HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/01/24 - Agenda Packet X_- _ - - !
.Y
i '
I
I.
i
Y
A I'
•1
t
:r
f
ro .
.. 4f
f ^
f,
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, January 24, 1979, 7:00 p.m.
Community Services Building
9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Remuel
i Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Tolstoy
Commissioner Jones
III. Approval of Minutes
December 27, 1978
s IV. Announcements
V. Consent Calendar
VI. Public Hearings
Z G ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79-01 - SIGN ORDINANCE - Amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new sign ordinance and repeal
all existing sign regulations (Continued from 1/10/79 with
public hearing open).
A B. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79-02 - HOME OCCUPATIONS - Amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance to add Home Occupation regulations to
allow incidental occupational uses in residential homes (Con-
tinued from 1/10/79 wii.;i public hearing closed) .
VII. Old Business
C. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78-12 - ALDERFER (Continued from 1/10/79) -
Request for development of a two-story, 10,000 square foot
office building located at 8030 Vineyard in the C-2 zone.
D. PLANNING COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS (Continued for
corrections from 1/10/7.9) .
E. SERVICE STATION STANDARDS (Continued from 1/10/79).
:5 F. 'SPECIAL BOULEVARD STANDARDS (Cont-.!.hued from 12/27/78) .
7
a - :
b
r -
s
VIII. New Business
Ga NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 AND PARCEL
MAP 4773 - KORTAPETER - The division of 1.8 acres into two
(2) lots located 850' east of Etiwanda Avenue and 950' north
of Summit Avenue - R-1 zone
Hq, Policy for improvements on Parcel Maps
IX. Council Referral
I. INTERIM LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT -
Referral from Council for recommendation on specific areas of
concern.
X. Director's Report
J. POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN STUDY Ak.EAS NOT 'WITHIN CITY
XI. Public Comment - Anycne wishing to comment on any. items not listed
on the Agenda may do so at this time.
XII. Commission Comment
XIII. Adjournment
yA
ti
•:1
i c Cl)
�" N•.qqi v 7 ro k �,:hrs�e;,�r.'�,tiF!�J''Cy�!A.�,�KtS'.+
py •tr ro -O� N b
y rn 4W11 lz N .�4V4J b
! m
Tr 41 41 vro ' / ���� li m
�. Y, •t W�y n .•-I W E W .O 6-.i M'O ;�• Ki,'ti�n�;•r�'r•F� tMrr
Cb •as w O atj .d
LIJ 5 ro N -H •D v U \\ .� w
_ _ �•4i. y0, EroN4 41 °_omvo a ro i
_ •� ro PG •O , v N O ro 1.) O
-A � N wb asd -4
Juj o ai Cuaroa43v4 .10
E w Or: LI N N ro 11 w
d acroi a"i " ", vu"» uONrn
v� ro .-1v (dvuOuvG
U i OS F, ro Z-'l N 4 in a) O •4 0
f•, n C 4, tr 4
1
.--, ro X. 4.) r�+H G w ..� 4 v
m e `�4 -�� (1) � a)0 (1) .
M pro 1 1311Gb +1 14saC
N x ao v ill ov-,4mro Oa ❑
M r ro a -4 +J N .i r. w -A O ^ .
'n ,i ?-, C W b' N ro .-i O v N >1
it H x;. C ro .4.) CDU) A:ro ;J ..
.i ...1.. a) O. O O N w ro O '.•:� i , di`y..
r �'.h/!'4 1 YOi1rJ'7� 1 is
Diu j�7 y•Fr� .y4v..l�`R��Nf�� H(3. Uf:"7r'� .�'ri.i y�idh�dC .� 'f'::SF���r•6�1}�.^r:",}�bfn � n " �,•�. ?ti • .,f r�V� ,� �A•�-• am ._V
.. .s" ON�T
Y 0 EL PM19EN .. . ., Ty.s i�•. t3 St •xC v. . a .
JAN 2 3 1979
AM PM
s 71819110111112111213141516
!/yy.!f'•'�� J�� •fJlYa 4r� 1{� S f'yJ \%�.f ��'v:• t ':.i�, ^� :• r', t.. ! r •/ N.
•l�Sw,! �_ 'f'4�1k .w"��'�,7.���t ; � �:.! � .ri"`, ii ��..!?lrj.31}�is.C? 1Vr r�.�7�'1+kS ..r;Ls�r .�'i. t{%>.•Mi,� +�Jti�71!�.Y' ��'i':
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AGENCY = county of San Bernord.n_
PLANNING DEPARTMENT _
1111 East Mill Street, Bldg. 1 Saar Bernardino,CA 92415 • 1714)383.1417�_ L� [ '•;IW. _r'!f �'^v't:;-O�1eCtOf
`�F r�.�.f.l �. c.T;cr,ete_fLt;f�
CDtn11,1,•.1'1 Y LLVL•01"WNT DLPT.
January 16 , 1979 J A N 19 1919
f�kl ['!A
7181911011111211121314050
6
Steven G. Yap
1721 Paseo Mundo
San Dimas , CA 91773
RE: MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #W78-0662
Dear Mr. Yap:
This is to advise you that your referenced minor subdivision appli-
cation was not approved by the San Bernardino Planning Director on
January 15, 1979.
The Subdivision Review Committee on December 7, 1978 reviewed your
application and recommended that the Planning Director not approve
your application because the required findings could not be made in
accordance with the provisions of County Ordinance 2179. The pro-
posed project did not receive an affirmative response to the primary
consideration of schools and circulation. The existing roads are
not adequate for the increasing development in the immediate area.
The roads should be developed to county standards for this entire
area.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is concerned over the development of
the hillside area north of the present City boundary because this
area will have an aesthetic environmental and potential fiscal
impacts to the community. It is their feeling that the environ-
mential constraints to development in this area as well as the area' .5
remoteness from urban sources, makes thie area premature =or i::atediate
development.
Proposed cul-de-sac access to the proposed parcels 1, 2 , and 3 is
inadequate as shown on the Minor Subdivision Plat Map and exceeds
�-6AD- feet. The design of the proposed cul-de-sac road will further
divide parcels 1 and 2 into additional parcel creating more than
4 contiguous parcels.
Yf X': f Aul GUOpt•):ri p,....... ..1 ...
t,. •. n., ,. ROla Ill FOWNstNU bnu.11, rn•i.•. i 1.n•a:.N•-KY .•d
.1, ,
Page 2 - January 16 , 1979
MINOR SUBDIVISION #W78-0662
Steven G. Yap _
This action is subject to appeal to the County Planning Commission
Subcommittee for a period of fourteen (14) calendar days from the
date of this notice. The appeal must be made in writing on forms
available from this office.
If there are any questions regarding the above, please feel free to
contact this office at 714/383-3691.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING DEP TMENT
ohn Perevuzn}lc, Associate Planner
West Valley Planning Team
JP/mh
CC: PWA, Land Development Division
Lity cf Rancho Cucamonga
i
wI' 11V
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 27, 1978
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 :led.aaday, Dcc=bcr 27, 1978.
Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led the meeting
with the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Laura Jones (Excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior
Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner;
and Nancy McAllister, Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Upon Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded ty Commissioner Rempel and unanimously
carried the Special Study Session minutes of November 21, 1978 were approved subject
to the following change:
Peter Tolstoy to be shown as absent at this meeting
Jorge Garcia to be shown as present at this meeting
Upon Motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolatoy and unanimously
carried, the Special Study Session Minutes of November 29, 1978 were approved subject
to the following change:
Page 2, the last sentence in the first paragraph to be changed as follows:
Appointed to that committee were Commissioners Jones, Garcia and Rempel.
Motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit No. 78-03 - HONE - Request to allow a restaurant, related bar
facilities and musical entertainment within a proposed neighborhood shopping center
located on the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Street in the C-1 zone.
a'a
N
i q
Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on
file in the Planning Division. He indicated a letter was received f!^om the Mayor
of the City of Upland which stated that the present Boars Head in the. City of
Upland has been operating for over four years. It is a well run business estab-
lishment which hasn't caused any problems for the city. It stated it is an asset
from the City's viewpoint. (Letter on file in the Planning Division) . He reported
Condition d4 in the Resolution regarding hours of operation should be completed by
the Commission. Also, Condition 45 was left open for the Commission to consider the
granting of the CUP for a period of time. He recommended that the Commission approve
Resolution No. 78-40 subject to the findings and conditions as listed with the com-
pletion of Conditions 04 and 95.
Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission for the staff.
Commissioner Dahl asked if a CUP is subject to revocation at any time if the con-
ditions are not met. What would be the reason for placing a time limit on the CUP?
Mr. Hogan stated yes, the reason for a time limit is to review the CUP at the end of
a stated period of time. In the future, homes will be built in this area with new
residents who may have complaints about the use and not know how to voice that
complaint. This gives them as well as the Commission the opportunity to nip the
problem in the bud rather than have it go on and become a major problem. He indi-
cated a Conditional Use Permit can be reviewed at any time, but Staff felt better
to put a period of time on it and that the applicant be made aware of this.
There being no further questions from the Commission to the Staff, Chairman Rempel
opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the applicant.
Mr. Doug Hone stated Mr. Downey who owns the Boars Head in Upland will be operating
at this location. He stated if this business is allowed to develop and should there
be any trouble in the future whereby the Police Department has to respond to calls,
this use could be reviewed at that time. Mr. Downey is investing a lot of money
in this business and does not want any trouble. This will be a very high quality
business establishment that serves dinner and lunch and one which will be an asset
to the community.
Mr. Downey. applicant, stated he would be happy to answer questions from the Commis-
sion. He stated the Boars Head will be approximately 2,700 square feet. It will
be more plush then the present Boars Head in Upland. They will have a very limited
dance floor. The music will begin at approximately 9 p.m. and play until 1:30 a.m.
No noise will be heard outside of the building. The heaviest business will be between
the hours of 9 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. at which time the rest of the shopping center will
be closed. They will have a larger kitchen then the present Boars Head and will have
a larger menu.
Chairman Rempel asked Mr. Downey what the normal hours of operation are for this
facility.
Mr. Downey stated they would liketo open at 11:00 a.m. and close by 2:00 a.m.
Chairman Rempel stated it is his opinion that a time limit should be placed on the
granting of the CUP because most m: the surrounding residential area is not occupied
yet. It should definitely be reviewed in a specified period of time to insure there
is no problems rather than waiting until there are complaints.
r .. Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 27, 1978
t'
Commissioner Garcia stated he is concerned about the entertainment proposed. He
felt the reason some of the facilities are successful such as Upland is due to the
fact the community is well developed. .He asked what is proposed in terms of security.
Mr. Downey stated the best security he can think of is the way the business is
operated. They will have a host that will stand at the door to check I.D. 's and
on-site security for special events.
Commissioner Garcia asked what is the maximum capacity requested for the facility.
Mr. Downey stated the maximum capacity will be approximately 130.
Doug Hone stated in talking with the Police Department for the City of Upland, they
had nothing but praise for the Boars Head located in their city.
Ted Hopson, City Attorney, stated tha Alcoholic Beverage Control Board submits pros-
pective applicants to the local police department and if they object to the business
it is grounds for the ABC not to issue a license. Therefore, the Sheriff's Department
will have input as to whether or not the license is granted.
Chairman Rempel asked if there will be sufficient parking in this center with the
Boars Head addition.
Doug Hone stated they have exceeded the required parking on the site for the center.
Commissioner Garcia asked Mr. Downey if he objects to Condition 05 in the Resolution
in regard to placing a time limit on this CUP.
Mr. Downey stated he feels that there is already a conditional situation on this
permit. If there is any problem in the future, they would expect to be notified
of this at the time the problem is noted. He does not feel placing a time limit
on this use is really necessary.
Commissioner Tolstoy Baked if a new operator should take over this business in the
future, would he haveto apply for a use permit?
Mr. Hogan stated no, this use permit runs with the land, not the owner.
Mr. Hopson stated he would feel more comfortable with the approval of this develop-
ment if an additional condition were placed in the Resolution stating that the
applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions within 60 days from approval.
Commissioner Dahl suggested that Condition 05 in the Resolution be reworded as
follows: The CUP is granted for a period of indefiniee time with Planning Com-
mission review after 24 months of operation at which time the Commission may add
or delete conditions.
Commissioner Garcia stated he is still a little concerned about the parking, and
whether or not it is in compliance with the codes.
City Attorney stated the ordinance reads that one parking space shall be required
for every three seats within a restaurant.
Jack Lam stated the parking proposed would more than meet the standard of the ordi-
nance as to the calculations in terms of square footage for eating establishments
versus retail and office uses.
` Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 27, 1978
t4•
Chairman Rempel stated it is his opinion that Condition #4 in the Resolution should
be worded as follows: Hours of operation shall not exceed 1.1 a.m. to 2 a.m.
Chairman Rempel asked if any one else in the audience would like to speak for or
against this CUP.
There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the
public hearing.
Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to
approve Resolution No. 78-40 subject to the findings and conditions as listed
with the following changes and additions:
Condition #4: Hours of operation shall not exceed 11 a.m. to 2 a.m.
Condition #5: The CUP is granted for a period of indefinite time with
Planning Commission review after 24 months of operation
at which time the Commission may add or delete conditions.
Condition #7: The applicant shall agree in writing to all conditions within
60 days from approval.
AYES: DAHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA. REMPEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JONES
MOTION CARRIED.
OLD BUSINESS
Utilization of Trailers for Sales Tract Offices (Planning Commission Interpretation)
Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the Staff Report in detail,
this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff requests that the Planning Com-
mission determine whether their interpretation of Section 61.0219(A)5 will allow
trailer coaches to be used for tract sales offices, and if so, that such usage
will be allowed subject to the approval of a location and development plan (Site
Approval) as provided in the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Garcia stated during past years we have seen a tremendous amount of
these in operation within the City. He is very concerned that in many tracts the
trailer was put up prior to any type of development taking place. Some of the trailers
remained for the total sales of the tract. It is his opinion that trailers should
be used until model homes are completed and; conversion of the garage has been com-
pleted. However, he doesn't feel that trailers should be installed and be used for
business until the tract is complete. He feels they are a nuisance to the community
and he is not receptive to that type of usage as it detracts from the aesthetics of
the City. He would be receptive to a temporary usage of the trailer for business
purposes until conversion of the garage is completed.
Hr. Hopson stated there have been cases where a tract developer does not have model
homes. What would be done in this case?
Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 27, 1978
Barry Hogan stated perhaps the Commission might want to consider Site Approval
of temporary trailers in order to allow the Commission to review each location,
parking requirements and landscaping to insure the proper requirements have been
met. It is his opinion that a temporary trailer could be acceptable aesthetically
if proper standards are set to insure the proper placement on the site, :sndscaping,
set time limit on the tract operation of the office, provisions for parking, fencing,
etc.
Commissioner Garcia stated he agrees that the utilization of trailers for sales
offices should be reviewed under Site Approval. In addition, it would be advisable
if the Staff would work up some guidelines and policies that the Commission can go
by in its review.
After further discussion, a Motion was made by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by
Commissioner Tolstoy to accept Staff recommendation to allow trailer coaches to be
used for interim tract sales offices subject to the approval of location and develop-
ment plans under the Site Approval process.
AYES: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL, GARCIA
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JONES
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL REFERRAL
Jack Lam summarized previous Commission actions which have been reviewed by the
City Council.
The Vanir Development on Amethyst and 19th Street (Director Review 0 78-19) reviewed
by the Planning Commission at its last meeting was referred to the City Council at
its meeting of December 20. The Council after discussion adopted the Commission
recommendation on the 50% limitation for C-1 uses and approved the uses which the
Commission recommended.
Regarding the issue of Growth Management, the Council continued the current moratorium
for a period of 60 days, but exempted multi-family apartments and multi-family tracts.
it is felt multi-family apartment developments will have a minimum impact on the
school district. The reason the Council extended the moratorium was there was
varying information being circulated in the community that made a lot of people
upset. Furthermore, a petition was submitted by Alta Loma residents in regard
to the school impact issue. The Council appointed a fact-finding committee to
look into the information that the Commission had previously considered to reverify
the data. This group would report back to the Council before the 60 day period is
over.
PLANNING CItfMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Barry Hogan reviewed the Staff Report for the Commission. Staff recommends that
after review, the Planning Commission adopt the Administrative Regulations either
in whole, part, or modified.
xR
�,�;. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 27, 1978
After much discussion and changes to the draft regulations, it was the concensus
of the Commission that the regulations be redrafted and brought back for review
under Old Business at the neat meeting of January 10, 1979.
' s
r�
Chairman Rempel called a recess at 9:25 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:32 p.m.
CONSIDERATION OF THE PRELIMINARY ALQUIST PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES ZONES MAPS as
per requirements of the Alqulst-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972.
Bill Hofman, Planning Assistant, reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being
on file in the Planning Division. The Planning Division recommends the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zones preliminary maps as modified be submitted for approval
to the City Council and thence submitted to the State as per requirements of the
Alquist Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972.
Chairman Rempei asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff.
Commissioner Garcia asked if it would be proper to develop some guidelines prior
to the recommendation to the Council in order to send the whole package rather
than piecemeal.
Bill Hofman stated the reason we did not do this is that we are trying to meet a
deadline to get this information to the State. The State will be publishing offi-
cial maps in the near future.. It is to our advantage to get comments to the State
as quickly as possible.
Jack Lam stated the way to appraoch any proposed development in known earthquake
fault areas is to require research through the environmental process within a
quarter mile on either side of the fault, and not allow any habitable structure
within 50' of a known fault. This will eventually be part of our Sesimic Safety .
Element; however, in the meantime the Geologic Committee is working on this issue
in order to get as much information as possible.
After general discussion, a Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded
by Commissioner Dahl to recommend the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zones pre-
liminary maps as modified be submitted for approval to the City Council and then
submitted to the State as per requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard
Zones Act of 1972.
AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, TOLSTOY, REMPEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JONES
MOTION CARRIED
Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 27, 197V
-en.'
SERVICE STATION STANDARDS
Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being
on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
review the proposed standards and direct staff to agendize a zoning ordinance
amendment to incorporate those standards in our Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he feels minor welding should be allowed within a
service etation.
Mr_ Hogan stated these standards were taken from a variety of ordinances that we have
reviewed. We feel that this is a good start for discussion. The Commission may want
to discuss this tonight and set a further meeting at a later date as the Commission
desires.
Coamlissioner Tolstoy stated it is his opinion that self serve gas stations and ser-
vice stations should have a different set of standards.
Mr- Hogan stated the Site Approval procedure requires public hearings before the
Commission and basically a Site Approval the way the ardinance is written is a con--
d1tional use permit and can determine whether or not, because of circulation, self
service or full service is acceptable. He stated if the Commission desires, a con-
dit ion could be placed under special requirements that service stations if developed
in a shopping center must be done in conjunction with the total development and not
after the fact.
Commissioner Dahl stated he feels a definition is needed to distinguish between
a full service station, a self service station, or a self service station with
another use. He does not feel the same rules would apply for all three.
Barry Hogan stated a definition for each could very easily be put into the standards.
If there is a station that has full service, and if they want tc convert to a self
service station, it would require review under Site Approval. He doesn't think we
as Staff or Commission should say a gas company has to provide a full service station.
Then we are dictating what their market should be based on Commission and Staf:
f eelings.
Commissioner Garcia stated he feels we should be able to formulate a document that
w111 deal with all standards of the community which the citizen or developer should
be able to obtain and be able to address himself to any type of development within
the community.
Jack Lam stated the intent was to develop a policy for the City. Policies are a
collection of standards via resolutions. We can not develop all standards at once;
however, as they are developed they will be assembled into a policy manual.
Mr. Hogan stated there are certain uses that change as time changes. Self service
wasn't anything some years back. With a new Ci::y, standards tend to be revised as
we see some things that work one way, can be changed to better work another wa; .
The Resolution can be revised as necessary.
Chairman Rezpel stated he would like to add that where possible pictures are worth
a thousand words. Pictures that can show the requirements rather than using a lot
of wordb i., more valuable.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 270 1978
Commissioner Dahl stated he is in favor of standards for automobile service
stations; however, he would like to see anything regarding self service stations
or mixed use stations removed. It is his opinion that these should be a separate
set of standards set up for each of the different uses.
Chairman Fempel stated perhaps one policy could be adopted with a separate section
for full service, a separate section fon self service, and a separate section within
the policy for mixed use stations.
Mr. Lam stated these separate sections can be developed.
Ccwmissioncr Carcia stated it �w. austorVry new to have a gas station with a car
wash next to it. Some type of standards should also be developed to handle this
type of situatlon. Also, he is concerned about the repair of automobiles and
whether they should be allowed in the front of the building, or in the back. It
is his opinion that repairs should be limited to the rear of the station.
Mr. Hopson stated as he understands it, it is the concensus of the Commission that
service stations can only be approved under Site Approval. The way the County ordi-
nance is presently written a service station in the C-1 or C-2 zone is allowed with-
out 31te Approval. As long as the use is consistent with the zone, there is no con-
trol of the use. The only way the Commission can have control is under the Site
Approval procedure.
After further discussion, it was the concensus of the Commission that the Service
Station Standards be redrafted to include the points mentioned above.
SPECIAL BOULEVARD STANDARDS
Jack Lam reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on file in the Planning
Division. The Planning Division recommends that the Commission consider such
policies and instruct staff to prepare a necessary resolution for future adoption.
Commissioner Garcia stated regarding Foothill Blvd. and other special boulevard
areas, he would like to discourage parking in front of the buildings. He would
like to see this implemented because he feels that it gives a better image.
Chairman Rempel stated F.(. feels there would be problems with totally eliminating
parking in the front. If done right, parking can be located in the front of a
development that doesn't detract from the aesthetics of the development.
Commissioner Garcia stated we should encourage diversity of exterior structural
design and site development plans over and beyond increasing landscaping.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated both Commissioners Garcia and Rempel have brought
out good points. He feels what we are striving for is a variety in the develop-
ments along major thoroughfares.
Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 27, 1978
f ,
Mr. Lam stated what other cities have done in their standard policy whenever
possible is to encourage designers to design a facility so that parking is not
facing the street. At the design review stage when plans are discussed this can
be encouraged. In the industrial areas, most of the parking is located to the
rear of the buildings.
Barry Hogan stated it is a policy to provide a varie'_y on special boulevards in
order to provide for diversity and aesthetic appeal along the street. He
suggested that the Commission set this item to come back to the meeting of
January 24, 1979 to discuss this matter further.
Mr. Lam stated that he will request the Chamber of Commerce to review these
standards prior to the meeting of the 24th.
A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Covrdssioner Tolstoy to
set this item for review under Old Business for the meeting of January 24, 1979.
AYES: . DAHL, TOLSTOY, GARCIA, REMPEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JONES
MOTION CARRIED.
CLARIFICATION OF MIRED USE CATEGORY AND STANDARDS FOR 1M1gXMENTATICN
Barry Hogan reviewed the Staff Report in detail this being on file in the Plan-
ning Division. It is recommended that the Commission concur with the procedure
of allowing ancillary commercial uses subject to Site Approval in mixed use areas.
Additionally, R-3 zoning in the mixed use aroma would be for multiple units only.
In order to resolve the conflicts existing in the A-P and R-3 zones, Staff would
also suggest that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a zoning ordi-
nance amendment to solidify the examples listed above.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he thought this would be written into the new zoning
ordinance.
Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated that is correct; however, we
also need guidelines to follow at this time prior to the adoption of the new zonirg
ordinance.
After general discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded
by Commissioner Dahl to allow ancillary commercial uses subject to Site Approval
in the mixed use areas. Additionally, R-3 zoning iu the mixed use area would be
for multiple units only and A P for office and ancillary retail commercial uses.
It was further recommended that the Staff prepare a zoning ordinance amendment
for the A-P and F. 3 zones.
AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, TOLSTOY, REMPEL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JONES
MOTION CARRIED
-", \ ' Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 27, 1978
REQUEST BY RICHARD DEWITT for waiver of plan review for a temporary business
location.
Jack Lar reviewed the Staff Repo.± in detail, this being on file in the Planni,ti¢
Division. He recommended siAtce there a=e no ordinance provisions to allow the
Planninv Commission to waive the review procedures for the location and develop-
ment of a temporary wholesale lumber business, staff recommends that the Commis-
sion direct the applicant to file formal applications, fees, and planR for the
Commission's review; if the applicant chooses to pursue this mattes.
Mr. Hopran stated under the code it is clear that interim business locations
require lccation and de7elopment plan review. He stated there is no legal alter-
native but to require this review.
_1r. Steve Perryman, representing the applicant, stated their proposal was to
open business and get their business license on the temporary site for approxi-
mately 2 months. They are requesting that they be allowed to temporarily locate
their lumber business on a different site than that previously approved by the
Commission while the permanent site is being, developed. They would be willing to
sign a letter that they will be at this temporary location for no more than 2 months.
Mr. Lam stated as Mr. Hopson indicated, there is no legal alternative but to require
site plan review for a temporary business and that formal applications, fees and
plans would have to be submitted for Commission review if the applicant chooses to .
pursue this matter. Therefore, no action can be taken on this item.
It was the concensus of the Commission to direct the applicant to file formal
applications, fees and plans for the Cosanissirn's review if the applicant chooses
to pursue this matter and receive and file his request.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Jack Lam stated at the last meeting the Commission was given a copy of a letter
that responded to a couple of minor subdivisions out of the city. ' rtaff was
not given any maps or information whatsoever concerning these proje :ts. The
applicant wanted an opportunity to appear before the Commission to xeview these
projects. The applicant was present earlier this evening but is not present
at this time. He has submitted a map which does not give enough information
for review.
Chairman Rempel stated he would like to make it very clear to the County that
when items are before them for review within our zone of influence that they
come to the City for review prior to County review.
it was the concensus of the Commission that if the applicant desires, these
minor subdivisions can be placed on the Agenda for review. However, it was
felt that prior to any Commission review, more detailed information be submitted
in order for the Commission to understand what is being requested.
r Planning Commission Minutes -lo- December 27, 1973
4 �
1S -
4 I
yt:
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unani-
mously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of
December 27, 1978. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully bmitted,
JAC:: LAM, Director of
Community Development
�rt
Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 27, 1978
1 ,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMDNGA
STAFF FORT
DATE: January 24, 1979 I
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JACK LAM, Director of Community Devleopment
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT N0. 79-01 - SIGN ORDINANCE - An
amendment to the zoning ordinance to add a new sign ordinance
and repeal all existing sign regulations.
BACKGROUND: Several months ago the City began preparation of a comprehensive
sign ordinance since the existing sign regulations within the County zoning
ordinance were not adequate to meet the goals of Rancho Cucamonga. The devel-
opment of the ordinance has included several study sessions with the Sign
Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and the Planning Commission. Through
their involvement the original draft ordinance has evolved into the final
draft now being considered.
ANALYSIS: The basic purpose for developing a sign ordinance is to resonably
control the location, number, size and design of signs throughout the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, in order to insure that signs will enhance the economic
environment and visual attractiveness of the community. It is recognized
that signs have a legitimate place in the community. As a well designed
architectural feature, a sign can serve to identify a use and yet be harmonious
with its surroundings.
While sign ordinances are very common today, a community's specific sign
regulations are usually set in accordance with the image and character that
community wants to establish. The proposed sign ordinance regulations are
based on past Council and Commission guidance and desires for portraying
a positive physical environment for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Any changes
or alterations that the Commission might desire would be dependent upon the
physical imago and character the community wishes to portray.
The environmental documents are attached for your review. Staff has found
no significant adverse environmental impacts as a result of this ordinance
and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division Staff recommends after the public hearing,
that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No:79-08 and transfer such recom-
mendation to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of Attachments: Environmental documents
Community Development. Resolution No. 79-08
JL: MV :elm ITM 110
CITY OF RANcllo CUC.At-tnNC.A
INITIAL STUDY
PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - Ta ',)e completed by applicant
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to ttie Development
Review Committee through the department t•:nere the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The Deveinpment Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee 'eill make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Retort will ba prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: \ ) .
APPLICANT 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Nr P/*Y,4+0
K
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING /THIS PROJECT: �c1�/7(Yz. LAM i F,(R=K--rr,R �nV
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL No. )
LIST OTHER PF,RP1' ' NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND .
FEDERAL AGENCIS. AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _ el-PAIN MIA EVIMAA 'F44,11
EEb(;"1k1-1nn)G %A) 70Nmn
r
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTIPIs AND
BUILDINGS, IF ANY: �/�
DESCRIPE THE ENVIRONMEWAT, SI"I'TING OF TIM PROJECT SITE
INCLUDI11G INFORI•i,1TION ON TOFOGPs1Piy, PLANTS (TREES) ,
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEPTIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND TILE DESCRIPTION OF ANY
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHfiL•"rS) :
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series ,
of cumulati-ve actions, which although individually small,
may as a whole have significant environmental impact?
�?n
WILL Tll]*RO,lr.CT:
YI`S No
Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
2. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc. )!
4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
~^ -� general plan designations?
S. Remove any existing trees? flow many?
6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous, materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or explosives?
Explanation of any YES answers above :
IMPJRTA*TI•: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
Cr•.RTIPTCAT]:ON: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
informnt.ion required for this initial evaluation to the
best- of my 11,i.lity, and that t•.he facts, :aatements, and
i.nformnt-i.an presrnted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional in[ormation may lhn required to be ;submitted
before an .Adequate evaulat-ion can be made by the Development
Review Committee.
Date '
n S
LCI7�� ignature�a,�y ,
v �
Title
�7 :
` Original.Poor Quality
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL -CHECKLIST
n DATE:
APPLICANT: yl
ADDRESS: /n, le
5: PHONE. NUMBER':'``l�%-'
FILING DATE: LOG NUMBER
PROJECT:
g PPOJT•.CT LOCATION:
I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
$ (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" an`;wcrs are
required on attached sheets. )
1 . Soils and Cealcgy. Will the Y1�S MAYBE NO
the proposal rejult in :
a . Unstable ground conditions or
in changes in cgeologic
rclalionships?
b. M-struptions, displacements,
compaction or burial of the
C. Change in toporiraphy or ground
i•
surface contour intervals?
d. Thc! dcStruction, covering or
irr„lification of any unique_
geologic or physical features?
e. Any patential increase in wind
r or water erosion of soils,
affecting either on or off /
site conditions?
Page 2
anginal Poor'Quality
YES MAYBE NO
f. Changes in erosion siltation ,
or deposition?
g. Exposure of people or Property
to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure , or
similar hazards?
_ It. An invrh.IGQ in the rite of
exttaction and/or use of any /
mineral resource?
2. Ilydrology. Will the proposal result in :
a. Changes in currents , or the
cottrse, or direction of flowing
streams, rivers , or ephemeral
stream channels?
b. Chnnctcs in absorption rites ,
drainatle patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface
water runoff? Y /
c. Alterations to the course . or T
flow of flood waters? /
d. Chancrr .it, the amount of . .a----- T
face water in any body of water?` /
C. discharge into surface waters, 7
or any alteration of surface
water quality?
f. Alt.crat.ion of ciroundwater
characteristics?
il . Chrtnu^ in th^ quantity of
FIVOUT"Iwatous , either t:hrouhh
iti "(4-1 :ulrti.tinns or wil.h-
drawals, or through inter-
ferenco with an aquifer?
411.t 1 i L y?
Quantity?
h. The rncbtct.i.on in the amount-
of wntc•r vLherwise nvai.lable _
for public water supplies? /
t�V
Pape 3
YES MAYBE NO c
i. Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such
as flooding or seiches? _
3. Air ouaiity. Will the proposal result in :
a. Constant or periodic air emissions
from mobile or indirect sources? /
Stationary sources?
b. Deterioration of avbient air
quality and/or interference
with the attainment of appli-
cable air quality standards? 1
C. Alteration of local or regional
climatic conditions , affecti.nq
air movement , moisture or tem-
peratttrc'? _ 74
4 . Biota
Flora. Will the proposal result in:
a . Chan-io in the characteristic-s of
species, including diversity ,
distribution, or number of any
species of plants?
b. RCdnCtion of the numbers of any
tiniyue , rare or endangered
species of FNlants?
C. Introduction of now or dis-
ruptive Species of plants
into art area?
d . Reduction in the {potential
for agricultural production? _
Fauna. Will the proposal result in :
a. C'i in the characteristics
Of includinq diversity ,
ditftr. ibutfon , Or numbers of any
species of animals?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered
"peci.es of animals?
fi
5
YES MAYBE NO
C. Introduction of now or disruptive
species of animals into an area ,
or result in a Farrier to the
miciration or movement of
an :,,als?
d. Deterioration or removal of exist-
ing fish or wildlife habitat?
5. ro2ulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Will. the proposal alter the loca-
tion, distribution , density,
diversity, or Clrowtll rate of the
human population of an area?
b. WiII the proposal affect vxi.st-
in-1 housin+l ,' or create a demand
for additional housing?
6 . Socio-Economi.r. Factors. Will the
prropasal result in:
a, change in local or regional socio-
cr%onolnic character. isttics,
including economic or commercial
diver:;ity, tax rate , and Property
va lues?
1), Wil I project costs be equitably
di.stributed among project
hr,nef.i.ciaries, i . e. . buyer,;,
tax payers or project users?
7 . l,iind h:ce and Planninn Conti<lcration',
Wi11 the proposal result in :
a. A substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of
an area?
b. A r.„nflicl. with any clot; itpiatjnil!- .
objectives , policies , or adopted
•' .-is of any ctovernmental entities?
C. An impact upon c.hn rlualit•y or quan-
t it 'll of ex.istinc7 vein-uript. ive or
tit ln-consumptive recreational
opportunities? 1
�i
a
. Pare S
YES MAYBE NO
8. Transportation. Will the proposal
result in :
a. Generation of substantial addi-
tional vehicular movement? J
b. Effects on existing streets, or
demand for new street
construction?
C. Effects on existing parking
facilities , or demand for
new parking?
d. Suhstantial impact upon exist-
ing transportation systems? /
e. Alterations to present patterns 7`
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
f. Alterations to or effects on
presertt and potential water-
borne, rail , mass transit. or
air- traffic?
g. Increasre; in traffic hazards.to
motor vclrir-les, bicyclists or
pc rir±ntrians? /
9 . Cultural Resources. will the
prop os lresult in:
a . A disturhance to the integrity
or archaeological , paleontolo-
gical , and/or historical resources? —
10 . health, Safety , and N_risante Factors.
19i1 1 t lie hroposa 1 rc:;u I t in+�`�_
a. Creation of any health hazard
or potential health hazard?
1a. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards? /1
c . . A risk of oxplosion or release `
of hazardo::s substances in the
event. of an arciderrl ?
7L'
YES MAYBE NO
d. tiv, number of
individuals or :a,rcies of
vactcr or pathc•nr„I'mnic
01-m-misms or thy• [exposure of
f. people to such organisms? f
e. Increases in existing -7-
noise levels?
f. iaposure of people to
Potentially dangerous
noise levels? /
g . Thn creation of objectionable
odors?
li. An increase in light or glare? 4
11 . Arsthotics, will the proposal 7-
result ine
a. The Obstruction or der(radation
of any scenic vista or view? `
b. •fhe creation of an aesthetically 7
orlensive site? /
C. A ronfli.et with thr objeclAve nc
[1[ e: i toot e l or potential s[-enic
corn idor:,? ,4
12 . tit. i 1 i 1. ics anci 1`I11+l is !trry i c
t'lll l�--h.hC •prc717n;asYC:»lt•i ii .i need
for ni•w sy:t.e1115 • or in alterations
Lo the fallowing :
a . Electric power? V
b. Natural or packaged gas?
C. Communications systems?
cl . t: Crr supply?
c. t:a:;l-c +.aCcr facilities?
f , t'lnu,l IZOMrol st.rucLures? _ 1
. l. :: Jl lrl W.I 7:te f:ICilitl-CS?
h. i' i ro !7rot.cct ion?
pl.ntr.cLinn'?
Schoo Is
k • 1•,n•ks „r c,l.her tcrr[•at. lrntnl `— --
favi 1 i t i rs? 126. 1
J
L a
YES MAYDE NO
1 . Maintenance of public facilities ,
including roads and flood control
facilities?
Tn. other governmental services?
13. Energy and Scarce Resources.
Will the proposal result in-
a, use of substantial or excessive
fuel or energy?
1). Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy?
C. All increase in the demand £nr
development. of new sources of
energy?
d. An increase or perpetuation of
the consumption of nrn-renewable
forms of energy, when feasible
renewable :sources of enemy
are available? -}
C. SuLsLant. ial cieplction of any
nonrenewable or scare natural
resource?
ln . Mandatory Findinqs of Significance .
a. Does the project leave the potential
to degrade the quality of the
envirrn,mrnt , subst.antial.ly reduce
tilt, habitat or a fish or wildlife
spc•cit,:: , cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels , threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
conunnnity, recfu(-r the number- or
rrnt.:ict the range of a rare or
i noon n re 1 i>lant or animal or
01 iminat" impol1_ant examplos of
the major period:: of California
history or prchi .story?
b. Does the proiect have the
lryotc•nt-ial 10 IE'hiVVo short-term,
to t.hc tlisadvant.ane o1 ivflq-term,
�avironmrnLWI goals? (A short-
(. c�rr. impact on the �spvi ronment is
a �
taltimal Poor Quality 'rG1+'e ' 8
YES MAYBE NO
01W which occurs in ? relatively
brief, Jefinitive hr.riad of time
while long-texna i"Ilacts will endure +
well into the future. ) f c. Does the project have. impacts
which are individually ?.imi.ted,
r' but cumulatively considerable?
? (Cumulatively considerable means
that the. incremental effects of
t. an individual project are con-
,iderabl.e. . when viewed in
t. connecti-m with the effects of
` past projects, other current
Projects , and probable future
projects. ) `
r1 . Itire•n ll:r ly•.�.1:•rt. tG::r +•tt:• IS•. u•. /
;•nt s• . .tti: t .. 1 .i.!•.
tntmnu 1•r ! n: : r• tlhur Slre•r. t. l � 7�
or
II . UTSCUSSTON Ol' PNVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION .
( i . e. , of at:f.irmat.ive answers to the
7b0ve cluesl• ions 1+lus a discussion of
proposed mitigation measures. No
`y
_ —re
Sq?fy ,i r;l
e _ Original p
r.. Quality
j•. Ilrt Lh�: l•.l : 1 .• , it1 . i1, 1 ;
1 .t 1 t• .:t I 1 :
;i� I 1' 1 r�.I 1 itt• i•1•ty.,,• .•,i 1 '=.r,.l, , 1 t'• +'I!
•1'1't•r-1 t;t I %. lr: l l•t• 1,1 1 :: •(' r,;:�•1• a I{•,l111'1ranC
. 1 . 11•:l 11,, i . . ,i,'t 1. .,lll.l •.,,;,• .I .
•71 J.'." rtl 1 },t 1••• tC f 4
r- .. : 111 St••, S i ..l: ... •.. .'tll•n t 1 t :•t• S . : .:: , . .. 1 I:•tt lilt _ "
i• r.t• , 1 , ] t:It tll :, t 1. t,.h� r1 li •t:f.
oll
' 1• I1.: '�lii I .
1 f' i 1, i , !r ! .•! : : ,.,( 1,,., ,,1,.,.1 t--,..
„1 il•. 1 :: ll 1111' I . •utl t• I'1'vc1.
1 :. I•.• it111 , ., , :!`.t ;.I ACT r.i' It•li !'
IF
G /JpI
lam'/ r�•�i • ,/�t
r
r f ti
.1
RESOLUTION NO. 78-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DIRECTOR
REVIEW NO. 78-12 - A REQUEST FOR THE DEVELOP-
MENT OF AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 8030 VINEYARD
AVENUE
WHEREAS, on August 15, 1978, a formal application was submitted
requesting review of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 1978, the Planning Commission held a meeting
to 'review such a request and subsequently continued its review to December
13, 1978, and further continued to January 10, 1979 and January 24, 1979.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: `
1. That the Cucamonga Creek Channel in the area of the
project site is not fully improved to contain major
flood conditions.
2. That the City of Rancho Cucamonga has the responsibility
to reasonably protect all new developments from flood
disasters per the provisions of the Federal Flood
Insurance Program.
3. That the project site cannot be reasonably protected
from flood conditions.
SECTION 2: That Director Review No. 78-12 is denied without prejudice
to allow reapplication at the time reasonable flood protection
facilities are installed.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST.•
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January, 1979,
by the following vote to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
i
'1:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: January 24, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: PLANNING CCHMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
BACKGROUND: At the January 10, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission discussed changes in the proposed Administrative Regulations;
specifically Section 0-2 (attendance - excused and unexcused).
It was suggested that the Planning Commission adopt a maximum of 7 absences
overall (excused and/or unexcused); and allow a maximum of three unexcused
absences before vacation of the Planning Commissioners seat would be declared
and referenced to City Council for implementation. Meetings called in the
absence of a Planning Commissioner would not be counted against the absent
Planning Commissioner.
Page 6 of the Administrative Regulations has been revised and has been
attached.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 79-02 establishing Exhibit "A" as the Planning Commission Administrative
Regulations.
Res ectfully s bmitted,
JACK LAM, Director of '--
Community Development
JL:BKH:rrm
Attachment: Resolution No. 79-03
Page 6 (revised)
ITEM "Dn
i
'.� RESOLUTION NO. 79-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE
REGULATIONS FOR OPERATION, PROCEEDINGS, OFFICERS,
AGENDAS, MEETING MINUTES, ET. AL. OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETINGS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
recognizes that in order to maintain efficient equitable and orderly review
of items before the Planning Commission, certain rules and guidelines must be
established, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
attached Exhibit "A" as administrative regulations to establish procedures and
guidelines for efficient, equitable and orderly review of Planning Commission
items, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY
declares the attached Exhibit "A" as the Administrative Regulations for the
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January, 1979.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
1 a ' Xi
Commission member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders
of the Planning Commission or the presiding officer.
N. Motion to adjourn.
1. A motion to adjourn shall always be iu order, and shall be decided
without debate.
O. Planning Commission Policies.
1. Publicity. The. secretary shall release all official information
or stories to the press at the appr,;val of the City Manager. Copies
of all publicity items shall be distributed to the Commission for
their review and information.
2. Attendance. Each Commission member shall attend ever; regular or
special meeting unless unavailable with prior notice being pro-
vided to the Chairman of the Commission or the Secretary. The
Commission may excuse members if prior notice is given to the
Chairman and/or Secretary. In such an instance the absence of
a Commission member shall be recorded in the minutes and be classi-
fied as being excused if prior notice has been given.
A maximum of seven (7) absences (excused and unexcused) accmiulated
during any year beginning July 1 and ending June 30, or a maximum of
three (3) unexcused absences during any year beginning July 1 and
ending June 30 shall cause the Planning Commission to declare the
Planning Commissioner's seat vacant: and cause the Planning Commission
to recommend that the City Council remove said Commissioner.
Meetings called in the absence of a Planning Commissioner, whether
said absence is excused or unexcused, shall not be counted against
said Commissioner.
3. Conflict of Interest. Any Planning Commissioner who has had a
direct or indirect financial interest in any matter before the
Commission shall publicly disclose for the official record the
nature and extent of such interest and such Commissioner shall
not participate in any discussion on the matter nor vote thereon.
4. Additional Policies. Additional policies are as filed in the
Office of the Community Development Department.
-6-
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA
STAFF REPORT
Date: January 24, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: SERVICE STATION STANDARDS
In light of the substantial revisions required in the service station
standards and the ramifications of the Commissions' suggestions at
the December 27, 1978 Planning Commission, we request that this item
be continued to the February 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKH:nm
r'v
u ITEM nEu .
CCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: January 24, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: SPECIAL BOULEVARD STANDARDS
Staff has received a request from the Chamber of Commerce for a
two (2) week continuation to the February 14, 1979 Planning Commission
meeting in order to give them more time to review the proposed special
boulevard standards.
Should you have any questions or comments on special boulevards that
you would wish for staff to incorporate in the proposed standards,
please do not hesitate to contact us.
Re pectf 1 y submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKR:nm
ITEM ITO
k1�r,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
s STAFF UORT
DATE; JANOARY 24, 1979
c
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM; JACK LAM, Director of CommunitT Development
SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 477 .Ai PARCEL MAP NO.
4773 - KORTAPETER - The division of 1.8 acres cf land into two (2)
.9 acre lots located 850' east of Etiwanda Avenue and 950' north
of Summit Ave.
5
BACKGROUND: 'finis parcel map is being brought before the Planning Commission
as an example of staff's suggested policy regarding access improvements on
Parcel Maps. This application is of particular interest in that several
inherent problems related to street improvements are associated with this map.
Access to this site is provided by an 847' unimproved private easement from
Etiwanda Avenue. Residential development has occurred on both sides of this
easement and no street improvements have been provided.
ANALYSIS: An existing single family residence exists on the western portion
of the site and the lot split will create one (1) buildable lot on which one
additional single family residence may be built. The property is zoned R-1
and the proposed General Plan designation is Windrow Preservation.
The Engineering Division has reviewed this project and suggests the following
requirements:
1. A 40' dedication of land along 23rd St. from Etiwanda Ave. to Lot 1
and through Lot 1 and Lot 2;
2. Full street improvements along Lot 1 only;
3. Deferment of improvements on Lot 2 until the time of development;
and
4. 26' wide paving of the easement from Eitwanda Avenue to Lot 1 and
through Lot 1 to Lot 2.
yThese suggested requirements reflect staff's proposed policy for street improve-
ments on parcel maps.
ENVIROIMNTAL REVIEW: The subject site is located on deep alluvial soil and
has a gradient of 4 percent. A Eucalyptus windrnw runs along the northern
boundary of the property and would have to be removed when the desired street
improvements are installed. The only alternative which would allow retention
of these trees is the requirement of an additional amount of dedication, using
the treca is a median island. Staff feels that this alternative is not viable,
realistic or equitable for the affected property owners or for the City.
Policy regarding the windrow preservation designation suggests preservation of
windrows whenever it is feasible to do so. Preservation of trees at this site
is not feasible in light of the existing development. Staff feels that removal
of these trees will not be detrimental to the existing windrow preservation
policy. Therefore, removal of these trees would not create a significant
environmental impact.
ITEM "G"
i L11
r:1
Page 2
The environmental check list uid not indicate any otter significant adverse
environmental impacts as a result of this project. staff has field checked
the site and has found no discrepancies with the checklist other than the re-
moval of the windrow. Staff finds no other significanit adverse environmental
impacts associated with this project.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission 1) issue: a
Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4773 and 2) adopt Resolution No. 79-09
approving Parcel Map No. 4773.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL: BNd:elm
Attachments: Resolution No. 79-09
r�
RESOLUTION NO. 19-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNI14C
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79-02 WHICH REPEALS
SECTIONS 61.0244(b) (3). AMENDS SECTION 61.022
AND ADDS SECTION 61.0219(a) (9) .
w WHEREAS, on the 24th day of January, 1979, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of the
California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
a
1. That such amendment is in _.onformance with the
Intent and purpose of ; :e Zoning Ordinance.
2. That such amendment is consistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan.
3. That such amendment will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, and general welfare.
4. That the proposed amendment would not have signi-
ficant adverse environmental impacts.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environ-
ment and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declarct ion an January
24, 1979.
r
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 64854 to 65847 of the Cali-
fornl. Government Code, that the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends
approval on the 24th day of January, 1979, of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment No.79-02.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt Zone Ordinance Amend-
ment No. 79-02 which aepeals Section 61 .024A(b) (3) .
amends Section 61.022 and adds Section 61.0219(a)(9),
3. That a Certified Cory of this Resolution and related
material hereby aropted by the Planning Commission
shall be forwarded to the City Council.
4 . That the attached amended Sections of the Zoning
..'` Ordinance becomes a part of this Resolu*.ion.
t;
•
n ,
'r r
i
APPROVED AIM ADOPTED THIS.24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1979
PLANNZm COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 24th day of January, 1979.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
,I;r
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: January 24, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lar.. Director of Community Development
Subject: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78-12 - AIDERFER - (Continued from 1/10/79)
Request for development of a two-story, 10,000 square foot office
building located at 8030 Vineyard in the C-2 zone
Attached, please find a copy of the previous staff report. This item was
continued at the requect of the applicant. Our recommendation remains the
same.
Respectfullly submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKH:nm
k
ITEM 110
s �r
�F_
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: January 10, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack I=, Director of Community Development
Subject: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78-12 - ALDERBER RANCH PARTNERSHIP - Request
for development of a two story office building located at 8030
Vineyard Avenue in the C-2 (General Business) Zone
BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, this item has been before them
?= on two previous occasions. First, on October 11, 1978, at which time the
Staff recommended denial without prejudice based on insoluble flood control
problems due to the unimproved state of the Cucamonga Creek. The Planning
Commission continued review of the project to the December 13, 1978 meeting
to allow the applicant time to prepare the necessary hydrology study. Such
study was to analyze the potential flood hazard problems and the mitigating
measures necessary to protect the site. The applicant has submitted plans
indicating mitigating measures but no data in terms of the affects of those
flc.:d protection devices on adjacent or downstream properties.
i' Attached, please find a letter from the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District. You will note the letter suggests that a concrete block wall should
be constri.- ted to withstand 3' to 4' of debris load and that the proposed wall
have a minimum 3' differential elevation above natural ground to the buildings
finished fluor elevation. The letter further states that as recently as 1969, •
Cucamonga Creek has overflowed its banks and flooded across the site. Addi-
tionally the dintric'. suggests that our City Engineer look at the effects of
adjacent downstream property that would be affected due to construction of the
4
suggested wall on the proposed site.
The City's position remains the same. We feel that if this site is approved
with the proposed walls that we would be it) violation of Ordinance No. 24
establishing regulations in accordance with the Department of Housing and
Urban Development Department Flood Insurance Program, which basically states
that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is eligible for federal grants in the course
of flood disasters, if the City insures that any new development is reasonably
protected from major flood hazards. Failure to follow the flood insurance
provisions would jeopardize financial aid to all portions of the City.
Again, Staff feels that this project is premature and should be denied with-
oat prejudice; thus allowing the applicant to reapply once adequate flood
protection facilities have been provided on the Cucamonga Creek.
Director Review No.W2
Page 2
j. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning.Division recommends that the Commission adopt
Resolution 27o. 78-13 denying without prejudice Director Review No. 78-12
based on the findings contained within the Resolution.
R /rpectfulI submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
�✓ Conmunity Development
JL:BKH:nm
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Plan
Exhibit "B" Elevations
San Bernardino County Flood Control Letter
Resolution No. 78-13
t;
Y�!
f_..
4 f >
YSex
;, .. � fir. ..��_�• .ry. .L'.M � .K
� • `�i ��L � f rt i 1 � �
h
� c a a a
s� •- �
' I �
•t
—
v
et ` It
C �
• ' •��Zvi- eit.
ta
f e tza efit; 4
Y.
` i i i b • S�',at'yi
Wit[et„s
t YYY y I
' I
n f.M
jvrf
�u ,
y _
� M 9
8
F u f, d 1r 1 I / .
j
i .1, E
- s
1 0 tl W
I �
1 � !
1 � I • � Z Cl :n
0 ri
10 lip
y r�
k k l
YiiV �
All
k ' .t
J
1 '
�, a �..
Lit
c• tlf� n .
Y E
COUI`—'•Y OF SAN BERNARDINO
na44& C PUIIC WORKS AGENCY
��._, . �7oac! Cvnli hialric� ,i
n 82a Cost Third• rr
�$tt'Cir, f+R!144t(CAMORlBA 14) ass lase
y' CUtwUNITY LNEVELOPMENT DEPT.
'�i•.�,.Ho-�.
Ail 02 1919 December 28, 1978
PM
Y City of Rancho Cucamonga 7ig191lp1u1l211121314151V Front File: 1-320/1.00
9340 Baseline Road Subject File: 102.0204
is Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Zone 1, Cucamonga Creek
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Hubs,
City Engineer
Subject: Submitted *Development Plans, Adjacent to Cucamonga. Creek,
North of Foothill Boulevard, City of Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Mr. Hubs:
Reference is made to the submitted development plans for subject parcel.
As is known, the site is located in close proximity to Cucamonga Creek, and
subject to serious infrequent flood hazards therefrom. You asked that we
review the plane and provide comments regarding the adequacy of the proposed
wall and site grading to protect the site and adjacent properties. We have
reviewed the plans and offer the following comments relative thereto:
a) The concrete block wall should be a structural block wall
designed to withstand 3 to 4 feet of debris load, based
on 40 pounds per square foot, equivalent fluid pressure.
The wall structure should extend along the entire went
boundary, and southerly on Vineyard, tying into the
existing office building.
b) Due to the close proximity of the proposed office building
to Cucamonga Creek, and potential heavy debris loads which
could overtop the proposed wall, a minimum 3 feet differ-
ential elevation above natural ground to the buildingo fin-
ished floor elevation is recommended. .
With the above protective measures incorporated in the design of the develop-
ment, flood hazards to the site would be reduced to that of a residual
nature. As recently as during the floods of 1969, Cucamonga Creek has over-
flowed its banks upstream of the site, and overflowed acrosa the site. Due
to the heovy debris loads which accompany the overflow, debris could overtop .
the wall and 'enter onto the site. These problems will be virtually eliminated,
upon completion of the Cucamonga Creek Federal Project presently under
construction in its lower reaches.
k
i
Qr: City of Rancho Cucamonga`
+ December 28, 1978
Page Two
t-
Regarding effects on adjacent and downstream properties due to construction
of the proposed wall, the following comments -are afforded. In the event
flood flows are intercepted by the wall, they will be conveyed el�.lg the
wall, either to San Diego or Vineyard Avenues. This will effectively
concentrate the flows at these locations. It is not known what effect
this could have on the adjacent and downstream properties, and it is
recommended the City review this in conjunction with the developer'a
engineer and determine what adverse effects it may present. In addition,
" the F.I.A. Program requires that in keeping sound .flood plain management,
the bate flood elevation of Cucamonga Creek should be increased by no .�.. .'
more than 1 foot. The City should review this further with the developer's
engineer.
If we can provide any further assistance, please advise.
Very truly yours,
C. J , Di Pietro
Flood Control Engineer
By
am s E. Kindig
Ass Flood Control Eng1 r
le ing - Engineering
RM:vr
cc: F. E. MacDonald, Jr. ,
Consulting Engineer
Alderfer Rench c/o W. M. Schultz
6 .
Ir
RESOLUTION NO. 79-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CrkWISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CREATING INTERIM POLI-
CIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF
THL CORPORATE LIMITS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed concern over past develop-
ments approved by the County of San Bernardino in the City's planning area
outside of the corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the adopted City/County
Policy in Spheres of Influence of San Bernardino County and concurs that reason-
able procedures should be established in policy form to provide guidance for
effective planning cooperation in spheres of influence; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed City/County
Policy for Coordination of Planning Activities proposed by the San Bernardino
County Planning Directors; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby
request the County of San Bernardino's cooperation in promoting this coordinated
planning policy.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga does hereby establish interim policies for the development
of properties outside of the corporate limits herein attached as Exhibit 'W'.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1979
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST
J Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca-
monga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the
24th day of Januar:, 1979.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
4
��% Ma
Y
CITY/COUNTY POLICY FOR
COORDINATION OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES
It is the intent of this statement to provide interim reasonable policies
and procedures which can provide the city and county positive guidance in
bringing about effective planning cooperation.
a. There shall be several levels of cooperation in coordination of all
planning activities:
1. Timely notification of planning proposals of mutual concern
by both the city and the county; and that such notification
include adequate information to facilitate review.
2. Ongoing coordination of development standards and implementation
policies.
b. There shall be several levels of cooperation in spheres of influence:
1. Continuous staff communication on all issues;
2. Periodic formal joint adoption and updating of plans;
3. Ongoing coordination of development_ standards and implementation
policies.
c. Coordination and joint planning mechanisms may include:
1. Joint city/county/resident study committees;
2. Joint planning commission and/or legislative body hkarings;
3. City consultation and negotiation with unincorporated area resi—
dents;
4. Joint staff agreement for recommendations on issues;
5. City inclusion of unincorporated area residents on city planning
commissions;
6. City planning commissioners sitting with the county planning commis—
sion regarding matters of mutual concern on a consulting basis;
7. Notification to the affected agency of planning and development pro-
posals in advance of their hearing, and other means which may available.
{ EXHIBIT "A"
YS '
fit' l!
.s1Y�i S
RESOLUTION NO. 79-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING SUBDIVISION -
ACCESS IMPROVEMENT POLICY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
wishes to discourage the proliferation of private unimproved streets; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish firm policy guideline to
inform property owners of the City goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED AND ESTABLISHED, that as a condition
of approval of any Parcel Hap, Parcel Map Waiver, Tract Map or Lot Line
Adjustment an applicant shall have access to a fully dedicated and maintained
City street. Where dedications and improvements do not exist, the applicant
shall obtain a minimum of forty (40) feet of dedication and improve with
twenty-six (26) feet of pavement needed street frontage to reach the nearest
i. maintained City street.
Variations from this policy will require approval of the City Engineer
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga subject to appeals to the Planning Commission.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
By:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST.•
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, Jack Lam, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, '
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January, 1979,
by the following vote to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
{
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: January 24, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: COUNCIL REFERRAL OF GENERAL PLAN ISSUES
BACKGROUND: The City Council, at its meeting of January 15, 1979, heard and
approved all of the Planning Co®issions' recousnendations on the previous Coun-
cil referrals. Additionally, one request has been referred back to the Planning
Commission for their recommendation.
ANALYSIS: Area: Northwest corner of 19th and Archibald (Vanir property)
General Plan Designatiun: High Density Residential
Issue: .Owners desire to have 4 acres of R-3 and 3 acres of A-P
Factors: In the Planning Commissions' deliberation on the general plan
they indicated that Baseline should be the professional office center and that 19th
Street should maintain its residential character except at the areas which had
been approved or developed as commercial centers. In line with this policy, the
Commission denied Vanir's request for a shopping center at the northwest corner
of Archibald and 19th Street, in addition to denying Robinson's request at the
t southeast corner of 19th and Archibald. The two general plan designations remain
as high density residential for the southeast corner of Archibald and 19th.
The proposed site is approximately seven acres. North of the site is the proposed
Foothill Freeway and ]ow density (2-5 units/acre) residential. To the [south is
low density residential (2-5 units/acre). To the east is the existing Stater Bro-
thers Shopping Center indicated service commercial; to the west is high density
residential.
The Planning Commission hats three options. Firs-, leave the area as is, designating
high density residential for the entire seven acres. Second, split th,1 designation
with 200' of mixed use along 19th Street extending northerly the full length of the
property with the remainder being high density residential. Third, designate the
entire site as mixed use. We present these options to you for your consideration
k and deliberation.
STAFF REFERRAL: At the City Council meeting, the Chaffey College people presented
their views on the proposed land use surrounding the college. Their concern was
that the City might promote development that would be out of character with the
plans and development of the college. Staff has met with the college and feels
1'.. ` that a solution to the college's concern would be to add a statement in the text
{
ITEM "Iu
of the General Plan outlining the city's policy for development surrounding
Chaffey College. We would suggest the following paragraph be added to the
Community Facilities Section, Sub heading ;haffey Junior College, Paragraph 2:
Since the Chaffey College Community has been developed through the
years as a non-urban environment which reflects the natural character
of the physical surroundings, any development adjacent to the campus
should be designed to reflect the same values. Specific attention
should be paid to proper scale of buildings, the sensitive clustering
of structures, use of natural landscaping, and avoidance of harsh geo-
metric design and grading. Such design sensitivity would preserve open-
ness of surroundings, euhance the College community's environmental
character and reinfor-ze the long-standing aesthetic tzae tion of the
institution.
The above-stated principles would be best incorporated in planned unit
developments.
While the City Council has not referrP,4- this to the Planning Commission for
their recommendation, we feel that since time {s avai lable,that the Commissions
comment and recommendation on this issue would be helpful.
RECa*MDATION: It is recommended that the Commission concur with the addition
of the above mentioned paragraph to the General Plan text and forward that
recommendation t.o the City Council for their approval.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:BKH:nm
t .
4_
t '
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Dare: January 24, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA
BACKGROUND: In the recent past there has been considerable concern expressed
by the public and the Planning Commission regarding the City's ability to input
our concerns regarding development in areas outside of the City boundaries but
within our planning sphere. At the Planning Commission meeting of December 27,
1978, Staff relayed to the Commission our concern over proposals for various
divisions cf land within our planning sphere. Public concern was that the City
would lobby the County for denial of any development in the Cit'y's planning
sphere until such time as acceptable development standards could be created.
Specifically, we are referring to the areas on the proposed General Plan as
"study areas"; those areas north of the City boundaries.
In April, 1976, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors adopted the
"City/County Policy in Spheres of Influence for San Bernardino County". The
intent of the policy is to provide reasonable procedures which can provide the
City and the County with positive guidance in bringing about effective planning
cooperation in the spheres of influence (see attached Exhibit 1) . For Rancho
Cucamonga, this refers to the areas that are north of the corporate limits of
the City; these areas fall within the County's jurisdiction but would eventually
become part of the City. The County Planning Directors have bet meeting to
review and revise this policy and to expand it to include the other areas of
mui:ual concern. The proposed revision "City/County Policy for Coordination of
Planning Activities" is attached.
It is our belief that the revision to the policy is reasonable and could be advan-
tageous to the City if implemented by all jurisdictions involved. Basically, it
would work this way: An applicant would come into the County and request applica-
tion for development; at that time the County would direct the applicant to Rancho
Cucamonga for initial contact and review Staff would ther determine whether the
project warrants staff or Commission review and then transmit our findings back
to the applicant and the County.
In reality, the scenario described above is similar to what happens now to some
extent. However, we usually receive the application by mail after the County
has raised expectations of the applicant. We are then caught in the position of
the proverbial "black list person" suggesting modification or denial of the appli-
cation for noncompliance with the goals of the General Plan for that area. Addi-
tienally, the application transmitted is not accompanied by adequate information
for staff and the Planning Commission to review and comment.
ITEM "d"
1•..
it is our hope that the Board of Supervisors and the cities within San Bernardino
County will adopt the revised policy and actively work tc, implement it.
We have prepared a resolution for the Planning Commission that would create policy
for dealing with applications for development within our planning areas. This
Resolution, if adopted by the Planning Commission, would guide staff until the
formal presentation of the County Planning Director's Policy is presented to the
Board and the cities for adoption.
RECOtR4EN0AT10N: it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
provi
No. 79-OS apng guidelines for City/County coordination of planning activities
in our planning sphere outside of the City boundarir,s.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director o
Community Development
JL:BKN:nm Exhibit 1
Attachment: City/County Policy for Coordination of Planning Activities
Resolution No. 79-05
Exhibit "A"
r -
(Continued) br# lnal Poor QualRy
5 CITY COMITY POLICY It!
SP11ERrS OF I111•LUEIICE FOR SAN B MARIYit1D COU11-ry
It is the intent of this 0tatnmcnt to provide reanonable l:ollcics and
procedures which can providz the cities and file county panitiva guid-
ance in bril,�ing about effective planning cooperation in the spharcc
of influence.
(a) There shall be several levels of cooperation in spheres of
influence:
(1) Continuous staff communication on all issues;
(2) Periodic formal joint adoption and updating of general
plans;
(3) OnP,oinU coordination of development standards and
implementation policies.
(b) Coordination and joint planning machanis,no may include.-
(1) Joint city/county/resident study co:-mittees; _
(2) Joint planning commission and/or legislative body
hearings;
(3) City consultation and negotiation with unincorporated
area residents;
(1,) Joint staff agreement for recommendations on issues;
(.5) Ci:y inclusion of unincorporated area residents. on city
planning commiasions;
(5) City planning co:rmiosionera sitting with the county
• planning cnrm,ission regarding matters of mutual concern
or a conoulting basis;
(7) City notification to the county of prezoning actions in
r.lvance of their hearing, and other means which may be
available.
(c) Cene_y: pl.ano end zoning shall be Jointly adjusted within
c sphe _: of influence to be made mutually cominktible. This
shell ` c.omplistcd through pursuit oF: a coapa alive area
piss-in; Program bawd upon a mutually -q-rceabin schedule.
t:n=n r::o sp2,=rco zbut, there tiltall be joint repreonntation
and cca:oion between the iuvolv^_d jurisdictions to resolve
con_l--c_s of land use and development standards.
(d) In ar''nr to provide. for a proper blend of development, the
goner.-.l development policies of n city and th^ county .shall
rerul_ in orderly transition of devolopmexlt standards along
the sp6nre of influence perimeter.
(e) Each jurisdiction shall re-view, prior to approval, proposed
ngricaltural preserva rcqucnto for consistency with city and
county p,cn_ral plans within .tnd nd.jaci_nt to rphnrea of influ-
ence. Buffor areas of less int^-use agricultural or rural
residential uses should he providod.
PASSlip .*.D ADOPTED by the' lloard of Sttpervisora oC the County of
San Bernardino. State of California, by the following vote: .
s
AYES: SUI KRVISORS: Townsend, Smith, 11ausberl,rr
t1UliS: Sl':'1:^,VIS:Ii!S: 11ll:�ne11 '
ABSENT: SUPERVI`.011,S: Hayfield
SIA,r D( C-Al Is(IJINIA r,�•l /]�rr
�` ` .
CDCRJIY 01 SAN II(IINAttatNn n•.,
r. 1,if C1tJA IV -
J'(Atllll,t.1.+4 al tiN•UwuJ nl;Nn••H rv+p:nl\.ur 11••nur I:rN.('rI.a/,Cnldr-rnl n,IH.�`�f�+1rlY 1IIn
5:,, (mry(.n•gl to 1•• n 6011.INn-M.1..w..yt r.ryq,•f pIn,r..ml 6•1 qv.a lir.I 1..:.... Iq•:..b•t llr.xrl..i•..y..y v.;vN!..t vpi.•ul
"�� PIU nM+nIN•R:(N.^nail.nS IIN•I�Y.M ryryrvl.In 11„•(1111 r..nl Lh•vIP••.n/:nr•1 it.:.rJ•d IL nvY•INYI..t
April 12. 1976
�1 unl..l. 4-15-7fitec/Lr�--•�-�--•—•-�-'In�lnrl•trvaiu(r/J�1^/J
n
CITY/COUNTY POLICY FOR
COORDINATION OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Background
The Cities and the County of San Bernardino have officially
attempted to coordinate planning and implementation measures
in the past. Some of these attempts have resulted in several
mutually adopted community plans; three joint powers planning
agencies; the formation of the San Bernardino Associated Govern-
ments (SANBAG) , the establishment of the City-County Planning
Commissioners Association; and most recently, the joint adoption
of several State mandated General Plan Elements.
The advent of legislation requiring spheres of influence around
each incorporatea city, while solving old disputes over eventual
annexation limits , has created new concerns for cities, county
and the Local Agency Formation Commission relatize to immediate
and long-range '_and use planning decisions. These concerns
center on inconsistencies between city and county general plans,
zoning, and dev>_lc.ment standards, especially within spheres
of influence.
Recognition of ==e need to deal positively with concerns led to
meetings beginning in 1974-75 culminating in a proposed city-
county sphere of influence policy. After review by the Board
of Supervisors , a sphere of influence policy was adopted during
1976. Durinu ==is same period of time thi> policy (or a similar
one) was adopted' by, the Local Agency Formation Commission and
many cities. E:'periences using this sphere of influence policy
during the pas: fen years have shown the merit in having this
type of official coordination. These experiences have also
shown area:: 4:here this city-county coordination should r , strength-
ened.
During 1978 the Planning Directors' Committee met monthly studying
ways to strengthen and support the positive results of the
adopted sphere of influence policy. The following statement
reflects a proposed revision of the 1976 adopted sphere of in-
fluence policy:
: CITY/COUNTY POLICY FOR COORDINATION OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES
,4.
CITY/COUNTY POLICY FOR
COORDINATION OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES
It is the intent of this statement to provide reasonable policies
and procedures which can provide the cities and county positive
guidance in bringing about effective planning cooperation.
a. There shall be several levels of cooperation in coordination
of all Flanning activities :
1. Timely notification of planning proposals of mutual
concern by both cities and the county;
2. Ongoing coordination of development standard's and
implementation policies.
b. There shall be several levels of cooperation in spheres of
influence;
r
1. Continuous staff communication on all issues;
2. Periodic formal joint adoption and updating of plans;
3. Ongoinc ccotdinantion of development standards and
i
imple. sn=ation policies.
c. Coordination and joint planning mechanisms may include:
1. Joint city/county/resident study committees;
2. Joint Manning commission and/or legislative body
hearings;
3. City consultation and neg,ot4.at4on with unincorporated
area residents;
4 . Joint staff agreement for recommendations on issues;
5. City inclusion of unincorporated area residents on city
planning commissions;
E. City planning comatissioners sitting with the county plan-
ning com;nission regarding matters of mutual concern on
a consulting basis;
7. Notification to the affected agency of planning and
development proposals in advance of their hearing, and
a: other means which may be available.
0 _2_
r
4 CM/BOUNTY POLICY FOR COORDINATION OF PLANNING ACTIVITIES
s
d. General plans and zoning .,ihall be jointly adjusted within sphereL
of influence to be made mutually compatible. This shall be accom-
plished through pursuit of a cooperative area planning program
base.ci upon a mutually agreeable schedule. Where two spheres abut,
there shall be joint representation and discussion between the involved
jurisdictions to resolve conflicts of lrad use and development standards.
e. Where a city's adopted general plan is found by the Board of Super-
visors to be consistent with the adopted county general plan for the
city's sphere of influence the adopted city general plan will be used
by the cotmty .as the principal land use guide, then:
1. All uevelopment proposals must be consistent with the adopted
city general plan;
2. Ci_, j.ce-zonin and county specific plans must be consistent
with tte adoptei city general plan.
f. Specific plans will be developed for each IAFCo adopted sphere of
influence. The development of the specific plan will be a cooperative
effort between affected jurisdictions. These -pacific plans will
generally utilize the adopted goals, palicias, and sta•.tdards of the
city. When completed, this specific, plan should be at,opted by the
County and also adop:':ed as pre-zoning by the parent city for the
entire sphere of influence.
g. In order to provide for a proper blend of development, the general
development policies of a city and the county shall result in orderly
transition of development standards along the sphere of influence
perimeter.
h. Each jurisdiction shall review, prior to approval, proposed agricul-
tural preserve requests for consistency with city and county general
plans within and adjacent to spheres of influence. Buffer areas
of less intense agricultural or rural residential uses should be
provided.
l'
-3-
`; CITY/COUNTY POLICY FOE;e,OoEDINATION OF PLANNING A(MVITIES
MECHANICS FOR COORDZNP_TED
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
FOR GENE1lAL PLANNING
1. Whenever a city general plan is propceed to he amended or adopted
the city will notify the county in a timely manner to permit timely
coordination and appropriate response to this amendment or plan.
7.. Whenever the county proposes to amend its general plan the county
Will notify each affected city in a timely manner to permit timely
coordination and appropriate response to this amendment or plan.
FOR SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
?. Whenever a revision or amendment is pr000sed in a mutually adopted
specific plan for a LAFCo adopted sphere of influence which requires
amendment or the adopted general plan, the proposal will be referred
to the two legislative bodies.
CITY/CAUNTY POLIC:';POR,COORtDINATION OF PLANNING AGTIVITIES
�r �L 1 ny9
y
r
a{ "
�I
RESOLUTION NO. 79-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 79-01 WHICH REPEALS EXISTING SIGN
REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 17
IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ESTABLISHES NEW AND DISTINCT
SIGN REGULATIONS SEPARATE FROM ORDINANCE No. 17.
is •
WHEREAS, on the 24th day of January, 1979, the Planning Commission
held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65854 of thA California
Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
1. That such amendment is in conformance with the
r intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. That such amendment is comftistent with the goals
and policies of the General- Plan. ,
3. That such amendment will not be detrimental to
the public health, srfety, and general welfare.
4. That the proposed amendment would not have sig-
nificant adverse environmental impacts.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environ-
ment and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration of January
24, 1979.
z: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
r;
1. That pursuant to Section 64854 to 65847 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval on the 24th day of January,
1979, of the Zone Ordinance Amendment No. 79-01
which repeals the existing sign regulations con-
tained in Zoning Ordinance No. 17 in its entirety
y' and establishes new and distinct sign regulatie-a
separate from Ordinance No. 17.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve a, adopt Zone Ordinance Amend
ment No. 79-01.
N
y
3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and re—
lated material hereby adopted by the Planning
Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Planning Commission
i, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
® passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at
a� a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of January, 1979.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
yr
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: January 24, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79-02 - Amending the Home Occupa-
tion Sections of the Zoning Ordinance by repealing Section 61.024A(b)(3)
and adding Section 61.0219(a) (9) and amending the definition of home
occupation in Section 61.022
BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, this amendment was presented
at the meeting of January 10, 1979. At that time, the Commission was con-
cerned about one of the conditions for a home occupation; traffic generation.
Staff has reworded this condition to prohibit pedestrian and vehicle traffic
generation for home occupations with the exception of traditional uses such
as piano lessons, which are typically conducted within the home. A home
occupation for such a use would require review and limitation of intensity
40 by the Director of Community Development to insure that such use remains
incidental. In addition, the home occupation definition has been revised
at the request of the City Attorney.
The environmental documents were included in the previous Commission packet.
A copy of the revised home occupation amendments, definition and resolution
is attached for your review and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: Thr Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commis-
sion adopt Resolution No. 79-04 and transfer such recommendatior to the City
Council.
Re ectfu.ily fubmictcd,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:MV:nm
Amended Ordinance Sections
Resolution No. 79-04
a?
h
,'. ITEM ngv ;::
J
61.0219(a)(9) - HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS
A. Home occupations, as defined in Section 61.022, may be permitted on any
property used for .residential purposes u;on approval of the Director of
Community Development based on the following conditions:
1. The use of the dwelling for such home occupation shall be clearly
incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by
its inhabitants.
r
2. No persons, other than members of the family who reside on the
premises, shall be engaged in such activity.
3. There shall be no change in the outward appearance of the building
or premises, or other visible evidence of the activity.
4. There shall be no sales of products on the premises.
The use shall not allow customers or clientele to visit dwellings.
However, incidental uses which have been traditionally conducted within
dwellings, such as piano lessons, may be permitted if the intensity of
r.
such instruction is approved by the Director of Community Development.
6. No equipment or processes shall be used on the subject property which
creates noise, smoke, glare, fumes, odor, vibration, electrical, radio
or television interferenee disruptive to surrounding properties.
7. No home occupation shall be conducted in an accessory building. Nor-
mal use of the garage may be permitted if such use does not obstruct
S.
required parking.
--(PNot more than 15% of the total square footage for the dwelling shall
be used for the home occupation.
9. The use shall not involve storage of materials or supplies in an
accessory building or outside any structures.
10. Use of the United States Postal Service in conjunction with the home
occupation shall be done by means of a post office box.
11. No signs shall be displayed in conjunction with the home occupation
and there shall be no advertising using the home address.
12. A home occupation permit is not valid until a current City business
license is obtained.
13. The use shall not involve the use of commercial vehicles for delivery
of or terials to or from the premises, other than a vehicle not to exceed
a capacity of 3/4 ton, owned by the operator of such home occupation
which shall be stored in an entirely enclosed garage.
14 If an applicant is not the owner of the property where a home occupa-
tion is to be conducted, then a signed statement from the owner
approving such use of the dwelling must be submitted with the appli-
cation.
B. Procedure for Approval:
Upon acceptance of a home occupation application and fee, as specified
in the Fee Resolution, the Director of. Community Development or his
designated representative shall review the request for compliance with
the above conditions. Within 5 days from the submittal of the applica-
tion, staff shall post a Notice of Request for a Home Occupation Permit
on the subject property and send a copy of the request'to all adjacent
property owners for public review and input. Following a ten (10) day
review period, the Director of Community Deve!-opment shall render a
decision. The decision shall clearly state reasona for approval or denial
based upon the above findings. -The decision of the Director shall be
final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten (10) days
from his decision. Upon receiving approval from the Director of Com-
munity Development or his deleg.te for a home occupation, the applicant
shall immediately make application for a City Business License.
City business licenses expire on a yearly basis. If the business license
is not renewed within 30 days after expiration, then the home occupation
permit shall become null and void.
C. Appeal Procedure:
Any applicant for a home occupation permit ur any person aggrieved by the
decision of the Director of Community Development .to approve or deny a
request for a home occupation permit shall have 10 days from the date of
the decision to appeal in writing the decision to the Planning Commission.
Said appeal shall indicate wherein the decision of the Director was at
variance with the reouired findings as stated in this Section. Any person
subsequently aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission relating
to the home occupation permit may appeal said decision in writing to the
City Council as provided for above.
{/,l�`
61.022
An accessory occupational use conducted by a resident of a dwelling as
a secondary use thereof, which is conducted entirely within a dwelling
by the inhabitants thereof, which use is clearly incidental to the use
of the structure for dwelling purposes and which does not change the
character thereof, and for which there is no display, no stock—in—trade,
no commodity sold on the premises and no mechanical equipment used except
that necessary for housekeeping purposes and which use meets the following
conditions:
1. The use of the dwelling for such home occupation shall be clearly incidental
and subordinate to its use for residential purposes by its inhabitants.
2. No persons other than members of the family who reside on the premises,
shall be engaged in such activity.
3. There shall be no change in the -outward appearance of the building or pre— -
mises, or other visible evidence of the activity.
4. There shall be no sales of products on the premises.
5. The use shall nor Allow customers or clientele to visit dwellings.
How—
ever, incidental us
Pyre permitted if the intensity
of such instruction is approved by the Director of Community Development.
6. No equipment or processes shall be used on the subject property which
creates noise, smoke, glare, fumes, odor, vibration, electrical, radio
or television interferer.ce disruptive to surrounding properties.
7. No home occupation shall be conducted in an accessory building. Nor—
mal use of the garage may be permitted if such use does not ubstruc',
required parking.
B. Not more' than 15% of the total square footage for the dwelling shall be
used for the home occupation.
9. The use shall not involve storage of materials or supplies in an
accessory building or outside any structures.
10. Use -if the United States Postal Service in conjunction ith the home
occupation shall be done by means of a post office box.
11. No signs shall be displayed in conjunction with the home occupation and
there shall be no advertising using the home address.
12. A home occupW ton permit is not valid until a current City business license
is obtained.
13. The use shall not involve the use of commercial vehicles for delivery of
materials to or from the premises, other than a vehicle not to exceed.a
capacity of 3/4 ton, owned by the operator of such home occupation which
shall be stored in an entirely enclosed garage.
l
'4� '
61.022 (Continued)
14. If an applicant is not the owner of the property where a home occupation
is to be conducted, then a signed statement from the owner appro•Jing such
use of the dwelling must be submitted with the application.
v
Z t.
nd ft
c
L
RESOLUTION NO. 79-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING CO1*gSS1ON APPROVING PARCEL
NAP NO. 4773 TO DIVIDE 1.9 ACRES OF
LAND INTO TWO LOTS LOCATED 850' EP.NT
OF F.TIWANDA AVENUE AND 950' NORTH OF
SUMMIT AVENUE IN THE R-1 ZONE.
um=AS, on the 30th day of uovc:bcr- 1978, a formal application was
filed with the City Planning Division; and
WUREA.S, on the 24th day of January, 1978, the Planning Commission held
a meeting to consider said project.
s NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMIS21ON resolved as
follows:
r
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the proposed map is consistent with the
proposed General Plan of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
2. That the design for improvements of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
4. That the design of the proposed itprovements is not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or other habitat.
5. That the design nor the type of improvements is not
likely to cause serious public health problems.
6. That the design or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements acquired by the pubic
at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
SECTION 2: That this land division will not create adverse impacts
on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on
January 24, 1979.
SECTION 3: That !'steel lisp No. 4773 is approve3 subject to the following
con6i*ions
1. 40' of dedication shall be made along 23rd Street
from Etiwanda Ave. to Lot 1 and through Lot 1 and
Lot 2; this access shall be paved with 26' wide paving
from Etiwanda Avenue to Lot 1 and through Lot 1 to
Lot 2.
2. Full stre:: improvements shall be provided along
the frontage of Lot 1 along 23rd Street.
3. At the time of development street improvements shall
be provided along the frontage of Lot 2 along 23rd
Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. Developer shall coordinate and pay where necessary
for relocation of any public utilities.
5. Developer shall provide all construction plans for
drainage and atreet 'Improvements to the satisfaction
of the City Enginee
6. Sanitary sewers and water system shall be designed
and coordinated witb the Cucamonga County Water.
District standards.
7. The proposed subdivision shall meet the provisions
of Zone D of the National Flood Insurance Pregram.
8. All requirements of the Southern California Edison
and Southern California Gas Cos. shall be met.
9. The City Engineer shall make the determination,
pursuant to Section 66436 (C-1) of the subdivision
map act, that the division and development of the
property will not unreasonably interfere with th-
free and complete exercise of any public entity or
public utility right-of-Tray or easements. The
signature of any public entity or utility may be
omitted from the final map if written notification
of objections is not filed with the City within the
time limits specified in Section 66436 (C-1) .
10. The developer shall meet all Final Map requirements
of the City including but not limited to providing
Traverse calculation sheets, copies of recorded
map and deeds used as reference and/or showing original
land division, tie notes and bench marks that are
referenced thereon.
11. All requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall
be complied with.
., APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JAN'IARY, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
;r
.ry
BY:
Herman Rwpel, Chairman
ATTEST: _
Secretary of ti:e Planning Commission
I, JACK LAM, Secretary of tie Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do liereby certify that the foregoing Resoluti.on ::as iuly and rcgc:lsrly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planting Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at
a regular meeting of the Planning fommission held on the 24th day of January. .1979.
n
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NUS: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
i
`s
1.
s'.
N
Y ;
i
Ij b Ic4 f'
1 • J 1
t/aF 15y3 '
v�;+fEy,7t�.•... +b y�t i^cJ .. ^v —T�'•� wiw ,, -. y "�wrw 8 7 �a•'q_ '
is 41
y ?` !.: " y(�,\—+��-- -. f1 .� c .wlrn rj►vii r Y3:.. 4 ., :r 1 ;� \ y{�G�'a
I .p t., 1�•- f vs�.t
d � y y f, yI N i Q' It
FdSy�:.` o rrtG x � ;� r � � .V,i � 'L• 1 �; .' t ,�,.
I NO
T.
.14
Lt1 ; � i'
! (l.
i � _ � � � 1 ems=—�j f ' 4 � I � � �,♦^•
,
a S Tt
`�� '.•:R � � I ; .;�, N ram ,:.
,I►H--. iJaMJw '7Ml Y�,ryF1117 7 - u ..i'
a .
•1, ♦ pp
,45a�•+' t' f rF�
1' , - .III',..,}i'I'I'♦ > ' ,�,ti �. ,, ,r , �.,1 'r.jt .P+
ti 1RrRY,- ,�pµ r• > .v=:ey .� fitpy-'� ,
x'^ti " - .1.'. •P r ; 'f� � :�:; 0. r ,,t�{�'*,.,f".," i fi• :� . .�:'k• f a..., >� r.;,rs,,- I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
- INITIAL STUDY
I. PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant
i
Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00
For all projects requiring environmental review, this
form must be completed and submitted to the Development
Review Committee through the department where the
project application is made. Upon receipt of this
application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare
Part II of the Initial Study. The. Development Review
Committee will meet and take action no later than ten-
(10) days before the public meeting at which time the
project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of
three determinations: 1) The project will have no
environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be
filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact
and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or
3) An additional information report should be supplied
by the applicant giving further information concerning
the proposed project.
PROJECT TITLE: �CEni /fit`%E
a APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE:
63pe tz 'OE'7Ct=TEk
Kn� .449i�7'7
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Sao h A S �.
LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) '
—0 �
LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND.
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND
PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY:
DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE
INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS ;TREES),
ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE
OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF AIV
EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) :
f
r `
Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series*
of cumulative actions, which although individually small,.
may as a whole rave significant environmental impact?
r'
F,�
c�
WILL THIS PROJECT:
YES N7
.1� 1. . Create a substantial change in ground
contours?
.� ✓ Z. Create a substantial change in existing
noise or vibration?
✓ 3. Create a substantial change in demand for
municipal services (police, fire, water,
sewage, etc.):
✓ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or
general Plan designations? '
—Z 5: Remove any existing trees? How many?
✓ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials such as
toxic substances, flammables or erp?osives?
Explanation of any YES answers above:
IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of
residential units, complete the form on the
next page.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnisheC
above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the
best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted
before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development
Review Committee.
Date Signature
Title
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 24, 1979
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: ACCESS DWROVE`=''T POLICY
The Planning and Engineering staffs have recently been presented with several
lot splits involving minor subdivisions fronting on unimproved private access
easements. In cases such as this, the City staff has continued the County
policy discouraging development along this type of roadway and the prolifera-
tion of private streets: As a condition of approval of these parcel maps, the
applicant is required to obtain 40 feet of dedication to the nearest.City main-
tained street and improve the right of way with a minimum of 26 feet of pave-
ment. In addition, full street dedication and improvement along the applicants
frontage is required. In cases where the applicant is unable to obtain dedica-
tions, staff has reduced this requirement to waive full dedication. In this
case, the applicant is required to construct 26 feet of paving to the nearest
street, full street improvements on the frontage and an irrevocable offer of
full street dedication through the applicants frontage.
This policy is identical to that currently followed by San Bernardino County,
Ontario, Montclair and Claremont, and has been upheld by City Council action
on Minor Subdivisions W77-0466, W77-0410 and W77-0446.
This policy is always controversial with property owners and involves the appli-
cant and the City in a negotiating process to obtain cooperation from'surrounding
owners. The policy is important in the elimination of existing and future access
problems as well as continuing maintenance problems. Because the issue is con-
troversial, the Engineering Division has prepared a Resolution for Planning Com-
mission execution which clearly states the policy of the Commission on this type
of problem.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 79-07
Parcel Map Access Improvement Policy continuing the current staff policy.
Respectfully s bmitted,
rLdll;'CHUBBS
City Engineer
.;� LH:deb
ITEM uHu
�t
.. r
• , r LAND DIVISION APPLICAT;ONO
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
i
� 1 _
I u
` J
lee
MIS ;
i f✓ � '
i
i ' U
V rs �
Sr
AV" 1 Map
--- Seale
APPLICANT-
'Name YA Phone �-7 -3 (Office Use Only)
Address IZ-4/ Gf}-SEd IZ-Iu�/)ij S/J�y 0".-I Os L.D. No. W 78- O4-Co2
LEGAL OSvT1ER OF RECORD C�� F111j ZONE _G_-J
Name cS"v B C. //;fa
Phone 7,1v- 6Z4eo6v
Address
FEE RECEIPT N0.
MAP PREPARED BY:
Name $1'r ."� .; _ _ c Np.v:.
Phone /y-dtc'J6o� /1/vi � './�d ='e
Address /�S. /J/�o r i �= DATE OF CONDITIONAL ACTIQN
TOTAL -NO. LOT& I DATE OF FINAL APPROVAL
ASSESSO S PARCEL NO.^ -- �V�`'17 y
SECTION,TOWNSIiIP AND RANGE
SOURCE OF WATER SUPPLY r��•O (Crri} ,r I
METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL MCP .� Aiyic•/ p �, ,
I certify that I am the (check one) Iegal owner,
=his authorized agent and that the information
shown hereon is true and correct to the best o: my
knowledge.
Signet,' ' r
'"'7.", •,._ ,. ----------.—_.___.___._ (4ffir.+ai Stnmpl