The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979/01/10 - Agenda Packeti a _. I RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednezday, January 10, 1979, 7:00 p.m. Community Services Building 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Jones III. Approval of Minutes December 13, 1978 IV. Announcements Commissioner Rempal Commissioner Tolstoy V. Consent Calendar A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -55 - EMOO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The development of a light industrial complex containing 60,000 square feet located on the southwest corner of Fourth and Turner. B. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78 -60 - JACKA - The development of four light industrial buildings totaling 72,960 square feet to be built on 5.34 acres of land located on the east side of Archibald Avenue approximately 660' north of Sixt�_Street._ C. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ARROW -HAVEN PARTNER , 4HiE Dividing a 11.98 acre. parcel iriEo 2. lots, each 5.98 acres in area located on'.the southeast corner of Arrow and Haven. VI. Public Hearings D. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79 -01 - SIGN ORDINANCE - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new sign ordinance and repeal all existing sign regulations,;, E. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79 -02 _ HOME OCCUPATIONS - Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add Nome.Ocqupation regulations to allow businesses in residential zones, F. ZONE CHANGE 67 -73 - ROGERS - Request to change the zoning from FP -2 (Flood Plain 2) to A-P (Administrative and Professional) zone on the property located on the south side of Baseline Avenue 8001+ east of Carnelian Street. I Planning Commission Agenda January 10, 1979 Page 2 VII. Old Business G. DIRECTOR REVIEW 78 -12 - ALDERFER - (Continued from 10/12/78) Request for development of a two story, 10,000 square foot office building located at 8030 Vineyard Avenue in the C -2 Zone. H. PLANNTNG COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS (Continued from 12/27/78). I. SERVICE STATION STANDARDS _(Continued from 12/27/78) VIII. New Business J. DIRECTOR REVIEW 78 -58 - LONGLEY - Request for development of a retail and wholesale building materials and supply center with outdoor displ'.y and sales located on the south side of Foothill Blvd., 1,)00'+ west of the Devore Freeway in the C -2 and M -1 zones. IX. Council Referrals K. INTERDI LAND USE, CLRCUTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT - Referral from Council for recommendation on specific areas of concern. X. Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any items not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. XI. Commission Comment XII. Adjournment • CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 13, 1978 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cuca- monga, on Wednesday, December 13, 1978. Meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Herman Rempel, and Peter Tolstoy Absent: NONE Also Present: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Bill Hoffman, Assistant Planner; and Clara Murillo, acting secretary. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unani- mously carried, the Planning Commission minutes of November 8, 1978, were approved as submitted. Upon motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unani- mously carried, the Planning Commission minutes of November 22, 1978 were approved subject to the following correction; Page 6, Sth line in first paragraph should read 9th St., rather than 19th St. The minutes of the Special meetings of November 21, and November 29. 1978, were held over tc the Planning Commission meeting of December 27, 1978 to allow Commissioners the opportunity to review them. 112on Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, it was moved to limit discussion to 11:00 p.m, and continue any remaining items, to the December 27, 1978 meeting. Motion was unanimously carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements by Staff or Commission. j. 1 CONSENT CALENDAR Upon MOTION by Commissionet Jones and seconded by Commissioner Garcia, it was moved to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted; A. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4875 B. Negative Declaration for Director R -view No. 78 -31. Motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Jack Lam, Community Development Director, made the Staff presentation of this item. He indicated that this was a co:.tinuation of the November 22, 1978 meeting regarding the EIR. The item is back before the Commission tonight to reflect the changes prompted by comments that were made at that time. All the written correspondence to date has been included in the draft report. Revisions to the site plan map have also been made. Mr. Lam read the Resolution in its entirety. Commissioner Garcia questioned Staff in regard to the fault zones. Mr. Lam explained that the fault zones are delineated on the Plan Map as set forth in the Alquist- Priolo study zones. Chairman Rempel opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Nate Rosenberg, representing Inland Counties Legal Services, indicated that his clientel are the low and middle income people within the community. Since the EIR is still in draft form, he hopes to influence Staff to also consider the housing element at this time. It is his feeling that the General Plan shows only fourteen sites, of these, two will probably go to dormitory housing, two are already developed, leaving just ten to meet the demand. He further indicated that the City cannot, by law, just allow for single family housing. The City could set aside locations for cluster type housing. Another option is to re- quire that each tract include a certain portion of law income housing or that each builder set aside a certain percentage of his building. If low income housing is excluded it will increase commuter traffic and aggravate air quality problems. Commissioner Tolstoy wanted to know if the agency that he represented included mobile homes in their totals. Mr. Rosenberg indicated that they did. It was moved by Commissioner Dahl to close the public hearing segment of the draft EIR, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unanimously carried. At the request of Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Lam responded to the points raised by Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. Lam indicated that this is a post proposition 13 community with a limited budget to develop all of its elements at one time. Secondly, most other communities had a headstart since they were established before all the current ;. General Plan elements were required. Further, he stated that Rancho Cucamonga does }` not enjoy that comfort and today there are even more elements that cities moat con- Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 13, 1978 sider. The elements of Land Use, Circulation and Public Facilities are those the City wanted to deal with first, this was partly the reason the City incor- porated. He also indicated that there exist more than 14 locations for higher density housing since all the mixed use designations allow for multiple residen- tial, as well as, the medium density housing zones. Socio- economic information necessary to determine the housing needs is not available, and will not be until the City completes its special census in the Spring. Commissioners Garcia and Rempel addressed their feelings on the draft EI12 and commented on the amount of time and effort that had gone into its preparation. Mr. Lam read the Resolution in its entirety. MOTION by Commissioner Tolstoy to adopt Resolution No. 78 -38 and forward the draft EIR to the City Council with its recommendations and findings for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Dahl; unanimously carried. MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Jones to consider Item 7G at this time; unanimously carried. Mr. Lam gave the report. Commissioner Garcia indicated that he would like to see the area in item 03 kept as residential rather than mixed zoning. Chairman Rempel also concurred with this recommendation. Commissioner Dahl indicated that rather than eliminate some of our medium density we should be encouraging and preserving what does exist. MOTION by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to modify the Land Use Plan as follows: 1. To relocate the neighborhood shopping center symbol on the northwest corner of Highland and Haven slightly northerly away from the Garden Apartment site. 2. Modify the east side of Archibald between 19th and the Railroad tracks to medium density. 3. To modify the southwest and southeast corners of Hermosa and Baseline to low density. and to adopt Resolution No. 78 -33 as submitted with its findings and recommenda- tions to the City Council to adopt the Interim Land Use, Circulation and Public Facilities Elements of the General Plan. Motion unanimously carried. MOTION by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to discuss Item H at this time. Motion csrried unanimously. Prior to discussion, a recess-was requested. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 13, 1978 0 RECESS El Recess called at 8:20 p.m., meeting resumed at 8:30 p.m. with all Commissioners present. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY CWNCIL REGARDING GROWTH MANAGEMENT Mr. Lam gave the Staff presentation indicating that the Staff had adjusted the BIA recommendation. The impact of these projects on the school districts would not be felt until one year after building permit issuance at the earliest. Furthermore, such impact would be in phases rather than at once. However, the Alta Loma School District desires to see the moratorium continued. Mr. Lam read the title and the entire Resolution for the Commission and the audience. The unapproved tentative tract maps on file would have two choices: 1) to re- submit with proportional credit for fees already paid or 2) be denied without prejudice. Mr. Lam indicated that he felt it would be in the developer's best interests to resubmit because it will make the process much easier and faster. Commissioner Garcia then gave a detailed account of the Committee. He indicated that of the approved units approrimately 550 would be in the Alta Loma School District. The remaining would be in the Central School District. Comments from the public were taken. Mr. McMurtry, Alta Loma School District Superintendent, indicated that a continua tion of the building moratorium would allow his school district to eliminate double session. With the opening of the Stork School, double sessions could end but that with the available 1760 homes now under construction there will be an influx of new students. The remaining bonding capacity the school distrir. has would allow them to build a school to house these additional students; how- ever, it takes three years to build a school. He stated that there are no other availabia funds to house those students that would result from any further building if the moratorium were lifted. He further indicated that pressure must be put on the legislature *o find some other means of building schools in the future once the current funding progrsm runs out. A spokesman for R.J. Investment Company indicated that their company is awaiting a 20 lot subdivision -- that any further delay would just create a log jam in July and accomplish little. Mr. Lam indicated that if the proposal is adopted by the City Council, Staff will immediately notify all those concerned. Charles Doskow, Lewis Homes, indicated that they felt there should be some kind of consideration for those projects that had previously submitted to the County. Bob Frost, President of the Alta Loma School District, also requested that the moratorium be continued. Nancy Kettle, a member of the Alta Loma School Boare, requested that the mora- torium be continued. She said that trying to be fair to the builders would be unfair to the youngsters who have to go to school. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 13, 1978 0 0 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Garcia adopting Resolu- tion 78 -39 and recommend acceptance of the grocth management list as submitted by Staff. Chairman Rempel requested that an amendment be added to Section 3 of the Resolution to read, "All existing residential parcel maps currently on file with the City may be processed after January 1, 1979, and building permits be allowed to be issued and another amendment to ask our state legislators to support new school financing. Amendment was seconded by Commissioner Garcia. Motion carried unanimously. ZONE CHANGE NO. 78-05 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNic, LUTHERAN CHURCH The Staff Report was presented by Barry Hogan, Senior Planner. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the location of Banyan Avenue at ultimate development. He suggested that the street be curved. Doug Hone, representing Southern California 7.utheran Church, indicated that the church desires to locate a small chapel on that portion of the property and lease some parking from the Flood Control District because there is an eighty -eight foot corrider for a water pipe located c.orth and adjacent to the property line of the site that will sit dormant. This leaves the entire bottom site for a larger chapel and school at some point in the future. MOTION by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia, to adopt Negative Declaration for Zone Change No. 78 -05 and Resolution No. 78 -34. Motion unanimously carried. ZONE CHANGE NO. 78 -06 - HONE /GORGEN Mr. Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concern about the improvements that would be required on Hellman and Baseline Avenues. Staff Ladlcated that this development would be contributing its share for the improvement's. Mr. Doug Hone indicated that all the improvements would be made on the two streets once all the details have been worked out. Commissioner. Tolstoy asked about the piece on the corner. Staff indicated that the piece was an unbuildable lot and that condemnation proceedings by the City had already begun to enable the City to make the necessary improvements on the corner. MOTION by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to adopt Negative Declaration for Zone Change No. 78 -06 and to adopt Resolution No. 78 -35. Motion unanimously carried. Planning Commission MinuteR -5- December 13, 1578 VARIANCE NO. 78 -02 - BROADHEAD The Staff Report was presented by Barry Hogan Jean B- oadhead, applicant, indicated that the topography was unique in that the Flood Control Distribt abuts her rear property line and the setback would not be infringing on anyone. Ron Smith, friend of the applicant, requested that Staff explain what the necessity is for rear yard setback requirements. Mr. Lam indicated it was for many things, among then fire access, light, air and aesthetics. MOTION by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Com<issioner Tolstoy to adopt Resolution No. 78-36 denying Varian_e No. 78 -36. Motion was unanimously carried. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12 - ALDERFER RANCH PARTNERSHIP Mr. Lam indicated that the applicant has requested a continuance to the January 10, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Jones to continue Director Review No. 78 -12 to January 10, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. DIR,'.CTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -53 - THOMPSON Michael Vairin gave the staff report. Commissioner Garcia questioned the location of parking and the lack of land- scaping on the east property line_ Mr. Vairin indicated that the landscaping in the front of the building will take care of the situation. MOTION by Commissioner Dahl and secrad�d by Commissioner Jones to adopt Resolu- tion.No. 78 -37 and direct staff to pay particular attention to the landscaping design. Motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL REFERRAL MOTION by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Coumissioner Garcia to consider the following item beyond the 11:00 p.m. time. Motion carried unanimously. LIMITATION OF USES ON THE VANIR SITE Mr. Lam made the staff presentation and indicated this is an item that the Commission had considered on a previous occasion. The City Council is asking for a recommendation on the list of uses proposed for the site. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 13, 1978 7; Mr. Gentry, representing Vanir Development, indicated that they wanted clari- fication on the percentage of A -P requesting that the A -P be limited to 30%. Commission indicated that a minimum of 5OZ be A -P and retail- commercial could occupy the reirsinder. Each Commissioner then listed those items on the proposed use list he would like removed. The general concensus was than items 1, 3, 6 and 15 should be eliminated. The applicant wishes to exchange item 14 for item 15. Clark Bowen, neighbor across the street from this project, indicated that he th�.:bht the buildings were to have been in line with something like the pryst of fice. MOTION by Chairman Rempel, seconded by Commissioner Dahl to limit the retail- commercial to a maximum of 50% of the building and eliminate items 1, 3, 6 avid 15 from the proposed list of uses. Motion carried unanimously. Applicants requested that they be allowed to appeal this decision to the City Council with respect to substituting item lk for item 15. .City Attorney indi- cated that this was only a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Coun- cil. They still have the opportunity to speak before the City Council. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Tolstoy, 2econded by Chairman Rempel to adjourn the meeting to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of December 27, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. Resrrctfully ubmitted, .TACK LAM, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes -7— December 13, 1978 i BACKGROUND/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The applicant proposes to develop the second phase of a two- phased development at the above described location. The site is 1.91 acres in size and the proposed buildings would be located on the southern half of the property. Environmental analysis was not conducted during review of the first phase of the development, thus, this analysis will consider,_ the entire 1.91 acre site. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The environmental checklist did not indicate any significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. Staff has field checked the site and found no discrepancies with the checklist. The. site is located within the 100 year flood plain as shown on the Environmental Constraints Map of the Interim Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Engineering Division has reviewed this project for flooding and will require Mitigating measures in the design of the development. Staff found no other significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this project: RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:BNH:elm Initial Study Attachments: Exhibit "A" site plan of proposed Phase II development , ITEM °A° OCITY OF RANCHO CUC niGA STAFF F011.1RT DATE: January 10, 1979 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM. Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Environmental Analysie of Director Review No, 78 -55 -- Rancho Cucamonga Development Company -- the development of two (2) light industrial buildings of approximately 12,000 sq. ft. and - 17,500 sq. ft. cacti, to be located at the northeast corner of Fourth St. and Turner Ave. BACKGROUND/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The applicant proposes to develop the second phase of a two- phased development at the above described location. The site is 1.91 acres in size and the proposed buildings would be located on the southern half of the property. Environmental analysis was not conducted during review of the first phase of the development, thus, this analysis will consider,_ the entire 1.91 acre site. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The environmental checklist did not indicate any significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. Staff has field checked the site and found no discrepancies with the checklist. The. site is located within the 100 year flood plain as shown on the Environmental Constraints Map of the Interim Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Engineering Division has reviewed this project for flooding and will require Mitigating measures in the design of the development. Staff found no other significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this project: RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and, therefore, recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:BNH:elm Initial Study Attachments: Exhibit "A" site plan of proposed Phase II development , ITEM °A° r , a. r: 0 r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY r � v PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEEP - TO be completed by =ant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 d NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: G.E. BUSSE & ASSOCIATES 236 EL NIDO, MONROVIA, CALIFORNIA 91016 1 - LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) NO TH WEST CORNER 4TH STREET AND TURNER AVENUE (REAR 400 FT.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: BUILDING PERMITS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Corranittee 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 (1O) 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 environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be: eupplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PROJECT TITLE: PHASE TWO EXPANSION APPLICANT -S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: __(714) 987 -1716 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 10013 E. EIGHTH STREET, CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 '- d NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: G.E. BUSSE & ASSOCIATES 236 EL NIDO, MONROVIA, CALIFORNIA 91016 1 - LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) NO TH WEST CORNER 4TH STREET AND TURNER AVENUE (REAR 400 FT.) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: BUILDING PERMITS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA W" J1 PROJECT DESCRIPTTON DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT; CONSTRUCT FOUR (4) INDUSTRIAL LEASEABLE BUILDINGS COMPLETE WITH LANDSCAPINC, PARKING, GENERAL E�_AS THE TWO (2) EXISTING BUILDINGS LOCATED ON PARCELS 3 & 4 SO ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA Al;n SQUARE FOOTP_GE OF EXISTING PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: SITE 166,008 SQ. FT. .FT. EACH - 60, DESCRIBE THE ENVIR0Nb1ENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF S ?1RRnI'NDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTIMG STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): THE PROJECT SITE SLOPES GENERALLY SOUTH IN AN EVEN FLOW; THERE ARE NO TREES, ANIMALS, CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SENIC ASPECTS TO THE SITE. THE SURRONDING PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH & WEST ARE DEVELOPED _INDUSTRIAL AS IS THE USE PROPOSED HERE. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SOUTH ARE BUILDINGS DEVELOPED AS PHASE ONE OF THIS PRO„ ?CT. 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? THIS PROJECT COMPLETES DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMP CT. x- 2 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 • ubstantial 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: N/A T IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the N/A next page. CERTIFICATIOi7: 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 evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date .P- NOVEMBER 22, 1978 Signature - . F IA&aLQ- Titlei1�' +� +rhaNW�u�.e, � 9.►�tM i i • CxH%rscT 'Al 4 o r 1 .. i ' r 1 -I I 1 /f'�ff'II�� i /' 1�' I / IT : •I` •` ' � •S!. � i� a .I II. irY'.' F 11 I f..> I I Y.: �'''Jy a. 4ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMDNGA STWF UORT PATE: January 10, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Environmental Analysis of Director Review No. 78- 60 -JASKA - The development of four (4) light industrial buildings totalling 72,960 sq, ft. to be built on 5.34 acres of land located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, approximately 660' north of Sixth Street. BACKGROUND /ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The applicant proposes to develop the first phase of a mu ti -phase .g t ndustrial park on 37 acres of land (Exhibit "A "), The first phase will consist of six (6) buildings on 5.34 acres of land (Exhibit "B "). The environmental analysis will consider the entire 37 acre site. The site is vacant and devoid of significant fauna and flora. Abandoned grape vines are located on the back 20% of the site. Property to the north and east is vacant, to the west is residential and to the south is a light industrial complex. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The environmental checklist did not indicate any significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. Staff has firld checked site and has found no discrepancies with checklist. The site is not subject to flood damage and grading will not create significant environmental impacts on the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommends issuance of a 27egative Declaration. Res ect£ully 4ubmitted, a& Lac'-�� JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:BNH:elm Initial Study Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Site plan of proposed phase I and future industrial park Exhibit "B" - Detailed site plan of phase I. ITEM "W' CITY OF RANC110 C11CAMONGA ' INITIAL STUDY ' PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department %•.here the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the initial Study. The Do%lelopment Revlew 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 environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be- filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: SCHEU INDUSTIIIAL PARK APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Martin J. .Jaska Inc 4761 Arrow Highway, Montclair, Ca 91763 - 714 - 626 -2446 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Roger hl. Jaska, Martin J. Jaiska Inc. 4761 Arrow Highway Montclair Ca 91763 - 714 -626 -2446 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCRI, NO.) Anoruximalely 6601 110rlh of M11 Street on the east side of Archibald Avenue - see Exhibit A attached LIST OTHER PJiRMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAh AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: . _ Building Dcpartlnenl - City of Rancho Cucamonga E f PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: AA)p :•o:zimately 1G. 800 s4 ft building on M -1 Zone and 4 each buildings on M -2 Zone of a roximatel 14,400 sq, ft. , 19, 200 sq. ft. 11, 520 sq, ft, and 8, G40 sq. ft respectively to be used for Industrial and Urnited Commerc>al uses. See Exhibit. $ . ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROFOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 232. 754 sq, ft. - land: 72. 960 sq ft, - buildin s DESCRTpr THE RNVIRONME ^1TAi, SETTTNG OF THE PROJECT SITE INCIAiDING INFORMATION ON TOI'OGMPH1, PL.AWS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND Tim£ i11:SCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SIMETS): The existing land has a slight fall from NE to SW (see Exhibit C) and To our Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a serics•' Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Th2 pxu iec ud1i p $(y�Y�� t awes:; . .. �,_.�, Z��nnrnrirrt � a_VAJ1QbJ'g for future development. There is no immediate plan for the adjacent properties to be developed at this time. It is our opinion that if all 37 acres were to be developed, the total property would not have any . significant encironmental inpaet, x- z y .. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished, above and in the attached e\hihits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ai.)ility, and that Lilt, fact, statements, and informat-ion presented are true and correct to the best of my Rnowledge and belie f. I further understand tla t additional information may ba required to be submitted before nn adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date 1..0 t ...: F', Signature a.� no M.�Jasha Title Presiaent 't c 4, h�J{ y }N. _ WIJ,I. T11TS PROJECT- YES NO Create a substantial change in ground contours? 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 ?�_• 6. create the need for use or disposal of* potentially hazardous materials ouch 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 e\hihits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ai.)ility, and that Lilt, fact, statements, and informat-ion presented are true and correct to the best of my Rnowledge and belie f. I further understand tla t additional information may ba required to be submitted before nn adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date 1..0 t ...: F', Signature a.� no M.�Jasha Title Presiaent 't c 4, h�J{ y }N. _ h� Ali �. it l I � r e � " Ii �u I =.'•5t � 'fil � ..11111 -- `t r 1 n^ s07 -I ^I [4t i Ali �. it l I � r e � " Ii �u I =.'•5t � 'fil � ..11111 -- `t r 1 n^ s07 -I ^I is IL 1 J [4t IL e E f is IL 1 J �f 0 !!Jil}l I r e F�1 t � LfL �ala3 t,nr •;. Ifl! I �e .I L . a I I � I � f- 5-10 i� VT • 71e 5-10 0CITY OF RANCHO CW-* UNGA STAFF m'Tr DATE: January 10, 1979 To: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SLBJECT: Environmental Analysis of a Parcel Map located on the southeast corner of Haven and Arrow — the subdivision of 11.98 acre parcel into two 5.98 acre lots. BACKGROUND /ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The applicant proposes to split the above described parcel to allow for a light industrial development (Exhibit "A"). The Parcel Map for a larger land area, including the subject property, was filed with the County of San Bernardino (MS 77- 0233). No evidence of environmental review was contained in the file, thus, the City is conducting a full environmental review for the entire site. The site is vacant and void of significant fauna and flora. Property on all sides of the subject site is vacant except property to the west which is being used as a golf course. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION; The environmental check list did not indicate any significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. Staff has conducted field investigations on this site and has found no discrepancies with the check list. The site is not subject to flood damage and grading will not create any significant environmental impacts on the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommends the issuance of a Negative Declaration. JACK LAM, Director of Community Development f` JL:BNH:elm Attachments: Exhibit "A" — Location map Initial Study a 9 ITEM "C" k.t• '. .yL :: :,y.._ 4. �•, .'r. a'^ . +1 �•' ..•f •.. '• - .1 .d.' ... •7i: s'.vr Ll r 7� X141B3 T Lo�� FAF?cEL MAP No IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. 391110 { DIVISION or ♦ PORTION or PARCEL N,Or PANOEL NAP NO tiw..R RECORDED IN ■Doe 17,00' PARCEL N1PN,0-NOE Es, RECORD[ or THE court's or BAN 0El1NNNDINO.s TFT9 or CNLtloRlll• Domain Now N NMnnln H11 11.1111 urn N.,.« R. NI. NMI rl"l all" w.H n1 somN, twill ll..w was w1 nM.. ' 1 Mbrti. pillmlr U.w Nen r..1.uMlr nn) Rtl-HII N I. al, Wlgq. 1{ F.B. Nw w 1! rnp sOYu dD It lfF 1. „lov r �— •ANGEL 1' ~— —�./� R ,» - __- - - - - -- _ `Ally ' j �LNZLII y P�c[L E i.INi . 'M.nl S.F. WE 1 z IF 1 .1100. _rri� _ ' H.fl 1 R y y s AS Y In CIA • - 7� X141B3 T Lo�� 0 Is 49 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL, STUDY " PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEEP - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment :review Fee: $10.00 For all projects requirinv environmental review, this form must be completed an,i submitted to the Development Review Committee tHrn..�i the dcpartmenL where the Project application is made. Upon receipt of .this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Dvvelnpment 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) Tice project will have no environmental impact and a Negat+.ve Declaration will be filed, 2r The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: Parcel Hap - Haven '. Arrow APPLICANT -S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE. Arrow -Haven Partnership 846 W. Foothill Blvd. NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPIir*TE Oi• PERSON TO BE CONTACTED 4 CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: George H. Him Mack 214 South Euclid Ave., Ontario, CA 983-6439 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO,) Southeast corner of Haven and Arrow (209-1411— LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SZICH PERMITS: None I -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Two (2) lot split of a 11.98 Acre parcel , to 5.98 acre parcels. ACREAGL OF PROJECT AMA AND PRO.OSED BUILDINGS, 1F ANY: 5.98 acres each after SQUARE MOTAGE OF EXISTING, AND DIESCRIBE T11E ENVIRONMEMM, S1 °I'TING OF THE PROJECT SI'T'E INCLUDING INFOMINTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PPOPERTIF.S, AND TIIE DrSCRIPTION OF ANY . EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) : Propertr is vacant, No significant flora or fauna exist. The site does L�t'have sign cant cultural. s or ca , or see features. Property on all sides ot the site s vacan r to the west is being used as a golf course 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? ui-'- s will follow lots lit, however, no impacts would be created, r 3"N au f WILL T1 T iOC)OMT: Yrs 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, £ire, water, sewage, et:.)? R 4. Create che.nges in the existing zoning or general pla,- -� 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 YT•.S answers abc &: NA IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIPICATIO N: I he�.aby certify that the statements furnished' above anti in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for thi.s initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fnct�, ::tatemvnts, and information presonted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional i.nformntinn may bn required to he submitted before an Zxdcqunte evaulat ion can be made by the Development Review Conunittee. Date Signature *Study filled out by City of Title Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Z3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA STAFF REPORT Date: January 10, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -01 -SIGN ORDINANCE - An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new sign ordinance and repeal all existing sign regulations BACKGROUND: As the Planning Commission is aware, Planning Division Staff has been working on a new sign ordinance for the past several months. Staff has been working closely with the Sigu Committee and the Chamber of Commerce and has held a study session with the Planning Commission. The proposed ordi- nance is approaching finalization once the City Attorney's comments are incor- porated into the ordinance. The ordinance is not ready for review and public hearing at this meeting. 40 However, a copy of the final draft will be distributed to the Commission 4 some time this week for their review prior to the meeting of January 24, 1979. Therefore, Staff recommends that the public hearing be continued to January 24, 1979. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commis- sion continue the public hearing on the sign ordinance to their meeting of January 24, 1979. Relspfe�ct�fullly� submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:nm W era, ITEM "Dn OITY OF RANCHO CU MONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 10, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendwent No. 79 -02 - Amending the Nome Occupation Sections of the Zoning Ordinance by repealing Section 61.024A(b)(3) and adding Section 61.0219(a)(9) and amending the definition of'home occupation Ja Section 61.022. BACKGROUND: A home occupation is typically a business -like use that may be per- mitted in a home if such uae meets certain criteria or conditions. Such conditions ' or criteria are typically imposed upon home occupations to insure that the use will not be detrimental to surrounding homes or property. One of the major rea- sons for regulation of home occupations, is to insure that the use is clearly incidental and subordinate to the primary use of the structure as a dwelling. The existing home occupation regulations within the Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit "A ") does not contain review and approval procedures or conditions for proper regulation. In order to protect residential areas from incompatible business- like uses, strict regulations are needed. The present regulations do not accomplish this. Therefore, staff recommmends amending the Ordinance to provide the regulatory controls necessary to protect residential areas. ANALYSIS: Attached is a copy of the recommended change in the ordinance. Basically, the proposed regulations require Director approval based upon the conditions listed, in order to conduct a home occupation. This amendment accomplishes three changes relative to home occupations: 1) repeals the existing provisions in its entirety; 2) redefines home occupation.; and, 3) establishes new regulations within the General Provisions section of the Zoning Ordinance. Attached is the environmental analysis of this amendment. Such analysis did not reveal any signifinant adverse impacts as a result of this project. Therefore, a Negative Declaration is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends, after the public hearing, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -04 and t ^ansfer such recommendation Lo the City Council. R pectfull submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:elm Attachments: Existing ordinance section Exhibit "A ", Initial Study Part I 6 II, Resolution No. 79 -04, and Amended ordinance-sections. - Ttrm 11Fn ZONING CODE - R•1 Dishier 61-024A 131 :u10n tit' prol'c%%ionul to business nattre in File "►Tice "f a till "ll:611. dentist minister of religion or other persons ` :udhori�ed h} last to pracli%c nudicine or belling. if' used "ul}• for consultation and emergency Ireminent as an adiuncl t" a principal office located elsewhere in the conuuunity and not for general pr etice. :uul Without external etidence Ihereol•. excepting a nameplate not more Ihan one l I l stll are !loll in sir'. haling 110 colored ilhnninali"n. (-t) Board and room. not It, exceed hvo 12) persons. without kilchrri pritileFe%. ,. (5) The kecpinr of ltnrscs (private stables) on Ins tit, lots f Iwenly thousand (20,000) s , quare I'M and aver in area. the number of horses pemtilled on any Int or parcel being limited to one (I ) horse for each ten thousand 110.0001 square feet of lot area. up to a total or six (6) horses. An educational animal project shall be permitted as a substitute 1'or horses. The k following number of animals shall be permitted as a project:] t M1L XIMUM a 1. PERMITTED ANIMALS ' NUME}L'R One bovine tier ® 20,000 sq. ft.. or ....... '; ) ? !� •' J "�lN" Two gofers per 10.0(0 %(1 or ... . ... ..... ,000 s. ft.. or .. .. .... ..g Two sheep per 10 .. n Trn ' , Twu goats per 10.000 sq. ft.. or .............. n Comhinalitim (""file :!hove - listed animals shall he permilled provided the 10131 den•ily shall not exceed that herein specified. execpl in 1 the rase of young ;mimal< barn In the project animal. which may he kept in the R -1 District until such animals are treated. ' The keeping of .111 rducatianal. animal project shall be subject to the 10110win A Department +• '+ r F� permit issued by the "I' Environmental '��?'�� •.K'.. !1�;1� health SMice% as prmided in fille 3 of the San Bmiattlin" ('otnity Code. The educalionad. animal project sltall be kept only on an improved and occupied lot or parcel. tE+ ;' "Educational. Animal project," for the purposes of (Ili- �k(` U. provision. %hull mean an :minlal- husbandry activity which is p a at of educationally oriented youth program or otcaniiation. n M, (A) Such animals sltall he kept at leas) seventy (70) 1'eet from buildings used for human habitation, public park, school. bus +ital or ! ;. :.. church buildings. on ad Joining lots or parcels, and shall maintain a cic;u:mlce of at least five (5) feet from interior side and rear property lines, and fifteen ><•,wtt�''��` ` •:.S '..••. a (15) feet front side street rights of t •«v• excepting ) 1 I fi an alley ur bridle path, }�t t +s01 " unless the animals are confined h}• a five (5) root chain link 1'ence "r :1 live h.. t ,% (5) fool wood fence "'ith 1106 /0nlal Illembers no mate than xix Iht inches l.}+i�.� apart which fence may he located on :ut interior side "r rear lot line and fiflcen (15) feel 1'ront a side street right of way. The area of htnuan hahittlinn 511a11 1101 include cabanas, patios• allacllell or detached private garages or storage buildings tl rl ;3q lJ ?aJ•751 • Fit + %� :. i CITY OF RAAICIIO CUt MIONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department v.,here 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 environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. i •, PROJECT TITLE: 7__!'r1; APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEP11ONE: Farni.10 Ca t��gyyf NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPNONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: +(�1�� 11 iVlu�i j a �1 of LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AM) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) AIM LIST OTHER PERt•IITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND' FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: �r r� r 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: -- CO1#19 YL'.OnX'frDC. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARr FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: DESCRIBE TILE ENVIRONMENTAL SI:'PTING .:.F TiIF. PROJECT SITE INCLUDIIIG INFORknTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, 1 I-ANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CUI.YURAL, " HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS)e W /A Is the project, Part Of a larger project, one of a series, Of cumulative actions, which although individually small, ` may as a whale have significant environmental impact? x- 2 ., s WILL. 11115 110,1FCT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours?- 4 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? 3. Create a substantial change in demand for IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. 1 :1 municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)': • T4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of. potentially hazardous materials such as ' toxic substances, flammables or explosives? •• Explanation of any 'YES answers above: CERTIFICATI.ON: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in thri attached exhibits present the date and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the fact•::, statements, and informnt•i.on presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may h^ required to be submitted before nn adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Q •0 Signatur J-� IT- Titler��L��Yr1u:[ c- CITY OF RANC;10 CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIPONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: APPLICANT-. ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: FILINC DATE: LOG NUABER 7AA- #T1 f� PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATION: I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" an -w,,rs are required on attachacl shcaets.) YES MAYRE NO I. Soils and Genl_ogy. Will the ` the proposal result in: a. Unstable ground conditions or in chamtes in gcologic relationships? b. Distruptions, displacements, com.paction or burial of the soil? -- C. Chawle in topography or clround surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or P•nllificntinn of any unique gcologic or physical features? .'. ` e. Any pvtrntial increase+ in Hind or water r.rosion of soils, { aiFer.tinq either on or off ' site conditions? akJ Jt f f G V t f YES or depos ;nierosion siltation, MAYFIE -h. No 9• ExPOsure y ~_ icf people or prohert g hazarcis y earth such as sli<iesuakes, landslides, mud- nrrnlnd failure; similar hazards? h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or mineral resource: use of any z ibcli -- -°low• Will the —� proposal result in: `�. Changcs in currents, r tho rse or direction of flowing rivers, stroarn or ephemeral channels? b. Changes in abs ctr'ninayo rates, —� �orF�tion rate iatte Patterns or the and a,nount of surface water runoff? ' =- A.ltcrati.vns.to t tt a ~__• course or flow of flood w esters? cl. Change in the amount of. sur- face water in any body of watr_? ., c• Urany rge into Surface or any a1'- ' on waters, of water quality? surface E. A1tc'•ration of (troundwater _ characteristics? `t• Chaotic in the quntttit troundw.-Iters Y of ctirnt't add.itipeither through lira Wals, pY with - fercncc. through intnr- wxt:h an aquifer. (`unl i.ty? Quantity? h . I'he reclncttan ill the amount fo water nth -wisc for. public avail.ible blic water supplies? � 1, f I�Y 0 PaP,e 3 i• Exposure of YES MAYBE to NO water related hazards as flooding or seiches? 3• A----ir ouality. Will the � Proposal result in: a- Constant or periodic air emissions from mobile or indirect sources? Stationary sourcee? b.- Deterioration of ambient air quality and/or interference with the attainment of appli- cable air quality standards? C. _ Alteration of local or regional climatic conditions, affecting air movement, moisture or tem- perature? 4. Biota Flora. "ill the proposal result in n- Change in the characteristics 01 sPOCir.s, including diversity, distribution, or number of any species of plants? b- Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered sp'cics of plants? C. ?ntroduction of new or dis'- ruptive species of. plants into an area? d. seduction in the potential for agricultural production? Fauna- Will the proposal result in: a- Change in the characteristics of sperir.s, including diversity, distribution, nr numbers of any Species of animals? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, mire or endangered species of ani,nals? f I T f 7 PaI-e t. YES MAYBE NO C. Introduction of uew or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a I,.rrrier to the minration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of exist- ing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Population. will the proposal result in: , a. will. the proposal alter the loca- tion, distribution, density, diversity,, or growth rate of the human population of an area? / b. Will the proposal affect exist- T inq ho%%sin�j, or create a demand for additional housing? 6. Gocin- Economic Factors. Will the proposal result 1" n c a. c'hincto in local or regional socio- economic_ characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. trill project costs be equitably clistribut.cd among project hc'nefiCi.arics, i.e. , buyers, tax payers or project users? / T 7. Land t .._ .ct an,l !'lanninh c IConsiderations. W111 t.hc proposal result in: a. A substantial alL•eratioi of the present or planned land use of an area? _ J b. A conflict with any designations. ]" nb icCLi ve': ;, policies, or adopted (plans of any governmental entities ?.M C. An impact upon the quality or quan- i. 1. i ty of v:c.ist•ing con: >umlptive or non- consumpLive recreational opportunities? , i t a 10. original Poor Quality 8' Tr`portation result ire `� —• Will the proposal YES tLi, E NO a^ Generation of substantial addi- tional vehicular movement? b Effects. on existi demand n g streets, Construction ?w street or c• Effects on existing faci liti.s, or demandapprng new {)irking? d. Substantial impact upon ing transportation Systems? e. Alterations to present of circulation P`Yttcrns or m People and /or goods? ent of f• Alterations to present or effects / and on borne rail air t raf fic? mass transit or 9• Incre , m�tot `ticlesaffic hazards, to pedestrians? blcyclist•s or CUUral Resource,. t'rope)s,i'i {Vill - } the .;ull iri • a. A disturbance to Of archaeolo the integrity gical, gical, and paleontolo- /or historical resources health. Sa I C. V-, and uisance 1)rot,oFa-1--r-e—!,,',, actors. l in` °'• of Orration any health hazard or potential health 11azard? b• I x"-'th n 7a people to potential health hazards? C. A risk of _r hazardous ex or plosion or rc.lea 1 e substanres in the event o. n a accident ,^ k. forks or r +t.her terr+ ntinna; facilities' 121. L't + 4j Original Poor QualtiY d. An im:),vase in Lhv- number of MAY17E NO individuals or n1,"cies of vector or pathc•Inmlenic organisms or thn [!xposurn of 1 +eot- e Lo such organisms? e. Increases in existing noise levels? f. Exposure of people to potentially dangerous noise levels? g. The creation of objectionable odnrs? % T h. An increase in light or glare? 11. Aesthntic.s. twill the proposal result in. a. The obstruction Or degratIaLion of any scenic vista or view? U. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site? C. A confl Lct with On objective c.r flosi.ctnated or poteitial scenic 12. MiliLivs and V111111C Iti L 1 I:11C pl'�(iClq rC ;l_l�t 111 need for new Systems, or in alterations to the following: a. Electric power? — 11. Natural or packaged gas? *,t C. Communications systems? d. Watrr supply? e. WZIS- tewaLer facilities? IL f. blood control structures? (1. Sol Ld wa,,Le iacilitiC +S? i:roi:rl -t: ion? i. 1'01 .ice (+rotection? I. Schools? k. forks or r +t.her terr+ ntinna; facilities' 121. L't + b. Toes tile proiect have thn potential to nchirve short-term, _ to the ,lisadvant.age of long-term, environmental goals? (A short - term impact on the o'mvironment is iti �� . YES MAYBE NO - - 1. Maintenance of public facilities, 1 ,, ir.cluAing roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? a[ !! 13. Enema r9y and Scarce Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? C. An increase in tho demand for devr.lopment of new sources of energy? - f d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non - renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? — C. Substantial depletion of any nonren ^wable or scare natural resource? — 14, Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to dco ride the quality of the enviroilmrnit, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife ;:1•ccia s, cause a fish or wildlife polnllation to chap below self sustaining levels, thrraten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reclucn the number or T'eStr iCt the rillYryC Of A 1'drC OT enclanclvro,l plant or animal or el iminato .impnrt.ant examples of the major periods of California history or prohis tort'? b. Toes tile proiect have thn potential to nchirve short-term, _ to the ,lisadvant.age of long-term, environmental goals? (A short - term impact on the o'mvironment is iti �� . t e Original PoorQuatity YES M71YOE NO tam• �+hicn qt -curs in a relatively brief, dcfinitivr tt,•riod of time while long -term 1•- T•icts will endure well' into the future.) C. 17oes the project have impacts which .Ire individually limited, but ,cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the .incremental effects of an individual projet:t are con- si(lerable when viewed in connection with the effects of Past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.) .'.•rlll.11 �•1'1�•,•1a 1.h1•':: xf.11 �'1lr1Yr• :1.1 :: !•(.1tll i., � :i•1', •�1 1•i�i•t•l•1: .•ll !lure:! l; tr•1;r: ;, t•l llu•t• ulrcr.L.l �• T lI. UISCUSSTON OF 1•:11VITIONMF.NTA1, EVALUATION. of affirmative answers to the nl?rne lluent•ions plus a disrunsion of propo sell mitigation measures. Now r :\ • 1 r :\ Lwo,i,v Original Poor Quality k; . \,1 ••,• In•• ,'x.1::1 I''1 ...! 1!,/ �, . �. ;�� t!:t llv' 1••.: 1:, ,i•11.. :t11 1..1 rl.,l•:'.. -, •• rl'I'1 t 1•tt t i „• .•11+•1 r.::: l• tll at •i .t t:E 1;1,'1!1':!{ I +!'i:1J,i {it I'll!1(I:\t1L 1 I t 1: t .. I: !1•••1i••i: 1 !.r 11•ttl l'f •:I til ,•I't'1r ' 1 t In: n `rlr•• i t•, ; •::l . tlll•rl: \: 1 l 1 nut. 'litl• _.. ntll.:l.it.t.v, „•..•ttt•1•.. (� .. �,i'i1.. .j ': :..•ca.l::r i•tl 1311 `. 1� .. t .• ?.•• f t' t, •,., 1 tl•.•t Ia,a tl'll :•. }Irr�. j. 1 . l:ll.l.. !:'. i.l:'iAl'Jl'i': Itl'l aTION .It:.',ti:'I�It') 1 111 °1 I 11' ''I,1'::rll I.1v +•I. 01 : :1 Il. � :1 ::7I 1:11 1,'•::.t 1 1'fc'cL .. •Ll :n,i 1: ,i ' .il •.: 1: i .. :'!i I• li•a %1 \: 1• 1':'It�11.j. t'. :I1t 1�1 Lwo,i,v k; RESOLUTION 140. 78 -13 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12 - A REQUEST FOR THE DEVELOP- MENT OF AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 8030 VINEYARD AVENUE WHEREAS, on August 15, 1978, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 1978, the Planning Cotx:ission held a meeting to review such a request and subsequently continued its review to December 13, 1978, and further continued to January 10, 1979. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the Cucamonga Creak Channel in the area of the project site is not fully improved to contain major flood conditions. 2. That the City of Rancho Cucamonga has the responsibility to reasonably protect all new developments from flood disasters per the provisions of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. 3. That the project site cannot be reasonably protected from flood conditions. SECTION 2: That Director Review No. 78 -12 is denied without prejudice to allow reapplication at the time reasonable flood protection facilities are installed. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS IOTH DAY OF JANUARY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman. Rempel, Chairman 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 10th day of January, 1979, by the following vote to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t,. SCiC. J N y Date: To: January 10, 1979 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Planning Commission STAFF REPORT From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: Planning Comeission 'Administraclve Regulations: BACKGROUND: At the December 13, 1978 Planning. Commission meeting the Admin- istrative Regulations were discussed. Certain changes were recommended by Staff and have been made on the Ftteched copy marked Exhibit "A ". Additionally, the Planning Comaission discussed the category of attendance (See 0- 2).-Basi- cally, there were two issues: 1) Excused absences 2) Unexcused absences It was suggested that the Planning Commission adopt a maximum of 25Z absence's in any calendar year as grounds for removal. This would allow six (5) absences over 24 meetings. The unexcused absences center about two numbers; they were two ( ?) and three (3). RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Conmisrlon: 1) establiab the excused and unexcused absences allowed prior to removal, and 2) adopt Reso- lution No. 79-03 establishing Exhibit "A" as the Planning Commission Administra- tive Regulation. Rea ectfly submitted, 11 r JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:BKH:nm Attachment: Resolution No. 79 -03 � tip ITEM "H" + a f ))=. RESOLUTION NO. 79+01 AMzyrAt CUCAMONGA PLANNING uCkoaSSION DENYING: DIRECTOR REVIEW NC. 78 -58 LOGATEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL, 1,0001+ WEST OF DEVORE FREEWAY IN THE C -2 and M -1 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 6th day of September, 1978, a complete application was filed for review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of January, 1979. the Rancho Cucamonga Plan - ning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: a. That the proposed development Will not be compatible with future proposed developments on Yoothill Blvd. b. That the proposed development will not promote the intended character of the area. C. That the design of the proposed development is not in keeping with previously approved developmenta along Foothill Blvd. d. That the proposed development is not in conformance with the intent of the zone as expressed at the zoning hearing. e. That there is reasonable probability that the land use proposed will not be consistent with the proposed general plan. f. There is high degree of probability that there will be substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan because the use proposed is ultimat:^ly inconsistent with the general plan. SECTION 2: That Director Review No. 78 -58 is lenied. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH.DAY OF JANUARY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST• r Secretary of the Planning Commission s� P F I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission cf the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Re3olutioa was duly and. regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Ccmmission of the -City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of Januat 1979. AYES: COMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: CM01ISSIONERS: 1 0 Date: To: From: Subject: 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 10, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development COUNCIL REFERRALS OF GENERAL PLAN ISSUES 0 BACKGROUND: The City Council, at its meeting of January 3, 1979f held its first public hearing on the proposed interim elements of the General Plan. Many major land use issues were reviewed ly the City Council and the majority of their decisions were to uphold the Planning Commission recommendations. The Commission is to be for their deci- sions and recommendations on the General Plan. The Council, however, has referred several issues to the Planning Commission for their guidance and recommendation prior to their final decision. We bra happy to ass tare these issues are ones that the Commission did not previously review. 0 ANALYSIS: O1. Area: North side of Foothill Blvd. between Turner and Center Avenue ,; A, +General Plan Designation: Service commercial on the northwest corner �/ mixed use for the remaining frontage along Foothill Blvd. and 1ow density residential for the rear portion of the area. t{ssue: .;wners desire service commercial. across the Foothill frontage between Turner and Center and high density residential to the lv� rear. Factors: The existing service commercial designation encompasses a convenient market, motel /apartment, and a restaurant. The mixed use area encompasses several single dwellings, one tire business, and much vacant land. The tire business is contained within one small building that could be easily converted to accommodate other uses as the building appears not to contain any hydraulic car lifts. T'�e Commission has dis- cussed the issue of commercial along Foothill Blva. and has favored res- tricting the Foothill corridoi from becoming one long commercial strip. The Commissions' intent thus far has been to incorporate other land uses along Foothill to create a dynamic balance of land uses. Extending the service commercial designation to Center Avenue would be in conflict with the Commissions' past decisions. In addition, there are not significant existing commercial uses that would warrant this commercial extension. As the parcels in this area are 600' in depth and because of individual par - celization, Staff recommends that the rear ;cztion of this area be desig- nated as mixed use. Under one designation, development can occur in a more logical manner. ITEei "K" S COUNCIL REFERRALS OF 416AL PLAN ISSUES January 10, 1979 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Retain designation along AFoothill Blvd. frontage and change the rear portion to mixed use. 2. Area: East side of Haven between Highland and Lemon General Plan Designation: Mised use and luw density residential Issues Owner desires extension of mixed use to Lemon Avenue Factors: The land is presently vacant. There is an existing single family subdivision on the northeast corner of Lemon aild Haven. Lemon Avenue will not likely continue easterly to provide access to this resi- dential area. If mixed use is allowed to front along Lemon, than there will be problems with land use incompatibilities and circulation patterns. By retaining the residential strip along the south side of Lemon, it would segregate mixed use traffic with residential traffic as Lemon would be used exclusively for access to these residential areas. The freeway frontage road, which is shown on the plan, is not definite and could be aligned to service the entire mixed use area without channeling mixed use traffic through residential areas. In addition, there are too many unknown factors An terms of specific site considerations, the free- way, and the frontage road. RECOMMENDATIONS Retail General Plan designation. 3. Area: South aide of Foothill Blvd. between Rochester Avenue and Day Creek General Plan Designation: Minimum Impact Industrial Al Issue: Owner desires commercial designation Factors: The owner is concerned that his existing winery would not be allowed to expand or be iaoroved. The General Plan text, under historic preservation, indicates that the majority of the winery's have special historical significance and that they will have to be studied as possibly allowing provisions for restaurants and retail wine shops. Staff there- fore sees no reason to alter the existing designation. RECOMMENDATION: Retail General Plan designation. Area: North side of Baseline, west of Archibald, adjacent to the existing Alpha Beta Shopping Center General Plan Designation: Mixed Use Issue: Owners desire neighborhood commercial designation Mora: eloped, access and parking reco sae par he Commis -. Sion is aw th p a Beta icie y approxi- mately S rk stall If the pro y d to be develop additio al shopping c er, a significant am t of that parkin most likel be used b enants and customers of t exi cen a could poss bly c to a deficiency of any ne to a potenti. crease in the parking problem, an et ter at significantly effect -th Jr eady ove crow poor tra c r la at the inter ion Archibald and d ` Basel ith t const o ompletion of ertson /Angels cen - ter, a 1 al ret beyond that which is ;la s gnifican ly the capacity a surrounding streets.' RECCr N Z Retail Gen Plan designstio . R p ctfully ubmittedf JA LAM, Director of Comity Development JL:MV:nm I K RESOLUTION NO. 79 -02 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMAf..NDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 87 -73 REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE 'ZONING FROM FP -2 TO A -P FOR APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BASELINE, 775' WEST OF VINEYARD, ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 207 - 031 -19. WHEREAS, on the 4th day of April, 1978, an application was filed and accepted on the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 10th day of January, 1979, 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 subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone, in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; 2. The proposed zone change would not have significant Impact on the environment nor the surrpunding pro- perties; and 3. That there is reasonable probability that the land use proposed will be consistent wi.h the General Plan pr#,posal being considered. 4. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if the use propose is ultimately inconsistent 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 has issued a Negative Declaration on January 10, 1979. 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 10th day of January, 1979, - Zone Change No. 87 -73. !��, •r M 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Change No. 87 -73. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and re- lated material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF JANUARY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCA4ONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of January, 1979. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: January 10, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Dtrector of Community Development Subject: DIRECTOR. REVIEW NO. 79 -12 — ALDERFER RANCH PARTNERSHIP — Request for development of a two story office building located at 8030 Vineyard Avenue in the C -2 (General Business) Zone Again, Staff feels that this project is premature and should be denied with — cut prejudice; thus allowing the applicant to reapply once adequate flood protection facilities have been provided on the Cucamonga Creek. Item uClo ,,y BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, this item has been before them on two previous occasions. First, on October 11, 1978, at which time the Staff recommended denial without prejudice based on insoluble flood control problems due to the unimproved state of the Cucamonga Creek. The Planning Commission continued review of the project to the December 13, 1978 meeting to allow the applicant time to prepare the necessary hydrology study. Such study was to analyze the potential flood hazard problems and the m"tigating measures necessary to protect the site. The applicant has submitted plans indicating mitigating measures but no data in terms of the affects of those flood protection devices on adjacent or downstream properties. Attached, please find a letter from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. You will note the letter suggests that a concrete block wall should be. constructed to withstand 3' to 4' of debris load and that the proposed wall have a minimum 3' differential elevation above natural ground to the buildings finished floor elevation. The letter further states that as recently as 1969, Cucamonga Creek has overflowed its banks and flooded across the site. Addi- tionally the district suggests that our City Engineer look at the effects of adjacent downstream property that would be affected due to construction of the suggested wall on the proposed site. The City's positicin remains the same. We feel that if this site is approved with the proposed walls that we would be in violation of Ordinance No. 24 establishing regulations in accordance with the Department of Housing and Urban Development Department Flood Insurance Program, which basically states that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is eligible for federal grants in the course of £loud disasters, if the City insures that any new development is reasonably protected from major flood hazards. Failure to follow the Flood insurance provisions woula jeopardize financial aid to all portions of the City. Again, Staff feels that this project is premature and should be denied with — cut prejudice; thus allowing the applicant to reapply once adequate flood protection facilities have been provided on the Cucamonga Creek. Item uClo ,,y Y� If Director Review No. 7 Page 2 0 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Comuissiou adopt Resolution No. 78 -13 denying without prejudice Director Review No. 78-12 based on the findings contained within the Resolution. R pectfull submitted, JACK LA'S, Dire tar of Ccnmunity Development JL:BKB:nm Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Plan Exhibit "B" Elevations San Bernardino County Flood Control Letter Resolution No. 78 -13 4 r� ri 1� E I 1 r w Y l a ti s Y z ��O err --i— • — a' 8z �e I{ • r. 4u 1 cy As s rt a Ih�si!'I r �e I{ • r. 4u 1 As rt a Ih�si!'I �e I{ • r. 4u 1 ■ • 0 Y lit t. 11.4 kvd F f I f, td �. I I , � I Y 1 I •�/ e ; V i yC AWI T `'Y na t 0 � 0 I f, I I O � I Y 1 I 0 � 0 .•� �. .f�afy �facvxelif Flood C01111'a ;'! e25 coal ■ City of Raucho Cucamonga 9340 Baseline Road COUNTY' OF SAN BERNARDINO PUBLIDWORKS AGENCY 60'M'M_1NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. JAN 0 211919 AM PM 7,s,9,ic,uo2aI21314E5I6 A Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tdnphang (714) 363 -1aa6 - December 28, 1978 Front File: 1- 320/1.00 Subject File: 102.0204 Re: Zone 1, Cucamonga Creek Attention: Hr. Lloyd Hubs, City Engineer Subject: Submitted Dcvclopmr-.t Flars, ndjaaeat to Cucamonga Creek; North of Foothill Boulevard, City of 'Rancho Cucamonga Dear Mr. Hubs: Reference is made to the submitted development plans for subject parcel. An is known, the site is located in close proximity to Cucamonga Creek, and subject to serious infrequent flood hazards therefrom. You naked that we review the plans and provide comments regarding the adequacy of the proposed wall and site grading to protect the site and adjacent properties. We have reviewed the plans and offer the following comments relative thereto: a) The concrete block wall should be a structural block wall designed to withstand 3 to 4 feet of debris load, based on 40 pounds per square foot, equivalent fluid pressure. The wall structure should extend along the entire went boundary, and southerly on Vineyard, tying into the existing office building. b) Due to the close proximity of the proposed office building to Cucamonga Creek, and potential heavy debris loads which could overtop the proposed wall, a minimum 3 feet differ- ential elevation above natural ground to the buildings fin- iehed floor elevation is recommendee, With the above protective measures incorporated in the design of the develop- ment, flood hazards to the site would be reduced to that of a residual nature. As recently as during the floods of 1969, Cucamonga Creek has over- flowed its banks upstream of the site, and overflowed across the site. Due to the heavy debris loads which accompany the overflow, debris could overtop the wall and *enter onto the site. These problems will be virtually eliminated, upon completion of the Cucamonga Creek Federal Project presently undei construction in its lower reaches. El City of Rancho Cucamonga December 28, 1978 Page Two Regarding effects on adjacent and downstream properties due to construction of the proposed wall, the following comments are afforded. In the event flood flows are intercepted by the wall, they will be conveyed along the wall, either to San Diego or Vineyard Avenues. This will effectively concentrate the flows at these locations. It is not known what effect this could have on the adjacent and downstream properties, and it is recommended the City review this in conjunction with the developer's engineer and determine what adverse effects it may present. In addition, the F.I.A. Program requires that in keeping sound flood plain management, the base flood elevation of Cucamonga Creek should be increased by no more than 1 foot. The City should review this further with the developer's engineer. If we can provide any further assistance, please advise. RM:vr cc: F. E. MacDonald, Jr., Consulting Engineer Alderfer Ranch c/o W. M. Schultz Very truly yours, C. J. Di Pietro Flood Control Engineer By r � r am ndig Ass Control Engi r I Engineering r; it r� I RESOLUTION NO. 79 -03 /T RESOLUTIGi4 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 11ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS FOR OPERATION, PROCEEDINGS, OFFICERS, AGENDAS, MEETING MINUTES, ZT. AL. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. T.ir_pW, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that in order to maintain efficient equitable and orderly review 3 of items before the Planning Commission, certain rules and guidelines must be ,f established, and; ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the attached Exhibit "A" as administrative regulations to establish procedures and guidelines for efficient, equitable and orderly review of Planning Commission items, and; e NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY declares the attached Exhibit "A" as the Administrative Regulations for the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE .:ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission 1, 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,10th day of January,, 1979. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i. d i t U r CHAPTER 1 A. Election and Term of Office 1. The Planning Commission shall elect a chairman and a vice - chairman from among its appointed members for a term of one year, at the first regular meeting in July of each year. 2. The chairman and the vice - chairman shall hold office for one year and thereafter until their successors are elected. In case of any vacancy in office, the vacancy shall be filled by an election held at the first regular meeting after the occurrence of such vacancy. B. Duties of Officers and Staff 1. -Chairman. The chairman shall preside at all meetings cif the Commission. He shall appoint all committees and shall perform all other duties necessary, customary or incidental to his office. 2. Vice - chairman. nd vice - chairman in the absence of the chairman, or because of hie inability to act, shall take his place and perform his duties. In the event of absence, or inability to act, by both the chairman and the vice- chairman, the remaining members of the Commission shall elect one of their members to act as temporary chairman. 3. Secretary. The secretary (Community Development Director) shall provide technical advice to the Planning Commission, shall assist the Commission in the discharge of their responsibilities and shall maintain minutes of meetings and records of hearings and official actions. C. Meetings 1. Regular meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public and shall be held on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 P.M., in the Community Services Building. If the regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday the Commission, or the secretary, may fix another day thereafter. Any regular meeting of the Planning Commission may be adjourned to another place and time certain within the City. 2. Special Meetings and Study Sessions Special meetings and study sessions of the Commission shall be open to the public and shall be held at a��h time and place ac the Commission may determine or thrj. may be called by the chairman or majority of tte mP-4bers of the Planning Commission upon 24 hour& notice pursuant to the Government Code. The secretary shall be responsible for giving any necessary notice of such special meetings as prescribed by law. D D. Agendas for Meetings 1. Provision should be made for the preparation of agendas. Copies of the prepares agenda should be made available to members of the public attending the regular commission meeting by placing same near the entrance of the place of meeting. No matter otl.zr than those on the agenda st:uld be acted upon by the Planning Commission provided that matters deemed to be of an urgent nature may be considered and £cted upon oy the Planning Commission 2. A copy of the agenda for every regular meetinC of the Planning Commission ahali be provided each member no later than the Friday prior to the date of the meeting at which such agenda is to be considered. 3. None of the following m,:tters shall be placed on the agenda, or considered at any given meeting, unless filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission in the manner provided by law, at least twenty (20) days in ad%ince of the Planning Commission meeting at which such matter ...matters are to be considered: a. Tentative Maps and Parcel Maps b. Application for Zone Changes c. Applications for Variances, Conditional Use Permits d. Any matter not enumerated in the foregoing which by law . is required to be considered at advertised public hearings. 4. It shall be the right of any Planning Commissioner to place any item on the agenda provided such item is added �t least ten (10) days prior to the meeting in which it is considered, except for public hearing items. In the case of public hearing items requested by a Planning Commissioner, a request must be considered by the Planning Commission as a whole prior to scheduling. E. Order of Business 1. The order of business at any reeniar meeting shall be as follows: a. Meeting called to Order b, Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call A. Approval of minutes of previous meetings e. Announcements f. Consent Calendar g. Public Hearings �- h. Old Business i. New Business -2- 1, . F. Quorum 1. A quorum shall be three members preset. G. Voting 1. A tie vote shall be deemed denial of a request. 2. In the event any P1Enning Commissioner votes in the minority of any item coming before the Planning Commission, it shall be the policy that such Planning Commissicner state the reasons why he voted in the minority so that said reason may be recorded in the minutes. 3. Every official act taken by the Commission shall be by resolution or motion adoptee by a majority or amended order by the Commission. 4. A roll call vote shall be taken upon the passage of all resolutions or upon re -nest of any Planning Commission members. H. Time Limit 1. No matter shall be commenced after 11:00 P.M. except by majority votz of the Planning Commisioners present. Rules of Order for Conduct of Proceedings 1. The chairman e.f the =Tanning Commission shall be the presiding officer, and he shall assume his place and duties as such immediately following his election. He shall preserve strict order and decorum at all meetings of the Planning Commission, state questions coming before the Planning Commission• snnounce its decision on all subjects and decide all questions of order; subject, however, to an appeal to the Planning Commission as a whole in which event a majority vote of the Planning Commission members shall govern and conclusively . determine such question of order. The chairman shall vote on all questions. 2. In the absence of the chairman the vice- chairman shall call the Planning Commission to order. In the absence of the chairman and vice- chairman the secretary of the Planning Couanicsion or his assistant sh,'l call the Planning Commission to order, whereupon, a temporary ...iairman shall be elected by the Planning Commission present. UFon arrival of the chairman or vice - chairman the temporary chairman shall relinquish the chair at the conclusion of the item before the Planning Commission. n -3- 'i j. Council Referral k. Director's Report 1. Public Comment m. Commission Comment n. Adjournment F. Quorum 1. A quorum shall be three members preset. G. Voting 1. A tie vote shall be deemed denial of a request. 2. In the event any P1Enning Commissioner votes in the minority of any item coming before the Planning Commission, it shall be the policy that such Planning Commissicner state the reasons why he voted in the minority so that said reason may be recorded in the minutes. 3. Every official act taken by the Commission shall be by resolution or motion adoptee by a majority or amended order by the Commission. 4. A roll call vote shall be taken upon the passage of all resolutions or upon re -nest of any Planning Commission members. H. Time Limit 1. No matter shall be commenced after 11:00 P.M. except by majority votz of the Planning Commisioners present. Rules of Order for Conduct of Proceedings 1. The chairman e.f the =Tanning Commission shall be the presiding officer, and he shall assume his place and duties as such immediately following his election. He shall preserve strict order and decorum at all meetings of the Planning Commission, state questions coming before the Planning Commission• snnounce its decision on all subjects and decide all questions of order; subject, however, to an appeal to the Planning Commission as a whole in which event a majority vote of the Planning Commission members shall govern and conclusively . determine such question of order. The chairman shall vote on all questions. 2. In the absence of the chairman the vice- chairman shall call the Planning Commission to order. In the absence of the chairman and vice- chairman the secretary of the Planning Couanicsion or his assistant sh,'l call the Planning Commission to order, whereupon, a temporary ...iairman shall be elected by the Planning Commission present. UFon arrival of the chairman or vice - chairman the temporary chairman shall relinquish the chair at the conclusion of the item before the Planning Commission. n -3- 'i 0 j. Preparation of Minutee 1. The minutes of the Planning Commission shall be kept by the secretary of the Planning Commission and shall be neatly type- written in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each particular type of business transaction set off in paragraphs, with proper subheads; provided, that the secretary of the Planning Commission shall be required to make a record only of such business that was actually passed by a vote of the Planning Commission, and shall not be required to record any remarks of commissioners or of any other person, except at special request of a commissioner; provided, further that a record shall be made of the names and addresses of persons addressing the Planning Commission, the title of the subject matter to which the remarks are related, and whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter. 2. As soon as possible after each Planning Commission meeting, the secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause a copy of the minutes thereof to be forwarded to each commissioner, the City Manager, the City Council, the City Attorney and the department heals. «e, K. Approval of Minutes 1. Unless the reading of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting is requested by a commissioner and approved by majority vote, such minutes may be approved without reading if the secretary of the Planning Commission previously has furnished each commissioner with a copy thereof. Nothing may be added to the minutes, except, that they may be amended by a majority vote of th.z Planning Commission members to reflect correctly the business of :be Planning Commission at such meeting. L. Rules of Debate 1. Presiding officer may debate and vote. The presiding officer may move, second and debate from the chair, scbjeLt only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all Commissioners, and s?iall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Commissioner by reason of his acting as the presiding officer. 2. Getting the floor; improper references to be avoided. Every Commissioner desiring to speak shall address the chair, and upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine himself to the question under debate, avoiding all personalities and indecorous language. 3. Interruptions. A Commissioner, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless it is to call him to ordp- >r as herein otherwise provided. If a Commissioner, while sptW. -'1g, is called to order, he shall cease speaking until the question of order is determined, and if in order, he shall be permitted to proceed. 4. Motion to Reconsider. Motion to reconsider any action taken by the Planning Commission may be made on the date such action was taken and riast be made by a Commissioner voting in favor of the Commission's r"' ' dtcision. 0 D 5. Disqualification and abstention. No Planning Commissioner shall be permitted to disqualify himself and abstain from voting un- less reeson for such disqualification is stated. Uisqualifica- tions and abstentions shall not be counted by the Secretary of the Planning Commission except as such. 5. Silence constitutes affirmative vote. Unless a commissioner states that he is not voting, his silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote. 7. Rules of order. Except as otherwise provided in thin Resolution, the lat•!st edition of "Robert's Rules of Order, Revised" shall govern the conduct of the meetings of the Planning Commission. However, no resolution, proceeding or other action of the Planning Commission shall be invalidated, or the legality thereof otherwise affected, by the failure or omission to observe or follow such rules. It is the responsibility of the chair to control public debate so that repetitive or irrelevant remarks are not made; so that everyaie has had a chance to speak before others speak for a second. time, and so as to expedite the business at hand. No person shall speak more than twice during the same meeting to the same question, nor longer than five (5) minutes at one time, without leave of the chairman or commissioner presiding at the meeting. Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Planning Commission on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the presiding officer to request that a spokesman be chosen by the group to address the Planning Commission, and in case additional matters are to be presented at the time by any other member of said group, to limit the numbe of persons so addressing the Planning Commission, so as to avoid unnecessary repetitions before the Planning Commission. M. Decnrum 1. By Commission Members. While the Planning Commission is in session, the members shall preserve order and decorum, and a member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Planning Commission, not disturb any member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Planning Commission or the presiding officer, except as otherwise herein provided. 2. By other persons. Any person, while in attendance at any Planning Commission meeting, shall 'preserve order and decorum-, and any person shall neither. by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the Planning Commission proceedings. or the peace of the Planning Commission. No person shall disturb any Planning -5- a 3. Conflict of Interest. Any Planning Commissioner who has a direct or indirect financial interest in any matter before the romtuiuuion shall publicly disclose for the official record the nature and extent of such interest and such Commissioner shall not partici- pate in any discussion on the watter nor vote thereon. 4. Additional Policies. Additional Policies are as filed in the office of the Community 2 Development Department. -6- Commission member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Planning Commission or the presiding officer. N. Motion to adjourn. 1. A motion to adjourn shall always be in order,-and shall be decided without debate. D, Planning Commission policies. 1. Publicity. The secretary shall release all official information or stories to the press at the approval of the City Manager. Copies of all publicity items shall be distributed to the Commission for their review and information. 2. Attendance. Each Commdssion member shall attend every regular or special meeting unless unavailable with prior notice being provided to the chairman of the Commission or the secretary. The Commission may excuse members if prior notice is given to the chairman and /or secretary. In such an instance the absence of a Commission member shall be recorded in the minutes and be classified as being excused if prior notice has been given. 3. Conflict of Interest. Any Planning Commissioner who has a direct or indirect financial interest in any matter before the romtuiuuion shall publicly disclose for the official record the nature and extent of such interest and such Commissioner shall not partici- pate in any discussion on the watter nor vote thereon. 4. Additional Policies. Additional Policies are as filed in the office of the Community 2 Development Department. -6- p. Amendments. These rules and regulations may be amended by the Commission at any regular meeting by an affirmative vote of the members of the Commission or at any special meeting provided that the proposed amendment is included in a written notice of such a meeting. Ij -7- G PROCEDURE FOR.CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING • r:. 1. Chairman reads the request. 2. Chairmaa asks the Community Development Director for the staff report. 3. Chairman asks Planning Commission if there are any questions of the staff regarding the report. 4. Chairman opens the Public 'Hearing, asks the audience "Is the applicant present, if so, please come forward and state your name and address for the record ?" 5. Chairman asks the Planning Commission if they have any queations of the applicant, if not the applicant may be seated assuming he has no co=ents or questions. 6. Chairman asks people in the audience, in favor of the project:, to stand, be recognized, come forward, give their name and address for the record, and speak. 7. Chairman asks people in the audience, again at the project, to stand, be recognized, come forward, give their name and address for the record, and speak. E. Chairman asks the applicant if he wishes a rebuttal. 4. Chairman asks for motion to close the public hearing. 10. Chairman begins or asks a commis•..oner, ro begin the discussion period. IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, THE PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE REOPENED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 11. Chairman asks for a motion on the item, then a second. 12. Chairman asks for any discussion on the motion, if none, he requests a roll call vote. 13. Chairman makes announcement of action. W. I LIU-, Y is °L,ANNING COMMISSION ORDER OF BUS ?NESS CALL TO ORDER: The Planning Commission meeting will come to order. _PLF�E OF ALLEGIANCE: Will all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Will the Secretary please call the roll. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Are there any corrections to the minutes for the meeting of The Chair will entertain c notion for approval. It has been moved and seconded that (motion) Those in favor - opposed. Motion is carried (or denied). CHAIRMAN'S OPENINU COMMENTS "The Planning Commission Agenda listing our order of business is available at the entrance if you wish to follow along. When public comment is requested on an agenda item, anyone wishing to speak will please stand and be recognized by the Chairman, and give their name and .-iddreas. For those of you unfamiliar with our public hearing i procedures attaches to tonights agenda is our format." P h r r . -•9- y AMENDMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT I move that General Plan Amendment be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. -or- i move that General Plan Amendment be denied and a report be forwarded to City Council reflecting such denial. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT I move that Zoning Ordinance Amendment be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. -or- I move that Zoning Ordinance Amendment le denied and a report be forwarded to City Council reflecting suzh denial. SUBDIVISIONS: TENTATIVE TRACT I move that Tentative Tract be approved sub_.", 1') the attached special and standard conditions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I move that the Planning Commission (approve) (deny) (continue) Conditional Use Permit , subject to the attached special conditions. VARIANCE I move that the Planning Commission (approve) (deny) (continue) Variance subject to the attached special conditions. ZONE CHANGE I move that Zone Change be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. -or- I move that Zone Change be denied and a report be made y. to the City Council reflecting such denial. ENVIRONMENTAL: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I move that the Plauring Commission (certify) (reject) (continue) Environmental Impact Report NEGATIVE DECLARATION I move that the Planning Commission (issue) (reject) Negative Declaration for ANNOUNCEMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE AUDIENCE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ZONE CHANGES AND aMENDMENTS. "This item will appear before the City Council in approximately three (3) weeks." CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES, The action of the Planning TTM, EIR, ND: Commission is final unless appealed, in writing, to the City Council within fourteen (14) , calendar days. -10- T art CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: January 10, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: SERVICE STATION STANDARDS ABSTRACT: The extent of the changes requested by the Planning Commission at your December 27, 1978 meeting required more time than available. We, therefore, request that the Planning Co =ission continue consideration of Service Station Standards to the January 24, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. pest ul /submitted, JACK LAN, Director of Community Development JL:BKH:nm 1� . .; iTEH rrlu > .A rT� * ITY OF RANCHO CLWIONGA STAFF (IJRT DATE; January 10, 1979 TOO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development ho SUBJECT: Environmental Analysis of Director Re iew No. 78-55 55 a two Ranchased Cucamunga Development Company -- the development light industrial complex; the first phase consisting of fttwo (2) .,,,.t ately 12.000 sq. ft. and 17,500 sq. It. buildings app--- - ti- the second phase consisting on of two (2) side ofn Turner 1200vfeet each -- generally North of Fourth Street. BACXGROUND /ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The applicant proposes to develop the second phase of a two - phased development at the above described location. The site is 3.82 acres in size and the proposed buildings would be located on the northern two- thirds of the property. Environmental analyssi waas not conducted during review of the first phase of the development, consider the entire 5.62 acre sire. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The envirormientas a result did not indicate any significanC adverse environmental impacts as a result of this project. S':aff has field checked the site and found no discrepancies with the checklist. The site is located within he Interim flood plain as shown on of the eneralePlan. Environmental Constraints Map ecC for flooding and may require Engineering Division will review this pr.j mitigating measures in the design of the development. Staff found no ether significant adverse environmental impacts a•sociated with this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that this project will not create a significant ant and, therefore, recommends issuance of a adverse impact on the environm Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:BNH:elm Attachmen%7s: Initial Study roposed Phase II development Exhibit "A" site plan of p 0 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA d STAFF REPORT Date: January 10, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: DIRECTOR R=EW 78 -58 - LONGLE - Request for development of a retail. /wholesale building materials and supply center with outdoor storage and sales located on the south side of Foothill Blvd., 1,000'+ west of the Devore Freeway in the C -2 (General Business) and M -1 (Limited Manufacturing) Zone. BACKGROUND: On September 13, 1978, Zone Change 123 -81 was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and subsequently approved by the City Council on September 20, 1973. The change of zone on the subject property was from A -1 (Limited Agriculture) to C -2 (General Business) and M -1 (Limited Manufacturing). At the time of the public hearing at both the Planning Commis- sion level and City Council level the following concerns were expressed: 1. Proximity to the proposed regional shopping center indicated on the proposed General Plan. 2. Compatibility wish that proposed shopping center in terms of land use, design and aesthetics. 3. The expectation for high quality design for any development on the subject property. At the close of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the Staff reiterated that the C -2 portion of the site was to be a retail use; for example, a hardr!are store that might have s me outdoor displa The primary use in a commercial zone is for retail sale within a bu ing of for storage. The proposal by the appl ca�`�Ye - tempt to disguise an industrial use in a commercial zone. The Ordinance c'oes not permit building material storage yards in the C -2 zone but the M - I zone. ANALYSIS In our opinion, the site plan ..a proposed is misconceived and tries to disguice an industrial use in a commercial zone. The proposal would not promote the proposed character of the area and would not promote the high quality of development previously approved along Foothill Blvd. Commercial zoning must be used for commercial uses (uses primarily within a building), and not for storage yards. RECCMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -01 denying Director Review No. 78 -58. Res ectfully submitted, �• LAN. irectoz of ., Community Development Attachments: Exhibits "A" - "D" Resolution No. 79 -01 ITEM "T" ro � � c�v SRicx sro�RSe Pi1L' /f 14 C[wr Gaf TA/[ J �— in e �7 b e D � _ I N a • 3 ! 11. O 1 I � Q � � -- __ M /$Cltf- �I•vLOVl DrY/r++y _ , _ - - 1 E va A ` Nc��l�l• � � � �� cl b li ! r ice", 1 MI I I j h C� 't O ,Ibis, . j C; 1 � CA�OSGfC 9ONC04t t O /SILrwY � 2� aka °�� i�• Q w xo *or•�� re�s � h _ M• �� ✓� _ � s,0 _ sa _ �, ^� _.... TS 'vRC N •� 4 ti •fir- -�--r— - �l}`�il? �� !ti�w'n} 'A�.' �•��- JSd� - C M 1 1L/� � 5 /Rrr c«<a Arw..r�[X ARFA O A u T.: � •Ch / Q% h • Q M3si�n Nv1- Q `A sw C x ti 7 s J I I I n Hill ro TM El i - M �.-. IA ti r Z y r M F.sNtolrc 0 IM J � .,I ' 1 , . , 1 LI I 1 .l _I.ir RESOLUTION NO. 79 -04 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -02 WHICH REPEALS.. SECTION 61.024A(b) (3), AMENDS SECTION 61.022 AND ADDS SECTION 61.0219(a)(9). WHEREAS, on the 10th day of January, 1979. the Planning Co=iccicn . held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the Californ Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: p,/ 1. That such amendment is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. K 2. That sur.;, amendment is consistent with the goals ✓ and policies of the General Plan. 3. That such amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. That the proposed amendment would not have sig- nificant adverse environmental impacts. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project wM not c:•eate a significant adverse impact on the environ- ment and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration on January 10, 1979. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 64854 to 65847 of the California Government Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 10th day of January, 1979, of Zone Ordinance Amendment No. 79 -02. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Ordinance Amend- ment No. 79 -02. 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and re- lated material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. 4. That the attached amended Sections of the Zoning ;.; Ordinance becomes a part of this Resolution. b . v :;a L J APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF JANUARY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCk_`tONGA BY: Herman Hempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the PlanningCommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the PlanningCommission held on the 10th day of January, 1979. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i, U 61.0219(a)(9) — HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS A. Home occupations, as defined in Section 61.022, may be permited on any property used for residential purposes upon approval of the Director of Community Development based on the following conditions: 1. The use of the dwelling for such home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its inhabitants. 2. No persons, other than members of the family who reside on the premises, shall be engaged in such activity. 3. There shall be no change in the outward appearance of the building or premises, or other visible evidence of the activity. 4. There shall be no sales of products on the premises. 5. The use shall not generate pedestrian or vehicular traffic beyond that normal to the district or neighborhood in which it is located. 6. No equipment or processes shall be used on the subject property which creates noise, smoke, glare, fumes, odor, vibration, electrical, radio or television interference disruptive to surrounding properties. 7. No home occupation shall be conducted in an accessory building or garage. 8. Not more than one (1) room in the dwelling shall be used for the home occupation. 9. The use shall not involve storage of materials or supplies in the garage or accessory buildings. 10. Use of the United States Postal Service in conjunction with the home occupation shall be done by means of a post office box. 11. No signs shall be displayed in conjunction with the home occupation and there shall be no advertising using the home address. 12. A home occupation permit is not valid until a current City business licence is obtained. 13. The use shall not involve the use of commercial vehicles for delivery of materials to or from the premises, other than a vehicle not to exceed a capacity of 3/4 ton, owned by the operator of such home occupation which shall be stored in an entirely enclosed garage. B. Procedure for Approval: Upon acceptance of a home occupation application and fee, as specified in the Pee Resolution, the Director of Community Development or his designated • representative shall review the request for compliance with the above conditions. Within 5 days from the submittal o2 the application, staff shall post a Notice of Request for a Home Occupation Permit on the subject property and send a copy of the request to all adjacent property owners for public review and input. Following a ten (10) day public review period, the Director of Community Development shall render a decision. The decision shall clearly state reasons for approval or denial based upon the above find- ings. The decision of the Director shall be final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten (10) days from his decision. Upon receiving approval from the Director of Community Development or his delegate for a home occupation, the applicant shall immediately make application for a City Business License. City business licenses expire on a yearly basis. If the business license is not renewed within 30 days after expiration, then the tome occupation permit shall become null and void. C. Appeal Procedure: dw Any applicant for a home occupation permit or any person aggrieved by the decision of the Director of Community Development to approve or deny a request for a home occupation permit shall have 10 days from the date of the decision to appeal in writing the decision to the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall indicate wherein the decision of the Director was at variance with the required findings as stated in this Section. Any person subsequently aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission relating to the home occupation permit may appeal said decision in writing to the City Council as provided for above. ., D Ai aq SECTION 61.022 - DEFINITIONS Home Occupation shall mean any business -like use which meets the conditions set forth in Section 61.0219(a)(9) and which is conducted entirely within a dwelling by the inhabitants thereof, which use is clearly incidental to the use of the structure for dwelling purposes and which does not change the char -• acter thereof, or does nolc adversely affect the uses permitted in the surround- ing zone. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 10, 1978 go: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 87 -73 -- Jerry Rodgers — Changing the zone from FP-2 (Flood Plain) to A -P (Administrative-Professional) for property located on the south side of Baseline, 775' west of Vfneyerd Avenue_ BACKGROUND: This item was heard at the Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 1978 where the applicant requested a change of zone from FP-2 to R -3. At that time, the Commission expressed concern over the flooding and erosion hazards associated with the site and required an Environmental Impact Report (see Minutes of April 26, 1978 meeting). The application was later heard at the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1978 and continued to January 10, 1979 because of the existing residential moratorium. Since the August 9 meeting, the applicant has amended his request to change the zone from FP -2 to AP (see letter, dated December 20, 1978), to develop a professional office building. Staff accepted this request in that the proposed land use is in conformance with the proposed General Plan. The General Plan designation for this site is Mixed Use and the surroui:ding land use and zoning is as follows- Zoning Land Use .North R -1 Alta Loma High School West R -1 Vacant South FP -2 Vacant East FP -2 Park ANALYSIS" Environmental Review - Staff has reviewed this application for adverse environ- mental impacts resulting from future development on this site. A significant potential impact to development is possible erosion of the building pad during flooding periods. As mentioned, the Planning Commission had required an EIR for a zone change to R -3 because of the erosion potential. Staff feels that tha possible erosion hazard is an effect of development not of zoning, therefore, an EIR would not be appropriate at the zone change level. It should be made clear to the applicant, however, that detailed studies indicating proposed mitigation measures will be required prior to development of the property. We reserve the right to require additional environmental data at the site development stage. Staff is therefore recomnending issuance of a Negative De- claration for this zone change. iThe San Bernardino County Flood Control District has reviewed the request and has submitted a letter stating that they have no objections to the Zone Change (Exhibit "e ")• „ „ ITEM F •i: f, Page 2 Site Analysis - The requested A -P zone is consistent with the proposed General Plan and the site 18 suitable in size and shape to accommodate the uses permitted in the A -P zone. CORRESPONDENCE: A notice of public hearing was published in the Cucamonga Times on December 2E, 1978. In addition, a notice of this hearing was mailed to property uwners within 3000' of the subject property. No correspondence has been recieved in regards to this notice. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends adoption of Resolution Wo. 79 -02 recommending approval of Zone Change 87 -73 changing the zone from FP -2 to A -P and forward it to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, �1 a -Ld -0jc',' JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:BNH:elm Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Zoning Map Minutes of Planning Commission meeting, April 26, 1978 Letter from Jerry Rodgers, dated December 20, 1978 Exhibit "B" - Letter from S.B.C.F.C.D. Initial Study Resolution 19 -02 1 M UA - 7 Q (Stntv ✓ rs�aus.') R _ (ALTA LOMA J w z d Z U A, IA c ' A Zard1NC, to INJ� N so& `1 Planning Commission Minutes (cont'd) CONSENT ITEMS: PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (Environmental Impact Reports) April 26, 1978 Mr. Wasserman reported that an Environmental Review Committee will be established to review proposals to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report will be required. Consent Items 1 through 8 have been reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee and its recommendations are listed. Mr. Wasser- man explained that all items listed under consent are considered to be routine and can be enacted by one motion, unless a Commissioner wishes to pull from the consent any item which can then be discussed separately by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dahl stated that he would like to pull items 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Garcia requested that item 7 be pulled off the consent items. ACTION: Upon motion by Tolstoy, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried, it was voted to approve the following consent items: (1) Conversion of an existing residence into a restaurant, s/w corner of Foothill Blvd. & Vineyard Avenue, C -2 -T - A negative declaration has been determined. (5) Zone Change from 7M -R3 -T to A-1 - Expansion of an sxisting nursery, n/o of 19th St., approx. 200' w/o Amethyst - A negative declaration has been determined. . (6) Change of zone froo R -1 to A -P, s/e corner of Baseline G Hellman, approx. 2.3 acres (Douglas 6 Kathleen Hone) A negative declaration has been determined. (8) Change of zone from R -3 to A -P, .37 acre, n/w corner of Baseline f, Amethyst (James Van Antwerp) - A negative declaration has been determined. Mr. Dahl stated that an items 2, 3 and 4, he would hope that the applicants are aware that a new ordinance is being prepared regarding minimum lot sizes. Mr. Garcia stated in regards to item 7, that he would hope to see the Environmental Impact Report address drainage and topographical concerns as well as provide mitigating measures on same. He also stated his desire to review the basic guidelines for Environmental Impact Reports. ACTION: Upon motion by Dahl, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried, it was voted to approve the following consent items: i Y (2) Tentative Tract 10363, 9!1 acres, R -1 development, n/s of Hillside Road, approx. 1000' w/o Sapphire Street - A negative declaration has been determined. (3) Tentative Tract 10157 & zone change from A -1 -5 to R- 1- 20,000, 30.8 acres, s/o Wilson, e/o Chaffey College, n/o Banyan - Because of potential flood problems, an Environs mental Impact Report would be necessary. (7) Zone change from FP -? to R -3, s/s of Baseline, approx. 775' w/o the intersection of Baseline 4 Vineyard - Because of potential flood hazards, an Environmental Impact Report will be required for this project. - 4 - r AM ROGE CONSTRUCTION CO. GENERAL ENGINEERING ..___ 154 EAST 16TH STREET UPLAND. CALIFORNIA 91786 (714) 981.5558 December 20, 1978 City of Rancho Currtm.7n."7 P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cuce_monl;a, C.: iif. 91730 Subjects Zone chnn:e ,187 -73 from FP -Z to R -3 Dear Sir, The city is considering my request, for zone chanE;e on my property located at 8801 Baseline. This request #87 -73 is coming up for consideration at the first Flanning Commission meeting in January, 1979. I am requesting this application be amE.nded to A -P zone. JJR/lmr Respectfully i -+ e�-rrrr^. Jerry �T, 4o I rs r , CCOMMU<+ITY DEVEOPMENT^DEPT. DEC %0 1918 PM 718 011D 111 12 11 12 1 3 14 1 5 16 i r 'c; 1••• SAN tlERNA( COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL uISTRIC� INTER-OFFICE MEIVI O 49TE April 22. 1977 ROM Bill C. "can (2368) Assistant Flood Control Eaginear -1.O running Departmant Attention: John Jaqueos File: 1 -404 /1.00 EX [H8 V, "D1% `yh�n gene UBJECf 7.0n 1. RED IiILL ivsill - PARCEL SOUTP Or DASELIt1IS ROAD* 7,MEE -4 EIIR. I IAN AVi MW.. AND Vll:E7tARD AVMM 'lha armor of the subject parcel has been in contact with the District regarding the present VP -2 70aing of the property. 'Ch ¢ 3 o tilts property recording to information evailabla in this office was bound upon County pleoning Department to reco=endatione in 1969- 7.11a d apparentlyythus ehodIPP- 227oning.d The District operates t1it RodnHill o Rscin to tho south, and public recreation and park use exists to the Cant. Story dreina dircihnrgo into wmtercoureas existing along the east end went aide of the parcel, and therefore possible erosion exists chars- from. We 11avo ndviFod the ornar n7 r request for a %nne change :could have to ba raado to your office. 11omevar, thin office would Have no objection to the tons chnn;o, providing the ormer is edcre of passible orooidn aloof; the widen of the parcel and vlekes provisions as nececoary to protect Me property at ouch time ao it to developed. -It Jr. understood c storage facility to planned for the area. Wo will by copy of this letter advise the or.•nor of our non- objection to the zone change, per his requadC. tlenae advice i! we can latve$owia additional information an the natter. We are attaching a p g the property for your information. 1111.1. C. HAI114 Assistant flood Control Enginner Water Resou_ces - Land Development RCH:su l?, Att;;1454 . a noted act rry J. Rogers Eant Sixteenth Street Upland. CA 50766 Carl Hnolagal* ivision rCD Land Development D �107Gi.L77 .. PRE LIMIMIRY ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION FORM (PEDF) Introduction: The questions in this form are designed to obtain enough data about your proposed project and your project site to allow the staff and/or ERL to adequately assess your project. By taking the time to fully respond to the questions below, you can help reduce the processing time for your project. Use additional sheets where necessary. Project Dessrlption qr I. Describe your proposed project in as much detail as possible. Identify the Project's specific components and the reasons far proposing Iho prninc[ ;It Ibis time. Alsa, discuss the specific issues identified below, where applicable. This request is for a zone change from Zone FP2 Flood Plain to R -3 Residential; applicable zoning to permit construction of 32 living units in an apartment complex. a. Describe any product(:) that will be manufactured or processed b and the market it (they) will serve. y Your project None 4 b. Indicate the market that your units are designed to - .erve, and wily the• number of units and the density proposed are necessary. Continued need and demand for moderately priced living units. r' +, e. Di;euf;% any phasinry of your propo%vd project on the proposod site nr in relation to adjaccnt projects or land. • lJOne ' r, r1 a. Describe the type of vegetation and the percentage of the,, eitc ti,at it covers. list the animals that you have seen or that are known to occur on the site_ Volunteer rye grass & weeds presently kept mowed, cover the entire parcel. Only gophers ii an occasional jack- rabbit are seen crossing the property. b. Describe the topography (i.e., slopes, landforms, landscape) of tilc silo Any data on soils and geology would also be helpful. c Parcel has a uniform slope of 2% from Baseline Road southerly. soil would be classified as a sandy clay loam situated on an alluvial fan as most of the Cucamonga area is. Discuss any stream channels or eroded areas on the site. 'Storm drains discharge along the cast and west side of the Parcel into existing Flood Control maintained water courses. During the course of the '69 flood however, no erosion took place as all flood waters were controlled within the earth channels. SBCFCD has expressed "no objection" to a zone charge on a sub ect property. See. Exhibit "B ". A rtuF � � -z- d. Size of Parcel(s) (acres) 1.88 Acres (Gross ro original Street VVI line) Assessor's Parcel Number(s) 207- 031 -19 Total number of units 32 Living units Total number of lots one Square footage of all structures 27,000 S.F. Height of proposed structures 24 ft. in front, 34 ft, in rear Number of parking spaces 64 spaces Area of paved surface 15,400 S.F. _ ,. a Total disturbed area Entire Site Street(s) that provide access Baseline Road Site Description 2. Describe the site as thoroughly as possible. The following factors should be considered: r1 a. Describe the type of vegetation and the percentage of the,, eitc ti,at it covers. list the animals that you have seen or that are known to occur on the site_ Volunteer rye grass & weeds presently kept mowed, cover the entire parcel. Only gophers ii an occasional jack- rabbit are seen crossing the property. b. Describe the topography (i.e., slopes, landforms, landscape) of tilc silo Any data on soils and geology would also be helpful. c Parcel has a uniform slope of 2% from Baseline Road southerly. soil would be classified as a sandy clay loam situated on an alluvial fan as most of the Cucamonga area is. Discuss any stream channels or eroded areas on the site. 'Storm drains discharge along the cast and west side of the Parcel into existing Flood Control maintained water courses. During the course of the '69 flood however, no erosion took place as all flood waters were controlled within the earth channels. SBCFCD has expressed "no objection" to a zone charge on a sub ect property. See. Exhibit "B ". d (1 PEDF. -3- . Describe any improvements on the site. The entire parcel has lien fenced and a few trees planted with volunteer grass, which is irrigated and maintain,--d. e. in order to save time for processing your project, you should contact the County Museum (Dr. Gerald A. Smith, 714/825 -4825) and determine whether your project site requires an archapningical survey. A letter or study from the Museum Association indicating the archaaol- i. ogical and historical status of your site shall accompany this PEDF. f. Describe the agencies that are or will be providing the following services or utilities. Indicate their nearest connection point or location of their stations. Electricity Southern California Edison Company. Gas _ Southern California Gas Company Water _ Cucamonga County Water District Sewage Disposal Chino Basin Municipal Water District Cucamonga County Water District Refuse Disposal Several private services are operating in the City. Schools Central school District - Elementary, Chaffey School District - High School. ` Fire Protection Foothill Fire District ~' PEDF -4- 3. De ,-',tribe the land uses on the adjacent land in each direction. dote any major oc important natural or man -made features on the adjacent land; for example, major highways, stream channels, or other notable features. Where possible, provide a vicinity map showing the project site's relationship to these features.. Northerly and adjacent to Baseline Road, Alta Loma High School; Easterly, Flood Control property and CSA 50 Park; Southerly, Flood control Basin; Westerly, Flood Control Channel and vacant land. 4. Describe the site alterations that will be produced by your proposed project. For instance, describe topographic changes, the percentage of the site that will be graded, storm floris that will have to be channelized, and other changes. Also; indicate any new services or utilities that will be required as a result of your project. Site shall be fully graded to accept apartment buildings. Parking under living units shall be stepped to fit the existing terrain as closely as is practical. Existing drainage channels on cacti side of the project shall be improved as necessary to protect the site from erosion. Normal water, sewer, gas, power & telephone services will be utilized by the project. 5. Identify any other agencies that you have contacted during the processing of your project. Please include codes of correspondence with any state, federal or other local agencies or departments where the proposed project is discussed. Attached please find a copy of an inter- ofrice memo from the Flood Control_ District to tl;e Planning dept., relating no objections to the Zone Change request. rs r.r.: r M