HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978/07/12 - Agenda Packete
DATE: July 12, 1978
TO: Planning Coam.ission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
2
SUBJECT: Referral of Director Review No. 86 -67 - Reque:3t for approval of two
(2) buildining Identification signs and logos for the propsed Pioneer
Chicken located on the S/W corner of 19th St. and Carnelian - C -1 zone
Request submitted by Heath & Co.
BACKGROUND: Heath & Co., a sign corporation, is requesting approval for two building
identification signs and logos for Pioneer Chicken which will be located on the S/W
corner of 19th St. and Carnelian. The proposed building identification signs are
approximately 20' `: 2' and they will be located on the facia of the north and east
elevations. In addition, a logo approximately 316" X 416" is proposed to be located
adjacent to each building identification sign on the north and east elevations.
STAFF ANALYSIS: The City has prepared a draft sign ordinance which will be brought
to :.he Commission for public hearing in the near future. Presently, the County has
some sign regulations within the County Zoning Ordinance. However, the County reg-
ulations are very lax and do not conform to the proposod City sign ordinance. :The
proposed sign ordinance states that under the C-1 zone,a business is allowed the use
of one wall sign which identifies the business and /or commodity sold. There are no
provisions in the proposed ordinance for a logo such as being proposed by Pioneer
Chicken. The County sign regulations do not specifically state the number or maximum
sign area allowable for a building ideutification sign in the C-1 zone. Therefore,
iL is very arbitary to determine if the proposed signs are conforming since there
are no specifics. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed sign ordinance should be
used as a basis for reviewing sign requests since the County has specifics and in
order tr insure compatibility with the proposed ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the sign request as the proposal
is not in conformance with the City proposed sign ordinance and that an approval of
such a request would create a non - conformity when the proposed ordinance is adopted.
Respectfully ubmitted,
1 �+ V w"
Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
DATE: July 12, 1978
T0: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision No. 78- 0245 -1 - To create an industrial tract
of six (6) lots, located on the south side of 9th St. approxi-
mately 200' west of Hellman Avenue -- MR zone - Request submitted
by VIchael Todd
BACKGROUND: As the °lanning Commission will recall, this project was on the
June 14, 1978 agenda and was requested by the applicant to continue review
of this pruject until such time that the applicant could clarify the recom-
mendations from the Flood Control District.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has discussed these recommendations with the applicant
and the consensus was that the City Engineering Department would need addit-
itional time in order to evaluate the recommendations made by the Flood Con-
trol District. Therefore, the applicant will be submitting a letter request-
ing continuance until the July 26, 1978 Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue
review of this item to July 26, 1978 in order to allow adequate time for the
City Engineer to assess the Flood Control District recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
DKIE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1978
Planning Commission
Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
Environmental review of Tentative Tract No. 10210 - Subdivision
of 161 acres of land located west of Sapphire Street, north of
Almond Avenue into 196 lots - R- 20,000 and R -1 -14 zone - Request
submitted by J. Gregory Lawlor Enterprises.
BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, this application was reviewed by the
Planning Commision at its meeting of June 14, 1978. Mr. Bill Moorehouse
and Rickie Albertson, of TOUPS Corporation, presented some reports and dis-
cussed the environmental concerns that were discussed during previous meet-
ings. The Commission expressed a further desire for additional input from
the Foothill Fire District and the National Forest Service. Therefore, the
Commission unanimously continued this project to the July 12, 1978 meeting
in order to receive the requested information.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has contacted Rickie Albertson of TOUPS Corp. to
determine if the information from the Foothill Fire District and the National
Forest Service bad been completed. Ms. Albertson indicated that they were
still waiting some clarifications and that it would be some time before they
could present it to the Planning Commission. Therefore, she suggested that
the item be continued until they could compile the required information.
Howevar, Hs. Albertson was unable, at the time of th° preparation of this
report, to indicate at what time the information will be completed. She ind-
irated that she will have a more definite time period next wee!. prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECONSMAT10N: Staff recosmmends that the Flanning Commission continue
review of this item until such date as provided by the applicant at Jµky 12,
1978 meeting in order to compile and present the information to the Planning
Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack IMM, Director
Community Development
•.y
DATE: July 12, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
b.mmunity Development
0
SUBJECT: Referral of Director Review No. 95 -81 - Development of 2.07
acres of land located on the south side of Foothill Blvd., approx-
imately 450' went of Archibald as a retail shopping center - C-1
and C -2 zone - Regeusted submitted by Moore Development Co.
BACKGROUND: Moore Development Company is requestir', approval for the develop-
ment of a retail shopping center located on the south side of Foothill Blvd.,
approximately 450' went of Archibald (Exhibit "A "). This request was initially
filed with the S.B. County Planning Department and was transferred to the City
Planning Division for completion. Director review of a site plan requires the
Director tt. render a decision on the project within 30 days from the submittal
of the application. The Director may, at his discretion, refer such an item to
the Planning Coum,ission which must render a decision within 15 days from such a
referral. As you recall, the Planning Director has referred this project to the
Commission for your review.
The project site is presently vacant and contains 2.07 acres of land. The site
fronts on a major thoroughfare (Foothill Blvd.) and is backed by a 20' alley.
Surrounding properties to the north, east, and west are developed with commercial
uses. To the south lies a residential area. The existing zoning on the project
site is C-1 and C-2. Surrounding properties on the north, east, and west are
commercially zoned and to the south is zoned R -1 (single family residential).
The project includes two (2) retail buildings totalling 25,000 sq.ft., 143 parking
stall, five loading spaces, a 15' X 20' trash enclosure, and landscaped planters.
The plot plan and elevations are available for review in the Planning office and
they will be on display at the meeting.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Upon review of the site plan and elevations, Staff feels that
there are areas of conflict that have not been resolved by the County and the app-
licant. A major concern is the fact that a project of this size has not undergone
environmental analysis for significant adverse impacts on the environment. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQR) requires that discretionary projects
be reviewed for significant impacts. It is the opinion of Staff that this project
is discretionary since certain findings must be made which involves some discretion.
Further, Staff foresees design conflicts with building locations, loading spaces,
and the trash enclosure. The applicant has provided elevations of only the store
fronts. No drawings for the site or rear elevations have been supplied to determine
compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff has not had the opportunity to review
these plans with the applicant because of the recent transition from t:ie County and
the time deadlines dictated by the zoning ordinance.
0 �!
Director Review No. 95 -81 -2-
STAFF RECOHMENDATIM: Because of the lack of time to solve the problems outlined
above within the required time deadline, which is a direct result of County procrast-
enation, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this project without
prejudice, based on the findings listed below, to allow the applicant to resubmit
a new application with the City. Further, this will allow for proper environmental
review and communication with the applicant.
1. Environmental analysis required under CEQA has not been accomlished.
2. That the design oZ the project, r:s pro;, Bed may cause possible conflicts.
3. That the project application is not complete for adequate analysis.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ja Lam, Director
Community Development
0
i . . 1 J';�, Gn�'T.Y i4�1� 1 `•r { x k, x �. ti,.
h
Y J '
� a
r f:• Fxt S ii • r 1 Y'!I't 2`�iVy�^ -�u�i
r 7 s � 1:l s �� /S, r, ✓t r ; `�C r x, 4:
h � M
' t 1 J1 f K
t T 4 L r 1•
EMIG
T '���. .� rt- - . ?tf�Rx }a�F • ly ��i
F ale Il •': 1.' -., v + " -N
, q
1
r
x r.
i
1
/eft � •7 t. a '!
0
DATE: July 12, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
SUBJECT: Director Review of R-3 Development
0
Proposed uses in the R -3 currently require no review other than plan check-
ing for the issuance of building permits. The Planning Commission has ex-
pressed interest since a previous rezoning application, to have some type
of review process whereby the City could review the development plan for
R -3 uses. In March, 1978, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 19, pro-
viding for Director Review of certain co=mp -rcial and manufacturing uses.
If the Planning Commissi ,3n wishes to see R -3 development aided to the pro-
visions of Ordinance 19, it should concur in the affirmative and request
Staff to draft an ordinance for Commission review. Such art ordinance would
enable the Director to review all R -3 submittals and refer items to the
Planning Commission where deemed appropriate. All Director Reviews could
become Consent Calendar items before the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission give Staff direction regarding re-
view of R -3 development plans.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
0
DATE: July 12, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FRO;i: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
SUBJECT: Hardship Sewer Allocations
0
On May 16, 1977 the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 92152 and Resolu-
tion 077 -103 and 677 -117, which established guidelired to regulate and restrict
the issuance of building permits for residential development within the unincor-
porated area served by Chino Basin Municipal Water District' a Regional Plant 61.
The County or area served by Cucamonga County Water District was allocated
933,660 gallons or 3,458 building permits. Of these 3,458 traits, the County has
recognized 3,158 building permits for tract development, 150 for individual single -
family homes and 150 for "hardship" cases.
Both these 150 units of sewer allocation were to be from the total 3,458 units
of the original allocations. However, the hardship allocation was never recognized
by the Cucamonga Water District and, therefore, no such reservation was available
from that District for such purpose. Communications were prepared stating this
fact (See attached letter). Nevertheless, certain builders, thinking such "hard-
ship" allocations were available began submitting requests and arguements in favor
of hardship allocations for their projects. Each submittal claimed some distinct
"hardship" which warranted special consideration. Thene were then directed to
the City of Rancho Cucamonga for determination.
It should be noted that although the County recognized 150 units of hardship allo-
cation, it had not devised a method by which such allocation would be made nor
did it establish criteria by which hardship could be determined. It was only
after the above described submittals were directed to the City Planning Commission
that the County Planning Staff suggested instead of piecemeal decisions regarding
hardship, the City should group these together for a single decision so that no
favoritism might be viewed from such decision. Since the Cucamonga Water District
had never recognized the 150 units of hardship allocation, the District has
allocated all the 3,458 available residential allocations with the exception of
the other 150 unit single lot allocations, as County permits were issued. There-
fore, no more sewer allocation is available for further residential development
including the so called "hardship allocation."
It was the intent of the Planning Commission to discuss at the July 12th meeting
the issue of hardship +end what constituted a hardship. However, such a discussion
would be academic since there is no more sewer allocation available.
0
Sewer Allocation
-2-
0
In summary, the County had recognized a sewer allocation which never existed.
Furthermore, no method of evcluating hardship was devised even if such an
allocation existed. Since letters have been submitted requesting a hardship
allocation for various projects, the whole issue has been thrust upon the City
to deal with.
RECOMMNDATION: Staff reco=neods that the Planning Commission recommend to the
Citv Council that since the "hardship" allocation never existed., the hardship
allocation requests not be approved. Furthc+r, the remainder of the 150 units
of individual lot allocation be retained for their original purpose.
Respectfully bmitted,
".] O./ W
.1aci_ Lam, Director
Community Development
Attachments:
1. Cucamonga County Water District letter of April 7, 1978
2. List of "hardship" requests
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
9641 'SAN BERNARDINO 4D. CUCAMONGA. CALIF. 91730 P.O. "IN 636 • 967•=591
CHARLES T. VATH. P•a,:dret
April 7, 1978
Mr. Lauren Wasserman
City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 793
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Re: 'Rater and Sewage Services
Dear Lauren:
,G1c
ARTHUR H. BRjj]GE
S""I.". Gft 1V9wn9"
LLOYD W. MICHAEL
Dir"1..,
FRANK LESINSKY
ROBERT NESBIT
GALER ROYER
The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief explanation
of our position regarding the hardship classification referred
to in San Bernardino County's Ordinance No. 2179.
The allocations for sewage treatment capacities were negotiated
for Regional Plant No. 1 by our District and the Cities of
Ontario, Upland and Montclair, in conjunction with the Chino
Basin Municipal Water District and San Bernardino County. The
County was not a sewage collection agency contracting for
sewage treatment within the Regional Program, and was only involvsd
in the allocations negotiations because they issued building
permits for the unincorporated area within our District and
throughout the County.- The allocation for our District was
3,458 total single family units, of which the County designated
150 units for single family "individual" construction with our
concurrence.
either concept or nec s i ". We felt that it was impossible to
establish "hardship" on an individual basis when all applications
for building permits had been processed under the then existing
County Ordinances. Thus, every tract that met the County's
requirements at the time the County requested verification of
sewage capacity from our District should receive sewer service
when capacity is available on a " first come first serve" basis.
We are concerned with the legal ramifications of doing otherwise.
• 0
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT • 9641 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD • CUCAMONGA. C:AUK. 91790
Mr. Lauren Wasserman
April 7, 1978
Page 2
Our District believes that public services, such as ours,
should always be a'.�le to meet the service demands generz%.ted
under whatever concept of growth management the City of Rancho
Cucamonga eventually establishes. We will keep you informed
of the amount of Regional treatment capacity that our District
holds. Our District has master planned our water disltx bution
system and our sewage collection system, and will have the
capabilities of meeting the projected requirements through the
year 2020. The three Cities and our District have also been
working toward increasing the sewage treatment capacity within
the service area of Regional Plant No. 1. The treatment capacity
of Regional Plant No. 1 is the only major problem that exists,
and as you know, that is under the direct management of the Chino
Basin Municipal Water District.
It may, well be to our mutual benefit to have a work session
in tY.e near future to insure that we have a complete under -
st ?nding of the procedures for our issuance of water and sewer
service letters pursuant to the requirements of your Planning
Department. If you concur, please call me.
Yours truly,
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
W. M'chael
General Man ger
LWM:j
0 n n N D U 161
DATE: July 12, 1978
Td: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Dire:L I
Community Development
SUBJECT: Pending Planning Applications
Last week, the County Planning Department turned over to our Staff over 200
Pending planning applications of various types. Many of these applications
are Director Reviews which require immediate attention. Becaube of the short
time frame available for review (the County has saved some of these applica-
tions, waiting until the end of the time period for review before turning
them over to us) some of these applications will be referred to the Planning
Commission only because some action must be made within these statutory time
limits. Furthermore, some of the files associated with these applications are
incomplete and without having worked with these applications from the begin-
ning, some of the knowledge concerning these applications rests with the County
staff who originally were associated with them. Therefore, processing these
pending applications takes a greater deal of time and are much more difficult
because of such circumstances. .In many cases we can not contact the applicant
in time to discuss applications with them. All we have been able to do to
this point is to sort out all the pending applications and start a processing
list starting with the ones that require immediate attention followed by all
other applications on a first submittal basis.
The Staff wants the Planning Commission to be aware that some applications must
be referred to the Planning Commission for continuance so that Staff can con-
duct the pri per investigations to provide a recommendation for action. Further -
more, Staff may have some difficulties in obtaining all the necessary exhibits
for Planning Commission staff reports, the reason being that the County, upon
accepting certain applications, did not request complete exhibit materials and
because of the short time frame for processing some of these applications and
the fact that some applications are months old, Staff must do its best to
negotiate additional submittal material from, by this time, irrte applicants.
It is very difficult for these applicants, who have waited a long time, expect-
ing their applications to be acted upon, Lo accept the fact additional inform-
ation is necessary to process their application. We will do our best to pro-
vide as complete a review as possible for each and every pending application.
We feel that all applications are important to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and
these reviews should be done properly rather than taking a "treadmill" approach
just because we are burdened by so many pending applications.
It is my hope that Staff will have the whole process more organized within a
couple of weeks. Mean while, if you have any questions in regards to this
matter, please don't hesitate to call me.
Attachment #2
HnRDSHIP ALLOCATION REQUESTS
Date request No. of
received Aoolicant Tract No. _ Units
8-24 -77
Trinity Development
9262
9193
46
35
10 -20 -77
Rancho California Homes
9475
2
11 -11 -77
J. P. Kapp Inc.
9472
60
11 -16 -77
Cliffton S. Jones Jr., Inc.
9305
21
11 -21 -77
Kent Land Co.
9479
9450
49
54
12 -5 -77
Chevron Construction
9434-
9437
155
1 -17 -73
Manning Construction Co.
9567
33
Total Units
Requested 455
i
t
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
ACENDP
Wednesday, July 12, 1978, 7:00 p.m.
Community Services Building
9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call:
Commissioner Dahl _
Commissioner Garcia^
Commissioner Jones
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Public Hearings - None
5. Old Business
Commissioner Hempel
Commissioner Tolstoy
A. MINOR SUBDIVISION to create av industrial tract of 6 lots
located on the south side of 9th St. approximately 200 feet
west of Hellman Avenue - M-R Zone - Application submitted by
Michael Todd - Index No. 78- 0245 -I.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW of a tentative tract on 161 acreas located
west of Sapphire $tree north of Almond Avenne to consist cf
196 lots - R-1 20,000 and R -1 -14 Zone - Application submitted
by J. Gregory Lawlor, enterprises - Tec[tative Tract No. 10210
C. RECOMMENDATION on Hardship Sewer A1'_acatioas.
6. New Business
A. REFERRAL of Director Review for the development of 2.07 acres
of land located on the south side of roothill Blvd., approx-
imately 450' west of Archibald ae a retail shopping center -
C -1 and C-2 Zone - Application submitted by Moore Dc,elopment
Co. - Index No. 95 -81.
B. REFERRAL of Director Review for two building identification
sign and logos for the proposed Pioneer Chicken located on the
southwest corner of 19th St. and Carnelian - C -1 Zone - Appli-
cation submitted by Heath & Co.
7. Communications - Written and Oral
A. Director Review of R -3 development
B. Pending Plarming Applications
S. Adjournment
CALL TO ORDER
POLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ANNOUNCEMENT
OLD BUSINESS
JULY 12, 1979
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meetir
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the
Community Service Building, 9161 Baseline Road,
Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, July 12, 1976.
Muting waa called to order at 7:05 p.m. by
Chairman Herman Rem el, who lead the meeting
with the Pledge of Allegiance
Present: Commiationers Herman Hempel, Laura
Jones, Jorge Garcia, and Peter Tolstoy.
Absent: Commissioner Richard Dahl.
* * * *, tart *,aa ara ants r *araararrtrt **
Upon motion by Tolstoy, seconded by Garcia and
unanimously carried, it was voted to approve
the Planning Commission minutes of June 28,
1978 as submitted.
ar* * *rtrt a;rtrt *a; *rkrta: rkrirt * * * * * **
Ccnmuniti ^rector, Jack Lam, introduced the
Comnunicy Development secretary, Diana Mansfield.
** * ** * :tar * *k k1k *rt * *irairta: *rt *ar
".he meeting was declared open for, the following
Old Business items.
MINOR SUBDIVISION to create an industrial tract
of 6 lots located on the south side of 9tn Street
approximately 200 feet west of Hellman Avenue -
M -R Zon? - Application submitted by Michael Todd -
Index No. 78- 0245 -1.
Before going into discussion on the above item,
Jack Lam asked the Commission to bear with the
staff for the next couple of meetings until we
are able to obtain our own audio visual equipment.
Also, he stated that we have received a great
deal of applications that were pending from the
County and we are trying to process these
applications on an as submitted basis. Because
of the short time involved on many of these
reviews, staff may be in a position of
referring certain pending applications to the
Planning Commission in order to meet some of tha
statutory time limits on some of the Director
Reviews. He also stated that in the future some
of these items will be handled by the staff and
placed on the consent calendar.
Jack Lam stated that this item was on the agenda
of June 14, 1978 at wtich time the Planning
Commission had reviewed this project. The
Commission requested that the applicant continue
revier of this project until such time the
app.Licant could clarify the recommendati(, s
from the Flood Control District. Staff has
contacted the applicant and the applicant has
submitted a letter to the City requesting that
the Planning Commission continue review of this
item to July 26, 1976 to allow adequate time
Planuing Commission Minutes -2- Joly 12, 1978
for the City Engineer to assess the Flood
Control District's recommendations.
The applicant, Michael Toad, was not present
at this, meeting.
Staff indicated July 26, 1978 was not enougi.
time, staff will curve tack to the Planning
Commission and ask for further continuance.
MOTION: It was moved by Tolstoy and seconded
by Joner and unanimously carried to continue
the revieu ci this item to July 26, 1978 in
order to allow adequate time for the City
Engineer to assess the Flood Control District's
recommendations.
xxt,xxx * *xrxfexxxxxxxzxxxx*
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW of a tentative tract on
161 acres located west of Sapphire Street
north of Alttord Avenue to consist of 196
lots - R -1 20,000 and R -1 -14 Zone -
Application submitted by J. Gregory Lawlor,
Enterprises - Tentative Tract No. 10210.
Jack Lam reported that this application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at its
meeting of June 14, 1978. At which tim-,
the Commission expressed a further desire
for additional input from the Foothill Fire
District and the National Forest Service.
Therefore, the Commission unanimously
continued this 'project until the present
meeting to consider the requested information.
However, this information is currently not
available. Therefore, TOUPS Corporation
has submitted a letter requesting continuation
of this item until July 26, 1978.
Staff recommended to the Planning Commission
that this item be continued to July 16, 1978.
TOUPS Corporation did not have a representative
present at this meeting.
MOTION: It wra moved by ]'ones, seconded by
Garcia, and to mimously carried to continue
review of this i:em until July 26, 1978 for
TOUPS Corporation to submit the appropriate
material.
RECOMMENDATION on Hardship Sewer Allocations.
Jack Lam opened this item stating that this
whole matter arose as a result of the ordinauce
and resolutions adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on May 16, 1977 establishing some
orderly process by which sewer allocations can
he made. At that time, th.i Cucamonga Water
District was allocated 3,458 building permits.
Of these 3,458 units the County has recognized
3,158 building permits for tract develo;>mcnt,
150 units fir individual aingle family hcmes
and 150 units for "hardship" cases. When this
allocation by the County was established.
"hardship" was not defined nor was there any
Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 12, 1978
criteria established for the selection of
"hardship" projects.
Jack Lam corrected one item in the staff
report, that is as of today there exists
146 units left under the "hardship" category.
The "hardship" category wan never recognized
by the Cucamonga County Water District, and
cummunication from Lloyd Michaels of the
Cucamonga County Water District to the City
Manager exists expressing the same. The
Cucamonga County Water District has expressed
at various meetings that they would not
recognize the issue of "hardship" because of
the difficulty in establishing what exactly
is a "hardship." '
At the present time all the 3,158 building
permits have been issued and there exists
no further sewer allocations until we receive
new allocations from Chino Basin. At present,
of the 150 units for the individual single
family builder, there are 112 units left and
under "hardship" allocation there are 146
units.
Staff feels that the issue of "hardship"
is a very sensitive one. It is very difficult
to establish criteria for the allocation of
hardship and staff feels that the remaining
number of units under this "hardship"
allocation be either added with the allocation
for the single builder (112 units remaining)
or they should be grouped with any new
allocation that the City will receive in the
future.
The third alternative is to try and recognize
the "hardship" cases and allocate them on
"hardship" bases; however, we will probably
have new sewer allocations before the City
can ever determine what constituted a
"hardship."
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
consider all these factors and recommend to
the City Council that the "hardship" allocation
request not be approved and that the remaining
112 units of the individual lot allocationa be
retained for their or'_-ginal purpose and that
the remaining 146 units of "hardship" allocations
be thrown in with any new sewer allocations
that the Cucamonga County Water District will
receive and that these particular applications
will be evaluated under any new criteria the
City would develop for any future new allocations.
Discussion; Commissioner Garcia felt that this
would not be solving the problem at all and that
by postnoning this it would continue into next
year.. he recommended that some kind of
management system be formulated to determine
wno can build in our community in order to
avoid any legal ramifications in reference to
the length of time lapse on processing of
these p (,nding applications.
l
Planning Commission Minutes
RECESS
NEW BUSINESS
-4-
July 12, 1978
Ted Hopson from the City Attorney's office was
not prepared to give a comcient on this but did
state that he would do some legal research.
Commissioner Jones suggested that the water
department tale care of the sewer allocations
until such time as we have something set up.
Jack Lem stated that the City should determine
how the allocations be made and how the
community should develop.
Lloyd Michaels, General Manager of the Cucamonga
County Water District, said that commercial/
industrial will be unaffected up to 5,000 gallons
a day. Anything over 5,000 gallons a day must
be referred to the Technical Committee for
advice as to whethLr Tt is an acceptable
discharge. Lloyd Michaels_ anticipates that
before the middle of August new sewer alloca-
tions will be available.
The discussion was then turned over to the floor
and comments were made by: Pat Kapp, from
J. P. Kapp and Associates, Consulting Engineers,
501 Park Center, Santa Ana, California,
represneting Tract 9472; Blake Johnson, from
Trinity Development Company; Sydney W. Jones,
from Clifton S. Jones, Jr. Inc., who suggested
presentation from developers; Travis Manning,
representing Mar.ning Construction; Pete Peterson
from Q:cvron 0xistruction; Mike Thompson, a
farmer from Jackson Farms, 2526 Wildrose Lane
who spoke on behalf of Trinity Development;
John Ashcard from J. Anthony Development. All
Of the above representatives al?. generally
stated that they wished the remaining
allocations be made some way. The representative
from Clifton S. Jones, Jr. inc., Sydney W.
Jones suggested the developers each make a
presentation on their individual developments
stating their "hardship" cases.
MOTION: It was moved by Garcia, seconded by
T- is - and unanimously carried to continue
Item C until July 26, 1978 and instructed
the City Attorney to research the legal
ramifications of allocating the remaining
units.
Chairman Rempel declared a Short recess at
8:40 p.m.
At 8:55 p.m. with all members previously
present, the Planning Commission reconvened.
REFERRAL of Director Review for the development
of 2.07 acres of land located on the south side
of Foothill Boulevard, approximately 450' west
of Archibald as a retail shopping center -
C -1 and C-2 Zone - Application submitted by
Moore Development Company - Index No. 95 -81.
Jack Lem stated this item was referred to the
Planning Commission in order to meet the
statutory time provisions. This particular
project after review had significant problems.
Staff has contacted the applicant and discussed
the problems concerning the site plan and
design. The applicant, therefore, submitted
a letter withdrauing the application and will
resubmit a new application at a later date.
No action is necessary by the Planning Commission.
+ rt, YirR *lkik #ie *t► * * *9r!�Rrt * *l�frwA _.
Planning Commission Hinutes
t
-5-
July 12, ?978
REFERRAL of Director Review for two building
idex:tification sign and logos for the proposed
Pioneer Chirken luca;ed on the southwest corner
of 19th Street at Carnelian - C--1 Zone -
Application submitted by Heath and Company -
Index No. 86 -67.
Jack Lam indicated that under Ordinance 19,
the Planning Director is authorized to review
all sign 3ppruvals in the commercial areas in
the City. The requirements for the submittal on
the sign review are an accurate plot plan
showing the location and relationship to the
buLldings and the location of the sign, size
and so forth as well as exhibit material
in regards to the exact design of the si.gn.
In reviewing this particular application, the
plot plan submitted is not the plot plan which
building permits were issued. Furthermore,
the Building and Safety Division has not been
able to locate a copy of the correct plot
plan.
Staff, therefore, recommended the sign request
be denied on the basis of inadequate submittal
and that the applica -it would have the choice
of resubmitting the sign request at which
time staff could sit down with the applicant
and review the proposal in more detail with
accurate information.
Ted Hopson from the City Attorney's office
further stated that the Planning Commission
may deny the application if the architectural
and general appearance of the commercial
building if, not in keeping with the character
of the neighborhood, or if those factors
wi.11 be detrimental to the Public health,
safety or general welfare of the community.
Commissioner Garcia informed the applicant that
the scale in relationship to the building was
out o1: proportion and suggested a less bold
design be utilized.
MOTION: It was moved by Jones and seconded
by Garcia and unanimously ^arried to deny
this sign request based upon the follaaing
findings:
1. That the sign proposal is not comiatible
with the design and character of the area.
2. The approval of this proposal would be
detrimental to the public health, safety
and the general welfare of the community.
3. The submittal material was inadequate.
r,,,
Vv:
Planning Commission Minutes
CmamICATIONS
-6-
Juiy 12, 1970
Chairman Fmampel asked for any communications
from the audience.
Ralph Strain of 7403 Archibald indicated that
both he and his wife were greatly concerned
about the grocery store that is scheduled to
be adjacent to their bedroom windows in a
house which they have occupied for 16 years.
He requested that they be informed on what
plans are in the making for the property
next door in order that they can defend
their property.
Chairman Rempel stated that no plot plan has
been approved on the property described above;
only the zoning has been approved.
Dough Hone indicated that a site plan has been
approved but the one that Ralph Strain has is
incorrect.
Jack Lam informed the Planning Commission that
under Ordinance 19, the county Planning
Director (Tommy Stephens) did the Director
Reviews and approved them.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he was not
aware that this plan had been approved and
thought that this project was coming before
the Planning Commission.
Chairman Hempel suggested that Mr. Hone and
Mr. Strain get together to review the approved
plans. Both persons indicated that this was
a good idea and that it would be done.
* *� A! t* it lktk *ktk�k�it *�ir1k # *it *Ri��r*
Director Review of R -3 Development.
Jack Lam said that the Planning Commissioners
have expressed concerns about multi family
development in the City. Their concern is
that there are no opportunities for Director
Reviev or Planning Commission Review on
multi family projects. Now, submittal of
the projects go to Building and Safety Pot
plan checking and i.1suance of permits.
Staff asked the Planning Commission if it
would like to see some kind of Director Review
process for multi family development. If so,
staff would look into an amendment to
Ordinance 19 to include review of multi family
development under the same requirements of
Director Review as the commercial and
industrial uses.
Commissioner Garcia agreed with this and
definitely stated multi family should hive
some sort of review in all aspects.
MOTLON: It was moved by Jones and seconded by
Tols toy and unanimously carried that staff
prepare an amendment to Ordinance 19 to include
multi family development in R-3 and R -2 and
mobile home parks with tae exclusion of
singular duplex.
Planning Commission Minutes
,ADJOURNMENT
-7-
July 12, 1978
Pending Planning_A2plicationn.
Jack Lam again informed the Planning Commission
that staff is under {crest pressure right now
since the County turned over 200 pending planning
applications. He asked the Planning Commission
to bear with the staff during this time of
transition.
Commissioner Garcia asked how the Planning
Commission and staff could develop some
guidelines for the structures going up,
especially industrial?
Jack Lam reported that at present the current
Zoning Ordinance does provide for this but
once we adopt our own Zoning Ordinance we
can have such guidelines incorporated into
this ordinance. Ira the meantime we can use
Ordinance 19 and have large industrial projects
referred to the Planning Commission.
m discussion t:nsued regarding the feasibility
of establishing some sort of architectural
review process. M-. Lam said he would
provide a future report to the Planning
Commission regarding this matter.
Upon motion by Tolstoy, seconded by Garcia
and unanimously carried it was voted to adjoern
the Planning Commission meeting of July 12,
1978 at 9.55 p.m. to its next regularly
schedule meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
DATE: July 12, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
SUBJECT: MI nor Subdivision Nu. 78- 0245 -I - To create an industrial tract
of six (6) lots, located on the south side of 9th St. approxi-
mately 600' west of Hellman Avenue - IM zone - Request submitted
by Michael Todd
ACKGROUNO: As the Planning Commission will recall, this project was on the
une 14, 1978 agenda and was requested by the ano..i cant to continue review_
STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has discussed these recommendations with the applicant
and the consensus was that the City Engineering Department would need addit-
it4onal time in order to evaluate the recommendations made by the Flood Con -
tiol District. Therefvre, the applicant will be submitting a letter request-
ing continuance until the July 26, 1978 Planning Commission meeting.
STAFF RECD` @IENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue
review of this item to .July 26, 1978 in order to allow adequate time for the
City Engineer to assess the Flood Control District recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
t.
0
DATE: July 12, 197b
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
0
SUBJECT: Environmental review of Tentative Tract No. 10210 - Subdivision
of 161 acres of land located west of Sapphire Street, north of
Almond Avenue into 196 lots - R- 20,000 and R -1 -14 zone - Request
submitted by J. Gregory Lawlor Enterprises.
BACKGROUND: As the Comminsion will recall, auulicatlon was reviewed 1
Planner C.lmmWon at_ ijs me�e�t -in of June 14 { 78. Mr. (Sill Pioore louse -
and RYckic Albertson, of TONS Corporation, presented some reports and dis-
cussed the environmental concerns that were d.iscurased during rr�vious meet-
ings. The Commis further desire Eor additional Input from
the Foothill Fi._re_J)istrict and t_fie Na in _ 1c ,
Commission unanimously t on[inuea jig 3..cr
in order to receive the requested information.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has contacted Rickie Albertson of TOUPS Coro._ =.
determine if the information from the Foothill Fire District and the National
Forest Service had been completed. Afs. Albertson indicated that they were
still waiting some clarifications and that it would be some time before they
could pre ;ent it to the Planning Commisaio n. Therefore, she suggested that
the item be continued until they could compile the required information.
However, Ms. Alhr,rtson was unable, nt the time of the preparntion of this
report, to indicate at what time the information will be completed. She ind-
icated that Wie will have a more definite time period next week prior to the
1'launir.S; Commission meeting.
STAFF _RS:C_ll&L %1ENDA_TION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission Conti
review of this item until
1978 meeting in order to compile and present the
Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
1-
Jack am, llirector
Community Development
tion to the Planning
the
24,
DATE: July 12, 1978
T0: Planning Commission
FROIi: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
SUBJ @CT: Hardship Sewer Allocations
On May 16, 1977 the Board of Supervinors adopted Ordinance 112152 and Resnlu-
tion 077 -103 and 077 -117, which established guidelined to regulate and restrict
the issuance of building permits for residential development within the unincor-
porated area ser:ud by Chino Basin Municipal Water District's Regional Plant 01.
Tile County or area served by Cucamonga County Water District was allocated
933,660 gal_Lons or 3,458 building permits. Of these 3,458 units, the County has
recognized 3,158 building permits for tract development, 150 for individual single -
family Homes and 150 for "hardship" cases.
Loth these 150 units of sewer allocation were La he from the total 3,458 units
of the cribinal allocations. However, the hardship allocation was never recognized
by the C�icamongL Water District and, therefore, no such reservation was available
from that District for such purpose. Communications were prepared stating this
ft,ct (See attached letter). Nevertheless, certain builders, thinking such "hard-
ship" allocations were available began submitting requests and arguements in favor
of hardship allocations for their projects. Each submittal. claimed Fome distinct
"hardship" which warranted special. consideration. These were than directed to
the City of Rancho Cucamonga for determination.
It should be noted that although the County recognized 150 units of hardship allo-
cation, it had not devised a method by which such allocation would be made nor
did it establish criteria by wh+ch hardship could be determined. It was only
after the above described submittals T ✓ere directed to the City Planning Commission
that the County Planning Staff sugP ^sted instead of pl.veemeal decisions regarding
hardship, the City should group these together for a single decision so that no
favoritism might be viewed from such decision. Since the Cucamonga Water District
had never recognized the 150 units of hardship allocation, the District has
allocated all the 3,453 available residential allocations with the exception of
the other 150 unit single mot allocaticr,s, as County permits were issued. There-
fore, no more sewer allocation is available for further residential development
including the so callLd "hardship allocation."
It was the intent of the Planning Commission to discuss at the July 12th meeting
the issue of 1'.irdship and what constituted a hardship. However, such a discussion
would be academic since there is no more sewer allocation available.
,
0
Sewer Allocation
-2-
9
In summary, the County t'' recognized a sewer allocation which never existed.
Furthermore, no method r :valuating hardship was devised even if such an
allocation existed. Since letters have been submitted requesting a hardship
allocation for various projects, the whole issue has 'been thrust upon the City
to deal with.
RECDMIENDATiON: Staff re ^ommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that since the " hardship" allocation never existed, the hardship
allocation requests not be approved. Further, the remainder of the 150 units
of individual lot allocativT' he retained for their original purpose.
Respectfully bmitted,
�- � _
Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
Attachmen.s:
1. Cucamonga County Water 1]1.strict letter of April 7, 1978
2. List of "hardship' requests
I
P OC
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
9641 f•A•1 bGRNARr11,0 RD • (uCAMQNGA. CALIr. 91090
CHARLES T. VATH. I•, —fd,.1
April 7, 1978
• 1•. O. PIN 6.16 9802591
Mr. Lauren Wasserman
City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. O. Sox 793
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
Re: Water and Sewage Services
Dear Lauren:
M
,t,c ,► P c
ARTHUR H. 8 G
F.whrr.,
r'" J21 Fl.enpr
LLOYD W. MICHAEL
W,..n.r.
FRANK LEsINSKY
ROBERT NESBIT
GALER ROYER
The purpose of this letter is to provide a brief explanation
of our position regarding the hardship classification referred
to in San Bernardino County's Ordinance No. 2179.
The allocations for sewage treatment capacities were negotiated
for Regional Plant No. 1 by our District and the Cities of
Ontario, Upland and Montclair, in conjunction with the Chino
Basin Municipal Water District and San Bernardino County. The
County was not a sewage collection agency contracting for
sewage treatment within the'Regional Program, and was only involved
in the allocations negotiations because they issued building
permits for the unincorporated area within our District and
throughout the County. The allocation for our District was
3,458 total single family units, of which the County designated
150 units for single family "individual" construction with onr
concurrence. However, an additional 150 sinale familv units of
Either conceit or_necessi �. Tfie felt that it was impossible to
establish "hardship" on an individual basis when all applications
for building permits had 2•een processed under the then existing
County Ordinancas. Thus, every tract that met the County's
requirements at the time the County requested verification of
sewage capacity from our District should receive sewer service
when capacity is available on a "first come first serve" basis.
We are concerned with the legal ramifications of doing otherwise.
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT • 9641 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD • CUCAMONGA. CALIF. 91730
Mr. Lauren Wasserman
April 7, 1978
Page 2
Our District believes that public services, such as ours,
should always be able to meet the service demands generated
under whatever concept of growth management the City of Rancho
Cucamonga eventually establishes. We will keep you informed
of the amount of Regional treatment capacity that our District
holds. Our District has master planned our water distribution
system and our sewage collection system, and will 'nave the
capabilities of meeting the projected requirements through the
year 2020. The three Cities and our District have also been
working toward increasing the sewage treatment capacity within
the service area of Regional Plant No. 1. The treatment capacity
of Regional Plant Nc. 1 is the only mayor problem that exists,
and as you know, that is under the direct management of the Chino
Basin Municipal Water District.
It may well be to our mutual benefit to have a work session
in the near future to insure that we have a complete under-
standing of the procedures for our issuance of water and sewer
service letters pursuant to the requirements of your Planning
Department. If you concur, please call me.
S curs truly,
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
General Man ger
LWM•j
f
v
Attachment #Z.
HARDSHIP ALLOCA'CION REQUESTS
Date request
received Aoolicant
No. of
Trart Nn_ 17ni tw
5 -24 -77
Trinity Development
9262
46
9193
35
10 -20 -77
Rancho California Homes
9475
2
11 -11 -77
.1. P. Kapp Inc.
9472
60
11 -16 -77
Cliffton S. Jones Jr., Inc.
9305
21
11 -21 -77
Kent Land Co.
9479
49
9480
54
12 -5 -77
Chevron Construction
9434-
155
9437
1 -17 -78
Manning Construction Co.
9567
33
4
2
Total Units
Requested 455
DATE: July 12, 1978
T0: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
SUBJECT: Referral of Director Review No. 95 -81 - Development of :.07
acres of land located on the south side of Foothill Blvd., approx-
imately 450` west of Archibald as a retail simpping center - C -1
and C -2 zone - Regeusted submitted by Mocre Development Co.
BACKGROUND: Moore Development Company Is regnesting approval for the develop-
ment of a retail shopping center located on the south side of Foothill Blvd.,
approximately 450' west of Archibald (Exhibit "A "). This request wazi initially
filed with the S.B. County Planning Department and was transferred to the City
Planning Division for completion. Director review of a site plan requires the
Director to render a decision on the project within 30 days from the submittal
of the application. The Director may, at his discretion, refer such an item to
the Planning Commission which must render a decision within 15 days from such a
referral. As you recall, the Planning Director has referred this project to the
Commission for your review.
Tile project site is presently vacant and contains 2.07 acres of land. The site
fronts on a major thoroughfare (foothill Blvd.) and is hacked by a 20' alley.
Surrounding properties to the north, east, and west are developed with commercial
uses. To the south lies a residential area. The existing zoning on the project
site is C -1 and C -2. Sucvfiwiding properties on the north, cast, and west are
commercially zoned and ti si:a south is zoned R -1 (single family residential).
The project includes two (2) retail buildings totalling 25,000 sq.ft., 143 parking
stall, five loading spaces, a 15' X 20' trash enclosure, and landscaped planters.
The plot plan and elevations are a-.railable for review in the Planning office and
they will be on display at the meeting.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Upon review of the site plan and elevations, Staff feels thit
there are areas of conflict that have not been resolved by the County and the app-
licant. A major concern is the fact teat a project of this size has not undergone
environmental analysis for significant adverse impacts on the cnvironn:rnt. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQR) requires that discretionary projects
he reviewed for significant impacts. It is the opinion of Staff that this project
is discretionary since certain findings must be made which involves some discretion.
Further, Staff foresees design conflicts with building locations, loading spaces,
and the traeh enclosure.. The applicant has provided elevations of only the store
fronts. No drawings for the site or rear elevations have been supplied to determine
compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff has not had the opportunity to review
these plans with the applicant because of the recent transition from the County and
the time deadlines dictated by the zoning crdinance.
I
0 •
Director Review No. 95 -81 -2-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Rpcaupe of the lnck of time to sol,t^ the problems outlined
above within the required time deadline, which is a direct tesult of County procrast-
enation, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this project without
prejudice, based on the findings listed below, to allow the applicant to resubmit
a new application with the City. Further, this will allow for proper environmental
review and communication with the applicant.
1. Environmental analysis required under CEQA has not been accomlished.
2. That the design of the project, as proposed may cause possible conflicts.
3. That the project application is not complete for adequate analysis.
Respectfully Submitted,
I
-' AI _
3a Lam, Director
Community Development
0
vat. T OL) #,A
FAIN
gb LIL
0
iR_�GT No 7121
HAMF0H�R7s sr.
\11 i CIN Vry K
I
ww3ry
Fyn
lY
A
it
1.
1.
till,
Ea-j
I
gam'
//
Mao&
iR_�GT No 7121
HAMF0H�R7s sr.
\11 i CIN Vry K
I
ww3ry
Fyn
lY
A
it
1.
1.
till,
0
DATE: July 12, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
0
SUBJECT: Referral of Director Review do. 86 -67 - Request for approval of two
(2) buildining identification signs and logos for the propsed Pioneer.
Chicken located on the S/W corner of 19th St. and Carnelian - C -1 zone
Request submitted by Heath & Co.
BACKGROUND: Heath & Co., a sign corporation, is requesting approval for two building
identification signs and logos for Pioneer Chicken which will be located on the S/W
corner of 19th St. and Carnelian. The pronosed building identification signs are
approximately 20' X 2' and they will be located on the facia of the north and east
elevations. In addition, a logo approximately 3'6" X 4'6" is proposed to Te located
adjacent to each building identification sign on the north and east elevations.
STAFF ANALYSIS: The City.has prepared a draft sign ordinance which will be brought
to the Commission for public hearing in the near future. Presently, the County has
some sign regulations within the County Zoning Ordinance. However, the County reg-
ulations are very lax and do not conform to the proposed City sf,_, ordinance. The
proposed sign ordinance states that under the C -1 zone,a busines,. is allowed the use
of one wall sign which identifies the business and /or commodity sold. There are no
provisions in the proposed ordinance for a logo such as being proposed by Pioneer
Clu cken. The County sign regulations do no!. specifically state the number or maximum
sign area allowable for a building identification sign in the C -1 zone. Therefore,
it is very arbitary to determine if the proposed signs are conforming since there
are no specifics. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed sign ordinance should be
used as a basis for reviewing sign requests since the County has no specifics and in
order to insure compatibility with the proposed ordinance.
STAFF RECOMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the sign request as the proposal
is not in conformance with the City proposed sign ordinance and that an approval of
such a request would create a non - conformity when the proposed ordinance is adopted.
Respectfully submitted,
Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
DATE: July 12, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
SUBJECT: Director Review of R -3 Development
0
Proposed us_-s in the R -3 current:y .equine no review other than plan check-
ing for the issuat.ce of building permits. The Planning Commission has ex-
pressed interest since a previous rezoning application, to have some type
of review process whereby the City could review the development plan for
R -3 uses. In March, 1978, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 19, pro-
viding for Director Review of certain commercial and manufacturing uses.
If the Planning Commission wishes to see R -3 development added to the pro-
visions of Ordinance 19, it should concur in the affirmative and request
Staff to draft an ordinance for Commission review. Such an ordina.sce would
enable the Director to review all R -3 submittals and refer items to the
Planning Commission where deemed appropriate. All Director Reviews could
become Consent Calendar items before the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission give Staff direction regarding re --
view of R -3 development plans.
Respectfully submitted,
adu�L,
Jack Lam, Director
Community Development
0
M E N O R A N D U M
DATE: July 12, 1978
T0: Planning Commission 1
FROM: Jack Lam, Dir____ �..1 -t
Community Development
SUBJECT: Pending Planning Applications
Last week, the County Planning Department turned over to our Staff over 200
pending planning applications of various types. Many of these applications
are Director Reviews which require immediate attention. Because of the short
time frame available for review (the County has Waved some of these applica-
tions, waiting until the end of the time period for review before turning
them over to us) some of these applications will be referred to the Planning
Commission only because some action must be made within these statutory time
limits. Furthermore, some of the files associated with these applications are
incomplete and without having worked with these applications from the begin-
ning, some of the knowledge concerning thet:e applications rests with the County
staff who originally were associated with them. Therefor3, processing these
pending applications takes a greater deal of Lime and are much more difficult
because of such circumstances. In many cases we can not contact the applicant
in time to discuss applications with them. All we have been able to do to
this point is to sort out all the pending applications and start a processing
list starting with the ones that require immediate attention followed by all
other applications on a first submittal basis.
The Staff wants the Planning Commission to be aware that sore applications must
be referred to the Planning Commission for continuance so that Staff can con-
duct the proper investigations to provide a recommendation for action. Further-
more, Staff may 'gave some difficulties in obtaining all the necessary exhibits
for Planning Commission staff reports, the reason being that the County, upor.
accepting certain applications, did not request complete exhibit materials and
because of the short time frame for processing sore of these applications and
the fact that some applications are months old, Staff must do its best to
negotiate additional submittal material from, by this time, irate applicants.
It is very difficult for these applicants, who have waited a long time, expect-
ing their applications to be acted uLpon, to accept the fact additional inform-
ation is necessary to process their appli.ation. We will do our best t4 -)ro-
vide as complete a review as possible for each and every pending applieazion.
We feel :hat all applications are important to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and
these reviews should be done properly rather than taking a "treadmill" approach
just because we are burdened by so many pending applications.
It is my hope that Staff will have the whole process more organized within a
couple of weeks. "lean while, if you have any question+ in regards to this
matter, please don't henitate to call me.
,.., 4.A'
RANCHO CUCAM04CA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA %4k
Wednesday, July 12, 1978, 7:00 P.M.
Community Services Building
9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, CAHr
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call:
Commissioner Dahl _
Commissioner Garcia
Commissioner Jones
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Public Hearings - None
5. Old Business
�V#
Commissioner Rempel
Coimnissioner Tol.stoy _
A. MINOR SUBDIVISION to create an industrial tract of 6 lots
located on the south side of 9th St. approximately 200 feet
west of Hellman Avenue - M -R Zone - Application submitted by
Michael Todd - index No. 78- U245 -1.
B. ENVIRONML•NTAL REVIEW of a tentative tract on 161 acreas located
west of Sapphire Stree north of Almond Aveune to consist of
196 lots - R -1 20,000 and R -1 -14 Zone - ApFlication submitted
by J. Gregory Lawlor, Enterprises - Tentative Tract No. 10210.
C- RECOMLIENDATION on Hardship Sewer Allocations.
6. New Business
A. REFERRAL. of Director Review for the development of 2.07 acres
of land located or, the south side of Foothill Blvd., approx-
imately 450' west of Archibald as a retail shopping center -
C -1 and C -2 Zone - Application submitted by Moore Developm--nt
Co. - Index No. 95 -81.
B. REFERRAL of Director Review for two building identification
sign and logos for the proposed Pioneer Chicken located on the
southwest corner of 19th St. and Carnelian - C -1 Zone - Appli-
cation submitted by death 6 Co.
7. Communications = Written and Oral
A. Director Review of R -3 development
B. Pending Planning Api.lications
8. Adjournment
June 28, 1978
CITY OF RANCRJ CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commiss:on of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Service Building,
9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wer.r.esday, June 28,
1978.
lleeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. by Chairman Herman
Hempel, who lead the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Mermen Rempel, Laura Jones, Jorge Garcia -.
and Peter Tolstoy.
Absent: Commissioner Richard Dahl
APPROVAL OF Upon motion by Jones, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried.
MINUTES it was voted to approve the Plannin.n Commission minutes of June
14, 1978 as submitted.
Chrirnian Rempel introduced the Community Development Director, Jack
La.n and the temporary secretary, Clara Murillo. Mr. Lam intro-
duced the staff, Michael Vairin and gill Hofman.
Mr. Lain reviewed the memo he sent to the Commissioners in regards
to the transitica of planning services from the County. He
stated that he is looking fowerdto 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 BEAKING The meeting was declared open for the following public hearing
and the procedure and method of delivery was explained to t,.e
public.
LOCATION b DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, INDEX No. W96 -89
W/S of Archibald, APPROX. 2811 S/o 8th St.
(Barbara Salyer)
Mr. Tommy Stephens, from the County Planning Department, reported
that the applicant iE requesting the approval to remodel an
abandoned school site for operation of a private school in Sept-
ember. The cxisting zoning is MR (Restricted Manuf.). This
school 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- plexes, uses to the east are also single family homes. There
is currertly a proposal, just south of the site, for an industrial
use.
Staff initially recommended that a block wall 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 wi3.1 be provided by the proposed industrial use on the
south property line. Further, Staff recommends that finding A4
be changed to indicate that the facility will connect to the
sewer system zather than using a septic tank. These conditions
have been reviewed with the applicant and she has agreed to them.
Staff recommended approval based on the findings and conditions
listed in tha staff report including suggested changes.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 28, 1978
"Chairman Rempel declared the hearing open.
Simone Payne appeared on behalf of applicant Salyer, partner
In this development. She addressed the question of noise and
indicated t %at they would to 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 W gh standards within
their development.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Rempel declared the
hearing closed.
Discussion: Commissioner Tolstoy requested information on the
zoning on the west side of the school.
Tonmy Stephens indicated that it is zoned industrial. He ind-
icated that Staff has moved the far west building closer Co the
school facility. Mr. Stephens 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, be
required to install a block fence. Ms. Payne indicated that
the developer intends to put in light industrial in the future.
ACTION: It was moved by Jones and seconded by Garcia and unani-
mously carried to approve the location and development pinn with
all the findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning
Staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DF PROPOSED R1.CREATIONAL VEHICLE
FACILITY, INDEX No. W92 -B0, 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. Ile 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 adequate environmental assess-
ment and Staff was unable to locate the applicant until. this morn-
ing. Therefore, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission
postpone consideration to the meeting of Ju.y 26, 1978. Mr. Lam
submitted a letter by the applicant agreeing to a postponement.
Conunissioner Garcia mentioned the procrastin9tion by the County
and that the applicant had made every effort to comply. Stated
that lie hoped action would be taken on the 26th.
ACTION: It was moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Garcia, and unan-
imously carried to postpon-_ a hearing on the environmental and
site review of Indes No. 1492 -80 until July 26, 1978.
RECESS Chairman Rempel declared a shirt recess at 7:37 p.m.
RECONVENED AC 8:00 p.m. with all members present, Planning Commission re-
convened in a joint session with City Council for a study session
on proposed General Plan Sketch 94.
ADJOURNIfL•NT Upon motion by Tolstoy, seconded by Garcia and unanimously carried
it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of June
2E, 1978 at 10:37 p.m. to its next regularly scheduled meeting
Respectfully submitted,
Gf.LO� e