HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978/07/26 - Agenda Packet.1 .I
44 'A
hone and associates
July 21, 1978
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Cox 793
Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. 91730
Attention: Michael Vairin, Planning Assistant
Subject: air Approval Application 93 -73 and Minor Subdivision 78 -0325
Gentlemen.
This is to confirm our desire per recent conversations to have both
applications referenced above considered at the same rime, as they represent
one project.
My understanding is that the site plan hearing scheduled for July 26,
1978 would be too soon to achieve this goal; therefore, the hearing scheduled
two weeks from July 26 would be satisfactory and ae hereby request an exten-
sion to said hearing date so that both applications eqn be considered.
Prior to said hearing we wish a meeting involving your City Engineer as
well ns the Planning Staff so that our engineer can also be in attendance
prior to the evolvement of a staff recommendation.
c'r truly urs,�
�!
7 "
ugla K. Hone ._
bKH /klh
cc: Anacal Engineering, Cal Queyrel, President
7$3A hellrnnn ❑ i ^ni r n ,rFv r. ! i... , n
• II
CITY OF RANCHU CUCAMONCA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JULY 26, 1978
T0: .TACK LAM, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: LLOYD HUBBS, CITY EN BEERc, ._L C %s�� -;•� VL�S(
SUBJECT: SITE APPROVAL NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HELLMAN AV5NUE
Negotiations have been completed with CALTRANS regarding access to the
subject property. CALTRANS has agreed to allow temporrry access until
suitable alternative combined access can be de%eloped to the site.
Mr. Packer has been informed of this decision and verbally indicated
his agreement.
'rhe Engineering Department would like to ammend condition 21 of the
Staff Report to require that a cash payment security be provided to
cover the cost of curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage protection on the
Hellman Avemie frontage to the site. This provision is in lieu of the
current cash trust that is being held to cover improvements on Foothill Boulevard
and Hellman Avenue in conjunction with Minor Subdivision No. 77 -0655.
Respectfully submitted,
LLO rVHUBBS
City Engineer
LH:dm
e;' ".
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 26, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION for site approval for the development of a Recrea-
tional Vehicle sales and repair center to be located on the north-
west corner of Fcothill Boulevard and'Hellman Avenue - C -2 Zone -
Request submitted by Richard Packer - Index No. 92 -80.
On Friday, July 21, 1978, CALTRANS via telephone communication to the City
indicated that the State will deny access for this property off of Foothill
Boulevard. This poses a particular problea for the applicant since access
off Hellman Avenue is presently not possible; therefore, the applicant must
appeal to the State for access if the property is to be developed. Ordinarily,
when a situation like this arises the particular item is pulled off the a-
genda. However, because of the long processing time for this application, it
was decided to keep this item on the agenda in case the applicant can secure
State approval for access by the date of the meeting. If such access cannot
be obtained by Wednesday, July 26th, the item will be pulled off the agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director
Community Development
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 26, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION for site approval for thu development of a Recrea-
tional Vehicle sales and repair center to be located on the north -
west.cornet of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue - C -2 Zone -
Request submitted by Richard Packer - Index No. 92 -80.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The Development of a recreational center
for sales and repair of recreational vehicles with emphasis on motorcycles, on
approximately two (2) acres of land located on the northwest corner of Hellman
Ave. and Foothill Blvd. (Exhibit "A "). The development plan indicates the con-
struction of two permanent 6,000 sq. ft. buildings to be used for parts storage,
sales, and service of motorcycles, mopeds, four -wheel drive vehicles, trailers
and motor homes. In addition, trailer 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 loented adjacent to
the temporary trailer units. Further, the applicant has indicated that future
permanent buildings will be constructed as his business grows, i:: the undeveloped
portion of the site. (See exhibit "B" for a sketch of applicant's development plan.)
The Planning Commission continued review of this project from its meeting of
June 28, 1978 to allow Staff the time to prepare an adequate Initial. Study to
make an environmental determination. Further, the additional time was to allow
the applicant and Staff to review the project proposal together in detail. Staff
has prepared the necessary environmental documents and has met with the applicant.
AUTHORITY FOR APPLICATION: Section 61.021B lists motorcycle sales and repair
shops as a permitted use in the C -2 zone requiring Director Review. Section 61.
0219(x) permits trailer coaches for use as an interim business subject to approval
of a location and development plan. Therefore, the applicant has requested app-
roval of a location and development plan for this development.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Initial
Study and noise analysis. The applicant submitted the noise analysis at the
request of Staff because of concerns from surrounding residences. Upon analysis
of the environmental documents, the ARC recommends the adoption of a Negative
Declaration based upon the implementation of the following mitigating measures:
That a three (3) foot solid wasonary wall be constructed along
the entire length of the Hellman Ave. property line and continu-
ing around the corner radius.
Staff Report -2- July 26, 1978
2. That all repair work be done within a ^ompleteiy enclr,sed
building.
3. That a dense landscape buffering strip be planted along the en-
tire north property line.
4. That the testing of vehicles be done only on major highways such
as Foothill Blvd.
5. That a detailed lighting plan be submitted to the Planning Divi-
sion for review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
The DRC found that the above mitigating measures are necessary in order to elimi-
nate potential adverse impacts on the environment. Exhibit "C" is the Draft
Negative Declaration as prepared by the DRC and published in the newspaper for
public review and comments. To date no correspondence has been received in re-
gards to this publication. Exhiblt "D" is a copy of the final Negative Declara-
tion if adopted by the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS: Staff has thoroughly reviewed the project plans as submitted by the
applicant and has found several areas of concern.
The development plan indicates access from a 25' driveway on Foothill Blvd. How-
ever, such access requires approval from the State Department of Transportation
as Foothill Blvd. is a state highway. Cal Trans has indicated to Staff that a-
cess for this development is being considered but will require a 35' minimum drive-
way. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the driveway off of Foothill Blvd. be
widened to 35'.
The development plan shows an access drive along the Foothill and Hellman street
frontages. In addition, 450 parking is proposed along Hellman Avenue street
frontage. The area provided for this access and parking is inadequate to meet
minimum design standards. Staff is recommending that the access and parking be
eliminated on the south and east sides of the buildings. Further, Staff recom-
mends that the buildings be- shifted 10' to the east in order to accomodate the
required 35' driveway from Foothill Blvd. The areas on the south and east sides
of the buildings will be fully landscaped. Staff has prepared a sketch plan show-
ing this redesign and it is attached as Exhibit "E ". In addition, Staff has re-
viewed these alterations with the applicant who has agreed to them.
The trash enclosure has been proposed along the east property line adjacent to
the Hellman Avenue frontage. Staff recommends relocation of the enclosure away
from the street frontage as indicated on the Staff sketch plan. Further, Staff
is recommending the installation of 4' x 8' landscaped planters for approximately
every 5 parking spaces within the parking lot.
Elevations for Buildings "A" and "B" indicate a Spanish motif with rile roof and
Spanish laced stucco. However, the applicant has not provided elevations of the
proposed temporary trailers. Therefore, Staff recommends that such elevations
Staff Report -3- July 26, 1978
be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to install-
ation. Such trailers should be designed in a manner that portrays them as perm-
anent buildings. Design features such as skirting around the trailer, a roof
facade, and wood trim, would accomplish this. Staff further recommends that
wood slats be provided in the chain link fence around the temporary outdoor
storage area.
CORRESPONDENCE: A public hearing notice was published in the Cucamonga Times
on July 13, 1978 and notice was sent to adjacent property owners. No corres-
pondence has been received as a result of thin publication. However, prior to
this publication, the County Planning Department sent out referrals to adjacent
owners and several negative comments were received. Such comments were related
to potential noise from motorcycles and t&ating of vehicles within the surround-
ing neighborhoods. Staff feels that these concerns have been adequately covered
through environmental review.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of this development based on the
findings listed below and the following departmental conditions. Further, Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration based on the implementation of the
mitigating measures listed in the Staff report and included in the conditions:
FINDINGS:
1. That the site is adequate in size and shape.
2. That the site has adequate access.
3. That the propsed use will have uo adverse effect on abutting
property.
4. That the proposed use'is consistent with the proposed General
Plan.
5. That the conditions listed in this report are necessary to pro-
tect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general
welfare. -
CONDITIONS:
1. That all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be complied with.
2. That a revised site plan be drawn in accordance with these con-
ditions and be filed with the Planning Division for review and
approval.
3. That all landscaped. -areas be irrigated, and that precise land-
scaping and irrigation plans be submitted to and approved by the
Planning Division prior to the installation of any structures or
any activity whatsoever. Further, landscaping along the north
property line and around the temporary trailer shall. be. installed
within 30 days after occupancy of the trailer.
Staff Report
-4-
July 26, 1978
4. That the trash enclosure be _located away from any street front-
age and that it be enclosed with a 6' high masonry wall and
view obstructing gates. A detail of said trash enclosure shall
be included in the revised plans.
5. That parking and access shall be eliminated on the east and
south sides of Buildings "A" and "B" and that such area be fully
landscaped.
6. That the access driveway from Foothill Blvd. shall be a minimum
of 35' wide.
7. That 4' x 8' landscaped planters be installed for approximately
every fifth parking stall within the parking lot.
8. That concrete bumper stops be installed in the parking spaces
adjacent to the north sides of Buildings "A" and "B ".
9. That detailed elevations for the temporary trailers be submitted
to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of
permits. Such elevations shall be designed in a manner that por-
trays the trailers as a permanent structure.
lo. That wood slats be installed in the chain link fence around the
temporary outdoor storage area.
11. That the temporary trailers, shed, and outdoor storage area be
removed within one year from such approval and that the area be
minimally landscaped. Landscape plan to include this area.
12. That a three (3) foot solid masonary wall be constructed along the
entire length of the Hellman Ave. property line and continuing
aror 3 the corner radius.
13. That all repair work related to the busirkea� be done within a
completely enclosed building.
14. That a dense landscape buffering strip be planted along the entire
north property line.
15. That the testing of vehicles be done only on major highways such
as Foothill Blvd.
16. That a detailed lighting plan be submitted to the Planning Division
for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
17. That tree wells, street trees, and irrigation shall be provided
within the public right -of -way according to city specifications.
18. That all roof mounted equipment be screened from view from all
adjacent streets and properties. Such screening to be approved
by the Planning Division.
Staff Report -5- July 26, 1978
19_ That the applicant install all fire protection improvements
as may be required by the Foothill Fire District.
20. That all provisions of the Uniform Building Code are complied
:with.
21. All street improvements and public works shall be installed ac-
cording to the conditions as adopted for minor subdivision Po.
71 -0655 and approved by the City Engineer.
22. All grading, drainage, and paving plans shall be drawn accord-
ing to specifications set by the City Engineer. Further, such
plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer
prior to any activities occurring on the site, whether temporary
or permanent.
Respectful y submitted,
JACK LAM, Director
Community Development
r
1�
0
•
,l
�1
11
lW
/
I
-
0
•
,l
�1
11
lW
Ll
I
-
0
LOT
MIL010(i
TRA,:RR
PPnKItal t! z'G=
�SCrIYS
Wr—INQ FVC11. 9
q4' COPS
ClltJ tl Llnt
._ 6,b1
TPAL05
LW_
FMFT V}ILL va.\of p.
TO STAFF-
r — r
3' B�.OrJc WA
OF
c yeti
�w
d
l
LU
I
I
I
DRAFT
NEGATIVE DECLI.RATION
The Da velnpment Revlpw ri,mmittee has evaluated the following project(s) for
environmental imp:.cts and is recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration
to the Planning Commission:
1. Brief Jescr!ption and location of project(s):
SITE APPROVAL for the dr .,velopment of a recreational vehicle sales and repair
center to be located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
lie Ilman Avenue - C-2 Zone - Request submitted by Robert Packer - Index No. 92 -80
2. A copy of the Initial Study can be rc:viAwed in the Planning Division of
tltie CitY of Rancho ��ucamonga located In the city offices at 9340 Baseline,
Unit "A ", Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.
3. Written comments concerning the Initial St-edy can be filed with the
Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
4. This draft Negative Declaration is subject ti the implementation of
mitigating measures (if any) as listed in the Initial Study.
5. This draft Nrgative Declaration will be csnsidcred by the Planning
Commission at its meeting of JULY 26, 1978
DATED: JULY 13* 1978__ Rancho Cucamonga
Development Review Committee
DRAFT
:-,.A;IVF DECLARATION
':'he Development Review Committee has evalna*_ed the following project(s) for
e.nvironwunlal impacts and is recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration
to the Planning Commission:
1. Brief description and location of project(s):
SITE APPROVAL for the development of a recreational vehicle sales and rep2ir
center to be located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Hellman Avenue - C-2 Zone - Reques� submitted by Robert Packer - Index No. 92 -80
2. A copy of the Initial Study can be reviewed in the Planning Division of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga located in the city offt--es at 9340 Baseline,
Unit "A", P.anchn Cucamonga, California. 91730.
3. Written comments concerning the Initial Study can be filed with the
Planning Division of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
4. This draft Negative Declaration is sub]ect to the implementation of
mitigating measures (if any) as listed in the Initial Study.
S. This draft Negative Declaration will be considered b•• the Planning
Commission at its meeting of JULY 25, 1978
DATED: JULY 13, 1978Zancho Cucamonga
Development Review Committee
)(+�1rm t 1, C tf
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Brief Uescription of Project:
SIT; APPROVAL for the development of a recreational vehicle
sales and repair center to be located on the northwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue - C -2 Zone.
2. Name: and Address of Applicant::
Robert Packer, 6U East 9th Street, Upland, California 91786
3. Pursuant to the provisions o1` the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the City of
Rancho Cucamonga has determined that the above
project will not have a significant effect upon
the environment. An Environmental Impact Report
will not be required.
4. Minutes of suct5 decision and the Initial Study
prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga are on
files in the Planning Division of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
5. This decision may be appealed to the City Council
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A written appeal
and filing fee of $100.00 must be received by the
Planning Div_sion no later than 5:00 p.m.
Aug�u_ s_9, 1978
6. Thi;1 Negative Declaration is subject to the
implementation of nit'- gating measures (if any)
as listed on tha attachments.
DATED July 26, 1978
C a�i 'irm`an$ Planning - Co�yo� n
EXHIBIT "D"
4L": 1
1
1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 26, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL from a Director'E decininn on a minor subdivision to
divide 1.15 acres of land located un the west silde of Hellman
Avenue, south of Baseline into 2 parcels - R -1 Zone - Request
submitted by Stephen Lucas for Herbert Vaughan - Index No. 78 -0199
BACKGROUND: The above described subdivision was reviewed and approved by the
County Planning Director. The applicant filed an appeal on the project, how-
ever, the appeal was not questioning the conditions of approval or the Director's
decision. The applicant's appeal was voicing opposition towards a portion of
the staff report. An instance of this nature is not subject to appeal as it
does not effect the decision or conditions of the project. Staff contacted the
applicant'a representative and fully explained this situation. Staff assured
the applicant that [his matter will be reviewed by Staff to determine the
validity of the applicant's concern. Therefore, the applicant has withdrawn
the appeal request. Exhibit "A" is the letter of withdrawal from the applicant's
representative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since the applicant has withdrawn the application, there
is no action needed by the Planning Commission. Staff will refund the applicant's
fee.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director o -
Community Development
r
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 26, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL from a Director'E decininn on a minor subdivision to
divide 1.15 acres of land located un the west silde of Hellman
Avenue, south of Baseline into 2 parcels - R -1 Zone - Request
submitted by Stephen Lucas for Herbert Vaughan - Index No. 78 -0199
BACKGROUND: The above described subdivision was reviewed and approved by the
County Planning Director. The applicant filed an appeal on the project, how-
ever, the appeal was not questioning the conditions of approval or the Director's
decision. The applicant's appeal was voicing opposition towards a portion of
the staff report. An instance of this nature is not subject to appeal as it
does not effect the decision or conditions of the project. Staff contacted the
applicant'a representative and fully explained this situation. Staff assured
the applicant that [his matter will be reviewed by Staff to determine the
validity of the applicant's concern. Therefore, the applicant has withdrawn
the appeal request. Exhibit "A" is the letter of withdrawal from the applicant's
representative.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since the applicant has withdrawn the application, there
is no action needed by the Planning Commission. Staff will refund the applicant's
fee.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director o -
Community Development
pkpj(-I t y-\ -15 CAP
Pl�k.>r I.pNO�.APItrK�
CM0 LUX
IF
3° P.f..a4.
I ii +i�¢
:I 1' 11
��xi.A F
jFl�Jt,r:i��
LN �' u�r>>rtPVr, den
PDarKIL.I. Vaw a .
jbLvi. 13
r
-'
�r
4
1" a Dal r—X H 1 P-) %T " f—= "
11
C LUCAS LAND CO.
Air. Mike Vairin
CitY of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
9340 Sasline
Re.ncho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Vairin:
0 .Iraq (714) 987 -1732
Induitrial Red Estate . Inveftmentr
9224 Footbiil Boulevard, Cucamonga, California 91730
July 18, 1978
Re_: Minor Subdivision Appeal
Application No: W78 -0199
This letter is to notify you of our request to withdraw
the Minor Subdivision Appeal No. W78 -0199 filed July 3,
1978, in the name of Siephen D. Lucas for Herbert J.
Vaughan, owner, concerning Flood Controll District Re-
commendations as noted in the above - mentioned appeal.
We also request a refund of the $$50.00 appeal fee,
check No. 3265 dated July 3, 1978.
JS:AN
Cordially,
I-TV�,?VW
Jeff Sceranka
Controller
Lucas Land Co.
- for Herbert J. Vaughan
YDrq� r��
ua,�2C
ljt Ar.11
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 26, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGES pending before the Planning Commission
In reviewin.- the number of applications pending with the City of Rancho Cuca-
monga, Staff has di9covered six (6) pending zone :hange cases which deserve
some attention.. Some of these zone changes would not even appear before the
Planning Commission if not for some previous action by the County which has
created some confusion as to the status of each application. The purpose of
this report is to clarify the status of each application both for the applicant
and for the Planning Commission. ;tii:lbit "A ", attached to this report, is a
brief description of each zone change application.
Zone Chagge Agplication No. 1.
Submitted by Gertrude Hartman, was filed with the County o1 November 1, 1977.
The application was set for hearing and heard by the Planning Commission on
March 22, 1973 (see Exhibit "B ", Planning Commission Minutes of that meeting).
At which time, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to continue the
zone change request to July 26, 1978 so that the applicbtio -a may be considered
after the adoption of the General Plan. Because this zone change request would
be for residential development of a sensitive area, the Planning Commission
feared conflicts with pending development policies associated with the City's
new General Plan. The General Plan has not yet been adopted, but the first
official public hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled for Sept-
ember 13, 1978. This formal public hearing initiates the formal hearing process
which would culmfrate in public hearing by the City Council for final adoption.
It is very possible that the General Plan might not be formally adopted by the
City Council until the first of the year. The Planning Commission has two
alternatives for this particular application.
1. It could continue this application to the first Planning Commission
meeting in January, by which time the General Plan will in all prob-
ability be adopted.
2. The Planning Commission decide to take an action of approval or denial,
in which case Staff woxild recommend placing this item on the August
9. 1978 agenda of the Planning Commission for formal consideration.
Staff Report -2- July 26, 1970
Zone Change Application No. 2.
Submitted to the County on March 30, 1978. The application was referred to
the Planning Commission on April 26, 1978 at which the Planning Commission
determined that an environmental impact report would be required for this zone
change since the rezoning of a parcel that is presently zoned Flood Plain
District has potential environmental significance. The applicant, Mr. Rogers,
subsequently sent a letter (Exhibit "C ") to the City Manager etating that the
County had never notified him or any action taken either by the county or by
the Planning Commission regarding his application. Because neither he nor
his agent was notified of the hearings he did not have the opportunity to pre-
sent supportive materials that might have influenced the decision of the Plan-
ning Commission. While there is also some question as to comparability with
the development policy of the new General Plan, the property is currently
designated a Flood Plain District, therefore, whether we have a new General
Plan or not, the environmental considerations for this property would be the
same. It would seem fair, since there was no notification regarding the past
agenda action on this application, the Planning Commissiong might consider
reconsidering the matter at which time the applicant would have an opportunity
to mace any presentation. If the Planning Commission so desires to reconsider
this action, it should schedule this matter for the August 23, 1978 meeting
of the Planning Commission. This will enable Planning and Engineering staff
to investigate and become familiar with the environmental implications of the
proposal.
Zone Change Application No. 3 through No. 6.
These applications were taken by the County to the City Council at its meeting
of June 21, 1978 (it should be noted that Application No. 2 was also included
in this group), at which time the County asked the City Council for direction
as the processing of these applications since some of these have a reasonable
probability of being inconsistent with the General Plan under preparation.
The County staff requested the Council direct staff on which item, if any
should be continued until the adoption of the General Plan. However, it was
noted by the City Attorney at the meeting that the issue should not have been
raised at the City Council meeting since the Planning Commission should make a
decision on this matter. The City Council, therefore, referred this matter
of these applications back to the Planning Commission for their determination.
After the City Council's action it was assumed by the applicants that the
Planning Commission would immediately make a decision on their applications.
However, upon an investigation of these zone change requests, City staff has
found that no processing nor analysis of these application" has been done by
the County. Furthermore, the environmental assessments cannot be located in
any files given to us by the County. It is Staff's assumption that these
reviews have not been completed. Therefore, it is apparent to Staff that the
first steps in processing these applications have not even begun; therefore,
any processing of these zone change applications must be performed as though
these applications were just now submitted. The Planning Commission cannot
continue these items until the General Plan has been adopted unless the
Staff Report
July 26, 1978
Commission considers these items formally at a public hearing. And the
public hearings cannot take place until these applications have been pro-
perly processed. Since no work has been done on any of these applications,
and we must start from scratch, it will be only fair to schedule these
items in the Staff's workload along with the remaining 200 planning app-
lications on an as submitted basis and the Planning Commission will receive
these items for consideration as each can be processed. Therefore, no
action need be taken by the Planning Commission on Zone Changes 3 through 6.
Respectfully submitted,
Community Development
(1) Proposal: Zone Change from A -1 -5 to R- 1- 20,000
Location: N/S of vacated Almond Street, approximately 385.91'
E/o Carnelian Street
Applicant: Gertrude Hartman
Summary: Site is located on a sloping bench of Satii Gabriel *fountains.
Proposal would not be consistent with L'hc: proposed General
Plan designation of less than one (1) unit per gros- acre.
(2) Proposal: Zone change from F -P -2 to R -3 #87 -73
Location: S/s Baseline, approx 775' W/o Vineyard
Applicant: Jerry Rogers
Summary: Site is located in a flood control basin with commerical and
public school to the north and a park to the east. Zoning
is F -P -2 to the east and south and R -1 to the north and west.
The proposals for the General Plan calls for various residen-
tial densities and flood control.
(3) Proposal: Zone change from 7,000 & -3 -T to A -1 1194 -66
Location: A' /s 19th St. approx 385' W/o Amethyst
Applicant: Kenneth Byler
Su�mary: Site is located in an existing residential neighborhood with
R -3 zoning on the we3t, north and east. To the south is A -1.
The applicant is requesting the A -1 zone to perms.+' a commer-
cial nursery. The proposals for the General Plan calls for
residential. An illegal nursery currently exists on the pro-
posed site.
(4) Proposal: Zone change from R -1 to C -2 997 -82
Location: E/s Archibald approx 150' W/o Devon St.
Applicant: Freda Shelley
Summary: Site is located in an established residential neighborhood,
with R -1 zoning surrounding. The proposals for the General
Flan calls for residential.
(5) Proposal: Zone change from A -1 to C -'L, 9123 -81
Location: SW /o the intersection of Foothill and Interstate 15
Applicant: William Longley
Summary: The site is located in an undeveloped area. The zoning is
A -1 in all directions with C -2 & M -1 further west. The
General Plan proposals calls for major industrial or commercial.
(6) Proposal: Zone change from A -1 & C -1 to M-1, 953 -112
Location: SW /corner of Arrow and Archibald
Applicant: Harry Rinker
Summary: To the west and south of the site are industrial uses, north
and east are commercial uses. Surrounding zoning is M -R on
the south and west, R -1 on the north, and C -1 to the east.
The General Plan proposals call for industrial or residential.
(EXHIBIT "A ")
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MELTING - PLANNING COMMISSION
March 22, 1978
The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga met in a regular
session on Wednesday, Marci. 22, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. in the Commcniity Sctvicc
Building. The riucting was called to order by Chairman Ilerman Rempel and opened
with the pledge of allegiance.
Commissioners Present: IL Rempel, R. Dahl, J. Garcia, L. Jones, P. Tolstoy
Commissioners Absent: None
PUBLIC tiEARINC.:
Y.ONL (;IIANCF. FROM A -1 -5 TO R -1- 20,000, INDI'sX NO. 1485 49
N/S OF VACATED ALMOND ST., APPROX. 385.91' li/O CARNF,LIAW ST.
(Gertrude Hartman)
Mr. Payne reported tl6.L the applicant_ is requesting a zone change from A -1 -5
to R -1- 20,000 to permit construction of single - family equesLrian oriented homes.
Ile gave a detallLd report the of staff's findings and recommendations.
'rlhe Chairman declared the hearing open.
Mr. frank Williams of Associated Engineers, representing the applicant, spoke
in favor of the zone change. Ile stated that the property is consistent with the
General Plan and tliat the zone change request was not premature since the surrounding
uses are R- 1- 20,000.
Mr. Andrew Barmakian, architect for the project, spoke in favor of the request
and gave a brief description of the proposed development.
Mr. Antlocer, Chairman of the Planning Committee of the Alta Loma Chamber of
Commerce, spoke in opposition to the project stating that this item should not be
approved until after the general flan has been established.
Mr. Dan August, property owner south of the project, spoke in opposition and
stated that he would like to see the proposed pl. :ur before the zone change is made.
Mr. Pat Case spoke in opposition.
Mrs. Jones asked if the araa is it a high fire hazard area. Chief Billings
of the Foothill Fire District stated that it is and that low density developments
are recommended in watershed areas.
There being no further testimony, the clinlrm:ni declared the hearinl eloped.
ACTION: Oil motion by Garcia, seconded by Jones: and unanimously carried, it was
voted to continue the zone change request, index no. 1485 -49 to July 2b, 1978
so that the project can be approved after the adoption of the General Plan.
At 9:50 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. At 10:00 p.m., the meeting was reconvened.
t (EXHIBIT "Bu)
Jerry J. Rogers
154 East 16th Street
Urland, California 91786
June 16, 1978
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cut - amonga
Post Office Box 791
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
Attention: Mr. Loren Wasserman, City Manager
Subject: Application for Zone Change on my property on the south side of
Baseline Road between Carnelian Avenue and Vineyard Avenue
Gentlemen:
The subject application was submitted to the San Bernardino County Planning
Department on March 29, 1978, requesting rezoning from F.P. 2 to R -3. The
application was accompanied by the required Prelinimary Environmental Description
Form (PEDF).
It is my understanding that normal procedure is to notify the Applicant of any
hearing concerning his application. Furthermore we were assured by the County
Planning Dept. that we would be notified before any presentation was made to the
City, even if made informally.
Since it had been over two months since I filed the Application and I had
received no further communication from the Planning Dept. I contacted the Planning
Dept. on June 5. 1978 to find out what was delaying the processing and was told that
the FEDF had been taken to the City Planning Commission in April and that it had
been decided to require an Environmental Impact Report. Not only was I not given
notice of this hearing, but to date I have never received any official notice from
either the City or the County of the action taken . The Application form also re-
quested that Associated Engineers, who assisted me in preparing the Application
and PEDF, also be notified. Associated Engineers also received no communication,
verbal or written, concerning this hearing or the action taken.
I would like the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission
whi--h I believe is pertinent to this request and to the Planning Commission decision.
Therefore it is hoped that the Commission will reconsider this matter and 1
would very much appreciate having this request for reconsideration placE' on the
Agenda of the Planning Commission as soon as possible under City procedures.
cc: Tommy Stephens, Co. Planning Dept.
Asstn.iated Engineers
(EXHIBIT "G ")
Very truly your l J
O v�
Jer g.:rs
jA
Intl
p
h
.1
4Ff'
1
a
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 26, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .�f Tentative Tract No. 10210; 196 Lot Subdivi-
sion of 161 acres of Land in R -1- 20,000 and R -1 -14 districts located
north of Almond Avenae= and west of Sapphire Street - Request submit-
ted by J. Gregory Lawlor Enterprises.
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its meeting
of June 14, 1978. At this meeting, Mr. Bill Moorehouse and RI-kki Alberson,
of TOUPS Corporation stated that additional information from the Foothill Fire
District and the U. S. Forest Service addressing the environmental. concerns of
the Planning Commission was forthcoming. The Commission voted to continue the
item to the meeting of July 12, 1978. At the July 12, 1978 meeeing, the appli-
cant still had not obtained the new information and the Commission voted to
continue the item to the July 26, 1978 meeting.
ANALYSIS_: Staff has contacted Riklci Alberson of the TOUPS Corporation ".o deter-
mine if the Foothill Fire District and U. S. Forest Service had submitted any
new information. Ms. Alberson stated that both districts were currently re-
viewing a revised tentative tract map and that comments had not yet been re-
ceived. She was confident that she would have the comments and revisions to
the map in time for Planning Commission review at the meeting of :August 9, 1978,
and requested a continuance to that meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item
to the meeting of August 9, 1978 to allow the applicant time to compile and pre-
sent the revised tentative tract map to the Planning Commission.
Respectfully submittzd,
JACK LAM, Directo of
Community Development
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 26, 1978
TG* Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: HARDSHIP SEWER ALLOCATION
At the Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 1978, staff brought before the
Planning Commission the issue of the "hardship" sewer allocation. As the
Commission will recall, this hardship sewer allocation was one that was
recognized by the County. This allocation was 150 units. Of this 150 units
there remains 146 units yet to be allocated for development. While the County
recognized this "hardship" allocation, the Cucamonga County Water District did
not. Since there was no criteria established by the County for allocation of
these "hardship" units and because the requests under this "hardship" category
greatly excei'ded the remaining 146 units, staff aL the July 12th meeting
recommended to the Planning -Commission that it in turn recommend to the City
Council the "hardship" requests not be approved and the remaining 146 units
either be applied to the remaining 112 units of single home allocation or be
lumped into any future new ewer allocation, in which case, the "hardship"
requests would be allocated sewer hook -ups on a first come first serve basis.
The Planning Commission took the testimony of those who represented the
"hardship" requests. These representatives strongly suggested the Planning
Commission not wait for new sewer allocation but develop some procedure by
which the 146 remaining "hardship" units could be distributed now. The
:lanning Commission requested the City Attorney to provide a report on the
legal implications of developing another selection process by which these
approved tracts must go through to gain approval of sewer allocation.
Since the July 12th Planning Commission meeting, two (2) new informational
developments have occ•irred which will. change the Planning Commission's
perspective on the whole "hardship" sewer issue. First, new sewer allocation
will be avai "able to the Cucamonga County Water District very shortly. While
the exact amount is not known at the present time, this figure will be well
in excess of the number of proposed units under the ' hardship" request.
Therefore, sewer allocation will be available for these "hardship" ceses.
The second development is that the City Council at their meeting of July
1978 unanimously adopted a moratorium on new residential construction with
HARDSHIP SEWER ALLOCATION -2- July 26, 1978
the only exception being those approved tracts under the BIA Agreement.
This moratorium does not affect commercial nor industrial development,
but does place a hold or. the issuance of any new building permits for
tract development including the "hardship" tract until January 1, 1979.
The availability of new sewer allocation and the moratorium on the issuance
of residential building permits until January 1, 1979 now makes any
discussion regarding the determination of "hardship" or 11hardship"
criter;a academic since these approved tracts would be first in line for
the new allocation after January 1st, it is, therefore, logical to
dispense with the "hardship" sewer category. In dispensing with this
"hardship" category the remaining 146 units would be merely added to the
new allocation that would be available January 1, 1979. Therefore, no
action by the Planning Commission is necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
I
JAM LAM, Director of
Community Development
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 26, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: REFERRAL OF DIRECTOR REVIEW for the Development of a Professional
Office Complex located on the southeast corner of Hellman and
Baseline Avenue - PP Zone - Submitted Ly Doug Hone.
BACKGROUND: The development of this property which is located on the
southeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Baseline Avenue will entail
significant research in regards to the proposed street improvements on
both street frontages. With the transfer of this project from the County
to the City's Planning staff, time has not allowed for adequate review of
these aspects. Further, in conjunction with the development of this
property, Mr. Hone has submitted a minor subdivision requost that should
be reviewed concurrently with this development proposal. After discussing
these matters with the applicant, the applicant requested that the review
of this project be continued until the meeting of August 9, 1978.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission grant the continuance
for the review of this project to the August 9, 1978 meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
]'lannino, to inallage growth
the Wk -st is Still the last.-St growing region in file Unitcd Stato. But
wItNDONV ON 'ri a-1 Nvt 5'r: Boidder"S greenbelt
Cam" Where the, plains meet the Rookie% Boulder is protected
by a wide swath of open space—including the gr aslant,
in the foreground and the front Range slopes behind.
il I he greenbeh will form the towns ultimate boundaries.
�. Su far, S17 million (largely sales lax revenues) has been
committed to acqoire 9,200 of 14.000 acres to tic left
as natural open space or faralland I he lowers in town are
University of Colorado dormitories as state property
they arc exempt from Boulder's height limits.
SUNSET
our population Ras begun 10 Shin around it hit.
Some rt•cenl •:hills incdo0c secondary rind ul a!hurlls emerging at a
distance Irom cities, niotr families opling for life in smaller rownx. Lind
', $ '?
cxplosise gnisvth in scccral boom areas —mint 1•romincntly in once
= •r.,:.,:.? t..,
:/'
sparsely populated Arizona ;:nil file IshnultaiU Stake.
:....
It's city) to cite the potential problems that often go along w'ilh Gut
growth: sprawl, congcxtion, ducliniog air quality. strain on scrs'iccs
(schflo s. p,alice. �e'wage. wate'r), ;md los? of the original Small•towq
intimacy of manv con n onities.
"df
Findinc acceptable and workable %%Lies of managing growth is rnuch
^^
more atillicull. But three lul(hnak approaches are worth noting.
'^r ^
1'trr ;lurna, C',diJnr) +ir+. Its piunccr!ng plan was enacted in 1972 after
�' ; N `.
cn.nnuncr- %eased grawlh 0f I.4 percent annually pushcu its onec- bucolic
population lo 24.01[H), sending schools into d••uhle - .cssions.
New limit: 500 housing Units per year (annual growth rate of 6 per-
cent). Competing developers' propoul, are judged by it citizens' conl-
miltee that considers ;adequacy of services, site design, community
impact, Lind amenities Mich a\ greenhMs and hike paths.
Boulder. Colorado. 4 5 to 10- percent annual growth rate nearly doubled
it'; population to 80,000 try 1975. The narrow victory (if it 1976 iniliativc
produced it Petaluma -like plan Lillowing only 450 new units per ycal, 175
reserved Err the urban core. Extra points are given for moderate- income
housing proposals. Annual growth rate will be P, z to ? percent.
01 er Boulder actions: A 55 -foot height limit, a "blue Zinc" prohi'ating
water •lookups above a certain level on the mountain backdrop: and it
surrounding,, greenbelt that will form the city's ultimate boundary.
Oregon. A statewide land Use Progmrn. enacted in 1971, didn't eel
formal grow'ih linlitS. Halt it does require each locality 111 prepare it
comprehensive plan that includes ulliulam houndarics and service car.
pacitics. Coiranunities ([lot all of them happy with this m. are
free In consider local circumstatwes and attitudes. but must work toward
19 specific goads — including preserv;dion of agriculture, lorest, scenic,
and recreation lords; adequate housing: %touring tiro%%th into - urban`
IZablC area: and. abo \'e all eihicn im'olxenwnt in the planning.
(In play it similar program fools effcf in Hawaii. which in 1961 became
the first state t0 develop it conlprchen %ive tuning pion with "it eye to
orderly development.)
La p cricnce and the courv, will likely refine future approaches it' gr,)%x'th
control. Corlrrl: P argumemls cite inll:ation in housing prices. ;in inhibited
job market, inore red tape, the right of pcopl" to live where they wish,
Lind the right of developers to mega housing demands.
Looking ahead it's easy t0 sec the trcnlenJous potential f(1• growth in the
Western suacs. IUI the I I states with growif, rtes aver 15 percent, all
but '_ are in the West) Now is a entic ;al tulle f, taking a ell's¢ look al
the different ways we might deal with cities and towns all o(c: the West
_
that arc Found to grow last in 1110 years just coming up.
wItNDONV ON 'ri a-1 Nvt 5'r: Boidder"S greenbelt
Cam" Where the, plains meet the Rookie% Boulder is protected
by a wide swath of open space—including the gr aslant,
in the foreground and the front Range slopes behind.
il I he greenbeh will form the towns ultimate boundaries.
�. Su far, S17 million (largely sales lax revenues) has been
committed to acqoire 9,200 of 14.000 acres to tic left
as natural open space or faralland I he lowers in town are
University of Colorado dormitories as state property
they arc exempt from Boulder's height limits.
SUNSET
AIP LEGISLATIVE STATUS REPORT June 27, 1978
by Uaue Booker, Sacrumento Valley Section
and Shiraz Kaderah, Vice - President CCAIP - Slate and Local Affairs
URBAN STRATEGY
Bill No. Author
AB 603 Craven
Status: Senate Lov,u Gov't. Hearing will be held in August
SUMMARY! Declares that Proposals for the formation, expan-
sion, or reorganization of Icx'a) a ncies providing governmental
s all ervices sh not le approved unless they are in compliance with
Specified policies relating to urban services. Would require LAI--
Cos to deter mine and adopt 'spheres of influence' of each local
agernv within o : ounty fill purposes of app:ying such policies to
such agency. Regarding land located in the coastal zone, a IAFCU
mould le nuthurizeci to consult with the Coastal Comm,ssion to
assure thct lor.,l coastal prog�rams are taken into account. (Sum•
mare reflects 3 16/78 amendment.)
AB 3501 Gage
Status: Refused passage on assembly floor
SUMMARY: Expresses legislative intent that new development
can be located so as to maintain existing urban areas, develop va-
c ant and Under-utilized land served by t•ulrlic fa, ilitfes, use adjacent
land when development occurs outside of existing urban areas.
Would Lx-come operative only if AB3544 is chaptered. (Summary
reflects 5; 16.'78 amendment.)
AB 3412 Cullen
Status: Ar'scmbly Ways & Means hearing to be held in August
SUMMARY: Would require districts and agencies created by a
joint exercise of powers agreement (except certain districts which
construct or maintain parks and recrealioa facilities) to adopt, L-y
January 1, 1982, a 5 year capital improvemen: program containing
specified information. Would become• operative only if A133544 is
choptered. (Summary reflects 5/09/78 amendment.)
AB 3,140 Wornum
Status: Foiled to meet deadlines
SUMMARY: Would require cities and counties to prepare. and
annually rt vise. J 5 year capital improvemen) plan for all real
property and public facilities of such city or county. Makes related
changes. WOO(: rrecome oTio —live only if AB 3544 is chaptered.
( Summary reflects 5/10/78 amendment.)
AB 3543 Knox
Status: Asse mbly Ways & Mea,is hearing will be held in August
SUMMARY: Requires councils of governments to adopt l
regional needs assessment including land use, housing, solid
waste• open snare, air, water, transportation, etc. General plans,
capitol improvement programs, and urban service areas woul::
have to be consistent with the needs assessment. State at-e4
reglona I lxrards would be established. Would become operative
only if AB 3544 is chaptered. (Summary reflects 6/19/78
ammdrnent.)
SB 2042 Smith
Status: Senate Revenue & Tax Hearin•.^ not set (Unlikely to pass
this year)
511MMARY: Would require each city and county. in specified
metropolitan areas. by January 1, 1981, to prepare and adopt on
urban service area report desiyi -sting where urban services should
be provided within the next 5 years. Would authorize other cities
and counties to do the same. Would-1150 prescribe procedures for
resolving Planning conflicts between cities within the same county
and between a city and county in which such city is located, when
one such entity is affected by planning activities of another. Would
not become operative unless AB 3544 i5 chaptered. (Summary
reflects 5/30/78 amendment.)
ZONING AND PLANNING
Bill No. Author
AB 382 Thomas
Status: Sent to the Governor on June 23rd
SUMMARY: Existing law provides that zoning ordinances of a
c. ".y or county shall to consistent. as defined, with the general plan
of the city or county, and that any resident or properly owner may
bring an action in the superior court to enforce such compliance
within 90 days of the enactment of a new zoning ordinance or the
arnendmem of an existing zoning ordinance. In addition, existing
law provides t hat in the event a zoning ordinance becomes incon-
sistent with a general plan by reason of the plan's amendment, the
zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time to be
consistent with the amended general plan. This bill would specify
dial the abuve Provisions of existing law appl) b n charter cities,
provided that such provisions would nct be applicdule to a zoning
ordinance adopted by a charter city prior to 1/1/79.
AB 1858 Chimboly
Status: Signed into law 4/10/78
SUMMARY: Subdivisions. Existing law requires a tentative and
final map for all divisions of land which create 5 nr more parcels, un-
less, amunq other things, eac h parcel is 40 acres or m )re, in which
ease only a parcel mar is required though a local agercy may re
quire a tentative and final map under ce,tain conditions. This bill
would remove the authorization for a required tentative and final
map wher•2 each parcel is 40 acres or more.
AB 1900 Calvet
Status: Senate Natural Resources & Wildlife Hearing not set.
(Probable Prop 13 fatality)
SUMMARY: Fnac(b- the Prime Agricultural Lands Preservation
Act and creates a state agency to provide cities and counties with
guidelines for preparing agricultuca� maps. (1/25i.8 amendment
specifically excludes the Blackhawk Development in Conk a Costa
County.)
AR 2321 Imbrecht
Status: Senate Public Utilities. Transit & Energy Hearing to >w
held in August
SUMMARY: Prohibits any person from allowing a tree to grow so
as to cast a shaduw greater than 10' of the collector aL-sorptik•n
area upon a solar collcpion surface, hereaf`er installed on the
Properly of another, between 10 a.m. and 2 pant., but would ex
k-110 trees casting such a shadow at the time the collector is in.
stalled or during the remainder of that annual so:�r cycle. Would
exempt trees planted, r(3wn, or harvested on timberland o, on
land devoted to commercial agricultural crop production. (Sum•
mary reflects 5/10/78 amendment.)
AR 235i Wornum
Status: Senate finance hearing not set
SUMMARY: Ma1.vs a number of change.; to the powers and
duties of the State Coastal Conservancy, including (a) requiring
that standards adapted by APR regarding the acquisition and
developnleut of public access to cexlslal resources be an element of
rile uuldexnr r.-Creation resources plan, and (b) vesting the conser.
vancy rather than DPR the authority to reserve significant coastal
rc.uurce areas. (Summary reflects 4,'17/78 amendment.)
AB 2414 Craven
Status- Sent to the govetnor 6/23
SUMMARY: Would authorize a subdivider in certain cir-
cumstances to file multiple final maps relating to an approved or
conditionally approved tentatite map Prior to its expirmion. Makes
legislative finding that the: Sill is declaratory of existing law. (Sum-
mary reflects 3.'29/78 amendment.)
AB 24;5 Craven
Status: Sent to governor 6,/23
SUMMARY: Would remove the requirement that a parcel map
contain a statement by an engineer (sarveyor) thet the parcelmap
procedures of the local agency have been complied wit', aril ;hat
.a too
the patcel map conforms Ire the approved tentative map and the
condilluns of Ipplc)val thereof.
AR 2825 McCarthy
Status: Senate government organization hearing 'b he held in
Au tut
SUMMARY: Would a,etude administrative appeals within or to a
state or local agency, certain actions of a meal agency, and the ap-
proval or disapproval of a final subdivision map from the applica-
tion of existing law establishing a I -gear time limit. Would exempt
pehlions for changes to permits to appropriate water which have
been objected to pursuant to designated provisions :f the tvater
code. Makes other provisions rlso. Urgency statute. (Summary
reflects 5,26/78 amendment.)
AR 3250 Levine
Slates: Senate meal government hearing to be held in August.
SUMMARY: provides for easements for solar energy systems;
prohibits restrictions or ordinances prohibiting solar systems: and
requires subdivision maps to provide for the future use of passive
solar Sv51enns in the subdivision (Summary reflects 5/02/78
amendment.)
SB 193 Zenovich
Status: Assembly Resources, land Use & Energy (probable Prop
13 fatalagl
SUMMARY: Would require all cities and counties (except Saa
Francisco)• by May 1, 1980, lit adopt an u-gricultural element fortis
general plan for the compreh ?nsive and long range preservaticn
and conservation of commercial agricultural land. Would specify
the cuntlxments of the plan and would exempt cities having only
small amonunis of agrcullural land. Would require that, if informa
lion concerning the sale of comparable restricted land is not
available, comrrnercial a. ricultural land which is so restrict d by
assessed by the capitalization of income method. Makes ap.
prepnalion. (1, 26.78 amendment states legislative intent that land
c'onnnitled to• or necessary for, urban uses be excluded from
provisions requiring preservation of land in agricultural uses.)
SB 1606 Nimmo
Status: Asembly Resources. Lind Use & Energy I fearing not set
SUM6IAR\': ABote� i4cn.n ire of a ntmstal dreelnpmom pernul
which wndd viol Suhs4u»ia11y prejudice• the abilily of file local
gnvenunent to prepare its coact plan. Exempts single family
dwellings where such development represents infilling of the area.
(Summ,vy reflects 5.'08; 78 amendment.)
SR 1746 Mills
Status, Passed Senate. Is in Assembly local government hearing
8878.
SUMMARY: Would designate, :ar the area within the county, San
Diego County as the exclusive agency to perform regional or
-treawide review or Planni n3 required by federal statute to be per-
formed by met :oPcdttan regional agencies. Would create a
munictPal .Avisury committee to assist the county. Would also
designate S,vn Diego County asa statutorily created transporta-
tion planning agency for t iie area included within the county, with a
slxcdied exception.
SB 1873 Smith
Status: Assemhlyy Resource Lind Use & Energy hearing not set.
SUMMARY: Makesseveralchamlesin the coast al act of 1976:Re
qunes demol of a ixrnlli which •,vill Prejudice a local coastal
program; changes categorical exclusions: creates the coastal plan.
ning assistance account; and other changes. Urgency statute.
HOUSING
Bill No.
AB 848 Author
Status- Senate Inactive File. Hearing n o
ot wt,
SUMMARY: permits c il.es ,.nd counties to require that resider
lial developments include a specified proportion of low or
nroclerale�income housing In the caseolo tuner occuppiedorrental
units, where economic incentivesare• provided for Includuanof low
or m,xlenite -inc onrz households, the continuedavailabilityof such
units would have to be maintained. (8,/19/77 amendment makes no
significant change.)
AB 1562 Wornum
Status: Senate Local Gov't. Hearing to be held in August.
SUMMARY: permits local agenc ies to adopt an ordinance requir•
ing the inclusion of low or mcaerale income housing in a develop-
ment proposal.
AB 2881 M. Waters
Status: Scnale Ltwol Gov't Hearing to be field in August.
SUMMARY: Would require (rallwr than permit) a public entity to
make payments and Ptuyide advisory assistance to a person who
moves from a dwelling or moves or discontinues his business asa
result of a rehabihiat ion or demolition prop am by a public entity or
through the expenditure of public funds. Would also require rental
assistance to tenants whose rente are increased due to rehabilita-
tion activities, and the provision of temporary housing to persons
displaced while such work is being done. (Summary reflects
5,03,78 amendment.)
AB 3246 Chacon
Status: Senate Local Gov't. Hearing to be held in August.
SUMMARY: Revises infom lation lobe included ir. neighborhood
imphict reports as a part or redevelopment plans.
ACA 47 Brawn
Status: On Senate Floor.
SUMMARY: Would make low-rent housing projects subject to
citywide or county wide referendum upon submise•o :. +n the clerk
o f the cit y or county's legislative body of a petition signed by at least
10'S. of the qualified voters voting in the last gubenratorialelection.
Would require notice of the proposed project and would require
the referendum petition to bz submitted within 30 days of the
public notice.
SCA 47 Foram
Status: Failed passage.
SUMMARY: Would amend the Constitution to mak^ the Prohibi-
tion against the development, construction or acquisition of a low
rent housin� project by a state public body until the protect is ap•
proved by t le vc.ters in the area applicable only to publicly owned
housing which is ta•- exempt by reason of such ownership, and
would clarify That such provisions apply only to rental housi .3.
(Summary reflects 4;27,/78 amendment.)
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Bill No.
AB 900 Author Boatwright
Starts: Assembly innotivg lily Hearing not set.
SUMMARY: Would require an EIR for Projects costing over $2,-
000,000, or ;evolving cons, rust ion of more t han 50 huusing units, to
curtain information -in economic Impact. Would require an EIR for
Other projects to contain such information at the request of the
Project applicant. Would . ,zcify that no public agency shall be re-
quired to approve or disapprove a pro ect sclely on ;he basis of in-
formation contained in an EiR. Mmmary teflects 8/18.77
amendment.)
AB 3451 Chimbole
Status. Held in Assembly Resources Land Use & Energy. Subject
matter M 1> referred fca interim study.
SUMMARY: Would provide that whenever a residential protect is
proposed within an area covered by a specific plan, and the project
conforms to the specific plan, the lead agency shall adopt a
negative declaration
TRANSPORTATION
Bill No. Author
SB 1439 Mills
Stalus: Assembly local government hearing 8/8178.
SUMMARY: Re(Wres a Itansportatior systems element' to
replace the circulation eferncnt in a local general plan as of January
I, 1481. Pcvnntsa localagvncyto require a dedication of land under
tl:e Subdivision Map Act when a local transit agency requests
dedication. (Summary reflects 5'08/78 amendment.)
SB 1906 Millz
Stalus: In Assembly Expected to Ix heard in August.
SU.. AARY: Would authorize allocations to be made from a local
transportation fund to the county ana cities therein to make grants
and Ickms to housing entities fnr housing within public transit cor-
tidors for persons and families of low or moderate income. Funds
could be made available for such housing purposes after they are
mane available for public transportation purposes. Makes other
changes also. (Summary reflects 5/15/78 amendment.)
AB 3819 Ingalls
Status: In Ft :sarably local govt hearing to be held in August.
SUMMARY: Would make the su(xfivisfonmepactina plicableto
the construction of buidings intended to be rented as dwelling tun•
its under month to moollr tenancy or to the rental or dwelling units
in existing buildings. (Urgency statute.)
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING CON261ISSION
AGENDA
Wednr.sday, July 26, 1978, 7:00 p.m.
Community Services Building,
911 Baseline, RAncho Cucamonga, CA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll. Call:
Commissioner Dahl
Commissioner Garcia
Commissioner Jones
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Public Hearings
Commissioner Rempel
Commissioner Tolstoy
A. SITE APPROVAL for the development of a recreational vehicle sales
and repair center to be located on the northwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Hellman Avenue - C -2 Zone- - Request submitted by
P.obert Packer - Indcx No. 92 -80.
8. APPEAL of a minor subdivision to divide 1.15 acres of land located
on the west side of Hellman Avenue south of Baseline into 2 parcels
- R -1 Zone - Reques� submitted by Stephen Lucas for Herber Vaughan
- Index No. 78 -0199.
S. Old B'� liness
A. RECOMMENDATIO0 on pending zone changes relative to the proposed
General Plan - following are zone changes continued by the
Planning Commission or referred by the City Council:
1. Zone Change No. 85 -49 - Changing the zone from A -1 -5 to
R -1- 20,000 far property located on the north side of Almond
approximately 385' east of Carnelian Street - Requested by
Gertrude Hartman.
2. Zone Change No. 87 -73 - Changing the zone from FP -2 to R -3
for property located on the south side of Baseline 7751 west
of Vineyard Avenue - Requested by Jerry Rogers.
3. Zone Chan a No. 94 -G6 - Changing the zone from (7000) R -3 -T
to A -1 or property located on the north side of 19th Street
about 385' west of Amethyst - Requested by Kennetn Byler.
Zone Change 170. 97 -82 - Changing the zone from R -1 to C -2 for
property located the east side of Archibald about 1501
north of V -von Street - Requested by Freda Shelley.
S. Zone Change No. 95 -85 - Changing the zone from A -1 and C -1 to
M -1 for property located on the south side of arrow Raute
,bout 128' west of Archibald - Requee-.ed by Harry Rinker.
6. Zone Chime No. 123 -81 - Changing the zone from A -1 to C -2
for property located at the southrest intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and Interstate 1S - Requested by
William Langley.
1•{fil y'•' '.y •.
T
B. MINOR SUBDIVISION to create an indu ::trial tract of 6 lots located
on the south side of 9th Street approximately buu feet west of
Hellman Avenue - M -R Zone - Applicat!.on submitted by M!.chael Todd
- Index No. 78- 0245 -I.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW of a tentative trait on 161 acres located west
of Sapphire Street north of Almond Avenue to consist of 196 lots -
R -1 20,000 and R -1 -14 Zone - Submitted by J. Gregory Lawlor,
Enterprizes - Tentative Tract No. 10210.
D. RECOMMENDATION on Hardship Sewer Allocations.
6. New Business
A. REFERRAL of Director Review for the development of a professional
office complex to be located on the southeast corner of Heilman
and Baseline Avenues - A -P Zone - Submitted by Doug Hone.
7. Communications - Written and Oral
8. Adjournment
�m
JULY 26, 1978
CITY 01; RANCIIO CUCANUNG ^,
PLANNING CM51ISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building,
9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, July 26,
1978.
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Herman
Rempel, who lead the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners H °rman Rempol, L:�Jra Jones, Jorge Garcia,
Peter Tolstoy, and Richard Dahl.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES Upon motion by Commissioner Peter Tolstoy, seconded by
Commissioner Laura Jones and unanimously carried, it was voted
,to approve the P1T a ng Commission minutes of July 1:, 1978 as
submitted.
PUBLIC HEARING The meeting was declared open for the following Public. Hearings.
SITE APPROVAL for the development of a recreational vehicle
sales and repair center to be located on the northwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue - L' -2 Zone - Request
submitted by Robert Packer - Index No. 92 -80.
Staff stated the applicant, Robert Packer, has obtained
temporary access off of Foothill Boulevard from the State,
therefore, the application may be heard. Mr. Lam had
Mr. Vairin present the staff report.
Michael Vairin presented the staff report in detail, which is
or file in the Planning Divisiun. He stated that the
Dcvclnpment Review Committee has reviewed the Initial Study
and noise analysis. 'lie noise analysis was submitted by the
applicant per the request of Staff because of concerns from
surrounding residences. The Develop:ient Review Committee
recommended the adoption of a Negative Declaration bas ^d upon
the implementation of mitigating measures listed in the Sta "f
report. lie reported that Staff has thoroughly reviewed the
project plans as submitted by the applicant and has found
several areas of concern. The developm-ent plan indicated
access from a 25' driveway on Foothill 3oulevard. However,
such access requires approval from the State Department of
Transportation as Foothill Boulevard is a State highway.
CALTRANS has indicated to Staff that access for this
development .;as been approved on a temporary basis until
alternative access can be provided as long as the driveway
is of 35' minimum width.
Staff recommended the
the south and east sii
be shifted 10' to the
required 35' driveway
on the south and east
landscaped.
access and parking be eliminated on
ics of the buildings and the buildings
east in order to accommodate tae
from Foothill Boulevard. The areas
sides of the buildings will be fully
Staff recommended relocation of the trash enclosure away
from the street frontage as indicated w the Staff sketch
plan. Staff also recommended the installation of 4' x 8'
landscaped planters for approximately every 5 parking spaces
within the parking lot.
j 1ti -
Ile reported that elevations for building= "A" and "B"
indicate a 5nanish motif with tile roof and Spanish
laced stucco but the applicant has not provided elevations
of the proposed temporary trailers. Therefore, Staff
recommended that su:.h elevations be submitted to the
Planning Director for review and approval prior to
installation and that such trailers should be designed in
a manner that portraye them as permanent uuildings. Staff
further recommended that wood slats be provided in the
chain link fence around the temporary outdoor storage
area.
Ile stated that a public hearing notice was published in
the Cucamonga Times on July 13, 1978 and notice was sent
to adjacent property owners. No correspondence had been
received as a result of this publication,. Vowcvcr, prior
to that publication, the County Planning Departme:it sent
out referrals to adjacent owners and several negat,ve
comments were received. Such comments were relatdd to
potm -ntial noise from motorcycles and testing of vehicles
within the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff felt that
these concerns have been adequately covered through
environmental review.
Staff recommended approval of this uevelopment based on
the findings and departmental conditions listed in the
Staff report. further, Staff recommended issuance of
a Kegstive Declaration based upon the implementation of
the mitigating measures listed in the Staff report.
commissioner Garcia inquired about the applicant's plans
for the north 4nd west sections of the property shown on
Exhibit "E".
Michael Vairin responded that the applicant has proposed
dense landscaping along the north property line as part
of the mitigating measures with the remaining 4S' and 30'
on the west side to remain much as it is now.
Commissioner Garcia also questioned the temporary access
to the property.
Michael Vairin reported that CALTRANS has taken a stand to
try to eliminate as wany access points as possible to
Foothill Boulevard as it is a major arterial. CALTRn.NS
realizes that the applicant has no other alternative at
this time and is recommending that temporary access be
given until such time a; adjacent properties develop or
that the applicant can take access off of Hellman Avenue.
Robert Packer stated that he was anxious to start on the
installation of sewer and water lines as soon as possible
since he must he i-,i no later than September 1S.
Commissioner Tols"_oy was concerned about the temporary
structures being trailers and indicated that this could
become an eye sore to the community.
Commissioner Dahl was concerned with condition number 15
and asked Mr. Packer how he planned to enforce that the
testing of vcRicles be done only on major highways such
as Foothill Boulevard.
Robert Packer stated that he could control employee situation
but the customer is a little different. lie added that he
could be strong in advising them where they may crest. lie
further mentioned that he has been doing business in Upland
for 8 years and hat not had any problems so far.
-3_
Commissioner TolstoY inquired as to where the repair work
was to be done.
Robert Packer informed the Commission that probably in the
shed a� s a temporary facility. Mr. Packer submitted photo-
graphs of the trailers to the Commissioners and Staff.
Chairman Rempel asked if there were any comments from the
audience.
Oppositions regarding this application for site approval were
made by the following persons:
1. Steve Howard of 8036 Mantara,
2. George Goltz of 8043 Mantara,
3. Claire Howard of 8036 Mantara,
4. Walter Sevier of 9243 Estacia.
All of the above were concerned regarding the noise factor,
the test riding of vehicles, the temporary buildings and the
landscaping of this proposed site.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by
Commissioner Tolstoy it was voted to approve this development
based on the To`llowing findings and conditions. Further,
that a Negative Declaration be issued with mitigating
measures proposed by Staff:
FINDINGS:
1. That the site is adequate in size an.i shape.
2. That the site has adequate access.
3. That the proposed use will have no advers-. cEfecton abutting
property.
4. That the proposed use is cons ?steni with the propnsad
General Plan.
S. That the conditions listed in this report are necessary to
protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and
general welfare.
CONDITIONS:
1. That all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be complied
with.
2. That a revised site plan be drawn in accordance with
these conditions :nd be filed with the Planning Division
for review and approval.
3. That all landscaped areas be irrigated, aid that precise
landscaping and irrigation plans be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Commission prior to the
installation of any structures either permamart or
temporary. Further, landscaping along the north property
line and around the temporary trailer shall be installed
within 30 days after occupancy of the trailer.
•l. That the trash enclosure be located away from any street
frontage and that it he enclosed with a u' high masonry
wall and view obstructing ga -_es. A detail of said trash
enclosure shall be included in the revised plans.
S. That parking and access shall be eliminated on the east
and south sides of Buildings "A" and "B" and that such
area be fully landscaped.
,�. Q
6. That the access driveway from Foothill Boulevard shall be
minimum of 35' wide.
7. 'ib at 4' a 8' landscaped pl -nters be installed for approx-
imately every fifth parkin.; stall within the parking lot.
a. That concrete bumper stops be installed in the parking
spaces adjacent to the north sides of Buildings "A" and
„B„
9. That detailed elevations for the temporary trailers be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission
prior to the issuance of Hermits. Such elevations sht:ll
be designed in a manner that portrays the trailers as a
permanent structure. In addition, tha metal building shall
be sound insulated.
10. That wood slats be installed in the chain link fence aro,,nd
the _emporary outdoor storage area.
11. That the temporary trailer-, shed, and outdoor s'orabe
area be removed within one (1) year from such approval
and that the area be minimally landscaped. Landscape
plan to include this area.
12. That a three (3) foot solid masonry wail be constructed
along the entire length of the Hellman Avenue property
line and continuing around the corner radius.
13. That all repair work related to the business be done
within a cor-- pIctely enclosed building.
14. That a dense landscaped buffering strip be planted along
the entire north property line.
15. That the testing of vehicles be done only on a major
highway such as Foothill Boulevard.
16. That a detailed lighting plan be submitted to the
Planning Division for review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
17. Tliat tree wells, street trees, and irrigation shall be
provided within the public right -of -way according to
City specifications.
18. That all roof mounted equipment be screened from view
from all adjacent streets and properties. Such screening
to be approved by the Planning Division.
19. That the applicant install all fire protection improve-
ments as may be required by the Foothill Fire District.
20. That all provision; of the Uniform Building Code are
complied with.
21. That a cash payment security must be provided to cover
the cost of curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage pro-
tection on the Hellman Avenue frontage to the s=te.
22. All grading, drainage, and paving plans >'tall be draeii
according to specifications set by the City Engineer.
Further, such plans shall be submittedt to and approved
by the City Engineer prior to Iny installation of
structures, whether temporary o.• permanent.
23. Precise landscaping and irrigation plans tnd exterior
elevations of the trailer shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Commission prior .t-) the
installation of ar.y structures.
RECESS
RECONVENED
-5-
a
MOTION was carried and approved by Commissioners Jones,
Retp , Tolstoy and Dahl; Commissioner Garcia opposing.
Y Y * ** * R R R Y
APPEAL of aminor subdivis'on to divide 1.15 acres of land
located on the west side of Hellman Avenue south of ease
Lino into 2 parcels - R -1 Zone - Request submitted by Stephen
Lucas for Herbert Vaughan - Index No. 78 -0199.
Jack Lam stated that the applicant had withdrawn the
applic tion and that Staff will refund the applicant's
fee.
No motion was required by the Planning "ommission.
* * * * * * * * * *
Chaff.rman.ELnTel declared a short recess at 8 :45 p.m.
At 8:55 p.m. with all members present, the Planning Commission
reconvened.
OLD BUSINESS Jack Lam stated that the following zone changes are ones .
that wore submitted to the County and transferred to the
City. Ile stated that this meeting is intended to determine
the processing of these zone 1_hanges.
1. ZONE CIIANGE NO. 85 -49 - Changing the zone from A -1 -5 to
RR -1 ,000 or property located on the ,forth side of
A.lwond approximately 385' cast of Carnelian Street -
Requested by Gertrude Hartman.
_. ZONE CHANGE NO. 87 -73 - Changing the zone from FP -2 to
RR -3 For property located on the south side of Baseline
775' west of Vineyard Avenue - Requested by Jerry Rogers.
3. ZONE CHANGE N0. 94 -66 - Changing the zone from (7000)
R -1 -T to A -1 for property located on the north side of
19th Street about 385' west of Amethyst - Requested by
Kenneth Bylo:.
G. ZONE CIIM;GE NO. 97 -82 - Changing the ;;ane fram R -1 to C -2
'or property located —on the east Side of Archibald about
150' north of Devon Street - Requested by Freda Shelley.
S. ZONE CHANGE NO. 95 -85 - Changing the zone from A -1 and
V -1 to M -1 for property located on the south side of
Arrow Rv* a about 128' west of Archibald - Requested by
Harry Rinke. .
6. ZONE CHANGE NO. 123 -81 - Changing the zone from A -1 to C -2
Tor Property loiate`Jat the southwest intersection of
Foothill Bouleva'd and Interstate 15 - Requested by
William Longley.
.lack 1.sm reviewed the Staff report in detail which is on
file in the Planning )ivision. lie recommended that Zone_
Change No. 85 -4 9 and '.on^ Change No. 87 -73 be continued
L�jC next meeting to a I W tTlc lT7 ty oCilc)' to determine the
status of the -3rojecti iu lien of the moratorium.
MOTION: Upon motion be Commissioner Garcia, seconded by
Conunissioner Rempel and unanimously carried, it was -voted
to continue Zone Change No. 85 -49 and Zone Change No. 87 -73
to the next Planning Commission meeting on August 9, I5 -8
for legal interpretation of Ordinance No. 36.
Jack Lam farthe* stated that Zone Change Nos. 94 -66, 97 -82,
997W and 123 -81 can be brought before t'— he Planning Commission
for public hearings, and that these items should be processed
in he priority according to the "uhmittal date.
Planning Commission instructed Staff to begin final
procrssit +g of the applications.
MINOR SUBDIVISION to create an industrial tract of 6 lots
located on the suuth side of 9th Street approximately 600
feet west of Hellman Avenue - N -R Zone - Application submitted
by Michael Todd - Index No. 78- 02451.
Jack Lam stated that the applicant is requesting approval
to create 6 free standing industrial buildings on
individual lots. The proposal is consistent with the
existing San 8ernaidino Cuunty recommendation.; and findings
be retained.
nh•. Michael Todd requested that item number 26 be changed to
a Certiri� at Uccupancy instead of bonds.
Jack Lam concurred with the applicant on his request for a
Certlfxcat of Occupancy.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by
Commissioner .tones, and unanimously carried it was voted
to approve Hin677;ubdivision No. 78 -0245 based upon the
following finings and conditions. Further, that a
Neuativtr her�nrntinn h.! i�s��ed and rnrnrAnA.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed project will be consistent with the
adopted City Community Cane :al Plans, both textual
and mapped.
2. Adequate service capacity exists, has been reserved,
or will be available at such time as the project is
completed or within a reasonable acc Yptable time
frame for fire protection, drainage and circulation.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type
of d en3ity and developn,'nt.
4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improve -
ment are not I'kely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidai -le injure fish and
wildlife and their habitat.
5. The design of the subdivision or type of proposed
improvement are not likely to cause serious public
health problems or cause threat to life and property
from a wildfire conflagration.
6. The proposed subdivision; its design, density and type
of development and improvements conform to the condi-
tions imposed by the County Subdivision chapter, the
reguiLtion^ of tiie County Zoning chapter and the regu-
lations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.
CONDITIONS:
I. That a Negative Declaration be adopted and that the
Secretary be instructed to file a Notice of Determination.
2. That the Planning Cummission apprcve Minor Subdivision -
W78- 0245 -1, subject to the attachei cons tiors.
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS:
1. The water system and fire hydrants shall be instal_ed in
accordance with requirements of the State Health and
Safety Codt, and ir, accordance with plans approved by
yJ I
-7-
2. Easements and improvements shall be provided And
drainage coordinated in accordance with the SLandards
and requirements of the County of Ser Bernardino and
the County Planning Commission.
3. Where a bond is to be posted in lieu of installation of
the improvement:
A. The domestic water plan and /nr sewer plan shall be
reviewed by a civil engineer, registered in the
State of California and said engineer shall determine
the amount of bond necessary to install the improve-
ments. This amount plus ten percent shall be posted
with the County of San Bernardino.
B. The larescntly required certificates on water maps
for the water company and engineer must still be
placed on the map. In addition, a statement shall
be transmitted to the Public Hc-alth Department
si.oned by the Registered civil engineer for the
water purveyor stating that the amount of build
recommended is adequate to cover the cost of
installation of the improvement.
C. further, prior to releass of the bond for the
improvement, the engineer for the subdivider or the
utility of jurisdiction shall submit a signed
statement confirming that the improvement has been
installed according to the approved plans and meets
the requirements of all appropriate State and
County laws nertaininn to such improvement. It is
the developer's responsibility that such signed
statement is filed with the County Department
of Environmental Health Services.
D. In cases where the water agency or sewering agency
is a governmental subdivision, prior to final
recording of the tract map, the governmental agency
shall submit a statement directed to the County
stating that the improvement has been installed
according to the approved plans or stating that the
bond in the amount of 110 percent of the cost of
installation of the improvement has been placed
with the agency.
4. A commitment shall be obtained, in writing, from the
sewering agency. Said commitment to in�!icate that the
agency has the capacity to furnish said sewer service
to the subject project, and that all necessary arrange-
ments have been made with said agency to supply such
services. A copy of the commitment to be filed with
the Planning Department.
STREET, GRADING AND DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS:
County Transportation Department:
5. Paving. curbs and gutters shall be installed on Ninth
Street and offer of dedication street. Plans for all
improvements must be approved by the Rancho Cucamonga
City Engineer prior to installation of said improve-
ments. A cash deposit or bond may be placed with the
City Transportation Department to fulfill this
requirement.
6. Thirty -three (33) foot offer of dedication required
along Ninth Street.
7. Sixty (60) foot offer of dedication required along
offer of dedication street.
8. Twenty (20) foot radius of return offer of dedication
required for rounding the corner of Ninth Street.
9. One (1) foot non - access strip iq iequired at terminus
of offer of dedication street as snown ou plat map.
Flood Protection Requirements:
10. Structural block walls, earth berms or surfaced channels
shall be provided alnng the boundaries as required.
11. The portion of lots adjacent to the access street shall
be elevated above the top of the curb of the access
street to reduce possibility of overflow entering
the lots.
12• Adequate provisions shall be made for handling on -site
drainage and dewatering the site in a manner which will
not adversely affect adjacent or downstream property.
13. Precise flood protection measures shall be designed
to protect against inundation by a 100 year storm and shall
confo.m to the provisions of the Federal Flood Insurance
Program protection measure and shall he based on a
hydroingical study prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer and will be Subject to approval of the City
Engineer.
Count Surveyor:
14. Upon completion of all other conditions, a Parcel Map
of the proposed division shall be recorded with the
County Recorder pursuant to provisions of the Stete
Map Act. (Note: This map must be prepared by a
licensed land surveyor or a registered civil engineer.)
An advance copy of the Parcel. Map may be submitted to
the County Surveyor to expedite checking, but the
County Surveyor will not accept the linen for
presentation to the County Recorder for filing until
notified by the Planning Director that your Minrr
Subdivision application is in order for final approval.
15. The Parcel Map is required due to insufficient survey
data recorded with the County of San Bernardino.
* In addition to the Street and Drainage requirements,
other "on- site" or "off- site" improvements may be required
which cannot be determined from tentative plans and would
have to ;,e determined after more complete improvement
plans and profiles have been submitted to the County
Transporr.ation Department.
County Fire Warden:
i6. Fire flow will be determined by this department upon
receirt of the following information:
A. Two (2) sets of plans,
B. Type of roof covering,
C. Number of stories.
17. Calculations indicating that the fire flow requirement
will he met shall be submitted to this department
prior to plan approval.
18. Water mains and appurtenances shall be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the Cucamonga
County Water District.
19. This department shall be notified to witness an
acceptance test of the water sys:.e:.t prior to construction
of any building(s) or structure(s).
-9-
20. Fire hydrants shall be installed prior to commencing
construction of any building(s) or structure(s), and
shall be approved wet barrel type only.
21. All streets and cul-de-sacs shall meet the minimum
San Bernardino County Transportation Department
standards.
22. Streets leading to cul -de -sacs or dead ends shall nor
exceed 600 feet in length. In the event these streets
are redesigned in any rauncr, the 600 foot length shall
no maintained on all rc- submitted plans (tentative or
final).
Count}, Planning Department:
23. Street li,hting shall be provided throughout the tract
including all peripheral streets.
24. Utility lines shall be placed underground in accordance
with the requirements of County Ordinance No. 2041.
25. Cxisting zoning is MR.
26. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy,
all squired walls and landscaping shall be completed
or suitable bonds posted for their cr)mpletion. Bonds
shall be posted with -he Panning Division.
27. four (4) copies of a final Grading and Lanscaping Plan
shall be submitted for Planning Director review and
approval prior to the issuance of grading permits ::hen
phasing, when. finished perimeter slopes are proposed
adjacent to existing development, or when graded
slopes exceed five (5) feet in vc 7t-ca1 height.
28. Graded slopes shall be limited to a maximum slope
ratio ,f 2 to l and a maximum vertical height of
30 fe%t. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes
shall be a minimum of one half the slope height.
29. Graded slopes shall be contour - graded to blend with
existing natural contours and developed with a minimum
radius at intersecti;jg horizontal planes of two (2) feet,
(measured one (1) Foot from the top or toe of slope)
and a maximum horizontal length of two hundred (200)
feet.
30. The surface of all cut slopes more than five (5) feet
in height and f:.11 slopes more than three (3) feet in
height shall be protected against damage by erosion by
planting with grass or ground cov-:r plants. Slopes
exceeding firteen (15) feet in vertical height shall
also be planted with shrubs, spaced at not to exceed
ten (10) feet on centers; or trees, spaced at not to
exceed twenty (20) feet on centers; or a combination
of shrubs and trees as cover plants. The plants
selected and planting methods used shall be suitable
for the soil and climatic conditions of the site:
Trees 10% 15 gal.; 40% 5 gal.; 50% 1 gal.
Shrubs 20% 5 gal.; 80% 1 gal.; Ground cover 100%
coverage.
31. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping Plan reflecting the
above requirements and placement of street trees (if
required) shall be submitted for Planning Director
Review and approval.
32. The maintenance of graded slopes and landscaped areas
shall be the responsibility of the developer until the
transfer to individual ownership ox, until the maintenance
is officially assumed by a County Service Area.
33. All irrigation systems where required shall be designed
on an individual lot basis unless commonly maintained
in an approved manner.
34. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, four (4) copies
of a Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted
to the Planning Oizector for review and approval.
35. Prior to recordation of the Parcel %lap, a lette_ from
the serving water and sewer agency shall be submitted
certifying ti;at capacity for Minor Subdivision 78- 0245 -I
has been reserved for a minimum period of one (1 year.
36, Prior to the issuance of any building permits for this
property, the applicant must obtain approval of a Site
Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW of a tentative tract on 161 acres located
Wes: of Sappu re Street north of Almond Avenue to consist of
196 lots - R -I 20,060 and R -1 -14 Zone - Submitted by J.
Gregory Lawlor, Enterprises - Tentative Tract No. 10210.
Jack Lam recommended that the Planning Commission continue
this item to the meeting of August 9, 1978 to allow the
applicant time to compile and present the rovis.d tentative
tract map to the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Upon motion by Commissicncr Tolstoy, seconded by
Commissioner Garcia and unanimously carried, it was vntPd
to continue t ifi s item to August 9, 1978.
RECO6MNDATION on "Hardship" Sewer Allucat jn_
Jack Lam stated that since the July 12, i978 Planning
Commission meeting, new developments have occurred which
changed the Planning Commission'-, perspective on the whole
"hardship" sewer issue. Since the Council has imposed a
moratorium untii after January 1, 1379 and that sewer
capacity will be available soon, there is no longer a need
to consider "hardship" cases as they will be able -to develop
once the moratorium is lifted.
Comments from Mr. Joe Di Orio were made. lie thought that
allocations shoul mac�einn August instead of January, 1979.
The Planning Corunission concurred with Staff's analysis.
NEW BUSINESS REFERRAL of Director Review for the development of a profes-
sional office complex to he located on the southeast corner
of Hellman and Baseline Avenue - A -P Zone - submitted by
Doug Hor.e.
J..ck Lam requested that the Planning Commission grant the
continuance for the review of the review of this project
to August 23, 1978 meeting.
MOTION: Upon motion iiy Commissioner �TTolst��oyy, seconded by
Comm si sioner Garcia and unanimously ca-r- ecT, it was voted
to continue tFi ___,;i to the Planning Commission meeting
of August 23, 1978.
CO6HUNIl,n7 ;.1J 1; Commissioner Garcia suggested that a special study session
be set up to measure growth and progress in Rancho
Cucamonga. Conunissioner Rempel suggested that a tentative
' 777 -77}V @}.RI wTii�f= .'.c :°9{Ji' �w•.vT ] --.. r`•. cam. „'a "" °�^^A�r�R�
-Li-
ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner
Tolstoy and unanimously carries%; it was voted to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1978 at ll:oo p.m.
to its next regularly s ^heduled meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
DiiMansfiel Secreta