HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978/03/08 - Agenda Packet.P
r.I,r
r
lip.
i.
�`t 1
t
1
L
iA.
I„
k f'.
l�
t
1.
+pia' •r+++rrw�,� r ...,,„ �-
. • • -. 44 Mr.h.Yy */1YY•Af� •A.G.
INTER- OF'FICE' MEMO
DATE Mard-1 21 1978
FROM Marianne Cordovs. West valA ey Team
TO Vancho Cucamonga Plannicig Commission
SUBJECT rite Approval Extensions — ConCent Items
As according to policy, Planning Camdssior.aotion is requested on the
following Site Approval ( Location and Development Plan). The staff rec-
cmmends the following:
Approval of a rnie year e;ctension from the time of last expiration
for the following requests. The conditions of Original approval
are to remain valid with the exception of maximum size. In accordance
with the current Toning Coale, no off -site sign will be permitted to
exceed thirty -tkn (32) square feet in size.
The staff finds that these sighn are (or will be under conditim%
consistent with all adopted policies and standards in that:
1. "'hey are no more than thirty -two (32) square feet in size;
2. There are no more than four (4) off -site signs per development;
3• They violate no standards placed upon the site;
4• They violate no Wanspo:'tation Deparbwnt standards.
'!fie staff also finds that these sign do no have an adverse impact on
abutting Properties. No opposition was made to their original approval.
1) Proposal: Extension of S.A. index no. 87 -67 for one off -site
subdivisional directional sign
Location: N/E corner of 19th St. and Carnelian St.
.,; Applicant: Crowell /Leventhall
Disposition: Said sign advertises the Indian Oaks DevelcVnent
tract 9450 �.
,G
1^,
I�.
r
{{ Ki
2) Proposal-
Location
A_ripliamt:
Disposition:
3) Proposal:
Location:
Applicant:
Disposition:
N- tension of S.A. index no. 81 -Fi6 for one off -site
subdivisional directional sign
N/W corner of 19th St.. and Sapphire
Crownll/Leventhall
Said sign advertises the C/ 1tanch Hanes development,
tract 9397
Dctensicn of S.A. index no. 87 -73 for one off -site
subdivisional directional sign
S/F, earner of Carnelian and Baseline
Crowell/Leventhall
Said sign advertises the C/L Ranh Hanes developmnt,
tract 9397
4) Proposal: Extension of S.A. index no. 90 -66 for one off -site
subdivision directional sign
Location: NIV corner of 19th St. and Beryl
Applicant Crowell/teventhall
Disposition: Said sign advertises the Indian Oaks development,
tracts 9450 and 9352
The staff' reccannends non approval of the follaring extension for an
off -site subdivisional sign.
The staff finds that this sign is not consistent with all the adopted
standards earl policies,
1) Proposal: ISKtension of S.A. index no. 97 -66 for one off -site
subdivisional directional sign
Location: N/F. corner of 19th and Archibald
Applicant: Crowell /Leventhall
Disposition: Said sign advertise the Indian Oaks development,
tract 9450. The site plan violates the conditions of
CUP 97- 66(approved 12- 16 -76) which includes the Bite
for the sign. The sign currently stands in the right -
of —,way dedication as it appears in the Transportation
Dept. Master Plan.
INTER- OFFICE MEM'0
DATE March 2, 1978
FROM Douglas Payne, Associate Planner
San Bernardino Planning Department
TO Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
SUBJECT TOP Extensions
The following TOP er.tension requests require action by the
Planning Commission. Staff recommends the following:
Approval of an one year extension for the following
request with the conditions of the original approval
to remain valid. Finding that the continued use
will not constitute a nuisance ar be objectionable
to the residential uses in the neighborhood.
1) Proposal: Extension of T.O.P. index no. 104 -67,
for one on -site subdivision sign.
Location: Lot 13, Tract 9121; generally located
on the southwest corner of Haven St.
and 19th St.
Applicant: Lewis Homes
Disposition: said sign advertises tracts 9343, 9344
and 9345 all being adjacent tracts
within the same development and having
s unsold lots.
2) Proposal: Extension of T.O.P. for one (1) temporary
class "C" sales office. (index no. 94 -62)
Location: Lot 21, Tract 9083 -1; generally located on
2 the east side of Helms Ave. approx. 660'
south of Foothill Blvd.
Applicant: John C. Heerr', Inc.
Disposition: said sales office is being used to sell
lots of Tract 9083 -1.
3) Proposal: Extension of T.O.P. index no. 82 -53, for
one on -site subdivision sign.
Location: Lot 62, Tract 9150; generally located on
the northwest corner of Sapphire and Whirl
-
a-Way.
Applicant: Crowell /Leventhall
2; Disposition: Said sign advertises Tracts 9358 and 9426,
all being adjacent tracts, within the
same development and having unsold lots.
Page 2
�
March 2, 1978
Ask
4) Proposal:
Extension of T.O.P. index.no. 06 -62, for
one on -site subdivision sign.
Location:
Lot 551 Tract 9287 -A; generally located
on the east side of Carnelian , approx
150 feet north of Lemon.
Applicant:
Crowell /Leventhall
Disposition: Lots remain unsold in said tract.
5) Proposal:
Extension of T.O.P. index no. 93 -62, for
one class "C" sales office.
Location;
Lot 1, Tract 9134; generally located on
the southeast corner of Apricot and
Hellman Avenue.
Applicant:
John Chavanne
Disposition:' Said sales office is being used to sell
lots from tracts 9135, 9136 and 9137,
all being adjacent tracts within the
same development.
6) Proposal:
Extension of T.O.P. index no. 91 -63 for one
class "C" sales office.
Location:
Lot 6, Tract 8935; generally located on
the southeast corner of Beryl Ave. and
Orange Street
rp
Applicant:
Lewis Homes
Disposition: Said sales office is being used to sell
lots from tracts 9341 and 9342, all .being
adjacent and within the same development.
7) Proposal:
Extension of T.O.P. index no. 100 -62 for one
class "C" sales office.
Location:
Lot 31, Tract 6609; geeterall}: located on
the northeast corner of Dartmouth Ave.
and Lemon Ave.
Applicant:
Vanguard Builders
Disposition: Said sales office is being used to sell
lots of Tract 9302, being adjacent
and within the same development.
8) Proposal:
Extension of T.O.P. index-no. 96 -92 for one
on -site subdivision sign.
e.
Location:
Lot 22, Tract 9226; generally located on
the northside of Sixth St. and approx.
600' west of Archibald Ave.
Applicant:
John Lusk
Disposition;
said sign advertises tracts 9255, 9314,
and 9315 being adjacent, within the same
development and having unsold lots.
!jx
5
i
k;
tp J-
Page 3
March 2, 1978
Non - approval of the following TOP extensions, finding that the
continued use will constitute a nusiance and be objectionable
to the residential uses in the neighborhood:
1) Proposal: Extension of TOP Index 105 -77, for two
on -site subdivision signs.
Location: Lots l and 70 of tract 8928, generally
located on the N/W corner of Haven and
Church street.
Applicant: Lewis Homes
Disposition: No lots remain to be sold on the subject
tract or any adjacent tracts within the
same development.
2) Proposal: Extension of TOP Index 91 -63, for one class
"C" sales office
Location: Lot 4, tract 8935, generally located on the
N/E corner of Beryl Avenue and Orange Street
Applicant: Lewis homes
Disposition: Adjacent lot has an approved sales office,
the model on the subject lot is not being
used for a sales office.
3) Proposal: Extension of TOP, index 100 -76, for one on-
site subdivision sign.
Location: Lot 30, tract 87.31, generally located on east
side of Yew Street approximately 100' ea3t of
Kahai
Applicant: Lewis Homes
Disposition: No lots remain to be sold on the subject
tract or any adjacent tracts within the
same development.
12
Page 3
March 'l, 1978
0
Non - approval of the following TOP extensions, finding that the
continued use will constitute a nusiance and be objectionable
to the residential uses in the neighborhood:
1) Proposal: Extension of TOP Index 105 -77, for two
on -site subdivision signs.
Location: Lots 1 and 78 of tract 8928, generally
located on the N/W corner of Haven and
Church Street.
Applicant: Lewis homes
Disposition: No lots remain to be sold on the subject
tract or any adjacent tracts within the
sane developrui:nt.
2) Proposal: Extension of TOP Index 91 -63, for one class
°C" sales office
Location: Lot 4, tract 89s5, generally located,on the
N/E corner of Beryl Avenue and Orange Street
Applicant: Lewis Eiomes
Disposition: Adjacent lot has an approved sales office,
the model on the subject lot is not being
used for a sales office.
3) Proposal: Extension of TOP, Index 100 -76, for one on-
site subdivision sign.
Location: Lot 30, tract 8731, generally located on east
side of Yew Street approximately 100' east of
Kahai
Applicant: Lewis Homes
Disposition: No lots remain to be sold on the subject
tract or any adjacent tracts within the
same development.
AGREEMENT
This Agreement for professional services, dated and effective
is a contract between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation
of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City ", and John Blayney
Associates, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Urban Planner".
RECITALS
A. The City, having incorporated November 30, 1977, desires to retain tech-
nical and professional services for the completion of an initial General
Plan.
B. San Bernardino County, hereinafter referred to as "County ", has agreed to
provide professional planning services amounting to one -half person year
of effort to assist in preparation of the General Plan.
C. City has selected Urban Planner to work with County and to assume respon-
sibility for completing the General Plan in accord with the terms and condi-
tions set forth herein.
THEP_EFOt'" ClT'Y AND URBAN PLANNER AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
A. SCOPE OF 11011K
Urban Planner shall prepare, perform, and complete the foUowinz profes-
sional services:
1. Prepare detailed work program for review with City Planning Ccn)-
mission ana negotiate with County re planner to be assigned; determine
division of work,
Product: Detailed Work Program
f R
Timing, End of 2nd week.
U;
f
y1:
Z� Review all a%n;ilab'ie data and determine gaps.
3. Identify and map constraints on development in each portion of the
City by time period. This wilt determine which areas need detailed guidance
now, and which can have more general treatment in the initial General
Plan.
4. Prepare Issues and Options pap,zr for City Planning Commission and
City Council review. The impacts (uscal, economic, social, and environ-
mental) of specific planning options sup -!h as mix of uses, densities, amount
of open space, location and size of shopping centers, differences in design
character or standards for the three communities, early acquisition of
a civic center site, etc., will be evaluated,
Product: Working Paper - Issues and Options.
Ti_ minx: • End cf 6th week.
5. Prepare Alternative Sketch Plans. Two to four plans that illustrate
all viable options believ ?d to have support will be prepared (in addition
to the Base Plan prepmed by the County) and reviewed with the City Plan -
ning Commission and City Council. The consequences or implications of
adopting each alternative will be clearly described.
. Product: Alternative Sketch Plans (not reproducible).
Working Paper: Alternative Sketch Plans (descrip:Ian)
'li_ •ming: End of 10th week.
6. Selection of Proposed General Plan for public hearings. The plan pro-
posed by the City Planning Commission is likely to combine proposals from
several of the Sketch Plans.
Timing: Not later than two weeks following submission of Alternative
Sketch Plans.
7. Completion and publication of the Proposed General Plan in form for
public hearings; preparation of draft Environmental Impact Report-
2
The General Plan shall include the following items:
Land Use: Uses and densities; projected development by planning areas
during the first five years, the second five years, and at saturation.
Circulation: Traffieways by classi.`ication, with number of lanes.
Schools: Number, grades, and general location, based on the policies of
the school districts.
Fire Stations: Based on studies completed by Public Technology, Inc.
Civic Center: General location, listing of functions to be housed or a pro-
posal for accommodating these functions in an alternative configuration.
Parks and Open Soaee: Number of sites, size, functions, and general location.
The proposed General Plan will be based on available data and its preparation
will not involve new surveys of public opinion or existing physical conditions
except as Urban Planner determines these are needed to complete the
work. The General Plan will be prepared with due regard for the community's
fiscal balance, but will not include a detailed fiscal analysis, nor will it
include cost estimates of specific public projects or proposed means of
financing. A Draft. Environmental Impact Repn t on the General Plan will
be prepared, but the maximum fee does not include preparation of responses
to comments on the draft that may be submitted by public agencies or
private individuals. Urban Planter will prepare comments, on request,
If this can be done within the maximum budget. Otherwise, E1R work fol-
lowing completion of the draft will be charged at hourly rates plus direct
costs.
In addition to the plan drawing end other maps necessary to explain the
proposal, the report would contain:
Summary of Data (Background)
3
it`d.
Issues Facing Rancho Cucamonga
Alternatives Studied
General Plan Proposals
City and Community Image
Relationship to Other Required General Plan Elements
A draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the General. Plan will be
published separately.
Product: Proposed General Plan
Draft EIR
Timing:. June 28, 1978
B. MEETINGS
Urban Planner will attend up to 10 public meetings, Including City Planning
Commission or City Council meetings or public hearings and community meetings,
provided that if the maximum fee shall have been reached, attendance at meet-
ings after SeMember 30, 1978 or meetings in excess of 10 shall be charged at
hourly rates plus direct costs.
C. SUBCONTRACTOR
Urban Planner may, within the maximum fee, retain traffic engineering services
to be provided by a firm acceptable to City if Urban Planner deems these ser-
vices necessary for completion of the work,
t';''" D. CITY PARTICIPA':ION
this Agreement. Authorizations by City as referred to in this Agreement shall
be by this individual or his designated deputy.
City shall have the following responsibilities:
(1) Obtaining the services to be provided by County as described in this
Agreement.
(2) Scheduling all public meetings.
(3) Reviewing. Urban Planner's work and responding to requests for comments.
E. COUNTY PARTICIPATION
County shall provide the full time equivalent services of one experienced pro-
fessional planner starting on the date Urban Planner is authorized to proceed
and extending through June 28, 1978. Additional services up to one -half full
time equivalent shall be available between June 28 and September 30, 1978.
An individual acceptable to City and Urban Planner shall be designated by
County, and County services shall be provided primarily by this individual.
Except for incidental work in which members of County's staff may have parti-
cular capability, services related to the General Plan shall be provided by this
Individual who shall have no other major assignments during the period prior
to June 28.
F. TIME SCHEDULE
If Urban Planner is authorized to proceed not later than March 16, 1978, the
General Plan shall be published and ready for hearings by June 28, 1978, pro-
vided Urban Planner receives direction for preparation of the proposed General
Plan within two weeks after submission of the Alternative Sketch Plans. The
time schedule may be altered by mutual agreement of City and Urban Planner.
i_
G. PAYMENT
Urban Planner shall bill the City monthly for work done and direct costs incurred
Lr
5
t
during the preceding month, and City shall pay within 30 days of receipt of
billing.
Personnel and direct costs shall be billed In accord with the following schedule:
John Hlayney. Partner $50 per hour
Robert W. clover, Partner $40
Michael V. 13yett, Partner P40
Associate $35
Research Analys', Planning $15 7$20 -
Delineator, Asst. planner
Direct charges incurred by* Consultants in the performance of services specified
by this Agreement shall include purchase of maps and photographs, printing
and reproduction costs, travel and subsistence, long distance telephone, delivery
costs, and any fees (including traffic engineering fees), Insurance, permits,
and licenses applicable to this Agreement only.
Time spent traveling is not charged when a full day is worked on this project.
Secretarial services are included in professional hourly rates.
Urban Planner will provide 20 copies of working papers and camera -ready art
Fuitable for further reproduction, or will provide additional copies at cost if
requested by City.
A budget of $1,000 for publication of the General Plan, including typesetting
and printing, but not art preparation or graphic design, is included within the
maximum fee. If City desires more costly publication and the maximum fee
(less a reserve for meeting attendance) has been reached at the time publication
commitments must be made, City shall pay additional direct costs incurred
by Urban Planner.
The maximum fee to be paid by City for services by Urban Planner shall not
exceed $37,500, except as provided under Section A relnting to responses to
6
comments on Cie draft Enveronmental Impact Report, Section li relatin; to
-sleeting att, ad;• :nce, and Section E relating to General Plan publication costing
more than $1,00
Y. TERMINATION
The City map terminate this Agreement by givinP written notice thereof to
Urban Planner, provided that the City shall be oblibtied to pay Urban Planner
for all work performed and for all direct costs ist :<umull prior to receipt of notice
of termination by the Urban Planner.
G. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
The Urban Planner is an Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employer
and agrees to comply with applicable requirements governing equal employment
opportunity.
H. INSPECTION
The City, in reference to any request for payment nu'Smitted by Urban Planner
for services under this Agreement, shall have the right to examine and audit
the records of the Urban Plannet to verify such payment.
1. AUTHORITY
Each of the parties to this Agreement represents thn` the person signing on
behalf of such party has the authority to do so.
J. RELATIONSIHP OF PARTIES
It Is understood that the contractual relationship of the Urban Planner, to the
City is that of an independent contractor, and all persons working for or under
the direction of the Consultants are their agents, servants, and employees,
and not agents, serjants. or employees of the City.
.•I � t `� H `�L� .� f f
ti p
L +
,•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and
the Urban Planner ,tiaue executed this.
Agreement As of the date set forth
herein.
CITY OF RANCHO :'ilCA%IbNOA
\
Attest:
y
'
F
URBAN PLANNER
r'
s
Date
!
•
R 4`
�
3 E
�l
:., r • .
*a
S
I�rj4�ri���� i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI-
FORNIA, ESTABLISHING A LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR BUSINESS AND MANUFACTURING
USES.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The uses described in Section 61.027A(b) of the
San Bernal nA o County Code shall be permitted in the C -1 District
only if the location and development plan is approved as provided
in Section 61.0219(f) of the San Bernardino County Code.
SECTION 2: The uses described in Sections 61.027A(b) and
61.0271s b o t e San Bernardino County Code shall be permitted in
the C -2 District only if the location and development plan is ap-
proved as provided in Section 61.0219(f) of the San Bernardino
County Code.
SECTION 3: The uses described in Sections 61.027A(b),
61.027B(b , 61.029A(b) and 61.029A(c) shall be permitted in the
M -1 District only if the location and development plan is approved
as provided in Section 61.0219(f) of the San Bernardino County Code.
SECTION 4: The commercial and industrial uses described in
Section 61.029B(a) and the uses described in Sectioas 61.029B(b)
and 61.029B(c) of the San Bernardino County Code shall be permitted
in the M -2 District only if the location and development plan is
approved as provided in Section 61.0219(f) of the San Bernardino
County Code.
SECTION 5: The uses described in Sections 61.029C(b) and
61.029C c o t e San Bernardino County Code shall be permitted in
the M -R District only if the location and development plan is ap-
proved as provided in Section 61.0219(f) of the San Bernardino
County Code.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,
1978.
Mayor of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga
ORDINANCE NO. 2179
AN On OINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF SAII BE RNARDINO,
SLATE OF CALIFORNIA_ ESTABLISHING iNTER1A1
DEVELOPMENT nEv1E%v PROCEOURES FOR
SUIID +VISIONS AND LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVALS IN THE UNIIICORFOHATFn
TERt1170Ry W11111N THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
CHINO BASIN AsUNICIPAL WATEn DISTRICT. AND
DECLARING THE UROf,NCY THEREOF,
The Bated of Suplrns0,6 of the County of San dernfrdinp,
Stale Of CaklOmia does Ordain as follows:
SECTICN 1, Ths Board of SuperviSO,% finds and
tlarp min69;
III That the un'neo•Porated tarrllA.y within Ohs
hov,lAari ►s of the China Bolin AlunkiOal Wale' QISU :rt la
ee CetignCing'a Pid niski,naiel growth which has placed pteswn
On ul"Oul public services, most notably. saw %, Vealmenf.
Circulation and schaoh.
121 Thal a n o'110'lubw n the liling amt procesting of
auPli o
cations for suLU'v- sronl, land divhions, Sane ChaA S. Lire,
6901 housing and mabtlehom6 Park$ was smpus*d in Huth 01 'he
Writ Vaney ,To& pending a Study or Ilia arri s gnowlh and
,stated service Impacts.
(3) That this marQ10liunh will roplry ha August 7, 1977,
(a) That the sewer ,e,vies problems ratlected In the
Findings contained In SKhon2 of Ordinance No.21a7 ttin
0.111.
151 That the study of glowlh and related sorvice impacts
has ravetiad That Problems occur when I�yalaamenf Is Ap'Proved
without sit.nn"tt, Ihal crjdc Al swvkos will be available at The
Time Of "CUPancY and %hat other Servkts will he awilabla
within o reasonable por;00 W Ilme from eh* data of Occupancy,
16) That the'& Is an immediate need 10 adopt savorim
Oeveloamont Review Procedures and other short and long . farm
actions for the unincarpotal,d Ir„itnry within the boundaries at
The China Bain Municipal Wale, Duties In order to coordintlo
the timing and location at new development with the orovidon
Of Public service$ In accordnnts with good Planning D'inciptp,
SECTION 2 On u40 alter Ihr opwativa Time ai sh7s
ordmanco all application, for sunduldons ova location *act
OevNohmont plan aparovah treated in rht unincuCar6U0
'] iwlhCly within fie boundaries Of the China Basin Municipal
Vblw District $hall be subl"I to who following raqubemenb In
addition to all othme aVoI1&htg Imuit"ri s of the San
Bernardino County Code:
(1) T" rallow•wy .pulra.nenrs r V or mot bV,&vecy+
devs1o,un@nta,."Ak, I10+hefOr• it wiles fr aeteotea fort
(a) It milt be Wcompanod tvv a leper Irom the
carving tvate. agency i,.d,callne that ads 'e "no Pap storage
capat'ty IaiSlf v' Will ee lit t0 s+•s'e the erOpeseA Sa+N OpmtnT N
the time of Occupancy.
Its) H must e+a sr<ompamh? b, a rnan or a latter
from the serving S.W mg.n V ind'carng .Iha, adequate
COIIKIiOn sysled$ anp lrvatm,nl ofent capacity 64'sls of will
fill to urea the wapotod devNppmrrtl *r the lime of
O'C"DOnCr or it must he art ffs ani0d by a lelnl from Ina Santa
Ana Reg10nu1., LViY• ._- i'y,Conbp ► jay, *•tq;inf whit The
•davf bMnenl„ bKauSa. pl. ay0h. bFaruswfwwlleee0s was win nor^
rpuLe sewbage'oedmens,,,7he ,ao,iff"ent in ihn subsection
1W a ':Poll Or a Wier Indn:atina the ay"tr'Cm of adequate
Vtalmenl giant tapaeily TWO he &rinf.yd it rho Chino Spun
lrlunk'pei Weser Oaoicr pr0'ripes derlPne IMInn stating that
addllhs O cfoef"ir will be avetlahla within Twenty , fail, 124)
mpnlhs of the filing clan, nor.w.r, nor nlcetaarily rms ,ved for
the particular 1'Act.
Ic) if Rho evermgg slope OF IhsNV101,Cl cis secKdf
• ter' p0'In1 110.4). The d6veuopmenc plan ah&:t show Prfllmjnfry,
tinrshad grad• Contour, and this eopro%lmal, IOCm11CA Of all
p10006en structural.
h we JUI,-
r.
10) The prpPOU1l wag rf mWI ha ronI.S,ent wish the
vi._• ' "" -- " npolic an's rcksw.er.nrry general plops
•MJIn It'bnal and maopr'1 For rrstgwnliAt 0,01nc H• the ProPo,W
drvdop,nenl nhlsr he with', the range shown an the General
Pines "COOT AS may 110 n'odd,ed by fr'7'WI dole formulas Thp
rlrlrrmina non of the allowable drnsgr will depend upou she
Phrsrtnt <haraoler alit$ Of ynd, anp a lowb density within the
Tangy n'aT no ITqubad in &,,as of sia,po, terrain,
171 The following serve:► and Plannlpg clitoris checklist
i� assets be cor"pleten dWin9 the $tall rerusw place H:
Ill FRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS.
1. SchAp4
Wit the projectwo elementary and high
' •echOnl POpulAlioa fronn this project atlend Public Schools seal
�`. will have Adegoare FAC011i" "cording 10 State standards within
�. '.: r:ghtarn llB)mpnlhs after aCeugarSt Y?
i
2. Fire rrolection,
Will the (gvetOPmarst he Pipvidad lire
prat"110n by a /Oral Otrhl,C bre PralaCTran rntlly by rho lime or
et'PT(callon for building permilsw
3. Circulation.
WUI Rho 0/0169160 fralik from This project
be t fndlw within Adeouata service 11404a within a radius PI one
Ill mile from me boundary at the object? It not, •will
canttructipn of the prnjacl help giisvr an e.is1(n g circulation
PrOb'em On a secondary O, major raul,p
4, Oreinagq
Will Ohs dstelupmene be Protected from
100 Dear flows by rho time •r Application so, lullaing p6emi11+
lot SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS.
I- Priority Land Ulm,
Dap$ The devslox r ulmf tnciudo or Is 11
exdW Wely a tornm,lki#1, induRrial pr Public Strike lard uses
Y. Lend Us* Compalihilijr,
' In* PlOVOled land We compatible with.
un
the 1 -l'roding awisllnp ca-d un0
0. Pujlk Utilities IEIsvLIdtY and Telephone),
time OF r_cupancyi Will 84ctricity and telephone b2 available at
4, Police. ,
Is who WGIOCI Iotas*d within 0 geographic
Of*&served by *misting molwlted pA,,91%?
6. Parks.
peerlasian DlslriffT Is the yrojfcr within a local Park Intl
6. Ali Duality Milipplpn Mawrtl.
Does Ohs Proi$ct incarpo'an env OI 11e air
adality mitivatlon mealule$ included In ,M Count F's Air OuaDCy,
P1an7
7. Energy Conservatives Meatu's4
Does ill, project Include any noneffoulred
energy a, natural i011WCQ Con Nryadon wsaaaursl%
6. Medical FAC1011e1.
H Inc PrOjocl within ito, (51 mile, of a
hasp-t616, eme,gynry mrdK,l fatillly?
B. Library Fmiii Tle,
16 Ina Projoce within Three 121 miles or an
6.Istlnp library IatI1i1V t
10. Design.
following, DOH the Project Inciudo either ITT* of the
A. Curritinearst'vols7
IT Retention of efirly Percent (30U) at
existing natural track,, or bve
gross+ Percent 15'i g
i PI existing cultiv+ led
11. Design,
Following: Doss Iha mojeci Mt!Ucle mishap ruck at the
a. Common Gown W saes?
b. Finish �NdMp which is contour
yac ing7
IY. kwsirg Nretls.
Doss twangy Percent (20X) a nqn of the
pro(Kt meal env housing Floods Outlined M San E*rnardino
In 60 do Ny, 11 shall Cantidcr the /pllOwing --�_ _•__•
let The anion of lhY �n- el.- ±nmental Raviµ
Commiltp• o, Ration, Board.
analysis. II ) The _:!!!d the detailed '•Deign Rmvis.y
S1sf rewits of the •'prpiaat EvalileslPn Revl6'ar
'commendation for APprovel of the Project shall
Pv, +naOnt" to all prM1nary considerations And s.
auvrnvauan Hev.rw Comnll0os may Inclucl•
s toTi� n�q :One pr 10'69 Dmmnhdallo -.
W No W01fal &hail be apptft&a unirq the following
findings have boon mad.
(at The CtcaWal MOj69f is Cllniiet►nt with he
A W appkabt*w general plan ben tetuai mprd.
For residential p,bilicls• the proposed
dav""'n"'nt is within in& range shown on the GZdaral Pion
f.cePt As may be modifi&q by t*.lu*s steps formula& The
dele.minebon Of the 6110waNle density will depend upon the
physical characteristic lot land, and a rw«,er 41"sity within the
range will be required in area$ at Swallow terrain.
go) Adwivate Strvin' Capaelty fahls, has born
,nerved, ai Will be ArAllahlo at such time Its the poises is
c0rnPIP110 01 within a osasOr4h1Y OCCeplakdo pme trame.
Conuderet(on of 6pequ41e serdt6 tasahillty shill be based an a
tumulaliv6 assessment of all P•ojosb V: ev :aupy Approved.
1 • v 'paw -X-A 1 h n
r h ,'w,_ ,,,,i r
O+
la
jF.
yMaflcpt.aPp.a.r.iMyt. ape p
ere a the
•. Oro. , i.n - •T -
(GI t • aPPyea +t mural obtain mad lorrvatd to the
Fl,gnurP 0e0411 env the fallowing letterer Prior %a race dolian
..._ of a,n.n:
1.1 A latter from the ,.V,nq valor agrney cIrp%l yioo
that Capacity for that rro1K1 hH Rotor, rvae•ved for a minimum
period of one 111 year.
list A faller Ifgnl the serving %ewmt agency, 11
regpl•t`. Certifying the, capacity ties been fHesVetl for the,
urnl.et for • minimum pppiad one 111 yur,
111 Grading Darin ns shall 111 be Ilwed unlit all*
relonVation Of Rwn and water caoaxiry., Whe4 grading is.
•rKelfary Outside thin IiounciaNea of thin mdhridual prol,Cf.
grading Plr ills {hall nil be Issued until alter recer.atlan of
s+wef and water c,P,c"y on the IAdnAduAt pl Olecl, and Eller
Planning pi•KSPr eOprpval of the entire goading plan.
€CTION 3. Those aodicalians which era in \d but being
hold on'i c opera Ur• a amerce %hall he pits," Hill
Priority 101 processing and %Chad W. g. They %hall Us Processed
11,rOugh all IRO% dascribld ilion2 commencing with
SVhll"fle" 121 except that they .it ra l be approved unlit alloy
they haw mat the requiremm of Suweetio" 111 of Section 2.
SECTION A. Request 1w ertsn,ions fop any approved
Projects %hall he onscn, through 811 of She steps dafcribrd In
Section 2 with the once ion o/ Sub,eetfon 111,
SECTION S. pre PtovllsOM of the $in ortnardinp CrWinly
Code in conflict w the Provhiane of SKlipns 2, ], pr 4 of this
ardirvncr (hall h wepended for the term during which SKlipns
7. �, and /sly, a ppnpire.
SECTI S. SretdoO 61.07811,1111 and IS) of Mr San
Semaetlino qunW Catle if Imowed 10 Redo
dl EaPiraPon of ApprOVal, An approved w
' candn really Iporored fenRpve map +1,m /1 pelf% -Nye1w 1121
men , miter its MOP-oval or condilionll apps Oral urges% an
•n mion {y pentad asheretnaltnr Ptpvfded.
The onPNltion of the apwotmd or contlihonalty,
ps"oved tenUlay. noun shall lerrnlnate ail proceeding% Ind no
to at Or ParCel msP of all err any Portion of thin real wope,ly
included wllh:n %w.h IenRliv, map shelf be filed without first
praceldnp a "as, Ientmthrr map.
IS) Time Ernntions on AOpryrrd Tontatbe Maps•
The Adv,4wwv Agency fray assarore rrtens;ons Of \line not. to
Z xd a tout 1 .r, 121 yea,. Any aoalrca6cm of a subdivider
.. Ipf lu •.tension o time %hall lfm mar!r m writing to the
Adulate Agincy not terse than t14rts, 130) days prior to the
'i
n:
ry
7.
L1
rapiy j 5 N pan at %liner If {wNaGt 1P An
mrpnUon Ise e{ fo die a County SchrdWe 91 Fla,. If the
final r^na Is rCal�j!1 I b,x
the .ubm! p = aw-r 1('�rdNlMl cordancew 1 eP prarbipn7
of 11,11 chanter,
SECTION 7, fool BOOftt•ST+'u�e.yilOre haeby declare% that
it wanel Pa.& adopted • this ordinance end Inch se[Rpn.
whlaeUOn, seMenN, ,clause, phrase, of pq•,lon who most.
blesPVChw Of floe lap" thof any on* or mere SKlioot.
w6/1etipM. Onowles. phrasel, at portion, thereof be declared
invalid M uncol•tlilufianal, It ter, any reason "v portion of ihl,•
ordinance ,hart he dectarod levalid or unCOndltutfonml, then eft -
Other provimor , thereof %hall lama(" valid and enforceable.
SECTION O. This ordinance It hereby, doctored In Urgency ,
Pteasult nKmtsery for she Immediate Protection and Pretefvlllon
of the Public Peace, health, Solana, any: well,re 16, lh+ reasons
soled In Suction IF hereof and ,hall teem gilled Immedialely
upon HE adoption.
ROBE RT D. TO WNSENO, Chairman
opera of Svparritpry
AfTSSFe - -
LECNA RAPOPORT, Clark of the .
Saard of Sup►rv:aa -v
STATE OF CALIFORNIA I '
COUNTY OF ) to
SAN 8E11NAROINO 1
1, LEONA RAFOPORT. eiak of the Scard of Sup'no""
PI the County Of Set. Bernardino. State of Calllarnla, haphy,
Cattily that at a regular meeting at the owed of Suaavlson of
said County Ind Stole, hold on Il,r 11t day of Augusl, 1877, at
wl tall meljtne were W4111"f SuPgyll Ma Robert O. Townsand,
Chairman; .lames , L. Mayfield: bonnie NaesBerge.: Jam
KarNnlvy. and Ike Clock t the foragping Ordinances ways passed
and mdopt9d by the lotsawl0g rate, to win.
Aa4S: SUParylaara 00ay118111, Xemafney. Nensbarga.
Tr.rw.....r
AP9ENT: SUParyisor NantntocY,
'N WITNESS WXF.REOF, 1 haw l ey nta Ml my hand and
al8ned the official gird Of the Board Of Supervisors this Jet day
OI Au.tust. 2877.
LEON^ RAPOPORT. Clark of
the Band at Suparrifpry of She
County OF San Sermardino.
State of Glligfnio, -
s�
r� • • ,
•r,F�, CITY OF UPLAND
I
iM l►'
Mr. Ken hunter
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9349 Baseline Rd, Unit A
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9001
, " i la � icy v/ p; rrrinus .C'ii rrry"
16I1 Nu. ltiul•IiJ . \v.•. P. (l, Box •IGO
"� -- Upinnd, calirornla 91786
(71-1) 982-1332
February 17, 1978
RE: Regional Sewerage: Allocation Program
Agencies Tributary to Regional. Treatment Plant ho. 1
A special meeting of the sewer capacity allocation subcommittee for Regional
Plant No. 1 was held in the Upland City Hall on February 1, 1976. The
representatives present at this meeting included: R. Daniels and J. Porter
for 'Ontario, C. Sautell znd L. Wasserman fer Montclair, L. Michael and
F. Hunter for Rancho Cucamonga, r. Blanchard and L. Travers for upland, and
Miller for Chino Basin Municipal Water District.
The following sewer capacity allocation policy has been agreed upon by the
subcommittee:
Sec:age flows generated by professional offices, retail business
e stab lis-ment;, industrial establishments, schools and gover:ument
huildings which have no connections ro the sewer system other Char.
rCs :room and louni-o facilities are minor in quantity and occur at
:yours other than the sewer system peal. flow periods; therefore, it
has been determined that the impact of additional flous generated
b-: new buildings of these ctctegories on the capacity of the sewer
rt. :a is inni, ^,ei°icant in compiri ^.on -vith other new building
generation factors. Accordingl -, it shall be the p.1licy of each
sewerage ceilection agency to allow all now buildings to be used
for offices, retail business, industny, school or covernmcn= to
be. conn•a:ted to the -ewe: system without need for sewer c, acity
allocation unlcr•s :here . ^.re to he connections in the bktildinrn for
other than restroom, employee lounge, and other domestic-- waste water
facilities. All new building: vhich include provisions for "non -
d amcstic waste water." connections and all existing, buildings to be
remodeled ro include new or additional "non- domestic waste water"
connections shall be included in the agencies' sevigc capacity
allocations, lion- eumestic waste water shall be interpreted in
r.ccordonce with the definiticn established by the agencies' ordinances
for use of community server systems.
Regional Sewerage Alltion Program
February 17, 1978 WF
E
Page 2
It is understood that even though businesses and industries which do not
deliver "non-- *omestic waste water" to the. sanitary sewer system will
no longer be included in allocation computations, there will be maintained
by each sewage collection agency an up -to -date listing of all business
and industrial connections. The current listing of all business and
industrial sewage collections will be made available to Chino Basin
Municipal Water District on a regular basis.
CITY OF UPLAND
S. LEE TRAVERS
CITY MANAGER
SLT /b
i..
f,.
1. r.. .... a
INTER - OFFICE MEMO
GATE February 7, 1979 /
FROM Sara Hoffman, Energy Coordinator ( EXT. 3350) j�j
EIA Planning Department, County of San Bernardino"-
TO Ken Hunter, City Manager cc: Board of Supervisors
City of Rancho Cucamonga Don Ferguson
SUBJECT MIRA LOMA /LUDO TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT -
rr.
FOR COMMENT BY CITY
In response to your inquiry, issues concerning land use impact, location of
corridor, and corridor characteristics have been discussed during the environ-
mental review process for the Mira Loma /Lugo Transmission Line Project. Many
issues have been resolved; some have not. The following is a brief summary:
Land Use Inout
- What will happen to the 1000 ft. of privately owned land between
the transmission line corridors? Edison reliability criteria
requires a minimum 2000 ft. separation between corridors (this
project will construct just one corridor, although land has been
purchased for both). This will result in a 1000 ft, strip of
privately -owned land between the corridors in Rancho.Cucamonga.
Would it be possible to reduce corridor width, possibly by re-
ducing span length (distance between towers)?
How will the corridor affect east -west circulation as Rancho
Cucamonga devcivps? Any land needed for roadways may be ob-
tained through the eminent domain process.
- The north -south orientation of the corridor could have a tunnel
appearance when viewed from intersecting streets. Edison has
stated that landscaped setbacks are usually constructed when in
keeping with surrounding development.
- what is the Edison responsibility to developm3nt of corridor
with compatible secondary uses? Any secondary uses are subject
to City zoning control. Edison does lease corridor right -of -way
for recreational purposes to municipalities for $50 acre /year,
subject to certain conditions.
,
Page 2
February 7, 1975
Inter- Office Memo
Should a decision on the project wait until completion of the
General Plan for the area? The PUC has stated that they cannot
delay the hearing process on the project.
Should the long -range impact of both corridors be examined,
rather than just the one proposed corridor? The PUC has stated
that it would not be possible under their review procedures.
Location of Line
- Can the corridor be relocated parallel to tho existing ecrridor
east of the Devore Freeway? On a field inspection, it was deter-
mined that several homes would have to be removed in order to
relocate the corridor.
Should the east -west segment of the line (west of the Devore
Freeway) be located closer to existing IA Department of Water
and Power lines? If the line were routed along the alternate
route for this segment, it could be relocated.
Corridor Characteristics
- What kind of tower should be installed? Lattice, Tetra, or what?
In a field trip, it was found tha4 there was little visual differ-
ence between the towers, but that the Lattice tower was safer
(more difficult to climb) . It is not known if a smaller tower,
such as the existing 220 KV line, could be installed if span
length were reduced.
Should towers along the foothills be painted a brown color in
order to reduce visibility? The existing DWP lines have corroded to
a rusty brown, and are less visible along the foothills than towers
of h galvanized aluminum finish.
should the towers be enclosed with a chain link fence to discourage
children from climbing the towers? The towers themselves are struc-
tured to make ^.limbing difficult.
The abova list is not comprehensive. There may be additional questions or
issueswhich the City of Cucamonga may identify concerning the project.
The Tri- Coacnunity Advisory Committee, County Energy Coordinator, Southern
California Edison, ana,?UC have closely cooperated on thin project. If
there are any questions that can bu answered en the project, I would ka
happy to meet with the Plannia:? commission. Y am sure that the same in
true for both Edison and the Oxruittee.
V%e PUC officially asked that comments on the project be received prior
to January 15, 1978. howaver, comments vill be accepted at the Public
Nearing, or any time prior. To allow the PvC time to prepare a response
that can be circulated prior to the hearing, comments should be sent as
soon as possible.
The Public hearing has been scheduled for March 28, 1978, 9:30 A.M. in the
State Building, 303 Wast Third Street, San Bernardino.
stl /ak
.f
ORDINANCE -NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI-
FORNIA, ESTA3LUSHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCEDURES FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND LOCATION AND DE-
VELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY
THEF.;`OF.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California,
does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: All applications for subdivisions and location
and development plan approvals shall be subject to the following
requirements in addition to all other applicable requirements:
(1) The following requirements must be met by
every development application before it will be accepted fvr filing:
(a) It must.: be accompanied by a letter from
the serving water agency indicating that adequate line and storage
capacity exists or will exist to serve the proposed development at
the time of occupancy.
(b) It must be accompanied by a report or
a letter from the serving sewer agency indicating that adequate col-
lection system and treatment plant capacity exists or will exist to
serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy or it must
be accompanied by a letter from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board stating that the development, because of type, loca-
tion and /or lot sizes, will not require sewerage treatment. The
requirement in this sub - section for a report or a letter indicating
the existence of adequate treatment plant capacity shall be satis-
fied if the Chino Basin Municipal Water District provides documenta-
tion stating that additional capacity will be available within
twenty -four (24) months of the filing date, however, not necessarily
reserved for the particular tract.
(c) If the average slope of the project
site exceeds ten percent (10 %) , the development plan shall show pre-
liminary finished grade contours and the approximate location of all
proposed structures, provided, however, that this requirement shall
not apply to minor subdivisions where the proposed lot size is one
(1) acre or larger.
(d) The proposed project must be consistent
with the applicable general plan, both textual and mapped. For res-
idential projects, the propo_ ed development must be within the range
shown on the General Plan except as may be modified by textual scope
formulas. The determination of the allowable density will depend
upon the physical characteristics of land, and a lower density with -
in the range may be required in areas of steeper terrain.
'� -1-
0
(2) The rollowing service and planning criteria
checklist shall be completes( during the staff review process:
(a) PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS.
1. Schools.
Will the projec.._4 elementary and
high school population from this project attend public schools that
will have adequate facilities according to State standards within
eighteen (18) months after occupancy?
2. Fire Protection.
Will the development be provided
fire protection by a local public fire protection entity by the time
of application for building permits?
3. Circulation.
Will the projected traffic from
this project be handled within adequate service levels within a rad-
ius of one (1) mile from the boundary of the protect? If not, will
construction of the projecr. help relieve an existing cirulation prob-
lem on a secondary or major route?
4. Draiiage.
Will the development be protected
from 100 -year flows by the time of application for building permits?
(b) SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS.
1. Priority :Land Use.
Does the development include or
is it exclusively a commercial, industrial or public service land
use?
2. Land Use Compatibility.
Is the proposed Land use compat-
ible with the surrounding erxirting land uses?
3. Public Utilities (Electricity and
Telephone).
Will. electricity and telephone be
available at time of occupancy?
4. Police.
Ia the.prcject located within A
geographic area acrved by existing motorized patrols?
-2-
��R
5. Parks.
Is the project within a local
Park and Recreation District?
� Does twenty y percent (208) or more
of the project meet any housing needs outlined in San Bernardino
Countyls Housing Assistance Plan?
,sx
(3) in its review of the proposed project, the
3
is '.. ....
6.
Air Quality Mitigation Measures.
Does the project incorporate any
of the air quality mitigation measures included in the County's
Air Quality Plan?
7.
Energy Conservation Measures.
Does the project include any non -
required energy or natural
resource conservation measures?
0.
Medical Facilities.
Is the project within five (5)
miles of a hospital oY emergency
medical facility?
9.
Library Facilities.
Is the project within three (3)
miler. of an existing library
facility?
10.
Design.
Does the project include either
one of the following:
a. Curvilinear streets?
b. Retention of thirty percent
(308) of existing natural
trees
or five percent (58) of existing
cultiva�.ed trees?
11.
Design.
DOEG the project include either one
of the following:
a. Common open space?
b. Finish grading which is con-
tour grading?
12.
Housing Needs.
� Does twenty y percent (208) or more
of the project meet any housing needs outlined in San Bernardino
Countyls Housing Assistance Plan?
,sx
(3) in its review of the proposed project, the
3
is '.. ....
Planning Commission shall consider the following:
(a) The results of the detailed "design re-
view" analysis.
(b) The results of the "project evaluation
review checklist ". A recommendation for approval of the project
shall require affirmative responses to all primary considerations
and a majority of the secondary considerations.
The Planning Commission may include suggested
conditions or stipulations in its recommendation.
(4) No project shall be approved unless the fol-
lowing findings have been made:
(a) The proposed project is consistent with
the general plan, both textual and mapped. For residential projects,
the proposed development is within the range shown on the General
Plan except as may be modified by textual slope formulas. The de-
termination of the allowable density will depend upon the physical
characteristics of land, and a lower density within the range will
be required in areas of steeper terrain.
(b) Adequate service capacity exists, has
been reserved, or will be available at such time as the project is
completed or within a reasonably acceptable time frame. Considera-
tion of adequate service capability shall be based on a cumulative
assessment of all projects previously approved.
(5) The applicant must obtain and 'forward to
the Planning Department the following letters prior to recordation
of a map:
(a) A letter from the serving water agency
certifying that capacity for that project has been reserved for a
minimum period of one (1) year.
(b) A letter from the serving sewer - agency,
if required, certifying that capacity has been reserved for that
project for a minimum period of one (1) year.
(6) Grading permits shall not be issued until
after reservation of sewer and water capacity. Where grading is
necessary outside the boundaries of the .individual project, grading
permits shall not be issued until after reservation of sewe:x and
water capacity on the individual project, and after Planning Di-
rec for approval of the entire grading plan.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby declares that it-- would
have adopted th s ordinance and each section, sub - section, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, sub - sections, clauses, phrases, or portions
thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. if for any rea
-4-
son any portion of thin Ordinance shall be declared .invalid or un-
constitutional, then all other provisions thereof shall remain
valid and enforceable.
SECTION 3: The City Council Finds that:
(1) That the City is experiencing rapid resi-
dential growth which has placed pressure on various public services,
most notably sewer treatment, circulation and schools.
(2) That there is an immediate need to adopt
interim development review procedures and other short- and long -'
term actions for the City in order to coordinate the timing and lo-
cation of new development with the provision of public services in
accordance with good planning principles.
(3) The study of growth and related service im-
pacts has revealed that problems occur when development is approved
1 without assurances that critical services will be available at the
time of occupancy and that other services will be available within
a reasonable period of time from the date of occupancy.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance is hereby declared an urgency
measure necessary for the immediate protection and preservation of
the public peace, health, safety, and welfare for the reasons stated
in Section 1 hereof and shall take effect immediately upon its adop-
tion.
i
APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of ,
1978.
Mayo_- of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga
ATTEST:
C ty c ierk
r'.
WILLIAMS, PLATZEK & MOCINE / CITY & REGIONAL PLANNING
CAM)ONIA STREF1 SAUSA11TO CA(IfOR%,IA g4ll6; ItlfP110�E 415 332.2692
SYDNEY 11. 1Y1111ANIS, A.I.P. RUDOLPH R. PIA121R. A.I.P. COI; iYIN R. MOCINL A.I.P.
19 January 1978
H.K. Hunter, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 793
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear 14r. Hunter:
We are pleased to ri-Nind to your letter of January 9, 19 ?8• From the
letter and our La)sec1uev,'. discussion, we understand that the new City
of Rancho Cucamonga desires consultant services to prepare a General
Plan for the City. We understand that much basic work and research
has already been completed by the County planning staff, and that full
advantage should be taken of this work. At the same time, it is clear
that Rancho Cucamonga desires its own plan. reflecting the needs and
desires of its citizens, and not merely a carbon copy of the County's
plan.
Qualification of the Firm
We feel that Williams, Platzek and Mocine is uniquely qualified to
perform this work for you. In the seventeen years that the-firm has
been in existance we have completed more than thirty -five general
plans for cities, counties and metropolitan regions in western United
States. Among these have been several new communities. Perhaps the
most relevant example is Fremont, where 14r. Williams prepared the
original General Plan while a member of Pacific Planning and Research,
and where our firm wis recalled some years later for important updating
and new work, includilg an urban design and subdivision study which is
enclosed. Fremont is of interest because of the similarity between its
situation in the mid 1950's and that of Rancho Cucamonga today. Fremont .
was created, as you know, around the five southern Alameda County
villages of Irvington, Centerville, Niles, Warm Springs and Mission San
Jose. The people's motivation for the formation of the new community
was to gain control over their own destiny, particularly through taking
over their own city planning function. A fundamental objective of
Fremont's planning policy was to forge the five small towns into one
new city, and not simply a confederation of towns. That objective has
been fully accomplished in the succeeding years, thanks in no small
part to the decisions made in that first General Plan which Mr. Williams
prepared Williams, Platzek and Mocine has also had ,4tensive experience
Assuciah'S' :SAkGARET %V, RUSCHE, A.I.P. STEVEN DONALDSON CLARE HENIUM -
' BETTYE L. BASYE DR. WWAR0 S. LAPIN
I
Elnfronlienlal 111anninr • U144n- Design Hurnan Services Planning • Erunumic Development Studies
t:r
. ,ry 1918
0
h management which we understand is an.important issue for
tt, v =a .ucamonga. Our pioneering growth management system for Petaluma,
bwlll __• ':now, was finally upheld through action of the U.S. supreme
For your interest, I am including copies of a recent study we
A for the City of Vacaville and also an evaluation and update
-i wished for the City of Petaluma.
to the PrP- ara�tion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General
,r aT our approach to th° Ran- cho Cucamonga wo- r wou be as fo
)nnaissance. In this phase we would familiarize ourselves
idly with the existing situation. This would include:
Field study of the area for its physical characteristics
including topographic character, land use, traffic systems,
open space system, etc.
Review of available research data and plans including
material prepared by San Bernardino County, SCAG and the
State.
Discussions with key officials of Rancho Cucamonga and
San Bernardino County, citizen leaders, and group
representatives.
Determination of Goals and Identificatiim of Critical Issues. On the
basis of the unde -st- ling developed through the reconnaissance, a
report would be p. for limited circulation and review, setting
forth the community '` 1s, and defining the principal planning
problems which the General clan should address. Goals and related
policies should be rooted in the citizens' needs and desires, and
respond to the critical problems of the community. The goals and
policies of today's General Plan must be explicit and meaningful in
order to be of real value in governmental decision making. The pious
platitudes which stood for goals in the plans of a decade or two ago
are no longer acceptable to either public officials or citizens.
One way to make goals more significant is to link them rather directly
to the principal issues which face the city.
3. Preparation of the General Plan Document Consisting of text, Diagrams,
and Maps. It appears ;.hat the dccument should have at least two
important functions:
a. To serve as the mandated land use and circulation elements
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan.
b. To provide a frame of reFerence for incorporating the relevant
sections of other mandatory elements such as housing, safety.
seismic safety, open space, etc. which have been prepared by
the County. This process will permit the evaluation of each
County- prepared element to determine its responsiveness to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga's goals and policies and its compati-
bility with the City's land use and circulation elements. Some
modification of County - prepared elements may be required.
H.K.Hunter
18 January 1978
page 3
The General Plan should be structured in such a way as to facilitate
the addition of P01 cicments - such as an urban design element,
far example - and to encourage the regular maintenance and updating
of the entire body of goals. policies, elements, and special plans.
The General Plan must also serve as the organizing tool for all
these parts, providing for their cross referencing and correlation,
and insuring their internal consistency.
A second important characteristic of today's general plan is that
it is much more programmatic than earlier plans used to be. The
the
plan does not rest with providing a long -range vision of city's
development, but concerns itself with the timing and strategies
necessary to move at an efficient and steady pace toward the
long -term goals. Thus, economic base studies, cepital improvement
programming and growth management systems become parts of the general
plan.
We have been working on these concepts for several years and incor-
porating them in the plans we've preparet. We call this approach
the General Plan System because the phrase suggests the idea of a
set of different but interconnected parts all working together to
guide and control the city's development.
Workin Arran emants
S ou d we a selected for this work, I would be in principal charge,
with backup and assistance from Mr. Williams. We are able to begin
work
immediately upon being selected and believe that the essential
be by June 30th. The basis of employment could be
could completed
a per diem as suggested in your letter, or if we are Selected, we
would be pleased to explore with you the possibility of a fixed
be mutually
price contract in order to see which arrangement would
beneficial. Until we have actually seen the community, and
more
evaluated the data which the County has prepared, it is difficult
to be very precise about costs, but on the tasis of our experience
that the framework including
with similar work, we believe general
goals and policies, the land use and transportation elements and
t
the referencing system for the other mandatory elements could be
If diem basis is preferred,
completed for about $351Cic0.00. a per
would bill for our actual time and for necessary travel. I am
we
enclosing our hiding rates for your information. The preparation
of additional required elements as well as the preparation of
zoning and perhaps other ordinances could be scheduled after the
initial General Plan is completed, thus spreading the expense over
more than one fiscal year, and providing the citizens and officials
a better opportunity to study and assimilate the work.
e
H.K.Hunter
18 January 1978
page 4
We hope this letter will give you an idea of our approach to this
challenging wurk. We are enthusiastic About the possibility of
working with a new community and helping it to explore its future
destiny. We hope to hear from you soon.
Very truly yours,
�L'LGC/7'�1
CORWIN R. MOCINE
CRM:ni
Enclosures:
Williams, Platzek and Mocine billing rates
Community Design Mant Fremont
Growth Managcmant System, Vacavi11a
Cnvironmental Design Plan aad Residential Control System Report.,
Petaluma
Williams, ?latzek and Mocine brochure
IAMS, PLATZEK
Caledonia S
PARTNERS:
Sydney H. Williams
Corwin R. Mocine
Rudolph R. Platzek
ASSOCIATES III:
Peggy Rusche
ASSOCIATES II:
Anthony DeBone
Paul Fenner
ASSOCIATES I:
Steve Donaldson
Chandler Lee
Clare Henjum
SUPPORT SPECIALISTS:
Graphics
Joe Pallazola
Secretarial
Nancy Ingram
Bookkeeping
Cott, "In
Accounting
Gloria Abbott
Andrew Hass
Legal
Dick Massa
l.aN *: CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING*
. Sausalito. California 95965 December 1977
CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING
B1U_ING RATES
BILLING RATES
DAILY* HOURLY
$300 $45
$300 $45
$250 $35
$225
$30
$225
$30
$150
$20
$125
$16.70
$125
$16.74
$150 $20
0
$100 $13.30
$ 75 $10
$165 $22
$262.50 $35
OTHER OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS BILLING RATESk*
.AIR QUALTIY $200 - 400
WATER QUALITY $200 - 400
HU14AN SERVICES - B.Basye /L.Keranen $250 $35
MANAGEMENT $250 - 400 3. 7.5 hrs /working day
4. 157.5 Hrs /month
ECONOMIC - Howard Lapin $300 $45 5. 2000 hrs; year
SAFETY - David Hutchinson $225 $30
s 1. *,Ave I rage evening meeting 3 /hrs billed at. $125 for partners.
2. ** Higher range is used when greater proportion of senior -level consulting professional
a ;'; services is required (function of complexity of the work) Lower to middle range'when..,
John $layney Associates
Urban and Reg-iun:d 111anncrs
1ulin A.Itlayncy. A.I.P.
Robot W.Gluvcr.A.1.l'.
Mic:hacl V.I)yett.A.1. P.
January 26, 1978
Mr. Ken Hunter, CIty Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 793
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Dear Ken:
Now that Pve had a chance to meet with Ken Topping, Dienne Guzman, and
Ann Finan of the San Bernardino County Planning Department and to review
most of the work they have completed, I'm able to suggest a work scope nrd
to estimate: the cost if our firm were selected to assist the City with its plan-
ning program.
We understand that the County Planning Department has a remaining commit-
ment of one -he1f person -year assistance to the General flan program. Ken
Topping assures me that the individual ass!gned could be a person with exper-
ience comparable to Ann Finan, although Ann is not availab)e. Our view is
that it would be most efficient for the City to use this type o.* assistance, rot
graphics production time, even if more graphics time were mad3 available.
Because "improving traffic flaw" is a priority concern ss Indicated by the Tri-
r Community Questionnaire, and the future of the Foothill Frceway is in doubt.
we believe General Plan circulation peoposais must be barred on a strong traffic
analysis. Decisions on street cross - sections and alignments in the next several
years will determine the "ultimate" trnfficrrays system in many portions of
the City. Our uuderstandirg from the'frnffic Section of the County Public
Works Agnecy is that they will provide current traffic _ounts and that a traffic
motel capable of testing future land use and traffic ways alternatives is being
developed.
We recommend that De Leuw, Cather be Company, Engineers, be retained as
a suveontractor to u3 or directly by the City for assistance in preparation of
the circulation element. We have worked over the last five years with flans
Korve, who would head De Lews's work, and he has hae recent experience In
the vicinity preparing an impact analysis and a traffic and transit management
plan for the proposed Expo 181 on the site of the Ontario Motor Speedway.
63 CbVStreet
5:1111'rau6sco, CA 'M l 11' (d 15) •1 =1 -7715
w`
fly
Mr. Ken Hunter -2- Jenuary ;t6, 1978
OUTLINE PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE
The following proposal is consistent with your objective of having a General
Plan ready for hearings by June 30, at which time you expect the City Plan-
ning DIrector to start work. County work completed to date consists of a rea-
sonably complete data base (with the ex;eption of trt ffic data) but does not
include any plan design or analysis of altcrnatilms.
General Plan
We propose that in the live months available) effort should focus on preparation
of a General Plan that Is not detailed or specific on all paints, but one that
reflects the policies of the City Council and Planning Commission and carefully
prepared so that residents, landowners. and developers wi'1 not be misled. Em-
phasis s could be placed on the three existing urbanizing communities adjoining
lands lil :ely to have urban services available soon. We assume that amendments
will be needed soon as the Public Facility Plna and other elements are added,
but these should be refinements, not basic changes in directlon.
To prepare the General Plan in five months we suggest that our policy guidance
come directly from the City Council and Planning Commission. A Citizens'
Advisory Committee could be used, but if it Is to operate other than an a two
or three all- day - Saturday Community Forum basis, we doubt chat the time sched-
ule can be met.
The General Plan would include the following Items:
a. Land use
b. Trafficways (circulation)
c. Public Facilities (general locations and standards for parks, open space,
schools, fire stations, City administrative center)
d. Design principles (drawing on and adding to work completed by the
County Planning Department)
e. Environmental Impact Report (EIR); required prior to adoption
f. Principles for phasing of development (to be prepared as specific policy
for adoption after General Plan adoption)
g. Evaluation of work needed and time schedule for preparation and
adoption of other State mandated elements (housing, Conservation,
Open Space, Seismic Safety, Noise, Scenic Ilighways, Safety). In
many instances the existing San Bernardino County Plan elements
my be suitable as is or with minor changes.
n ,
1.
Mr. Ken Hunter
General Plan Budget
..3-
JBA planning work and preparation of report for
publication: G00 to 000 hnurs at $32.00 pet hour
average, plus direct costs:
January 26, 1973
$209000- $30,000
Meetings: Assume 10 Council- Commission work
meetings and hearings (after June 30) at $500 each,
Including preparation and response to questions raised: $5,000
'Iraffieways Analysis: De Leuw, Cather do Company;
minimum effort (150 hours at $27 per hour average):
or (alternatively)
with alternatives tested on County traffic model;
analysis of Foothills Freeway contingency plans
(600 hours at $25 per hour average):
Publication: Newspaper tabloid (cost range varies
with length and number of copies); technical report- -
100 copies:
Total
$4,300
$16,000
$800- $2,700
$30,100 - $53,700
County Staff contribution: 750 hours, plus 50 !%oura meeting attendance assumed.
Zoning Ordinance
The zoning ordinance could be started as soon the the General Plan is ready
for hearing. The amount of work can vary greatly depending on the amount
of change from current regulations desired, possible variations in development
policies in Alta Loma, Etiv:anda, and Cucamonga. and the level of detail or
regulation contemplated by the City administration and the residents.
During the last two years we have spent 1,400 hours completing a nPw zoning
ordinance for Palo Alto. We estimate that a Rancho Cucamonga ordinance
could be prepared !n 750 to 1,000 hours. At an average rate of $38 per hour
plus direct costs, the cost would be $30,000 - $40,000. Since most zoning changes
are likely to be in connection with subdivision approval, we believe the zoning,
subdivision review, and environmental review processes should be closely re-
lated.
Public Facilities Plan
Phasing of development is likely to be the single most difficult major issue
facing Rancho Cucamonga during the next several years because of limited
service capability, particularly sewage treatment capacity. Our :urrent and
Mr. Ken Hunter -4- January 26, 1978
recent expeeence in other southern California communities facing similar
problems (both those that wish to restrict growth and those that do not) sug-
gests the following content of a Public Facilities Plan:
-- Projection of annual development rate that can be accomodated.
-^- Allocation of growth to communities within Rancho Cucamonga, based
on price and type of housing likely to be built in conformity with the
General Plan. The need to maintain a competitive housing market
will be a major consideration.
Preparation of a phasing policy (which may or may not be mapped).
The recommended policy will seek to minimize public costs through
a compact development or to transfer premium costs to developments
seeking approval in hard to serve locations.
— Establishment of a mechanism for evaluating development proposals.
County Ordinance No. 2179 (Interim Development Review Procedures)
would be a starting point. Our work for Simi Valley follows s similar
concept.
General Plan proposals for schools, parks, open space, fire stations,
and other public buildings would be refined and related to the pro-
posed development phasing. Such questions as size, cost, means of
financing, and timing would be addressed.
Our preliminary estimate of the cost of the Public Facilities Plan is $25,000-
$40,000 (750 -1,200 hours at $32 per hour, plus direct costs). If the City has
professional staff time available in addition to review time, the consultant
cost could be reduced.
WORKING ARRANGEMENTS
We would work on an hourly basis, plus direct costs. Travel time is not charged
and secretarial services a_a included in the hourly rates for professional time.
Although travel costs are not a large item, concurrent work in Redlands through
July would allow savings to be shared.
Hourly rates are as follows:
John Hlayney. Partner $50
Robert W. Glover, Partner $40
Michael V.'Dyett, Partner $40
Associate $35
Research Analyst, Planning Delineator,
Assistant Planner $15420
fit.'•,,
` Mr. Ken 111 -mter - January 26, 1978
If the City wishes, we are willing to enter agreements to complete specific
work items within a guaranteed maximum fee. Where we are relying on the
work of others not under our direct supervision (as in the case of the General
Plan), our guaranteed maximum must allow for our inability to determine in
advance the capabilities and productivity of the individuals assigned.
I would be in charge of our- firm's work, devoting approximately 25 percent
of -ny time between now and June 30 to Rancho Cucamonga, and would attend
plan adoption hearings. My partner, Bob Glover, would have principal respon-
sibility for zoning ordinance preparation.
QUALIPICA'TIONS
My letter of January 13 listed similar and recent assignments. Currently we
are working on the Redlands Growth Management Study with ESRI (Environ-
mental Systems Research Institute) of Redlands. (Reference: Robert Mitchell,
City Manager, (714) 793 -2641) We mote that the Comity's land use data for
Rancho Cucamonga is based on ESRI data. If additional mapping of "land use
or environmental data becomes necessary, we recommend using ESRI rather
than our own staff because of their expertise in environmental sciences and
their cost - saving computerized mapping capability.
We are preparing a Public Facilities Plan for Oceanside, following a series
of working papers dealing with the question of phasing growth. (Reference:
Lou Lightfoot, Planning Director (714).433 -9000)
The Simi Valley Cost - Benefit Study, 19769 was designed to measure and balance
Meal, economic, social, and physical consequences of development decisions
in a city that is somewhat similar to Rancho Cucamonga, but now is 70 percent
developed. This project was judged by an AIPIICMA evaluation panel as one
_4 of the four outstanding expmples of innovative planning and management tech-
niques among 400 federally financed 11701" projects. (Reference: Ernie Glover,
Senior Planner, (805) 522 -1333)
Our most recent general plan and zoning ordinance work was for the City of
Palo Alto, 1973 -77. reference: Naphtali Knox, Director of Planning, or Kenneth
Schreiber, Assistant Director of Punning, (415) 329 -2354.
The enclosed brochure is being revised; a current copy will be sent shortly.
We could appreciate an opportunity to eiseuss our qualifications and approach
with you or with members of the City Council at your convenience.
Coulially,
John Illayney � .
JR /dr
Encl.
a; ;
11
ABlaynry Associates
Pcbrunry 22, 11,178
APPROACH -r0 PREPAIIATION OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
G?NERAL PLAN
1. Prepare detailed work program for review with City Planning 1st Wet:(
Commission and negotiate with County re planner to be assigned;
determine division of work.
2. Review all available data and determine gnps. .2nd Week
3. Identify and map constraints on development in each portion 4th Week
of the City by time period. This will determine which areas
need detailed guidance now, and which can have more general
treatment in the initial General Plan.
4. Prepare Issues and Oetions paper for City Planning Commission 6th Week
and City Council review. The impacts (fiscal, economic, social,
and environmental) of specific plann:iag vpiiuns such as mix
of uses, densities, amount of open space, location of shopping
centers, differences in design character or standards for the
three communities, etc., will be evaluated.
5. Prepare Alternative Sketch Plans. Two to four plans that 10th Week
illustrate all via le options be reved to have support will be
prepared (in addition, to the Base Plan prepared by the County)
and reviewed with the City Planning Commission and City
Council. The consequences or implications of adopting each
alternative will be clearly described.
6. Selection of Proposed General Plan for public hearings. The 12th Week
plan proposed by the City Planning Commission is likely to
combine proposals from several of the Sketch Plans. Inten-
sive study sessions by the Commission are likely to be needed
at this stage.
•7. Completion and publication of the Proposed General Plan in 16th Week
form for pue_rc hearings: preparation of draft Environmental
Impact Report. We recommend newspaper tabloid publication
to enable wide distribution.
In .ddition to the plan drawing and other maps necessary to
explain the proposal the report would contain:
Summary of Data (Background)
Issues Facing Rancho Cucamonga
Alternative!; Studied
General Plan Proposals
H
i
I
r
i
4
. J j
W
_
~
S
.L
L# 6
C L C
3
L
Of
i
N m
C V
C
Z'
N 0 7 y
u 0
�ww r
>°
°S-
I
cv�um
u 41
_0
cut �.
-- c c 1. .1
O u
/m ._ - y
>
y
W E
W N u
c w L
U
ca
E t uv c
O rn
rJ
r`
m
ep off E
a+NpE N p
-O
L
C E .00
W
N N N p
cl
c mr
uu4 u"
40
to
u
C 0
u
V V
U v
m_
N N l+
i
C
k M cg U
•0 0 7 to
O
0. 3 N L c
y. ) E
Up C i+
W
W N W L
7
co
0
>
L E uv c
u rn v m
aW+ W o C)
m
�++M-0
m W Z c vi
u. G +�
N a.c.
N L L
?
m
in
ay
t
L N� u
uw
ppm
W N E
•G i m 7
O-
0.0
�_r
Od a+ 71
u
Wma-
A E
IF.
c iO.lw
c u
i E m u
s
x
av
M - N
O D
L
O
w
> N Ip
Y
L b EN :. a
N L ry C d
p
O 1D
p
E CE
L o
m l m-
u
Mr
W 41
4 U W N
JW+ M
Z
N
W M-4- N
40 U
E
4
y
c
M W A L U
C -- .C— al
W
Xia=.+LLw
W W
L
FOWL 6
Ip
/m
M W CI u Yl
W— u 3 m
p_. >.
C
7 4Y
iv
J
4 6
4, L u. G
=-0
i
I
r
i
GOVT CODE § 65303.5
'902,4 Newly laoorparattd tltisa: general Plan; Inloriw epaswpace plan'
real us ordinance' . Marta
'otwiUutanding any other provision of law, every city Incorporated after Sal
her 1, 1978. and before December 31, 1978, shall adopt a general Plea, Including
tan =Matory elements thereof, no lrter than June 80, 197& Each such city
U adopt and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency an Interim open _
0o plan by August 81. 1974, and shall Prepare and adopt an opea•ePece xonln6
Inane couslatmt with the opcn•spsee Plan by June 8% 1075. Each such city's
dais ordinances shall be Consistent with the genera. Plan of such city Ly Decem-
31, 1976 %%a Planning agency of each such city %hall make Its initlal report
the Ooundl an intergovernmental Relations puranant to Sections 34217 end 0 enti
or before October 3, 1975: and each such city shall not suffer oar detrlmenG
abUlty, or penalty IT rearwn of failure to tale the actions provided In this nee•
a prior to the times set forth hereto
lded by Stata.1974, c. 490. P. 3726,11. urgency, cm joy,11.2974.) _
Ira nteryncea CJ.m3. Manlclwl (aprperatlane ti u. 4/• ,
�plt. niy�l nano Cr'.�e1. C.J.A 7Amni7 I1 at seq. .
153M Newly laeorparatsd titles; exemptions prior to 11180 0a W 6casnl Plan;
e t each newly Incorporated city which
(e) The Purppose ose of W this section Is perm'
land use mat-
ar not adopted a general. Plan to continue to
permits tpending prov adoption 's r of general - .. ..
rs and subdivisions and to lende building of i>� section •from certain -
an. The exemPUono granted by subdivision only to those requltementa and are -
quimementa of the Government Code extends only -
)t Intended to exempt the c ytrl
ity from the rerementa for findings other than
sae for Which an exemption is granted. -
(b) 71" section applies to each city Incorporated after September 80. 1974. .
(1) Notwithstanding any other Provision of law, every city incorporated after .
eptmber 811, 1914; shall adopt a general plan Within 8D months following in-
irporatioA -
(2) The toning ordinances of the city &hall be consistent With'the General Plan
I the city within three years of Incorporation.
(8) The city's planning agency -Lan make Its Initial report to the Council on . .
atemVernmental Relations under Sections 34217 and 66807 within 19 months of .
(4) During time time periods specified in Paragraphs p) and plan of this pt dl or - •..!�' .
Ion the dty Ice not subject to the requirement that a general Plan be adapted -
be:tlme Within which it must be adopted or the requirement that the land use _ -
a Compatible or consistent with the general Plan all as required by Government _
;ode Section 86802. 66663. 66667. 05680. 85910. 884735 or subdivisions (a) or (b)
f S"Voa 69474. so long as: .. .. -
(A) The city is proceeding with the preparation of a general Plan: and -.
(B) Tbwe ba It finding by the city: _
(1) Tut them is reawnswe probability that the land use proposed In an aPPU-
ytlon for a &obdivlslon. rewaing, lead nee permit, valance or,bullding permit
w•lll.be eonslatet witb the general Plan proposal being considered or studied
mr which viU be .mtudied within a reasonable time
, (1 t) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or Interference
with the future adopted general plan If the use proposed is uiti: xtely Inconsistent
;rith do gemmeral plan;
(tl) As to all o #leer matters required to be found by state law or local ordinwce
9egbre the approval is granted. .
(0) Its city the time limitations ne ontactians a specified lnlnbparatrop (x-) tof(3).�usive.ec_t to
(A�dde�d by Sprta-19i6, a 493, p. — .11, urVney. eft. SePt 6,1975-).
wnQDUdW
ran" -
�Q:.J� ti. ?IUnheinal CozParatlaaa it at.
w-
/tsltrieke indltate deleUone by eanendmaat
f' 99
.Z
y
1
it
r_
l.'
ter.
T
T
r
�i 11
,�
►�
�
�
f'
I
r:
�
1
�
to i
�
•
1
i` RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting_
March 8, 1978
7:00 p.m.
1. Selection of temporary chairman
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll call: Dahl Garcia Jones Rempel Tolstoy
4. Installation of Commissioners with Oath of Office administered by
Interim City Clerk
5. Selection of Chairman and Vice - Chairman
6. Appointment of Interim Secretary
7. Consent Items
a. Recommendation of the Planning Staff to APPROVE a one (1) year extension
of the following Site Approvals (S.A.) for subdivisional signs and Temporary
Occupancy Permits (T.O.P.). The conditions of the original approval to
remain valid.
' S.A. 87 -67: Crowell /Levanthaii, NE c/o 19th and Carnelian
* S.A. 81 -66: Crowell /Leventhall, NW c/o 19th and Sapphire
* S.A. 87 -73: Crowell /Leventhall, SE c/o Carnelian and Baseline
* S.A. 90 -66: Crowell /Leventhall, NW c/o 19th and Beryl
* T.O.P. 104 -67: Lewis Homes, NW c/o 19th and Haven
• T.O.P.
94 -82:
J.C. Heers, E/s of
Helms,
approx. 660'
S/o Foothill
• T.O.P.
82 -53:
Crowell /Leventhall,
NW c/o
Sapphire and
W'drlaway
* T.O.P. 86 -62: Crowell /Leventhall, E/s of Carnelian, approx. 150' Nic Lemon
* T.O.P. 93 -62: J. Chavanne, SE c/o Apricot and Hellman
• T.O.P. 91 -63: Lewis Homes, SE c/o Beryl and Orange
• T.O.P. 100 -62: Vanguard, NE c/o Dartmouth and Lemon
• T.O.P. 96 -92: J. Lusk, N/s of 6th, approx. 600' W/o Archibald
B. Recommendation of the Planning Staff of NOT to APPROVE a time extension
for the following Site Approval )')".A,) for a subdivision directional sign
and Temporary Occupancy Permits `T.O.P.).
* S.A. 97 -66: Inco Homes, Ne c/o 19th and Archibald
If T.O.P. 105 -77: Lewis Homes,
• T.O.P. 91 -63: Lewis Homes,
• T.O.P. 100 -76: Lewis Homes,
B. Consider and make recommendation t
consultant to complete the General
NW c/o Haven and Church
NE c/o Beryl and Orange
E/s of Yew, approx. 100'E /o Kahai
D the City Council to contract with a
Plan
9. Consider and make recommendation to the City Council to draft an Ordinance
requiring administrative site review of commercial and industrial development.
10. Consider and make recommendation to the City Council regarding am- ndments
to San Bernardino County Ordinance 2179.
' �
,rnl i
p 5 1 r 11 l
1„
Pagel 2
i Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
March 8, 1978
11. Report on Sewer Allocation Program
12. Discussion of proposed Subdivision Ordir,an
13. Discussion of proposed Sign Ordinance
14. Adjournment
i •r 1 tt 6^ \t
r t
,sf
ce
;V
i -
i