Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978/10/19 - Agenda Packet. ■y O M! � ra s�. o -1 do �c 0 �d R C7 f. •r `, •x/11. t 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call: RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CCMLISSION AGENDA Thirsday, October 19, 1978, 7:00 p.m. Community Services Building 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. W Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Jones 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Public Hearings A. Site Approval No. 78 -02 - Request for an Aluminum Recycling Plant in an M -2 zone generally located on the north side of Sixth Street between Archi- bald and Turner Avenue - Request submitted by Reynolds Aluminum B. General Plan - Certain residential and commercial designations will be discussed. 5. Old Business A. Modification of Tract Conditions for Regency Equestrian Estates - Tracts 9378 -79. 6. New Business 7. Communications A. Communication from Chaffey College G. Adjournment I CITY- COUNTY pT,ANNTNC'7 COMMISSIONERS CONFERENCE" Fall 178 Conference October 2G, 1978 The meeting will be held at the Norton Air Force Base Officer's Club, San Bernardino. 6:30 P.M. No Host Social Hour 7:30 P.H. Invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, Welcoming Remarks Dinner Roasted Half- Chicken with Sauce, (the price of the dinner is $7.00 which includes tax & tip). Program A workshop presentation of San Bernardino County's proposed General Plan & Development Code. Note - The concept of a parcel specific Gen ?ral Plan & integrated Development Code is both new & exciting. The county's efforts to implement this innovative concept will undoubtedly be a challenging task. Since the county's planning efforts affect the cities & their spheres of influence, input from the various city Planning Commissions on this document is most essential and desirable. Association Business is s9 Reservations must be made no later than October 23 (three days in advance of conference). This will enable us to have a guest list at Norton Air Force Base Gate. Please mail reservation and check for.S7.00 made payable to Officer's Open Mess, and send to the San Bernardino County Planning Department, 1111. East Mill Street,Building 1, San Bernardino, Ca. 92415, to the attentio. of Alice Bowman. If you have questions please call Alice, (714) 383 -1215, or Mary Hartman (714) 383 -3474. CITY GF' R11r 'Q 'COMMUNITY [CVCI.oPMLNT DEpl'. Or, T 113 1973 AM 7181911011hVil(213015,6 A CITY - COUNTY PLANNING..COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION September 28, 1978 Acting Planning Director Rancho Cucamonga P O Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 The impacts of Proposition 13 have drastically affected the San Bernardino County Planning Commissioners Association in that many cities have been forced to withdraw any financial support to the organization. However, in response to an inquiry made to the office of Planning and Research regarding training programs for Planning Commissioners, we have been advised that a small grant is available to the Office of Planning and Research for conducting Planning Commission training sessions. It seems that the San Bernardino County area is eligible to receive one of the six approved California training sessions which quite coincidentally could be held on the same date the San Bernardino County Planning Commissioners Association had already set aside for a conference, i.e. November 9 and 10. The O.P.R. has a two stage training program, one for staff and one for commissioners. Some of the topics for the staff sessions include: California Environmental Quality Act Recent amendments and AB 884 General Plan Adequacy Zoning & Subdivision Consistency Meeting the State Housing Element Requirement. M n� .'O The suggested topics for Planning Commissioners are: Basics of Local Planning Law Roles & Responsibilties of the Planning Commissioner How To Be A More Effective Planning Commissioner What To Expect From Your Planning Staff. The staff for the training would be provided by the Office of Planning and Research, Department of Housing and Community Development, Attorney General's Office and Warren Jones of the Institute of Local Government. With such an impressive group of instructors, it would appear to be well worth our grouping together for a couple days to take advantage of this opportunity for priority one training. Please advise me of'both your desire for a program and approximately how many staff and Planning Commission members could attend. C -2 �+T .tiith Site Apprrval aSSDfBLY OF PLASTIC MU O1%TxJ S � r, ���" 6/7/( CONTRACTOR'S.SIURAGE YARD - Conditions, on file y 8/26 /%I DOG WTEL 5/27/35 SPACE CON%gWrIQ.N CENTER: minimm 5 acres - cash bond required 7/22/65 S'� AP MEET IN DRIVE -� AOdr =�' ri C'.' orn..•�/ + -r 3/25/71 CUITOOR ARTS & CR.IFTS E.XFOSITION f, SALES ARFA (Weekends only Noon to sunset) Sanitary Facilities etc. 7/6/72 9.-ZV MET, AN71QUE AUM PAJUS AND CARS 3/30/72 _ MINI — STonn�E WA- RENOUSe yllol„ 6 �J ;';, (.C-7 z T►(1 Page 2 P. C. Assoc. If enough interest is indicated, San Bernardino County would provide a place to meet, and all printing and mailing and coordination with O.P.R. Along these same veins the San Bernardino County Planning Department would like to present its new General Plan and accompanying Development Code to the cities for advice and comment. As you know we are working on a parcel specific type of General Plan and a development code that would replace our existing General Plans and Zoning Code. City Planners ;nay see many advantages for themselves in this simplified approach to complying with State mandated elements while at the same time implementing the policies of the decision makers. Again, if sufficient interest can be generated, we would like to set the evening of October 26, 1978 to make the presentation to both Planning Department staffs and Planning Commissiuners. A place will be located as central as possible for the meeting since it will obviously be an out -of- pocket expense for all. In summary I need to know: (1) A. Do you want a Planning training session? B. If so, how many from your organization or Commission would attend on November 9 and 10? (2) A. Would you be willing to participate in a workshop session on aan Bernardino's new General Plan concept and development code? B. If so, how many from your organization would attend on the evening of October 26? I realize this is short notice, but I just recently received notice of the availability of the training and felt I could schedule a City /County meeting on the new General Plan concept under cover of the same letter. Please let me have your response by October 11. Thanks. Mary Hartman Coordinator City /County Planning Commissioners Association MH:br C +Ty OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DomtAUtUTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 0T SEP 29 1978 PM Mary Hartman 7�Eigi »�u���1�2�3t4�5�6 1111 East Mill Street -Bldg. 1(EIA) San Bernardino, Ca. 92415 STAFF REPORT DATE: October 19, 1978 T0: Planning Commission Ll FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: STTF. APPROVAL NO. 78-07, Request for an Aluminum Recycling Plant in an M -2 zone generally located on the north side of Sixth Street between Archibald and Turner Avenue - Request submitted by Reynolds Aluminum. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: As the Planning Commission will recall, the Reynolds Aluminum Company has requested site approval of a 8,325 square foot aluminum recycling plant at the above described location. The Com- mission will remember that the applicant was requested to submit noise level measurements of other similar recycling plants. The measurements were not received in time for review at the October 11, 1978 meeting, thus the item was continued to the October 19, 1978 meeting. The Commission also expressed concern about the architectural treatment of the building. Staff was directed to work with the applicant to revise the exterior elevation plans so as to allow for a more aesthetically pleasing building. ANALYSIS: The applicant has submittee -tnise level measurements from the Reynolds plant in Hayward, California (Exhibit "C "). Staff has reviewed these measurements and feels that increased noise attenuation measures are needed in the Rancho Cucamonga plant. The applicant has agreed to use further attenuation techniques so as to reduce the noise level at any property line below 65 DBA. .A letter from Reynolds stating this intention is enclosed (Exhibit "D"). The applicant has also agreed to revise the exterior elevation plans of the building. The applicant proposes to extend the mansard roof to the top of the building and increase the width so as to turn the corners of the build- ing. Further, the applicant proposes to replace the chain link fence in the front of the property with a decorative block wall. Staff is recom- mending that the block wall design be approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Finally, the applicant proposes to install a 3 foot wt.de planter along the front of the building. A revised elevation plan will be presented by the applicant at this meeting. 0 • Site Approval bo. 78 -02 Page 2 October 19, 1978 RECOMMENDATIOti: The Planning Division recommends approval of Resolution No. ?8 -12 based on the findings and.conditions contained'therein, should the exhibit satisfy the concerns of the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:SR:deb r: STAFF REPORT DATE: October 11, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: SITE APPROVAL 78 -02 - Request for an Aluminum Recycling Plant in an M -2 zone generally located on the north side of Sixth Street between Archibald and Turner Avenue - Request submitted by Reynolds Aluminum BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting site approval of an 8,325 square font recycling plant in a M -2 zone on the above described property. The plant is designed to break down aluminum brought to it by truck from collection stations throughout Southern California. After breakdown, the aluminum would be stored in a 45' high storage silo and then transported by train to melting plants back east. The land use designation on the proposed General Plan for this site is minimum impact industrial. The zoning for the site and aurrounding pro- perty is M -2. The existing lard use for the area is currently vacant except for the adjacent east property which has light industrial buildings under construction. ANALYSIS: The operation of the recycling plant would be conducted within an enclosed building. Further, the applicant proposes to incorporate noise attenuation techniques into the plant to minimize noise impact. The applicant has assured staff that the noise generated by the plant would not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. To support their contention, the applicant ties submitted noise level statistics for their plant located in the City of Hayward. Staff has reviewed these statistics and has determined that the noise levels are within reasonable limits for a minimum impact Industrial use. The plant would require eight parking spaces and the applicant has provided eighteen (18). Staff recommends that the f lve (5) spaces located at the southeast corner of the property in front of the entrance gates be replaced with landscaping. Further, Staff recommends an increase in size of the landscape island in front of the building allowing a twenty -five (25) feet aisle width for the driveway. K1 ] Y: SITE APPROVAL 78 -02 0 CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was published in the Cucamonga Tines on September 28, 1978. In addition, property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified of said hearing. Staff has not received any response from such notification. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends approval of Resolution No. 78 -12 based on the findings and conditions listed therein. Respectfully, submitted, A JC'LAM��,r Directo c r of Community Development JL:SH:nm u e • REYNOLDS ALUMINUM RECYCLING COMPANY October 12, 1978 Air. Bill Hoffman Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Hoffman: You are in receipt of recent decibel readings recorded at Reynolds' Recycling facility in Hayward, California, pro- vided by George Lazich, our Regional Engineer. Reynolds' Rancho Cucamonga facility should be in compliance with the 65 decibel maximum at the property line location, with the exception of the street noise level at the front of our proposed building. I mention exception, relative to street traffic readings we have recorded in excess of 78 decibels. The position of the equipment in our Cucamonga facility will also be further recessed inside the building, as compared to Hayward. You will note from Mr. Lazichs' sketch, that on the rail -side of our building we had readings below the 65 D. B. maximum. On the customer side of the building, we would anticipate between 65 and 75 D. B.'a due to the relative position of our machinery. P. O. BOX 54075 5670 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90054 213/937 -3W0 Y a.. ti I 0 Page Two Mr. Sill Hoffman October. 12, 1978 I sincerely hope that this amplification will assist the Planning Commission in approving our plan to build on this site. If I can provide additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, J. A. Duncan Western Regional Manager JAD:lms cc: Messrs. M. E. Kemph- Reynolds C. C. Lazich- Reynolds A. P. Storrs, Jr.- Morris, Beggs, Simpson 0 K a STAFF REPORT DATE: October 19, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN ISSUES RESIDENTIAL 1. Arec: "Reserve Area" Issue: A number of property owners - xpressed concern regarding the meaning of reserve urea. Factors: The land use element designates this reserve area primarily because it is remote from urban services and need not he developed in the near future_ Furthermore, there is lack of information about ownership. • i.e. the sIze—of ho] in and utit tee, err, rormheta ccrostraints n , etc. Furthermore V o Chc c. tv to exert any ly since the sh re o influence issue has not been resolved and - will not be resole unt a ter the adoption of tl n use eT.n.en t must a po n e out t to t sere is no marked change in ropoLVraphy at the city boundary, therefore, the development north of the city limits raises the issue of compatibility with land use within the city limits. No refinement in delinea- tion of land use may be made at this time with these unknown f actors. It seems Obvious that the 1?nd use will lit, _ residential but otter environmental data is needed before any approvals are ranted and there should be assurances that there WITT'b a Iaarge enough coumunit built over a short tlmc to supportt the cost of prov c r services to such dcvolopment. 'ierc ore, in the interim only large parcels should be requlrede This means that any zi,ulnp, t-stabl Ished for this: area should reflect larger Parcels. menr ran hr assessed in this area. It is agreed that owners are cotirled to know under what- conditions they will be able to develop their land but such conditions can not be detailed without further study, nnmtil the development oC n growth tnauagement program on the rate of growth is known. CtdAYA11 MAN isf:u6� Page+ 2 It appeare that that there are f 0 in "reserve area" somehow has a connotation that development can never occur an such property. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Planning Commission to consider -a "study area" designation instead of The text coul�hen indicate that a pre - ominate use would _b�low density residential and that the city thre c three yearn ham been selected in order to allow time for the Planning Commission to develop Brcvtb management policies develo went standards and other nece ry rdinances and remaining documents o �o en It should be noted that any growth management policies may deter- mine the time and conditions of development approval for the area anyway. ._An- e_saessment district for an ar gh Ions iitlative on the property owners part and commitment to finan- cially support needes studies. STAFF RE=4MENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission delete the resQrve area designations and replace the same with "study area ". The text to be changed to indicate predominately lower density residential uses but that rapid urbanization of land within the area is to be discouraged until: 1. A firm resolution of the LAFCO sphere of influence for the City and agreement with the County on development standards and densities, etc. on both sides of the city line. 2. Identification of environmental constraints and their mitigation or resolution; i.e., the resolution of flood control deli or t area should be established or determined) 5t ' 3. The fiscal impacts to the city of development including the critical issues of timing and utility extensions need to be determined. 4. The completion of a city zoning ordinance and completion of the remaining General Plan elements. 5. The city will initiate a study and general plan amendment within three years from date of adoption of a zoning map or unless such a study and amendment can be made with props my owners beating the cast of such study prior to the three year time period. Large parcel zoning should be required to discourage premature conversion to urban densities in the interim. 2. Arms: Area bounded by the Devore Freeway and East '.venue south of Vic- toria Street in Etiwanda P.1ge l 0 General Plan Designation: Windrow Issue: The property 9gwners disagrees with the Windrow designation and desires higt¢ density. Factors: The question of density in the Etiwanda area has been discussed numerous times in the past and residents of the area desire a uniform land use pattern relating to the Windrow density des- cribed within the General Plan. RECCt4• YDATIM: Retain the Windrow designation for this area. CC*94ERCM ISSUES 1. Area: Between the SMlthern Pacific Station and the Junior High School on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue General Plan Designation: Windrow Issue: The property owner desires-commercial Factors: The property owner indicates there is an opportunity to create a commercial environment conducive to the creation of an historic village for the Etiwanda area and that such an opportunity should be recognized on the land use plan. The concept of a historic village focusing upon any unique architecture of the area and providing opportunities for supportive commercial enterprises relating thereto is one which requires much advance planning and detail development proposals. Depending on the size of such a proposal a specific plan may be necessary to explore the multiple facets of land use relationships, traffic and circulation, compatibility of land uses and the uniqueness of the development to the historical character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Windrow designation be retained until such time as a specific proposal whether on a project basis or on a plan basis be submitted for city consideration. 2. Area: Northwest and southeast corner of 19th and Archibald General Plan Designation: high density residential, medium density resi- dential Issue: Property owners desire commercial designation Factors: The Planning Consultant was directed not to recognize those areas which are not desirable tor commercial center use unless s es were spec ca ly committed or 7 eve opment as a result of site plan approval or the issuance of XMitgr Gr;7f•.GAL PI-AN iS I i0 e Page h - No projects have been approved for these two sites although withhold zone changes are pending on both parcels. Agth.r roperty owners are currently in the process of develo in a s er p an o approve a ou approves nave been given The Consultant and Planning Commission have discussed the issue of multi -co n develo nt and the fact that the greater number of corners develop or re MM commeretat , ater the potential for congestion of an intersection. -Such con es- chibald. Furthermore, ae guch�ites_ are directly across the street from snot er p - hoppinn center of a n1m7 m sr Mature it beG4lmea queSrionabie Wnecni the City has the ability to ulti le commeiciaS`C'EntVYW ' pf this mature 9lT'hTn__s_uc_Fi__cIose proximity especially since the comm ad centers are numerM in Me Alta Logs rea. While this latter factor s a market consideration it is e a commercial center can pose future nuisance factors for the community. The consultant indicates that neighborhood community shopping centers anchored by a major supermarket requires an average of 9,000 residents in its trade area thereby justifying 13 centers in Rancho Cucamonga at full development. its Loma now has three in operation and two more under construction. Cucamonga has It is however, recognized that there are sites within the City which developers have announced plans for future development. The Planning Commission has yet to ake a firm statement re ar the issue of such neighborhood she in centers whet e Mould be allowed to be constructed within the concentrated area of * oma. w [ zonee snot legal until the ordinance s een adopted and no vested rights in continuing development are present unless a building permit has been issued on a parti- cular piece of property. The Planning- Commission should establish a firm policy as to the rejection or selection of multiple corner sites. RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission rejects the sites, the General Plan designations should be retained. If the Planning Commission desires in some respect to recognize outstanding commercial center projects, cri- teria should be determined so that a selection may he made. 3. Area: Southeast corner and southwest corner of Foothill and Haven General Plan Designation: Southwest corner mixed use. Southeast corner industrial Issues: The property owners want commercial center designat:ons. W-N; &'AT, I -LAN 1 +Slit' Page 5 0 actors: The intersection of Foothill and Haven is a critical one since it is a juncture of two major arterials in the community. It is also a location for a regional shopping center alternative thereby making the intersection more critical in terms of access and efficiency flow of traffic. The consultant indicates that a site in any quadrant of the Foothill /Haven intersection would be suitable if a regional shopping center site is not to be r reserved in the northeast quadrant. A regional center at this ovation would generate additional traffic to and from the lter augmenting the normal traffic that.would be utilized this intersection going to and from Chaff ey College as well as residential traffic and industrial traffic of the area and intercommunity traffic through Foothill Blvd. Based upon an older traffic model that the county had developed, Mr. Blayney states that "two centers across the street would overload an intersection that barely would be adequate with double left turn lanes and an 8 phase signal, if a regional center is built" Furthermore, there remains the issue of the design and "tenant" quality of any subordinate center that might adversely affect the future viability of a regional center. While the aesthetic influences of a smaller center might be addressed through maintaining high development standards, the traffic issue remains an outstanding one irregardless of project design. Therefore any development of shopping centers on corner sites other than the northeast corner should be on a "show me" basis with full traffic studies. RECOMMENDATION: Retain General Plan designation on all four corners. 4. Area: West side of Etiwanda Avenue north of Highland Avcnue General Plan Designation: Windrow Issue: Property.owner desires neighborhood commercial center. Factors: General Plan establishes alternative sites for neighborhood community centers and establishes these alternatives based upon their relationship to other sites as well as to tr -tir location in relationship to the population distribution of the community. Given the present concept of the Etiwanda Avenue area, the consultant has estahllshed alternative shop- ping center sites south of the proposed Foothill Freeway. Until other factors change, the feneral plan designation should be retained. RECIhiMENDATION: Retain Windrow designation. GENI!I:AL PLAN 1. 5lIE :� Page 6 5. Area: Area abounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, Archibald Avenue, and the rear portion of Alpha Beta Shopping Center General Plan Designation: High Density Issue: Property owner desires commercial. Currently under construction on the south side of the Southern cif is tracks is a retail lumber sales outlet. Furthermore, orage uses are adjacent to the tracks toward the rear of this proposed site. Since Clie site is situated between two commer- cial uses and the Southern Pacific tracks, it becomes questionable whether this environment can be conducive toward high density residential. In concept of course higher densities are encouraged . near commercial development in order to provide a supportive relationship between two types of land uses as well as create a more vibrant character around focal nodes. General retail commercial uses, however, generate trip generation ation aW-Tu movements o t e Maier arterial furt er �a mpose'g"burden intersection and currently generates a great deal of traffic. This traffic would further increase with the construction of the "committed" shopping center on the southeast corner of Archibald and Baseline. It is therefore desirable that if the site is not conducive for residential use, lower traffic generation commercial uses be allowed thereby reducing the impact upon that portion of Archibald Avenue. Proper zoning can address this particular issue. Another alternative is administrative professional type uses that could be related to the existing commercial. Thus an A -P type zoning under a mixed use designation can be achieved. RECOMMENDATION: Modify general plan with either those commercial designa- tions or mixed use designation. 6. Area: Southeast corner of Highland and Haven General Plan Designation: Mixed Use Issue: Property owner desires commercial designation. Other residents don't want any commercial on a_x intersection. Factors: This particular area contains alternative neighborhood shopping center site!; as supportive uses to the mixed use and higher den- sities as well as Chaffey College itself north of the proposed Foothill Freeway. The reason an alternative site was not designated on the southeast corner of Highland and Haven is that alternative sites already shown on the northern G d: page. 7 side of Highland Avenue, these have been indicated on the north side of Foothill Freeway because of the site relation- ships with the Foothill Freeway and the other uses already mentioned adjacent to and near Chaffey College. However, Chaffey College has raised the issue of proper land use around the college from the colleges` perspective. The alternative shopping center sites as presented in the General Plan should be retained unless the Planning Commission deter- mine that other land uses around Chaffey College are not appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Retain General Plan designation but re- evaluate if any additional changes are made in the land use around Chaffey College A nd the area between Chaffey College and the Foothill Freeway. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development VT. if 1' STAFF REPORT a DATE: October 19, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF TRACT CONDITIONS FOR REGENCY EQUESTRIAN ESTATES - TRACTS 9378 -79 The Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 11, 1978, continued• review of the request for modification of wall requirements on the above mentioned tracts. This was continued to the October 25, 1978 meeting. However, the applicant is :.- ner_iencing some time problems and may pos- sibly have additional information for review by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Therefore, he is requesting that the Planning Commis- sion consider the new information at this meeting. • Reapectfu ly submitted, • JACK LAM, Director of. _ Community Development JL:HV:deb P P STAFF REPORT DATE- October 11, 1978 TO* Planning Commission LJ FROM-. -lack Lam. Director of Community Dvvelopm�nt S11R.11:C '1': Modification of Tract Conditions for Regency Equestrian Estates - Tracts 9378 -79 Regency Equestrian Estates is located at the northeast intersection of Archibald and Hillside Road. As a condition for approval of this particular tract, the County required that "a standard or approved block wall or other acceptable alternative will be required along the rear lots on Hillside Road ". The particular : ubdivision, as the name denote:. is equestrian oriented and therefore the design concept has been to provide a rural character.. The developer feels that the requirement for such a block wall. would destroy the rural .character of the setting. The County requirement was not for the purpose of flood protection but solely for the purpose of providing "screening ". An you notice from the attached site plan the lots for these tracts are eleisted so that the homes would be situated above the site line of the required block wall. Furthermore, directly behind the block wall is a bridle tra!1 and behind the bridle trail is a growth of citrus trees that were preserved on the site. Further up the slope are the homes. I: is the desire of the developer to have the block wall requirement removed from the conditions of-approval and substi- tute the wall with a split rail type fencing along both sides of the bridle trail. path. Such a fence alternative would be compatible with the character of the development, as well as be more rustic than a solid block wall. Staff feels that because of the physical character of the building site and the design concept of the subdivision itself, the alternative of the split rail fence on either side of the bridle path would be more appropriate to the sur- roundings than a solid block wall. RECONMENDAT1oll: Staff recommends that the Planning Ccanmission amend the con- ditions of approval to delete the requirement of a solid block wall along the perimeterof Hillside Avenue and instead require a split rail type fence be constructed on both sides of the bridle easement.. Resplectfully s,bmltted, JAC LAM, Director of . - -- — - --� Community Development JG: tun 1 i t *km I 0 c, September 12, 1978 CIT c Y of R NCH o t 6 a CDMMUNi7•Y DEV(0 U � j 0ONQ4 SEP 1's 1.4i6 Mr. Jack Lam, Planning Director 819�Ip1U11 py City of Rancho Cucamonga # 1�r21314151g 934U Baseline Road Unit A Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730 Re: Regency Equestrian Estates - Tracts 9378 -79 County Requirement for Block Wall - Hillside Avenue Dear Mr. Lam: Confirming your recent meeting with John Miller we are enclosing a copy of the conditions covering tract 9378 as set forth by the San Bernardino County Planning Camission. These conditions state "A standard or approved block wall or other acceptable alternative will be required along the rear of lots on Hillside Road ". We have done our utmost to develop this project with a minimum impact on the environment. The project consists of 33 single family hones on one acre lots (vs. one half acre zoning). We were able to save many of the citrus, eucalyptus, and other trees on the site. The project will be surrounded by a bridle trail ranging from 12' to 24' and wider With lodge pole fence on both sides of the bridle trail. Because of this double fence, the existing and planned landscaping, the topo�7rapny (most lots are well above Hillside with a steep rear slope) and regulations concerning use of the bridle trail via the Homeowners Association we believe that the added protection and/ or security of a 6' concrete block wall is unnecessary. We further believe that it would serve to destroy part of the rural atmosphere that we have attempted to preserve. We therefore respectfully request that the Rancho Cucamonga City Council review this county requirement and consider accepting our pre sent lodge pole fence in place of the block wall. 4010 Palos Verdes Drive North No. 101, Rolling Hills Estates, CalifornIA 90274 (213) 377.0955 Either Mr. Miller or I would be happy to review this further with you or the Council. Associated Engineers can supply you with any required copies of plans. Please contact Rick Martin or Bob Mills at 986 -5818. Your attention to our request is sincerely appreciated. Sincerely, �Jofin Chavanne General Partner Regency Equestrian Estates CC: Bob Mills, Associated Engineers R & L Harris, General Contractor John Miller Encl: 1 set of Landscape Plans -2 Polaroid pictures of bridle trail fencing 2 Polaroid pictures of tract looking north from Hillside Rd. Copy of letter from Environmental Improvement Agency (7- 28 -76) CHAFFEY COMMU1 COLLEGE DISTRICT 5885 HAVEN AVENUE, ALTA LUMA, CALIFORNIA 91701 TELEPHONE: (714) 987 -1737, 872.4484, 735.0242 October 13, 1978 4F RAh;Ct ?,) CUf,AMONGA CI] M-4LINM 100 OPMENT DEPT. UCT 16 1978 ItAI PM 7i8(9(10i11(1ZtI (213(�(51s Mr. Herman Rempel, Chairman 9 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Rempel: We have had a number of discussions at Chaffey College about the decision of the Planning Commission to change the designation of the property east, west and south of the campus to medium density residential. A position statement regarding that designation is being prepared through the Faculty Senate and the President's Advisory Council. The Board of Trustees will be asked to approve the statement at its regular meeting on October 19, 1978. Assuming Board { approval, I would appreciate the opportunity to present the proposal and hack -up information to the Planning Commission at yotir October 25 meeting. Faculty representatives may also be present. Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, .Tames L. Catanzaro Superintendent /President CC: L. Wasserman, City Manager J. Lam; Director, Community Developmentt/ P. Hartley, President, Faculty Senate ROAROOF TRUSTEES: Lgtar Sfrah, M.D.. President Kenneth" Kepler, Vice President An Affir.nativ Aotien /Equal OPPorrunity Employe, and nistrict Sharon King.Jeffers, See,etay Serving Also Lo.no, China, Corona, C..camongn, Etiwondn, Jonsas L. Catti.Vdro, Ph.D. Herschel R. Gleam Fontana, Guasti, Montclair, 69, Haldy, Saperirdoodent of 11.a District Clarence Satrttiers Norco, Ontar.n nod UptanJ President of the C'Ile" 7n D t.1 E I� Ali Ail ar t i I i I 0 1 5 i • ;E7:.,� �. T 1 tsieua w[un 1. Jc r r z 5 J - � t s 1 J LLI 1 5 i • ;E7:.,� �. T 1 tsieua w[un 1. Jc r uj I YI 1 17F iuuh1111Y111 4rl final P C ra!,;ur Ir r cty ;; / ° C71GA �Mi�( Ifngpagf Opf' QUallty rtor..Lrci r,rPr. +';l' I,) lyre pm Z�IIr9;101111121Ii2�g�4�5 -r [ s.. I i lot F I i I t ,_ , r ;SCF.A, I i "r A Ss REYNOLDS ALUMINUM P.WWLING COMPANY {FyF5 "t 20291 PRODUCTION AVENUE HAVWARD, CALIFORNIA 94545 . 415/785.1730 N 1•L•{ UNE LOT 1.113 GfaG ♦vv1P� R�'v1 y Tee A -- y4o.az• �• 0 5 — f d a PAR C E L T N I 12.0a Ac. �� d . C4/ sN'ION COPT. LO TS 51G, -_ Ld 'r M 11 f 12.404C1c 9 cucAMOtiC.A \ 7 T6 I44 W AT SSC 110N X Q a N' W U t.l t_ PpszcEL.S 3 4 G 1 r PM N'- -19ln PM t'! 45110* [y a l9 m A m ) Q tcoG.ae i 7i GaO.�a• 10 1 ALPHA BETA =' w THRIFTY DRU& cc 0 SHOPPING LENTEW I .4 too P.M. N' 793 • , . u1 d P.M.B. 8� 10. � I 1 1 1 ' y `1i4 4- sh%F -L1NE ST. 3° RESOLUTTON NO. 78 -12 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCANONCA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE APPROvAL NO. 78 -02 ALLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALUMINUM PLANT IN A M -2 ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET BETWEEN TURNER AVENUE AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE. WHEREAS, on the 30th day of August, 1978, an application was filed and accepted on the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 19th day of October, 1978, the Planning Commission reviewed the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS,FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. :. The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga makes the following findings: I. That the site for the proposed us. is adequate iq size and shape, which shall mean to accommodate said use and all yards, open spaces, setbacks, walls and fences, parking areas, loading areas, landscaping, and other features requirEd by the Zoning Ordinance to adjust said use with abutting land and uses in the neighborhood, 2. That the site for the proposed use has adequate access, which shall mean that the site relates to streets and highways properly designed as to width and improvement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 3. Thac the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof, which shall mean that the use will not generate excessive noise, vibration, traffic or other dis- turbance. 4. That the lawful conditions stated in the approval are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort convenience and general welfare. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on Octobei 11, 1978. SFCTION 3: Tile Planning Commission sets the following conditions on the above described project: Foothill Fire District: Tile following items will be required by this agency Prior to commencing construction of any building(s) or structure(s). 1. Two (2) sets of building and plot plans shall be submitted to this department. 2- The required fire flow will be 3000 gallons per minute for a duration of 3 hours. 3. Calculations indicating that the fire flow re- quirement will be met shall be submitted to this department prior to plan approval. 4. Water mains and appurtenances shall be installed In accordance with the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District. S. This department shall be notified to witness an ac- ceptance test of the water system. 6. Fire protection water systems and fire hydrants shall be provided and installed in accordance with requirements of this district. 7. A minimum 24 foot access shall be provided around the proposed building. a. In lieu of the 24 foot access on the west side- of the building, this department will accept a fully automatic fire sprinkler system in the office area of said building. 8. This department will, require an on -site private hydrant, at a location to be determined by this department, capable of providing a minimum of 1500 gallons per minute for " duration of 3 hours at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi. i•his department will also require the installation of an approved public fire hydrant within 50 feet of the fire department connection for the fire Sprink- ler system. 9. Fire extinguishers will. be required. The size, type and number will be determined by this depart- ment prior to occupancy. 10. Should the operation be found to be producing an explonive or combustible dust hazard, an approved dust collection system will be required by this agency. 11. Street address numbering shall be in accordance with local ordinance. It is further recommended that all buildings be pro- vided with an approved automatice fire detection system providing for the transmission of all fire alarms to the Ontario Fire Department dispatch center. En sneering Division: 12. At the time of development grading, drainage, and street plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Enginr-r. Hydraulic calculations and a topo- graphic map will, be required to support the sizing and location of drainage structures shown on the plans. 13. At the time of development curb, gutter, drive ap- proaches, sidewalk, street trees, and A.C. match - tip paving shall be provided along 6th Street frontage. 14. All drainage shall. be to public right of way or with prior approval of abutting property owners with pro- per drainage facilities. 15. Drainage from the site shall be way of sidewalk drains through the curb face and not over drive approaches. ' �. •R�T`t1E�rR/r�. ":S P'x_...r :r. ->-• _. r. ...,- .�...r ... -.. -. - ..... .. s .. `.''�SA4�SgFIF}Al Planning Division: 16. That all requirements of the Rar.cho Cucamonga Zoning Ordinance be complied. 17- That the applicant submit a revised development plan to the Planning Division Office drawn in accordance with the conditions of this resolution. 18. That the five (5) parking stalls on the southeast corner of the property located outside the entrance gates be eliminated cud replaced with landscaping. 19. That detailed lanscape and irrigation plans be sub- mitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits, 20. That the landscape island in front of the plant be increased in area while maintaining a driveway width of twenty five (25) feet. 21. That all roof counted equipment be screened fron surrounding properties with materials which conform with the architectural design of the building. 22. That signs are not approved for the center. Further, sign plans must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. 23. That the vertical distance of the mansard roof he extended to the top of the building_ Further, that the horizontal distance of the mansard roof be ex- tended around the corners of the building. 24. That a three (3) foot planter be provided along the front of the building. Planting and irrigation for ':Iris planter shall be approved as part of the land- scape and irrigation plans required by this resolution. 25. That a decorative block wall replace the originally proposed chain link fence In the front portion of the lot. Further, that the npplirant submit plans for this wall to the Planning Division for its approve) prior to issuance of building permits. 26. That if a building permit is not drawn within a two (2) year period of rile date of this resolution, this approval becomes null and void. u•� AVE6 4 J�` - . APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER,, 1978. PLANNINP COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. By: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, , 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 day of 1978, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONFKc: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: