Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/04/24 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY APRIL 24, 1996 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Roll Call Chairman Barker Commissioner Melcher Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Lumpp II. Announcements III. Approval of Minutes March 13, 1996 March 27, 1996, Adjourned Meeting April 10, 1996, Adjourned Meeting IV. Public Hearings The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the relatedproject. 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-09- SANBAG - A request to convert a relocated residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence and workshop) to a House and Workshop Museam (Arts and Crafts Center), located on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast comer of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, and Design Review 96-03. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-03 - SANBAG - A request to construct a new residence on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast comer of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of enviromnental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, and Conditional Use Permit 96-09. C. VARIANCE 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to reduce the required building and parking setbacks for a commemial development in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 95-25. (Continued from March 27, 1996) D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS: A request to establish a lube facility within an existing commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 o APN: 229-031-37. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from April 10, 1996) E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a new approval for the existing modular buildings on approximately 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5354 Haven Avenue - APN: 1074-271-01. V. 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. VI. Commission Business F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-30 - McDONALDS - (Oral report) - A review of an approved fast food restaurant located at 8701 Base Line Road. VII. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P. M2 adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certi~ that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April I& 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP ::::::::::::::::::::::::: A~,,. ::E:iiE~E~E~EiEiiiiE r:::::::i::L:. A,B !iiiiiii!i!!i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!:i:~-. I::~::~::i::i::i::i::ii!::i::iiii~ I~i::-:.:-. I I ,'1........... ,~ ~ , I ~T.&S.F. ~ ~, ....~% ,~ ~ ~. ,F-J ~ ~ .......... ~__ ~ ., · CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APR 2 4 199S ,j',~.~ ol Ranoho Cuoamonga Planning Division 8788 HIDDEN FARM ROAD ALTA LOMA, CALIFORNIA 91701 (909) 989-8781 April 22, 1996 Mi'. Brad Buller City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCfidMONGA P.O. Box 807 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 [Re: Sam and Airredo Maloof Historical site re-location Dear Mr. Bul/er: There is a meeting scheduled for 7:00 P.M. on April 24, 1996, at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, Council Chamber. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the Environmental Assessment and for anyone %bjecting to or in favor of ~ to appear in person or submit their concerns in writing to the City prior to said meeting. My home is on the corner of Hidden Farm and Sunstone, directly across from the site. I would like to take this time and forum to state three of my most critical concerns. · The projected impact on property values to the neighboring homes. I am not aware of this being formally addressed via a shady or impact report. This is veq important to neighbors in the vicinity. · It is my understanding that a fence is to be constnmted along the Maloof property line adjacent to Sunstone through the Eucalyptus trees. The neighbors on Sunstone are all concerned as to where the fence is to be constn~cted and of what material. It is me belief that a chain link fence would be extremely unattractive and have a very negative effect on our property values. If a fence can not be avoided and can not be placed on the western side of the creek it should be engineered and designed to enhance the natural beauty of the Eucalyptus grove not take away from it. · The commercial use of this residential property and the potential impact of buses and tourism to our property value in the fuh~re. Unfortunately I wilt not be able to artend the upcoming meeting but I did wish to register my concerns and those of my neighbors. Thank you in advance for your help in getting this letter to the proper people prior to this important meeting. Sincerely, Gary and Jo Anne Schafer GAS/pm B E O E I V E D April 10,199~ Planning Division G~[yolfiancno Cucamonga City of Rancho Cudamon~a Planning Division Subject: Comments on Environmental and Landmark Alteration permit 96-01, Environmental Assessment and Design Review permit 96-03, and Environmental and Cond- itional Use permit 96-09. Dear Planning Division Members: I have lived at 8552 Be!!a Vista, one block from the nrooosed site, for nearly thirty years. i do not have any disazreement with the basic concept of permitting Mr. Maloof to move his residence and workshoo into our neighborhood, provided: 1. There will be a reasonable restriction on the amount of noise generated by his furniture making tools, 2. There will be reasonable restrictions to prevent' him and/or his successors from expanding the business, and There will be nothing in this action which will set a precedent which will Jeopardize the current zoning in the neighborhood, thus opening the area to other businesses, apartments, condos, etc. If I need to come to the meeting and make an oral presentation,too, nlease notify me and I will do so. Thank you. Earle R. ~son ~ 8552 Be!!a Vista Alta Loma, Ca. 91701 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation\Planning Commission FROM: Brad BulleL City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal PIanner SUBJECT: LANDMARK DESIGNATION 96-01 - SANBAG - A request to designate an existing residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence and workshop o National Register eligible), located at 9553 Highland Avenue - APN: 202-101-18. Related files: Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 96-01 - SANBAG - A request to move an existing residence and accessory structures (Sam and AIfreda Maloof residence and workshop), from 9553 Highland Avenue to a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-09 - SANBAG - A request to convert a relocated residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence and workshop) to a House and Workshop Museum (Arts and Crafts Center), located on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, and Design Review 96-03. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-03 - SANBAG - A request to construct a new residence on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, and Conditional Use Permit 96-09. ITeM A, B HPC/PC STAFF REPORT LD 96-01, LAP 96-01, CUP 96-09, & DR 96-03 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 - Page 2 A. Backqround: The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), as the designated transportation planning agency for San Bernardino County, has filed the subject applications in order to comply with the mitigation measures required within the Master Environmental Impact Statement (MEIS) for the Route 30 Freeway extension. The planned Freeway extension would have adversely impacted the existing Maloof residence and accessory structures, which were identified in the MEIS as a National Register eligible historic/cultural resource. In accordance with Federal regulations, SANBAG explored several alternatives with the Maloofs; and the current relocation alternative was chosen as the preferred mitigation. A detailed background and project description is contained in the applicant's submittal included with the initial study (Exhibit "L"). B. General Plan Desionations: The project site, as well as all surrounding properties, is designated Very Low (VL) Density (0-2 dwelling units per acre). C. Site Characteristics: The proposed relocation site is approximately 6 gross acres in size, and is presently an abandoned citrus grove. This site has a natural water course that is located on the east side and Eucalyptus tree rows on the north and east property lines. The general grade of the properly is approximately 8 percent and slopes from north to south consistent with the general pattern of the area. The site was chosen after a review of similar sites throughout the Alta Loma area in order to find a site that closely conforms to the existing site on Highland Avenue. D. Parkino Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Reouired Provided New 2 bedroom 2,448 2 covered 2 2 residence (approx.) per unit Relocated residence 6,312 1 per employee 22 22 (converted to Museum/ + I per 3 visitors Arts and Crafts Center) (60 visitors maximum) Relocated/reconstructed 593 1 per artist in residence 2 2 guest house (maximum 2) Relocated/reconstructed 3,692 1 per employee 3 3 workshops (maximum 3) TOTAL 29 29 HPC/PC STAFF REPORT LD 96-01, LAP 96-01, CUP 96-09, & DR 96-03 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 Page 3 ANALYSIS: A. Historic Landmark Desiqnation, Landmark Alteration, Conditional Use Permit, Desiqn Review: Landmark Desionation - Documentation prepared as pad of the Cultural Resource Review for the Route 30 Freeway MEiS and subsequently reviewed by the California Office of Historic Preservation (COHP) determined the existing residence and workshop buildings qualified as National Register eligible structures. A copy of the previous cultural resource documentation is attached for reference (Exhibit "L"). The determination of a National Register level significance clearly demonstrates that the site and buildings meet the City's criteria for landmark designation. Landmark Alteration - The relocation of the landmark structures as part of a federally funded freeway project requires the review and concurrence of the California Office of Historic Preservation and compliance with the Federal Secretary of Interior Standards for alterations. The required compliance with California Office of Historic Preservation will assure that the alterations for the Landmark will be minimized and treated sensitively. Conditional Use Permit - Pursuant to Section 17.08.030(7) Uses Within Recognized Historic Structures. "Historic structures within a Residential District may be used for uses other than residential" subject to a Conditional Use Permit and subject to four criteria contained in Subsections (a) through (d). The essential evaluation before the Commission is contained in Subsection (b) which states: "Any use proposed shall not cause intensification or disruption to any adjacent uses or neighborhood." In staffs opinion, the proposed use will not cause an intensification or disruption to the area for the following reasons: 1. The basic operation of the Maloof's custom furniture construction and tours of the grounds, house, and arts and crafts collection is essentially the same as currently exists at the present location on Highland Avenue. In researching the current activities, staff was unable to find any history or evidence of conflict or nuisance with the adjacent neighborhood during its many years of operation. 2. The new proposed site is adequately buffered from adjacent uses with streets bordering on all four sides. 3. Given the limitations proposed within the application restricting the number of employees (2 foundation, 3 arts and crafts, and 2 artists in residence) and maximum 60 visitors no more than four times per week, the applicant's engineer has projected an average maximum of 62 trips per day compared to 80 trips per day if the site were to develop at the allowed density of eight single family residences. Desiqn Review - The site layout and orientation are designed with the following influences and characteristics: 1. The relocated and replicated structures are located and oriented to match the historically accurate layout at the existing site on Highland Avenue. Such historical HPC/PC STAFF REPORT LD 96-01, LAP 96-01, CUP 96-09, & DR 96-03 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 Page 4 accuracy is mandated by the National Register criteria. Another example is the proposed driveway from Almond Street, which is designed primarily for ceremonial purposes only. The major access forthe House Museum/Arts and Crafts Center is via the double driveway on Carnelian Street. 2. The new residence is oriented to Hidden Farm Road with a separate access, The separate access to Hidden Farm Road will assure the Maloof family residence privacy during foundation activities. 3. The site is proposed to be surrounded by decorative metal fencing to provide security. 4. The proposed new residence is designed to match the architectural style of the relocated and replicated structures. The architectural features are of a rustic rural flavor with exposed board-on-board siding and a blue colored metal standing seam roof. The applicant is requiring the recordation of a conservation easement on the properly that will assure the site is maintained in the same manner it is proposed, thereby precluding any additional subdivision and development of the site. Therefore, in staffs opinion, the proposal is consistent with the area and the appropriate provisions of the General Plan. B. Neiqhborhood Meetinq: On March 30, 1996, the Applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting at the existing Maloof residence on Highland Avenue. Approximately half of the 48 property owners, applicant representatives, and City staff attended the meeting. The meeting included a tour of the house and workshops and a presentation on the proposed project. Although the attendees had several questions the overall reaction was positive. C. Desion Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Lumpp, McNiel, Henderson) reviewed the development submittal on April 2. 1996, and unanimously recommended approval as presented. D. Grading and Technical Review Committees: The Grading and Technical Review Committees reviewed the development submittal and determined that, with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is in conformance with applicable standards and ordinances. E. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was completed and a Negative Declaration was prepared and is attached hereto for reference. FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisances or significant environmental impacts. The Facts for Finding for each action are contained in the applicable attached Resolutions. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper as a public hearing, the site has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. hPC/PC 'STAFF REPORT LD 96-01, LAP 96-01, CUP 96-09, & DR 96-03 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 '- Page 5 At the time this report was written, staff had received one letter from a neighboring property owner (Exhibit "P") who could not attend the public hearing. The letter indicated two concerns. The first question had to do with the new drainage pipe under Hidden Farm Road. The applicant's engineer contacted the neighbor and answered the concern with regards to drainage. The second concern had to do with street lights which he did not feel would benefit the rural atmosphere. It was explained that the street lights are a public safety policy required by the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Landmark Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03 and issuance of a Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:LH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Site Elevation Exhibit "E" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "F" - Natural Features Map Exhibit "G" - Grading Map Exhibit "H" - Slope Profile Map Exhibit "1" Slope Profiles Exhibit "J" - New House Elevations/Floor Plans and Sections Exhibit "K" - Existing Site, Elements, and Building Plans Exhibit "L" - Architectural Inventory Evaluation Form Exhibit "M" - Initial Study Exhibit "N" - Drainage Report Exhibit "O" - Traffic Analysis Exhibit "P" - Correspondence from Neighboring Property Owner Resolution Recommending Approval Of Landmark Designation 96-01 Resolution of Approval for Landmark Alteration 96-01 Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 96-09 Resolution of Approval for Design Review 96-03 I ....... SITE UTILIZATION MAP CUP 96 - 0q MALOOF RELOCATION · ' ":"' DETAILED SITE PLAN .... ~ . ~ · .,; ~- GROSS AREA 68 AC+ 287,496 SO FT. · . ~!~ ~.':',~.!~ I / ~ , , !" CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE' PL~.N LEGEND . SITE I,ZLEVATION i" PHASING PLAN GRADING MAP ~,so SECTION A-A 2,so SECTION B-B 2130 SECTION D-D (DIAGONAL SECTION) ' ~j~ ......... .. PROFILE SCALES: 1" = 30' HORIZONTAL I ,,1, I , i' .,L 4 EXISTING SITE PI AN HISTORIC ELEMENTS EXIS'HNG BUILDING A - G: MAIN RESIDENCE ,~ '.~:~ i ~i 4,,- -~ EXISTING BUILDIN0 A - O: MAIN RESIDENCE ~__ L-~--. '. SECOND FLOOR & MEZZAN~4E ROOF ~ ~ECOND ~R'& ~ P~/'P~ R~F pL~I' ~ EXISTING BUILDING A - G: MAIN RESIDENCB EAST REVATION SOUTH ELEVATION pArTIAL WE,ST ELEVATION PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EXISTING BUILDING H - I: WOODSHOP FLOOR PLAN EXISTIN6 BUILDING K: WOOD STORAGE EXISTING BUILDING L: OUF, ST HOUSE BUILDING M: WOOD STORAO~ EXISTING BUILDING N: OARAGE/WOOD STORAGE WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELBVATION NORTH ELEVATION, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURAL INVENTORY/EVALUATION FORM MAP REFERENCE NO. 32 (supplemenU Counly - Route - Postmile: SBd 30 0.0,22.8 ( ) LISTED ( ) DETERMINED ELIGIBLE ( X ) APPEARS ELIGIBLE ( ) APPEARS INELiGiBLE ~DENTIFIOATION 1.Commol~ N;~rne: Sam and Allrode Maloof Residence and Studio 2.HIstoric Nanlot same 3.StrooI or rurol address: 9553 Highland Avenue CIty: RDncho Cucamonga (Alia Loma) ZIp Cede: 91701 County: San Bornardino 4.Parcel Number: 202-101-01 and -18 Pre~ant Owner: .~am and A~reda Maleof Address: 9553 Highland Avenu~ CIty: R.qncho Cucamunga (AII;~ I.oma) ZIp Code: 91701 5.Ownership Is: ( ) Public ( x ) Private 6.Present U~a: Residence and studio Original Usa: Residence and ~tudio DBSCRIP31ON 7a.Archhectural Style: C~ntemporary 7b,Brlofly dogcribe the present PHYSICAL CON~)I'I'ION of the 8Zto or atructUre and describe any major nitorations from Its ortgln~l condillon: The wrious buildings of thiu proporb/, well-hidden from view. are situalad in the middle of a lemon grove. Ahhough this properly is under one ownership, it i~ ac~uaRy two separate, adjacent procole. Sam Maleof first acquired the ~astem Jot which consisted of part o[ the lemon grove, a chicken house and a small. eider residence. The lot on the wast was occupied by a c. 1940 house. This wag later acquired and combined with lho MaJ~of proport,/; it is nov/ occupied by the Malools' son. Thas residence is a'one-story house with a medium hlpped roof and a stucco ax'lorior; ~ has boon oxtoncivoly remodeled over the yeor~. (SEE CONTtNUA'RON SHEET 1) 8. Conatru=lJDn date E=tJmalad: ( ) FactuBh ( 1952-ptesen l) Archltecl: Sam Maleel 10. Bulldtr: Sam Me/Gel 11. Approx. property a~z.e (In t~t) Frontage: 440' D,~pth: 522' 12. D~le(a) ot oncloEod photograph(~): February 17, 1989 " 13.Condition: Exceilont (x) GoOd ( ) Fair( ) Doleriorrjed( 14.Alterations; Continuous expansion of house 15.St~rroundlngs: (Check more ths, n one ~(nece~ory) Open land (.) Scatlered buildings ( ) Densely built-up ( ) Rosidontie. I ( x ) IndLIslri~J ( ) ~mmercial ( ) Other: Citrus grove 1S.~raats tO Sl~O: None ~own { ) Private Dovolopmon~ ( ) Zor~ir~g ( ) Vandallsm ( ) Publ~ Works Projo~ ( x ) 17.1s [he structure: On its origln~l slt~? ( x ) Moved? ( ) Unknown? { ) 18.Roleted feeturns: Guest house, 0araDo, storage ~hed..lemon grove, add on~ roe don~ SIGNIFICANCE 19.Briofly stgt~ hlslorl~l and/or archlte~ural ImpoRan~ (including dnte8, events, and ~r~ns a~ocloted with the ~is propo~ Is e g~ e foK inclusion in the National Register of Hislode Places under C~%orla B and C. ~ilo ~ lass than 50 years of ~ge. It has excepfiona[ impdance under CritorZon B based u~n ~s a~ociation with a living a~istic figure or international prominent, end the ]wvol of ro~gn~tion ond professional study afforded Io his work, and under Criterion C based u~n the exceptional ar~hedural mer~ of the house and studio indapendgnt of its as~cialbn w~h ~s ownerSulCer. ~o pm~ny is the home end s~udio ~ the Intem~t~nally- a~aim~ woodworker and furnhure designer, Sam M~loof, and his wife Alfr~a Ward MaJ~, a former Santa Fe museum and crafts program dlre~or. S~ M~I~f ~gen m~lng his fumhure m h~ A~a ~ms wo~shop In the 1950s. His wo~ can been seen {n a number o~ AreoriOn museums, and h~ been featured in numerous tolevlslon a~ film produ~ions, as well as ~puJar ~d scJ~larfy wo~s on ~orlcan furniture and ~af~. His homo/s%ud~ has been s pierimage site for 1o~1 collies and univorsitlos, and the Gamble House ~soc~atos o~ Pasadena ~du~ an annual tour ~o tim property. (SEE CONTINUATION SHEDS 1 ~) Lo~llon skel~h m~p (draw & she a~ sunoun~ng s~eo~, ~d promiriam I~dm~): 20.Mgln theme el the himeric re~urce: (If more than one Is che~, number In order of Archi~turo ( ) Ads & Leisure ( x ) - E~nomi~lndustrial ( ) ExplorationSettlement ( ) Government ( ) Mil~aW ( ) Rgl~n ( ) Socia~duc~n ( ) 21.Sources (List ~o~, d~uments, suweys, }nte~ewo and tholr dates.) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 6. 22,Date form prepared: Feb, 17, 19119, rev. July 6, 1990 By; BonniQ W. Parks, Aaron A. Gallup Organization: Canttans Address: 112o N Street City: Sacramento ZIp Code: 95814 Phone: (916) 920-7683 or 920-7672 J CONTli'~UATION SHEET I 121AP REFERF_..NC~ No. 32 (Sup'fJlement) · . ' 7b.l~rlefly describe the present PHYSICAL CONDITION of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from It.s original condition: (COt',ITINUED) Maleel started building on Ills eastern parcel in 1952 wkh tile cons~rucllon or his woodworking shop. The present house, attached to the walkshop, was begun in 1958. The home sits within a 5 acre lemon grove--one of the last in the area. The .original small residence was torn down about 30 years ago and replaced by the structure which is now cid[od 'lho guest house*. This flat-reeled structure, r~miniscant of residences of the late phase of the International Style, sits in Ihe shade of a massive avocado tree a~d has an encircling, covered deck on all four sides; the main entrance Is on the east. Dlroclly east across the driveway is the garage, a one-car facility wllh unpaintod vertical axletier board siding. T~hs driveway terminates at a smell parking area noah of the workshop. The original house, begun as a few rooms. forms the core of the present building, which has grown incrementally over the years. creating an interplay of varying heights. exposures end partially enclosed courtyards. ]aleriot rooms are often gallort-I~e, with soaring spaces and indited natural Jighi providing a perfect display for the owners' exlon.;,ivo collection at art and crafts. Each sddillon was designed and constructed by Sam Meteor. Each has been camMly intoStaled inlo the overall building, end displ,,y 1he builder's treatment of arch~ectura as a line arl. wi~h an obvious love for working in the wood medium of construction. Many rooms In the rambling collection of unique and wendodul spaces feature hand finished lumber with handcrafted dawsled, marlisa and tenon connections-lreatod more like furniture than bu[Idi~x:j pens. The pdmary doors o[ file house are uniquely designed and have handcrafted wooden hinges, h,~sps, and latches, The original house and studio form a one-story, L- shal:~d unit al the soulhwe.';t earner of the plan. Sm~ll additions expand these spaces lo 1he west and noah, white a major two- story s~lJon on the east serves as a living morn wilh a central ahium encJmiad on the upper lave~ by a balcony. This is a beauffiu!ly cr~ed space both architecturally end in terms of its 'finishing details. Toe balcony opens into other upper level mama, inc{uding a "conference morn' addition above the origlnnl house, and a, small IIbraty alcove with a view over the lemon grove. A ~hroe story tower admits {Ight into the lower level on the eas~ as the alignment o~ the plan shifts from east-west to north-south. This leads Into a one-stoW ~actlor; ~ontalning the m~ln bedroom. followed by a two slory saclion wilh loft reached by a magnificent handcrafted circular .stairway. A work of art. the .stairway was constructed of wood from Taiwanaso motorboat crates laminated together;, each stop wa,J caned and '...the joints are ~culptad so that the stops taper froIn the center posl fiko potlda on a flower (SIgns 1986:76)." The railing wa.~ made from six laminates end assembled using one hundred clamps. From this room, several steps lead up to the north, oonnecting with a wood- and glass-sided short bridga-I~e passage which Ih~n slaps down to the guest bedroom. The overall design encloses a courtyard at the center, wilJ'l a paz'~id court on the south. A deck and afloat are acc..essed on the west from the kitchen. A~midl s~orags building etaads ad the aouthwest corner of the complex. 19.Briefly 8tats hIstorIcal end/or archllactural bnpertanco (Include dates, events, End parsons associated with the alto): (CONTINUED) Crilnrl,~n R - The Man nnd Hi~ WQd~ To say Sam Ms[oaf i~ a woodworker is like saying Mi~elangelo w~ ~ 5lnne~er. yet that Is how he identifies himserf in the title of his ~k and in his prefer!goal lHo. Born in Chi~ in 1916, of Labansee ~ronts who ~me to 1he United States In 190o, he grow up In Southern California. lie and Aitreda have made their home far over 35 yearn at the 9553 Highland Menu0 address tn the AIIG Lom~ ~lon of Rm~cho Cu~mong~. ~e ~o~Wo~" Sam Ma~of creates is ~ne'furnlturo; "m~t~rcm~sman* i= the t~ offiers use to descr~e him. His exquishG designs femurs ~uiptuml modern lines. A halim~k ~ his ~rk. ad ~o in~vat~n for which he is famous. is exceed joine~. ~o ra~t~. dovetail, hip, ~d ~x joints. the p~8, and the spitnee are all v~ib~e and ~nsldered pan of the design. In the J~mdu~n to M~f's ~o~ Jonathan Fairbanks. curator ~ the 8oaten Museum of Rne Arts. s~o, 'PathOs the halim~ af Ma~f furn~ure is ~s hall-lap ~inL exceed where the }~s meet the sam. ~ is a romplax toque and groove ~int, wh~h fo[Io~ the ~ntour of ~o char sumacs: Stru~uraJly sound and visualJy a~eali~, this joint a~uliy provides dotalE at the ~lm of tBnsit~n (Maleof 19~:19).' ~e ~urn~um is made primarily at waJn~ a~ is never stidn~. All piers are finished by hand-robbing with numerous ~ts of a ~mbin~tjon of linseed and tung oils and boesw~. CON'RNU~1~ON SHEET 2 MAP REFERENCE No. 32 (Supplement) In his i:xsok Amedc~r~ to Ihe Pret~orlt. Jonrdhan Fairbanks h~ciudes Sam Maleel in an elite group of three ,,~rtist-crahsmen in wood fernRuts (the others being Genres No~,ashima and Arth,r Carpenter) who make up the firsl generation to foilow Wharton Eshorick (1887-1970)--1he ~enier figure in Ihe new craw movemeal which took place alter World War II. Of this movement. Fairbanks says that these three 'fepre=ont the rolnlegration of craft, and personal communication With the consumer (Fairbanks 1981:498). Michaei A. SIena, in his ~ok Conternnr~r~qrV ~'neric.~LW~.~,,:orkers (1986), natrowed a list el over 100 crallsmen 1o ten whinh included Sarn Maleel. His choices are oil ,'msociated witl~ the above-mentbnod post-World War II craft resurgonco, a period which, lie says, 'saw an explosion of new styles and reelhods.' el Illis group, Stone says. 'The older craftsmen {Malo~f being one] are particularly important because they look risks and built a malket for their work when support for the independent designor.-craflsm;sr~ was [vidually absent] (~'tone lggG:Prelaco).~ Of M:.doof. Stone writef~ that he '...typffio~ the first generation of postwar craftsman who were sell-taught, fiercely Independent and forced lo create their own market a time when har~dmade furniture was nearly unknown (Stone 1 g80:69).' Describing Maleat, Fairbanks also speaks of his '...noteworthy conlribulions Io the recent craft movement and to the 'Cailforoi,~ so. heel' of modern wqodworklng, known for ils r~rOantc shepe~ and soulplod Joints. Sarn's work has Influenced so 91any craftsmen that one is tempted to piece him at the head of a 'acheel' (Maleel 1983:19).' His chairs, tables, and case places furnish the board rooms of several yaP/large corporations. Besides these d his own homo, he has also designed and crafted the interiors a~'XJ lurnishings for sevor~ churches which led le his p~uticipation in the "E.xl~tbldon of Liturgical Arts" at the 41 st International Euch~risl CoilDress, in Philadelphia, in 1976. HiG work is also housed in the COllections of approximately ton museums IncludinG the Metropolitan Museum of An arid the American Craft Museum, In New Yod< City; 1he Boston Museum of Fine Arts, which owns fourteen pieces; Ihe Los Angeles CounhJ Museum e~nd the Craft and Folk ArtMuseum in Los Angeles; and the Philadelphia Museum el Arl. His furniture is also In the White House ~nd In the ViCe Prosident's House in Washington, D. C. He has participated In over ttfly axhibils since 1970. Some of lheae includu -Objects U. S. A.' at the Smithsonion Institute; 'Woodenworks' in the Ranwick Gallery of the Smithsonia~; 'In PrQiso at Hands' an internationBI exhibition of crafts by the Wedd Crafl Councit in Toronto; 'A Renaissance In Furniture as Art: Master Woodworkers' at Esther Sake GallonL in Chicago; 'Craft Today: Poetry of lhe Physical' ~t the American Craft Museum, in New York City; and 'Masters: A Tribute to Sam MaleoF at I,.~ Jolla Gallery Eight, in La Jotra. California. In 1978, he participated In a exhibit and seminar at the V~ican, In Rome. A mere complete list of shows and oxh~hs is attached to this form. Sam Me. loaf has been 1he ~ubiecl of several telev~.sicn programs, the first being 'NBC On The Go' with Jack Linkletter in 1959, the lalast being 'America." s feature for Gernlan Tolovlsiqn, In 1986. In addition to his own book, published in 1983. and presently going Into-a second printing, h¢~ and his work have been have been featured in 25 pubitceIions. Two el the more schol~,lly end notewoilhy el those are: American D~,cor~{ve Ads: 360 Years ~r.~"~D by Rebel1 Bishop and Particle COblonlz, and American Furniture: 1R?O to lhe Present by Jonathan Fobbanks. Robert ~ishop Is one of the loremost aulhars on the decorative arts in Amodc~. Jonathan Fairbanks. identified above, also wrote the previously cited Introduction for Meteors book. Mateel and his work have also been feelured in over seventy alIlclas in over 28 differsol magazines or journafs including Areeric;an Craft, 1981 and 1987: Crafl Horizons. 1954, 196-4. 1986, 1970. and 1971; Crentivn Crnfts. 1960 and 1961; Fine WoodworkinQ 1980: and Pacific W~Gd_Worko[. 198..~ and 1986. A more complete list of films and publications is attached. Sam Maloof was the first recipient of the Louis Comfort T~fla. ny Grant for the Cra. ltsman Apprentice Program, in 1969, which allowed him to take on an aRsrentice. He is also one of the, tow to receive a John D. and, Ca.thoHne T. MacArlhur Foundation Fellowship (1985). Among his numerous ether awards are the American Craft Council Go{d Medal (1988) and a N,~tional Endowment for the Arts Followship Grant (198,~). Ha is a Fellow of the American Crafts Council. He was declared a LIving Treasure of Ranc~o Cucamonga by fhe City Council in 1984, and was featured in the 'Living Treasures of California' exh~i~ion at the Crochet Art Museum in Sacramento in 1985. (A more complete list of awards and honor~ is allached,) At an aucllon for the Amoric2,n Czafl Museum in 1983, one of Maloof's chairs brought $8000. Through his work, Sam Maleof has beecmo a personal friend of Jimmy Cartar and · Joan Mendale, among many others. The Maleors have visited the Cartars in .Plains, Georgia, where they house the several pieces el his brniture that they own. CONTI,','UATION SHEEa' 3 MAP REFERENCE No. 32 (Supplomenl) - ' 'Sarn and Alfmda Mabnf's own home is filled with a magnlfloent personal collection which Sam Maloof says consists "rnosgy pieces of follow craftsmen I knew." In addition 1o these modern piecos-original paintings, sculpture. arid a large qu;.~rli~y of pollory--the collection includes museum quality primhive Mexican end South Aznorican folk art. Pre-Columbian ~td, San Ifdefonso pottery, other Indian (mostly Nayale) rugs arid pottery, and oriental carpets. The love el Amorloan Southwest art and crafts is o special Interest shared by Alfreda Ward Mainof, Who served as the director of the .crafts program and museum at the Santa Fo Indian School in the late f930s. In keeping with his philosophy of sharing his talent with others, Sam Maleof has given rjver 100 lectures; opened his home end Workshop to S0 home tours; and taught classes at flv{~ different inslitutions; and conducted approximately 50 workshops, from Alaska to Maine, from New Mexico to Florida. In 1959. serving as a consultant Io the State Department on a project !9._onco~Jrage craft industries in developing nations. I~e traveled to Iron and Lebanon. At a crafts and religion seminar at the Vatican Museum in Rome, mentlor!od above, Maleof spoke of what he terms' e tri-union boht;eon Ihe object maker, tile material 'with whloh he works, and the person for whom he Is working. Beyond that, paraphrasing himself in a later interview, he sold, "...I fool it transcends into something eraafar..,. God, the masler craftsman who creates all 1hines. uses our hands as his instruments to make these beautiful objects (Diamonstein 1983:144).' Maloof's personal philosophy is reflected in his craft. He says: I hope that my happiness with what I do Is rollocted in my furniture. Furniture. any furniture, tells a story of the person who made It. I do not try consciously to makG rny places reflect their maker, but I hope Ihat my furniture is an outgoing part of my per.sonaJity and my way of thinking. 1 hope Ihat it Is v~ant, alive, and fdondly to the psop!e who use it....I repeat over and over that I want my chairs to invite a person to sit. I want my chairs to embrace that parson, to give comfort (Maleof 1983:200). Although ha is still living and still producing, the foregoing discussion clearly illustrates that Sam Maleel, his career and his body of wei:k have achieved a recognition and have boon Ibo subject el scholarly end popular study sufficient In give it historical perspective required for the e>~eption to the rule regarding properties associated with living persons. His present designs are largely outgmwlhs ol, or slight hIlp~ovemonts on. earlier prototypes. as tie continues to produce designs originated over the last thirty yearn. Fairbanks states. "This consistency of vision is unusual for ~ designer or a craltsman in the twontlelh centtiP/. If represents a traditional approach Io design that is not dependent on fashionable slyie trends (Fe. irban~ 1981:519).' Robert Bishop (cited above) says of the man and his work, 'The purily of Malool's design and the great skill he demonrotates in their e×ec',utlon have earned him a deserved reputation as one el the le~ding Amerlcsn craGtom af fine handcrafted home furnishings (Bishop and Coblontz 1992:374). Crherlon C - The Homo and Studio Sam Maiool"s workshop and house are both the produels o{ necessity which evok, od overtime. The house.is else a product of ils bul]der's croalivity, his love of his cratl and its raw matoffal--wood. 'eke the homes built by his conternporarjos Esher,~:k and Carpenter. every detail ic cral'ted to reflect Maloof's sense el design and passion for wood (Stone 1986:76).' el his home MaJcol says: I em not an m'chitect, I certainly would net call myself a house dosigno~, hut the h~use does not leek like a patched-up job, it does"not have afront: back, or sides because I h~.vo always fell a house ~;hould be a monolith; jt should look handsome regardless of the angle from which you approach it. Sometimes we have people walking ~round trying to find the front door. I de net use drawings when I am adding onto the house, I Just held up a two-by-four and think, 'That looks pretty good,' and then nail tt up. I do it all by eye (Meteor 1983:195). l do not have the time Io build Ih~ ~ouse the way I build ~ piece ot furniture. I do fanlasize about buildh~g a small, perfect hc~use where 6~1 the woodwork is beautifully shaped. I have managed to add little touches to our house, for instance, by putting wooden hinges and latches on every deer, each one dillgroat (Maleof 1983:196). _ My environment is a wonderful one, but again, it is something that was created by hand (Mainof I gO3:200). A t5 L, I CONTINUATION SHEET 4 MAP REFERENCE No. 32 (Supplement) 'The home and atud~o, desct'ibed in section 7'0, oxh~it an exceptional level of craftsmanship and design. }-land built homes became part ul the populer culture of the 1960s and 1970s a.~ part of the b~,ck-to-ti~o-eanh counterculture movement. Many homes of this movement are documented in two works by An Booricko--H~In~t~f...fe Ho~.~,2L~_G~Jd_e.. 1o ~h~ Woodbutch~r'~; Ar~, 1973 God .Hnn~L~.~ade J~ 1981. Those books Illustrate flumorgue such structures and .~how them to be charming. imaginative, and possessing great ingenuity. Salvage~ and na'lural mr~t~ria~s contribute to these qualitles, None however, possess ~ho level of sophistication and craftsmanship exhibited in Sam Maloof's homo. Further, Maleof began his house in 1956, wail before the I'novement. and during a period when the machine othic dominated the construcllon induslr,/. and hendcr~ted hou3es were e reri/y. While he buill it himself p~r~ly for econc~mic reasons, he atso did so because of his love for wo~d as a matorlel and b~ceuse of his own aosthetlc sen~. HIs hol. ls~:, is an extension of and el his work. The difference between M~.Joof's homo a~d thoae illu~ctralod In Boericko's book is the diftorence between genius and ingenuity, and bobNoon east.halite and cL,leness. The details in the hou-so are axquisile and finiahed appropdataiy to their purpose. Willie many at the beams and rafters are sawn lumber. In some morose such ~s the two-st(~ living room, these members feature hand shaping end finishing. As Maleat does not {ike metal and exposes none in his lurniture. he has exlandad this preference to the construction of the house whore many of tile connections are mortise and tenon with the joinery exposed as in his furniture. All the prlma~' doors have wooden hinges, hasps, and lalchos; all are difforen! and designed doer they serve. Thus, while 1ha house and the cra|taroan are inexlrica/~ly linked, the house, whh the craftsmanship of its construction and details, especially at the lime of its initial construction, stands as a structure of unusually high artisdc merit to lend it exceptional importance as a property that has achieved significance within the hzs! rr~, years. h is exceptional in the suburban areas east of Los Angeles where tract hoe.~ing has been 1he norm since the 1950s. Sumrna_ry _, This property meets Criteria B and C of the Nalional Register of Historic Piecos as a Ioss-th~.n-I~fty-year..old properly associated wi~h a living peruart. As Sam Maleof has produced the main l'x:~y of his work (with the exception of his eadiest pieces, constructed In the garage of his previous reaidonce) in this home and studio. and owns no other property, [I is the only propony associated with this mastercraftsman during his furniture making career. tt arebodies his craft and phitosophy. and is the ,~lte to which those who wish to le~'n, purchase, or just admire make pilgrimages. It is a structure unique to ~ts bU~dor, and the wodd. and Is o[ exceptional artistic merit. The boundaries of the property are the legal boundaries dolined by'essessor's parcel numbers 202-101 *.01 and 202-101-18. See attached map. The so~tlng of the property consists of the 5..1 acres of structures and orange groves included w~lhln the two parcels. The house and studio ere contdbutlng structures to the site. The guest house and the remodeled 1940s residence on the western pareel are non-contributors. CONTiNUATiON SHEET 5 MAP REFERENCE No. 32 (Supplement) 21. . Soui'ce~ Bishop, Robed and Pntrh::f9 CoblonLz, ,.LrG.e. dcan D:~.~,~.C~tive Arl~L36.~ Yenm L'~I Crontiv,~ Desiga. New Yo~: H~rry Abrams. Inc., 1982. ' Bisllop, Robert Centurie.t.~D.d_S_ty.Le_LQ[~o American Chair. New York: E.P. Dut'~on & Co., 1972. Doedc~o, Art a~d 13arty Sh~piro. Handmad'~ ~0.~es A GuLd~tO_.~L.~ Woc~lhutcher's Ad. New York: Dolaoode Press, 1973. Boelicke, Art and Barly Sl~pircl,Hendmado Hn~ll~"'~J_ltt.~:z/..f.l~DI._~LLd.. Now Yor~: Delacorlo Press. 1981. Diamonstoin. Barbaralee. J:J.e, ndmade in Amerj,CD. New Yo~k: Harry N. Abrems, Publishers, 1988. Fairbanks. Jonathan L, American Ft/j~[luro 1620 to lhe Pro~ent. New York: Riche, rd Marok Publishers. 1981. Mg. lool, Sam...SBJ~I. Ma[QQf. Woed',./cfker. Tokyo: Koclansha Interna,ti<:nal. Ltd., 1983. Paz, Octavio arid the World Craft CouncilJr~ Prajsf~.C.f Ftands: Cor21emonra~,LG[,-',.[[~; or Ihn WozJd. Toronto: New Yo~k Graphic Society. 1974. Stoobe, Madha Gaines. The Histon, of Alta n~.L0_ql.L.G.aJ~ffiJ~...].680-19rj0. Alia Loma.. 19.B1. Stone. Michael A. Cont.omDorarv American WoocrWQrk~,r~ Sail Lake City; Gib,ba M. Smhh, Inc. 1986. Inletview. Sam Maleof, Alla Loma. February 17. 1989. r'uL UL~UUillUnI~ F~/I~.~TJ ~5SOC, Property Boundarias 'SAM MALOOF RESIDENCE ANO STU010 . r,¢.l ~4~-',t~r~ ~ ~ . L. SKETCH FLOOR PLAN SITE PLAN - ur~lc;~ OF HISTORIC PRFSERVATION "'" ...." .... DEPARTMENT OF PARI(S AND RECREATION ~ ,. POST OFFICE 80X 942896 $ACR/:,M;:NTO, CALIFORNIA 94296.0~01 {9}6J 445.8008 FHWAg00209A Augusll 27, 1990 Bruce E. Cannon, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration P. O. Box 1915 Sacramento, CA 95812-1915 Re: Maleof property (07-LJ%-30-2.4/7.8; 08-SBd-30-0,0/22.8) Dear Mr. Cannon: Thank you for requesting our comments on a supplement to the Historic Property Survey Report for construction of State Route 30 on new alignment from La Verne to San Bernardino. The supplement is a teevaluation of the Sam and Alfreda Maleof residence and studio at 9553 }{ighland Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. Based on this information, we concur in your determination that the Maleof property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of si nificance under criteria period of significance that goes back on!y to the beginningof B and C. Althou?h associated with a liv ng Person, and with a its construction in 1952, the Maleof property qualifies as being of exceptional significance. It is the only propert associated with master craftsman Sam Maleof durin his woodwork~ng career, contributor, and two other buildings are noncontributors. Dorene Clement at (916) 322~9600. r e to ?all staff historian Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM" (Part I- Initial Study) The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality Ac%; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CZQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided i~n full; INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PRO~SSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure =ha= the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provi_d.e missing information. ~ INFO~MATI~ Application Number for the project_ to which this form pertains: ......... Project Title: Maloof Relocation/New Residence Name & Address of projec~ owner(s): San Bernardinn Associated Governments ..472 N. Arrowhead Avenue~ San Bernardinn? CA 92401 Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: San Bernardinn Associated Governments~ 472 N. Arrowhead Avenue~ San Bernardino~ CA 92401 Centact Person & Address: Gary W. Moon, Director of Program Management; San Bernardinn Associated Governments, 472 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardinn, CA 92401 Telephone Number: (909) 889-8611 X153 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if d~fferent from ~bove): Tom Casahonne, Environmental Specialist, San Bernardinn Associated Governments, 472 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardinn, CA 92401 Telephone N,,mhe_r: (909) 889-8611 x142 fXN/aG' C I T V o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A PI~OJ]~CT INFORMATION & DESC3~IPTION Information indicated by asterisk (') is not required of non-construction ~u~'s unless otherwise requested by staff- Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X ~1) copy of ~ne USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs which show representative views~ into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points which serve ~he site; and representative views of si~ificant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each .photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): SE corner of Almond Street and Carnelian Avenue, North ofl~i~den Farm Road and West of Sunstone. 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): Assessment No. 1061-281-16 Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft.): 6.6 Acres *6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed dedications): 5.0 Acres 7) Describe any proposed general plan ~m-nclment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): No zone chan~e required. Pro~ect applicant is seekin~ Conditional Use Permit to allow relocation of the historic Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence & studio to be used as an arts & crafts center/ shop, with the shop continuing to operate as a small-scale woodworkin~/ furniture business. 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other goverrunental agencies in order to fully implement =he project: Conditional Use Permit, Hillside DeVelopment (less than or equal to 4 dwellinn units), Landmark Alteration Permit~ Landmark Designation, all applicable ~radin~ and buildin~ permits. 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspecZa. ~escribe any existing s~_ructures on site (including age and condition ) and the use of the struc=~ures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, site all sources of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The site is nlanted in cltru~ (tangerine. nave] oranqe. valencla orange) ~ntergper~ea with ~ ]~m~ted number ~[ various size oaks. The s~te has The site has a natural watercourse located on the east side and has eucalyptus rows on the north and east property lines. The site ~enera]ly slopes ±8% from north to south. It is surrounded on four sides-by existin~ streets. 10) Describe the known cul=ura! and/or historical aspects of the si=e. Si=e all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): _ Proposed site has no known cultural and/or historical aspects. Describe any noise sources .and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc. ) and how they will affect Proposed uses: Proposed s'~'e is not affected by any known noise sources. 12) Describe the l~roposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use which will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are Proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s} if necessary: Please see attached "Pro~ect Description: Maloof Relocation". L. 13) Describe ~he surrounding properties, including information on plants and an~-ls and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Surroundin~ neighborhoods consist of single family residences to the east~ west, and north. An open, vacant tract lies south of the property, with single family residences beyond that. Wi!l ~he proposed project change ~he pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? The or~oosea oreloot will not chan~e the low-density residential ch~r~rrer Nf the neighborhood' 15) Indicate the type of short-term &nd long-term noise to be generated, including souarce and amount. How will these noise levels affec~ adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing are proposed? Minimal noise will be ~enerated durin~ construction of the new residenc,. .and relocation/re~lication of the original Maloof house. Little or no lon~-term noise will be ~enerated. e16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: Some citrus trees are in decay and will be replanted. Some citrus/mature trees will be removed due to new grading. New trees will be replanted or relocated to simulate the current Maloof house grounds. 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: None. 18)- In~cate expected amount of' water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County WateT-DisT_rict at 987-2591. a. ResidenTial (gal/day) 6?On Peak use (gal/day) b- Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. X Septic Tank Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge =o a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (see Attachment A for usage estimates). For ful~cher clarification, please contact the Cuc~cnga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day} b- Industrial/Commercial (gal/day/ac) ~ID~fTIAL PROu'ECT~ 20) N-mher of residenTial Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Two detached residences will be located on this parcel of 5 acres. Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ N/A to $ Rent (per month) $ N/A to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooma by unit type: One new residence winh two . bedrooms. One relocated historic residence to be used as an arts and Jrafts centerw with no bedrooms. 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: The new residence w~]l house two People. 24) Indicate the expected n-~her of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact ~he appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: __ 0 b. Junior High: 0 c. Senior High: 0 ~, INDUSTRTAT. AND INSTITUTICBAL PI~0JECT~ 25) Describe type of use(s) and major functionCs) of co--~-rcial, industrial or insT. itu=ional uses: N/A 26) Total floor area of commercial~ industrial, or institutional uses by type: N/A 27) Indicate hours of opera=ion: N/A 28) Number of employees: Total: N/A Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classifica~'[0n (attach additional sheet if necessary): N/A 30) Fatima=ion of the D,---her of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: ~./& e31) For cc---~rcial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and ~ount of air Pollution ~m~saions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): -. N/A ALL P]~TECTS 32 ) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to dete_-~ine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. The proposed project has been approved by water, fire, and flood control aEencies. A septic tank system will be used for sewage disposal. 33) In the known history of this propert, y, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous _ lals Inc!ude, but are not limited to PCB ' s · ct ces; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solventsf and other flammable liquids and gases. Also, note undergound storage of any of the above. Please list the materials 'and describe ~heir use, storage, and/or discharge on the promet=y, as well as the dates of use, if known. - N.../o known use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials has occurred on the site. 34 ) Will the proposed project involve the tempo_ rary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic mate-~a!s including but not ]~mited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials =o be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. 1 chemicals associated with 1 chemicals associated wi woodworkin~ (varnish, linseed oil, etc.) will be stc=ed used a~d d~s osed of in full compliance with local, tats and fedsial ordinances. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached' exhibits present the clata and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand ~_hat additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho PROJECT DESCRIPTION: MALOOF RELOCATION The Sam and Alfreda Maloof Residence and Studio (located at 9553 Highland Avenue) have been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The site is adjacent to a the proposed State Route 30 project. After studying many alternatives to mitigate the impact of the proposed State Route 30 project, relocation of the significant elements of the historic site to new site was selected as the preferred alternative. This. application is for approval of the relocation/re-creation of the Maloof Residence, Shop structures and site elements to a new site bounded by Almond Street, Carnelian Street, Hidden Farm Road and Sunstone Avenue. The application seeks approval for the historic residence and shop to be used as a, woodworking facility and non-profit Arts and Crafts Center. In addition to relocating the historic residence to the new site, a new _+2,500 s.f. residence and garage will be constructed as the home of Sam and Alfreda Maloof. After the site is completed a conservation easement will be recorded to protect the site and the project will be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. The Maloof Residence is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places for its architectural, artistic, cultural and historical significance because it is the only property associated with the artist during his career. "It embodies his craft and philosophy, and is the site to which those who wish to learn, purchase, or just admire make pilgrimages. It is a structure unique to its builder, and the world, and is of exceptional artistic merit."~ The proposed project is a practical solution to protecting and preserving this important property while being a good neighbor to the surrounding properties. The attached Project Explanation further describes the Existing Maloof Site (pages 1-2), The State Route 30 Project's Impact and Mitigation (pages 2-5) and The Proposed New Site Plan (pages 5-8). 1 California Department of Transportation Architectural Inventory/Evaluation Form, Sam and Alfi'eda Maloof Residence and Studio, 4/19 Significance, February 17, 1989, rev. July 6, 1990. Project Description for the Maloof Relocation Project , F-x/4h /r' A,s L PROJECT EXPLANATION: MALOOF RELOCATION I. Existing Location The Maloof Residence and Studio evolved as a physical representation of the life and craftsmanship of the Maloofs. The house and studio have grown with new rooms or buildings as need demanded while always respecting the existing landscape elements. The site itseft evolved into a myriad of mature trees, plants, walks, stepping stones, retaining walls, pottery and sculptures. The 'Maloof Residence and Studio were determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places based on a Caltrans Architectural Inventory Evaluation Form dated Feb. 6, 1989, revised July 8, 1990. The State Office of Historic Preservation concurred with this determination in a letter dated August 27, 1990. Character of the Site The residence is located on about 5.1 acres of land where the structures are nestled in a lemon grove. The site has over 200 different species of plants -- grown by Sam and Alfreda, often from just a volunteer. The site also has a number of man made elexnents such as driveways, steps, walls and wood decks constructed by Sam Maloof. These include concrete retaining walls with rock insets, cobble walls at the entry drive and wood decking at the guest house entry. The third component of the site is the myriad of character elements which include sculptures, bird houses, wooden planters and pottery. These elements were collect by the Maloofs or crafted by Sam Maloof. The Residence Exterior The residence itseft grew out of what was to be only a work studio. The residence is a rambling series of rooms each with its own character, while unified by the craftsmanship of Sam Maloof. Each room was designed and constructed by Sam Maloof. The exterior of the residence is often quite simple in its general cladding, utilizing board on board or board and construction. However, hints of Sam Maloof's artistry are evident at the doors, windows, posts and arbors, all of which display the hand-crafted detailing. While the interiors of the residence dominate the design, there was obviously care given to the exterior through the planning of courtyards and interplay with existing trees. As each room was added, the exterior was carefully designed to be integrated into the overall residence, not by mimicking the previously constructed rooms but by complementing them. Project Explanation for the MaJoof Relocation Project. 3/2/96 Page 1 The Residence Interior -- The interiors of the rooms are a lively mix of varying materials, volumes of space and indirect natural lighting. While the eye is naturally drawn to the built~ in crafted details, furnishings and collection of art, the backdrop of architectural elements is of simple materials and textures. The floors, walls and ceilings of the rooms are comprised of many materials: floors of concrete, carpet, wood, brick, and tile; walls of exposed wood studs, gypsum board, plaster, cork, wood siding and tile; and ceilings of wood, acoustical tile and plaster. However, the detailing of exposed beams, posts, doors, windows, and wood trim is magnificent. These features are hand finished and crafted with doweled or mortis and tenon connections. The doors and windows of the house, including the head, jambs, and sills are all crafted by Sam Maloof, with wooden hinges, hasps and latches. These elements are obviously beautiful built-in pieces of hand-crafted furniture. The hierarchy of personal property in the house starts with Sam Maloof's furniture, whether it be chairs, tables or perhaps a music stand. However, it is very evident that the Maloof's have chosen to display their magnificent collection of art in each room. The modern pieces are often from craftsman/artists the Maloof's know personally and include sculpture, paintings and pottery. "The collection also includes museum quality primitive and South American folk art, Pre-Colombian art, San Ildefonso pottery, other Indian (mostly Navajo) rags and pottery, and oriental carpets. The love of American Southwest art and crafts is a special interest shared by Alfreda Ward Maloof, who served as the director of the crafts program and museum at the Santa Fe Indian School in the late 1930's.''t II. The State Route 30 Project -- Impact and Mitigation The Maloof Residence and Studio is located immediately adjacent to the proposed State Route 30 project. The proposed project is the construction of the State Route 30, from Foothill Boulevard in the city of La Veme, Los Angeles County (07-LA-30-2.4/7.8), to 1215, in the city of San Bemardino, San Bemardino County (08-SBd-30-0.0/22.8), a total of 45.4 kilometers (28.2 miles). The corridor traverses the cities of La Verne and Claremont, in Los Angeles County, and the cities of Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontaria, Rialto, and San Bemardino, in San Bemardino County. The Route 30 corridor has been designated as part of California's freeway and expressway system for more than 40 years. The concept of a freeway with the corridor was first adopted by the state in the early 1950s. Land use planning de- I California Department of Transportlion Architectural Inventory/Evaluation Form, Sam and Alfreda Maloof Residence and Studio, #19 Significance, February 17, 1989, rev. July 6, 1990. Project F_.xplanation for the Maloof Relocation Project · 3/2/96 Page 2 cisions made by the local jurisdictions along the corridor were conditioned by the expectation that the programmed facility would ultimately be constructed within the designated right-of-way. In most of the affected communities, development was not permitted to encroach on the right-of-way. The freeway will consist of three general purpose lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction2. The designers of the Route 30 project have a number of major issues to consider when evaluating altematives. In addition to evaluating the impact on historical sites the project must be designed to protect public safety by meeting (or exceeding) proven design criteria. The freeway must meet' local auto circulation needs by providing ingress and egress at appropriate locations. Lastly, both the land acquisition and the actual construction need to be approached in a cost effective manner During the course of considering the Route 30 alignment adjacent to the Maloof property, all the items above were considered. Twenty-five (25) alternatives3 were analyzed under the following broad headings: · Avoidance either inside or outside of the right-of-wayRealignment of freeway · Tunnel/cut and cover · Elimination and/or alteration of interchange ramps · Relocation of historic elements on the existing site · Relocation of historic elements off site (to a new site) Evaluation of the Relocation Alternatives The process of evaluating the historic significance of the Maloof property and the impact of the proposed Route 30 started in early 1989 when the initial Historical Architectural Survey was conducted. Contact between the Maloofs attomeys with representatives of Caltrans and the San Bemardino Associated Govemments (SANBAG), began June 15, 1990. Numerous additional meetings occurred, and in January of 1991 a gathering held at the Maloof property evolved into an advisory committee which has worked toward a solution of the issues.4 The advisory committee continued to work towards a resolution and in early mid- June, 1992 hired a consultant team (Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc., Kariotis and Associates and The Dike Parmership) to prepare a relocation study to analyze the 2 Draft State Route 30 Section 106 Documentation Finding of Effect and Memorandum of Agreement, March 1994, Page 2. 3 For a complete description of the altemalive see "Exhibit G.6" in Dr~ State Route 30 Section 106 Documentation Finding of Effect and Memorandum of Agreement, March 1994. 4, For a complete description of the process see "Exhibit H Maloof Property Chronology" in Dn~et State Route 30 Section 106 Documentation Finding of Effect and Memorandum of Agreement, March 1994. Project Explanation for the Maloof Relocation Project · 3/2/96 A, 5-65 feasibility of relocating the historic elements of the Existing Property (buildings and site elements) to a new site The consultant team met with the advisory committee during the preparation of the final report and the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Residence and Studio Relocation Report was completed on March 29, 1993. The study analyzed the structure of the Maloof Residence/Studio to develop specific recommendations for the disassembly, relocation and reconstruction process. Potential relocation sites were compared to the existing site using the following evaluation factors: site topography; setback; relationship of house to trees; presence of similar landscape eleraents, trees, surrounding groves and micro climate; relocation route; potential disruption to business; and overall cost. An Optimal plan was developed as a visual tool to representing most of these factors as shown in Exhibit "A". The factors were used to evaluate and rank three on-site and three off-site relocation alternatives to determine the most acceptable alternative. The project team developed a matrix to score and evaluate each alternative. The Maloof Subcommittee met on April 12, 1993, and reached a consensus that under certain conditions relocation could be an appropriate mitigation measure, with a suitable off-site location to be determined after further study. This conclusion was further discussed at a meeting of the full Maloof Committee May 17, 1993, with Sam Maloof in attendance. Particular emphasis was placed on the methodology, conclusions, study findings and recommendations of the Relocation Report. The Committee recommendations were written into the Findings of Adverse Effect and the Memorandum of Agreement. The final relocation site will be approved by SANBAG, Caltrans, FHWA, SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the Council), in consultation with the Maloof Relocation Study Committee. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5(a), FHWA initiates consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in applying the criteria of effect [Section 800.9(a)] and adverse effect [Section 800.9(b)]. The Draft State Route 30 Section 106 Documentation finding of Effect and Memorandum of Agreement, constitutes the Finding of Effect (FOE) that the Route 30 improvements project will have on historic properties following application of the criteria of effect and adverse effect. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), requires federal agencies such as FHWA to evaluate the effect on historical properties of federally licensed undertakings. Regarding FHWA's finding, the preferred alternative will have an Adverse Effect on the property. Project Explanation for the Maloof Relocation Project · 3/2/96 Page 4 ~][ ~E~/ 7 The proposed Mitigation Measures for this Adverse Effect are: · Historic elements will be relocated to a new site · HABS/HAER recordation of all buildings and site elements will be performed prior to any disturbance of the property. ~ On May 24, 1994, the Maloofs and SANBAG entered into an agreement providing for the acquisition of the Existing Property and the preparation of a Conservation Plan and related Conservation Agreement. Shortly thereafter the site selection process commenced. Site Identification Process A historical Architect and Landscape Architect idenfffied 21 potential sites as being candidates for the relocation. The evaluation criteria from the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Residence and Studio Relocation Report were utilized to evaluate and rank each site. Through a series of reviews the number of candidates was reduced three. The three candidates selected by the Design Team and the Maloofs were next reviewed by the reviewing agencies -- SHPO, SANBAG and Caltrans. This was accomplished by a joint meeting of representatives of each agency, the Design Team, and the president of the Maloof Foundation. The meeting reviewed the completed evaluation procedure and then moved to visit each site for a walk- through. The three sites were presented for comment to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The consensus of the meeting was that all three sites were acceptable for the relocation. A final review of the three resulted in the selection of the site bounded by Almond Street, Carnelian Street, Hidden Farm Road and Sunstone Avenue. III. Description of Proposed New Site Plan Existing Conditions The proposed site is +_5 acres that are planted in Citrus. The site has a natural watercourse located on the east side and has Eucalyptus rows on the north and east property lines. The site generally slopes +8% from north to south. The site is surrounded on four sides by existing streets that are in varying compliance with City standards. The site meets the criteria of from the Sam and Alfreda Maloof ~ See "Exhibit A Memorandum of Agreement" in Dr{t State Route 30 Section 106 Documentation Finding of Effect and Memorandum of Agreement, March 1994. Project Explanation for the Maloof Relocation Project · 3/2/96 Page 5 ~/~2511:~} T / A,e,-67 Residence and Studio Relocation Report generally- because it is closely resembles the existing Maloof Site on Highland Avenue in size, orientation, driveway access (from north), citrus groves, Eucalyptus rows and community. Proiect Uses The following five uses will be integrated into the new site: 1. Continued design and woodworking workshop, with a maximum of three employees (in addition to Sam and Alfreda MalooO. 2. Original relocated residence to be utilized as an Arts and Crafts Center, with limited hours of operation. The Center will be operated by the Maloof Foundation, a non-profit corporation established for the preservation, teaching and exhibition of Arts and Crafts. The Center will be open +3 days a week, for 4 hours per day. The maximum number of guests at any one time will be 60. The Foundation will employee up to 2 people on site. 3. Guest quarters for up to two "Artists in Residence" who may stay up to 30 days at the Maloof Arts and Crafts Center. 4. A newly constructed residence for Sam and Alfreda Maloof. 5. The farming of Citrus on site. Site Plan The proposed site plan generally places the elements and structures from Highland Avenue site at the North and the new Maloof residence at the South. The two portions will be integrated into a single entity by the citrus groves, similar landscape/hardscape elements and architecture. The site will need to be graded at the northern portion of the site to accommodate the relocated structure which was designed to fit the less sloping original site on Highland Avenue. Structures The structures at the North will include the residence, shops and wood storage buildings currently located at the Highland Avenue Site. The residence itself will be relocated and workshop and storage buildings will be re-creations of the existing structures. The structures are mostly board on board clad, with metal standing seam roofs. They are generally one story, with a portion having two stories. Project Explanation for the Maloof Relocation Project · 3/2/96 Page 6 ]552Cljt/.~l7' p~ The new residence is located at the south side of the site and will be one story with a loft at the living area. The materials will match the original structures -- board on board siding and metal standing seam roof. The residence will have a two car garage of the same materials. The new house is designed with the full involvement of Sam and Alfreda Maloof. Site Elements The northern portion will have the original characteristics of the Highland Avenue site by the relocation or re-creation of significant historical elements, including landscape, hardscape and various site elements into the citrus grove. These elements include the original curving drive which will act as the ceremonial entrance to the site -- actual auto access for the original residence (Arts and Crafts Center) will be from Carnelian. The northwestern comer will have 25 car spaces integrated into the groves for guests and employees. Two driveways to the parking and will allow buses to drop off and pick up guest to the Arts and Crafts center. The Eucalyptus rows on the North west will be maintained. The new residence will be placed in the citrus grove at the southern section of the site. Improvements will include a new driveway from Hidden Farm Road, guest parking for the residence and patios, decks and gardens for the residence. The existing watercourse at the East will remain as currently configured and the two rows of Eucalyptus at the East will remain. The entire site perimeter will be fenced and gated with metal fencing (see through). Off Site Improvements Almond Street will be improved with curb and gutter as directed by staff to continue the equestrian trail. The trail will be developed to protect the existing Eucalyptus. Carnelian Street will be improved with curb and gutter as directed by staff and will include an equestrian trail at the east side. This will necessitate the elimination of one citrus row. Hidden Farm Road will also be improved with curb and gutter as directed by staff and will include a driveway entrance to the new residence. Stonestone Avenue will be improved with curb and gutter and a fire tum around at the north end. It requested that the curb to curb at Sunstone continue to be +28 Project Explanation for the Maloof Relocation Project · 3/2/96 Page 7 feet to retain the existing mature Eucalyptus row. The fire cul-de-sac will be improved to allow turning while maximizing the retention of the Eucalyptus trees. PhaSing The project will occur in two phases: Phase I will include all site grading, pad improvements for all structures, off site improvements, Eucalyptus and grove maintenance, new driveways and parking, re-creation of shop and wood storage facilities and construction of the new house. The site elements for the relocated original residence will not be developed in this phase. The Woodshop equipment and wood storage will be moved from the Highland Avenue site and woodworking will continue at the new site. The Maloofs will move into the new residence. Phase H will include the moving of original house from the Highland Avenue site to the new site. Site Elements will be moved as practicable or recreated to mimic the original Highland Avenue site. Project Explanation for the Maloof Relocation Project · 3/2/96 Page8 .~F,~/~I F M CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ~ITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1 ) Project File #/Name: Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03. / Maloof Relocation / New Residence 2) Relat6d Files: Landmark 96-01 3) Applicant: San Bemardino Associated Governments Address: 472 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bemardino, CA 92401 Telephone #: (909) 889-8611 4) Project Description: Relocation of historic Maloof Residence and Accessory Structures, and conversion of same to museurn / arts and crafts center, and construction of a new two bedroom residence. 5) Project Accepted as Complete (date): March 18, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the potential pacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required. An explanation shall also be provided in each ~nustance 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 changes in the geologic structure? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the soil? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) The destruction, covering, or modification ofany unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( X ) e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ( ) ( ) ( X ) f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which ma modi the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, infer or l~e? ( ) ( ) ( X ) g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudshales, ground failure, or similar hazards? ( ) ) ( X ) II. AIR - Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air qu__ality? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) The creation of objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Alteration of air movement moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? ( ) ( ) ( X ) III. WATER - Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Cru~h~qfgf..e! in the absorption rate, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) ' Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? ( ) ( ) ( X ) e) Dischar e into surface waters, or in alteration of surface water quality, including, but not ~emited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ( ) ( ) ( X ) f) Alteration of the direction or'rate of ground waters? ( ) ( ) ( X ) g) Change in the uantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or t~rough interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ( ) ( ) ( X ) h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( X ) I) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? ( ) ( ) ( X )~ IV. PLANT LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change inthe diversity ofspecies, ornumber ofany species ofplants(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Reduction in the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ( ) ( ) ( X ) V. ANIMAL LIFE - Will the proposal result in: a) Change in the diversity ofsp. ecies, or number ofany species ofanimals (birds, land animals, including repules, fish and shellfish benthic organisms or insects)? ( ) () (X) b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? ( ) (') (X) c) Introduction of any new species of animals into the area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ( ) (.) ( X ) 2 A,H,-ttT--- E,,,,t,x,' b,'fi- t'¢x, NOISE - Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( X ) VII. LIGHT AND GLARE - Will the proposal.' a) Produce new light and glare? ( ) ( ) ( X ) VIII. LAND USE - Will the proposal result in." a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ( ) ( ) ( X ) IX. NATURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in.' a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ( ) ( ) ( X ) X. RISK OF UPSET - Will the proposal involve.' a) A risk of ex losion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oi~ pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ( ) - ( ) ( X ) XI. POPULATION - Will the proposal.' a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XII. HOUSING- Will the proposal.' a) Affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - Will the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ( ) ( ) ( X ) e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ( ) ( ) ( X ) f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or p_edestrians? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Will the proposal have an effect u on, or result in, a need for new or altered government services in any of the~ollowing areas.' a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) Parks and other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( X ) e) Mair~tenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( X ) f) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XV. ENERGY - Will the proposal result in.' a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? ( ) ( ) ( X ) 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? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Communications systems? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Water? ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( X ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( X ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XVII. HUMAN HEALTH - Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XVIII. AESTHETICS - Will the proposal result in.' a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XIX. RECREATION - Will the proposal result in.' a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportuniti_es? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Will the proposal result in.' a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? ( X ) ( ) ( ) b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic, cultural values? ( X ) ( ) ( ) XXI. 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 ran e of a rare or endan ered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of~e major periods of Ealifornia history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( X ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relanvely brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts well endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( X ) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulativel considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources w~ere the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ( ) ( ) ( X ) d) Substantial adverse: Does the pro'ect have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ~uman beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( X ) XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of environmental impacts) - XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS (Examine whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls) - XXIV. EARLIER ANALYSES - Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, rogrnm EIR or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EPIR 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 ade uately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether succ~ effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures - For effects that are "less than significant with mitigation incorporated, descnbe the mitigation measures which were inco orated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific co~tions for the project. XXV. DETERMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: a) I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ....................................................................( ) b) I find that although the pro osed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sigm~cant eFflect in this case because mitigation measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ...................................................................( X ) c) I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required .........................................................( ) Print Name and Title April 3, 1996 Date XXVI. APPLICANT CERTIF_ICATION (To be completed by applicant) - I 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. Signature Print Name and Title Date ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST = Initial Study - Part II Environmental Evaluation and Discussion Project Description: Relocation of historic Maloof Residence and Accessory Structures, and conversion of same to museum/ads and crafts center, and construction of a new two bedroom residence. I. Earth: a) The site is not within any known unstable earth condition area. b) The displacement and disruptions ~vili take place only in the areas needed accommodate parking, driveways, and structures with a majority of the site unaffected. c) The topography of the site will be altered slightly to accommodate the project. The grading will be conducted consistent with City codes. The impact is not significant. d) No known or unique geologic or physical features exist on this site. e) Consistent with City standards and conditions of approval prior to occupancy, the site shall be landscaped and/or paved to prevent soil erosion per City standards and conditions of approval. The impact is not significant. f) The project will not affect any river, channel, ocean, lake, or bay. g) The project is not within any known seismic special study zone nor subject to any known geologic hazard. No additional studies are required. II. Air: a) Short term construction activities will disturb the soil. Consistent with SCAQMD (Rule 403), dust suppression techniques will be used so that fugitive dust does not remain visible beyond the property line of the project. Long term, consistent xvith City ! standards and conditions of approval, prior to occupancy the site shall be landscaped and/or paved to prevent soil erosion per City standards and Conditions of approval. The impact is not significant. b) The project will not create any objectionable odors. c) The project will not result in alteration to the climate or air movement. III. Water: a) There are no marine or fresh water courses on site. b) A study is on file: "Preliminary Drainage Report: Maloof Relocation dated March 4, .- : 1996." The absorption rate may be slightly altered because of the paving and ~ "}iardscape proposed. Storm flows received in the vee shaped natural watercourse will not be significantly affected. Surface storm water flows will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities consistent with City codes and policies. The Developer will be required to install drainage facilities which will not increase down stream flows beyond the capacity of the existing channel. The impact is not significant. c) The project will not alter the course or flow of flood waters. d) 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) The proposed upgrading of the existing drainage pipe under Hidden Farm Road from 24-inch diameter to 48-inch diameter RCP will assure that current flood control standards for 100 year storm incidents will be met, thereby protecting the road from flooding. ,,A~ 1:}-/P7 ~"/-.h ~ b; "~ f,('x, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY - PART II CUP 95-37 Page 2 g) No direct additions or withdrawals of ground water are proposed. h) The project is anticipated to uge only that amount of ~vater consistent with dust ·, avoidance during construction and with a storage and distribution facility upon project _ _completion. The mount of water usage is not significant. i) The natural channel adjacent to the east property line is a special flood hazard area. No structures or grading will be allowed within the Zone A. IV. Plant Life: a) The project will remove a portion of an abandoned citrus grove. There will be no impact on diversity of species. b) There are no known rare, unique, or endangered species on-site. c) Consistent with City codes and SHPO reconunendations, landscaping introduced to the site will be compatible with landscaping materials previously used on the existing MaIoofHouse site. There will be no impact to native species. d) Remnant citrus grove exist on the site. Grove trees that are beyond reclamation will be removed and replaced wherever possible. 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 ne~v species wilI be introduced as a result of the project. d) The project is surrounded on all sides by public roads and single family rd~idences. The project will have no impact on fish or wildlife habitat. VI.'L' Noise: a) The site is currently vacant. No increase in existing noise level is anticipated. b) Consistent with City codes, noise levels will not be exceeded at the property line. VII. Light and Glare: a) New light will be created because the property is currently vacant. The impact is not significant. V~II. Land Use: -- - a)~--No substantial land use alteration is proposed with the application. The site is ~ - identified as Very Low Density in the General Plan. "House Museum - Arts & Crafts Center" is a Conditionally Permitted Use in the Residential Zones. Therefore, the project is consistent with the present and planned land use of the area. IX. Natural Resources: a) The project will conserve an existing citrus grove; therefore, it is expected to have a positive impact on conservation of resources. X. Risk of Upset: - a) There will be no significant impact. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY - PART II CUP 95-37 Page 3 b) Two means of emergency access will be maintained consistent with all applicable codes of the City and the Fire District: the primary access for the Museum will be from Carnelian Street and a secondary access on Almond Street will be maintained. The primary access for the new residence will be Hidden Farm Road. There will be no .... ~ignificant impact. XI. Population: a) The maximum number of employees wilI be five. The project will have no impact on the population of the City. XII. Housing: a) The maximum number of employees will be five. The project will not create the need for additional housing. XIII. Transportation: --- a) The project will generate construction trips. This is not a significant impact. When fully operational the project will generate a maximum average daily trips of 62 trips per day. This is below the threshold of significance. b) The site is sufficient in size to provide the parking spaces required by the City code. c) Street and community trail improvements will be made in conformance with City regulations and there will be no significant impacts. d) The project is consistent with existing circulation patterns. e) The site and facilities are adequate; therefore, there ~vill be no impact to air, water, or rail traffic. ! f) The project is consistent with the Circulation Plan for the City and will not increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. XIV. Public Services: a) The project will require additional permitting and inspection by the Fire District to ensure Code compliance. The impact is not significant. b) No increase in police services is expected as a result of this project. c) No increase in the number of school pupils is expected as a result of this project. d) The project will have no impact on existing park facilities or result in the need for : *'-additional facilities. ~ e) ' FrOntage'street improvements will be installed consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The City will maintain all public streets dedicated and installed per City Standards. There is no significant impact. f) No other government services are expected to be affected by this proposal. XV. Energy a) The project is not expected to use substantial 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: ~ x/.~ '~b '~'J[' htxX ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY - PART II CUP 95-37 Page 4 a) The project will not result in the need for new po~ver or natural gas systems. b) The project will not result in the need for new communication systems. c) The project will use water readily available to the site. d) Restroom and shower facilities xvill be provided and drain to an on-site septic system " ' built to c6nform to City codes. e) Additional storm water drainage can be accornn~odated by a new on-site project which will convey waters to existing, acceptable storm drain facilities consistent with City codes and policies. The impact is not significant. f) No significant solid waste disposal will be necessary to serve the site. XVII. Human Health: a) The project is not expected to create any health hazard. b) No exposure of people to potential health hazards is expected. XVIII. Aesthetics: a) The project will not obstruct any view or vista currently available to the public. b) House Museum is a permitted use on this site subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The retention and enhancement of the grove and landscaping consistent with City codes will create an aesthetic site visible to the public. XIX. Recreation: a) No existing recreational facilities will be impacted by the project. 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 Significance: 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 : - Z--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. XXII. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. Discussion has been incorporated into items above. XXIII. Discussion of Land Use Impacts. The site is identified as Very Low Density in the General Plan. The project is a conditionally permitted use in the Very Low Density area of the City. With conditions, the ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT INITIAL STUDY - PART II CUP 95-37 Page 5 project will be consistent with City codes and the General Plan and there will be no significant land use impacts. XXIV. ~nd-thata~th~ughthepr~p~sedpr~jectc~u~dhaveasignificanteffect~ntheenvir~nment~ there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project; therefore, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~_ Larry Henderson, AICP ~na ure Print Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division April 3, 1996 --- Date A, 15-71 7" /-1 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 2~092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: LD 96-01,LA 96-01,CUP 96-09 & DR 96-03 Public Review Period Closes: Project Name: Maloof Relocation Project Applicant: SANBAG Project Location (also see attached map): Southeast Corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN 1061-281-16 Project Description: Relocation of historic Maloof Residence and Accessory Structures, and conversion of same to museum / ads and crafts center, and construction of a new two bedroom residence. 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 significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a ~igni~cant effect on the environment. The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects 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 clearly 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 Environmental Impact Report will not be required. ,- Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all rel.ated' doc~Wie0ts are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. Date of Determination Adopted By A, 6 - 7 Zff/ / T PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT MALOOF RELOCATION Northeast Corner of Carnelian and Hidden Farm 314196 Revised April 1996 Introduction The originaFdrainage report for the canyon, tributary to the 5+ acre Maloof Relocation site, was prepared ~or Tract 10277-1 (King Ranch) in December of 1981. The conventional Rational Method for calculating flow quantities was utilized at that time. Current hydrology methods hav~ become computerized and the methbdology has changed, becoming more conservative in calculating flows. The end result is generally an increase in flow rates when using today's methodology. Summary of the Hydroloqy Report for Tract 10277-1 The Linville Report for King Ranch calculated a flow rate of approximately 38 cfs at Almond Street. When bulked, the flow rate is increased to 57 cfs. An existing 24" diameter CMP with a capacity of 27 cfs was left in place and supplemented by a 24" diameter RCP with a capacity of 43 cfs for a total capacity of 70 cfs which exceeded the bulked Q of 57 cfs. This report assumes that all flows from KIng Ranch, Phase 2, and the tributary areas above reach the future Maloof property ( see Exhibit "B" ). The water from King Ranch then empties into a natural channel running along the east side of the new Maloof property. The channel is a vee-shaped natural watercourse with a capacity much greater than what currently gets there. Once in the natural channel, the water flows to an existing 24" diameter pipe in Hiddeft Farm Road. Hidden Farm is a narrow private road that has a low point at the crossing. Any flows currently escaping the pipe cross the roadway and continue on in the natural channel. The natbral channel contains heavy vegetation with some evidence of erosion. Summary of Associated Enqineers Calculations Associated Engineers re-ran the hydrology calculations using the current San Bernardino County criterion of AES software, version 5.1 released January 1, 1995. The current software projects a Q~c~ of 112 cfs in the natural channel coming from King Ranch. The increased Q~co was then used to size the proposed new pipe crossing Hidden Farm Road. Water from the Maloof property and Hidden Farm to the east is calculated to put a Q~co of 30 cf;s in the readway. approximately 15 cfs from each direction. The Maloof project will construct a':12' catch 6bsin in the sump area of Hidden Farm Road as part of the street improvements. The rc;adway will be designed to convey the 15 cfs from Maloof to the basin. Other future improvements to Hidden Farm Road may be required to convey the full 30 cfs to the new catch basin. The proposed new pipe in Hidden Farm Road will be a 48" diameter RCP. One 14' section of 48" diameter RCP will extend upstream from the catch basin to a headwall in the natural channel. A section 48' in length will extend southerly from the catch basin to the south side of Hidden Farm Road. The flowline of the natural channel should be improved to accommodate the new pipe. Conclusions The QIO0 flows that drain southerly in the natural channel crossing the future Ma[oof proper~y will not increase in volume. The improvements that will be done to the properly will increase the total runoff slightly, resulting in a little more water in Hidden Farm Road. The street widening improvements to Hidden Farm Road will result in the water from Maloof staying on the noah side of the street. Nuisance flows will be contained in the new gutter area, flowing to the new catch basin at the southeast corner of the proper~y. The flows will then get to the existing natural channel via a new 48" diameter RCP under Hidden Farm Road. Upstream and downstream minor improvements at each end of the pipe should help control erosion. The proposed street improvements in Hidden Farm Road will end the condition that now exists where storm water that exceeds the capacity of the existing 24"pipe causes the street to flood. This in turn has been promoting erosion of the surface soil on the south side of Hidden Farm Road. In order to completely control erosion of the natural channel south of Hidden Farm Road, further improvements to the natural channel such as hardscape and water-bars will be necessary, in lieu of a totally enclosed storm drain system. ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS, INC, 3311 East Shelby Street s~_==--rNo. / oF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 C~LCU~TEOaY .l(irL ~ OAT~ (909) 980-1982 FAX (909) 941-0891 C~EC~D~ '{,, ~ ................ - ' ~.,.~' .......... /{~u,~,~ ............................: ........ :~i ...... 1 ' ' ~: ". .... · -d,-0~-- +22:. , ~5,~1, -'~'~ ~ .... : ................................ ~ ;:~r,,/~'~ ........ : .........: .............. "ii~ 2~ .-..~ / ............ : ................ ~ e ......i":""':"""" .... ~ : i ' ~"" ""~J ................. : - ~o ...... ::-:-.,~ . .': ~" ......... · , .... ,>/~.".-.. ':r.~7~,a~ ............... .: ~ ~ .......~ . : ........ . . I ...... ~ ,~,2, \ --,:, \ TZY ~6."~f /4~.,~,,,. ~'~ 7,~' . V~' 't.~ .I. . . ' ...... /z~cF ~/ ~,~ .. .... .... ~ -~6 PRESSURE PIPE-FLOW tDEDt~ULICS COMPUTER PROGlUM PACKAGE (Reference: LACFD,LACRD,& OC[~ HYDRAULICS CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1982-94 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.6A Release Date: 6/01/94 License ID 1404 Analysis prepared by: ASSOCIATED 5NGINEERS consulting civil engineers " 3311 E. SHELBY STREET ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91764 TEL: (909)980-1982 FAX: (909)941-0891 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * MALOOF RESIDLNCE DRAINAGE STUDY , * CULVERT HYDRAULICS AT NODE 7 * * FILE M:\AES95\HYDROSFT\PIPEFLO~96010R , *******************~***************************************************~** FILE NAME: 96010P.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:30 4/9/1996 NOTE: STEADY :"LOW HYDRAULIC HEAD-LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST CONSERVATIVE FO~MIFLAE FROM THE CURRF2qT LACR_D,LACFCD, AND OCEM_A DESIGN F~ALS. DOWNSTREAM PRESSIFRE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA: NODE NUMBER - 13.00 FIDW'LINE ELEVATION - 76.00 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) 48.00 PIPE FIDW(CFS) - 138.00 ASSUMED DOWNSTREY~ CONTROL HGL - 80.000 L.A. THOMPSON'S EQUATION IS USED FOR JLrNCTION ANALYSIS BODE 13.00: HGL-- < 80.O00>;EGL-- < 81.873>;FLOW'LINE- < 76.000> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE - 1 UPSTREAM NODE 12.00 ELEVATION - .78.19 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW - 138.00 CFS PIPE DIAMETER - 48.00 INCHES ~PtPE LENGTH - 48.00 FEET M~INGS N - .01300 ~SF-(Q/K)'**? - (( 138.00)/( 1436.431))*,2 - .0092297 HF-L*SF - ( '48.00),( .0092297) - .443 NODE 12.00: HGL- < 80.443>;EGL- < 82.316>;FLOW'LINE- < 78.190> PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL ;~ND EGL LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL - 1.75 NODE 12.00: HGL.- < 82.190>~EGL- < 84.063>;FLOWLINE- < 78.190> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE - 8 .-UPSTREA~ NODE 12.00 ELEVATION - 78.19 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW CATCH BASIN ENT!ANCE LOSSES(LACFCD): · PIFE FLOW(CFS) - 138.00 PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 48.00 PRESSURE FLOW VELOCITY HEAD - 1.873 CATCH BASIN ENERGY LOSS - .2,(VELOCITY HEAD) - .2*(1.873) - .375 NODE 12.00: HGL,- < 84.437>;EGL,- < 84~437>;FLOW'LINE- < 78.190> PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE - 5 UPSTREAM NODE 8.00 ELEVATION - 78.44 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES: · NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA HV 1 -- -115.0 48.00 12.566 9.151 .000 1.300 2 138.0 48.00 12.566 10.982 -- 1.873 3 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 ..4 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000 5 23.0---Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT-- IACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSUPHE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED: DY-(Q2*V2-QI*VI*COS(DELTA1)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)- Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4))/((Ai+A2)*iS.1) UPSTREAM MANNINGS N - .01300 DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N - .01300 UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE - .00641 DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE - .00923 AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00782 JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) - 3.00 FRICTION LOSS - .023 ENTRANCE LOSSES - .375 JUNCTION LOSSES - DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTP-d~NCE LOSSES) JUNCTION LOSSES - 1.144+ 1.300-1.873+( .023)+( .375) - .970 NODE 8.00: HGL- < 84.107>;EGL- < 85.407>;F'LOWLINE- < 78.440> iPRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE - 1 UPSTREAM NODE 7.00 ELEVATION - 79.00 CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD): PIPE FLOW - 115.00 CFS PIPE DILMETER - 48.00 INCHES PIPE LENGTH - 15.00 FEET MANNINGS N - .01300 SF-(Q/K)**2 - (( 115.00)/( 1436.431)),-2 - .0064095 HF-L*SF - ( 15.00)*( .0064095) - .096 NODE 7.00: HGL- < 84,203>;EGL- < 85.503>;FLOW'LINE- < 79.000> END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM A, 347 Ex /t-I / T' tx, J _I___.L ..... 4- '~ ' L"' L~¢~I ¢~epretllOn (~) ELEVATION SECTION NOMOGRAM -CAPACITY, CURB INLET AT SAG Plate 2.6-0651 ~/'('/z/'/~/7" Aj b - T& I J CHART 2 ~'180 -- IO, OOO 16 8,000 EXAMPLE - 120 : - ' 108 _ -- 8~ / 500 o ~ ' 1.5 - 1.5 --~ ~ ~ I00 o ~ HW ENTRANCE ~ 40 D SCALE TYPE ~ -- 1.0 .... 2 15 1.0 ..' HEADWATER DEPTH FOR ; CONCRETE PiPE CULVERTS ~ HEADWATER SCALES 283 "~"-'A-O~U.L,C.O.OS....,..~ .EV,SED ~v~ss~ WITH INLET CONTROL =~"' ;~'7%%:~'. ~... :. ',:: ::'-...:. ~: .: ~.-. :.: ..: :.--.::: ...~';~.~..;,/,; :;:~, :..,-:./,.~ ;.;~..-.-..~ .,:::.- ERSIDE SAN BERi t..,,. '~ Z 1 " " ,w .. EYDROL(]G RATIONAL METHOD Q10 Z RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COM_PUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE (Reference: 1986 SAN BEP~NAKDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1404 Analysis prepared by: ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS consulting civil engineers .... 3311 E. SHELBY ST. ONTARIO, CA. 91764 TEL. (909)980-1982 FAX: (909) 941-0891 **~*********************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * ~LOOF RESIDENCE DRAINAGE STUDY - OFFSITE A/qD ONSITE RATIONAL METHOD * * Q10 , * FILE M:\AES95\HlqDROSFT\RATSC5 , FILE NAME: 96010R.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 9:54 4/9/1996 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORM/TION: --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) - 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) - 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE - .90 *USER-DEFINED LOGA_RIT~IC INTERPOI~TION USED FOR KAINFA3_L* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;tN/MR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) - .6000 USER SPECIFIED 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 1.1000 *ANTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDkTION (AMC II) ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* FLOW PROCESS ['ROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE - 2.1 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< '!INITI-AE ~UBAREA'FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 1000.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2540.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 2250.00 Tc - K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMlrM Tc(MIN.) - 10.658 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 3.102 SUBARI~ Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(~C II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/Ha) (DECIMAL) CN (HIM.) .NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" B 10.00 .45 1.00 76 10.66 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS %~TE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .45 suBAR AVERAGE PERWOUS CTION, Ap - SUBARZ~ RUNOFF(CFS) - 23.85 TOTAL tREA(ACRES) - 10.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 23.85 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE - 5.1 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBARI~<<<<< UPSTRF_AM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - -2250.00 DOWNSTRF_~M NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2150.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) - 1000.00 CHAbrNEL_SLOPE - .1000 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 4.00 "Z" FACTOR - 1.500 MANN~NG'S FACTOR - .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) - 2.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBARKA(CFS) -. 23.85 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) - 14.44 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - .36 Tt~VEL TIME(MIN.) - 1.15 Tc(MIN.) - 11.81 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE - 8.2 >>>>>ADD SUBAREA RUNOFF TO MAINLINE, AT MAINLINE Tc,<<<<< >>>>>(AND COMPUTE INITIAL SUBAREA RUNOFF)<<<<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 1000.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2250.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 2150.00 Tc - K*{(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CH~GE)]** .20 SUB.AREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 11.002 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/q~R) - 3.044 SUB.AREA Tc AND LOSS KATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL ARL~ Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "2 DWELLINGS/ACRE" B 7.00 .75 .70 56 11.00 SUBAREA AVEI~GE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .75 SUBtREA AVLKAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .70 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 7.00 INITIAL SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 15.88 ** ADD SUBA~L~ RUNOFF TO MAINLINE AT MAINLINE Tc: ~tNLINE Tc(MIN) - 11.81 * 10 YEAR t~INFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 2.917 SUB.AREA AREA(ACRES) - 7.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 15.08 ~EFFECTIVE ARI~(ACRES) - 17.00 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .48 'i.AREA--AQ~t~GED Fp(INCH/HR) - .55 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .88 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 17.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 37.26 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NLrMBER OF STRE~S - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STRFAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTI~TION(MIN.) 11.81 ~INFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) 2.92 AREA-AvERAGED F (INCHh > - AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .55 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .88 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 17.00 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 17.00 - PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 37.26 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE - 2.1 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGEAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 1000.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2480.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 2200.00 Tc - K*[ (LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE) }** . 20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 8.955 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/MR) - 3.444 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/}{R) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" B 2.00 .45 1.00 78 10.73 RES I DENTIAL "2 DWELLINGS/ACRE" B 5.00 .75 .70 56 8.95 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .64 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .79 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 18.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 7.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 18.53 *********************************************************************~****** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE - 6.1 ~>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<<<<< UPSTRF_AM ELEVATION(FEET) - 2200.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 2150.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 1000.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) - 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - .020 '~PECI~f~ NIIMBEROF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) - 27.81 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - .42 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 14.57 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 6.20 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC.) -. 2.59 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 2.69 Tc(MIN.) 11.64 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 2.942 -r~UBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(~MC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECImaL) CN ~ES~DENTIAL "2 DWELLINGS/ACRE" B 8.50 .75 .70 56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .75 SUBAREA AVEt~GE PERVIOUS .~EA FRACTION, Ap --- .70 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 8.50 SUBtREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 18.50 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 15.50 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) .51 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/IHR) - .70 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .74 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 15.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 33.87 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - .44 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 15.74 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) - 6.52 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT*FT/SEC. ) - 2.88 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE - 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STRF~ FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 11.64 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 2.94 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .51 tREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .70 AREA- AVF~GED Ap - .74 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 15.50 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 15,50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 33,87 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREA~M Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOURCE ~,~155R (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/MR) (INCH/MR) (ACRES) NODE 1 37.26 11.81 2.917 .55(.48) .88 17.00 .00 2 33.87 11.64 2.942 .70(.51) .74 15.50 .00 %~INFALL INTENSITY ~MD TI~E OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FOP~LA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TJ3LE ** STREAM Q Tc intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOLrRCE NlJMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/~HR) (INCH/q~R) (ACRES) NODE 1 70.8 11.81 2.917 .613(.497) .81 32.5 .00 2 71.0 11.64 2.942 .614(.497) .81 32.3 'iCOMPUTfB"CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAX FLOW RATE(CFS) - 70.98 Tc(MIN,) - 11.64 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 32.25 AREA-AVERAGED Fm (INCH/}LR) - .50 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .61 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - TOTALAREA(ACRES) 32.50 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.10 IS CODE - 4.1 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< '>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2130.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2120.00 FLOW LSNGTH(FEET) - 60.00 MA~NNING'S N - .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 26.42 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES - 2 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 70.98 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - .04 Tc(MIN.) - 11.68 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE - 5.1 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>~TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2126.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2083.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) - 475.00 CHANNEL SLOPE - .0905 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 15.00 nZ" FACTOR - 2.000 MANNINGfS FACTOR - .040 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) - 10.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) - 70.98 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) - 7.43 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - .59 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 1.07 Tc(MIN.) - 12.74 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE - 8.2 >>>>>ADD SUBAREA RUNOFF TO MAINLINE, AT MAINLINE Tc,<<<<< >>>>>(AND COMPUTE INITIAL SUBAREA RUNOFF)<<<<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 475.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTRFAM(FEET) - 2126.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 2083.00 Tc - K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(kLEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 5.784 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 4.477 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) -(INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) AGRICULTLrKAL GOOD COVER "ORCHARDS" B 1.80 .72 1.00 58 17.79 COMMERCIAL B .90 .75 .10 56 5.78 ;SUBAREA~VERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .73 'iSU5AREAAVERAGE. PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .70 SUBkREA AREA(ACRES) - 2.70 INITIAL SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 9.65 ** ADD SUBAREA RUNOFF TO MAINLINE AT MAINLINE Tc: MAINLINE Tc(MIN) - 12.74 * 10 YEAR MAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 2.787 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 2.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 5.54 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 34.95 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/q{R) - .50 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .62 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .80 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 35.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 72.00 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE - 4.1 ~,~/~/~/F' ~ >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2083.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2082.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) - 10.00 MAi~NING'S N - .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 25.99 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 36,00 NUMBER OF PIPES - 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) 72.00 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - .01 Tc(MIN.) - 12.75 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE - 10 >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE - 2.1 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FDDW-LENGTH(FEET) - 850.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTRFAM(FEET) - 2145.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 2085.00 Tc - K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CH~GE) I** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINL~qJM Tc(MIN.) - 7,672 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INT~SITY(INCH/HR) - 3.779 SUBAREA Tc ~WD LOSS RATE DATA(~MC II): ~DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/}{R) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) AGRICULTUR. AL POOR COVER "ORCHARDS" B 1.50 .50 1.00 73 13.25 COMMERCIAL B 1.50 .75 .10 56 7.67 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/qiR) - .52 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 9.42 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 3.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 9.42 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE ~ 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NU~tBER OF STREAMS - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 7.67 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) ~ 3.78 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .29 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .52 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .55 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) 3.00 TOTAL STR _ ARRA(AC S) - 3.OO PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 9.42 **********************************************~**************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE - 2.1 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ~>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION HOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET)-- 800.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2160.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 2085,00 Tc - K-*~LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBARFA ANALYSIS USED MINIM13M Tc(MIN.) - 10.193 * 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 3.186 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL "2 DWELLINGS/ACRE" B 4.00 .75 .70 56 10.19 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 9.59 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 4.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 9.59 **************************~k**********~c**~-~**~-*~-*************~-~c*****~-***~c**** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE - 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEP~D~ STR~ FOR CON~U~CE<<<<< >>>>>~D COMPUTE V~IOUS CON~UENCED S~ VALUES<<<<< TOTAL ~ OF S~S - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPEND~T S~ 2 ~E: TIME OF CONCENT~TION(MIN.) - 10.19 ~INFA~ INTENSI~(INCH~) - 3.19 ~-AVE~GED ~(INCH~) - .52 ~-AVE~GED Fp(INCH~) - .75 ~-AVE~GED Ap - .70 EFFECTIVE STR~ ~(AC~S) - 4.00 TOTAL STR~ ~(ACRES) - 4.00 P~ FLOW ~TE(CFS) AT CON~UENCE - 9.59 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STR~ Q Tc Intensity Fp(~) Ap Ae SO~CE ~ER (CFS) (MXN.) (XNCH~) (XNC~) (ACRSS) NODE ] 1 9.42 7.67 3.779 .52(,29) .55 3.00 .00 2 ' 9.59 ~ 10.19 3.186 .75(.52) .70 4.00 .00 ~INFALL INTENSI~ ~D TIME OF CONCENT~TION ~TIO CONFLUENCE FO~ USED FOR 2 STR~S. ** P~ FLOW hTE T~LE ** STR~ Q Tc Intensity Fp(~) Ap Ae SO~CE ~MBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/~) (INCH~) (ACRES) NODE 1 18.2 7.67 3.779 .650(.406) .63 6.0 .00 2 17.4 10.19 3.186 .665(.423) .64 7.0 .00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTImaTES ~RE AS FOL~WS: EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 6.01 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/}LR) - .41 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/liR) - .65 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .63 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 7.00 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE - 11 >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY B~NK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MF~MORY<<<<< '** MAIN STRFAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM-- Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOURCE NUMjBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 18.24 7,67 3.779 .65(.41) .63 6.0 .00 2 17.41 10.19 3.186. .67(.42) .64 7.0 ,00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE .00 TO NODE 12.00 - .00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STRF~ Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOURCE ~ER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/Ha) (ACRES) NODE 1 72.00 12.75 2.786 .62(.50) .80 35.0 .00 2 71.79 12,92 2.763 .62(.50) .80 35.2 .00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE .00 TO NODE 12.00 - .00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOURCE NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 80.4 7.67 3.779 .626(.478) .76 27.0 .00 2 85.0 10.19 3.186 .629(.483) .77 34.9 .00 3 86.9 12.75 2.786 .627(.486) .77 42.0 .00 4 86.5 12.92 2.763 .627(.485) .77 42.2 ,00 TOTAL ARKS(ACRES) - 42.20 ~OMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTImaTES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 86.88 Tc(MIN.) 12.751 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 41.95 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .49 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .63 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 42.20 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE ,00 TO NODE 12.00 - .00 FEET, FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE - 4.1 'i>>~>~COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2078.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2076.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) - 48.00 MANNING'S N - .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 48.0 INCH PIPE IS 18.4 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 19.56 GIVEN PIPE DIamETER(INCH) - 48.00 NUMBER OF PIPES - 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 86.88 'PIPE TI~VEL TIME(MIN.) - .04 Tc(MIN.) - 12.79 END oF s DY TOTkL AREA(ACRES) 42,20 TC(MIN, ) - 12,79 EFFECTIVE ARFA(ACPjES) - 41,95 A~LEA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/qiR)- ,49 AREA-AVFj~GED Fp(INCH/HR) - ,63 AP~EA-AVERAGED Ap - ,77 PFuLK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 86,88 -- ** PEAK FI~W tLATE TABLE ** STRF~ Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOLrRCE NUMJBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 80.4 7.71 3.766 - .626(.478) .76 27.0 .00 2 85.0 10.23 3.179 .629(.483) .77 34.9 .00 3 86.9 12.79 2.781 .627(.486) .77 42.0 .00 4 _- - 86,5 12,97 2,758 ,627(,485) ,77 42,2 ,00 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS . RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER- PROGI~M PACI~GE (Refarence: 1986 SAN BERNARDINO CO. HYDROLOGY CRITERION) (c) Copyright 1983-95 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Vet. 5.1 Release Date: 01/01/95 License ID 1404 Analysis prepared by: ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS consulting civil engineers .... 3311 E. SHELBY ST. ONTARIO, CA. 91764 TEL, (909)980-1982 FAX: (909) 941-0891 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * ~LOOF RESIDENCE DRAINAGE STUDY - OFFSITE AND ONSITE RATIONAL METHOD * * Q100 - * * FILE M:\AES95\HYDROSFr\RATSC5 * ********************************************************************~**** FILE NAME: 96010R.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 9:53 4/9/1996 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --*TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION MODEL*-- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) - 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) - 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE - .90 *USER-DEFINED LOGARITHMIC INTERPOLATION USED FOR .RAINFALL* SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE(LOG(I;IN/HR) vs. LOG(Tc;MIN)) - .6000 USER SPECIFIED !-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 1.8100 ~.~NTECEDENT MOISTURE CONDITION (~MC II) ASSUMED FOR RATIONAL METHOD* FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE - 2.1 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< ZINITI-Af'SUB~REA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 1000.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2540,00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 2250.00 Tc - K*[(LENGTH** 3,00)/(ELEVATION CHA2qGE)}** .20 SUBA_REA ANALYSIS USED MINIMIIM Tc(MIN.) - 10.658 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 4,541 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/t~R) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" B 10.00 .45 1.00 76 10.66 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS t~TE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .45 SUB~REA AVEt~GE PERVIOUS AREA FR_~CTION, Ap - 1.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 36.80 ~C/Ve/~/%''/~ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 10.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 36.80 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE - 5.1 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CH~EL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - - 2250.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ElEVATION(FEET) - 2150.00 CHA/qNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) - 1000.00 CHANNEL-SLOPE - .1000 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 4.00 "Z" FACTOR - 1.500 ~:dqlqlNG'S FACTOR - .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) - 2.00 CRA3NEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CF$) ~ 36.80 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) - 16.63 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - .47 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - 1.00 Tc(MIN.) - 11.66 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE - 8.2 >>>>>ADD SUBAREA RUNOFF TO MAINLINE, AT MAINLINE Tc,<<<<< >>>>>(AND COMPUTE INITIAL SUBAREA RUNOFF)<<<<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 1000.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2250.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 2150.00 Tc - K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ~NALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 11.002 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 4.455 SUBiRES Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(ANC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL ARES Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (M!N.) BESIDENTIAL "2 DWELLINGS/ACRE" B 7.00 .75 .70 56 11.00 SUBtREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/}iR) - .75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .70 SUB~RES AREA(ACRES) - 7.00 INITIAL SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 24.77 ** ADD SUBAREA RUNOFF TO MAINLINE AT MAINLINE Tc: ~SINLINE Tc(MIN) - 11.66 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 4.302 SUBARES AR!S(ACRES) - 7.00 SUB.~REA RUNOFF(CFS) - 23.81 EFFEGT~yE AREA(ACRES) - 17.00 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .48 'liR~AiAVE~ACED Fp'(INCH/HR) - .55 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .88 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 17.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 58.46 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE - 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: ~'TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) 11.66 P~INFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) 4.30 ~/Y'/'//~Z/"/~j .~REA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/tR) - ARi~-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .55 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .88 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 17.00 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 17.00 -- PFAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 58.46 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE - 2.1 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION HOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 1000,00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2480.00 DOWNSTKEAM(FEET) 2200.00 Tc - K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATISN CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 8,955 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 5.041 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/}{R) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) NATURAL POOR COVER "OPEN BRUSH" B 2.00 .45 1.00 76 10.73 RESIDENTIAL "2 DWELLINGS/ACRE" B 5.00 .75 .70 56 8.95 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/]iR) - .64 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .79 SUBAREA RLrNOFF(CFS) - 28.59 TOTAL ARL~(ACRES) - 7.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 28.59 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE - 6.1 ~>>>>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>(STANDARD CURB SECTI6N USED)<<<<< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 2200.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) - 2150.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) - 1000.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) - 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) - 18.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) - 13.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - .020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) ~ .020 '~PEClFI~D'NIIMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF - 2 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) - .020 **TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) - 43.34 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - .47 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 17.37 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) - 6.91 PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY(FT,FT/SEC. ) - 3.27 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) - 2.41 Tc(MIN. ) - 11.36 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 4.369 -.SUBAREA LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS IA'~D USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/FLR) (DECIMAL) CN RESIDENTIAL "2 DWELLINGS/ACRE" B 8.50 .75 .70 56 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCM/'HR) - .75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA ~'RACTION, Ap -- .70 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 8.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 29.42 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 15.50 AREA-AVERAGED Pm(INCH/HR) - ,51 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - ,70 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - ,74 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 15.50 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 53,77 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) - ,50 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) - 18.01 · FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) - 7.45 DEPTH*VELOCITY(FT,Fr/SEC. ) - 3.73 F.LOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00.TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE - 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CON~LUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF S~S - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 11.36 R_~INFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 4.37 AREA-AVERAGED Fro(INCH/MR) - .51 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .70 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .74 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 15,50 TOTAL STRFA~ AREA(ACRES) - 15.50 PEAK FI~W RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 53.77 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STRF_~M Q Tc intensity Fp(~m) Ap Ae SOURCE NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/Ha) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 58.46 11.66 4.302 .55(.48) .88 17.00 .00 2 53.77 11.36 4.369 .70(.51) .74 15.50 .00 P~INFALL INTENSII'Y AND TI~E OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FOR~fULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOURCE NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/~LR) (ACRES) NODE 1 111.3 11.66 4.302 .813(.497) .81 32.5 .00 2 111.7 11.36 4.369 .614(.497) .81 32.1 .00 COMPUTED' CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAX FLOW RATE(CFS) - 111.74 Tc(MIN.) - 11.36 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 32.07 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .50 AR~A-AVERAGED Fp(INCN/HR) - .61 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .81 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 32.50 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.10 IS CODE - 4.1 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2130.00 ~2C//7~/J/Z'' fk_J DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2120.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) - 60.00 MANNING'S N - .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 29.56 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 24.00 NIPM3ER OF PIPES - 2 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 111.74 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - .03 Tc(MIN.) - 11.40 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE - 5.1 >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>~TRAVELTIME TI'{RU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2126.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2083.00 CHANNEL lENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) - 475.00 CHILL SLOPE - .0905 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) - 15.00 "Z" FACTOR - 2.000 ~fLNNING'S FACTOR - .040 MAXIMIIM DEPTH(FEET) - 10.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) - 111.74 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) - 8.73 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) - .77 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - .91 Tc(MIN.) - 12.31 ***********************************************-k~-k************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE - 8.2 >>>>>ADD SUBAREA RUNOFF TO MAINLINE, AT MAINLINE Tc,<<<<< >>>>>(AND COMPUTE INITIAL SUBAREA RUNOFF)<<<<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 475.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTRFAM(FEET) - 2126.00 DOWNSTRI~M(FEET) - 2083.00 Yc - K*{(LENGTH** 3.00)/(kLEVATION CHANGE) I** .20 SUBAREA ~NALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 5.784 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 6.552 SUBAREA Tc ~ND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AREA Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE CROUP (ACRES) .(INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) AGRICULTURAL GOOD COVER "ORCHJ/IDS" B 1.80 .72 1.00 58 17.79 COMMERCIAL B .90 .75 .10 56 5.78 ;SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/}{R) - .73 'iSUB~R~'AVEt~GE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .70 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 2.70 INITIAL SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 14.69 ** ADD SUBAREA RUNOFF TO MAINLINE AT MAINLINE Tc: ~AINLINE Tc(MIN) 12.31 * 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 4.165 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 2.70 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 8.89 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 34.77 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/F2) T .50 iRIA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .62 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .80 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 35.20 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 114.76 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE - 4.1 >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME TtRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2083.00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) ~ 2082.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) - 10.00 MA~ING'S N - .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 36.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.5 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC,) - 29.27 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 36.00 NUMBER OF PIPES - 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 114.76 PIPE T~RA3JEL TIME(MIN.) - ,01 Tc(MIN.) - 12.31 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE - 10 >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE t0,00 IS CODE - 2.1 >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGR~H FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 850.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2145.00 DOWNSTRF. AM(FEET) - 2085.00 Tc - K*[(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 7.672 ' * 100 YEAR R~INFALL INTENSITY(INCH/}{R) - 5.531 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AMC II): iDEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL ARR~ Fp Ap SCS Tc IAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMAL) CN (MIN.) AGRICULTURAL POOR COVER "ORCHARDS" B 1.50 .50 1.00 73 13.25 COMMERCIAL B 1.50 .75 .10 56 7.67 SUB~REA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .52 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS AREA FRACTION, Ap - .55 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 14.15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 3.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 14.15 FLO~ PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS CODE - 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STRF~M 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) - 7.67 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 5.53 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .~REA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .52 -'~RI~-AVER~GED Ap - .55 EFFECTIVE STREAM AREA(ACRES) - 3.00 TOTAL STRL M AREA <ACRES PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 14.15 **********************************************~-***************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE - 2.1 >>>>>I~TIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< >>USE TIME-OF-CONCENTRATION NOMOGRAPH FOR INITIAL SUBAREA<< INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) - 800.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 2160.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) - 2085.00 Tc - K, [(LENGTH** 3.00)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]** .20 SUBAREA ANALYSIS USED MINIMUM Tc(MIN.) - 10.193 * 100' YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) - 4.664 SUBAREA Tc AND LOSS RATE DATA(AM~ II): DEVELOPMENT TYPE/ SCS SOIL AR~ Fp Ap SCS Tc LAND USE GROUP (ACRES) (INCH/HR) (DECIMjLL) CN (MIN.) RESIDENTIAL ~2 DWEIJ~INGS/ACRE' B 4.00 .75 .70 56 10.19 SUBAtLEA AVERAGE PERVIOUS LOSS RATE, Fp(INCH/HR) - .75 SUBAREA AVERAGE PERVIOUS ARY_A FRACTION, Ap - .70 SUBAREA RLrNOFF(CFS) - 14.90 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 4.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 14.90 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE - 1 >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STRF~ VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS - 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTt~TION(MIN.) - 10.19 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/Hg) - 4.66 ARKA-AVERAGED ~m(INCH/HR) - .52 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .75 ~RI~- AVERAGED Ap - .70 EFFECTIVE STREA~M AREA(ACRES) - 4.00 TOTAL STRFAM AREA(ACRES) - 4.00 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE - 14.90 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOLrRCE NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE .- 71 14.15 7.67 5.531 .52(.29) .55 3.00 .00 '2' 14.90 10.19 4.664 .75(.52) .70 4.00 .00 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STRFAM Q Tc intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOURCE NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCM/HR) (INCH/}m) (ACRES) NODE 1 27.7 7.67 5.531 .650(.406) .63 6.0 .00 2 28.7 10.19 4.664 .665(.423) .64 7.0 .00 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATECCFS) - 27.72 Tc(MIN.) - 7.67 ~v~/z~/'T' ~ EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 6.01 tREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .41 A~EA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/}{R) - .65 A~LEA-AVERAGED Ap - .63 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 7.00 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE - 11 >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ~* MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREA~ - Q Tc Intensity Fp(Pm) Ap Ae SOURCE NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/MR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1" 27.72 7.67 5.531 .65(.41) .63 6.0 .00 , 2 26.72 10.19 4.664. .67(.42) .64 7.0 .00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE .00 TO NODE 12.00 - .00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOURCE NIIMBFR (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 114.76 12.31 4.164 .62(.50) .80 34.8 .00 2 114.34 12.60 4.106 .62(.50) .80 35.2 .00 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE .00 TO NODE 12.00 - .00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(~m) Ap Ae SOURCE NIIMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 125.9 7.67 5.531 .627(.478) .76 27.7 .00 2 134.7 10.19 4.664 .629(.483) .77 35.8 .00 3 138.3 12.31 4.164 .628(.486) .77 41.8 .00 4 137.5 12.60 4.106 .627(.485) .77 42.2 '.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 42.20 ~OMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) - 138.33 Tc(MIN.) - 12.311 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 41.77 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR) - .49 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - .63 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .77 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 42.20 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE .00 TO NODE 12.00 - .00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE - 4.1 '~>>~>~OMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>~USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<< UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2078,00 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION(FEET) - 2076.00 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) - 48.00 MANNING'S N - .013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 48.0 INCH PIPE IS 23.9 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) - 22.11 GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) - 48.00 NUMBER OF PIPES - 1 FIPE-FLOW(CFS) - 138.33 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) - ,04 Tc(MIN.) - 12.35 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - 42.20 TC(MIN.) - 12.35 EFFECTIVE AREA(ACRES) - 41.77 AREA-AVERAGED Fm(INCH/HR)- .49 AREA-AVERAGED Fp(INCH/HR) - ,63 AREA-AVERAGED Ap - .77 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) 138.33 - ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM Q Tc Intensity Fp(Fm) Ap Ae SOURCE NLrM_BER (GFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HR) (INCH/HR) (ACRES) NODE 1 125.9 7.71 5.515 ,627(.478) ,76 27.7 .00 2 134.7 10.23 4,654 .629(.483) .77 35.8 .00 3 138.3 12.35 4.157 .628(.486) .77 41.8 .00 4 _ _ 137.5 12.64 4.099 .627(.485) .77 42.2 .00 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 7 PRELIMI%~_!:A' --' ,.,IC ANALYSIS ASSOCiATED ENGINEERS "3311 East Shelby Street · Ontario, CA 91764 A, D-to© K></-/I~i1" o TRAFFIC IMPACT OF THE MALOOF RELOCA~ION CUP 96-02 ~ettinq The Project Area is located in the VL Zone at the northeast comer of Carnelian and Hidden Farm Road. The site consists of 5.54 acres of citrus grove that could be developed into-8 single family residential lots of approximately 0.5 acres each. The project site is located at the northerly terminus of Carnelian Avenue where it tees*into Almond Street. ~xistinq Traffic in the Proiect Area Currently there is limited traffic in the project area because of th'e location. There is essentially no throUgh-traffic since Carnelian Avenue ehds at the site. King Ranch, a residential area immediately north of the project site is a gated development consisting of approximately 30 lots, of which about 20 are currently built on. · Bella Vista, directly to the west of the Project, is a barricaded street that has 20 existing houses and 2 vacant lots. Carnelian Avenue has 2 houses opposite the Project Area which front the street. Hidden Farm Road is a dead-end street with cul.de-sacs off of it. All totaled there are approximately 22 houses currently in that area east of the Project. The approximate sum of the existing lots and future lots (when built upon) is 78 single family lots. There is ·potential for future development northwest of the project in an area that is currently a citrus grove. Based on the commonly accepted cdteda of 10 Average Daily Tdps (ADT) per household, the existing houses generate 620 trips each day. After all lots are developed, this number will increase to an average of 780 daily tdps for the area. Proiect Traffic After 0evelopment of Proiect Site 1. Development as 8 Single Family Residences If the project site were developed as 8 single family residences, the ADT for this neighborhood would increase by 80 to a total of 700 trips each day for existing development (an increase of 12.9%) or 860 tdps each day for ultimate development (an increase of 10.3%). 2. Development as the MaiDof Relocation Project The MaiDof Relocation Project will present a unique traffic flow that will not be based on · ' .:'cor0mpn y used. ADT numbers, but rather the specific use that is proposed. The historical residence Arts and Crafts Center will have 3 full-time employees in the woodworking workshop. The employees live off-site. Based on a tdp to work each day and a trip home each night, two tdps per employees are generated. If they each go off-site for lunch, two more tdps per employee are generated for a total of 12 trips per day for 5 days a week. This equates to 9 ADT. ¢ ,~.~-~7i~:~.2:,?. ,-, The Maloof Foundation will ultimately employ 2 full-time employees. They will have the potential for 4 trips each for a total of 8 trips per day 5 days each week for an ADT of 6. The new Maloof residence will generate the average 10 trips per day. The Citrus grove will, at some point, require maintenance and harvesting of the fruit. For this study, an assumption will be made that I person making 4 average daily trips will possibly be feasible. Harvesting any citrus crop will generate a short-term pedodic traffic flow of I picker making 2 daily tdps. The total umber of'trips will depend on the type of Citrus trees planted and the numbers of each type, since the different species are --- harvested-at different times of the year. We will assume for this report that I picker workingfull-time for 10 weeks can handle the harvesting of the approximately 3 acres of citrus trees. This will equate to 100 trips total or 1/2 average daily tdp. Artists in Residence could number 2 and could theoretically equate to a single family household that will generate 10 average daily trips. Visitors to the Center make up the final category of known trip generators. They may arrive by a single bus or by other high occupancy vehicles such as vans. The number of visitors at any one time will be limited to a maximum of 60. If they do not an-ive by bus,. personal vehicles will be limited to 20 to encourage car-pooling and to meet the parking resthctions of the Center. Thus the worst cast scenado would be 20 vehicles arriving and leaving in a 4 hour pedod. Only one group will be allowed each day for a maximum 3 days per week. This will equate to an ADT of 17. In summation, the total ADT to be generated by the Maloof Relocation Project is as follows: Average Maximum Forecasted Daily Tdps Daily Tdps' ' Arts &Crafts Center Employees 9 ADT 12 ! Maloof Foundation Employees 6 ADT 8 Maloof Residence 10 ADT 10 Citrus Maintenance &Harvesting 0.3 ADT 8 Artists-in- Residence 10 ADT 10 Visitors 17 ADT 40 Miscellaneous Deliveries / Pickups 10 ADT 10 62.3 ADT 98 trips/day * Assumes a~ maximum trips occur on the same day with a~ visitors arriving and departing in : maximum number of vehicles. Parkinq All parking for the Project site will be provided on-site. It is expected that high occupancy vehicles and automobiles will utilize the on-site parking. Busses will be required to drop visitors off, leave and then retum for pickup. c> The Project site contains 25 spaces at the Arts and Crafts a~rea, 2 of which are handicap spaces, 2 guest spaces at the Maloof residence and a 2-car garage at the Maloof residence. for a total of 29 on-site parking spaces. Parking on the street will be as allowed by City Ordinance. ConclusiOn~ The number of Average Daily Tdps generated by the Maloof Relocation Project appears to be approximately 30% less than if the land was developed as 8 single family residences (57.3 ADT Vs. 80 ADT). High-volume visits to the Center by groups of up to 60 people will be -~cheduled during off-peak hours when the regular traffic movements for the area are the least. This should help to avoid any traffic-related inconvenience to the area residents. If all pdtential users of the site for the Maloof Project were to be on-site on the same day and generate their maximum number of trips each, the number of trips is 23% higher than if the property is developed as an 8 lot single family residence project. The likelihood of this occurring is small. The expected traffic volumes are very minimal for the intended use of this project. The impact on the immediate community should be minimal as well. - RECEIVED April 9, 1996 Mr. Brad Buller APe 1] 1996 Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga Ci~yofRancho Cucamonga Subject: Maloof relocation pro~ect P~anning Division Dear Brad, I have received notice of a public hearing scheduled for April 24, 1996 regarding the relocation of the Maloof residence / workshop. Unfortunately, I will be out"of town on business and will not be able to attend. This letter is generated to address my concerns regarding this important project. My interest is due to the proximity of my unimproved lot APN 1061-271-33 (on the south side of Hidden Farm Rd. directly opposite Sunstone St.) to the relocation site. It was a pleasure to meet this past March 28 with you and some of the other people involved with the project. I was greatly impressed with the professionalism of the presentation and the plans. The representative of the engineering firm made a comment that an existing drainage pipe under Hidden Farm Rd. would be replaced with a larger (diameter, I assume) pipe. This indicates to me that the planned improvements will generate a greater amount of rainwater runoff. As the effluence from the existing pipe can erode my property, I am concerned about a greater amount of runoff exiting the pipe. Th~ other problem I have with the project is the installation of street lighting which I believe will not benefit the rural atmosphere of the area. As I am currently working on plans to build a residence on my lot, I hope that you will address my concerns in lieu of my absence at the April 24 meeting if not before. I shall return home on April 26 and would be glad to discuss these issues by phone, mail, or in person. T~an~Xou-_in advance for your attention to my letter. Sincerely, Harvey Porter 10702 Finch Ave. Alta Loma, Ca. 91737 (909) 945-1224 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK 96-01 TO DESIGNATE THE MALOOF RESIDENCE AND WORKSHOPS, LOCATED AT 9553 HIGHLAND ' AVENUE AS A LANDMARK, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT _-- _ 'EHEREOE - APN: 202-101-18 A. Recitals. 1. San Bernardino Associated Governments has filed an application for a Landmark designation as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark designation request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of April 1996, the Historic Preservation 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 Historic Preservation 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. The application applies to approximately 5 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located at 9553 Highland Avenue· 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on April 24, 1996, including written and oral staff repods, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts: a. Historical and Cultural Significance: · ; .... Einding 1: The proposed Landmark was connected with someone ~. renowned or important or a local personality. Fact/s: The property is the home and studio of the internationally acclaimed woodworker and furniture designer Sam Maloof and his wife Alfreda Ward Maloof, a former Santa Fe museum and crafts program director. Sam Maloof began making furniture at his Alta Loma workshop in the 1950s. His work can be seen in a number of American museums and has been featured in numerous television and film productions as well as popular and scholarly works on Amedcan furniture and crafts. His home/studio has been a pilgrimage site for local colleges and universities, and HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. LD96-01- SANBAG (MALOOF HOUSE) April24,1996 Page 2 the Gamble House Associates of Pasadena conduct an annual tour to the proper~y. b. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: Finding 1: The construction materials or engineering methods used in the proposed Landmark are unusual or ~ignificant or uniquely effective. Fact/s: The home/studio exhibits an exceptional level of craftsmanship and design. Hand-built homes became pad of the popular culture of the 1960s and 1970s as pad of the back-to-earth counterculture movement. Finding 2: The overall effect of the design of the proposed Landmark is beautiful or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. Fact/s: Sam Maloofs house and workshop are both the products of necessity which evolved over time. The house is also a product of its builder's creativity and his love of his craft and its raw material, wood. Every detail is crafted to reflect Maloofs sense of design and passion for wood. 4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, as Landmark designations are exempt under CEQA, per Adicle 19, Section 15308. i- 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Landmark Designation 96-01. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1996. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buffer, Secretary HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. LD96~01 - SANBAG (MALOOF HOUSE) April 24, 1996 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular · - meeting of the Histodc Preservation Commission held on the 24th day of April 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 96-01 FOR THE MALOOF HOUSE AND WORKSHOPS, LOCATED AT 95_53 HIGHLAND AVENUE TO BE MOVED TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AND ALMOND STREETS - APN: 1061-28t:6. A. Recitals. 1. San Bernardino Associated GSvernments has filed an application for a Landmark Alteration Permit as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Landmark Alteration Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of April '1996, the Historic Preservation 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 Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 'k 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. The application applies to the residence and workshops currently located at 9553 Hig_hland Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga and proposed to be moved to a 5.54 acre site at the southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on April 24, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Chapter 22.24.120 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts: Finding: The action proposed is consistent with the purposes of this Ordinance. - Fact: . The Landmark Alteration, as conditioned, will enhance and promote the economic viability of this historic landmark. Finding: The action proposed will not be detrimental to a structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of an historic nature. Fact: The proposed modifications will rehabilitate and assist in the continued use of the structures and grove on the new site. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the HPC/P~ RES'OLUTION NO. LAP 96-01 - MALOOF HOUSE April 24, 1996 Page 2 application, the Historic Preservation 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 ___ Environmenjal 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 Historic Preservation Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information cgntained 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 California Code of Regulations, the Historic Preservation 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. Furlher, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits. and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public hearing. the Historic Preservation 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 conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forih below. a) All exterior site and building modifications shall be submitted to " Planning Division staff in the form of detailed plans and specifications before moving or building permit issuance, whichever comes first. b) All replacement materials shall be of in-kind type, size, and quality whenever possible. c) The new residence and garage shall be designed to match the house and shall be in conformance with the plans presented with this application. -' : _: -d) All Plans and specifications shall conform to the Secretary of Interior ~ Standards for rehabilitation and be reviewed and accepted by the California Office of Historic Preservation. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shah cedify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1996. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L HPC/Pb RESOLUTION NO. LAP 96-01 - MALOOF HOUSE April 24, 1996 Page 3 BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secreta~ I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Histodc Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Histodc Preservation Commission held on the 24th day of April 1996, by the following --- vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-09 TO CONVERT AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO A HOUSE AND WORKSHOP MUSEUM (ARTS AND CRAFTS CENTER), LOCATED IN THE VERY LOW _RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-281-16. A. Recitals. 1. San Bernardino Associated Governments has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-09, 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 24th day of April 1996, 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 fodh 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 April 24, 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 the southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets with street frontages on four sides and presently improved with an abandoned Citrus Grove; and b. The property to the north, east, and west of the subject site is developed Very Low Density Re~!~ential, the property to the south consists of undeveloped Very Low Density designated I~lnd.' ' 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 1 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 dOMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-09-SANBAG April24,1996 Page 2 c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. _ B_ased upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the applicationi 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. 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-l-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 approves the application subject to each and every condition set fodh below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1)As provided for in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.12.030A.5. the City Planner has approved that 7 of the required parking spaces in the locations shown in the attached Site ; .... Plan Exhibit may be of an alternative surface material in order to ~ - provide additional pervious surface area adjacent to the grove areas. Said areas shall be of a native or gravel materials with sufficient soil binders and barriers to control erosion and not constitute a nuisance. 2) House and Workshop Museum (Arts and Crafts Center) hours and operations shall be limited as follows: a) The site shall be open to the general public, but shall be limited to appointment-only supervised group tours and meetings. Said tours and meetings shall be limited to a maximum of 60 participants and be organized and supervised by the Maloof Foundation. PLANRING OOMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-09 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 Page 3 b) Supervised tours and meetings shall be limited to a maximum of four days per week. _ c) Multiple events, including Foundation Board meetings or other ...... group activities, shall be permitted on the same day as the previously referenced supervised tours and meetings but shall be separated by at least one-half hour between said activities. d) Supervised tours ahd meetings may take place only Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., subject to the other limitations set fodh above. e) The use of buses for group tours is encouraged; however buses shall load and unload on-site and shall not park or wait on public streets within the residential neighborhood. ___ 3) All applicable conditions of the Landmark Alteration Application shall be complied with and all structures and grounds shall be maintained in good and serviceable condition. Enqineerinq Division 1) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of Carnelian Street shall be undergrounded from the ' first pole on the nodh side of Almond Street to the first pole south of Hidden Farm Road, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Carnelian Street shall be undergrounded at the same time. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future redevelopment as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 2) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the -_" _: . . existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the ~ opposite side of Hidden Farm Road shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of Carnelian Street to the center of Sunstone Avenue. 3) When widening Hidden Farm Road by 5 feet on the north side, the existing pavement section shall be reconstructed to current City standards. Also upgrade existing drainage improvements to current standards, for maintenance purposes, by replacing the existing CMP storm drain under Hidden Farm Road with RCP and providing appropriate improvements for ove~lows to prevent erosion. Provide a catch basin on the north side of Hidden Farm Road to discharge PLANNING OOMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-09 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 Page 4 nodherly into the natural earth channel. Install a cross-gutter at the Carnelian Street intersection. All street and storm drainage improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. _-- _ 4_) Make a good faith effod to acquire rights of entry to also install erosion protection measures within the natural earth channel on the south side of Hidden Farm Road. 5) Provide an irrevocable brier of dedication for drainage purposes encompassing the existing eadh channel along the east edge of this propedy. 6) Replace the existing concrete trail fencing on the south side of Almond Street with PVC fencing and add a 2-rail fence adjacent to the street, outside the driveway and intersection lines of sight. Provide a transition to the new trail on the east side of Carnelian Street at that intersection, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7) The new Community Trail on the east side of Carnelian Street shall be installed per Standard 1002-A, with reference to Standard 1003 for the "front-on" condition (8-foot parkway). Inside trail fencing/block wall may be replaced with metal picket fence. 8) Provide 12-foot Community Trail on Hidden Farm Road per Standard 1002-B. 9) All ddve approaches crossing Community Trails shall have a transverse ;' medium broom finish. Use the "contiguous sidewalk" at option of Standard 101-A on Almond Street and Hidden Farm Road. 10) Install curb and gutter on the west side of Sunstone Avenue, adjacent to the existing edge of pavement. Complete the cul-de-sac bulb to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provide adequate street dedication forthe bulb and new curb and gutter. Also provide an irrevocable offer of dedication for the balance of the 60-foot ultimate right-of-way. 11) "No Parking Any Time" signs shall be posted on Almond Street. - ; .... Sunstone Avenue, and Carnelian Street. 12) A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the first six months of operation, prior to building permit issuance. 13) Make a good faith effort to obtain the vacated portion of Almond Street south of the Almond Trail (APN: 1061-281-15) so perimeter fence can be located at the top of slope. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING ~OMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-09 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 Page 5 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buffer, Secretan/ I, Brad Buller, Secretan/of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do ___ hereby cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of April 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES; COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROllECT#: ~-.:[Zf:p ~G' Off SUBJECT: o,.-,, PLEASE CHECK THE STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT APPL y TO YOUR I~ROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909} 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits completion Date 1'V/"~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 approved prior to / / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of 4.':- The developer shall commence, pazlicipate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced participated in, or consummated, a Mello-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 property 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 shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. ' ~. ?r[or to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, ~_h.e applicant shall consent to, or par[icipate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if 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. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval 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 - 3/96 1 Completion Date This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice 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 the issuance of building permits when no map is 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~vithin 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the 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 include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, the Specific Plan, and the Community Plan. ~/'2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. v/~3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy. plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. v/~4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall ~ submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. v/"~5.L All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to 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 first. ~ Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at V~7 the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police - : DepaFtment (477F2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate ~tyle, iflbmination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. \~8.If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units 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 subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. P,oiect No.C. -~ Completion Date 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. 11. Street names shaft be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. ' v///12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, '~/~4' including proper illumination. 13. Adetailed plan indicating trail widths. maximum slopes, physca conditions, fencing, and weed - control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pficr to c. pprcvc. iar, d raccrdafian of the F~aal Tract Map oraL 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. a. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestr an easements) shall, at a minimum. be fenced with two-rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeler" logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. b. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as --- veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance may be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. c. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official. 14. The Covenants. Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping tF~e __/ equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the ! necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 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 concurrently 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. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. ~-6. All'parkways, Open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / / owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose 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 first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of SC - 3/96 3 Completion Date 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 Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. ~C-. -- o ~. Any ~her modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the e~erior of the buildings or structures. remova[ of landmark trees, demolition, relocation. reconstruction of buildings or structures. or changes to the site, shall req~re-a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic PreseNafion Commission review and approval. , The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development ~ __ __/ ~ lcts for Ci~ Planner and Ci~ Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activi~, dust control measures, and security fencing. 20. Six (6) foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double / wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effo~ to work with the adjoining prope~ owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall noti~, by mail, all contiguous prope~ owner at least thi~ (30) days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's perimeter. 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 ~paci~ and e~ciency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submiRed for Ci~ Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2.L' All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural __1__1__ treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to Ci~ Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the HomeowneFs Association shall be submiRed for Ci~ __/__/__ Planner and Building O~cial review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All roof appu~enances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent propeRies and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally .- ; integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Ci~ Planner. " De~ails shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum 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 dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses.  Cornpletion Date 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit --- park~'ng-on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. ~ Plan~ for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and ·Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.) "/'~I.A detailed landscape and irrigation plan. including slope planting and mcdc~ hcmc ' ' ' '~ti~,-'kJ, c-~fiopm~, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits ef-pri.~ final m~,n ~p,nrO~f~f in th~ CaS;~ nr a nHgtnrfl lot subdivi..:.ian.. --o ~ Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be 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 for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation. transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. A minimum of trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the project: % - 48-inch box or larger % - 36-inch box larger, % - 24- inch box or larger, __ % - 15-gallon, and % - 5 gallon. 4.-L A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24- inch box or larger. 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of on 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. v'/'/7. All private slopes in 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than - ; 2:1 slog.e. shall bg, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for ': e,.r.6sion contr61. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. ~. A~~privates~~pesinexcess~f5feet'but~essthan8feet~nvertica~heightand~f2:1~rgreater 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 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. SC - 3/S~ 5 Cornpletion Date g. For single family residentia~ development. aH slope pbnting and irrigations shah be __ / continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the devebper until each individaa~ unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Ranning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible __/ for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas '~ithin the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertili:fing. 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 and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or . 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 coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Specla~~andscapefeaturessuc~asm~unding'al~uvia~r~ck~specimensizetrees'meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 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 criteria 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 Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19, 16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Signs - ~ The sig.r~s indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. 'L ,_Afiy signs proposed for this development shah comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. V/'/2. A Uniform Sign Program for this 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 town homes / prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Completion Date Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior 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 for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, -~ prier to-accepting a cash deposit on any property. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway , project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior 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 issuance of building permits· The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 5. Mitigation measures are required for the project· The applicant is responsible for the cost of -- - implementing said measures. including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $ , prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit· In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior !' to issuance of building permits· Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented· H. Other Agencies Yl. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and / 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. · 'l~dr projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all / / supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino 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 permits. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR ;OMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Site Development V~I Completion Date 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical 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. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may-include, but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation 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: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 'v~4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official. after tractJparcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Exislin~Slruclures 'v/""~. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness ef existing buildings. v/"/2. Existing buildings shall be made te comply with correct building and zening regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. ~ Existing sewage dispesal facilities shall be removed, ~lled andiet capped te comply with the Uniform Plumbing Cod~ and Uniform Building Code. \Y4. Underground on-si~e utilities ar~ to be Iocate~ and shown on building plans submi~ed for !' building permit applioatien. K. ~r~ding v/~l. ~rading of the subiect prope~y shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. V/~2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. '~ A ~ec;l~'~ical report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. V~4. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 5. As a custom-lot subdivision. the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. Completlon Date b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over / adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering 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 flows 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 and grading permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis). e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or __ __ / planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion 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 shaft 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) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 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 map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans -~//~.;.' and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): C o"~{1';o'4 ~0 total feet on '~4~2 o,4e_ ~jCHU. P,-- C~ ~;~C~' oF /__ 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for a -foot wide roadway easement shall be made / for all private streets or drives. 4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: __/ 5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or __/ be deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. Completion Date 6. Private drainage easements for cross4ot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 'i0-foot minimum building restriction area on the neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language: "IA, Ve hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other 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 properb,. '10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum /__ of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided. '1 I. The developer shall make a good faith effort to 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 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City io 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 L appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of 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, curb and gutter, AC pavement. drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights. and street trees. - 2: A miniEn.u~n of 26-foot wide pavement, within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be / c6n~tructed for all half-section streets. V"/"'3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including. but not limited to: / Curb & A,C, Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Street Name GutEer Pvmt walk Appr, Lights Trees Trail Island Trail {:)dr' , Completion Date Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu f construction fee shall be provided for this item.(~"){'~'~r_,_r p_ ~'~'t ~."t;~4,.~ "~'t~', ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~g & ~ 4. Improvement plans and construction: a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a registered Ci~ Engineer, shall be submi~ed to and approved by the CiW Engineer. SecuriW shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the CiW Engineer and the Ci~ A~orney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or pr vate street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being pe~ormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a "' construction permit shall be obtained from the CiW Engineer's O~ce in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, tra~c, street name signing. and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed on any new construction or reconstruction of major, seconda~ or collector streets which intersect with other major, seconda~ or collector streets for future tra~c signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the ~ street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the Ci~ Engineer. Notes: (1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless othe~ise specified by the CiW Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope. e. ~eel chair ramps shall be installed on all four corners of intersections per Ci~ Standards / or as directed by the City Engineer. fiExisting CiW roads requiring construction shall remain open to tra~c at all times with / : adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may be required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grad ng and paving, which shall be refunded ~ updn cdmpletion of the construction to the satisfaction of the Ci~ Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / installed to CiW Standards, except for single family lots. h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the Ci~ Engineer. / i. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submi~al for first plan check. / 5. Street improvement plans per Ci~ Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review / and approval by the Ci~ Engineer. Prior to any work being pe~ormed on the private streets, sc- ~ 11 Completion Date fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's'Office in addition to any other permits required. 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. V'//' 7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. a. On collector or larger streets. lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, 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 trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street tree easement· 8. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits: N. Public Maintenance Areas ~./ 1. - A ~scspc c, nd irrigatior, p~a,,~ p~ E, ' '. ,c C~b' Eng:,ne=~ fu, ,~v;~fi~*n,,d cpprovcF-pliu, tu final ,~ap cpprev~l oF ~ua~ of bufid;.g p~H]];b, wh[~v~ u~u~b ~ The following landscape parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas are required to be annexed into the U Landscape Maintenance District: / j . 2. A signed ~nsent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Ci~ Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 3. All required public lands~ping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the CiW. .- ~. Parkway, landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Be~uti~cation ~aster Plan: O. Drainage and Flood Control ~ 1. The project (or portions thereo0 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 developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all sc- 3,~ 12 Completion Date necessary reports, plans. and hydrologic/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. v//3. A final drainage study shall be submitted td and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required 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 trunk. 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overtlows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. p. ... ~. Provide separate utility services to each parcel ncluding san tan/sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility -- - ~ Standards· Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. ~3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Depadment of the County of San Bernardinc. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits. whichever occu~*s first. Q. General. Requirements and Approvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for: 3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated .- : cost q[.~pportioning the assessments under Assessment District · ~:_mbng the newly created parcels. 4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: sc-3m6 13 Completion Date 6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community __/___ Facilities District 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 borne by the Developer. 7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed / beyond the phase boundaries to assure s~condary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer· Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2780, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. ; 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. ~ 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 construction and prior to occupancy. ///3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be insJailed, flushed !.' and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel, V/z//4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. 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 an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is . : a_va!la_bJ_e! pending completion of required fire protection system. '7' ' 6. H~,drant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. v///7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: V//Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. ,/6Toeher vLec- sc-3~ 14 Projecl No.~ Completion Date Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the 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 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 Title 24., ,/Other v/'/10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: ,./~AIIroadways. Other '--/~11. Fire depadment access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus. 12. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. 13. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements. V~14.: All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. V"// 15. A building directory shall be required, as noted below: ~Lighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s). Standard Directory in main lobby. Other '16. A, Kho~'r;~pid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall b~ 'submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 17. Cared/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 18. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for the proper form letter. s c- 31~ 15 Completion Date 19. Plan check fees in the amount of $ have been paid. An additional S ~ 4_9' / shall be paid: Prior to water plan approval. __/ Prior to final plan approval. / Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. S. Special Permits 1. S~rm~ts 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 judgemerit of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. C~r'r~,'~ ,4 -~,e__~,,,',~ .~ b. Storage of readily combustible material. ,,f ,~[,~ fe..v~.', ,-~ ~5,;5 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 (H4). ~' __h. Lumber yards (over 100,000 board feet). __/__/__ __i. Tire rebuilding plants. __/__/ __i. Auto wrecking yards. / Junk or waste material handling plants. __.k. Flammable finishes. / Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanks, electrostatic apparatus, automobile undercoating, powder coating and organic peroxides and dual component : .... ~:oatings (per spray booth)· L Magnesium (more than 10 pounds per day). __ __/__ m. Oil burning equipment operations. / / n. Ovens (industrial baking and drying). /__/ o. Mechanical refrigeration (over 20 pounds of refrigerant). __/__/__ __p. Compressed gases (storage, handling or use exceeding 100 cubic feet)· sc- 3,ss 16 projecINo.~_~b~p qL, C~ Completion Date q. Cryogenic fluids (storage, handling, or use). r. Dust-producing processes and equipment. s. Flammable end combustible liquids (storage, handling, or use). t. High piled combustible stock. -~ t~ -Liquefied petroleum gas (storage, handling, transport, or use exceeding more than 120 gallons). v. Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross). w. Welding and cutting operations: to conduct welding and/or cutting operations in any occupancy. 2. Project is located in a high fire hazard area and is subject to special wildland/urban interface hazard mitigation requirements. Such requirements may include requirements related to vegetation management plans, special construction enhancements, emergency access, water supply, automatic fire extinguishing systems, and other special requirements. Contact the Fire/Building Safety New Construction Unit for information. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH 'HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: T. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. !- 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. U. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. .- 2. On~-ir~ single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are w~thin 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. 4. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars. metal gates, or alarmed. Security Fencing sc- 31~ 17 Completion Date 1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used / since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. W. Windows 1. All sfiding g~ass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be / lifted from frame or track in any manner. ---- 2. Store-front windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. / X. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime __ __/ visibifity. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall __ __/__ be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. 3. At the entrances of complex, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with / vandal-resistant cover. The directory shall not contain names of tenants, but only address numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. North shall be at the top and so indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign Permit and approval by the Planning Division· 4. All developments shall submit a 8 1/2" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant / developments to the Police Department. Y. Alarm Systems 1. -'_' Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and / employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. sc- sis6 18 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 96-03 FOR HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AND ALMOND STREETS IN THE · - VERY LOW (VL) DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-281-16 A. Recitals. 1. San Bemardino Associated Governments has filed an application for the Design Review of a new residence on a 5.54 acre site, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of April 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 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 lhe 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 meeting on April 24, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and · d.. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not will b~ detrimental to the public health, safety. or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and even/condition set fodh below. a) Compliance with all applicable conditions of Landmark Alteration 96-01, and Conditional Use Permit 96-09. (See Conditional Use Permit 96-09 for all applicable standard conditions.) 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING OOMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 96-03 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24_TH DAY OF APRIL 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 cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of April 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlVIONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to reduce the required building and parking setbacks for a commercial development in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 95-25. This item was originally scheduled for the March 27, 1996, Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the meeting, the applicant requested a continuance of the application to allow him more time to prepare for the public hearing. Attached for your consideration is the March 27, 1996, staff report and the Resolution of Denial. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance 96-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 27, 1996 Resolution of Denial ITEM C CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlVlONGA -- ~ STAFF I EPORT DATE: March 27, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to reduce the required building and parking setbacks for a commercial development in the Community Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant; Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Community Commercial (Subarea 2) South - Vacant and single family residence; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East Gas station under construction and multi-family residential; Foothill Boulevard Specific Ran, Community Commercial and Medium Residential (Subarea 2) West Flood Control Channel; Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Flood Control-Channel (Subarea 2) B. General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - Commercial North Commercial South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Commercial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelfing units per acre) West Flood Control/Utility Corridor C. Site Characteristics: The site is presently developed with the historic landmark John Klusman House that has been converted to a commercial use. A gravel access drive has been provided from Vineyard Avenue to a gravel parking area adjacent to the structure. A detached garage is located south of the house. The balance of the site is vacant. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a shopping center. Phase I consists of a fast food drive-thru facility and a sit-down restaurant. The drive-thru facility is proposed immediately to the east of the Klusman House. The restaurant is proposed at the northeast corner of the site along the Vineyard Avenue frontage. A future pad is provided between the drive-thru facility and the restaurant along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Parking is proposed behind or to the side of the buildings. Access to the site will be obtained from one entry drive along Foothill Boulevard and one along Vineyard Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ March 27, 1996 __ Page 2 B. Variance Request: In conjunction with the development application, the applicant has submitted a Variance request to reduce the required building setback and the parking setback along the street frontages. The site is located within the "activity center" of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The intent of the activity centers is to create pedestrian oriented development through orientation of building and amenities towards the public street. To encourage this pedestrian orientation, Building setbacks were substantially ~educed from the normal 45 feet to 25 feet for single story structures. To further emphasize the pedestrian orientation, the parking setback is increased from a 30-foot minimum to 50 feet. The two standards combine to provide opportunities for expanded pedestrian walkways, pedestrian amenities, and a pedestrian scale building design. The applicant is requesting to modify both the building and parking setback standards. The restaurant building fronting Vineyard Avenue is located 17 feet from the curb. The trellis structure provided in front of the drive-thru facility on Foothill Boulevard is located 15 feet from the curb. The parking area south of the restaurant is proposed at 39 feet from the curb. And the drive-thru lane, considered by staff as a parking drive aisle. is proposed at 21 feet from the curb. FACTS FOR FINDING: In order for the Planning Commission to approve a Variance, facts to support all of the following findings must be made: 1 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. 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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement 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 constitute 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 detrimental to the public health. safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In the letter to the Planning Commission. the applicant indicates that the site is unlike other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning designation. The applicant notes that the property development at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue resulted in the shift of the centerline in Vineyard Avenue 9 feet to the west. The result of this shift is that the applicant must dedicate 9 additional feet that he would not have had to dedicate if not for that development. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ March 27, 1996 Page 3 In considering the Variance request and the applicant's justification, staff offers the following: 1. The activity center provides a reduced building and parking setback from other properties along Foothill Boulevard within the same zoning designation. The activity center allows buildings to be located 25 feet from the face of curb compared to other locations which require 45 feet. 2. ~l'he applicant is required to widen VinSyard Avenue 20 feet for a 740-foot wide property (at the midpoint) in order to provide the required street improvements - a 3 percent reduction in the overall property width. By comparison, the property immediately across Vineyard Avenue was required to widen Vineyard Avenue 7 feet off their 160-foot wide property - a 4 percent reduction in their property width. The project on the east side of Vineyard Avenue was able to meet the 25-foot building setback required. The project did, however, receive Variance approval to reduce the parking setback to 43 feet because of the small size of the existing parcel (0.64 acres). The property at the northeast corner of the site, which necessitated the shift in the Vineyard centerline, was also granted Variance approval. That Variance permitted the Thomas Winery building (the arbor) to remain 2 feet from the face of curb. The approval was granted in recognition of the historic designation of the winery building. 3. The project approved for the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue (Smiths Food King) was required to deal with the same 9-foot shift in the Vineyard Avenue centerline. The site is zoned Community Commercial and the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue intersection is designated as an activity center. That project wa~s able to meet the required building and parking setbacks while widening Vineyard Avenue 22 feet. That northwest corner site is approximately 10.6 acres with a lot width of 630 feet. The applicant's overall site is roughly 9.1 acres under the same Community Commercial zoning. 4. The applicant is proposing to develop a site measuring 610 feet by 730 feet. This area provides more than adequate room in which to make up the distance necessary to comply with the setback requirements. 5. While the applicant is required to dedicate and improve the Foothill Boulevard frontage, there is no correlation between the 9-foot shift in the Vineyard Avenue centerline and the reduced setbacks requested along Foothill Boulevard. 6. VV~th the application, the applicant is required to widen Foothill Boulevard roughly 20 feet to accommodate the ultimate improvements for Foothill Boulevard. The project approved for the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue was required to widen Foothill Boulevard 17 feet to accommodate a right turn lane. Nonetheless, that project met the building and parking setbacks along Foothill Boulevard. The project at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue was also required to widen Foothill Boulevard 9 feet. Like the northwest corner, the application met the building setback requirements. The application did, however, receive Variance approval to reduce the parking setback from 50 feet to 40 feet. As with the Vineyard Avenue setback, the Variance was in recognition of the small size of the parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ March 27, 1996 '- Page 4 7. Even if the Vineyard Avenue centerline had not been shifted 9 feet to the west, the application would still not meet the required 50-foot parking setback within the activity center - the parking setback would be 48 feet from face of curb. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance 96-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" Site Plan Resolution of Denial Letter ofjusti~ ntior~ : ' We do ~,ot enjoy lhe same privileges as other properties in the same distric. L 'I'homns Winery locate~ aT the : Nonhwes corner ofFoothil~ Blvd. and ~neyard Ave. causM the center line of Vineyard Ave. to b~ shifted .' ~jne feet ~o the west thus a~t~g ~he building setback tbr the propos~ Vh~e)'~rd Xvc. Building. ~on~s : ~ner)' enjoys a pfivileg~ setback, thus the development code would deprk,e the pro~ building. to be : ~ocat~ at the Southwest corner of F~thill BIrd. and Viaeyed Aw, .oCprivileges enjoyed by od~d ~ropeniea in the same district. ~he ~uired setback Br buildlnSs ~oca~ed on Vineyard Ave. i~ 25 fee~, the propgsed ~Htdin8 is setba:k 17 iet from the curb. We are requesting on~ a 8 foot r~uction lathe r~uired setback· " ENTRY I FUTU,~ PATIO FUTURE ktlULTI_USE I N S9 '-T 07' W 3~0 633,~r 103 ~ STONE COL. ,16' WAL ~ ~P-2. CTW~. VI=WP ~ ~ FUTL .~ ~ THOU_ _ _ ........ ~'~LL ' ' ~FUTUR FUTURE TREL ~ = ~ ,,s .... , .... ENTRY SIDE~VALK ~ FUTURE COL~. MULTI-USE I 3500 ~ ~u,~,.e ~ I ..... ' : / 2g00 sI S~GN / J/ ~AM~ ' / RAMP' __ __ R, L00 TYP. .,~.~=~ SIGN ........ - ...... CONC. WA~ TOTAL pARKING 154 SPACSS ~/ i .._-,--,,L,,,_t._~..~L~/>_,.<~:'~-.?._:'.'t,'-?.::"*-'-~".!;.Z_~?¢--'-?".. ":: ::', '.. ',,/J ", ,, ,-"'-. ~:L::' .-::.57 ~:~ it-:: "",. "',(-.."""'--,'~-:-:';:~'-:-:" ':'~:-:~"i i5:: ::' -- _. __i 3.','."-, "' ZZ' ZZ : ,,;5~ ~:,...........~ c..~__.,,' -,, _: . ',/_,, -.. ,-. ,~ --. · · . .........!'.~?~_'Y_ ....I / ',. ,, 'Y '," ........7:-~- ' """ '~l~l~,~- .... · I / MASTER PLAN ~ ;~< ' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO. 96-01, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 AND 13. A. Recitals. 1. Gil Rodriguez Jr. has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 96-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 27, and continued to April 24, 1996, 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, 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 March 27, and April 24, 1996, including written and oral staff repods, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and V~neyard Avenue with street frontages of 640 feet along Foothill Boulevard and 495 feet along Vineyard Avenue and is presently improved with a local historic landmark, the John Klusman House, which has been converted to commercial use; and b. The property to the nodh of the subject site is designated for commercial uses and is vacant. The property to the south consists of a single family residence and is designated for residential uses. The property to the east is designated for commercial uses and is being developed with a gas station and mini-market. The property to the west is designated and developed with a flood control channel; and c. The application has been submitted in conjunction with a request for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25 to allow the development of a shopping center, the first phase of which consists of a drive-thru fast food facility and a restaurant which are conditionally permitted and permitted uses within the Community Commemial and Activity Center designation, respectively; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 96-01- RODRIGUEZ April24,1996 Page 2 d. The application has been submitted to allow the development of buildings with lesser setback than 25 feet from the face of curb along Vineyard Avenue and along Foothill Boulevard, and to allow development of parking with lesser setback than 50 feet from face Of curb along Vineyard Avenue and along Foothill Boulevard contrary to the requirements of Section 9.5.3.3 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and e. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan encourages development within certain designated activity centers by providing various incentives. These incentives include substantially reduced building and parking setbacks different from other properties along Foothill Boulevard; within the s~me zoning designation. The activity center allows buildings to be located 25 feet from the face of curb contrasted with 45 feet, which is the normal requirement for other locations within the Plan; and f. All new buildings within all other projects located within the same activity center at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue have fully complied with the setback requirements. The applicant is required to widen Vineyard Avenue 20 feet for a 740-foot wide properly in order to provide the required street imprevemSnts which constitutes a 3 percent reduction in the overall properly width. By comparison, the property immediate across Vineyard Avenue was required to widen Vineyard Avenue 7 feet off their 160-foot wide property, which constituted a 4 percent reduction in their property width, without the need for variance for building setbacks; and g. The project approved for the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue was required to address the same 9-foot shift in the Vineyard Avenue centerline. The site is zoned Community Commercial and the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue intersection is designated as an activity center. That project was able to meet the required building and parking setbacks while widening Vineyard Avenue 22 feet. The northeast corner site is approximately 10.6 acres with a lot width of 630 feet. The applicant's overall site is roughly 9.1 acres under the same Community Commercial zoning; and h. The applicant is proposing to develop a site measuring 740 feet by 610 feet at the mid-points of the parcel. This area provides more than adequate room in which to comply with the setback requirements; and I. While the applicant is required to dedicate and improve the Foothill frontage, there is no correlation between the 9-foot shift in the Vineyard Avenue cente~ine and the reduced setbacks requested along Foothill Boulevard; and j. With the application, the applicant is required to widen Foothill Boulevard roughly 20 feet to accommodate the ultimate improvements for Foothill Boulevard. The project approved forthe northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue was required to widen Foothill Boulevard 17 feet to accommodate a right turn lane. That project met the building and parking setbacks along Foothill Boulevard; and k. If the centerline of Vineyard Avenue had not been shifted 9-feet to the west, the application would still not maintain the 50-foot parking setback required within the activity center of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; the resulting setback would be 48 feet, and I. The parcel proposed for development does not contain any unique or severe topographical features. The property slopes gradually from nodh to south at approximately 3 percent. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 96-01- RODRIGUEZ April24,1996 __ Page 3 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 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. b. That there are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the properly involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not depdve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other propedies in the same district. d. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bulleft Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of April 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy. AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - A request to establish a lube facility within an existing commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. BACKGROUND On January 10, 1996, the Planning Commission considered a request by Foothill Marketplace Partners to construct a lube facility on an existing building pad location southwest of In-N-Out Burger. While having no objections to lube facilities in general, the Planning Commission felt that the location proposed was not appropriate. First, the Commission expressed concern about the impact any development would have on the existing on-site traffic congestion. Foothill Marketplace currently experiences congestion at the main signalized entry. During peak hours, the congestion becomes so bad that vehicles stack up along the east-west drive aisle between the signalized entry and the westerly entry. People trying to reach the signalized entry from the western portion of the site experience long delays. With a previous application, Price Club was conditioned to reconstruct the east-west drive aisle at the intersection southeast of In-N-Out Burger. The drive aisle would move to the south to provide a four-way intersection. The Planning Commission believed this reconstruction would improve the circulation within the center; however. there is no certainty as to when this will occur. As a result, the interior circulation is unacceptable to the Planning Commission and any new development will exacerbate the problem. The second concern of the Planning Commission centered on the potential conflicts between the application and In-N-Out Burger. At present, In-N-Out Burger experiences stacking for their drive- thru lane that extends beyond the exit aisle proposed for the lube facility. In order for a vehicle to exit during these times. the drive-thru lane must be stopped by an attendant to allow the lube facility customers to exit. The Commission felt the potential conflict was unacceptable. The final area of Planning Commission concern was the visibility of the work area from the surrounding areas. With drive aisles on the east and south, the Commission did not believe the roll-up door area could be adequately screened. Also, the service area would be visible from the exiting freeway off-ramp. Future plans call for the realignment of the off-ramp to be relocated closer to the lube facility. Visibility into the service bays will be increased and the Commission felt that adequate screening could not be provided, As a result, the Planning Commission could not support the application. ITEN D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKET PLACE April 24, 1996 "- Page 2 On February 21, 1996, the City Council considered an appeal filed by the applicant. After receiving all public testimony, the Council determined that the land use was appropriate for the Iocatioa with the inclusion of a condition of approval requiring the intersection east of the site to be reconstructed to provide a four-way intersection. This condition is identical to the condition placed on the iPrice Club Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission. The City Council referred the item back to the Planning Commission to resolve the design issues associated with the application. ANALYSIS, A. Desiqn Review Committee: On April 16, 1996, the Design Review Committee was scheduled to review the application. Because of a lack of quorum, the Committee was unable to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Commission Lumpp was present at the meeting to look at the alternatives presented by the applicant. Alternative Site Plan No. 1 (see Exhibit "B-2") reorients the access to the facility with the entry on the east side of the building and the exit on the east side. A drive aisle is provided from the main entry throat into the facility. The drive aisle is designed to accommodate approximately 8 cars queuing outside the facility. An access is available between the lube facility and the In-N-Out Burger site in the event a customer enters the wrong facility. Concern was expressed about the potential queuing back into the main drive aisle. Alternative Site Plan No. 2 (see Exhibit "B-3"i. like Alternative 1, reorients the building entry to the east and the exit to the west. Access to the facility is obtained from a separate drive aisle parallel to the In-N-Out drive-thru lane. The lane would be striped to delineat~ it from the drive-thru lane. Entry to the building does require a rather tight turning radius. Alternative Site Plan No. 3 (not shown) is a combination of Plans 1 and 2. The design would provide for the facility entry off the main circulation drive with additional queuing available. The location of the building, however, provides an oppodunity to reconstruct the access from the north should the waiting cars impact the main circulation drive. Alternative building elevations (see Exhibit "E-3 and E-4") were also presented by the applicant. To address concerns about the corbel feature originally proposed, the applicant provided a redesign of the entry area using the precast columns. The applicant preferred the original design, but the alternative was acceptable. The applicant also requested that the columns and trellis feature on both sides of the building be designed to pull the columns in tighter to the building. This would eliminate concerns about vehicles hitting the columns, the trellis would be slightly shorter, and the stantion ties (cables) would be eliminated. B. Environmental Assessment: Staff has reviewed the application and completed Part 2 of the Initial study. Based on this review and input received during the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, staff has determined that the on-site circulation functions are an unacceptable level during peak times. The reconstruction of the drive aisle east of the site, to create a foursway intersection, will help mitigate the impact of the existing conditions and the impact of additional traffic from this project and planned projects. Staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKET PLACE April 24, 1996 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Given that the full Design Review Committee did not have an opportunity to review the revised plans, the Commission has two options for consideration: 1. If the Commission feels comfortable with one or more alternatives presented, the Commission can adopt the attached Resolution approving the project and, if necessary, attach any additional conditions deemed appropriate, or 2, If the Commission feels the alternatives plans require more detailed study or the alternatives are not acceptable, the'item can be continued to the May 8, 1996, Planning Commission agenda and sent back to Design Review Committee on April 30. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit ~'A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "E" Building Elevations Exhibit "F" Environmental Checklist, Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval X I 0 ZS!.~ -~- =.. ~' - . ... I'~ II ~ "'~ "":'~":" Foothill I~larketplac IP R O J E C T: ~z,,,~--33 \~ - ' "~",, EXHIBIT: \,, \~, :~ ,,., .;,~.r' '~" ~,. ,,, ~. ..!;': ',l "'..::./ · / ; ...,. ..2 !. { .-;, j AREAS. HEAVY LINES RE ,'; "'" '!'" ":::,' ", 5. ,,' .,, :.. : ' ! '..',." ' ' NORTH WEST SOUTH EAST PROJECT: ~'-,~ ~'~'-~D / o EXHIBIT: NORTH EAST ELEVATION MATCtl CENTER ~X ~ ~ '.'.',: ..... ~.. ~; "' """" ':'~' 1" ,o ~,.u~ '~'L "" ""~ :~ , ..; '...--::'.:~. dMax , :Chant .:.:',.~?~ ,...... ~e,.. .,... ~ . .~.~.-, t~ . US- ""'~' ' ' ' ':'2~' " ~ ' ~L:' ~':' .r:::.~, ' . '. ... '2;(~: " ' ., ' ' ' ' :~"' :'~ "7 ' ~ SOUTH WEST ELEVATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM" INITIAL STUDY - PART II BACKGROUND 1) Project File #/Name: ~/YzP/f'4PA/.ZZ/J/c~'/2,F__,.~_.,~/Z"' ~,5'-,.,2L~-L:::2/Z/t-f;4X 2) Related File(s): 3) Applioant: ,/rz2P~/ZZ- Telephone #: .~ .......... 5) Project Accepted as Complete (date): ,~ Z¢ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant 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 ifi each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to be significant and is marked "No." Yes Maybe No I. EARTH. Wi~ the proposal result in: a) Unstableear~hconditionsorinchangesinthegeologicstructure? Q Q Ef/' b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the soil? O O c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? Q 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? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, 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?ElEl g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? O El F_:: ~-h \ b ', t" F 'D ),-/-~ j Yes Maybe No tl. AIR. Will the proposal result in.' a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Q Q b) The creation of objectionable odors? El El c) Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? El Ill. WATER. Will the proposal result in.' a) Changesincurrents, orthecourseofdirectionofwatermovements, in either marine or fresh waters? El El b) Changes in absorption rates, drai'nage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? El El d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? El [] e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? [::3 El F_~ f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? El Q g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions orwithdrawals, orthrough interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? E3 El Ef/' h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for publie'water supplies? [] "Q i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? [] [] 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)? El Q b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered : species of plants? Q Q El'/ c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? El Q Gr'/ d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? El El 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 reptiles; fish and shellfish; benthic organisms or insects)? [] El b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species or animals? El El Yes Maybe No c) Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? El Q d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Q El VI. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? El El El/' b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? El El VII. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal.' a) Produce new light and glare? El El VIII. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? El El IX. ' NATURAL RESOURCES. Wifi the proposal result in: a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? El El 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? El ~ Q b) ' Possibl~'~nterference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? D El XI. POPULATION. Will the proposal.' a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? Q Q XII. HOUSING. Will the proposal: : a) Affect existing housing, orcreate a demand for additional housing? El El Xlll. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wi~ the proposal result in: a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? El b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? E)"' El El c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? El El E~ e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or oedestrians? Yes Maybe No XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government sen/ices in any of the loftowing areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks and other recreational facilities? e) Maintenance of public facilities, ir~cluding roads? f) Other governmental seNices? XV. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 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? b) Communications systems? c) , Water? :.,-. d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? XVII. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (exclud- ing mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? XVIII. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? XIX. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? lP 7 4 Yes Maybe No XX. 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 c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? XXI. 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 or-animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? E3 Q b) Short-term:Doestheprojecthavethepotentialtoachieveshort- term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impacts will endure W.,e. II into the future.) E3 -- 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.) D Q El/' d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. (Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.) XXIll. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS. (Attach additional sheets examining whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls.) XXIV. EAR LI ER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El R, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier E IR 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 e~arlier 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 ~uch effects we]:e adHrZ~ssed by.mitigation measures based OH th'8' ea'rli~r 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 co~zld not have a significant effect on the environment, and A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. Q b) I find that although the proposed project could 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 .............................. ( c) I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................... El //. ~. ~5 ~/~, ~ Date Preparer:~ Sign/a Plo} ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Initial Study - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: Conditional Use Permit 95-33 - Foothill Marketplace Partners Lube Facility on existing pad southwest of In-N-Out Burger SIS Foothill. E/O 1-15 XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. Earth: a) The site is not within any known unstable earth condition area. b) The site will be graded to accommodate the building pad for the proposed use. The grading will be conducted under the supervision of licensed surveyor or registered geologist. c) The topography of the site wilt be altered slightly to accommodate the building pads. The grading will be supervised by a licensed soils engineer or registered geologist to ensure compliance with Building Code requirements. 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 drain directly into any body of water. The amount of run- off generated by the project will not affect deposition or erosion of any body of water. 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 hazard. II. Air: a) The project will not generate any emissions beyond what was previously anticipated with the approval of the Master Plan for the center. b) The proposed lube facility will not create any objectionable odors. c) The proposed lube facility will not result in the alteration to the climate or air movement. Ill. Water: a) The development of lube facility will not affect the currents or course of water movement. b) The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hard scape proposed. All waters will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. J INITIAL STUDY PART 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CUP 95-33 Page 2 c) The project will not alter the course or flow of flood waters. d) The development of lube facility will not affect the amount of surface water in any body. e) The project will not be discharging into any surface waters. O 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 that amount of water necessary to accommodate restroom facilities and occasional cleaning of the facility. 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 no 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. In that no animals currently use the site on a regular basis, the development of the lube facility will have no impact on fish or wildlife habitat. VI. Noise: a) The development of lube facility will increase the noise level by the mere fact that the property is currently vacant. The level of noise increase, however, 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 will be created because the property is currently vacant. The amount of light and glare will be no greater than the existing development surrounding the project. VIII. Land Use:. a) No land use alteration is proposed with the application. The lube facility is conditionally permitted in the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. - s" INITIAL STUDY PART 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CUP 95-33 Page 3 IX. Natural Resources: a) The installation of a lube facility will result in minimal added consumption of petroleum products. The increased usage is not considered significant. X. Risk of Upset: a) The use of petroleum products does pose concern to the Fire Department. Special permits will be required by the Fire District to minimize the potential, The impact is not considered significant. b) The lube facility construction will not interfere with emergency response. Xl. Population: a) The project will have no impact on the population of the City. XlI. Housing: a) The project will not create the need for additional housing, XIII. Transportation: a) The project will generate additional trips because of the new construction and the type of business. The number of trips, while low for this use, does have a cumulative impact on the already poor interior circulation for the center. A study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering Inc., dated October 3, 1994, of the existing on-site intersection to the east, which serves the subject facility, concluded that existing traffic conditions were unacceptable, In order to improve the circulation to acceptable levels, the intersection east of the project should be reconstructed as a four-way intbrsection. b) Additional parking will be necessary to handle the patrons and staff of the facility. The site is sufficient in size to provide the additional parking spaces to meet the parking requirements. c) The existing traffic conditions on*site result in serious delays during peak hours because of the poor circulation. Much of this is attributable to the off- set intersection east of the site,. The additional trips will compound the existing conditions. To improve the circulation to an acceptable level, the project should reconstruct the intersection to create a traditional four-way intersection. This will improve the efficiency of the intersection and of the center's circulation system. d) The project will maintain the existing circulation patterns for the movement of goods, e) The project will not affect air, water or rail traffic. f) The application is expected to increase the risk of traffic hazards because of the new construction. The driveways have been spaced to provide -. maximum safety available and pedestrian amenities (sidewalks) have been installed as part of the center development. The impact is not significant. \' ~' _ c~" E) INITIAL STUDY PART 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CUP 95-33 Page 4 XIV. Public Services: a) The project will require additional permitting and inspection by the Fire District to ensure Code compliance. The impact is not significant. b) No substantial new services are expected with the project. c) The school districts having jurisdiction 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 existing park facilities or result in the need for additional facilities. e) The site abuts a road that is being maintained by the City. No additional impacts on public facilities are expected, O No other government services are expected to be affected by this proposal. XV. Energy a) The project is not expected to use substantial 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 utilize existing power or natural gas systems. b) The facility will utilize existing communication systems. c) The facility will use water readily available on-site. d) The discharge from the site will be handled by the existing sewer facilities. e) An existing storm drain is located on the west side of the project and has been designed to handle the flows generated by the site. 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 hazard. b) No exposure of people to potential health hazards 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. 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. INITIAL STUDY PART 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CUP 95-33 '- Page 5 c) The project should not impact any unique ethnic cultural values. XXI. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqni~cance: 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) The Foothill Marketplace' center currently experiences traffic delay and congestion on-site during peak hours. Much of this delay is attributable to the offset intersection east of the proposed site. Traffic from the lube site will use the intersection. The additional trips, while not significant on their own, will have a cumulative impact on the interior circulation of the center. To mitigate this impact, the project will be conditioned to reconstruct the intersection east of the site to create a four-way intersection. This will improve the circulation to an acceptable level. d) It is not anticipated that the project will have any adverse impacts on human beings. XXIll. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS The application is conditionally permitted within the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, XXIV. EARLIER ANALYSES a) In completing the Initial Study, the following documents were used: 1 ) The previous Negative Declaration adopted by the City on August 27, 1991. This document is available for review at the Planning Division. 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. 2) The Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan. This document is available for review at the Planning Division, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. 3) The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR. This document is available for review at the Planning Division, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. 4) Traffic study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering Inc. dated October 3, 1994. "F'-ii RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A LUBE FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER IN THE REGIONAL RELATED COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 4) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-031-37 A. Recitals. (1) Foothill Marketplace Parlners has filed an application for Conditional Use Permit 95-33 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 January 10, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 96-01, thereby recommending to this City Council that said application be denied. (3) The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to the City Council. (4) On February 21, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. After concluding the public hearing, the City Council referred the application back to the Planning Commission with the direction to resolve the design issues associated with the project. (5) On April 24, 1996, the Plannjng Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 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 fodh 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 April 24, 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 south of Foothill Boulevard east of Interstate 15, with a lot width of 125 feet and lot depth of 130 feet, and is a graded pad presently improved with parking and a drive aisle; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS April 24, 1996 Page 2 (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated for commercial uses and is developed with a church. The proper~y to the south and east of the subject site is designated for commercial uses and is developed with a commercial retail center. The property to the west is designated and developed for freeway purposes; and (c) The applicant proposes to construct a 1,900 square foot lube facility which is conditionally permitted within the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and (d) The application proposes the construction of a three-bay lube facility, including a customer waiting area; and (e) The facility will be bounded on the south, east, and west by existing and proposed circulation elements, in particular, a drive-thru lane serving a fast food restaurant whose ingress adjoins the subject site; and ' (0 Vehicular traffic to this facility is served via an existing system of two-way drive aisles which includes an adjoining dual 'T' intersection that is presently congested. A study prepared by WPA Traffic Engineering Inc., dated October 3, 1994, concluded that any additional development in this shopping center would necessitate improvements to this intersection to improve traffic flow to an acceptable level. (g) The application, with the attached conditions of approval, will comply with the applicable provisions of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Development Code; and (h) The construction of a lube facility is consistent with the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Commercial designation of the General Plan. 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 1 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. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative DeclaratiOn, together with all written 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines pr~Pnulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore .e.ec,,he independent iudgment o,,he P,annin%%m' ' 'and, .u.her, ,h,s Commission PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS April 24, 1996 Page 3 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© 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated 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 conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1 ) Extensive landscaping shall be provided on the west and east sides of the facility to screen visibility into the service bays. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner _ prior to building permit issuance. Enqineerinq Division 1) Prior to the ~ssuance of building permits. all public improvements required by the conditions of approval for Parcel Map 13724 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2) If the connection between the public and private storm drain on this parcel is modified or relocated, the storm drain plans (Drawing 1468-D) shall be revised to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. Environmental Mitiqation Measures 1) The on-site intersection east of the site shall be reconstructed prior to occupancy as a four-way intersection. The final design of the intersection shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to building permit issuance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS April 24, 1996 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buffer, 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 24th day of April 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Rancho~i,Cuca~'nonga ic-ic-'; i DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS SUBJECT: APPLICANT: Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits Comolcdon Y"/1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission. if building permits are J / not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval, 2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to f ! ..~ / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of J / 4. The developershall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-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 property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, fhe developer shall comply with all appiicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall 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 first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mefio-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if 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, i[ the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior Io the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. SC- 10/94 1 Corn~l-~on Dat'~: This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice 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 recordalton of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map ~s ...._J / involved, written cedification 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 li nal map approval in the case of subdivisio n or prior to issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development t"/ 12' The site shall be developed and maintaii~ed in accordance with the approved plans which / / include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein Developmenl Code regulations, and f--~c~X'~z//J- .Specific Plan and Planned Community. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all J / Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _J / State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. ~ 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions ol Approval shall be / / submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance ot building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building , elc.), or prior to final map approval in the case ol a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 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 Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. v/ . 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and __.J / Sheriff's Depadmenl (989-6611} pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate sly e, umination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units / / 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 subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. /. 10. All ground-mounted uti ity appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall J / be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of ";' concrete or masonry walls, betruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City SC- 1,0/94 2 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with j / 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 __J / including proper illumination. .13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and .__/ / weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordalton 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 for th~ kee ping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Arlicles of Incorporation of the J / Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently 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, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained bytheproperty __/ / owner, homeowners' association, 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 purpose of assuming that each lot or -- J / 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 recordafion ol the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixlures 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 __J / 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 interior alterations which affect the exteriorof the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation. reconstruction of 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 pools 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 sha~ have the frord, side and r~ar elevations 'upgraded with architectural J / treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. Sc- ]0/94 3 Completion Date: 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 permits. 4. AIr roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other root mounted equipment and/or J / projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered trom adjacent propedies and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimu m outside dimension of 6 feet and shall .__/ / contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the pa, rking slall (including curb). .2. Texlured pedestrian pathways and rexlured pavement across circulation aisles shall be ----/ / providedfhroughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, J / entrances. and exits shall be slriped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in J / ...... depth from back of sidewalk. 5. TheC~venan~s~C~ndi~i~nsandRes~ric~i~nss~a~~res~~ct~hes~~rage~frecrea~~na~vehic~es / / on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on inlerior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitled for the City Planner, City Engineer, and ._J / Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building- permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Seclion 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- _._J / ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submittedfor CityPlanner reviewandapproval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. J 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier _..J / in accordance with the Municipal Code Sect on 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendat ons regarding preservation, transplanting and tdmming methods. 3. Aminimumof__treespergrossacre,comprisedofthefolowingsizes. shall be provided .__/ / within the proiect: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger, % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15-gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon. V/ 4. A minimum of ,Z-~) % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - _J / 24-inch box or larger. 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three J / parking stalls. sufficient to shade 50% of!he pa~ing area .at, so!ar noon on August 21. SC- 10/94 4 pro~e,et No. 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one Completion Dale: tree per 30 linear feet of building. ---/ / V/ 7. AIIprivateslopebanksSfeetorlessinverUcalheightandofS:l orgreaterslope, but less than __j' / 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 irrigalion system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. Allprivateslopesinexcessof5feet,bullessthan8 feet invedicalheightandof2:l orgreater /---J 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 ot 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 stagge red clusters to soften an~ 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 deve Ioper until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy forthose u nits, 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, property owners are respon- 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 free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pnaning, fedilizing, 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 ol the perimeter parkways, walls. landscaping, and sidewalks shall be J / included in the required landscape plans and shall be subjet1 to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency wilh any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division· 13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- U / ing sidewalks (with horizontal change). and inlensified landscaping, is required along 14. Landsoaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on J / the perimeter of this projecl area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, J / the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and ._J / approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria 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-I0/94 5 F. Signs ComDl~don V'/ 1. The signs indioafed on 1he submitfed plans are conceptual only and nol a pari of fhis epproval. J / Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall r.equire separale application and epproval by the Planning Division prior fo installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for lhis developmenf shall be submitted for Oily Plenner review and / / approval prior lo issuance of building permRs. 3. Difeclory monumenf sign(s) shall be provided for aparlmenf, condominium, or townhomes .__/J prior fo occupancy and shall require separate appfioafion and epproval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer wrRten norice of the Fourth Street Rock .~J / Crusher project in a sfandard format as determined by Ihe City Planner, prior fo accepting a cash deposil on any proper~y. 2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer wr~en notice ot the City Adopted ~/ / Special Sfudies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in e slandard format as determined by the Oily Planner, prior Io aocepling a cash deposi~ on any properly. · 3. The developer shall provide each prospe~ive buyer wri~en norlee of the Foothill Freeway .__/ / projec~ in a sfandard formal as determined by the City Planner, prior ~o accepting a cash deposil on any properly. 4. A final acoustical repod shall be submified for Oily Planner review and approval prior to lhe issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise aftenuafion 1o below 45 CNEL, fhe building materials end construction fechniques provided,-- and if approprje~e, verify the edequaey of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformante with fhe mitigation measures contained in the final report H, C~her Agencies t,// 1. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance wifh Rancho Cuoamonga Fire ----/ / Protection District Sfandards. v/ 2. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide -J / 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 .__J' / submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Dislricl thal 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 /___/ 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 1he San Bernardino 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 p~ermits. sc- 1o/94 G Pro;ectNo.:'~3';' APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR DOMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the atest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- ---J / 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 / to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay d~velopmen fees at the estab ished rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautiticatlon 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 J / addition to an existing development, the applican~ 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. V/ 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tracVparcel map recordation U / and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the proper~y line clearances ..__J / considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for-' ~ / the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped Io comply with the ~ / 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 subjet1 propedy shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City --.J / Grading Standards, and accepted grading prac'lices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved gradir~ plan. 2. A soils reiDon 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 contat1 San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture at (714) 387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to 1he issuance of rough grading permit. 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualilied engineer or geologist and submitted at ~ / the time of application for grading plan check. 5. The~ina~gradingp~anssha~bec~mp~etedandappr~vedpri~rt~issuance~Ibui~dingpermits. J / SC- 10/94 7 ' - M~rkm~'~, Arogynskl, Hanson & KIng Markman, Arczynski, Hanson, CurIcy & Slough A Proli:ssion~. Corportation Attorneys ,'Xt Law l~tes L. Makm~t R~ph D. I I~,n N~nber One Civic C~l~er Cir¢l~ 5~t~ 200 M~hu C. 51~u~tt Bre~ (2~iforz~a 92622-1059 (909) 9~27~ * (909) 381-0218 I). ( ,a p, ~ox (714)99(~09(H * ('31(}~6~1-1811 MEMORANDUM To: Cbaim~an E. David Barker, Vice Chaim~an T,an'y. MeNtel, Planning Commissioners Heinz T ,umpp, John Meltber and Peter Tolstoy and Principal Phnner Dan Coleman From: Ralph D. Hanson, Depuly City Attem~ey Date: April 18, 1996 Re: CUP No. 96-03/Hillside Community Church TIle purpose ol'the lilts nqenqorandun~ is to respond to the letter T,umsdaine in opposition to the application and to, I~opeihlly, betp Ibcus the issues I~r the Comnfission's consideration ol'tl~is item. The letter asserts that the Planning Commisskm is without jurisdiction to hear this item on the basis ot'Development Code Section 17.02.100 pertaining to lapse o1' development approvals. This theo~, however, is nonsense. Development Code Section ] 7.0~. 100 provides a twenty-lbur (24) montb automatic ten~fination Ibr discretiona~ approvals whicb have not been exercised. By its tem~s~ the time limit is tolled so long as construction is commenced and becomes completely inapplicable once the project is completed. Tbe penn it o~' Hillside Corntaunt ty Church ibr the modular buildings was Ihlly exercised wben the modulars were installed and a Certificate o['Occupancy issued: Section 17.02. 100 has, lbr many years~ had no bearing on Ibis matter. , - Madan=n, Ar~zynskl, Nanson &Ktng Mcmoraxxdum to: Raxxcho Cucmnonga Plamfixg Comissiou April 18. 1996 Page ~'o As reti:reuccd in your staft repo~. the Dcvclopmcx~t Code rcc~izc.s ttial tcmporm_'y trailers may bc allowed in cox~jm~ction with religious uses t~r a time deemed appropriate by fl~c Plam~ing Conm~ission. Accordingly, fl~e Plaiming Cotmnission is vested with full jurisdiction m exercise its discrcfiou ~vt~cthcr. or trot to approve file pcm~it request. RDFt:clI' C\RC\MRCPC\6.34 Transmitted via litcsimile Markman, Arczynski, Hanson _Curley & Slough A Prol'~ssiona] Corporation Anomeys A[ Law /~:.:nes L. M~rkman .~drew V. Arcz:.'nski ~um~er One Civic Center Circle 9~ ~3 Foo~hB] Boulevard Ralph D. H~son P.O. Box 1059 Sui:e 2~ W~am P. CurIcy. II1 Brea, California 92622-1059 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca~fo~a 91730 Marsha G. Slough (714)990-0901 ' (310)691-3811 (909) 9S0-2742 ' (909) 381-0218 . D. Craig Fox ........ ---- ·Pameia P. ~g Fax: (714)990-6230 Fax: (909)94S-94ll ~er~o F. Diaz ~ - Daren E. Hengesbach Boyd L. H~I March 6, 1996 Joseph A. Lumsdaine R E C F I V E D Tredway, Lumsdaine & Doyle 10841 Paramount Boulevard Do~gney, California 90241 MAR l 1 1996 Re: Hillside Community Church City ol Rancho ~ucarnonga planning Division Dear Mr. Lumsdaine: Cogunity Development Deparkment staff has asked me to respond to your letter of February 20, 1996 to Mr. Buller concerning the circumstances of the City's review and approval of the above-referenced church. Basically, and as will be explained in greater detail below, for over 13 years the basic site plan and configuration of the '-L Hillside Community Church (including provisions for temporary buildings and softball fields) has been an approved project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Church. has expended considerable time, effort and money improving their property, in reliance on those approvals and the City (even if it had the inclination to do so) lacks the authority to now disturb those development fights. 1. Background On' February 9, 1993, the original church proposal (Conditional Use ~' 'Pennif'No.. 82-2?) Was approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 83-13. That ab'proval reflected a phased development including a master plan which clearly delineated not only the permanent structures, but also temporap/' modular buildings and future ballfields (both soccer and softball). City records reflect that this action occurred follo~ving a duly noticed public hearing at which time the staffreporT contained specific references to the ball fields and described in detail the grading which would be necessary. to construct those facilities. Joseph A. Lumsdaiue March 6, 1996 Page Two Subsequent to the approval of CUP 82-29, the Church commenced some grading of the site, installed certain parking facilities and installed some of the temporary modular.buildings. Although, arguably, the rights of the Church vested in their entire ' ' project following such improvements, because the Church never obtained building ~ permits-for a permanent structure, City staff took the position that CUP 82-29 had expired and required the filing of a new conditional use permit. A subsequent project p~:oposal (identical to the original with the exception of architectural changes to the permanent buildings) was resubmitted in 1988 as Conditional Use Permit No. 88-10. On September 28, 1988, following a duly noticed public hearing (noticed by newspaper publication, posting of the site, and radius mailing to property, owners adjacent - note - three of the four homes which you represent did not exist at the time of the CUP), the Planning Commission adopted their Resolution No. 88- 198 approving the project including the master plan with ball fields and temporary ............ buildings. On that same day, a fourth temporary modular unit was approved by.Planning .... Commission Resolution No. 88-199 under a separate conditional use permit applicatio'n (CUP No. 88-38). The master plan for Hillside Commurdty Church has remained unchanged since the original CUP 82-29; hence, the ballfields and mmporary modulars have always been part of this project. The only modifications of this project occurred on November 28, 1990 were both CUPs ~vere modified to grant a three year extension for the modular buildings (Resolution Nos. 88-198A and 88-199A). As before, these actions were i- conducted at a duly noticed public hearing. 2. Wrongful Construction of"Recreation Area" As described above, the Hillside Community Church has been the subject of no less than five duly noticed public hearings. There is simply no truth to the allegation that Hillside Community. Church has developed any or all of its site without obtaining the necessary review and permits from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. '- - ' .... On the issue of the placement of the "back-stops", the Church has met all City mqii{reme~,ts. That is, while the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code contains no specific regulation for ball fields developed on private property, any property (whether it is developed with a church or a residential dwelling) is allowed to install accessory structures on the property. Section 1'7.08.060 pertinently provides a 16 foot height limitation with a five foot property line setback. Accordingly, the church construction of these facilities meets City code. Joseph A. Lumsdaine March 6, 1996 Page Three Finally, your demand for a new CUP by the Church for their construction cannot be recognized since all of their project, as reflected in their master plan, is rmw a fulb' yesrod properly right of the Church which carmot be disturbed by action of the City - ofRancho Cucamonga provided development continues in accordance with such apprc~vats. 3. Removal of Modular Buildings Wkile you are correct in noting that the authorized time limits contained in Resolution Nos. 88-198A and 88-199A for removal of the modular buildings has expired, you are incorrect that the City does not possess the discretion to again process an extension for maintenance of these temporary buildings. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.08.030D2 allows: .................... '~2. Tempotin.' trailers for use in conjunction 'Mth religious and .... agricultural uses for a specified interim period." As is common with most municipal zoning ordinances, the RancM Cucamonga Development Code recognizes that churches do not possess the funds necessary to maintain a strict development schedule, accordingly, greater allowanr. e for temporary structures is granted such uses. Accordingly, the City, by Planning Commission action, could extend the temporat?' modular buildings as long as deemed necessary. Staff informs me that such a conditional use permit extension request is ! pending (albeit, the application is not now deemed complete) on these temporary mc, duIar buildings and that staff has contacted representatives of the Church to request their continued processing of these extension requests. As always, these requests will be .~cted upon at a duly noticed public hearing. 4. Violations Of the "BrOwn Act" and Conflicts of Interest Although you do not elaborate, you seem to allege that some action in this ' ' process has taken place at something other than a duly noticed open public meeting as " ~ ' required by the Brown Act. However, as mentioned in this letter and as reflected in the *' records ina minhtes of the City, all actions have taken place in open, public and duly noticed public hearings. On the matter of your allegations as to a conflict of interest, fhe only "interest" that I am av'are of is that at least two members of the Rancho Cucamonga Plarming staff regularly attend Hillside Community Church. Naturally, the provisions of the Political Reform Act (and FPPC regulations promulgated thereurider) arid/or Government Code Sections 1090, et seq. only prohibit an officials conduct in an action Joseph A. Lumsdaine March 6. 1996 Page Four where there are recognized financial interests. At no time do any of~hese provisions regulate an officials conduct in dealing with their chosen place of worship. Nevertheless, I am aware that both such staff members have stayed away from the review and processing of these applications, not as a matter of public law, but to avoid any interference at their chosen place of worship. I trust you will caution your clients to care~.fily avoid an.,,' accusations that such staff members have personally committed any crime set forth in the applicable conflict of interest regulations. Finally, staff has informed me that they have, on several occasions, spoken personally and by telephone to one or more of your clients regarding this matter. Indeed, Ci~' staff met with several of your clients and representatives of Hillside Community Church at the ballfield location to discuss these difficulties and suggest certain remedial actions which may be acceptable to the neighboring property owners. While these efforts have, obviously, proven fruitless, staff informs me tha'c they continue to be willing to ........... participate, facilitate and/or lend any expertise in any potential discussions between your --- clients and representatives of Hillside Community Church. Ve~ truly yours, Ralph D. Hanson Deputy City Attorney i- City of Rancho Cucamonga RDH/nlc N'xRCXLCHURCH 6.34 cc: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner Hugh Hewin, Hexvirt & McGuire ' ' (transmitted via facsimile and mail) r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a new approval for the existing modular buildings on approximately 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5354 Haven Avenue - APN: 1074-271-01 BACKGROUND: On February 9, 1983, the original church proposal (Conditional Use Permit 82-29) was approved by the Planning Cormmission. The approval reflected a phased development pursuant to a Master Plan (Exhibit "B"), xvhich included permanent buildings and temporary modular buildings. The church proceeded with development of their first phase which included the temporary modulars, parking lots, and landscaping (Exhibit "C"). A subsequent application (Conditional Use Permit 88-10) was approved by the Commission.on September 28, 1988, which was identical to the original with the exception of architectural changes to the pemmnent buildings. On that same date, the Planning Commission also granted approval of a fourth modular building under a separate Conditional Use Permit 88-38. The church installed the fourth modular in accordance with this approval. A modification to both Conditional Use Permits was approved on November 28, 1990, which granted a three year extension of time for the modulars. The time extension expired on September 28, 1993; however, none of the modulars were removed. In August 1994 the church completed the Family Center, its first permanent building. The church was sent a letter in August 1994 reminding them of their obligation to remove the modulars. ANALYSIS: Temporary modulars are allowed for churches where a Master Plan for development of >ermanent facilities is approved. This flexibility recognizes the fact that churches generally don't have ;ufficient funds to pursue an aggressive development schedule. The Planning Commission sets the time limits for temporary trailers for religious uses for a "specified interim period" on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.030.D.2. Traditionally the interim period has been up to five years to coincide with the time limits established for development approvals. The intent is to provide encouragement for project applicants to make progress toward completion of their permanent facilities. Hillside Community Church has made substantial progress toward completing the permanent improvements to their site. These include, in addition to the Family Center, full street improvements, fully graded site, all parking facilities (except for about 30 parking spaces underneath the modulars), landscaping, and ballfields. The church is requesting a five year extensiold for the modulars (Exhibit "D"). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH April 24, 1996 Page 2 FACTS FOR FINDING: Staff believes the following facts support the requisite findings: A. The proposed use is consistent with General Plan policies to create opportunities wherein a population diverse in terms of income, age, occupation, race, lifestyle, values, interests, and religion may interact, exchange ideas, and realize common goals. B. The.proposed use is consistent with the D~velopment Code provisions ~vhich allow churches ~vithin residential districts. C. The modular buildings have been located on the site since 1983/84 without complaint and no evidence has been submitted to show that they are a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare or'materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. The modular buildings were installed on the site in full conformance with the Development Code requirements. CORRESPONDENCE: The Planning Division was contacted by several residents expressing concern that the modulars were not removed in 1993. Staff arranged a meeting between residents and church representatives on the church property to discuss this and other issues concerning the ballfields on January 11, 1996. Subsequently we received a letter from an attorney representing four residents on Vivienda, immediately south of the church site demanding removal of the modulars. The City Attomey's office responded in wTiting to this letter. Copies of the two attomey's letters were previously transmitted under separate cover. In an April 17 letter (Exhibit "E"), the residents' attorney cites the "unsightly scene of the modulars which directly abut their homes" as the basis for their opposition to this Conditional Use Permit request and their reason for ~vanting the modulars removed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request through adoption of the attached Resolution. Principal Planner DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Master Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Modular Site Plan ,, Exhibit "D" - Letters from Applicant Exhibit "E" - April 17 Letter from Tredway Lumsdaine & Doyle Resolution of Approval 12~ February 6, 1996 FlE (D E I V E D FEB 0 6 1986 Mr. ]::)a~ Coleman, PIm'mer City ofiR~qcho Cuca_monga OiLy ol Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Planning Division Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Dan, I am writing to request a five yeir extension of our conditional use permit (C.U.P. 88- 10) related to our modular buildings. We are very excited about the growth and progress that our church is making in moving towards the fulfillment of our long range master plan. When we completed the construction on our family center, which was the first permanent structure of the master plan, in August 1994, we were averaging about 450 in attendance. Since completion of the family center our average attendance has grown to 900. In addition, with the completion of our athletic field, we have 360 children from the :: community all registered and prepared to embark this March, on a softball program  we are calling "JUST FOR KIDS". Let me add that we are very pleased with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's playschool program which has been utilizing our facility. It is a great program. All of this is to say that our understanding of modular use, is that the city allows churches to utilize modulars as they continue to make progress toward permanent hi/Is/& construction of thei master plan, at ,,,hicb time the modula.s not be necessary. /0 We appreciate very much the city working with us to enable the kind of growth we COYJZJJT-Z~77, ! have experienced. It is our intention to continue to initiate the kinds of programs and C/]il/'Ch plans that will allow us to continue to grow, so that we can move toward our next building phase, at which time we anticipate being able to remove the modulars. Right now, thcv are crucial to our growing programs. 'Dins, wc are requesting the Thank you again for all )'our assistance, and I will look fortyard to hearing from you. ' Sincerely, %' Sr. Pastor Hillside Community Church February 26, 1996 R E O E I V E D FEB 2 9 Mr. Dan Coleman, Planner 10510 Civic Center Dr. Cit,l of ,qancho Cucarnonga · planning Division Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Dan, This letter is in response to your request for additional information related to our request for an extension of our conditional use permit for the modular buildings. The modular buildings are used for several purposes. We use them for classrooms on Sunday mornings for ages ranging from infants through adults. During the week we use the modulars for various adult meetings and mid-week children's programs, as well as for junior and senior high programs. We also have an active Ajcoholics Anonymous group that meets one night every week. .: Presently, the City ofRancho Cucamonga is utilizing our modulars, '~~ Mondays through Thursdays, during the morning hours for the Playschool activity program. : The educational component of our activities is very strong due to the large number of children and youth that participate in our church program. Thus, the modulars play an essential role in enabling our /)['[/S[d~P growth and the eventual construction of permanent educational facilities CO/)H771HJilfy as shown in our master plan. C/Sl/fCh IfZ can answer any further questions, please call me at (909) 980-2191. Thank you for your assistance. 5352 HAVEN AVENUE o5. o*-,v!o SURNS Dr. David H, Burns s_~a, 3:1!~ Senior Pastor -2' LUiVISDAINE April 17, 1996 t OF ~CHO CUC~ONOA APR l 7 19S6 PL.~O CO~SSION 10J00 Ci~c C~ ~ve City o~ Hancho Cucamonga Box 807 PJaHniDg DivisjoH ~cho Cu~on~ CA 91729 Conditional Use Permit 96-03--ttilZ~ide Comm. v~hy Clturch Public Hearing: April 24, 1996 Dear Plamn~,~g Comn~ssion Members: I. Several Rancho Cucamonga property oxvners ("Residents") including Ihose citizens residing at 10418, 10438, 10458, and 10478 Vivienda Street,. Aim Loma, California 91737, received norice of fie above-stated public heating for Condifionz/Use Permit CCUP") 96-03. The gorementioned residents have retained this law firm to voice their objections to Hillside Com_mu~jty Church's C'Hillside") application for CLrP 96-03. Hillside now seeb a.pprova.1 of CUP 96493 for authoriz~on to retain several modular buildings on its !xopcrry localed aI 5354 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamoga2 On February 20, 1996, via written corre~ondence to Brad BulleL the Residents formally informed the pl~nn;ng Commission of the City's failure to insfig fie necessary. regulatory measures to compel Hillside's compliance with the Rancho Cucmmonga Development Code_ A copy of the Residents: letter r~,,'d Fc,brum-y 20, 1996, to .Mr. Buffer is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by this reference. Wile the February 20, 1996 letzer sets forth the Residents' general concerns as to Hillside's use of its property, the pm'po. se of this instant letmr is to particularly address CUP 96-03 v,~th respect to the existing modular buildings which will be fie issuc before the pbnning Commits'ion on April 24, !996. /// //~ CiD/ofRancho Cuc~unongz planning Cornmission April 17, 1996 Page 2 BJ. CKGROIIND It is important to recognize the context of the Residents' concerns, and fGr this reason, I am compelled to briefly outline the history of the subject modular units. On September 213, 19138, the planning Commission atS. rmed Resolution No. gg-19g whereby appro~4ng Hillside's Ma~er Plan. The Master Plan allegeally accounted for Lnstallation of temporary modular units on HiIiside's property. Those modular w.ere authorized by CLrP 813-10. The planning Commission concttrrcmtly af~_nn~d Resolution No. 1313-199 and issued CUP gg-10 for an addition modular trait CUP Nos. gg-10 and 138-38 were subsequently modified by the planning Commission's approval of a thr~ (3) year e,-cension for the tempDrary modular rinks. This action ,~s evidenced by Resolution Nos. 1313-19gA and gg-199A. The extension of both CUPs were appmved on November 213, 1990- :merefore, based on the three (3) year extension of time, Hillside ~s obligated to remove the mmporary units on or before November 28, 1993. In fact, k is u.ndispumd tha the authorized time 1Lmits for Hjllside's use of the %cmpor-a~' modu!ars expired nearly 2½ years ago, on November ?28, 1993. ironic-aLly, the Ci~ did not initiate any aclion ag~-iDqt Hillside to im-m-e Hilisidc's compliance with ',:he lapsed CUPs- On the conn-a,7, during the interLm period ~om November 28, 1993 through the present, Hillside .tmo-~ingly ignored the lap. _%-d CUPs and initiated affirraarive measures to upgrade the modulars by, inter alia, constructing concrete w-eJkways, stairs, railings and other such pcrmznent measures- All of these actions clearly ~-idence Hiliside's intent to confmue use of ~hc modulars and Hillside's failure to reco=maizc tha~ the modulars origLnzlly authorized by the CUPs were to be End tO t=D. laiD. as ~e~_poralv ll,rtit$. In 1990, pastor Bmms represented to the Planning Cornmission that Hillside requested the three- year extension because it lacked suflScieni ftmds to commence with construction of the permanent . facilities ~s ou~ined in its Master Plan. l-r:jlside ~%rdqer represenzed :o the plamnlng Commission that Hillside e.xpectd to proc.%~t ~th development of the pezrnznera faciliti~ vdthin thr~ to five years. A copy of'Pastor David H. Bm"as' lener addressed to Brad Buller, dated September 28, 1990, is attached hereto as ExN]~it '2" and incorpcrrded herein by this reference. It is quite apparent f~m Hillside's actions within.the prior 6½ years, that Hillcade has no intention of ever removing the "temporary'" modular uaits. This is precisely the rc~on that Hillside now demands the pl~nnlng Corn.mission to approve the continued use of the existing modular units that were to be removed in 1993- /// //./ City of Rancho Cug~monga PIs~-g Comm{ssion Xpzil 17, 1996 P~c 3 THE CITY DOES NOT FL4.VE AUTFIORITY TO ~4PPROVE USE OF THE EXISTING ~ODD'L~ UNITS Zu light of the fact that the modu/ar3 have remained on Hillside's Frot~-ty for a total of eight (8) years, Hillsidc's to fight to use the modulars h~s long expired. Mo~ importantly, the City's authori~ to ~rmnd the use of the modulars tins also expired as expressly set forth in Development Cxtc §17.02.100, which states: "(A) Lapse of ADmrovals. AFprovals for development review, conditiozml use p~mAits, variancc~ and minor deviations sb~.ll lapse and become void twenty-four (24) months from the appmva/date, unless a differemt expiration da~e is specifically established as a condition of approval and un/ess one of the following actions occur: 1. A building permit is issued in m:cordance with the approved cati~ernent and construction is commemced and di]igt'm//y pursued toward completion; or 2. A Certificate of Occupancy is issued. (B) Extensions. An e~ension may be issued for lapse of approvzl for projccis described in the previous subsection. Approw./s originally ~d-znted by the City P/anna may be cx~'mdcd by the City Planner. ApFrovalsl by the planning Comr. i~ion my only bc extend by the Planning Conremission_ Ertensions miD, be granted in tweb,-e (12) month increments and not to exceed total of four (zl) years from the ori~naI date of apprfr,-aL All requ~-B for extensions shoujd be filed wkh the City Planaer sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date. The City Plz,,ner or Pl~,~ing Commission may extend the approva/of a project if they find that thcr~ h~5 bccn no siE~ificant change in the Land Use Development. Development Code, or character of'&e area in which the project is located, that would c~usc the a~.p~ovcd ]xojcct to ba:ome inconsistent or nonconfonmi~g. Also, the gr~n~Sng of zn extension should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or wehg_rc, or materia/ly injurious io properties or hn]:rrovcraents in the ~cini ty.~ (Ecnch~ Cmramonga Ds'dopmer~ Code 5~ 7 7. 02. Y OO. City of Rancho Cur, amonga p~m~g Commission April 17, 1996 P~c ~[ Section 17.02.100 controls the lapse of approval and extensions of conctkional use permit. s. The provisions of the Development Code, and sped~cally §17.02,100, are tmequivocaI ha that the Ci~' do~is not have an)' authority to now consider Hjllsidc's farther use and rertentiSn of the modular building- As expressly set forth in §17.02.100, cxi:nsio~-s of condifionz! use penniS exceed fo~ (4) yezrs from the oriZ~nal daze of a!~pmvaL In this irish_nee, Hillsidc's CUPs were oriqin~lly approved on September 28, 1988. Therefore, Hillside's COTs should not have beech ex~nded subsequent to September 28, 1992. The City also violated §I7,02.100(B) by .manfig t4]]]side a lump-shin three (3) year ex-~cnsion of the CUPs whereas the Development Code unequlvoczlly limits any extension to 12 month increments- In rcspon-~ to the Resideins' let'~'rr dated Februm--y 20, 1996, the City r~plicc! tha~ the City does in fact hzve the discretion to a.~ozin lzrroccss a rumher extension authorizing the use of the temporary modulars. They City, cited and r~licd on Dc'vclopmcn[ Code §17.08-030CD2), which merely stztes: "Tcmporm'y fieIs for use in conjtmcdon with rcli~ous and a~m-icultural uses for a .specific interim period_" The City is trader the belief that '~ahe City, by Planning Commission ~ction, could cxlcnd the tcmvorfi7 modular buildings as long as deemed neccssaO'-' The Ciw's contsntion ~vjth respect to this'issue is mis~uided and dircc~y contrz~icts cxprtss vro~ions ofihe Deve!opmenI Code- While the CiD' relics on § 17.08.030(D2) for its proposition thz~ the City has the u.arest~.cted authority to cxt~'nd Hlllside's CUPs into perpetuity, such contention is certainly not cticitcd by § · 17.0~.030CD2). Section 17.0g.030(D2) merely considers various use rcg-ulations. That provision does not discnss the proc~uf~ nor specific time parameters for exiensions of conclitiomzl use . permits. Therefore, §17.08.030 is not oontrolling ~nd is completely irrelevant to the subject issue. CONCLUSION The Residents merely reque6't t~ this Commission rcco~miz. e the lsro~isions set forth in the Development Code which all tTroperry owners must be comEx:llcd ~o acLhere ~o in development of their properties- Hillside Commtmity Chuzch is certainly nSt exempt from such reg~ala~ons. The City has zlrcady afforded Hillside numcrons opportunities to commence with development in accorc~znce with its Ms_~ter Plan and consnmction of permaneat sm.r~es. I-r~lside, however, hzs failed to proceed with its purpo. ried plans and has continued to use the "temporary" modular units for ~c~=.ht (g) yca~. Such conduct musf be terminated immediately ha li"~M of the fict that the Re,dents continue to five with the nr. sighfiy sc~,me of the mealfists which directly abut theirL- City of'Ra~cho P~ming C~'~-ission Apr~ 17, as se~ fo~ in ~8 ~dopm~ Cedc. 7ae Rcsi~ m~Jy ~ ~ C~ ~ ~m~ ~mpll~cc ~th the Devebpm~ Code ~d ~fo~ d~y t~s~d~'s ~pH~t~ for CUP 96-03- ~e 'R~idcn~ ~ ~u~ ~ ~lls~ ~ o~ to ~ely removc s~d mn~!~ at ~ R~y ~b~, 'rREDWAY T,b~ ~ & JAL;jh February 20, 199~ '.Via Facsimile and Certified Mail. l~¢turn Receil~t Requested Brad Bu.1/cr, City Phnncr The City of P, zncho Cus~nonga Dcpm r,,,e-nt of C.x, r f,,1 unity Development-PIerre h, g Division 10500 Civic Czntcr Drive P.O. Box 807 l~ncho Cucamon~ca. CA 91729 Re: l~SlNide Community Chm'ch New Softhal/Facility and Old Modular Buildings Dc2r Mr. Bullmz. The following Aha Lomn propzrry owners (collezdv¢ly ?Residents~) have r~tained '&is office to represent tt~ir interests concerning violazions of the Cenditional Use Perrail CCD"P'D by fie Hillside COmmLlnity Cl:lurdt Ct!Iside'D and failure by the Ci~ of Rancho Cucamong'a C'Civy'D to ¢nfome -.~p?lic. able pl~rming ordinanL~s and regulations: 10418 Vivienda Sm:~ 104.58 Vivienda Street Alta Loma, CA. 91737 Alia Lores-. CA 91737 10438 Vivicnda Strezt 10478 Vivicnda Str~-zJ. Alto Lomn> CA. 91737 Alto Loma. CA. 91737 Thes~ Resident~ are the record owners offcruz residential pare-is on Vivienda Streat which is immediately adjar~'mt to the a:axth~rty boumdary line of Hillside's property located az 5354 Haven Avenue.. Rnnsho Cuzzmcnga, CA 91737. l-~_l/side's wron_mru/conduct continues m sub~-~ur;ally in~x-rfe:rc with the Rcside'ats' fights IO LLce and ~njoy theh- .re:spe~ve properda. The City ha~ been rome a'wm'e of the pemis~ent pmblen~ 'tort has ~us far negt~es,.ed its obligations to regulsm Hitlside's uss of the p.ulx-'my. In fin'L the City h~s fail~ to ensure Hfllside's con:rplisr~ with .~.dng orcti.~wc~es conc~'nlng issuance of conditional use p~-mits and ge=cral development standzrds. Add?don:lty, there ..appems to have ~ s~xious violations of beth The Brown An and ccrnfiic~ of inter-st ntis cont~i~ed. inter alia, in G~'ernm. ent Code SYmm T -z The CilT of Ranch0 C',,'~otto~ February 20, 199~ Pag~ 2 Sec4Aons glO00 e. seq. 1. Wr~n~cn! ComtsutCtion 9f"E~fion A~ ~e m~ ~ifi~t ~bl~ ~ch ~e R~d~ ~dy ~co~ ~ ~ to Filldde's ~velopm~ of~ ~b~ fiel~ ~ill~dc p~ ~ ~' to develo~ ~ ~on m~ ~o~ o~{~{~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~r w~e Mv~a~t ~ ~ Jay ~ ~ of ~e ~y B~e~ ~ el~ ~ ~ So~l F~ cl~ly ~ ~o~ $e ~e ~~ ~ ~ S8~38. S,mh ~c~ Cu~ M~d~ ~in~ ~~ ~ 17.08.030. How~, ash of ~ ~ ~ plan~s ~~ ~ S~y ~nG,~ ~ ~ll~de ~d sot obmin ~e n~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~ a om~ ~on a ~ite ~ md ~Hc h~, ~ d~y ~ not ~e ~e, ~e Ci~ ~ ~ ~l~de :o ~ ~e ~ ~ fiel~ ~ a ~ne ~ ~ ~e m~ not ~e 1~ ~j~o~ ad ~ m ~ R~&~B' ~ ~ ~jo~ of~ ~. ~e m'o ~m~plat~ ~d m~ ~ao~ ~k-~' e ~y Mj~ m ~ R~d~' ~' ad ~ R~' ~ ~ ~e ~y ~2~ ~ ~a fo~-f~t high b~k f~ ~ch ~ ~ i~ of ~e m~y ~ ~e. B~'~ of~ ~S~ ~e ~-~ ~ ~Y ~Ie ~ ~m ~e ~ont of ~e R~d== ,;- ~4 a~i~ ~ ~ due Sad ~ og to k h~ g of ~or~ fog 8~8 ~ h~ ~e on ~e Ci~ m ~m~ ~de m ~ty for ~ The C~y ofP,2ncho Cueamong~ February 20: t 9~ P~ge 3 2. Failure to Remove Modnlar Bu~din~o's As a fireher example oflhe Ciry's ~ to ~e ~l~de's d~elopm~t of ~e pm~, ~{ll~de ~ ~ i fl~t ~ol~on of~e ~nE ~ ~ w~ch it o~ ~ce 1988. S~y, ~e Ci~ ~ov~ ~ll~'s ~ ~'s Nos. 8~I0 ~d 88-38 on S~ 28, 1988. ~ C~s ~ow~ ~llsi~ m ~ ~- m~ b~dlnSs for a ~y~ ~. h 19~, ~e Ci~ P~ing ~t ~prov~ Hill~de's appH~en for a~ ~ ~i~ of~e m ~ ~ of~ m~. ad ~e ~ that ~ ~ ~o~ of~e ~ ~ or ~ ip~, 1993, ~n~u~ 1o mb~ Ci~'s; to ~e ~e m~nl~ ~din~. To this date, ~l~de ~ not rode ~y ~mpt to remove ~e ~qi~ ~ o~y ha~ ~ ~ to ~ ~. ~ ci~ly ~ fo~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ nor d~ ~e Ci~ bye ~y t~ ~o~ m ~d ~ ~L ~e m~ple ~o~ ~td to Fillside bye t a~ ~e fo~ yi~ ~m ~ ~psl ~ of ~ ~Sxo~ (~em~ 28, 1988). Hill~de ~ ~ Salt ~olnfi~ of C~ ~in~ ~ 17.~1~ ad ~e ~g olin' o~n~l CU~. ~fom, d~d ~ ~eby ~e ~ ~ C~ m ~ ~on ~~ for ~'s 88-10 ad 8~3g, ad m ~ ~1 ~11~ m ~intely remove · e te~ m~. ~ ~ ~t~e Ci~ ~ m ~ ~thin 7 ~ of~ ofthls 1~, ~e n~ of ~e law, ~e R~dzn~ ~ve ~ ~ i m ~m~ 1~ ~on a~in~ ~e Ci~ · e n~ to ~ 1~ a~ H~, ~ of~ly ~F ~al ~ o~ cHuB ~ ~e no choi~ ~ m ~ m ~o; ~e law ~ ~ ~ G~ ~d ~ll~de. V~ ~y ~, ~WA ~D~ & ~ L J~:i~ CHenB Septe~joer 2Bth, 1990 .. ~ Brad Bul]~ City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga lOSGO Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucainonga , Ca 91730 Dear Mr. Bu!!er: At a public hearing of the Planning Commission in September, 1988, Hillside Community Church filed an application for the issuance of the Condi~icna! Use Permits Numbers 88-38 and 88-10. The Comnission approved our application subjecz zo certain conditions. We have promptly complied with those conditions which included reconstruc5ing the existing CO~Tam~i~y trail cn Haven Avenue to meet current standards; making parkway improvements along Haven Avenue to conform to the results of the Haven Beautification Study; removing the northernmost driveway on Haven Avenue and replacing it with curbs; .cutters, and parkway improvements; and finally, putting in our half of the street bordering the north of our property. These projects have all contr~uted to our progress to-ward 'the goals of our Master Plan. I am writing to re.cuest a 3 year extension to C~U.P. 88-10 and modification to conditions 3 and 4 of C.U.P. 88-10, to allow the modular stmactures to rsmain for 3 years. Also, I am requesting a modification to condition number 5 of C.U.P. 88-38 ~o allow the modular buildings to remain for 3 years. .. We are ver-y encouraged by the grownh of our Church these EXYFF IT past years. We have steadily grown every year n~erica!!y, numbering around 400 currently. we have every year grown financially, increasin~ our ~mual income from $338,000 in 1987 to $550,000 in 1989. We have taken the necessary steps to provide for gro~h by adding additional meeting space and additional s~aff persons to provide leadership. Our goal is to become a large enough church ~o build the first phase of our ~-~star Pl~. we feel we will need ~o be around 700-800 meanbets to acconrp.!ish that. We are right on target to reach that in 3-5 years. That is why we are re.eaesting a 3 year extension on the use of our present modulars. We fully support the intent of the Planning Commission to 1 ~ m~ t the use of ~he Modular Buildings in our city, and it is absolutely our intent to move as rapidity as possible tow~-rds constructing a perma,nent faciiizy as outlined in our Master Plan. Since we will not be in a position to bu!id for three years, we would request an extension for that three year period. The Planning Depam~nt has been a great he~p to us in each s.~aga of our deve!opmenz and it has been a pleasure to work with you Thank you for your Consideration in the re _c~aests for these ~ime extensions. Respectfully Dr. David ~. Burns Senior Pastor Hillside Conununity Church RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-03 FOR EXISTING TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND HILLSIDE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-271-01. A. "Recitals. 1. Hillside Community Church has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-03, 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 24th day of April 1996, 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 tl~ 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 April 24, 1996, including written and oral staff repods. together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 5354 Haven Avenue which is presently improved with a church, including the subject modular buildings. family center multi- purpose building, parking lots, and landscaping; and b. The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site are single family residential; and c. The temporary modular buildings were installed on the property pursuant to an approved Master Plan for phased development of the church campus under Conditional Use Permits 82-29, 88-10, and 88-38; and d. The church has, since 1983. been steadily making progress toward completion of their permanent facilities, including the family center, permanent parking lots, full grading of the site. landscaping, and ballfields consistent with the approved Master Plan; and e. The application contemplates maintaining the modular buildings for an additional five years until completion of the next phase of development; and :: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH April 24, 1996 Page 2 f. The Development Code Section 17.08,030.D.2 gives the Planning Commission the authority to establish appropriate time limits for temporary trailers for religious uses on a case-by- case basis; and g. The temporary modular buildings have been located on the property since 1983/84 without any record of complaints from surrounding residents. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in paragraphs 1 and 2 ahoY'e, this Commission hereby finds and ~oncludes 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. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder. pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set fodh below: Planninq Division 1) AU modular buildings shall be removed by April 24, 2001, or upon completion of the next permanent building, whichever occurs first. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ARPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH April 24, 1996 Page 3 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 24th day of April 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: