HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/05/08 - Agenda Packet.,.- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY MAY 8, 1996 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
Chairman Barker Commissioner Melther
Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Tolstoy
Commissioner Lumpp
III. Announcements
IV. Approval of Minutes
April 10, 1996
V. Public Bearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their
opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the
Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes
per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A
request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and
preschool in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located
at 9244 19th Street. - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Variance 96-03. (TO
BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 12, 1996)
B. VARIANCE 96-03 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to reduce
the interior landscape setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for a church and preschool
in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244
19th Street. - APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 94-13.
(TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 12, 1996)
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE~;MENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
-32 - REX SHAFFER - A request to add 3,112 square feet of body shop/office
space to an existing auto body facility in Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 9777 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-282-03 and 04.
Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration.
D. VARIANCE 96-06 - STEWART - A request to reduce the interior side yard
setback from the required 15 fe.,'t to 8 feet 6 inches for an existing single family
home in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre),
located at 8175 Orchard Street - APN: 1061-711 - 18.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PER]VIIT 94-19 - JUNG (ACCU-CENTER)
Consideration of revocation of a massage establishment within Deer Creek
Village shopping center, located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #11
APN: 1077-401-29.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS]VrENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to
amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial
designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill
Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts.
This action will be forwarded to the City Council for final action and the date of
the Public Hearing before City Council will be separately noticed.
VI. Director's Reports
G. APPEAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-04 - SUNSCApE
~ - Appeal of the City Plarmer's decision to deny an
application to stucco over existing wood siding, wood window frames, and
exterior areas on patio fences at the Sunscape Condominiums located at 8990
19th Street - APN: 201-292-06 lhrough 61,201-293-01 through 39, 201-294-01
through 47, 201-295-01 through 63, and 201-296-01.
H. ENGINEERING DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97
VII. Public Comments
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be
discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VIII. Commission Business
I. SITE PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE
; J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-30 - McDONALDS - (Oral report) - A
review of an approved fast food restaurant located at 8701 Base Line Road.
IX. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M.
adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shah be heard only with the consent of
the Commission.
1, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certiJ~ that
a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 2, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54964. 2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
VICINITY' MAP
· k CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA/vIONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 8, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-13 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A
request to re-use an existing vacant single family home for a church and
preschool in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located
at 9244 19th Street - APN: 201-341-04. Related Filed: Variance 96-03.
VARIANCE 96-03 - MAX WILLIAMS ARCHITECTS - A request to reduce the
interior landscape setback from 10 feet to 0 feet for a church and preschool
in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9244
19th Street -APN: 201-341-04. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 94-13.
BACKGROUND: The Design Review Committee (Lumpp, Buller) reviewed this project on
April 16, 1996, and recommended that the project be brought back before the Committee
with certain changes. According to the applicant, Max Williams, there is insufficient time
to make those changes before the May 8, 1996 Planning Commission hearing. The
applicant has therefore, requested a continuance of the Planning Commission hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the
Public Hearing for the above-referenced Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications
to June 12, 1996.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
ITEM A & B
/.a
,;i[y Of I'~ariC['~O
tO E-A--Fc~4-A4 _< oM ~ Z c-4,,,v n /
E>_E'. X-//,g- 5_,&,,d~ '/j-5 Aeg~-
..... O.,a2/'o '~' C,c>Y/4.':' 3'j-~' U'2Eb'' //-4-'vE- c ~7" ....
...... D~--/ h./ ..Ad /m~_ZS'- A/,~ ,O
~e-7_lzT.,,~._-'~ 5/j'J,=' to DA,~_U-- /A.,' CS.'vT''erL-
! -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 8, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Butler, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-32 -
~ - A request to add 3,112 square feet of body shop/office space to an
existing auto body facility in Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
located at 9777 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-282-03 and 04.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninm
North - Existing Commereiai Development (Millers Outpost Plaza); Subarea 3, Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan
South - Existing Single Family Residential, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
East - Existing auto repair facilities, Subarea 3, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
West - Existing Commercial, offices and bank; Subarea 3, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
B. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Commercial
North - Commercial
South - Low Residential
East - Commercial
West - Commercial
C. Site Characteristics: The site is occupied by an existing auto body repair shop, a small (32-foot
by 50-foot) bullcling to be removed, and a mobile trailer to be removed. The site slopes to the
southeast at an approximate gradient of 2 percent. No significant vegetation or historic
smaemres exist on the site. There is a frontage road between the site and Foothill Boulevard
which would ultimately be removed and replaced with sidewalk and landscaping. The frontage
road will remain at this time and the applicant is required to post bonds for future construction.
The west half of the site is designated as an "Activity Center" by the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan and the easterly half is designated "Parkway." These designations have different
development standards such as building front setbacks (25 feet in the Activity Center and 45
feet in parkway) and landseape/hardscape standards such as double row tree planting in the
Activity Center.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-32 - REX SHAFFER
May 8, 1996
Page 2
D. Parking Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parldng Spaces Spaces
of Use ~ ~Iio Required Provided
Automotive Body Work 11,844 sq.ft 1/~.00 30 30
AN~YSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to add two new body shop bays (1,600 square feet) and
1,512 square feet of new office space m the existing facilities for a total of 7 body shop bays
and 11,844 square feet of floor/body shop area. The proposal includes a complete architectural
remodel of the facility, upgrading the parking to meet current code, and provision of landscape
and hardscape street improvements consistent 'Mth the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
Activity Center and Parkway requirements.
B. -~: The existing "Foothill Auto Body" facility was built in 1976 prior to
incorporation. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan does not allow major repair, such as body
work; hence, the use is considered legal non-conforming because it pre-dates the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan allows the expansion of legal
non-conforming uses by a Conditional Use Permit provided the following criteria are met:
1. Expansion area up to 50 percent of the size of the existing use facilities not to exceed
5,000 additional square feet. The Planning Commission must make a finding that the
expansion is not detrimental to the goals and objectives of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan in addition to the findings required by the Development Code.
2. Improvement of existing non-conforming features (parking, landscaping, etc.) which
significantly decreases the degree of non-conformity.
3. Facade upgrading per Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Design Guidelines.
These criteria have been satisfied by the project design and conditions of approval.
B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Lumpp, Butler) reviewed the
project on April 16, 1996, and recommended that the project be approved with the following
conditions:
1. Provide reveals/score lines on side elevations to add visual interest and break up blank
stucco walls.
2. Provide coping treatment along the top of the 6-foot high stucco wall along the west
elevation.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-32 - REX SHAFFER
May 8, 1996
Page 3
3. Use arched windows on mar portion of east elevation to match windows on from
elevation or eliminate window on east elevation.
4. Use at least 1-inch square wrought iron for trellises on from elevation.
5. Provide as much landscaping as possible within angular projected portion of site mid-
way back along the west property line.
6. Provide vine pockets at base of property line wall to allow vines to grow on both sides
of wall.
7. Provide a view obstructing gate at the alley entrance to the rear. The gate shall remain
closed and locked and be open only as long as is necessary to enter and exit the site.
8. Provide a sample of proposed stucco texture for City Planner review and approval prior
to installation.
9. Provide decorative block wall materials such as split face block or stucco.
10. Paint roll-up doors and service doors to match the building.
C. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Iechnical Review Committee
and was determined, with the recommended conditions of approval, to be in conformante with
applicable standards and ordinances. The applicant will be required to provide a cash
contribution in-lieu of construction for future ultimate street improvements along Foothill
Boulevard which will include eliminating the existing frontage road. The project has been
designed to respect landscape and parking setbacks based off of the ultimate face of curb per
these future street improvements. While the interim condition would not meet from landscape
and parking setbacks, the existing frontage road and median provide substantial separation
between the site and Foothill Boulevard.
D. Ellvironmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant.
Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and has found that the project
could create light and glare for the residents to the south. As mitigation, the conditions of
approval require submittal of detailed lighting plans indicating shielding of light fixtures. If
the Commission concurs with staff findings, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be in order.
FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan. The project will not be
detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. The proposed use is
in compliance with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, applicable provisions of the Development
Code, and City standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-32 - REX SHAFFER
May 8, 1996
Page 4
~: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Vallev Daily
~ newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners
within Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The Planning Division received a letter
~'om a property owner at 9816 Hampshire Street (southeast of the subject property, across the alley)
expressing an objection to the proposal since the existing facility is an "eyesore" and the operation
generates objectionable noise and disturbances. We also received a letter from a property owner at
9824 Hampshire Street (also southeast of the subject property) with concerns about the noise levels
generated by the operation.
B.F~: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project
through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions, and issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Respectfully submitred,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applieant's Letter
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "D" - Elevations
Exhibit "E" - Interim Site Plan
Exhibit "F" - Ultimate Site Plan
Exhibit "G" - Interim Landscape Plan
Exhibit "H" - Ultimate Landscape Pl:m
Exhibit 'T' Grading Plan
Exhibit "J" Letters from Neighbors
Exhibit "K" - Negative Declaration & Initial Study
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
FOOTHILL
t77 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-4609
FAX (909) 948-1239
March 15th, 1996 R E C E I V E D
MAR :19 1996
Mr. Brent LeCount
Planning Division City ot Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive. planning Division
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729
Dear Mr. LeCount
Foothill Auto Body is a state of the art collision repair facility. Foothill repairs collision
damaged late model domestic and foreign passenger vehicles of all types. It is a flail
service body, paint, and structural repair shop.
Foothill Auto Body has been in business at this location for 19 years, since June of 1976.
Our reputation is unsurpassed. Our customers and customer referrals and work with
major insurance companies back up this assessment. Much of our work over these past
nineteen years has been with Automobile Club, Farmers Insurance group, and State Farm
Mutual. The significants of this statement is, we have continually satisfied our clients
with consistency in estimating, quality repairs, and satisfied customers.
In August of 1992, we were chosen the Immediate Repair Program Facility for the
Automobile Club of Southern California. This program has worked extremely smooth and
efficient. Our performance, has exceeded our own expectations, in terms of production
time, and the ease in which we meet those target dates. The ability to tear down, while
writing the estimate eliminates guessing and drastically reduces the need for supplements.
Our gross sales per year put us in the Larger Auto Body Repair Shop Category. Our
track record for good Customer Relations, service and satisfaction is achieved through
dedication, hard work and through conscious effort. We are committed to keeping abreast
of new technology, vis-a-vis information, training and equipment.
The location of our business is an advantage for our customers. We are highly visible
from Foothill Boulevard, the main thoroughfare in the heart ofRancho Cucamonga.
According to a survey which we regularly up-date, our customers tell us they come to us
because of our excellent reputation and convenient location. We are easy to find.
Quali~ Car Care,
. FOOTHILL
9777 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucannonga, CA ~c~1730 (909) 987-4609
FAX (909) 948
The collision repair process used on passenger v,:hicles follows this procedure. An
estimate is created by the facility or insurance company. The estimate is signed and a
repair order is created. Pans are ordered. Whett the pans are received, the repair is
scheduled, and the vehicle is delivered to the facility by the customer.
The vehicle is disassembled and inspected for hidden damage. If hidden damage is
evident, a supplemental insurance claim is generated and sent to the insurance company
for approval. After verbal approval or visual inspection by the insurance appraiser, the
vehicle is put back into production.
Any remaining sheet metal pans are removed or repaired as necessary. Other external
pans are removed to access damage areas. The vehicle is place on unibody repair
equipment. The structural inaccuracies are corrected by utilizing separate, measured pulls
for length, height, sway, sag and twist corrections.
New panels are primed, prepped, and painted prior to installation. The unibody is treated
with an anti-corrosion material. Welded areas o:Funistructure are painted. Internal pans
are re-installed. The outer sheet metal is fitted. feather-edged, sanded, and finished.
Then the vehicle is primed using an acid etching rust-inhibiting primer. The vehicle is
block sanded and pressure washed. Inner door jambs and edges are painted. Non-
damaged areas are masked. Then the vehicle is placed in our down-draft paint booth
where it is blown clean and washed with solvents to remove contamination. The vehicle is
painted with a one. two or three stage urethane paint.
When the vehicle comes out of the booth, it is d,:masked and exterior trim is remounted.
Pin striping is redone, suspension is aligned, and the electrical system is re-connected.
Then the vehicle is washed and detailed. A pre-delivery test drive is performed. The final
bill is generated taking into account supplement~tl repairs and pans price increases. Then
the car is delivered to the customer.
With this letter is our Repair Facility Information Sheet, showing hours of operation,
facility contact personnel, etc. and a picture cop'./of our Organization Chart. We employ
fourteen people at the present time.
Sincerely,
r'~
~'---, ~ The Measure of
euali~V Car Care.
FOOTHILL
Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-4609
FAX (909) 948-1239
REPAIR FACII,ITY INFORMATION StIEET
Name of Repair Facility: FOOTHILL AUTO BODY A caliber collision center
ADDRESS: 9777 FoothillBird. RanchoCucamonga; Ca 91730
Phone Number (909) 987-4609 Fax:
Business Hours: B:00 to 5:30 M-F
Area Serviced: Rancho Cucamon~a: Upland: Ontario Fontana
Name of Owner: ~
Business: License: #000432
Garage Keepers Liability Insurance: Farmers Ins, (Fire; Theft: Liability)
Policy # 939341655S
Banking Affiliation: ~
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Repair Facility Manager: ~
Repair Facility Foreman: Kurt Root~ Assistant-Dennis Carrillo
Secretary: tulle Shaffer: Betty Shaffer:
Facility Contact Person: ~
FACILITIES & OFFICE
Computer Estimating Systems Used:
Square Footage: Body Area: 4,590 Office: 401 Parts Dept, 440
Paint Area: 3,600 Parking: 1,494 Storage 11,000
(continued on next page) '
The Measure of
Quality Car Care.
FOOTHILL
FAX (909)
Documenlalion.
3. Organization Chart:
Rex Shaffer
Oeneell Mansger/O.ner
Shop Mgr/Esllm alnr
I I f
.Illlie Shlffer Dennl~ Clrrlllo [ Rysn Shmfrer
Office Manlier A~l~llnt M~r/E~llmnlnr Part~ & Production
I
I
.-.,~-..,,,-II ".'.'~.,".'".. I1~""",'~"-""'""'"""'1
Body Technlcbn
Bmly Technlcbn IPIInl A~Rl~llnl I
Bnd~ Technicleo I
MechenlclCIwR~ Technlden
Io
r,L .S"
The Measure of
Quali~ Car Care.
CC
5'~5~I ~ES~,U~.U"~C,EEN FOOTHILL BLVD. MA,.,.0, TU,, T~PE ,'LL rESCUE SOD ~
~ PLANTING NOTE8
ULTIMATE LANDSCAPE PLAN
~,~ -, ~ ,,
Concerned Citizens
Robert C. and Glory R. Girtins
9816 Hampshire St.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RECEIVED
April 22, 1996
APR 2 199-5
City Planning Division
City ofRancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucarnonga
10500 Citric Center Drive Planning Division
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
SUBJECT: PROTEST OF ENVIONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT 95-32 - REX SHAFFER
We HIGHLY OBJECT TO ANY enlargement of this facility. This auto body facility is already an eyesore
to Foothill Bvld., as well as an eyesore to oar backyard. It is also a noise infringement to our
neighborhood on a daily basis.
Currently, the residents of Hampshire Street must endure the highfly yelling screaming, and other
activities of the Rack-era-up pool hall each night, then, we must also listen to the all the equipment and
tools used by the auto body shop by day. Let us not forget to mention the roaring of engines, the "testing"
of vehicles and the constant car alarms going off. Currently, there is graffiti on the roof and rear of their
buildings which is visible from our yard and others.
The City of Rancho C~camonga has been very meticulous in developing the new areas of the city,
however, we are very disappointed in how little concern is shown for the older neighborhoods of this city.
Please do not forget the earlier neighborhoods and citizens who helped create this city. We have lived in
our current home since 1961. We have constan~y improved and maintained our home as to be an
example for our neighborhood and for the benefit of our city. All we request is the same concern for us by
you, the planrang division for our city.
We foolishly hoped that the city would be looking forward and requesting those businesses that created
problems to move their businesses to rural areas of the city. We are very disappointed.
Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the hearing scheduled for May 8th, however, we request that you
submit this letter to the panel on oar behaff. We would be pleased ff some consideration in made in honor
of this protest. Our neighborhood deserves your interest and concern.
Cordially,
Robert C. Giltins Glory 1~ Giltins
Rocky R. Rochette
9824 Hampshire St.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
April 26, 1996
Planning Division R E O E | V E O
City of Rancho Cucamonga
PO BOx 807 APR ~ 9 1998
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729 '
CityofRanCho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter in reference to a letter I
received from your organization. This letter I received
solicited feedback on a proposed expansion of an auto body
facility in Subarea 3 of Foothill Blvd Specific Plan located
at 97777 Foothill Blvd - APN: 208-.282-03 and 04.
I purchased a home across the! alley from this facility
two years ago. I plan on living with my wife and family in
our home for the rest of our lives. Our home is about 200
feet east of this facility. My wife and I are both very much
against the expansion of this facility unless there is a
plan included in the expansion to construct a block wall or
something that will absorb the sound. As I write this, I
have my window open and hear almost constantly the high
pitch of an air sander. This is a very annoying sound and
interferes with my right to enjoy my peace and quiet of our
home. In addition to this sound, there have been numerous
times that we hear loud engines and other automotive type
sounds.
I am not against the owner expanding his facility as I
realize it will benefit him, the city, and my family. I am
opposed to this expansion without the noise issue being
addressed and resolved in your plans.
J
I will not be attending the public hearing as your
letter states that my objections and concerns can be handled
by letter. If you would like to contact my wife Tammy, or I
at home to discuss this matter further, please call us at
989-6852. I would also like to add that whether or not my
neighbors take the time to write you or attend the public
hearing, they to share the same concerns as I.
Sincerely,
Rocky Ri Rochette
City of Rancho Cucamonga
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for ,vublic review in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Pul,lic Resources Cod~
Project File No.: CUP 95-32 Pl,,blic Review Period Closes: May 8, 1996
Project Name: Foothill Auto Body Plroject Applicant: Rex Shaffer
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at 9777 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 208-282-03
and 04.
Project Description: A request to add 3,112 square ~'et of body shop/office space to an existing
auto body facility in Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a siignificant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
[] The Initial Study shows that them is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
[] The Initial Study identified potentially significant e~,cts but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur. and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Envln)nmental Impact Report will not be required.
Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all
related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at
10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 471-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE:,
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period.
Mav 8. 1996
Date of Determination Adopted By
C!TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
NVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
NITIAL STUDY - PART II
BACKGROUND
1) Project File #/Name: ~,L)P> ~l~-'~r~- '~'!-~Ul-,
2) Related File(s): -t~'~--,,
3) Applicant: ~
Address: 4:~1'/t ~l,l_ ,-,!:~L~JD: f~,/)-.
4) Project Description: ~- F~ga~P_/--2~ 12 ~ ;~-211"l,c~ ~
5) Project Accepted as Complete (date): ~ ~ i t'~/~'
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the
potential impacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required on attached sheets, An explanation
shall also be provided'F~ each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to
be significant and is marked "No,"
Yes Maybe No
I, EARTH, Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in the geologic structure?QQ El"""
b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the
soil? O Q
c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? a Q
d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? Q Q
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the
site? Q [::3
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in
siitation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?QQ
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? Q Q
Yes Maybe No
11. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration cf ambient air quality?Q
b) The creation of objectionable odors? Q Q
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally or regionally? Q
III. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changesincurrents, orthecourseofdirectionofwatermovements,
in either marine or fresh waters? rn Q
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat:ems, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood w~ters? Q Q GL./
d) Changes in the amount of surface water ir. any body? Q Q
e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
wateFquality, including, but not limited to, temperature~ dissolved ·
oxygen or turbidity? Q Q
f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? Q Q
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations?
h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public-water supplies? rn
i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal pools? Q Q
IV. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? QQ
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered
species of plants?
c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of existing species?
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Q
V. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
animals (birds; land animals, including repti:es; fish and shellfish;
benthic organisms or insects)? Q Q Et'/'
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered
species or animals?
Yes Maybe
c) introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
VI. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? Q
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
VII. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposah
a) Produce new light and glare?
VIII. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area? E3 Q
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: ....
a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Q Q
X. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve:
a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
b) ' Possible'fnterference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? Q
XI. POPULATION. Will the proposal:
a) Alter the location, distribution,. density or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
Xll. HOUSING. Will the proposal: :
a) Affectexistinghousing,orcreateademandforadditionaihousing? Q Q
XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in:
a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Q Q
b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?rn
c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Q rn
d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods?
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Q Q
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
>edestrians?
Yes Maybe No
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an etfect upon, erresultin
a need for new or altered government services in any of the following
areas:
a) Fire protection? [:)
b) Police protection? [3
c) Schools? Q Q
d) Parks and other recreational facilities? [:3 Q
e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Q Q
f) Other govemmental services? [::3
XV. ENERGY. Wifl the proposal result in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Q E3
b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new source,'; of energy? Q
XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? Q
b) Communications systems? Q Q
c) · Water? ~,-- Q
d) Sewer or septic tanks? Q Q
e) Storm water drainage? Q Q
f) Solid waste disposal? El rn Et'/'
XVII. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (exclud-
ing mental health)? El
b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? El rn EY"'
XVIII. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in:
a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?[::3
b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?Q ~ Q
XIX. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in:
a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities?El
b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? Q Q
j
Yes Maybe No
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal:
a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or ~
historic archeological site? Q Q
b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or ~
historic building, structure, or object? Q Q
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? Q Q ~
XXL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant ,or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant oF animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia
history or prehistory? rn Q
b) Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will
endure w. ell into the future.)
c) Cumulative:Doestheprojecthaveimpactswhichareindividually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.) Q rn
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? Q
XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
(Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.)
XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS.
(Attach additional sheets examining whether the project would be consistent with existinc
plans, and other applicable land use controls.)
XXIV. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached
sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed, Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the' earlier analysis. ' .....
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "less than Significant with Mitigation Incorpo-
rated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
XXV. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
a) I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ..............................
b) I find that although the proposed project col Id have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. Eft
c) I find the proposed project may have a sigr,ificant effect on the environment, and
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................... Ul
Date Preparer's Signature
j
~PLICANT CERTIFICATION (To be completed by applicant.)
certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have
read this Initial Study and proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or
proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur.
Date Signature
Print Name and Title ".,/v' '
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKI,IST
Initial Study ~ Part II
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Project Description: Conditional Use Permit 95-32 A request to add 3,112 square feet of body
shop/office space to an existin~ auto body facility located at 9777 Foothill
Boulevard.
I. Ea~hl
a. The site is not within any known unstable earth condition area.
b. The project proposes an addition to ex:isting facilities on a previously Faded site.
Little or no grading is anticipated to be necessary to accommodate the proposal.
c. The project proposes an addition to ex!Esting facilities on a previously graded site.
Little or no change to the topography is mticipated to be necessary to accommodate
the proposal.
d. No known or unique geologic or physical features exist on this site.
e. Upon completion, the site will be landscaped and/or paved to prevent soil erosion.
f. The project will not cause changes in deposition or erosion which will modify a river
or stream bed or bed of an ocean, bay, or lake.
g. The majority of California is susceptible to earthquakes. The project is not within any
known special study zone that will require additional studies or that poses a unique
baTard.
II. Air:
a The activity associated with the projec'~ is not expected to generate substantial air
emissions.
b. The proposed project will not creme any objectionable odors.
c. The proposed project will not result in alteration to the climate or air movement.
III. Water:
a. The development of the project will not affect the currents or course of water
movement.
b. The absorption rate will not be altered because the paving and hard scape is, for the
most part, existing on the site. All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage
facilities which have been designed to handle the flows.
c. The project will not alter the course or llow of flood waters.
d. The development of the project will not affect the amount of surface water in any
body.
e. The project will not be discharging into any surface waters.
f. No alteration of groundwater is expected to occur with this project.
g. No direct additions or withdrawals of ground water are proposed.
h. The project is anticipated to use only thal amount of water necessary to accommodate
the auto body/office activities. The amount of water usage is not significant.
i. The project is outside of the established flood plain.
IV. Plant Life:
a. No significant vegetation exists on-site.
b. There are known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site.
c. Landscaping introduced to the site will be compatible with existing landscaping
material.
d. No agricultural crops exist on-site.
V. Animal Life:
a. There are no known animals that currently occupy the site on a regular basis.
b. There are no known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site.
c. No new species will be introduced as a result of the project.
d. The project is located within the interior of the City, surrounded by development.
No animals curren~y use the site on a regular basis. The development of the project
will have no impact on fish or wildlife habitat.
VI. Noise:
a. The development of the project will not increase the noise level significantly as it
merely involves an addition to an existing facility. The level of noise increase, if
any, is not significant.
b. The noise levels will be no greater than the existing noise levels.
VII. Light and Glare:
a. New light and glare may be created because the project involves upgrading the
existing parking facilities. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit
a lighting plan for review and approval to ensure the light does not spill over onto
adjacent properties.
VIII. Land Use:
a. No land use alteration is proposed with the application. The project involves
expansion of existing facilities.
a. The project is not anticipated to increase the rate of consumption of natural resources.
a. The existing operation involves the use of various ~ammable paints and solvents.
Special permits will be required by the Fire District to minimize the potential for any
risk of fire hazard. Use of these substances is restricted to the interior of buildings.
The impact is not considered significant.
b. The gas station construction will not interfere with emergency response.
XI. Population:
a. The project will have no impact on the population of the City.
XII. ~
a. The project will not create the need for additional housing.
XIII. TransportatiOn:
a. The project may generate additional trips because it represents an increase in existing
operations. The number of trips, however, is insignificant.
b. Additional parking will be necessary to handle the patrons and staffof the facility.
The site is sufficient in size to provide the additional parking spaces to meet the
parking requirements.
c. The proposal is consistent with the Foathill Boulevard Specific Plan and General
Plan for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition.
d. The project will involve modification of the street improvements in front of the site.
An existing frontage road between the site and Foothill Boulevard will be removed
and replaced with landscaping and a driveway. This modification is proposed to
increase traffic safety. An in-lieu fee will be required as a condition of approval for
future installation of ultimate improven~ents along Foothill Boulevard.
e. The project will not affect air, water or rail traffic.
f. An existing fi-ontage road between the site and Foothill Boulevard will be removed
and replaced with landscaping and a driveway. This modification is proposed to
increase traffic safety.
IV. Public Services:
a. The project will require additional permitting and inspection by the Fire District to
ensure Code compliance. The impact i:; not significant.
b. No substantial new services are expected with the project.
c. The school districts having jurisdicti,~n have notified the City of the current
impaction problems. The project, however, will not increase the number of students.
d. The project will have no impact on exi.,,~ing park facilities or result in the need for
additional facilities.
e. The site abuts a road that is being maint~ed by the City. No additional impacts on
public facilities are expected.
f. No other government services are expected to be affected by this proposal.
XV. Enert, v:
a. The project is not expected to use subst~mtial amounts of fuel or energy.
b. The development is not expected to result in substantial increase on the demand of
existing energy sources or the need for new energy sources.
XVI. Utilities and Service SystemS;
a. The facility will not result in the increa,~,ed need for power or natural gas systems.
b. The facility will not result in the need for new communication systems.
c. The facility will use water readily available in Foothill Boulevard.
d. The discharge from the site will be handled by the existing sewer facilities.
e. No additional storm water drainage will occur with the project.
f. No significant solid waste disposal will be necessary to serve the site.
XVII. Human Health:
a. The development is not expected to create any health baTard.
b. No exposure of people to potential beallh haTards is expected.
XVIII. Aesthetics:
a. The project will not obstruct any view or vista currently available to the public.
b. The project will conform to the strict design guidelines of the City thereby
eliminating any offensive site visible to the public. The project includes a decorative
block wall around the property and use of a view obstructing (opaque) gate which
will mitigate any offensive views of the site.
XIX. Recreation:
a. No existing recreational facilities will be impacted by the facility.
b. No known religious or sacred uses are presently conducted on-site.
XX. Cultural Resources:
a. No known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries.
b. No known prehistoric or historic site exists within the project boundaries.
c. The project should not impact any unique ethnic cultural values.
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Sitmificance:
a. No known animal or wildlife species are expected to be substantially adversely
impacted by the project.
b. There are no known long-term environmental impacts that are expected to occur as
a result of the project.
c. It is not anticipated that the cumulative impacts of the project will have a substantial
impact as a result of the project.
d. It is not anticipated that the project will have any adverse impacts on human beings.
XXIL ]agld.l/tlalRtt~:
The existing auto body repair me/facility has occupied the site since before incorporation
of the City. It is; therefore, considered a legal non-conforming use. The Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan allows for expansion of such uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Environmental Mitigation Measures:
1) A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and
SherilTs's Depmht,ent prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate
style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect
adjacent properties.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 95-32 FOR THE EXPANSION OF A LEGAL NON-
CONFORMING AUTO BODY SHOP LOCATED IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF SUBAREA 3 OF THE FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT 9777 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 208-282-03 AND 04.
A, Recitals.
1. Rex Shaffer has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-32,
as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 8th day 'of May 1996. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public headrig on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudrig the above-
referenced public headrig on May 8. 1996, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to properly located at 9777 Foothill Boulevard with a street
frontage of 240 feet and lot depth of 230 feet and is presently improved with a legal non-conforming
auto body repair facility; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is occupied by commercial
development. the property to the south consists of single family homes, the property to the east is
developed with auto repair facilities. and the property to the west is developed with offices and a
bank; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-32 - REX SHAFFER
May 8, 1996
Page 2
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
d. The proposed expansion of use will not be detrimental to the goals and objectives
of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
4. Based upon the facts and information cor~tained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there s no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has be,en prepared in compliance with the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder;, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; ar d, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the
proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the, presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusion,,; set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subjE;ct to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Plannino Division
1 ) Provide reveals/score lines on side elevations to add visual interest and
break up blank stucco walls.
2) Provide coping treatment along the top of the 6-foot high stucco wall
along the west elevation.
3) Use arched windows on rear portion of east elevation to match
windows on front elevation or eliminate window on east elevation.
4) Use at least 1-inch square wrought iron for trellises on front elevation.
5) Provide as much landscaping as possible within angular projected
portion of site mid-way back along ~:he west property line.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-32 - REX SHAFFER
May 8, 1996
Page 3
6) Provide vine pockets at base of property line wall to allow vines to grow
on both sides of wall.
7) Provide a view obstructing gate at the alley entrance to the rear. The
gate shall remain closed and locked and be open only as long as is
necessary to enter and exit the site.
8) Provide a sample of proposed stucco texture for City Planner review
and approval prior to installation.
9) Provide decorative block wall materials such as split face block or
stucco.
10) Paint roll-up doors and service doors to match the building.
11 ) Provide Crape Myrtle street trees for ultimate Activity Center treatment
adjacent to APN 208-282-03 (the west half of the site) and African
Sumac street trees for ultimate Parkway treatment adjacent to
APN 208-282-04 (the east half of the site).
12) Provide informally planted Sycamore trees within the front landscape
setbacks and front portion of parking landscape areas for both parcels.
13) Provide boulders of varying size within the front landscape setbacks for
both parcels.
14) Provide trees at a rate of 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building wall along
that portion of the building exposed to public view.
15) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent
businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought
before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible
termination of the use.
16) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the performance
standards as defined in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the
Development Code including, but not limited to, noise levels.
17) Any signs proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance
with the City's Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the
complex and shall require review and approval by the City Planner prior
to installation.
Enoineerino Division
1 ) A cash contribution, in lieu of construction for the future median island
and ultimate street improvements along Foothill Boulevard, including
the elimination of the frontage road, shall be paid to the City prior to the
issuance of building permits. The limits of the cash contribution in lieu
of construction shall be a northerly prolongation to the conrecline of
Foothill Boulevard of the westerly and easterly property lines.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-32 - REX SHAFFER
May 8, 1996
Page 4
2) The alley will need to be improved and interim street improvement
constructed along the frontage of APN's 208-282-03 and 04.
Improvement plans shall be subn'itted and approved by the City
Engineer pdor to the issuance of building permits.
3) The project is along Foothill Boulevard which is a State Highway;
therefore, an encroachment permit will need to be obtained from
Caltrans pdor to the issuance of a City construction permit,
4) A reciprocal ingress and egress easement shall be provided ensuring
future access to all parcels to the west utilizing the common drive
approach. The ingress and egress e~Lsement shall be a minimum of 26
feet wide to provide for fire access ;and shall be recorded prior to the
issuance of building permits,
Environmental Mitiaation
1) Lighting shall be designed to be dir~;cted away from or shielded from
adjoining residential neighborhood.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY CF MAY 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, SeCretary
I. Brad Buller, 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 8th day of May 1996. by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Ran~'~nga
· ! DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: CO~::> (:::~Z~.~/;~
SUBJECT: ~'t~21~',~H,I.,,L... .,~,,,L,~'~ ~
APPLICA~: ~ ~
LOCATION: ~1~ ~~ ~~
Those items chewed are Co~ions'of ~proval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time LImits Completion Date
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are ---/ /
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval,
2. Development/Design Review shall be appmved prior to [ [ , .__/ /
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of _.J /
4. Thedevelopershallcommence, padicipate in, andconsummateorcausetobecommenced .~/ /
participated in, or consummated, a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifiCations of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
District's properly Upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shaft be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes _._J /
first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, it any school district has previously established such a Community
Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Furlher, if the affected school
district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of apf:h'oval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
Sc- lo/94 I
p~i.
This condition shall be waived it the City receives nctice that the applicant and all affected
school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
impacts as a result of this project.
6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is J /
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or priorto issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which .._J /
include site plans, amhltectural elevations, exterior r,~aterials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and .1~- rr-~:~"~
,Specific Plan. aRd-
v/ 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all /.__/
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satistaction of the City Planner.
V/' 3. OccupencyofthefacilltyshallnctcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniforrnBuildingCodeand / /
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protect:on District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall ~e inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
V,// 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorpora'~ing all Conditions of Approval shall be- __./ /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
v''/' 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ---/ /
consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building. etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes filst.
V'/' 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance! with all sections of the Development _._/ /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specilic
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
V'/ 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed arid approved by the City Planner and .--/ /
Sheritf's Department (989-6611) prior to the issuan{:e of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height, and mett'Hxl of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all tr~tsh pick-up shall be for individual units__J /
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, ---/ /
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subjet,1 to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall /
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner. C_.
SC- ]O/94 2
P~oi.,:t No.: :..~> ".f'- ~.
Com:,letio. Dat=:
11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with .__/ /
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, .__/ /
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicaling trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and .J /
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval prior to approval and record ation of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine J /
animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option ol keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to beards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the .._/ /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concu~Tently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer·
~// 16. Allparkways, openareas,andlandscapingshall be permanently maintained bytheproperty .J /
owner, homeowners' associalion, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the perpose of assuming that each lot or _ _--/ /
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes firsl. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17·08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and .__/ /
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or
intedor alterations which affect the exteriorof the buildings or structures, removal of landmark
trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction ol buildings or structures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Design
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units ---/ /
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming peo Is installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shalt have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural --/ /
treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
sc- lo/94 3
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for __/ /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building pen'nits.
4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or __J /
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Sul:h screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed ~o the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on bulldlnil plans)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimorn outside dimension of 6 feet and shall /.__/ ~
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be /---/
provided throughout the development to connect dwel iings/unitsrouildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per Citf standards and all driveway aisles, J /
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. All units shall pe provlded with garage door openers if driveways are less than18 feet in J /
depth from beck of sidewalk.
5. The Covenants. Conditions and Restrk,lions shall restdct the storage of recreational vehicles J /
on this site unless they are the pdncibel source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in de.,;ignated visitor parking areas.
V/'/6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitled for '~he City Planner. City Engineer, and .--/ /
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refcr to Section N.)
V/' 1. Adetaitedlandscapeandirrigationplan, including siope planting and model home landscap- -.--/ /
ing in the case of residential development, shall I:e prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall t~e protected with a construction barrier .__/ /
in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.'110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations fortransplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The ~pplicant shall follow all of the ar'oorist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transpianl ing and trimming methods.
3. Aminimumof__treespergrossacre,comprisedofthefoliowingsizes, shallbeprovided ---/ /
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger,
__ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15--gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon.
4. A minimum of/Z.t~ % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - __J /
24-inch box or larger.
5. Within perking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three / /.
parking stalls. sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
sc- lo/94 4
Proiect No.: ~O~d~5" ~"
6. Treesshallbeplantedinareasofpublicviewadjacenttoandalongstructuresatarateofone ComDIctionDat¢:
tree per 30 linear feet of building. / /
7. A~~privates~pebanks5feet~r~essinvertica~heightand~f5:1~rgreaters~~pe~but~essthan __/ /
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
8. AIIprivate slopes inexcessofSfeet, but lessthan8 feet invertical heightandof2:l orgreater ---/ /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- .__J___/
ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by.the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
condition.
10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, properly owners are respen- ~ /
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept tree from
weeds and debris add maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead. diseased, or
decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or J /
· This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls. landscaping, and sidewalks shall be .__/ /
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coo rdinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, apecimen size trees, meander- ~ /
ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along
v/ 14. Landscapingandirrigatlonsysternsrequiredtobeinstaltedwlthinthepublic right-of-wayon .__/ /
the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
V'/ 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, .__/ /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and _._/ /
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteda shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
~ 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of --J /
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
sc- lo/94 5
F. Signs
1. Thesignsindicatedonthesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartofthisapproval. --J
Any signs proposed for this development shall cornply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
2. A Uniform Sign Program forthis development shall be submitted for City Planner review and __/ /
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes __/ /
prior to occupancy and shall require separate appli,;ation and approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer ~vritten notice of the Foudh Street Rock __/ /
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted ---/ /
Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway J /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the .__J /
issuance of building permits. The final report shrill discuss the level of interior noise
attenuationto beiow45CNEL, the building materials z~nd constructiontechniquesprovided,-
and ff appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigatic n measures. The building plans will be
checked for contormance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
V/'/ 1. EmergencysecondaryaccessshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFire / /
Protection District Standards.
V// 2. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance frt:e and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide / /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
V//' 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be .__/ /
submitted to the Rancho Cucamenga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
4. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and .J /
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all .---/. /
supportive information, shall be obtained from the <,;an Beroardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building perrrnits.
sc- lo/94 6
L
Com~l=do~
PPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR
MPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
/ 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- ---/ /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition --/----J
!o existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but am not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or __/ /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation __/ /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
__ 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the propen"/line clearances .--/ /
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for- --J /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existingsewagedisp~sa~faci~itiessha~~beremeved'fii~edand/~rcappedt~compiywi~h~he .__/ /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for .__/ /
building permit application.
K. Grading
~" 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City J /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ---/ /
perform such work.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance .--/ /
Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardino County Department of Agriculture at (714)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such 3ermit shall be submitted to the City
pdor to the issuance of rough grading permit.
__ 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at ---/ /
the time of application for grading plan check.
5. Thefina~gradingp~anssha~~bec~mp~etedandappr~vedpri~rt~issuance~fbui~dingpermits. / /
SC- 10/94 7
Proi~ct No.:
Comoledon Date:
6. As acustom*lot subdivision, the following requiremEnts shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site J /
drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all pa 'eels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division prio rlo final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that ate conducted onto J /
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of c, lrading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatedng and protecting the subdivided --/ /
properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flow~; entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety /---/
Division for approval prior to issuance of building a '~d grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical heigl~t shall be seeded with native grasses / /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon complelion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Development Code,
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L, Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets -.--/ /
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative reel:'. Pdvate easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) s hall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the bedmeter streets --J /
(measured from street centedine):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made .--/ /
for all private streets or ddves.
4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets:/L
,/s. Reciprocala esseasementssha, bep videden..,..ngacoesstoa.
.gr.-i~Fdeees and shall be recorded concurrently witl'~ the map or pdor to the issuance of
building permits, where no map is involved. ~
- ,o,,, c q s
L
Ptolect No.:~,~.~Fd[~''
Comolcdon Date:
6. Privatedrainageeasementsforcross-lotdrainageshallbeprovided and shallbe delineated
or noted on the final map. '---/ /
7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 1 O-foot minimum building restriction area on the ___/ /
neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language:
"l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the
construction of (residential) buildings (or ether structures) within those areas designated
on the map as building restriction areas."
A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the
CC&R's.
8~ All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on ~---/
the final map.
9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of*way ~.__/
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private properly.
10. Additional street r'ght-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum ~ /
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curo adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
11. The developer shall make a good faith effort Io acquire the required off-site property interests_._/ /
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 alsuchtimeastheCityacquiresthepropertyinterestsrequiredlortheimprovements.
Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security
for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an-
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developers cost. The appraiser shall have
been approved by the Cily prior to commencement ol the appraisal.
M. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, ~ /
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to
City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, ojrb and
gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A minimum of 26- foot wide pavement, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be .__/ /
constructed for all hail-section streets.
3. Construct the tollowing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: __/ /
STREET NAME CURB & A,C. SDE- DRIVE STREET S~IEET COMM MEDIAN BIKE
GU'1TER pVMT WALK APPR, LIGHTS TREES TRAIL L.~LAND TRAIL OTHER
,./ v/ ,/ v/ .c>
P~iect No.:~..~l' '~"Jf.-
Comulezion Da~e:
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined durin!;] plan check. (c) If so marked, side-
walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so mark .=d, an in-lieu of construction fee shall
be provided for this item. ~
V//4. Improvement plans and construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees alnd street lights, prepared by a regis- .---/ /
tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and appmved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreement executed to the; satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or pdvate street improve-
ments, prior to final map approval or trie issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
!irst.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a --/ /
construction permit shall be obtained from the Ci'~ Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name :;igning, and interconnect conduit /.__/
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signalconduitwithpullbexesshallbeinstalledonanynewconstructionorreconstruction __/ /
of major, secondary or collector streets which inlersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull bexes shall be placed on beth sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BC R, EC R or any other iotario ns approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: /' /
(1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otheRvise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
e. Wheel chair ramps shall he installed on all four comers of intersections per City / /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall re.main open to traffic at all times with / /
adequate detours during construction. A street ck~sore permit may be required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to 1he satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross side~ralks. Under sidewalk drains shall be . / /
installed to City Standards, except for single faro fly lots.
h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer. .__/ /
i. Street names shall be approved by the City Planm;r priorto submittal for first plan check. ._J /
5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for .--/ /
review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pri-
vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction perrnits shall be obtained from the City
Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required.
v/ 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in __/ /.__
accordance with the City's street tree program.
sc- ~o/94 10
$
Proiect No.:~-Ot9 ~
· Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance wRh
adopted policy. .--/ /
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, --J /
including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by .__/ /
moving the 2 +/- closest street tree s on each side away from t he street and placed in a street
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: .--J /
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete pdor to the ..J /
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards ---/ /
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways,
medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance Distdct:
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting ___./ /
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pdor to ~ issuance of building-
permits. h~k.;;,..cr oc:;;;~ ;;,'-'-L Fe..'~..:t!c.~ coG;; ;,;-,,;; ~ ~,c,;7,,c ~:,' :he
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the .~ /
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Pankway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective ~ /
Beautification Master Plan:
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood ---/ /
protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone __/ /
designation removed from the project area. The deveicper's engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydroiogic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final .--/ /
map approval or the issuance ol building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
sc - lo/94 11
Com~ledon Dale:
4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is recluired for work within its right-of-way.
/ /
5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree tnjnk. /---/
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to corvey overflows in the event of a /~
blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
v/' 1, Provide separate utility services to each pamel including sanitary sewerage system, water, _.J /
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all u ndmgmund) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
V"' 2.The developer shall be responsible for therelocation of existing utilities as necessary. .__/ /
V/' 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and senstmcted to meet the requirements of the --J /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the CoL~nty of San Bemardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first..
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
v// 1. The separate pamels contained within the project beundades shall be legally combined into '--/ /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint use ddveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or ---/ /
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, fret:
/
3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created parcels.
4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Sec~:ndary Regional, and Master Plan ---J /
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approv;.I or prior to building permit issuance
no map is involved.
v/' 5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencie,.; for work within their right-of-way: .__/ /
~'Ef-.- t'~l. ~5.
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community .__J /
Facilities Distdct shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be berne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be corn- -..-J /
pieted beyond the phase buundades to assure secondary access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase beundad.,s shall correspond to lot lines shown
on the approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, [909) 987-6405, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Meito Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. ----/ /
sc- 1o/94 12
V// 2. Fire flow requirement shall be ~--~ gallons per minute. __j /
A. A previous fire flow, conducted revealed
gpm available at 20 psi.
B. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
V~G. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire
department personnel after constPJctlon and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed~ /
a~l oberable priorto delivery of any combus!ible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire depa~lment personnel.
4.Existing~rehydranti~cati~nssha~~bepr~videdprlort~waterplanapprova~~Requiredhydrants~ _._/ /
if any, will be determined by this deparlment. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a
4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact
the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction,evidence shall be ~ /
submitted to the Fire District that temporary water supply forfire protection is availabl e, pending
completion of required fire protection system.
.6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to --.-/ /
final inspection.
7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: ~ /
Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
v/' Other ~ i~..E~tl2,f.,1~ ~ ~1¢{40k~PDF,.H ~'.3tL~tf,,~ (~DP~__
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking,
plastics manufacuring, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact
Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations.
V/ 8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion ---J /
of sprinkler system.
V/' 9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: ---/ /
Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
California Code Regulations T~tle 24.
NFPA 101.
10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Distdct's tire lane standards, as noted: --J /
All roadways.
sc- 10/94 13
11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitaL emergency apparatus. /----/
12. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in a~:cordance with Fire District standards. --/ /
13. Emergency access shall be provided. maintenance lree and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide __/ /
at all times during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
14. All trees planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so .--J /
as not to impede fire apparatus.
15. A building directory shall be required, as noted below': --/ /
Lighted director within 20 feet of main entrance(s).
Standard Directory in main lobby.
Other
V"'/ 16.AKnoxrapidentrykeyvau~tsha~~beins~a~~edprlort~~na~inspecti~n.Pr~~f~fpurchasesha~~ / /
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordedng information.
17. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox r.~ld entry key system. Contact the Fire /___/
Safety Division for sbecifio details and ordedng information.
18. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. / /
V/' 19. Plan check fees in the amount of $. have been paid. / /
An additional $ ~,~. o~ shall be paid:
Pdor to water plan approval.
Pdor to final plan approval.
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection syste ms (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms,
etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
v/'' 20. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: ---/ /
A. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically
described below, which in the judgement of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions
hazardous to life or property.
B. Storage of readily combustible material.
C. Places of assembly (except churches, schools and other non-profit organizations)
D. Bowling alley and pin refinishing.
E. Cellulose Nitrate plastic (Pyroxylin).
F. Combustible fibers storage and handling exceeding 100 cubic feet.
G. Garages
Motor vehicle repair (H-4)
.. mbe. yards <ove. o0.o0o bea. ,ee,,.
SC- 10/94 14
I. Tire rebuilding plants.
J. Auto wrecking yards.
Junk or waste material handling plants.
K. Flammable finishes.
Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanis, electrostatic apparatus,
automobile undercoating, powder coating and organic peroxides and dual com-
ponent coatings (per spray booth).
L. Magnesium (more tha 10 pounds per day).
M. Oil burning equipment operations.
N. Ovens (industdal baking and drying).
O. Mechanical refrigeration (over 20 pounts of mfrigemnt).
P. Compressed gases (store, handle or use exceeding 100 cubic feet).
Q. Cryogenic fluids (storage, handling or use).
R. Dust-producing processes and equipment.
S. Flammable and combustible liquids (storage, handling or use).
T. High piled combustible stock.
U. Liquified petroleum gas (store. handle, transport or use more than 120 gallons).
V. Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross).
JW. Welding and cutting operations: to conduct welding and/or cutting operations in
any occupancy.
sc- 1o/94 15
City of Rancho Cu~monga, May 5~ 1996.
10500 Civic Center Drive,
Ranch Cucamonga, R E C E I V E D
CA 91730.
Attention: Scott Murphy MAY 0 7 1996
Planning Depadment
Dear Mr. Murphy, City o! Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
RE: VARIANCE 96-06 - Stewart
8175 Orchard Street, APN: 1061-711-18
l~his is in response to the Planning Commission's public hearing at 7.00pro on May 8
1996 regarding the above Variance. Our objections to this Variance must be expressed
anonymc, usly as we fear retribution from the applicant and his volatile nature. We a~so feel there
ape others in the neighborhood have the same convictions and would rather not come forward
personally.
We strongly urge you to deny the Variance, make the applicant comply with the required
setbacks, and rectify other serious Code violations on his property. These additional violations
are detailed below.
As innocent bystanders we should not be placed in the position of defending this
applicants continued willful violations of the City's Code. If the Variance is granted, and his
Code Vjc,lations not rectified, we will be forced to take this issue, with legal representation, to the
City Council. At that time we wouid look to other parties reimburse our out of pocket expenses.
We will endeavor to demonstrate our case. point by point. in compliance of Section
17.04.040 E 1 (a) through (el of the Code. By doing so, it will show how the applicant's respect
for the F'lanning Commission and the Code is at the most, minimal. This should prove that the
City must clamp down on his cavalier attitude and deny the Variance to ensure preservation of
our neig,~borhocd and protect investments of those of us that continue to abide by rules.
One rule. we understand, is that plans must be submitted and approved by the City
PRIOR Io commencement of any construction of this nature. As the applicant is employed in the
construction trade, he is obviousiy well versed in the Code, and cannot use his ignorance in
these matters as an excuse. The belated application for Variance is. [n his mind, a mere formality
after be.rig caught in such a flagrant vio!ation. Any hardships he may encounter from this point
on have been brought on by himself and his own willing misconduct.
"rtne applicant is unable to prove any single item of the Code Section 17.04.C~0 E 1 (a)
through (e) with any substance, sincerity or conviction. The application for a Variance is merely
an effort, to extricate himself from his situation. In fact, 'here is overwhelming evidence aqaEnst
the appli?.ant, and we feel that once this has been reviewed for Planning Commission will no
alternative bu! to deny the Variance.
According to the code, a variance may be granted by the Planning Commission under
several conditions:
(~) that strict code enforcement would result in p'actical difficulty
(~) exceptional circumstances apply to the property
(~') strict code interpretation would deprive the applicant of privileges of ownership
(d) that granting one would not constitute a spec;al privilege inconsistent with other local
properties
(a) granting would not be detrimenta~ to public health, safety. welfare, or injurious to
other properties in the vicinity.
Nate E l(a) Like everybody else, the appficant'.s owns a half-acre. providing him with
ample room to add on at the back of the house. It may iequire a little extra work on his behalf,
but no I:-~ore than anybody else would encounter, anc certainly not enough to constitute a
'practicai difficulty" on his behalf. He can not justify encrclaching on the required set back at the
side of the house, and imposing his will on his neighbors.
Note E l(b). We, including the applicant, all chose to live on the on the side of a
mountain and therefore must accept the given natural terrain. The applicent's property is
probably graded better than most, and therefore the clause "Exceptional circumstance to the
property' can not possibly apply in his situation.
hlote E 1(c ) and (d) The applicent's wife is pregnant. This fact is probably being
presented as excuse that the add-on is to be a nursery, and that the Variance should be granted
on basis. As he, his, wife, and son live in a four bedroc>m house. this again, is another weak
argument and can not be remotely considered as to "del3rive him of ownership privileges". He
has room to in the existing floor plan for a nursery, but the pregnancy will surely be used to gain
the Planning Commission's sympathy, not for any practical reason except to circumvent the
Code.
Note E l(e) We chose to pay a premium to live in a low density residential neighborhood
for the desired privacy it offered. To prolect our investment the neighborhood must remain low
density, therefore granting a Variance to the applicant based on any weak arguments, in our
mind. woul~t certainly be "iniurious" to us especiafiy ff othc;rs adopted his tend-
In addition to his belated application for a Variation, there are other obvious Code
viofations that should be brought to the Planning Cornmission's attention. These violations
although not pertinent to the Variance, prove the apl:licent's trend to non-compfiance and
therefore should be investigated, acted upon, and rectified. We physicefiy reviewed the property,
and found (1) there a high walt around the back yard, th;3t he, n_Cot the previous owner. erected.
And (2:,, the applicant buiit a waiI in the front yard ext.~nding all the way to the curb, which
violate,¢. the City's right of way for emergency vehicles.
20 'H L:,';j: 9I 96. Z i'i~'l.',l 6ZZ2-:E;:t7 --'.-6,06: x~,~' ~zC12i~ 'ZI!_"- S/XCISIi_HN
VVe are confident that the City would never approve construction of the type, it would
indicate that applicant has also failed to submit plans and obtain building permits in the correct
manner I~r these projects. We are positive that if your Inspector visited the properly these
violations, and possibly more. were immediately spotted with his trained eye, and citations
issued accordingly. If citations were not issued we must certainly question this and the inlegrity
of the tn~;pector. tt wou~d also add validity to the applicant bragging of "having the P~anning
Commission in his pocket."
To summarize the Variance should not be granted because:
1. All properties in the neighborhood possess basically the same attributes, and
there is absolutely nothing related to the applicant's property or personal
circumstances that require the City to show him preferential treatment.
2. Every other resident has to abide by the Code. why should he be singled out
as an exception.
3. As neighbors we have more to lose if others choose to adopt his cavalier
attitude, and build whatever and whenever they feel like it.
4. For the protection of the all other Code abiding residents, The City can not
allow applicants of this nature to continually show complete disrespect to
planning Commission and City Code to the ultimate detriment of aft of us.
5. A bona-fide reason can not found or proven to warrant the Variance.
7he Code has been estabIished to protect our community and everybody's financial
investments. By granting a Variance to this particular applicant, it would send a strong, clear
messagE, to others of his nature that the Code is not worth the paper it is written on, and that
anybody can do whatever construction they wish. Then, if and when caught in Code violation,
the City wiil offer immunity simply by applying for a Variance.
There are a few questions the planning Commission must ask itself:
Does this Variance application sincerely fall within the true essence of the
Code?
Would we be committing an injustice by simply enforcing the existing Code?
Can we continue .allowing the applicant to show his obvious contempt by
thumbing his nose at us?
Can we afford more rebels of this nature so that the problem reeks havoc for us
and jeopardize the structural integrity of our City?
The applicant is before us. Does it take that much courage to make an example
of him and prevent other similar inst~nc~;s throughout Rancho Cucamonga?
Should we concerned more with one pel son's cavalier attitude rather than do our
job of protecting everybody's interest?
A "yes" by the Planning Commission to any of the above questions, would mean certain
problems '~or the residents of this City. It would indicate that our City would rather cater and
cower to t,~e few that feel they are above any law at c~nsia'erable expense to those of us that
sincerely ~vork to support your efforts in maintaining the D_,ity's overall environment,
Yc>urs faithfully
Very Concerned Residents
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 8, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 96-06 - STEWART - A request to reduce the interior side yard setback
from the required 15 feet to 8 feet 6 inches for an existing single family home in the
Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8175
Orchard Street - APN: 1061-711-18.
BACKGROUND: As a result of Building & Safety Code enforcement, the applicant has submitted a
Variance application requesting approval of an existing 455 square foot room addition that is located
8-1/2 feet from the properly line, at its closest point. The room addition was constructed in order to
provide a larger master bedroom and bathroom. The applicant is also trying to recoup square footage
that was lost when they converted the garage space from a room back to a functional garage.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Under the Development Code, side yard setbacks in the Very Low
Residential designation are 10 and 15 feet. This means that 10 feet must be maintained on one side
of the residence and 15 feet on the other side-the Code does not state which side must be the 10
feet. The applicant's residence maintains an 11-foot setback on the east side of the property.
Because the east side is less than 15 feet, the west setback must maintain the 15-foot setback. The
original building footprint was in compliance with the setback requirements.
,ANALYSIS: Staff has compared the request to other conditions existing in the area. Staff has found
that several homes in the neighborhood were constructed with side yard setbacks less than 10 and
15 feet, see Exhibit "B." Beginning roughly four houses to the west, the homes were constructed with
side yard setbacks varying from 5 to 10 feet. In some cases, a 5-foot setback is provided on both
sides. These homes were built prior to incorporation of the City, when the County permitted lesser
setbacks. The homes on both sides of the site have setbacks less than the 10 and 15 feet required.
The house to the east appears to be set back between 5 and 7 feet from the west property line, The
house to the west has a detached garage located 5 feet from the west property line. The
Development Code does allow detached structures to be located 5 feet from the property line but only
within the rear setback area. In most cases, the areas of encroachment appear to be the original
home and not additions. The applicant's letter refers to a number of other structures in the area that
do not meet the setback requirements. Most of these structures are portable shed .s of varying size.
In their justification letter, the applicant makes reference to the "pie shape" of their lot and the 6-foot
drop in the rear of the lot, The lot is a slightly different shape than the neighboring lots because of
the bow in the east property line. The basic layout of the lot, however, is a rectangle similar in size
to surrounding properties. The 6-foot grade differential refers to the retaining wall located roughly 15
feet south of the room addition. The date of wall construction is not known and the applicant did not
want to construct too close to the wall and place a surcharge on the wall for fear of collapse. For this
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VA 96-06 - STEWART
May 8, 1996
· Page 2
reason, the applicant pushed the addition to the west ra:her than the south. The majodty of other lots
in the area have a gradual slope coming off the buildir g pad and no retaining wall.
FACTS FOR FINDING: In order for the Planning Comrr ission to approve a Variance, facts to support
all of the following findings must be made:
1. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcen ~ent of the specified regulations would result
in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical ha 'dship inconsistent with the objectives of the
Development Code.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
3. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcem,;nt of the specified regulation would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
4. That the granting of the Variance will not const itute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district,
5. That the granting of the Variance will not be detr, mental to the public health,, safety, or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or improvenents in the vicinity.
Based on the existing conditions of the neighborhood, staff finds that the proposed side yard setbacks
of 11 feet and 8-1/2 feet are consistent with the existing conditions of the neighborhood and, in some
cases, are greater than existing setbacks. Many homes in the area have setbacks of 5 feet on each
side of the structure. Other homes have setbacks of 5 fi;et on one side and 10 feet on the other side.
And still others have setbacks of 10 feet on each side. In staffs opinion, the strict and literal
interpretation of the required setbacks would deprive thE! property owner of the privileges enjoyed by
other property owners in the area under the same zonirg designation. Therefore, staff believes the
Variance findings can be supported.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Vadance 96-06 through
adoption of the attached Resolution.
City Planner
BB:SM:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" Location Map
Exhibit "C" Site Plan
Resolution of Approval
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. 96-06, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 8 FEET, 6 INCHES FOR AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP
TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8175 ORCHARD
STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
1061-711-18.
A. Recitals,
1. Bradford Stewad has filed an application for the issuance of Vadance No, 96-06 as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Variance request
is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 8th day of May 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public heating on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on May 8, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 8175 Orchard Street with a street
frontage of 89 feet and lot depth of 210 feet and is presently improved with a single famify residence;
and
b. The properlies to the nodh. south, east, and west of the subject site are designated
for and developed with single family homes; and
c. The Development Code requires single family residences within the Very Low
Residential designation to maintain interior side yard setbacks of 10 and 15 feet; and
d. The applicant is proposing to reduce the required interior side yard setbacks to 11
and 8-1/2 feet to allow construction of a 455 square foot room addition; and
e. A number of homes in the area do not comply with the required side yard setbacks;
and
f. Several properlies contain accessory structures that do not meet the side yard
setback requirements.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 96-06- STEWART
May 8, 1996
Page 2
a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the Development Code.
b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of th~ property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
c. That stdct or literal interpretation and ~nforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other propedies in the same district.
d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
e. That the granting of the Vadance will '~ot be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or imp~ ovements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions -. et forth in paragraphs 1.2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subjec' to the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall obtain all required building permits and pay all
permit fees as determined by the Building Official.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall c .~rtify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission ~f the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do heraby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucarlonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 8th day of May 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F'~ ?
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAIvIONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 8, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-19 - JUNG (ACCU-CENTER] - Consideration
of revocation of a massage establishment within the Deer Creek Village shopping
center located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #11 - APN: 1077-401-29.
B_6._C.K_Q_g_O_L~: On April 10, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a periodic review of
Conditional Use Permit 94-19 to ensure that it was being operated in a manner consistent with the
conditions of approval or in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Commission determined that there was
sufficient evidence to warrant a full examination and set the matter for public hearing for revocation.
ANALYSIS: As a result of an undercover investigation by the Police Department on March 19,
1996, arrests were made of two individuals for prostitution. The investigation stemmed from
information received from We-Tip, as well as individual informants. A Deputy was sent into the
business and was able to engage two employees in acts of prostitution. During a subsequent search
of the business, condoms and other paraphemalia were found which are indicative of ongoing
prostitution. A representative will be available at the meeting to answer questions regarding the
status of their investigation.
Prostitution is contrary to the conditions of approval which limit the business to providing massage
services as defined by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 9.24.010. Further, prostitution
is contrary to the required finding that the use "will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare."
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices have been mailed to all property owners
within a 300 foot radius of the shopping center site. Further, the business owner was notified by
Certified mail.
ITEM E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-19 - JUNG (ACCU-CENTER)
May 8, 1996
Page 2
~____C_QMMENDATIO_~: Staff recommends that the Flanning Commission revoke Conditional Use
Permit 94-19 through adoption of the attached Resol' ~tion.
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Police Report
Exhibit "C" - Resolution No. 94-66
Resolution Revoking Conditional Use Permit 94-19
:.~. Deer Creek Village
· . , 7900 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
·
40-LANE BRUNSWICK
DEER CREEK LANES
7930
EL POLLO CALIFORNIA
LOCO STATE BANK.
' ~oo ',~.
HAVEN AVE. mn_l
~3
INTEROFFICE MEMO
Date: March 27, 1996'
From: 'WILLIAM HUNT, SE:RGEANT
RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATION '-
To: RONALD W. BIEBERDORF. CAPTAIN
RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATION
Subject: BUSINESS INVESTIGATION OF ACCL-CENTER, 7980 HAVEN
On 03-19-96, Detective Scaturro, in concert with officers from the West Valley
SET Team, conducted an investigation in reference to information received that
massage and acts of prostitution were ta dng place at the Accu-Center in Rancho
Cucamonga. The information came to our office by way of We-Tip, as well as
individual informants. The full address for Accu-Center is 7980 Haven Avenue,
Suite 11, in the city of Rancho Cucamor ga.
With this information, a Deputy acting in an undercover capacity was sent into the
business and was able to engage two employees of Accu-Center in acts of
prostitution. The undercover Deputy ~as offered sexual services in exchange
for cash at the Accu-Center. During a subsequent search of the business,
condoms and other paraphernalia were located indicating ongoing prostitution
activity.
WH/DS:kas
RESOLUTION NO. 94-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE pERMIT NO. 94-19 ALLOWING A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT
WITHIN A 1,350 SQUARE FOOT LEASED SPACE IN AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 9 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 7890 HAVEN AVENUE,
SUITE 11, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 1077-401-29.
A. Recitals.
1. Terry Lee Cook has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 94-19, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of July 1994, the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application
and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on July 13, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to an existing business, Accu-Center,
within 'a leased space located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #11, within the existing
Deer Creek Village Shopping Center; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is the Deer
Creek Channel and Flood control Basin, the property to the south is the
Virginia Dare Shopping Center, the property to the east is the Terra Vista
Town Center and vacant office property, and the property to the west is the
Deer Creek Channel and graded industrial land; and
c. The application contemplates acupressure massage services
which will operate from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Sunday; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-66
CUP 94-19 - COOK
July 13, 1994
Page 2
d. In addition to acupreesure massage, the salon will provide
sun tanning, facial and skin treatments, and nail care. Beauty supplies will
also be sold at the site; and
e. The application applies to a leased space with one toilet
facility and one bathroom with tub.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 abjure, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the
objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimenual to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to proper!:ies or improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined
that the proposed project does not }lave the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment. ~he project has been determined to be
exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15(61(b)(3). The Planning commission,
having final approval over this project, has reviewed and considered this
exemption prior to the approval of this p:'oject.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hezeby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth beh~w:
Planninq Division
1) No adult business is app:'oved by this permit.
2} Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all
sections of the Developnent Code and all other applicable
city Ordinances.
3} If operation of the fa.-ility causes adverse effects upon
adjacent businesses or oI,erations, the Conditional Use Permit
shall be brought bef )re the Planning Commission for
reconsideration and possible termination of the use.
4 } Any sign proposed for the facility shall be designed in
conformance with the comprehensive Sign Ordinance and the
Uniform Sign Program for the complex and shall require review
and approval by the Plant ing Division prior to installation.
PLA/qNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-66
CUP 94-19 - COOK
july 13, 1994
Page 3
/ 5) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the
~-/ / requirements as defined in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Chapter 9.24, regulating massage establishments, and shall
~ comply with all provisions of the Massage Establishment
Permit.
6) Hours of operation shall be from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday
through Sunday.
7 ) The acupressure clientele shall be limited to one sex of
customer only while one rest room/locker facility exists.
This restriction shall be clearly posted with the prices of
various massage (acupressure) services. If a separate rest
room/locker facility is provided to the satisfaction of the
City Planner and the Administrative Services Director, both
sexes of customers may be permitted. Such a change in the
use shall not require modification to this Conditional Use
Permit.
.... 8) Use shall not be expanded without modification to this
Permit.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 1994.
0 MM I S~T Y~AM
ONGAF
PLANNING C
BY:
ATTEST: ~
Brier, S cretan
I, Brad Bullet, 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 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVOKING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-19 FOR AN EXISTING
MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE DEER CREEK
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 7890 HAVEN
AVENUE, SUITE 11, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 1077-401-29.
A. Recitals.
1. Terry Lee Cook filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 94-
19, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of July 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date. Following that hearing, the Commission adopted its Resolution No. 94-66 approving
the use.
3. Chong Ok Jung filed an application for a massage establishment permit as the new
owner of the business, known as Accu Center, operating under Conditional Use Permit 94-19.
4. On April 10, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a periodic review of the
application. This Commission determined that sufficient evidence was present to warrant a full
examination and set the matter for public hearing to consider possible revocation.
5. On May 8, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on May 8, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to an existing business. Accu-Center, within a leased
space located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #11, within the existing Deer Creek Village Shopping Center;
and
b. The application, as approved per Resolution No. 94-66, proposed acupressure
massage services which will operate from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.; Monday through Sunday; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-19- ACCU-CENTER
May 8, 1996
Page 2
c. Based upon information received that prostitution was being performed at the
business in violation of the conditions of approval, an investigation was conducted by the Police
Department to review activities being conducted at the site; and
d. An undercover officer was sent to the site as pad of the investigation of the
business activity and was able to engage two employees in sex acts. During a subsequent search,
condoms and other paraphernalia indicative of ongoing prostitution were located on the business
premises.
e. As a result of the Police investigation, arrests were made at the applicant's
business for prostitution and drug possession.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. That the use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
c. That the use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3, above, this
Commission hereby revokes Conditional Use Permit 94-19.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
A'FFEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-19 - ACCU-CENTER
May 8, 1996
Page 3
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
ceilify 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 8th day of May 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
DATE: May 5, 1996 MEMORANDUM
TO: Brad Buller, City Planner
FROM: Diane Williams, Council member
RE: Item F - Planning Cornmission Agenda - Miy 8, 1996
Wohl/Rancho Partners
In the background summary of your staff report dated May 8, 1996 the text change that
is recommended is, indeed, what was in our City Council staff report of May 1, 1996.
However, in reading it over I realize there was something I meant to bring up for
discussion that night but forgot to do so. I am referring to the following statement:
"The Center shall be substantially completed with the first phase of development with a
minimum of two anchor stores of not less than 24, 000 square feet each and all on-site
infrastructure."
My first concern is that we have not required the total infrastructure completion on other
projects such as Best Buy. Of course we would require adequate accessibility to each
phase as it is developed but I think requiring everything as well as both anchors to be
completed in the first phase is excessive.
My other concern is that I do not recall that any of the units were proposed to be 24,000
square feet. It seems to me that the proposed Good Guys was around 20,000 square feet
and the other anchor to be of similar size. This just may be an oversight but I know it
was never my intention to restrict the development by forcing completion of the total
infrastructure nor limiting the anchors to an exact size. Since I made the motion I feel
somewhat responsible for not clearing that up at the appeal hearing.
This is my question, is it possible to eliminate the above referenced sentence in its
entirety from~'the proposed text change?
I would like to discuss this with you but unfortunately I have a family commitment for
all day Monday and then I will be at ICSC from Tuesday morning through Wednesday
evening. I will try to call you tomorrow (Monday) but in case I don't have that
opportunity I wanted to make my concerns known.
Thanks, ~
cc: William J. Alexander, Mayor
Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem
James Curatalo, City Council
Paul Biane, City Council
Jack I_am, City Manager
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlvIONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 8, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the
Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for
14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between
Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69.
BACKGROUND: On April 17, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing on General Plan
Amendment 96-01A and the subject application. Following public testimony and deliberation, the
Council approved a Land Use Change to "Community Commercial" for the 14.45 acre parcel
bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Eucalyptus Street, Spruce Avenue, and Elm Avenue.
The Council found that the Community Commercial designation was consistent with the General
Plan in that the development would occur in a retail center and as a logical extension of the Haven
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Activity Center which currently extends to Elm Avenue through the
extension of retail uses in the Terra Vista Planned Community. On May 1, 1996, the Council
adopted the resolution approving General Plan Amendment 96-01A.
As part of the motion of approval, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the
following change to the Subarea 7 text (Exhibit "A"):
On the south side of Foothill Boulevard, a Community Commercial Retail Center is
Conditionally Permitted subject to a Master Plan on a 14.45 acre parcel bounded by Spruce
Avenue on the west, Elm Avenue on the east, and Eucalyptus Street on the south. This
site is a logical extension of the Haven and Foothill Activity Center which encourages a mix
of uses to function as an active people place and be lively well into the night for the
residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Compatibility with adjacent existing and
intended Industrial Park Development shall be demonstrated through site planning, building
design, and landscaping. The Center shall be substantially completed with the first phase
of development with a minimum of two anchor stores of not less than 24,000 square feet
each and all on-site infrastructure. In-line shops should be limited. All retail business uses
permitted in the Terra Vista Community Commercial designation are permitted within the
Center and are incorporated by reference. A Master Sign Program shall be required and
shall be consistent with sign code requirements for Commercial Retail Centers.
ANALYSIS: As determined by the City Council the aforementioned text change is intended to
provide consistency between the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan in several
ways. By mirroring the Terra Vista's Community Commercial designation, the subject site can be
found to logically expand the Haven and Foothill Activity Center. The proposed text change mirrors
the Terra Vista Community Commercial district in two ways. The first reference is to the definition
of "Community Commercial" in the Terra Vista Planned Community as "an active people
place...lively well into the night for the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga." The second
incorporates by reference the "retail business uses" allowed in the Terra Vista Community
Commercial district (Uses Permitted in Areas Designated Community Commercial: Retail
businesses: Exhibit "B").
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ISPA 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS
May 8, 1996
Page 2
Also, the proposed text requires design compatibility with the surrounding Master Planned industrial
development and requires a Conditionally Permitted Master Plan to ensure long term compatibility
between the Retail Center and surrounding Industrial Park development. Further, the proposed
text discourages piecemeal development by the requirement that the Retail Center be substantially
developed with the first phase of development. Finally, the proposed text changes the sign code
requirement from the "industrial" to the "commercial" category.
It should be noted that Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan already permits expanded
retail business uses on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route in the former K-
mart center, as well as in the Commercial Recreation center at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue.
Activity centers and the former K-mart center are indicated on the attached map (Exhibit "C").
A further addition to the ISP text is proposed. The "Community Commercial retail" category should
be inserted into Table 111-2 (p. 111-13) between "Business Support Services" and "Communication
Services" as follows (Exhibit "A"):
Community Commercial Retail Business: Within an approved Community Commercial
Center which extends an Activity Center, this category adds uses to the retail uses already
permitted within the Subarea in which the Center is situated. Uses shall be consistent with
the Community Commercial retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista Community
Plan which are incorporated herein by reference. The intent is to encourage a mix of uses
which can make a Center lively well into the night, to function as an active people place,
and to serve not only the residents of the City but, by location, also to draw from residential
areas in neighboring communities.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An environmental assessment has been completed for
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and was included in the Staff Report to the
Planning Commission dated March 27. 1996. Staff has found that no significant adverse
environmental impacts will occur because of the proposed amendment. A Negative Declaration
would be recommended upon approval of the subject application.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council requests that the Industrial Area Specific Plan text be
amended to include a Community Commercial Retail Center bounded by Foothill Boulevard,
Eucalyptus Street, Spruce Avenue, and Elm Avenue. A resolution recommending approval of the
aforementioned text changes is attached.
Resp. y S ' e
BB:MB:wh
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - ISP text changes
Exhibit"B" - Terra Vista Community Plan - Community Commercial retail
business uses
Resolution Recommending Approval - ISP Amendment 96-01
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
PART III - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
TABLE Ill-2 - LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS -
D. COMMERCIAL USE TYPES (page 111-13):
After "Business Support Services" and before "Communication Services" insert:
Community Commercial Retail Business: Within an approved Community Commercial
Center which extends an Activity Center, this category adds uses to the retail uses
already permitted within the Subarea in which the Center is situated. Uses shall be
consistent with the Community Commercial retail business uses permitted in the Terra
Vista Community Plan which are incorporated herein by reference. The intent is to
encourage a mix of uses which can make a Center lively well into the night, to function
as an active people place, and to serve not only the residents of the City but, by
location, also to draw from residential areas in neighboring communities.
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
PART IV - OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SUBAREA 7: Special Consideration (Page IV-52)
Change the fourth paragraph to read as follows:
On the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Arrow Highway, Development Code
provisions for the General Commercial District shall apply to the anchor store and
adjoining northerly building. Development and use of satellite buildings in the Center
are subject to provisions of the Industrial Area specific Plan. (Existing text revised to
delete reference to K-mart.)
At the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, adjoining the
Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park and Rancho Cucamonga Stadium uses allowed
in the Recreational Commercial General Plan Land Use category shall be permitted
within the planned 27-acres Mixed Use Center. (Ord No. 521,4~20~94)
Add the following paragraph:
On the south side of Foothill Boulevard, a Community Commercial Retail Center is
Conditionally Permitted subject to a Master Plan on a 14.45 acre parcel bounded by
Spruce Avenue on the west, Elm Avenue on the east, and Eucalyptus Street on the
south. This site is a logical extension of the Haven and Foothill Activity Center which
encourages a mix of uses to function as an active people place and be lively well into
the night for the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Compatibility with
adjacent existing and intended Industrial Park Development shall be demonstrated
through site planning, building design, and landscaping. The Center shall be
substantially completed with the first phase of development with a minimum of two
anchor stores of not less than 24,000 square feet each and all on-site infrastructure.
In-line shops should be limited. All retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista
Community Commercial designation are permitted within the Center and are
incorporated by reference. A Master Sign Program shall be required and shall be
consistent with sign code requirements for Commercial Retail Centers. (ISPA 96-01 )
EXHIBIT "A"
Office and Commercial Development
Standards ~,~ alo~E~of
The development or a p~' any portion
GENERAL TO ALL OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL AREAS: a center shall r q~u~rer the development of a
conk~ tual e~pment plan which shall
14ses Not Permitted Within The Planned Community conside ch things as, but not limited to,
Massage parlors r~ a ~
"Adult" movie theaters mmprovements an~n scapmng.
, n ~ook stores
S . er Uses Permitted in Areas Desiqnated "CC' {~MU~?
To 'ensure hat the goals and pollcl, of the General The following general categories of uses shall be
itshe in
centers. In su a review, the Io~ ing criteria shall Retail businesses, such as but not limited to:
be ~si :
Department stores
n from sensitive land uses Showroom/catalogue stores
and to mitigate commercial Outlet or off-price stores
activities lighting. and trash Variety stores
col l ection; I report stores
Grocery stores
(b) The center ha planned as a group of Delicatessens
organized us~ tructures;. Bakeries and other specialty food stores
Wine and liquor stores
(c) The center desic with one theme, with Drug stores
buildings landsca consistent with Clothing stores
design style, similar Shoe stores
exterio~ g materials and a coordinated Jewelry stores
landsc theme ); Book stores
Record stores
(d) The ~nter makes provisions ~r consistent Electronics equipment stores
mai , reciprocal access , reciprocal Radio/TV/stereo stores
~{I ~ Photo equipment stores
Furniture stores ,'
inated Wallcoverings stores
(el and pedestrian access is ~v~
pre clr n s tern Pet stores
REVISED Amondm0nt No. 3, 5 & 6
Hardware stores Optometrists
Sporting goods stores 'ax preparation servi
Plant stores al or accounting
Toy stores [ical or dental offi~ s
Gift shops Ad~ office!
Home improvement centers agencie~
Carpet and flooring stores }anies
Paint stores
Lighting stores Banks and ~er fine institutions
Musical instrument stores
Home furnishings and accessories stores Eating and ~stablishments
Telephone stores
Auto parts stores Commercial recr, tion and entertainment, including
Nurseries and garden supply stores but not limited
Home appliance stores
Plumbing supply stores Movie
Health club as
ebb'vice businesses, (or sales-; Music or d nce 3s
inesses), including but n ~ limited to: Facilities the rming arts
~ el agencies ~ Automobile ~sinesses ~d to the following:
~r~ parlors and ~
Dr cl~ Servi, ;tations and car ~shes (CUP)
y ean~s and mdries Auto stores
Photo and or galleries
Locksmiths Auto ~les and services ~esses affiliated with
Interior des a de ~rtment store or similar ~ncern (CUP)
Pool and s Commu ty facilities as specified
Cabine and ~t er contractors
Home ~ y analysts
Equ~ rental Hotel: ~nd motels (CUP)
limited to: ~ (CUP}
;essory structure and
~ ent ustomarily incidental to the above uses
REVISED Amendmenl No. 3, 5 & 6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01, A REQUEST TO
AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT FOR 14.45 ACRES
OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH OF
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF ELM
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-
352-62 THROUGH 69.
A. Recitals.
1. Wohl/Rancho Partners has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment No. 96o01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution,
the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On May 1, 1996. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted General
Plan Amendment 96-01A approving a land use change from Industrial Park to Community
Commercial, and
3. On May 8, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on May 8, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 14.45 acres of land. basically a rectangle
configuration, located south of Foothill Boulevard, north of Eucalyptus Street, east of Spruce Avenue.
and west of Elm Avenue and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial
Park; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Community Commercial
and is partially developed. The property to the west is designated Industrial Park and is partially
developed. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the
south is designated Industrial Park and is vacant.
c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
F?
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 96-01 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
May 8, 1996
Page 2
d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element;
and
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding
properties.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further. this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above.
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-
01 to add text changes as set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Resolution.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 96-01 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
May 8, 1996
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th DAY OF MAY 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, 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 8th day of May 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
-F)
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
PART Ill - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
TABLE 111-2 - LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS -
D. COMMERCIAL USE TYPES (page 111-13):
After "Business Support Services" and before "Communication Services' insert:
Community Commercial Retail Business: Within an approved Community Commercial
Center which extends an Activity Center, this category adds uses to the retail uses
already permitted within the Subarea in which the Center is situated. Uses shall be
consistent with the Community Commercial retail business uses permitted in the Terra
Vista Community Plan which are incorporated herein by reference. The intent is to
encourage a mix of uses which can make a Center lively well into the night, to function
as an active people place, and to serve not only the residents of the City but, by
location, also to draw from residential areas in neighboring communities.
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
PART IV - OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SUBAREA 7: Special Consideration (Page IV-52)
Change the fourth paragraph to read as follows:
On the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Arrow Highway, Development Code
provisions for the General Commercial District shall apply to the anchor store and
adjoining northerly building. Development and use of satellite buildings in the Center
are subject to provisions of the Industrial Area specific Plan. (Existing text revised to
delete reference to K-mart.)
At the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, adjoining the
Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park and Rancho Cucamonga Stadium uses allowed
in the Recreational Commercial General Plan Land Use category shall be permitted
within the planned 27-acres Mixed Use Center. (Ord No. 521, 4~20~94)
Add the following paragraph:
On the south side of Foothill Boulevard, a Community Commercial Retail Center is
Conditionally Permitted subject to a Master Plan on a 14.45 acre parcel bounded by
Spruce Avenue on the west, Elm Avenue on the east. and Eucalyptus Street on the
south. This site is a logical extension of the Haven and Foothill Activity Center which
encourages a mix of uses to function as an active people place and be lively well into
the night for the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Compatibility with
adjacent existing and intended Industrial Park Development shall be demonstrated
through site planning, building design, and landscaping. The Center shall be
substantially completed with the first phase of development with a minimum of two
anchor stores of not less than 24,000 square feet each and all on-site infrastructure.
In-line shops should be limited. All retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista
Community Commercial designation are permitted within the Center and are
incorporated by reference. A Master Sign Program shall be required and shall be
consistent with sign code requirements for Commercial Retail Centers. (ISPA 96-01 )
EXHIBIT "A" F )b
L
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA --
STAFF tlF, PORT
DATE: May 8, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-04 SUNSCAPE
CONDOMINIUMS - Appeal of the City Planner's decision to deny an application to
stucco over existing wood siding, wood window frames, and exterior areas on patio
fences at the Sunscape Condominiums located at 8990 19th Street - APN:
201-292-06 through 61,201-293-01 through 39, 201-294-01 through 47, 201-295-
01 through 63, and 201-296-01.
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved the Sunscape Condominium project on June
11, 1980. One of the findings for approval was "that the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans." It is a policy of the General
Plan that "architectural design should exhibit quality innovation in form and function," and that
"architectural elements exposed to public view receive enhanced design treatment to upgrade
visual quality." The Sunscape condominium buildings exhibit a very simple design.
ANALYSIS: The applicant desires to remove the T-111 siding to eliminate the ongoing maintenance
costs associated with painting and repairing said material. No documentation was submitted
regarding past expenses incurred or estimates of future maintenance, The existing wood siding
and window trim, and wood patio privacy fences, provide the only architectural detail on otherwise
simple stucco buildings. To eliminate these original architectural elements by covering them with
stucco, as proposed by the appellant, would lessen the architectural integrity and quality of the
existing buildings. Therefore, staff was not able to establish the necessary findings to approve the
application.
Staff cautions the Planning Commission to the potential precedent setting nature of the appellanrs
proposal.. There are many other projects in the City with wood materials used as a major
architectural feature that require periodic maintenance. Approval of this application could lead to
similar requests by others interested in avoiding the costs and effort associated with such exterior
material maintenance,
ALTERNATIVES: Staff had recommended the applicant explore alternatives, including the
following:
A. Provide a change of plane (pop-out) with stucco over details to provide shapes and shadow
lines to break up the fiat wall planes.
ITEM G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MDR 96-04 - SUNSCAPE CONDOMINIUMS
May 8, 1996
Page 2
B. Replace the wood siding and trim with a more durable manufactured/synthetic exterior
wood product such as "Masonite."
C. Brick veneer, which is more durable than wood siding, would provide a contrast to the
single color stucco.
The applicant was not willing to consider other alternatives because they assumed the cost would
be higher.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order to approve the requested Minor Development Review, the
Planning Commission must make the following findings:
A. That the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed project will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
D. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and
uphold the City Planner's decision to deny Minor Development Review 96-04 through adoption of
the attached Resolution and direct the applicant to work with the City Planner on an alternative that
will address their maintenance concern but also maintain a quality of design consistent with the
goals and policies of the General Plan.
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Appellant's Appeal Letter
Exhibit "B" City Planner's Decision Letter
Exhibit "C" Applicant's "Scope of Work" Letter
Exhibit "D" Photo of Sunscape Condominiums Typical Unit
Exhibit "E" Site Plan
Resolution of Denial ~ ~
RECEIVED
APR081996
tZ:)E/~,4-P,,'F'/P<~i'~,E_{;t~F,t'~n_cho Cucamonga
Planning Division
I q q ~_~_ ~'Z_gX,-
Lb ~",.~ ly~z4} A C. TE'.P,,iY~A3J~
T H E C I T Y O F
i ANCPIO CUCAMONC
April 2, 1996
Richard Ransom Sr.
8990 19th Street, #442
· Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 96-04 - SUNSCAPE CONDOMINIUMS
Dear Mr. Ransom:
The Development Review process for the above-described project has been completed. Pursuant to our
discussions, wherein staff identified design alternatives and compromises such as introducing a change of
plane or use of synthetic wood siding, it is our understanding that ~.he homeowners association is only willing
to consider the proposed "stucco-over" design solution. Therefore, the project has been denied based upon
the following findings.
Findinqs
1. That the proposed remodeling project would lessen the architectural integrity and quality of the existing
buildings on the site as well as the overall quality of surrounding development along 19th Street by
eliminating cedain original architectural elements and details which provide visual variation and interest.
2. That the proposed remodeling project is not consistent with the General Plan policies for building desig
3. That the proposed remodeling project is not in accordance with the objectives of the Development Code
or the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
4. That the proposed remodeling project will not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals
must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be
accompanied by a S62 appeal fee.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Brent Le Count, at (909) 477-2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Planner
BB:BLC:mlg
Mayor William J. A~exander Councilmember Paul Biane
Mayor Pro-Tern Rex Gutierrez Councilmember James V. Curatalo
Jack Lain. AICF~ Cit"t Manager Councilm~mber Diana Will!ares
"e2' c T-(
105C0 Civic Center Drive · P.O. 8ox 807 · Rancho Cuccmonga. CA 91729 · (c,~u9) 959-i851 · FAX. (9Cq) 987-64c,'~
I
.)
G8
" /
---~' ~EEP SC~EEo
;. ~ ~' ' r _ C ONe
~E~Tr~Ab C~OS~ ~ECT~ OF ~Xl ~rldG flAr/O
EXt-IBIT "D" - TYPICAL UNITS
EXHIBIT "D. 1" - TYPICAL PROPOSED REMODEL
':';""' SUNSCAPE CON~OMINIUMS
8990' 19th STREET 248 UNITS S-STORAGECLOSETS
.... :- O. SUNSCAPE H.O.A. OFFICE
(.. V-VENOORSTORAGE
M-MEETINGROOM
T.TRASHENCLOSURES
:_.~ ..........
:'~_~
0.2.BE(:)ROOMS I .BATH
A- SINGLE UNITS 0.1-BEOBOOM I.BATH C - 2.BEDROOMS 2-BATH, [~ .
I /~/~ ~'~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING MINOR DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 96-04 TO STUCCO OVER EXISTING WOOD SIDING, WOOD
WINDOW FRAMES, AND EXTERIOR AREAS ON PATIO FENCES AT THE
SUNSCAPE CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED AT 8990 19TH STREET, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN 201-292-06 THROUGH
6% 201-293-01 THROUGH 39, 201-294-01 THROUGH 47, 201-295-01
THROUGH 63, AND 201-296-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Richard Ransom, on behalf of the Sunscape Homeowners Association, has filed an
application for the issuance of Minor Development Review No, 96-04 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Minor Development Review request is referred
to as "the application."
2. On April 2, 1996, the City Planner denied the application.
3. The decision represented by the City Planner's denial letter dated Apdl 2, 1996 was timely
appealed to this Commission.
4. On the 8th day of May 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals.
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting on May 8, 1996, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 8990 19~h Street with a street frontage
of 995 feet and lot depth of 654 feet and is presently improved with a 248 unit condominium; and
b. The application proposes to replace with stucco the existing wood siding, which is
the primary architectural detail which enhances the subject buildings. The stated purpose for said
reconstruction is to reduce ongoing maintenance costs for the homeowners association; however,
no evidence was presented by the applicant to document previous costs or anticipated costs of
maintenance costs including. but not limited to, painting of existing wood siding; and
c. There are viable design alternatives available which would decrease the cost and
effort of maintaining the properly without lessening the architectural quality of the development.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTUION NO.
MDR 96-04 - SUNSCAPE CONDOMINIUMS
May 8, 1996
Page 2
d. The application is contrary to the General Plan policies which require that
architectural desi9n exhibit quality innovation in form and function and that architectural elements
exposed to public view receive enhanced design treatment to upgrade visual quality.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed remodeling project is not consistent with the General Plan
policies for building design.
b. That the proposed remodeling project is not in accordance with the objectives of
the Development Code or the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
c. That the proposed remodeling project will not comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2. and 3 above, this
Commission hereby denies the application.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
A'I'I'EST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, 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 8th day of May 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 8, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: ENGINEERING DMSION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1996/97
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Attached is the Engineering Division's Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) for Fiscal Year 1996/97. The projects have been categorized by type of project (Beauti~cation,
Drainage, Streets, etc.) which are in alphabetical order within the category. A map showing the project
locations is also attached. A summary of the project costs by category is shown on the cover page. The total
for all projects is $12,942,800.
Projects F.9, Foothill Blvd.fI-15 Interchange, and G.2, Carnelian Sweet Storm Drain and Street
Improvements, are dependent upon uncommitted funds from Caltrans and the Federal Government,
respectively; therefore their construction during the next year is not guaranteed at this time·
Following the CIP is a listing and description of the various funds (revenue sources) used to finance the
projects·
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the Capital Improvements
Program in conformance with the General Plan·
Respectfully submffted, ~
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:BRH:sd
Attachments
ITEM H
FY 96/97 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO GRAM
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97
~ PROJECT CATEGORIES
g') A. Beautification $1,142,240
B. Drainage 1,000
C. Miscellaneous 973,850
D. Railroad Crossings 575,000
E. Reimbursements to Developers 40,000
F. Streets 5,990,710
G. Streets and Drainage 3,232,000
H. Studies 23,000
I. Traffic Signals 96,5,000
TOTAL: $12,942,800
The projects arc listed in alphabetical order within each category.
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PROJECTS
pROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUND TITLE ACCOUNT NO. AMOUN'~
1 Archibald Parkway This will design and construct parkway landscap- Beautification 21-4647-8135 $160,000
Beautification between ing on Archibald Avenue between 4th St. and
4th St. and Baseline Rd. Baseline Road.
2 Baseline Rd. Median Im- This project designs landscaping improvements Beautification 21-4647-xxxx $15,000
provements at Baseline for the existing median at Baseline Rd. west of
Rd. west of Etiwanda Etiwanda Ave. Construction will be funded in a
Avenue. later year.
3 Central Park Site Clean Weed abatement and study for future development. Beautification 21-4647-xxxx $100,000
4 4th Street Median Im- The project will design the landscaping of the ex- Beautification 21-4647-xxxx $25,000
provements between the isting median in 4th St. between the west city
west city limits and Ha- limits and Haven Ave. Construction will be funded
ven Ave. in a later year.
5 Lion's East Community Renovate the previous County Library Building for Beautification 21-4647-9501 $190,500
Center Renovations conversion to a new community center with ADA Park Develop. 20-4532-9501 $100,g~0_
compliance. $290,500
6 Lion's West Community Renovate the existing landscaping and parking CDBG 28-4333-xxxx $16,550
Center Landscape and areas.
Parking Renovation
7 Lion's West Community Renovate the existing facility for ADA compliance. CDBG 28-4333-xxxx $510,190
Center Renovation
04/15/96
FISCAL YEAR 97 PROJECTS
B_P,_..O_J_ECT T!'EL_E PR_OJ__E_cT DESc.~,IPTIQN FUND TITLE ACCOUN_T NO~ AMOU_N_'[
A. BEAUTIFIGA_T!ON (CONT)
8 19th St. Parkway Beau- This project designs the parkway beautification Beauti~cation 21-4647-9404 $15,000
tification between Her- improvements on 19th St. between Hermosa Ave.
mosa Ave. and Haven and Haven Ave. Construction will be funded in a
Ave. later year.
9 Metrolink Station Banner Design and installation of decorative banners for Beaulification 21-4647-xxxx $! 0.000
Installation the existing facility.
SUBTOTAL $1,142,240
B. DRAINAGE
1 Lemon Ave. Storm This project completes the design of the storm City Drainage 23-4637-8863
Drain from the Lower drain system to and including the podion of the Fee
~: Atta Loma Channel to system on Amethyst Ave. Construction will be
U~ Amethyst Ave. and to funded in a later year.
Apricot Ave. SUBTOTAL $1,000
._C, MISCELLANEOUS
1 Bike Route along Eti- Install Bike Route signs along the street from AQMD 14-4158-xxxx $7,000
wanda Avenue Foothill BIrd. to Base Line Road.
2 Bike Route along Hillside Install Bike Route signs along the streets from AQMD 14-4158-xxxx $12,000
Haven and Wilson Ave, Cucamonga Creek Channel to Deer Creek Chan.
3 Bike Paths at Nodheast Construct bike paths around the Park and East AQMD 14-4158-xxxx $100,000
Park Ave.
4 Graffiti Removal This project will remove graffiti within a targeted CDBG 28-4333-xxxx $3,400
area.
04/15/96 2
: FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PROJECTS
pROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUND TITLE ACCOUNT NO, AMOUNT
C, MJ~.CELLANEOUS (CONT)
5 Pedestrian Bridge over Design and construct a pedestrian bri.dge over AQMD 14-4158-xxxx $38,900
Deer Creek Channel Deer Creek Channel between Baseline Road and
Highland Avenue.
6 Old Town Park Touch Installation of a ball field lighting monitoring system. Park Develop. 20-4532-xxxx $40,000
Pad System
7 Senior Center Completion of minor interior improvements CDBG 28-4333-xxxx $64,970
8 Sidewalk Grinding Various locations throughout the City. CDBG 28-4333-xxxx $1,530
9 Utility Undergrounding at Underground existing overhead utilities in conjunc- Edison Rule 20A ...... $700,000
~ NEC Archibald Ave. and tion with the related street project.
~' 4th Street
10 Wheel Chair Ramps The project designs and constructs ramps for TDA Article 3 16-4637-xxxx $4,000
at various locations the disabled at various locations throughout CDBG 28-4333-xxxx $2,050
the city. $6,050
SUBTOTAL $973,850
D. ~ILROAD CROSSINGS
1 Arrow Route Railroad This project will design and construct the rail- Transportation 22-4637-9522 $235.000
Crossing Improvements road crossing improvements on Arrow Route
at the AT & SF RR at the AT & SF RR Spur. The project consists of
Spur widening the roadway and adding new gates and
crossing panels.
04/15/96
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PROJECTS
pROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUND TITLE ACCOUNT NO. A_M~OUNT
D, RAILROAD CROSSINGS (CONT)
2 Baker St. Railroad This project will design the railroad crossing on Transpodation 22-4637-8846 $20,000
Crossing Improvements Baker St. at the AT & SF RR. The project
at the AT & SF RR. consists of widening roadway and adding new
gates and crossing panels. Construction of
improvements will be funded in a later year.
3 Etiwanda Ave. Railroad This project will design the railroad crossing Transpodation 22-4637-9509 $20,000
Crossing Improvements improvements on Etiwanda Ave. at the AT & SF
at the AT & SF RR RR. The project consists of widening the road-
way and adding new gates and crossing panels.
~ Construction of improvements will be funded in
---3 a later year.
4 Rochester Ave. Railroad This project will design and construct improve- Transpodation 22-4637-9210 $~3=0~.~)00
Crossing Improvements ments on Rochester Ave. at the AT & SF RR.
at the AT & SF RR Improvements will include the widening of the
crossing including warning signals and concrete
panels, and some street work.
SUBTOTAL $575,000
REIMBURSEMENTS
Drainage Fees:
1 Developer Reimburse- This item provides funds from various sources Etiwanda Area 19-4637-9120 $10,000
ments for the reimbursement to developers of master General City 23-4637-9120 ~b3g,,000
planned transpodation or drainage facilities.
SUBTOTAL $40,000
04/15/96 4
FISCAL YEAR '1996/97 PROJECTS
pROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUND TITLE ACCOUNT NO, AMOUNT
F STREETS
I Alpine/Ramona This project is in conjunction with the TDA Adicle 3 16-4637-9508 $25,000
Sidewalk, adjacent R.C. Neighborhood Center and will be
to the R.C.Neighbor- designing and constructing sidewalks on
hood Center nearby streets
2 Amethyst Ave. between This project will design and construct pavement re- Prop 111 10-4637-xxxx $157,000
19th Street and Base Line habilitation of the existing pavement.
Road
3 Archibald Ave and This project will design and construct a right Transportation 22-4637-xxxx $21,000
'1"', 4th Street - NEC turn lane on 4th Street and an acceleration lane ISTEA 24-4637-xxxx $156.000
c<L. and bus bay on Archibald Avenue. $176,000
4 Arrow Rt. Street Im- This project designs and constructs an Transpodation 22-4637-9533 $80,000
provements between additional westsbound lane along with SB 140 35-4637~9522 $48.000
Milliken Ave. and rehabilitatiing the existing pavement on $128,000
the Railroad Spur Arrow Rt. between Milliken Ave. and the
west of Milliken Ave. Railroad Spur west of Milliken Avenue.
5 Arrow Rt. at Deer Creek This project designs and constructs pavement Prop 111 10-4637-xxxx $25,000
Bridge. rehabilitation of the existing pavement on both
sides of the bridge.
6 BepJl Ave. Street Im- This project designs and constructs sidewalk on the TDA Adicle 3 16-4637-9402 $51,000
provements between west side of Beryl St. between Baseline Road and
Baseline Rd.and 19th 19th Street.
Street
04/15/96
FISCAL YEAR lE)6/97 PROJECTS
PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUND TITLE ACCOUNT NO, _AMOUNT
_F, STRE_ETS (CONT)
7 East Ave. street im- This project designs and constructs new Transpodation 22-4637-8077 $300,000
provements between pavement to the backbone width (or one
Summit Ave. and travel lane in each direction) on East Ave.
Highland Ave. between Summit Ave. and Highland Ave.
Development will be responsible for the
remaining widening and improvements.
8 East Ave. street im- This project designs and constructs new Transpodation 22-4637-9510 $310,000
provements between pavement to the backbone width (or one 35-4637-9510 .$3,100
Highland Ave. and travel lane in each direction) on East Ave. $313,100
Victoria St. between Highland Ave. and Victoria St.
~ Development will be responsible for the
,..O remaining widening and improvements.
9 Foothill Blvd./I-15 Inter- This project will reconstruct the interchange, widen RDA 16-51000 $1,500,000
change Foothill Blvd., and add a nodhbound loop on-ramp. Caltrans _$_:Z,_'L0_Q.0_(~Q
Construction will be dependent upon the availability $3,600.000
of Caltran's funding.
10 Hermosa Ave. street This project designs and constructs the Measure I 32-4637-9520 $270,000
rehab. improvements rehabilitation of the existing pavement on SB 140 35-4637-xxxx ~25,000
between 4th St. and Hermosa Ave. between 4th St. and Foot- $295,000
Foothill Blvd. hill Blvd.
11 Local Street Rehab. at This project designs and construct pavement Prop 111 10-4637-9113 $518,000
various locations rehabilitation projects at various locations through-
out the city.
12 Rancheria Street be- This project designs street improvements which CDBG 28-4333-xxxx $5,330
tween Grove Ave. and includes street resurfacing, curb, gutter. sidewalks
Tapia Via. and street lights. Construction will be funded in a
later year.
04/15~96 6
FISCAL YEAR t 996/97 PROJECTS
P~_R.OJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUND TITLE ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT
_F. STREETS (CONT)
13 Sapphire St. between This project designs and constructs pavement re- Prop 111 10-4637-9309 $230.000
Moon St. and Hillside St. habilitation of the existing pavement including
increasing the crown section.
14 Sapphire between Hillside This project designs and constructs pavement re- Prop 111 10-4637-xxxx $67,000
St. and Almond St. habilitation of the existing pavement.
15 Tapia Via Between This project designs street improvements CDBG 28-4333~xxxx $100.280
Grove Avenue and which includes street resurfacing, curb,
~ Ranchera Dr. gutter, sidewalks and street lights. Con-
~ struction will be funded in a later year.
SUBTOTAL $5,990,710
G. STREET AND DRAINAGE
I Almond Street @ Henry Design and Construct street and drainage improv- Measure I 32-4637-9530 $122,000
Street ments at Almond Street and Henry Street.
2 Carnelian St. Storm The project will design and construct a ISTEA 24-4637-9314 $3,000,000
Drain and Street Im- major storm drain in Carnelian St. between Measure I 32~4637-9314 _$J~_,O00
provements between San Bern Rd. and Baseline Rd. In addition $3,010.000
San Bern. Rd. and the curve on Carnelian St. will be realigned
Baseline Road along with rehabilitating the existing pave-
ment on that street. Construction is dependent
upon the availability of federal funding.
3 19th Street between Design and Construct street and drainage im- Measure I 32-4637-xxxx $50,000
Jasper and Carnelian provements for 19th Street between Jasper and Prop 111 10-4637-96xx .~5_0,000
Carnelian $100,000
SUBTOTAL $3,232,000
04/15/96
FISCAL YEAR 6/97 PROJECTS
PROJECT TITLE PROJECT DESCRIPTIOJ~I_ FUND TITLE ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT
H. STUDIES
1 Cucamonga, Deer and This study performs an annual update of the General City 23-4637-8785 $1,000
Day Creeks Master Plan Master Plan of Drainage for the area of the City Drainage Fees
of Drainage west of Etiwanda Avenue.
2 Pavement Management This funds the annual update of the city-wide Prop 111 10-4637-9110 $2,000
Program pavement management program inventory.
3 Transportation Studies Update the City Traffic Model and inventory of traf- Measure I 32-4637-9109 $20,000
and Facility Inventory tic controls and facilities.
SUBTOTAL $23,000
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
1 Archibald Ave. @ San This project designs and installs a traffic signal at TDA Article 8 12-4637-8913 $120,000
2:~ Bernardino Road Traffic the Archibald Ave, @ San Bernardino Road inter-
.:_, Signal Improvements section.
2 Arrow Rt. @ Baker St. This project will construct a traffic signal at the Transpodation 22-4637-9514 $5,000
Traffic Signal Improve- Arrow Rt. @ Baker St. intersection. TDA Article 8 12-4637-9514 ~;120,000
ments. $125,000
3 Baseline Rd. @ 1-15 This project will design a traffic signal at the Transportation 22-4637-9515 $10,000
Traffic Signal Improve- Baseline Rd. @ 1-15 intersection for a later
ments. year installation.
4 Church St. @ Milliken This project will design and install a traffic signal Transpodation 22-4637-9512 $130,000
Avenue Traffic Signal at the Church St. @ Milliken Ave. intersection.
Improvements
5 Church St. @ Terra Vista This project designs and installs a traffic signal at TDA Adicle 8 12-4637-9310 $120,000
Parkway the Church St. @ Terra Vista Parkway Intersection.
04/15/96 8
FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PROJECTS
~PROJECT TITLE pROJECT DESCRIPTION FUND TITLE ACCOUNT NO. AM_OUNT
TRAFFIC SIGNALS (CONT)_
6 City wide Traffic Signal This project updates traffic signals and coordination TDA Article 8 12-4637-xxxx $10,000
Interconnect, retiming, as an on-going project.
and refitting.
7 Foothill BIvd. @ Baker This project designs and installs a traffic signal at TDA Article 8 12-4637-9305 $50,000
Ave. Traffic Signal Im- the Foothill BIvd. @ Baker Ave. Intersection in co- Caltrans ($130,000)
provemerits ordination with Cal Trans
8 Grove Avenue Traffic This projects updates traffic signal controllers on TDA Article 8 12-4637-xxxx $40,000
Signal Modifications Grove Avenue @ Arrow Rt., @ 9th Street and @
San Bernardino Road.
9 Milliken Avenue @ 4th This project designs and installs a traffic signal Transportation 22-4637-9516 $100,000
~ Street Traffic Signal at the 4th St. @ Milliken Ave. intersection. Fund- City of Ontario 1/2 Contribution ($100,000)
~ Improvements. ing for this project is shared jointly with the City
of Ontario.
10 19th Street @ Hermosa This project designs and installs a traffic signal TDA Article 8 12-4637-8828 $130,000
Avenue Traffic Signal at the 19th Street @ Hermosa Avenue intersec- Caltrans ($110,000)
Improvements tion jointly with Caltrans.
11 Victoria Park Lane @ This project designs and installs a traffic signal Transportation 22-4637-9513 $130.000
Milliken Ave. Traffic at the Victoria Park Lane @ Milliken Ave.
Signal Improvements .intersection. SUBTOTAL $965,000
TOTAL $12,942,800
04/15/96
GAS TAX 2106, 2107 & 2107.5: FUND 09
This is a restricted fund for the construction and maintenance of sweets and roads.
These funds may also be used for traffic signal maintenance and street safety lighting.
PROPOSITION 111: FUND 10
Proposition l l l is a state gasoline tax surcharge passed by Caiifomia voters in 1990
for transportation improvement projects that include funding for the construction of
various transportation systems and for street and road maintenance. Like fund 09 these
finds are restricted in their use: restrictions include requirements for a Congestion
Management Plan and maintenance of effort GviOE). MOE is intended to prevent cities
from shifting expenses from other funding sources to Fund 10. Funds are allocated
under several categories including local and regional.
TDA ARTICLE 8 FUNDS: FUND 12
TDA funds are derived from-a statewide sales tax for various transportation related
projects. The funds available are apportioned within each county by that county's
transportation authority. Over the past few years all ~.mds available to tiffs county have
been allocated to public transportation(primarily Omnitrans). The City has been
spending accumulated fund balance from prior year allocations for traffic signals
throughout the City.
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT: FUND 14
This pant is the City's proportionate share of AB 2766 revenues collected by the
Depai u.ent of Motor Vehicles and used to reduce air pollution from mobile sources.
PEDESTRIAN GRANTS/ARTICLE 3: FUND 16
Pedestrian Grant - Article 3 is a grant fund for the construction or reconstruction of
pedestrian related capital improvements. Typical projects eligible for funding include
· sidewalks, handicap sidewalk ramps, bicycle trails. This is a discretionary gasoline tax
funding sOt~rce administered by the San/Bemardino Associated Governments (Sanbag).
DRAINAGE-ETIWANDA: FUND 19
The Etiwanda drainage fund is a developer impact fee supported fund for the
construction of storm drain improvements in the Etiwanda drainage area.
PARK DEVELOPMENT: FUND 20
The collection of a fee for park development ptmposes is re_inflated under Chapter 1'6.23
of the Municipal Code as it relates to the dedication of land, payment of fees, or both,
for park and recreational land in subdivisions and planned communities. Collection of
the fee occurs at the time building permits are acquired by the developer.
BEAUTIFICATION FUND: FUND 21
The Beaurification fund is a developer impact fee supported fund for the construction
of parkways, median islands, and other landscape related projects throughout the
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT: FUND 22
The Transportation 'Fund (formerly the Systems Fund) is a developer impact fee
supported fund for the consrotation of "backbone" street improvements throughout the
City.
DRAINAGE: GENERAL CITY: FUND 23
The General City Drainage fund is a developer impact fee supported fund for the
construction of storm drain improvements in all areas of the city except for certain
master planned developments and the Efiwanda drainage area.
F.A.U./ST. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAhl: FUND 24
ISTEA (formerly FAU) is a federal grant funding source of the construction of major
streets and bridges. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act is a
.competitive grant program.
C.D.B.G. FUND: FUND
Fund 28 has been set up for the express purpose of expending Federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The CDBG Pro_m'am, which receives funds
directly through the U.S. Depm tment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
provides for a variety of housing, .community :development, and public service
activities. Each City and County decides for itself how this money can best be utilized
to meet the unique needs of its residents.
The primary goals of the CDBG progr'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.m~ are to improve the living condition and
economic opportunities of lower income persons, to prevent and eliminate community
blight and blighting influences, and to meet urgent needs for which no other resources
can be found. A minimum of 70 percent of the benefits of the CDBG funded activities
must be directed to activities wi~ich assist lower income persons.
MEASURE'I: FUND 32
Measure I is a local gasoline tax passed by San Bernardino county voters in 1989 for
transportation improvement projects that includes the creation of a passenger rail
system, the construction and repair of streets, and the construction of an expanded
freeway system. Street funds are allocated from two categories: local and arterial.
SB 140: FUND 35
SB 140 is a State gxant funding source for the construction of streets and bridges.
Formally titled State/Local Parmership Program, it is a competitive ~ant program.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlvIONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 8, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: SITE PLANNING AND OPEN SPACE
.ABSTRACT: This item was requested to be placed on the agenda by Commissioner Melt.her for
a brief discussion about the form and shape of open space.
BACKGROUND: On February 14, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application
Review 96-01 on the "San Vineyard" project proposed by Mark-Taylor on the north side of Baseline
Road, west of Victoria Park Lane. Commissioner Melther expressed concerns with the open space
arrangement and suggested that the Montecito apartment project developed by Lewis in Terra Vista
was a good example.
Staff has analyzed the open space concept of both projects. The results of this analysis is contained
in the attached memorandum. Full size plans of both projects will be available at the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DC:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - March 12, 1996 Memorandum
Exhibit "B" - San Vineyard Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Montecito Site Plan
ITEM I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 12, 1996
TO: John Melcher, Planning Commis loner
FROM: Dan Coleman, Principal Plann~
SUBJECT: PAR 96-01 - MARK-TAYLOR
Staff always appreciates your comments on design ~ssues. As you recall, our staff comments were
quite positive to the Mark Taylor site plan so when you made your comments we looked into the
matter and found the following.
In your comments, you felt that the open space was poorly conceived and suggested that a good
example was the Montecito apartment project in Terra Vista. Staff has compared the two attached
site plans and believes that the San Vineyard open space concept is superior to Montecito in
several respects.
1. San Vineyard features a larger open space system when overlaid onto the Montecito site
plan (overlay enclosed).
2. The majority of buildings within San Vineyard face directly onto the common open space
whereas less than one-third of the buildings within Montecito face directly onto the central
open space spine.
3. The San Vineyard open space is continuous and flows unimpeded into all areas of the
project whereas the Montecito open space is broken up into six distinct areas.
4. The Montecito open space system consists of one large central spine, one narrow fire lane
corridor, and four smaller pods as narrow as 45 feet, completely surrounded by buildings.
The open space pods within San Vineyard are significantly larger.
5. From a tenant's perspective, pedestrian access throughout the open space system is
continuous within San Vineyard whereas some open space areas within Montecito are
isolated with no direct connections to other open space areas.
I hope this clarifies staffs positive statements at the meeting regarding the overall site plan
concept. Please call so we can discuss this further. If there are better ways of laying this site plan
out and getting a better project we are all for it.
DC:sp
Attachments: Site Plans
cc: Brad Buller, City Planner
;::