Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/07/25 - Agenda Packets s .�� I � 'S �. i s s .�� I � 'S 1 , 1r 'i 1r 91 tiY it [ •.. - - , t RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING.,COMHISSION. t; TENTATIVE AGENDA Wednesday.':July 25:1979, 7:00 P.M. fx Carnelian.Elementary School Multipurpose Roan 7105 Carnelian, Rancho LLcamonga, Ca. '. w?` Ia Pledge of Allesiance Its Roll Call Commissioner Dahl Commissioner Rempel Canmiissioner Garcia Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Jones III+ Approval. of Minutes Junc 27, 1979, -July Z. 1979, July 11, 1979 a ? em Q6Fns • e A. ATiVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW N0. 79 -47 - HUGH BROOKS`- Request for approval of five light industrial buildings to be located on the north side of Jersey Boulevard between Monroe Court and Utica Avenue. B. APPROVAL of Resolution Ado i Amendments to the Inter Lan Use, Ce anon 'u lic Facilit ea Elements 1: of :,the Rancho Cucamonga Oveneral Plan C. APPROVAL of Resolution Dcnying General Plan.Amendmeint Nor 79 -01B. VI. Publ c Hearings NEGATIVE DECLARATION A)ID SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -11 - OLIVER HELICOPTERS -,The use of an existing building as a storage facility ,and the development of a heli- port, to be.located on 11e northwest corner of Helves and Ninth Streets.. Assessor's Parcel -No. 209- 22 -12. VII. Old Business i E. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO 79 -16 - ALTh LZ14A PROPERTIES The development of a 184'unit apartment complex on 6-6r acres located on the south side'bf l9th Street between Amethyst and Archibald "' { Avernie. Asaessor'a Parcel No. 202- 11 -19. ',it'fi )� flc�. .(+tr 1 t4 �ti•app< � abv '{ ! r nrri). �i y 'v 1+ tL�' T � y X'N'fl xitPrf. �_TV1�xr._L!}Y?.U',YlY.�il.Y.�i il.� 'G�.. ei_�.... `. y.' •1 . {' "h 1i "4 iii�'.l �'x?E'Y"s�,i.1' ! Ir I !•r nom;((ir MiM , �, r fU y VL jrii'S{r�a,R iT�i `4 ♦'V 1'lannisg .Dsmmissian rAgenda is Pul6 Zr%, 197 9 r - c x VIII . New Business k F.• NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVI*3W ND. 79-49 - R4NCH0 ASSOCIATES'II - Request for the development of a Fkndy'a fast fobd restaurant and shop buildings': located on the north . side of Foothill Boulevard, west of.Klusman. I ncii Referral ` /-� � i� OINBiEtTT of Consult t election Commits ' X. Director's Reports a -: H. 'REPORT restarding Growth a a ent I. REPORT reKarding Park Credit for'Tract No 9582 1 XI Public romment - Anyone wishing to comment an any items not listeA on the Agenda may do so at this time. ' is XII. Commission Comment XIII• Dpcoming.Agenda for August 8, 1979: Site Approval No.'79 -OS - Wyckoff 'rr V I NY i 1` _rim of x TiANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AGENDA Wednesday, July 25, 1979, 7:00 p.m. Carnelian Elementary School Multipurpose Room 7105 Carnelian, Rancho, Cucamonga, Ca. ACTION Approved 4 -0-1 Approved 4 -0-1 Withdrawn by Applicant I. Pledge of Alleaiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Dahl % Commissioner Rempel % Commissioner Garcia X Commissioner Tolstoy — Excused Commissioner Jones III. Approval of Minutes June 27, 1979, July 2, 1979, July 11, 1979 IV. Announcements V. Consent Calendar A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -47 - nuun nawAZP - xequesc ror MFPKuv� of zivc4aguc industrial buildings to be located an the north side of Jersey Boulevard between Monroe Court and Utica Avenue. B. APPROVAL of Resolution Ado ti Amenlments to the Inter Lan Use, Circ ration b b is Fael.Lltlii Elements . of-the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan C. APPROVAL of Resolution Denying General Plan Amendment 1W. I,�V1M. VI. Public Hearings D. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANA SITE APPROVAL N0. 79 -11 - OLIVER HELICOPTERS - The use of an existing building as a storage facility and the development of a heli- port to be located . on the northwest corner of Helms and Ninth Streets. Assessor's Parcel No. 209- 22 -12. VII. Old Business Denied without E. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -16 - ..prejudice - Staff ALTA LOMA PROPERTIES -- The development of a 184 unit directed to schedule apartment complex on 6.6 acres located on the south r' General Plan Amendment side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald t`' for property at the Avenue. Assessor's Parcel No. 202- 11 -19. t" August 8th meeting 4-0 -1 a u ♦ [. ..5��_!L!_o %�, !_114 :`�. i_ > ( 1., "... ..a "'. .1[:•,bYK' ;} west of'Rlusman. IX. Council.Referral Appointed Tolatoy & G. APPOIMMM of Consultant Selection Committee Rempel - 4 -0-1 X. Director's Reports Discussed GMP - directed H staff to set study session H. REPORT regarding Growth Management__ for 8/14 or 8/16 & schedule r public hearing for 8/22 I. REPORT regarding Park Tax Credit for Tract No. 9582 -1. 'Tabled until 9/12 for I.; ..a full Commission XI. Public Comment - Anyone wishing•to comment on say items not 4 -0-1 listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. XII. Commission Comment XIII. Upcoming. Agenda for August S, 1979: 1. Site Approval No. 79 -05 Wycimff s 1, Flanninammiseion Agenda r 1 July 25, - . rag e 2 s` VIII. New Business ..Approved with additional F� NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79-49 - condition on Fire & RANCHO ASSOCIATES. II - Request for the development clarification of monu- of a Wendy's fast food restaurant`and shop buildings ment sign - 4-0.1 located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of'Rlusman. IX. Council.Referral Appointed Tolatoy & G. APPOIMMM of Consultant Selection Committee Rempel - 4 -0-1 X. Director's Reports Discussed GMP - directed H staff to set study session H. REPORT regarding Growth Management__ for 8/14 or 8/16 & schedule r public hearing for 8/22 I. REPORT regarding Park Tax Credit for Tract No. 9582 -1. 'Tabled until 9/12 for I.; ..a full Commission XI. Public Comment - Anyone wishing•to comment on say items not 4 -0-1 listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. XII. Commission Comment XIII. Upcoming. Agenda for August S, 1979: 1. Site Approval No. 79 -05 Wycimff CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 1979 Regular Meeting CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Carnelian Elementary School Multipurpose Room, 7105 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga on Wednesday, June 27, 1979. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Rempel who led. the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. At ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Richard Dahl, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Paul Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer; Bill Hofman, Planning Assistant; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary F; T. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ' Upon Motion.by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unanimously carried, the minutes of June 13, 1979 were approved subject to the following changes: Page 5, Condition 08,.under- Site Approval No. 79714, is'to'be changed to read as follows: The use shall be- approved within Building "B" as proposed; however, 'that the lessee be encouraged to locate his use at the west -end of the building. i Page 10, Adjournment of Meeting, should be changed to read as fol- lows: Upon Motion by Commissioner Rempel, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unanimously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting..... e (Commissioner Dahl abstained due to the fact he was not present at the June 13 meeting) =s ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Jack Lam reported there will be a special adjourned Planning Commission meeting Monday, July 2, 1979 in the Library Conference Room at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to review all items that will not be con- sidered this evening by the 11:00 p.m. adjourmaent time. Two additional items will be added to this Agenda as follows: Grading Plan for Tract No. 9423 adjacent 1�o the Coral Investment Project on Baseline and Beryl; and review of Director Review No. 79-40 for Coral Investments. 2. Mr. Lam reported Site Approval No. 79 -11 (Oliver Helicopters), Site Approval No. 79 -12 and Minor Deviation No. 79- 11.(Hone) are to be postponed to the July 11, 1979 meeting. 3. Selection of New Chairman and Vice Chairman Mr. Lam stator_' wise Commission is to select a new Chairman and Vice Chair- man at this meeting in order that they can preside over the firrt meeting to July. Upon Motion by Commiasioner Tolstoy, :'econded by Commissioner Dahl and unanimously carried, Chairman Rempel was selected to remain Chairman and Jorge Garcia to remain Vice Chairman for the 1979 -80 fiscal year. 4. Mr. Lam reported at the Monday Adjourned meeting, the Commission will be asked to set up special study sessions for the month of July. A special meeting will be needed to review the Terra Vista Specific Plan, and two study sessions to review the Growth Management Plan. 5. Mr. Lam reported the Local Agency Formation Commission has scheduled the sphere of influence meeting for the area north of our City limits for the morning of July 11, 1979. CONSENT CALENDAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL MAP N0. 5144 - WESTWAY INVESTMENTS Commissioner Tolstoy asked that discussion concerning this Parcel Map be reviewed later in the Agenda along with the Zone Change and Director Review for subject property. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -05 - CORAL INVESTMENT - A zone change from R -1 (single family residential) to A -P (Administrative- Professional) for 0.56+ acres of land located on the southwest corner of Baseline and Beryl Street. Assessor's Parcel No. 208- 011 -63. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -46 recommending approval of Zone Change No. 79 -05 to Lhe City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 27, 1979 )t, Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Jones asked if Beryl- Street•will be widened in this area. Mr. Began indicated the street will be widened to accommodate two way traffic flow. Commissioner Garcia asked how far Beryl Street will extend to the south. Mr. Hogan reviewed this for the Commission. He indicated Beryl will be developed south and across to the west to meet Garnet Street. Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Panaseti, representing Coral Investment, indicated they have no .comments at this time. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mrs. Mancini, indicated she lives on Beryl Street. She asked if a portion of their land will have to be dedicated to the City for the extension of Beryl Street. Mr. Hogan stated representatives of Coral Investments have contacted the pro- perty owners in this area and they have stated they do not wish to participate in the street improvement project. Therefore, Coral Investment will need to readjust the alignment of the street so that it does not disturb the properties as they presently exist. Mrs. Mancini indicated they would also like to be assured there will be no water drainage problems onto their property as a result of this development. Chairman Rempel stated this property will hr. designed so that the regular runoff will not drain onto other property. Mr. Thomas Masser stated he lives on Beryl Street and asked what the proposed plans are for traffic. There are problems of getting out onto Baseline at the present time. Mr. Paul Rougeau, stated traffic signals for Baseline and Beryl are on the City's list: of priorities. However, this is quite a ways down the list as there are many other areas of higher priority. Signals are proposed for Hellman and Baseline and should be completed in less than one year. The t. signals at Hellman and Baseline will also help the area of Beryl and Baseline as it will provide gaps in traffic to make left turns easier. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Pempel closed the publi... hearing. Mr. Lam indicated the tract proposed to the south of this project has some grading issues which the Commission will be reviewing at the adjourned meeting a Monday, July 2, 1979. Staff is recommendirv,, continuation of the Director i; Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 27, 1979 Review of this project until the grading problems on the adjacent tract are resolved. Approving the zone change does not approve the project. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner lnlstoy to approve Resolution No. 79-46 approving Zone Change No. 79-05 as submitted. AYES: DAHL, TOLSTOY, JONES, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PARCEL, MAP NO. 5144 - WESTWAY INVESTMENTS - A parcel Map dividing a lot into 27 parcels for property located on the south side ot 8th Street between Hellman and Archibald Avenues containing approximately 18.75 acres of land. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 209 - 171 -07 and 209 - 171 -20. NWATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 79 -06 - WESTWAY INVESTMENTS - A zone change from M -R (Manufacturing Research) to M -1 (Limited Manufacturing) for 18.75 acres of land located on the south side of 8th Street, between Hellman and Archibald. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 209 - 171 -07 and 209 - 171 -20. o�rrnct un 7o -G.7 - WFSTWAY INVESTMENTS - The development of a light industrial complex to be located on the Bourn side of 8th Street between Hellman and Archibald. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 209- 171 -07 and 209 - 171 -20. Bill Hofman, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff reports. Staff recommends that the Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5144 as this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the ZonerChange Staff also recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -45 approving No. 79-06; and Resolution No. 79 -47 approving Director Review No. 79 -41. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Garcia asked why a zone change from M -R to M -1 is required for this development. Mr. Hofman indicated the lot sizes proposed for this development are 14,000 square feet. The M -R zone requires a minimum of 20,000 square foot lot sizes. Staff felt the design of this project was good and that the lot size should not be limited to that within the M -R zone. Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Michael Todd, representing Westway Investments, stated they and question regarding Engineering Condition 1124 regarding ingress egress dedication rights. He asked their civil engineer to address this issue. Mr. Dale Price, Civil Engineer, stated for clarification purposes, would Condition #24 mean that dedication is not required on the street intersections and at the two driveways shown on the site plan?• Planning Coamaission Minutes -4- June 27, 1979 ,u ,r Mr. Paul Rougeau stated for clarification purposes, condition number 24 could be amerrled to read as follows: All rights, of vehicular ingress to and egress from Hellman Avenue sball•be dedicated to the City; and that all rights 3ha11 be dedicated along 8th Street frontages except at the driveway indicated on the site plan for Parcel. 1, and driveway indicated on the lot line between Parcel 24 and 25. Chairman Zempel opened the public hearing. A Property Owner owning property on Hallman Avenue to the south of this development, stated he is concerned about drainage from this development onto this property. Paul Rougeau indicated drainage from the property will go to the local street and taken to Hellman. Drainage will not be allowed to drain on adjacent properties. Another property owner in the area stated this development proposed 30' of landscaping along 8th Street and asked if this will be required of other properties along this street. Chairman Rempel indicated the 30' landscaping is being proposed for this property only. it may or may not be kept uniform along this street. Each property will be reviewed on an individual basis at the time of development. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he questions the street layout pattern. He is concerned that there are three cul-de -sac streets proposed within this smell development. This is adding to the environment, new streets which this City really doesn't need. He wondered if this proiect could be Uyed out a little differently in order to alleviate these streets. It is his opinion streets such as rhis create a lot of confusion to people trying to locate a development. Chairman Rempel stated it is his opinion if the plan were changed in which through streets were developed it would create more problems than with the cul-de -sac streets. He would agree, in the major industrial areas to the east of the City, that this could became a problem. Commissioner Jones asked if the Fire Department has any problems with small cul -de -sac streets. Mr. Hofman indicated the Fire Department does not object to cul-de -eats. Commissioner Garcia stated the City needs to restudy what we would like to see within the industrial parks in our community and a set of standards needs to be prepared in order that developers know in advance what is required. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree with Commissioner Garcia. He indicated as far as this project is concerned the applicant has spaced his buildings and proposed landscaping which will do a lot for the project. Stan- dards are needed prior to any future developments within the industrial area. Planning C- mission Minutes _5- June 27, 1979 Chairman Rempel indicated this type of standard should be addressed within the industrial area specific plan.' Mr. Gary Ryerson, Architect for this project, indicated they tried to keep the industrial traffic within this park and not on arterial streets. What they have done is kept the cul-de -sacs to a minimum depth of serve the industrial project. He further ind1c_ ated there is a demand for the size building they are proposing. Chairman Rempel stated he would rather see this rize lot within this area of our city than in the major industrial area to the east. Mr. Jeff Sceranka representing Lucas Land Company, stated he was involved with the sale of this property. With the character of the land south of 8th Street it is very difficult to take any one grouping of land and put in a homogeneous kind of industrial development that serves smaller users that would be aesthetically pleasing to the area. Surrounding this area are older residential buildings, the railroad and Hellman drainage problem. In this particular situation, the cul-de -sac arrangement seems to be the most characteristic, pleasing and desirable one for the smaller industrial users. Large industrial areas are located east of Haven and this area can do a lot more with street designs. With restrictions in the western area, it is his opinion the solutions as presented are pleasing and provide a very attractive onvironment to bring business into our community. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree; however., this City needs to set up good standards for development within our industrial areas. There are a lot of undeveloped areas within this city and a good set of standards should be developed as soon as possible. A motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to issue a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5144 as it has been found this project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE A motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -45 approving Zone Change No. 79 -06 subject to the conditions as listed in subject Resolution. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, TOLSTOY, RIMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: NONE A N*tion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Resolution No. 79 -47 approving Director Review No. 79 -41 subject to the conditions as listed in subject Resolution with the following amendment to Condition 024: All rights of vehicular ingress to and egress from shall be dedicated as follows: That all rights shall be dedicated along the Hellman Avenue frontage. That all rights shall be dedicated along the 8th Street Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 27, 1979 0 0 frontage except at the driveway indicated on the site plan for Parcel 1, and driveway indicated at the lot line between Parcel 24 and 25.., AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, TOTS TOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE The use of an existing building as a storage taelllty ana the aevelopm of a heliport to be located on-the northwest corner of Helms and Ninta Streets. Assessor's Parcel No. 209- 22 -12. A motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Coam:isdioner Tolstoy and unanimously carried to continue Site Approval No. 79 -11 to July 11, 1979 in order that additional information may be supplied by the applicant. NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE APPROVAL N0. 79 -12 - HONE - The development of professional office building and service station to be clocated on the south- east corner of Hellman and Baseliae within the A -P zone. Assessor's Parcel No. 208- 431 -14. MINOR DEVIATION N0. 79 -11 - HONE /BARMAKIAN - A Minor Deviation for service station set -backs for property located on the southeast corner of Baseline and Hellman. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unanimously carried to continue Site Approval No. 79 -12 and Minor Devia- tion No. 79 -11 to July 11, 1979 at the request of the applicant. Chairman R®pel called a recess at 8:30 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8;40 p.m. SITE APPROVAL N0. 79 -13 - VANGUARD BUILDERS. INC. - The development of an industrial medicine center to be located on the northwest corner of 7th and Archibald within the M -R zone. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 209 - 171 -16 and 209- 171 -17. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner,. reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 79-49 approving Site Approval No. 79 -13. chairman Rappel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. ;:- Commissioner Jones indicated a school is located to the north of this project and asked if there will be siren or ambulance noise. -7- June 27, 1979 Mr. Hogan stated the main purpose of this facility is for those not seriously injured on the job to be able to come to the facility for care and then sent back to work. Anyone seriously injured would.be sent directly to the hospital from the job site. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is concerned with access to the northern end of Building "G ". He asked if the main gates to the mini storage. facility will be in conflict with parking in this area. Mr. Hogan reviewed this area for the Commission. He indicated there would possibly be a conflict if traffic flowed to the mini - storage area in volume, however, he does not fnresee that this will be a problem. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Baddy, representative of the California Occupational Medical Clinic, stated they treat minor work injuries, physical examinations, physical thereapy and follow -up treatment. They are not intended to be an extreme emergency outfit although they are outfitted to handle virtually anything should a situa- tion arise. Commissioner Garcia asked what are the hours of operation? Mr. Baddy indicated right now they are planning on being open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. If there is a demand and as they expand they may wish to remain open 24 hours a day. Commissioner Garcia asked if there are provisions for handicapped -parking. Mr. Baddy indicated they are prepared to meet whatever requirements staff might recommend. Chairman Rempel stated it is his opinion a facility such as this is needed in the industrial area. He indicated there does not seem to be sufficient parking for this facility on the east side of the building. He recommended if this development is approved additional parking spaces should be located in this area and should be labeled "for medical use only ". Commissioner Garcia agreed with Chairman Rempel and also added that at least two handicapped spaces should be provided as close tbothe entrance of the building as possible. Mr. John Bainbridge, representing Vanguard Builders, indicated they would not see any problems with regard to parking "for medical use only" and the addition of the handicapped parking spaces as indicated by the Commission. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. -B- June 27 , 1979 Planning commisaion Minutes � +u Commissioner Garcia stated an additional condition should be added to the Resolution stating that the development shall meet all State Department of Health and Fire Marshall requirements. A motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve Resolution No. 79 -49 approving Site Approval No. 79 -13 subject to the conditions as listed, 2lua the following: 1. That the development shall meet all State Department of Health and Fire Marshall requirements. 2. Ten parking spaces shall be located on the east side of the building and shall be labeled "for medical use only ". Further, that at least two handicapped spaces shall be provided as close to the entrance of the building as possible. AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, JONES, TOLSTOY, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL FLAN AMENDMLPiT NU. /y -uia - S 11kfUW/%,V[9c1all Ww ; A request for a change from the present designation of Industrial to Service Commercial for property located on the southeast corner of Haven and Foothill Blvd. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reviewed the staff report in detail, this being on file in the Planning Division. Staff recommends that the applicants request be denied and that the City's intent be clarifies under the industrial land use category. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Garcia asked the City Engineer to review the traffic report for this area. Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the report for the Commission. He indi- cated the Engineer is concerned with traffic volumes at this intersection. With this proposed development, the intersect ion would exceed those recom- mended levels for acceptable or minimal operat ion. This is a very critical intersection and needs to be carefully studied. The circulation system needs to be studied in more detail not only as it relates to that specific inter- section but to the entire city what is the best plan to spread the traffic impact throughout the system. With the regional center possibility on the northeast corner of this intersection, it is recommended that the other three legs of this intersection be minimized and would recommend against the establishment of coom:ercial on the three corners and that an office park development or general plan designation remain industrial with the lowest possible traffic generation established for all three corners. Mr. Lam stated he would like to clarify that staff is addressing themselves to the retail commercial establishment and not to a K -Mart. We have no inten- tion of making any comments toward any particular use. There is a market for t' Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 27, 1979 0 a this type of use in the City. We are only concerned that it be located in a suitable location in regard to traffic in the city. Staff is only addressing itself to the issue of commercial and not referring to the particular use. CoMMissioner Garcia stated there is not a category in the present zoning ordinance for industrial office /business parks and asked if this type of zoning will. be written into the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Lam indicated this will be written' into the new zoning ordinance and this type e£ use is currently allowed in the minimum impact district and in the M -1 zone. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. John O'Meara stated he is representing Strand /Commonwealth, Kaiser Steel and the Daon Corp. all owning property in this area. He indicated Daon Corp. is interested in a combination office and light industrial with the uses getting slightly heavier to the south. The proposal by Strand is for a 20 acre shopping center which consists of a department store, a family restaurant, institutional and retail shops. The city requested that a traffic study be prepared which is reaidenttiialstraffic would be carried ethrough the si.ndustrial area to this develop- ment. It is their opinion they will not generate any residential. traffic through the industrial area. Kaiser Steel had originally planned to develop the property as a major heavy steel user; however, it seemed obvious to them that that was not the best location for this type use. Daor. Corp, plans to develop that acres of the property fronting Foothill into general office and business park. ores Daon is concerned about the quality of development on Foothill as it is a primary business street for the city. They support the general plan amendment requested for the 20 acres on the southeast corner of Haven and Foothill, as it is their opinion this will• compliment their development. A concern regarding the archi- tectural quality of the development was brought up. They have indicated they will build as nice a center as possible for this property. In regard to the traf- fic study, it basically assumes the worst possible case. They very rarely anti- cipate traffic reaching levels projected at the intersection. The study basically assumes no other north/south alternatives and did not take into consideration Milliken Avenue to the east. With regard to the traffic solution, the obvious solution is to reduce the density itself and not the commercial center. Another solution is to create additional north /aouth alternatives. It is his opinion there would be more traffic generated during the peak hours with industrial office development than commercial development. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the aesthetic quality of whether this center would enhance this property over anther use should be discussed. Mr. O'Meara indicated that answer depends on what your mind sees for that corner. They would produce the highest quality commercial community center as you would find, and the applicant is very willing to work with the City In every way with regard to the development. Mr. Ivan Strand, applicant, stated in regard to aesthetics, if he is allowed to build on this corner, he would want to develop a center which he will be proud of as well as the city. He stated he would be pleased to answer any questions the Commission may have. Flaming Commission Minutes -10- June 27, 1979 Commissioner Garcia stated the City for many months debated where they wanted to have a central-area or focal point in our community. This focal point was to integrate the three basic different communities that we had before incorporation. We were fortunate to find this particular area of Haven and Foothill. He would like to see all of the corners tied together in some sort of development. Unless we have very comprehensive guidelines, at this point he is undecided as to what should be developed. The goals and objectives of the General Plan are being ignored. Mr. Strand stated it would be a good opportunity for the Commission and the staff to help them cooperate together to integrate the entire 270 acres in the manner Commissioner Garcia is speaking about. hie would be more than happy to help but he does not own the entire property. He would like to work with the city to achieve this goal. Mr. Frank Drambroshow, stated he owns the southwest corner of Footh ill and Haven. He su. '-ed he hopes a nice project will be proposed for this area. He indicated he is not in favor of a K Mart development on this corner. This area has to be used to the best advantage possible. Mr. Bob Sutton stated he is a resident of Rancho Cucamonga. He stated with proper set —backs from the street, etc., he has confidence with staff and the Commission that they will bring this area up to the highest standard possible for the city. He indicated there is going to be traffic in the area due to the College to the north of Foothill. There will be enough traffic in the area to require the largest possible intersection anyhow. There isn't too many areas for commercial development that do bring the highest possible use and generate funds for the City. He does not feel there will be 4 threat to the regional center proposed to the north with this proposed devclopment. Mr. Jeff Sceranka stated in discussions with the Industrial Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, they went through a very long process to come to the ..5. conclusion as to the impact of commercial development on this corner. He does not understand how the traffic study as presented could be translated to ?' state no commercial can be developed on this site. If the architectural designs are closely looked at and if the developer has integrity and commit - ment to putting the best possible commercial development on that corner he can see no negative effects for any type of commercial development if done in this light. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garcia stated it is the duty of the Planning Coup ission to deal with the social structure and environmental needs of the co=Wni.ry and to address ourselves to the last tnrnrnolrtnn rhnt we have in thAs community. What ha aF tnis time does not comply with the goals w.w :.!- tivr_s of the General Plan. He urged the Commission to carefully analyze this prod n.:: and all projects proposed at this intersection. Commissioner Jones stated during the public hearinga on the General Plan the people voiced their opinions loud and clear that they did not want any further commercial on the south side of Foothill Blvd., near Haven. r ; i :,z t 40V Planning Commission Minutes —11— June 27, 1979 t Commissioner Dahl stated since the General Plan has been adopted he has very strong feelings that any deviation from what we have at the present time would cause 'a conflict. If.this change is considered at this time we might. .. as well throw out the General Plan and start all over again. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would agree with Commissioner Dahl. One of the reasons this city was incorporated was because of piecemeal planning. One of the things the General Plan meetings brought to focus was that this city needed some intensive planning. He is against taking a small piece of property no matter where in the city and changing it without a major study of the whole area. We have a large industrial area set aside and he would like this to remain. There is a lot of land that is potentially commercial in other areas within our city. Chairman Rempel stated there is a lot of need for additional commercial development within our city; however, there is problems with that intersec- tion. This area has to be looked at more than just from 20 acres at a time. By changing this industrial area to commercial could cause problems for the industrial area. A motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to deny the request under General Plan Amendment No. 79 -01A, clarify the intent of the industrial land use at that intersection and instruct staff to make a study of this intersection and bring back some guidelines to the Commission. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Mr. Hogan stated a Resolution will be brought back to the Commission at the and of the General Plan Amendment herrings. In this Resolution the intent of the General Plan in this area can be clarified. Guidelines will be set forth for this area and will be brcaght back to the Commission for review. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unanimously carried to more to Item "I" at this time. MAGNOLIA DEVELOPMENT - Block wall requirement for Magnoli Center located on the southwest miner of 19th and Carnelian. Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, reported this item was continued from the last meeting in order to. give the Commission an opportunity to review this site. He recommended that the Commission require a combination of 3' and. 6' wall on the east, 6' wall on the south, and a 6' wall on the west side of this development with staff to work out the details. AYES: REMPEL, TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, GARCIA NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 27, 1979 tH , 4� V .`t 1 f., FIr A Motion was made by Commissioner Rempel, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unanimously'carried'to continue review of l) General Plan Amendment No. 79 -02; 2) Report regarding landscape Maintenance District; 3) Waiver of Condition regarding Landscape of Interior Parkway for Tract 9458 located. on Baseline Avenue at Center; 4) Director Review No. 79 -•40; and 5) Deer Canyon Elementary School to the adjourned Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 2, 1979. ** *are Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy and unanimously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 1979 to the adjourned Planning Commission meeting of Monday, July 2, 1979 in the Library Conference Room. Meeting adjourned at 11:.10 p.m. JACK LAM, Director of Community Development r � CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 2, 1979 Adjourned Meeting CALL TO ORDER E 1 The adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Library Conference Room, 9191 Baseline Road, Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday, July 2, 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: CQ4M11SSI0NERS: Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, .tichard Dahl, Peter Tolstoy, Herman Rempel ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan, Senior Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Lloyd Bubbs, City Engineer; Paul Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer; Bill Hofman, Planning Assistant; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Lam reported a draft copy of the Growth Management Plan has been given to each Commission member. This plan will go under close acrutiny with all agen- cies and groups within the City. This draft copy is a basis for the Commission to begin discussing the issue of growth management and tow it will relate to the City. He asked that the Commission set a study session for Monday, July 16, 1979 as the first date for review of the Plan. This meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the Library Conference Room. Mr. Lam also passed a copy of the proposed Zoning Ordinance to the Commission for review. The Commission will not begin study sessions for 30 to 45 day time frame in order to give all interested parties time to review and make comments concerning the ordinance. He requested that September 6, 1979 at 7 :00 p.m. be set for the first review in the Library Conference Room. Mr. Lam indicated the Commission should also set two study sessions to review the Terra Vista Specific Plan. It was the concensus of the Commission that July 24, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. be set for the first meeting and the second review be set for August 13, 1979. * * a ' P? 3 \GVAly YG UGt.Glll\AlyVl\ Lfl\I� Vfll \G[.<1L r1 " tY'nMJOMJL "U. 17-U& - Vyyi Vf L{ XnUVD, CUCAMONGA - A request for an amendment to the Circulation Element of thr General Plan to remove and reclassify.7th Street in the area of Turnei and Hellman and to reclassify 6th Street. Paul Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends the alignment of Seventh Street from Vineyard Avenue to Rochester Avenue be deleted; reclassify Seventh Street to a Collector between Hellman Avenue and Turner Avenue; reclassify Sixth Street as a Secondary Highway from Eighth Street to Haven Avenue; adopt Sixth Street as a Special Boulevard from Haven Avenue to Rochester Avenue with an "S" connector north to the Seventh and Rochester intersection and a connector directly east to Rochester. He indicated he has been contacted by the major property owner in the area of the "S" connector who indicated he is not opposed to the "S" connector as proposed. Chairman Rappel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Tolstoy asked why the designation for a special boulevard was not taken all the way through the city. Mr. Rougeau indicated they expect quite a traffic drop off west of Haven Avenue. Therefore 6th Street from Haven Avenue is projected to be either secondary or collector. Commissioner Garcia asked if 6th Street from Vineyard to Haven will have four lanes of travel and to the east of Haven will be 6 lanes. Lloyd Hubb,a stated that is correct. Commissioner Tolstoy stated better east /west circulation will be needed in the City as we continue to grow. He sees no reason why 6th Street couldn't be designated as a Special Boulevard from Vineyard Avenue to Rochester Avenue. We have to make sure we will have good east /west corridors in the future and Vineyard Avenue does have access to the Ontario Airport and the Freeway. Commissioner Garcia asked if the Commission is in general concensus in support of the abandonment of 7th Street. Chairman Rempel stated Seventh Street is to be a collector street between Hellman Avenue and Turner Avenue. Paul Rougeau stated staff is recommending that 7th Street be deleted from the General Plan. That does not mean that the street will be abandoned. The only portion to be shown on the General Plan will be the area between Hellman and Turner Avenue. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. After general comments, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 2, 1979 , A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia. and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to approve Resolution No. 79 -52 deleting the alignment of Seventh Street from Vineyard Avenue to Rochester Avenue; reclassify Seventh Street to a Collector between Hellman Avenue and Turner Avenue; adopt Sixth Street as a Special Boulevard from Vineyard Avenue to Rochester Avenue with an "S" connector north to the Seventh and Rochester intersection and a connector directly east to Rochester. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE REPORT regarding Landscape Maintenance District Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer, reviewed the staff report. Be stated the City has four alternatives for funding of parkway maintenance as follows: 1) Main - tained from general funds; 2) establishment of Maintenance Districts through phased development and annexation; 3) development of citywide tax for main- tenance of parkways - requiring election; 4) do not maintain landscaped park- ways. Staff recommends that the Commission recommend to the City Council the establishment of Landscape and Lighting District No. l as one encompassing district with coats distributed on a per lot basis. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Garcia stated the landscape district proposed deals only with the residential areas of the City. He asked if any thought has been given to including the industrial areas of the community? Mr. Hubbs stated generally industrial and commercial developments front onto major streets and are required to maintain them. These uses do not present the same types of problems as residential subdivisions. Also, the majority of the industrial areas do not have sidewalks and therefore maintain the public right of way. Chairman Rempel stated that the proposal is to some extent a form of taxation without representation. It is his opinion a citywide election should be held prior to the establishment of a maintenance district. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated when anyone buys a new home they are given infor- mation to read which would include that the tract is within a maintenance district. It is the property owners responsibility to read and understand this information. Commissioner Garcia asked if a tract is within the assessment district and the majority of the people decide they do not wish to remain within the district, y• can they pull out at any time? Mr. Hubbs stated no, once a tract is placed within the maintenance district, they would have to remain. July 2, 1979 Planning Commission Minutes -3- �. L.Y •.,' .... .�t. i _. r - m^0. Chairman Rempel stated he would be more in favor of alternative 03 to &tvelop a citywide tax for the maintenance of parkways which would require an election. Mr. Lam stated the issue at this time is whether or not the Commission wants to begin including some basic district now before an election is held. The Citizen Advisory Committees agreed that the beet approach is to have an election to test the people about their feelings regarding maintenance of these areas. Prior to this election; however, the City has the opportunity to begin on a small basis to experiment with maintenance districts. This would hot preclude the Council from putting this on the ballot to see how the entire city feels about it. Commissioner Dahl stated he would like to ga on record totally opposed to assess- ment districts. He has seen these abused by cities. It is eaa; to start an assessment district but difficult to terminate. Commissioner Dahl indicated a solution to this problem is the requirement of "hardscape" landscaping. If done correctly this can be very attractive and at the same timE require little to no maintenance on the part of the city or property owner. Mr. Hubbs stated this has not been discussed with the tract developers; however, this is a viable option. He can contact the tract developers to see what can be done at this time in order to minimize the maintenance costs if the Commission desires. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there have been many parkways in the city which were planted very nicely at the time of development and now are either over- grown with weeds or are completely dead. He stated it seems if there is a way to get started on maintenance of these areas that this should be started as soon as possible. He is in favor of requiring "hardscape" landscaping as this will also give us a hedge against flood problems. Commissioner Garcia stated the only way to reduce the cost of maintenance is hardscape landscaping. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Tolstoy to support a pilot program for the establishment of Landscape and Lighting District No. 1 with "hardscape" landscaping encouraged, and further recommended that a citywide election be held for the inclusion of the total city into the program. AYES: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, REMPEL NOES: DAHL ABSENT: NONE WAIVER 08 CONDITION regarding landscape of interior parkway for Tract 9458 located on Baseline Avenue at Center. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. It is staffs' opinion that the Commission has three alternatives regarding the developers request as follows: 1) Deny the request and require the developer to install permanent Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 2, 1979 irrigation systems in the parkways within Cie interior tract; 2) Modify the condition to require the developer to install a PVC 3/4" schedule 40 pipe underneath the parkway for future connection for an irrigation system that would be supplied by the owner of the house; 3) Waive the requirement for the installation of an irrigation system within the interior parkways of the tract. It is recommended that the Commission chocae one of the alternatives outlined, Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Cammissioner Garcia stated it is his opinion it is the developers responsibility to keep the parkway irrigated. There is a possible tradeoff if the developer is receptive to putting in "hardscape" landscaping on Baseline Avenue. Mr. Hogan stated if it is the Commissions' desire to require him to comply with the condition, Staff would like to have clarification as to what the Commission would consiser landscaping. If the Commission does not feel street trees are sufficient landscaping, we would like clarification of this requirement. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if a requirement should be added to state that the developer shall irrigate thu trees until the homes are sold. Mr. Hogan stated this is a standard. The City has a one year guarantee that the street trees are maintained by the developer. At the end of the year, the tract is inspected and if any of the street trees have died they are replaced. Commissioner Garcia stated he feels perhaps it should be communicated to the developer to upgrade with hardscape along Baseline Avenue to eliminate the tremendous amount of weeds in that area. Mr. Lam stated he does not know if this will be a viable tradeoff as far as the developer is concerned. :.` Mr. Hogan stated if hardscape is developed in this parkway, staff would like to r�view the plans to insure that it fits in with the overall plans for Baseline Avenue. Commissioner Dahl indicated perhaps the Commission should delay action on this item until the developer has been contacted to see if he would be in favor of a trade -off between the waiver of the condition for irrigation of the parkways with the inclusion of "hardscape ". A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to continue review of the waiver of condition regarding landscape of interior.park- way for Tract 9458 located on Baseline Avenue at Center to the next meeting of July 11, 1979. Further, that Staff contact the developer regarding the possibility of developing "hardscape" landscaping in this area as a tradeoff of the required condition. AYES: DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, TOLSTOY, REVEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE * it Planning Commission Minutes r._ _5- July 2, 1979 REVIEW of grading plan for Tract No. 9423 L',oyd Hubbs reviewed the staff report. He stated the Commission is to make determinations on'two issues: 1) Is Tract 9423 as submitted'in substantial compliance with the tentative map submittal and should it be allowed to record? 2) Does the Commission wish to allow as a policy the practice of cross lot drainage where better design solutions can be developed? Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Tolstoy stated as a policy the practice of cross lot drainagA should not be allowed. After lengthy discussion, a Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend to the City Council that the develdpers proposal is in substantial compliance with the tentative map submittal for Tract 9423. Further, that the Commission does not as a policy wish to allow the practice of cross lot drainage where better design solutions can be developed. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: TOLSTOY ASSENT: NONE I t NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -40 - CORAL INVESTMENT - The development of a 5,936 square foot medical office development to be located on the southwest corner of Beryl and Baseline. Assessor's Parcel No. 208 - 011 -63. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 79 -48 approving Director Review No. 79 -40. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Coumaission of the staff. Commissioner Tolstoy asked where the air conditioning and mechanical equipment will be located. Mr. Panaseti, applicant, stated the sir conditioning and mechanical equipment will all be located inside the building. Commissioner Garcia stated he does not feel the 6' wall on the west side of the project is needed. Mr. Hogan stated at time the development was proposed, the property was resi- dential. However, at this time, this wall could be reduced to 3' in height if the Commission desires. Planning Commission Minutes -6- July 2, 1979 . y a y4\ r t Mr. Panaseti stated he would be very much in favor of the reduction in the height of the wall. A Motion was made by Commissioner Tolstoy and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve Resolution N0.79 -48 as submitted. Further, that the developer be allowed :o reduce the height of the wall to the west of the development to 3' in height. AYES: TOLSTOY, DAHL, JONES, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE DEER CANYON ELEKeNTARY SCHOOL - Presentation of plans for development -of elementary school by Alta Loma School District. There being no information inn a vailab 1 e at this time, it was the concensus of t the next regular Planning matter o S the Co mmias ion to continue review of this at Commission meeting of July 11, 1979. Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Cocamissioner Rsnpel and unanimousl• carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of July •l, 1979. Meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Rea ectfpihybmikted, .1t JACK LAM, Director of Community Development CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 11, 1979 Regnlar Meeting. CALL TO ORDER 40 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga was held in the Carnelian Elementary School Multipurpose Room, 7105 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, on Wednesday, July 11, 1979. Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Hempel who led the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Richard Dahl, Jorge Garcia, Laura Jones, Herman Hempel ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Peter Tolstoy (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Harry Hogan, Senior Planner; Ted Hopson, City Attorney; Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer; Paul Rougeau, Assistant Civil Engineer; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; and Nancy McAllister, Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Harry Hogan, Senior Planner, introduced Steve Babel, new Planning Assis- tant for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Steve comes to us from a private company and has worked for the cities of Upland and Stanton. He will. be attending meetings from time to time to present items to the .Commission. 2. Harry Hogan indicated he attended the LAFCO meeting today at which time the City's Sphere of Influence was extended. LAFCO voted unanimously to extend the sphere of influence to the southerly boundary of the National Forest all the way over to the San Savine Road. 3. Barry Hogan stated a request has been received to continue review of the Iliver Helicopter Site Approval No. 79 -11 to the next regular meeting of July 25, 1979. He indicated if anyone in the audience is present to speak to this item they can do so this evening. CONSENT CALENDAR } Harry Hogan requested that the Negative Declaration for Director Review No, 74-45 (the second part of Item "Al .be pulled off the Agenda at this time. .. L.. Wl o. GGv, I` t 1+- Chairman Rempel asked that Item "W', North Town Street name changes be pulled off the consent calendar as he mould like to have further discussion concerning this item. A Motion was made by Commisdioner 'Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried to approve the following consent calendar items: A. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5325 - Wilcox B. Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 5239 - Poly Plastic Products C. Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 79-42 - Morgan D. Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 79-44 - Fasson Chairman Rempel stated in regard to Item "E" of the Consent Calendar, North Town Street Name Changes, changing the names of these streets is an important item. Since this is to a large degree an ethnic community, it would'be good to ask the community to suggest names for these streets. Mr. Rougeau stated staff was hoping to receive some respcuse from residents in the area; however, no comments have been received. He hoped at the public hearing stage through the City Council that some response to the names would be given. Chairman Rempel stated perhaps a committee consisting of some of the people that live in the area could meet with staff in a special study session regarding street names. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia, seconded by Commissioner Jones and unanimously carried to continue review of North Town Street Name-Changes, and that a committee be made up of residents within the area along with staff to review and make recommendations on street names. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANn SITE APPROVAL HE N0. 79 -01 - OLIVER LICOPTERS - The use of an existing building as a storage facility and the development of a heliport to be located on the northwest corner of Helms and Ninth Streets: Assessor's Parcel No. 209- 22 -12. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. He indicated the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the next regular meeting of July 25, 1979. This has been advertised as a public hearing, therefore, anyone present at this meeting to speak regarding this item can either do so this evening or can come back to the next regular meeting. Ted Hopson, City Attorney, stated in reviewing this matter, the current County Zoning Ordinance has a specific zone for heliports and helicopter fields. That none is called A -D, Airport Development. The M -1 zone is not an acceptable zone for the location of heliports unless it is for storage. This is his tentative conclusion, however, he will have to consult further with him office concerning this matter. Commissioner Garcia also requested that the State of California Title 4 regarding strict regulations of heliports be reviewed. Planning Commission Minutes -2- July 11, 1979 ^4 rm 0 Mr. Hogan, stated the staff, in.review of this matter, will be recommending denial of this request as it is felt this type of use should be.located more central to the industrial community rather than on the fringe which could conflict with adjoining uses. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Mario Maury, President of Maury Microwave, stated their business is slightly north of this proposed site. Be does not feel a heliport would be consistent with the zoning for the area. He feels it would be detrimental to their operation. He asked that the Commission recommend denial of this request and that it not be continued to the next meeting for a decision. Mr. Mark Maury, also associated with Maury Microwave, stated this site is landlocked on three sides by buildings. The landing field for the helicopters will be approximately 1,200 feet from the proposed Chaffey Skills Center. There are also power lines in the area which he would assume to be in the neighborhood of 60 feet. He has letters from several firms in the area that have shown concern about having this type of development. It is their opinion this is too small and confined an area for a landing site. Safety is the primary issue. Mr. Sterling Kincaid, stated he resides approximately 75 to 80 yards from this proposal. He is in opposition to this request due to the noise the helicopters will create in the area. He indicated the helicopters have already been landing and taking off from this site and he is concerned about the noise and the danger from this project. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Hempel closed the public hearing- Commissioner Garcia stated on behalf of the applicant, he should be given a chance to speak to this item since he has requested a continuation. Also, it is his opinion no approval from the FAA should be given to a site prior to local approval. He would like to have a copy of this approval. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to continue Site Approval No. 79 -11 to the neat regular meeting of July 25, 1979 at the applicants request. AYES: GARCZA, DAHL, JONES, WWEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SITE APPROVAL No. IV-1Z - MUM professional office building and service station ':o be 1 east corner of Hellman and Baseline within the A -P zone. No. 208 - 431 -14. - The development of ocated on the south - Assessor's Parcel MINOR DEVIATION NO. 79 -11 - HONE /BARMAKIAN P_ Minor Deviation for service station set -backs for property located on the vouthea6t corner of Baseline and Hellman. • Planning Commission Minutes -3- July 11, 1979 0 Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff reports. Staff recommends that an additiWnal condition be added to Resolution No. 79 -51 as,-follows= Left turn access from Baseline Avenue may be denied in the future should severe traffic problems result from the location of the Baseline driveway. Staff has, three areas of concern which the Commission should review as follows: 1) compatib?.lity of architecture; 2) landscaping around the existing office; 3) signs for service station. Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 79 -51 approving Site Approval No. 79 -12 and Minor Deviation No. 79 -11. Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Doug Hone, applicant, stated he has with him tonight several specialists that are involved with this project if the Commission should have any cpiestions. He introduced Mr. Gaylord Christopher to review the architecture of the site. Commissioner Garcia asked Mr. Hone if he uneerstands and is in agreement with the added condition requested by Staff. Mr. Hone stated he is in agreement with the condition. If there are any safety problems created by this driveway they would want to see that miti- gated in the future. In talking to his engineers regarding this driveway, they have indicated they do not see any problems with the driveway as stated by staff. Gaylord Christopher, Architect, presented a slide presentation to the Commis- sion for review of the proposed site. Commissioner Garcia asked Mr. Hone his opinion re ,3arding the sign issue. Mr. Hone stated the sign structure for the Rancho Professional Center is set back from the Baseline /Hellman intersection. It is his opinion the sign pro- posed for the service station meets with the criteria which the sign committee and City agreed upon. They are requesting approval of two signs for the ser- vice station to identify Mobil and to list the gas prices. State law requires that Mobil 011 Company post the prices and type of fuels they offer for sale. It is his opinion the signage has been exceptionally well done. They do not wish to put any signs on the Hellman /Baseline corner as they feel this will be a focal point for the center and they would like to have mounding and landecaping in this area. Chairman Remp el opened the public hearing. .y Mr. Henry Reiter, adjacent property owner, stated he owns property north of this project. He indicated he has known about this project for only two days. There vas some misunderstanding with the Planning Department and he was not notified until two days ago that this project was underway. He did see a sign on the property indicating that Mr. Hone is leasing a professional center. His tenants have a right to know what is -being proposed across the street. He is very concerned about the location of the driveway as proposed. No one will be able to make left turns into either project. He asked that the Commission post- pone a decision on this project until after he is given an opportunity to meet with his tenants to make then aware of this project. This is an A -P zone and' Planning Commission Minutes -4- July 11, 1979 r.r � l: by approving a service station on this site it is setting a precident for the future to allow other uses such as car washes, etc. within that zone. Mr. Jeff Sceranka, stated he was asked by the Chamber of Commerce to speak concerning this project. The Chamber wants to express its concern over projects being discussed and deliberated ovar long periods of time with staff at an extremely high cost to d.:velopers. A mistake was made regarding the access driveway; however, an amicable solution has been reached between the City and the developer. The scope of the ComniESioa is to respect and preserve the architectural design of the city. In this particular case, when staff and members of the Commission discuss architectural style and whethAr or not the development is empatible this then becomes debatable between the architect and the city. It is felt by the Chamber that it is not the role of the staff or the Commission to debate this with the architect as the architect was hired by the developer to come up with a proposal and these people are professionals which have put a .lot of work in the proposal. In regard to the sign ordinance, as he understood, two signs fronting on two separate streets would be allowed for tenant and /or center identification. Their understanding was that signage for the service station was to be independent of the center. Sigrub for service stations hardly relate to tenants within the center and they feel by allowing signs for the station on the corner has nothing to do with the signs on the center itself. A member of the audience asked what size trees will be installed within the development. Chairman Rappel stated this will be discussed further with staff and the owner to make sure they are the correct size for the development. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Mr. Rogan stated he would like to clarify the uses allowed within the A -P zone. The Commission considered and recommended approval of a change to the A -P District to allow fca automobile service stations. Car washes would not be allowable within the A -P zone. Also in regard to public hearing notices for this.project, a notice was published in the local newspaper. In regard to Mr. Reiter's project, he notified the City he had not received a notice of the public hearing which tells us he did know about the project. We did as a matter of policy send out another notice to him. He has unof°ic'al "y known about the project for approxi- mately one week. The Commission needs to determine the intent of the ordinance. Is it to allow a service station designed in conjunction with a center two free standing monument signs in addition to the free standing signs allowed for a center for a maximum total of four signs? Or is it the intent of the Commis- sion that the standards for service station signing were for individual parcels not designed within a center such as the service station that the City had on Foothill? Commissioner Dahl stated when talking about signage for service stations tied into a shopping center, first of all service stations as pointed out, by law must post their prices in a conspicuous place and must be seen from the highway. That in itself indicated a need to be able to allow additional signage. It is his opinion up to two signs maximum should be allowed. This should be considered separate from the center. Planning Commission Minutes -5- July 11, 1979 411.;, Chairman Rempel atated in trying to evaluate aesthetic value he would not like to see a big wall sign on a building indicating the price of the fuels. We are trying to get build ings.as much as possible to be compatible with the architecture around the site or the neighborhood depending on what the total design of the area is. He does not have any problem with the monument sign for the service station. He does like to know before he drives into a service station what kind of station it is and the price he will have to pay for gas. It is his opinion the monument sign should be allowed'for the station with the design to be worked out with the developer. Commissioner Jones stated it is her opinion when a service station is developed on a corner lot whether in a center or whether it stands along a monument sign should be located on each street for reasons of visibility. Commissioner Garcia stated in regard to the signage for this service 'station he does not feel this is a major problem. If a service station is allowed within a professional complex, then it is part of a complex, otherwise it will be dealt with on a one to one basis. In this case, the service station should be treated as part of the proposed center. Chairman Rempel stated a clarification of the sign ordinance is necessary in regard to service stations within a center and should be discussed at a lrte: date separate from this application. Mr. Hogan suggested that the Commission be poled to see whether or not they are in favor of the two monument signs for the service station. It was the concensus of the Commission, by a 3 -1 vote ( Commisdioner Garcia voted no) that the developer be allowed to have two monument signs for the Mobil Service Station. Chairman Rempel stated with regard to the service station itself, it is his opinion the station should either be made more compatible with the garden office building or should be made more compatible with the house as the way it is shown noy it is not compatible with either. Commissioner Garcia stated he would tend to disagree with Chairman Rempel. He stated there is a question of whether the Commission is to be designers or planners. Sometimes continuity is not the beat solution. if done well this could be acceptable to the community and to the public. It is his opinion the site has been treated well. Commissioner Dahl iuiicated it is also his opinion the station design is very attractive. On the other hand there is a few things he would like to see to -ake it conform more with the other two buildings. This would be a very simple thing and not entail tremendous changes to the structure itself t. bring in total conformance with the other structures. If the Commission is in .igreenent perhaps a sub - committee of the Commission could meet with the developer to make suggestions. .r Planning fommission Minutes -6- July 11, 1979 it j P , Chairman Rempel stated he does not have any problem with the proposal as submitted with the condition as listed in the Resolution stating the service station elevations shall be redesigned and-approved by the Planning. Division prior to building permits. He does not feel a sub - committee needs to be appointed as long as this condition remains in the Resolution. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve Resolution No. 79 -51 subject to the conditions as listed with the following addition: Left turn access from Baseline Avenue may be denied in the future should severe traffic problems result from the location of the Baseline driveway. AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY Mr. Hogan stated in regard to the added condition in Resolution No. 79 -51, if the access driveway needs to be changed in the future, it will be the City's responsibility as it would require a median to be installed in Baseline. The reason this condition has been added to the Resolution is to make the owner and his tenants aware that if there is a problem in the future, left turn access into the project would be restricted. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to approve Minor Deviation No. 79 -11 as presented. AYES: DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: BONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ZONE CHAt1GE NO. 79-07 - BARMA&IAN /WOLFF - A zone change from R -3 (Multiple Family) to C-2 (General Commercial) for property located on the north side of Baseline, west of Etiwanda. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, stated staff is recommending a six month continua - tion of Zone Change No. 79 -07 in order to more clearly define what uses are going in the alternative area. The William Lyon Company is working on a specific plan in that area and within six months it is hoped. an alternative will be selected for the area. The applicant has agreed to the six mrrnth continuation. Chairman Rempel asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this item at this time. A member of the audience indicated they own property adjacent to the zone change request and asked if their property is zoned C -2 at this time. Mr. Hogan stated the zoning on the property at the present time was zoned by the County of San Bernardino. That zoning conformed with their general plan. When we became a city we adopted our own General Plan. The law states that wa must go back within a reasonable time to change the zoning ' to make it conform to that adopted General Plan. It is possible that zoning on that property as it now stands may not conform to the City's adopted General Plan. Property owners will be notified either by direct mail or adver- t'_, tisement in the newspaper if changes should occur in the future. Planning Commission Minutes -7- July 11, 1979 There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rappel closed the public hearing. A Notion was made by Commissioner Garcia, and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to continue review of Negative Declaration and Zone Change No.79 -07 for six months or until such time as an alternative is selected for this area. AYES: GARCL4, DAHL, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-01B - WILLIAM LOCKHART - A request for a change from the present designation of Low Density Residential to Minimum Impact Industrial for property located on the northeast corner of Feron and Archibald. Micharl Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny General Plan Amendment No. 79-OIB for the reasons as listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. There being none, Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Arnold Rivera, presented a petition from adjoining property owners, in op^ Airinn to the General Plan Amendment. It is their opinion there is enough noise and pollution in the area now from the area west of.Archibald. There is an existing school just north of this area and if the property is changed to industrial it could present a safety hazard for the children going to and from school. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Garcia stated he is hesitant to make a decision on the amendment at this time as the applicant is not present to speak concerning his request. Commissioner Dahl stated it is his opinion the applicant has been given the opportunity to be present at this meeting as he has been notified of the public hearing. Chairma.i Rempel stated it is his opinion that industrial in this area would be an encroachment on the residential community in the area which iC a very important part of our community. He is not in favor of the requested amendment as proposed. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl, and seconded by Commiasioner Garcia to deny General Plan Amendment No. 79 -01B. AYES: DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, RENPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY 1 4 ;; Planning Ccmmission Minutes -S- July 11, 1979 GENERAL PLAN AMEKA4ENT N0. 79-01C - JACK SYLVESTER - A request for a change from the present designation of Mixed Vae and Low Density 7.1esidential to all Mixed Use for approximately 75 acres of land located•on the northeast corner of Haven and Highland. Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No.79 -01C to the City Council with the recordation of the C.C. &R.'s prohibiting vehicular access to Lemon if ccmmer- cial uses are built under the mixed use designation. Hot-.ver, the CC&R's will allow access for multiple family residential. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Commissioner Jones asked if the City Attorney hue reviewed and approved the CC&R's. Mr. Hopson, City Attorney, stated the proposed document has gone through one revision. He has not had an opportunity to compare the second draft but it is not that difficult a document and he would not expect any problema. Mr. Hogan wanted to make it clear that if any multi - family uses do go in along Lemon he will be looking very closely at the access so that it does not create any problems. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. Mr. Vito DeVito Francesco, repr9senting the applicant, stated Mr. Sylvester is in total agreement with the CC&R's. Their purpose is to have the entire property shown as mixed use with the understanding that if and when it is developed then staff will naturally have control over the site plan. The CC&R's will be recorded with the property. Mr. Stanley Allen, adjoining property owner to the west, stated he is in favor of the proposed amendment, and if possible, would like the Commission to extend the mixed use to include his property. Mr. Hogan stated an alternative commercial site is listed on the northwest corner which would give Mr. Allen more options. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Dahl to approve General Plan Amendment No. 79-01C with the recordation of the CC&R's for subject property. S.' AYES: GARCIA, DAHL, JONES, RFMPEL NOES: NONE �,?:. ASSENT: TOLSTOY Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 11, 1979 l r��a GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 79-OID - CYTY OF RANCHO CU.;AMONGA - A change from the present designation of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for.-property located-on the south side of Foothill Blvd. between Baker and the Cucamonga Channel, Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Generdi Plan Amendment No. 79 -01D to the City Council. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. There being no questions from the Commission, Chairman Rempel opened the Public hearing. Mr. Brad Downey, owning property in this area, stated he is in £avor'of the amendment as proposed. Mr. Don Showalter also living in this area, indicated he is in favor of the proposed amendment. There being no further comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. Chairman Rempel stated in regard to any future development in the area of the Cucamonga Wash, until such time as the channel is completed, there is a very low area and there could be some serious problems. There will need to be a lot of mitigating work done in order to eliminate that hazard. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner .Tones to approve General Plan Amendment No. 79 -01D to the City Council. AYES: GARCIA. JONES, DAHL, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY GENERAL PLAN AMENWENT NO. 79 -01E -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A change from the present designation of High Density Residential to Low Density Residential for property located on the south side of 19th Street between Archibald and Amethyst. Parry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends in light of the many circumstances surrounding this request and the need for those pieces of information to be available to the Commission for a decision' on the General Plan Amendment, we suggest that the Commission continue General Plan Amendment No. 79 -01E to the first meeting in September. Chairman Rempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Planning Commission Minutes -10- July 11, 1979 r r�:� O 0 0 Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Jones to continue General Plan Amendment No. 79-OIE to the first meeting in September. AYES: DAHL, JONES, GARCIA, REMPEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: TOLSTOY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 79 -01F -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Clarification of Mixed Use - To more specifically designate whet. is allowable within the Mixed Use Category. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Staff recommends that the Commission defer any action on changing the mixed use category until the September General Plan Amendment. Chairman Rempel opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the audience, Chairman Rempel closed the public hearing. A Motion was made by Ceooaissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Garcia to continue action on General Plan Amendment No. 79 -OIF to the September General Plan Amendment. AYES: DAHL, GARCIA, JONES, REMPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY on Raseline Avenue at Center. Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. This matter was continued from the last meeting at the Commissions' request. A.tradeoff between not requiring the condition that parkways on all lots be landscaped and provided with a permanent irrigation system, and adding "hardscape" landscaping along Baseline was suggested to the applicant. It was not acceptable. The Commission has three alternatives as follows: 1) deny the request; 2) modify the condition to require a PVC pipe underneath the parkway for future connection by the owner of the house, or 3) waive the requirement for the installation of an irrigation system within the interior parkways of the tract. He stated the applicant stated that the County had indicated the condition would be waived shortly after they had received approval of their tract. Therefore the cost of meeting that condition of approval was not included in the development of the tract and with the sales of homed. Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 11, 1979 i�, Chairman Rempel asked for questions from thr, Commission of the staff. Commissioner Garcia asked how this problem was discovered_ Mr. Hogan stated this was found at the time :he developer asked for release of their bonds. At that time staff checked to insure that all conditions had been met. This is normally checked prior to occupancy of any homes; however, homes were released for occupancy while under County jurisdiction. Chairman Rempel asked for comments from the applicant, Mr. Pete Hubinger, applicant, stated they were advised prior to the final map recording that the County up- not requiring this condition s.ny longer. At that point in time, they requested a letter free the County to Lhis effect; however, this letter was never written. laey developed the tract on the basis that this condition wouldn't be required. The houses are now occupied and the drive approaches are developed. To be required to sprinkler this area now would be almost impossible. Commissioner Garcia indicated there is a substantial amount of weeds in the parkway at the present time. Mr. Hubinger stated they are taking care of the weed problem at this time. Commissioner Garcia stated due to the fact the homes within this tract are occupied this requirement should not be required of the developer. A Motion was made by Commissioner Garcia and seconded by Commissioner Jones to waive the requirement for the installation of an irrigation system within the interior parkways of Tract 9458. AYES: GARCIA, JONES, DAHL, RFSTEL NOES: NONE ASSENT: TOLSTOY REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE CHANGE REGARDING KEEPING OF GOATS - HUNTON Michael Vairin, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. The reason this request has come before the Commission is by complaint. Should the Commission wish to consider an amendment to the Ordinance for the keeping of pigmy goats on lots 20,000 or greater, then staff should be directed to include this in the new zoning ordinance. If the Commission does not desire to consider a change in the ordinance, then this item will be referred back to our Community Code Representative for completion of action on the zoning complaint. All action regarding the zoning complaints for the keepini of goats have been held in bbeyance until this request has been acted upon. Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 11, 1979 Chairman Hempel asked for questions from the Commission of the staff. Mr.}:vgan stated he might add presently the zoning ordinance does not allow pigmy goats or any type of animals accept horses on 20,000 square foot lots. The new ordinance proposed additional livestock provisions on 20,000 square foot lots and greater. Mr. Hopson stated under the preserve R -1 zone, two goats are allowed in a 20,000 square foot lot if the goats are part of an educational animal project and a permit is issued by the Department of Environmental Health Services. Chairman Hempel asked for comments from the audience. Mrs. Pat Hunton, indicated she made the request for the ordinance change as she received a comply.Int about the keeping of her pigmy goats. She asked if staff could let her know what the complaint was about with regard to her animals. Mr. Hogan stated the complaint was regarding the illegal keeping of animals and not specifically to noise or odor problems. Mrs. Hunton stated pigmy goats are very docile animals. They do not create a lot of mess or flips. There is no comparison between the keeping of goats and horses. Pigmy goats do not make a lot of noise. Under the present ordi- nance, you are allowed to keep 25 small fowl. If 25 fowl are put in one pen alongside the goats, she would like to see which one makes the biggest mess. Pigmy goats are similar to dogs but do not make as much mess as dogs. Chairman Rempel asked Mrs. Bunton bow many goats they have at the present time. • Mrs. Hunton stated at the present time they have four goats. Commissioner Dahl asked Mrs. Hunl�on what she feels would be the proper number of pigmy goats per a 20.000 square foot lot. Mrs. Hunton stated it is her opinion no less than four pigmy goats, posaibly six goats should be allowed in addition to the horses. If regular size goats are allowed on that size lot she would recommend half that number, or three goats should be allowed. Mr. Hogan stated it would be very difficult to try to separate the two'different types of goats within the ordinance.. Staff is not schooled to know the difference between a mature pigmy goat and the off spring of a full size goat. We are going to end up with problems if goats are separated into different categories. If livestock other then horses are considered by the Commission within the residential areas, staff could investigate what various cities allow in their 20,000 square foot lots and larger. Chairman Rempel stated one of the things brought up in the incorporation of our city was the very fact that we wanted, as much as passible, to keep the rural atmosphere in the City. To an extent people are saying they want to have the opportunity to have animals of various types as well as the openness of rural areas. It is very important to find out what the community really wants. He. is in agreement that staff be instructed to come up with a recom- ;. Planning Commission Minutes -13- July 11, 1979 r' ii 6 dation by investigating' what othe^ communities do and also work within our own community to find what is desired. Commissioner Dahl stated he would like to see that nothing is done toward enforcing the complaint concerning the keeping of pigmy goats on Mrs. Banton's property at this time. He is also in agreement that further study is needed in regard to this matter. Mr. Hogan stated in this case, since there was no poL=tial for harm to the animals, and because the complaint came up as a matter of illegality, it would be quite proper to defer action on this and have staff study this as a part of the new zoning ordinance. A Motion was made by Commissioner Dahl and seconded by Commissioner Jones that all action regarding the zoning complaints for the keeping of goats be held in abeyance until this request has been acted upon. Further, that staff be directed to investigate what various cities allow in their 20,000 square foot lots and larger. AYES: DAHL, .TONES, GARCIA, RERPEL NOES: NONE ABSENT: TOLSTOY Mr. Hogan stated the City would defer action on any complaints received on the keeping of goats until the new ordinance has been adopted unless complaints are received that animals are being mistreated. If animals are mistreated, in all cases the City would take appropriate action. DEER CANYON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - Presentation of plans for development of elementary school by Alta Lama School District (Information Only). Barry Hogan, Senior Planner, reviewed plans for the Deer Canyon Elementary School to be located east of Hermosa Avenue, south of 19th Street. He indicated this item has been brought to the Commission for their information and no action is necessary. COMMISSION COMMENT Commissioner Jones requested that she be excused from the two special study sessions of July 16 and July 24 as she will be out of town during that time. Upon Motion by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and unani- mously carried, it was voted to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 19;79 to the Special Study Session Monday, July 16, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. in the I ibr ry Conference Room. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. JACK LAM, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes —14— July 11, 1979 I RESPONSE TO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT 1. MARCH JULY NOVEMBER However, year around preliminary review and review conferences with prospective applicants. 2. No additional points for projects previously filed with the County. Additional points would achieve nothing relative to the objectives of the Growth Management Plan but give favoritism to previously filed appli- cations, many of which may be totally unacceptable by Rancho Cucamonga's standards with or without the Growth Management Plan. 3. Master Planned Communities As proposed, the Growth Management Plan allows 5 additional points for Master Planned Communities. These additional points are intended for recognition of the fact that such projects enhance the planning of the community and lead to better projects. The 5 points contained in the original draft was adequate to achieve this purpose. However, because of possible modifications to the point system in other sections of the plan, these points may have to be reevaluated afterwards since a single modification to one section affects the whole plan. 4. Drainage Facilities /Street Circulation The plan should be modified to allow point credit for building as well as widening of major arterials and establish a point balance to give recogni- tion to projects exhibiting no drainage or circulation problems or where all improvements are in. 5. "Buy in Points" Staff proposes that the "buy in" points in the plan be either deleted or modified to reflect lower points. 6. Design Quality A major desire in Rancho Cucamonga is improved design with design review ^( as a major method of implementation. This is to be accomplished with or without growth management. Design review is incorporated here to both integrate all review processes and expedite all review. This concept should be retained. j 7. Affordable Housi a y The Planning Commission expressed preliminary support for the con:ept of "density bonuses" for affordable housing. This concept has been utilized ' in other communities for both affordable housing programs as well as other' is tS i Response to Substant Input Page 2 s I reasons. Since this concept could mean smaller lot sizes as well as higher density in certain projects, any density bonus program should be accompanied by a planned development "PD" overlay to help insure that such development is not haphazard and that bonus units do not become a haphazard after thought. Communities that have density bonuses allow bonuses of anywhere up to between 102 - 202 of the project density. Staff would suggest that if the Planning Commission approves of the density bonus concept, the point cricrria for affordable housing in the Growth Management Plan be replaced by a bonus concept that would allow up to 202 additional units and "PD" design criteria be developed to assure that affordable housing be planned with a project rather than as a project afterthought. Furthermore, the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance be amended accordingly and an acceptable way to control windfall profits be approved. In addition, the definition of affordable housing ahould be defined as: owner- occupied: Raving a price range of 3.5 times 802 - 1202 of the median family income of San Bernardino County consistent with the City's Housing Assistance Plan. This income figure is readjusted annually and is currently $14,600. Currently this median income would result in housing costs within the $41,440 - $42,160 range. Renter- occupied units: Fair market rent as defined by Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act. While the concept is interesting and has promise, a common problem has been the ability to con -rol windfall profits. The only positive way of doing so at present is one in which the public agency (the City) parti- cipates in indirect ownership arrangements thereby necessitating a housing program requiring staff support. Should the Coamuission approve of the density bonus concept and is concerned about the windfall profit issue, it must recognize the administrative and staff implications of partici- pating in such a program. Fire Protection Criteria Because non - residential uses do not have to comply with the fire protec- tion mandatory criteria it. was deemed unfair to single out one use when fire protection is vitally important, for all uses. Thus, staff's recom- mendation would be to delete the one mandatory criteria and insert a new fire protection provision under the services category of the residential assessment system, giving more points to projects more readily served by:, fire protection services. Y Staff would suggest that if the Planning Commission approves of the density bonus concept, the point cricrria for affordable housing in the Growth Management Plan be replaced by a bonus concept that would allow up to 202 additional units and "PD" design criteria be developed to assure that affordable housing be planned with a project rather than as a project afterthought. Furthermore, the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance be amended accordingly and an acceptable way to control windfall profits be approved. In addition, the definition of affordable housing ahould be defined as: owner- occupied: Raving a price range of 3.5 times 802 - 1202 of the median family income of San Bernardino County consistent with the City's Housing Assistance Plan. This income figure is readjusted annually and is currently $14,600. Currently this median income would result in housing costs within the $41,440 - $42,160 range. Renter- occupied units: Fair market rent as defined by Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act. While the concept is interesting and has promise, a common problem has been the ability to con -rol windfall profits. The only positive way of doing so at present is one in which the public agency (the City) parti- cipates in indirect ownership arrangements thereby necessitating a housing program requiring staff support. Should the Coamuission approve of the density bonus concept and is concerned about the windfall profit issue, it must recognize the administrative and staff implications of partici- pating in such a program. Fire Protection Criteria Because non - residential uses do not have to comply with the fire protec- tion mandatory criteria it. was deemed unfair to single out one use when fire protection is vitally important, for all uses. Thus, staff's recom- mendation would be to delete the one mandatory criteria and insert a new fire protection provision under the services category of the residential assessment system, giving more points to projects more readily served by:, fire protection services. Response to Substantive Input Page 3 9. School Capacity At the present, there is no high school capacity for Alta Loma High School, but when capacity is developed through any solu•- tions, there remains the question of how to allocate such calla- city. What happens. when there are more applications than cr.pa- city? How will the allocation be determined? The following basis proposal.is offered: The school districts will indicate to the City 30 days prior to each appiicaLion period the available school capacity for that district based upon the best available data including but not limited to current enrollment, projected enrollment, attrition rates, availability of temporary or permanent facilities, etc. The City shall accept applications up to 150% of the available school capacity as determined by the respective district of any given application period. The City shall, however, allow to be approved only the equivalent number of dwelling units that corres- pond to 100% of the particular school capacity. If more units are applied for In any gived application period than available in the school district, .then the application scores from the residential assessment system shall determine the priority of project approval and the allocation of school capacity. In the event that more units pass the threshold than capacity is available for, those applications that are not among the priorities for the available school capacity shall be disapproved or bia continued (by consent of applicant) to the next review period for prioritization with other projects submitted for that new period. An alternative approach is for the school districts to indicate to the city 30 days prior to each application period the available school capacity. The city will accept all applications during any given application period.and award approvals and allocations based .;. upon residential assessment system scores above the threshold level. All projects which pass the threshold level but do not score high enough in relationship to other projects to receive the available l -' allocation will be either disapproved or continued %by applicants . consent) to the next review period for prioritization with other project submittals for that new period. DATE: TO: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA July 25, 1979 Planning Commission STAFF REPORT FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: industrial buildings located on thn north side of Jersey Boulevard between Monroe Court and Utica Avenue. BACKGROUND: Mr. Hugh Brooks is requesting app.-oval tv construct five light indus- trial concrete buil::ings on separate lots covering approximately 6 acres of land. These buildings are proposed to be constructed on already subdivided industrial lots and fully improved strbets. Attached as Exhibit A is the site plan of the proposed development. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project site is presently vacant with a slight slope towards the south. There is no existing vegetation on the si'ce and no indication of any cultural or historical value of the site. Surrounding properties are either vacant, vineyards, or existing industrial uses. The General Plan designates this area for heavy industrial and it is zone M -2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Part I of the Initial Study is attached for your review. Part II of the Initial Study has been completed by staff as has a field investiga- tion. Staff has not found any s'gnificant adverse impacts upon the environment as a result cf this project. RECOMMENDATtJN: Based upon completion of the Initial Study and a sitj investigation, it is it that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration for Director Review No. 79 -47. Res p ctfu#ly submitted, Jack Lam, Director of Community Development JL:MV:cc Attachments: Exhibit A, Location Map Exhibit B, Site Plan Initial Study, Part I J • it . II II IIIn II Q 11 II II II � K F....- . .... 0461 O 1 z I I •I I u •N� V' �b M O N Q e h a _ Is o _ n' ..ice • ui ' _ =u c V uM4 %� m K J wl to toy n /�T i m u , ] 4 - - w6 I Ih a m N v 7 ri V (3 Q 4 ® �w fr tJ� © R v N a O ep y OJ b a j i y n O I Ih a m N v 7 ri V (3 Q 4 ® �w fr tJ� © R t$0o p .I•AR r • _SAW i I Ih a m N v 7 ri V (3 Q 4 ® �w fr tJ� © R I i €�N ITITF qit Hill � Q � ' ! .. "- :'AiLT`.— I �... viii _A^.�.'�a:�_� ✓� 1 't,�. ._ .:ai aw �• E I� Ism i Ih�ll i � awM tai r r I t CITY OF Rl.NCRO 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 submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysf.s 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 impacL• and a Nagati--e 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 y;auld be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: HAVEN BUSINESS PARK APPLICANT'S WkME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: (714) 759 -0157 RICHARD DICK & ASSOCIATES NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: Project Manager: Bill Lae (213) 86 90550 LOCATION OF PROJECT (STP=ST ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) Between Monroe Court and Utica Avenue, North of Jersey Blvd. Lots 4 - 8 per LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH-PERMITS: Building Permit - City of Rancho Cucamonga PROJECT DESCRIPT ION' DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: FIVE SUPPORTING OFFICES, TRUCK LSD ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE. FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: ACREAGE BUILDING AREA I DESCRIBE THE ENVIROMIENTAL 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 SHEETS): Tpriiphv -• Flat with slope towards south no existing trees. Use of surroundir2-properties - Vineland and industrial. rr. Existing structures - None 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? Yes w t:! +: WILL THIS PROJECT: YES NO X 1'. Create'a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibration? X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)! X q. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations? X 5: Remove any existing trees? How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of —� potentially haza=dous materials such as toxic substances, £lammables 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 additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaulation can be made by the .Developmen. Review Committee. Date June 21 1979 Signature Title / 7t, RESOLUTION NO. 79 -53 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING CON- JISSION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS OF THE ADOPTED INTERIM LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT 0: THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City has established the 2nd meeting in June as the 1979 General Plan Amendment hearing date for planning Commission review, and; WHEREAS, The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held duly advertised public hearings on June 27th and July 11th, 1979, and; WHEREAS, comment.'t were heard and considered both pro and con regarding the requested General Plar. Amendments. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION does hereby recommend that the City Council approve amendment to the General Plan land use element as follows: SECTION 1: For General Plan Amendment 79 -01A, amend the text of the Land Use Circulation and Public Facilities Elements under the subject "Industry" to read: It is the City's desire to encourage high quality develop- ment throughout the City. The City recognizes the importance of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue as the future major "downtown." and consequently there is a potential for high volumes of traffic at ultimate development. The City's designation of minimum impact industry on property at the southeast corner of Foothill and Haven means to encourage the development of industrial office/business office parks that are related to the industrial community, financial institutions,'food park and the like. In this manner. the character of use and trip generation would be more consistent wit'' _he pattern and scale of development intended for this int .Arsection. The integrity of the industrial area is thus prote::ted. SECTION 2: Fo:: General Plan Amendment 79 -01C, amend the Land use Map for the �. northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Highland Avenue from Mixed Use and Low Density Residential to All Mixed Use from Highland Avenue to Lemon Avenue for 75+ acres of land. (Exhibit A) SECTION 3: For General Plan Amendment 79 -01D, amend the Land Use Map for the southeast corner of Baker Avenue and Foothill Boulevard from LOW Density }. Residential to Medium Density Residential for the property from Foothill Boulevard to Arrow Route and Baker Avenue to the Cucamonga Creek Channel. (Exhibit B) ISECTION 4: Recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration for each of the General Plan Amendments, General Plan Amendment 79 -0IA, General Plan Amendment 79 -01C and General Plan Amendment 79 -01D. ITEM u$n I a APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS. 25TH DAY OF JULY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE'CITY.OF RANCHO CUCAMGNGA, BY: S Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST Secretapy.of the Planning Commission k'- F I, SACK 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 e•n the 25th day of July, 1979 by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: •l11 U� , .. a I t�.7r:c fzi N '•'f. qtr • � W 0 __SU&dEGT PROPERTY. w / a H Gs -.GENERAL PLAJN AM'E.NDMSKT N.O. '79-D!C LACArION MV P �H {PJ {T an� 9 ti/ 3P'1 ivxc�l hcmc 9 ►rpctn�' v� .� &70 J J� pp pPeRT`� III \---uacanf-� GENERAL PLAN -AMlEl4VM KT. NO, -79 -0I D _: _ LOGa•MON - NAP w 2d r,—xHIBIT a {�,�IL�VJMP ^4�f�1'VSi 1wYMl t {H �..r �S w. MI L a •�• �..l .n •:::V� f..�.....1. .�Iwl•� -23w. Nyn.n nw. le:. 7 i �1� -'. RESOLUTION NO. 79 -50 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA14ONGA PLANNING CDa+MssION DENYIVG SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 -11 LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HELMS AND 9TH STREET IN THE N-R ZONE WHEREAS, on May 4, 1979, a formal application was submitted requesting review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 1979, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING AS FOLLOWS: RESOLVED SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site is inadequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will have an adverse effect on abutting property in terms of flight frequency and noire. SECTION 2: That Site Aloroval No. 79 -11 is denied. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Hempel, 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 11th day of July, 1979. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Date: To: From: Subj ect : CITY. OF RANCHO OUCMONGA STAFF REPORT July 25, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Comaunlry Development LOMA PROPERTIES - The development oI a IU4 unlr apartmear complex on 6.6 acres located an the south side of 19th Street between Amethyst and Archibald Avenue. Assessor's Parcel No. 202- 11 -19. The City Council, at its meetitg of July 18, 1979, denied Zone Change No. 79 -01 changing the zoning from R -1 to R -3 for subject property. Therefore, Director Review No. 79 -16 should be denied without prejudice. Respectfully submitted, o� e ILI : JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:nm 0 0 0 DATE: July 25, 1179 CITY' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 0 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79 -49 - RANCHO ASSOCIATES II - A request for the development of the Wendy's fast food restaurant and a commercial shop building to be . located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Klusman Avenue adjacent to the Wilmington Savings and Loan Bank. BACKGROUND: Rancho Associates II is requesting approval for the development of a commercial center which will include a Wendy's fast food restaurant (2,336 square feet) and a commercial shop building (11,400 square feet) . The project site totals approximately 1.35 acres of land and is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Klusman Avenue adjacent to the Wilmington Savings and Loan (Exhibit "A"). The majority of the project site is vacant with the exception of an existing 750 square foot building which will be demolished to construct this project. Property to the west of the subject site is presently used by Shell Oil Company as a service station; to the north is an existing educational facility fronting on San Bernardino Road; to the east is the existing Wilmington Savings and Loan facility; and, to the south across Foothill Boulevard are various commercial uses. The project site is presently zoned C -2 (general commercial) and General Planned for Service Commercial uses. ANALYSIS: Following is a review and analysis of the elements of this project. site Plan Exhibit "B" displays the detailed site plan for the proposed development. The development plan indicates the placement of the Wendy's Restaurant on the south- west portion of the site and the commercial shop building to the north end of the site. Access to the site will be provided by one centralized driveway. The restaurant facility will have a drive through window along the west side of the building and looped back to the centralized driv...way. The commercial shop building will require a total of 57 parking stalls in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. This figure is based on one space per 200 square feet of building floor area. The restaurant contains 65 fixed seats and will require 23 parking stalls. In addition to the automobile parking requirements, the develcpment would also require two loading spaces. The development is proposing a total of 80 parking stalls and two loading spaces which meets the minimum require ments of the Zoning Ordinance. it should be noted that the shop building would not be allowed to contain tenants with food uses that require or desire seating since they would require additional parking which is unavailable on this site. im 1IFIT 0 i Landscape Plan Exhibit "C" is the Illustrative. site Plan showing conceptual landscaping techniques for the project site. The project proposes to landscape the first 25' of the project site plus the right -of -way not occupied by a sidewalk, across the entire frontage of the site. Other landscaping on the site is proposed along the east, west and north property lines. In addition to these landscaped areas, the applicant is proposing landscaping within the parking areas including a strip of landscaping through the center aisle of parking stalls. Staff is recommending, should the Commission approve this project, that a minimum of four specimen size trees, mounding and other decorative landscaping techniques occur along the frontage of the project site in order to implement the special boulevard designation of the General Plan. In addition, staff is recommending that trees within the parking lot area, and along the east, west and north property lines, be planted 2 -' on center. Further, staff is recommending that the trees proposed for the indentation of the shop building be minimum 24" box size trees to enhance the elevation of the building, since this is the only landscaping adjacent to the shop building. The conceptual landscape plan does not indicate trees along the east elevation of the restaurant, therefore, we recommend that trees be planted in this area to soften and enchance the building design. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required for this project to ensure that the conditions discussed in this paragraph are met. Elevations Exhibit "D" displays the exterior elevations of the commercial shop building and the restaurant. The architects for each of these buildings have been working closely together to coordinate the design of the two buildings. As-can be sewn from the exhibit, the structures are similar and utilize the same types of material. The to materials to ba used on the shop building will include 1 -11 textured plywood, roughsawn wood, trellises, stained columns, stucco and a glue lam beam across the frontage of the building. The restaurant will be utilizing 1 -11 textured plywood, and burnt oak brick veneer which will blend nicely with the wood used on the shop building. Material boards for each of these buildings will be on display at the Planning Commission meeting. Signs The applicants have submitted details for a monument sign identifying the center and the restaurant. Exhibit "E" indicates those details. As the Commission will recall, recent amendments to the Sign Ordinance, relative to center identification signing, states that if a business name is used in the theme title of the center,then it may not be further identified within the copy of the sign. As can be seen from the proposal, the theme name of the center, as well as the tenant identification, includes Wendy's name. The options to this conflict are: 1) simply identify the center as Wendy's Plaza and eliminate any further tenant identification or 2) change the theme name of the plaza so it does not contain Wendy's namo and retain the identification of Wendy's Hamburgers. The size, height and placemen`: of the proposed monument sign is in conformance with the Sign Ordinance_ The applicant has submitted some details in regards to the signing for the shop buildings. However, the size of the signs proposed do not conform with the Sign Ordinance requirements. Therefore, staff recommends that a uniform sign program be developed for the signing of both buildings in conformance with Sign Ordinance and which specify uniform color, sizes and materials. Exhibits "F" and "G" display the proposed menu board for the drive up window and directional signs for the restaurant.. The location of these signs are indicated on the illustrative site plan. ENVIRONMENTAL AKP.LYSISr Attached is Part I of the Initial Study which was completed by the applicant. • Staff has completed Part it-of the Environmental Analysis and has found no significant -a'',•arse impacts bn ti:e environment as a result of this project. Therefore, base, .pon review of the Initial Study and site investigation, the Planning Division staff is recommending issuance of a Negative Declaration. RECCNMENDATION: it is recommended that the Planning approve Director Review No. 79 -49 and issue a Negative Declaration by the adoption of the attached Resolution an conditions of approval. Respect#ully tted, XD I Jack tor of Community Development SL:MV:cc Attachments: Fz%%ibit A - Site Location Map FSuiibit B - Dimension Site Plan Exhibit C - Illustrative Site Plan Exhibit L - Building Elevation Exhibit E - Mnument Sign Details Exhibit F - Menu Board Exhibit G Directional Sign Initial Study Part I Resolution No. 79 -55 1. �. ii J. j'' .�EI�a`1M�iNo � i II • om OXI N.M • � � (-( IL..II CklbilNbt 41 [�0�, �iT exlOrnib� hFEoP�'lNdt�e gxlnrlNrt v b,*VlN t,1r w, Mc. Gc �f Fc'. roiL .. P -va lr+5a � ~ om OXI N.M • � � (-( IL..II CklbilNbt 41 [�0�, �iT exlOrnib� hFEoP�'lNdt�e gxlnrlNrt b,*VlN t,1r w, Mc. Gc DL r. 40 f �t lit f r ��9Www''Wa�YH 11W'�P� wIf JMMYN'�� _ wMw •NM�M wM�� a 'fi.K JU, Ul 41. JIM.* 1. . . . . . . . . . . . t a ' CALU6 LAM F�+M 4 ono rPN - ioHrCo 1 -1415H 'h rA"N CAN FLFWHri A,e, WvIF0Wt4P U M eH7w 5L V,.. :":dj 6°4 l i 4 -a susl5leuollowla r �,• r_ I Lr �� r �. II Ll_l= 1� il� d (911 M .Y4wTY^IJw��A4�W J•��y = .�.Y•W'= U.M1.�C •i.wR �M A . ss� g Rd, -� �7 I - -- -,=-I 1 CITY OF RANCHO 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 submitted' to the Development naview 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 befome 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 Center APkLiCANT'S NAME. ADDRESS, TELEPH0?=: Rancho Associates II, General Part,'ierslltp 394 nest Foothill Blvd., Claremont Ca., (714) 626 -3511 NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OFP�ERS0LJ 10 BE CONTACTED G re CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: s'ian 3-1 West Foothill Claremont Ca.* '91711 (71 4) 626-3511 IDCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.) 9500 (block) Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamorga, Ca. Assessor Bloomom LotsTl_5v 10 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE. AND FEDERAL. AGENCIES AND THE AGENCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: NONE r 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project wiII consist of two new commercial buildi.ngs:,a 2, en s am •.av vo.,-•catav ..... �.. a .4. v1 —wusu 1cw-L -L1Yy 3-:Lxiu et ut7para -ue =ree —; slanctM i3.,4uu square TOOT buildings TO De o cups . convenience retail: sa es an or service usinesse r-.' a overa 1 3VtL C• .• A REAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND'SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS, IF ANY: Project total acreage equals 1.35 :j%creu. The 0XISCIng 75U Be ,@ , ,?JV i ,1• CUM L. IYVV U*L, DESCRIBE THE•ENVIROMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORrLATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PANTS (TREES) , ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PWPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY . The EXISTING AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECEFSARY SHEETS)e setting is excellant, Topography is level , there is no existing vege a ion, no disce3rnable cu.LTural, is - or area The G no exgni a, an ne i i UT on 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? 2 r WILL THIS PROJECT- , YES• NO X 1. Create a substantial change in ground contours? X 2. Create a substantial change in existing noise or vibr X 3. Create a substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.)'.. T X 4. Create changes in the existing zoning or general plan designations7. X 5: Remove any existing trees ?. How many? X 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials such as toxic substances, Zlammables or explosives? Explanation of any YES answers above: IMPORTANT: If the pro;iect involves the construction of residential units, complete the- form on ttie. next page. CERTIFICATION: Y hereby certify that the statements furnished . above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial.Gvaluat:on 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 submitte before an adequate evaulation can be made by the Deve op rnt Review Committee. June 22, 1979 ok / V _a Date Si� IV ��- a-.a "m a ey TitleC Partner ;' RESOLUTION NO- 79 -55 A. RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO COCAHONdA PLANN£NG • COMMISSION APPROVING DIRECTOR REVIEW NO. 79- 49 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WEST OF KLUSHAN, IN THE C -2 ZONE. WHEREAS, on the 22 day of June, 1979, a complete application was filed for review of the above described project; and WHEREAS, on the 25th day of July, 1979, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the above described project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COM-IISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the site indicated by the development plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate th,3 ratoposed use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, IA %rking, landscaping, loading and other features required by this section. 2. That the improvements as indicated on the development plan are located in such a manner as to be properly related to existing and proposed streets and highways. 3. That the improvements as shown on the development plan are consistent with all adopted standards and policies as set forth in this section. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on July 25, 1979. SECTION 3: That Director Review No. 79 -49 is approved subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall contact the Planning Division for compliance with the following c. ;- .ditf'_ons: 1. Parking lot lights shall be a maximum height of 12' from finished grade and directed away from all property lines, adjacent streets and residences. 2. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size and spaced 20' on center In all planters along the east, west and north property lines as well as the center parking aisle. 0 A 3. The sign program for the shcp building is not approved. 4. The copy of the monument sign shall be altered to conform with the Sign Ordinance. w 5. All existing billboards and free standing signs on site must be removed prior td'the'isauance of building permits. 6. A uniform sign program for both buildings in this development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building. permits for this project. Such program shall contain criteria for uniform color, material and size consistent with the Sign Ordinance. 7. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be sub - witted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of bui�ding permits. 8. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash and debris. 9. Trees shall be planted along the east elevation of of the restaurant. 10. Trees to be planted in courtyard of shop building shall be a 24" box minimum size. 11. Street trees, a minimum of 15 gallon size or larger, shall be in3talled in ac.ordance with the Master Plan of street trees for the City of .Rancho Cucamonga. 12. A minimum of four (4) 30" box trees shall be planted along the street frontage. In addition, mounding and other decorative landscaping techniques shall be used along the street frontage. 13. Existing structures shall be demolished and removed in a manner meeting the approval of the Building Official. In conjunction with this action, rodent control measures shal3 be roordinated with the San Bernardino County vector Control. 14. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plan on idle in the Planning Division and the conditions contained herein. 15. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a 6 foot high masonry wall with view obstructing gates pursuant to city standards. Location to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 16. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioner, shall., be architecturally integrated and shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and 3uilding Official. Applicant shall contact the Building Division for compliance with the following conditions: 11. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building 0".3, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of approval of this project. 18. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval. 19. Grading of the subject property shall be in accorddvxce with the G;:ading Ordinance and to the satisfaction, of the Building official. Applicant shall contact the Foothill Fire Dist[icc'nnd the Cucamonga County Water District for compliance with the following conditions: 20. Water supply and sanitary sewer facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Cucamonga County Water District and the City Engineer with all incidental fees paid by the developer. 21. prior Co issuance of building ,permits for combustible construction, e+•idence shall 1-3 submitted to the Fire Chief that water supply fnr _fire protection is available. 22. Emergency access shall be provided and maintained free and clear at a minimum of 24 feet at all times during construction to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. Applicant shall contact the Engineering Division for compliance with the following conditions: 23. Prior to any work being performed in the public right -of- way, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. 24. Approved street improyemenZ: plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer shall be required, for all street improve- ments, prior to issuance of encroachment permit. ::5. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed i:o the sat3sfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney, guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to issuance of buililin; permits. { 26. Construct the following missing improvements on Foothill .. , Boulevard: Curb and gutter, A.C, pavement, sidewalk, drive approach, street trees, street lights and A.C. overlay. j ' 27. An approved grading plan and soils report in accordance with the City grading standards will be required. 28. The applicant will be responsible for construction of all onsite drainage facilities required by the City Engineer. 29. All proposed utilities within the project shall be installed underground. 30. Developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing public utilities, as required. 31. Developer shall be responsible for the installation of street ligaing in accordance with Southern California Edison Company, Caltrans and City standards. 32. water and sewer system plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Crater District (CCWD), Foothill Fire District and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from CCWD will be required prior to recordation. 33. Permits from other agencies will be required as follows: From Caltrans for Foothill Boulevard construction. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY. Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTEST: secretary of the Planning Commission I, JACK LAM, secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning commission held on the 24th day of July, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .;i a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 0 DATE: July 25, 1979 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PARTIAL PARK TAX CREDIT ON TRACT 9582 -1 BACKGROUND: Rancho Cucamonga has adopted Ordinance No. 8 regulating a Park and Recreation Tax on new residential development (attached). In addition to setting the park fee, the ordinance also has provisions for partial credits for those developments which provide private open space for park and recreational purEosese The Deer Creek Company has submitted a letter requesting partial credit of the park fee (attached). The applicant's request is based on the fact that the development is providing a fully maintained landscaped bridle system throughout the development. ANALYSIS: Section 7 of Ordinance 8 sets forth the criteria by which partial credit is determined. This development does not meet item (d) under Section 7 which requires that the open space be reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes. Bridle trails are not reasonably adaptable to other types of park and recreational uses. The size and shape of the bridle trail restricts its use. The Commission must also consider, should credit be given on bridle trails for this development, that all other future residential developments with bridle trails would be entitled to a similar credit. As the Commission is. aware, the City has a significant amount of half -acres and acre developments that utilize bridle trails. In addition, the specific plans are using trails and pathways. If park tax credit is given for these types of restricted use open spaces, then it will significantly reduce the ability of the City to develop a park system consistent with the master plan for Parks and Recreation. RECOMMENDATION: The planning Division staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that no Park Tax Credit be given to this development based upon the criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 8. Resp /t'f�ul y ubmitted, m, Direc or o�_ Community Development ITEM! "I" ORDINANCE NO. 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -RANCHO CUC TONGA ESTABLISHING A PARK AND RECREATION TAX FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, AMOUNTS AND CREDITS THEREOF, REPEALING SAN 9EP.NAMINO COUNTY ORDINANCE'NO.'2126, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF ! THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAXN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Intent and Purpose. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares a tax on all new residential development within the City for the sole purpose of producing revenue for the • acquisition, development and :initial equipment of new parks or additional park lands. This is declared pursuant to the taxing power granted to the City of Ras- -ho Cucamonga by the Government Code of the State of California. The purpose of the tax is to assist in financing the planning, acquisition and development of parks to maintain the level of park service as the City's population increases. . SECTION 2. Definitions. a. ."City" shall mean the City of Rancho Cucamonga. b. "Residential Development" shall include all dwelling units constructed for the first time on oven land or when existing structures are remodeled, added to or otherwise altered to increase the number of dwelling units. C. "Dwelling Unit" shall include each single family dwelling, each unit of an apartment, duplex dwelling group or multiple dwelling structure or condominium or planned residential development as a separate habitat for one or more persons or each mobile home space designed to contain a mobile home trailer on a semi - permanent or permanent basis. d. "Person" includes every person, firm or corporation constructing a dwelling unit directly or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor. i . ":E' A s� l � vP L SECTION 3. Tax: Imoosition and Application. A tax is hereby: imposed . in- the•amourits herain set. forth and shall be applicable to every dwelling unit as above defined constructed in the City after the effective date of this Ordinarca and shall be known as the Parks and Recreation. Tax. SECTION A. Tax: 'Amount. Every person constructing any dwelling unit within the City of Cucamonga shall pay the City the following: For each single family dwelling unit, the sum of $300.00 For each multiple dwelling unit, the sum of. $180.00 For each mobile home unit $150.00 SECTION 5. 'Tax: When Payable. The tax imposed in this chapter shall be due and payable upon issuance by the City of a building-permit for the r construction of any dwelling unit and shall be refunded only in _ the event that the building permit issued has expired and no construction has been commenced. SECTION 6. Disposition of Tax Receipts. There is hereby established a Park Development Fund. All sums collected pursuant to this chapter shall be' deposited in said Park Development Fund and shall be used solely for acquisition, development and initial equipment of new parks or the expansion of land or services on existing parks in accordance with the Park, Parkway and Open Space element of the Rancho Cucamonga. General Plan. SECTION 7. Partial Credit. Where private open space for park and recreational purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision and such space is to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision, partial credit, of to xceed 508 may be given against the requirement if the x y Counci in s that it is in the public interest to do so and that all the following �? standards are met: a. That yards, court areas, ,etbacks, and other open areas required to be maintained by :he zoning and building ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the computa- ;' tion of such private open spare; and :. b. That the private ownership and maintenance of .;, the open space is adequately provided for by recorded written agreement, conveyance, or restrictions; and J: yat. - °'1 c. That the use of the private open space is restricted for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenant.which runs with the land in favor of the future owners of property and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City; and d. That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, and locations; and e. That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreational element of the Master Plan of Parks and Recreation; and f. That the open space for which credit is given is a minimum of three acr ^s and provides for aueauate development and maintenance of the area for recreation purposes. Before credit is given the'City Manager or his designated repre- sentative shall make written recommendations to the City Council for their approval. SECTION 8. Periodic Revision. Inasmuch as the tax set forth in this chapter is based on average costs of land and development, a review shall be con- ducted periodically to determine whether the tax needs revisions to reflect current costs of such acauisition and development. SECTION 9. San Bernardino County"Ordinance No. 2126, heretofore adopted as an Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as re- quired by Section 34328.5 of the Government Code of the State of California is hereby expressly declared repealed, and is super - ceded as an ordinance of the City of Rancho' Cucamonga by this Ordinance. SECTION 10. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has just been incorporated and has no funds whatsoever to provide for the planning, acquisition and development of public parks. It is necessary that the City acquire funds for such purposes without delay. This Ordinance is therefore necessary for the protection of the public health, welfare and general safety and shall take effect immediately uaon its adoption as an urgency ordinance. 1977. APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd_ day of December • , ATTEST: / ,� July 1979 Honorablb City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Ordinance N8 Park Tax Credit, Deer Creek. . Gentlemen This letter is submitted as a request for a Tax Credit in accordance with Section 7 of your Ordinance No. 8 and the following materials are submitted to assist you and your staff in evaluating the request: a. Copy of Landscaping plans for Tract 9582 -1. b. Copy, of overall tentative map. C. Copy of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for the improvement and development of the Deer Creek Project, d. Copy of the By —Laws and Articles of Incorporation of the Deer Creek Homeowners Association. e. Copy of the report of the Department of Real Estate of the State of California. The basis of the consideration of a Tax Credit against the fee.of $14,700.00 paid on the first unit of 49 houses, (two lots still vacant of ;. the total 51 lots) is net forth as follows: 1. This is the first planned Equestrian unit provided with adequate bridle trails in front of the lots, planted, fenced with decorative fence and provided for continuing care, including irrigation system. 'The, trails are not located where they become weed infested and uninvi zing ,'usually merely providing access to corals. 2. Automatic irrigation systems have been installed; trees', shrubs, and ground cover have been planted and established at a total cost for the 51 lots of $112,000.00 r k, ] . > t ♦ - . :7c � a1 r! y. w .�7�y i �T� , s -. � 4 1 ..�F .♦ - rF ci�RL i:� .�{...2 ya�''Y� -�.� DEER CREEK COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 488 � ALTA LOMA,CALiFORN1A 9S 1701 :p(714� 9 3 I�� 15'�,1'��r {C5'j",��v��1il'•� 'Y��1�',�r ��'��i t 4r3 i '��� ^ rl� � a � 1 �'S�i ti �1 -y �u �yt ;���Y U�� }�' . w W*�a r ♦ .rr pp..t ` 7. ` ,S�' � `! _. ..�5 :-. . ... . � �.�a { .e f.}'� f tp � �! ite?+.,C'J....•y.1�i��xR wn'.s�%;.t��:'-- av1.,... f_J.•'.r. .l.. ......•a.�n.h t... ... .arS .':\ .:��: . •!f,a ,3. r1r' VIP 1 ..1 Page 2 3. The By-Laws of the Deer Creek Romeowners•Association, as submitted herewith,'provides continuity of application (Sec. 1.04); automatic membership with ownership (Sec. 3.01); Association Responsibilities (sec:•4.01); power of operation and management (Sec. 5.02) ; duty to maintain records and books (Sec.. 5.17); powers of Assessments (Art. 10. 4. Provisions for continuity and enforceaent of common area maintenance. 5. The acreage in Tract 9582-•1 included in the bridle and equestrian common areas total six acres. This is approximately 12%r of the total area included in homesites. This does not include the parkway area which h r-tso peen landscaped and is maintained by the homeowners a: association. 6. The open space provided in the first unit and as pledged in the following units, will provide a total of 36 acres out of gross available acreage in the entire project under'control of of the developer, which totals 293 acres: As additional information, but not spelled out in your ordin ance #8, it should be pointed out that Deer Creek Company has provided a dike and reception of ditch of over 6,000 feet in length across the upper portion oY.: , Section 24, which provides major flood protection to roads in the area to Chaffey College, and to other private and ublic facilities The'cost t0 provide this protection was approximately 100,000. This expenditure was made prior to any construction or sales of homes. (, Respectfully Submitted, THE R CRE COMP J D Dy: William R. Grigsby :. \ i 1 i sa ° ".°•• L+ r- �nw�Fr4 .r.`4°as�lik- lce4°r' -gFi� � t d� turf •t �A --1u+ es' a'a z ..�xL � � + .41a _ �v�..w r -,-71 �-F.L s. n - �'1KA .a•y .7/1 M�..+:.14n it:. �: JUG. r. t_ nA f � , ..�- - .r..: -'.1 n Ni it .• �.. �.. �_=...... ..:... ° �'^' �.. r.,:: ���t• rii 'tt`hT]lnx "ro7N�'L71A1`04A��7�r RESOLUTION NO. 79 -54 A•RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING. COMMISSION DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO- 79-01D FOR A CHANGE IN THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL FOR THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE NORTH OF FERON BOULEVARD. WHEREAS, the City has established the second meeting in June as the 1979 General Plan Amendment hearing date for Planning Commission review, and; WHEREAS, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 27, 1979 and decided to consider General Plan Amendment No. 79 -01B on July 11, 1979 at a public hearing, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the pros and cons of General Plan Amendment 79 -OIB at a public hearing on July 11, 1979 and the residents of the area expressed their concern with the proposed change as an intrusion of industry into a residential area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby deny General Plan Amendment 79 -01B with the following findings: 1) That the property requested for amendment is surrounded on three sides by Low Density Residential and would encourage conflicts in land use compatibility, and; 2) A logical natural boundary for industry is the railroad track_ to the south and not a local street that carries residential traffic. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY, 1979. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Herman Rempel, Chairman ATTrST• Secretary of the Planning Commission 1, 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 25th day of July, 1979, by the following vote to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nc�TH� GENERAL PL4N AMENDMENT NO. 79-01 13 p I I l � � rZ�l p� NT ► �! . :t / N l i14 PeFz-,'iN � III � i I � •�' � . A.'T. i• 5. F. i2A \L 5:�..^' . % . , y'` -� r" / tL 'ti \ - . I • - N��TH� GENERAL PLAN AME NDiMENT NO. 79-015 Ap. S;`' C Date: To: From: Subject: July: 25, 1979 Planning Commission Jack Lam, Director of Community Development NEGATIVE DECLARATION AM 5111L ArrxUVAJL MV. /y -11 - ULLvrx_ HELICOPTERS - The use of an existing building as a stora_,e facility anZ the development of a hel spirt to be located on the northwest corner of Helms and Ninth Streets. ABSTRACT: As the Commission will recall, the applicant requested a continuance to allow him the opportunity to clarify, some points of information. A letter from the applicant will came under separate cover to the Planning Commission prior to the Wednesday meeting. Please find attached a letter regarding this item. RECCMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Site Approval No. 79 -11. Res ectfpll� submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development S r Fasson jU'� 1 ttjA GraphlcArlsolrlslon F1i 9292 Ninth Street July 17, 1979 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone 714/ 9974631 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Dear Commissioners: I want to go on record in opposition of the heliport proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Helms and Ninth Streets. 1. The unorthodox use of the property at this location will cause an increase of traffic accidents. Drivers "rubber necking" to see aircraft entering or leaving the facility will bring added hazzards to several already dangerous intersections in the general area of the proposed facility. 2. It is my understanding that helicopters, like fixed wing aircraft, are not as maneuverable at very low forward speeds. There is not a clear approach or exit to this site except over existing occupied buildings, This means helicopters will have to approach at low speed, low altitudes over occupied areas. Not a safe practice with any aircraft. This is also a high wind area (seasonal) which compounds the problem. In my opinion the increased hazzard in the proposed area cannot be justified. Such facilities should be located at an airport site or an alternate site which has an unobstructed approach. Richard J. Frey Plant Manager /no El 0 0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: July 11, 1979 To: Planning Commission E From: .lack Lam, Director of Cammunity Development Subject: SITE APPROVAL NO. 79 =11 = OLIVES HELICOPTERS — Request to establish a heliport to be located on the northwest corner of Helms and Ninth Street BACKGROUND: Oliver Helicopters is requesting approval to use an existing industrial warehouse and the adjacent vacant lot as a helicopter storage facility and heliport pad as shown on Exhibit "A ". The facility is designed to accommodate four helicopters which will be used for geological surveys on a year round basis. The nature of the business is such that the helicopters would be in the field most of the time and the heliport would be used only as a storage facility after field investigations have been completed. The applicant has indicated the frequency of use to be approximately 30 landings per month which is an average of one landing per day (see attached letter from Oliver Helicopters, dated June 18, 1978). ANALYSIS: The major issue associated with this project is its compatibility with the surrounding industrial. and residential uses in terms of flight frequency, the flight patterns and the noise impact on adjacent residents. Oliver Helicopters has indicated to staff that the flight frequency will not exceed 30 landings per month. Staff feels this amount is excessive and would have a significant adverse impact on surrounding development. Staff feels the Planning Commission should consider what frequency would be appropriate to minimize the impact on adjacent residents. In terms of flight patterns, helicopter departures would be to the west, not to exceed Vineyard, then followed by a southeastern turn as indicated on Exhibit "B ". Landings would be performed in the reverse order. The flight path would not be over any existing residential or industrial buildings in the area or future master planned residential. The applicant has provided staff with a detailed noise analysis indicating the noise levels of a helicopter at full power from various distances (Table 2). The table indicates a noise level of 88 dBA at a distance of 100 feet which extends past the southern property line (See Exhibit C "). Staff feels these levels to be excessive when generated near residential structures. Further, the frequency of flights coupled with the high noise levels creates an unmitigata'ule adverse environmental impact on the surrounding properties. ITEM "Ft' CORRESPONDENCE: After notifying property owners within 300 feet o the subject site, staff has received 3 letters opposed to the project. "A pies of these letters are attached for your review. The letters expresses, concern over the safety of the use and the noise generated by the hLli- copters. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Resolutien� No. denying Director Review No. 79 -11 based on the finding therein. pp RmDectfatillly submitted, JACK LAM, Director of Community Development JL:BNH :nm Attachments: Vicinity Map Exhibit "A", Site Plan Letter from Oliver Helicopters, dated June 18, 1979 Exhibit "8 ", Flight Pattern Table 2, Noise Levels Exhibit "C ", Noise Levels 3 Letters from Adjoining Property Owners Initial Study, Part I Resolution No. 79 -50 A � ' ... � ` , �` ,.' . �. V � ' , i � � , r I1 ' ,\` . ' � � �, \1 . ry u y q 4 I 1 � • --�— - •3N1 SM13H i 1 t I 1 ii a �a Q i f � a r t W \, OLIVER HELICOPTERS June 18, 1979 _ Sill Hofmsn Assistant Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P 0 Sox 793 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Mr. Hofmon: Oliver Helicopters intends to have the lot located at the corner of Ninth and Helms Streets cleared of all weeds and landscaped in grass with trees planted on the borders of Helms and Ninth. Flight patterns will be as follows: Departures will be to the West, not to exceed Vineyard, followed by a South Bast turn. At this point the helicopter will be at not less than 1,000 feet (AGL) above ground level. Landing will be execsted in the reverse order. At no time,during landing and departures, will the aircraft fly over the tops of any industrial or residential buildings. All residential areas will be avoided. Oliver Helicopters operates three helicopters now and will take delivery of one more in late July of 1979. 85% of our flight operations are cond- ucted in remote field locations; usually for five months at a time. Three . of the four helicopters are already on station in such areas and are not scheduled to return until September of this year. After return they will be stored inside until they are returned to the field. The forth helicopt- er may be operated in the Lo!► Angeles Basin areas. We do not for see any more than thirty lendings per month in Cucamonga at this time. We would like to remind the planning department that we are not applying for a public use heliport. The use is private. We will allow the sheriff and fire departments the use of the heliport; also, the Loma Linda Medical Centers helicopters (see attached letter). n Please zind attached noise level report. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Chat C. Rasbarry t, President CCRJkra <:5 620E WALNUT FULLERTON,OA 92631 714-871- 7605 iv N 0 I'M I E�l 7 LONG/ DAVYI.ASSOC 350 400 450 500 600 700 800 900 1000 I'M I E�l 7 LONG/ DAVYI.ASSOC r go 3F t 7p to to ,S Gr r �' slot lips O I N � P a J i 1 E�4 yf, ' 1Y ���1'�1'110Il3 7399 ARROW MIOMWAY, 9.0. W% 717 „CUCAAIONOA, CALIFORNIA 91770 StIEHiONL 8710 987-4771 . June 21, 1979 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission City Hall, Suite C 9320 Baseline Rd. Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 .... yCOt (UN TYr EVa o,,11NT DEPT. gig 2 5 1976 Pdi AMg►8►1D(11 ►tY11►�►�i4i5i6 Re: Site approval No. 79- 11- Oliver Helicopters Bear Commissioners: I wish to express my objection to the possible approval of the above referenced matter before the Commission. A heliport is not in keeping with the industrial develop - ment of this immediate area. Without going into Further detail let me state that I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Marc Maury's comments in his June 18, 1979 letter to the Commission. In addition to the potential dangers cited, present and future noise is also a problem. I do not believe this is the proper area for a heliport. Very truly yours, Jerald Baker Vice President /General Manager P.S. I am concerned that I did not receive notice of the hearing. cc: Mr. M. Maury - - Maury Microwave Mr. J. Murphy - - Fasson Products • Toronto. Corrado METAL FABRICATING COMPANY 9444 9th STREET CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 91730 June 19, 1979 (714) 987 -6251 %A Y OF RANCF0 CUCAMONGA COM411UNITY bEVEI OPMENT DEPT, JUN 2 D 1979 A!A PM 718A19I111kt112.3141516 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission City Hall, Suite "C" 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Gentlemen: REF: SITE APPROVAL 110. 79 -11 We would object to having a heliport built on the northwest corner of Helms and Ninth Streets. We `re the owners and tenants of the facilities located across the street on the northeast corner of Helms and Ninth Streets. It would be unreasonable to burden us and our employees with the danger, excessive noise and wind blown dirt that helicopters,, flying in and out of the proposed location, will generate. Airplanes belong in an airport and not in the middle of an industrial area or close to (1 block north) a residential area: Oliver Helicopters is presently landing helicopters at this location with- out approval. This area is not zoned for this type of operation and it should, therefore, be stopped. This letter can be considered our emphatic objection to the granting of an approval for the development of the heliport. We are hopeful that the Commission will, in 'its wisdom, agree with us. Very truly yours, ..SRU -L 01C METAL 'FABRICATINN COMPANY 4'alph Mass Vii, President RM /nr y.r use Insulated'. hoof and Wall l ✓ ':'MAURY .,"-MICROWAVE ,. "Z 8610 HELMS AVE. 0 CUCAMONGA,. CALIFORNIA 91730 * TIEL9P146NE (jl4)9 m �o. -'cl-Ty OF RAW .... . b Li . 1, 10 C iIY rs UCAMONGA.;.-­;?; 41 Rancho Cucamong, Planning commission 11;-,,C0tA0k1Ty DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Itt , 1 1A 4t Ci ty Hall Suite C -4., 9320 Baseline Rd. UN Rancho Cucam 3nga 0 CA 91730 Pm AM Jill I I., :1 Dear Commissio�erii, ... ... ..... . T' - .1 ri; We have just received your notice of hearing concerning the 'dev elopment of hel i port on site approval No.'19-11 on the northwest corner of, Helms :and N 'Street do not feel that this type lof, deve opIent is in".the best liter existing tenants and landowndrs in this-.area. Z:1 ' 'dense industrial 'population.o R wth here will p - rovi de for a The eventual gr6 i -industry employing hundreds of people. "In the event c �f-a helicopter failt 4.. J -the possibility .+or loss of life and property are significant, It would seem that the location of this type of business at the Ontario A Airport or Bracket Field would make moos sense. i" .. .. ... are re 1, aware that to-date helicopters have been landing at this location.. We feel that this is being done without approval and that Oliver Helicoptl should be notified to cease and desist..until-such time and:if_approval_is ...'. kn yorovided by the planning Commission. Also to the best of our ow ledgep*;i ' !i ­zoning restrictions in this area do not provide for this type of developm i 4 : A 4. ' 4 � 4 "You may consider this letter as our s t retitlous"objicfion ' to,your pro.viding' approval for the heliport and we feel that your -. good -sen se will prevail it rejecting this application. V% Very truly yours t sti d MICPOWAVE COI I A A. MAJJR� '4 tive Vice Pre! MAM: s h (;C: MAMJR P a c Mr' 121 �1; Fab 'D. 'Me t$o ans 2�tJru Loc -�. Mr. R. Massagly :-10.5Zf Mr. -.gaii*Baker Petr000lAion Wire ':Golden State St i no Mr. 'y2i m Henim,"�'! ,? % t 0 amo 11 .4 'AAA a P. A 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA INITIAL STUDY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET - To be completed by applicant Environmental Assessment t- Review Fee: $70,00 For all projects requiring environmental review, this form must be completed and submitted to the Development Review Committee through the department where the Project application is made. Upon receipt of this application, the Environmental Analysis staff Will prepare Part II of the Initial Study. The Development Review Committee will meet and take action no later than ten (10) days before the public meeting at which time the project is to be heard. The Committee will make one of three determinations: 1) The project will have no environmental impact and a Negative Declaration will be filed, 2) The project will have an environmental impact and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, or 3) An additional information report should be supplied by the applicant giving further information concerning the proposed project. PROJECT TITLE: �Ie3ira APPLICANT'S NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE: Oliver Helicopters And Encr Corp NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE OF PERSON TO BE CONTACTED CONCERNING THIS PROJECT: LOCATION OF PROJECT (STREET ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO.)' 20 2x-12 LIST OTHER PERMITS NECESSARY FROM LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE. AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND THE AG$NCY ISSUING SUCH PERMITS: R, a h1 ;: ; I., . PROJECT DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT' ACREAGE OF PROJECT AREA AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGSr IF'ANY: .3/4 AC ]DESCRIBE THE•ENVIRONMENTAL SITTING OF THE PROJECT SITE INCLUDING INFORi\1ATION ON TOPOGRAPHY, PLANTS (TREES) * ANIMALS, ANY CULTURAL, HISTORICAL OR SCENIC ASPECTS, USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY MISTING STRUCTURES AND THEIR USE (ATTACH NECESSARY SHEETS) TygliarFripl, aera .n0 trees no aninlalS,vacwrt lot. Is the project, part of a larger project, one of a series- of cumulative actions, which although individually 'small, may as a whole hav6 significant environmental impact? I is WILL TI1T5 PROTECT: YES NO _ x 1. Creatc.a' substantial, change in ground C contours? X 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 Toning or general plan designations?. X 5: Remove any existing trees? Now many? 6. Create the need for use or disposal of potentially hazardous matorials such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives? Explanation of any YFS answers above: IMPORTANT: If the project involves the construction of residential units, complete the form on the next page _ 1= Ufa 'ail.. +s h� C CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the star.: ments 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 knr,wlcdge 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 Conunittee. Date 7