The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979/05/23 - Agenda Packet 1 � � •... � � . ti., t.. , ��. .� i ` .v r ' ._ >� 't •A W... j . . �,., ,_ '' i �.' � j' . /. •� e .�r :..;�. �� i - � ✓ - � �. . . . . d. r r �o t. RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING ,COMMISSION AGENDA Wednesday, May 23, 1979, 700 p.m. Community .Servicea Building 9.161 Baseline, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. I. Pledge of Allegiance 5 II. Roll Call . Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rempel Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Garcia Commiss inner Jones III. Approval of,Minutes May 9, 1979 Minutes IV. Announcements Y V. Consent Calendar E EXTENSION f.or Minor Subd�i�iTB ryctens on O - .' S� A. Spangler - Request for One x _ W78-0194 - bdivision No- hquest for c0—ie-Lest"'Pi*ae- cteasif�U`� - C. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 79-31 - a MO VIEW S� UI � The development of UNTAIN ware—'h use~tacility to be located at 8768 9th Street 4 virtiin. the M-R zone. 1. - . . NEGATIVE`DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR,REVnSWan7lndus- GUILEL TRUCKING - INC• -to. be .located at 8615 Pecan r trial storage building +� Avenue within the M-R zone. E.' ' NEGATIVE DECLA 79-38 RATION FOR DIRECTORe t of the•Chaffey G.S.R: DEVELOPMENT:- .The developm College Skills Training Center to be located on the - southWest .coiuer of Helms and 'Fero Avenues within the M-1' zone. VI. ,Public Hearings..,, �tirr 01&SuSiness..; . . ,kt VII. a n,l 4 11 M 1 1 V. f �rt.•r d{�l�Za} } �t��''�(y�t` ��yn�1,y�krn�'�;1,`"�L(��tfutr r r•i i ' i�' ' 3, I.ir,�J��i�.1ZhYV.s.rd?G`� _ ..{'.`, �5'A��JI1tid K4 S j Yr1 4 C 1 1 rr x r 7' rtj `2T( tr+t tiN',qi r f r Planning Caseinxk Agenda Fxyr F May 23, 1979 Page 2 t � YIII. New Businees i'.. IX. Council Referral X. Director's Reports' F. PRIORITIES FOR GENERAL PLAN A?SmmmENT NO. 79-01 - " Set prioritUs for hearing on various amendments. G . ' CLARIFICATION-0F SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING SIGNS FOR COMMERCIAL CENTERS. S XI. Public Comment - Anyone,wishing to comment on any items. not listed on the Agenda.iday do so'.gt' this time. %II. Commission Coimnent c^ XIII. Upe wing Agenda for June -13, 1979: 1, rive Declaration,:for Director Review No. 79-39 'ViEtro Stran .T ., nc.. . ; 2. Site Approval No. 79-11 —Oliver Helicopter. 3. Site Approval No.; 79-05 - Wyckoff 1 ` t 'f+r r . 1 i 1 d' re a t Al f , ✓ r yy �4 �tn. �,F`i,, r t! iF �:� � ��.� �� Et��❑ r� r 'I x tltr � ,fw �,>,,k.ii°:Ay '�h�f\!4 .4�, v S ti rr4 1 i y ,'7"+Jj��c - 1 t t 1 ' 1 _ 1 5 . 1 t . �/k �ts<�• y . 15.d ?3.t'/r ° Co,,+ f, tivS�F� Y `�s"'t�t�j�'')(k•tJ{-'S 4' a t r rt: c {IAA �k„ � { Il:IrI ttl wk. F"• yT� .S it a� v".�t."(}.�c(t��,' ,LTJ �� Ji,ASd rti. �nn.W2}�f'AtiZt�`�..r:..1 ,.i�x ,r t,!t - at , ':.wJ• ' .ti 4Sa. rJJ1y 'R } �}65tx RANCHD CUCAMONGA PLANNING 00MMISSIOrr t( AGENDA Sp Wednesday, May 23,; 1979, 7.00 p.m. u Community..Services Building 9161,Baseline„Rancho ,Cucamonga, Ca. I. 'Pledge 'of Allegiance A II. Roll Call t "!ACTION Commissioner Dahl X Commissioner Hempel X "! Commissioner Garcia X Commissioner.Tolstoy, r Commissioner Son w X III. Approval of Minutes ,Approve 5-0 with May 9, 1979 Minutes chime IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar tApprove 5-0 A. TIME EXTENSION for Minor Subdivision No. 77-0590 - Spangler -:Request for One Year Time Extension. B. TIME ERTENSION for Minor Subdivision No. W78-0194 t Removed from Agenda Bowdoin -.-Request for One.:Year Time Extension rb C. NBGATIVE .DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79-31 rApprove 5-0 MOUNTAIN VIEW BUILDERS - The development of a . warehouse facility to be located at 8768 9th' Street tk`` within the M-R zone.. D. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW No. 79-33 - K,Approve 5--0 GU•ILEY TRUCKING, IFC. The development .of an indus- trial storage building to be located 'at8615 Pecan Avenue Within the M-R zone: L Approve 5-0 E. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW ,r0. .79-18 G.S.R. DEVELOPMENT - The development ' of..the Cbaffey College Skills Training Center to be located on the,. `.' southwest corner of Helms and Peron Avenues within ., the M-1 zone. h VI. Public Hearings sM. r {• VII. Old Business 9p�ht r Planning 'Cao11 •'�.jsion ,Agenda ' y Page 2 VIII. New Business IX. Council Referral X. Director's Reports +- Approve 5-0 as i-ecommended by staff - F. PRIORITIES FOR GENERAL PLAN MENDMENT NO. 79-01 - Add add'1 item - Clari Set priorities for hearing on various amendment;7 s fication of Mixed Use 5-0 - Major tenant G. CLARIFICATION OF SIGN ORDINANCE REGARDING SIGNS eliminated - Requested FOR COMMERCIAL CENTERS. ordinance clarification _ XI. Public Comment — Anyone wishing to comment on any items i not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. XII. Commission Comment XIII. Upcoming Agenda for .Tune 13, i 979: e 1. Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 79-39 ,- Vitro' Strand Tech. , Inc. z' 2. Site Approval No.. 79-11 - Oliver Helicopter ` 3. Site Approval No. 79-05 - Wyckoff' NON-AGENDA ITEMS REVISIONS TO SITE APPROVAL NO. 79-03 - FOOTHILL FIRE DISTRICT 5-0 to support the revisions as presented with the exception of the composition shingle roof. The Commission recommended that, a tile roof or material similar in appearance to,tile be constructed on the roof. rOM .R - A . R . -RRA ON T VER TO A FAC)ILTIES WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 5-0 - Directed staff to draft an ordinance, allowing recreational vehicle storage lots within the residential and Agricultural zones subject to Conditional Use Permit. ADdOURNHENT_ Adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Adjourned. to Special Study Session of Thursday. May 24, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. in the. Community Services Building. z y C ! CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSIO14 MINUTES May 9, 1979 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held at the Community Services Building, 9161 Baseline Road, Rancho Cuca— monga, on Wednesday, May 9, 1979. Meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney, Paul, Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer; and Nancy McAl.lister, .Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Jones, and unanimously carried, the minutes of April 11, 1979 were approved subject to the following change: Page 9, under approval of Resolution No. 79-32, change Commissioner Jones to indicate she voted in faoor'of the Resolution. ;y - Upon Motion by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Dahl and unanimously carried, the minutes of April-25, 1979 were approved subject to the following change: V. Page 1, Approval of Minutes, the Motion 1s to read as follows: Upon Motion by Commissioner Garcia,;seconded.by Commissioner Reaple and unanimously carried, the Special Study Session minutes of April 12, 1979 worn.-•:-proven as submitted. 1 . x`lea�i ANNOUNCEMENTS Jack Lam stated a few items are to be added to tonights' agenda. One item would be discussion of Resolution regarding the County Consolidated General Plan, the second item is an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance regarding medical facilities in the industrial zone, the third item is a presentation from the Engineering Division regarding bridge projects. Mr. ' ;m stated he would like to request that the Commission set up a special sub- mmittee to study preliminary development plans for Wendy's Hamburger. Mr. Lam further reported the Council voted to recommend Mr. Art Bridge as the new Council member to replace Mr. -West. Mr. Lam asked that the Commission mak-k Saturday, June 9th, as a tentative day for a Planning Commission/City Council tour of the City of Irvine and Mission Viejo. The City Council, Planning Commission, five staff members and the press are invited. i Chairman R 3npel stated in addition to Councilman West's reception tomorrow night, two additional meetings are scheduled., One is the San Bernardino County and City Planning Commissioners Conference in Barstow, and also the Southern California Conference of Planners in Montebello. CONSENT CALENDAR r NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW No. 79-18'- F & B TRUCK LINE - The development of a 4,000 square foot office building for an existing industrial 7 use located at 8545 Pecan Avenue. Commissioner Jones asked what the water, situation is in this particular area. Mr. Hogan stated the water situation has been the primary reason for the hold up on this project. The Foothill Fire District has been working with the Fontana Water Company and F & B Trucking to work out a situation that would be acceptable for fire protection. The primary problem is there just isn't enough water pressure for commercial or industrial protection. The Fire Department has assured us that this item has proceeded to the point where a solution is eminent. We can proceed with the negative declaration for this project. A Motion was made by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Comaissioner Garcia and unanimously carried to approve the Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 79-18. C y� ';,<• Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 9, 1979 j.�l;I NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE N0. 79-04 - BRESHEARS - A change of zone for 4.97 acres of land located on the southeast corner of Hermosa and 19th Street from A-1 to A-P. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reported the applicant has requested a 6 month postponement of this zone change to the November 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to continue review of Zone Change No. 79-04 to November 14, 1979 at the request of the applicant, It was further requested that this Zone Change be readvertised as a public hearing prior to that meeting. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, GARCIA. RPMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW No. 79-16 - ALTA LOMA PROPERTIES - The development of a 184 unit apartment complex on 6.6 acres located on the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald Avenue. Assessor's Parcel No. 202-11-19 (Continued from 4/11/79) . ' Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, stated the applicant has requested that the Commission either remove this item from the Agenda or continue this request to a later date. He indicated as the Commission is aware, the Zone Change for subject property was denied by the City Council; therefore, the Commission can not take any action on the Director Review at this time. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stated he spoke with a representative of the appli- cant. She indicated that they miuld be most happy with a one month continuation rather than withdrawing the Director Review. They plan to ask the Council to #" re-hear the zone change. If this is denied by the Council, the site plar, will i not be brought back to the Commission for review. Chairman Rempel stated he has a problem with continuing this matter as it could be interpreted that, the Commission feels the Council will grant a re-hearing of the zone change. It :is his opiui.on this request should be taken off the Agenda until such time the Council eet ' ' the Zo Y C� haPg� :.f s f(�+-4 � s; A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by CommisslePiones� w, to remove Director Review No. 79-16 from the Agenda until direction is received from the City Council regarding a rehearing of the zone change for subject property. ' AYES: GARC,IA, JONES, DAHL, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE 1,r ABSENT: NONE �, ,?' Planning Cou nission Minutes _ -3- May 9, 1979 J Y NON-AGENDA ITEMS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CONSOLIDATED GENERAL PLAN Jack Lam reported the San Bernardino County Consolidated General Plan is an attempt to provide better coordination between the cities in San Bernar- dino County. The first step in doing so is to consolidate the present general plans into a single document. The County$ General Plan is to reflect the City's policies in those areas considered City sphere of influence which leads us to believe that they would honor the City's General Plan and policies within the planning areas. The area north of our City was recom- mended by the County staff as one dwelling unit per 10 acres. There could be areas that would support more develoiment but further studies need to be done. These studies will take place in the future. County Planning Commission has indicated that they felt that 1 unit per 10 acres was too small a holding capacity so they changed it to 1 unit per 5 acres. Staff feels this is a very significant change. This is also contrary to the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the County which analyzed 1 unit per 10 acres. If the Commission feels that 1 unit per 10 acres is more in line with the City's policy, than Staff would recommend adoption of Resolution No. 79-42 regarding the adoption of the San Bernardino Consolidated General Plan- This Resolution would then be forwarded to the County Planning Commission and the Hoard of Supervisors. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree that the 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres for this area should be upheld at this time as we are not at this time in a position to spend time to make any studies of this area. Chairman Rempel stated he would agree this area should remain as 1 unit per 10 acres at this time until further studies of the area can be made. Be indicated another item should be added to the Resolution indicating that areas within the study area may support additional densities after further analysis. Mr. Lam indicated an additional statement could be added as follows: Whereas, selected areas within the study area may support additional densities but such can be based only upon future studies that would analyze higher densities relative to the environmental and public service constraints . A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to approve Resolution Noy-•79-42 subject to .the following addition: .n , . . . Whereas, selected areas within the study area may support additional densities but such can be based only upon future studies that would analyze higher densities relative to the environmental and public service constraints. AYES: TOLSTOY, GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minutes. -4 May 9, 1979 1 } ZONING DETERMINATION i Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, stated the Staff was approached recently by a group of doctors desirous of developing a medical facility within the industrial area. Their type of facility benefits the employer by providing a clinic or medical atmosphere close to the industrial area. Staff researched this and found that the zone does not permit that use and that it would require an ordinance change for the M-R zone. I£ the Commission eesires an ordinance amendment, Staff would recommend the use be allowed subject to site approval by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Garcia stated provision of medical facilities are a very delicate subject. Federal and State agencies should be consulted prior to any decisions because of possible loss of Federal and State funds for the City related to health care. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stated the question is whether it is the Commis- sions' opinion this use is allowable in the M-R zone as the ordinance is now written or should staff redefine the M-R zone to allow this kind of supportive use. Commissioner Tolstoy stated this particular use would be very good for the health, safety and welfare of the industrial community. He personally feels this should be looked into. If this i ; allowed subject to site approval, i then the City would have control of arrj development to insure proper conditions are placed. e Chairman Rempel stated health care facilities are needed in the industrial area. Commissioner Garcia emphasized that this is a very critical area and should have additional study. Chairman Hempel stated to delay the possibility of having health care because of an overall study is wrong. The Commission needs to set up means whereby f• . if it can be shown to us that it is viable then we should have that option to approve it. He asked for comments from the audience. Jeff Sceranka stated a medical facility within the industrial area is definitely 4; important and necessary for the industrial area. This could be constructive to the industrial area as well as supportive to the City. It is his opinion this is a supportive use within the M-R zone and would not require an ordinance amend- ment. Mr. Hopson stated the Commission has the power to say that it is a similar use v allowable within the ordinance the way it is presently written. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy that under existing ordinance, industrial medical facilities are similar in nature to other uses provided, subject to Site Approval. AYES: DAHL, TOLSTOY, JONES, REMPEL NOES: GARCIA ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Garcia stated he is opposed to this decision without considering further analysis of this particular issue. _s- May 9, 1979 Planning, Commission Minutes DEER CREEK DESIGN STANDARDS Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reported staff has prepared more specific informa- tion for the Commission as requested at the last meeting to give a better pic- ture of the situation. He pointed out stores, cafes, a community center, and a church in the area. The Commission at the last meeting,. asked for further information in order to make a decision on whether to provide one sidewalk, two sidewalks or no sidewalks on specific bridges. He reviewed pedestrian and traffic counts taiu:n in the area for the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy stated after reviewing the information presented, it is his opinion full sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the bridges on 24th, 25th and 26th Streets. The area will have more pedestrian traffic in the future. Chairman Rempel stated if the double sidewalks would save just one life, it would more than pay for the installation cost of the sidewalks. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Coaunissioner Dahl recommending approval of the Deer Creek Design Standards. In addition, it was recommended that full width sidewalks be installed on 24th, 25th and 26th Street bridges. Mr. Lam asked that a Committee be appointed to meet with representatives of Wendy's Hamburgers for review of preliminary plans for their proposed develop- ment on the north side of Foothill Blvd. , west of Klusman Avenue. ii f; A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy, and unanimously carried to appoint a sub-committee to meet with represents— tives of Wendy's. Chairman Rempel appointed Commissioners Jones and Tolstoy to meet with Wendy's. * s Barry Hogan asked that all Planning Commission members notify the Planning Secretary when they plan to take their vacations. When this information is received, we will put out a schedule to notify everyone of the vacations. Upon Motion by Commissioner Rempel, seconded by Commissioner Dahl and unani— mously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of May 9, 1979. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. spect 1 submitted, RL fit t V. ?. , JACK LAM, Director of Community Development ft Planning Commission Minutes —6- May 9 , 1979 rat;,, 1 I e4.,l } THE ATTACHED REPORT DOES NOT APPEAR AS AN AGENDA ITEM AND WILL BE DISCUSSED ORALLY. a is r F WM M n r.�, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Commercial Recreational Vehicles Storage Facilities Within the Agricultural and Residential Districts At a previous meeting of the Planning Commission, staff brought before the Commission the issue of a current illegal commercial recreational storage facility located on the southeast corner of Hermosa and Baseline. If you will recall, the issue arose because of a complaint about the illegal operation. Staff acted to abate the violation but the applicant retained an attorney who represented the position that such a use was similar to other uses within the agricultural district. The Planning Commission did not concur with that, but it did raise the question of whether such facilities might not be allowable under certain conditions by modifying the current ordinance to do so. The Planning Commission referred the issue of developing such an ordinance provi— sion to the Citizens Advisory Committee for their input since they have recently been interested in the issue of recreational vehicle parking. At their meeting of April 17, 1979 staff .presented the issue to the Citizens Advisory Committee and tie Committee unanimously voted to request that the Planning Commission not modify the ordinance to allow for such facilities within agricultural or residential districts and not to allow any deviations from the 1r present ordinance to do so. The consensus of opinion of the Committee was l that these are commercial facilities and should be located within commercial or industrial areas and not within residential or agricultural districts. Unless the Planning Commission directs otherwise, staff will contact the owners of the property on Hermosa and Baseline to cease operation of the use as being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. If you have any questions or comments about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. ' Re nectf 1 submitted, ack Lam, Director of Community Development JL:cc f 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 1979 TO: Planning Com;nission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION - MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 77-0590 (D. V. Spangler) The subject subdivision was tentatively approved by the Planning Commission of San Bernardino County. - Mr. Spangler, the subdivider, has requested a one year time extension to comply with the conditions of approval. The City has heretofore not been processing any subdivision creating more than one buildable lot. However, this does not cause the subdivision to. be auto- matically extended. Therefore, we have been requested to allow an extension of time for this subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested time extension of 12 months. Res ectfully �pbmitted, LLOYp;'B. HUBBS Cis Engineer LBH:deb ITEM "A" City of Y RANCHO CUCAMONGA March 26, 1979 Mr. D. V. Spangler 8745 Via E1 Dorado Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 RE: MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. N77-0590 Dear Mr. Spangler: As you are aware, it has now been possible to continue processing of your land division as of February 21 , 1979, due to revisions .to the moratorium. The expiration date of your project will be extended by the amount the moratorium effected your project. ' A, . this time, a new expiration date for your project has been established as '• uly 18, 1979. Any time extensions granted, would begin at that time. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at•989- 1851 . Sincerely, MONTE PRESCHER Assistant Civil Engineer MP:deb j. POST 6;FICF, A0X 79i RAND t1n rur AtimnWiA. rA1 IF• m 1 n PNIA -in (71.1) nqn IRCI �gi 8G S AApettfC6, 9nc. 1030 NEPTUNE .� LEUCAOIA fAUfOHNIA 92011 17141 7519336 tivad WED CITY OF RANCHO CU AMONGA COMMUNITY DEYELOKIENT DEPT. JAN 09 1979 AM January 8, 1979 71�191�Iii�llt�t3l�t$6 4 Jack Lamb Director of Community Development Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission , P.O. Box 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 RE: Minor Subdivision No. W77-0590 Dear Mr. Lamb: All conditional requirements of Minor Subdivision No. W77-0590 cannot be completed by February 23, 1979, as required. I am herewith applying for a one-year extension of time to February 23, 1980. Your favorable response to this application will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, 9 .' D. rSprLnZl9 CC: Gary Rooker I .1 AND DIVISION APPLICATION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 Q I 1 G 4Z 393 Ml I Of/ �..5�iSL dr�ri oT i .S �DI(�ziJfn N�iC)�./iC0.a4r� iQoa��-- �t4 i 1 ;4` O. i01 { f roP aSe c(- a a !/ I PYr�fir�= _ J I 1 4 -----304.00 {•E uilf�:v /'vbhi iPa�a/Ri�.(f afi W+ y� Map Scale APPLICANT: Marie / . 1! a-_ •��. 983-55?/ (Office Use Only Phone I ,:.%.%ddress__87i� 5- ///.� �/7.,�-r3�l�� aL� � L.D. M. lf� 7"OS90 ZONE � iEG?iL OIvNE j.'F 0 Addregs p U. tZox FEE RECEIPT NO.�?G(-7/ .�JD �/9 ri D C>Y 1 I 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 1979 To: Planning Com►ission FROM: Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION - MINOR SUBDIVISION 78-0194 (R. E. Bowdoin & M. Y. Nicolas) The subject subdivision was tentatively approved by She Planning Commission of San Bernardino County. Mr. Bowdoin and Mr. Nicolas, the developers, have re- quested a one year time extension to comply with the conditions of approval. The City has heretofore not been processing any subdivision creating more than one buildable lot. However, this does not cause the subdivision to be auto- matically extended. Therefore, we have been -requested to allow an extension of time for this subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested time extension of 12 months. Respectfully sybmitted, B.�HABS Cit Engineer LBH:deb 4i ' 1 5! ' 9 7C . ITEM "B" l c;. e 1 Wit 8 CI1 Y OF RANCho CUCAMONGA COWlaffl-f Y UEVEi OPMENT KEPT. 14 ji f U 4 19'19 May 1, 19A�9 PM 7A9110111p2i11213141516 City of Rancho Cucamonga P.G. Box 796 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ATTENTION: Berry Hogan, Planning Division Engineer Gentlemen: We enclose a check in the amount of $50 . 00 as payment for a time extension of one year on our Minor Subdivision W78-0194 in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. The Minor Subdivision application .was originally appraised by the Environmental Improvement Agency of the County of San Bernardino and now has been transferred to your jurisdiction. If there are any questions regarding our request for a one year extension, please call (213) 195-3381 and ask for Makram Nicolas or Robert E. Bowdoin. Very t my yours , obert E. Bowdoin Makram Y. Nicolas REB B Enclosure 1 f 9 LAND DIVISION APPLICATION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEN f 19 TN STI=EF-T COLIv=.) m a/9ylz _3� z5l 'FaCiSTIMiG R-z� a _�o' 14OUSE 7 / O 1 A'!o.cao u 77 �� o t3 cao.��atanL tz/w R2t�t cA�•►Ut.; • I IL ` ---- �GSrfG 4� ro 1 Map „ �j Scala APPLICANT: (Office Use Only) ame L. Phillip Granados Phone714-754-6222 L.D. NO. 7t� Address 17500 Red Hill Ave. , Irvine, CA. 92714 ---� ZONE LEGAL. OWNER OF RECORD: Naina llae: Nell Lees. Phone FI ROAD MAP BOOK PAGE NO. c. ' Addressclo FEE RECEIPT NO. 7423 Archibald Ave. , Cucam. CA 9173 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 23, 1979 T0: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL PEVIEW OF DIRECTOR REVIEW 79-31 - MOUNTAIN VIEW BUILDERS - A development of a warehouse facility to be located at 8768 9.h Street within the MR zone. BACKGROUND: Mountain View Builders are requesting approval of the development of a 20,000 square foot warehouse facility to be located on the north side of 9th Street just west of Vineyard Avenue. The building is proposed to be used as a warehousing facility. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site presently contains an existing'6,000 square foot building which is used for light manufacturing prut,oses. The remaining portion of the site is vacant. Surrounding sites are vacant and land to the east is used for light warehousing and manufacturing uses. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staft has completed a field check, and Part II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse impacts on the environment. RECOMMENDATION: After review and completion of the Initial Study, staff has found no significant adverse impacts upon the environment and recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration for this project. Res ectfu11 su tted, ire c o of — — Community Development s: JL:MV:cc Attacbment: Part T, Initial Study " ITEM ITCn e it Qi r + �s Ott•. .. 1 ' eery or RA,%X110 CI1CAI-RINCA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJI•:CT INF0101ATION 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 Ucvelopment 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 D"ve]npmont 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 llcclaration 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: RDIAND MARTINES- APPLICANT 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: _MOUNTAIN VIEW BII D RS, _2!:_19 So. Waterman Ave. San Bernardino, Ca . 824-1210 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: - I-nyd liernhonu or Dick Arden 824-1210 2619 So . Waterman Ave. S.B. Calif. LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCriL NO. ) Portion of Lot 24, sectifin_9. township 1 south range 7 west _ _San Bdo, base ' and meridian 'map of Cucamonga lends, book 4 pg . 99 San Bdo, Co . LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATn AND . FEDERAI, AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: pui 7 Yr PROJFCT DI:GCRIFrION W DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: _ 4 nrehojis i ng_ 9do x9 00' ACREAGI. OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE• FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOS2:D BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Lot is 222 ' -2"x411 ' -0'1 prn used buiidi,l,,g ; d a 2002x10U' ehnuse , �xistino bldo • ; s 60 ' x100 used as a light mfg. rental DESCRTPE T11E YNVIROND2]TAT, I:'I'T'MG, OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING IKFORhLATION 014 1.OPOCMPHY, PLATrrS (TREES) , ANIh1ATS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USG OF SURROUNDING PFOPERTIES, AND THE DESCIIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACK NECESSARY SI1I:1:1'S) : FYiu}inn ln} hac h � Fh� �4nTn l Bnd a new block bldo. has been builu` gdjgi-ent iip he nroPnngl{ �dn 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? Nonp r r ' i77LL. Ti11S PROa1:CT: YNSS N -XX_ 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? T 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? -x�L 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. ) ! XX q . Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? XX 5: Remove any existing treesl flow men,'? L 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such ar. toxic substances; flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above : IMPORT:9UN 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 informat ion . required for this initial evaluation to the best of m}• al?iliLy, and is}tat t.hc facer., ;aatcments, and information presented ate _ true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to he submitted before an adcqunte evaulation can be made by the Developrient Review Committee . Date signature / jJ Title Nt 1 i 9 y. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM('NGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 23, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Developmenr { SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79-33 - GUILEY TRUCKING, INC. - The construction of a 20,000 square foot industrial building to be located at 8615 Pecan Avenue in the M-R zone. BACKGROUND: Guiley Trucking is proposing to construct a 20,000 square foot industrial building at their present site located at 8615 Pecan Avenue. The site is presently used as a trucking facility and the proposed building will be used for the storage of steel. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site is presently used for shipping steel and heavy machinery. The majority of the site is covered with slag paving and is used for truck and trailer parking and storage. There is an existing office building on the site and office trailers to the front of the site. Surrounding property in the area is zoned industrial and contains variable uses such as residential and industrial uses. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has done a field inspection and has completed Part II of the Initial Study and can find no significant adverse impacts on the environment as a result of the project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and completion of the Initial Study, staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for this project as it ? is found that there will be no significant adverse impacts created as a result of this project. Respe ful ubm tted, ct ector Communi y Development JL:MV:cc ;_. Attachment: Part I, Initial Study 1 ;y, ITEM ,D„ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PRO,::-.:T IIIFORMATION SHEET - To ba completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requi.ring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Comunittee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this applir "i.on, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part c the Initial Study. The Development Review CommitLi:e will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days 'before the public meeting at which time the project is to he heard. The Comm_ttee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Dr_claration 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: _ v APPLICANT 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Eacil H. Guiley 8615 Pecan iwenue Fontana, Calif. 92335 821-2866 NhME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: De Vries Const. Co. . Inc G. J. De Vries - 10371 58th St. Aura Loma, Calif. 91752 5-153 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STRE AADfcESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL No..) 8615 Pecan Avenuerif. 92335 LIST OTHER PF.Rh1ITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND ` FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: 1 4 1 N. • x PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: �Dry� store a building for steel (protected by weather—T—o plumbing, no sewage require= ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND sQUARL FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: rive acre existing buildin&s 1113groximately 3,200 square feet - proposed building 20,000 square feet. _ DESCRIBE TILE ENVIRONME*TrAl, SI TTNG OF TIM PROJECT SITE•. INCLUDING INFf-.At-11TION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLAWS (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) : _ Presently 14 zone used for shinning steel , heavy r' machin ry , etc. Pro erty drains naturally to the south- west Pecan Ave. Refer top of plan for existing uses of Pther _properties. y. I } Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series. . of cumulative actions, which although irdividually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? Proposed structure would have no effect on existing ' x. • WII,I. TIIJS PRU.7RCT: YES NO XX 1. Create a substantial change in ground contouxs? XX 2. wreate a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? XX 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, �r sewage, etc.)! XX q. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? _ XX 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? ' XX 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: n/a IMPJRTAVr. 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 nbili.ty, 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 ire required to be submitted before an adequate evaulatirin can be made by the Development Review committee . . a Date ,i �s—W Signature Title11,4 y y. *, clzY of RANCHO cucAMONcn STAFF REPORT 6' S; DATE: May 23. 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79-38 - GSR DEVELOPMENT The development of approximately 42,000 square feet of industrial space to bc- uppd by the Chaffey College Skill Training Center which will be located on the southwest corner of Helms and Feron Avenues within the M-R zone. BACKGROUND: GSR Development is proposing to construct two buildings comprising approximately 42,000 square feet for industrial use on approximately 2 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Feron Boulevard and Helms. The initial use of these buildings will be by the Chaffey College Skill Training Center, In addition to the construction on these buildings, the applicants are propcsing to develop the northwest corner of Feron and Helms as a parking lot for use by the Chaffey College Skill Training Center. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site is presently vacant and contains no vegetation and slopes in a southerly direction. To the south of the site is the railroad; to the west and north is vacant land; and, to the east is a recently developed industrial parcel. The site does not contain any animals or cultural, historical or scenic aspects that would be disturbed by this project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Attached is Part I of the Initial Study as completed by the applicant. Staff has completed a field check and Part II of the Initial Study and has found no significant adverse impacts upon the environment as a result of this project. RECOMMENDATION: After review and completion of the Initial .Study, staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for this project as it is found that this project would not create any significant adverse impacts on i. . the a vironment. Reaps tf su mit d, Jack am, Director of Community Development P JL:MV:cc Attachment: Part I, Initial Study ITEM nEn y. 'I , CITY OF RANC110 CUCVIONCA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment Review Fee: $70.00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the Project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff will prepare Part IT of the Initial, study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard, The Committee will make one of three determinations; 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmer,tLi Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information. report should be supplied by the applicant gTiving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE.- APPLICANT 'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: � ? I?+ Pi�/� CAN . �' 2 •T^ S7 er9iYr ,O NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: < Ce— 't' — - 5 i-.Q,T� LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCE , ) LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FED&AAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: + a , PROJE'-'T DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: T .' u ^ tiv�c+�✓.SAL �c/il-c�;�v� S c.U:T�, A�ol.y�'.vo Z Ac�rG N+',�C•ivr� 1a7�- �.T ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PR POSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: r '.t..cJ DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORMATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) . ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY,$HEETS) : 7`i e ,47wW s 11,,44,9&2- r&-eA Lo1711 Nv S?rd r .O s ' I e :2 oZh__ ev w f?S, el' i+ v 7- .e sL,.•7-h '-S / r A r /s A Ale /sv;ld i+ g/r i1 rave TIi� >YorY�� r' i=t'r'v.yL Ld1J . /�iv To The+ ' ! �� 7' ld�f•.J TM : �/lr"o i cad 7' i S C+.v,.sn�n.(�J`Fcl, is the project, Fart of a larger project, one of a series - of cumulative actions, which although individually small, may as a whole have significant environmental impact? e .. WILL TUTS PROJECT: YFs NO + 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. ) ! _ 4. Create changes in the existing zoning 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, flammables or explosiyes? 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 additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the .Development ee.Review Committee. ., y Date "^" �7 / Signature Title ry 1 , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: May 23, 1979 To: Planning Commission c.' From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development Subject : GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-01 - SETTING HEARING DATES FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUESTS The Planning Division has received three (3) formal applications requesting amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Following is a brief description and location of each request. . Jack Sylvester - A request .for a change from the present General Plan designation of Mixed Use and Low Density to all Mixed Use for approximately 75 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Haven and Highland. . Strand/Commonwealth - A request for a change from the pre- sent designation of Industrial to Service Commercial for property located on the southeast corner of Haven and Foothill Blvd. William Leckh art 1J A`request for a change from Low Density Residential to Miii�mum Impact Industrial for property located on the northeast corner of Peron Blvd. and Archibald. As you will recall, the Commission adopted a Resolution setting official hearing dates for General Plan Amendments. The 'second meeting in June is the first hearing date, June 27, 1979. To help facilitate review of these requests, Staff recommends that the Commission prioritize the requests. It will most likely take several meetings to process these requests. Staff suggests the following order for review: 1. Strand/Commonwealth 2. William Lockhart F3. Jack Sylvester Jack Sylvestpxl- application needs additional information which is necessary to process such amendment. By reviewing it last, enough time will be pro- vided tr, receive the information from the applicant. ; '! In addi.tion to the formallrequests listed above, the Commission and Staff may have areas of concern Ft%at may need to be analyzed. Staff is aware of � ,,• two areas that may necessitate ,amendments. They are as follows: a ITEM aF" CY i) IN, ai 1 General Plan Amendment No. 79-01 May 23, 1979 Page 2 Change the present designation from low density residential to medium density residential for land located on the south side of Foothill Blvd. between Baker and the Cucamonga Channels A portion of this area is already developed as a mobile home park and the corner was granted a zone change by the City Coun- cil last year to permit medium density residential development# Change the present designation from high density residential to law density residential for land located on the south aide of 19th Street between Archibald and Amath4st. V,tr is the site where Alta Loma Properties was proposing to develop apart- meats and the City Courcil denied the zone change. This amend- ment would be held until the Council decides whether or not to re-hear the Zone Change request. There may be other areas that the Commission has found where some study may be necessary. They can be added to this list or carried over until Septem- bei for consideration with General Plar.. Amendment No. 79-02. Res ectfull bmitted, 7 JACK LAM, Director of Community Development / V JL:MV:rnm ` y � • r > tfi ai r,I1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 23, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Clarification of Sign Ordinance Relative to Shopping Center Identification BACKGROUND: As you may be aware, the City Council reviewed an appeal on the recent decision of the Planning Commission to deny, the use of a monument sign for Sierra Savings and Loan. The Council upheld the Commission's decision. During the Council review, two issues were raised that the Council has requested clari— fication. The intent or the Sign Ordinance was to provide separate provisions for signing for businesses within shopping centers and businesses not within shopping centers. However, the ordinance is not totally clear in this area. Shopping centers are designed as one total integrated development or center. Therefore, a shopping center is still a commercial center even though it may contain individual parcels and buildings. It has always been the intent of the ordinance to establish separate provisions for businesses within shopping centers and businesses not within shopping centers. However, to make the ordinance perfectly clear, the Council has suggested that additional language be added to this section of the orTinanc`e - — " The other issue that the Council is concerned with, was the question on who and what constitutes a major tenant. The ordinance presently permits a commercial center a maximum of two monument signs. These two monument signs are intended to permit the identification of the center and/or two major tenants. Typically, the question of who is a major tenant has not been a problem as it is usually obvious who are the major tenants of a shopping.center. However, there are those situations in which it may be difficult to determine who is the major tenant wihout a definition. Therefore, in order to clarify this issue for further administration of the ordinance, staff would recommend developing a definition of a major tenant within a retail shopping center, Staff will have some suggestions available at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Commission review and discuss the above issues and direct staff to prepare necessary documents for further action. Res eetful] submitted, �"ir ctor of' _ ITEM "G" ;..` Community Development