicant Expiration
�53 Barratt-Irvine Division October 28, 1985
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
Resolution No. 81-128-A
Page 2
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of t i City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution +,as duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Plannin! commission h<<d
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
;' `. 19
CrrY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ��cvyoMc
STAFF REPORT
N /o t9'"
C C
F � iZ
DATE: September 26, 1984 1977
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Linda D. Daniels, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 84-03 - AMERICAN SENTINEL SELF-STORAGE INC. - A
request to reduce the front yardsetback of feet to a
minimum of 20 feet along 8th Street for a 45,546 sq. ft.
self storage facility on 2.45 acres of land located at the
northeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue - 207-271-
01.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of a variance.
B. Purpose: To allow the reduction of the required street yard
and dscaping for the development of a mini-warehouse storage
facility with caretaker's quarters.
C. - Location: Northeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue.
D. Parcel Size: 2.45 acres.
E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 1).
F. Ex-,sting Land Use: Vacant.
G. Surroundin Land Use and Zoning:
North - Rai road Right-of-Way, General Industriao.
South - Southeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue:
Single Family Residences, R-1, (City of Ontario).
Southwest corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue:
Commercial Convenience Store, C-1 (City of Ontario).
East - Vacant, General Industrial.
West - Vacant, Low Residential (2-4 du/ac).
H. General Plan Desi nations:
Project Site - Industrla Area Specific Plan.
North - Industrial Area Specific Plan.
South - Southeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue:
Residential - Single Family (City of Ontario).
Southwest corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue:
ITEM E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Variance 84-03 - American Sentinel Self Storage, Inc.
September 26, 1984
Page 2
East - Industrial Area Specific Plan.
West - Low Density Residential (2-4 dufac) .
I. Site Characteristics: The subject property is presently vacant
with no substantial vegetation existing. The property is
bounded on the north by the Atchison-Topeka and State Fe
Railroad, on the west by Baker Avenue -and on the south by 8th
Street. The parcel size has a frontage on Baker Avenue of
approximately 71 feet and a frontage on 8th Street of about
1,291 feet.
II. ANALYSIS:
T.-General : This variance is proposed in conjunction with CUP 84-
T7 also on this agenda. Approval of the variance application
is necessary if the project is to be developed as shown on the
attached exhibits. The subject variance requests a waiver from
the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP) for a reduction in the
required street yard landscape setback on 8th Street. The ISP
requires that an average 25 foot landscape area, as measured
from the curb, be provided in this area on 8th Street. The
applicant proposes a minimum setback of 20 feet, as measured
from the curb, with a maximum of 22 feet.
State Law, as well as the Development Code, gives the Planning
Commission: the authority to approve a variance from development
standards when circumstances inherent to the property (i.e.,
shape, size, topography) would create undue hardships.
Variances may also be granted by the Commission when strict
enforcement or interpretation of the development standards
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships
inconsistent with the object-ves of the Development Code or
Industrial Area Specific Plan.
With this particular development and site there does appear to
exist adequate justification for the reduction in the required
landscaping. The configuration of the lot is fairly unique and
unusual when compared to other lots in the same General
Industrial category. The property has a frontage of about 71
feet on Baker Avenue at one end with the most easterly lot
depth being about 81 feet. The length of the property is about
1,291 feet. These dimensions differ significantly from
surrounding industrial lots as well as lots commonly found in
Subarea 1 and other General Industrial subareas. The lot depth
also differs from the minimum standard of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan which requires a 150 foot depth. The
application, therefore, of the standard of the ISP pertaining
to landscaping for this particular lot would seem to be an
extreme hardship.
y � a
x-`
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Variance 84-03 - American Sentinel Self Storage, Inc.
September 26, 1984
Page 3
With the requirement by the Design Review Committee that dense
landscaping materials be provided, a dense buffer can be
accomplished so as to minimize the impacts between the
residences and the project. The Design Review Committee felt
that given the shape of the lot, that this waiver request was
justified.
8. Environmental Assessment: In conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. CUP 84-17, Part I of the Initial Study has been
completed by the applicant. Staff has completed the
Environmental Checklist and has found no significant impacts as
a result of the project. If the Commission concurs with these
findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be
appropriate.
III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The reduction in the required street yard
setback on 8th Street, in conjunction with the proposed use and
building design, will not be detrimental to adjacent properties.
Considering the unique dimensions of the lot, strict interpretation
of the code would result in practical difficulty. In addition, the
granting of this variance would not be considered a special
privilege.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Daily Report newspaper. Notices were sent to all property
owners within i0 feet of the project site and notices were posted
on the property. To date, no correspondence has been received
either for against this project.
V. RECOMMENOATION:ThP Planning Division recommends that the Planning
- Commission appro•ie Variance No. V84-03 by adopting the attached
Resolution.
Rgspectfully•submitted,
Rick' Gomez'
City Planner
RG:LD:ns
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "S" - Site Flan
Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Pian
Resolution of Approval
M
C
w
x LU
i
ARF�A'IAl:� rysxKl 'pz . t
+ xx • s1
a Q area 2
i p r
i rti
Ott �
AT & SF R.R. 0 3r .
Sth 5u81E+rt SITE p1 a
lllltl1
I! Yr v^'1,"ism, ,.1� �{ ♦ `"wl:'+i�f r 1 c O .t
NURlH
CITY of iTE;\I: v 8y-03
RANCHO Cuc IN/10,N,GA TITLE: lxrRrloH rnAP
PLANNING 1DIVtSIC?:',1 EXHIBIT- � 4 ' SCAi_[
•�--_�•�- � lRwif AiOK if O. �- �yy� -Y�bCw � .
A
V V
F.
I�'ORTH
CITY OF ITEM: N
RANCHO CLCAMO\TGA TITLE: SUE PLAN
PLANNII\r-, DIVLSICkN EXHIBIT-___SCALE:
T.90 L/lily
•q.��'��..�� - -�—_-- • .may -- i
75
1
n
V V
NORTH
CITY OF tTL\1 85F D3
RANCHO CU AMONGA TITLE: cony-PMRL, LANosc'AAS f�nF
PLANNII\'G DIVLSiON EXHiBrr.- _G SCALE --
_ � 6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 84-03 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED
STREET YARD SETBACK AREA FOR CUP 84-17 LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAKER AVENUE AND 8TH STREET IN THE
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 27th day of July, 1984, an application was filed and
accepted on the above-described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of September, 1984, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commniss:on has made the
following findings:
1. That strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation would result
in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the
Development Code.
® 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district.
4. That the granting of the Variance will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same district.
5. That the granting of the Variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant impacts on
the environment and that a Negative Declaration be issued in conjunction. with
Conditional Use Prrmit No. CUP 84-17 on September 26. 1984.
P
E
Resolution No.
Page 2
II
Pp.' vYtD ANP, ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLA.14NING. GOM11MISSIGN OF THE CITY OFF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY•
` Dennis L., Stout, Chairman
M
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �gCQA OV
STAFF REPORT
f
Oil
}I S
Z
DATE: September 206, 1984 7977
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Linda D. Daniels , Associate Planner
SUBJECT: EENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT 84-17
- AMERICAN SENTINEL SELF-STORAGE INC. - The development
of a 45,546 square foot self-storage facility and 1,040
square foot caretaker's quarters on 2.45 acres of land in
the General Industrial (Subarea 1) category, located at
the northeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue - APN 1
207-271-01.
Related File: Variance 84-03 - American Sentinel Self-
Storage, Inc.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of a precise site plan,
architectural design, and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
B. Purpose: Construction of a 45,54b sgttare foot mini-warehouse
facility and a 1,040 souare foot caretaker's quarters.
C. Location: Northeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue
D. Parcel Size: 2.45 acres
E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial - Subarea 1 Category
F. Existing Land Use: Vacant
G. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Railroad right-of-way, General Industrial
South - Southeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue:
Single Family Residences, R-1 (City of Ontario);
Southwest corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue:
Commercial Convenience store, C-1 (City of Ontario)
East - Vacant, General Industrial
West - Vacant, Low Residential (2-4 duJac)
1
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 84-17/Sentinei Self-Storage, Inc.
September 26, 1984
Page 2
H. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Industrial Area Specific Plan
North - Industrial Area Specific Plan
South - Southeast corner of 8th Street and Baker Avenue: ,
Residential, Single Family (City of Ontario)
Southwest corner of 8th Street and Baker: General
Commercial (City of Ontario
East - Industrial Area Specific Plan
West - Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac)
I. Site Characteristics: The subject property is presently vacant
with no substantial vegetation existing. The property is
bounded on the north by the Atchison-Topeka and Santa Fe
Railroad, on the west by t3aker Avenue and on the south by 8th
Street. The parcel size has a frontage on Baker Avenue of
ap2ximately 71 feet and a frontage on 8th Street of about
91
r
II. ANALYSIS:
A. General: This project was submitted in conjunction with
variance 84-03, also on this agenda. Approval of the variance
is necessary to develop the site as proposed. The waiver
requested involves a decreased landscape setback on 8th Street.
The proposed mini-warehouse development would involve the
construction of single story storage buildings and a
caretaker's quarters. There would be one continuous single
story building abutting the north property line, adjacent to
the railroad right-of-way. Single story buildings will also
face into 8th Street, but these will be individual structures
separated by landscaping and screen walls.
The use of the property as a mini-warehouse is a permitted use
in the Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 1). It is the
residential use of the caretaker's quarters which requires a
Conditional Use Permit to be approved by the Planning
Commission.
B. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the
Committee and has been recommended for approval. The Committee
was particularly concerned with two main issues. The first
issue dealt with the need for extremely dense landscaping along
the 8th Street frontage and the Baker Avenue frontage. The
Committee felt this was necessary so that a view buffer could
be provided between the storage facility and the surrounding
residences.
�`'-QL
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 84-17/Sentinel Self-Storage, Inc.
September 2A, 1984
Page 3
The second issue involved a concern over compatibility of
architectural design of the storage facility with adjacent
residences. In addressing this, the applicant is now proposing
a mansard style tile roof versus the originally submitted flat
roof. The applicant is also breaking up the elevations of the
buildings facing 8th Street by using recesses.
The Committee also recommended to the Planning Commission that
favorable consideration be given to the variance request
invoiving a reduction in the front yard setback.
C. Technical Review Covxnittee• The Technical Review Co.-,nittee
reviewed the project and determined that, with appreva'. of
Variance 84-03 and with the recommended conditions of approval,
the project is consistent with the applicable standards and
ordinances.
The Committee noted that the only item remaining which needed
correction was an increase in the drive aisle from 26 feet to
28 feet. This is rc-quired by the Industrial Area Specific Flan
standards pertaining to loading areas and drive aisles. This
would also allow temporary parking on one side of the drive
aisle without imnairirg emergency vehicle access. A total of
50 temporar, parking spaces could be provided this way. These
'cinporary parking spaces, in addition to the 10 striped spaces,
would meet the parking needs for the facility.
D. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee has conceptually
approved the preliminary grading plan subject to the proposed
development accepting any runoff from the railroad right-of-way
blocked by this development.
E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been
completed Ey the applicant. Staff has completed the
environmental checklist and has found no significant adverse
environmental impacts as a result of this project. Staff
would, therefore, recommend that the Commission issue a
Negative Declaration for this project.
III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use, building design, and site
plan, together with approval of Variance No. 84-03 and the
recommended Conditions of Approval, is in compliance with all
applicable City standards and ordinances, the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, and the General Plan. In addition, the project will
not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant
f adverse environmental impacts.
r
A
t
�- 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 84-17/Sentinel Self-Storage, Inc.
September 26, 1984
Page 4
Aftk
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a Public hearing
in The Dailv Re Dort newspaper and notices were sent to all property
owners withn 00 feet of the subject site. In addition, public
hearing notices were posted on the property.
V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
issue a Negative Declaration for the project and approve
Conditional Use Permit 84-17 by adopting the attached Resolution.
-Pe t i'visubmitted,
is G , z
City Planner
RG:LD:jr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Loction Map
Exhibit 'V - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" -• Building Elevations
Initial Study, Part I
Resolution of Approval
s
A
cc cc
w 5
Ul
a y .:
ARR
t , O
O
Q
� r a
0
j subarea 2
f •
Ory,cc
Fk-
0, :X
aW
AT & SF R.R.
8th_ Su�FGz soar I I a r
��•���� boundary
;�:,rt., . .�,,. �-•d
V V
NURTH
CITY g ITL\i. CUP 8y/7
RANCHO CLCr1NI0lN TITLE: G044riOn #WP
PLANNUI C DiVLS10\t EXf iIrjT~ : SG�[ E-
S -
� • -- ZtA]�(fIZOIC_S?f0. V�.�. kwlY�w1
r n
NORM
CITE' Or ITEA 1: GUP 84-1-7
RANCHO CLCAMI aNGA TITLE: strE PLaN
PLANNIIN'G DIVLSICkN EXHIBIT: uB� SCALE: "-
;Y,
i
z
NORTH
CITY Or ITEM: cvP CTV-:7
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE= Profic I AAIW qPE Pl#N
PLANNING DI SIGN EXHIBIT= ..� SCALE-
N
l _
i
V
NIORTH
CITY OF CUP 4?4-17
RANCHO CUCAMO\GA TITLE- 0111WI & PUrw rivn►e,-
PLANNING DIVLSIOIN EXHIBIT: •.b SCALE,
r- 7
CITY OF 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 iE made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review
Com.tittce 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 mz,',e 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 information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: /n(.71n :^ra P4 L46•11;-A
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
i44; : J u: f. ur.r. a;Cr1
•- (dr3) a4 -(;:got
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: J?0G,:;7- C. O 'Lc_41C'f
IkJVI !-1 :41)(f-!�4FL- (-Ui:iGGFf — 'fi7n= TCr '1�1 — tea— ZOC{
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AID ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
&N,:t+°aRc 05i 9c if - ('try G1:f.,7RWCApr C.UCApL.a•Jt�Q
�11 rhnJCE " -• •.
I-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
_ Sn�.2�� �CI,C/ n�t�✓l sue. - �•
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 9. 6 ] G/'Or5 .4G��C-�
l=t 51'127-T SOtti.AZE F '7'
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) :
11=/� /; ii A41 %. u�EJJ :-.^. i l_uirlf AIJ
A7/1D.r :% : %llk.T1AFc.i,/
it=i h/Ct'Y_ /7//iL'FX'4 l=Ni• 'r7FFtF i� /SL /�,�/' A2�L •/i('7�- f!✓JrJ yC T7,r(- !-//3.
�cJQ i.,.: o•,Fn,Natt F, Y/rt%ZF 41-f' /✓0 J'4F//.-S nr 77,'&-Fn. /r
rbrL=l•-,ii: i.1.= l..iJ- T71LY'•= /.K.F /n JfNi/�'/t ./Jil/�iT�?fiT� r7fr`/t'i /r'/lc'
111/.• /.l ct.7i. >r L /Jl• f l r i/ yyc �i // G�GFi kh2 4 rr/l rJeoy�r'J7 'i li F i
///r✓!i/'/J•�4NC/r•!�i OIiJ��7lT�Js u.ff=9 /PS s=cJ:L�v/� = nJIJ/�Ti� Fig!! .LvLU,i,"YIIA�,
aJ1<c Fr>./• 2r/9Us yifr/ 50-1-`ir Ft1/' �cc'it n^/ Jfii / /JA l✓C� i /Z fJJJrA�/r
�{!- 1. Ai /f r//J7t��LIl%Eye //J Ti! J✓' F',Yi' T/�l< "7Tl/�/T'A/!°�r
o/c /'i/t Fes'"�/J %/i /.¢'•-T Ab IAfCit� 1T' lLT/fPcf6/�
wrJrr:'� �:;5c••i!'/iF! /.,./Q G/<•r.7Fzt../ �/,SCa ,,� ,
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?
I-2
F- ��
t
r r
WILL THIS PROJECT_
YES NO
X1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
1� 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) ?
X� 4. Create changes in the existirg zoning or
general plan designations?
5. Remove any existing trees? Haa many?
6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
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 that additional
information may be required to be submitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee.
/�1e' e Si gn atu��. ?2r1ez
Date re
Di3G7�,T E• � . Pr2dl
Title
I-3
iY .
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-1.7 FOR A 45,546
SQUARE FOOT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AND A 1,040 SQUARE FOOT
CARETAKER'S QUARTERS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
BAKER AVENUE ANO 8TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 27th day of July, 1984, a complete application was
filed by American Sentinel Self-Storage, Inc. for review of the above-
described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of September, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the
® Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of
the district in which the site is located.
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.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on September 26, 1984.
SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 84-17 is approved
subject to the following co^ditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. A 28-foot drive aisle shall be provided between the
rows of single story storage buildings.
2. Variance 84-03 shall be approved by the Planning
Commission to allow a reduction in the required
street yard landscape setback cn 8th Street.
F- /oZ
3- Extensive landscaping must be provided along the 8th
Street and Baker Avenue street frontages in order to
provide a buffer between the project and the
adjacent residences.
4. Roof material shall provide a shake appearance on
both the storage buildings and the caretaker's
quarters, in compliance with the requirements of
the Design Review Committee.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. Adequate provisions shall he made to control and
direct flows from the north, southerly through the
site and around buildings, to the satisfaction of
the pity Engineer.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Cnairman
ATTEST
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Ot .nq - - �.Mr _� •OqC _t •Jo 2
v. c+a� co ca mcu
V - ` 2coc - a�� mC �- _�� nc �7✓ 02EV y
CJ n�� a �: q� o� o.� c_ 0 4s r "• E �oq ✓ : n � Yam
O Lu• �r � VOPV 9✓_.._ GT6 C r •j0 id V� LGO �>� T
L _. ✓ OJT`O V�.ticn Or-c - � yEc V._� VGyyD NEN
C c J 4 R� R d r O V O r• C O V E c y 7 O n.r > n V J U "•r-�
u Er'OM Cr CEO-`J �'0. �4 _ ov s'-� o✓ a Rq- 'L- G .�ne w.0. -n
c o o E c'� u T= a c g O J .D r on•O.� ` V�� x _ = C j=-V•O••
c - iq a - „ ✓ 4 .o. ` v My c+ _ o
d.a. V ➢.�.r✓3_ N 9✓v•o�'-°_9_„L`ncv 7�yJ"0--.-_Occ 7�y�➢Lr_y4Ed_`�✓v0a„n_�.yOaru.-0nOo.r c�_c_r�G�oO.•�-�q_aJ oo9tS_oi.•.D
0r>�ooCG+6-_l="cV_=-'➢aco"-�`-Y„w 7-�-c4q�jDe^E�40n��r�w •naP�-�D-V•> o➢-„gMG`.y�Oo•EnoC7�.-o oV.->.O�n. •^ -✓rOGaV-rV`uf✓qo•
v✓d(o4_n1 v4O JE�n`Ecco_,Cc,:r➢-_Ou-DVU-T-rr_-g.amow J✓✓Ccv4Oo-
O•-J0G=G L�<✓.�c_--c-�rO-CO>c
LqOacu„
r q v P V� - V� y✓y V _ G- M r i G
G`cV�N TO n" -LU- n VVO cu OV L=F� O '.pG C✓L-
_
M= QQ
q 00� fC-D4c M-CQV - ��� V •� � .' �C6 E<� pjN
r C O q
� U4V -cG „✓- J✓ y F „V „oc VEOLdJ Op4P O •' G cu
i S� YVOC >OiVF r� pUCwD V�� n.rq d � C1VC nC� q✓ O 9»rJ O a r 4 L�J- ` V � s r r d �n V � V V V O� O V d ✓n l.P•J
G��•Y O Y _ •n l ` � � c V O D d v_ _ _ 6 O- - „- c 0� C
9 G O S q 2- =� ^ O�SJ •� ¢ 6 •rn� V✓ i Q O a m �c v.4. n L 6 w Gc G
V
m
` ��� 2 �V G y •d- R✓ i
• � I •1 o vDy� .•oo
\ c i O i- " E '2 •
Z n ,` n p „ O O (jgyGt „
W . V
T5
7 O �I J\I G �! d � � � ➢..r L C' j Q V O-V•� G V
p �! o` � as � : � � � qo Gar✓ o � -e �
�� �� 9 � M n� c C O O O q O� V•^T G`�p
V O n FY q .� Gq ✓Or Or - dr
Y V qc 6 q a✓
V J L•J O t O L c g V'L N
r rao a n � � " i•.. der -'c� „
• _ � z � � SC EI •
• N a � c 0
C T 4 L P O Y N O V L l V t! fj V CV �< V.F� PUF r<_ " �� CCU q VOi LGV LV9
• • � C �� q N 4 O l G�d OC i -F l- r0 c i P �_ � q
a G
qv- 0r7eo� y 4od r= �- o "G d d+- c <Goq
V� =�-0v �rngVVV O'i
i u �O ` i�? t LNLOIG 7�t m� Vr- � ONF L� LO 1LD
_ d O J > • p u51 L
V L_ _ ✓ 'J �_ GQ C L O
O_ q y q L ytj q � N•.r_ L d �r L G i` F O- 0���r g C r O O Z.. 4 'v v 7 T C!- C O N V
U i Q q r V n N c N
N d
c «%�O r^ ..�Yoj QNVG ar Mc�= Eu yr�r
_ GFVr Lr .nV �J L « Ly �L6 • Pt
C L '^ 9 �^O qGI`�G�O V = C �_V qGO Crvd '_e0 =-q VGN YVa G C.V
qVV C q N O NG` VC <=V <'1 -rJ NL O = gY 09 �
C d✓r d� p C U r C C > <-.r r q O v l O
O�
V V r
L
iq 4r r o 0�+ 4 J v d iNc c
�2 ooN Pp :oc g o G«moo par.',P
^oy Gc qeG-�= LY<<
c CC
c 0„ M V C O
N C L c�Er CS' o 22
r 'rFL -=p9
Gf Q r G y - Z pc < OGu Qr Mp < tf wL.m
_ n
N
GF rTP
04 y- q oc r
GV �yG LC Co O t�.nr�rpLru� �L L"'. 0 = tJS- CVrQ
G6 - T N �-
q V Tqu c �O - F
Lem ate. - E V L o ` a S- pN - Q tutr N LGV
CLr 49�G
q V y 4 9
G G qq w� .La" LY q� E o ^«N GNc ate.
iiCpi qJ d cq N r o.. L..- 'e- ccQ
d 44 0 .L.n` L.y - c .L.= f-- � '^� c� q i Nd o- «G No
wL_?r
072 V V C C C C O ` L-O
� Pr qr
aP pC�C raC �C P� _ GV GO
O C
N C 10.5
E '! G _ q -- p V c o J y-`-L n O O
p
� TM cVY 9P Gar L. d -jG07-i r C� C
e V —i C v V < L y N u g r N
C <. q4 V LOjV Cu -JG V=-
u < JVY GpV VN► L - q ^ LwP C- _ aJ C� LM
y0' TVU iV4 c CO O,9'> L c vET00� gpaod " E>
Lq QiH = > � G L_OL L � 4Y ' G.y_J �C Nq Nr n` �� C L4 gLpP
tiO - 40r � �- '� E LL � Y � CCG lcSLVc "J.'L_n T cF OFi
T L H r O L L G L L G C C • G< L r OL G L
VL > : w41; ? Or
L Q q q > r V FT T 4 o V M G -+G O V Y Gc «-
r N¢ -L w 0
ce r�"yQ T6 «YQ �
M1 m P C N
� 1 � ncan �d Nro � 9V�r �:•�D F vn� =rd Cm��
11 n y C > V w l V ?
Zo
7
• Pj —L V q O QC
>.Ol ✓ Vq S9O L� a C �(6( q
V _OCn Yy�J MC �— r�Ca — C p V C OUD GI09�
O
O bVPC'J �DrO `� «Dq S—O r` 9 O P= N Vri .w qq
L nr~r � ar✓ ry � "' qP�c > > v c..v rqm qv dd
N=_� �✓ — ` N4— Lid
--C 7 O •O.r d a — P'^ r Ern q L N c W — �0 0
oL �.v Yogc aL dbNQ ` cy'_ w r r ern ->N.� od as ce
mac-- mod _ _ �o�` ov � o— N u�a< ` � c Ndr crcagc uoY•va.
u L.. � _ e' o v_ =_ 9 .^e4. ar— L—'_ rc o N q a� ��=b �o d •:
c' r S C `Pr rVgO.� '. ONE q � b� aaL. � P q`` ✓7r _
= t qC Vi CNC1 w rU V 4 _f `LO ' =✓ q y 'Jq
Van - rq �`> q•r ^ C 0 C
C VY V02 u. E — = r7 gOT.Yi. — Tdgp
� O L r L v V D v 7 C V
ins bG e > Y or4r b'o
�PO=00 nr _ _ C� V•y d_O"� yY G O� V V q o _ C € O._
.�i Y V L V 9 ` b O V w NW '!Yi wVi a.r= _✓r N O y—9
<V• 2NVV <q� pn 6V 1rOq O.M � Na Y� N M q 'j J� J E� rp� 0�
C P •� �
i
V P V V I
� o Nt y c uar a L 4Vpu � qb o. a—
✓ N N 0= � i n� d C` ✓G A S y' � u 6= `N r•f�f C
..y.1 C C —P b l .L.r 6r 0 N E r L✓ d 0 V = d p
LI Y.. �� a olc ••� � Cr Er e.p. V•a dNa- � • pq ✓ D
6Y c� r Q=
OI q q � _ d•+ 9.G V p•n r p � ` r M O ✓ V O
TI n� � O rL nP —✓ rrOA�O Q—Cq r I^ L— C`
O L V C V7z.
�� • V O a•E N^~v _qrT n�GL q4 Ny O1V y✓r q�N — d
gCN."' V C✓ -dT b� .rw —�
e
�I �(' `✓ a4i qn l«d✓ = aCr r �i�GC L CV4AG q41! n�� nL
L u •-
��
.V,.M t' 00 = V— s UrsC✓ `q � V�' O ` O.N O
CI T Q C r ` q n V✓ q 4 V C 0 a C O C_ D c N \ 4 r.1 V O
`1 _ ✓ C ✓ V O > M� V q q_ O n� � _ > ION _ q �
N� —•o c N �`r .. _ .+ y_ q v✓ Y ."L v q V °' I r " r n L• o
Vi O.�` wp YV YC.`.r � = CVy NN U r�� QdQ V1O
6) C C r L•r P n � �r Gr✓ r r r a g
V C ��J •r V 9 C \ � V
•Li•1 l�� y 0 9 Y s T >`O l — d 0 P P V `Zc
U ✓=i` . M r d r q `
cc= r
— n c_ ✓ > V n � O V r 4 N r U r M L
�`.
oot
r
d -
r
` rI — cm Win '• OIL✓ cC �= LP P
VO _L�cb vJi Y. ^_ Aa � c C ACV d
u •'
pv d _,♦:� `,Lb,_agc s�-m mac.♦ �� •JAL♦. ion `c
Z of oaa � _`♦ u � a ~ ' °i- va j9 v Vow m
o n o z.-.•'n � c o •r.. °' E 2 a "s °'
•r7 V E� q J _ L N J — • =O a V n r L— _
O r q` YN `L..•Ly 'C'♦r� U m � L GV ^ P Oq '09V i
U 7 G r �— V O g V P r O` V J J• F Ca p — �� O
V - r p r F r N - T � J a 6 ^n G '�La.•
ul � mL � n°'gnd Po`•E •• e _ YV =n -•_ c � a«
W �' oY co Y_� _' caq T �q E� �� _ ^+ aL♦ci ci °c'�
o q G
W nT r Or ..` .O V�rp 0. G �—♦ V d !O Y ? �—�S n.
W yC b ._J a-qy O > -C a Y7 qr yy � rV l-• ni
CL
c `` uY �3 nu: veu ac vz ::` •'�•'.'_ •' 40
u rE9 � g'•O'•C�� H >•^mod N 'O^ C cO YT — -• Cu� ar
N d o q P n N Y N
e ^�aoi.. '^ E �.•• .,: —'`cu m �.tpi r is or 5^� '0 �a:a
c `Q .-.�•`yW —qz-P of .°s. Nc. PPw P� _ .� om o.Y Lq
V• C -�.—_ LAN.._J q l •ri•� F. q r .J. 9 s C � � �. N � Y N
rN
N) 10 ^VVV 1J -fJdL 9CVq N ` O�� •NCE � d dG - Ce= N
VI Ga1rN 6�9.Yr V r� V O _
U O 1 6 V 8 W M O W V V j y
y q .. nGx ar
�
m
a
yO r .L.♦ 4 Y �r P .O N> q
O V E L 2 —.L.•C r dLa � C•— O G T9
-•q r c c Y Crc OL T� 6
his•Jn V V Jr6 C O.:s Y OcO d
c— fdj C
Ed c N T V b Y L
J-
aQ g •p. Q Crr rvV
^�
N y O j O C Pit n r I L r V L 0 q
O N OOO •..• N 2 •^ L �r
.r G 6 > d Y r O E q�•r q U O g p C L N
G G W i C C P "O r N« q N d O V J ^ d • r i N
p0 VQ ElY uN D0p VP7 i C P4-' y -� CEgN
i q r a q 9 c�yy z
_ 'J Vr-- n p•lC
-• N O n- � Y L n r C -• _ S � n l _g 4� q 4=V
O`er C C i w wx0 O Nj� _O a�i n a c SV b O yi L
n�N _�� Cp rY Oa NP qq ^ GC V -a -1 n:5 •n
C N D L O n ��W a.-y V w Q S O V y ' P V L C �♦ r }
«On R « q « O E 'J 4'2
6 P P L C T- �O r T C Y V � O V V PN O -• l V -T
��� .O.r- Yr yO � yqr 'Or -G ` ct .L.• 'Q � d="'
3wr N P..• PE L_ __ n NG+�� r `0 VO L 'O0 GqT
_ C V.5
t 6 G O V y O r L > V O _ ^ T�L E r•O� q� �� O
V. Qx O. Yr•V ^ ♦ <6r n f I f f SLWMO. rqO
4
N n �
� N n f N •p
1
�I � C ' C lVO• �i ^ VN � LINLL
q V •� � t i � V 00
a` y vN
CJ = I •-? ` N �a� o o.v o L c e, E q e .v
O t 9 COV �aV • � NV �9j0 _
q
� r � =V _] y C Cam] _ .•O. OY O i =L BYO C�
-C V Sq �n rT�r EV
EEO V-. P - .O Lcy L�•G'T 7r
'•a2 C CC 4C }y�CL nL
j 9 •9 -J � > C r L r C A U ✓ l T V Y L G V d N
72
E A d 9 C C n�' �Y C C O a `✓ Y O�C � C
ei oa_ Yc c_ i— c``_ Leo « q Ku ` cN c •'..L'�r `o
V O
V9 <q 0:.0. 6L6 6y� 4q 6VY WT O Veo N6 JCL
E
14 P V• •O O r N
LO
`a4 .. ��q� o_' c+� too cq o¢o cry •
Y n L 2 d 1 V N
v
Gc V eTC� Vcvf� ctd� E ✓C� <NO
_VVm >b L6
yL 9 q OVA Z990 r' G p � C` C _ dy VE
P 4 w P�p¢ V �• L CEO l Y
a •• �� �c v c ..r d o a i L..
rc s. r".`¢ '�'� �oY• cco+' o- q Yqe ^n =.c.
q L G- c v ac= q no cL�r Nq rd
c`
uza�= ao «o
a 0 = �C.•^� GGoa v�LOi q6 ....US «ram qC
�� c q _N L. Nr •n y q T o
LO •p = aC qY VAp 9CO1 L=VC ' y .r •"'.'yL QP pN
¢ c Lqo �'�w .G. e'• e cob_ n�� _ao 'c e,^
a� a :. '^_ L `Vr, u L n•_• o_ qyN� Nr�Y c
Ly. vN Gn N E
_ q r o Yo_L= G q N c= o � oo �L
c p— -
o V V o r o J N E ^ ¢ 6 V^ G O¢ e V d
- c s ¢_ Y q 40 -� o q -cia cN •'y.9
9 Y.
r= ¢,P C Lq c¢n N•-' O� GYa" c �r�� � 4 _ EM
L T q O" P .�r � G N � P�V✓� m� 4 r
r'a Yz L L_O ' >� 6 aP0? l q � pLl LPC MgrE L� w�
q T P ---ma
r•� O C =V N 0 V Y P p.1.. G O J Y q
GCS
POV V.e q �aN < q O O ¢+ E� •rmOV < CV yO PO OI a yF
Q q
T
Gi
a c .Y O � d�e_ .n O c a e r✓ V✓ •a J
c p'
r
�' 6 M •Vj � O O C L tf V y
r d P M < c a q N •• .e L r
C
y _r T r = N a V G� N O V Q V ✓ .VOs� L L
ace G o �✓ C
L G' O O y C V ✓a U L T u ' U GCL
✓ V L O N`
t? V >• �r Y P c C N O V V c r V P d i E' 6 O
u•O LV 00 LV O r T �u � iaa C� `JG `O
� c c q r a V O V •V � s � y y L L O 6
.. �' qV rc cqp v LLr ccy L iZ: ooy do MN c
G4 � P` �� TO•nr a NO �� _ L CiV F •e �
c a._r •n y0 Y� W _. V C L W' G! C � W O D `� A � E C Y1
TaP EL Lu T� ?Vy q a� i ✓� v Gr.On c =0 u_O
V W C.' MO u •" Oc4 NN u^ CI 9q " � Lc VN _ Oc vW V
V g O r V q ✓9_ O V_ O .V..C N V �'` V V Q
L.�� n C L V V� a c 9 W 9 u I O G L✓e O V .V. �
6V L� W✓ .nL LU >' O. 40! pI _ L c I VO a0y L d 9
a yI �a "'�•� < 6•n < �Oir JS O
O r r h
C O d � aJ ` TwNC p V u� O.r rW
V � ✓ GUV
�'O_" � Q a „ i C L w L O .p� C W ••v ` �Fa V
CM L v L ='' ✓ _J4✓wL O T r�✓O 9'J
V N
L L
T T
o cYo ✓ Ln v G^o a."raM o. a = Jo.c� ` 'o
P N✓ V� a PC QrV CO q ✓ Gp
•n V ~ CCc c_W nW u c L G E P ~ V
.n YQ V O `er a-a
'L
� { u O � V C' q 9 = = u l C •'•
1 o I 2 ' w � ✓_ _ 5
rG N¢ a O � O � � Tt2� q a C O '•�
t r✓ C \ 'c P ✓ .n S G— _G `� � O .U.. 9 L V T_.Tr_ O
L y + , p < ` ' ✓L A E V L L c L C c O t62
y E V V r O C
Li. 4
`r
vr+ V
a � � =• + \I ni � w
t.;
' L
�L �
V r 0
D O
q r
a�
V A a c
� c _
9 N
V U
y P
V� �CL6
C b O
2 L C G
V n V J C 9
p y L V V
O^ Y r T
a
c a
• �C � ! 6JlOJa
e
F^ C9 r N C `
-Es c q o
VV d� S d Vd r.0 DY .V �S =JW w
6 r L ^ V V 6
=U C r G ` « •Ln Y �� i q V c y
{E i O1 _ '"� u a bw• o f aaa « n m >N o. o c
O V > 6 ^ L b O N V r F V P
90 � OL O �^ qw �b wj V� CdP
L 9 O C V C O L V O r 6•M
=Y V'
F
«i.
V 0. r
r�N O_ I O= V >• ^O� r� ^= 6� �.,�q T M r 4 ^L V V
d V 11 9 V C r J V r > V y p Q
r„1
CITY OF RAINTCHO CUCAMONGA Cy1CAM01C9
STAFF REPORT
yy it
i
DATE: September 25, 1984 19T"
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
8Y: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-27
- BARMAKIAN - The total development of five mu ti-tenant
industrial buildings totaling 60,000 sq. ft., a 70,300 sq.
ft. mini-warehouse facility, and a gas station on 11.03
acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1)
category located on the west side of Vineyard, between
Arrow and 9th Street - APN 207-262-44.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations, and
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
B. Purpose: Development of five multi-tenant industrial
buildings, a mini-warehouse facility, and a gas station.
C. Location: West side of Vineyard between Arrow and 9th Street.
1 0. Parcel Size: 11.03 acres.
r
E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 1).
F. Existing Land Use: Existing lemon grove.
G. Surrounding- C Land Use and Zoning:
North ondominiums; Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac).
South - Industrial; General Industrial (Subarea I) .
East - Industrial; General Industrial Rail Served (Subarea
2).
West - Cucamonga Creek; General Industrial (Subarea 1).
H. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Industrial.
North - Medium Residential (4-14 du/ac) .
South - General Industrial.
East - General Industrial/Rail Served.
West - General Industrial .
ITEM G
Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-27 - Barmakian
September 26, 1984
Page 2
I. Site Characteristics: Project site slopes to the southwest at
approximately a 2% grade. The site consists of an existing
lemon grove with a eucalyptus windrow along the south side of
Arrow.
J. Applicable Regulations: The Industrial Area Specific Plan
permits multi-tenant industrial buildings, mini-warehouse
facilities, and conditionally permits gasoline service stations
in the General Industrial category (Subarea 1) .
Ii. ANALYSIS:
A. General : The project consists of the fcllowing uses:
A. Auto self service station
B. Multi-use tenant buildings
C. Mini-warehouse facility
D. Vacant future building pad
The use of consistent building materials and architectural
style has been utilized to provide a unified architectural
theme to create a single unified development rather than four
separate projects.
B. Design Review Committee: The Committee was concerned with
providing a unified architectural theme to tie the entire
project together as a unif W development. In addition, the
Committee has worked with the applicant to resolve concerns
regarding screening of the mini-warehouse facilities and
service station activities, and providing adequate landscaping
throughout the project. In response to the Committee's
concern, the applicant has prepared a revised site plan,
Exhibit "C", and revised elevations, Exhibits "F, G, H and
I". However, the revised elevations and the building material
samples indicate that the applicant is proposing the use of
three different exterior building materials for the multi-
tenant buildings, self-ser-:ce station, and mini-warehouse
buildings. Therefore, Staff recommends a condition of approval
requiring that all multi-tenant buildings, mini-warehouse
buildings, and the service station be constructed with the same
exterior material to provide a consistent unified architectural
theme throughout the project.
C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been
comp;eted by the applicant and is attached for your review and
consideration. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist
and determined that no significant environmental impact will
occur as a result of this project.
":: G a
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and CUP 84-27 - Barmakian
September 26, 2984
Page 3
1II. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent will: the Industrial
Area Specific Plan and General Plan. In addititin, the proposed
site and building designs, together- with the recommended conditions
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Daily Report newspaper. The property was posted and notices
were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against
this project.
V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recom..ene-s approval of the Conditional Use
Permit through adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions
and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
R pectf ly .,submitted,I G
® City Planner
IRG:DC:ns
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "F': - Service Station Elevations
Exhibit "G" - Multi-Tenant Building Elevations
Exhibit "H" - Mini-Warehouse Elevations
Exhibit "I" - Vineyard Avenue Streetscape Elevations and
Sections
Initial Study, Part I
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
i'.
(_1 I
a
ox °C
ARROW * 0.0010010a0a00 oO 1000;
77
-� 0
00
y O subarea 2
3 I O
AT & SF R.R. 0
8th_
•�•� ��••��•��city boundazys��•���
CIRCULATION a mAiLS/ROUTES
'120' R.O.W. 0000 Pedestrian �,,.�•••� Creeks & Channels
!OW R.O.W. 0000
@00 Bicycle mmmmm� 8V or less R.O.W. ` .i(�(� Regional
Parky
RAIL SERVICE v
-!-}-}-}-}- Existing !�9 Bridge
1-1 Special Streetscape/
Proposed w as Landscaping
oo .access Points
I�'0R I"H
O 400' 800' 1600'
CITY OF ITE.%1:
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE:
twgnizz—
PLANNING DIVISION EXHIi3IT= ALE: •m"
;" r U
• � Mel
,a '' • • •, .... .�✓. afar�. I . '��
-I-r 1!734 i I
r i
i Z I
RCS ARROW
�L
i
t
a y ! v
ac
y t{Q QN
_ s Il
o
t
2.O K:K ff+crt f•.K .n I -O.r J
D � /
� - � 5T4EET-:- • .VIN Fi STRE
t, ,
\ 1�MTH
CITY OF ITEM: C�� asq Zc7
RANCHO CUCAMO\GA TITLE: 51 T , LM LJoZ# fi N
PLANNING D.-\1L90N EXHIBIT SCA.L.E- ••�
its r
CL
1 41
13
rl
Ot
Ks
A^3; � �• � F° Imo—
,
7 yew 7�°r•
u�€ 1
�dan `�eo
ww
............
s�
_t NORTH
CITY OF ITF—\t: r 77
RAINCHO CL'CAZ-101 TITLE:
PLANNING DI'\r!SIOy EXHIBIT- Ci SCALE. �
4 1 •
• 1 O�
� 01
• 3. �'Oj
r
n - '
fl
, 1 [•, 1 , 1. .r
� ti
Aued .uoo
TV
m n2 Wl A
t ram• � :i '�`�--��--F_ -`+� I I3\:�v
r y� y) jt 3� y i-- —� —�.-�� '� fir.-• - 1 ;.a'
�a
r
® ••uedwo ■ Wc�""�✓Y 4 an�r+Poet F
Ail s Rol
4
LU
IL
r �
I J�, _
�b
jaw
� y
• 40 , ..
c
r,
-. ieitatTi\E t" J e
1 ,I
A'. 4
t
1 ®
4
1
y f
F T
y
i
1 _
i. ♦.r
4
K:
1
1
1 a
J
�9 `1
4
l ' 1
. 1
1' • � I
s ..
K.
�soo wouy 4 �.+PcSaan
Z h I
AueclWoo
OL
d
di
0 u
1
� u w
ti a r lip-
. 141
711
V
I
c i
�q'pp i � a � /} � � � '�� j :lei ' .'::: ..•' '�T � U�
Zy i
Z�' i WT. P
i
. t .
CITY OF RA14CHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Envi�:onmertal Assessment Review Fee: $87.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Con=, ttee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
applicatio-i, 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 information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further inforsa-
tio. concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Vineyard Kest
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TE IPHONE: The Barmakian Company/Andrew
Barmakian, 9375 Archibald Avenue, Suite i01, Ran—Tc o �ucaAonga, Cam,g1730
- 7-3084 --
VA EE , ALDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: kr:drew Barmakian (same as above)
714-987-3084
LOCATION OF PROJECT (£TRF.ET ADDPESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)
South west corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Renate APN 9207-252-44
LIST OTB-�R PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGE14CY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
Local Building and Safety - City of Rancho Cucamonga
az
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed Development of 11 acre site for
auto self sorvice station, multi-tenant use buildin;s and mini warehouse
sac, Ity.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING A:ID
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: ll acre/480,555 s.f. site; 153,000 s.f.
proposed building.
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING W THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, :LANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH IECESSARY SHEETS) :
The site sioo.:s 2% from North to Southwest. Existing lemon grove.
broua wel 1ng animals. No cultural or historic aspect, remainder of
past citrus industr'. The adjacent properties are vacant, hi¢h density
res, ent,al or industrial/commercial type structures.
Is the project part of a larger project, one of a s=ries
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
I-2
U 1'i
r
L �
l
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial charge in existing
noise or vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) ?
_ X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plain designations?
X 5. Remove any existing trees? How many? ±800
X
5. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
tox4 - substances, flammables or explosi >es?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
Site is existing Lemon rove. In proposed site design, intend to use
as many or exastino trees as oossio e.
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on ttie
next page.
'.:ERTIFICATIO14: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional
information may be required to be submitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by the Develo Ce t Review Committee.
:,ate 5;18/84 Signature AWA
,
® Title A chitec
1-3
C- 11
r- t
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division in order to aid in assessing the ability of the school
district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No. :
Specific Location of Project: ~
PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
1. '_dumber of single
family units:
2. Nwmer of multiple
family units:
3. Date zroposed to
begirt construction:
4. Earliest date of
occupancy:
r
Modes
and # of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Range
I-4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RkN%Ci,O CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84 -27, FOR AN
INDUSTRIAL PROJECT LOL ':TED CM THE WEST SIDF OF VINEYARD,
BETdEEN ARROW AND 9TH STREETS, iN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of September, i984, a complex;, applicaticr
was filed by the Barmakian Company frir review of the above-described project;
and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of September, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the abova-described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
fol lives:
SECTION 1- That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the Gerer.1
Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and
the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed use, togethcr with the conditions
applicable thereto. will of be detrimental to the
- public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Devel3pment Code.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Dec:aration is issued on September 26, 1984.
SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permi` No. 84-27 is approved
subject tT the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. The vacant pad located at the northwest corner of
Vineyard and 9th Street shall be .emporarily seeded
and irrigated if graded with the balance of the
project site.
G%7
CUP84-27
Page 2
2. A combination of landscaping, berms, and low profile
walls shall be provided within landscape setback
areas to screen parking and gasoline pumps from,
Public view within ti_2 multi-use tenant industrial
and service station area. Berms shall be undulating
with an avenge height of three feet and a maximum
slope not exceed 3 1/2.1. In addition,
'landscaped berms shall be provided against the mini-
warehouse screen walls.
3. All perimeter wails and mini-warehouse screen walls
shall be split face vertically fluted block.
4. The following materials shall be used on all
buildings to provide a consistent, unifying
architectural theme throughout the project: either
Split face block along top band of buildings, with
spl -;t face vertically fluted block along bottom of
buildings, or sandblasted concrete along top band,
with vertically flute(i concrete along bottom of
buildings. The intent is that all multi-tenant
buildings, mi.ii-wareho :se buildings and service
station buildioq be ..rr,structed with the same
exterior materials.
5- Convenience 61rectory signs , ;vi exceeding four
square feet in area, shall be provided at a;l
entrances to the multi-use tenant porti ,)n of the
project to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
6, A uniform sign program for the entire development
shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
renewal and approval prior to issuance of building
permits. The intent is to provide a coordinated
signing program of wall and monument signs as a
r single project- No more than two (2) monument signs
shall be permitted on Vineyard per the Sign
Ordinance, exclusive of convenience directory signs,
and service station pricing signs.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. Site is required to drain to the Cucamonga Creek
channel via existing stub connection in the
channel . A permit from the San Bernardino County
Flood Control District will be required prior to
construction of the storm drain connection.
2. Site shall drain through the mini-warehouse westerly
driveway to a -atch basin and minimum 18 inch pip-3
into channel.
r,�sa
�s
CUP84-27
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1984.
PLANS;ING COMMISSION OF' -.`HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission, of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1934, by the follcwing vote-to-wit:
(!` AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: CW!" J SSIONERS:
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
�R- ' ✓— - V T " T V _
c L w 0� n 9 y O — C? O J •J Q
_ d G — ~ P' g C 7 C O 4 «r✓ '�� O C•
p G --
U
'7 E— _ c t— V r i T �= ¢= ' 0 4 E — '• E.L L V O 4 F t-' n i O q•�
_Q L N r � •^V tO c•LI ¢9 f — � j G M ±0 7 c— c V.n
r ry� T00 � • SC� _n •_ Vn Per— 2 r q `ri• d c -J
� ¢�— C M L «" c O ✓ C N—{J _ � ` G` C V nU V•�— r � L
bCu>� Nn • PQ --' � O =_ — Ou � dc I TO -lr — _
r r• — EOCV j ._r O�, i�a QVG Pry �� _ L— V ^ e o0•� ^41
2_ T_
OO n� cT u >� � y b•O•r ^J✓� - 7 VVC I�7F .. G -V
O c L 'V V - ✓✓— V V U O b.G• p n� _ L r— � �... j P a t'V r
c.�. Nra�ur3 �_ o � Vc ✓ b N7c—O GnG 'VCV c � T✓
�= ja✓ >� ` V�qN OL 1.—...i c_'E] •ca CO «�' Q.� cc•+.• p= � nNC
r � ,a O O ✓ y✓ O' •r0••Oi• — y A r J G r ` ✓ O d«
�_«y—�L✓ nL evc - d+ o � « p_ r_ y = �r✓a "• on '^
oCu1- moo•` ¢.. � c=tic_ 'nY •_j r coM c��N �`o ,c^-v oo•
� o.�. ":- ECO o¢ '� — « F •a era .• �V -- FV� r; �� G—� '
a•aySL GL Cie V� c00 « ' L n�`6N '� e0 np 0 �
L' P A N ✓ T) O . P S Py V N L P N_M. ¢_ _' 7 _J � P—7
'V C ai p „ 4 C y C i C — n � q ee O w V.� � T yQy•u M 'r�l V
_9 �=a _ r9�.7 VCPVO « Tc 'q— ` C ?v nC OL «'eau PC NL
4� 0-' �O V� � V ' d'Or q0� LnG= � « P >•� ¢V�. c O� = c «
a� N....LO e b ` Tu n— P✓ — VC�N r �v0 J¢��O _ 61=.� an dam✓ nq) 4 �— O _ L L � O
y0=`L _ TL � __V c p`O cW9 -q C«i LOcr •Li• p.r'OL t.O. b � cN'__ d o «cb Ncc nnLyO GdbG VC4 Ei� OTviG
L •pe� '� VOC > cn4✓ -.V L' «O y—pT _V6yCEVi rCIgP O9N'_J ? =a C «
L «J V G y 0 « O r ✓I « O O __n
« 'f O a ✓` •r N N V O «` N L V l✓��' V V 9 �r r
1— v 9 n O 2 •n L C d ^O �� s V � V d_� _« «�•N..�� ✓ C
9F -zi p O: V i «rV 2 pn G— LOOV nE—
y 1 6 O 9 O r L n 1 n y 4 g n L
O �
e
OO
� py
E" G r099�1
r v j
Z _L o V yN O.E .✓n� Oc`i V q
_ c � —� ■ 2 ra
J 9Ne n i cc i�od q� L «G
I
O .3 P «O C O N G C t r
V r L
d � � O q
O V Y 1 � ✓¢ =� a-- p j
�_ � S .I � � Vp� � � W CC��_•n— V�
try— _
V l..
` V
• IL Y V V C c G w q•[i .O. b 4 b «W VI
N
• b � i M JO C• ^� V N
i
� zo
v
din w a oN T uo� mad c�v
�. q r t O L E p ' r G _O✓ C — C >a O ? _� P
G G q' > O w w G~ q _a V ✓ n T V n r 9 ' G
C N _N C•� G G O N y V n C S O C C
Y•gd'N o✓eFe c.^ Y' o`.o ., "$ u •••� � .:o "_ b$ •"vq _
�� N_.'• OP V9 a•L_ Or N— {VAV q ONN t � OG OGl NNdP ..
�t Oy L � �✓ >c uGj— M�' 3 C^ q n•.> q •^L CVy�J
O ✓ P u V V w U n G' Q > d� 0 q C q G rt'✓C ✓ r O
_•�dc L_`o? _._T rN ` - ` NqN > No � �aa-
� �F— L u O Q L G O. i0 E .. C M V q L G ✓p `_E � C� � q V G'
V GCCx✓d ` ipT— O— Gy� n. ><..a
O w 4 L` '^t G? V •" G U C O d x L Gp V O L V
O C y V u N La w _ •G` Y `V' _ G ^ V c O C G C ci
9C F
nOq � yL �` O .�C� VV •—i• -J Vr— n
T 7 V N V M 7 y— � C N y `� L x N �✓� — c \• G
se
E G' dN Tr oa I� uG' � cr e � -✓ car " •Gd, E^y r✓G G?tea
O G O w N� n ~� r— N V O ✓ > d q c L N r
d 0�— G• T C � i V l� ` ✓ •o y G C c O G C •O L p d C q p n� N
r T v 4 =_—✓ N T r N H M g L l G Y..•9 Q yl I y M r G .9 9—
`' 6.Vi• Vu_ O GV Ng UYLVC— NJ V y—t EYV Nd
Na NU dr ... G •✓ M i r
C—
u
d C C M u g a d C O V_ O C+T V q✓ G✓?L••e — r Oq iC .w
ooG Nu >✓- i - x ` a✓� uc L-• ^. < LG c of �s2�
cS— q� V _ n = >. O q2c-V..r`C� VV G �✓ — SW Nq✓ P q '^V >
CVgC_ yr b J`✓ PVNO ar J L NC 6 •� V'N VQ
✓ q` V q d P V >w V — C c 72 •� P Y C p C ti O w ^ O Y 1 P
V ^GV CC qq_ C u� V•piUV ' itgt Gla = �09 V VgOQ G��' 0=qv
p Vv G� •- daF_
C V— NrHNrI LLn dV � 6VMw OCL r
�I1 1
^' ml 1 N' j V• b
i i I
u
1
N
�� `� C VAN Cr 9 •�G 'i�O9 �dCV VVIn L_ d >yVP
O �O y 1 q S 2 C� ! O r 9 �•'� C p O
�= r� � e>, � 4 _ oaw= >rY✓ N :t << o
qb >•GV qL SO —� SbLV � Gr CiF E✓ J
L C r 6✓ G'^ V L O � — ✓N �_ C r ✓4_ N V V b✓M r N�' ` ' � a _F g L \ q 2 C C C V T S.G G 4 r�
V V ✓L L � _ _ 6 r
— = yc `o„ c' ..�� oc � c EVTv�✓ o -�-^ o �� q V V cNF V
Gq -z
`✓
9d dP� rG � ✓V —C q✓ N01 ^L `•O.• 6q— 9FpN
— V G N� 'i— 9 E N V� C � L V C M �— l' � >V✓ N`a—
C O „ O
m✓
V •C tea,✓ O YS L u ✓^. OA n'C`• - 2` Nn Cw qL L
✓✓ N'G^ C GF OO. C qO ✓ O JN ` p � V \tP yO O
q O N� • O q� V y g V �V r M •'v � U L
t v ! dLM Q✓✓ _ c wd- 'f' wGi-v �. 2 L- cLc NNu`a '^mac
bir-
G O S t O T
d J 4-- x C v— C — V G P L > l � T E r C O✓ O O n E
— d w M _ > V Y 6 G q c q V C C� O tY.. q n y r wN• w C P L C 9 L O
N C ♦.y C T W n V w—• C i G L C C C C — C G � 4 'v b G' C
•'? - c �_ o_ bqb _ o _r ° Tr av ou .c c�� iucrN
-.o N da=•:: -Gr. aT z + gG� = c$nG' n v"ae ' tFGd
tiG � V GLC _u0 CG L 6� CG � Gq V•r +Cu dt w
V2� nOP� � � N TUC'� IVVNC L.O �.— _C -OS >aLV CSVW
V .! t✓ �j N S� C y �C✓ L q V N w y.p n u O\.r Y N \N V
V V > V � w C O r q A y• ^✓ �^'— G C 4 O .Ow
V a � �C C - u � u Q aLOi = q •cqi c_.a.—.. i v G C i N S <.�— �—• P .
O— V E � iaGc ✓o p1 <— W� �� �._ c• > o < oov -�
e c� > ' � E �� q � 9L �� � as Y� oL c G�•v ✓
V,V _ _ — y � —� _ Gb G yfJ n' adsM p ` G✓C > � 7E
_ _ py V4 _ �.L.. G.�Ci� aC�✓ �
— ~ NG 6"-Na ••�9 6V t V PCL ,LL Ou — d
Y c e .-� �C a n ti E.•G p
I
Gay
i
c 'vbC' =.,N- = Z P. i'=a _= oo rater
2 r
No F L L V
•Q �"'l y J.q 0 O T'L"� N V� u' ., n Y`O 6 C Y q J C v V r� Y S c
r_"� r6 a>r � � wLn LJC`C C > Q �'- � a G•J V�
r Vr q cn
p b .^n=76r G9 Orr Cq � L_ L Pa W G a. q
jai q s q �" ca a� �.n „_ L _ Lr r-:v roo
i voq cur
err_ L T r� r M r r rr Ja =v c.i
N^ •O Y .,, __ r No_ L av : - = q .,, aL '' .J. 0
UC rnv rL'q� J 4C r N d r'li O G dVY r uj VOV �
cr N d r
a„
G=c PO.r Tr. M� a` yr L� O Oar ` C � PnC.n ON
Gda� n L� 4d NV6 Nr rP V cq -j dL0 vr... q 7q
r =LVL wL > nq ^' r.-. qLm •� ie�u = e _q .. qr _' cqr
r•^ Jq ra9Vr C OCO` � d= NCU w wai P 'JSCO NOOr .e
6 of 2,nVd 6T+ Oa 6� WO4 aw �Ny y� Va+ w q rr � C0'r,c VCV arr.
Q O
I H��
r
C;
9 i q L O T O C O O c P y
C c r z a
O L� d a Nr a 1rq a_ N rrr �C Pd qi
d l J[ r C C O.�� N2 M O baLL C. _ V y=y .Ln ^V O• _ vC
w r =" r Or rL a= VC r6�V Ur VAC `N VN 4v
O.cm r E
E SC ibL > ^i,ur Ev�� cd rn=_�- r • `e re
01 CV q_ V �Lr Vy IZ .rn9 �j ay qr
pC rr � qr N LO ri aV, Jra rr�grW cO w i r'V
NI N ,a FL c •e >
N L dVCCLr VqM aP pW= C
q O b,r OTC O O Gv `�N V� Vr
yr M 9� raO.e CUGN 4� c� � C� JI Vat T ^p
.7i,1 v^ _Ti d Or O_ 00 YJ= _ a" C wv
YI r q J V ON CYOq LJr9V n Q
�� q0` �rC y n7 ry� c yyOCO LCGC�L c ,rnV � L�� .L. r 'p
M r_q V N� q d S". C > G' N U N q q_ O g g 3� E�.L... � r e m w �q q q •
N` �Y1C aPl q � Vr cr O��V wLOIC V �^ = iV LL
qI V aLJ „ N Nw _' LL ^ 'J r-.q PG". OW` IIGV iaC • NV
..n0 CO G �N C ` P 4CUV 04 �Y
.L.vYe EL _b
v ac— i�v c✓ c i aei uiv� ��ra _ c�a do �."' d.n Tw o`a � br
N MO � NZ
R N
d
0
>� yl G� L Z...,v�yC qrr� C C +• VG !' qqL. d
zl
CI I � V r40 ` V4 PV _ L DV -'—O LLO
4_� - r N fJ •n �j D O q�
Wcc
`ZoL
� d
r i _ U V q •a y 0 1 ` N C O •`n C 9 1 r 0 L V— V L
V N v C 'C� > ? P • 9 6•C V > u q
C_ C' V N`• S `P I d O P` N Y L
u ' c
aY
Ell
�' �•V u L G _ L c q= L r � r O g t
_' ul JGL WN S� O N 'rI GL VD WN7 yVV �G •J�C1 6r
Q'
I
ycc� V c
L q O Q S C O= r� C�� r• i G ^ I O N L r C
L� IrL p4
�q G ^ N� E•�.rGO N— L � C L I V � r' TS G C4C
r` _V L— LrC C^rUi Co 40 — LE L I GyV.l vy Ccr
L u y c 4 c-•
rL '>o NY — SL a ccc•c o .c, •ecd
aq_ = � o -�; _ Il' o
r 4_ '= _ C i T'r _ .�..• C•` V 12•r,V 1 V C �� V`•r _C Tv SO ONGV _� T� q _OrEC i CJL C V �
-ci
4
_ z �
` Cc FO 1
_rVc
C ^r Vc Pr IVIC p4r
J V c' c• O V C_ O C E 4 c T O 4 •�• O
I G' O `• D
V. rlE 1 6 V r V �< O.r 6 �
n
NI = « L V C q J N c
� � •n O� c .V. V N .Ti 6a
/��a �� O I I q I1 q > n ✓ Ca i =• V V t�N q
ZZ2, W V
d c S «
•7 c c ] G g N O tN 7` l - n P O O 2
=L
L � O � gOVp yWn = V `� .-i•6 CL > y
.�-
O
u
- u• I 'I = � q.�C c i y d q ...• C. y y V W G Y y
qm I � �_� � s '.' NLc � c� c•� n ? F .. .N..G� . �
M� I _ � �- ram � L G mL r= •^cicam ` q
oa2f
LJ-
VO L` c0 ` Q` n > •Li• dV dl W ' PNS- = 0
O L �• � r
_ E _
• tiI m m P O
o , 3 9,Lt 2 432 «
og
L c u` q yq W oP^ `cd•`ao eac c.d.r
Pq q �^ G baEy y cn cJB _m s`� Pn
d P 9 q
= L � O w �CGO .dPeaCC yqq « L ^O•<� p0 L >
- C q r V�.`6 LV�^ L�OVa rQ.Ca gEOal oqi
C•e q ? d^=4_ C y�y q T? q t O p O c L ...Y q �b
T R V l b� r q V P M d ��= d >a •J � r c�
a q 4 wq.O t
n c ` Cd"•�c NnVe Vq .�r•rr qnE `C'•�9..� 'yc
q V - C q r•' .• L L G N i -� p•
a a � ,a� oi `''ys"'! c `m`= q a�� >o a o�• Fq
L.N. c ecr .cp rq our y ada i �«., « _' c E �E
«E � ' dYr� O N cv n0'• �O� dGV C�> aN
2 Z ,pa fJ
�J o e C C n c o C T
.• 6P ' yq �GO c O� aC••' O qa C _ L jC
5 «•d� .L�.�%a.d-c Vi G•«••
^= L j � N C G�> C •di V � G Q P O J L • q� 0 a G P C N Q u� =� q C
P N O .Oi ate. O
wqJ• O N N= zz
P - .mac v ndv> o .J+ Teq>v q__ .. Ny•.•!+E✓ _
� PCV bM q NV'JN� < q4p 06�-E^ WCaV < OV VO Pq �� } qT
f N
V
J
ra✓ _ _ a
�'_ 9 ✓ n � qCn• r qL M d' ✓ 9 G d N N
• r c C q 9 V l y V c✓ n l > .0 O V C V
V _ r q d C V J� J O �..• T G L V
Ti= O ✓ C lPr CN UG - -eT ��V OLC dl ' G
4qd � y - �Or 9 r✓ h� � __ � r9 aL > V
c v., ry .L. J tN✓ d0 o u dm _ I w` G `a m_ � n �.°.
j q 0 m L E c u vr:• V C _q a L — � ✓A c y N � ��
O 6 U O C _Cz l✓ n> n a c c _ d _ � O G_w � q N q
C a�. t l n L �b � V � l T l �� OI ✓ O n l N - m C n
-
q W rL VL�"O" Of rC Vq 40Ji � rLO VG OL W G✓_4 u V P 7 P V'�P - L N 9r .�` ✓ �`r G ` ��T O q C
Cr =� GO r� O� OL c✓-J O ` C
- d V _� r .- J am✓ Y N L C •`I
Q V G d Nd rywV d I L. CwV
J � � 2 `"• O O m �GVw Lu
O O ' � � ��L M?igP 9 P •^ VlV .V.rY
y LOE go` rt o J. L ` Gr
_ O
c o gT✓yL•� r n c � cu o
u � i _ eG� Gc eT= o a •�_
n• — � v i � o O, n— � �. A E na q
o75
Pi c
E c.= � X �� ✓ I c Lac _ -�_ _ M q _ iLa i— u �
i C GL L c' L
S N3 �� � - ` � _ ACV C- OE✓ L c _ q�
C ✓ I I C L C C c U. o f - ! G C l r C d
zcO N l
✓ c� -\ X q C ✓ N f r � _�_V nq
pp c c ` au yo a c V'J NL'an
p- Q V C I G _ l ` P i � Jw uL ✓ t V � 3 T 6 V I E LNV NpW 4� 6 C M NO✓r N'O
q
y O y� = O N b •L
c
N
i p d
Q I D \rr
c
GN• � '
p N V
c b I+I y
V O V r
l n
`r r
L y p
' L C
6 J V D
n
1 �
1
T,
1
C p Q y d j d P c
V Q O G q r V V a ` P N 6 p• O'
E �. a
d r r « G L
•Nevri= " b y 20
_PV
"• ydG•rq = d ob -� __ J ��. a— � e
V�r i C- d r r o O V V` •� p V N
• ap• �.T. V` _ 7C
IG -
T j a qd ed c N: �� •^ E � �
Iy ~ n b CL N` V' rO �� «
l 4
d=� ou Ow —.• O2r ro .�•. F •^n — q Lnq y � p�
—.5 d d `ov ���• � m i
M.T• j— �. , L t O•rw y N i V r_ y J •yV y T 9 q i d V-f V •gyp v
5 O� 6� � 7 C O C A N G� •i0i � C O G V
r G < p
• � I 1 �1 1 NI � `� � i OI ^ N
0
s
CI-rY OFpRA RANCHO CUCAMONGA c�,�iyo
S��L�FF REPORT `�9-
J p
I--
DATE: September 26, 1984 J>
1977 i
TO: Planning Commission I!
FROM: Lloyd B. Pubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician _
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8587 - PREVITI - A division
of 1.04 acres into 2 parcels in the Very Low du ac Development
District located on the southeast corner of Mayberry Avenue and
Rancho Street - APN 201-111-35
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
I
A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Maps. '
8. Purpose: To divide 1.04 acres into 2 parcels in the Very Low (2
® u/-ac Development District for the purpose of building a single
family dwelling.
C. .Location: Southeast corner of Mayberry Avenue and Rancho Street.
D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 0.52 acres
Parcel 2 0.52� acres
I�54 acres
E. Existing Zoning: Very Low (2 du/ac) Devlopment District.
a F. Existing Land Use: Parcel 1 - P:cisting single family dwelling
Parcel 2 - vacant
G. Surrounding Land Use:
North - existing single fa:.,ily
South - existing single family
East - existing single family
West - vacant.
H. Surrourdin Gennrai Plan and Development Code Oesi nations:
port - fiery ow u ac) DDevelopment District
South - Very Low (2 du/ac) Development District
East - Very Low (2 du/ac) Development District
West - Very Low (2 du/ac) Development District
ITEM H
is; .
f
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 8587 - Previti
September 26, 1984
Page 2
I. Site Characteristics: Parcel i contains a single family residence;
Parcel is vacant sloping approximately 2% to the southwest.
II. ANALYSIS: This Parcel Ma dividing 1.04 acres of land into 2 parcels is
located on the Very Low r2 dulac) Development District at the southeast
corner of Rancho Street and Mayberry Avenue, south of Hillside Road.
Parcel 2 contains a single family residence-fronting on Rancho Street;
Parcel 2 is vacant.
Street improvements for Mayberry Avenue and Rancho Street with the
exception of a street light are existing.
Local equestrian trails, as shown on the attached Map, will be
provided. The portion of trails on Parcel 1 is to be constructed prior
to recording the Parcel Map. Trails on Parcel 2 will be constructed at
time of building permit issuance.
Parcel 2 will be graded to drain toward Rancho Street as shown on the
attached conceptual grading plan.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Also attached for your review and consideration is
kart I of the nitial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has
completed Part II of the initial Study, the environmental checklist, and
has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the
Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on
the environment as a rs;ult of the proposed subdivision.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding
property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the
site has also been completed.
r
V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached reso ction conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 8587 and
authorizing the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Respec fully s bmi ed,
11
�j
GLBH'B jaa
Attachments: Map - Tentative & Vicinity
Resolution
City Engineer's Report
Initial Study
ka
r�
I R '
. t"'a Y 2�P• $i= tc 25p5 to a 4 $ ��i o�wE�3 g� i T e�,'u' �. -
� i�c;��
W pp ter.. � fi
ik i capp is � �8 � ,�Y �i.. y4 (WH}••` . j 1
ikr act "'A
o _
ly
�C Q
2 � J�fi • y
• Q�• ¢gip c� ¢I1
}- •�R 'yf' ` •' �� -ice ;jl ; l.;�l
ti
n
w
44
�Wa Iyy �s ; ► I I L
i
4` {
�� 1Pa>•s�
i
..,, R`.;
ti
1 PROJECT
1 SITE
�i
. i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA��IONGA title;
P.M. 8587
l _O --_
�� Iz ENGINEERING DIVISION A
VICINITY il1AP
T
L + page
- 'Y-� �1 .A •. a .: l'I ~ 1 !�,,`�
1
r ) y v
i1
l I 1
L - '•� e_Zh
.PARCEL -
-� Z2.7a7 S
tb
1
Fan.i i r 4Y
,
1111 Y � t j�1 1
=Ise
title; `i
CITY OF RANCHO CUC�.,�IONGA p
AENGINEERING DIVISION p *+ s987
1977 VICINITY MAP � IT
Page
xs
t
CITY OF RANCHO CUCP2MONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review lee: $87. 00
For all projects requi_ing environmental review, tnis
fo,:n 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 St,.:dy. The Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ter.
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Coacr"tee will -hake one of
three determinations : 1) The project will have no signi-
ficant environmental impact a.id 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 TITLE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO . 8587
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: ( 7141 987-7788
-1AMFS P _ PRFVITl 70313 Rancho Street , Rancho Cucamonga , CA
a1710 _
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT. Gary T . Sanderson , c/o Linvil7e-
Sanderson & Assoc . 95S r ow 11, Cute , ul a anc o uC-camonga ,
California 91130 i _ �
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO_ )
10313 Rancho Street
Assessor ' s Parcel No . - i -
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS :
None
T_1
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONI
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: BEING A DIVISION OF PARCEL 3
AND THE NORTH 12 FEET OF PARCEL 4 0= PARCEL MAP NO . 3574 ,
P . M . B . 36/ 18, IN THE CITY OF RANCHU CUCAMONGA , INTO
PARCELS .
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE -FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF F7Y: 1 . 04 GROSS ACRES
THERE- IS A 2 ,200t SQUARE FOOT HOUbE ON THE W S LY
SITE .
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) :
NATURAL DRAINAGE IS TO THE SOUTHWEST AT APPROXIMATELY 6%.
THE USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH , EAST , AND
SOUTH IS RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. USE TO THE WEST IS VACANT , _
AND AN EXISTING SITE FRONTS ON A FULLY IMPROVED STREET
® RANCHO STREET WITH CURB , GUTTER , AND FIRE HYDRANT PROVIDED .
THE WESTERLY HALF ( PARCEL 1 ) IS FULLY IMPROVED WITH HOUSE ,
TREES AND LANDSCAPE . THE EASTER HALF ( PARCEL 2 ) IS VACANT .
Is the project Part of a larger project, one of a series
of cumulative actions , which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
NO
I-2
N'I
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 , flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTANT: If the projE-:t 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 inforsa=ion required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my -'_ility, 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
evaluation can bemade by the De lopmer_t/'Review Committee.
Date 7 —Z 7 "py
Signature
Title OVN�R
1-3
K 8
RESIDENTI_,L CO`:STRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division n order to aid in assessing the ability of the school
district to accomriodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No. :
Specific Loca�ion of Project:
PHASE I PRASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
1. Number of single
family units:
2. Number of multiple
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin, construction:
4D4. Earliest date of
occupancy:
Model T
and # of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Range
I-4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER
8587 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8587) LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MAYBERRY AVENUE AND RANCHO STREET
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 8587, submitted by James
Previti, and -onsisting of 2 parcels, located on the southeast corner of
Mayberry AvenuE and Rancho Street, being a division- of Parcel 3 and the North
12.00 feet of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 3574 as recorded in Book 36, Page 18,
Records of San Bernardino County, State of Californ;a; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 1984, a formal application was submitted
requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. Th-it the map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision i;
consistent with the General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage, public
health problems or have adverse affects on abutting
property.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse
er:,ironmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on September 26,
1964.
SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8587 is approved subject to
the recommended Condit�ions of Approval pertaining thereto.
H Its
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY•
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST•
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COvAISSICNERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RECOMMEHDED ,CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Mayberry TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO: 8587
Avenue and Rancho Street DATE FILED: 8/2/84
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A division of Parcel 3 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2
and the North 12.00 feet of Parcel 4 of GROSS ACREAGE: 1.04
Parcel Map 3574 as recorded in Book 35, ASSESSOR PARCEL NO:201-111-35
Page 18, Records of San Bernardino County, State of California
rkr�ct**7r�r*irict**,r,t*f-,t**#kit*rr*,t*,tie*t*�,rt. t***�t**intt*ict**int-t:tirxx:taF/Hc***i-�rl-kic-:c***�,t
DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
James Previti same Linville-Sanderson
10313 Rancho Street 9587 Arrow Route, Ste H
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title lb of the
Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not be limited
to, the following:
Dedications and Vehicular Access
1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-of-way
and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the
following streets:
additional feet on
additional feet on
additional feet on
3. Corner property line radius will be required per City
Standards.
4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated
as follows:
5. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring
access to all parcels amid joint maintenance of all common
roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s
and shall be recorded concurrent with the map.
-1-
x �a
6- All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to
be quitclaimed or delineated on the map per City Engineer's
requirements.
7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the
City where sidewalks meander through private property.
Surety
X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney,
guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to
building permit issuance for Parcel 2.
2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map
for the following:
3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing
completion of ail on-site drainage facilites necessary for
dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and
Safety Divison prior to recording for
and/or prior to issuance of building permit for
Street Improvements
Pursuant to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 16, Section
16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with
the City guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the ;nap
and/or building permit issuance.
I. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited
to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches,
parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets.
2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide
dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-
section streets.
X 3. Construct the following missing improvements:
Prior to building permit issuance for Parcel 2
Curb & e- Drive Street Street A.G. R-e ian
Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay Island* Other
Rancho X X X
*Includes landscaping and irrigation on meter
-2-
K �3
n
X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way,
fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained
from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other
permits required.
X 5. Street improvement plans shall be revised by a Registered Civil
Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
an encroachment permit.
6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the
relocation of any power poles or other existing public
utilities as necessary.
7. Existing lines of ISM or less fronting the property shall be
undergrounded.
8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs,
striping and markings with locations and types approved by the
City Engineer.
X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the
Southern California Edison Company and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with
underground service.
10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of
building permit.
® 11. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks.
Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards.
Drainage and Flood Control
1. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be
required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map.
2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal
of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
3. The folicna ng storm drain shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer _
4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage
study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review.
5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be
constructed to detain increased runoff
-3-
Grading
X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the
Uniform Building . Code, City Grading Standards and accepted
grading practices.' "The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading
plan.
X 2. A soils report shall be Prepared by a qualified engineer
licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior
to issuance of building permit.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
or geologist and submitted at the time of application or
grading plan check.
4. The final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval
by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to
recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of
building permit whichever comes first.
X 5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the
Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of
building permit.
General Requirements and Approvals
X. 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
CalTrans for
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
X Cucamonga County Water District for server and water
San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to
issuance of a grading permit)
Other
2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$)
approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation
of the map.
X 3. Provide all utility services to each lot including sewerage,
- water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street
constructor.
X 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga
County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is
required.
5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval
from CalTrans/San Bernardino County Flood Control District.
_ X 6. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other
interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will
be subject to any requirements that may be received from them.
_4_
R is
z. r•
X 1. The Mina of the tentative map or approval of same does not
guarantee that sewer treatment capacity will be available at
® the time building permits are requested. When building permits
are requested, the Cucamonga County Water District will be
asked to certify the availability of capacity. Permits will
not be issued unless said certification is received in writing.
X 8. Local trails shall be provided in accordance with the Trail
Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths, maximum slopes,
physical conditions, fencing and weed control, in accordance
with City trail standards, shall be submitted to and approved
by the City Planner prior to recordation for Parcel 1 and prior
to building permit issuance for Parcel 2.
4. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City
covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments
under Assessment District 82-1. among the newly created parcels.
X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be
submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets),
copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or
showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks
referenced.
1'
CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMGNGA
LLOYD B. NUBBS, CITY ENGINEER
by:
N Ito
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA_TMO�NGA C,_ICAM�1
STAFF REPORT
AOL
lid
>;, F
>DATE: September 26, 1984 '�
F t "
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: 3arbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8680 - MORRIS & SEARLES - A
division of 3.i77 acres of land into 3 parcels within the Low
Medium (4-8 du/ac) Development District located on the east side of
Ramona Avenue, south of Base Line Road.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of Parcel Map.
! B. Purpose: To divide 3.177 acres of land into 3 parcels. Parcel 2
® II to be the site of Tentative Tract 12772 approved by Planning
Commission on September 24, 1984.
C. .Location: East side of Ramona Avenue, south of Base Line Road.
D. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 2.682 acres
Parcel 2 0.275 acres
Parcel 3 0.220 acres
3.171 acres
E. Existing Zoning: Low-Medium Development District (4-8 du/ac) .
F. Existing Land Use: Parcel 1 - vacant
' Parcel 2 - existing single family
Parcel 3 - existing single family
G. Surrounding Land Use:
North - vacant
South - existing single family
East - vacant
West - existing single f gaily homes.
H. Surroundin General Plan and Development Code Designations:
North - Low - u/ac Development District
South - Low (2-4 du/ac) Development District
East - Low (2-4 du/ac) Development District
West - Low (2-4) du/ac Development District
TEM 1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Parcel Map 86EO - Morris & Searles
September 26, 1984
Page 2
1. Site Characteristics: Parcels 2 and 3 contain single family dwellings.
There are some abandoned thicker, cages and citrus trees on Parcel 1. The
property slopes at approximately 21" in a seutheastcrly direction.
II. ANALYSIS: Morris & Searles, applicants for Parcel Map 8680, are
requestng a division of 3.177 acres of land into 3 parcels to provide
separate lots for two single family e :eliings- and create a parcel which
will be a portion of Tract 12772. The tract was tentatively approved by
the Planning Commission on September 12, 1984.
III. 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 II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and
has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the
Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on
the environment as a result of the proposed subdivision.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding
property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the
site has also been completed.
V. - RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached reso ution conditionally approving Tentative Parcel Map 8680 and
authorizing the issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Respe tfully suomitt d,
LBtI:BK;j as
Attachments: Map - Tentative & Vicinity
Resolution
City Engineer's Report
Initial Study
M
(n I I
LL V�
Yz __
Q \ ~ 9tl?tee
1�
is
„R
• . r 13
�. ,r- Y r • v o r
CL
q-
—_ ...Jn a.c•wu— 9�ni�.Y• r. vFalna�__
Er
-L Ml H.^gyp/
J
,jj777 rr11
{ "1li TIff
S
- ItM E
ice" !il
`�catro
CITE' OF RANCHO C ' � 'itle;
P.M. E680
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY MAP
Page.
T'
I ,
i i, ���-�... _ '''_f r_J :: ...• .=�!:.^__... t ;� mow`— '.- , ......
mLnL
Jlrs i I'- wit I I ;
�.. I 1 y •r _ <"t I ( It? I I .1 --1 -r• rp, �� ' •[. ..� �• ��. - I }f, I o
IL
NORTH
CITY OF
T1:� \CHO CUCALNIO\GA TiTLL:
PLANNING DIVOON El"FiI1�iZ:_�SGLL£= -
RESOLLP',ION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER
8680 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 8680) LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF RAMONA AVENUE, SOUT,� OF BASE LINE ROAD
WHEREAS, Tentative Pa-cell Map Number 8680, submitted by Morris &
Searles and consisting of 3 )arcels, located on the east side of Ramona
Avenue, south of Base Line Road, being a division of a portion of the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 1 Seth, Range 7 West, also a portion of
the South 1/2 of Lot 6 of said Section 2 as recorded in Map Book 4, Page 9;
and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 1984, a formal application was submitted
requesting review of the above-described Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 1984, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed development.
,. 4. That tee proposed subdivision and improvements will
not cease substantial environmental damage, p-lblic
health problems or have adverse affects on abutting
property.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration is issued on September 26,
1984.
SECTIP% 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 8680 is approved subject to
trig recommended Conditions of Approval pertaining thereto.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY•
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
—Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
` I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonge, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
f
CITY Or RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LOCATION: East side o= Ramona Avenue, TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP N0: 9680
south of Base Line Road DATE FILED: 8/22/04
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A subdivision of a portionNUMBER OF LOTS: 3
of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township GROSS ACREAGE: 3.177
1 SOUth, Range 7 West also a portion of the ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 1077-031-3
South 112 of Lot 6 of said Section 2 as recorded �n Map Book 4, Page 9
DEVELOPER OWNER ENGINEER/SURVEYOR
Morris & Searles Lois V. Pasik Ca]-Land
2950 B-1 Airway ^. 0. Box 2989 P. 0. Box 1376
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Pomona, CA 91769 Claremont, CA 91711
Improvement and dedication requirements in accordance with Title 16 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga include, but may not, be limited
to, the following:
Dedications and Vehicular Access
1. Dedications shall be made of all interior street rights-of-way
and all necessary easements as shown on the tentative map.
X 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the
following streets:
_ 33 additional feet on _Ramona Avenue
additional feet on
additional feet on
3. Corner property 11ne radius will be required per City
Standards.
4. All rights of vehicular ingress and egress shall be dedicated
as follows:
5. Reciprccal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring
access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all common
roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by C.C.&R.s
and shall be recorded concurrent with the map.
-1-
X 6. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to
be quitclaimed cr delineated on the map per City Engineer's
requirements.
7. Easements for sidewalk for public use shall be dedicated to the
City where sidewalks meander through private property.
Surety
X 1. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney,
guaranteeing completion of the public improvements prior to
recording for Parcels 2 and 3.
2. A lien agreement must be executed prior to recording of the map
for the foliowing:
3. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing
completion of all on-site drainage facilites necessary for
dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and
Safety Divison prior to recording for
and/or prior to issuance of building permit for
Street Improvements
Pursur-nt to the City of Ranch Cucamonga Municipai Code, Title 16, Section
16.36.120, the subdivider may enter into an agreement and post security with
the Cite, guaranteeing the required construction prior to recordation of the map
and/or building permit issuance.
1. Construct full street improvements including, but not limited
to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches,
parkway trees and street lights on all interior streets.
2. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40-foot wide
dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-
section streets.
X 3. Construct the following missing imprcNcmerts:
Prior to recordation for Parcel 2 and 3
ur e- Drive Street Streeta san
Street Name Gutter Pvmt. Walk Appr. Trees Lights Overlay island* Other
Ramona X X X X X Z
*includes landscaping and irrigation on meter
-2-
X 4. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-of-way,
fees shall be paid and an encroachment permit shall be obtained
from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other
permits required.
X 5. Street improvement plans shall be prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of an encroachment permit.
6. Developer shall coordinate, and where necessary, pay for the
relocation of any power poles or other existing public
utilities as necessary.
X 7. Existing lines of 12YV or less fronting the property shall be
undergrounded.
X 8. Install appropriate street name signs, traffic control signs,
striping and markings with locations and types approved by the
City Engineer.
X 9. Street light locations, as required, are to be approved by the
Southerr. California Edison Company and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. Lights shall be on decorative poles with
underground service.
10. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of
building permit.
X 11. Concentrated drainage flows shale not cross sidewalks.
Undersidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards.
Drainage and Flood Control
1. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be
required and shall be delineated or noticed on the final map.
2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal
of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
3. The following storm drain shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer
4. Prior to recordation of the map, a hydrologic and drainage
study for the project shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review.
5. A drainage detention basin per City Standards shall be
constructed to detain increased runoff
-3-
Grading
X 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards and accepted
grading practices. The final gracing plan sha'1 be in
substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading
plan.
X 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
licensed by the State of California to perform such work prior
to issuance of building permit.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
or geologist and submitted at the time of application or
grading plan check.
4. the final grading plan shall be subject to review and approval
by the Grading Committee and shall be completed prior to
recordation of the final subdivision map or issuance of
building permit whichever comes first.
5. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the
Building and Safety Division for approval prior to issuance of
building permit.
General Requirements and Approvals
X 1. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows:
CalTrans for
San Bernardino County Floods ontrol District
- X Cucamonga County Water District for sewer and water
X San Bernardino County Dust Abatement (required prior to
issuance of a grading permit)
Other
2. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C.&R.$)
approved by the City Attorney is required prior to recordation
of the map.
X 3. PrI-vide all utility services to each lot including sewerage,
water, electric power, gas and telephone prior to street
corstructon.
Y. 4. Sanitary sewer and water systems shall be designed to Cucamonga
County Water District standards. A letter of acceptance is
required.
5. This subdivision shall be subject to conditions of approval
from CalTrans/Saa Bernardino County Flood Control District.
X 5. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other
interested agencies involved. Approval of the final map will
be subject to any requirements that may be received from them.
-4-
X 7. The filir.; of the tentative map or approval of same does not
guarantee that sewer treatment capacity wilt 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.
8. Local and Master Planned Trails shall be provided in accordance
with the Trail Plan. A detailed trail plan indicating widths,
maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing and weed control,
in accordance with City trail standards, shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Planner prior to recordation
for and/or prior to building permit
issuance for
9. Prior to recording, a deposit shall be posted with the City
covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments
under Assessment District 82-1 among the newly created parcels.
X 10. At the time of final map submittal, the following shall be
submitted: Title Report, traverse calculations (sheets),
copies of recorded maps and deeds used as reference and/or
showing original land division, tie notes and bench marks
referenced.
X 11. Utility services, serving each dwelling unit, must be wholly
located within the confines of each occupied parcel.
Verification of these utility services must be provided to the
Building Division prior to recordation of tha Map.
a
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAT40NGA
LLOYD B. HUBBS, CITY ENGINEER
by:
-5-
!- P.M. 8680
CITY .OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFO'.RMATION 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
prefect application is made- upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Studer. The Development Review
Comnittee will meet and take action no later than ter.
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three deterainations: 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 intonation report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Parcel Map No. 8680
APPLICANT'S NAME., ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Morris & Searles,
2950 Ainaay Avenue, Suite B-1 , Costa Mesa, co 712 /957-9292
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Ed Greer of Cal-Land, P. 0. Box 1376,
Claremont, CA 9,711 714/946-9 24
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STRIE—ET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. )
East side of Ramona Avenue, south of Base!. A.P.N. 1077-031-3.
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCY. PERMITS:
None known at present.
I-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Create two parcels, one for applicant
who is purchasing for development See Tract^'o ]2772 and one
pdrC2 - Or record owner to retain.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND. SQUARE- FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF AINY: 3.34 acres gross, 3.18 acres net.
The houses on Parcel No. 2 coil gin _ 1 sq. t_ a s .e s on
arce wo. contain + sq. t. o ui �nqs are propose
WIL", Lnis—rand aivision.
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIM??S, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) :
The site contains 2 houses, 2 sheds. and man abandoned chicken cages.
ere appears to a no cu turai , historical or secnic as ects on this
site. Birds an smallrodents may inhabit the area. T000aranhv is
consistant, s ooing southeaster y at 2" Existing land uses of
Surrounding properties: to the north, vacant; to the east vacant
dno citrus grove; to the south and west sinale family homes
Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series
of cu-nulative actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
No
1-2
WILL THIS PROJECT_
. YES . . NO -
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. Create a substantial char
noise or change in existing
vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial charge in demand for
municipal
icipal services (police, fire, water,
etc. ) _
X 4. Create charges in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5. Remove any existing trees? now many?
--- X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
Potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IYPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
r
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 bresented are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge an3 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 Signature-,. /
� v
Title Consul taut
ci
I-3
r1 _ /J-
CI3Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GVCAh1rJ�_
STAFF R.EPuRT
Iz
DATE: September 26, 1984 I>
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Engineering Technician
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 12809 - LEWIS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A division of 00.16 acres of land into 11
lots within the Terra Vista Planned Community for City Park
purposes located on the north side of Base Line Road between
Milliken Avenue and the Beer Creek Channel - APN 202-221-14 & 25
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of Tentative Tract Map.
B. Purpose: For the purchase of 110.16 acres of land by the City for
City Park purposes.
® C. Location: On the north side of Base Line Road between Milliken and
Deer Creek Channel.
D. Parcel Size: Nine 10-acre lots
Ono 2.235-acre lot
One 7.795-acre lot.
F, Existinq Zoninq: Terra Vista Planned Community.
F. Existing Land Use: Vacant.
G. SurroundiVictng Land Use:
North - oria Planned Community
South - Terra Vista Planned Community
East - Terra Vista Planned Community
West - Terra Vista Planned Community
I1. ANALYSIS: This property is the future site of a City Park within the
Terra Vista Planned Community serving the entire City.
An agreement between Lewis Homes and the City for the purchase of the
property was approved oil May 24, 1984. The property is being divided
into lots per this agreement for conveyance to the City.
.: ITEM d
din:'
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 12809 -
Lewis Development Company
September 26, 1984
Page 2
The agreement also provides for installation of public improvements at
appropriate times.
III. 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 II of the Initial Study, the environmental checklist, and
has conducted a field investigation. Upon completion and review of the
Initial Study and field investigation, Staff found no adverse impacts on
the em ironmert as a result of the proposed subdivision.
IV. CORRESP)NDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding
property owners and placed in the Daily Report Newspaper. Posting at the
site has also been completed.
V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached resolution conditionally approving Tentative Tract Map 12809.
It is also recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued.
Respectfully submitted,
LSH:BK-jaa
Attachments: Map - Tentative & Vicinity
Resolution
PROJECT
SITE 921
S�RR
LFA LGI? /i \
� ,
M i m i / j M LM M NC I MXF/ H M LM M
P LM ^ LM
J Lm
MH :f�ofs*uw.
M ■mcb� {
\ JrH �p� �� 4 JrHLM
L&A I
P
p ♦ LF1
Op S' 4f V
E
OP � i RC i,SH �.j, H ♦ E h1H M LM
Op @` M ��/'a P
H I pia . I
f
Op `... 6 I
-co OP MFC Mo MAC
Ho
itle•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA��IO\GA
t '
® ?ty TR. 128U9
�, Gz ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY INIAP sn N- page
mul
.� 3
f
CITY 'OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFCR!-M TION 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 Study. The Development Review
Cc...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 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 information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Tentative Tract No. 12809 (City Park)
APPLICANT'S NAME ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
Lewis Development Co. - 985-0971
1156 N. aocntaln Ave. , P. O. Box 670. L'plan , CA
r
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE, OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Kay Matlock, 946-7514, same address
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR, PARCEL NO. )
APN's 202-221-14 and -25; 11150 Base Line oz
(Bouncec by base ine, eer Creek, SPRR, Ana
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS :
None appear to apyly in this case. This is not a map for deve opmS enc
purposes, a..2 nex, item.
x-1
a � ,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION' OF PROJECT: Subdivision of 100.16 acres which the City
of Rancho Cucarnorga is acquiring for nark use_ The lets created by this
r..ap are connected with the Citv's iinanc_nq or the land acquisition.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE =DOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS , IF ANY:
100.16 acres net of certain rights or way as shown on the :aaa
There are no existing structures.
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLA14TS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTAV' NECESSARY SHEETS) :
Topography: 2-3e aentle slope, north to south.
Plants: Existing grapevines. No trees oasite_
Land use: Vineyard.
® Surrounding land uses: Residential to the northwest; residential under
n costruction to the southwest and at a Portion of
the south boundary, all other surrounding Property
is vacant or in vineyard use_
Historical, etc. . No sicnificant aspects according to the Terra
Vista Conununity Plan EIR.
J
Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series
of cumulative actions, which althouch individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
This land is a portion of the Terra Vista Planned Corununity (PC 61-01) ,
for which a master EIR has already been certified.
I-2
5:c .
WILT, THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
x. 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
x 2. Create a substantial change in exist
ing
noise or vibration?
x 3. Create a substantial changes in lemand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) ?
X 4. Create chances in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5. Remo%e any existing trees? How many?_
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Zxplanation of any YES answers above:
_MPORTANT: 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 that additional
information may be required to be submitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by the Development Rev4ew Committee.
LEWIS DEVELOPMENTCo.
Date AUCTUSt 30, 1984 Signature By
Title Authorized t gent
1-3
� b
L i-
i
l
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRTJCT'IOJd
The following information should be provided to the onga
cam
City of ?RanchoCu
Planning Division in order to aid in assess' the ability of the sCucam
district to acco.:.-aodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No_ :
Specific Location of Project:
PHASE I Pf?71SE 2 PuzSE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL
I.- Number of single
family units :
2_ NtLxber of .^.iultip'.e
family units:
3. Date proposed to
begin. coast--Uction:
4. Earliest date of
occu,��ncv:
Model
and = of Tentative
5. Bedreoms Price R:_nae
I-4
37
�y RESOLUTION 1110,
A RESOLUTIONi OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMQNGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 12809
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 12809, hereinafter "Map" submitted
by Lewis Development Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing the
Veal property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, described as a division into 100.16 acres of
land into 11 lots within the Terra Vista Planned Community for City Park
purooses located on the north side of Base Line Road between Milliken Avenue
and Deer Creek Channel , regularly cane before the Planning Commission for
public hearing and action on September 26, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has recommended approval of the Map subject
to all cond?tions set forth in the Engineering and Planning Division's
reports; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered the
Engineering and Planning Division's reports and has considered other evidence
presented at the public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
® Cucamonga does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings in
regard to tentative Tract No. 12809 and the Map thereof:
(a) The tentative tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and speci `ic plans;
(�) The site is physically suitable for the type of
development proposed;
(c) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substa,;+ial environmental damage a^d avoidable
injury to h i:;nc and wildlife or their habitat;
(d) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious
public health problems;
(e) That this project will not create adverse impacts on
the environment and a Negative Declaration is
issued.
�t.c
SECTION 2: Tentative Tract 12809 is hereby approved subject to the
fo;lowing:
(a) Improvemepts for Tract 12809 will be completed per agreement
dated May 24, 1984 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
Lewis Development Company.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNING COPRNISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout-C hairman
ATTEST•
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
J9
CITY OF RAN-CHO CUC AMONGA
STAFF REPORT c. cA,tra
(_
F4 z
DATE:
� September 26, 1984
T0: i9:,
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Lisa Wringer, Assistant Planner _
SUBJECT: ENVIROMMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT o"4-03-
AINVESTMENTS - A request to amend the Genera]
Pfan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac)
to Medium-High Residential (14-24 du/ac) on 13.55 acres of
land located on the south side of Feron Avenue, between
Turner and Ramona - APN 209-085-02, 03, 14.
I. ABSTRACT: A General Plan amendment is requested for a multi-family
project in the North Town neighborhood of Rancho Cucamonga_ The
requested change is from Low Density Residential to Me-lium High
Density Residential. The Initial Study prepared by staff outlines
several concerns which could be of significant environmental
impact. The Commission will determine if an Environmental Impact
Report is required and, if so, what the scope of the environmental
assessment should be directed toward.
II. BACKGROUND:SUN : The project applicant, H & H Investments, intends to
build a residential project consisting of 316 condcminium units on
a 13.55 acre site ir. the North Town area. The proposed projeco
would have a density of approximately 23 units per acre.
The current General Plan and Development District designations do
rot permit the proposed density. Consequently, a General Plan
amer.daiert is requested to change the current Low Density
Residential designation (2-4 du/ac) to Medium High Density
Residential (14-24 du/ac). The purpose of this meeting is to
determine the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan
amendment.
III. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Act 2 Requested• Review of the Initial Study to determine the
scope of an Environmental Impact Report for this project.
B. Purpose: Approval of a General Plan amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium High Density Residential
C. Location: South of Feron Boulevard, east of Ramona
D. Parcel Size: 13.55 acres
'r
ITEM K
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
General Plan Amendment 84-03-A
September 26, 1984
Page 3
3. Initial Study: The completed Initial Study is attached for
Your review and consideration. Part I has been completed by
the applicant and comments from Foothill Fire Protection
District and the County of San Bernardino Sheriff's Department
are attached to the Initial Study. Part II includes the
environmental checklist and staff analysis of the environmental
concerns. These concerns include: - hydrology; population;
socio-economic factors; land use and planning considerations;
traffic; recreation; health, safety and nuisance factors; and,
utilities and public services, as outlined 'below.
Hydrology: This project lies at the terminus of a drainage
channel which drains onto the project site, surrounding
properties, and streets. The project site is located within a
100-year flood plain per Figure V-5 of the General Plan, and is
potentially subject to a 1-foot depth flooding. Construction
could have a significant effect on the drainage patterns and
the rate and amount of surface water runoff. A drainage study
is necessary to analyze the impact of the existing flooding
condition on the project site and the impact that construction
of this project would have upon the surrounding area.
Porul"tion: This project is located within a predominately
residential area characterized by older small single family
residences. This proposal would result in construction of 316
units at approximately 23 dwelling units per acre. This is a
considerable increase which would have many impacts related to
land use compatibility, socio-economic factors, circulation,
public service capacity levels, etc.
Socio-Economic Factors: This proposal will result in
constructior of new duelling units with a tentative price of
r $75,000. This project may have significant in-pacts with regard
to the local socio-economic characteristics, including economic
diversity, tax rate, and property value. A marketing/housing
study should be prepared which analyzes the impact of the
construction of this project upon these characteristics.
Land Use and Plarninw Considerations: The project site is
centrally located within a predominately single family
neighborhood. This proposal would change the General clan land
use designation and zonin from Low Residential (2-4 du/ac) to
Medium-High Residential �14-24 du/ac) . This proposal would
result in the construction of 2-scery multi-family units;
whereas the surrounding neighborhood is prcdominately single
story, single family residences. Therefore, this proposal will
substantially alter the present and planned land uses. An
analysis should be prepared of the land holding capacity of the
site and the compatibility of higher r.ensity, multi-story
residential units adjacent to single family residences.
� a .
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
General Plan Amendment 84-03-A
September 26, 1984
Page 2
E. 'cxisting Oevelooment District: Low Density Residential
F. Existing Land Use: Vacant
G. General Plan Designations:
Project site - Low Density Residential-
North - Low Density Residential
South - General Industrial
East - Low Density Residential
West - Low Density Residential
H. Surroundino Land Use and DPvelooment District:
North - unior High School (Low Density Residentiai )
South -AT&SF Right-of-way and Winery (Industrial Specific
Plan)
East - Single Family Homes (Low Density Residential)
West - Single Family Homes (Low Density Residential)
I. Site Characteristics: The project site lies at the terminus of
a drainage channe . The site is located within a 100-year
flood plain and a small drainage course traverses the site in a
® north-south direction. Vegetation consists of a rcw of trees
along Feron Boulevard, scattered trees throughout the site, and
assorted grasses and weeds. Feron Boulevard and Main Street
Provide direct access to the north and west boundaries of the
site.
IV. ANALYSIS•
_ A. General: The California Environmental Quality Act requires
that whenever there is substantial evidence that a significant
impact may occur, an Environmental Impact Report must be
prepared. The intent of the law is to provide full public
disclosure and allow full and complete consideration of all
environmental impacts. Informed decisions can then be made
which consider project alternatives and mitigation measures to
lessen potential impacts to an acceptable level .
Staff feels that the requested General Plan amendment could
result in significant impacts to the scope of future
development, the character of the area and the socio-economic
composition of the existing community and other impacts. These
concerns are outlined in detail in the In'.tial Study.
'Ki_
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
General Plan Amendment 84-03-A
September 26, 1984
Page 4
Transportation: Based upon the trip-end generation rates used
in the City-wide traffic model , this project would result in
2,500 daily vehicle trips. This compares to a total 648 daily
vehicle trips under the maximum allowable density in the
existing Low Residential Development District and General Plan
designations. This project could significantly affect the
existing streets and create a demand for new construction or
widening of existing streets. A traffic study should be
prepared that analyzes the impact of this project upon the
existing street system.
The project site is located across the street from a public
junior high school and along a school route for children
walking to the nearby elementary school. This proposal could
increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicylcists, or
pedestrians.
Health. Safet , and Nuisance Factors: This proposal could
create potential traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicylists,
or pedestrians. The project site is located within an area
characterized by high crime rate associated with juvenile gang
activity. In addition, the adjacent railroad line which
carries freight and passenger traffic generates periods of high
noise levels. The project site is located in an area with
existing and future noise contours of 60 to 65 Ldn per Figures
V-7 and v-8 of the General Plan.
Utilities and Public Services: This proposal may require
significant new construction or alteration to existing flood
control structures to accept and divert water from the existing
channel to the north that drains onto the project site and
floods surrounding streets and properties.
This proposal will result in construction of 316 condominium
units that could generate students which could create a
significant need for new school facilities or aiterations to
existing school facilities.
This proposal will generate substantial increases in traffic
volumes on streets in the area that could have a significant
need for additional road maintenance.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Based upon the completion of the Initial Study, Part II -
Environmental Checklist, and the comments above, this proposal
may have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment. In addition, this proposal could have significant
impacts regarding the potential to achieve short-term
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
General Plan Amendment 84-03-A
September 26, 1984
Page 5
aujectives to the disadvantace of long-term environmental
goals. The proposal could have significant impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed
in connection with past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects. This
proposal could cause signficant adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly.
V. CORRESPONDE4CE: This item has beer, advertised as a public hearing
Tn 'ne Oai v Reaort newspaper and notices were sent to all property
owners within 300 faet of the boundary of the proposed project. To
date, no correspondence has been received.
VI. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon review and preparation of the Initial
Study, star as determined that this project may have significant
adverse environmental impacts. If the Commission concurs with the
findings outlined in the Initial Study, the Planning Commission
should direct that an Environmental Imapct Report be prepared
analyzing the impacts in the areas of hydrology, population, socio-
economic factors, land use and planning considerations, traffic;
recreation; health, safety and nuisance factors, and utilities and
public services.
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Gomez
City Planner
RG:[W:jr
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - General Plan Map
Exhibit "B" - Development District Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Initial Study, with attachments
,. General Plan
THE VINE ARD(:S
H & H INVESTMENT LTD .
PROJ. 8498
MEDIU _
LOW .
G
O
i ramNNE Ma
� . . j
500 ' RADIUS MAP
9900 FERON BLVD . CUAL1014GA
IUV(TTER &Assomw 6
erchitectur0 & piac v ii g
.242 c+A.r-uB omre c,^m e79-2ai
NEWMAT eeww.cw spo o
K io
Development District
THE VINEYARD: �
H & H INVESTMENT LTD .
PROD. 848E
M
1 --
Fit/
3
' FERON
o
a Ir- � /
L: 2-4 OU / 1, C RADIUS MAP
® � /
M 8- 14 OU/-AC
0900 FERON dLVO , CUAMONGA
I. S. F ., I ' OUSTRIAL
SPECIFIC PLAN
w: OK1� QAT&ASS� ES
ancNtecture P, pi g
4242 CA&4" QiVE t7Me
k
_ T } 7•
J
- r
■ Q �. � ej � z ri./ �• ci
_I w � •I II I � 1 1 � b N
LU
® < III I Itr'�"1 "iii` a a
11 J
`t
cc
u � u T C +.I � -/i]Ye��;L r♦��� \{j} II I I I i %Lj ':1 � ^ " � o
ci
n '
¢
m - y G C
LLIaim --�fl3'•IE V -T--r}�_ __ - _ O 'o
< = S W ¢
W V Q = C E
�■0� S z =_ u ► s < <
¢ r r
CITY OF Ri,?JCHO CUCA_M0NGA
INII.IAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00
For all projects recuirinc environmental review, this
form must be completed anal submitted to the Development
Review Cor.,ittee 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
Ce-t-tittee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
proiec;_ 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 b_ 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 inform_
tion concerning .the proposed project..
® PROJECT TITLE: THE ylDayAq
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: HYATT PROPERTIES INC.
27782 E1 Iazo, Suite A, iauu �a Nicuel, C� 92677 (714) 831-6892
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO ES CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: GLEiI H T AND
27782 =1 Lazo, Suite A, La auma Niguel,--•- — ._ _ _ CA 92677 (71S) 831-6892
LOCATION 'OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. )
SOUTHEAST CORNER FERON - 209-085-001-002
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
I-1
k9 •
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCR'PTION OF PROJECT: Project involves upzonir_g land
from iow-density residential t o medium-hich de v d � ' a1 .
Prot will irvoive devel onment of affordable conr3nmi n l m..;
(annrox_ lY6 linit5) and Senior�iti.zen housira (an oc ] Sn Units) .
.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY : Acreaae of nroiec� an v;,
acres. No existir= buildings . ^-o. _matel•r 13
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INF0R2^-.TI0N ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANI='-ALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SIiEETS) :
Tonogranhv of site is relatively flat covered with sma-11 t,and Grasses Ssrrounaina area Dredominantly residantia� , sh
Seasoned single fa^iily homes located to the nor^hwest and along
easter : nronerty boundary. Multi.nle family residentiali
to :nest of site on Gaffer of Archibald Ave . and Fe-on q�vd ed
Cucamonca. Middle Scool located idr-ct •v nor�h c Ran
Blvd . Surface drainace on site runs ceneraii%• on r" on
Southern boundary of site borders ATSF Rai. lroadt^-ack T,hP st_
vinevara on the soutt side or railroad_ a is a
Is the project part of a larger project, one of a series
.•a Of cuulative actiens , which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
No
I-2
10
left
WILL T_TiIS PROJECT_
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
R 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
genaral plan designations?
X S. Remove any existing tree? Hca many? -
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of �J_
1:..
potentially ` azardous materials such as
toxic substances, fla:mnables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above :
Project -
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 m ability,y lity, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of nu
knowledge and belief. I furth=r understand that additional -
information may be required i-u be submitted before an aaequate� '
evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee.
� - 0 Date _`3^ / l�'Y Signature
Tiele Project Manager "`>
1-3
_ . ,
C
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The folly wing irfor7,-,a on should be r _
Planning Division in order to aid in�assessangotieeabilitvCity fofatleysCucamonga
district to accorn:nodate the proposed residential development.
Name of Developer and Tentative Tract No. : Fivatt ?rcper,;e-, Inc.
SDeC1fiC Location Of Project:_ Southwest corner —.ron Blv
d . and Turner
P%A-SF 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PH ,S'n 4
TOTAL
L
i. Number of single
fan-i1,
units-0 0 0 0
0
2. Nur,ber of multir, Seniors Seniors Condos
family units: 00 Condos
90 73 73 326
3. Date p1QLosed to
begin construction: 6/84
4. Earliest date of
Jccupancy: 11/84
Model #
and 4 of Tentati•:e
S- ?edrecr,+.s Pric -Range
A
Seniors 1 BR 1BA S37 , 500
A
Con-los 1 1 BA 4S , 000
B -
-0n:c ? BR 1 3/4 BA 51, 000
C 3 BR 2 BA $57, 000
.or..o
1- 4
CITY OF RANCrr10 CUC_`0NGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
-YVIRON.f=NT_,L CHECKLIST
DATE: AG, �r9f
FILING DATE: 3�/f F4 LOG \'L?MER:
PROJECT: a-�- 01 -03 `A,
PROJECT LOCATION:_
I. ENVIRON?MNTAL I'VACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets; .
YES }14Y?E NO
1. S.,ils and Geoioev. Will the proposal have
signi=icar.-t results in:
a. Unstable ground c:)nditions or in changes in
geologic relationships? ,
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
burial of the soil? X
C. Change in topograpry or ground surface
contour intervals?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
Of any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. A:.y potential increase in wind or cater
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off
site ccnditens? X
f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? •(
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or
use of any mineral resource? X
?. 3ydrolo�y. Will the proposal have significant
vGsu'_ts a:
?age 2
YES 'L4Y3E \0
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction
Of flowing streams, rivers, or ep eieral _streaa
channels? /
b. Change- 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 anv
alteration of surface water cuality?
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?
S. Change in the quantity of groundvaters,
either thrcugh 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? JZ
i- Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flco-aing or seiches?
3. Air Quality. Will the propoeai have significant
results in:
a_ Constant or Feriodic air emissions fro= mobile
or indirect sources? _Stationary sources? --
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or
interference with the attair=ent of appli- able
air quality standards? /
c. Alteration of local or regional cl°.=atic ✓
conditions, affecting air movement, moisture
or tarperature?
4. Biora
Flora. Will the proposal have significant results
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution., or number
of any species cf plants?
b. Reduction of t1,e uumbers of any unique, rare
or endangered specie^ of plants? l
k 14 -�-
?aee J
YES ?iAYBF \0
c. Introduction of rew or disrz;ptive species. of
Plants into an area?
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
Production? L
Fauna. ;:ill the proposal have significant results
in.
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or numbers
of any species of animals? Z
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered sp%cies of animals?
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
animals into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or
wildlife ;:abitat?
S. Pcvulation. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. trill the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an ar=a? -_
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for add-tional housing?
S. SOciD—Economic Factors. Will the p-oposal have
significant results in:
a. Change in Ioc.sl or regional vocio-economic
characteristics, including economic r
co--erciai diversity, tax rate, and property
values?
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed
among project beneficiaries, i.e. , buyers,
tax pavers or project users? 1/
i. Land Use and ?lanni= Considerations. 1111 the
Proposal have significant results in?
a- A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area? —
f. A conflict with any designations, objectives,
�i policies, er adopted plans of anv governmental —
entities?
c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of
existing. consrmptive or non-consumptive
_ecrez�cioaal opportunities?
Pace 4
Y£S :L-%Y3£ N0
8. Transuortation. 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 facil'ties, or _L _
denand 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?
f. Alterations to cr effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail , mass transit or
air traffic?
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? -�
4. cultural :Zesources. T:111 the proposal have
signiiicant results in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological,
_ paleontological, and/or historical resources?
10. Fealth. Safety. and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
sulstances in the event cf an accident?
d. Aa increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
crgani..•.s or the exposure of people to such
organiss?
e- Increase in existing noise levels?
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels? /
q. The creation of objectionable odors:
h. An increase in light or glare?
Pate
YES '"-?YSE `0
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view?
b. Tne creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
c. A conflict w_ :% the objective of designated
cr 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?
— / 1
b. Natural or packaged gas?
c. Co—uricatiors sysre:s?
d. Water supply? ✓
e. Wastewater facilities?
Flood control —
structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
h. Fire protection?
i. Police protection?
3 . Schools? /
r
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
1- v--;ntenance of public facilities, including
Loads and flc-)d control facilities?
m. Other governmental services? %
13. Enemy 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?
An increase in r%e demand for development of
new sources of energy?
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption
of non—renewable forms of energy, :hen feasible /
renewable sources of energy are available?
17
?age 6
YES N.AYBE No
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
14. "andatory Findirzs of Siznificance. /
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
liminate 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 -if
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have -he 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
individu"lly limited, but cumulativ_ly
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects o£ past projects,
and probable future projects) . J
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
ZZ. tIe above_ OF _VI3t0\�'x1TF? EVALIIATZON (i_e. , of aFfirmative answers to
the nbovE questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigacion measures) .
k �8
Page 7
III_ DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
7--1 I find the proposed project COIILD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLaD.ATICrl will be prepared.
_ I find that :although the proposed project could have a significant
f effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
L_J in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the pro. ct. A NEGATIVc
DECLARATION w:LL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a sign-f41a effect on the
envirament, and an �VIRO%=T DTA T�RFORT rs r quired.
fPf.
V—� ;JTJ
ature
tle
is
1g
INITIAL STUDY PART II - GPA 84-03
2. Hydrology: (b) (c) (e) (i ) - This project lies at the terminus of a
drainage channel which carries water from a drainage area of approximately
620 acres, as shown on the attached exhibit. Runoff from this channel
presently drains onto Feron Boulevard and flodds the project site,
surrounding properties, and streets. A small drainage course traverses
the site in a north/south direction. The project site is located within a
100-year flood of=in per '=figure V-5 of the General Plan, and is
potential
iy subject to a 1-foot depth flooding. Construction could have a
significant ?S-fect on the drainage patterns L,d the rate and amour;: of
surface water runoff. Further, this projec` could expose property to
flood hazards. A drainage study is necessary to analyze the i-npact of the
existing flooding condition on the project site and the impact that
construction of this project would have upon the surrounding area.
Specifically, the drainage study should propose mitigation measures. The
study should also analyze drainage impacts if the City's toaster Plan, of
Storm D.-air, system is not installed prior to construction of ti.is pr3je_ -.
5. Population (a) (b) - This project is located within a predomiately
residential area characterized by older small single family residences.
This proposal would result in construction of 316 units at approximately
23 dwelling units per acre. This is a considerable increase which would
have many impacts related to land ust compatibility, socio-economic
factors, circulation, public servive capacity levels, etc. Construction
of this project could significantly alter the 1pcatiGn, distribution,
density, diversity and growth rate of the population of the area.
6. Socio-Economic Factors
a This proposal will result in constructi— of new dwelling units with
a tentative price of $75,000. The residents of the surrounding
neighborhood have historically expressed a desire for construction of
affordable housing for low and moderate income families. This
project may have significant impacts with regard to the local socio-
e::onomic characteristics, including economic diversity, tax rate, and
property value. A marketing/housing study should be prepared which
analyzes the impact of the construction of this project upon these
characteristics.
7. Land Use and Planning Considerations - The project site is centrally
located within a predominately single family neighborhood. This proposal
would change the general plan land use designation and zoning from Low
Residential (2-4 du/ac) to Medium-High Residentail (14-24 du/ac) . This
proposal would result in the construction of 2-story condominiums,
whereas, the surrounding neighborhood is predomir-ateiy single story single
family residences. Therefore, this proposal will substantially alter the
� oar
is.
Initial Study Part I
General Plan Amendment 84-03
Paget
present and planned land uses. An analysis should be prepared of the land
holdino capacity of the site and the compatibility of higher density,
multi-story residential units adjacent to sinale famili residences-
S. Transportation (a) (b) (c) (d) (9) - finis proposal would result in
construcion of 316 dwelling units that will generate s+ebstant al
additional vehi:uiar and pedestrian movement. - Based ,Pon the trip-end
generation rate: used in the Citywide traffic model , this project would
result in 2,500 daily vehicle trips. This compares to a total 648 daily
vehicle trips under the maximum a'lowable density in the existing Low
Residential zoning and General Plan designations. The area surrounding
project site and the street system were planned for low density
residentaal uses. Ramona and Feron are designated on the City's Master
Plan of Circulation as collector streets with a one-way capacity of 600
vehicles per hour. Turner Avenue is planned as a secondary street with a
one-way capacity of 1150 to 1300 vehicles per hour. Therefore, this
project could significantly effect the existing streets and create a
demand for new construction or widening of existing streets. A traf, .c
study should be prepared that analyzes the impact of this project upon the
existing street system. -his traffic study should take into account the
approximately 450 dwelling units approved within a quarter mile radius on
Feron and Turner and potential peaK mornina hour traffic conflicts with
40 the adjacent school.
The Project site is located across the street from a public junior high
school- and along a school route for children walking to the nearby
elementary school. This proposal coul-' increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. The traffic study should propose
Potential mitigation !measures for these hazards.
10. Health, S,-feiv and Nuisance Factors
a This proposal could create potential traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicylists, or pedestrians as discussed under =8.
(b) The project site is located within an area characterized by high
crime rate associated with juvenile gang activity. This proposal
could expose a large number of persons, to potential theft,
vandalism, and life-threatening situations.
(e) (f) Proposal would result in short-term inc. eases in noise levels because
of construction activity. In addition, the adjacent railroad line
which carries freight and passenger traffic generates periods of high
noice levels. The project site is located in an area with existing
and future noice contours of 60 to 65 Ldn per Figures V-7 and V-8 of
the General Plan. The General Plan designates the project site as
"conditionally acceptable" for residential uses subject to a detailed
analysis of noise reduction requirements. Necessary noise insulation
features determined ds a result of this analysis should be in,luded
in the project design.
K a.t
Initial Study Part I
General Plan Amendme-t 84-03
Page3
12. Utilities and Public Services
f This proposa may require significant new construction or alteration
to existing flood control structures to accept and divert water from
the existing channel to the north that drains onto the project site
and floods surrounding streets and properties. The City's adopted
Master Plan of Stcrm Drains tails for the construction of a Sturm
drain connection to the existing channel to the north that would
continue south to the railroad tracks and-westerly to Archibald
Avenue. Presently, there are no drainage easements or agreements for
the construction of this storm drain out to Archiraid Avenue.
(h) The impact of this proposal upon the need for new fire protection
systems or alterations to existing services is unkno.tn at this time.
(i) This proposal could significantly effeect the need for additional
polic_ protection services for public safety (see discussion under 10
b).
(j) This proposal will result in construction of 316 condominium units
that could generate students tirhich could create significant need for
new school facilities or alterations to existing schoal facilities.
(1) This proposal will generate substantial increases in traffic volumes
or streets in the area- that could ha•re a significant need :or
additional read maintenance.
14. Mandatory Findinas of Si nificanc,2 - The California Environmental Quality
Act CEQA requires the city to disclose, consider, and when possible,
avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts_ The City is required
to review whether this proposal will have significant impacts upon the
environment. If there is substantial evidence that this proposal may have
a Significant effect on the environment, the City must require the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Further, if *_here is any
doubt, or if there is disagreement between experts over the significance
of an effect on the environment, the City shall consider the effect as
significant and require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) .
Where any of the conditions listed below occur, the City shall find tnat a
project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby
require an EIR. Based upon the completion of the Initial Study - Part II
Environmental Checklist and the comments above, this proposal may have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment. In addition, this
propcsal could have significant impacts regarding the otential to achieve
short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. The
propsal cr d have significant impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effectc of probable future
projects. This proposal could cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings either directly cr indirectly.
lc as
i
FOWHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
P. O. Box 35
6623 Amethyst Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91701
(7 14) 987-2535
April 5 , 1984
Dan Coleman
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
PO Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga , CA 91730
Refs:-ence: Impact of Project 84-03
This project will have a significant impact on
the Fire District' s ability to provide adequate
service. it is estimated that the proposed
project will generate an additional 49 alarms
annually. Mo.: : information on the project is
needed tc determine if mitigation measures must
be taken.
Si cerely,
.. ..................... ...
Jim W. Bowman
Fire marshal
rbm
(. LATER-OFFICE M E "3 -
DATE April 2, 1984
F ,.;.:i .:. ..;,
FROM John A. Futscher, Captain PH "i7; ;rr ;5;:�:r,�:'fN7CEPT,,l
ON'E < `Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff' s Station Aaw6 6 1384
TO Dan Coleman, Associate Planner Aa F!d
City of Rancho Cucamonga
i
SUBJECT PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN A1-1END1,1ENT 84-03 AND ZONE CHANGE - HYATT PROPERTI1,
Our Crime Prevention Unit has examined the proposed project for the
south side of Peron between Turner and Ramona. It is our finding
that, while there is no factual basis upon which to as,"- :or a
Negative Declaration, we do anticipate a demand for increased police
services if the project is approved.
Our experience indicates that there will be a higher degree of
domestic and neighborhood-type disturbances in a medium to high
density area than in a low density area. This is generally attrib-
utabl,_ to the restricted privacy afforded in medium to high density
housing.
In adcition, the project' s geographical proximity to the home of our
host active street gang , would result in' a need to increase patrol
the area to prevent the senior citizens from falling prev to that
criminal element associated with street gangs and to afford them some
degree of freedom from intimidation by their mere presence.
Jiamh
,'. l$1367-000 Aw. 1/77 L 1
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGASTAFF REPORT
G�cAnrcl
C,
DATE: September 26, 2984 ls''
TO- Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Lisa Wininger, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: EENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLPN AMENDMENT 84-03C
- VOLBEDA - A request to amend th.! General Plan Land Use
Dap from Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac) to Low Medium
Residentiai (4-8 du/cc) on 4.78 acres of land located on
the south side of Arrow Highway between Sie ra Madre arid
Comet Streets - APN - 207-222-08.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT -0 C - VOLBEDA - A request to amend the
Development District Map from "L" (2-4 du/ac) to "LM" (4-3
du/ac) on 4.78 acres of land located on the south side of
Arrow Highway between Sierra Madre and Comet Streets - APN
207-222-08.
I. ABSTRACT A General Plan Amendment and Dev2lopmen. District
Amendment is requested for a 28 unit single-family attached
residential project located south of Arrow Highway and west of
Comet. The requested change is from Low Density Pesidential to
Loh-Medium Density Residential .. Staff has determined that no
significant anvirenmental impacts would be caused by the proposed
project. The i:ommiskion will determine if t`e proposed change is
appropriate in terms of land use compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
II. BACKGROUND: The project applicant intends to build a residential
project consisting of 28 duplex units on a 4.78 acre site south of
Arrow Highway near Grove. The proposed project would have a
density of approximately 6 units per acre. The current General
Plan and Development District designations do not permit the
proposed density. Consequentiy, a General Plan Amendment and
Development District Amendment is requested to change the current
Low Density Residential designation (2-4 du/ac) to Low Medium
Residential (4-8 du/ac). The Planning Commission will determine if
the proposed change is appropriate in terms of land use
compatibility.
sc
ITEMS L & M
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-03-C - Volbeda
September 26, 1984
Page 2
III. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Amend the General Plan Land Use Map and
Development District Map from Low Density Residential (2-4
du/ac) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 du/ac).
B. Location: South side of Arrow Highway -between Sierra Madre and
Comet Streets.
C. Parcel Size: 4.78 acres
D. Existing General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
E. Development District Designation: Lou Density Residential
F. Existing Land Use: One single-family home and orange grove.
G. Land Use and Development District Desi nation:
North - ingle family residential Lo:r Density Residential)
South - Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
East - Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
West - Single family residential (Low Density Residential)
H. Site Characteristics: The site consists of one old stone h=e
in poor condition with the remainder of the area covered in
orange trees which are no longer commercially cultivated and
are in generally poor condition. The site is accessed from
Arrow Highway along which a row of mature cypress trees is
located.
IV.. ANALYSIS:
A. Historv: When the General Plan was adopted , the area of which
the project site is a part was designated as Low Density
Residential in accordance with the prevailing land use of the
area. The subject parcel was not subdivided as was the
surrounding land and remained as an orchard with a single-
r
family residence until the present.
B. Reason for Request: The applicant has indicated that the Low
Density designation would not permit development of a
sufficient number of units in an appropriate price range to
make an infill project of this sort financially feasible.
Consequently, the applicant is requesting a change to Low
Medium Density Residential .
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-03-C - Volbeda
September 26., 1984
Page 3
AML
C. General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies: The land use
policies of the General Plan support infill projects on vacant
residential parcels providing that the proposed density would
not be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood
character. The applicant is requesting a change to Low Medium
Density Residential. The General Plan discusses Low Medium
Density Residential in the following- manner: It would be
"appropriate within Low Density areas to encourage greater
housing d-;versity without changing the single-family character
of the surrounding residential area." The intent of the
General Plan policy is to provide the opportunity for use of
Low Medium residential density in areas which have smaller
undeveloped parcels which are more difficult to develop, with
the provision th?t infill development would be compatible with
the surrounding character of the neighborhood.
D. Issues and Alternatives for Consideration. The most signficant
issuT a invo�ving this request is the lard use compatibility of
an increase in density in a single family residential area.
The alternatives for consideration are approval of the General
Plan Amendment for Low Medium Density Residential or denial of
the Amendment, thus allowing the General Pian designation to
® remain Low Density Residential. Another issue for
consideration is that of amending the General Plan designation
on a parcel which is smaller than five (5) acres in size.
Although the City has no specific parcel size designated as the
minimum for which a General Plan Amendment may be considered,
the approval of a General Plan Amendment tia small sites such as
the subject property may set a precedent for additional General
Plan Amendments requests in the future.
The neighborhood in which this site is located is in one of the
older areas of the City. While most of the neighborhood
housing stock is in good or fair condition, some homes are
beginning to show signs of age and the need for intensified
maintenance. The City's housing rehabilitation program
recognizes this part of town as a target area for
rehabilitation funds in order to preserve the quality of the
housing stock. In addition., substantial public improvements
such as streets, curbs, sidewalks and streetscapes are now in
the planning stages under the Block Grant Program. Finally, a
park site is also being discussed for the area, for possible
Block Grant Funding. It is expected that the concentration of
public investment, in conjunction with the right kind of new
private development, will have a strong and positive effect on
the entire neighborhood, encouraging individual private
maintenance and rehabilitation effects. The decision the
® Commission has to make is whether or not the proposed amendment
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-03-C - Volbeda
September 26, 1984
Page 4
is consistent with the overall strategy for the neighborhood,
and which of the following alternatives is apprepridte:
_ow Density Residential : The existing low density residential
designation wo+.ld limit the development of the sites to 4 units
per acre, „gist likely in the form of a conventional single
family subdivision. Under the newly adopted development
standards, the minimum average lot size would be 8,000 sq. ft.,
slightly larger than the surrounding neighborhood developed
under the 7,200 sq. ft. minimum. The existing designation
would thus show the development of a compatible land use.
Low Medium Density Residential : In theory, this designation
would provide for a greater range of dwelling types, including
single-family detached dwelling units on individual lots,
duplexes, and attached units. Because of this range of
dwelling types, there may be potential for creating land use in
compatibility with the surrounding single family Low Density
Residential character. However, in practical terms, current
City policies in the Development Code regarding density
transition and neighborhood compatibility would limit the
density on this site to approximately six (6) dwellings to the
acre. This would result in single family homes on 6,000 sq.
ft. lots, or duplexes/attached units not exceeding 6 du/ac as
outlined in the Basic Standards of the Development Code for the
LM District. This greatly reduces the potential for conflict
between the existing single family development and the proposed
designation. Through the use of proper design controls of
architecture and site planning, such projects could be
developed in a single-family residential character compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
E. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been
comp by the applicant. Staff has completed the
Environmental Checklist, Part iI of the Initial Study, and
found no significant adverse impacts associated with the
proposed amendment.
V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission upon examination of the
General Plan Amendment and Development District Map Amendment
decide that the change from Low Density Residential would promote
the land use goals and purposes of the General Plan, this Amendment
would not be materially detrimental to the adjacent properties or
cause significant adverse impacts as listed under Environmental
Assessment, the following are the findings that are necessary or,
approval;
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-03-C - Volbeda
September 26, 1984
Page 5
A. The Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of
the General Plan.
B. The Amendment does promote goals of the land use element.
C. The Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental
to the adjacent properties.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property
owners within. 300 feet of the boundary of the proposed project. To
date, no correspondence has been received.
VII. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis of ,:he Land Use Policies of
the General Plan and the Env—.rjrmental Assessment, Staff is
recommends approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and
Development District Amendment based upon the policies governing
density transition and neighborhood compatibility in the
Development Code and General Plan. Shouid the Commission approve
the request and approve the General Plan Land Use Map and the
Development District Map, the following is required: Approve
attached Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map from Low
to Low Medium and the accompanying Resolution amending the
Development District Map from "L" to "LM". Should the Commission
decline to make the findings necessary for approval of the
Amendment, a resolution of denial is also presented for your
consideration.
Respect ly submitted,
}� •r
R i c#C z
City Planner
RG:LW:ns
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Development District Map and General Plan
Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Initial Study
Resolution of Approval of General Plan Amendment
Resolution of Approval of Development District Amendment
Resolution of Denial
1 (VA
i!` .S I S •.- Fes_„ ( _ ! • I �/----- ;--.-... -:_
Aw
kd Xf
—� — Lo La =M mot? - _--
5
_ \ I sT Ro G:L x
�_ moo•� -�`b
� s
-- 1lluS
i
•t1'E
fs I Lb� f 4 i �Q FT,
f'
L.
i 41
ilzl.. i v
la 4A
Fl
MY1 W •—F `t
rrx
[1 —
J -� SITE
i N
3 a
[] 4,71
G' Cir � t 1 O � 0 �
fir•ISAX
—
43CID CID ARROW ROUTE
c
��• CT
.a - -
�o"CID
z
� l
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.MONGA
INITIAL STUDY
PPRT I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Ervironmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee throuch 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 information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further inf orma-
tion concerning t-he proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: S!
APDLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE- Z:F—:' V p L,B EOM
W nJ�M,p.s
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT:
LOCATION OF PRP37ECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. )
LIST OTHER PZRMT_TS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
8? 1I_n ) ta'G f�f<PnR'�T^�+.t-r' Cit`T r of
el at,
I-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
( ,D //.d 4.XF
$lL`Ia- M S
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA. AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS IF ANY:
�/ gt7a
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SIT:
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOCRAPHY, 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) :
S/7-4f bS A W5h%,i2/n
o G n'► pT �
A42 XZ:5 Are—s
aM TrljE- S/T
h—�Fk-J 577/Ve7 S7—a2 U rVR4
r
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
WILL THIS PROJECT: Alft
YES NO
1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
Z- Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
_+Jz 3. Create a substantial cha^ge in demand for
municipal services (police, £ire, water,
sewage, etc. ) ?
4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general play. designations?
5. Remove any existing trees? How many?
7R£�S /-f4s€' A/--"7- "' Aa Nrt}.1 A
6. Create the need for use or disposal of
Potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flasables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers
5�. ��� above: )'�GG�5 c 51 ►�•) G
t�Lca.iv A.tJ » 2ot�i
GAZ7-v
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residentia_ units, complete the form �a the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present thc
data and information required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my ability, a,td that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true a..,d 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 Deve
lopment Review Committee.
Date L♦ % /3 y f� Z 2t
Signature —�
Title Lf/ h �e,
ts�', Ti�/io
r _
i
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
The following information should be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonca
Planning Division in order to aid in assessirc the ability of the school
district to accommodate the proposed residential development.
Nar..e of Developer anc Tentative Tract No. : S WV pt) -@w� _
Soecific Location of ProjC: t: tea" 7 A4ZR,bty F2, o
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: os
4. Earliest date of �o
occupancy: p •V
Model #
and A of Tentative
5. Bedrooms Price Rance
7
ea
I-4
i �
CITY OF RA.Nclio CUCAMONGA
PART II — INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRO E%TLL CHECKLIST
DATE: August 28, 984
APPLIC N—,: Pete Volbeda
FILING DATE: July i3, 19&7r LOG 1\LMER• GPA 84-03-C
PROJECT: GPA 84-03-C
PROJECT LOCATIO%:S/Arrow Route, E/Sierra Madre
I. EtiEItiO=r\TAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets) .
YES MAYBE h0
1. Soils and Geoloev. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geclo-.ic relationships?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
burial of the soil?
X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals?
X
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
X_
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off
site conditons?
f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition?
_ X_
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, =vd_
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
_ X_
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or
use of any mineral resource?
X
Z. Y_draloey. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
Page 2
YES `LyYB= NO
a- Changes in currents, or the course of direction,
of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream
channels? x
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
or the rate and amount of surface Ovate.
runoff? x
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters?
d. :hange in the amount of surface water in any
body of water?
e_ Discharge into surface waters, or anv
alteration of surface water quality?
f. Alteration of groundwater characteriso:ics?
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
agxiif er?
Quality?
Quantity? x
h- The reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies? x
i.. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or seiches? x
3. Ai Quality. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a_ Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
or indirect sources? x
Stationary sources?
b. Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or
interference with the attainment of applicable
air quality standards? x
c_ Alteration of local or regional climatic
co:ditions, affecting air movement, moisture
or temperature? x
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? x
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X
or endangered—,per ies of pla ems' -
Page 3
YES MAYBE No
c- Introduction of new or disruptive species of
plants into an area?
-- X
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
production?
X
Fauna- Will the proposal have significant results
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or ncabers
of any species of animals?
X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of animals?
X
C. Introduction of new Or disruptive species of
animals into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement Of animals?
X
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X _
S- Ponulatioon- Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversit-.. or growth rate of
the ;Luman population of an area?
X
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additicnal housing?
X
6. socio-Economic Factocs. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Change itc local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, including economic or
commercial diversi
values? ty' tax rate, and property
X
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed
among project beneficiaries. i.e. , buyers,
tax payers or project users?
_ X
7. Lard Use and Planninz Considerations. Will the
Proposal have significant results in?
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
_ x _
b. A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any governmental
entities?
X _
C. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of
existing consumptive or nen-consumptive
Wecreational_opportunities? .Q/
Pace 4
YES M'AYB= NO
8. Transportation. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement? X
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction? X
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta-
tion systems? X
e. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? X
f. Alterations to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or
aii traffic? X
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. A disturbance cc the integrity of archaeological,
paleontological, and/or historical resources? X
10. Health. Safety, and Nuisance Pacrors. Will the
Proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X
c. A risk of explosion or release of %azareous
substances in the event of an accident? X
d. An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
organisms or the exposure of people to such
organisms? X
e. Increase in existing noise levels? X
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels? X
g. The creation of objectionable odors? X
h. An increase in light or glare? X
'are S
YES
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstructio: degradation of ary sonic
vista or view?
b• The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
C. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors?
1=. 7Jtiiitles and ?ublic Services. Will the proposal
have a significant need for new syste=s, or
alteration; to the followirg:
a. Electric power?
b- Natural or packaged gas?
c. Co=unications syste--s?
d. Water supply?
e. Wastewater facilities?
f. Flood control structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
h• Fire protection?
i. Police protection?
J . Schools?
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
1. Y.aintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
M. Other governmental services?
13. Ener¢v 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 developaert of
new sources of energy?
d- An increase or perpetuation of the consu=Ption
of non—renewable forrs of energy, when feasible
fi" renewable sources of energy are available?
?age 6
YES MkY35 NO
e- Substantial depletion of ?ny nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource? X
14. Mandatory Findines of Sizr_ ,±fie,
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? V
A
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the future) . X
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
mea^i that the incremental effects of an
indi.*idual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects,
and probable future proiects) . R
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
II. DISCUSSIOt OF ---- IRMZS` �TAL EVALUATION (i.e. , of zffi=ative answers to
the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures) .
See attached
Page 7
III. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
?'—l I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
y,X on the environment, and a h'cGATIL_Z DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in tbis ease because the mitigation treasures described on an
attached _et have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATIO:i WILL BE PREPpaED.
I find the proposed project MkY have a significant effect on the
envir-sent, and an ENVIRON"= I`TACT REPO. - s required.
i
Date p„nr,c �q�4
Signature
City Planner
Title
4 .
ATTACHMENr TO INITIAL STUD:', PART !I
II. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
2) Hydrology
b. An increased amount of covered area associated with
a higher density project may affect absorption rates
and the rate and amount of surface water runoff.
4) Flora -
a. Develop—ment of the site as a low-medium project with
28 units as indicated on the site plan would cause the
removal of 401 citrus trees. They are, however, in
very poor condition.
7) Land Use and Planning Considerations
b. The proposed project requests a change in the Land
Use Map of the General Plan and will require an
amendment of the Development District. ..:.
8) Transportation
b. The project if developed per the submitted site plan,
will require construction of Edwin Street.
e. The continuation of Edwin Street, per the site plan,
may alter the patterns of circulation by opening a
path between Arrow Route and 9th Street.
/jai' - 19
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONG.4 PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-
03-C - VOLBEDA - REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL TO LOW MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL FOR 4.78 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF ARROW HIGHWAY BETWEEN SIERRA MADRE & COMET - APN
207-222-08
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of July, 1984, an application was filed and
accepted on the above-described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of September, 1984, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section, 65854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
1. That the Amendment does not conflict with the Land
Use Policies of the General Plan.
2. That the Amendment dies promote goals of the Land
Use Element.
® 3. That the Amendment would not be materially injurious
or detrimental to the adjacent properties.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Deciaration on
s September 26, 1984.
r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
h
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 26th day of September,
1984, General Plan Amendment No. 84-03-C.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt General Plan
Amendment No. 84-03-C.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
- 0
Resolution No.
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY•
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECCDIMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT
NO. 84-03-C - VOLBEDA - REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL TO
LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR 4.78 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW HIGHWAY BETWEEN SIERRA MADRE AND
COMET - APN 207-222-08 .
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of July, 1984 an applir:cian was filed and
accepted on the above-described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of July, 1984, the Planning Commission held
a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the California
Government Code.
SECTION 1: The R. Cho Cucamonga Planning Commission has :Wade the
following finaings:
1. That the subject property is suitable for the uses
permitted in the proposed district in terms of
access, size, and compatibility with existing land
use in the surrounding area; and
® 2. That the proposed district change would not have
significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties; and
3. That the proposed district change is in conformance
with the General Plan.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and reco,,mends issuance of a Negative Declaration on September 26, 1984 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 26th day of September,
1984, Development District Amendment No. 84-03-C.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt District District
Amendment No. 84-03-C.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
v Oj�7�1 - ate
Resolution No.
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY. OF RANCHO CUCA•iONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DENYING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-03-3 - VOLBEDA - TO AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP
FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ON 4.78
ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ARROW HIGHWAY, BETWEEN SIERRA
MADRE AND COMET - APN 207-222-08
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider
said amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has fully considered public
testimony requesting amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found that the requested
amendment is in conflict with the land use policies of the General Plan and
does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, chat the Planning Commission denies
General Plan Amendment 84-03-C to amend the General Plan and Development
Districts Map from Low Residential to Low-Medium Residential at the location
of Arrow Highway between Sierra Madre and Comet - APN 207-222=08.
® APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNINo COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman '—
ATTEST-_
R� z, Deputy SecretaFy
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
�r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAAIONGA GI`CAti10
STAFF DEPORT �?° `�c9.
Ui;
DATE: September 26, 1984 197
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
BY: Lisa Winirger, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-03B
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAh1ONGA - A request to amend the
Genera Pan Land use Map from Medium Density Residential
(4-14 du/ac)/General Industrial to Industrial Park on 18.8
acres of land located on the south side of 9th Street and
Baker - APN 207-211-04 through 10, 17 through 20, 35, 37,
38, 43, and 44.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
ENDMENT - 36 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ---A request to
amend the Deve ooment District Map from "M° (8-14 du/ac)
and Industrial Specific Plan (General® Industrial) (Subarea 1) to Industrial Specific Plan (Industrial Park) on 18.8
acres of land located on the south side of 9th Street and
Baker - APN 207-211-Oe ;hrough 10, 17 through 20, 35, 37,
38, 43 and 44.
I. BACKGROUND: On December 7, 1983, the City Council directed Staff
to prepare a report on land use alternatives for a study area
located at the southeast corner of Baker Avenue and 9th Street. At
the January 4, 1984 meeting, Council reviewed the report and
expressed concern regarding the compatibility of planned Medium
Density Residential with single-family homes and with General
Industrial adjacent to Medium Density Residential uses. Presented
with alternatives, the Council stated that an Industrial Park
designation for the entire area in question could be the most
appropriate in terms of land use compatibility and aesthetics and
directed Staff to bring the proposed change before the Planning
Commission, along with an analysis and staff recommendations during
the General Plan Amendment review cycle in September.
II. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION•
A. Action Requested- Amend the General Plan Land Use Map and
Development District Map from Medium Density Residential and
General Industrial to Industrial Specific Plan/Industrial Park.
B. Location: Southeast corner of Ba'%er and 9th Street.
"' ITEMS N & 0
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-03B - City of Rancho Cucamonga
September 26, 1984
Page 2
C. Parcel Size: 18.8 acres.
D. Existing Development District: Medium Density Residential and
Industrial Specific Plan/General Industrial.
E. Existing Land Use: Single family residential ; vacant.
F. Surrounding General Plan Designatien:
North - Medium Density Residential ; General Commercial .
South - Industrial; General Industrial.
East - General Industrial .
West - Low Density Residential .
G_ Surrounding Land Use and Development District Designations:
North - Attached single family residential , Commercial
(Medium Density Residential/General Commercial) .
Scuth - Vacant, Residential and Industrial (Industrial
Specific Flan).
East - Industrial (Industrial Specific Plan).
Nest - Single family residential, pre-school (Low Density
Residential) .
H. Site Characteristics: Vegetation consists of residential
landscaping, scattered eucalyptus trees, weeds and grasses.
Existing homes are 20 to 40 years old in fair to good
condition.
III. ANALYSIS:
A. History: When the Industrial Specific Plan was adopted in
1931, the western half of the project area was designated under
the General Plan as Medium Density Residentiai. The eastern
half was designated as General Industrial/industrial Specific
Plan. This was done to preserve the residential uses in the
area and to provide a future buffer of Medium Density
Residential between the Industrial Area and the residential
uses (existing and planned) to the north and west.
B. General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies: The Land Use element
of the General Pan states that the City shall "encourage
opportunities to mix different but compatible land uses and
activities", but also to "organize land uses to avoid creating
nuisances among adjacent land uses". Under the Land Use
descriptions, Medium Density Residential is designated as a
compatible adjacent use to Low Density Residential. The
Industrial Park land use is directed by the General Plan to be
organized among major thoroughfares and on the periphery of the
Industrial area with convenient access to public transit.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-033 - City of Rancho Cucamonga
September 26, 1984
Page 3
Industrial Park occupants are generally labor intensive office
uses, while General Industrial Uses range from light
manufacturing to offices. While the Medium Density Residential
use may be compatible with existing residential uses, the
General Industrial use is much less compatible with either Low
or Medium Density Residential.
The major issue involving the request for a General Plan
Amendment is land use compatibility and additional
environmental concerns as outlined in the Environmental
Assessment. Regarding land use, the change to Industrials Park
would create a more consistent pattern of uses if the entire
area was incorporated in the Industrial Specific Plan. The
:iajor concern would lie with the compatibility of Industrial
Park uses with the single family residences to the north and
west, many of which access directly from 9th Street. Under the
requirements of the Industrial Specific Plan a 45-foot building
setback would be required for office and industrial park
development which is adjacent to residential uses. This wou id
serve to buffer the industrial use from the residential uses.
The requirement of a Master Plan® designation for the project area would ensure compatibility between uses an site and
minimize conflict with off site uses. The Master Plan should
include a discussion of drainage, circulation, parking and
access, and land use transitions.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Development District
Amendment could allow the continuance of the existing
residential use as a non-conforming use while developing some
or all of the remainder as Industrial Park. Whether or not the
homes remain, new development should be designed to be
compatible with existing uses to the north and west. Approval
of the General Plan Amendment and Development District
Amendment will require amendment of the Industrial Specific
Plan to either create a new subarea or annex the project site
to an existing subarea with an Industrial Park designation.
The specific development standards of this subarea should
consider appropriate buffering on the south side of 9th Street.
The alternative to the proposed change would be to deny the
request and maintain the existing designations of Medium
Density Residential and General Industrial . From a land use
compatibility perspective, development under the existing land
use designations would allow the development of Medium Density
Residential (most likely condominiums or apartments) adjacent
to General Industrial uses (,manufacturing, etc.). This could
create a less consistent pattern c€ development and the
likelihood of conflict between uses. Furthermore, the
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-038 - City of Rancho Cucamonga
September 26, 1984
Page 4
transition between Medium Density and the existing single
family development would also create the potential for
incompatibilities.
C. Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study has been completed
r)y Staff and no significant adverse environmental impacts were
considered to be associated with - the proposed project.
However, tw3 environmental concerns were noted and the
following mitigation measures are suggested should the project
be approved.
Drainage: Although development of the site as Industrial Park
will not significantly increase storm run-off, some increase in
run-off will result from the increased ground coverage. A
drainage Master Plan would be required when the initial
industrial development for the area is proposed.
IV. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission upon examination of the
General Plan and Development District Map Amendments decide that
this change wcuid promote the Lard Use Goals and Policies of the
General Plan and would not be detrimental to the adjacent
properties or cause significant adverse impact as listed under the
Environmental Assessment, the following findings are necessary for
approval:
A. The Pmendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of
the General Plan,
- B. The Amendment does promote the goals of the Land Use element,
and
C. The Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental
to the adjacent properties.
V. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing
in The Dail Re ort newspaper and notices were sent to all property
owners within feet of the subject site. In addition, public
hearing notices were posted on the property. To date no
correspondence has been received regarding this project.
PLANNING COMMISFION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-03B - Ci :y of Rancho Cucamonga
September 25, 1984
Page 5
VI. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Amendment to the
General Plan and Development District Map as proposed, with the
condition that a faster Plan be required prior to development to
address drainage, circulation, parking and access, and land use
transitions). It is also recorrmnended that Staff be directed to
initiate an Amendment of the Industrial Specific Plan during the
next review cycle. The attached resolutions of approval are
presented for your consideration.
Tectf y ubmitted:
mPlanner
RG:LW:ns
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Land Use Map
Exhibit "B" - General Plan Designation
Exhibit "C" - Development Districts Map
Initial Study
City Council Staff Report - January 4, 1984
City Council - January 4, 1984
Resolution of Approval of General Plan Amendment
Resolution of Approval of Development District Amendment
✓ i -
i `
Y /
rt L
� DUPL�ES""""'��.Lf_'-.•.•--.-. � mil/ s
FAI,?ILy
SIN&t� F.ftllLy A � y6,egL l,v
I
it----�-GCSE lYk1C�4s�Sc1 L
EXISTING LAND USE
i
RE
I Ali:
LDvt/ DENSITY I - ���• • - . . RGL*' �
--------------------
> LyOI�SfJi/r3V
!fl16R%rL 1ND4v5rR/fFL
b Low va&N50ry
GEN0 1- /NDr7zlm
6 nt fi' �� .✓' � f/ z r �' y} r
i
ss�S�.:��ria1•
GAENERAL PLAN PE516NATION5
W/° - �
S'CC-
I•"
n
i
r
,00
J / ®� SAW (� ihS•+�ly%����./� �5 Y� £4 y' 4 .f � ..
3SKL1
-3i�s�tas-�rsal
a - -
PEVEW P1111 MT 05TR BGTS
l„ 79/D' 8
( CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiIONGA
STAFF REFORM
Ch s � '-
OI 0
F � Z
UI >
DATE: January 4, 1984 197:
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
i BY: Frank Dreckman, Assistant Planner-
SUBJECT: LAND USE ANALYSIS - 9TH STREEl AND MADRONE AVENUE
ABSTRACT: At the direction of the City Council, staff has prepared the
follcwing study designed to determine the most appropriate land use for
the area approximately bounded by Arrow Route, 8th Street, Baker Avenue,
and the County Flood Control Corridor (Figure "A"). Specifically, the
primary stud% area surrounds the intersection of 9th and Madronc
(parcels 4-10, 17-20, 35, 43 and 45).
BACKGROUND:
® Existing Land Uses: The area surrounding the intersection of 9th Street
-and Madrene Avenue presently consists of a variety of land uses which
may ultimately determine and influence fu Wrp land use designations
within the primary study area. n_ :, ;ustrated in Figure "B", the study
area is presently pent- cu with a variety of land uses which include:
A. Detached Sirqle Family Residential: Existing single family
residences are primarily located on the southeast corner of 9th
Street and Baker Avenue. In addition, a tract of single family
residences are located contiguous to Baker Avenue, south of 9th
Street. Lastly, as illustrated in Figure "B", additional single
family residences are scattered throughout the surrounding areas.
B. Attached Single Family Residential: (Duplex units) Phase I of the
Orchard Creek development, ocated on the north side of 9th Street,
between Baker and Madrone Avenues, has recently been completed.
Currently, grading for Phase 1I is underway. Ultimately, the tract
will comprise 54 duplex units.
C. Commercial : Existing commercial activity consists of the Cask and
Cleaver Restaurant complex located on the northeast corner of 9th
and Madrone. Although not fully deve'�^Iped, the site will eventually
support 10-acres of related commercial and office activities.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF RE T
Land Use Analysis - 9L„ St. & Madrone Ave.
January 4, 1984
Page 2
D. Industrial : Existing industrial development consists primarily of
limited light industrial and manufacturing uses which are scattered
throughout the study area. As illustrated on Figure "B", many of
these existing uses are surrounded by vacant parcels which produce
an underutilized industrial area. The area is currently zoned
General Industrial and lies within Subarea 1 of the Industrial Area
Specific. Plan.
General Plan Land Use: The Ceneral Plan and Industrial Area Specific
Plan have designated u timate -and use designations (Figure "C") within
the primary study zone ,which include: (a) Medium Density Residential
(8-14 du/ac), which could ultimately support single family, duplex, zero
lot, and multi-family dwellings; and (b) General Industrial, which could
support future industrial activities which may include manufacturing,
assembling, fabrication, wholesaling, heavy commercial, office uses,
etc. As outlined in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the General
Industrial land use categroy functions as a buffer between low
industrial uses (commercial and residential) and heavy industriai
uses. However, existing land uses within the primary study area and
surrounding area may ultimately influence or dictate a more appropriate
sand use which may be better adapted or more compatible with both
existing and future uses as shown in Figure "B".
Issues: The main issue involved with this study is to determine and
establish land use designations which are compatible with surrounding
existing or proposed uses located within the primary study area.
Specifically, the study area should function as a transition zone
between differing land uses (i .e., C :neral Industrial, Residential)
while remaining sensitive to the immediate neighborhood.
Policies: The following is a description of policies related to three
land uses (Residential, Industrial Park, General Industrial ) which may
be appropriately located within the primary study area. The
appropriateness of the land use designation will depend on the
inter-r-etation of these policies as they relate to the assets and
liabilities of each proposed land use alternative. The Council needs to
examine and compare the proposed alternatives against the current City
pc- icy listed below in an effort to determine the appropriate land use
within the study area.
General Industrial : Presently, the study area is split by two
iverse and uses (Figure "C"), which include Medium Density
Residential and General Industrial. As outlined in the City's
General Plan, General Industrial land uses are typically used as a
buffer between low intensity irdustriai uses and heavy intensity
industrial uses. In addition, the General Plan encourages General
Industrial uses, specifically warehousing and distribution, west of
Archibald within the study area. However, where adjacent to
residential uses, the General Industrial use should be designed for
office use exclusively.
7I/o -to
CITY COUNCIL STAFF RE4 T
Land Use Analysis - 9th St. & Madrone Ave.
January 4, 1984
Page 3
Industrial Park: Industrial Park land use policies relate primarily
to providing low intensity industrial uses which include
office/administration facilities, research and development
laboratories, support businesses, commercial services, etc.
Industrial Park areas are typically located in areas of high
prestige value (Haven Avenue) and are characterized by developments
which offer an attractive campus-like environment. In general,
these areas are characterized by a high employment density and
strict design standards developed to protect land uses within this
designation from other development which is inappropriate due to
either function, appearance or environmental effect. This land use
is sometimes used as a transition between residential and higher
intensity industrial uses.
Medium Density Residential : Building intensity at the high end of
the Medium density range 8-14 du/ac) is typically more appropriate
adjacent to parks or open spaces, along transit routes and major
secondary thoroughfares, and near major activity centers such as
shopping centers, entertainment areas, etc. In addition, Medium
Density Residential land uses typcially serve as a buffer between
Low Density Residential areas and areas of higher intensity
commercial activities, and areas of greater traffic and noise
levels.
ALTERNATIVES: The following is a list of alternatives designed to
provide a comparative analysis between the alternatives and policies
listed above.
Alternative 1 - General Industrial (existin condition (Figure "D") :
Alternative proposes expanding the current In ustria Area Specific
Plan land use designation of General Industrial (Subarea 1) into the
current residential land use area.
Assets: o Could provide a transition from adjacent commercial
and residential uses to other general industrial uses
if the study area is restricted to office and
administration uses only.
Liabilities: o Most General Industrial uses such as light and medium
manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, and
wholesaling, would not be compatible adjacent to
existing or future residential uses.
o Existing R-1 single family I':= becomes
non-conforming.
o Design and development standards are less demanding
than those of residential or industrial park
designated areas.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF R� T
Land Use Analysis - 9tn St. & Madrone Ave.
January 4, 1984
Page 4
o Minimum parcel size for the General Industrial area
is one-half acre. Other land uses require larger
minimum lot sizes. The General Industrial one-half
area policy could produce piecemeal development.
o General Industrial land uses and built forms adjacent
to residential and commercial land uses will provide
a harsh and abrupt transition to lower intensity
uses.
Staff Comments: If Alternative 1 is chosen: (a) a master plan should be
required for the entire primary study area, which will ultimately be
designed to coordinate drainage, traffic circulation, and access points,
in an effort to provide continuity and compatibility within the study
area; (b) only office and administrative uses shall be allowed within
the primary study area; (c) special design standards shall be employed
;landscape buffers, architectural controls, etc.) to ensure neighborhood
compatibility; and, (d) a General Pl.,n, Development Code, and Industrial
Area Specific Plan land use amendment will be required to place various
_land use and design restrictions or, the study area designed to assure
neighborhood compatibility.
Alternative 2 - Industrial Park (Fiqufe "Dhl - Alternative 2 :could
change ..the and use within the primary study area from General
Industrial (Subarea 1) to Industrial Park.
Assets: o Provides an effective buffer between residential and
General Industrial land uses.
o Stiff design and development standards assure
neighborhood compatibl*"ty.
o Industrial park land uses such as office,
administration, research and development, business
support and commercial services, are typically more
compatible with residential and commercial land uses
and provide a subtle transition from one land use to
another.
o Provides an attractive activity node which would work
in concert with co=ercial (Cask & Cleaver) and
higher density residential activities to the north.
o Minimum parcel size within the Industrial Park
category equates to two acres which helps discourage
piecemeal development, or conversion of existing
residential dwellings into industrial uses.
�/D- /•n-
CITY COUNCIL STAFF RE( T �
Land Use analysis - 9L„ St. & Madrone Ave.
January 4, 1984
Page 5
o Industrial Park urban forms (architectural, height,
bulk, form, detailing, etc.) provides an effective
transition between Residential/Commercial uses and
General Industrial Uses. In general, this use is
more compatible with Residential and Commercial uses.
Liabilities: o Industrial Park uses are typically located along
major streets where high exposure is desirable.
o Existing R-1 single family becomes a non-conforming
use.
o Industrial Park areas are characterized by a high
employment density which ma_v cause excess traffic
congestion, noise, etc., within the study area.
Staff Comments: If Alternative 2 is chosen: (a) a master plan should be
required for the entire primary study area which will ultimately be
designed to coordinate drainage, traffic circulation, access points, and
urban design guidelines, in an effort to provide continuity and
compatibility within the study area. In addition, various design
standards should be designed to assure neighborhood compatibility by
regulating architectural height, details, building forms, site planning,
etc.; (b) uses should be restricted to office, administration, or other
low intensity uses; and (c) a General Plan and Industrial Area Specific
Plan land use amendment will be required.
Alternative 3 - Medium Densit Residential (existing condition Figure
"D" • A ternative wau change the an use within the primary study
area from General Industrial (Subarea 1) to Medium Density Residential
(8=14 du/ac).
Assets: o Provides a buffer between single family residential
land uses and low intensity industrial uses.
o Medium Density land uses are compatible with existing
single family and duplex units located adjacent to
9th and Madrone Streets.
o Residential will be located adjacent to existing and
future general commercial activities.
Liabilities: o Conflicts with existing and future General Industrial
land uses which are generally of higher intensity
than Industrial Park uses causing a harsh and abrupt
change in adjacent land uses.
o Existing parcel sizes and configurations may produce
piecemeal Medium density projects which lack
continuity and neighborhood compatibility.
�o -i.3
CITY COUNCIL STAFF RE' T
Land Use Analysis - gL,. St. & Madrone Ave.
January 4, 1984
Page :
o Existing R-1 single family land use becomes a
non-conforming use.
Staff Contnents: If Alternative 3 is chosen: (a) a master plan should be
required for the entire primary study zone which will ultimately be
designed to coordinate drainage, traffic circulation, access points, and
urban design guidelines in an effort to provide continuity and
compatibility within the study area. In addition, various design
standards should be designed to a,sure neighborhood compatibility by
regulating architectural, height, details, building forms, site
planning, etc., (b) a General Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan
land use amendment will be required.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review the staff
report in an of jrt to determine the most appropriate lard use within
the primary study area. The City Council shall then direct staff to
draft any associated General Plan, Development Code, and industrial Area
Specific Plan land use amendments as deemed necessary.
Respectful l / su��itt2d,�
Rick GomezU�J
City Planner \\-/
RG/FD/jr
Attachments
1`
' /' � i
�.�i .
ri ■ i
Ci
y�y
�.
i
.'.�
.�. '
� •t,.n•
1 `
.:
v
........i..- ,1...,: .v.,
' � O �� �� .
1 � Q
� �;.
Y /•.
X'.
,,.
)`:.
� — - ..
'� ,
� � ice,
, Y ..J
,..,� ,.
r t� 1. . .1_. 1 1 1 1 �.. .!7 ! 1 I
� I .� � .
.... ..
sYrrvvt �y;G _
---7z
-_-.-_-.- 77N Al
- - s
NO
� n
a /0:
�
7
0 9 io 17
G yy 4 o
J
s a �t rat
Gcrn�-�z�c.�• 1.
1_Up -/6
n l
C!
NP
-I
T OW
@ 8
C
A.
J 51"
� I I _
y
s asIPs
�aCN
�) 5i J� t• � � I� VG
IQ S r, awn i s
klo s A—
k
4
City Council minutes
January 4. 1981,
Page 3
Mayor Hikels opened the meeting for public hearing. :here being no response.
the public hearing was closed.
ACTION: Mayor Mikels stated the Item will be continued to the meeting of
January 18, 1984.
6. CIS: MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
6A. FONTANA RESERVE AVNEXATTON. The- San Bernardino County LAFC is seeking (15)
input tram Fontana. Ontario, and 'Rancho Cucamon=,a regarding the future divislon
of the Kaiser Steel Preserve. Staff report by Rick Comet, City Planner.
Mr. Wasserman state.i that LAFC has tentatively set up a meeting. Staff will
notify Council whin it has been ci-nfirmed.
ACTION: Council concurred to continue this item until after the LAFC meeting.
69. I.A.%'D USE A`1ALYSIS - 9TH STREET AND MADRONE AVENUZ. At the December Ith (L6;
meeting. City Couacl2 directed staff to prepare a special land use study
designed to determine optimal industrial and/or residential land uses within
the planning area bounded by Arrow Route, baker Avenue. Bth Street, and the
County Flood Control corridor. Staff report by Rick Comer, City Planner.
Mayor "ikels opened the meeting for public input. There being no response, the
open meeting was closed.
Mr. Buquet stated he brought this up at the time of the Development Code
hearings. His concern was while there was housing on the northeast portion
Char is presently under consideration for R-3, he felt there would be some
problems with an R-3 dea`,gnation in there because thete would be an
incompatible use up against single family housing. another problem Is there
would be general industrial backed up against that. He felt Council should
Look at an Industrial Park designation. That it would be more aesthetically
blending with the neighborhood rather than a general industrial designation and
would also protect the houses already there slate it would be a long time
before this would be developed. He favored Option 2.
ACTION: Council concurred that this should go to the Planning Commission for
public hearings with Alternetive 2 being their preference and to come back to
the Council for final approval.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
Mr. Dougherty stated he had nothfag to report.
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
There was no business.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIi%L STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee:
$27. 00
For all pro ccts requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed Review nd submitted to the Development
Comm,ittee 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-
fa.cant enviro=eutal 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 ianfor.naticn report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
t PROJECT TITLE: Geniral Plan Amendment 8403-8
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
P. City of Rarcf c Cucamonga
O. Box 807 Rancho ( JCamonGd California 91730
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rick Gomez City Planner Citv of
Rancha Cucasanoa '714 non-1851
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET r0:7DRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. )
Smith Street between Baker and Mad one APN 207-271-4,5.5 718 9 10
17 38,19 20 3 ,37 38 43 a4.
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES ADD THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMrTS :
DeveloPm.ent District Amendment
r
I-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
ti r=nO Y?1 01a11 AT.Pn(imPnt if rP,...+..a-.i
t(1_2MPTI(i i�1P I and ��[P M P F 11 -'91m '� [iT [l (�Pntial/�:PnPYaI �i
Indu[trial to TnrinoYY: 1 c
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
_E=j= t araa _ 1R R AfrPc Fvi -t' i� ij 'i �c cinnlP -,,mil-
rp,5ldencac.
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTItiG OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIF-'kLS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, P*ID THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) :
See attached.
r
c
Is the protect part of a larger protect, one of a series
Of cumulative actions, which although individually small,
may == a whole have significant environmental impact?
i
:: I-?.
WILL THIS PROJECT-
YES NC
X 1. Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
X 2. C,.eate a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) ?
X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5. Remove any existing trees? Row many? Possibly 20 +
X 6. C:-eate the need for use or disposal of trees
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above :
IMPORTAUNT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the fcrn on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the stat;--nents
furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the
data and information required for this initial evaluation
to the best of my aLi lity, 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 gabmitt before an adea;:,: - e
evaluation can be ,:lade b the Deve onme y _ Review Committee.
Date 1ueust 22 1984 Signature
b
Title Clty Planner
Z-3
Environmental Setting-
Tcpo� - project site is located on the alluvial fan and slopes
gently in a southerly direction.
Flora/Fauna - On site vegetation consists of various common domestic
vegetation associated with the existing homes and eucalyptus trees
and weed materials scattered on the vacant parcels. Animal life
coi:sists of domestic pets and assorted rodents and birds.
Surroundino Uses
North - Multifamily homes, Cask and Cleaver restaurant, elementary
school .
South - Two single family residences, an industrial building and
vacant. land.
'cast - Industrial uses including television, transmission towers
and tree farm.
'West - Single family residential tract and child care center
Existino Structures
APN: 207-271-4,5,6,i,8,9.,0,17,18,15,37,38,44. Single family
residences, generally 30+ years old, in fair to good condition.
Includes associated landscaping, auxiliary structures, etc.
APN: 207-271-20,35,43 - Vacant parcels with scattered trees.
`" Nla - a3
CITY OF RA.\CHO CUCAMONGA
PAIRT II - ISITIAL STL"DY
F-%% 'IRO\�k:4iAL CHECKLIST
DATE:
APPLICANT: 1 /%
FILI::G DATE: y� pp LOG \b^SER•
PROJECT:
PROJECT LOCATIO`:- :5�' fl�:
I. EtiC'IRO\"LEtiT:;L 1`L ,CTS
(Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets) .
YES :LAYBE NO
1_ Soils and Geolozv. ?fill the proposal have
significant results in:
a- Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geologic relationships?
X
b_ Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
burial of the soil?
c- change in topography or ground sufface
co-:tour intervals?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
Of any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any potential increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off
site conditons?
f_ Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? Y,
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or
use of any mineral resource?
2. Fivdrelogv. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
Page Z
YES '!9YBE _6
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction
of flowing streams, rivers, or ephemeral stream
channels?
b- Changes in absorption rates, drainage patt:rns,
or the rate and amount of surface water
runoff,
c- Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface crater in any
body of water? X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or anv_
alteratic- of surface water quality?
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics?
g. Change in the quantity of groundwaters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interference with an
aquifer?
Quality?
Quantizy?
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? X
3. Air Qualitv. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a- Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile
or indirect sources? K
Stationary sources?
b- Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or
interference with the attainment < ' applicable
air quality standards? .1
c. Alteration of local or regional climatic
conditions, affecting air movement, moisture
or temperature?
_51-
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?
?a£e 3
YES `L5Y3E _O Aulk
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
plants into an area?
d. Reduction in the pot:, 'al for agricultural
production? y
Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results
in..
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or -=.tubers
of any species of animals? k
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 movement of animals"_
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or
wildlife habitat? X
5. Population. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Will the proposal alter the location, distr
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of am area? �(
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing?
6. SOciO—Economic Factors. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Change in local or regional socx..-economic
characteristics, including economic or
cotaercial diversity, tax rate, and property
values? x
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed
among project beneficiaries, i.e. , buyers,
tax payers or project users? X
7. Land Use and Planninz Considerations. Will the
proposal have significant results in?
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
Planned land use of an area? —
b. A conflict with any designations, objectives.
policies, or adopted plats of any governmental
entities? V —
c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of
existing consumptive or non-consumptive
recreational epport_n1it_es?
/
?ace 4
YES MAYBE No
8. TransDOrtation. Will'the proposal have significant
results in: '
a. Generation of substzntial additional vehicular
movement? Y
b. Effects on existing streets, or de--and for
new street construction? X
c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? k
d. Substantial impact upon existing transport,11-
tion systems? X
e. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
f. Alterations to or effects on present and
potential water-borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffic"
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? �(
9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant iesults in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological,
paleontological, and/or historical resources'.
10. Health. Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? v
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? )(
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances in the event of an accident? X
d. An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
organisms or the exposure of people to such
organisms? X
e. Increase in existing noise levels? k
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous
noise levels? X
g. The creation of objectionab?e odors?
h. An increase in light or glare? X
page
YES
11. Aesthetics. Will tY.e proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
c. A conflict 'with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors? X
12-• Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have a significant need for new systems, or
a erations to the following:
a. Electric power?
�C
b. Natural or packaged gas? k
c. Co.�unications systems? k
d. Water supply? X
e. Waste:•ater facilities? x
f. Flood control structures?
g. Sol"-,-' waste facilities?
h. Fire protection? k_
i. Police protection?
v
J. Schools? _— Y
k. Parks or other rec:-eational facilities? 1=
1_ Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities?
M. Other governmental services?
13. Enercv and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Use of substantial Dr e%cessive fuel or energy? x
b. Substantial increase in demand upor. existing
sources of energy?
c. An increase in the demand for development of
new sources of energy?
i
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption
of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible
renewable sources of energy are available?
/JI/0 �
?aSe 6
YES !IAYBE No
e. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
14. Y.andatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistorv?
b. Does the project have the potential to zchieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into the future) . X
c. Dees the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past projects,
and probable future projects) .
T
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
II. DISCUSSIOV OF rN%IRO'�`LvtiTL cLVAL,UATION (i.e. , of affirmative answers to
the above questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures).
Page 7
ItI. DET_?
On the basis of this initial evaluation: 0
j; I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant�C- effect
1 cn the environment, aad a NEGATI:i DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a sign=ficart
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effec':
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATI'JE
DEC!--'LRTION WILL BE PREPARED.
r--; I find the proposed project IMAY have a significant effect on the
envirrz=ent, and an ENVIRMI-TENT IMPACT q=PORT is required.
rates� 4-Ti
e
tle
i
II . Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Poouiation
b. Approval of the proposed Genral ;'l :n Amendment nd Development District
Amendment will impact the existing housing on site by causing it to become
nonconforming in land use. The nonconforming tatus would subject the
the residential use to increased restrictions irdance with the re-
quirements of the development code.
7. Land Use
a,b. The requested amendments would create a substantial alteration in the
planned land use for the residential portion of the site. The change from
Medium Density Residential to Industrial Park represents a significant
difference in visual quality and land use, particularly to the residential
areas to the north and west. The industrial areas to the south and east
would be less affected. In order to ensure land use comaptibility, the
design review process wi'� -, , evaluate site design and architecture to create
a compatible development.
Af�a -31
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
gECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-
03-B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - REQUESTING A CHANGE IN
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL/GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL TO INDUSTRIAL PARK. FOR 18.8 ACRES OF LAND,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF 9TH & BAKER - APN 207-
211-04 THROUGH 10, 17 THROUGH 20, 35, 37, 38, 43, & 44.
WHEREAS, on the 15th day of July, 1984, an application was filed and
accepted on the above-described project; and
WHEREAS, on -the 26th day of September, 1984, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Cade.
SL-;TION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga ?lanning Commission has made the
following findings:
1. That the Amendment does not conflict with the Land
Use Policies of the General Plan.
2. That the Amendment does promote goals of the Land
Use Element.
3. That the Amendment would nit be materially injurious
or detrimental to the adjscent properties.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on
September 26, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 26th day of September,
1984, General Plar. Amendment No. 84-03-6.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt General Plan
Amendment No. 84-03-B.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and .related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1984.
,i/o - 3 �
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY•
Dennis L. Stcut, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
1, Pick Gom>-z, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify. that Vie foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Plannin3 Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Plan-ing Comniss:on held
on the 26th day of September, I984, by the following vote-to-wit•
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Pl d - �3
I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMUNGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT
NO. 84-03-3 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - REQUESTING A
CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM
RESIDEvTIAL/INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) Ir
TO INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN ( INDUSTRIAL PARK) FOR 18.8 1
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF 9TH &
BAKER - APN 207-211-04 THROUGH 10, 11 THROUGH 20, 35, 37,
38, 43, AND 44.
WHEREAS, -r }he 15th day cf July, 1984 an appiicacioji was filed and
accepted on the above-described projE-ct; and
WHEREAT , on the 26th day of September, 1911`4, the Pl;,-ping Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Secti -.t a5854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cormiss':.n has made the
following findings:
1. That the subject ;property is suitable for the uses
per itted in the proposed district in terms of
as _ss, size, and compatibility with existing land
use in the surrounding area; and
2. That the proposed district change woela not have
significant impact on the environment nor the
surrounding properties; and
3. That the proposed district change is in conformance
with the General Plan.
SECTI')N 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this r--oject will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment
and recor-,mends issuance of a Negative Declar?tion on September 26, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 26th day of September,
1984, District Amendment No. 84-03-B.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt District Amendment
No. 84-03-8.
/Y �/� _ 35
Resolution No.
Page 2
® 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
® material hereby adopted by the Flannin_a Commission
shall be forwarded to. the City Council.
APPRGVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, i084.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez , Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of Lhe City of
Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the Foregoing Resolution w�ks duly and
regularly introd ized, passed, and adopted by the P tanning Conr.ission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
c,n the 26th day of Septemoer, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
® NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA �`0CLcnmrc�c9.
STAFF REPORT
iZ
DATE: September 26, 1984 ly" {
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Plsrner
BY: Lisa 'dininger, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASKS MENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 84-03D
- NTY OF RANCHO CUC;MONGA - A request to amend the
Ge..era. F ar Land Use Man from Medium Density Residential
(4-14 du/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac)
on 15.8 acres of land located on the west siee of Hellman
Avenue south of 7th Street - APN 209-161-04, 16, 23, and
210-341-72.
1. ABSTRACT: A General Plan Amendment is requested for a site located
on Hellman Avenue south of 7th Street. The requested changa is
from Medium Density Residential to Low Medium Density
Residential. Staff has determined that no significant
environmental impacts would be caused by the proposed change. The
Commission will determine if the proposed change is appropriate in
terms of land use compatibility.
II. BACKGROUND: This action was initiated by the Planning Commission
who a'rected staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment for the
properties located west of Hellman and south of 7th Street, which
�. are currently designated under the General Plan as Medium Density
Residential (4-14 du/ac) , tut are located in a Low Medium Density
(4-8 du/ac) Residential Development District. The 15.8 acre site I
located rear the southwest corner of the City is currently vacant
except for one single-family hone. The site is located w(!st of a
tract of single-family homes which are designated as Low Density
(2-4 du/ac) Residential. Because of concerns relavive to
compatibility of existing and proposed uses, and for transition of
density, the Commission directed Staff to evaluate the poss-,bility
of amending the General Plan Land Use Designation of the subject
property to Low Medium Residential. The Commission wished to j
evaluate the Mediu- Density Residential land use desicnation in J
terns of land use compatibility in order to determine if the site
is suited t.)r Low Medium Density rather than a Medi Density
designation. The current General Plan Land Use Designation differs
substantially from the developed property immediately east of the
parcel. Consequently, a General Plan amendment was requested to l
change the current Medium Density Residential designation ;"--'-".
du/ac) to Low Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac).
ITEM P
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-03D - City of Rancho Cucamonga
® September 26, 1984
Page 2
III. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRI^rTION:
A. Action Requested: Amend the General Plan Lard Use Map from
Medium Density Residential (4-14 du/ac) to Low Medium Density
Residential (4-8 dulac).
B. Location: West of Hellman Avenue, south of 7th Street.
C. Parcel Size: 15.8 acres.
D. Existinj Development District: Medium Density Residential .
E. Existinq Land Us?:_ Vacant and single-family residential.
F. Surrounding Laid Use and DeveZo ment District:
North - vacant and Industrial Industrial Specific Plan)
South - City of Ontario, (vacant) .
East - Single-family homes (Low Density Residential)
West - City of Ontario, (single-family homes) .
G. General Plan Desiqnations: Aft
Project Site - Medium Density Residential
Nert: - General Industrial
South - City of Ontario (Low Density)
East - Low Density ' .sidentiai
West - City of Ontario (Low Density)
H. Site Characteristics: The project site is bounded an the west
y the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and on the east by
Hellman Avenue. The northern three parcels are vacant with
scattered eucalyptus trees, grasses and weeds, while the
southern parcel is occupied by a single-family dwelling.
T-V. ANALYSIS:
A. History: Although the site was originally occupied by several
single-family homes, the only remaining struc�ure is on the
southern pare=l an the southwest corner of 6th and Hellman.
8. General Plan Land Use Goals and Policies: The land use element
of the General Plan describes Medium Density residential
development as °allowing, a wide range of living accommodations
ranging from conventional single family detached units to
single family attached units. Building intensity at the lower
end of the density range would be appropriate adjacen� to Low
and Very Low density residential areas. Building intensity at
the higher end of the range is considered appropriate near
parks and other open areas, along transit routes and major and
secondary thoroughfares, and rear activity centers such as
recreationcl centers, 13braries, shopping centers, and
entertainment areas. The Low Medium cater_.pry is characterized
by residential densities somewhat greater than the Low Density
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-03D - City of Rancho Cucamonga
September 26, 1984
Page 3
Residential group. The Low Medium Density would be appropriate
within Low Density areas to encourage greater housing diversity
without changing the single-family character of the surrounding
residential area. The Low Medium Density is generally
developed on small3r parcels that are more difficult to develop
within Low Density residential areas, with the provision that
the development be compatible with the- surrounding character of
the area.
The major issues involving this request are the land use
compatibility of the proposed General Plan Amendment and the
additional environmental concerns as pointed out in the
environmental ,assessment. Regarding land use, the project site
represents a relatively isolated location for Medium Density
residential development. The Low Medium Density residential
designation provides for a more gradual transition between the
project site and the single family res;a�-ntiai developments to
the east and west. The Co mission's alternatives for land uses
include the current designation of Medium Density Residential
or the proposed Low Medium Density Residential designation.
Low Medium Residential . This designation would provide for a
range of dwelling units, including single family detached
dwelling units on individual lots to attached townhomes.
Because of this range of dwelling types, an,J with density
limited to 8 du/ac, Low Medium Density offers land uses
compatibile with the existing single-family Low Deeisity
residential character. Through the use of proper design
control of architecture and site planning, the project site can
be developed and designed in a single family detached
residential character compatible with the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Medium Density Residential. Under the current General Plan
designation of Medi,;m Density Residential, density could range
from 4-11 dwelling units per acre. Although it is possible
that the site could be developed at a density more closely
resembling that of Low Medium, given the size of the project
site, it is more likely that Medium density development would be
oriented to multi-family attached housing. This crz�ates the
likelihood of lard uses conflicts and neighborhood
incompatibility would definitely exist.
C. Environmental Assessment: Fdrt I of tine Initial Study has been
completed by the applicant. Staff has completed the
Environmental Checklist, Part II, of the Initial Study, and
found no significant adverse impacts with the mitigation
measures attributed to the proposed amendment. The following
is a summary of the environmental effFcts and measures proposed
s' #)uld the project be approved:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 84-O3D - City of Rancho Cucamonga
September 26, 1984
Page 4
Allh
Drainage: The portion of the project site located adjacent to
Hellman Avenue and the entire southern parcel of the project
site is located in an area of 100-year flood. This site has
traditionally experiences flooding, although it has been
Improvementsreduced by
Avenue. Major f loodcontrol oimprovements ouldmonga kbea required nd mto
develop one or all of the subject parcels.
V. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Should the Commission, upon examination of the
General Plan tnendment, decide that the change would promote the
land use goals and purposes of the General Plan, and would not be
detrimental :o the adjacent properties or cause significant adverse
impacts as ; fisted under the Environmental Assessment, the following
findings are necessary for approval .
A. The amendment does not conflict with the land use policies of
the Genera' Plan.
S. The amendment does promote the goals of the land use element,
and
C. The amendment would rot be materially injurious or detrimental
to the adjacent properties.
Vi. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing
CORRESPONDENCE:
The Dail Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property
owners within feet of the boundary of the proposed project. To
date, the attached correspondence has been received.
Vida. RECOmM-IDATION: Staff recommends approval of the General Plan
AFPndi ent�as oroposed. Should the Commission concur, approval of
the attached Resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map to
Low Medium Density Residential would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Rick Gomez
City Planner
RG:LW:ns
Attachments: Exhibit W - General Man Map
Initial Study
Planning Commission Staff Report - October 4, 1983
Correspondence
Resolution of Approval of General Plan Amendment
4 I t
i
General I and Development District �
IN
Subject Propertli
.'
1 l�Of
s1-1 :
MEDIUM L
.': •� /
err! Ilttl
dr
NDUSTRIAL
ISP
VP
01
_ f
r .
/ ,..�' ..
'�... _ .__. �. � � .. •., a .' s
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA 10NGA
C, atirpl
STAFF REPORT ���� C
DATE: October 4, 1983 :i >
TO: Chairman and Member- of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
1 BY: Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner-
SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT NO. 4 - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE
MEETING OBJECTIVE: Tonight's public hearing is a continua- ! of
fff workshops which began on August 16 for considerat;on of the Draft
Development Code. As the fourth workshop, the objective will be to
review the Draft Development District Map and discuss ve detawill b the
basic and optional development standards contained within the
revised section of Chapter 4. Tha memo discussing Chapter 4 is
attached at the end of this staff r_port.
1
II. SArKGROUND TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP: The nevelopment District
Map ustrates the proposed an use esignat:ons, or zones, to be
estab]ished in conjunction xith Th caegoraiesl f th D ment Code.
are designated on the map in
place of the current zoning e , meclaOsesvief]iopmteint Disft rRic1t s Ma;�"C-2 C-2
replace s
"Zoning Map" Soth changes are provided for consistency with other
approved land use dccuments such as the planned communities and the
Etiwanda Specific Plan. A discussion of the land use categories
and associated issues is provided in the following sectirns.
After approval of the Development Code an offir'ial land use map
h^uk will be created in conjunction with the Development Districts
Map. The map book wiil be provided by transferring ;and use
designations directly onto Assessor's Parcel Maps. This will
eliminate any confusion as to the exact location of district
boundaries. In addi`1-ion, the book can be constantly updated as
revised AP maps are prepared by the Assessor's office-
III_ DISTRICT CLASSIFICAT?�;:5:
H. Resi ential : The residential district boundaries shown on the
Development Districts Map, as with all other categories, follow
the Genera] Plan designations to the extent possible. Slight
variations occur in order to follow existing property lines
wherever possible.
k-
NMI 0
S.t
STAFF REPORT NO. 4 ( DRAFT DEVELOP"TENT CODE
October 4, 1083
Page 2
As discussed at previous workshops, Medium Residential range
was narrowed in the Development Code to permit a density range
Of 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre versus 4 to 14 dwelling
units per acre as shown on the General Plan. Therefore, if
property shown on the General Plan as Medium is also designated
on the Development Districts Map as Medium, development of the
property within the 4 to 8 dwelling unit range will be
precluded. In light of this, the Commission may determine that.
some properties shown as ;4edium on the General Plan may be Tore
appropriately designated as Lora-Medium (4 to 8 du/ac) or. the
Districts Map to reduce potential land use conflicts.
The Low-Medium category of the General Plan permits
conventional single family homes, zero lot line units, and
townhouses. The intent of this category is to encourage
greater housing diversity without changing the single family
character of the lower density residential areas. The Medium
category of the General Plan (4-14 du/ac) permits a wider range
of housing types from conventional single family homes to
multi-family apartments and condominiums. This wide range :pas
proposed to serve as a buffer between low dens;ty residential
areas and areas of higher density , commercial areas, and areas
with greater traffic and noise levels.
Properties which may be more appropriately designated as LM
versus M are shown on Exhibits "A-V. Whe-i reviewing each
site, staff considered surrounding land use and zoning, parcel
size and shape, topography, traffic and circulation, and
access.
B. Commercial/Office: The disricts in this category include
Neighbor ood Commercial (NC) General Commercial (GC), and
Office Professional (OP). OP is shown or. the August draft of
the map as AP, but will be corrected with the next draft
prepared. The most significant boundary changes from the
current zoning map in regard to OP include the west side of
Haven south of Foothill (currently M-1) ; the northeast corner
of Base Line and Hellman (pre-zently M-1,R-3, and AP); and the
west side of Archibald, north of Base Line (currently R-3).
The commercial areas designated NC and GC on the Development I
Districts Map are very similar to the current zoning map. The
r; most significant change occurs along Amethyst Avenue, north of
Base Line. The current zoning in this area is C-2, R-3, and
M-1, so r:�visions are necessary for conformance with the
General :"Ian.
STAFF REPORT N0. 4;- DRAFT��
0".0� DEVELOPMENT r
October 4, 1 g83 � YT COB.. ,
Page 3
C' P_-n�Space: This category includes Hillside Residential, Open.
Space, Flooe Control, and Utility Corridor. hillside
Residential an4 Open Space areas are designated in the Hill
section of Alta Loma where the natural terrain ern
development potential, lir :t
Residential occurs at the northwelargest
ast g st op�tiPof Hiils;de
Of Almond between Sapphire and Turquoise. City• nGrtf
The Flood Control areas are designated along major stern .rain
channels, drainage courses, retention basins
owned by the San Bernardino Flood Control DistriLt and roperty
utility corridor is shown on the map runningOne
through the Vitoria Planned Community. no
D- S ecific Plans and Planned Communities:
includethe Industrial Area cPlan
These categories
Plan, Terra Vista Planned Specific Plan, Etiwanda Specific
COmmunity. Land use development isiguidedand
by those documents,
therefore the Development District Map refers tr the individual
plans as a whole, rather than list the land use designations.
One revision to the Industrial Area Specific Plan boundary is
recommended. The site is l
Avenue ocated on the east side of Center
, west of the Deer Creek Channel, between Footh;li and
Church. Several buildings G:.Ied by Data Design Laborat
exist on a portion of `ye site ories which is designated on the
General Plan as Industrial Park. Considering this area is the
only industrial property in the City outside of the the
boundaries, inclusion in the Industrial Plan will appropriately
ISP
Provide the necessary development staa] Plan
After approval of
the Development Code, the Industrial Plan will be amended to
include this property. For consisted_-y with the General Plan,
the designation will be Industrial Park.
While the industrial Olen, Et-
'Wanda Plan, and Terra Vista Plan
appear as solid blocks of land, the Victoria Planned Community
is broken up on the Development Districts Map. The breaks
where specific
Planned propert ,es were not included in ethe
han lan'ise map use designations
are based on the Generai P
E. Overav Districts: The Overlay Districts shorn on the August
draft of the Development Districts Map include Master plan,
Senior Housing, and Mobi'a ' Home Par . Based on previous
Planning Commission consensus tl.e Mcb ll Home Overlay District
Will be eliminated and an Equestrian Overlay District will be
added. The Equestrian Overlay District will include property
in Alta Loma designated Very Low Density Residential on the
General plan.
STAFF REPORT NO. 4,,- DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE
October 4, 1983
Page 4
One senior housing overlay district is indicated on the map.
The site is cur,•ently being considered for development by
Calmark and is located on the north side of Base Line, west of
Archibald. Reaarding the Master Plan Overlay District, each
area shown on the General Plan as requiring a master plan will
also be designated on the revised Drat Development Districts
Map to be prepared after the C0Tnissi0n 's review. In this way,
the master plan requirements will be clearly identified to
prospective developers.
IV. SPECIAL COr:SIDERHTIONS: The General Plan land use map designates
public facilities. including existing and proposed schools and
parks; civic ;:;;!s such as t;.e Community Center and Fire Stations,
the Foothill Freeway cor -, the Red Hill golf course, and
Chaffey College. Spectric Lev.,lopment districts for each of the
above were not created . Rathcr, the uses are contained within the
various land use cate;tiries of the ueveloµ:_nt Code, and the sites
were designated with land use categories siwilar to surroundin-,
properties. If the Commission determines this is appropriate, no
changes to the Development Districts Map are necessary.
V. CORRESPONDENCE: One letter has been received to date requesting
reconsideration of a proposed district classification. As shown on
Exhibit "E", the oae acre parcel is loc?ted on the south side of
Base Line Road, just west of Victoria Park Lane. The owner is
requesting a change from Medium Residential (8-14 du/ac) to High
Residential (24-30 du/z;.). Property to the south and wast, within
the Victoria Planned Community, is designated as High Density
Residential . To the east is the southern terminus of Victoria Park
Lane and the proposed lakes. The Genc:*al Plan indicates a
neighborhood shopping center at the site with High Residential to
the west. When the Victoria Planned COnnrurity was approved, the
neighborhood shopping center we; relocated to the north side of
Base Line, Based on surrounding land use designations and the
location of Victoria Park Lane, staff recomrends that `he subject
property and the small parcel immediately to the north•sest be
reclassified as High Residential .
Res ctf liy-s-ulmitted,
Rick omPz
City tanner
G:CJ:jr
Attachmentr
AN
t
.w
'.
i
is
LO
1 ?�
132 unman mmumnou IN
�. 7 r
ua•
► UAW s,
L7
Sp
NORTH
CUCA
y t _
Y
} j
t' 1�
t*'
u
+.�-:7,�` �>,tYY13kIc2d,iti�Izli ° � r s n� L :Y; t � _ . • •w
is
y
a
\
Y YY Yip_ Y r f a •i '.
COZi[TSCD Ow
a\
of D . .
.69KNQ
* ['
54YA: NIL
2
J
\� W 1 � _
11 1
a Ala(:g lzr C+w•i in�(`1
1
w u � • s
yr 1.06
n
n >
a � e
Co.Swva
Seely •[9x.ws
D�:e Ja •• -
T 5 P>- I`_ r NORTH
e�a.z�o
fmf P..IbrN.m(IVMv
CITE' OF ITF%I- 01STAcr5 AAA
R C i0 C.TCNA'IONC'A TITLE: L A.fs M , Aqscr4�e'e .urn
PLANNING i7ItrISI0,N £l'I IIP�IT= .�-Z.) SCALE-_
4
4@��� �
September 19 , 1984
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City Planning Division
9340 Base Line Road , Unit B
Rancho Cucamonga , California 91730
Reference: General Planning Anandme_nt 3403-D
Dear Sirs:
As owners of the property in question, we are very concerned
that you are considering down zoning tt:e property which would
require us *o build ail- single family dwellings, at best ,
or. the 15 acres. Whez .e purchased the property at its
present zoning of medium density residential our purchase
prices were based on our ability to Mild more units than
you are sugq,-�stirg. Please carefuzly consider our proposal
for apartment units in a pl,.nned community recreation oriented
deveJ.opraert. We feel that chi= s:iil ;,lend yell with the
adjacent industrial , coutmercial , and . resent residential
zoning.
Respectfully yours,
CEDAPALA CORPORATION
DOVETAIL PROPERTIES
Mr. and Mrs_ Jess Groomer
Lazr- DeCrona
Owner/Representat" e
LD/js
It
r f
<Y w QQ a
•■�.'W^^ •fly, i�'/: ■Y ��h..
• i ••AN ;ems .� pun r ,+
elm
�` mil.; �:' •-_�,;� *;'l
�' C a •`i. �r��{sue ,�ti , ':
1
y �VL
�20 �• s
7
IS 1 •
Y
• i 1 t 1IVA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
INITIAL STUDY
ART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $87. 00
For all projects requiring envirorinental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Develop.:.ent
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part I_! 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 Co . ittee 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 information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: General_ Plan Amendment 24-03 0
APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: City Of Ran Fo Cucamonga,
P.O. Box 807, Rancho Cuczmonaa, California 01730
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Rick Gom i v Planner_ (1
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STR=ET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO_ )
West Of Hellman Avenue between 6th
and 216-341-72. 2pg
LIST OTHER PEP.MITS NECESSARY FROM LOC;L, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS :
I-1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: t o o r f r
Ma rQM Madir ae nUse
e 1Ui `l2l—
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQJARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
l•i R �.croc nno c ' l red h0
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFOR*SATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) :
The project site is bounded on the west and sGuth b the concrete charnel
OfDar t?It I, �nnna Book anri clnnoc +l /l T
al �_ucalyptus wlndrrnic tv
raerse the nnrt---- nnrti nn �f ho cite nn
the western bot nddry and ntor Of the c '0 4:1 th Ire— in nanoral��
condition Tha renlai n jor of tho c -t c p nr
cr tt atrppq
and various aracc_c and lJae�c c17RRtll tn!nTNr DDfl Dcn—>rT t7n rh
reSiden lal - cc:, to 1 fr ar +
Ja . itv of Ontnrir) Fact•
residential and y2rant_ edpct• single farm l recirlential � 1" . .c d—
EXISTItt , USES- _ APN �Oo-1F1_na It �� gran ❑D : o)
f dml l V rPcl rionrp
Is the project Dart of a larger project, one of a series
of cumulative actions, which althouch individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
No.
AWL
I-z
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
y_ 1. Create a substantial chance in ground
contours?
2. Create a substantial chance in existing
noise or vibration?
._ x 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
a:unicipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) ?
A
4. Create changes 4n the existing zoning or
general Dian de;:ignations?
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, fla:unables or explosives?
ExDlanation of any YES answers
�aiec' con
above:
r
l
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the for:; on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certifv that the statements
furni. hed 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 , state information presented are true ments, and
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 :.lade by the DeJelopm. tlReview Committee.
Date- Signature ��---
Title_��ty pl�nnar
1
I-3
r
r
CITY OF `.,CS?0 C C_`?ovGz
PART 11 - INITIAL SiZ^J?
ES'VIRO\?:-NTAL c-?EC:KLIST
/ IV4
APPLICA:+T• GJ�I �1 7)a�t�!
FILING DATE• LOG NU'_`3ER:
PROJE G�,04CT:
PROJECT LOCATIOti: ��� J��Gf/� // 'r cI �f
I. Er%rIRO% NTAL I112PACTS
(Explanat'_on of all "yes" and "mavbe" answers are required on attached
sheets) .
YES PL4Y3E NO
1. Soils and Geolocv. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. Unstable ground conditions or in changes in
geologic relationships?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
burial of the soil?
C. Change in topography or ground surface
contour intervals? X
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? x
e. Any potential increase in wind or cater
erosion of soils, affecting either on or off
site conditons? y
f. Changes in erosion siitation, or deposition?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? x
h. An increase in the rate of extraction and/or
use of any mineral resource? X
2. Hydroloart. Will the proposal have
results in:
i.
Page Z
a- Changes in current. Y—=S XA BE
ofaflowing stre ,s ,ri✓erse orurse or direction. `0
ephemeral stream
b- Changes in absorption
or
the rate a-rid amou rates, drainage patterns,
runoff? r of surface water
c Alterations to the course or flow of flood _eaters? -- —
Chan
d. odygofiwateroa=cunt of surface water in anv X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or any
alteration of surface water quality
f. Alteration of groundwater characteristics? X
8- Change in the qua- X
either through di_ y °f Broundwaters,
drawals direct additions cr with-
a c ? �r through interference with an
qui_er_
Quality?
Quantity?
h- The reduction in the amount of water other-
related
wise available for public water ater oth
i Exposure of people or property X
related hazards such to water
as flooding or seiches?
Air uality_ Will the proposal ha�•e si �results i_.. gr.ificant
a- Constant or Periodic air emi
or indirect sources? ssions
from mobile
Stationary sources?
ioration of
b- Interference with the
air quality and/or
inter
air Sunlit the atta-lent of applicable
Y standards?
o- Alteration of Ioc'I or regional clinat X
conditions, a£fectir climatic
g air regio aovemeat, moisture
or temperature?
4- Biora x
In: Will the proposal have significant results
a. Change in the characteristics of
Including diversity, distributionspeciesLI: ,
of any species of plants? • or number
Reduction of �pecie numberses Of of any uniq.�e, — X
orendangered
plan-.ts? rare
Page 3
YES KAYBE NO
C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
plants into an area? X
d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural
product-ion? X
Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results
in:
a. Change in the characteristics of species,
including diversity, distribution, or-numbers
of any species of anim--Is?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of animals? �K
c. Introduction of new or disruptive species of
animals into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or
wildlifa habitat?
5. Population. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri-
bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of
the human population of an area?
b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing? �(
6. Socio-Economic Factors. Will the Proposal have
significant results in:
a. Change in local or regional socio-economic
characteristics, including economic or
commercial diversity, tax rate, and property
values? N/
b. Will project costs be equitably distributed
among project beneficiaries, i.e. , buyers,
tax payers or project users? -.K
7. Land Use and Plannine Considerations. Will the
proposal have significant results in?
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
b. A conflict with any designations, objectives,
policies, or adopted plans of any governmental
entities? ]/
c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of r�
existing consumptive or non-consumptive
recreational opportunities X
Page G
- YES "_4Y�E g0 is
S. Transoms n, Will the p-oposa_ have significant
results in:
a. Generation of substantial add_-ional vehicular
movement? X
b. Effects on existing streets, or demand for
new street construction? )C
C. Effects on existing parkins facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
d. Substantial impact upon existing transporta-
ticn systems? X
e. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? JC
f. Alterations to or effects on present and
potential cater-borne, rail, mass transit or
air traffic? x
g. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? X
9. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a. A disturbance to the integrity of archaeological,
paleontological, and/or historical resources? X.
10. Health. Safetv, and Nuisance Factors. Will the
proposal have significant results in-
-. a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? X
b. Exposure of racple to potential health hazards?
c. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances ir. the event of an accident? r �(
3. An increase in the number of individuals
or species of vector or pathenogenic
organises or the exposure of people to such
organisms? 1C
e. Increase in existing noise levels? X
f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous —
noise levels? X
g. The creation of objectionable odors? X
h. An increase in light or glare? X
�-o? J
Page 5
YES PtAY3E NO
Auk
11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant
results in:
a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic
vista or view? X
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site?
c. A conflict with the objective of designated
or potential scenic corridors? X
12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal
have a significant need for new systems, or
alterations to the following:
a. Electric power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
c. Co=unications systems? X
d. Water supply?
e. Wastewater facilities?
f. Flood control structures? X
g. Solid waste facilities? X
h. Fire protection? X
i. Police protection? X
J . Schools? X
k. Parks or other recreational facilities?
1. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads and flood control facilities? X
m. Other governmental services? x
13. Enerry and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal-
nave significant results in:
a. Use of substantial. or excessive fuel or energy? X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy? X
c. An increase in the denand for development of `
new sources of energy? k
d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption
of non-renewable forms of energy, when feasible
renewable sources of energy are available? x
?age 6
YES ?".AYES `IO
e. Substantial depletion o: any nonrenewable or
scarce natural resource?
Y
14- Y.andatory FindiUs of Sicnificance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal cotaunitq; reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-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 the effects of past projects,
and probable future projects) . V
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ X
II. DT_SCUSSIOV OF ENVIRON, MN-'TAl EVA?UATION (i.e. , of affirmative answers to
the abcve questions plus a discussion of proposed mitigation measures) .
Page 7
III. DETERMINATION
On the basis o " this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATI:L D7rLAPATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
{ ! efiact on the environment, 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 PREPARED.
I find the proposed project YXI have a significant effect on the
envirament, and an ENVIRON ANT I>TAC .?EPOhT sOA
.equired.
Date 46; tas M 7
'T 4,,ature
Title
r
iI . Discusstion of Environmental Evaluation
2- Hydrology
i- As indicated Dn the 1984 Federal. ,
Agency (FE;.:A) Flood Insurance Ra . .1 ncy Management
Ofr the project site located the portion
Avenue and the entire southern par ° Hellman
an area of 100 year floodin located in
experienced flooding aithou°h ithhas 'beeJnareducedtbyna7ly
improvements to Cucamonga Creek and Heilman Avenue. Major
flood control improvements would be required to develop
one or all of the subject parcels.
5. Population
a. Although the project site is currently vacant, under the
Medium Density Residential designation, development could
occur at a density of 14 units per acre. Under the
proposed General Plan designaticn of Low Medium Density
Residential, the highest density allowed would be 8 units
per acre, thereby limiting the potential increase in
residential population. In addition, the low-medium density
creates a different pattern of development than the medium
density, generally with a single family attached or detached
product, rather than the multifamily product associated with
the medium density.
A.11 of the above impacts can be adequately mitigated through the use of
appropriate design controls and site improvements , in order to safely and
attractively develop the property under the proposed density
y-4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 84-
03-D - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - REQUESTING A CHANGE IN
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO LOW
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR 15.8 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE, SOUTH OF 7TH STREET - AFN
209-161-04, 16, 23 and 210-341-72.
WHEREAS, on the 15th day of July, 1984, an application was filed and
accepted on the above-described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of September, 1984, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissior, has made the
following findings:
1. That the Amendment does not conflict with the Land
Use Policies of the General Plan.
2. That the Amendment does promote goals of the Land
® Use Element.
3. That the Amendment would not be materially injurious
or detrimental to the adjacent properties.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this project will not create a sicnificant adverse impact on the environment
and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on
September 26, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 28th day of August, 1984,
General Plan Amendment No. 84-03-D.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt General Plan
Amendment No. 84-03-D.
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council .
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY Wr SEPTEMBER, 1984.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE PITY OF: RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamongc, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly intioduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 26th day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
— 'CHO CUCAMONGACI1Y OF RAN, C 7gcnaro'4r
STAFF REPORT
cl �°
F� lie
DATE: September 26, 1984 19
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner
I BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 84-34 -
O'DONNELL - The development of a 91,700 sq. ft.
I warehouse/distribution building on 4.5 acres of land in
the General Industrial (Subarea 11) category located at
the northeast corner of 5th and Pittsburgh - APN 229-261-
44.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of site plan, elevations, and
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
B. Purpose: The development of a warehouse/distribution building.
C. Location: Northeast corner of 6th and Pittsburgh.
D. Parce' Size: 4.5 acres.
E. Existing Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 11).
1
F. Existing Land Use: Vacant.
G. Surrouraing Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Warehouse/Distribution.; General Industrial (Subarea
11) .
South - Vacant; Industrial Park (Subarea 12).
East - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 11) .
West - Warehouse/Distribution; General Industrial (Subarea
H. General Plan Designations:
roject Site - General Industrial .
North - General Industrial .
South - Industrial Park.
East - General Industrial .
West - General Industrial.
a:':: ITEM Q
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and OR 84-34 - W Donnell
September 26, 1984
Page 2
I . Site Characteristics: Tha project site slopes to the south at
approximately a to 3% grade. This site is undeveloped and is
covered by indigenous weeds with no structures.
J. Fpplicabie Regulations: The Industrial Area Specific Plan
permits Warehouse/Distribution uses in the General Industrial
Category (Subarea 111J.
II. ANALYSIS:
A. General : The proposed architectural concept indicates the use
of concrete tilt-up buildings with horizontal medium
sandblasted bands and reflective glass office entries. The
building is rail served from the east, therefore, the loading
docks Face Pittsburgh Avenue. To provide a strong office
statement on the corners of the building, the wall and glass
panels have been angled and inset for architectural interest.
B. Design Review Committee: The Committee reviewed the proposed
site plan and eievations for conformance with City policies for
industrial buildings and Special Boulevard character for 6th
Str;:et. The Committee was concerned that the originally
proposed elevation for 6th Street did not provide the desired
architectura: design quality for 6th Street as a major Special
Boulevard. Therefore, the Committee recommended that vertical
sandblasted bands be added to the south elevation along 6th
Street and that a special landscape treatment be provided at
the intersection, including accent trees. The applicant has
prepared revised elevations, Exhibit "F", which indicates the
vertical sandblasted bands on the south elevation to break up
the building mass.
C. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been
completed by the applicant and is attached for your review and
consideration. Staff has completed the Environmental Checklist
and determined that no significant environmental impact will
occur as a result of this project.
III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Project is consistent with the Industrial Area
Specific Plan and General Plan. The project will not be
detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant
environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed site and building
Signs, together with the recommended Conditions, are in compliance
with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and City Standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Environmental Assessment and DR 84-34 - O'Donnell
September 26, 1984
Page 3
IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve this project through adoption of the attached Resolution
with the Conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
t;c
If ly ubmitted,
' Gy Planner
RG:DC:ns
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "So - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" - Elevations
Initial Study, Part I
Resolution with Conditions
z
LU
FIG.IV-99 Y t
JI
N
subarea 10
cmCue.AMOw
920'RO.W.
th
® low R.O.W.
88'a Iw R.O.W.
iIAL SERVICE
451TTRAILS/ROUTES l
0000 Podestrilm
• • s • sioscls y � area 13
�`� J M, ,; ► G m /C� .� of O e� •
o'
P .w uk./
ukiktv
_�••�•� Gwka i g�b
Brbciqp
ICccaas votft
2 Fim Stab=
K 9: hA
U
0
m
NORTH
CITX
R�i�CHO CUC ,,mo.NGA ,T
PLANNING DIVLSION Etil- Urr.�-SCALE. --
fll t
I fl r 1 i
I u
i r \
7T% STREET I .�
F7 4 .. . ... ... .
IF, IT-
Iru.. .
i
L C(
, COILFF
1 :mac
LE
�• - -
r
�
c,
t
ti r• j ;r
j I
6T14 STREET
— I
i
,
� ' ? SITe
NORTH
CITY OF ITE\1= $RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DISTL9Q\T EXHIB!r- T2 —SGLE:
Q-S
�1
� y :11: IIITlIIIi�; iill-! illl ! ! I 9
a ,
1 _ � --
LA
i
7
ia�ais Fu.xJB
1 PROJECT BLJMMAFiY .
aura�anw aeca.►cwa
atoa MaA' a.1.700 as PT-CMOaO I 44L71Y
SiF?14'i a.000 tile
+ 44.700 CaaJ,
M.000 CwJ
P4pKIN0 n.an, yes cs«/4 as CC,,r, iia aTy3
PARWJP,a"Ovr"a Ci w4 ti Cxnu,. 97a ain.J ,
1'ORTH
CITY or �� �- �..
RAINCHO CZ.CAjNj0.X I rE�I-
T TITLE
>PL,iiWING DIN''ISIOEN EXHIBIT- G
scALE,_
t �•� a I A L� � � �ti
r _
t`
i
y
ova
1
'1 I
I
n '
I
( � a•-•. n • rw I
- RpRp..v
:M A'
�Q<
lf��•
• 7. Rryc !s
Y
C,
' R
R
R O
D
- v �
'1
• ♦. MUM t
.�} �T ��, r"al lam• L.�
Cl ri rl 1J{. rl
It ;
i ��
I�IEll
I IpT� I I ':�I`i�! I` •�Sef/ ��
ell
rk
• '' i
All
ah
04I ;
I IN
r /•
2 FORTH
CITY OF ITEM,: ` - A
RA\'CHO CUCAdIO\'GA TITLE-
PLANNING DIXTMNT EXHlBrr:--L4F.- SOLE=
+•f�fuvuoaw r�uw,wO�v wofu�i.nffrt� df1111,a7 7V.d1Cf.3x. IL i `
r J1..OW 1'1'1� OM�Nf.d
1 tfi ES t
1 •( fp}j �e f t •�
nvitmanc
_ -Fl
Q-
at
0-4
3 1 ,
� 1 1
P �
1
,
1
, 1
L
Tr
IM;
lllq� III
I �mlill
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Construction of a 91 .700 s.f concrete tilt
up -enclustrial bui76--ing.
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Project area: 4.5 acres
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) :
Subject site is part of the original 75 acres purchased in 1979 by
P.C. lndustri 1 Comnaiyr and vibegapippnilg dayeloped as tha Panrh
Cucamonga Distribution Cpntpr- khirh Pr:'PP tl;a hac 875�000 c f rd
Occupied spare in a mastpr plannod inditc'.'rial daV.P�.O•�YtiB•77t.
Presently, the cita Jr, rnvprpd with f.t]YR grape vinpc and hae an nthpr
distinguish , g fpaturFc _
r - '
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
h
}
CITY OF RANCHO CUCP_M0":GA
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
fora must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
Project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study_ . The Development Review
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 :lake 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 information report
should be supplied by the applicant giving further informa-
tion concerning the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: Rancho Cucamonga Distribution Center
APPLICANT 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPhONE: R.C_ Industrial Company,C/o O'Donnell , Brigham & Partners/Soutnern, 3505 Cad�liac Avenue 0-170
Costa Mesa. CA 926'L6 -- 7i4) 556-9930
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: James R. Westlin R.C. Industrial Company.
C/o O'Donnell , Brigham 8 Par no n, 3505�Cadillac Avenue 0-110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -- (714) 556-9930
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. )
N/E/C of Sixth Avenue/P=t}sburgh Avenue
A.F.N. : 229-261-44
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
N/A
G:
f -f�
r e
Z+-LL THIS PROJECT:
YES NO
X 1. Create a substantial change in
contours? g ground
X 2. Create a substantiai change in existing
noise or vibration?
X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. ) ?
4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general plan designations?
X 5. Remove 4-ny existing trees? How many?
X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:(i ) Transformation �an'
active vineyara into graded building pads invTv3nqcut an ii
grades necessary to provide for ground level and dock high capabilities
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 that additional
information may be required to be submitted before an adequate
evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee.
R.C. INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
Date 7/19/84 !y gnature —
'•' ` /Donald S. Grant
Title Anthnri�ar' Ci9n-turn
5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO eUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 84-34 LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH AND PITTSBURGH IN THE GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
WRFREAS, on the 26th day of July, 1984, a complete application was
filed by O'Donnell , Brigham and Partners for review of the above-described
project; and
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of September, 1984, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above-described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the followina can be meet:
1. That the proposed project is :onsistent with the
objectives of the General Plan; and
2. That the proposed use is in accord with the
objective of the Development Code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located; and
3. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of
the applicable provisions of the Development Code;
and
4. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be ditrimentai to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on September 26, 1984.
SECTION 3: That Development Review No. 84-34 is approved subject to
the following conditions and attached Standard Conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. Provide special landscape treatment at the
intersection of 6th and Pittsburgh including
features such as, but not limited to, accent trees,
annual color ground cover, and concrete monument
sign.
2. Specimen size trees, 24" box or larger, and berming
shall be incorporated into the 6th Street landscape
concept to soften the building mass.
7�����
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1934.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY-
Dennis L. Stout, Chairman —
ATTEST:
Rick Gomez, Deputy Secretary
I, Rick Gomez, Deputy 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 loth day of September, 1984, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
I
ELM SC ri. y. O•�U > p ..di� q nL Cn L'�y J C
y�
A�
C:
CJ n T J f C O G n N C O N V 6 rye OCE O� i ra0i?n c Y
aTj c 'ram 9qC >
n -
VEu�'J � GrCV j .�rOq � q= J nVnr pqN LL..'D L ww -n
dcmoo 3 d=2; qnc Lit. . � � a ..a`y�•A D u c '� —> n p I� u� N 9 � 4«.)
O LArVGN r DVM V N.yP
pd cD P
o_
O r r
•. _�. p00 �' V 'YVV 7G,oO VNr �
W N % O T
O.� VSr✓ Y Vu� � �r �'� = `^ NUJ ^_ c -£ O^ 6.�� �
y [V
L 6n V_-`' u '-aY Ou GC� Vd qt� pGi.y. LN 9�M vj � P^�
O � � N.r OC'`N Gpd jG dqT �¢� C? yN O � NYv � �i� yp9
•O.. O V A c C=C T V r �^6 M L 7 � r d E Y v w i N P O G ^r A
_ d r r CCA
N d «•V.I
'r Nr >.G..� NSr� VI Y .nn r N
t00 ^^ N«ter Op
46`VJ S .Dn1A I� OI OOG C Qw�YrI GO 0 rL pr pV 6 6G6
s
16I
i o
tf
a
=-d -Z PN l o ra A _D
Hc r D L^^ r cG _
E
W rVj « OA9��
6 1 L ri1 .wp yJ«Np L^�OV
q p V
� T5 c LG• q Q= p `C S.n
O { V Z, O c p N O m�• � c �d 'e
Y •- C .Y. ` d AO GA Or.��
c a
6 V O Jd r9E �
na
O Y N P C O
W u^r V
Nei c .�i 4 s o E 1
C v
1 G «y y w cr d00
•�� rM'- rLn a` L.rJG' C- .•� - - - - =� C - -L' LT y= ugJi � a
�� N r L�n e .= m.• p.. « _ -, q L P O o L V r N L O� •.r G 7 l �� � L L�� 0 � � C U r O T G ' r C �-�J
V Su`•F pr Liie- pG« C' ` �.� a�aTi . -LC .• O V� 40N CN� c
r� y
O Gy= a' m n
LL oq v 'cccr N�o u .-`chm—L -- � � o�o G< P a.
! > N L q
nr `�Lr.
-]g q •L.. E 1A «y L y
U_- C C. L J,. a� O R L u 'n t « L4 L u �- lV.•..
u Or� u = P�E j� V � w f�rrr�� P C'�.Y •`.•� R� Y -� CL
J T u V ci rLA 0~ N q H ✓C 7= i q C ^ L J V S G r J A =L
«L=Oo V r=i.
Z9
FL q— VO ViZ W•q..=0 CJC - u'•� O W L±Gr LVL • 4VW •
_ - C
— _ C.
�,C G T a C
w q U p—
o 'dv � «L '' co�c..`. � cr„
.-•C L O
� utr.6j g40rf -• b_ 2rN C'
_ •V.rrjU'VN qF CLAD= C6rl —_ V V9 C L.=•.— �q�
C L V u_ N r •Jn rAn l I L rLn u V 4 6 wSr C O C i C L E-• S
� «4-.— G W — 2 OC QJ GV Q.Lr �ZO 69W 4]
b
i;
rr �
4 A . q
P
�= R r L •Lv C` V 4 d O i� = G L w Q l i j Z = `r W O RV ArV rN� gC
�'M _L r=i.-• CR « C C A ifV L (O G
9RI O.. 2 r-•ryN ` Gd_
4
.- •TvjA E �C YLOi ` LGO « CVC�C. GLyO R ' g v^R
q^ � C•L vVi V G ~ CAW_ rO - L i Cj OV VTr
-9 V V q L q� 4 C L ar _ u q V.• u w.J _ q w N C C Q � _ L'
C l r rAi « q L C _J M` i w V C •- 4 «w
_ d P n a.- w G.� C i g r O s O.Oi ` •r n �C
OV .O �rq ROC Lr Z! .. rtw4Gr
n` -r0 AW uL - qW GO! VLCQ =00E
_ O'O V q C
4 `r J r V L q Q •...y c O w.. P G 6 G O V r
NCG 6f JG Cr; uzz-_r p' u O
w C
iSC i --.. V - i -
rr4L..� V
„ O
I C ry N u t C 9 r r C P V 4 V w L R C V l f G 0 9 V Q O�9 L O C N
V� Lsu JrE rL9 CC' C'L.r'V r-rr. __ -_b ««W!A - .•
VC_ -_'O qOV SO'F. C- uSr ; ^ « O «4 Q^ rLV CV=T� So N
i d u _c > C T E 0 o.O.
�� 9��_C
q Vw > MP CL qi V_ = L N -� u -G urCP` c RLO
.a �-�
G � J_ 6. R V ` L.-•`+ �''= C
C. C R V 6 « --r •' i C_ •r C� q L �_ r 6 R >" C E G V
_ gJ G PG LO LC _u Lr _ LY C• C < � _ .. �- Yr GL C
- V 2 J q N C - ✓r - �_ - V � .. V W U V C L Or
-
G` 4 C' G �-•LS 4 r CV r rGr aL qL_ N ~ « «WW « C JOB 'T�
� L_p- c zcW cor' c��rc iA
A _ oema G c o !q� c..—_ R
r9V r• c4R i '�GOd C ___ u aOC
LqL R�9 > gadE = y ` AT -rQ� wG LW L .O L'w N LCRCC� O.R Cr
Q-16 �
Cd it CC '�4 P _ •>- _
-^ C G G p 6�i •+i�"• c = F o c i A n�•O.a i J - C�. �M i V�.0..
r L r p^ L V I Z
C.-
`
Y V•oi "• r' �.r n:. i`�......1111J1� L ' o °'.. b
_iR - O��j >-6 u 9 91'a_l NgpE C OCc\`nlj ~ N+V nL l_N
CV. La] L � La qT � P P � q la VO C
•/7 V G S a r b C+ d G M•da T y._+ = O v - a
O N P Oi Tr O� L V V S�O n -• L 9 =c Njci
N � q
L ar n �� >.✓ -� pMa� ePP t
.....Vn O G^ 9 a U+ ✓q q G ✓ G` q E y ` L 9 ., d r V V n- 7
yPN N9+
gw-
d gN O p G ✓ p^ y L - V O �_ - W�C L
✓90c Cr+ C9 E GAWE 1:JGq q ` D• YLr✓ b✓
� u' J �� � J � bi PMd LO•C F G q W✓✓'r BOO
9 J p_✓ L
Vcm^�G � C"q=G to �OGi Gva.I. u c ui canC dpn v'y .
900 j=C✓ N'"� yq= LJ lc ` N VN•V� � E�� LObs•n v •n Y„ N p J 9 P V P - N O •J.r q C ✓ r L L L
dd N qyM NI � i ~ ✓ C46N g P V 0 � iG^ 6✓ P
4PP w•O.r AS 6 OTr ` C VN P64 O n
�� C O C P✓ N O V 9«v T O V O > L c ✓ r p E C y g N
N AL`` rC✓✓� L pN✓ C P Y 9 � P J rL NZ q
L G • b A� I+ V G G �p g O T N ]Cn•V q 0
ay4UM uPi 6>•?�O V poE �N pLr >�b p C •�C -
1 x C6G i.
6 P 0�O G+ n✓ > >'P p C0 l' C V L q�v t G b V q •.O C I i O A
� L N N N-^+ � q•J 9 c a �� n✓✓ .r j r P l r d✓ e r C V G r`T q
N O.t..Liu NL > JS C CJgCw •rY ._W ✓ Nr G
q
r V^ O C p i•`u d T N G d V G b b- p L C O r 0-✓ b 6 nN q+O n 4 V V.O 4 6 M � N a Y•Ln vni N q Z J- J L
b-
'�^ ! •1 O. 6 O C =mo t O a S s q 2 D•✓a t C O ^� L+
NJ - p r
d t O V P ✓+ 4 L q G�' I v �• V
On == _n u N Yn ^C� �wA JpM 9�qt _CG O�Q AP
O r i n W 6 g i 6 L -r y r b `• G, C C
�� 6✓ NO• N O< ✓L n= CC` %% n� Vr �bb0 GN dN qp
Ci r.(rj �� O pOY yr✓ � Cr N✓ VOPd `u✓ia- � � pq �j
q� E q i^ •� p 9 y `a T M 9 L <q i C+ P •-_N „ O •Lid C`•
02
C b0 •N cG� �•Lnp b � e A
+� NY ✓ l0 b ^iC =� �+�9✓\. i A •bid Lr Sb
Py p� V OC �N O �9 G AO
Q 32 O = L N 4 p a N "z g C C V 1 9 b Jn V G 4
� � N^ -✓� 000 + oP` OV•-• AWN rb
�) L". V : ✓ ` G C `. G, f F? n P M✓V N c !� N _G P b a r =
4 r S,r ••' d O i O•n 6 M O w n �p q O
�i '" `r '" 9J� �= L .Gu i^ b` -OLVL qn � _ _s �.•�
o-Z bN- na rnV GM n� Si
qu �-Gp�` qcc oa' � coo 00
t, O N� I� �L P rS •JiyNV Cam- PC - NO N�
G iGJN � G 94 qPG
IF
c >a V -Z N Opp O `-- L C V r
+VJI u•pNa CL"�_C q �'C V A OG qO L V C 9^r:.] C p I O
O _ N
GM
G,O CO
LrV r dO
�: +r0 N ALrG q� ^b C GG_n- VT fq ^ 9
-_q V •✓w S a✓ y > g.2
V�'M N L A p j ✓✓ b ✓iO.Ji N G q q q l
M P b0•` N _q_ �r- V N•nbLpI 9V G I } L QLJ
y C C p Q j N N n_d �� l � T_ •� N N g P� N � b b A 9 O
P nV 9 N � Or rLy•' V 'L Cp J i O _ P P V 6
a C C = p �� � L V N q_ "•✓ ` P w-� lV"�r q _I l l
��` •�i` 9 : T at0 _ 40+ C�Pb pV "•C SN d qi
O O•'• l b N � Z O l•` a✓ c c j b y.L ^ ` E O.`L" w
. Y CpN � GN tV Qb HOM+q O� tMp9 Wb•Jw06I N+ N9N < M- 2N � HNL
. � N1 /•1 V 14
9011(
i
Ills
i
" = C Q2O •fq O�LV dC 76' lC+ P dPV� HI .r r N N �• n — •�u �' .'• G
J •n Y u C T N �r r •' C r q L V
o m 4� � T �� i = n• � � w - = ro a = P` e
y(V�jCr���` U' �V O` C o a• i r V O N � �
^J G
G � q` V M = C L y q u q u C 4' .J ? t
� WI van ••r=y GOT-W � .c oo '> d —N = of
wq
r Y C C D N
dE
T � =r � '� G .s d 4 r •� PP
o " "e D'�r •• c If
VLOY Jq �. C •^` O YJ dd V D
q` e-' N 4 N U q N r O —O q I � C d •_•• d u q
J _= V c
FyEP Y �I • CC =LM P.Ou . i� 00�4 —u
V tN
N C 'u dt �964q L � pv ` CO M_ d dq rJ�VL rN N � VWt 6 >6G YV.N 6�5�6 N "J NOF 90 L l�— Y N n V o W ti V u V V � p UL• �p 2 6 i
OI G N C
N
mM . V
=
Oy q y •J C b .N i ___
L V
oL u
cosa � Nu
4 O =r q E r C
06 Pv n
co 14� ` .- q�$'� ram'"
eL'17 n
Fo v 1
Vy q � O�4 �`6e N Cq nne L I .J Or rn CYC
9 � � _N M r • V b r O Cr 6� O
-L.. s ^y r'.i a c. � � c. i`o b o = - 1{Y:'• W Du c o � .i
tea+ cp wo ae� Oi i•-' Cc� N E J C� i h �.rV
o c� �� MIID o4 °•_ =` a_ o 'ram` � � dc e � e.
p v.
E p p L_ �`� >.O.rr ..O �� L V S an ` 6J Lei PN O �•.c t t L �=L
'J.C.�. `C VI O1� P�L �=p qC •' O.U,C — ¢e 'JC LiC� L pS >
C V '
V �� � 2 Y Y✓ V � q �C p r p I I I I Y L W N p �1 1
f•f _ N
O N
0
i I .m. I .•.� bV __e �� v` .L
21
pq u._6 `y
T m o � e T •• V p •_ _
O _ o o G � v P q`� L v `� •. � m ma � irm c=
•� � v er = c N- ter ' x•- c --_ � ' Gi
E •O 9 � q Lr 6� N NL � l �••r� Vy�
C L O
b 6 L 4 V
^G
V 2_ L i V d V •Nu m =^ E V x V
�N it � mC9VE CTG mL Ei '. `6 CO `G
r.x ua e V a
b- N Gq ` p E v� o i N u � ii i, •' i� er
Ln VO 6T ¢.O•LVQ 6Vy dq GpL IJx pl tVJ.La.0 N6 Ql
N
Pi
I
e
LO
.. o
l G Qib V
p� •• c`oc - ei.T. ono c.= v'�L eccPpN
iL L � o•�.r yr` yGr yp0 gdOCry N
c c � � � TPp �4N c?_ mE ramie rp ovbc _
Lcr LCNr
V � P
-e L o i.'.vi •m.- _ � o�ci Le �M aa �b LG
v o me L m L v N m'.o
Sb< aL do •m+N` c` OV=o to
L r V E
m¢ m rpp� eab- b _
=�V 'V-r L=o Oa NL� ._.. EOad i✓
�' EL
OLO
.".•..m ESN L �.L•
' b P
T°• i u G` evr ' mutes mia u2 C`c.o. re
a q m ' N c a'
b.r G y Vn- L .rL.0.0q G « •O" ^qE �_ ry 4L
yp x qGq� OLLL� L=Vdm Lm. N NULN_` po
L r O r > L V
Q✓ a � 'bto f �4rG f6�- ' O.Vv ��OO 6.n
m C m u g r N�O C\N r i v O ` •r r c N
V_rLL ` Vu CI UG O V_N ONNVL _ _G
N r G V G N O �
uQ � up r= Oc' N G�60i .prO CV VGO Gib Li
w J � G _ ��L O b G e.Lu� � • N T G U N G O¢ m U
6 _ 6q �� C•,G GrC LLgVTb bi.
r C a o N G w c 0•0• c��r� _r_q^ r U L V� G E a
G� O.� M .� 0 >� O r C r r GN Y .n "•�V Y y 7 J N
L S� r0•a mY�_ yyJVx GC'PN Ca'" bV2 � m
i y L a Z. C O M g y <I C
uq P ! NO_C)m r JOG rm Npm Ct. mL `a. mE
C •. — L G M =p_i_y r •J N 1
9 O ^ V O V= P I b
dG� � q V JO Gm C.•>. OY T90 ==rC N—Z `n" Ca_ r� t1l1{ e
O�Cl V 6 O
< VrY �-� 6 y • • • � Q b
� N 1
-• o^ a
♦..+ �.. T y aP ^vvo� N � Y � � - .`..v
�� =� Ci � �� r O q c L V C ` ~' V ✓ L
`�q � � l � Y PLM` ._. G✓. y y L I v C V OL P � L' C O
S
N C _ _ V
�9 l � L _
�oN _
T LIP �V Cu i^ 1V yC ^ 6' OL J O ar0 q 4 Enj d
•O^W U — q V I S.- r L N V� y � V
� 'aT LOI ury V Lr OJ dLQ py TW
6�✓ 4V L� W "Vi d Oq 9 Li = I U'`� 0p� V rV q
r N V 3 6 V y
N
Iz1
a
G .rn O L N d N y Y b d Y
' r• `u P— O L � � � 0 0 O L
} ^L �MY L rOY GP
vG c � I � s oc �' �.r r •e q t d� NY
ca' v 'v rq oqo, � u NyY b
L .0.. K Vrp Uy p` O � b rr0 } dT
c
Llu = L nM� rc ` o.r Y T o � Yq
_✓I ( rrc iml.
0 L 'O= 4 a yams' o` q
-_ __r _ q
G C r n p C `
y
O
� - LOB Q y q N rl�
Cc—
L r o
^• RL
q c c : oy c ..o a 1 a v ua r
rL
nn b Y N b
_V r ✓ Y N `r o r
11T C 1 E G N
f I�IY•Q-•r-
1
V
9 r
O q
V p I C
L �L +
r E 1 p r L J
nN v
pa
o � r 4
• � c I � c -
6JV
n
�i
c e_' � .��. a� v o•
>y V
�� on is cd a M a a o_ c c 40
Qj
.ci
Y_ 9
V V � V• > L y i q O M
b L E V I air f
`
n
z f
15
d9
q p
� Ld Ld Or. ril � d� Ve0 ` lV ` qy C
6 WG < 6
` N
o
CITY OF
RANCHO Cf:CA-V10\GA
�► 'G CG1LISSIOC; `NL\ Nr
WEDNESDAY
197: September 26, 1984 7:06 p.m.
LIONS PARKS COMMUNITY CENTER
k 9161 BASE LINE
{. RANCHO CUCAMIONGA, CALWORNIA
E
L pledge of Allegiance
I L Roll Call
Commissioner Barker Commissioner Rempe:
Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Eltout
Commissioner MCNiei --
III. Announcements
IV. Approval of Minutes
July 25, 1984
V. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine
p +' and non-controversial. ney will be aci.ed on by the Commission at
(t one time without discussion. If anyone has co-cerr, over any item,
. y it should be removed for discussion.
QA. TIME EXTENSION FOR TF'?fATNE TRACT 11864 & 11805 -
ALLEN -A development of 71, ^andomimums on 11.43 acres of
land located at the northwest corner of Highland and Haven
Avenues.
B. PD 83-01 - CALMARK - An agreement to provide access
from Heritage Park to the shopping center.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW 84-43 - BARTON - The development o one 2-story
and one 3-story office building totaling 50,000 sq. ft. on 3.2
acres of Lnd in the Industrial Park (Subarea 7) District
located on the west side of Utica between Aspen Street and
Civic Center Drive - APN 208-351-21.
ii=:
WM1
D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 11853 -
BARRATT, IRVINE DIVISION_ - A total development of 72
condominiums on 5.71 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 du/ac) located on the north side of
19th Street at Ramona Avenue - APN 202-171-41.
VL 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
by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project.
E. VARIANCE 84-03 - AMERICAN SENTINEL SELF-STORAGE,
INC. - A request to reduce the front yard setback of 25 feet
to a minimum of 20 feet along 8th Street for a 45,546 sq. ft.
self-storage facility on 2.45 acres -,f land located at the
northeast corner of 8th Street and Baiter Avenue -
207-271-01.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84•-17 - AMERICAN SENTINEL
SELF-STORAGE INC. - The development of a 45,546 square
oot self-storage facility and 1040 sq. ft. caretaker's quarters
on 2.45 acres of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1)
category, located at the northeast corner of 8th Street and
Baker Avenue - APN 207-271-01.
G. ENVI::ONXENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 84-27 - BARMIA AN - The total development of
five multi-tenant industrial buildings totaling 60,000 sq. ft., a
70,300 sq. ft. mini-warehouse facility, and a gas station on
11.03 aces of land in the General Industrial (Subarea 1)
category located on the west side of Vineyard, between
Arrow and 9th Street - APN 207-262-44.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL il4AP 8587 -
REVITI - A divi:ion of 1.04 acres into 2 parcels in .he Very
Low 2 du/ac) Development District located or, the southeast
corner of Mayberry Avenue and Rancho Street - APN 201-
111-35.
L ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 8680 -
M RRIS & SEARLES -A division of 3.177 acres of land into 3
parcels within the Low 9iedium 0-8 du/ac) Development
District located on the east side of Ramona Avenue, south of
Baseline Road -APN 1077-031-3.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
12809 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A division of
100.16 acres of land into 11 lots within the Terra Vista
Planned Community for City park purposes, located on the
north side of Baseline Road, between Milliken Avenue and the
Deer Creek Channel - APN 2G2-221-142-25.
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASS£SS:vIENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03-A - H do H INVESTMENTS - A request to
amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density
Residential (2-4 du/ac) to Medium High Residential (14-24
du/ac) on 13.55 acres of land, locatee on the south side of
Feron Boulevard, between Turner and Ramona - APN 209-
085-02, 03, 14.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03-C -VOLBEDA - A request to amer_d the
General Plan Land Use Map rom Low D=_rsity Residential (2-
4 du/ac) to Low. :decium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac) on
4.73 acres of land located on the south side of Arrow
Highway, between Sierra Madre and Comet - APN 207-222-
08.
M. ENV7RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-03-C - VOLBEDA - A request to
amei:d the Development District Map from "L" (2--4 du/ac) to
"Lb " (4-8 du/ac) for 4.78 acres of land generally located on
the south side of Arrow highway between Comet and Sierra
Madre - APN 207-222-08.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03-B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from
Medium Density Residential (4-14 du/ac)/General Industrial
to Industrial Park on 18.8 acres of land located on the south
side of 9th Street and Baker -APX 207-211-04 through 0, 17
through 20, 359 37, 38, 13, 44.
O. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 84-03-B - CITY OF RANCHO
UCAMON A - A request to amend the Deveiopment
District Map from "Mr (8-14 du/ac) and Industrial Specific
Plan (General Industrial Subarea 1) to Industrial Specific Plan
(Industrial Park) for 18.8 acres of land located at the south
" side of 9th Street and Baker - APN 207-211-04 through 10, 17
through 20, 359 37, 38, 43, and 44.
L'gC.r_
»En
P. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 84-03 - D - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
-• A request to amend the General Flan Land Use Map from
Medium Density Residential (4-14 du/ac) to Low Medium
Density Residential (4-8 du/ac) or 15.8 acres of land located
on the west side of :'_ellman Avenue south of 7th Street -
APN 209-161-04, 16, 23 and 210-341-7 2.
VIP. New Business
Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMEI.T
RE.'IEW 84-34 - O`DONNELL - The development of a 91,700
sq. ft. warehouse/distribution building on 4.5 acres of lr-nd in
the General Industrial.(Subarea 11) category located at the
northeast corner of 6th and Pittsburgh - APN 229-261-44,
VPPL Publie Comments
This is the time and place for the gerernl public to address the
Commissiom items to be discussed here are those which do not
already appear on this agenda.
IS. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Admb;istrative Regulations
that set an 11 p.m. adjournment time. If items ao beyond that
timt, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Comr fission_
�;I.
e
"VICINITY MAP
' a
r '-
r-- e
:
FIYap. � � •
N�.y./. CMYK(nCGCSYI..Pn,
i
n 1
wn �
I CFIcf6r � Z• �--- =�3
COLLCCE
1` � • —J.,'
./l fgnT.n f. ti �I
s
• II
j � i • • Vm.1eFJ� C`/
hrau.. v.\ a: � � 5 � . i � • i
A /
II lOM$ OIN.{4 CITY "ALL I
�� � � //w•1.�•+�••ti��Y MYLYY/Y/Y/�• YIO.I
/
w
L
a41_ J
® Ts T
C VCIYO. \•GUTSY/ COYYfY •EG�ONIL V•Y/ / • )j`•
(IN7,Iw1O INlENNNTIONIL II20091
CITY OF RAnCife CLWAMONrA
d .