HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978/06/28 - Agenda Packet.r
I u
i
Y
i
P
/rJrt`-
a
Y
Y.
n
{
J
June 28, 1978
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the City Council and City Planning Commission;
Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga
From: John Blayney Associates
Subject: ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN #4
This memorandum describes Alternative Sketch Plan #4 which has been prepared
for review on June 28th. The Plan is .a refinement of Sketch Plan #3, but Includes
elements from Plans #1 and #2 and some new proposals based on comments
at earlier meetings and further study by JBA. We have tried to indicate which
proposals are based on our understanding of Council- Cnmmission preferences,
and which are our recommendati -)ns for selection among options that have not
been thoroughly discussed at earlier meetings.
The assumptions used in preparing Alternative Sketch Plaq #4 are identical
to those listed in the Mav 23rd memorandum on the earlier plans, except that
the population holding capacity of Plan #4 is 121,000. Land use designations
are i.he same as those shown on the earlier Plans.
Plar #4 shows a complete proposed park system, but shows elementary and
juni 3r high schools only where they exist or specific sites have been selected.
RE31DENTIAL
Hillside (one unit per 20 acres average): Only sites that can be developed without
hill scarring should be developed. This density is shown north of power line
easement at City boundary (approximately the 20 percent slope line).
Y
Purchasing power now exists and interest has been expressed in a community
shopping center anchored by a K -Mart type discount department store of approxi-
mately 100,000 square feet. Such a center could enhance the identity of the
Cucamonga community, offer shopping convenience, and bring a substantial
Increase in sales tax revenue to the City in the near future. A site In any quadrant
of the Foothili -Haven intersection would be suitable if a regional shopping center
site is not to be reserved in the northeast quadrant. Two centers across the
street would overload an intersection that barely will be adequate with double
left turn lanes from all approaches and an eight phase signal if a regional center
is built. An alternative location for the 15 -20 acre community shopping center
is shown one -half mile south at the northwest corner of Arrow Route and Haven.
Regional shopping /Business
Three alternative locations for a regional shopping center are shown. If the
City is to have the maximum opportunity to attract a high quality center, owners
of all three sites should be encouraged to hold them available. No single site
should ue designated or zoned until there is clear evidence that a center meeting
the City's standards will be built.
The site shown on Sketch Plan #2 at Haven and Foothill freeway will be too
small if the freeway is built according to the preliminary design, so an alternative
location on Milliken south of the Foothill freeway is proposed. The Milliken
site could have the Alta Loma identity needed for a "fashion plaza" theme,
and would have as much space available for related uses as the Haven- Foothill
Boulevard site.
The Haven - Foothill Boulevard site (shown on Plan #3) is the most central and
is best suited for civic, cultural, office, hotel, and other downtown uses in a"dition
to retailing. it would do the most to strengthen the identity or Rancho Cucamonga.
The third site at Foothill Boulevard and I -15 freeway contributes less to ecramunity
identity, and is less convenient to residents than the other sites because it is
K,
Very Low (typically half acre lots): North Alta Loma density is proposed to
conform with existing zoning.
Very Low Cluster (same density as half acre lots): This proposal has been eliminated
due to lack of support. It could be used in Windrow Preservation areas or else-
where to allow development with septic tanks at lower cost than half acre lots.
Windrow Preservation (average two units per acre): All existing windrow areas
in Etiwanda are to be retained at a density that allows one residential street
between windrows.
Low (5,000 - 12,000 square foot lots): The Citywide population holding capacity
increase of 21,000 results from additional low density area (reduction in area
previously assigned to lower densities) and increase in assumed average density
from 3.0 to 3.6 units per gross community acre based on measurement of densities
attained in areas developed under 7,200 square foot lot zoning.
Medium, High (apartments, townhouses, mobile homes). The area has been
adjusted to accommodate about 30 percent of all housing units. Apartment
densities are shown near Chaf fey Collegz.
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood /Community Shopping: Experience elsewhere is that a 6 -10 acre
center anchored by a major supermarket requires an average of 9,000 residents
in its trade area, justifying 13 centers in Rancho Cucamonga at full development.
Alta Loma now has three in operation and two more under construction. Cucamonga
has the equivalent of one. Planned or approved shopping centers that would
result in "overbuilding" in portions of Alta Loma and would aggravate intersection
traffic congestion are not shown. If the City wishes to show additional sites
for which plans have been announced by developers and zoning approved, specific
criteria should be established.
2
at the east edge of the City. However, it is the only site with assured freeway
visibility. Shopping center developers no prefer locations near a free-
way, but this is not an absolute requiremcnt.
Service Commercial
Locations along Foothill Boulevard already committed to strip commercial
development are designated, together with I -15 freeway interchanges. Uses
range from automotive to building materials, veterinarians, restaurants, and
motels. Zoning regulations could separate motel areas from automotive areas,
but the prime motel locations are likely to be adjoining the regional shopping/
business center or the Ontario Airport. Commercial strips are identified as
the number one "aesthetic nuisance" in most cities, so we see no reason to line
Rancho Cucamonga's thoroughfares in such a manner. How are the service
commercial space needs to be met? One answer is the unified light industrial/
office /service commercial "center" of which the City now has two examples
(Baseline Business Center and the VRnguard Center at Archibald and Sixth).
Fast food restaurants have been locating in shopping centers, a trend that should
be encouraged.
No study has been made of the market for an auto center similar to the Riverside
Auto Center, but a 50 acre site on foothill Boulevard at I -15 is indicated as
a suitable location.
Industrial
In keeping with views expressed by Council and Commission members at earlier
meetings, the maximum industrial area south of Foothill Boulevard is shown
as it was on Plan #3 -- a total of 5,300 acres. Rather than attempt to locate
buffer uses along the south side of Foothill Boulevard that would not be fully
compatible with industry further south and would constrict access to it, we
4
It
propose that both residential development to the north and industrial development
to the south devote 50 feet to landscaped buffers. This would allow a 12 foot
high berm on the north side providing both a sound and sight barrier. The use
of the first 300 feet adjoining the landscaped buffer on the industrial site should
be limited to parking. The resulting minimum distance between residential
buildings and industrial activities would be 540 feet, including the Foothill Boule-
vard right of way.
Mixed Use
This designation is proposed along major thoroughfares where apartments. offices,
and institutions (churches, convalescent homes. etc.) would offer relief from
the concrete block wall treatment without creating hazards or substantial traffic
congestion. Curb cuts would be 200 -300 feet apart and sites would be large
enough to have narking that does not require backing into the street. In most
instances only right turns into and out of parking areas would be permitted.
One reason for not permitting retail development is to avoid the pressure for
a continuous left turn lane in the center of the street. A planted median strip
with U -turn slots at 600 -700 foot intervals is much better looking.
Reserve
Portions of the Etiwanda area are designated "reserve" because they are remote
from urban services likely to be available in the near future. We believe
development should not be approved there as long as a plentiful supply of developable
land to the west remains. Development compatible with the Etiwanda windrow
pattern will need time to gain acceptance if it is to set market expectations
for land to the north and east. At the east edge of the planning area, land require-
ments for flood control systems yet to be designed and uncertainty about future
development nearby in Fontana argue for a non -urban designation on a general
plan to be adopted in 1978.
5
Open Space; Parks
W
The City of Irvine requires developers to dedicate and improve 4.5 acres of
park per 1,000 residents and the City assumes responsibility for purchasing
another two acres per 1,000. At these standards, Rancho Cucamonga would
have 786 acres of park when fully developed. If only the 4.5 acres per 1,000
were acquired, parkland still would total 545 acres. The 1,300 acre Lewis Highland.°
development would include 67 acres vs. 46 acres as currently proposed.
Regional Parks: Cucamonga- Guasti Regional Park offers swimming, boating,
fishing. and picnicking. The County's Regional Parks Department hopes to expand
it north to Fourth Street and east to Haven. Chaffey Regional Park, a proposal
being considered by the Regional Parks Advisory Commission and the Regional
Parks Department but not yet formally incorporated in the County's plan, would
occupy several hundred acres of the County Flood Control District's Deer and
Day Creek spreading grounds. In order to preserve the present flood control
functions, park development would be limited to riding and hiking trails and
overnight campsites not accessible by automobile.
A 100 -200 acre urban regional park, entirely different in function, is proposed
in the vicinity of Havel and Basel;ne. The park should be a focal point for
the community and should include playfields, playgrounds, picnic areas, tennis
courts, an outdoor assembly or performing arts area, and a golf course. An
18 -hole golf course requires 125 acres or more, so the park area should be at least
200 acres if golf is to be included.
Currently the County does not offer urban regional park facilities in the West
Valley. Because a 200 -acre urban park will draw many users from outside Rancho
Cucamonga, it would be appropriate for the City to seek the County's financial
participation in park development.
Community Parks; Parks of 20 -40 acres serving 15- 25,000 residents are heavily
used and are a more efficient investment than small neighborhood parks adjoining
each elementary school. Community parks should provide swimming, tennis,
2
It
picnicking, playgrounds, and large playfields. Heritage Park at Beryl and Highland
will be Rancho Cucamonga% .first community park. Four others are proposed.
The La Mancha Golf Course and Driving Range should be retained in that use
under private ownership if possible. or public ownership if necessary.
Neighborhood Parks: Except where they exist, new neighborhood parks (under
10 acres) are shown only at four locations where the distance to a community
park is excessive or where barriers or heavy traffic would discourage bicyclists.
When junior high school sites are added to the Plan. 8 to 10 acre parks will be
proposed near each school where land is available. Some of these parks may
supplant the new neighborhood parks shown on Plan #4.
Schools
Chaffey High School District currently enrolls .16 ninth to twelfth grade students
per housing unit, but the ratio Is higher in Rancho Cucamonga where there Is a higher
proportion of newer homes occupied by younger families. The 1975 Countywide
ratio was .17. Using either of these figures. the total number of high school
students residing in Rancho Cucamonga at full development will be over 6,000,
requiring three high schools. New sites ure shown at Baseline and haven and
Baseline east of Rochester.
The proposed General Plan will locate new junior high schools and elementary
schools.
Civic Center
The civic center could adjoin a regional shopping center on either Milliken or
Haven. Both locations are central and have plenty of land. An alternative
site (shown in conjunction with the Foothill and I -15 regional shopping center
site) is the 13 acre parcel at Foothill and Haven that includes the Virginia Dare
7
Winery. The Winery facade facing Foothill should be preserved whatever the
use of this corner.
Traffieways
Freeway: As on earlier sketch plans, the Foothill freeway is shown with separa-
tions and interchanges designated in the existing agreement.
Major Thoroughfares (normally 120 foot right of way; four or six lanes): Landscaped
median strips should be standard.
Special Boulevards: Landscaping designed to establish separate identity for
six major thoroughfares is proposed. WIder right of way or landscaping within
required setbacks may be appropriate.
Secondary Thoroughfares (normally 88 or 104 foot right of way with four lanes):
Depending on traffic volumes and turning movements, a 104 foot right of way
could have a landscaped median or a 60 foot curb to curb width to allow 22
feet of landscaping between curb and property line.
Collector Streets (56 to 66 foot right of way with two lanes): Collectors are
intended only to carry neighborhood traffic to the nearest thoroughfare. Where
66 foot rights of way exist, up to 15 feet of landscaping can be provided between
curb and property line.
Design Standards: The capacity of the traffieways system is set by intersection
capacities (the amount of "green" time available). For general planning purposes,
a two -lane thoroughfare is assumed to carry up to 12,000 ADT (average daily
traffic), although most collector streets actually carry no more than 2,000 or
3,000. Each single family house accounts for 12 one -way vehicular trips per
day (including deliveries), so 1,000 houses using the same street would put it
at two -lane capacity if there were no through traffic and no uses attracting
traffic from outside the neighborhood. For 12,000- 30,000 ADT, four lanes are
8
needed, and for 30- 45,000, six lanes. With a regional shopping center nt Haven
and Foothill, Foothill is projected to carry 45,000 ADT.
The General Plan text will recommend a reduction in paved area below current
County Ftandards to save energy, save cost, and improve appearance. A study
by the City of Davis claims that neighborhoods with narrow shaded streets can
be 10 degrees cooler in summer than neighborhoods with wide unshaded streets.
Development costs can be reduced about $1,000 per lot.
Collector streets need only 36 to 40 feet of pavement instead of the 44 feet
required by County standard. Streets serving fewer than 50 homes can be as
narrow as 32 feet (two lanes, parking one side), or even 20 feet (one lane opposite
a parked car) in hillside areas.
Where there is commercial development on four or six -lane thoroughfares, County
policy calls for a continuous left turn lane. This allows left turns to all driveways,
decreasing accidents and improving traffic flow. However, the continuous turn
lane requires an 80 foot expanse of pavement. Where strip commercial develop-
ment has not already created the demand for these turning movements, the
City has the opportunity to require a landscaped median with turn slots at cross
streets or U -turn slots at appropriate intervals.
County policy has required residential subdivisions on major and secondary thorough-
fares to have continuous concrete block walls to improve safety (by eliminating
turns, driveways, and discouraging pedestrians), reduce noise, minimize maintenance,
and to provide a measure of flood control. All of these reasons are valid, but
they do not answer the contention that a "walled city" will be terribly boring,
even if landscaping is generous (as on Mountain Avenue in Upland). Cul-de-sacs
perpendicular to the thoroughfare and extending to the right of way line
offer some improvement and have been used at several locations in Rancho
Cucamonga. Frontage roads are costly and create traffic problems where they
join the major thoroughfare. Development of major thoroughfares with mixed
uses (apartments, offices, institutions) on sites two acres or larger is the solution
to the block wall problem proposed by Plan #4.
9
ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLAN #4 — LAND USE ALLOCATION
(Incorporated Area Only)
Industrial
Minimum Impact
AVERAGE
Major industry
4,200
DENSITY
Intensive Use: Parks.
its per
AREA
580
gross resi-
7gross
LAND USE
dential acre)a
acres)
Residential
TOTAL. ACRES
21,330
Hillside
.05
(not used)
Very Low
1.7
4,940
Very Low Cluster
2.0
(not used)
Windrow Preservation
1.5
1,380
Low
3.6
5,700
Medium
10
600
High
20
400
Commercial
Neighborhood /Community Shopping
90
Regional Shopping /Business
100
16Y
Service Commercial
Industrial
Minimum Impact
1,100
Major industry
4,200
Open Spgce
Intensive Use: Parks.
Special Boulevards
580
Natural
50
Mixed Use
220
11810
Reserve; Public Use; Flood Controlb
TOTAL. ACRES
21,330
Population holding capacity assuming
3.0 persons /single family unit and
2.0 persons /multi - family unit 121,000
a. Average densities vary slightly from figures used for Plans #1, #2, and
#3 and are based on more refined analysis of existing development.
Averages include major and secondary streets, elementary schools, and
neighborhood parks.
b. Preliminary figure representing difference between measurements and control
total. Proposed General Plan will include more detailed acreage breakdown.
c. Measurement of map enlarged from USGS indicates City area is approxin.dtely
33 square miles, rather than 32 square miles as cited in Incorporation EIR.
10
ALLIED MOTORCYCLE SUZUKI
>RIJZIJKI 69 EAST 9TH STREET (714) 995 -9071 UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91766
June 28, 1978
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Committee
' Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
w Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
I have met with Mr. Vairin of the City Staff, and he has ex-
('
plained to me the problems involved with the scheduled hearing
for June 28. I understand that a decision cannot ne made at the
June 28th meeting since the public hearing was not advertized.
Also, the Staff has informed me that they have not had adequate
time to study the proposed building program, so they cannot make
a recommendation.
As you are aware, my project has been subjected to numerous
and lengthy set backs and problems. As a result I am facing
impending business failure because I am being forced to mova from
my present location on August 15.
However, since no other course of action seems to be possible,
I am asking that the hearing on my building program be scheduled
for July 26. This will allow me to prepare additional informa-
tion for the Staff and allow them to make a thorough study. Then
a sensible recommendation can be made by the Staff.
I would appreciate the opportunity to show any member of the
commission my present operation and how I am able to operate in
the center of the city of Upland without creating a noise hazard.
Thank you,
P au_t*
Robert P. Packer
RPP:rje
.6..
DATE: June 28, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Transition of Planning Services from San Bernar -
dino County
The staff of the Community De -kyelopment Department look
forward to working with the Planning Commission. We are at tempt-
ing to establish an orderly phase down of County planning services
so that the City may resume these services at a municipal level.
We see many problems ahead of us. Not only has the County
had unique methods of dealing with certain planning issues, it
has had a unique way of phasing clown their operations over the
last thirty days. The files are in chaos, many projects previous-
ly approved have difficulties associated with them, certain or-
dinances and review procedures are inconsistent with currently
accepted planning practices, and last, but not least, the enthu-
siasm of County staff in phase down operations is overwhelming.
At the same time, there is a great deal of demand for planning
information, as well as, complaints by property owners and
developers regarding previous approvals. Such an environment
creates enormous difficulties for orderly transition and Imple-
menting a new planning program. Fortunately, the City Council
has allowed the staff to not accept new planning applications
until after August 1.
It is hoped that the Planning Commission will understand
the complexities of the situation while we forge a new planning
program. We are finding it necessary to spend a great deal of
time with individuals, both in perscn and through telephone con-
versation so that we can begin building public confidence in the
city's new role and its ability to be sensitive to the problems
of homeowners and developers alike. It is important, especially
for a new community, to establish good public relations if it
is to receive support for its planning programs and achieve
success in fostering quality development. Together we cars. deve-
lop a very effective planning program for the community. Again,
the staff looks forward to working with you.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam
fir,, unity Development Director
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD DATE: June 28, 1978
AGENDA ITE14 NO,
ROUTINE ITEM XXXXX
NON - ROUTINE ITEM
RANCHO CU'CAMO.NGA
TIME OF ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
,lp.;: Rancho Cucamonga
FILE /'i:1DEX NO: Site Approval Index No. W96 -89
PieGPI:SAJ,: Location and Development plan to establish a school
ICGATICN: W/s of Archibald, 281 feet S/o 8th St.
APPLICAI7r: Barbara Salyer
E ::Gr == ✓AP.C:{1 .U.+:
26 PUBLIC [Z%1 4G Z :OTICFS Sarr CG 6 -16 -78
R.�RT BY: Doug Payne
FIE:` L.nsncrICN TLIM: DAVE OF INSPECPICN:
PAP=L SI-.E: 4.3 acres
'; ISTI27G L.VD USE: Abandoned school
building and associated
facilities
z%ISTIn3 zu3mG: MR
i'
.�
NOLMI: Residential,
p.,._.
.�!' +'.'••'' .„
Zoned MR
�y�`�
EAST: Residential,
Ys �w •t
�" i
Zoned R -1
SCUM: Vacant,
Zoned MR
Residential and Vacant,
5 `
Zoned MR
��.�.3• .�.�..�
�F
T�•`1ERi+i.. PLr1.ti 9.7 DESIG` +iATZQV:
�i-
;.ij � ��LL• "naw q•R tm
f-
I
'tom PLANNING COI•lidISSION 0V JUNE 14, 1978 DETERMINED
THAT. 7111S PROJECT li':OULD KAVE A - IGNFICAN EFFECT ON THE
_.2Jv I FON ?1FXT.
::ester :�,�rdce:
Sc,,:er Service:
STVc M=CP *'&)ikT1cv:
FLA'!NING CO3%U4ISSIO11 ACTION:
Staff Analvais:
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Conmission approve
a school in the MR (restricted manufacturing) zote district . as
permitted Section 61.0214(f)(4) of the zone code. Schools are
not normally permitted in said zone.
The site is improved with an abandoned building which was used
approximately twenty years ago for school purpo.es. Other
improvements found on the site include a parkin( area, shed,
garage and existing landscaping. The site fronts on Archibald,
a major arterial.
In most cases, school uses are not recommended .n industrial
areas due to possible adverse 4:raffic, noise ani air quality
conditions. The site, however, has some positiie qualities
and may be suitable for school pruposes. An industrial park
was recently approved on the property to the scuth of the site.
Approved design features of said park include Parking area with
a block wall along the property line for the first two - hundred
eight feet from Archibald. West of the parkin( area there will
be storage units that back up the site. There 'are no openings
from the storage area onto the site.
hhile the zone district would permit various fcrms oc industrial
use on the properties to the north and west, they are presently
improved with residences and have lot sizes and shapes that are
not conducive to major industrial use.
in providing for the existing and potential industrial use
on surrounding properties, the applicant has clistered the
buildings that are to be used for classrooms. 'hus increasing
their distance from adjacent parcels and provides open space
for a buffer. other buffering proposals includo intensive
landscaping of the parking area and play area. Landscaping
is proposed on the north and east to mitigate noise generated
by Archibald and the railroad located three- hun0red ten feet
to the north. The applicant is also proposing i.o install walls
to reduce the noise levels.
t
To provide safety for the students and to reduce traffic
conflicts on Archibald caused by traffic generated by the
use, the applicant shall designate drop -off and pick -up areas
on the northwest portion of the parking area. To further
reduce traffic conflicts, there will be no pedestrian access
gates on the front of the school through the existing chain -
link fence.
,
• •
Findings Recommended by Staff:
Based upon the analysis, Staff recommends the following
findings:
1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the school facility and all required yards, open spaces,
setbacks, walls, fences, parking areas, landscaping and
other features required by this approval.
2. Archibald provides the site with adequate access.
3. When property is buffered, the school should not have an
adverse effect on abutting properties nor should it dis-
courage their eventual development to industrial use.
4. Adequate service capacity exists to serve the site. The
school will utilize the existing septic facility for sewage
disposal.
5. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment
or interference with the future adopted general plan if
the school is ultimately inconsistent with Cae general plan.
Recommendation:
Based upon the findings and analysis, Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve the Location and Development
Plan. Staff would further suggest that the approval be con-
ditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant shall install a minimum of two (2) specimen
trees in the planter areas located at the end of the
parking, aisle and one (1) specimen tree in each designated
tree well. Additional shrubs and trees installed along the
north and east property line and within the area designated
as playground. Trees and shrubs shall be installed around
all buildings except existing carport. A permanently instal-
led irrigation system shall be required for all landscaped
areas. Landscape plan shall be subject. to Planning Director
approval.
2. Unless previously provided for, the applicant shall install
a solid wall along the north and south property line for a
distance of three hundred feet from Archibald.
3. Designate a location within the north portion of the park-
ing area for student pick -up and drop off. Said location
shall be appropriately striped.
4. A fence shall be required along the frontage of the site.
No pedestrian access gates will be permitted in said fence.
5. The applicant shall install a sidewalk along Archibald for
the width of the site,
•
Recommendation: (cont.)
is
6. Fire access lane shall be free of trees and bushes.
7. obtain an inspection from department of Building and Safety
for possible asbestos insulation. Said insulation
shall be removed.
S. The parking area shall be appropriately striped per code.
9. wall mounted sign only to be approved by the Planning
Director.
10. A six (6) inch high concrete curb shall be provided to
separate all landscape areas frnm driving surface.
11. If food is to be served routinely oP the subject premises,
the applicant shall submit the plan of the kitchen facility
to the Department of Environmental Health Services or
equivalent for approval.
12. The applicant shall connect to the community sewer system
when treatment capacity is available.
13. Any lighting provided to illuminate the site shall be hooded
and so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining
residential premises and public thoroughfares.
14. Applicant shall ascertain and comply with requirements of
all State, County and local agencies as are applicable to
the project area.
k
L,
DATE: June 28, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Environmental Review for the development of a
recreation vehicle center located on the north-
west corner of Hellman Ave. and Foothill Blvd.
C -2 zone. Request submitted by Robert Packer.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development of a recreational center
or sales an reps r of recreational les on an=oximately
two 2 acr located on the rt
n ve of Hell-
ma. an Foothill Blvd. (Exhibit The development
plan indicates the construction og two e
buildings to be used for parts storage, sales, an ico
serve
homes. in addition, ra er units, totaling 2,880 sq. ft.,
will be utilized temporarily for the business until permanent
buildings are constructed. A steel storage building, of 500 sq.
ft., is proposed to be located adjacent to the temporary trailer
units. Further, the applicant has indicated that two additional.
permenant buildings will be constructed as his business grows,
however, he has not indicated where these buildings will be
located.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site is located on the northwest
corner of Hellman Ave- and Foothill Blvd. and encomvasses approx-
imately two (2) acres of land. The site has 300' c= frontage on
both Hellman and Foothill. The site is presently ised as a vine -
yard, zoned C -2, and contains no structures. Surrounding land
uses and zoning are as follows:
North
South
Land Use
Single family dwellings
Vacant land, developing
single family dwellings
Mobil home park and motel
Real estate. office /vacant
land
Zoning
R3
R3
R3
C2
i HHi
p:
East
West
l )
+t ,
6x
4i[
�
<
Ar.
Land Use
Single family dwellings
Vacant land, developing
single family dwellings
Mobil home park and motel
Real estate. office /vacant
land
Zoning
R3
R3
R3
C2
i HHi
p:
�Y
0
-2-
Power lines traverse the center of the property in an east -
west direction. Further, complete street improvements have
not been installed.
part or June, Ln
to him that they
and indicated
UUL1U1LCRl.b J.LYLII hill LYUllu tll +4�+_•- -__•+, -••
t e p ec ecame a controvers al ssue, environmental review
and a public hearing was required. The project was then sche-
duled by the County for environmental review at the City Plan-
ning Commission meeting of June 28, 1978. The County Planning
Staff has not prepared any reports for this meeting and the City
on
e,
that the
stmax, It is unrortunate, gLVen Lne Lt:116LI1 Y1 &cVL=W 4 +uc 4YVY
TF�ls project has experienced, that the City Staff is unable to
make an environmental determination based upon the information
supplied. Staff tried to contact the applicant, but found that
he was out -of -state and not expected to return before this report
was compiled.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends continuance of envir-
onmental review on this project to the 26 978 meeting.
This time will enable Staff to meet with the app can in order
to obtain necessary information to complete an adequate Initial
Study and a comprehensive site plan.
Respectfully submitted,
H •�L �
iack Lam
L,ommunity Development Director
ilrI
1:
• �
J
ilrI
1:
1 1
Li
i
1 1 _
Yr
1:
1 1
Li
i
1 1 _
1 1
Li
i
1 1 _
w w
The following informational.
report supplied by
Applicant
C
�u
�;a
ti
PAST,.PRESENT AND FUTURE OF ALLIED SUZUKI
Prepared for the
RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Public Hearing June 28, 1978
prepared by Robert Packer
Karen Packer
x
,w
0
TABLE •OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Summary
2, Personal Background
3. Business Background
4• Building Program Setbacks and Problems
5. Financial Impact Upon Business
6. Acoustical Analysis
A. Analysis of Calculations
B. Calculations
7. Petitions and Letters of Reference
A. Petition from Businesses•and Residents
Within 300 feet of Property :
B. Letter from Mr. Cartwright
C. Petition from Rancho Cucamonga Residents
D. Letter from Uplaa,d Chamber of Commerce
C
! i
I
INTRODUCTIUALIP SUTAUdARY
Motorcycles have traditionally been associated with noise
and /or brick leather jacket hoodlums and just as all businesses
have their weirdos so does motorcycling. But in the 1960's Honda
coined the phrase "you meet the nicest people on a 11onda ". The
public image started changing then and so did the type of people
riding motorcycles. Now you meet lots of nice people riding motorb
cycles for transportation, family fun and sport.
In 1970 people started becoming aware of noise pollution.
Standards for motorized vehicles were formulated and the amount of
noise that vehicles can emit has slowly been lowered. Motorcycles
have come under scrutiny and they must not exceed 83 db of noise
output. I sell Suzuki motorcycles and U. S. Suzuki cannot manu•-
facture a motorcycle for highway or road use that does not comply
with that law. Therefore I cannot sell a ncisy motorcycle for
highway or road use. (.See figure 1 •• Vehicle Code)
This report has been prepared to acquaint the reader with
Robert and Karen Packer, their motorcycle business and the financial
problems and relocation efforts. Alsol a brief accustical analysis
liar, been prepared by Robin T. Harrison of HY1 Acoustics Inc. This
analysis shows that motorcycles operated in the parking lot at the
rearAgr in the service department will not cause an increase in
noise level. Noise levels are not arithmatically additive.
Petitions and letters are presented in Section 7. These bear
out the results of the analysis in Section 69 We could not do busim
ness within the close proximity of the homesp business offices and
businesses if we were noise polluters.
To summarize this report I believe it can be said that vie are
conc:ientious people concerned about the well being of the community
and of it's residents. Vie have done and will continue to do our best
to build a business place that will be a credit to the community.
We are not noise polluters and our business deserves a place in the
communitye however time is of the essence and the time for action -
is now, The last seven months of procastination by the county
should be put behind us. We want to move ahead with the new Rancho
•, Cucamonga city govarnment and get our business relocated and underway,
U
0 i
Div. 12 —415— § 27204
a distance of 5o feet from the centerline of travel under test procedures established
by the Department of the California Iligllway Patrol.
M The Deepartment of Motor. Vehicles may accept a dealer's certificate as
Proof of compliance with this article.
(e) Test procedures for compliance with this article shall be established by the
Department of the California highway Patrol, taking into consideration the lest
Procedures of the Society of Automotive Engineers.
(d) No person shall sell or offer for sale a new motor vehicle, exnpt to
off - highway motor vehicle sul.Ject to identification its ( )t protidtd in Bahian
/ &S (mmmenclrtir tti/h Sccliors CltiflW), which produces a maximntn noise
exceeding e article. or reg dui o s have not bcen nd Ped bdieAdmiistr for of
tile. Eovironmenlal Pratrclion Agcucy pursuant la the ( )'Noise Gontrol Act of
1972 (11.1. 92.574).
(e) No person shall sell or offer for sale a new motor vehicle, except all
off - highway, motor vehicle Subject to identification as ( ) t prnrid W ill Unr}@rn
l6:.5 (mraott rreiror nirh S017M71r lA7M). which praluces noise thus es:cc _ids or in
any way violates the noise emission standards or regulations adopted for such a
motor veldcle by the Administrator of the Gnvironmentd Protection Agency
Pursuant to the ( )* Noise Control Act of 1972 (P.L 92.574).
(1) As used in this section, the term "register" is equivalent to the term
92 574). os Iscd in Section 6(e) (2) of the ( )■ Noise Control Act of 1972 (P."
fit -574).
AMlyd (]r. (a, SIYIt. 1975. t. cctlw JMtWrI. 1, t97d
Anunkl d Ch. 'SK Sims. huff. Effreii" )anu"y 1. IM
lTa• nRr am dow•itt added the italiet" a.atorW std at time point (1) indicated deleted the followltyt:
Mfimd In Section 3b/12"
• `t'rdnral"
M-l97o Melttn"Ar L/mil
27201. For the purposes of Section 27200, the noise limit of 92 dbA shall apply
to any motorcycle manufactured before 1970.
Addtd Ch. 97, Stair. 1975. Effective January 1. 1976.
Mefonwe L/mlrs
27202. For the purpascs of Section 27200, the following noise limits shall apply
to any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven cycle, manufactured:
1 Aft 1
'/
er9fxf, and before 1975 ..................................... ............................... 88 dbA
2 After 1972, and before 1975 ...................... ............................... 86 dbA
.
y,(3) After 1974,nnd•hefnre`I481.,.., .,.......N9 ✓q „�
^
_........._.... _
pYJ;/ utO1�1J6U: u1LL• Ihaeitl�IMi4..' �..::..... ��.................................................... 21U 11UA
(5) After 1985 and before 1990
..................... ............................... 75 dbA
.... ............
(6 After 1989
'
•
................ .............................................»...... ............................_.. 70 dbA
Added Ch. 1975. Effect; y 1, 11.
h. 64.
Amended (]l. �. Stay. 1876. U' fcetive Jatmary 1.
o five jA
•
Snetrino"o LJOW
27203. For the purposes of Section 27200, the noise limit of 82 dbA shall apply
to any snowmobile manufactured after 1972
Added Ch 81 e.a.. 1976. Effective ju,,,y 1.: %A
L!m /h /ar Vshkbs Exceeding 4M rounds Gans Vrhlda Ws/ghl
27204. For the purposes of Section 27200, the following noise limits shall apply
to any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or more
manufactured:
•
(1) After 1967. and before 1973 ............................... ............................... 88 dbA
(2) After 1972, and before 1975 ..................................... ............................... 86 dbA
.,
3 After 1974, and before 1978 ..................................... ............................... 83 dbA
,.,
r^
Added Ch. a% Stun 1476. E,ffeco” )twuvy 1. 1476
�?��•,..
Amended Ch Sao States 1977. Effective uuwy 1, 1976.
7•he 1977 unndment at the point()ed delnled
the fdlowW�
(4) After toff, std before 1998866
...._.._..._........._._ __............«.. 89 dbA
(5) After 1 947.
r._—. ........_.- .....,««...__- --_.,. w 70 dbA"
'/
• II 0
PETIS(IMI. BACKGROUIiD
My wife and I and family moved to Alta Loma fourteen years ago
and have seen Alta Loma grow from sleepy little groups of houses
among the citrus groves to the explosive growth we now see. Vie came
from Seattle Washington where I had earned a decree in Physics from
the University of Washington. I•ty last job before going into business
was with Xerox where I worked as a Project Engineer on optical del•
vices for night security.
Our thrae sons all graduated from Alta Loma High School. Our
oldest sr,n completed a two year mission for our church in Central
America and is presently working on a degree in Business Administra-
tion. Our second son works with us in the business and our third son
is presently in Peru on a two year church mission. Our daughter
attends Alta Loma High School and will be a senior next year. Our
family enjoys camping, motorcycle riding, hiking and many outdoor
peso
activities. \7eAas much time as possible in Baja California exp or'•
ing out of the way places and enjoying the beauty there.
We are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints in Alta Loma and both my wife and I work in the youth prom-
grams in the church. I am currently Explorer advisor of Post 644.
I was instrumental in starting a motorcycle driver training
program at Alta Loma High Schools one of three pilot proGrams in
Southern Californiay and I furnish motorcycles for the program. I
also present lectures on motorcycle safety to the local high schools
during the year. I are on the advisory board for the I3aldy View ROP
program*
when we started thinking of building' a now facility a fetiv years
ago we rejected iucamonga at first because it was "too far out in
the sticks" and did not ::ave much to offer. The appearance of the
buildings was poor and the general business climate did not seem to
be goods however we now fool that the city has an exciting Zuturo
and we want to be part of it. We designed our buildings with a
Spanish motif and have selected the beat materials for construction,
Vie believe, in the upgrading of the area and would be the last to
i�
suggest anything less. When our building is completed vie hope other
`` businessmen will see what we have done and upgrade their facilities.
f, This is progress in the community and He fe31 that we are part of
ILLLLLL , that progress.
.,
zII
33USITTESS BACKGROUND
In 1970 we started the motorcycle business. It was located on
Foothill Boulevard for six months until the quarters became too small
and we moved to • 60 Bast 9th St.. in Upland. Via have been or "-e mall
in the Upland Town Center for almost eight years and have cwwucted
a successful operation without altering the environment of the area.
The business is a family business.) managed by myself, my wife and one
con. tie have nine employees' all who depend on the business for
their livelihood, Two are married. One is retarded and spent 20
of his 36 years in an instutiticne He has worked for us for fives
years and now is able to live in a home in Pomona and pay his way.
The business was started with the idea that motorcycling rr,,Ls a
respectable pastime and a pleasant environment should be provided
where a family could shop for a motorcycle or parts and feel comfort,-
able in the surroundings. I believe we have accomplished that ob•-
jective and we are proud of the business and the service it provides
to the community. However, we have known for years that 9th street
in Upland was not the beat location for the business.
Vie have looked for suitable buildings or property for several
years. Many hours have been spent looking at property and buildings
and as the Alta Loma Cucamonga area grey we started looking further
east on Foothill. Two years ago our lease ran out and the landlord
would not renew it so we stepped up our activities to locate a new
home for the business. Since vie had to operate on a limited budget
it was difficult to get anything going that would satisfy our re--
quirements.
In August, 1977 our building was sold to a real. estate company
Ind the rent was immediately doubled from S 600 to '1200 per month.
Knowing that the building was sold vie doubled our efforts to either
locate a building on Foothill or buy a pieco of land. Cie wont into
escrow in October, 1977 to buy property at Foothill and IIellmane In
March when our landlord became aware that our building program was
foundering he raised our rent to 33000 per month.
The Foothill pr000rty is 3001by 3001 (approximately two acres)
and we are planning a recreational ••ehicle center that will event,-
.`. ually be comprised of four buildings• •The first two buildings will
?: house the Suzuki business, the moped business, a cycle parts business,
it ;
4,
a used cycle parts business, and two new businesses, a four wheel
drive business and a trailer J motor home parts business, When I am
ablb Anancially and business growth dictates I will build two more
buildings on the property and move the four wheel drive and trailer
parts businesses into their own buildings.
We determtried approximately two months ago that a temporary
solution to our problem would be trailer modules quickly move(: onto
our property. That solution has not been quick and has appeared to
slow down plot plan approval for the permanent buildings. However
we badly need the trailers to house the business until the buildings
are built. It takes 60 days to get the trailers after they are
ordered and we are out of time.
We are not big, we are not developers and we do not have big
money behind us. However we de own a piece of property with the
proper boning for a motorcycle shop, We have a bank that has agreed
to lend us money, Our business is floundering because we have not
been permitted to build the building we need so badly.
We have not tried to work around the system, We have cooperated
with every person in every agency and department we have dealt with,
but it seems that each stop of the way we have encountered appalling
and unbelievable problems,
We are asking for the opportunity to save the business that we
have struggled for eight years to build to its present level. Within
a very short period of time the business will be closed down if the
trailer modules are not quickly approved and the building permits
` are not issued for the permanent buildings.
1
Z
0 IV
BUILDING PROGRAM BACKGROUND
* Started looking for property for building two.years ago
* Located property on the corner of Hellman and Foothill
and went into escrow October 120 1977 .
* Prepared plot plan and submitted it through Building
and Safety in Ontario December 4. 1977
* County estimated that approval on plot plan would take
one month (seven months later and it is still not done)
* Prepared plans for building and submitted them to
Building and Safety for plan check January 12,1978„
They estimated it would take.one month.
* Building loan approved February 28, 1978
* By I4ay the plot plan was still not approved and the
problems (see Section 5) were so bad that a plan was
devised to occupy temporary trailer modules on the
property
* Discussed the trailer modules with county planning and
they suggested putting the building and the temporary
trailers together as joint ;application on site plan
approval
* May 15 a building plans checked and approved (4 months)
* Application was filed for site approval May 16 with an
estimated approval time of one month
* Met with Mr. Stevens at building site to discuss prob-a
lows with setbacks and driveways. (first and only time
at building site with the county)
* Informed by tetra Stevens site plan would be approved June 13
* June 2 notified by Doug Payne that three people had
responded to notices sent out, but this should cause no
problems-because the zoning is C2
E * June 9.,a- notified by Doug Payne that a public hearing
would be required
., >; * ,Tune 16 to filed papers for public hearing
0
0
* June 19 nbtif led by city that they would be e.ble to
get hegring on June 28 calendar
June 20 •'notified by city that city staff was going
to reccomend an environmental impact study be prepared
Summary Approximately seven months hove elapsed since I first filed
for plot plan approval on December 4.1977. If the present trend cone
tinueso and more o6rings and studies are rsquired I will be dusting
off my engineering books and updating my resume because I won't have
a business to support me.
I want to'continue with my building planst get the buildings
built and get on to more important things like running the business.
This should not be an unreasonable request and I hope the Rancho
Cucamonga city management and plsnning commission can expedite matters
and got things going.
r�
V � ,
FITIATICIAL_ IMPACT
* Present building in Upland sold and new landlord
raised rent from 5600 /month to $1200 /month to
$3000 /month. Increase to $3000 occurred in March,
1978, prosently costing $2400 more per month for rent.
* Signed agreement to be out of building by August 15
unable to locate another building. If temporary
location at new site not ready by August 15 we will
be out of business.
* Building loan approved in February will not be valid
if not used by August 31, Commercial money not avail--
able now from any source.
* Interest rates have increased 1 V8% since the first
of the year on a 20 year loan this will increase
interest costs by SS70,000e
+► Building costs have increased approximately 101,'v' since
February •e will cost about S30,000 more for building
construction
* Yellow Page advertizing (which is my best advertizing
media) was designed in January for.May distribution
of telephone books our address and telephone numbers
are wrong and new businesses are advertized that were
scheduled for new building that doesn't exist.
Summary 1• Due to the seven months process of trying to obtain plot
plan approval I have incurred a SS100100 increase in my building
costae I will have to close my business if I cannot move onto my
property utilizing temporary quarters by August 15. This will destroy
my livelihood, employment for nine people and sight years of work.
n
0 •
VI
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
The analysis presented in this section was prepared by Robin
T. Harrison of HW Acoustics, Inc, His credentials are long; and
he has worked for years in private business and for the U.S. govern,*
ment on noise measurement, analysis and methods to reduce it.
The Case 1 situation (see analysis) shoms that a motorcycle
operated in the parking lot at full throttle will emit 83db, at
35 mph 80db and at the more likely speed (20 mph) the noise output
is '71db. The closest house is 175 feet from the rear of the service
department and the calculation shoves that the noise level at the
roar of the closest house will be 60db if a motorcycle is operated
at full throttle at the rear of the service department. This full
throttle situation never happens because we don't like loud noises
ourselves and besides, there is no need for it. however if it should
occur the noise level of 60db is equivalent to the noise output of
a kitchen blender or TV aet* i.e., a Bride open motorcycle at the
rear of the service department will probably ..ot be heard over the
television set.
If the Foothill and Hellman car and truck noise is considered,
it is more audible than a motorcycle in the parking lot..
Consider Case 2 (ses analysis), tuneups inside the service
department. The people occupying the closest house will not even
be aware that a bike is running if they are in their back yard
the car and truck traffic noise output will exceed that of the
motorcycle-
What about 2 motorcycles at full throttle at the back of the
hqildins? Refering to figures 2 and 3 of this section we see that
tva motorcycle„ putting out 83db does not make a sound level of
'166db. The noise output is actually 84.9db. This case can be ex--
tonded to any amount of motorcyclos.
To lesson the noise ovon more I plan to plant a row of donco
evergreen trees across the north lino of the property. This will
f attenuate the noise even more and will be even less than shown in
the calculations. I plan to post a parking lot speed limit of
' 15 mph and enforce it, install speed bumps and keep the service
department doors closed*
0
.�i
x.
Decibels are logarithmic quantities so they can noI be added directly; i.e., 80 dB +
80 dB does not equal 160 dB.
To add two sounds; use figure III -A and the following procedure:
�LEP
1 Subtract the lower level from the higher-
2 Enter the horizontal axis of figure III -A with
this value. Go vertically to the line, then
horizoni'ally to the vertical axis. Read the
value or, the vertical axis.
3 Add the vertical axis value to the higher level.
EXAMP
80 dB +83 dB =?
83 dB- 80dB =3dB
Line A -B -C on the
chart
83 dB + 1.8 dB = 84.8 dB
To sum more than two levels, the procedure is to add two at a time, then add the
sums logarithmically, and soon, until the ultimate sum is found.
Example: What is the total noise level of a 70 dB motorcycle, two 74 d0 motor-
cycles, a 78 dB motorcycle, and an 80 dB motorcycle?
57iution:
70
75.55
74
74
79.5
,78
82.8
80
It could be done this way:
70
74
74 f:D-77.9
83.5 dB wj —_ answer
—80.9
78
83.5 dB+*— lame answer
8G
Gv�6 /
i'
i'
I
i
I
7
/.
ri
-
Ji
7
/.
'.
-
Ji
.
. ..
•
7
-
Ji
7
fpy
C i
• 0
Another factor north considering is that the busineso is a
daytime busineas, We are open from 9:00 AM to 5 :30 Me During
the day any parking lot noise will be masked by the foothill and
Hellman car and truck noise. In the early morning and evening
hours when the noise from street traffic has lessened and people
are home from work there will not be any noise from the business
bocause.we will be closed.
These calculations and analyses show that a noise problem does
not exist* of course the final analysis of any situation is, what
happens in actual practice. We have been in the actual practice
mode for eight years in the Upland Town Center. The letters and
petitions presented in section 7 bear out.these facts, The people
who signed the petition presented in 7A all work or live within
300 feet ofoA;Llied Suzuki, Mr. Cartwright's letter in section 713
is certain
pof our good intentionsrnd practices, and the compliance
of our motorcycles with the vehicle code.
Therefore I °uagest and recommend that further analysis and
study is meaningless and would not serve any purpooe.
0
In
,
A.'else /� rcl,,c94,o," '' Pia�+src� .� / / /rcr �1�C . %� ur /c�'we
ClQSt - �pPrgiio•� �H /`�Qr/ci�+y �d%`-
level u wt4v'r wic/.r, 40- r" Yry.aWle- 91 3 c 84 c 01
Roy /Pe,r/ - gSarPh Cruise - g� .
. Eu..+ .4ssu..►,•J ro lass /..�.,+ �.�s, war / /s, �•I`c, 7•+� /.��,r/
/7s Ft wrl/ 6c:
.%71-11 = dOc/9,4
sa Lr�- r /ti�r4rc� G..d / .4e �- 6oc//3� o.� /y W4ri hiEf'S qr� b•�i�• "1
fJ y �owP4ri5 - A$ew.Ne V ivch5 oy ^09c"
SO Ie g 71- e 109c'/ /S ;f,66 oree t /"ro g7 z`-v e Q ovrrS it
0 . 0
0
�l.�r4�� re�•r fro /ic rs 9DP'O x /n.4 /� /y 7S'c/B � Sa F'r� �:
y /!r ,4.,r'+4j4-e LJdt�,Se W., /% 4ca- ✓6-d6f�vef 2 je � L�%! Ear 16 06 &4 ...,
So �Qr,�. Laf ��odor�yr /mss w /// br
Vivo/ mayot pwgy &oT be acc/,,G /vv Qt 1'y /s
?'sC 2 - TUNYup D�Qprrf rio•�5 //7_S /a� syb�.
1,10Y /roc/, csy qln 83 cr6,4
Ze. e / wr // e�e /a/ Zo c(S dr drli /C %�(y 7 / /S,
/f- �i /l [/GDr'S 9�1C� Ct.1 rrtc%rvs 4/' C G'/� •S'P� .
Lfl -to/e 1'75 Pl'rf will -6yrh 62
III W/A
ROBIN T. HARRISON, P.E.
S/ CtIS W.
�2, /" /, P.C--
,tl
0
0
-CO ,r�ro {rl f Coe Pw6/iL f/ea;,&w ove Wr 1449rf ei t6y 4Af
r rsfc/v,t-1jry / .44rra s ''. r, /Fp � ""b,-r
A50 ,%IWM F &fq-e LrH CairrK f LdN 4 f Cfi,� fl �orrg t` l�NwS e
/S 70 C1460 &< P kley is P.aJ&a b/y
wo *.-rye/ --�5
64 P �y �,ou /f� d e igcrr¢Sdocr ��y�P�1r��•r4 r�°%
�Z �� �' /ws 5.�.r�•+jr -e4rr/ /Oo ma eloreyew/-05 psr r�
t.yle G-cof
117
r n,
We the undersigned live or work within 300 feet of the boundaries
of Allied Suzuki at 60 E. 9th St. in Upland. We have not been
subjected to high or extreme noise levels or experienced a nuisance
from Allied customers or employeea. We feel they have been an-
asset to our community. Or• anal Poor QuWlty
NAM ADDRESS PHONE #
Z•.JLi- ��L�.._._��11V�r__! —��Y=
� _..?C,'.. 1 _ VI C.c c t'; c / _- ... - - -• C� , l - ; .:, L�Z�
jtL�., �cfy ._.b �•��a.kd�" ... MIR.I.V•_6sta.L•_la..F�..
4.
5C ear
!!
U. r N
__ . �.s- <:a•�:n ?�1.. .. -gip ����2.8!. � rte._.._.. •
(7ile— ,,(CZO e
WasW.Na�elu Ivwt�
8 1HC.M
9� F' O UMP CO 201 N. First Ave. 985 -7217
10. PEABODY FLOWAY UMP CO. 201 N. First Ave. 986 -7217
MrFR COMMUNNSEO NURSES' REGISM iAGENCYI
• .:
Y,.J •.t !•_•._.1 1�r... t- �._.1`� �.� �i. r l_ -�c:�c�.{.'..l:rv..:ti- =1.11 4.'L�l�
• � t, _ i_AJ�oMhfLlL Co•.i SJ�fA.11i�v . 1 �
15. _ �p
'�V�.�. wr��LX CIO °, v*r,� Lri�.. J �r `Y. �wYln 12•�I�!/,�
�'. 16. -
+ j H . t3rlginal Poor MAR ,
Via the undersigned live or work within 300 feet of the boundaries
of Allied Ouzuki at 60 Be 9th St. in Upland, We have not been
subjected to high or extreme noise levels or experienced a nuisance
from Allied customers or employees. We feel they have been an
asset to our community.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE #
i ",rrlic,^ "' f'� Sf� ✓ 1 L
V `�c.uc•� \a� f, °�t3t'` C1`by- 8�,`1``
C �c/ q
6.
a. /la.' �� ^'�(� / (✓e1A W //Ulr� ol�ll(fC/
�GG . rr^ ter' �; �rL! f•,
r �Jl
13. •
lit*
f�
16.
OrlulnW Poor Qua ft
We tho undersigned live or work within 300 foot or the boundaries
of Allied Suzuki, at 60 E. 9th St. in Upland. We have not been
subjected to high or extreme noise le'-rols or experienced a nuisanco
" from Allied cuctomoro or employees. %Ye feel they have been an
asset to our community.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE �
2. .� .I n-� •� l _ 4
".4 (:1L- t , _l..ol_J4i.
7.
use .-
.
• ,l . (f' 4 i. 1 .. ; ..' '. _._. • ..... ' ! � • . -. 1, •.,..: _.t.. _.... _.. _
90 l,.p l! ( .1 .��.L_Q �.% • R;. i�V `t f 4.� '4y:
10. , �.ir '.. l! f cri 1
11.
12.
13.
15•
16.
I
J
Lee L
Az e.,
ez 6,le
ev- Z.-) X
I L-tj
X, at
all Z' -
L
C t..v L
AL
4
We the undersigned reside in Rancho Cucamonga and are customers of
Allied Suzuki. We agree that they will be an asset to our new city
and that the management and employees of the company present a.favor-
able climate for motorcyclists, their friends and families:. Since
they are now experiencing a severe financial hardship at their present
]location we urgo the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to allow
them to quickly proceed with their proposed building program.
Original Pour duality
NAME ADDRESS PRONE #
f
Z — - ti! /,..._`_- _�7•�_`` .. �_._.__. _..._ �'`� _L ter. /�_ .._ ; `_� -'�
J•._. :rJ�L L�r, � ` e4 I�o l��,.1 C ,!
i
r c,
:_�ir�.. -�.r "7 J •i'�;�CLh�� ��.CL.t�FlL�i�M�,'�. S `% �6 -J -r• ?N, � �.
8.
,j• — l'�'sr ��_- i^ cFV�(A.- -'- •�ffi/Q.f- dY.t-�n... .`.�f! ...
06 IM "
K t�
0
e
'17e UIC, 4,idersignod reside in Rancho Cucamonga and are customers of
Allied Suzuki. Vie agree that thoy will be an asset to our new city
and that the management and employees of the company present a favor-
able climate for motorcyclists, their friends and families. ,Since
they are now experiencing a severe financial hardship at their present
location we urge the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to allow
them to quickly proceed with their proposed building program.
original Poor QualKY
NAME ADDRESS PRONE #
V �d soz s v�d Vleroc ?R•3 "
/A
3 • % S 153.4 7 —%
���ov�Qao (.� ���QlvaKr. G112 �un►STo.+�• �vu �'; 87 - bo"'t!
12.
13•
lit.
Li15.
y
n
No the ❑ndercignea reside in Rancho Cucamonga and are customers of
Allied Suzuki. We agroo that they will be nn assot to our now city
and that the management and employees of the company present a favor-'
Able climate for motorcyclists, their friends and families. Since
they are now experi;ncinG a severe financial hardship at their prosenl
location rio urge the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to allow
them to quickly proceed with their proposed building program.
NAME ADDRESS Orlgl al P` OT OIJBIRy
l � _ . _... •; ��- -_ -�` /���- -�3 / / � ..: '/ �''..'� .. .... _ ! nay � << i� �F l
3.
6.
9.
lo.
13.
t4.
15.
0
o •
N
lL
r„
Uplad Chamber of Commerce
886W. FOOTHILL BLVD. • UPLAND, CALIFORNIA 91786
(714) 982.8816
June 22, 1978
Herman Remple, Chairman
Planning Commir= ;nn
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 753
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Chairman Remple and Members of the Planning Commission:
This letter is in regards to Allied Motorcycle'at CO East
Ninth Street, Upland.
We heard from the owner, Bob Packer, that he is planning to
move to Rancho Cucamonga; but questions were being raised about
the noise level of his business.
As you probably know, the City of Upland is also concerned
about keeping noise at a minimum. Allied Motorcycle has been in
our City for eight'years now, operating in the town center, and
up to this time there have been no noise problems or any complaints
from residents or merchants
i am sure that they would be an asset to ycur city, and would
give you no problems with noise. We will be sorry to lose them
from Upland._
Sincerely,
Tony Abalone
Executive Vice President
bg
94
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jime 28, 1978
Planning Commission
Director of Community Development
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan - Sketch Plan #4
Mr. John Blayney, the General Plan consultant, will be
at the Planning Commission to present Sketch Plan #4, which
takes into consideration all the previous input, relative
to all the other sketch plans for the Rancho Cucamonga General
Plan. The Planning Commission should focus upon the key
elements of Sketch Plan #4 and determine whether this fourth
proposal addresses all thi key issues which have been discussed
at previous meetings, and most notably those issues or questions
listed in the City Manager's memo of May 26, 1978.
If the Planning Commission feels that Sketch Plan 04 ade-
quately addresses all these issues, a date should be set for a
public hearing at which time additional public input may be
taken ana a recommendation may be formulated for submittal to
the City Council. If not, come time frame should be established
for any additional meetings necessary to reach the point of a
public hearing.
&-�spectrully submitted,
1 �
Ja' ck Lam
'Community Development Director
0
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: City Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Lauren M. Wasserma
City Manager
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting on General Plan
0
DATE: May 26, 1978
As you are aware, a joint City Council- Planning Commission meeting has been
scheduled for WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COMMUNITY SERVICE
BUILDING. We have reviewed the various alternatives prepared by John Blayney.
These alternatives represented a visual compilation of the ideas discussed
at our all -day General Plan Community Forum scheduled in April.
If we are to stay on schedule (or e,#en close to our original schedule), it
is essential that we begin focusing our ideas in order to provide Mr.
Blayney with specific direction concerning the "final" document which will
be used as the basis for our General Plan hearings, which are now scheduled
to begin June 28, 1978. It is,therefore, suggested that the Commission and
City Council should begin stating Its specific likes and dislikes concerning
the three alternative. proposals which were prepared by Mr. Blayney.
There is still an ori:ortunity for citizen input. In fact, input should be
encouraged. However, it is also important that the City Council and
Planning Commission het:in to evaluate the citizen input and provide specific
direction to Mr. Blayney.
Frcm our point of view, the primary issues to be resolved include at least
the following:
1. Amount of land to be preserved for industrial development.
2. Density and development standards for Etiwanda.
3. Feasibility (both practical and ecp)nomic) of retaining vacant
land for permanent open space in Alta Loma.
4. Potential alternative sites for future commercial- regional
shopping areas. The Commission may wish to reserve all three
of the sites Identified on each of the alternatives presented
by Mr. Blayney.
City Council - Planning Commission
May 26, 1978
Page Two
5. Population trends. What should be the City's ultimate
population?
6. Commitment to preserve open space areas.
7. Location of other commerical projects, particularly along
Foothill Boulevard and other major thoroughfares.
8. The degree to which the separate identities of the Tri-
Comnunity areas may be preserved. (I always save the best
issues for the last!). It may be that the different develop-
ment standards for each geographical area will do the most
to preserve the separate identities of Alta Loma, Cucamonga,
and Etiwanda.
Naturally, there are many more issues to be resolved before the final document
is prepared. However, the above list represents the most significant issues
(in our view) which must be resolved In order for John Blayney to prepare
our recommended General Plan for Public Hearing.
LMW:baa
cc: Jack Lam
John Blayney
Tommy Stephens
Lauren Wasserman
File
'r
RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
June 28, 1978
7:00 p.m.
9161 Baseline
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call: Dahl Gercia _V00', Jones Rempel
To1atoy �G-
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Miscellaneous Reports
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Proposal:
Location.and development plan review to re-
store and use an abandoned school building
as a private school.
Index No.:
W96 -89
Location:
West side of Archibald, approx 281 feet south
of 8th Street
Applicant:
Barbara Sayler
ENVIRONMENTAL ITEMS
1. Proposal:
Environmental review for the development of a
recreational vehicle center.
Index No.:
W92 -80
Location:
Located on the northwest corner of Hellman Ave.
and Foothill Blvd.
Applicant:
Robert Packer
NON- HEARING ITEMS
1. Presentation and review of Alternative 4 of the proposed
Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Presentation to be made
by John Blayney.
Adjournment
k
0
.PFD
REGULAR MEETING - PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 14, 1978
The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met in a regular
session on Wednesday, June 14, 1978 in the Community Service Building. The
meeting was called to order by Chairman Herman Rempel at 7:10 p.m. who lead
the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Commissioners Present: Herman Rempel, Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura
Jones, Peter Tolatoy
Commissioners Absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Correction to the minutes of May 24, 1978: Mr. Garcia stated that under
consent item 07 in the action, the item should have been continued to June
14, 1978 rather than June 10, 1978.
Upon motion Ly Tolstoy, seconded by Jones and unanimously carried, it was voted
to approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 24, 1978 as corrected and
the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/ Planning Commission
on May 31, 1978.
REPORTS:
The City Manager reported that a City Council /Planning Commission Conference
has been scheduled for June 22, 1978. Arrangements will be made for Commis-
sioners wishing to attend the Conference.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A -1 -5 to C -1, INDEX NO. W103 -12
S/S of 19TH STREET, APPROX. 1500' E/0 HERMOSA
(Louis Parks)
Mr. Tommy Stevens reported that the applicant is requesting a zone change from
A -1 -5 to C -1 to allow the applicant to convert an existing residence into a
restaurant. The site is located on the s/s of 19th Street approx. mid -block
between Havenand Hermosa Avenues. To the east is residential and to the west
is agricultural and residential. It is staif's opinion that the proposed
zone change would set a precedent for strip commercial on 19th between the
site and Archibald Avenue. Based upon their findings and analyses, staff
recommends that the zone change be denied.
The Chairman declared the hearing open.
Mr. Trousil spoke on behalf of the applicant in favor of the project. He stated
that it is the applicant's desire to convert this residence into a French
restaurant and to preserve it as a landmark in Alta Loma. Mr. Louis Parks,
the applicant, spoke in favor of the request stating that they will emphasize
the historical influence of the home. He believed that a high quality restaurant
would be an asset to the community and would bring prestige to the area. Mr.
Parks read a letter signed by his immediate neighbors approving of the proposed
project.
Mr. Tom Orr, a resident of the -area, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone
change stating that there are quite a few residential homes in the area, and
they are concerned with having commercial use within a residential area. He
also expressed concern regarding increased traffic on 19th Street.
Mr. Frank Newman spoke in opposition to the request and presented a petition
with 63 signature of those property owners in the closest proximity to the site
who were opposed to the project. He stated that parents were concerned with
the heavy traffic which would be generated from the restaurant and felt that
•I.4- .AA i - -w L.. J- bU- L....r J- � ---- • -C rU-
t �^
4
Planning, Commission Minutes
_
i
June 14, 1978
Mr. John Vargo spoke in opposition stating that the project would be fine if
It were in a different location.
Mr. Jerry Thompson stated that he thought 19th Street would be developed into
a four lane highway and would be able to bear the traffic. He felt that
People in the community could use another good restaurant.
There being no further testimony, the Chairman declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Garcia and Mr. Tolstoy expressed their concern with setting a precedent of
strip commercial within a residential area. They felt that it would be good
to preserve the historical value of the residence but that strip co"mercial
zoning would not be good planning for the community.
ACTION: Upon motion by Garcia, seconded by Dahl and unanimously carried, it
was voted to deny the change of zone :request for Index No. W103 -12 based on
the findings and analyses as recommended by the planrtng staff.
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S ACTION
E/S ETIWANDA AVENUE, APPROX. 300' N/0 WHITTRAM
(Secondo Colombero)
Mr. Wasserman reported that the city is appealing the decision of the County
Planning Department to waive the requirement for street improvements on this
property.. He stated that the County's decision would set a precedent and
would not be in the best interest of the community.
Mr. Justin McCarthy, attnrnev for the applicant, stated that Mr. & Mrs. Colom-
bero have appealed the requirement for street improvements as outlined in
their letter dated March 13, 1978. Mr. McCarthy stated that there appears
to be a decline in vehicular traffic along Etiwanda Avenue and there is no
guarantee that street improvements will be necessary on Etiwanda Avenue
in the future. He further detailed the applicant's reasons for this appeal.
Mr. Wasserman stated that city staff was unaware of the county's action prior
to the applicant's receipt of the letter from the County Planning Department
and stated that vehicular traffic will probably increase on Etiwanda Avenue.
He stated that perhaps the city attorney and the applicant's legal counsel
could prepare an agreement to provide for the street improvements at a future
date when the property is developed. He reported that it has been the City
Council's policy to require street improvements on all new developments within
the community.
ACTION: Upon motion by Garcia, seconded by Tulstoy and unanimously carried,
it was voted to waive the imme&-tte cash deposit of $6,500 and instruct the
City Attorney to prepare an agreement whereby the applicant and /or their
successors will be required to pay for the street improvements a[ a future
date when the site is developed.
The Chairman called for a Fhort recess at 9:05 p.m.
The Meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE AN INDUSTRIAL TRACT OF 6 LOTS,
INDEX NO. W78- 0245 -I, S/S of 9TH ST., APPROX. 200' W/O
HELLMAN (Michael Todd)
The City Manager reported that the applicant has -Qquested that this item be
continued to July 12, 1978 in order to allow more `ime to work with the County
Flood Control District.
ACTION: Upon motion by Garcia, seconded h;• Jones and unanimously carried,
it was voted to continue this "em to July 12, 1978 subject to receipt of a
letter from the applicant requesting continuance.
Planning :Ccmmission Minutes
June .7.4, 1978
APPEAL OF PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ACTION, MINOR
SUBDIVISION, 4 LOTS, INDEX NO. 78 -0025, S/W
CORNER VICTORIA b EAST AVENUE
(Alfredo C. Murillo)
Mr. Stevens reported that the applicant is seeking to create four lots from
an existing five acre parcel. The gppl.ication was not approved as submitted,
but an alternate design consisting of two parcels was conditionally approved.
The application was not approved as submitted because all of the conditions
required by Ordinance 18 have not been met. Staff recommends that the Planning
Director's action approving 2 lots be upheld based on their findings and
analyses.
Mrs. Alfredo Murillo, applicant, spoke is favor of their request to subdivide
the parcel into 4 lots. She stated that they are planning to build on the
proposed lot 63 with the possibility to selling lots d1 and 2. She felt that
the school issue would be taken care aF by the City Council's ordinance
requiring a $700 fee for new homes, and that the fire flow capacity requirement
is covered by the higher insurance premiums residents
to pay. of Etiwanda are required
ACTION: Upon.motion by Dahl, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried, it
was voted to continue this item to August 9, 1978 until the applicant is
able to comply with the requirements of Ordinance 18.
REPORT ON CONVERSION OF RESIDENCE INTO A RESTAURANT,
INDEX N0. W88 -810 S/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL 6 VINEYARD
(Gilbert iodriquez)
Mr. Rodriquez, the applicant, presented the drawings showing landscaping and
parking changes as requested by the Planning Commission.
ACTION: The Planning Commissioners unanimously requested the applicant to
work with the Planning Staff in finalizing their plans in accordance with
the Commission's earlier findings.
MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE AN INDUSTRIAL TRACT OF
15 LOTS, INDEX NO. W78- 0230 -I, N/W CORNER OF HAVEN
AND JERSEY BLVD. (Crowell /Leventhal /Associated Engineer)
Mr. Stevens reported that the applicant is requesting approval to create 16
industrial lots for sale or lease to future industrial users. He gave a
detailed report of the staff's findings and recommendations. Staff recommends
that a negative declaration be filed for an Environmental Impact Report and
that the Commission approve staff's recommendation in accordance with their
findings and standard requirements.
Mr. David BentGn spoke on behalf of the applicant and presented a letter from
Crowell /Leventhal, Inc. dated June 13, 1978 requesting modifications to the
planning staff recommendations. He detailed the modifications requested by
the applicant. Mr. Harry Crowell, applicant, stated that they have had some
favorable commitments for tenants and would like to have a decision on this
as soon as possible.
Mr. Garcia stated that he did not receive any information on this project prior
to the meeting and did not feel he could act on it at this time. Mrs. Jones
concurred that she did not have any prior information on this item.
ACTION: Upon motion by Dahl, seconded by Tolstoy and carried by the following
vote - AYES: Dahl, Tolstoy, Rempel; ABSENT: None; ABSTAINING: Garcia and Jones,
it was voted to approve the minor subdivision, Index No. W78- 0230 -I subject to
the findings and standard requirements as recommended by the planning staff.
Planning Commission Minutes
DIRECTOR REVIEW, PROPOSED INDUSTRIAa, DEVELOPMENT,
9211 ARCHIBALD AVENUE, INDEX NO. W97 -93
(Vanguard Companies)
June 14, 1978
Mr. Stevens reported chat the applicant ir. proposing to develop a 163,200 .
sq. feet development for retail sales and light and heavy industrial. The
site is north of Frito -Lay and is zoned M -1 along Archibald Avenue with
M -2 zoning on the balance of the property. Staff recommends that the project
be continued until after the adoption of the General Plan. This is a large
development which should be consistent with the adopted General Plan.
ACTION: Upon motion by Garcia, seconded by Tolstoy and unanimously carried,
it was voted to continue this item to August 9, 1978 subject to receipt
of a letter from the applicant requesting continuance of the item will be denied based on the finding that the project is 'lot consi The item
the adopted policies of the city should tee stent applicant fail to submit a w with etter
requesting...Ontinuance.
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, PROPOSED PRIVATE SCHOOL
SITE, 8968 ARCHIBALD AVDFOE (Barbara Salyer)
The City Manager resorted that staff has reviewed the reports from the
applicant dealing with traffic, noise, compatibility of `.and use and structural
analysis of the building. He stated that the applicant has taken mitigating
measures to resolve these concerns.
ACTION: Upon motion by Garcia, seconded by Dahl and unanimously carried, it
was voted to file a negative declaration for an Environmental Impact Report
on this project.
The City Attorney was instructed to prepare a. letter to the applicant permitting
them to obtain building permits to commence with remodelling subject to the
applicant's fulfilling the conditions and requirements as stated in the. site
development review.
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10210,
W/O SAPPHIRE, N%0 ALMOND (J. G. Lawlor Enterprises)
Mr. Bill Morehouse and Rikki McClintock Alberson of the Toups Corporation
presented their report with maps dealing with the Commissioners' concerns
on the project. They discussed in detail the environmental concerns raised
by the Planning Commission at their last meeting.
Mr. Dahl stated his desire to receive input from the Foothill Fire District
and Mr. Tolstoy expressed his desire to also receive input from the National
Forest Service concerning the slope and grading of the project.
ACTION: Upon motion by Garcia, seconded by Dahl and unanimously carried, it
was voted to continue this item to July 12, 1978 in order to receive further
infor[aation from the Fire District and r ^rest Service as well as an analysis
of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed project.
POLICY ITEMS:
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT ORDINANCE & DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE
The City Manager requested that these two policy items be continued. Represen-
tatives f:om the sign companies were present at the meeting and were advised `
that these items would be continued. Staff Is
proposing
section on political signs and the city attorneywillbe reviewing athetlegal
Implications of this section. Mr.Tolatoy expressed his concern with window
advertising signs.
ACTION: By unanimous concensus, the Planning COMmission voted to continue 4
these items.
a
r• [y i-
Planning Co 'mission; Minutes
.Tune 14, 1978
COMMENDATION-
Mr. Wasserman reported that this would be the last meeting for the Interim
Secretary Suzanne Ota. He expressed the city's gratitude for her volunteer
services.
ACTION: Upon motion by Jones, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried, the
Planning Commiedioners expressed their thanks to Mrs. Ota for her fine cervices.
ADJOURbQfENT:
Upon motion by Dahl, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried. it was voted
to adjourn to Tuesday, June 20, 1978 at 6:30 p.m, for a study session on the
General Plan. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
Respectfully submitted,
Suz n Ota, Interim Secretary—
r,
Y
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
0
June 28, 1978
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM0149A
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of thr, City of
Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Service Building,
9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, June 28,
1978.
Meeting was called to order at 7.15 p-ip, by Chairman Herman
Hempel, who lead the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Present: Commissioners Hermen Rempel, Laura Jones, Jorge Garcia,
and Peter Tolstoy:
Aneent: Commissioner Richard Dahl
Upon motion by Jones, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried,
it wnr, voted to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June
14, 1978 its submitted.
ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Rempel introduced the Community Development Director, Jack
Lam and the temporary secretary, Clara Murillo. Mr. Lam intro-
duced the staff, Michael Vairin and Bill Hofman.
Mr. Lam reviewed the memo he sent to the Commissioners in regards
to the transition of planning servicas from the County. He
stated that he is looking fowardto preparing a good planning pro-
gram with the Commission.
Chairman Rempel made a request for less smoking and asked for a
no smoking ruling entirely. Smoking to be only during recesses
or outside of the center. There were no objections.
PUBLIC HEARING The meeting was declared open for the following public hearing
and the procedure and method of delivery was explained to the
public.
LOCATION & DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, INDEX No. W96 -89
W/S of Archibald, APPROX. 281' S/o 8th St.
(Barbara Salyer)
Mr. Tommy Stephens, from the County Planning Department, reported
that the applicant is requesting the approval to remodel an
abandoned school site for operation of a private school in Sept-
ember. The existing zoning is Mlt (Restricted Manuf.). This
schcol would be for grades up to the eighth. The site is located
on the west side of Archibald, 281 ft. south of Eighth St. To
the north is residential with existing single family houses and
tri- plebes, uses to the east are also single family homes. There
is currently a propcsal, just south of the site, for an industrial
use.
Staff initially recommended that a block well be installed along
the north and south property lines. However, after further analy-
sis. Staff recommends that a wall along the south property line
will be adequate since adjacent uses to the north are residential.
Said wall will be provided by the proposed industrial use on the
south property line. Further, Staff recommends that finding #4
be changed to indicate that the facility will connect to the
sewer system rather than using a se, _ tank. These conditions
have been reviewed with the applicant and she has agreed to them.
Staff recommended approval based an the findings and conditions
fs r
Planning Commiatf.m Minutes -2- June 26, 1978
Chairman Rempel declared the hearing open.
Simone Payne appeared on behalf of applicant Salyer, partner
in this de•elopment. She addressed the question of noise and
indicated that they would be planting the proper shrubbery, as
well as providing insulation and air - conditioning as required.
Also indicated that they feel they are an asset to the commun-
ity and will try to provide quality and high standards within
their development.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Rewpel declared the
hearing closed.
Discussion: Commissioner Tolstoy requested information on the
zoning on the west side of the school.
Tommy Stephens indicated that it is zoned industrial. He ind-
icated that Staff has moved the far west building closer to the
school facility. Mr. Stephe= indicated that there would be
chain -link fencing on the north and west property lines. The
next developer on the west property line will, hopefully, to
required to install a block fence. Ma. Payne indicated that
the developer intends to put in light industrial in the future.
ACTIOM: It was moved by Jones and seconded by Garcia and unani-
mously carried to approve the location and development plan with
all the findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning
Staff.
L""VIRONY2NTAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
FACILITY, INDEX No. W92 -80, N/W corner of Hellman Ave.
and Foothill Blvd.
(Robert Packer)
Mr. Lam indicated that the site is currently vacant with resi-
dential located to the north. He indicated that in the process
of doing the site plan review, neighbors expressed concern about
noise, and because of this a pulbic hearing for site approval and
environmental review is required. The City Planning Staff received
the project file on Friday, June 23, 1978. There is insufficient
information within the file to do an adequat; environmental dssess-
ment and Staff was unable to locate the applicant until this morn-
ing. Therefore, Staff recommended that the Planning Comaisf�ion
Postpone consideration to the meeting of July 26, 1978. Mr. Lam
submitted a letter by the applicant agreeing to a postponement.
Commissioner Garcia mentioned the procrastination by the County
and that the applicant had made every effort to comply. Stated
that he hoped action would be taken on the 26th.
ACTION: It wrs roved by Tolstov, seconded by Garcia, and unan-
imously carried to postpone a hearing on the environmental and
site review of Indes No. W92 -80 until July 26, 1978.
RECESS Chairman- Rempel declared a short recess at 7:37
p.m.
RECONVENED At 8:00 P.M. with all members present, Planning Coamzission re-
convened in a joint session with City Council for a study session
on proposed General Plan Sketch 64.
ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Tolstoy, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried
it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of June
28 1978 at 10:37 p.m. to its next regularly scheduled meeting
Respectfully submitted,