Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982/09/22 - Agenda Packetmy m c'� z 7c 0 b r D � 3 n i m -17 � r D i z U � z N f.7 _N co O N 3 3 1 A C T I O N APPROVED 5 -0 J��A 'ri'J'4 CITY OF RAINCHO CUCP.h4ONGA PLANNING COTWMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 22, 1982 7:00 P.M. LION'S PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,. RANCHO CUCAYIONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Cal Commissioner Barker X Commissioner King X Commissioner McNiel X III. Approval of Minutes August 11, 1982 IV. Announceme,ts Commissioner Rempel X Commissicner Stout_ V. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in wI-.ich concerned individuals may voice their cpi ion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission from thu public microphone by giving your nape and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 urinates per individual for each project. CONTINUED 5 -0 A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 3383 - To October 13, 1982 BANKS - The division of 5 acres of land into Per Applicants request. 4 lots within the R -1 zone located approximately 660' north of Base Line and 660' west of East Avenue - APN 227 - 131 -29. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1982.) CONTINUED 4 -0 -1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE o ctober 13, 1982 AMENDMENT 82-04 - An amendment to ection with direction to staff 61.02910-7-2TR7 to allow a percentage of the to rewrite Ordinance. required rear yard area to be used for additions and accessory structures. (Continued from Planning <' Commission meeting of September 8, 1982) y f; CONTINUED 5 -0 C. To October i3, 1982 Per Applicant's request. CONTINUED 5 -0 D. To November 10, 1982 Per Applicant's request. VI. APPROVED schedule with ash scheduled meeting to be held on January 12, 1983. CONSENSUS to hold public hear— i within 30 days. Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, September 22, 1982 Page '2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -19 - ZWISSLER - TFe—establishment cf 13,232 square t of professional offices in ar: existing building and the continuance of a preschool use in an existing 5,644 square foot building on 4.39 acres in the General Industrial category located at 8968 Archibald Avenue - APN 209 - 171 -15. Map-.-from Medium Residential (4-14 dwelling snits /acre) to Commercial on approximately 8.9 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077 - 621 -31. Director's Reports E. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - BOAR'S HEAD - report on the establishment locate4 within the shopping center on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Carnelian. VII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Co=mission_ items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear or this agenda. VIII. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted .administrative Regulations that set an 11 p.m. .adjournment time. if items go beyond that time, they stall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I LOT- NT �lc ORTAR;O JRTER %ATQ*AL AOVORi' CITY OF RANCHO I I 1977 CITY OF RAlr\TCHO CLJC.AMOriTCA PLANNING COTUMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 22, 1982 LICH'S PARK COXMUNITY CENTER 9161 BASE LINE,.RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Barker Commissioner King Commissioner McNiel III. IV V. Approval of Minutes August 11, 1982 Announcements Public Hearings T 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Stout I The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission from the public microphone by giving your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per [victual for each project. LM Ll,Y li \VIR /L .III{.. 11JJLJJI4G 1I N!u rmV� '' v JJ - BANKS - The division of 5 acres of land into lots within the R -1 zone located approximately 660' north of Base Line and 660' west of East Avenue - APN 227 - 131 -29. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 82 -04 - An amen nient to Section 61.0291(h)F27TS7 to allow a percentage of the required rear yard area to be used for additions and accessory structures. (Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 3, 1982) Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, September 22, 1982 Paae 2 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -19 ZWISSLER - The establishment of 13,232 square feet of orofessinnal officeC in an exi-stin, buildi- and the continuance of a preschool use in an existing 5,644 square foot building on 4.39 acres in the General Industrial category located at 8968 Archibald Avenue - APN 209 - 171 -15. D. Map from Medium Residential (4-14 dwelling iunitsiacre) to Commercial on approximately 8.9 acres of land located on the northeast corner of Ramona and Foothill Boulevard - APN 1077 - 621 -31. VI. Director's Reports E. REVIEW OF PUB F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78 -03 - BOAR'S HEAD - report on the establishment located within the shopping center on the northwest corner of 19th Street and Carnelian. VII. Public Comments This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Stems to be discussed here are those which do rot already appear or. this agenda. VIII. Adjournment The Planning Comadssion has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 1- n.m. adjournment time. TE items go beyond that time, tLey Fha2l be heard only with the consent of the Commission. a fi t. MTARIO IM /ERM47'0 L AR r: V CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting August 11, 1982 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Jeff King called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commissicn to order at 7 :05 o.m. He then led in the oledae of alle- giance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: David Barker, Larry McNiei, Herman Rempel, Dennis Stout, Jeff King ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None STAFF PRESENT: Shintu Bose, Associate Civil Engineer; Rick Gomez, City Planner; Curt Johnston, Assistant Planner; Joan Kruse, Administrative Secretary; Jack Lam, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Stout requested that the last paragraph of page 2 of the Minutes of July 28, 1982 be corrected to read..."if the overall density of the project did not average 1.2 acres per lot, he would be "... Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, to approve the Minutes of July 28, 1982 with the correction as noted. Chairman King abstained because he was not present at the July 28 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman King stated that Peter Tolstay is unable to be it attendance to accept the Commendation Resolution; however, the Planning Commission unani- mously adopted it so that it could be presented to him at a later time. Chairman King asked that staff prepare a commendation Resolution for former Planning Commissioner, Richard Dahl, for presentation at the next meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by McNiei, carried, to approve the Consent Calendar. A. TIME EXTENSION FOR SITE APPROVAL 80 -12 - GALA FELLOWSHIP Chairman King voted no on this item because he does not believe this to be an appropriate use for the area. It PUBLIC HEARINGS B. 'NYIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -12 - LEDERMANN - The development of an ,31 square foot preschool facility on 2.98 acres of land in the A -1 zone (Limited Agriculture) located at the northeast corner of Church Street and Turner Avenue - APN 1077- 271 -08. Assistant Planner, Curt Johnston, reviewed the staff report. Chairman King asked how far to the south the wrought iron fence on the west side of the playgroud extended in relation to the proposed building. Mr. Johnston pointed -to the proposed ending point and provided the Commission with an illustration of how the fence would look. Chairman King asked if there would be any supervision problems because of the fence. Mr. , Johnston replied that there would not. Further, that in front of the fence there will be shrubbery and provided the Commission with a conceptual illustration of the landscaping. Commissioner Stout asked if it were true that on the northern edge of the project the grade is much higher than with the adjacent uses. Mr. Johnston replied that the proposed project is eight feet lower than the adjacent lots. Commissioner Stout asked if there was any thought given to the project so that you would be unable to see into the back yards adjacent to it. Mr. Johnston replied that when the project was first submitted staff felt that this was an unsightly problem. Further, that the solution would be for the developer to build a retaining wall and on top of it a six -foot high rear yard fence would be built by the homeowners. However, because of the cost to ti-le property owners, that solution was dropped. Commissioner Stout asked if the proposed landscaping would screen out the rear yards. Rick Gomez, City Planner, stated that this is a conceptual plan and screening of the rear yards will be taken care of at a later time. Mr. Johnston stated that the proposed landscaping to the south would be euca- lyptus with ground cover and shrubs. Chairman icing opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 11, 1982 Mr. Ken Ledermann, architect and agent for the applicant, concurred.with the staff report. He stated that the owner has two concerns, one dealing with the cost of removal of the existing palm trees as indicated in Section 3, Item 3 of the Resolution. The other, concern is the idea of shade trees in the play- ground as expressed in Item 6 of the Resolution and their cost. Further concern was expressed on the possibility of liability should children play in the trees and fall out of them. Mr. Ledermann indicated that :Wade structures would be installed which would lessen the exposure to liability. Mr. Ledermann indicated that the owners of the property intend to put in a standard wall of some kind. Commissioner Stout stated that the land behind this property is 6 -8 feet high and would be level at the end of the property. He indicated that the wall will not provide privacy for either the property owners in the back or for the children in the playground. Mr. Ledermann stated that there is a requirement to replace the eucalyptus trees which would provide some screening. He indicated that they are thinking of a six -foot high screening wall. Commissioner Stout stated that if sufficient trees are planted they will provide some privacy and this is just an illustrative plan. He indicated however that the line of sight is such that with the grade differential at the school there will be full view into the rear yards; and, if people do not take care of their yards, it will be unsightly. He stated he had concern Tor the noise level created by the school children and screening would help to keep noise down. Commissioner Barker asked if it is the contention of the owner that shade equipment is better than trees. Mr. Ledermann replied affirmatively, stating that there are guarantees with the equipment whereas there is no guarantee with trees. Commissioner Barker stated that the odds are that the children will be hard on the play equipment. Mr. Ledermann replied that Commissioner Barker is right, but they are trying to reduce the odds. He also talked about the grounds and the bark they would use under the equipment to cushion any falls the children might have. Commissioner Stout asked what the age group of the children would be_ Mr. Ledermann replied they would be from 2 -12 years of age. An after school program would be provided for the older children. Mr. Ledermann then asked if it would be possible for the Commission to recess for a few minutes in order for him to discuss something that had just come up with the owner of the property. Planning Commission Minutes -3- August 11, 1982 7:25 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 7:27 p.m. She Planning Commission reconvened Mr. Ledermann stated that one general issue under consideration is the cost of this school as it will be the most expensive of any established by this firm. He indicated that the cost evaluation is so serious that it may preclude the building of this facility on the property. Mrs. Ruth Cowan, 10069 Yew Street, Rancho Cucamonga, asked whether a four -way stop would be provided at the corner and what noise levels could be expected. Commissioner Stout stator that a probla wind �^ created f r uc ..rcawv it there are d IOL of cars coming in and out of the parking lot and he asked how many children would be enrolled in the school during the day and after school. Mr. Gomez replied that only a two -way stop is warranted here; however, another study could be done after the school is in operation to see if a four -way stop would be appropriate. In response to Mr. Stout's question, Mr. Ledermann stated that the school would be in operation from 6 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. He stated the times that the playgrounds would be used in the morning and afternoon and that the maximum number of children at the school at any one time would be 220. There being no further comments, the public hearing was _iosed. Commissioner Rempel stated for clarification that the Design Review Committee had indicated that as many palm trees as were possible and feasible were to be saved and not that all were to be saved. Further, that since this is a conceptual design and not the final, it would not have the detail at this stage. Commissioner Rempel stated that landscaping in front of the block wall would be of the type that should bush out and be approximately six -feet high. Commissioner Rempel stated that one thing the Planning Commission has tried to do is try to provide the type of service that benefits the community and he stated that the facility proposed which would be located in a residential area fulfills tha` intent. He indicated that the design of the school fits the neighborhood and further, that he felt that perhaps the Commission goes too far when they tell the applicant to add specific equipment to the playground. He indicated that what they are trying to do is to make the community look good and have services that fit into the existing community. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would be willing to accept that the Commis- sion should not demand trees in the playground area if the applicai.• really does not want them there. Further, in public school niaygrounds ycu will not find trees. Chairman King stated that he would concur if a good faith C`fort is made to move and preserve the existing palm trees and to provide landscape Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 11, 1982 buffering. He stated that he sees no reason for trees for the provision of shade. Commissioner McNiel asked why the preschool will accept children up to the age of 12 years. Mr. Ledermann stated that there is a need for after school care for children of that ace and they provide an afterschool program. Commissioner Stout stated that this is a good use for this site which will benefit the community and he was happy to see it. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Barker, carried unanimously, to adopt Resolution No. 82 -77 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -12 and issuing a negative declaration with the provision that a good faith effort be made to move and preserve the existing palm trees and that shade trees not be required in the play area. * * * * x C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE 81 -04 - WILSON - A change of zone from R-1-20,000 (Sing a ami y Residential - square foot lot minimum) to R- 1- 10,000 (Single Family Residential - 10,000 square foot lot minimum) for 6.9 acres of land located south of Banyan Street, east of Archibald Avenue - APN 201 - 251 -63 & 64. City Planner, Rick Gomez, reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Barker asked if any of the homes An the 2 -4 dwelling units per acre which were outside of the 300 -foot area were notified of this proposed zone change. Mr. Gomez replied that only homeowners within the 300 -foot radius had been notified. Mr. Barker stated that this is one of those instances where property owners just outside of the required area should have been notified because of the proposed density .change to the adjacent property. He indicated that this is horse property where currently there are two existing trails and adjacent property owners should have been notified so brat this could be taken into consideration. Mr. Hopson stated that the rules for notification are applied uniformly and under the statute only those property owners within a 300 -foot radius must be notified. He indicated that the City requires the developer to furnish labels so that this procedure can take p ace, and if the 300 -foot radius were not set, it could mean that property owners within a 500 -foot or 700 -foot radius would have to be notified. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 11, 1982 a Commissioner Barker stated that this is somewhat the same discussion that the Commission had before, but the point still remained that some people were on vacation and did not receive notification. Further, that the property below did not receive any notice and what is being proposed is an increase in zoning which could have an effect on that property and its use. Commissioner Stout asked if thi ,erty would include i ro Alta Loma Channel, and what ki , , annel this would be. :ements to the Mr. Gomez replied that this woul- .- , trapezoidal channel. Mr. Bose replied that the major consideratinq is that this be some Type of cor�crece channel if Banyan were to be extended. Further, there would be driveways fronting on the street and there would not be high traffic volume. Commissioner Stout stated that the City went through a great deal of trouble to straighten Amethyst out and there is a lot of *ra fill- through there. He asked if some type of traffic survey had been done. Mr. Bose indicated that a study had been done at the time the General Plan was being considered and the plan for traffic is to extend Wilson to Carnelian which will ultimately take traffic away from Banyan. Commissioner Stout indicated that he was partial to Banyan and there has been a large effort made to make it a good street across the city. He indicated that he was concerned with traffic that would be funneled down to Lemon. Mr. Bose explained the reason for directing traffic in that manner. Commissioner Barker asked if the Alta Loma channel is the trail that is to go south to Santa Fe =_nd contact Cucamonga creek as far as the trail system is concerned. Commissioner Rempel stated that Alta Loma Channel dumps into Hermosa and that there would be right of way on boi:h sides of the channel. Cu nissioner Barker asked if it is known what access will be available from the Water District and if the trail will be north or east and west. Mr. Gomez stated that the connection can be in the street right of way and that the trail is to go in a southerly direction; however, the exact location has not yet been determined. Chairman King asked Mr. Hopson how the fact that an elementary school had Previously been shown on this site would affect the zoning of this property. Mr. Hopson replied that the elementary school had been shown as an option and that the fact that this had been shown on the General Plan, does not mean that it would carry the General Plan designation on this property. He indicated Planning Commission Minutes Z -6- August 11, 1982 that the density is low and medium and any one of several categories could fit on this site. Chairman King opened the public hearing and requested that public comment be restricted to whether zoning of R -1- 10,000- 15,C00, or 7,200 was appropriate. Mr. Jerry Wilson, 387 N. Second Street, Upland, representing the applicant stated that he agreed with staff's recommendations and thought that the zoning they have requested is appropriate in light of the General Plan designation for the area. me indicated that equestrian trails can be accommodated in the right of way on the east side of the property and they would qualify that depending on whether the Flood Control District would allow use of the easement. lie indicated further that if this is a condition of the map, then they would be happy to grant the easement either to the Flood Control District or to the City for the equestrian easement. Chairman King asked if there were any comments from the public as it relates to zor.:ng. There being none he asked if there were any comments from the Commission on the same subject. Commissioner Barker stated that the property to the southwest is horse property. He further stated his concern that when looking at the map, the property to the west fronting onto Archibaid and the property to the south might be surprised if the properties went to 10,000 or less. He indicated that for the property owners who have been here for a longer perio'A of time and who purchased the larger pieces, they no longer have around them property like theirs and eventually the area will no longer be compatible. He indicated that this would be the case even if access were to be allowed. He raised concern with the fact that there is no practical buffering between these properties. He indicated that because of the impact this zoning would `ave on the lifestyle and trails in the area he is not in favor of increasing the density of this piece of property. Commissioner Rempel stated that having sat on the Planning Commission for the last four and a half years, one of the things that has always been brought up is that a dividing line is needed in order to protect the equestrian area from the rest of the City. He indicated that the dividing line would be Banyan and nothing south of there would be protected. Further, the area north of there would ue totally protected. He indicated that this was the assumption of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Rempel stated that there had been no comments from the adjacent property owners when they spoke of zoning going to 10,000 and 15,000 square foot lots during the General Plan hearings. He indicated that if the Commission says that the zoning should remain where it is, they are saying that anything below the arbitrary line should go the same route, and it is really not the best to say that. He indicated that there are a lot of people in the equestrian area who say they do not want horses. Further, that it is not necessarily true tnat the lots on the southwest corner are large lots and that they will be divided off, because they already have been. He indicated that the Planning Commission and City Planning Commission Minutes -7- August 11, 1982 Council have gone a long way, and more than an- City, to develop an equestrian system. He indicated that this should be looked at from a practical standpoint bet-ause of the improvemen s necessary to build out the Alta Loma channel simply because when you star, to divide larger lots the cost becomes prohibitive. Commissioner Barker indicated that the propert;• owners to the sr,uth had not received any notice of this zone change. He a ked if the Commission is talking about Banyan being a dividing line and asked what Kind of protection can be given to the people on the southwest co :-ner so that they are not boxed out if the project comes in. Wfumissioner ^empel stated that this would be done through the General Plan because they have one -half acre lets and through the zoning. Chairman King stated that the only comment- he ':as is that he is uncomfortable with 10,00 square foot lots. He indicated tha. he would prefer 15,000. He further stated that he agreed with COmmissione- Rempel on some of the points he made. He asked the Commi -s:on if there is :onsensus on the discussion relative to the size of the lots before they g„ any further. Commissioner Barker asked Chairman King what he was saying about the 15,000 square foot lots. Chairman King stated that if it were his choice he would like to see 1,000 square foot lots but he did not feel that 20,001 square foot lots w - -e appropriate. He indicated that if it was a cho ce between 20,000 and 10,000 square foot lots, he would choose 10,000. Mr. Lam stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows iorses on a minimum 15,000 square foot lot. Mr. Gomez stag : that when the previous zoning change was made there was not a gradation ar, it would in essence mean that the -ots would go from 20,000 to 10,000. Chairman King stated that knowing that Banyan is i kind of dividing line, it M ould seem that there is some type of gradation. He indicated that if the Commission continues with that kind of approach i-, would be better if they went with 15,000. Commissioner Rempel stated that the Planninc, Commission has said it before and it will say it again that there will be no problem protecting the people with equestrian property and that they will have access and can use the trails there. He indicated that this City has committed *tself to protecting equestrian rights in the City. Commissioner St -ut asked what the lot sizes are on the other side of Alta Loma Channel. Planning Commission Minutes -8- August 11, 1982 Comnissione- Rempel stated that they are 8,500 square feet. Commissioner MCNiel stated that the question before the Commission is whether this should be R- 1- 20,000 or R- 1- 10,000 and whether there should be a zone charge. He did not feel that the question of whether this should be R -1- 15,000 was relevant. Mr. Hopson indicated that this could be relevant and indicated that the Commission must make a zone charge even though it may be consistent with the General Plan Designation and also does not have significant impacts on the surrounding property and environment and you might say that there are other designations tnat are atiowabie that will have no i—npact. Commissioner Stout stated that 10,000 square foot lots was all right with him. Commissioner McNiel stated that the property owner should ponder an alternative request to the zone change. He indicated his concurrence with the comments made by Chairman King. Commissioner Rempel stated that there are two things that the Commission must recognize when it is debating a project: one is the cost of money in this day and age when you request an applicant to come back for a decision in 60 -90 days. The other is that if a piece of property is within a certain area in the City that there is a demand for a certain lot size. He indicated that when a zertain lot size is demanded, you are saying that a certain price must be paid for that property. What you are saying is unless you can afford $150,000 for a home and if you only have $90,000, you can't live here. Mr. Wilson stated that he had been doing some calculations while the Commission has been talking about this project and at today's prices it would cost approximately $200 a foot for the channel improvements. He indicated that if over 600 fee*_ of improvements are required it would be economically infeasible for the property owner to go ahead if this is 15,000 or 20,000 square feet. He indicated that the - questrian use will continue until the property owners decide they no longer wart horses in this subdivision. Chairman King asked for a vote on the zone change. Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried, that Resolution No. 82- 78, Zone Change 81 -04, be adopted establishing a charge of zone from R -1- 20,000 to R- 1- 10,000, and that a negative declaration be issued. Commissioner Barker voted -.o because of his concern that no gradual ?-eduction in zoning is taking place and his further concern that tnis will eventually impact on those properties to the southwest of this proposed subdivision. Commissioner Stout asked if there was any indication on what the extension of the bridge would cost if there is a rectangular box culvert. Planning Cowission Minutes -9- August 11, 1982 Mr. Bose replied that at present there are no cost figures, but that it would be cheaper with a box culvert. Commissioner Stout asked with respect to the alignment with Banyan at Mandarin, what effect would it have on traffic flow if it were connected to Mandarin and then went on to Banyan. Mr. Bose replied that it would not reduce traffic, all it would do is slow it down. Conenissioner Rempel stated that the offset at Turner would cause considerable orobiems if you wanted to put traffic through there. He indicated that Banyan does not cross on a straight line as it is as Of set. Mr. Bose replied that it is only offset by a few feet. Mr. Bose stated that the City is studying this to see if it can be realigned. Commissioner Rempel stated that he has been talking to some people whu live there and they do not want Banyan to go through with the;' need to back into the street. Mr. Barker stated that because of the cul -de -sac on lot 72 there is nothing that the City is limiting its future options. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Wilson stated that they have been redesigning this property since the City's incorporation. He indicated that this tract had been submitted when this area was the County and it did not get past the old Land Division Committee. He indicated that one of the exhibits shows the construction of Banyan Street which was designed to tie across. He further indicated that Associated Engineers and Mark III came to them and requested a drainage easement within the future Banyan Street right of way. Further, they constructed improvements to approximately the limit shown there so there is a partially improved and constructed street. He indicated that if there is discussion to extend Banyan that would be the best po;nt. He indicated that the plan they have submitted is in the city's and their best interest and requested that the Planning Commission approve the design as shown. Dr. Karokvechayant an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission and requested some time to speak to Mr. Wilson. Mrs. Marie Pollack, who owns a piece of property to the west, poke of density ar::i stated she did not know why Banyan curves through the Municipal Water District easement instead of going straight to the east. Mr. Hopson stated that if there is an existing house constructed on lot 1 just where Banyan curves down, the street alignment is cast in concrete without a condemnation action by the City. This is, assumira that whoever owns the land Planning Commission Minutes -10- August 11, 1982 would not give the City the easement to have Banyan go straight across. He stated that this is a backward way of saying teat if that tract was approved, it was locked into the street alignment without exercising the City's ability to condemn the house that was built on the lot when the street was jagged down. Mrs. Pollack stated that she had always anticipated that Banyan would go through and asked if there wasn't some way to gel: rid of the house. She asked if the City could exercise its power of eminent domain. Mr. Hopson stated that that requires City money to be spent which it presently does not have to spend and would be within the City's Fower to condemn. He added that there may be a problem with joining. Mrs. Pollack stated that the house that is there is very sub- standard and could not last long anyway. Mr. Hopson stated that Mrs. Pollack must be talking about another house. After discussion, it was clarified that Mrs. Pollack was mistaken a;jout the location of the house she had been referring to. Mr. Joe DiIorio, R.C. Land Co., stated that he was involved in the Foothill Community Plan and indicated that this happens to come down from Highland Avenue. He further indicated that he has gone through this with Lloyd Hubbs and Banyan has been shown to connect in the General ?Ian. He indicated that it would be relatively easy to connect Banyan at Milliken with a bridge going over the flood control channel. Mr. DiIorio stated that there is ar alterna- tive and that would be to use the MWD right of way. Although it looks expen- sive, he did not feel that any property would have to be condemned. He felt that by extending Banyan it would solve the traffic problem and would be in keeping with the General Plan. Dr. Kanokvechayant stated that after talking to Mr. Wilson, she has changed her mind about protesting this tentative tract. There being no further conaents, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Stout stated that he did not feel the City should foreclose the possiblity of Banyan going straight across even if it is on the Metropolitan Water District right of way. He further stated that the only thing he would be concerned about is whether the right of way meets at Haven and the effect it would have on the extension across Haven south of Chaffey College. Chairman King stated that this is premature and should come back with some exploration of through access. Commissioner Stout felt that the Commission should explore the options. Mr. Lam stated that staff will ltring back an analysis to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes -ii- August 11, 1982 Mr. Hopson stated that generally state law sets up time periods on how long a Public body has to approve a tentative tract map without the applicant's consent to postpone action on the project. He instructed the Commission to approve or deny the project because of the 50 -day time period involved in the processing. Commissioner Stout stated that Mr. DiIorio had brought up a point relative to the General Plan and asked if this would require an amendment to the General Plan since a street is being discontinued. Mr. Hopson stated that Mr. DiIorio is correct if it recommends a change to the master plan of streets in the General Plan- however, he ., =3 _ is the case. He stated that without the applicant's consent this Kprojecttmust either be approved or denied. Commissioner Barker asked if this project is denied, could the applicant come back. Mr. Hopson replied that the applicant could come back almost immediately and that is why when an applicant is faced with the prespect of denial, they agree to a postponement. Chairman King reopened the public hearing. Mr. Wilson asked for a two week continuance of his project. The pubic hearing was closed. Chairman King stated that this is not the type of issue which can be dealt with in two weeks. He indicated that this will be continued and perhaps within that time some options will be ties. Motion: moved by Rempel, seconded -bv Stout, carried uranimously, to continue Tentative Tract No. 10075 for a two week period. 8:40 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 8:55 P.M. The Planning Commission reconvened * x * * * E. TERRA VISTA - LEWIS reconsideration of several land use issues; size and nature of the Community Commercial neighborhood shopping centers. rMtNl COMPANY - A request for lccation of the City Park, the Center, and the location o` Rick Gomez, City Planner, reviewed the staff report, stating that three issues would be discussed. Planning Commission Minutes _12- August 11, 1982 Chairman King asked in terms of best usable park space, Wiat Mr. Holley's opinion is cf the two options provided to the Commission. Mr. Holley replied that the recommendation of staff is that the original site be retained between Deer Creek and Milliken. He further indicated that at a prior meeting there was concern that the original selection would not be able to be laid out. He stated that together with Gruen and Associates and the Lewis Development Company they had prepared a conceptual plan for the divided park space but it is staff's opinion that the original site is the better of the two. Chairman King asked that assuming the City goes on the west side of the channel, how many active ball fields would result from the configuration and looking at the south side of Base Line how much space becomes unusable as a result of the configuration of property. Mr. Holley stated that when you are looking at either park site to the east or west, a balance must be planned in for passive and active activities. He further stated that this would best be achieved by locating the sports facili- ties in the west plan and utilizing the south side of picnic facilities. He indicated that there is a one -third passive area in both plans. Chairman King stated that regardless of on what side the channel is you would have the same amount of active play area at either site. Mr. Holley replied that basically that is true but that you have a greater distance away, up to 2000 feet from the southern end of the triangle. He further stated that Gruen and Associates also prepared graphics of a small area of Lions Park to give the Commission the scale and scope of the project that they are looking at. Chairman King asked in terms of cost of improvements would it make any differ- ence if the park were tc go in on the east or west side. Mr. Holley replied yes - that there are trade -offs on both sides. He provided the differences that would be encountered on both the east and west sides. Commissioner Rempel stated t? at he had a question for the enlightenment of the others. He asked what the 'Aplication of services would be on the west side that you would not have to duplicate on the east side. He gave an example as rest room facilities, if you were to have some type of sports activity going on, a picnic area for the families and similar inactive park use in conjunci- on with the active sports. Mr. Holley stated that the magnitude of this park is that you can have a seemingly passive or secluded area adjacent to the active areas. He indicated that there may be additional rest room requirements on the west side just because of the long distances of travel from the north to the south side of the park. He further indicated that there may be a need to put parking on the Planning Commission Minutes -13- August 11, 1982 south side but that this is just conceptual. Chairman King opened the public hearing- . I. stated that he Mr- Ralph Lewis > representing the Lewis Development ,scomments and will not are more interested in knowing the certainty of whether had read the staff report and listened to Mr. Holley ect to what was dispute them but they wish to it is one place or the other. He indicated that they don't obi wish to Put it uarrel with it. He indicated furthoTr3ft�heyif they said or have any q did not mean put the park in the original location that is fire, that do because they are in the triangle that is fine also. Mr. Lewis stated that they that they agree with the design or that m what they going to propose later that there be commercial in the Vcn p corner. ,- asked that they take this one step at a ��" -- Chairman King Mr. Holley stated that in light of Mr• Lewis' comments, the portion on the west side would change dramatically if commercial ware them and would bolster their original recommendation to retain the original site. Mr. Biz Whistler, there Is 7431 Marine Avenue, asked how mush street frontagbetween the ark �u would have between he between the two sites and major arterials which would he bordering parks are used by two Parks. He indicated that on the one western p Y w Line on the eastern location• He indicated that as children and families, he felt the Commnission might favor the east dark site. M�. Joe Dilorio, representing R. fer C. Land Company' owner of r the original origgi the site north and east of the original site, stated he would pre beca.ise of their plans for the area. ng a final they are just considering aspects for Commissioner Ki stated that tonight the Commission is not rla!n9 resoiu'.:ion of the Terra Vista project, achieving the final draft. Commissioner Rempel stated he felt the original S. cause of she park is the Proper location. He felt that putting the frontage on Hacarailusystem can lot problems. He further felt that access to the regional robiem with traffic and gotten from either side and there would be less of e P so that children. He felt east side is f stated elt at of the he design of Base line there given to a pedestrians can get across the Deer Creek was . Commission chooses the original site, some consideration should be g walk on the north side of Base Line. personal feeling nd the one comment made chso +� Chairman King stated that his g that the street frontage as it relates to Haven and children is point. He stated further that if something could be done'zo mitigate be to he problem itighet erhelpful and to ,Iee the Pianned commun�tya be better and it would provide Planning Commission Minutes -14- August 11, 1982 entrance and he thought it would be nice to have it along such a major thoroughfare such as Haven because of the nice statement it makes for the community. Given the aspect in terms of children it could be mitigated and the same amount of passive and active would be contained. He said it is a much nicer statement to have the City park located along Haven. Commissioner Stout stated that he was in favor of the original location. Commissioner Barker stated that he was in favor of the original location. Commissioner McNiel stated that ne was in favor of the original location. It was the consensus of the Planning Co�nnission to retain the Community Park at its original proposed location. Rick Gomez reviewed this portion of the staff report. Chairman King asked that the applicant talk about the shopping center location at Milliken and Base Line. Kay Matlock, representing Lewis Development Company, stated that they are requesting that shopping center partly because of its location to serve residents of Terra Vista and because they do not feel that a small center in the interior of the project is feasible. Further, they feel that requiring a small center to be locatd there is in effect mandating no center at all. Ms. Matlock stated that Milliken and Base Line will be a major intersection and she felt that the planned community could support three neighborhood centers and this would be the third center that they are requesting. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that in addition to what Ms. Matlock is saying, the Planning staff and Commission originally thought that the Haven and Base Line corner was a good location. The main thing that courts is where good tenants want to locate. Mr. Lewis stated that he did not think that the shopping center should be looked upon as serving only Terra Vista. He indicated that Mr. DiIorio will develop to the north and east and his buyers as well as theirs will be shopping there. He indicated that the City Council has said that it is not good to have a proliferation. of centers and they are asking for two and not more at that intersection. Further, that they are not planning on building all three locations within the next 5 -10 years or possibly even longer away, and they just want to have the zoning resolved. He indicated that they would like to begin with Haven and Base Line and if permission is received, it would still be two years before they open. He said that any fear that they will start next week is groundless. Mr. Lewis stated that both Victoria and Terra Vista All need a center and the people to the east and the north will also shop there. Mr. Lewis further stated that it would be some time before they go in for more and it would Planning Commission Minutes -15- August 11, 1982 depend on growth of the area and ail they are asking is to just reserve space. Mr. Gomez stated that a letter had been received from the R.C. Land Company over the signature of Mr. Joe DiIorio which addresses this one particular issue and the next issue which is before the Commission tonight which was included in the information the Planning Commission received. Mr. Joe DiIorio stated that he does not want to go over what was said in the letter but would like to agree with what some of Ralph Lewis and Kay Matlock said about the amount of commercial that should be available in the planned communities. He stated that it has been their opinion that there is the right amount of neighborhood commercial to residents but none of neighborhood conmercial that you would normally find. He stated that they are operating under the premise that it will be all collected in a town center or a regional center. He indicated in his letter they make a point of a neighborhood center at Milliken and Base Line and, indeed, if there is going to be another neighborhood center at Milliken and Base Line, R.C. Land would dutifully request the same consideration as the Lewises to prove a case. He indicated that if you were looking at a map, it would make more sense to have a neighborhood center to serve Victoria rather than one to serve Terra Vista. Mr. DiIorio stated that he would add one strong comment echoing what Mr. Holley said and that it would be completely inexcusable to have the neighbor- hood center intruding into the park; and, if another center were to be consid- ered for that neighborhood at all, it should be at the northeast corner but not where the park should be. Chairman King stated he did not think that the neighborhood center at Milliken and Base Line is appropriate there. Commissioner Stout agreed. Commissioner McNiel agreed. Commissioner Barker agreed. Commissioner Rempei did not comment. Chairman King stated that before the Commission goes on to the Foothill and Haven issue that they could go on to Base Line and Haven and he did not know what to say about it because the Planning Commission has passed on it twice, at one time when he was a member of the Commission approving it and both times the City Council did not agree with the Planning Commission's action. He indicated that he agreed with the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that based on what he heard in the last few minutes, he would amend their proposal. He further stated that they requested two neighborhood centers at the south side of Base Line on the west side of Milliken and one on the east side of Milliken and on the same basis, one when Planning Commission Minutes -16- August 11, 1982 the market determines that it should be built. He stated that they would concede that it is not appropriate to stick it in a park. Chairman King stated that he would make one comment to that that he thought that the opinion of the Planning Commission would be the same as to the south- west corner of Base Line and Milliken as the northwest corner of Base Line and Milliken. From their standpoint they have spoken to the issue, there is one neighborhood coariercial at that intersection and it was his understanding of the intent of the Planning Commission that it is all they wish to allow at that intersection. Chair -man King asked if there were any members of the public wishing to make comment on the neighborhood commercial center at the corner of Haven and Base Line. There were no comments. Chairman King stated that he would say that he feels it is appropriate as he has always felt it appropriate. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would say this for the third time that this use is a very logical and feasible place for a shopping center. The only arguments in opposition were the people straight across the street from the center who had never really looked at what type of center the Planning Commis- sion was talking about. He indicated that they were worried about the design, with light shining into their houses, and being able to see the lights from the parking areas and as well as a concern about children getting across the street. He indicated further that no one would have yelled about how they would get across to the park. Commissioner Rempel stated that going beyond this, the Commission really should look to the service needs not just to people in that community as a shopping center must provide for a population of 10,000 in either center, and he felt that area would produce 20,000 people. Commissioner Rempel stated that they are saying there should be two shopping centers in Terra Vista and when they say small neighborhood center type on the inside, it would be a very small neighborhood type store that would be feasible and not one thd would be put on a non -major street because it is not practical from the standpoint of major retailers. He said a major retailing outlet would service not only Terra Vista, if it were at Haven and Base Line, but a very good portion of those people who have to drive a mile or two miles W do their shopping now. Commissioner Rempel stated that some consideration should be given to the elimination of use of the automobile and if it were located at Base Line and Haven it would service the trailer park to the east and it is only logical and proper that a shopping center be placed there. Planning Commission Minutes -17- August 11, 1982 Commissioner Stout stated that he was i:)t interested in debating the merits of whether there should be a comsercial center there and in order for the process to make sense in getting public input, debating the issues, having experts state their case, and have the City Council agree with the public who did not want it at that location. He indicated that unless there is a major change between now and then, the Planning Commission should not comment. Commissioner Barker stated that he would make the same comment as Commissioner Stout. Commissioner McNiel stated that the purpose of a center within the confines of a community is to serve the comma -nity. He indicated that if a person will not walk a block or less than a block to a mail box, they will not walk to a shopping center. He stated further that in Irvine they are putting mini - centers into well designed areas and they will not put a center in where people will not support it. Commissioner Barker stated that he did not feel it appropriate to debate an issue that the City Council has looked at twice and given direction. He indicated that it would be more appropriate for the Lewis Development Company to appeal the decision to that body. Commissioner Rempel stated that in one of their decisions the City Council indicated that it was premature to place a shoppipj center there as long as specific plans were incomplete. Further, that since the Commission is now debating the specific plan.it is now up to the Commission to now say it is still logical to put it there then the City Council can see fit to make a determination on this issue. Commissioner Rempm' did not feel it right to say no, you can't ever have the shopping center there. He indicated that the Commission must make a determination that it is not logical to put it there. Chairman King stated that there are two people who think it should be placed there and three people who do not think it should be placed there. He further stated that it is not necessary to say it is inappropriate, but a 3 -2 consensus that it should not be placed in the specific plan should the planned community get out of the Planning Commission and to the City Council for determination. Mr. Lewis stated that there is now a new City Council and the Daily Report newspaper has quoted Phil Schlosser as saying that they and the Planning Commission should reexamine the facts. Further, that what Mr. Lewis hears Mr. Schlosser saying is that they don't have any objections to taking another look. He stated that the Commission and Planning staff made recommendations before on sound planning principles and the City Council made their decision based on political decisions. He stated further that they now have reason to believe that those political reasons are being reexamined and the Planning Commission should not be so influenced by the former City Council's decisions. Planning Commission Minutes -18- August 11, 1982 Mr. Lewis stated that he wished to correct a comment made regarding the City of Irvine wanting to have small shopping centers on the interior. He indicated that they are no longer building them there because they have proven not to be successful and they don't want to do something that would lose from the start. He stated further that they built a good one at 19th and Carnelian and they are going to make sure they will give the City a good center. Mr. Lewis stated that he has read many books on theoretical planning and he is not aware of any textbook that says a shopping center should be built to serve one community. His intent, he said, at Base Line and Haven is to serve Terra Vista, and he hoped that some of Mr. DiIorio's people would come to the shopping center. Commissioner Barker stated that he could not speak for Commissioner Stout but his point is not that it is or is not his personal feeling but rather that the procedure has been given due process and the City Council made a decision that can only be changed by an appeal. Further, that if Mr. Lewis says that the decision made by the Council was made on a political basis, then even more, he should appeal it to that body. Mr. Lewis stated that one reason for the park at that corner is that the people across the street stated that their developer said there would be a park across the street. Chairman King stated that he did not feel Mr. Lewis needed to be told what is a live issue and what is not and that this has been discussed and Mr. Lewis has a live issue. However, given the comments that Mr. Lewis has heard tonight, he thought that this should be taken up with the City Council when the Planning Commission is heard. Mr. Lam stated that tt.e Commissior's decision does not preclude this coming before the City Council. Further, on the comment on planning principles, twenty years ago planners talked in terms of circles, market areas and major streets; that is not whet planning texts say and at the present time if anyone wants to discuss the merits of centers, services and locations as it relates to energy conservation, those are the themes today discussed in planning circles. 9:40 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 9:50 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Rick Gomez reviewed the size and nature of the community commercial center at Foothill and Haven. He recommended that the Planning Commission keep the Planning Commission Minutes -19- August 11, 1982 center size at 35 acres. Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Gomez if staff is asking for 35 acres with additional base of 15 acres or if they are withdrawing the 15 acres. Mr. Gomez indicated that in light of the letter received from Mr. Lewis which was distributed to the Commission tonight, that staff withdraws its recommendation in the staff report dated July 28, 1982 and recommends denial as there is no basis for agreement. Mr. Gomez stated that Lased on the language proposed in Mr. Lewis' letter, it appears that the language in the letter would provide no basis for agreement to provide an extension of 15 acres in addition to the 35 acres which originally was allocated for the community commercial tenter. Mr. Gomez stated that the letter from Mr. Lewis was received so late that there has been no time for a adequate response to it. Mr. Lam stated that based upon the understanding of the agreement, staff has not had an opportunity to notify others who have a substantial interest in the particular issue. Mr. Lam further stated that it appears that there is disagreement and there would be much greater debate therefore staff would go back to their original position. Chairman King asked Mr. Lam who should be notified that is not here. Mr. Lam replied that representatives of the Hahn Company and the William Lyon Company as well as any others associated with their group should be notified. Commissioner Stout stated that it appears to him that this is almost the same type of impact as the General Plan discussions. Commissioner Barker thought that this situation parallels the one that the Commission had just discussed wherein a previously discussed issue had been decided by the City Council and direction has been given to the Commission. Mr. Gomez stated that they concur with that in that the Hahn site has been designated by the City Council as the site of the regional center. Commissioner Barker asked if that was done by the City Council. Mr. Gomez replied that it had been done by Vie City Council and by direction of the General Plan. Chairman King opened the public hearing. Mr. Ralph Lewis stated that his comments would be a little more extensive because they have read the staff report and heard staff's comments but they respectfully disagree. Mr. Lewis asked through the chair of Mr. Gomez if this is a duly advertised Planning Commission Minutes -20- August_ 11, 1982 meeting and if there is a representative of the other site here. Mr. Gomez replied that Mr. DiIorio of the R.C. Land Company was here, but he is the only one. Mr. Lewis stated that he is taking the points as they were brought up with what the staff has said about the issue being decided. He reiterated the Daily Report newspaper article of that evening which said that some council 7rre—m—be-r—s—fe-TY that the issue should be reopened. Mr. Lewis continued with the receipt of sales tax and felt that the Hahn Company was doing little if anything to go ahead with the shopping center in that location. Mr. Lewis indicated that at a recent trade fair in Las Vegas for shopping centers, the Hahn Company made no mention, of a regional shopping center for the Rancho Cucamonga area. Mr. Lewis appealed to the Commission to be allowed to expand the 35 acres so that he could actively compete with the Hahn regional center stating that this would be in the City's best interest. He asked that he be allowed to do this without handicap. Staff, he stated, has told him that any consideration that his company would get would hurt the Hahn Company and that staff is atraid of offending the Hahn Company. Mr. Lewis stated that competition is health and asked for the opportunity to compete against the Hahn Company. Mr. 'Lewis stated that returning to the staff report, if the City wants to get major department stores, they like to be together and want different stores in different price brackets. He further stated that it is hard to put together such a shopping center on 35 acres and may possibly need more than 50 acres. He stated that staff is ingnoring the reality of dealing with people and it takes 2 -3 years to put together a regional center. Then he stated that he was not sure that he would be able to get large department stores to show an interest in locating in his center if the zoning is not there and this was not to say that the zoning couldn't be sought later. He asked if the City wouldn't be better off to have two horses in a race than only one. Mr. Lewis stated that he had met with City Attorney Dougherty and showed him some language and they were supposed to ask Mr. Hopson, but the impression that they got was that Mr. Dougherty thought the language was acceptable. Chairman King asked assuming for a moment that the City would zone two areas in excess of 70 acres for commercial, and assuming that the City does not want more than one to develop in terms of the 70 acres, and assuming that one of the centers beats the other to the punch in terms of developing, what type of language can be suggested in terms of the fact that the other one winds back down to a smaller size. Mr. Lewis replied that they would rush in to change it to something else if they found that Hahn was beating them. He further stated that they would agree to any stipulation that they would put into the approval that it reverts back to something less at the point that the other center takes off. Planning Commission Minutes -21- August 11, 1982 Mr. Briz Whistler asked what happens if one of the other sites outside of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is approved and goes on line, what would the position of the City of Rancho Cucamonga be then. Mr. Lam replied that if for some reason one concludes that only one center can develop and it does not develop in our City then it becomes a policy issue of the Planning Commision and the City Council. He further stated that a determinatior would then have to be made on land use. Mr. Whistler asked about the point raised by Chairman King of whether one site would back down and "now the language would be placed. He asked if the same language should not exist for both centers if one beats the other one out. Mr. Lam replied that he did not know as this is a policy issue. He indicated that the key point in planning the regional and planning for the community is that you are looking to have the best of both worlds in that the City would receive sales tax and there would be the provision of services and the best location in terms of service and this was the consensus of two years ago. Otherwise, he stated, this would be left up to haphazard planning. Further, that if two sites are better than one site, why not three or four. He asked where it would be that you draw the line. Mr. Joe DiIorio stated that he had mentioned before that he was a partner and one of the larger owners in the R.C. Land Company. He stated that he has had four years experience in doing regional shopping centers having started on the east coast and he is in agreement with staff's recommendation. Regardless of any language that is talked about, he said, he thought that anything in motion that gives the dev =loper the ability to add commercial acreage and gives him an advantage in doing that that nobody else in the City has would be completely inappropriate and inconsistent with the whole General Plan theory. He indicated that the Victoria Plan, the Industrial Specific Plan nor the Etiwanda Specific Plan were able to do this aro he sees no reason for the Terra Vista Planned Community to be able to do it. Mr. Dilorio stated that the real issue is where the regional center goes. He stated that he felt compelled to comment on a Few things that Mr. Lewis brought up and like Dick Dahl, he believes in competition. Competition though, has to be done in certain levels and there have been certain innuendos that Mr. Lewis brought up that need to be answered, he said. Mr. DiIorio stated that he has no problem with this being brought up again to the City Council with the exception that the real competition is riot between Foothill and Haven and Foothill and I -15 but between the freeway locations. He felt very strongly, he said, that Mr. Lewis' tenacity basically galvanizes other people into action and so the Hahn site is moved into action and that this site was chosen over eight others including the Lewis site. Mr. Dilorio stated that he did not indicate that he was a principal owner because of an ego trip but because he has more at stake. He stated that this Planning Commission Minutes -22- August 11, 1982 same question was raised by his company when the Hahn Company was sold to Trizec. He indicated that they raised questiors about commitments. He further indicated that the reason for the sale was the age of Mr. Hahn and for his estate purposes. Mr. DiIorio stated that the Hahn. Company has a ready invested $1,000,000 in this regional center and it would be unlikely ':hat they would want to lose their investment. Further, that the priority ►f this center is pretty good and it is a viable center with the Canadian fi m: of Trizec. Mr. DiIorio stated that three entities have bean involved in developing the site: R.C. Land Company, the Hahn Company anc the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He said that only recently has the Redevelopment Agency become activated so that the City could progress with the regiona' center. He said the interchange at I -15 and the Route 30 corridor are still being worked on. He indicated that the Route 30 corridor is absolitely essential if Terra Vista, Victoria or the eastern end of the City is to be built. Mr. DiIorio explained the work that is being lone to facilitate the Rsute 30 corridor. He indicated that the Hahn studies indicate that until the Route 30 corridor is built there will be access problems in reaching the regional center for fully drawn market areas. Mr. DiIoria stated that he is in full agreemert with Dick Dahl's opinion if indeed Hahn does not look like it is not makirg progress then the Lewis Company should get a shot at it. Mr. Diiorie stated that there has not been any evidence of any kind that the Hahn Company will not proceed. He indicated teat he admired Mr. Lewis' tenacity in trying to get a regional designati m for his property. He felt that our best shot against Ontario is to cencertrate the City's efforts on the Hahn site because it is the best location. Fu.-ther, that there is already a partnership agreement between the May Company ind Broadway Department stores and the Hahn Company and R.C. Land Company. HE said if the Hahn Company goes away it will go away with the other department stores. Chairman King asked Mr. DiIorio why he felt that Mr. Lewis should not have a shot. Mr. DiIorio replied that Mr. Lewis has had a sh)t at this all along and the fact that his site is not shown as a regional c =nter means nothing. He further indicated that he did net know of a regional center that has come in that as already had the designation of regional center. Chairman King stated that he does not understanc the weakness that the City is shoving in the discussion of whether to expand the Lewis site. Mr. DiIorio stated that it it in the fact that a strong attitude is now shown. He indicated that Mr. Lewis has informed others that there is the pia ^ring Commission Minutes -23- Augu.'. 11, 1982 possibility that his location at Foothill and Haven may also have a regional designation and if the City waffles around it shows a weakness. .n discussion with the Hahn people, it has been mentioned that Mr. Lewis' activities have gotten around throughout the ineustry. He said the weakness is the fact that by the scuttlebut that is getting around, it causes more importance to be placed on the Ontario site rather than the Rancho Cucamonga site. 10:35 p.m. The Planning Commission recessed 10:48 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened Jeff Sceranka, representing the Lewis Development Company, asked if the Planning Commission wished to make a decision. He indicated that what his firm would like to knew is whether the Commissicn wishes to make a decision on it or whether they feel that the Council has already made their decision on it. Chairman King stated that he wants to make a "=_cision on it but he is not prepared to make one tonight. Commissioner Barker stated that it was his undersLa--ding that this had been taken up by the City Council and t'e City Council, if it wishes the Commission to make a decision will let the Commission know and therefore, it is not appropriate for the Cemmissiz!n to make a decision or it. Commissioner Rempel stated that in order to get the Terra Vista Plan going, to bring this issue up and its possible controversy that nay develop because of it, 't would be better served if the Commission proceeds with tiie Terra Vista Planned Community and the revisions suggested by the Commission. He indicated that the shopping center issue could be brought before the Council or as an amendment to the specific plan or to the General Plan. He indicated that doing it this way would better serve the community because of the time element involved. Commisioner McNiel stated that there is no question that the City wants a shopping center as does every city and when one is weighed against the other, I is position is to lean with the Hdhn center. Chairman King asked if the Commision wishes to make a decision or pass i.. Commissioner McNiel stated that he would stay with the Hahn site. Chairman King stated that there are two people who would like to Take a decision and two who think it more appropriate addressed by the City Council. Commissioner Stout stated that his opinion is once the decision process `as taken place in that this has been debated that unless there is a clear and convincing reason that it should be reviewed, no change should be made. He indicated that he has not seen any clear and convi: zing evidence and sees no reason, therefore, to change the Commission's decision. Planning Commission Minutes -24- August 11, 1982 Commissioner Rempel stated that this should be brought back as an amendment to discuss fully and it would be better for the Lewis Development Company to move Terra Vista forward and get the specific plan moving and start on the rest of that. He stated that he is not saying that the regional center should not be there but felt that they should get the rest of their plan moving. Con issioner Stout asked if Commissioner Rempel was saying he did not want to make a decision, or rather that he was denying the change. Commissioner Rempel stated that he would make no change in the wording as proposed in the specific plan right now. Commissioner Barker stated that since there has been no noticeable change in the status quo, then he would agree that the Commission should -maintain the previous decision and not change. Chairman King stated tnat the consensus of the Commission is that no change be made. Mr. Lewis stated that he was inclined to agree with Commissioner Rempel that the overriding issue is to get some houses started and if that is the decision of the Planning Commission, fine. He indicated that the next thing they will do is bring in a map on housing and they will continue working on the regional. He further indicated that if they bring in a letter with commitments, he asked if a new 1 ,.ear";.a will be granted. He stated that new evidence will be brought in to t-ie Commission. Further, that they want to get working on this. He further s%dted that he felt his tenacity was developed when he was a cross country runner but when they have something definite to show they will bring it back. Further, that he appreciated the discussion. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS F. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP Mr. Lam stated that the Planning Commission workshop which had been tentatively scheduled for the 21st of August, would be rescheduled later in September. Mr. Lamy stated that the City Council would like to know if the Planning Commission would like to have a jo';nt City Council /Planning Commission session to discuss matters of City policy and relationships and anything else they may wish to discuss. If the Commission wishes to do that, Mr. Lam asked that they think of topic areas they would like to talk about and forward their to staff to work on. He asked that the Commission return the topics to staff within two weeks. Planning Commission Minutes -25- August 11, 1982 ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Rempel, seconded by Stout, carried unanimously, to adjourn at 11 p.m. 11 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -26- August 11, 1982 r 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 22, 1982 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer By: Paul A. Rougeau, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 33W - bHniw The division of 5 acres of land into 4 lots within the R -1 zone located approximately 660 feet north of Base Line and 660 feet west of East Avenue - APN 227 - 131 -29 This parcel map has been continued from the meeting of August 25, 1982. Further discussion between the property owners is necessary before the :nap can be consider by the Planning Commission. It is accordingly recommended that the public hearing be continued to the meeting of October 13, 1982. Respectfully submitted, i LBH:PAR:jaa ITEM A. U 9 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Co mission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 82 -04 - An amendment to Section 51.0219 h 2 S to allow a percentage of the required rear yard area to be used for additions and accessory structures. BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1982, staff gave the initial presentation to an amendment of the Zoning -Ordinance which would allow 30% of the required rear yard to be used for additions to the main building or detached accessory structures. The iten was continued by the Planning Commission to this date to allow staff the opportunity to explore the possibility of creating a provision which would allow an encroachment of a two -story structure within the required rear yard area. It eppears that the concern was to have some flexibility in the evert that a situation might require a minor encroachment into the rear yard for a two -story structure. It was our belief that this already exists through a minor deviation or in a proven hardship case, a variance would be applicable. We have not had requests or problems with two -story structures in the required rear yard area. Most two -story additions are being built on the existing structure or being built within the allowable setback. In the past the Commissior has discussed the location of two -story structures in relationship to rear property lines and the proximity of other dwellings. During those discussions the Commission preferred to limit two -story structures to a minimum of fifteen feet from rear property lines or greater in order to maintain a sense of privacy and scale in relationship to open areas which would promote a positive living environment. If the Commission finds that there is additional need to allow some flexibility in the location of two - story structures beyond a minor deviation procedure, then we would suggest that the following wording would be added to Section 1 of the Ordinance under the height regulations: ITEM B An "A minor encroachment, no great than five (5) feet �� may be allowed into the required rear yard for a two -story addition if found that the encroachment i necessary for a continuation and extension of the\ architectural design, style, and function of the structure." RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commissione any desired changes to the proposed Ordinance and adopt the Resolution. Ily 'Submitted, ICK POMEZ ity Planner RG:MV:jr Attachments: Resolution of Approval e Proposed City Council Ordinance J 13 ORDINANCE Y0. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 6i.02191H)(2)(B) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW 30% USAGE OF REQUIRED REAR YARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES FOR ADDITIONS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does ordain a follows: SECTION 1: Section 61.0219(h)(2)(B) of the Rancho Cucamonga Interim Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 61.0219(h) Area Requirements (2) Exceptions: (B) Accessory buildings and additions: An accessory building or addition to the main building may occupy up to 30% of the required rear yard, based on the following criteria: ® (1) Height: Accessory buildings or additions may not exceed 1 story and no more than 18 feet in height when located in the required rear yard area. (2) Rear yard setback: Accessory buildings or additions may be placed to within 3 feet of the rear property line. (3) Side yard setback: Additions to the main building shall maintain the side yard setback required by the base zone or that of the existing building. Accessory buildings located at least a minimum of 10 (ten) feet from the main building may be located to within 3 feet of an interior side property line. (4) Front yard and side street yard: Accessory buildings or additions may not occupy any portion of a required front yard or side street yard area. SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucavronaa, California, hereby finds that this amendment will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment and issues a Negative Declaration for this Amendment. RESOLUTION NO. A RANCHO RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RDItrANCE�CAMENDMENTRENo EN82N04' APPROVAL A ENDING OF SECTIONS . H, ;r CROONSTOALLOW30 % UAGE OF REQUIRED REAYARDS INREIDENTIAL ZONES FOR ADDITIONS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing to consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 82 -04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has found it desirable to provide greater flexibility in the required rear yard setbacks. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create. a significant adverse impact on the environment and has recormended issuance of a Negative Declaration on September 22, 1982. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 64854 to 65847 of the California Government code, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 22nd day of September, 1982, of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 82 -04. 2. That the Planning , .,mission recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 82 -04 as shown on the attached Ordinance. 3- That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST - ecretary or the Planning ommission 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 22, 1982 T7: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Dan Coleman, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82 -19 - ZWISS_ER - The establishment of 13,232 square feet of professional offices in existing buildings and the continuance of a preschool use in an existing 5,644 square foot building on 4.39 acres in the General Industrial category located at 8968 Archibald Avenue - APN 209- 171 -15. PROJECT AND SITE DESLRIPTION: The applicant, Bruce Zwissler,is seeking approva o a ConditiLnal Use Permit to establish a garden office complex and preschool at 8968 1rchibald Avenue (Exhibit "A "). The property was formerly the Willows Sc000l, hence, the preschool would be a continuance of a prior use. Specifi-ally, the applicant is requesting approval of the foilowing related uses as shown on Exhibit "C ": (1) Administrative and Office; (2) Financial, Ins. ;ranee and Real Estate Services; (3) Personal Services (includes preschocis); and (4) Professional Services. The project site is located on the west side of Archibald, north of the Rancho Industrial Park which contains commercial /industrial units in front and mini - storage in the rear. The project site is 4.39 acres, with approximately 2 acres undeveloped. To the north and east are single family residences zoned for General Industrial. To the west is property used for outdoor storage and zoned for General Industrial uses. Four buildings are available for the garden office complex as shown on the Site Plan, Exhibit "B ". In addition, a new 5,644 square foot building is available for preschool use. An improved outdoor recreation area will be provided adjacent to the building in accordance with State requirements. Also, 74 parking stalls will be provided. The previous property owner posted bonds which will be used for street improvements including reconstruction of the drive approach to City standards, street lights, and street trees. ITEM C Conditional Use Permit 32- 19 /Zwissler Planning Commission Agenda September 22, 1982 Page 2 ANALYSIS: The Industrial Specific ?Ian allows the uses requested subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The parking requirement for the offices is one space per 250 square feet of floor area which would mean a total of 53 parking spaces. Therefore, twenty -one parking spaces would be available for the preschool use. Preschools require one space per employee /teacher plus one space for each five children. Therefore, the preschool could have up to 72 children based upon parking requirements. The preschool is located in a building located separate from the garden office complex, and ample parking is available. The play areas and preschool parking are separated from the circulation and parking area of the office building. Further, the proposed offic ?s and preschool would be compatible with surrounding land uses. FACTS FOR FINDING: Based upon a review of the information provided by the applicant and the site, the proposed garden office complex and preschool are consistent with the General Plan, the Industrial Specific Plan and applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions. The size of the buildings, playground, and parking lot will adequately service the office and preschool uses. The proposed uses would be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses with the adoption of the recommended Conditions of Approval. CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was advertised in The Daily 0 sport newspaper on September 10, 1932. In addition, approximately twenty -five public hearing notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. To date, no correspondence has been received either for or against this project. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and material relative to this project. A Resolution of Approval with Conditions is provided for your review and consideration. Respectfully submitted, qe6 RICK GOMEZ City Planner RG:DC:jr Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Projec! Description Resolution of Approval Conditions 11 LJ E CITY OF RtVNCH© CUGUNIONGA PLANNIN1G DIVISONi NORTH ITE:%1: __,6s -F gLIP-i q TITLE: uat,r �«`t ,gyp EXIumT: A- SCALE: WT T44 LOT ^ E o ilABA1. yvCVJTA•ML 1 LRXCO/RD �✓� III.NI STYAGE /N TyL RGIC C CMAY;VA�/ /NDVa�AI{, RAYNG Arc✓/6ALD 1 �� Pu+Y6er�uC t YI f 177777 /rGrolr rn1r. w.a. Jraa I FOY /LY KA.111/L ARrAL 1 d 4 �. 11bwN o 4.4. "EA$ 0 $ _ q•/ JWbuAy Lglr n A.UVa.te to TyJ JOr r1 GDL'LG .a oc✓4O/LD L LAgL IGYDL t a000- K /VIII LOg9.LlY. fYV11Y16 ICM•i NLV/I CbI� K <sr0 RM•JTRCT//L Ar wK qa aq. eq.< cLJ'r+< AferufT � urri fgri1G41 ?Vn ALLA 01 [LST MDY 16L »d TbI.01. JIIIaiM1 J /4GGJ AR1AVp7I .4L ISYITNYi <IU1 rb OL wT1F <G wnMM AV.GryIIIL ry /yrry JISTZNI. Lr A TYLS =d /Jf y11, 'n•i LOT .J 2eNLa iCNGLAL .yDf /S�R..1L p rs a <..., ILSRa _ ReA feNMniruc fNL 1.�[R CMIIG IiO rp �/ew.cc Aayiyp Lri r .Ry I 2 A<RLS ✓� U./D6 vf10aLD -� i 1 I � I 1 �� Pu+Y6er�uC t YI f 177777 /rGrolr rn1r. w.a. Jraa I FOY /LY KA.111/L ARrAL 1 d 4 �. 11bwN o 4.4. "EA$ 0 $ _ q•/ JWbuAy Lglr n A.UVa.te to TyJ JOr r1 GDL'LG .a oc✓4O/LD L LAgL IGYDL t a000- K /VIII LOg9.LlY. fYV11Y16 ICM•i NLV/I CbI� K <sr0 RM•JTRCT//L Ar wK qa aq. eq.< cLJ'r+< AferufT � urri fgri1G41 ?Vn ALLA 01 [LST MDY 16L »d TbI.01. JIIIaiM1 J /4GGJ AR1AVp7I .4L ISYITNYi <IU1 rb OL wT1F <G wnMM AV.GryIIIL ry /yrry JISTZNI. Lr A TYLS =d /Jf y11, YL\f CITY OF ITEM- _COP 8Z ff RANCHO CUC-k /IO`,'GA TITLE: ��Tt� �L,�i PLA1�:�1['�G DI�'iSi0�1 EXH'Ba: -4:2 - SCALE U 1 u W w _ N fNL 1.�[R CMIIG IiO rp Aayiyp Lri r .Ry G YL\f CITY OF ITEM- _COP 8Z ff RANCHO CUC-k /IO`,'GA TITLE: ��Tt� �L,�i PLA1�:�1['�G DI�'iSi0�1 EXH'Ba: -4:2 - SCALE U 1 u PROJECT DESCRIPTION I. Property Description The land is 4.39+ acres of property, measuring 317.9+ feet wide by 601.4+ feet deep, on the West side of Archibald Avenue, nortli of Seventh Street, south o:' Eight Street. The improvements are 18,876+ square felt of building space and 51,780+ square fzet of paved parking area. The legal description is Exhibit "A" herein. II, Property History The facility was a public school for over forty years. It was originally constructed in 1917, and buildings were added on for a period of thirty years. The school was closed in 1958. Barbara Salyer and Simone Payne purchased the pro- perty in 1978. After completing an extensive renovation project, they operated the Willows School until November, 1S81. Gordon A. Zwissler and Helen T. Zwissler, local residents, purchased the property in July, 1982. ISI. Property Proposed Use The Zwisslers desire to convert the majority of the improvements (approximately 13,232 square feet) into a garden office complex, while maintaining the currently allowable use of the 5,644 square foot rear building as a preschool /day -care facility. As the property,is situated in Sub -area 4 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Permitted Uses to which the property might be put by lessees are as follows: 1) Custom Manufacturing 2) Business Supplv Retail and Services 3) Business Support Services 4) Communication Services 5) Eatiag and Drinking Establishments 6) Medical /Health Care Services 7) Administrative Civic Services The Conditionally Permitted Uses to which the property might be put by lessees, and for which we are hereby ap- plying, are as follows: 1) Administrative and Office 2) Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services Personal. Services 4) Professional Services VRMT 'Cl ® RESOLUTION NO. * A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 82 -19 FOR GARDEN OFFICES AND PRESCHOOL GENERALLY LOCATED AT 8968 ARCHIBALD IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE WHEREAS, on the Ist day of September, 1982, a complete application was filed by Bruce Zwissler for review of the above- described project; and WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of September, 1982, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above- described project. NOW, THEREFOkE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings can /cannot be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the use is proposed; and 2. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts or, the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on September 22, 1982. SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 82 -19 is approved subject to the following conditions: PLANNING LIVISION 1. The site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file in the Planning Division and conditions :contained herein. 2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances. 3. Any signs proposed for this conditional use permit is shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of such signs. Resolution No. Page 2 4. All laws and regulations of the State Department of Social Services relating tc licensing of children's day care facilities shall I I complied with prior to opening of the schcol. Expansion of the preschool beyond 72 children will require the approval of a nodified Conditional Use Permit. 6. Future development of the 22mainder of the property will require appropriate Ci.y review and approval. 7. If the operation of thi! school causes ..;,•erse affects upon adjacent pro erties, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brou;ht before the Planning Commission for their cor;ideration and possible termination of such use. 8. Operation of the preschoo and kindergarten shall not commence until such tin! as all Uniform Building Code and Title 19 of th State Fire Marshall's Regulations have been compl ed with. Plans shall be submitted to the Foothill :ire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building Shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 9. The parking lot shall be provided with double - striped parking spaces, and directional arrows and directional signs to the sEtisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be submitted to the Planning Division to ensure safe interior circulation. 10. A revised site plan indicating the location of the preschool playground shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to occupancy. 11. A detailed landscape and submitted to and approved prior to occupancy. 12. Street trees, a minimum of shall be installed every Archibald Avenue frontage. irrigation plan shall be by 'tie Planning Division 15- gallon size or larger 20' along the entire 13. Landscaping, including trees and shrubs shall be provided around the playground 3erimeter. El Resolution No. Page 3 is ENG Developer shall install drive uAproach to City Standards. 15. A street light shall be installed on Archibald Avenue, location to be determined by City Engineer and Southern California Edison Company. 16. The street plans for Archibald Avenue shall be revised to conform with the approved site plan. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1982. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Jeffrey King, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary or 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 L the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of September, 1982, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: September 22, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Michael Vairin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 82 -03 - 11 \1 GI\.J 1f91C .:/1 \J VrlUMIi.V - R 1=qurbl. Yu Gllmllu LIM UCIICr -QI Plan Land Use Map from Medium Residential (4 -14, dwellingg units per acre) *_o General Commercial on approximately 8.9 acres of land, located on the northeast corner of Ramona Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. SUMMARY: Th,. applicant, Interstate Consolidated, has requested consideration to aenond the General Plan for the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue. The rear portion of this site is presently planned for Medium Density Residential, four to fourteen dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting a charge of the rear portion to a General Commercial designation. The intent of this report and public hearing is to review the potentiai land use, environmental impacts, alternative land use options, and receive public input regarding the proposal for Commercial designation on this site. Staff has prepared a preliminary Initial Study and is recommending that an expanded Initial Study be prepared which would analyze the potential impacts outlined later in this report. Any input the Planning Commission or public may contribute will provide the necessary information for staff to prepare a final report and recommendation on the request. ANALYSIS: The project site is presently designated on the General Plan for two different uses; the front portion for General Commercial uses and the rear portion for Medium Density Residential uses at 4 -14 units per acre. The applicant is requesting consideration to make the entire site available for commercial development. The analysis of this request needs to consider all land use alternatives that could occur on the site and what the associated impacts would be for each of those alternatives. This type of analysis will allow the Commission to make a decision based on General Plan policies. Basically, this site has three major land use alternatives: ITEM D General Plan Amendment 82 -03 /Interstate Planning Commmission Agenda September 2?, 1982 Page 2 1. Remain as presently designated. 2. Be designated entirely as a residential development at a range of either 4 -14 DU AC or greater. 3. The site could be planned in its entirety for either office uses, neighborhood commercial, or general commercial. Each of these land use alternatives must he explored and compared to the relationship of the Foothill Boulevard commercial corridor as well as the impact to the existing residential area immediately adjacent to the project site. In order to adequately address the potential impact associated with each of these land use alternatives, additional information will be required to complete the analysis. Staff has isolated the areas of hydro'ogy, population, land use and planning considerations, socio- economic factors, traffic /circulation, health, safety, and nuisance factors, and aesthetics which are fully described in the attached preliminary Initial Study . IICOMMENOATT0"* It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue thc. PL. c hearing to November 10, 1982 and direct the applicant to prepare an expanded Initial Study under the direction of the Planning Division staff to cover those areas as outlined within the preliminary Initial Study. Attachments: Location Map Conceptual Site Plan Preliminary Initial Study 11 11 KA fi 0 Z �\' �Qc �� 2 pig /077 r_s7waw+ rc J T L / r1.eva..,^1ir� 208 lu _ /077 Zl w J i Vic•. u - � -- .;�."•+.. -- �,W-1•�— I "%W 2� Cam: II I C -2 a _�' C -2 r � •�i � e 208 ZOA1f /"A114:7 GV II I C -2 a _�' C -2 r � •�i � e 208 ZOA1f /"A114:7 'MEN ® DISCUSSION ON PRELIMINARY INITIAL STUDY Following is a discussion of environmental elements based on a preliminary review or potential environmental impacts. The resultsof this preliminary investigation show that additional information is needed to make a final determination on the significance of environmental impacts and potential design and irrigation measures. 1. Hydrology: The designation of this site as commercial would result in significant changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and amount of surface water runoff. There i. a 'tester planned drain at the inter_ section of Ramona and Foothill. However, this installation would re- quire significant downstream improvements. Interim on -site facilities may be needed in order to mitigate interim impacts. 2. Population /Land Use and Planning Considerations: This proposal would be eliminating housing opportunities for this area. Other land use alternatives, particularly in the commercial category, would have some impact on the existing housing. This would be mainly in the area of land use compatibility, biota, physical and economic impacts. A review of the potential impacts, interfaced with each of the land use alter- natives, is needed to determine most appropriate use and /or mitigation measures. 3. Socio- Eco•zomic Factors: The designation of this as commercial and its ultimate development, will have some impact on property values in the area, cxmmercial diversity, and potential impacts to existing commer- cial areas. There can be both positive and negative impacts in these areas. Some socio- economic analysis is needed on the various land use alternatives to determine the magnitude of economic impact. 4. Traffic /Circulation: With each land use alternative comes a range of traffic implications. To assist in the determination of a land use, a traffic study will be needed which will provide a thorough analysis on points of access, general circulation, affect on Foothill Boulevard. and need for additional circulation improvements. The purpose of the traffic study will be to outline the implications for each land use alte-native and pr000se appropriate mitigation measures. 5. Health, Safety and Nuisance Factors: The proposal for commercial land use and s::bsequent 3eve opment can cause noise, light and nuisance factors whit:, vary in accordance with the uitimate project design.. An analysis ci these areas and design mitigations in comparison to other land use: will show the magnitude of any associated impacts. El 6. Aesthetics: Any development of the project site could cause obstruc- tion of existing views or vistas as well as creating the possibility of an aesthetically offensive site. To determine the magnitude of these impacts, ar. araiysis of the various land use alternatives as they relate to the surround:rg uses and various design concepts should be prepared. This would provide a basis to determine potential mitigation measures for subsequent design and development. 7. Utilities: Master planned flood control facilities are proposed to be ocated adjacent to this site. The impacts to this system should be included and analyzed in the hydrology section. Based on this preliminary initial Study, it is recommended that an expanded Initial Study be prepared to cover the main issues as described above. It would be the intent that this document be prepared by the applicant through direction of City staff. Further, that such document would concentrate and compare the various impacts and mitigations of each of the major land use alternatives as follows: 1. Site remains and develops as is. 2. Site is planned for all residential use at a range from 4-14 units per acre and 14-24. 3. The site is developed as office uses, neighborhood commercial, or general commercial. 11 CITY 01 F�c ;'110 u�ii:0:v v:i INITI L STUDY PART T_ - PROJECT INMRMATION SHEET - To be comnieted by applicant Environmental Assess -lent Review Fee: $87.00 For all projects retlnir_ng enviro=ental review, this .F rn+ �/- o l �--A -..,d tt �, .] i it Development o_... _.. c -:p iC .. .....u.r cv � ,- Review Co*.v:.it*_ee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Envirc- mental analysis staff will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Rzviev Committee will meet and take action no later than ter. (10) days before the pl.:blic meeting at which tinge the project is to be heard. The Co ^.-nittee will make or of three determinations: 1) The project will have no significant environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have a significant environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report :vil1 be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project_ PROJECT TITLE: —5G,* 4tn(!/J APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: !!lOyt Alr , l^W 6P�lf AG A%o fwd /213') 7 3 , 7e 70 .t MAV . ML rim h'DhIE, ADDRESS, TELEPHONTE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING T:IIS PROJECT: Wowz",GT AlAt*l_ A14 Ave A LOCATION OF P_ROa -ECT (STREET ADDRESS ADM ASSESSOR PAKCE:, NJ. } AW MG O ; d Al 77' & Zv- ZBs'L9r 30 4� 3/ LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND T: AGENCY ISSOTNG SUCH PERMITS- v.4911 5p 04'1 7r 7F T�f'1� aG �,Z�,stil•C1cet� y ti ie.�ei�e.�' ` rT– <.fiii �5/�ii Z -1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ::CREA'— OF PROJECT A_tEv AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 9- 9 -T DESCRIBE THE EiTJT_RO`ZlE_:T`:L SETTTtiG OF THE PROJECT SITE INCrODING ON TOPOGRAPEY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANI.;ALS, ANY CULTURA-1, HISTORICAL OR SCENi_C ASPECTS, USE OF SURROMMING PROPERTIES, A THE DESCRIPTIO_vT O_ ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES A \'D TH I_R USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) `Phis Imlect lies on the broad alu•'al niane st tchiT l Southeriv frpn the South at a rate of about 25. A rprater COIL-se of c.• r-r�r� rna n+yr -iprty af- 'r* N r f` Grp was tho T-rn M-�+ along it's Fasterl-. boundasv e the and xits the nronerty a� he S.-. Cor. he site was nreviously used as a rursery and is oresently barren except for restive weeds arw pusses. An 1, huc . tree stars near t e L.E. Cor. of the site. No animal life was observed, but the nresence of p-onhers and rodents is assured to be certain. Use of surround3n� properties is as follows: North- ATnM'in.taG'F. R TTnv.r-hea ct• D.- ...:a__ie East and West (along Foothill Blvd. ?hvntaae ): CorTercial South tSo. side 'root. - I 1 77— r e Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series Of CUM-tilative actions, which alt ? zoua? -, individua?ly small, naY as a whole have significant enviror-mental inpact? AIA LI c WILL THIS PROJECT: 1 =S iv�0 x 2. A Create a substantial change in ground contoirs? Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial C?:ange in demand for municipal services (police, fare, water, sewage, etc. )'. _ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5= Remove any existing trees? HOW many? 1 18" Vic. X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, fla,-,nables or exalosives? Explanation of any yvc answers above: (mi) It is possible that this tree can be saved if the lay- ut and 9�-ie re_atio:s ps Permit it. IriPJRTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, Complete the form on the iaext page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certifv that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the date and infor-77,_ 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 knoc: ledge 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 /` Sigr_at Title Z 13 .! CITY OF RANCHO CUC&MONGA PART II INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST DATE: _6C'79%M-0Z 6 102 APPLICANT: 11VrC- ASr-4M 60N5 (1P1VPj TILING DATE r gt-Y !% LOr NUMBER: 6;4 f2 -03 PROJECT: Ci/A �. C' h/• /lq�f%N gto . - /Q� 1UC- ENJ4 -fIL t�o21/I1G�2Yi�(i PROJECT L0CATION: OF e,40BdL3`t � FL�O%)f %GG R GUS)' I. ENVIRON�11ENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Soils and GeoloM7. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. unstable ground conditions or in changes in geologic relationships? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or burial of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface contour intervals? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any potential increase in wind or water erosion of soils, affecting either on or off site corditons? f. Changes in erosion siltation, or deposition? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ h. An increase in the rate of extraction and /or use of any mineral resource? 2. Hydrology. Will the proposal have significant results in: Page 3 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ V11 b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or / create a demand for additional housing? ✓ — 6. Socic- Econem_c Factors. will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, ® policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing cons +captive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? YES 1-ME No c. introduction of new or disruptive species of plants into an area? — d. Reduction in the potential for agricultural production? _ Fauna. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in the characteristics of species, including diversity, distribution, or numbers of any species of animals? T� b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new or disruptive species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration or removal of existing fish or wildlife habitat? -- 5. Population. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. Will the proposal alter the location, distri- bution, density, diversity, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ V11 b. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or / create a demand for additional housing? ✓ — 6. Socic- Econem_c Factors. will the proposal have significant results in: a. Change in local or regional socio- economic characteristics, including economic or commercial diversity, tax rate, and property values? b. Will project costs be equitably distributed among project beneficiaries, i.e., buyers, tax payers or project users? 7. Land Use and planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b. A conflict with any designations, objectives, ® policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? c. An impact upon the qulaity or quantity of existing cons +captive or non - consumptive recreational opportunities? Page S YES MAYBE NO 11. Aesthetics. Will the proposal have significant results in: a. The obstruction or degradation of any scenic vista or view? b. The creation of ar. aesthetically offensive site? -t4 c. P_ conflict with the obJective of designated or potential scenic corridors? 12. Utilities and Public Services. Will the proposal have a significant need for new systems, or alterations to the following: a. Electric power? _ 4Z b. Natural or packaged gas? C. Communications systems? d. Water supply? e. Wastewater facilities? 4Z f. Flood control structures? g. Solid waste facilities? h. Fire protection? AL i. Police protection? j. Schools? k. Parks or other recreational facilities? 1. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads and flood control facilities? M. Other governmental services? 13. Energy and Scarce Resources. Will the r__oposal have significant results in: a. Use of substantial or excessive fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy? C. An increase in the demand for development of new sources of energy? d. An increase or perpetuation of the consumption of non — renewable forms of energy, when feasible renewable sources of energy are available? III. On the basis of this initial evaluatiun: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect I on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant f effect on the environment_, there will not be a significant effect i� in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. j� I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the envirnment, and an EN- VIROND,%ENT ItTACT REPORT is required. Signature Title ' IIGp �r -s ,y I 11 n C.TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STS REPORT DATE: September 22, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Rick Gomez, City Planner BY: Tim J. Beedle, Senior Planner SUB•IECT: REVIEW SCHEDULE FOR DRAFT ETIWARDA SPECIFIC PLAN On Saturday, September 11, 1982, the Etiwanda Specific Plan Advisory Committee approved the draft Etiwanda Specific Plan and have forwarded their recomuip-ndations to the Planning Commission. The Staff is now completing all final chances as a result of that meeting and are preparing to h?•e final typing completed in order to have the Plan printed for public distribution. It is anticipated that the Plan and the draft Environmental Impact Report will be available for public distribution during mid - October. At the request of the Planning Corission, the staff has established a tentative review schedule based upon a meeting on alternating Thursdays following the City Council meetings. The attached schedule nutlines the meeting sates and topics. The schedule will be published and made available to the public. All meetings will begin at 7 p.m. The first meeting, tentatively scheduled for Thursdav, October 21, will be an overview presentation to the Planning Commission and public on the entire plan. On subsequent meeting dates the Ccm mission will either have a study session or a formal public hearing. It is now anticipated that the Commission will need three meetings to review and consider all parts of the Specific Plan with the final approval being considered at their regularly scheduled meeting of December 22, 1982. During the final review of the draft Etiwanda Specific Plan, both the Committee and the staff concentrated on the preparation of the regulatory measures of the Specific Plar.. The final comments by the Committee tend to focus on only minor changes as a result of policy modifications to Part I of the Specific Plan. During the review process the Committee received considerable public input on the policy portion of the Plan. ITEM E Review Schedule /Etiwanda Specific Plan Planning Commission Agenda September 22, 1982 Page 2 There have been concerns raised by some Etiwanda land owners regarding the neea for the East Avenue Bypass, the viability of Very Low Density within the Etiwanda area south of Highland, and the location of other commercial uses. The local i,esidents of the Etiwanda area, except for the early meetings, have essentially maintained a low profile during the review process. It is anticiapted that the Planning Commission will be asked by the land owners to consider their issues as early as possible. Staff anticipates that once the initial presentation on the Etiwanda Specific Plan has been made, the Cowission can focus on the general policy areas of the plan. These considerations will be made during the ^eview of Part I, the Policy Plan. Following the Commission's review of Part I, the staff will review Part II, the Regulatory Provisions, which Zend to be the more "nuts and bolts" aspects of the Specific Plan. Ultimately, staff anticipates that the Commission will be interested in considering details on both Parts I and II of the Specific Plan. Your recommendations will be incorporated into the revised Plan prior to its being received by the City Council The Plan which goes to the City Council will reflect those changes. Respectfully submitted, RICK GOMEZ City Planner RG:TB :jr E 11 LI E PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE REVIEW SCHEDULE OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN Thursday, October 21, 1982 Public presentation of Plan Thursday, November ?, 1982 Wor'shop on Part I, Policy & Conceptual Plan Thursday, November 18, 1982 pi_ilie_ Wanrinn_ Part I; Policy & Conceptual Plan - Review of Part II, Regulatory Provisions Thursday, December 9, 1982 Public Hearing, Part II, is Regulatory Provisions Wednesday, December ?2, 1982 Wrao up, review revisions, recommend adoption to City Council ALL HEARINGS WILL BE HELD AT LIONS COMMUNITY CENTER FORUM, 7:00 P.M. n 9 El DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT September 22, 1982 Members of the Planning Commission Rick Gomez, City Planner Michael Vairin, Senior Planer REPORT ON CUNDiTI northwest corner of 19th Street and Ica - BOAR'S HEAD - ng center on th nel i an. SUMMARY: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 25, 1982, requestea that the staff prepare an informational report on Conditional Use Permit 78 -03, which was issued for the business establishment known as the Boar's Heai. The following report outlines and contains the original Conditions of f.pproval, the existing Conditional Use Permit record, the intent of the original approval along with its findings, a history of the complaints and correspondence, a history of the Sheriff's records, and the options which are available to the Planning Commission for further action on the Conditional Use Permit. Staff has recomme,ided that the Plan-ling Commission conduct a public hearing at which time the Commission czn consider either revocation, of the Conditonal Use Permit or inclusion of Witional conditions on th^ original Conditional Use Permit that would serve to resolve reported problems. BACKGROUND /HISTORY: Attached is a copy of Planning Commission Resolution 78 -40 which lists the fin.7ings and conditions which ar: binding on the issuance of the permit. In addition, a copy of the Planning Covmniss;on Minutes of December 27, 19 ?8 and a copy of the original application are attached. From review of these items, it appears that the original intent of the Planning Commission's approval was to grant the CUP based on the fact that the applicant reported that bar and entertainment facili-cies would be used in conjunction with a lunch and dinner restaurant usage. This is stated on the original application, as well as within the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and was placed as a Condition of Approval by the Planning Commission. The Planning Conmission's Conditions also stated that this CUP could be reviewed at which time th, Commission could add or delete Conditions to the permit. Complaints and correspondence date back to early 1980. The matter was first brought forward to the City by residents in the neighborhood. They addressed the City Council regarding the problems they have experienced with the compatibility of the use to their neighborhood. City Council ITEM F Conditional Use Permit 78 -03/Boar's Head Planning Commission Agenda September 22, 1982 Page 2 directed the shopping di resolve the opping center owners and business owners to work with staff conducted a meting with representatives gof'ther shopping tcenter owners, a representative of the 1.lcoholic Beverage Control Board" Crowe, Manager and several Sheriff`s pep Beverage business the Sheriff's Department conducted a full envestigationsof to addition, as well as conducted interviews with seven of the the immediate vicinity of the establishment. These are attac! r review. Followinq that meeting _ property owners'orthin letter outlining the i n `tE shcPPing center owner s your improvements we intended to help that were scheduled to be made. The re intended to he) r. and create better management for theeestablishment. Many cof'those2r�ng' improvements were made, however, the Sheriff investigations and calls have continued to this date. The Sheriff's records indicate many reports or. lamproblems aing hours with loud music, loitering, yelling by patrons during e mat ho hours, assu)ts, stolen property, and throwing of bottles and liter at ..omes. The seven residents who were interviewed by the with the facility, Sheriff's Department unamiously e stated that there is a continuing problem' A letter dated September E. 1482 was received from the shopping owner in which he proposes :arther improvements which, in his opinion, would alleviate the problems with the neighborhood. center center owner has stated that the establishment has' Also, the sho owners who are committed to enforcing noise controlbeeand purchased by�new sound insulation. adding additional OPTIONS: The Planning Commission has the authority under the Conditional llse Permit section of the Ordinance to review the conduct of an permit to ensure that the findings made by t5e Commission are being These options are: y approved et. 9 met. I. The Planning Commission can suspend the Conditional Use Permit and conduct a public re hearing to consider vocation of the permit. This would require staff to notify the business establishment and shopping center owner that the permit is suspended until a hearing car, be set and a decision made by the Planning Commission. This does not mean that the business cannot be conducted, but siaply puts the owner on .alert that the permit has been suspended until further consideration. If the Commission finds that additional conditions and improvenents could not make use compatible under the current circumstances, the permit would be revoked and the har and entertainment facilities would have to cease operation. 0 Conditional Use Permit 78 -03 /Boar's Head Planning Commission; Agenda September 22, 1882 Page 3 2. Suspend the permit, hold a public nearing and modify the Conditions of the permit. Staff would prepare Conditions and ideas for improvements for consideration by the Commission which would alleviate the associated problems. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a pUty i l( i7C0.riny W %VrS eucr rc7v%at i Vu vi uwu I I wa. G8 vl VCIIV I V I Vrta l Vse Permit 78 -03. ectfully submitted, I ff iv ICK fOMWa..o 4 t Planner :Ki:jr Planning Commission Resolution 78 -40 Planning Commission Minutes - December 27, Original CUP Application Letter From City Attorney Investigation by Sheriff's Department Letter of Septemnbea 9, 1981 From Shopping Letter of September 8, 1982 From Shopping 1978 Center Owner Center Owner , RESOLUTION N0. 78„0 0' A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF CLIP 78 -03 - HONE - TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT WITH RELATED BAR FACILITIES ASD) ?MUSICAL ErTERLAINTfENi WITHIN A PROPOSED NEIGH - BORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER Of CARNELIAN P.ND 19TH STREET IN THE C -1 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 5th day of December, 1978, a complete applicatiLTI was filed for review on the above described property; and WHEREAS, on the 27th day of December, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project. NOW. THEREFORE, th Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1: That the following findings have beer. made: 1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, and landscaping and setbacks are pro- vided which are compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed, both as to width and type of navement to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use. 3. There will. not be an adverse effect upon abutting pro- perty. G. In requiring the conditions in the report, the Commission deems such requirements to be the minimum necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare. 5. This project will not be objectionable nor detrimental to existing uses permitted in the zone district in which this project is located. 6. This project will not be contrary to the objectives of the proposed Master Plan and will not be in conflict with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordina -.ce. SECTION 2: That the Planning Commission sets the following conditions on the above described project: 1. Developer small comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code. Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code and all other applicable codes r' 1. '• 1 � J i 2. Approval of this request shall not exc,:se compliance with all other applicable City Ordinznces ten effect at this timd. 3. All signing shall be in conformance with the adopted uniform signing program. 4. Hours of ope' :anon shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. 5 t .,,e CUP 415 granted Cp_ - p__ ind of indefinite time with Planning -- Commission review after 24 months of operation at which time the Commtssion say add or delete conditions. 6. Bar and entertainment facilities must be used in conjunc- tion with the restaurant usage. 7. The applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions within 60 days from approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF December , 1978 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'Herman Rempel, Chairma Secretary of the P12nning Commission I, JACK 1-4LM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca- monga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Pancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of December, 1978. AYES: COIDIISSIONERS: I1AHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA, pMlpEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Mat: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .'ONES I Agree and Consent to all conditions listed in Resolution No. 78-40 as approved by the Rancho Curaxorga Planning Commission or. December 27, 1978. � 1 grature Date 0 11 r L c� c- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 27, 1978 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commissiou of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on We, nesday, December 27, 197°. Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Laura Jones (Excused; ALSO PRESENT: Jack Laic, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner; 46 and Nancy McAllister, Secretary APPROVAL Or MINUTES Upon Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded 'by Commissioner Rempel and unanimously carried the Special Study Session minutes of November 21, 1978 were approved subject to the following change: Peter Tolstoy to be shown as absent at this meeting Jorge Garcia to be shown as present at this meeting Upon Motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unanimously carried, the Special Study Session Minutes of November 29, 1978 were approved subject to the following change: Page 2, the last sentence in the first paragraph to be changed as follows: Appointed to that committee were Commissioners Jones, Garcia and Rempel. Fiction passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit No. 78 -03 - HONF - Request to allow a restaurant, related bar facilities and musical entertainment within a prcposed neighborhood shopping center located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street in the r, -1 zone. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on file the Planning Division. He indicated a letter was received from the Mayor of the City of Upland which stateJ that the present Boars Head in the City of Upland has been operating for over four years. It is a well run business estab- lishment which hasn't caused any problems for the city. It stated it is an asset from the City's viewpoint. (Letter on file in the Planning Division). He reported Condition. 7#4 in the Resolution reg rding hours of operation should be completed by the Commission. Also, Condition : ^,S was 'Left open for the Commission to consider the granting of the CUP for a period of time. He recommended that the Commission approve Resolution No. 78 -40 subject to the findings and ccnditious as listed with the com- pletion of Conditions #4 and #5. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission for the s'.aff. Commissioner Dahl asked if a CUP is subject to revocation at anv tine if the con- ditions are nor met. What would be the reason for placing a time limit on the CUP? Mr. Hogan stated yes, the reason for a time limit is to review the CUP at the end of a stated period of time. In the future, homes will be built in this area with new residents who may have co- gplaints about the use and not know how to voice that complaint. This gives them as well as the CO:nmi.ssion the opportunity to nip the Problem in the bud rather than have it go on and become a major problem. He indi- cated a Cunditional Use Permit can be reviewed at any time, but Staff felt better to put a i.ariod of time on it and that t;ie applicant be made aware of this. There being r.o further questions from the Commission to the Staff, Chairman Rempel opened the puu2ic hearing and asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Doug Hone stated Mr. Downey who owns the Boars Head ?.n Upland will �e operating at this location. He stated if this business is allowed to develop ana should there be any trouble in the future whereby the Police Department has to respond to calls, this use could be reviewed at that time. Mr. Downey is investing a lot of money in this business and does not want any trouble. This will be a very high quality business establishment that serves dinner and lunch and one which will be an asset to the co:mtunity. Mr. Downey, applicant_, stated he wo +•?d be happy -� answer questions from the Commis- sion. He stated the Boars Head will be approximately 2,700 square feet. It will be more plush then the present Lars Hecd in Upland. Th_y will have a very iimited dance floor. The music will begin at ap,�,roximately 9 p.m. and play until 1:30 a.m. No noise will be heard outside of the building. The heaviest business will be between the hours of 9 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. at which time the rest of the shopping center will be closed. They will have a larger kitchen then the preser. Boars Head and will have a larger menu. Chairman Rempel asked Mr. Downey what the normal hours of operation are for this facility. Mr. Downey stated they would like to open at 1.L:C0 a.m. and close by 2:00 a.m. Chairman. Remp =1 stated it is his opinion that a time limit should be placed on the granting of the CUP because most of the surrounding residential area is not occupied is yet. It should definitely be reviewed in a specified period of time to insure there is no problems rather than waiting until there are complaints. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 27, 1978 Commissioner Garcia stated he is concerned about the entertainment proposed. He felt the reason some of the facilities are suLcessful such as Upland is due to the fact the community is well developed. He asked what is proposed in terns of security. Mr. Downey stated the best security he can think of is the way the business is operated. They will have a host that will stand at the door to check I.D.'s and on -site security for special events. Commissioner Garcia asked what is the maximum capacity requested for the facility. Mr. Downey stated the maximum capacity will be approximately 130. Doug Hone stated in talking with the Police Department for the City of Upland, they had nothing but praise for the Soars Head located in their city. Ted Hopson, City Atto_ney, stated the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board sub..its pros- pective ;applicants to the local. police department and if they object to the business it is grounds for the ABC not to issue a license. T'erefore, the Sheriff's Department will have input as to whether or not the license is granted. Chairman Rempel asked if there will be sufficient parking in this center with the Boars Head addition. Doug Hone stated they have exceeded the required parking on the site for the center. Commissioner Garcia asked Mr. Downey if he objects in regarc to placing a time limit on this CUP. Mr. Downey stated he feels that there is already a permit. If there is any problem in the future, th, of this at the time the problem is noted. He does on this use is really necessary. to Condition #5 in the Resolution conditional situation on this �y would expect to be notified not feel placing a time limit Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a new operator should take ever this business in the future, would he haveto apply for a use permit? Mr. Hogan stated no; this use permit runs with tna land, not the owner. Mr. Hopson stated he would feel more comfortable with the approval of this develop- ment if an additional condition were placed in the P.eselution staring that the applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions within 60 days from approval. Commissioner Dahl suggested that Condition #5 in the Resolution be reworded as follows: The CUP is granted for a period of indefinite time with Planning Com- mission review after 21- months of operation at which time the Commission may aid or delete conditions. Commissioner Garcia stated he is still a little concerned about the parking, and whether or not it is in compliance with the codes. City Attcrney stated the ordinance reads that one parking space shall be required for every three seats within a restaurant. Jack Lam stated the parking proposed would more than meet the standard of the ordi- nance as to the calculations in terms of square footage for eating establishments versus retail and office uses. Planning Commission Minu.-es -3- December- 27, 1978 Chairman Rempel stated it '.s his opinion that Condition ;f4 in the Resolution should be worded as follows: Hours of operation shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. Chairman Rempel asked if any one else in the audience would like to speak for or against this CUP. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to appro•ie Resolution No. 78 -40 subject to the findings and conditions as listed with the following changes and 'additions: Condition #4: Hours of operation shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. Condition #5: The CUP is granted for a period of indefinite time with Planning Co:mz.ission review after 24 months of operation at which tine the Commission may add or delete conditions. Condition #7: Tire applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions within 60 days from approval. AYES: DAL"L, TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: JONES MOTION CARRIED. OLD BUSINESS Utilization of Trailers for Sales Tract Offices (Planning Commission Interpretation) Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on file ix,. the Planning Division. Staff requests that the Planning Com- mission determine whether their interpretation of Section 51.021?(A)5 will allow trailer coaches to be used for tract sales offices, and if so, that such usage will be allowed subject to the approval of a locatien and development plan (Site Approval) as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Garcia stated during past years we have seen a tremendous amount of these in operation within the City. He is very concerned that in many tracts the trailer was put up prior to any type of development taking place. Some of the trailers remained for the total sales of the tract. It is his opinion that trailers should be used until model homes are completes: and; conversion of the garage has been com- pleted. However, he doesn't feel that trailers should be installed and be used for business until the tract is complete. He feels they are a nuisance to the community and he is not receptive to that type of usage as it detracts from the aesthetics of the City. He would be receptive to a temporary usage of the trailer for business purposes until conversion of the garage is completed. Mr. Hopson stated there have been cases where a tract developer does not have model homes. What would be done in this case? Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 27, 1978 E ►_I El I i City of rancho Q1,� �G' - llbilYOiili - - - ciicainonga �o no. a Rtic n It1CAT7no OL, Don lr/ /�TT09Gf �'��� I A YeA Arx ... PILE b(i 'o• � NR4E9TM8tYt7et.AaC;CaDSgl6,an Ar�� �p .-.. rn+r�. ... �xjJ. �T1 4'1 F �^ RAM n! �RDPOSED PROJF T;;,' R$diED FILYS� . -. .. Eanttio::Pll.f r. ,C.'; .> s iv y,.,,M, .., rt 's head (714)989 -1767 [APPLI CANTS NAME TELEPI u-..L SS N. Eucli -d Avenue. Upland, California :.e: .. CYNENAI. INFO1tvATZDN EEQUIHFD ...." • .r�r.fiy -. U'.fiER hh`IE TE /"� Rarchc Plaza 714 ?179 -1767 (` 0 aU13 J1 7333 Hellman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ZONE GENERAL PI AN EXISTING LAND USE � -SHE ACREAGE C -i i v -1 �leignbornooci Co ®ero-t Same EXIST TW 1 1 ai STRUCTURE SQUARE !W'�AUE w REVIEW REQUESTED U L] SITE APPROVAL L3 1:1NOR DEVIATION ❑ DIRECTOR REVIEW ❑ VARIANCE �] CONDITIOXAL USE PERMIT ❑ ZONE CHANCE L1 TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY PEfL .T TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION OFFICE j] PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - :.- PROJECT DESCRIPTION O . FULL DESCRIPTION OF PR POSED Y 0 A Ei r The uvner proposes to 4easc a 1,3�7� �u�{�S.�fgl'Sp� -CC' Rg-� herly most building to a P. P r .With ^ Dated _ facilities for evening musical entertainment. The proposed tenant intends .- operate U a yua i :y ua Ei— es'tass'�tzpr -=eivo- b; a ••i _• 7 i •r�. intended operation is designed as a very attractively and expensively decorated rebtautact an ar vita xacillcle. _ " �^ ^•sioal combo). The Boar's Head currently has a similar operation in the City ,Upland of operating in a nelghbornood commeruni center ac sw ". ,. Q FILING RFOUIRE`M-CNTS THE FOLLO:DING ARE ATTAClLME'NTS AND PUNS THAT `LAY BE REOUIRZD TO BE FILED IN .4� L CONJL"NCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. RIFER TO :11L FILING REQUIREMENT SHEET I.OR REQUIRL11E. \'TS APPLICABLE TO THIS REQUEST. DETAILED PLOT PLAN * ENVIRO"_ENTAL DW,' ?SENTS T' BUILDING ELEVATIONS APPLICABLE FEES F7.00R_ PLANS * TITLES "ND DEEDS CONTOUR MAPS CALCULATTON SHEETS 3 ' IAh• 7 • BSCAPING PLAXS `APHIC DISPLAYS Ill OYHER cmai ZCATZO1i - ._. +: , I CERTIFY THAT I AN PRESEN -Y THE LECJLL OUNER FOR THE ABOVE, OFSCP.ILED PROPERYY. FURTHER, I ACKN%YJ4F.XE TUE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TkUE AND ACCURATE. ATE= ne c 41 4 SIGNATLitE: r i r l[- D mFlas FU. hone, Gfner,l Pnrtner -DATE APPLZCITICB JtEC D. RECEIVED BY: FE¢£Sy R.SCT. UA I °.VP.CC G. COJ�n OTON ��'•O LO A. C. i1:a 5��"U CL CI.OwC OfOaC w. POPTCO 40pC�T C. COUO ^C4 +r OONALO G. w.SL..+ Pope.- r sc.+wCe Co...,.. wOPSON . ^11. 011 s1r. -CN m ru OC ACT P_.wOCR.0.v NOS -...N O. TnOP.s COVIMGT ON & ::ROWE ATTORMEY$ AT LAW '31 WC T`+:XTH i.TRCCT COST OFFICE BC X 1513 ONTARIO. CALIFOR111A 91762 August 17, 1981 Mr. Jack Downey Mr. Dick Roberts Downey & Roberts, Inc. 2079 North Euclid Avenue Upland, California 51786 Mr. Douglas Hone Hone & Associates 7333 Hellman Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Disturbances at Boars Heid, 6620 North Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, California Gentlemen: ,r .f >�u eea c aw Since the above matter came before the City Council, there have been a continued series of prcblems related both to dis- turbances to the neighbors and internal public nuisance activ- ity at the Boars Head. The problens have increased to the point where there is almost daily activity at the Sheriff's Depart- ment involving sor.: response or investigation by the same. I have met with Detective Wayne Smith to review the City's alter - nativ:. z in the even= this activity is to ccntinue. Both Detective Smith and I fee. there are some physical changes to the prf)perty as well as Management policy which could substantially reduce the prcblem prllvided all concerned parties provide their sincere -zooperation. It is the City's policy to First attempt to work thess ma_tnrs out before taking legal ac- t-ten to totally terminate the iar activity. I am enclosing a copy of the sunset Amusesent case which clearly points out the City's alternatives in the event sore solution is not rea,hed. Detective Smith will contact you shortly to arrange a meet- ing to discuss some reasonable resolition of the problem. In L. J 0 Page °I vqo August 17, 1981 Downey & Roberts, Inc. Hone & Associates Re: Disturbances at. Boars Head, 6(20 North Carnelian. Rancho Cucamonga, California the event such resolui: ion is not obtained, the City Council may elect to resort tc legal action. I am also enclosing a ropy of the People v. Montoya .case to indicate the range of Ci.y action if nczessary_ Respectfully, UA 11 & City Attorney for the City of Rancho Cucamonga SC:sgg Enclosures CC: Detective Wayne Smith San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department Rancho Cucamonga Sub- Station cc: Lauren Wasserman, City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga cc: City Council Members City of Rancho Cucamonga 11 69. CAS! N V MBE R OFFICE Of FRANK BLAND, SHERIFF 1110120 -11 Coanty of San Bernardino Caiifomia CA 03600 70. CCOE SECTION ]I. CRIME l 72."ASSIFtCATION PC 41 ;turbing The Peace ! Loud iioi se 73. VICTINI' S NAME - Lb V. First. M.ddlt (Firm. it Rusinoss) 74. ADDRESS Rftidenu By -,nesa 75. PHONE AS S IGN?ENT : _Woeking as a g r rah ac , gnmP r dpj-p `f va nilt ! Of rha gh=, i ff' c City of Rancho Cucamonga, working the Day Shift between the hours of 8:00 T Tn . BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Th,e date of July 27 1981 assigned to investigate the continuing problems �s tur7ance at the Boars Head Bar, located at 6620 Carnelian Street, in the Citv of Rancho Cuca_ion s From the r ?, • , Sheriff's Substation, City of Rancho Cucamona, has taken I3V criminal jincider. rr rP , v o .� have been made by deputies handling calls at the Boar's ?lead Bar.~ See P —F--=- viewing the daily logs of the Sheriff's Office, Ir Eetfftd City of Rancho Cucamonga, aeF - -:^s ha - =e 13 respeRded Boar's Head Bar. These mention ea responses are in addition to the times r- Bar. - r"t-er r2spo.� to thE Bvar Further investigation revealed to this officer that a group of citizens who area just west of thehBoar's Head Bar, had attended a City Council Meeting ` .1 t-. to_ the noise problems at the Boar's Head Bar. complaints in reference See attached cony of tha i menu es or, Ene aate mentioned. in viewed a handwritten letter sent to the Alcohol addition, tnis otricer re- Bevera e Control Aggenc awe r.gency, by concernea citizens of the 6600 See b iocic CZ Topaz 6treet. attached letter.. The letters.afe in reference to the-corgiain-� r loud noises coming from the Boar's Head Bar. t REPORTING OFFICERS RECORDING OF WCER W. O. Smith, Detective Same TYPE sI B7 { DATE AND TIME t ROUTED SY amh 9 -2 -81 I FLIATHER COPIES ❑Oetectivt ❑C11 ACTION ACTION] 70: fi ❑ YK ❑,.»na. ❑ PIn of ❑NO ❑Dirt. An,.. ❑ 0~ ❑S.O T.D. ❑ REVIEWED SY DATE 15-15264 aoi Om . 69 -CASE NUMBER OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND, SHERIFF 1110120 -11 County of Szn Bernardino C.Tli1,omia CA 03600 70. COOE SECTION 71. CHIME 72. CLASSIFICATION PC 415 Disturbing The Peace Loud Noise 73, VICTIV.'S NA%1E Lasc, Firs[, MiOCIC lFirm, A Batin�st) 76. ADDr. ESS I 1; ,id.m. I 1 Bac:na+, 75. PHONE - CONTACT WITH THE CITIZENS: (l.t _.e .tat= L T "-t-- 27 TAOT to > tL l nn l 1, G Oi .:sir t"/ i vi iZ v YES�OTiucu to t.t1E J6vv lltvCn Oi 1COaz Street, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and contacted seven residents, all of whom live on the 6600 block of Topaz Street. See attached seven citizen-inter- views. The area mentioned is a single - family residential area, situated just west of P r--Tr rTTy = R/O met with the City Attorney, Mr. Samuel Crowe, at his Ontario Office. Mr. Crowe was appr�sea or the situat- -ion wicn now existe at the Boar's head Bar. Mr. Crowe was advised and furnished all of the pre - mentioned infor- mation in reference to responses and criminal complaints, citizen complaints on the bar- and as a result the City Attorney sen, a letter M ck Downey and Mr. Dick Roberts, the owners of the Boar's Head Bar, and so to Mr- DC.L17,1as Hnnp and a c * shappi r at 19L:h and Carnelian, advising them that a problem did exist at the Boar's solution to the problem. See attached letter by Mr. Samuel Crowe. As a i Aiigiict- 17 a i made arrangements with Mr. Jack Downey and Mr. Dick Roberts, along with of August 27, 1981, IIEET114G AT CITY HALL: On the day of August 27, 1981, a meeting took place at the City Hall office - d k Downey 2. 1 r- -i , Mr. rog2-n 4. Ray Patton trom. AEEC)hol Beverage Control REPORTING OFFICERS RE,ORDING OFFICER TYPED BY DATE AND TIME POUTED BY W. 0. smith Detective same arr_ 9 -2 -81 jrjdkER COPIES I�o�i.,. Cu + TO: L ' Eraf aduvwn8. � +P�(rpI NO © WWI_ Arty. O �. Dow 'S.OJPp" 13 REVIEWED BY DATE l-7 MISIU -602 Othw 64. CASE NUMBER OFFICE OF FRANK ELAND, SHERIFF 1110120-11 County of San Bernardino Caifomia CA 03600 10.CODe SECTION M CRIME 72. CLASSIFICATION PC 415 Disturbing The Peace oud N ' 77. VICT IM 5 NAME Lns[, Fvst, MitlCl• (Firm, iT Beanecd 74. AOORESS I ResCencs 8vsiness 75.PRONE -T-TFE TING A2 rTTY 74ALT T S 11 — cr-0 -. r' n rr Fi-B J Den Gar-penter- - llieheel ' i As a result of the meeting, the owners of the bar, Yr. JacI: Downey and Mr. Grogin understood that a problem did exist 1 n ' F st and that. the._responsible people, '` 1 a ' that the back door �° o ee ne n zs ev gown, of the bar which has, ir. the past, been left open occaslon ana as a in resin e noise eves is ex reme y on ou to the rest e the area, this door would be kept shut and every effort would be made y Owners, responslo a peop_e at the oar, to Keep t.e noise level own. DISPOSITI T'r_e situation will be monitored by this officer and any future robe P ms will be dealt with acco d'n2ly- 1 KEPORTINC OFFICERS RECORDING OFFICER TYPED 8Y W. 0, Smith, Detective DATE AND TIME ROUTED BY 1 sane amh 9_2_81 ACTION, P 1091 E5 a0eteclive C1I • �E] Yes QJuveniM ❑ Petmi ON, Disc Atty. ID �S.OJy.O- O[Mr n a—I REVIEWED BY DATE k5•ISlaa -a01 Ot' a , I.-. . OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND. SHERIFF County of San Bxrnsdino California CA 03600 M.dol, I F,m.d Bmmessl (74. LODF.ESSI `Resident, I I (Bus.Mtl 'I AEPORTING OFFICERS :' ECORDING OFFICER TYPED By DATE At4O TIME (ROUTED By 1 1 FR COPIES GD, ;,a... : Ctt r t CO LJ y a y„ 7aNniM ❑ Patrol . No El Oist. Atrr. a ti.' �S.DlP.D. DitMr REVIEWED By GATE �15-0.S1lsapl �3 Otpw iz^ i p ADAMS VA � T83'p � Fu-t2et C Wolta2eLC N (s t-1 j %Cog 2 r!o GIL$eeT IV S3lA2� — 4 4 � 000R — e rn F $pg 74 F �vf I�y; 7 r � ; �gF I 'I AEPORTING OFFICERS :' ECORDING OFFICER TYPED By DATE At4O TIME (ROUTED By 1 1 FR COPIES GD, ;,a... : Ctt r t CO LJ y a y„ 7aNniM ❑ Patrol . No El Oist. Atrr. a ti.' �S.DlP.D. DitMr REVIEWED By GATE �15-0.S1lsapl �3 Otpw - 6J. CASE Nuee9ER OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND, SHERIFF IC DR County of San Bernardino California 1 CA 03600 (It 70. CODE SECTION 71. CRIME 72, CLAESIFICI TION 1 7S. VICTIM'$ NAME last, First- MldCle lF:rm, .1 BvsinesA 7d, ADDRESS Re's:Cenci 75. PHCNF _ Bus:naas INTERVIEW : REID, JUDITH DIANE Years, 6608 Topaz Street, Rancho Cucamonga tetep .one d - Business address: 273 E. Radstone Blvd Azusa Business telephone; 330 -5417 �- IMS. REID advises this officer that she has lived at 'the 6608 Toaaz address =or severa years an .as 3_ve at that address pricf- - -to the Boar's Head Ff2 open u . She states that for the mast sever `vear a r , ears nocr, the Boar s Head Bar has been in existence of time the noise :which con es Etar and during that �74t }luaem that she has thought seriously of moving froffi•her Topaz Street ence. She states that he s he is able to hear the noise a.nd loud sounds which come from the bar r the ri ht - band which usually starts playing around 8pm or 9pm- 'a7ld doesn't hquit until such kan hat when the back door (north door) to the bar is imlocked and opened the r d keeps her awake well after 2aia when the bar is supposed to close. She r f moving from her Topaz Street address and that she: understands several iaa=-e 3 -j__e- _ advises that she is not a complainer, does_ not usually call the Sheriff's r neighbors that she feels something has to be done so that people :oho work that numerous tines she has heard what sounds like fighting coming from the parking lct b n f a... side of the bar at a time in which all of the other businesses in j the located neat to her have had bottles and other trash thrown in their yards J n persons res ons2 e r Hea d Bar. p °- Ding nat Caere. pa�rons of t e boar, s °ZPVRTING OFFICERS RECi7RDtNG OFFICER T ,. TYPE O dY DATE AND TIME ROUTED BY Smith Betective Detective Smith S1 lA szw i FURTN5q E ❑ Cif TO: jDele4:ve AC710N` U El "n 11Juwniie ❑ Patrol ( a NO ❑ Olt. ATIV. 1 1 aS.D/P -7. OtM � El REVIEWED BY DATE 1S151t4�01 Otns -- � ov. cc�c nu.ulak OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND. SHERIFF CoLnty of San Bernardino California CA a36DO ]J. C:7DE SECTION 171. CRIME LASS: -IQ ATION 77. VICTIM'S NAME - Lost. First. Mloele (Firm, H Bvsinn) 7d, ACDRES$ Reyrenca 9minns 15. P1iONE INTERVIMI: (contd) (REID) She states that t5igul lv the latter art of the week from Wednesdav thro: ;eh Saturday is the worst tine or he noise and that it is just unbearable, she cannot sleep at night and cannot function with a clear head the next day she is to go to work because of the sleep that she has lost because pf the noise coming from the boar's Read Bar. MRS. REID further advis =s that on July 4, 19Ui, the loud =Si.c' band and noise caused by the patrons from the Boar's Head was so bad that not only did it not stop at 2am wizen the to have closed but the noisF continued with patrons spilling out into the parking ' or lor and conti-luira their d--inking a-Id alkinP i:rlti 1 a ci r 1 4am during which time she and her children vere not able to get any sleep. that ul lyn-1 d toll,• to tiz G1 City Council which she has done but to ne avail and wishes to talk with the t , - - and her neighbor's complaints in an effort to eliminate the problem which B. e'. -B -cuet I HEPCR-ING OFFICERS RECORDING CFF:CEr+ TYPEDBY DATE AND TIME jt W. Smith, Detective Detective Smith S1914 sw 3 -12 -81 ROUTED SY HER COPIES r±Df1�iK Ctl N1 SO: L�j YK ❑Juseniw FP�<rol 0 N ❑Oat. A",, EJ i: t—t OtM° 2513311 -a01 aL�.ia Ottwr -- OAtc REVIEWED BY 'i3. CASE tGUM d'cH OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND, SHERIFF County of San Semardino CaIifOTI:i2 CA 03600 70. CODE SECTION 22. CRIME 72. CLASSIFICATION �73. VICTIM'S NAME " Latr, Fint. MiOCIC IFlem• it Buimm) 76. ADDRESS I I R";de I 7`.. PHOtiE INT:.RVIEW: ADAMS JUDITH WFA, 32 years, dob 5 -11 -49 6611 Topaz Street Rancho Cucamonga Teleohone 987 -8550 Busin ss telephone, 987 -1060 of Topaz Street and directly west of the Boar's Head Bar_ She states that r , T _n -1 Boar's Head opening. She states that sh-e has called the Sheriff's Office ^ ` - ,_ _ „ again to complain about the loud noise caused. by the loud live band at the up until eles!�_,g ti—me in the morning. MRS. ADAMS further advises that she is just unable to get y sleep -e L Li` -hC The ne4 se p rebl e every- night and that the live band which now plays there has been there for some time ' and nint \/LL_ t L the U!E the bar opens tj, to the bar and the noise bounces o£s of a block wall at the north - perimeter LL 1 L 6_ 1 al L�' _. C 1 C L who are trying to net to sleep at night but apparently by all of the other :t--,i the :iiu a t_ area- She snmes "ha t e, LL on well over 1k years and that again she has called the Sheriff's Office, but at this poInf. faere really Has been no so v�ng o e si uauon wnic is well out of hand. She states that the last several months have been really Dad and that not only is the music _i.ve ana a real problem but t at a =ter the bar closes at night the patrons stay in the parking lot area and there are no other businesses open to biame this problem on. s e patrons zrom the Boar's Head continue to talk and drink in the parkin lot area causin further disturbances until sometimes around am. SF states that she is a nervous wreck because ci the noise problems which are a result of the noncaring attitudes of the owners and managers of the Boar's Head Bar. She states that many mornings she has awaken and found broken beer bottles arc, rT c in ,- - �.: a•.- -7 -lip r ; r :� ,= ; c next to the Boar's Head and that the trash and beer bottles are certainly f " rFa jy�rT nns of rt o Rn3•r' c l;enrl Bn— e ' a 4: that when the other businesses ir. the immediate area of the Boar's Head are REPORTING OFFICERS RECORDING OFFICER TYPED BY DATE AND TIME ROUTED BY W. Smith Detective elective Smith S1914 cw 8 -12 -81 FURTHER COPIES ©Oetactive ❑CII I ACTION] TO: E]Yac ❑Juvenile El Patrol 111It No 13 Dim Atty. 11 Other 11S.0JP•0. El REVIEWED BY DATE isis> es sot otrw OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND, SHERIFF County of San Bernardino Cafifomia CA 03.660 Jt. lest, First, Middle (Firm, it 9usmsss. ' 76. ADDRESS I I Residence t I ( Business iNTERVIEW: rUTRELL, ROBERT_A ;Ph_r__ 0-2159 ,� _. V - ---- .•"- 11S. FUTRELL advises this officer that she has lived at the Topaz Street -address tor se:v76­ral years and has lived at that address prior to the Boar's Head Cocktail Loun e openin up for business- She stares that for a period OZ time now, at east 1� - 2 years, the Boar's Head Bar has been a problem to nei hbors.on Topaz Street as the . bar e loos live band durinZ the week an weekends and the noise generated from the live band causes herself and members of he f=ily con_s * dP ?hl ^mn i*1tc of di crnm or_t ac clho and of her family are never able to get any sleep at night as the music and 0 situated on the east side of the 6600 block of Topaz and situated just 1 T tates she has called the Sheriff's Office on numerous occasions reporting r- - - ' the bar and as of this time has received no solution to the problem. She also states that many mornings she has awaken and found broken beer patrons from `the Boar's Head Bar, The problem usually starts sometime around bpi- n ziiln 1 l v ands tin nnaninathe no -th door to the bar and the noise problems u he autse ttmetf 1 deafening to her and members of her. family. She has given serious cons�iderat h understands wov�rrg out of the axe-a btm.�iti� "11=_ prubtar-Jr-the bar and the Sheriff's Office has responded tothe bar on other occasions other than rhe nutse problems sucll as Itghts at e 15ar in w. cn some patrons have Beer) arrested. She states she will cooperate fully with investigating officers anZI would appreciate some ype or consideration as sue 1.5 at wits end on ou to solve the problem. TYFED SY I DATE ANI I R-1 9- COPIES �Detecti.ro �Cl! TO: E3Jeveni1e El Ferrol Q Dict. Attir. ❑ 0~ Otlref OFFICE OF FRANK BLIND. SHERIFF County of San Bernardino Califomia CA 03600 70. CODE SECTION 171. CRIME 72, CLASSIFICAT ICN 73. VICTIM'S NAL :e - Ust. FCi, Mitltlle IFnm, if 8osin+sA 74. ADDRESS Resitlence B�sineu 75. PHONE INTERVIEW: WORRELL, BONNIE opaz treet, Rancho Cucamonga Telephone 989 -9098 MRS. WORRELL advised this cffic lived at the T Street- roximately two yars now and thatthe problem at the Boar's address for aap :- _ Head Bar has l 7" employs a live band during the night time hours, during the week and on the T;r nd hat t e nai se V - erat°ri =r --1 the l i. n i r ro B ;ad rh-ar F;?-a nor members of her family are able to get any sleeT_a at night. She states Ywest just west of the parking lot wall of the Boar's Head Bar and that she I,-- Uad tr-ash and beet- bettles and th:ings e:E that rype throVIIII proble-ras with in her yard and she is sure that patrons of the bar are responsible for ^became resulted in the parking lot when persons who were at the bar involx* the Sheif£'s Office is called in reference to the fights and sometimes they The i n a i - �, - 1110L Only 1 at a p� from llpm to 2am but the problem continues when the live band quits a vi , ar o ear venic es ana loa s eir quipment into their vehicles. There is a considerable amount of noise gener—atea zrom t at act. ones a es sne wxii cooperate Mully witft investagata. officers. f 1 REPORTING OFFICERS RECORDING OFFICER TYPED BY CATS AND TIME RCUTED BY LW. Smith, Detective Detective Smith S1914� sw �3 -12 -81 FURTHER COPIES i iDctact:v� �C11 u ACTION? TO: t a Y- a Jov�nilo PSif01 ❑N4 �Dist. Atty. ❑ Other REVIEWED BY DA a;�- IS- ISMS -�O1 O[ntr OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND. SHERIFF County of San Ben Aino Califomia CA 03600 ti9. CASE N V MeE R 70. COUE SECTICN I71. CRIME 172. CLASSIFICATION 73. VICTIM'S NAME - last, Flrct. mwals (Firm, d Buzmess! 74. ADDRESS Rasrtlencn Busmen 75. PRONE INTERVIEW • _ GILBERT, KATHY +2� iopaz Street, Rancho Cucamonga Telephone 980 -1130 11S. GILBERT advises this officer ,. 4zi-,�Qf- address for several years now and that the Boar's Head Bar has been continuing problem b 9:c-ein s the bar. She further advises that there are quite a few times when patrons from the bar spill band and music generated from the bar she and members of her family lose Is - a of her family and she understands quite a few other neighbors in the area. Boar's residents feelings and this is shown �by the fact that the north door and rir -roe `be c.. •-2. u Me Ajive band is playing and the music is just deafening. i REPORTING OFFICLRS RECORDING OFFICER W. Smith Detective Dete 47 r a TYPEO gY UATE AND TIME ROUTED BY lCURTHER COPIES �C.Mcv D �NCII u 7 TO: ©JuwniN ► <troI allo GDist. AnV. a ❑� 05.10JP.O. D Otlwrr 15- 15164 -401 O~ REVIEWED BY DATE OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND, SHERIFF County of San Bemardino Califontia CA 03600 69. CASE NUMBER 70. CODE SECTION 71. CHIME 72. CEASSIFICAT IOIJ 77. VICTIM'S NAME L&st. Frst, M.ddlr, (F�Im, if 8utinext) 76_ ADDRESS Residence Butin&ss 75. PHONE INTER17TEW : ODOR, GEORGE r -e -r --ncN nga Telephone 989 -7459 11R. ODOR advised this officer that he has lived at the Topaz Street residence nor approximazeiy three years and that theprcblem the Boar's head Bar has been apFrorimately two ears. It is an every night cc �ur er•ce. the e_-L-, live Da tnere during t e week and during i:he weekends and that the live band generates such a loud nnise that he and membpri; of big faT,i' -Seen neigh ors nave unable to sleep during the late night, earlyor:,ing hours. He states that v T, house because of the problem and he is at wits end and really doesn' *- know what to do other than to have A fnrn3l nn. -rpi girt tnkpn h3L the Sheri=A's Office. MR. ODOR states that on many titles he awakes in the morning to find beer bottles r v T patrons and occupants of the Boar's Bead Bar. He states that the noise i geris'xntPty dT7ri no a rari nd of r -ran f,- nT. -�.f+G �.-.._ _.1,..,., ., Tom— Vie- in the area are closed and there is no one else to blame the loud music and Tr fully _ t ;ould attend any meetings which might help in solving this problem - REPORTING Ct FICERS HECOROING OFFICER T YPED EY DATE AND TIME ROUTED BY W. Smith, Detective JDetective Smith S1914 I Tv 18-12-81- FURTHER COPIES Detect," ❑C11 ACTION? TO: D Fj Ye& ID Jewnilr El ^&trot ❑No ©D1st.Any. ❑ ^ O[twr a 'S.OJP.O. Q f ' 14.13184.401 u Otrt.r REVIEWED BY DATE OFFICE OF FRANK BLAND, SHERIFF County of Sari Semardino ® California CA 03600 69. CASE NUMBER i i0. GUDe SECT -ION T1. CRIME 12. CLASSIFICATION 1 73, VICTIM'S NAM£ Laic. Fk,t, M,COIe IF,,T. If Euslnessl 74. ADDRESS Ratitlence i3uc� nett 75. PHONE IDiT: i 1 SHARP T _EPHEId 6645 Topaz Street, __ . -"ngnx i Telephone 989 -9152 This subject advises he has lived at the Topaz Street address for app_ ximate� a- c:e°ha'f years .ar the-Boar-s Head. Bar has teen a pro em for a couple of years now with the loud music generated by the live band at the • <- ±s"dt —afL trig and — chat —Lne Occupants J patrons oz the bar are loud way beyond the time the bar closes at 2a^-I, continuing their dri-kiniz a' a i arix ng o adjacent tot��ar's i!: d $ar. He states that he has had beer bott ?.es and trash thrown in his vard and be is sure the s r sponsiDie =or ccoing tnis are occupants of the bar who did so after closing hours while they w�er�_e �Partying in the parkin lot. He ae pro et as become unDearable and he has given thought to moving and wishes to find a solution other t1-an having to move f - FtEPORn N:.: OFFICERS RECOH DING OFFICER YPEO BY i OATE ANO TIME ROVTED BY W. Smith, Detective Detective Smith S1914 sw 18 -12 -81 FURTHER AC ? TO: ES ❑ Deteciiw G Cif 1W El Juvendo 11 venm 0 No ❑ Dirt. Atty. ❑ Otiw. REVIEWED BY DATE IpC`' ' 23.1316a -t01 r~'r September 9, 1981 City of Rancho Cucamonga Ca -in=ty Develvpnent Department Flanning nivision P.O. BOX 807 Rancho Cucammnga, Calif 91701 R: Rancho Plaza Shopping Center Boar's Head Tenant August 27, 1981 Meeting Neighborhood Complaints Dear Mr. Vaisin: In our August 27, 1981 meeting at the City offices with yourself, the Sheriffs DepartmL -, the ABC representative, the City Attorney, and our tenant, we disco, sed t,.n basic areas of concern that could alleviate the neighborhood col 'Plaints regarding noise from the Boars Head. hese two basic areas of concern Caere: I. Physic-PI adjustments or alterations that could e'inuma to or ?seep any Possible naise or disturbance as far from the neighbors as possible, and 2. Management adjustments that could result in more sensitivity to the Problem which would hopefully head off or preclude the opportunity for such incidents to occur. Following oc r meeting, we sat down with crar tenant and re,.zewed the *.*env suggestions made at the meeting and reviewed the enter a problem. r . Downey and M`. Pcberta subsequently had a meeting with Mr. O'Rourke of the Sheriff's Department and re- viewed all of the complaints. We feel that the following physical changes to the site and manaaenent adjustments will significantly reduce noise or disturbance from the Boar•; s Head: Physical Char.�es: 1. w2 will make arranoementc to block off the 8 -10 parking stalls at the north t corner of the parking lot after 6 P.M. in the evening. This will be accoaplished with removable iron Poles and chains that can be installed in the evening and removed for daytime traffic. These parking stalls are directly adjacent to the two Property aaners who are mK>st affected by the noise, and %1-o have lodged most of the cc•,n?a;zts. 7333 Heliman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 91730 714 - 989 -1767 E C C By blocking off these irk -,ng stalls, we should eliminate cars parking i.:y this area, and will also keep any pedestrians away fsam this area. The parking stalls will be chained ad locked eeter 6 P.M. and "No Parking" s_gns will be posted. 2. The Boar's Head has instructed all of ' heir employees to park on the far east side of the }x ilding away from any po sible contjact with the neighboring hamps. Thus, employees leaving late at nite should not affect the neighbors. The employees have also been fully inforr.,ed of the problem and have been cautioned to leave the parking lot as quietly as possibly. 3. The Bo= I s Fiea3 :ias engaged a sound en pneer to analyze the prcbler and came up with drays of reducing any noise leakace from the building. They are Studying the POSSluli.i Cy of iufirict: ina't7ini`.uA tiac roar "wai.i and icria ci..ci't of the rear door with a door that would great:y reduce sound leakage. n. The Boar's Head will place an electscnic device on the rear door '.ha*_ will alert the bartender when the door.: is ops ed. 5. The Boar's Head will place an electro;dc sound meter inside the premises that will measure the sound level and flash a warning when the preset sound level is exceeded. 6. We will offer to plant some fast growing scrubs or trees in the rem- yards of the two hares that are exposed to thy north -east corner vi the parking lot. The planting of this landscaping will d *.pen= cn the agreement of the two homeowner's. This added landscaping should c'eate both a visual and sound buffer between the two hares and our parking ..ot. Management ?ldjustrents: 1. The Boar's Head has r--viewed the problem with all of their employees and are committed to solve the problem. A short Summary of the instructions to the employees is attached hereto. 2. The Boar's Head will keep the rear door closed at all times, except in emergencies or daytirme deliveries. No excepti ms will be allowed. A signal monitor on the door will alert the employees i' the door is ajar. 3. The Boar's Head will keep the voltre o'. the band down to a proscribed level. An electronic monitoring device will alert the bartender if the band exceeds the sound limit. There band will not be allaaed to use the back door in the em,�aing, and no equipment will be moved late at night. 4. The Boars Eead williaistitute a regular larking cot check for loitering and noise. This will discourage patrc -is from loitering and talking in the parkins lot before or after caning into the premises. the Boar's Head understands its responsibilityV for controlling its patrons camiag into and leaving its premises. A greater erphasis will be placed on weekend op.n^aticn. Patrons will be monitord closely for leaving the premises with bottles cc glasses and no drinking will be allow.' in the parking lot. 5. The Boar's Head will be vigilant in the k na I.D. of patrons and will monitor closely the number of patrons in the premses so as not to exceed the maxirmam capacity allowed. -2- 6. The Boar's Head has net Frith the Sh'eriff's Departrt and reviewed the entire problem. The relationship with the Sheriff's office has been one in the past and should otin 2e to be so. a operative 7. The Boar's Read realizes that there has been problems and disturbance to the adjacent neighbors in the past and is regarding noise greater sensitivity to the cannitted to a incidents. probiem and to a reanction or eliamination of fature ma are proceeding to rra& the physical adi'mtments as soon . as possible, and the management adjustments are already in effect. Fpefully with the justments and zenagement sensitive to the problem further problem 1 bye ad eliminated or greatly reduced, s.. f� the efforts and time of the City Staff to assist us in dealing with this problem. Your trul , C. Doug Gorgen CDG /vr cc: State of California ABC Boars Head 11 TOs All Boar's Head Employees 0 FROMs Jack Downey and Dirk Robert SUBJECTc City and Sheriff Complaints We have been notified by the sheriff and the city attorney that there have bean some problems with the oTIer:ation of the Boar's Head. The Sheriff's Dept. has received complaints from the neighbors around the boar's Head about too much noi.3u. The complaints are that there is too much noise in the parking lot as well as too much noise which escapes from the Boar's Head Restaurant itself. We are 2IIk2 ^.g t::ot o.il of you work iriti, u:i to enforce a tienter control system to eliminate these problems. We ask you at this time to reintensify your effort to cooperate fully with the sheriff's department and the city of "archo Cucamonga. Following is a list of efforts we would like you to be responsible fore 1. The back door is to remain closed at all times. Emergencies, daytime deliveries and band changes are the only reasoxi for opening the bacx door. The band changes will in the future be done under our -upervision. 2. Employee cars shouted always be parked on the east side of the building. Please leave the restaurant quietly after your shifts at night. 3. Parking lot checks will now be initiated. Loitering and noise in the parkin; lot must be discouraged and hopefully soon eliminated. 4. Please maintain constant vigilance in checking identification. (1) clear questionable I. L. with the manager. (2) '.o not accept verbal confirmation as proof of age under any circumstances. (3) Only a valid driver's license, a valid state I.L. or a valid federal I.B. will be accepted as proof of age (4) Do not assume I. D. has been checked by someone else....if you think someone looks too young, before serving, ask to see his /her I.D. ;;ourself 5. Please continue to enforce the dress code ;it all times. September 8, 1982 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department Planning Division P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91701 Attention: Michdei ii ai+ irs Re: Rancho Plaza Boar's !dead Dear Mr. Vairin: _ " rP.tiCt�G �GCA ":iOivGA DEFT. PM 7SSi9�i9;11tL''tl wwine�i6 i This letter is a follow -up to our recent meeting at our shopping center regarding some steps we propose to take to alleviate problems with our neighbors to the northeast ( Futrell ). First, we are having four speed bumps installed in the drive aisles that will slow down traffic in the parking lot. These are shown on the enclosed dia- gram of the shopping center. Second, we propose to close off access to the rear corner parking area by plac'ng two large potted trees in the drive aisle between Buildings A and B. I have run this by the Fire Department and they will approve closing off access between the buildings. Third, the parking spaces along the back corner will remain chained off and the remainder of the parking spaces in the rear area will be used by the Boar's Head employees. This should eliminate all customer parking in the rear corner and should keep traffic and noise at a minimum. The fire department can easily move the potted trees if an emergency access is necessary. I have investigated putting a planter along the northwest corner wail, but at this time I do not have all the necessary information. If you feel this is necessary, we can find a way to do something that may cut down or absorb noise and eventually provide more screening. We have met with the new owners of the Boar's Head and discussed the pro- blems with them. They are cominitted to add sound insulation to the rear a'.-ea and enforce controls on keeping the rear door closed. Their employees have been instructed to use the ear corner parking and to leave the area as quietly as possible. I think that the changes I.propose should cut down traffic and noise in the area closest to the homes, and should keep bar patrons in the parking area in front of the buildings. 7333 Heiman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91 73f 714- 989 -1767 CI 11 s 0 9 Please review what I have proposed and contact me if you have any suggestions. Thank you for you cooperation in this matter. Yours truly C. Douglas ao C RANCHO PLA CDG /kih 15-�- -2- n r L^ o fit �13 i W i I iJ ' ! nl aj 1 � r 1 � , T jl 1 �