The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979/03/28 - Agenda Packet. ._ ' ,. A ` . a ±r. .. ' .: !! 1i c . K. RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLA'NnZ CC:4MISSION AGENDA Wednesday, March 28, 1979, 7:00 p.m. Community Services Building 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Jones III. Approval of Minutes .,. Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Tolstoy� IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5157 - RANCHO CUCA14ONGA BUSINESS PARK - Request to divide 326 acres a into 40 lots for the purpose of developing an industrial business park at the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Haven Avenue. VI. Public Hearings B. C . SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -07 - ALTA LOMA BRETHREN IN CHRIST - The development of a church and the incorporation of day care facilities for 6 acres of land located at 9974 19th Street. - Request to make administ and A -P Zoning Districts. s ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - City initiated zone change for properties located on the north side of Foothill Blvd. between the railroad overcrossing and the real estate office from C -2 to A -P. VII. Old Business ,• y . E. - CROWELL /LEVENTHAL, INC. - ` xev:Lew or eievt:wns and building materials for Ontario Savings and Loimm proposed for the southeast corner o_ Baseline' Avenue and Carnelian Avenue. y L�.Ys! f37p Y} t 1 i �k _..% A r..zt�'.Y -. t ,.i Ll...•4 ? � . ^' i!� _ ... , ,i ....�`.. 1 .9aw�'... =.y ' RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, March 28, 1979, 7:00 p.m. Community Services Building 9161 Baseline; Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Garcia Commissioner Tolstoy. Commissioner Jones III. Approval of Minutes IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5157 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK - Request to divide 326 acres into 40 lots for the purpose of developing an industrial bueiness park at the northwest corner of Fourth Street and Haven Avenue. VI. Public Hearings V, B. SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -07 - ALTA LOMA BRETHREN IN CHRIST - �'/ The development of a church and the incorporation of day care facilities for 6 acres of land located at 9974 19th Street. C. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO ___1L CUCAMONGA - Request to make administrative amendments to the R -3 and A -P Zoning Districts. D. ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - CIty ``1�• initiated zone change for properties located on the earth side of Foothill Blvd. between the railroad overcrossing and the real estate office from C -2 to A -P. VII. Old Business E. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -15 - CROWELL /LEVENTHAL, INC. - Review.of elevations and building materials for Ontario nge and Loan proposed for the southeast corner of Baseline Avenue and Carnelian Avenue. hffi'yiV'Mr4ffti4.ele- ?24'.J iA ✓.1 .' Y .Y. �,. .t'Y.. �r r it Page 2 ` { "Planning'Comzlsrsiion Agenda March 28, 1979 t^• VIII. New Business _J� a. ZONING DETERMINATION 79 -01 - ROGERS - Request for deter - minatlon that a Trade School operated by Chaffey Community College District is similar to the permitted uses of the M -R (Restricted Manufacturing) District. IX. Council Referral X. Director's Reports PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT$ -jp ESTABLISMENT OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DATES XI. Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any items not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. XII. Commission Comment XIII. Upcoming Agenda for April 11, 1979 1. Site Approval No. 79 -05 - Wycoff 2. Zone Change No. 79 -01 - Alta Loma Properties ( Continued from 3/14) 3. Director Review No. 79 -16 - Alta Loma Properties 4. Director Review No. 78 -12 - Alderfer (Continued from 3/14) 5. Director Review No. 78 -11 - In /Out Burger 6. Director Review No. 79 -26 - Longley 7. Appeal - Director Review No. 79 -12 - Sign 8. Report on Architectural Review XIV.- Adjournment - The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m, adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, it uhall'be heard only .with the consent of the Commission. Y'�5 i+ L 1... � 17•' '^. �T+FN✓>�1„JViDi /. Y%Sr�l�� ni. ?/fl �1C .+.r w+'Z Y'�5�: \+ ._ L� .;.e?}1 f�S A' J RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, March 28, 1979, 7:00 p.m. Community Services Building 9161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. ACTION I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl R Commissioner Rempel % Commissioner Garcia X Commissioner Tolstoy % Commissioner Jones X Approved as III. Approval of Minutes - February 28, 1979 presented IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar 5 -0 Approved A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 5157 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK — Request to divide 3'16 acres into 40 lots for the purpose of developing an industrial business park at the northwest corner of Fourth Street and haven Avenue. VI. Public Hearings 5 -0 Approved B. The development of a church and the incorporation of day care facilities for 6 acres of land located at 9974 19th Street. 4 -1 Approved C. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 140. 79 -04 - CITY OF RANCHO Garcia no because of CUCAMONGA - Request to make administrative amendments service station in A -P to the R -3 and A -P Zoning Districts. 5 -0 Approved D. ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- City 5-0 Approved as resubmitted Approved resubmitted u;. initiated zone change for properties located on the north side of Foothill Blvd. between the railroad overcrossing and the real estate office from C -2 to A -P. VII. Old Business E. Review of elevations and Dullaing materials tor untario Savings and Loan proposed for the southeast corner of Baseline Avenue and Carnelian Avenue. F. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 78 -12 - ALDERFER - Review of Architectural revisions to proposed structure on Vineyard, north of Carnelian r Page 2 Planning Commission Agenda March 28,'1979`. 'ACTION VIII. New Business 5 -0 Apprewed F. ZONING DETERMINATION 79 -01 - ROGERS - Request for deter- mination that a Trade School operated by Chaffey Community College District is similar to the permitted uses of the M -R (Restricted Manufacturing) District. IX. Council Referral X. Director's Reports 5 -0 Approved as Amended G. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 5 -0 Approved as H. ESTABLISHMENT OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DATES Amended XI. Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any items not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. XII. Commission Comment Tolstoy questioned rural road standards for Etiwanda. XIII. Upcoming Agenda for April 11, 1979 1. Site Approval No. 79 -05 - Wycoff 2. Zone Change No. 79 -01 - Alta Loma Properties (Continued from 3/14) 3. Director Review No. 79 -16 - Alta Loma Properties 4. Director Review No. 78-12 - Alderfer (Continued from 3/14) S. Director Review No. 78 -11 - In /Out Burger 6. Director Review No. 79 -26 - Longley 7. Appeal - Director Review No. 79 -12 - Sign 8. Report on Architectural Review XIV. Adjournment - The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, it shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. Y:. l are � r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 14, 1979 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER 40 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cuca- monga, on Wednesday, February 14, 1979. 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: Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Bill Hofman, Planning Assistant; Lloyd Hubbs; City Engineer; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon Motion by Commissioner Garcia, reconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried, the Planning Commission minutes of January 10, 1979 were approved as submitted. Upon. Motion by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unani- mously carried, the Planning Commission minutes of January 24,, 1979 were approved as submitted. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Rempel stated the Sign Ordinance hearing has been carried over to the February 28, 1979 meeting. The Sign Committee of the Chamber of Commerce is reviewing the ordinance, as are the Advisory Committees to the Council. There - fore, he would like to announce, for those interested in the ordinance, that it will not be reviewed tonight. Barry Hogan stated the reason the sign ordinance continuance is for filrther study. The Citizens Advisory Committees will meet tomorrow night (2/15) at the Library at 7:00 p.m.; and on the 27th of February, the Sign Committee of the Chamber o° Commerce will be meeting at the Bronx at 5 p.m. to discuss the Sign Ordinanf.e. Staff is requesting tonight that the ordinance be held over h until the February 28th meeting. Anyone present tonight on the ordinance may speak if desired or can hold their comments until the 28th. Chairman Rempel stated on the last page of the Agenda we have included a statement indicating the Administrative Regulations adopted by the Commis- sion sets an 11:00 p.m. ad;ournment time. If items go beyond that time, it shall be heard only with the unanimous consent of the Commission. On some of the items, we may have to set time limits for presentations so that we can give equal time to all applications pro and con in order to hear the entire Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Rempel asked if there were comments from the audience concerning any of the Consent Calendar items. He stated he has one correction to the Consent Calendar Item "G" which should state "this parcel map d1vides 2.5 acres into 4 lots ". There being no comments from the audience, a Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. A. Request for Time Extension for Minor Su+h.' *vision No. 77 -0671 to February 23, 1980. E. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4590 - Murillo C. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4907 - Stagliano D. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4929 - Pettway E. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4881 - Bauer F. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4783 - Sanchez G. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4957 - Hone H. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 4820 - Linville I. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5051 - Ingham J. Negative Declaration for Minor Subdivision No. 78 -0215 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY �v..i.... ymy1wAx6rz Am W6 umhrf -r Nu. iy -Ul — SIGN ORDINANCE — Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add a new sign ordinance and repeal all existing sign regulations. Barry Hogan stated the Staff recommends that the Commission continue review of the proposed sign ordinance to the regular meeting of February 28, 1979 in order to allow input from the Advisory Committees. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to continue review of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 79 -01 to February 28, 1979. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 14, 1979 SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -01 - CQOIUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH - The development of a church facility to be located on the northwest corner of 19th and Beryl. Barry Hogan reviewed the Staff Report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -11 approving Site Approval No. 79 -01 subiect to the conditions delineated in the Resolution. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Chairman Rempel asked if the applicant hab worked out the driveway situation at this point in time. Mr. Hogan stated this issue came up rather late and ue have not 'had the oppor- tunity to talk to the applicant about this. in our review we feel that the access can be worked out so as noc to cause initial problems for the applicant. He added the applicant is over on his parking requirement by six spaces. Chairman Rempel asked if Lewis Development, the developer of the adjacent pro- perty, is agreeable to this situation. Barry Hogan stated Lewis Development can speak to the situation. Commissioner Garcia asked for an explanation on the single stripe parking versus solid stripe parking. Ar. Hogan stated normally applicants indicate single striping on the site plan. Our code requires double striping. In a church situation where a lot of cars are involved it allows more room to maneuver. This condition is added to remind the applicant of the code requirement. Commissioner Garcia stated it is his opinion the landscaping for this project is minimal for the type of community we are trying to create. Mr. Hogan stated the applicant has been asked to resubmit his landscaping plans and bring them back at a later date for staff review. If the Commission has a concern they could request that the applicant bring the landscape plan back for Commission review. Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Jim Thayer, Architectural Concern, reviewed the colored elevations for the Commission. He indicated the reason the front door is proposed on the north side is because it faces the court yard and relates to the parking lot instead of the street. All of the main entrances will be from the court yard and the parking lot. Mr. Hogan indicated that conditions of approval require that the parking required for the temporary buildings be completed prior to the location of the two temporary buildings. `r Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 14, 1979 Mr. Thayer stated he does not have any problems with this condition. He indi- eared the parking ratio of 4 to 1 is very adequate. He indicated it is their opinion there is adequate parking being, provided in Phase 1 of their develop- ment. He added the Architects from Lewis called his office today to discuss the common driveway. The common driveway will minimize circulation problems. Mr. Thayer asked that the Commission consider a two year time limit for the temporary buildings instead of one year as stated in Condition 02 of the Resolu- tion. At this time, they do not know how successful the church is going to be and hope the Commission will consider the two year period. Mr. Hogan stated the code provides for a maximum of two years for temporary buildings. The Commission has the option tonight of approving either the one year time period or can extend that to two years at this time. The reason Staff has recommended one year at this time is that the applicant may in one year have a little better idea of where they are going and how quickly they can proceed. There is a maximum of two years allowed for temporary buildings by code. Mr. Thayer stated the church has gone to quite a bit of expense on the temporary modular buildings. They are aesthetic and faced with rough sawn redwood, and they would not be an eyesore to the city. Landscaping will be going in immediately. The buildings will look permanent. He indicated the buildings may need to be pulled closer to 19th Street because of fire hydrant requirements. They will be pulled over just behind Phase 1 in the same basic location. He stated another reason they need the time extension is because they will be required to install improvements for 19th Street. They have agreed to these improvements; however, it is quite an expense to them in addition to the parking lot and modular units. Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Thayer to review the placement of the temporary buildings for the Commission. Mr. Ben Mackal, Battalion Chief Foothill Fire District, stated the fire code requires that buildings located more than 150 feet from a street would require an on -site fire hydrant. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the landscaping plans will be required. Mr. Hogan stated landscaping plans hove to be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Tolstoy stated since this is such a large project it is his opinion that the landscaping plan should be reviewed by the Commission. The landscaping should be installed early so that it can get some growth before the project is finished. This will certainly be an asset to the community to have open space but also good for the church and the community if some large trees were spotted throughout the project. Mr. Thayer stated he would agree; that is one of the reasons they have master planned this development now so that they can place their landscaping around any future buildings. Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 14, 1979 0 0 Commissioner Garcia asked for review of the playground area. Mr. Thayer stated they are proposing a tot lot. It will be screened similar to the air conditioning screening that is on the front elevation. Commissioner Garcia stated he is not too sure if he likes to see the protective wall around the playground area. He feels that protection for the children could be done in another manner. It would take away from the character of the project if the playyard is enclosed. Perhaps the applicant could work with the landscape architect to give alternatives. Chairman Rempel stated the plan shows a wrought iron fence with planting inter- laced through it, rather than a block wall. Barry Hogan stated if the wrought iron fence is acceptable to the Commission this can be made a condition of approval. Commissioner Garcia stated perhaps some berming could be provided to camoflauge the area and will give a better character to the corner as a whole. Mr. Thayer stated there is room for berming in this area and would not be a problem to provide this. Mr. Hogan stated an additional condition should be added to the Resolution as follows: That the applicant shall work with the adjacent developer to provide separation of the two uses along the western boundary. He noted a similar condition will be required of the Lewis Development. The Commission may con- sider a block wall, or chain link with planting in this area. Mr. Thayer stated if this condition is required he would ask that the church not be required to put this in until it could be done jointly with the adjoining property owner. Chairman Rempel stated he would not like to see a 6' block wall in this area. He would rather see, if the block wall is considered, that it be lower than the 6 foot wall or possibly go to chain link and planting. Commissioner Garcia stated he personally does not like chain link fences. The buffering between, the uses could be done with a planter. Perhaps trees could be included to create a variation and help to buffer. This will give the separation needed between the uses and at the same time create a very nice separation. Chairman Rempel stated the applicant needs to work with Lewis Homes on this pro- posal rather than deciding the specifics at this time. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the two year time limit is allowed for the temporary buildings, would that allow the applicant an additional year extension. Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 14, 1979 Mr. Rogan stated no, a two year time limit is the maximum amo,.Ant of time allowed. Commissioner Garcia stated he understands the difficulties and length of time to develop a project of this scale and he would be receptive to entertaining the two year time period for the temporary buildings at this time. Commissioner Tolstloy stated he would like to see the landscaping plan brought back to the Commission for review. Chairman Rempel stated it is his opinion staff is capable of reviewing the landscape plan. Mr. Rogan stated if the Commission desires, a condition could be added requiring a conceptual landscape plan to be submitted to the Commission for approval. Chairman Rempel stated he feels Staff is qualified to review this plan, and doesn't feel this condition is necessary. A Motion was made by Commissioner Rempel and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -11 subject to the findings and conditions as listed with the following changes: Condition #1 changed to read: The two temporary buildings requested for church operation are approved for twc: years from the date of building permit issuance for the Phase I multi- purpose building. Add the following condition: That the applicant shall work with the adjacent developer to provide separation of the two uses along the western boundary. AYES: REWEL, JONES, GARCIA, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ASSENT: DAHL Commissioner Garcia stated for the record, for informational purposes, the applicant should bring a conceptual landscape plan to the Commission for review. This is not a condition but for informational purposes and Ruggestlons. SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -03 - FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT - The Construction of the fire prevention staff offices to be located at the existing station on the east side of Amethyst, north of 19th Street. Barry Hogan reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -10 subject to the findings and conditions contained therein. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Commissioner Garcia asked what is the program established for construction of this project. Planning Commission Minutes -6- February 14, 1979 Mr. Hogan stated they want to get under construct ion right away. This has been funded through Pre - Proposition 13 funds and if they don't use them by a certain date, they will lose the money. This project will consolidate the offices of the Foothill Fire District rather than have them all spread out amongst the stations. The project meets all city requirements regarding parking and is a well planned project. The major entrance will be to the north and not on Amethyst. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Rufus Turner, Architect, stated they have one concern with Condition #7 which states prior to issuance of building permit, grading and drainage plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted for review end approval of the City Engineer. They are nct changing the flow of water and are not moving much dirt. They do not understand the need for this condition. Lloyd Hubbs stated this condition can be deleted as there is no need for these plans to be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. There being no further comments fihm the audience, chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolsaoy and secondsd by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -10 subject to the finding-4 and conditions as listed with the deletion of Condition V. AYES: TOISTOY, JONES, GARCIA. REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL SERVICE STATION STANDARDS Barry Hogan stated Staff suggests that this item be removed from the Agenda until sucT, time as the issues of the Sign Ordinance, Growth Management Plan and the School Task Force are resolved. At that time staff will reschedule this item for Planning Commission consideration. A Motion was made by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unanimously carried to remove Service Station Standards from the Agenda at this time. a: AYES: JONES, GARCIA, TOLSTOY, RFMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL SPECIAL BOULEVARD STANOARDS Michael Vairin reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Landscape Standards for the implementation of the General Plan by adopting Resolution No. 79 -15. Planning Commission Minutes -7- February iG, 1979 r.' Barry Hogan stated he might add this proposed standard does not include planting plans or tell the applicants how much landscaping, or where to put it; it only provides for setback areas. Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Chuck Beck, Vanguard Builders, asked if property owners that front on the streets affected by this ordinance have been notified of this standard. Mr. Vairin stated this policy has been reviewed by �Le Chamber of Commerce and they have made their comments. Also, as a result of the adoption of the General Plan, we are required to implement the plan through policy, zoning, etc. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -15 as submitted adopting Special Boulevard Standards. AYES: GARCIA. JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 78 -12 - #LDERFER - Request for development of a two - story, 10,000 square foot office building located at 8030 Vineyard in the C -2 zone. Barry Hogan stated the applicant is requesting another two week continuance. This item has been continued a number of ti;aes with no resolution to the flood problem; therefore, we suggest that this be the last continuance and a decision be made at the next meeting. This will require the applicant to submit his solution to the City Engineer no later than Tuesday, February 20, 1979. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to continue review of Director Review No. 78 -12 to the noxt regular meeting of February 28, 1979. AYES: TOLSTOY, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL * * * e NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 AND PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 - KORTEPEPER - The division of 1.8 acres into two lots located 850' east of Etiwanda Avenue and 950' north of Summit Avenue - R -1 zone. Bill Hofman, Planning Assistant, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division, indicating that both he and the City Engineer had met with the applicant and the area residents to explain the situation. Staff recommends issuance of a Negttive Declaration for Parcel .;ap No. 4773 and adoption of Resolution No. 79 -09 approving Parcel Map No. 4773. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Planning Commission Minutes -8- February 14, 1979 .e There being no questions from the Commission of the Staff, Chairman.Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Kortepeter, applicant, thanked Lloyd Hubbs and Bill Hofman for meeting to listen to the people in the area He toped that the Commission would understand his problem and that he shouldn't be responsible for someone else's street frontage. Mr. Gene Rice, property owner to the south, stated he understands some of the conditions for approval do not involve monetary expense but are impossible due to the fact that the width of the road is not available. He wondered if the city is imposing conditions that will be impossible to meet not necessarily from monetary expenditure but just an impossibility to meet. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stated the City's position is never to impose condi- tions which are legally impossible. Mr. Hogan stated there are certain developments that may encroach on straight alignm at of the street. We are not suggesting through this condition that those structures, or irrigation lines be removed or relocated. The Engineering Divisiat has indicated that the improvements as recommended can be accomplished. Commis;.ioner Garcia stated he had the opportunity to drive through this area. Th,i rugineering Division has to look at this area as a special area in which the street pattern will have to be designed in order that the hundreds of eucalyp- tus trees are not demolished. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -09 subject to the findings and conditions as contained therein. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL POLICY FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON PARCEL MAPS (Continued from 1/24/79) Lloyd Hubbs reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Plan - Y' ping Division. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -07 establishing the Subdivision Access Improvement Policy. Mr. Hogan stated at some point in the future the City's Engineering Staff will be meeting with the Etiwanda Citizens Advisory Committee and would invite people concerned with the issue of street widths, improvements of streets, retention of eucalyptus trees to attend that meeting. People interested in this can contact the City Engineer within a couple of months or watch the daily news- paper which will have an advertisement of this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -9- ? & F February 14, 1979 Commissioner Tolstoy stated people in the Etiwanda area, through the hearing processes for the Land Use Element of the General Plan, were very much interested in a distinctive community for the Etiwanda area. One of the ways that this can be brought about is by a different type of standard for the streets. He is not sure at this time what that would be but it is a good opportunity for us to develop some standards that are acceptable to the City for roads that will set them apart and fit in with the character that the people in Etiwanda would like to have. Mr. Pettway stated they purchased their home in the Etiwanda area as they wanted to live in a rural atmosphere aid they would like to retain that. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Coomiissioner Garcia to approve Resolution No. 79 -07 establishing Subdivision Access Improvement Policy. AYES: TOLSTOY, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL Chairman Rempel called a recess at 8:10 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m. DIPECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -04 - SUNSET PLAZA _7 Request for construction of two (2) one -story commercial buildings totaling 12,000 square feet at the southwest corner of Ramona Avenue and Foothill Blvd. in the C -2 (General Business) District. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -12 based on the findings and conditions as listed in the Resolution. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission to the staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see some more attention paid to the elevations for this project. Mr. Milton Creek, applicant, stated over the last several weeks they have been working on this site plan and have made numerous changes from their original concept both architecturally and to the landscaping. They will provide irri- gation and full landscape plans down the road. He agrees with staff - recommenda- tions on the limited use of Mexican Palms. They will be using them near the pool area as a clean tree which would be excellent for this area. California Sycamore and pines are used predominately through the rest of the area. They will have a meandering sidewalk. It is his opinion this development is far superior to many of the developments he has seen along Foothill of the same size and capacity. They have reworked the elevations and have put in texture, wood trim and brick veneer. Planning Commission Minutes -10- Pabauary 14, 1979 a: Commissioner Garcia stated the Commission has deliberated for some time on the concept and image of Foothill Blvd. He expected something more than has been presented with this plan. He would like to see better elevations and facade. Anything developed in this area will have a substantial impact on our community. His concern is with the buildings fronting Foothill Blvd. The applicant has made a tremendous improvement with landscaping which will enhance the project. Mr. Creek stated with the planting materials listed and restrictions on the size of trees plus irrigation with berms or earth mounding, the view from Foothill Blvd. will be better than many existing developments. Commissioner Tolstoy stated this building is set back and also has landscaping which certainly is going to make the project look better; however, the facade still looks like a block. He does feel that this project will fit in with the charac- ter of recent developments approved by the Planning Commission in the area. Chairman Rempel stated the Commission has to decide whether it wants the buildings to all look the same or if they want a variation. His only comment is you can see the one side of the smaller building coming up Foothill Blvd. There is no way to avoid this until other properties are built. Mr. Creek stated the adjacent property owner may build in front of this building and then the side will not be seen. Mr. Hogan stated perhaps eucaluptus trees or other landscaping could be planted along the wall to help soften the harshness of the wall. Chairman Rempel stated the condition could be added that the west elevation of the north building be modified either architecturally or by landscaping. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would still like to see more attention paid architecturally to the elevations. We are trying to upgrade the visual quality and character of Foothill Blvd. Commissioner Tolstoy stated without increasing the cost of the building, a little more creativity could be done along the frontage to break up the linear effect of the structures. Mr. Hogan stated if there is concern from the Commission on this project and i it is the concensus of the Commission than this matter should be referred back to the applicant to bring new elevations for review. Commissioner Garcia stated the applicant should consider what we have discussed. Perhaps we could continue this matter for two weeks for further review by the applicant. A Motion was made by Commissioned Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to continue review of *Director Review No. 79 -04 to the next regular meeting of February 28, 1979 to allow the applicant to address the Commissions' concern. AYES: %RCIA, JONES, TOLSTOY, HEMPEL VOES: NONE ASSENT: DAHL Planning Commission Minutea -11- February 14, 1979 0 0 Chairman Rempel suggested that one or two of the Commission members arrange to meet with Mr. Creek prior to the next meeting to review his plans. Commissioners Hempel and Tolstoy were appointed. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -01 - LEWIS - The development of a 248 unit apartment complex to be located on the north side of 19th Street, approximately 330' west of Beryl Avenue. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reported this is the first apartment building since incorporation. At many General Plan hearings before the Commission there was an indication of the need for multi - family units within the city. It is an alternative housing style for people within our community. We have always felt that this does not mean a lower quality of life. The character of any apartment development should maintain the same high quality design and standards that we would want in single family homes. We have proposed landscaping stan- dards which are very stringent. This project and the following apartment pro- ject on the Agenda will set the tone of the City with regard to apartment developments. The Commission should consider all the issues very carefully. Mr. Hogan reported a letter was received from Mr. Geoxge Godlin, 6634 Haven Avenue, which he read in its entirety. The letter is on file in the Planning Division. In response to this letter, we have had project review by the Engi- neering Department and it is our considered opinion that streets have sufficient capacity to take care of traffic in that area. If there were not provisions for services we would not be recommending approval of these projects. Regarding school capacity, we have bad testimony from the school district that these type of apartment units do not generate school children. There is also sewer capacity to serve these units, otherwise they would not have been released from the moratorium. Bill Hofman reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Plan- ning Division. He recommended that Condition 1117 be amended as follows: That the applicant shall work with the owner of the eastern adjacent property to provide a landscape barrier on the eastern property line to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In addition, he recommended an additional condition be added as follows: That a sample of the roof material be submitted to the Pl anning Division and approved prior to issuance of building permits. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -13 subject to the findings and condi- tions as listed subject to the above changes. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Mr. Tom Samhamel, Lewis Development, stated they basically have no problems with the conditions of approval except for the landscaping. They are trying to work out the common driveway situation and they are pleased with the modi- fications of the wall condition. They feel the landscape requirement is excessive. The landscape plan they have submitted shows 27 trees per acre. If the 50 tree per acre concept is adopted on their proposal with six and a half acres of landscaped area they would end up with a large number of trees required and it will be quite difficult to get that many trees. This require - ment will take away the possibility of creativity. It would seem a more equitable solution to have a requirement that the developer submit a plan prepared by a licensed architect for approval by staff or Commission. Since these are the first two apartment developments coming in, the policy would cot take into account uniqueness of individual projects. Planning Commission Minutes -12- February 14, 1979 Mr. Hogan stated that staffs experience has been that when there is not a standard, insufficient landscaping and insufficient sizes of trees are proposed. When 50 trees per acre is specified and no specification of sizes you get a lot of one gallon and five gallon trees and a few 24" box trees. This policy requires the landscape architect to give a little more thought in landscaping. We are sure this project and any other project going in can meet this standard. Chairman Rempel stated regarding the 50 trees per acre, landscape standard when the trees are young, if you didn't have a large number of trees on the site and some specimen size, the site would look awfully naked. If some speci- men trees are included, perhaps something can be worked out to re? -e some of the trees. Mr. Samhamel stated it would be far better if the staff would work with the applicant in regard to landscaping requirements. it is a matter of dictating how many and the size of trees. This should be looked at on an individual basis. Mr. Hogan stated we can be flexible to some degree with this standard. This policy will create a very pleasing community for. ?eople living in apartments and for the people in the area. Staff believes that this standard promotes the goals of the General Plan and is the type of community that is desired by the residents of the City. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he agrees with the 50 trees per acre concept. There could certainly be some negotiation by adding specimen trees which gives the landscape architect some latitude. Mr. Lam stated staff expects some amount of negotiation involved when talking of designs. If some speciman trees are proposed it would prec'_ude the need for other smaller trees. Mr. Chuck Beck, Vanguard Builders, stated his apartment development is next on the Agenda, and stated that they would like to have the flexibility of submitting landscape plans to the staff. They have a very good staff to evaluate the project, and he feels the project should be evaluated on its own merits. Fifty trees may not be enough for some projects,. They would prefer to have the ability to submit a landscape plan prepared by a licensed architect for review by staff and Commission. Chairman Rempel stated this policy allows the flexibility. What we are trying to say is that we have the maximum amount of trees on a piece of property. If an applicant can show staff that they will have a good design with less trees then it might not be a problem. We need a standard which is reasonable in order that enough landscaping is provided to make a nice project. Mr. Lam stated the Y- ndscape plans are reviewed by staff and are appealable to the Commission : aere is unhappiness with staff review. Planning Commission Minutes -13- February 14, 1979 Commissioner Tolstoy stater one of the requirements was that one of the carports need to be relocfted. He wants to make sure that the carport would not go out front. Mr. Samhamel stated he would agree with this. They intentionally have kept the carports away from the front. Commissioner Tolstoy stated one of the concerns he has had when going to apart- ments is that he has found a lot of apartment dwellers are walking across the driveways. Perhaps the applicant could carry the sidewalk across the blacktop to show a car coming into the development that is a pedestrian right of way. Some kind of delineation is needed for safety. Mr. Samhamel stated something can be worked our regarding this. He indicated this is a good point and should not cause any problems. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolsroy to approve Resolution No. 79 -13 subject to the findings and conditions as listed therein with the following addition and corrections: 1. Amend Condition #17 as follows: That the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner to the east to provide a land- scape barrier to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 2. Add the following condition: That a sample of the roof material be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to issu- ance of building permits. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL Mr. Ben Mackal, Fire Department, stated he would like to recommend that the Commission on future multi - family units consider limitation on the roof material to Class A or B material, not allowing combustible roofing. He indicated he would like to make a presentation regarding roof materials to the Commission in the near future. The primary factor for the Rosewood Court fire was wind and combustible roof covering. From an aesthetic standpoint, shakes are attractive but from a fire standpoint with the type of conditions in Southern California fire retardency is only good for 7 to 8 years. There are some very nice looking different types of materials that simulate wood shake quite well and asked that everyone take a serious look at these. DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 75-06 - VANGUARD BUILDERS - The development of a 200.unit apartment complex to be located on the north side of 19th Street, approximately 500' east of Archibald Avenue. Michael Vairi.n, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. He reported a condition is to be added prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain city and Caltrans approval of access to 19th Street. All work constructed on 19th Street shall require issuance of an encroachment permit by Caltrans. Planning Commission Minutes -14- February 14, 1979 tR 0 0 Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -14 subject to the findings and conditions as listed with the above addition. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the Staff. Mr. Chuck Beck, applicant, stated the basic plan concept is parking in the perimeter creating pedestrian areas through the apartment area. -Each unit is oriented into a private living space. They object to the elimination of the carports along the freeway right of way; however, there is nothing to do about that tonight. Mr. Hogan stated in order to do anything about the carports would require a variance or minor deviation. Mr. Beck stated it is impossible to see the carports up against the north property line from the freeway. Mr. Hogan stated when more firm plans have been submitted from Caltrans this can be discussed further. Commissioner Garcia stated seeing the grading plan, it is a nice and beautiful place and he would'suggest careful recommendation to the grading with minimum cut anu fill. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -14 subject to the findings and conditions as listed therein with the following addition: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, applicant shall obtain City and Caltrans approval of access to 19th Street. All work constructed on 19th Street shall require issuance of an encorach- ment permit by Caltrans. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN STUDY AREAS NOT WITHIN CITY (Continued from 1/24/79) Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reported there is a problem of no development policies for the County area yet there is constantly applica- tions submitted to the County. Oftentimes the City is not informed of projects until they are either approved or sometimes we find out about it from other neighboring jurisdictions. It is felt the City should recommend a policy to the Board of Supervisors of the County for some mutually acceptable review considerations for developments in that area, especially since there is no sphere of influence designation. The County has been kicking a policy around for a couple of years. The policy has been modified'to make it a current policy about development in the area as a joint City /County coordination of planning activities in our planning sphere of influence outside of the City boundaries. ]Planning Commission Minutes -15- February 14, 1979 Mr. Hogan stated the first step of the policy is to get the County's attention that the City is interested in the area and that there are significant develop - ment problems in certain areas. The City wants to know about a project when it is submitted and not only wants to know rbout the project but we a so want the environmental information so that we can make intelligent comments on the project. If the Commission adopts this policy tonight we would follow it and hopefully the County will also follow the policy. Mr. Tony Marachett stated approximately 90% of the home owners in the area to the north of the city Iimi.ts went to the County and expressed the same concerns. He indicated there is a communication problem with the County. Mr. Hogan stated step 2 is to work with the land owners in the area and develop some guidelines of what everyone wants to accomplish. Mr. Barry Brandt, owning property in this area, stated they would be delighted if the City would work with the landowners in this area to develop guidelines for development. He stated the people in this area are unified and there is a surprising amount of agreement on what is desired for the area. They would be in a great position to work with staff informally and if agreeable with the Commission could start doing this. Chairman Rempel stated he is sure staff would be amenable to this type of work. Commissioner Garcia stated this is a very critical area. It would be helpful to all of us to take a tour on a Saturday and really see what is going on in the area. Commissioner Jones stated Mr. Cherbak offered that he would provide one of the trucks to take the Commission on a tour of the area on a Saturday. Mr. Hogan stated if the Commission is amenable we will set a date for a tour of the area. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Resolution No. 79 -05 as submitted. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, .TONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: DAHL Mr. Layj stated there will be a City /County Commissioners Institute meeting cominr; up in March. This will be a dinner meeting rand there will be .a speaker to update the Commission on recent law decisions that would affect p1inning in this area. He will submit further information to the Commission at a later date regarding this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes gr 5� -16- February 14, 1979 s5. Upon Motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1979. Meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully) submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development Planning Commission niautes -17- February 14, 1979 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 28, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5157 Rancho Cucamonga Business Park - Request to divide 326 acres into 40 lots for the purpose of developing an industrial business park at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and 4th Street. BACKGROUND: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park requests a 40 lot land division of 326 acres in the M-2 zone at the above described location. The land division precedes the development of an industrial business park on this site. This reviAw will include both the land division and the subsequent industrial development. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The site was once a vineyard, however, is now vacant and devoid of significant wildlife and vegetation. Further, no cultural, historical or scenic resources are associated with the parcel. Staff's environmental concerns are traffic generation by the industrial park and drainage off the site. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the project in terms of traffic circulation and generation. He has found that 4th and Haven are suitable in size and orientation to handle increased traffic generated by the use. In terms of drainage, the site has a one. percent slope to the south. Water would flow south to 4th street and then east across Haven Avenue to an existing drainage channel. The Engineering Division will require a detailed grading and drainage plan prior to final approval of the Parcel Map. The environmental checklist indicates no other significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. Staff has field checked the site and has found no discrepancies with the checklist. Rt, _iFNDATION: Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map no 5157. Res ectfull su4itted, I a m, irec Community Development JL: BNH: cc Attachment: Location Map Initial Study ITE✓. "A" Af 1 4- 16U ,R* 444 4r JL Ak 4 51 S7 t; r 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 r'or all projects requiring environmental review, this farm must be co.;pletad and ..:1-^ittad 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: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEMONE: NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: RMG Engineering, Inc., 3990 Westerly place, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 752 -8171 WCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) N.W.C. Haven Avenue & San Bernardino Avenue LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Standard City of Cucamon a ermits for grading & street improvemen�si also perm is rom ucamonga County Watex District construction of sewer & water facilities. PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: e proiect will consist of 0.5 acre d to be developed as industrial sites Haven and San Bernardino Avenues. ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE Or EXISTING AND . PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 37.5 Acres. DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLL *DING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? No, this property will be developed within the guide lines of the minimum impact industrial zoning proposed by the City of Cucamonga. W� WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1. Create a substantial contours? X 2. Create a substantial noise or vibration? * 3. Create a substantial =- anicipml cervices sewage,- etc.) change in ground change in existing change in demand for police, fire, :Dater, X 4. Create changes in the existing 'zoning or general plan designations? x S; RemovA any existing trees? How many? X f,. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic subEtances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: T _water District has stated in a letter da that_ facilities exist and capacities are w IMPORTANT•: if the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of :ray 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 February 15, 1979 Z � Signature Title Pro_lzt Manager r L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: March 28, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 9 Subject: l• The first PR phase0of7development of a church and day careVfacil ties on six acres of laud located at 9974 19th Street - Zoned R -1 -8500 BA:KGROURD: The Alta Loma Brethren in Christ Chur, h is requesting approval for the first phase of development of church and day care facility on six acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street between Ramona and Hermosa (Exhibit 'W'). The site presently contains minimal improvements; a residence and two accessory buildings. The first phase of this project would be to remove the two accessory buildings, retain the existing resi- dence as a temporary office building and construct a new multi - purpose worship /day care facility. The multi- purpose facility has been designed to accommodate 96 children for the day care use and 260 seats for church use. The church is proposing to construct two additional buildings on the site for future phases. One would be the main sanctuary and the other a Christian education building. These buildings would be brought back to the Commission for their review and approval prior to ultimate deve1opment. The site is presently zoned R -1 -8500 (single family residential) and General Planned for residential uses at densities of 2 -5 units per acre. Churches and day care facilities are permitted within the R -1 zone subject to the approval of a location and development plan by the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS: The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate all required set - backs, parking areas, and landscaping. The site has adequate access and fronts on a properly designed street to accommo- date the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. In addi- tion, the proposed use appears to have no adverse affects on adjacent property and is consistent with the General Plan. The site plan indicates that access will be from two driveways from 19th Street; one which will be a shared access on the west boundary line and the other a 30' wide two -way driveway on the east end of the property. The shared access drive on the west property line may only be used as a one way drive, as the ordinance requires a minimum of 24 feet for access drives desiring two -way traffic. The remaining aisles and parking stalls are sufficient and in accordance with the zoning ordinance. rChild care centers are required to provide one parking space for each employee or teacher and one parking space for each five children the facility is designed u n ITEM B to accommodate. The use of multi- purpose facility as a day care center would require a minimum of 28 spaces. The -use of the facility as a church would require one parking space for each four fixed seats which would require a minimum of 65 parking stalls for this facility. The first phase development will be providing 74 improved parking spaces. There is a large amount of land remaining within the project to provide the additional parking needed for the other phases of development.. Exhibit "A ", the site plan, also indicates the conceptual landscaping of the project. More than 30 feet of landscaped area is being provided on the fron- tage of the property. This.area will be bermed and planted with turf and trees. Additional landscaping is being provided. throughout. the development, adjacent to buildings, and within open areas. The applicants are proposing to retain the existing windrow along the east property line. Staff recommends that the windrow be trimmed and cleaned in accordance with the Foothill Fire District regulations. In addition to these landscape features, a bermed amphi- theater is being proposed within the court yard area. Exhibit "S" displays the proposed elevations of the multi- purpose facility and the existing structure as it faces 19th Street and the side property lin.ds. The design proposes to utilize such materials as tale roof, wood siding, and textured stucco. The applicant will have full colored displays of these elevations available at the meeting in addition to cross sections of the amphi- theater and the building. The applicants are proposing to con- struct a wood screen on the front elevation of the existing structure. The material will be wood siding similar to that which is being used on the multi- purpose facility. The existing structure is proposed to be used as the church office on a temporary basis until such time that the remaining phases of the development are constructed. The use and approval of the structure on a temporary basis is similar to the Commission's decision to permit other churches to tem- porarily use trailers until such time that their ultimate development is complete. The structure is being updated with an architectural screen and is setback 150 ft. from the street. In addition to the screen, Staff recommends that dense Landscaping be provided along the east elevation of the building. To remain consistent with past Commission decisions on temporary use of structures, Staff recommends that a two year time limitation be established for this structure. If the church decides to retain the structure on a permanent basis, then substantial improvements will be required and such improvements would be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Attached is a copy of Part I of the Initial Study and a discussion of the environmental aspects as indicated on the environmental check list. Staff has not found any significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. -2- RECM:%MMATIONt The-Planning Division recommends that the Planning Com- mission, after the public hearing, approve Site Approval No. 79-07 based on the findings and conditions in the attached Resolution No. 79 -31. Respectfull submitted, JACK LAM, Director o Community Development JL:MV:nm Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan /vicinity Map Exhibit "S" - Elevations Initial Study Resolution No. 79 -31 tai PEI RIM J OP r1. 11 11 /�l% 11 1% I11 1.1'111 j 11 11 f 1 \ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: March 28, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: lack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -07 - ALTA LOMA BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH - Development of a church day care facility located at 9974 19th Street ]BACKGROUND: The Alta Loma Brethren in Christ Church is requesting approval for the development of a church and day care facility on six acres of land located on the north side of 19th Street between Ramona and Hermosa. The project will entail the construction of a 1200 square foot multi- purpose building and eventual construction of a sanctuary and a christian education building. In addition, required parking, access areas, and play fields will be provided within the development. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The cite presently contains minimal improvements; a residence and two accessory buildings. The site presently slopes in a south- westerly direction and is basically covered in low lying annual grasses. An existing eucalyptus windrow is present along the east and west boundaries of the property and other various trees are randomly placed throughout the site. The property to the west is vacant with the exception of a single family residence. Property to the north is vacant. Property to the east is vacant and property to the south across 19th Street is developed as a residential subdivision. The site does not appear to contain any cultural, historical or scenic aspects that could be damaged as a result of this pro- ject. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCUSSION: The following are the items found on the environ- mental checklist that could potentially create significant adverse impacts on the environment. 2b - This project will result in changes in the absorption rate and the rate of surface water run off. As a result of the new building and the paved areas, increased water runoff will be created by this project. Preliminary grading and drainage plans indicate that such drainage can be handled without adversely affecting adjacent properties or other properties downstream from the project. 4a - The project will necessitate removal of some trees. Some of the trees require removal as a result of the placement of improve- meets or the fact that the trees are in poor condition. The windrow ITEM nBn 0 0 0 0 0 . on thz subject property along the east boundary will be retained. The project will provide a substantial amount of landscaping and additional trees which would more than replace what would be removed from the site. RECOMMENDATION: After review of the initial Study and site :investigation, the envirormiental analysis staff has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. Therefore, Staff recoamends issuance of a Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission. Respectfully ubmitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development 0 F� JL:MV:nm C {t f PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: rhllryh 'n77 ti _n..wnnno rnnm Tff4 t-h ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: 6 at-rasa--4- 12nn snli;q--a feet building. DESCRIBE THE ENVIROMIENPAL ST:"PTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORAMMON ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEI71C ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND T11E DESCRIPTION OF ANY . EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS): t. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? iYA CITY OF RANCHO CUCMtONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant 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 o£.thi.s application, the Env, onmental 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: Bretbren In Chrigt - Church APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: B.I.C.C. 9974 19t 7 4) 289-3119 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: DAin Find _ nd ARan^4 t n n nna an n .. . _ 1 0 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)' _9974 19th S reet 202 -171 31,_202 -171 -32 202-7,171-35 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE. AND.... FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: Y -1 i '•:' WILL 19175 PROTECT: YES NO g 1. 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.)? X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5. Remove any existing trees ?. How many? —2_ 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: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished 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 `t additional information may br! required to be submitted before an adequnte eva;ulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Date Z -8 Signature Ad J hi A 149 Mon PM 1W I Dale Lang ;' Title Architect :w RESOLUTION 140. 79 -27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITr OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING THE ESTABLISH- MENT OF ANNUAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT HEARING DATES TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, State law allows cities to establisu a maximum of three times in any calendar year for Amendments to the General Plan; and WHF.ui'eS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the options pr._ -ented to them; and desires an orderly General Plaa Amendm-nxt process; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission feels that the public should tie allowed to apply for General Plan Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council establish General Plan Amendment hearing dates and deadlines for submittal as follows: SECTION 1: For the calendar year of 1979: A. The first meeting of the Planning Commission in the month of June shall be established as a General Plan Amendmeat hearing date. The dead - line far hall be no later than 5 :00 ��dd p.m. April 131 1 79.a B. The firs ng of the Planning Commission in the month of September shall be established as a General Plan amendment hearing date. The dead - line for submittal shall be no later than 5:00 p.m. July 1. 1979. SECTION 2: For the calendar years following 1979: A. The finat meeting of the Planning Commissior in the month of January shall be established as a General Plan Amendment hearing date. The deadline fir submittal shall be no later than 5:00 p.m. November I. b. C. The first meeting of the Planning Comr.4fssion in the month of September shall be established as a General Plan Amendment hearing date. The deadline for submittal shall be no later tham July 1. ee xv, In the event the deadline for submittal falls on a weekend, the following Monday shall bo the deadline. BY: Herman Rempe:, 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 Couwas- sion held on thr 28th,day of March, 1979, by the fallowing vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIOENRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: H w yl; Y' VI J' �F f J - 1 SECTION 3: In the event an environmental impact report is required for any amendment application, said hearing shall be field at the next scheduled general plan amendment date after completion of the EIR, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MA XH, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CM OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempe:, 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 Couwas- sion held on thr 28th,day of March, 1979, by the fallowing vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIOENRS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: H w yl; Y' VI RESOLUTION 140. 79 -31 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING cowISSION APPROVING SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -07 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH AND DAY CARE FACILITIES LOCATED AT 5974 19TH STREET IN THE R -1 -8500 ZONE WHEREAS, on February 13, 1979, a formal aprilcatlon was sutaitted requesting review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site is adequate in size and shape. 2. That the site has adequate access. 3. That the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property. 4. That the proposed use is consistent with the pro- posed General Plan. 5. That the conditions listed in this report are necessary to protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. SECTION 2: That this project will not create significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration is issued on March 28, 1979. SECTION 3: Thnt Site Approval No. 79 -07 is approved subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for com- pliance with the following conditions: 1. Site Approval No. 79 -07 is approved for the construc- tion of Phase I, multi- purpose building in accordance with the plan on file in the Planning Division as may be amended by conditions herein. 2. The existing building requested for temporary church (_.. operation is approved for two years from the date of building permit issuance for the Phase I multi- purpose building. A . K. 1 �: . �f 0. 3. The west driveway shall be posted for exit only until total improvements are completed. 4. The applicant shall submit prior to the issuance of buiy.ding permits for Phase I, a precise landscape plan to the Planning Division for approval, It shall indicate the type, size, quantity and location of trees, bushes and ground cover in addition to all walls and fences. Plans for automatic irrigation systems shall also be submitted concurrently. 5. Parking lot lighting shall be a maximum of 12 feet from the finished grade of the parking lot. 6. All landscaped areas shall be separated from any parking area by a six inch high Portland concrete cement curb. 7. Dense landscaping shall be provided along the east elevation of the existing building. 8._ This project shall become null and void if building permits are not issued within one year from the date of this approval. 9. All eucalyptus trees shall be topped at 30' and trimmed 15' from ground level. 10. All state requirements and licenses shall be obtained for the operation of the day care facility. The opera- tion shall be limited to a maximum of 96 children. 11. If the existing structure is to be retained as a per- manent structure, then substantial redesign of the building is required and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for com- pliance with the following conditions: 12. Dedication consisting of 11 feet along 19th Street is required. 13. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following are required:_ a. Grading, drainage and street plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer, b. Sewer and water plans coordinated with the Cucamonga County Water District, c. Street light layout provided by the Southern California Edison Company and approved by the City Engineer. 14. Street improvements shall include but not be limited to the following: Curbs, gutters, match -up paving, sidewalks and parkway drains. 15. Driveways shall use the City commercial drive standard and be limited to two openings. The westerly driveway shall provide shared access with the adjacent parcel and a full 30' of paving. 16. An 8" curb face shall be provided along the easterly interior sidewalks and earth berms or other temporary flood water protection approved by the City Engineer shall be provided along the north side of the improved area. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 17. All building plans shall be prepared in compliance with the latest adopted UBC, Fire Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable city codes. Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire District for compliance with the following conditions: 18. The project shall he developed in accordance with all codes and regul�rions as set forth by the Dis- trict. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAN, Secretary of the :Tanning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, w..%d adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a reguler meeting of the Planning Cam- mission held on the 28th day of March, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 28, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 79 -04 - City of Rancho Cucamonga Request to make administrative amendments to the R -3 and AP Zoning Districts The City of Rancho Cucamonga requests administrative amendments to the R -3 and AP zone district's to clean up existing inconsistencies in the zone code and to imnlement established policies of the Planning Commission in accordance with the General Plan. The amendments will allow staff to more consistently administer the zone code in the planning process. R -3 ZONE DISTRICT Staff recommends revision of the General and Accessory Uses Permitted section of the R -3 district by deleting the provision which allows all R -1 uses in the R -3 district. Staff feels that certain uses allowed in the R -1 zone are not compatible n ,3r desirable in the R -3 district. Such uses include single family dwellings, agricultrual uses, and animals. Uses permitted in the R -1 district which are compatible with the R -3 district have been retained as part of this amendment. Staff further recommends the elimination of hotels, hotelsand recreational vehicle parks from•the permitted uses section of the R -3 district. Such facilities are commercial enterprises and are incompatible with residential uses. Exhibit 'A' indicates the existing R -3 provisions and staff's proposed amendments. AP ZONE DISTRICT Staff recommends deletion of that section of the zone code which allows all R -3 usez in the AP zone. Staff's intention is to reserve the AP zone district for administrative - professional uses and related uses only, thus, avoiding the conflicts which often arise when unrelated uses are allowed !.n the same district. Staff also recommends the addition of the following uses: 1) Eating establishments (no drive through). 2) Related commercial uses (eg. Blueprinting, stationary, etc.) when incidental to an office building or complex, if approved by the Planning Commission. 3) The following uses if a Location and Development Plan is approved by the Planning Commission. a. Small animal veterinary clinic (no outside dog runs). } ITEM ITCH. S 5 b. Automobile service stations. .These uses may be compatible with professional uses if planned properly. The requirement of Location and Development Plan for veterinary clinics and service stationa ensure that such facilities are properly related to surround- ing uses. Exhibit 'B' indicates the existing ordinance and staff's prol.nsed amendaznts. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Attached is the initial study analyzing the environmental impacts of this amendment. Staff has found no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this project and, therefore, recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -29 recommending approval of Zane Ordinance Amendment No. 79 -04, amending the R -3 and AP zones. and transfer said recommendation to the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Jack Lam, Director of Community development JL:BNH:cc Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Amended R -3 Zoning Code Exhibit 'B' - Amended AP Zoning Code Initial Study Resolution No. 79-29 61.03411 R -3 District. 0 IMIBIT 'A' 0 Original Poor Quality The following regulations shall apply in R -1 M11ultiplc - family Residence Districts! (a) GENERAL USES 11E10IITTED: l �•►--- Fwrttr��t►�L- = �i++ +iet- t�+atitie�+N+a•- (�_- il•3'r (1) Uses permitted in the R -1 District as listed in i (2) Attltiple dwclliugs. or three one- family dwelling of a permanent nature on each lot. (1) Boarding and lodging, houses. (4) Public and private uses as follows shall be permitted if the location and development plan is approved as provided in Section 61.0219(t). (A) Colleges auto) universities. (13) Private schools. (C) 1'r :uerttity and sorority houses. lodges and private clubs except those whose' chief activity is a service customarily carried on as a business. (D) (Reserved) Ili) Philanthropic and charitable institutions. (1) i4k+trts- mobil•hontc parks. sutl_��c�a tiiantl ue}+iak• par1:F� ' K41 44, tc I.. i(T f17CFr im- irtrar-f �717\T(T'�S -R1 IC istT �R1T�i)TTtrti C cu- ilu-. cuitaNi.+tre- t+Hitrrtr+ickwt +trf t{tN ixri(cFin .rc+yrtkti- Htt�r-i, im • eassraru�4w: u.: Jt-- F> a; w. �v+- i>} rH Hr: �,- ek*ya�- +r�>,�- NK�i+rs+tiv�vl� ��rr- (mikFi++�: saia4.urai¢rs- ti•�riule -(= cotta.,;; c�idr •udvrrt�:ine•sc+rk4•ee:.irn -t+. ' {• bY• 7t(' PRSSOi�I`- H41 ;s-t'tftirtl9=Ft=h}:'3':rrrf� Asir °_'I7h17tiT. (b) (Reserved) (c) TRANSITIONAL USES PER- MI.1 -fED: Transitional uses shall he permitted where the side al a lot abuts a lot in a less restrictive district i provided such transitional use does not extend more than sixty - five (oS) feel from the boundary of the less restrictive district which it adioi ak -• follows: ( 1) Sane as R -'- District."�� (—') Principal office of a physician, dentist or other prolcssional occupation. (Am. by Ord. 1229. AD. 4 /2b /(,5) n5' v i s p ^. t �^ • 0 .0 E70iIBIT 'B' 61.022, AI' IAdnlinistralive and Professional) District. Qrlglnal Poo r ouality (A)t`1)f•.SCRIPI'1ON AND 1'11121' %e All or Administrative and Prolissional (JIflicr 1)istritl is :t district principally for adnunislralive and wotessian :Il t1lTiees and similar •t.es. It is desi ;snrd It' prmide areal% w•Itirr pto +Icssi„nal :nut allntinislralior nl'I•iees ma)' hr to ;led +cith .1 funrlit+n :d alld related go+tlp Ill uses. 11 is :dsn tl$•I1II I%. Pulfer didrlil between residenli.tl allot emnmerrial tli.lriil., or I,emi-Vtt Itiglt,c•ays and adjacent resitlrntial Ilse..'I'he fnllut+in;_ rrgttl:Itu,ns sh :dl apply in the AP. Administrative ;ltd ProlcssimIL11 oilier t)islricl. unless ulhern•ise provided ill Illi. ('ode. 111) USES PERNtt f l•1'1): 1++- alert- 1Rrmitird • ;rtrtF�w�ka;H+•+Li+�F1Te�12� ��li�l+x�. (1)+s•M Adminisl ralit'e Jnd prnfrssinnal nlli: r+ .uch :Is ari nuntanls. in.nr :utte :IEen(.. 111e1licJl. UeIIIal; architrCts. rI1LtI1Cer. or .+Ilurnet., lead r.tatr nlliirs. appraiser ±• ofl'iies. s•nik Mill I+t•nd brnkt•r.' „1'firvs. rsrloa• ul)'Lrs. in +tluih nn aititily is varriea un r•urring It• retail bolt• and no slnrk ul'goods is maintained for sale. iAm. Ord. 1277. 21144,n1 (2) -t-+ ntrdtcal. dent:Il. ihirupraclie or ehirol'oX t. (3)td} l.abt +r :nor). mediiJl. hiulugiiaL dell-1. optnntclrical or research. ,761,0 6 LAN() USE AND [WILDING REGULATIONS (5) FF+i 1'rrsrripliun ph.nntat) +obeli rel:nrd .nal inridcntMil In .I prul'cssion :d building and ucruP)'ntc nut nutty Iha• ^tor thousand t I.000t square fret al' It spave provided I11a1 street. )' be visible from tile (6) +-7a Art gallery. library. reading ruunl. nnlseunt. (7) 1.7+) 1(uildinp and loan nlfiir, savints and loam bank. (8) (-t}) Studio for prnli'asional ,cork in or the tratating of :ut)' form of fine aris including I'll otograph)•. nttlsie. drama.:•nt( dance, where uo stork of goods is nctillUined for sale, subject Ina determination 1+) the Planning ('an•ntissian Suhronuuiltre that said use will nut he delrimrulal to atl•ioining properties because of Ihr volunn' ul• rtuise gene rated. (9) 4401t-Temporary or perm:uu•nl Ielephttlle booths. (10) tt + }'frlrphttttr exchange. (11) #- +l)lhrr uses nr rutrrprises similar lu the ah(cr il'approcetl 1 +� the Planning (_nntnlis5iorl az provided in Seeliun 61.02190)(2). •-cfar{ringa(rrrc + rrrc: - -- .,...... F.-° r. t, �- crntr. �+, `Hnnkitt�Hmti{i+y�.•- im)t+tf+i►g H ) - -1 hi.- rr+t- iry*nr(trel wtfrittl+te- rmenmt :tin rrrr7 -rt+- dLmrtf ilrfiertion +rl-P= Fy(k1t +tt 1 -T- . .� �:+ Hero- aHtl_tJt±wJN�aa *uu�s��,.••.I n +�)'eti-. err♦ nxe4 - mall- Ai•:..;H'tdi.•:It�k>+rF.+r K4jkHRy1- �'iFiM(N IiN}!!•a4+WftaM�.ty (.12) "Farina eatabliahmenta (no drive throurzh) i e 0 (A) Small animal veterinary ciziuc �a�3e d_n runs . (S) Automobile Service Stations_ ". +v/ 1 CITY OF RMCRO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70_00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submittedto 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: Z o o Q-4 APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: r- 1'T V in a &NAC.1in Cue.Ay]anl CA Khme -00 GuchrA014GA7 CA (-110189-15S 1 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: J314L t4a1pr.AA,,i �_ „�,,,� „c.,rn�* LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)' LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND' FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TILE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: air >yy`Ti - 0 s , PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: filfk ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: N A DESCRIBE THE •ENVIRONMEI7TAL ';rTTT.NG OF THE. PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMTION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES), ANIPIALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCEN.T.0 ASPECTS, USE. OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND TILE DESCRIPTION OF ANY . EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (. =r! —ACH NECESSARY SHEETS) Is the pro a ct, part of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact?`.' x -2 �• WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO Create a substantial change in ground contours? 7� 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.)', !� A. Create changes in the existing Toning or general plan designations? 5: Remove any existing trees ?. How many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous- materials such as toxic substances, £lammables or explosives? Explanation of any yE5 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 furnished• 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 evaluation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Late_ 3~7-2 - 1 9 Z � Signature Title o RESOLUTION NO. 79 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 79 -04 REPEALING CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS OF THE GENERAL USE AND ACCESSORY USE SECTIONS OF THE R -3 ZONE DISTRICT, REPEALING CERTAIN SUBSECTIONS OF THE USES PERMITTED SECTION OF THE R -3 ZONE DISTRICT AND ADDING CERTAIN SUB - SECTIONS TO THE GENERAL USES OF THE AP ZONE DISTRICT THAT PERTAIN TO PYRAMIDAL ZONING AND OFFICE COMPLEXES WHEREAS, on the 28th day of March, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Seccion 65854 of the California Government Code. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission haia made the following findings: 1. That such amendment is in conformance with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That such amendment in 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 environment and has recommended issuance of a Negative Declaration on March 28, 1979. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 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 28th day of March, 1979, of Zoning Ordinance Amendmant No. 79 -04. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the.z the City Council approve and adopt Zone Ordinance Amendment No. 79 -04 which repeals subsections 61.024E(a) (4G), 61.024E(b) of the Ceneral Ui:i and Accessory Use sections of the ;: -3 zone district, repealing subsections 61.426(5)(1), 61.026(b }(13) of 6:_ :ses Permitted section of the AP zone district, amends subsection 61.024E(a)(1), 61.024E(a)(4F) of the General Use section of the R -3 zone as follows: t� "(1) Uses permitted in the R -1 district as listed in subsections 61.024A(a)(4,5), (4F) Mobilehome parks ", r and adds subsections 61.0246(b) (12) , 61.026(b) (13), 61,026(b)(14) to the Uses Permitted section of the AP zone district as follows: "(12) Eating establishments (no drive through). (13) Related commercial uses (eg. blueprint- ing, stationary, etc.,) when incidental to an office building or complex, if approved by the Planning Commission. (14) The following uses shall be permitted if the location and development plan is approved by the Planning Commission: A) Small animal veterinary clinic (no outside dog runs) . B) Automobile Service Stations ". 0 3. That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted 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 Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MRACH, 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 28th day of *larch, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ' ABSENT: COMISSIONERS: El DATE: TO: FROM: 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT March 28, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 0 SUBJECT: Zone Change No. 79 -02 - City of Rancho Cucamonga - A change of zone from C-2 to A —P for property located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of San Diego Avenue (Assessor's Parcel 207- 101 -32 and 33). BACKGROUND: This application is a City initiated zone change from C -2 (General Commercial) to A -P (Administrative Prof essic nal) for the above defcribed parcels (Exhibit 'A'). This zone change was prompted by the Planning Commission's approval of a professional office complrac at this site and adoption of a Resolution of Intention on February 28, 1979. The General Plan designation for the site is maxed use. Professional offices are allowed in the C -2 zone and compatible with land uses allowed in the mixed use designation. The C -2 zone, however, allows more intense commercial uses which are incompatible with the mixed use designation. Staff suggests a change in zone to the A —P zone district to eliminate the possibility of incompatible uses and bring the zoning into litere.l conformance with the General Plan. ANALYSIS: The subject site is vacant except for areal estate office in the southeast portion of the site. The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: The proposed zone change is in conformance with the General Plan and the site is suitable in size and shape to accommodate the uses permitted in the proposed zone. The uses permitted in this zone are compatible with adjacent land uses and future development in the immediate area. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed this application for significant environmental impacts and has determined that no adverse impacts will result from this project. Staff, therefore, recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ITEM 1V1 ZONING LAND USE NORTH R -1- 12,0(0 Vacant SOUTH A -1 b R -3 Mobile Home Park EAST FP -2 Vacant WEST R- 1- 12,000 Vacant The proposed zone change is in conformance with the General Plan and the site is suitable in size and shape to accommodate the uses permitted in the proposed zone. The uses permitted in this zone are compatible with adjacent land uses and future development in the immediate area. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed this application for significant environmental impacts and has determined that no adverse impacts will result from this project. Staff, therefore, recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. ITEM 1V1 Yf1� . R,2COMMMATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 79 -28 recommending approval of a zone change from C -2 to A -P, and submittal of this item to the C; i.y R.espectfulJ,yl submitted, Community Development JL:SNH:cc Attachments: Exhibit 'A' - Zoning and Land Use Hap Initial Study Resolution No. 79 -28 0 a F-' WE X W 0 1z 0 0 W V) 3AV NY193NNYO a � Q O —1 cn p Q Q 3AV 04310 NVS do U raNONrona a (j 1 O LL y ' 1 first d to r fix„ lr:.h erp� `wj•, O Y Z O o r o Z N Q 1 Q 1 7 1� i r � O O CITY OF RANCHO CUCM 0N(;A INITIAL STUDY PART T - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review tee: $j0.00 W For all projects requiting environmental review, form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee t,irough the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of.this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part 11 of the initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than.ten (]n) days before tste public meeting at which time the p- ••7ect is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project w?ll 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 infcrmation concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: `Z o a c r Ni- -7� ^� APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS TELEPHONE: lin.+eup Cu�nn,ovGD , e-A g l T'SO NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: .. —�hLft t Are„ Cer• +.wuH:�, Deycl rnMe%d- !Xredt _ =Mn 1f.A LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL Np „) , .s VV LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE. AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: `t it I -1 :. OF TIIE PROJECT SITE INCLUL ::.= INFORBOMON ON TOPOGRAPHY, 01WnW Poix ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNL iNG PRDPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY 1 (,ATTACS_- NEC':SSARY SHEETS) e Es' � 1 0 '>= f•crrti rr � Cr_VL tLnf, cyA.lMx% t �7_PS1, PROJECT DESCRIPTION r., r .. l _ . l r y n r r r r• l' n i 6,.q G hTt ' t l M yd '- • •it..O TP n rA ... C U 11. • � O�S'47 n G Cn ( t 1�._TAC�'1 -� +c <6G.t e�t•s�.: ./11t. t•i..S 4•al _ Sn,. aA. .7a r r- e DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Zo.rc_ C u61JGF or+n . _- 7t Q(3 CAwl .ta i. :�. <•r n +i•JC preFa5 Si0Ya l� ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSM BUILDINGS, IF ANY: A s m,,t . DESCRIBE THE•ENUTROMIENPAL SPITTING OF TIIE PROJECT SITE INCLUL ::.= INFORBOMON ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNL iNG PRDPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTUR1tS AND THEIR USE (,ATTACS_- NEC':SSARY SHEETS) e Es' � 1 0 '>= f•crrti rr � Cr_VL tLnf, cyA.lMx% t �7_PS1, r., r .. l _ . l r y n r r r r• l' n i 6,.q G hTt ' t l M yd '- • •it..O TP n rA ... C U 11. • � O�S'47 n G Cn ( t 1�._TAC�'1 -� +c <6G.t e�t•s�.: ./11t. t•i..S 4•al _ Sn,. aA. .7a r r- e �.. I- _ w _ _ _ - _ _ 1 . _ • � K r •. k t1 r Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series' of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? �� :•e. (� I�t�aii�� Dr.c1'.arnti•o.• woS is'sttQc�' , x- 2 K iwo Voci aaniubc) �= WILL ThYS PROJECT: YES NO 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? . r v K 2. Create a substantial change in xisting 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? _.Y_ S. Remove any existing trees? Low n-inyn �._ 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, 11ammables ov explosives? 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 furnished' above and in the attached exhibits present the dat-_ and information requ -od for this initial evaluation t.�P th^ " 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.bo required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Development Review Committee. Signature Title 7 Kf. 40 RESOLUTION NO. 79 -28 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ADOPTION OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 79-02 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM C -2 TO A -P FOR 5.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHIIL BOULEVARD, WEST OF SAN DIEGO AVENUE, ASSESSORS PAR,=L NOS. 207 - 101 -32 AND 33. WHEREAS, on the 28th day of March, 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: 1. That the subject property is suittible for the uses permitted in the proposed zorrne in terms of access, size and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding areas; 2. The proposed zone change would not have significant impact on the. environment nor the surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed zone change is in conformance with the General Plan. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and has issued a Negative Declaration on March 28, 199. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That pursuant to Section 65850 tr 65855 of the California Covernment Code, that the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the 28th day of March, 1979 Zone Change No. 79 -02. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Zone Change N... 79 -02. 3. T:iat a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted " y the Planning Commission shall be forwarded ti. the City Council. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Di RANCHO CUCAMONGIA. BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: 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 held on the 28th day of March,1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: C0ralISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONETZ : ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rp '� 4 1 c1{ • _ �F 0 0 •0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: March 28, 1979 To: Planning Commission From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 40 Subject: DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -15 - CROWELL /LEVENTYAT, C. - The development of a professional office complex on IN8.04 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Baseline and Carnelian BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, approval for the development of this site as a professional office complex was granted at the last meeting of March 14, 1979. However, the Commission felt the design of the savings and loan facility was not compatible with the other buildings in the complex_ so Commissioners Dahl and Tolstoy were appointed as a special committee to meet with the architects to help resolve the com- patibility issue. A meeting was held with the architects and the committee at which time the architects agreed to change the exterior cover of the building walls to stucco matching the other buildings. In addition, the.architects will be providing new drawings correcting previous drawing errors that gave a false impression of character. The new displays will be available for your review at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Divisicn recommends that if the Commission is satisfied with the revisions, it approve the exterior design of the building in question. Respectfully submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:MV:nm t ITEM "E" DATE: TO: FROM: 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT March 28, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development 0 SUBJECT: Zoning Determination 79 -01 - G.S.R.- Requcnt to have the Commission determine that a trade school is Similar in nature to other permitted uses in the M-R (Restricted Manufacturing) zone. BACKGROUND: Section 61,029Cd of the M -R district allows the Planning Commission to make a determination on whether or not uses that are not listed in the text of the Ordinance, may be allowed to develop in the zone. The primary reasoning'in making this determination is that the requested use is similar to a liste3 use. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission find that his re- quested use is similar in nature to the listed use of the M-R zone. Specifically, the applicant desires to provide a building and related parking facilities for a trade school operated by the Chaffey Community College District. The trade on- the -job type of training for auto body work, a ding machine works e. urren y, e Distx c as eration in another jurisdiction, however, the lease has Men terminated, thus initiating a search a'�rnar.2.ve slyL. The District has initially chosen the applicants site because of its remote- ness and the applicants ability to provide the additional increased parking for this type of facility. ANALYSIS: We have reviewed the M-R district uses; excerpted below are the ones which we feel are similar in nature: 1) Machinery 2) Machine Shops 3) Motor Vehicle Assembly 4) Boat Building and Repairing 5) Motorcycles and Bicycle Assembly 6) Welding Shop We find that the request is similar in nature to the uses listed above, however, we wish to note for the applicant's information that parking requirements will be Lased on Community College requirements of one space per 3 students plus one per employee. The Planning Commission may also wish to consider.in the decision making process whether or not n site approval would be required. ITEM "F" r RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -30 finding the applicant's request similar in nature to the uses listed in the M-R zone. R eqpectfull submitted. Jack gLam,Direc or of Community Development JL:FKH:cc Attachments: Letter of Request with Location Map Fesolution No. 79 -30 0 0 L? Ll I LF Ll CO' 0 March 219 1979 Tot City of Rancho Cucamonga Barry Hogan, Senior Planner Res industrial Leasing To Chaffey College Training Skills Center. Dear Barry, We are requesting the Planning Commission favorably consider allowing the use of our property. located at Ferron and Helms, for the Chaffey College Trade Center. The skill center would use the Industrial Buildings for Auto Body, Welding, 14a.ohine, Upholstery Shops and Etc. Their needs are approximately 45,000 square feet * of Buildings on the two (2) acres below Ferron. with two acres of parking adjacent to the North to meet Parking requirements. ■-'our earliest attention will be appreciated. Sincerely G.S.A. /ogemJe .T lr /JJR RESOLUTION NO. 79 -30 s A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGARDING ZONING DETERMINATION 79 -01 - G.S.R.- REQUESTING THAT A TRADE SCHOOL BE FOUND SIXELAR IN NATURE TO USES IN THE M -R (RESTRICTED MANUFACTURING) ZONE.' WHEREAS, Jerry Rogers requested that the Planning Commission determine whether or not a Trade School is similar to the uses listed in the M -R zone; and WHEREAS, the Trade School would encompass the on- the - job - training! education of adults for jobs in the fields of auto body repair, welding, machine work, upholstery and the like; and WHEREAS, the M-R zone does allow machine _hops, machinery, motor vehicle assembly, boat building and repair, motorcycle and bicycle aseembly and welding shops. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find: SECTION 1: Trade Schools are similar in nature to the uses listed in the M -R zone. APP%OVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979. PLANNI" 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 tLe 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 28th day of March, 1979, by the following vote to- wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: t _ COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIOi Z7ZS : 49 n CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 28, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Plan Submittal Requirements for Planning Commission Review BACKGROUND: At recent meetings of theI'lanning Commission you expressed concern over the quality of plan submittals for your review. Specifically requested were iliu3trative drawings of the site plan and elevations, rather than the detailed building plans that have normally been submitted for Commission review. In order to provide guidance for the applicants in the preparation of plan submittal for Commission review, we have prepared t:he attached resolution delineating Commission requirements for plau submittal and attached examples of such. This resolution will enable staff to administer Planning Commission requirements with the written backing of the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolu- tion No. 79 -26 stating the Planning Commission's requirements for plan submittal review,. Respectfu lj. submitted, JVCL 4co f - -� -- --- ----- --J Community Development JL: BKH: cc Attachment: Resolution No. 79 -26 ITEM oGn r A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAN SUBMITTALS FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed their desire for improved plan submittals for review by the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, previous plans submitted for review by the Planning Commission have not depicted proposed developments with enough illustra- tion and graphics for the Planning Commission to adequately evaluate the project, and; WHEREAS, the staff needs direction from the Planning Commisaion regarding the requirements for plan submittals for review by the Planning Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find: Section 1: A. That no item wi7-. be agendized for a Planning Commission meeting unless all requirements of Seati.on 2 are met. Section 2: A. That the applicant shall provide for Planning Commission review as part of his application package; 1. Colored illustrative site plan including, but not limited to, trees, buildings, ground cover, shadows, paving and other data as may be necessary to illustrate tine plan (see Exhibit A). 2. Colored illustrative elevations including, but not limited to, the buildng elevations depicting trees, shrubs, shadows, building materials (see Exhibit B). 3. Colored illustrative sections, if determined necessary by the Planning staff, to depict a particular situation. 4. 831" X 14" buil&.ng materials board including a sample of the proposed materials displayed in the same fashion is they would appear on the building. 5. 8" X 10" transparency ra;uctions of Section 2A 1, 2 &3. 6. Detailed site plan, preliwinary grading plan t;1 . and elevations. (see Exhibit C) 0 j A y1S r -tip 0 0 0 0 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF W( O CUCAMONGA BY. Heiman. Rempel, Chairman ATTEST Secretary of the Planning Commission I, JA:< LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cur!:�onga, do hereby certify that tht foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduceJ, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planing Commission held on the 28th day of March, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: CCTPaSSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: PBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 28, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Establishment of General Plan Amendment Date BACKGRJUND: Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 6, Section 65361 of the State Government Code states: "No mandatory Element of the General Plan shall be amended more frequently than three times during any calendar year which amendment or amendments may occur at any time as determined by the legislative body. This section shall not apply to the adoption of any Element to the General Plan ". The purpose of amending the Elements of the General Plan is to keep the Elements current with the times. Changes in population, goals, development practices and the like affect the purposes and direction of the General Plan. Therefore, it is necessary that each year we examine the Elements of the General Plan in order to insure that they are still reasonable in their projections and main attainable goals and objectives. The Interim Land Use, Circulation and Public Facilities Element of the General Plan was adopted by the City Council on February 7, 1979. It is now necessary for the City to establish dates for which amendments to the General Plan may be considered. The reason for the establishment of specific dates for consideration of General Plan amendments is to allow the staff opportunity to prepare the necessary background and information for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider, in their decision making process. It should be noted that each amendment hearing may encompass more than one particular item. It is quite possible that three, four or more items may be considered as part of one General Plan Amendment. Generally, staff's procedure when there are many items for consideration under one General Plan Amendment would be to * prioritize those items in the order which the Commission desires to hear them and schedule them over a period of Commission meetings as may be required. The same procedure could, and possibly would, occur at the City Council level. OPTIONS: The following options for scheduling of General Plan Amendments are presented for your deliberation: 1) Establish three dates for General Plan Amendments. 2) Establish two General Plan Amendment dates and hold the third General Plan amendment hearing for City purposes. 3) 2atablish one General Plan Amendment date, while reserving the additional two General Plan Amendments for city purposes. Option 1, Establishment of three General Plan Amendment dates. We suggest that the calendar year be divided up into three equal parts with Ceneral Plan hear- ings scheduled for the first Planning Commission meetings in the months of January, May and September. Deadlines for submittal would be November 1 for the January meeting, March 1 for the May meeting and July 1 for the September meeting. ITEM �a� In light of the fact that we have already passed the proposed January meeting schedule, and we are rapidly approaching the suggested May meeting schedule, the calendar year of 1979 should be viewed as an exception. Our suggestion is that the first Planning Commission meeting in June be scheduled for the first General Plan Amendment with deadline for submittal April 13. The remaining year would then follow the schedule as we have outlined above. at.. QEatabl.ish two meeting dates. We suggest that the first Planning fbn meeting in January be established as a General Plan Amendment with deadline for submittal November 1 . The second meeting date suggested is the first Planning Commission meeting in September with deadline for submittal being July 1. The third meeting date would be subject to City usr as needed. Since we have already passed the first proposed Planning Commission meeting we suggest that in 1979 that the first Planning Commission meeting in June be set as a hearing date for General Plan Amendment with April 13th as the deadline for submittal. Option 3, Establish one date. We suggest that the first Planning Commission meeting in January be established as the General Plan Amendment hearing date with the deadline for submittal being November 1. However, since we have already passed the January meeting date we suggest that 1979 be an exception to this rule. The first Planning Commission meeting in June should be used this year as the first hearing date for 1979 with the deadline for submittal being April 13. Each of the options presented have the advantage of providing a hearing date or dates to avail the public the opportunity to request General Plan Amendment. Since there is a great possibility that each General Plan Amendment will have a great number of requests, it follows that the amount of work will increase proportionate with the number of General Plan Amendment hearings available. After reviewing the three options presented, we feel that the option number two would be most advantageous to the City and to the staff. We have prepared a resolution for the Commission establishing the General Plan Amendments for 1979 and beyond. You will note that in 1979 the General Plan Amendment dates are different than they will be in 1980 and beyond. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolu- tion No. 79 -27 recommending to the City Council the establishment of two General Plan hearing dates as outlined in the attached Resolution. - R pectf 11 submitted, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development ' JL:BIM:cc Attachment: Resolution No. 7: -27 ,f