HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Resolutions 2006-2019 RESOLUTION NO. 19-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00291,A REQUESTTO
MODIFY A DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTY RELATED TO THE
SUBDIVISION OF THE PROJECT SITE INTO 4 RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF 3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES
(WITH THE EXISTING HISTORIC RESIDENCE ON LOT#4) WITHIN THE
VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE EQUESTRIAN
OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 9611 HILLSIDE ROAD;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1061-571-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Jim Banker filed an application for the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness
DRC2016-00291, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Certificate of Appropriateness request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 10th day of July 2019, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Historic Preservation Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on July 10, 2019, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, the Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a 3.04-acre project site located on the south side of
Hillside Road at 9611 Hillside Road in the Very Low (VL) District; and
b. The site is generally rectangular in shape and is approximately 328 feet from east to
west and 377 feet from north to south. The project site generally slopes from north to.south,with an
elevation change of approximately 33 feet from the north property line (1,865 feet) to the south
property line (1,832 feet); and
C. A historically designated single-family residence(Grandma Issak House)is located
at the northwest corner of the project along with a non-historic storage building and a stone wall.The
remainder of the project site is undeveloped and covered with native and non-native grasses along
with a Eucalyptus windrow located along the west and south property lines; and
d. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site
and adjacent properties are as follows:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00291 —JIM BANKER
July 10, 2019
Page 2
Land.Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family Residence Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential District
Grandma.lssak House
North Single-Family Residence Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential District
South Single-Family Residences Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential District
East Single-Family Residences Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential District
West Single-Family Residences Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential District
e. The Grandma Issak House was constructed in 1911,with the house and property
receiving City Council approval of a Historic Landmark Designation (00-02) and a Mills Act
Agreement (00-01) on November 15, 2000; and
f. The applicant is requesting to subdivide the 3.04-acre project site into 4 parcels for
the future development of 3 single-family residences on Parcels#1 thru#3,with the existing single-
family residence (Grandma Issak House) located on Parcel #4; and
g. The project site will be accessed by a new cul-de-sac from Hillside Road. The
Grandma Issak House will retain vehicle access from Hillside Road, while the other three parcels
(Parcels #1 thru #3) will gain vehicle access to the project site from the new cul-de-sac;and
h. The applicant has agreed to restore the Grandma Issak House based on the
recommendations made by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (April 4, 2019) and incorporated into the
attached conditions of.approval; and
i. , The existing Mills Act agreement is required to be modified to reflect the current
property owner and parcel legal description. The updated Mills Act agreement will be reviewed and
approved by the City Council prior to final map approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19855.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to Historic Preservation 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 subdivision and the inclusion of the Grandma Issak House on Parcel
#4 of the SUBTPM 19855 will provide sufficient area to retain the historic integrity of the structure.
Therefore, the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Historic Resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The proposed project is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 17.18 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code;the proposal meets requirements.of Section 17.18.040 as
the proposed improvements are compatible with the historic representation of the Grandma Issak
House and will protect.important features of the structure, and will enhance the value of the structure
and its surroundings; and
C. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. The recommended enhancement to the Grandma Issak House will assist in restoring
the historical character of the structure. The proposed site improvements are appropriate to the era
of significance and will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in setting,
design, and materials.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00291 —JIM BANKER
July 10, 2019
Page 3
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration,togetherwith all written and oral reports included forthe environmental assessment for
the application, the Historic Preservation Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends the City Council
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local
CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the
project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the
imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would
have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment
period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
b. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on
the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in
compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Historic
Preservation Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Historic Preservation Commission. Based on these
findings, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
and
C. The Historic Preservation Commission has also reviewed and considered the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure
compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Historic Preservation
Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project; and
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Historic Preservation
Commission's determination is based, is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone
(909) 477-2750.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1,2,3,and 4 above,the
Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every
condition set forth in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference.
6. The Secretary to the Historic Preservation Commission shall certifyto the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00291 —JIM BANKER
July 10, 2019
Page 4
BY:
Tony uglielmo, airman
ATTEST:
lecretary
tt Burr' ; Secretary
I, Matt Burris, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 10th day of July 2019, by the following
vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DOPP, GUGLIELMO, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Conditions of Approval
RANCHO Community Development Department
CUCAMONGA
Project#: SUBTPM19855DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD - 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to the Standard Conditions shall apply.
2. The recommendations outline below from Rincon Consultants, Inc. dated April 4, 2019, shall
completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to final map approval by the City Council:
a. Removal of non-original facia boards on the eaves;
b. Replacement of the main entry door with period appropriate replacement;
c. Removal of soffit to expose the rafter tails;
d. Replacement of knee braces in gables;
e. Texture or treatment to the exterior of the chimney, to evoke the covered brickwork;
f. Installation of a landmark designation plaque along the public right-of-way;
g. Installation of additional vertical landscaping element to frame the fagade and highlight the wall
and porch.
3. Fifteen (15) gallon size eucalyptus trees shall be planted at a minimum spacing of 8 feet on center
along the south and western property lines of the project site to replace the 17 trees approved for
removal by DRC2019-00393. The species of eucalyptus tree shall be reviewed an approved by the
Planning Director.
4. An updated Mills Act agreement with the current property owner information and property legal
description shall be approved by the City Council prior to final map approval of Tentative Parcel Map
SUBTPM19855.
5. The existing block wall along the Hillside Road public right-of-way shall be removed or be reduced in
height to 3 feet.
6. Gates shall be installed at each entrance to the private equestrian trail per Engineering Standard
Drawing 1006-C. The equestrian trail easements shall include a 4 inch cover of decomposed
granite. A graded connection shall be provided from the equestrian trail easement to a graded 24
foot by 24 foot or 12 foot by 48 foot coral area not to exceed 15 percent in grade. Each parcel shall
provide a 10 foot gate to the private equestrian trail easement.
7. All changes made to the exterior of the Grandma Issak House (9611 Hillside Road), including the
recommendations made by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (April 4, 2019), shall be reviewed for
architectural compatibility by the Planning Director prior to the commencement of work. All
recommended changes to the Grandma Issak house shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director prior to approval of the final map (SUBTT119855).
Standard Conditions of Approval
w .CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD- 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
8. The applicant shall agree to defend at ;his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees,
for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate
at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve
applicant of his obligations under this condition.
9. Approval of Tentative Parcel No. 19855 is granted subject to the approval of Certificate of
Appropriateness DRC2016-00291, Variance DRC2016-00290, Minor Exception DRC2018-00934,
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2019-00393.
10. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of
Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s)
are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not
required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
11. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of
Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,404.75. All checks are to be
made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission
Secretary prior to public hearing.
12. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced
within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
13. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3
years from the date of the-approval.
14. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in
effect at the time of Building Permit issuance..
15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the 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&Rs.
16. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot or 12-foot by 48-foot corral area in the rear yard adjacent to the Local
Feeder Trail. Grade access from corral to trail with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of
10 feet.
17. 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 Planning Director. For
single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019 Page 2 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855'DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD- 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
'Standard Conditions,of Approval
1S. The project contains a designated 'Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained
in accordance with Certificate of Appropriateness No. DRC2016-00291 Any further
modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations
which affect the exterior of 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 Certificate of Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission
review and approval.
19. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The
5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the
required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted- for Planning
Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. The parkway landscaping
including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The
developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance
requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
20. 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 shall be gated provided that
equestrian access is maintained 'through step-throughs in accordance with Engineering Services
Department Standard Drawing 1006-B and 1007-B.
21. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5 percent 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 and Safety Official.
22. Where corner side, interior side or rear yard property lines are adjacent to local equestrian trails,
construct minimum 6-foot high decorative masonry walls. Decorative masonry shall mean split-face
double sided block, `slump stone' or an alternative material that is acceptable to the Design Review
Committee.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. The existing septic system serving the existing house shall be removed to the satisfaction of the
project soils engineer. The existing house shall be connected to the existing public sewer main in
Hillside Avenue. Removal of the existing septic system shall be shown on the grading plans. Prior to
the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide a reference copy to the City Engineer or
his designee of the sewer permit submitted to the Building Official.
2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the
format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and
Permit".
w .CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019 Page 3 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD - 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
3. "A"Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City"Local"standards as
required and including:
A. Provide existing curb & gutter, sidewalk, 5800 Lumen HPSV-equivalent LED street lights,
driveways, signing, and striping as required.
B. Driveways shall be in accordance with the City Driveway Policy.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a
sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls.
7. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay
all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights.
8. 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.
9. The area along Hillside Road of parcels 1 and 2 shall have private irrigation and landscaping
installed for private maintenance by property owners of parcels 1 and 4.
10. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
11. 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, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, 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.
12. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
13. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: "All improvements
within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement
plans." If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans
will govern.
14.Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved.
Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them.
15. A final drainage study shall be submitted to 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.
Pdnted:7/11/2019 www.CilyofRC.uS
Page 4 0!15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD- 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
16. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a
source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical
codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes,
regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development
approval have been completed 'and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments
containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections
made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these
conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided' that reasonable,
safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the
buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of
all improvements required by these conditions of development approval.
17. Intersection line of sight designs shall. be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or largerstreets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
18. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
19. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured
from street centerline):
33 total feet on Hillside Ave.
20. "Per Resolution No. 87-96:
All developments, except those contained in section 7, and others specifically waived by the
Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines
including the removal the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development
as follows:
1 Lines on the project side of the street.
a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developers expense.
b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is
impractical at present for such reasons as short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and
not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing
improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in-lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6.
c. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of undergrounding.
from future developments as they occur on opposite sides of the street.
2. Lines on the opposite of the street from the project: The Developer shall pay a fee to the City for
one-half the amount per Section 6.
3. Lines on both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with Section 1 above and be
eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees so that he bears a total expense equivalent to
one-half the total cost of undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street."
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019 Page 5 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD- 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
En-gineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
21. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The
completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the
street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the
construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet
(typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall
be per the public landscape improvement plans.
Street Name: Hillside Rd
Botanical Name: Lagerstroemia Indica "Natchez"
Common Name: Crape Myrtle Hybrid-White
Min. Grow Space: 3'
Spacing: 20' O.C.
Size 24" Box
Qty.: 13
Street Name: Land View Court
Botanical Name: Pistacia chinensis
Common Name: Chinese Pistache
Min. Grow Space:
Spacing: 45' O.C.
Size Qty.: Determined by design
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the
City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments,
as determined by the City inspector.
3)All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services
Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
22. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the
CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such
letter must have been issued by the water district within 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.
23. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to Building
Permit issuance if no map is involved.
24. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an
improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be
required for the proposed street improvements for Klusman Court (Street "A") and Hillside.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019 Page 6 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD - 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
25. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an
agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing
completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the
issuance of Building Permits,whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to
any other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. 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 City Engineer.
Notes:
1) Pull boxes shall be No: 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart,
unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified.
e.Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits,are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon
completion of the construction.to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check.
26. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
27.A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or
issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the
developer.
28. Hillside Road frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Collector" standards as
required and including:
A. Protect or repair existing curb &,gutter, street lights, signing, and striping as required.
E Provide sidewalk per City standards.
Building and Safety Services Department
www.CityotRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019 Page 7 oM 5
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD - 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including
structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report Building and Safety for plan review in
accordance with the current edition of the CA Residential Building Codes including all local
ordinances and standards. The septic system must be submitted separately per the requirements of
the Rancho Cucamonga LAMP requirements. The new structures are required to be equipped with
automatic fire sprinklers per the CRC.
Grading Section
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be
included within the engineered wall plans and calculations.
Standard Conditions of Approval
2. The two parcels fronting Hillside Avenue shall have a sewer lateral connection to the public
sewer in Hillside Avenue. In the event that the lot is too low for a gravity sewer, a sewage pump
system shall be installed. As the Cucamonga Valley Water District will not support a public sewer lift
station, the two southerly parcels may be constructed with onsite wastewater
treatment (i.e.) septic systems (OWTS). The OWTS shall be constructed at the southerly side of the
lots to allow for a future sewer lateral connection to a future sewer main in Klusman Court.
3. DESIGN ISSUE; The average high ground water level for the subject property is 35-feet below the
surface of the ground. Therefore prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall
provide as a project condition of approval a separate On-Site Wastewater Treatment System
(OWTS), i.e. a septic plan, showing the maximum depth of any proposed seepage pits to be 10-feet
above the average high ground water level (or 25-feet below the existing ground surface). Note: the
proposed project is lowering the existing ground level approximately 4-feet in the locations of the
proposed seepage pits. With the average inlet depth into the pits of 4-feet below grade the usable
seepage pit depth is 25-feet to ground water minus 4-feet of lowered grade minus 4-feet inlet pipe
minus 10-feet pit above ground water) is 17-feet. For the house as proposed with approximately 5 to
6 bedrooms a 1,500 gallon septic tank is required. Assuming the pits are 7-feet in diameter with a
necessary pit depth of 42-feet, four (4) seepage pits will be required using the City of Rancho
Cucamonga standard design criteria. NOTE: The City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted a Local
Agency Management Program for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (LAMP OWTS),
effective September 17, 2018 which will requires site specific percolation testing after rough grading
for residential subdivisions. A copy of the LAMP OWTS is available on the Building and Safety
webpage.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019 page 8 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD - 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT;
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall provide to the City Engineer for
reference a copy of the separate 'On-site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) plans for
reference with the submittal of the precise grading plan. The separately permitted OWTS shall be
submitted to the Building Official for review and permitting. The OWTS shall meet the requirements
of adopted Local Agency Management Program for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (LAMP
OWTS), effective September 17, 2018 which will allow site,specific percolation testing which may
reduce the required seepage pit depth. A copy of the LAMP OWTS is available on the Building and
Safety webpage.
5. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code
and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices.
The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
6. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform.
such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans.
shall implement design recommendations per said report.
7. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.
8. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects
and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more
of combined cut and fill. The Grading .and Drainage 'Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet
signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
9. The applicant shall comply with the 'City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a
dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s)
shall be located outside of the public right of way.
10. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the City Engineer for review, the
rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and
Drainage Plan/Permit.
11. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the
adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the
perimeter wall(s)to be constructed offset from the property line.
12. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where
possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.
13. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall
be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private
property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building
Code.
14. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined
exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and
bond shall be approved by the City Engineer.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019 Page 9 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD - 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
15. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond
project boundary.
16. Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a
pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the
grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive
measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading
operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety
Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to
continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit;
iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the
Engineering Technicians (Engineering Services Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad
Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils
Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate
Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
17. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the
property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the
adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). This shall be shown in the
typical sections of the grading and drainage plan.
18. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site
plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations
between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections
CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of
the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.
19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from
the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be
scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title
sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set.
20. The proposed on-site wastewater treatment (i.e. septic) system shall be located in the rear yards for
the two south parcels (Parcels 2 and 3) to allow a future connection to a public sewer main in
Klusman Court/Peach Tree Lane).
21. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall
submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and
elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of
proposed structures and drainage of the site.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2019 Page 10 0(15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD- 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Grading Section
Standard Conditions.of Approval
22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the following
information in the equestrian 'trails: — ,Provide PVC fencing per city standards, provide a 4" thick
decomposed granite (DG) surface, provide a drainage V ditch parallel to the trail, provide a bridge
over the V ditch where necessary for access to corals, and gates to corrals. The equestrian bridges
shall be ,capable of carrying vehicle loads where necessary. Where the longitudinal slope (s) is S<
5% the cross fall shall be 2%, if S>5% the cross fall may be 4% maximum. Where water bars
required, the spacing for the water bars is: 50' maximum for longitudinal slopes of 4% to 6%, 40'
maximum for longitudinal slopes of 6.1% to 9%, 30' maximum for longitudinal slopes of 9.1% to
12%, 20' maximum for longitudinal slopes greater than 12%. In the equestrian trails water bars shall
also be placed at the top and bottom of the trail where the gradient of the trail changes, i.e. a steep
downhill slope which will cause additional erosion to the trail.
23. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be
prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval for on-site storm water
drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile gradient
calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed
and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide
inlet calculations showing the ,proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows
into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices.
24. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
25. It shall be the responsibility ,of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage acceptance
easements(s) from adjacent downstream property owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition
(concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the City Engineer a drainage study showing
the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a grading or building
permit.
26. The site shall be rough graded to eliminate all cross-lot drainage, (except in approved facilities
within easements shown, on the Parcel Map). All slopes and retaining walls necessary to
accomplish this shall be installed prior to final map approval.
27. Flow lines steeper 'than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters
and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent.
This shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a grading permit.
28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and in accordance, with Planning Commission Resolution
92-17, if a lot may not directly drain off-site directly to the street or other acceptable drainage device
(such as a drainage ditch adjacent to an equestrian trail), then: a) drainage may flow from only one
lot onto only one other lot; b) a drainage easement shall be provided over the lot accepting the
drainage; c) the drainage shall, be contained within either a' concrete/rock lined swale/channel or a
reinforced concrete pipe; and d) the drainage shall be designed with excess capacity to account for
the probable lack of necessary maintenance, therefore, it shall be designed to convey two (2) times
the runoff from a 100-year storm event with the minimum diameter of the pipe being 12-inches.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:'7/1112019 Page 11 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD- 1 061 571 01-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
29. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted
California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and
drainage plan.
30. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the
engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan
(WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
31. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy
of the project Conditions of Approval and any required Codes, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&R's).
32. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of
Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Engineer and recorded with the County Recorder's Office.
33. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification
Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan
document.
34. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint
maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment best management practices (BMP)
devices, as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided
for by CC&R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance a grading permit. Said CC&R's
and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of
Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
35. The HOA and/or land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural
storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in
the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated
with the BMP infiltration basins are the responsibility of the land owner.
36. The HOA and/or land owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the
approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the
inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program
Manager.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/11/2018 Page 12 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD- 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
37. The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed
maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm
water treatment devices (BMP's). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device
maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to
submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site
and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant
shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the
proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the
residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the
residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the
property shall be included within the WQMP document. NOTE: This condition of approval will apply
if proprietary storm water structural treatment BMP devices are used
38. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan
shall include a completed copy of "Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet"
located in Appendix D "Section VII - Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety
Recommendations, ..." of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water
Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer's recommendations
for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility
Safety Factors".
39. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have
a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm
water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the
current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality
Management Plans". NOTE: The conceptual grading and drainage plan along with the preliminary
water quality management plan are showing infiltration basins within compacted fill material. Should,
the final design show infiltration basins within the compacted fill area the applicant shall have the
soils engineer perform an infiltration test in the areas of the BMP basins.
40. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil
engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm
Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of
Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
www.CityofRC.us
7/11/2019 Page 13 of 15
Project#: SUBTPM19855 DRC2.018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE'RD- 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard conditions of Approval
41. Section 1.5.1, Table 1-1 Priority Projects, Category No. 1, of the San Bernardino County Technical
Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans reads "All significant re-development
projects — defined as the addition or replacement of 5,000 or more square feet (sq. ft.) of impervious
surface on an already developed site subject to discretionary approval of the permitting jurisdiction.
In addition: Where re-development results in an increase of 50% or more of the impervious surfaces
of a previously existing developed site, the numeric sizing criteria discussed in Section 4 applies to
the entire development.
The project is showing 4,800 square feet of existing impervious area. The project is showing 25,775
square feet of proposed and/or removal and replacement of .impervious area. The
proposed/removal/replacement impervious area equals or exceeds 50% of the existing impervious
area, the project is conditioned, -prior to the issuance of a grading permit, to prepare a final
project-specific water quality management plan to treat the storm water runoff of the entire
development's impervious area.
www.CityofRC.us
Pdnted:7111/2019 Page 14 of 15
Project#: SUBTP.M19855 DRC2018-00934
Project Name: Grandma Issak Subdivision
Location: 9611 HILLSIDE RD- 106157101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map Minor Exception
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
42. GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP
document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No.
R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm
Sewers Separation.(MS4) Permit reads:
Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection):
Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltratiofr [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not
designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such, as grassy swales, detention basins,
vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum
requirements to protect groundwater;
a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
ground water quality objectives.
b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect
groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be
evaluated prior to infiltration.
c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall !be required in gas stations and large
commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large -commercial
parking lot as '100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or
more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking
purposes').
d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration
treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject
to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or
any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or
maintenance activities{79), such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and
used car dealership; specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility
that does any vehicular repair work.
f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and
groundwater contamination.
g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any
water supply wells.
h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic
high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support
beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is
maintained.
i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water
Code Section 13050.
The final project-specific water quality management plan shall address items b, h, and i above.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/112019 Page 15 of 15
RESOLUTION NO. 17-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485,
DESIGNATING A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
20-LOT SUBDIVISION OF ABOUT 5.43 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL (L) DISTRICT (2.0 TO 4.0 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND
VICTORIA STREET; APN: 1076-081-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Manning Homes, filed an application for a Landmark as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Landmark is referred tows"the application."
2. On November 8, 2017, 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,
Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately 5.43-acres of land, basically a
rectangular-shaped configuration, located at the northwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Victoria
Street.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on November 8, 2017,. including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts:
A. The City Council may designate a property as a historic landmark if it meets one of
five criteria and must retain integrity from their period of significance with respect to
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any
combination of these factors. The subject property meets the following criteria:
Criteria 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction.
Fact/s: The dwelling is a good example of Folk Victorian and has retained a
high degree of exterior integrity considering its age. The ornate
details such as fish scale wood shingles and decorative wood
spandrels suspended from the porch ceiling are architecturally
unique for the time period in which the house was built. The house
does possess high artistic values which embodies a type and period
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 —MANNING HOMES
November 8, 2017
Page 2
of construction. Similar homes with less artistic detail and value have
been deemed Historic Landmarks within the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
B. Historic Landmarks must retain integrity from their period of significance with
respect to location,design,setting, materials,workmanship,feeling, association,or
any combination of these factors. A proposed landmark need not retain all such
original aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic, cultural,or
architectural significance. Neither the deferred maintenance of a proposed
landmark, nor its dilapidated condition shall, on its own, be equated with a loss of
integrity. Integrity shall be judged with reference to the particular characteristics
that support the:eligibility of the property.
Fact/s: According to the Cultural Resources Assessment completed by LSA
Associates, Inc., the proposed landmark retains high integrity from
their period of significance with respect to setting, location, materials,,
workmanship, association, design and feeling. It retains sufficient
integrity to convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance.
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA
Guidelines,the applicant's environmental consultant,Applied Planning, prepared an Initial Study of
the potential environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study was peer reviewed by
Placeworks, an independent environmental consultant under contract with the City. 'Based on the
findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation
measures related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils,
Hazards and Waste Materials,,and Noise there would be no substantial evidence that the project
would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public
comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation
Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with,the
mitigation measures for the project..
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2,,3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby resolves that, pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval of Landmark Designation on the 8th day of,November 2017 subject to each,
and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions incorporated herein by
this reference.
Planning Department
1) Approval,is for a request for a historic landmark designation for a single-
family residence in conjunction with a 20-lot subdivision of about 5.43
acres,of land within the Low Residential (L) District (2.0 to 4.0 dwelling
units per acre) located at the northwest,corner of Hermosa Avenue and
Victoria Street; APN: 1076-081-01.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES
November 8, 2017
Page 3
Environmental Mitigation
Air Quality
1) During grading and site preparation phases of construction, the work
area shall be watered a minimum of two times per day.
Biological
1) Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal
activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is
outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no
active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly.
If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable
habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for
the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist).
The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the
Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant
to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the
area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a
minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined
by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as
determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is
concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall
be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that
any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not
disturbed.
Cultural Resources
1) The removal of historic materials or alteration of features that
characterize the residence shall be avoided. Repair/replacement of
materials shall be made in-kind.
2) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize the residence shall be preserved and/or
repaired/replaced in-kind.
3) Any deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a character-
defining feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color,
texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary,
physical, or pictorial evidence.
4) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, shall be undertaken
using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to
historic materials shall not be used.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES
November 8, 2017
Page 4
5) The design plans and elevations for the new detached garage
associated with the historic period residence should include a gable roof
and siding that is similar in appearance to the house and must be
reviewed and approved by City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
6) Removal/relocation of the residence shall be monitored by a qualified
archaeologist, since the potential for subsurface cultural deposits is
moderately high in the area surrounding the house
7) In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered, all
work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall
cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior (SOI)
standards shall be hired to assess the find.Work on the other portions of
the Project outside of the buffered area may continue during this
assessment period. Additionally, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
will be contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and
permitted/invited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes
their assessment, so as to provide Tribal input.
8) If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA,
are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified
archaeologist shall be retained to develop a cultural resource Treatment
Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which
shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and
comment. a. All in-field investigations, assessments, and/or data
recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be
monitored by a San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Tribal Participant(s).
b. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of
any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project.
Geology and Soils
1) A geotechnical engineer or geologist shall be on-site during all grading
and foundation, construction to verify all observations/findings of the
Geotechnical Investigation, or provide amendments as necessary.
Hazards and Waste Materials
1) Prior to any relocation, demolition, or destructive renovation activities
involving the onsite structures,the Applicant shall submit documentation
to the City that ACMs and LBP issues are not applicable to Project, or
provide an action plan that will be implemented in accordance with all
appropriate regulatory agency guidelines to abate any issues.
2) Should ACMs or LBP be identified on-site, confirmed and suspected
ACMs or LBP shall be handled and disposed of by licensed contractors
in accordance with all appropriate regulatory agency guidelines.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 —MANNING HOMES
November 8, 2017
Page 5
Noise
1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition
approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied
noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a
Construction-Source Noise Mitigation Plan (Plan) to the City for review
and approval. At a minimum, the Plan shall depict the location of the
construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be
mitigated during construction of the Project.
Noise control/mitigation incorporated in the Plan may include but would
not be limited to:
• Implementation of intervening noise attenuation screening/baffles
between equipment operations and potentially affected receptors;
• Use of electrically-powered construction equipment;
• Restricted use of equipment at Project boundaries;
• Ensuring that equipment power is appropriate for the incident
construction activity (neitherunderpowe�ed or overpowered);
• Use of newer construction equipment. Newer equipment is
typically quieter than older models;
• Modify equipment to reduce,source noise levels by intake and
exhaust modification(s) and incorporation of sound attenuating
panels around engines.
The Plan shall demonstrate that received construction-source noise
levels would not exceed the City's performance standard of 65 dBA(Leq)
at any occupied sensitive receptor land.use.
2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards
specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D [17.66.050-D], as
measured at the property line. Monitoring of received noise levels shall
be conducted in response to any noise complaints, or shall be otherwise
conducted as determined necessary by the City Building Official. If
monitored constructions-source noise levels at affected receptors exceed
the City's 65 dBA (Leq) performance standard, construction activities
shall be reduced in intensity or shall be otherwise modified to ensure
compliance with the City's noise standards.
3) The Plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure
[Mitigation Measure 4.12.1] shall specify that haul truck deliveries be
subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e.,
Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on
Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the Plan shall denote any
construction traffic'.haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily
trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the
extent feasible, the Plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass
sensitive land uses, or residential dwellings, The Plan shall also
incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-02
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2017-00485 — MANNING HOMES
November 8, 2017
Page 6
4) A perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be
constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman
ATTEST: C'y e3.-�
Candyce ri ett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission for 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 8th day of November 2017, by
the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, OAXACA
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WIMBERLY
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Conditions of Approval
RANCHO Community Development Department
CUCAMONGA
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of
mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of
Building Permits.
2. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees,
for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate
at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve
applicant of his obligations under this condition.
3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of
Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s)
are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not
required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
4. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of
Exemption and Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,266.25. All checks are to be made
payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary
prior to public hearing.
5. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced
within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
6. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3
years from the date of the approval.
7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in
effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
8. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than
wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency.
9. 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 Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development
Code regulations.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa,LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
10. All parkways, open areas, and 'landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner,
homeowners' associations or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review
and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
11. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map
12. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and
occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
13. 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.
14. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in
the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the
development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development
occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by
Fire Construction Services.
15. 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.
16. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.
17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water
efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82.
18. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed' and approved by
the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building
Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as
not to adversely affect adjacent properties.
19, Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017 Page 2 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE- 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. 1. Hermosa Avenue frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Secondary"
standards as required and including:
A. Protect or repair curb &gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing & striping as required.
B. Remove existing drive approach that fronts Hermosa at the northerly portion of the site.
C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps.
Reconstruct the access ramp at the northwest corner of Victoria Street at Hermosa Avenue.
2. Victoria Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City " Collector" standards as
required and including:
A. Construct curb& gutter at 22 feet from centerline to curb face.
B. Provide curb & gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing &striping as required.
C. Provide three (3) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall
be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the
street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements.
D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps.
Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast corner of Victoria Street at Teak Way.
3. Teak Way frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required
and including:
A. Dedicate right of way from centerline to property line that equals 30 feet and construct curb &
gutter at 18 feet from centerline to curb face.
B. Provide curb &gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing &striping as required.
C. Provide two (2) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be
responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the
street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements.
D. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps.
Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at'A' Street.
4. 'A' Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City "Local" standards as required
and including:
A. Provide curb& gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and signing &striping as required.
B. Provide five (5) LED street lights. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be
responsible to coordinate and pay all costs to provide street lights and SCE power to serve the
street lights. Coordinate with City staff for design and installation requirements.
C. All improvements shall be in accordance with the latest ADA standards including access ramps.
Reconstruct the access ramp at the northeast and southeast corners of Victoria Street at'A' Street.
2. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the undergrounding of the overhead utilities (telecom and electrical,
except for 66 kV electrical or larger) on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the
City prior to the issuance of permits. The fee amount shall be one-half the City adopted amount
times the length of the overhead utilities from the centerline of Victoria to the south northerly utility
pole.
3. The poles on the west side of Hermosa frontage shall be undergrounded per resolution 87-96
Printed:10/23/2017 W WW.CItyoIRC.uS
Page 3 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE- 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing,Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Enciineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
4. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay
all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights.
5. The following fees, per the Engineering Fee Schedule, will be assessed on the building permit:
Drainage
Transportation
Library
Animal Center
Police
Park
6. All easements for landscaping around the perimeter shall be HOA maintained.
7. Minimum ADA access around ail poles that will not be removed along Hermosa shall be accounted
for. If the minimum spacing around poles is not met, the existing wall shall be moved out of the
interfering areas.
Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us
Panted:10/23/2017 Page 4 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 1 076081 01-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
8. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on
future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement
executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of
the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building
Permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction
permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits
required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. 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 City Engineer.
Notes:
1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart,
unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified.
e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA
standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate
detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be
provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed
to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017 Page 5 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Entaineerina Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
9. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed
legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement
plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating:
"Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet _ (typically Sheet 1)." Where
public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public
landscape improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the
City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments,
as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services
Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
10. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial
driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. The City right-of-way shall start
at the back of sidewalk along Hermosa and Victoria. The portion of existing excess right-of-way
along Hermosa and Victoria shall be vacated.
w .CityofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017 Page 6 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE- 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
14. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
39 total feet on Hermosa
28 total feet on Victoria
30 total feet on Teak Way
30 feet on A Street (60 total)
*Reduced parkway sections on Hermosa and Victoria are to accommodate existing walls and new
HOA maintained areas.
15. 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, traffic signal encroachment and
maintenance, 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.
16. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
17. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: "All improvements
within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement
plans." If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans
will govern.
18. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Appr.
Street Lights
Street Trees
Notes: Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check.
19. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of
energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for
which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances,
all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and
accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building,
structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the
percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development
approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable
access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or
units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements
required by these conditions of development approval.
www.cityofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017 Page 7 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE- 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall
be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at
least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and
appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must
complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within 60 days
following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited.
Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a deposit
reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the deposit
amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site,
www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs.
21. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval.
22. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval.
Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
23. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
24. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards.
Easements shall be provided as required.
25. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval
of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them.
26. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the
CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such
letter must have been issued by the water district within 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.
27. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a
sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls.
28. 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.
Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including
structural calculations to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition
of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards. The new structure is
required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. A soils report is required for new structures.
www.CiryofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017 Page 8 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131,.DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE- 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Building and Safety Services Department
Grading Section
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Prior to ,issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be
included within the engineered wall plans and calculations.
Standard Conditions of Approval
2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format
provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit'.
3. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of
Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Building Official and,recorded with the County Recorder's Office.
4. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification
Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan
document.
5. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells)
for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned,, to the Building and
Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the
project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7620-16 shall be scanned
and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the
project-specific Water Quality Management Plan.
6. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water
treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in
the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated
with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
7. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved
project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports
on a biennial basis to the City of'Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.
8. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the
Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum
of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or any building,permit.
9. Prior to the start of landscaping operations, the landscape architect and the landscape contractor
shall provide a sample of the weed fabric barrier to the Project Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning,Department. The weed barrier shall be permeable.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:10@3@017 Page of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
10. The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed
maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm
water treatment devices (BMP's). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device
maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to
submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site
and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant
shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the
proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the
residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the
residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the
property shall be included within the WQMP document.
11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management
plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of
concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At
a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert
filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the "Inspection and Maintenance
Responsibility for Post Construction BMP" section of the final project-specific water quality
management plan.
12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan
shall include a completed copy of "Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet"
located in Appendix D "Section VII — Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety
Recommendations, of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water
Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer's recommendations
for Appendix D, Table VI1.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility
Safety Factors".
13. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have
a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm
water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the
current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality
Management Plans".
14. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil
engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm
Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of
Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
15. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the
infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit,
adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect
groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be
evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management
Plan document.
vnvw.CityofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017 Page 10 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
16. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code
and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices.
The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
17. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform
such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans
shall implement design recommendations per said report.
18. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of
building permits.
19. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects
and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more
of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet
signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
20. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a
dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign(s)
shall be located outside of the public right of way.
21. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for
review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading
and Drainage Plan/Permit.
22. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the
adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a details) showing the
perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line.
23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall
be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private
property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building
Code.
24. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined
exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and
bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:10123/2017 Page 11 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE- 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
26. Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a
pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the
grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive
measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading
operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety
Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to
continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit;
iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit
Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to
be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of
Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate
Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
26. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the
property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the
adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). This shall be shown in the
typical sections of the grading and drainage plan.
27. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site
plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations
between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections
CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of
the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.
28. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall
submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and
elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of
proposed structures and drainage of the site.
29.A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be
prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm
water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The report shall contain water surface profile
gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be
wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study
shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan
storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices.
30. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted
California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and
drainage plan.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017 Page 12 of 13
Project#: SUBTT20080 DRC2017-00129, DRC2017-00130, DRC2017-00131, DRC2017-00305,
DRC2017-00485
Project Name: Hermosa, LLC
Location: 6858 HERMOSA AVE - 107608101-0000
Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Landmark Designation, Minor Exception, Sign
Permit Notice of Filing, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
31. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the
engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan
(WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
32. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy
of the project Conditions of Approval.
33. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint
maintenance of all storm water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices
(BMP) as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for
by CC&R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management
Plan. Said CC&R's and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of
the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
vnvw.CltyofRC.us
Printed:10/23/2017 Page 13 of 13
RESOLUTION NO. 17-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00966,
A REQUEST TO REMOVE AN ON-SITE TREE THAT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE A DESIGNATED LOCAL LANDMARK RELATED TO
THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 140-UNIT
AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON 4 ACRES OF
LAND WITHIN THE LOW-MEDIUM (LM) DISTRICT (4 — 8 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY,
LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF FIREHOUSE COURT AND WEST OF
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF—APN: 1089-031-36.
A. Recitals.
1. National Community Renaissance of California filed an application for the approval of
Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00966, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Certificate of Appropriateness request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 10th day of May 2017, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and continued said
hearing to May 24, 2017.
3. On 'May 24, 2017, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted the continued hearing on the application and concluded the hearing on that
date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found,determined,and resolved by the 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 10, and May 24, 2017, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a property located at the terminus of Fire House Court
and west of Day Creek Boulevard in.the Low Medium(LM) District of the Victoria Community Plan;
and
b. To the west of the project site is a maintenance yard operated by the San
Bernardino County Flood Control District within the Low Medium (LM) District and Flood
Control/Utility Corridor(FC/UC)District of the Victoria Community Plan;to the east is Day Creek Fire
Station #173, within the Low Medium (LM) District of the Victoria Community Plan ; to the north is
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00966
NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISANCE OF CALIFORNIA.
MAY 24, 2017
Page 2
the Pacific Electric trail and single-family residences within the Low Medium (LM) District of the
Victoria Community Plan; and,to the south is land that is under construction with a new commercial
center (Day Creek Village) within the Village Commercial (VC) District of the Victoria Community
Plan; and
C. The applicant is requesting to develop a 140-unit affordable rental senior housing
project on 4 acres of land; and
d. A large specimen Canyon Live Oak tree is located at the southeast corner of the
site that was given a Historic Landmark Designation by the Historic Preservation Commission on
October 21, 1987.The health of this tree has since declined to a point where the applicant's arborist
and the City's on-staff arborist have concluded that the tree cannot be preserved. Removal of the
tree requires approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (DRC2016-00966) by the Historic
Preservation Commission, a General Plan Amendment(DRC2016-00964)to modify General Plan
Figure LU-8 to remove the tree from a map illustrating the location of all the historic resources in the
City and a Tree Removal Permit(DRC2016-00965); and
e. Development Code Section 17.16.080(Tree Removal Permit)requires that removal
of a tree that was previously designated as a Historic Landmark shall include the approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Certificate of
Appropriateness will remove the Historic Landmark designation from the subject Canyon Live Oak
tree due to the declining health of the subject tree.
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 project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Historic Resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. The subject
Historic Resource, a Canyon Live Oak tree, cannot be preserved due to the declining condition of
the tree and has been recommend for removal by the applicant's and City's arborists.
b. The project is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. Section 17.18.080
provides for the removal of historic resources where it has been determined that removal is
necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition. In this case historic resource,a Canyon Live
Oak tree, is in declining health and removal is necessary to correct an unsafe condition.
C. The project is consistent with the Secretary's Standards. The project is consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as they are directed to the preservation of historic
property. The subject Historic Resource is a Canyon Live Oak tree and would not be covered by the
Secretary of the Interior Standards.
d. All efforts to restore, rehabilitate, or relocate the resource have been exhausted.
The applicant's arborist and the City's on-staff arborist have concluded that the tree cannot be
preserved and is recommended for removal and replacement with a large specimen tree of the
same species.
e. Restoration or rehabilitation would require extensive alterations thatwould render
the resource unworthy of preservation. The subject Canyon Live Oak tree is in declining health and
cannot be preserved.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00966
NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISANCE OF CALIFORNIA.
MAY 24, 2017
Page 3
f. Failure to demolish the resource would adversely affect or detract from the
character of the neighborhood.The subject Canyon Live Oak tree is in declining health and cannot
be preserved.The applicant will plant a large specimen tree of the same species near the location of
the existing tree.
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 Historic Preservation Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local
CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of
the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that,with the
imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would
have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment
period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
b. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on
the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in
compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Historic
Preservation Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the Historic Preservation Commission. Based on these
findings, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
C. The Historic Preservation Commission has also reviewed and considered the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements
of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure
compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Historic Preservation
Commission therefore recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project.
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Historic Preservation
Commission's recommendation is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730,telephone
(909) 477-2750.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the Certificate of Appropriateness application subject to each and
every condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this
reference.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00966
NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISANCE OF CALIFORNIA.
MAY 24, 2017
Page 4
1) Approval is for Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00966 to
remove the Historic Designation for a Canyon Live Oak Tree that has
been determined to be in declining health and cannot be preserved —
APN: 1089-031-36.
2) Approval for Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-00966 is
contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Design Review
DRC2016-00814 and City Council approval of General Plan
Amendment DRC2016-00964 and Density Bonus Agreement
DRC2017-00156.
3) Approved is contingent upon City Council adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and all mitigations contained therein.
4) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
5) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of
the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such
approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents,officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its
agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a
result of such action. The City at its sole discretion, participate at its
own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
6) The Developer shall install a commemorative plaque in recognition of
the historic Canyon Live Oak tree slated for removal. The material,
design and location of the plaque shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Planner prior to installation.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF MAY 2017.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: //7t.
Francisco Oaxaca, Chairman
ATTEST:
yce Burnett, Secretary
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00966
NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISANCE OF CALIFORNIA.
MAY 24, 2017
Page 5
I, Candyce Burnett, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 24th day of May 2017, by the
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OAXACA
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Conditions of Approval
P
Community Development Department
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Exterior:
1) Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a construction-related noise mitigation plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction
equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction.
2) During all project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction
equipment, fixed or mobile, with property operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with
manufacturers" standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction
equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptor nearest the
project site.
3) The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest
distance between construction related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the
project site.
Interior:
4) All windows and sliding glass doors shall be well fitted, well weather-stripped assemblies and
shall have a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 27.
5) All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped solid core assemblies at least one and
three-fourths inch thick.
6) At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and
pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal.
7) Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be well fitted or caulked plywood of at least one inch
thick. Ceilings shall be well fitted, fully sealed gypsum board of a least a rating of R-19 shall be used
in the attic space.
8) Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept
closed when the room is in use and sill receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system (e.g. air
conditioning) or active ventilation system shall be proved which satisfies the requirement of the
Uniform Building Code.
9) Prior to approval of building permits, a letter from an acoustic engineer shall be submitted
verifying conformance to the interior noise mitigation measures.
10) Prior to final approval by the Planning Department, an acoustic engineer shall be submitted
verifying implementation of the interior mitigation measures.
2. A 70-inch box size Canyon live oak shall be planted on the project site to the west of the existing
Canyon live oak tree to be removed.
www.CityofRC.us
Panted:5/11/21117
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
3. A Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation certified Native American Monitor shall be
onsite during any and all ground disturbances.
Standard Conditions of Approval
4. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph
per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
5. The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project
are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of
disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the midmorning, afternoon, and
after work is done for the day.
6. The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced
to 15 miles per hour or less.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce
operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly
serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be
available at the construction site for City verification.
8. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the
City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall
provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use
was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any
construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as
well as City Planning Staff.
9. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where
feasible.
10. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that
work crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
11. All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.
12. All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray.
Printed:5111/2017 w .CityofRC.us
Page 2 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\ SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
13. All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors
shall include the following provisions:
Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering.
Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over
extended periods of time.
Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and
after the end of work periods.
Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and
use sound engineering practices.
Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over
to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary
depending upon the time of year of construction.
Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding
25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements.
Maintain a minimum 24 inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads
using tarps or other suitable means.
14. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees,
for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate
at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve
applicant of his obligations under this condition.
15. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of
Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s)
are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not
required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
16. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of
Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,266.25. All checks are to be
made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission
Secretary prior to public hearing.
17. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in
effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
18. During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events
and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment
from the site.
w .Cityoi`RC.us
Printed:5/11/2017 Page 3 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
19. Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number)
shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction
Permit.
20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for
approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and
identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the
storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and
non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment
adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004.
21. Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of
fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least
two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including
monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
22. The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Preliminary Water Quality Management
Plan (Madole & Associates, February 2016) to reduce construction pollutants from entering the
storm drain system to the maximum extent practical.
23. Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a construction-related noise mitigation plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction
equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction.
24. Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on
weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday.
25. Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code
Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. Developers shall hire a consultant to perform
weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at
other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the
Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the
consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards,
then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise
standards or halted.
26. The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in the first phase.
Printed:5/11/2017 w .CityofRC.us
Page 4 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
27. Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on
weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy
trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction
site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul
routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible, the plan shall
denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
28. All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality
Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to
reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices
(i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009.
29. If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer
will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures
to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga will:
Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or
significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its
archaeological value.
Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites
within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point.
Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area.
Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological
resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important,
and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding
archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a
park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee.
Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory,
evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit
one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino
County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
Printed:5/11/2017 w .CityofRC.us
Page 5 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
30. If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during
grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take
appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a
report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation
measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is
appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal
of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of
earth-disturbing activities.
Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-
disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If
construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should
immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find.
Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the
summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino
County Museum).
Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected
specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Archaeological
Information Center for permanent archiving.
31. The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and
RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with
drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
32. Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce
PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon
the time of year of construction.
33. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10
emissions from the site during such episodes.
34. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive
construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions.
35. The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short- term air pollutant emission in
compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or
other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
36. The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low-emission factors and
high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction
equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification.
37. Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes.
38. Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines
where feasible.
Printed:5/11/2017 w .CityofRC.uS
Page 6 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
39. Three days prior to the removal of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities, a breeding bird survey
that is in conformance with the Migratory Bird Act shall be required to determine whether nesting is
occurring. Occupied nests shall not be disturbed unless a qualified biologist verifies through
non-invasive methods that either (a) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation; or (b)
the juveniles from the occupied nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent
survival. If the biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall
occur within 300 feet of non-raptor nests, and within 500 feet of raptor nests, during the breeding
season to avoid abandonment of the young.
If nests are discovered, they shall be avoided through the establishment of an appropriate buffer
setback, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary "no construction" area shall
be maintained until the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist.
Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction
in the area may resume.
Printed:5/11/2017 w .CityofRC.us
Page 7 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
40. Perform a Burrowing Owl Survey that is in conformance with the Department of Fish and Wildlife
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and submit the written report outlining the findings to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Planning Department within 30 days of
groundbreaking activity. The survey shall include a habitat assessment, survey and impact
analysis. The Burrowing Owl Survey shall follow the following protocol:
Burrowing Owl Survey methodology shall be based on Appendix D (Breeding and
Non-breeding Season Surveys and Reports) of the CDFW Staff Report. Results
of the pre- construction survey shall be provided to CDFW and the City. If the pre-
construction survey does not identify burrowing owls on the project site, then no
further mitigation is required. If burrowing owls are found to be utilizing the project
site during the pre-construction survey, measures shall be developed by the
qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW to avoid Impacting occupied burrows
during the nesting period. These measures shall be based on the most current
CDFW protocols and will at minimum include establishment of buffer setbacks
from occupied burrows and owl monitoring. If ground-disturbing activities are
delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey, the
site shall be resurveyed for owls.
During the non-breeding season from September 1 through January 31, if burrows
are occupied by migratory or non- migratory resident burrowing owls during a pre-
construction survey, burrow exclusion and/or closure may be used to exclude owls
from those burrows. Burrow exclusion and/or closure should only be conducted
by a qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW using the most current
CDFW guidelines.
• During the avian nesting season from February 1 through August 31, if nests are
discovered, they shall be avoided through establishment of an appropriate buffer
setback, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary "no
construction"area would have to be maintained until the nest has completed its
cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. Once the nest cycle is
complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction in the
area may resume.
41. An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the
proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the
time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control
Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and
construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b)
An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does
occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or
restoration program within a specified time frame.
Printed:5/11/2017 mmr.CltyofRC.us
Page 8 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.-
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
42. During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent
discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff.
43. All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate
high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters.
44. All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and
weather-stripping.
45. Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic.
46. Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew.
47. Construction and Building materials shall be produced and/or manufactured locally. Use "Green
Building Materials" such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled and manufactured in an
environmentally friendly way including low-volatile-organic-compound (VOC) materials.
48. Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not
limited to any combination of;
Increased insulation.
Limit air leakage through the structure.
Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling
equipment, light fixtures, and appliances.
Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping.
Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems.
Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements.
Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's) for outdoor lighting.
49. Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the
following;
Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance
with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install
the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water.
Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and
appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless
urinals/water heaters.
Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces.
50. Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for
recyclables and green waste in public areas. Educate employees about reducing waste and about
recycling.
wwyv.CityofRC.us
Printed:5/17/2017 Page 9 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT;
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
51. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for
approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction
activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical.
52. The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance
with SCAQMD Rule 403.
53. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive
construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions.
54. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at
curbsides.
55. Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services.
56. Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours.
57. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or
occupant sensors.
58. Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide
passive solar benefits.
59. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planting programs to comply with the
AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure.
60. Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV-MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant
operations.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Printed:5/11/2017 w .CityofRC.us
Page 10 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Firehouse Court frontage improvements:
a. Remove existing cobblestones on the parkway and install street trees per City Standards.
b. The drive approach shall have a minimum width of 35 feet, per City Standard 101, Type C.
c. Protect or replace existing curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, signing and striping as
required.
d. The street light on Firehouse Court shall be relocated due to the location of the curb
return of the commercial drive approach.
e. If an entry gate is proposed, it shall be in accordance with the City "Residential Project
Gated Entrance Design Guide" standard.
2. Development Impact Fees are assessed at the time of building permit issuance.
3. The proposed development is slated to be included in the City's Fiber Optic/ Broadband service
business plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) infrastructure. Proposed
fiber optics on-site (conduits and fiber) will be placed underground within a duct and structure
system to be installed by the Master Developer. The fiber and conduits along the backbone streets
shall be installed in a joint trench by the developer as the last lane improvements are completed.
In-tract fiber and conduit shall be installed by the developers in joint trench where possible.
Maintenance of the installed system will be the responsibility of the City. Development of the Project
requires the installation by the developers of all fiber optic infrastructure necessary to service the
Project as a stand-alone development. In addition, developer shall coordinate with RCMU which
may provide for high-speed internet services.
4. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct
electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Utility requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Utility. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility shall be the electrical service provider for all
project related development.
5. Obtain approval from Sanbag regarding the proposed access to the Pacific Electric Trail, prior to
issuance of building permit.
Standard Conditions of Approval
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of Building
Permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
Printed:5/11/2017 w .CityofRC.us
Page 11 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall
be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at
least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and
appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must
complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within 60 days
following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited.
Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a deposit
reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the deposit
amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site,
www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs.
Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Reciprocal Access Agreement — Please provide a permanent access agreement granting
irrevocable use of the adjacent property for use by the Fire District to gain access to the subject
property. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or
other structure shall be placed within the dedicated access, without Fire Department approval. The
recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site plan. The agreement shall be recorded with the
County of San Bernardino, Recorders Office. The Fire Construction Services Unit shall approve the
agreement, prior to recordation.
Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including
structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in
accordance with the current edition of the CA Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances
and standards. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire .sprinklers as
required by the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and building must
be in accordance to the State of CA and ADA regulations.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building
Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s)
shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform
such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans
shall implement design recommendations per said report.
Printed:5/1 112 01 7 wwwCilyofRC.us
Page 12 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted
at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review.
4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of
building permits.
5. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects
and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more
of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet
signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer.
6. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a
dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for
review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.
8. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be
prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm
water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by
the Engineer of Record.
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the
adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the
perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line.
10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the
accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building
doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps
shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, ,and dimensions and comply with the
current adopted California Building Code.
11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum
parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall, be constructed per the,
current adopted California Building Code.
12. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined
exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and
bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official.
13. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond
project boundary.
14. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where
possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.
15. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted
California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and
drainage plan.
Printed:5/11/2017 w .CityofRC.aS
Page 13 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
16. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy
of the project Conditions of Approval.
17. Prior to the start of landscaping operations, the landscape architect and the landscape contractor
shall provide a sample of the weed fabric barrier to the Project Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department. The weed barrier shall be permeable.
18. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil
engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm
Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of
Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
19. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site
plan) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations
between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections
CBC1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of
the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.
20. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
21. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) has been deemed "Acceptable'. Prior
to the issuance of a grading permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Building Official.
22. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells)
for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Building and
Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the
project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned
and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the
project-specific Water Quality Management Plan.
23. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water
treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in
the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated
with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
Printed:5/1 112 0 1 7 w .CltyofRC.us
Page 14 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
24. The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed
maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm
water treatment devices (BMP's). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device
maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to
submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site
and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant
shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the
proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the
residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement(s) as part of the sale of the
residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the
property shall be included within the WQMP document.
Printed:5/11/2017 w .CilyofRC.us
Page 15 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
25. GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP
document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No.
R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm
Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:
Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection):
Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not
designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins,
vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum
requirements to protect groundwater:
a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
ground water quality objectives.
b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect
groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be
evaluated prior to infiltration.
c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large
commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial
parking lot as '100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or
more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking
purposes').
d. Unless adequate pre-treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration
treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77}, areas subject
to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or
any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or
maintenance activities{79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and
used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility
that does any vehicular repair work.
f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and
groundwater contamination.
g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any
water supply wells.
h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic
high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support
beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is
maintained.
i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water
Code Section 13050.
The final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall specifically address items, b., c.,
and d. above.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:5/11/2017 page 16 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
26. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California
Building Code.
27. Prior to approval of the project-specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall
submit to the Building Official, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and
elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of
proposed structures and drainage of the site.
28. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of
Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder's Office.
29. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved
project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports
on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.
30. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management
plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of
concern as addressed in the in the final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At
a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert
filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the "Inspection and Maintenance
Responsibility for Post Construction BMP" section of the final project-specific water quality
management plan.
31. As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the
infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit,
adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect
groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be
evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project-specific Water Quality Management
Plan document.
32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall
be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private
property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building
Code.
33. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis
for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best
management practices (BMP"s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration
chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
34. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format
provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit".
unvw.CityofRC.us
Printed:5/1 t/2977 Page 17 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT;
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
35. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from
the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be
scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title
sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set.
36. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall demonstrate that the storm water run-off will
not adversely affect the downstream properties and that the water may legally discharge to the
downstream properties. The engineer of record shall show on the final permitted grading and
drainage plan one (1) or more of the following items are met: a) There is sufficient downstream
capacity to accept the proposed storm water flows and that the downstream property owner have
provided permission to accept the upstream storm water flows; b) a legal document/entity exists
allowing developed storm water flows to be discharged to the property lower in elevation; c) a storm
drain system to safely convey the storm water flows to a public storm drain system without causing
flooding to adjacent property(ies).
37. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the
Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum
of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or any building permit.
38. The subject project, shall accept all existing off-site storm water drainage flows and safely convey
those flows through .or around the project site. If existing off-site storm water drainage flows mix with
any on-site storm water drainage flows, then the off-site storm water drainage flows shall be treated
with the on-site storm water drainage flows for storm water quality purposes, prior to discharging the
storm water drainage flows from the project site.
39. Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a
pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the
grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive
measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading
operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety
Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to
continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit;
iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit
Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to
be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of
Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate
Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Printed:5/11/2017 www.CityofRC.uS
Page 18 of 19
Project#: DRC2016-00814 DRC2016-00964, DRC2016-00965, DRC2016-00966,
DRC2017-00032, DRC2017-00156
Project Name: DAY CREEK VILLAS \\SENIOR HOUSING
Location: - 108903136-0000
Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
40. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the
engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan
(WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
41. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification
Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan
document.
42. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan
shall include a completed copy of "Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet"
located in Appendix D "Section VII — Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety
Recommendations, ..." of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water
Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer's recommendations
for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility
Safety Factors".
43. Prior to approval of the final project-specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have
a soils engineer prepare a project-specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm
water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the
current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality
Management Plans".
44. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from
the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be
scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title
sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set.
w .CityofRC.us
Pfinted:5/1 112 0 1 7 Page 19 of 19
RESOLUTION NO. 16-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00180, A REQUEST
TO ADD A FREE STANDING GARAGE, REAR YARD ACCESS
DRIVEWAY, PERIMETER WALLS, AND REMOVE AN ADJACENT
EUCALYPTUS WINDROW FOR THE ERNST MULLER HOUSE,
ASSOCIATED WITH A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 5.0 ACRES INTO 11
LOTS IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA
SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE EAST SIDE OF EAST AVENUE, SOUTH OF
THE 210-FREEWAY, LOCATED AT 6563 EAST AVENUE;AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0208-101-23.
A. Recitals.
1. GFR Homes filed an application for the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness
DRC2016-00180, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Certificate of Appropriateness request is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 27, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Historic Preservation
Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 27, 2016, including written and
oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, the Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a 5.0-acre site at the southeast corner of East Avenue
and Fisher Drive, located at 6563 East Avenue, and is presently improved with the Ernst Mueller
House and the temporary Saint Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church building in the Low (L)
Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
b. The project site is rectangular in shape with an east-west dimension of
approximately 380 feet and a north-south dimension:of approximately 770 feet;and
C. The properties to the east, west, and south of the project site are developed with
single-family residential homes; the property to the north is the 210-Freeway; and
d. On June 1, 1994, the City Council approved the landmark designation of the
Ernst Mueller House noting that this house was 'one of the few, if not the only, grove house still
surrounded by a citrus grove in the Etiwanda town site"; and
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION 16-02
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00160 — GFR HOMES
April 27, 2016
Page 2
e. On August 10, 1994, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a landmark
alteration permit for the construction of a one-story temporary church building and related parking
lot within and surrounded by the then existing citrus grove. The landmark alteration permit
permitted the removal of a portion of an existing orange grove, but conditioned for the
implementation of a replacement planting plan to restore the grove. Other trees along East
Avenue, Eucalyptus windrows, and two Palm trees (located east of the house) shall be preserved
in-place unless approved otherwise through a Tree Removal Permit; and
f. The Ernst Mueller House will be located on Lot 5 of the SUBTT19968 and will be
situated in the center of the lot with generous side yard setbacks to the north and south; and
g. Driveway access for the Ernst Mueller House will be from Brownstone Place, the
future north-south street to the east of the house; and
h. A freestanding garage will be built northeast of the house and will be deigned to
match the design and materials of the Ernst Mueller House; and
i. The East Avenue wall, and related parkway landscaping, will be installed along
East Avenue. In order to retain the existing East Avenue orientation of the Ernst Mueller House,
the existing trees adjacent to the house will be retained, the East Avenue wall will be set back to
the front of the house, and additional landscaping will be installed; and
j. Existing trees in close proximity to the Ernst Mueller House, excluding the
Eucalyptus Blue Gum windrow to the north, will be preserved in place. The existing Eucalyptus
windrow will be replaced with a windrow of Red River Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis).
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Historic Preservation
Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts
set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed subdivision, and the inclusion of the Ernst Mueller House on Lot
5 of the SUBTT19968 will provide sufficient area to retain the historic integrity of the structure.
Therefore, the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a Historic Resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
b. The proposed project is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 17.18 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code; the proposal meets requirements of Section 17.18.040
because the proposed improvements are compatible with the historic representation of the Ernst
Mueller House; will protect important features of the structure, and will enhance the value of the
structure and its surroundings; and
G. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. No modifications, except routine maintenance are proposed for the Ernst Mueller
House, and the proposed site improvements are appropriate to the era of significance, will re-
create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in setting, design, and materials.
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
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION 16-02
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00180 —GFR HOMES
April 27, 2016
Page 3
Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated'herein by this reference,
based upon the findings as follows:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's
local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental
effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study; City staff determined
that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the
project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of
the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated'Negative Declaration and
all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole
record before it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with
CEQA; and (ii) that; based on the imposition of mitigation 'measures, there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning
Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning
Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance
with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project; and
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based on is the Planning Director of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the 'Planning
Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fort in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
the Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2016-
00180, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval
6. The Secretary to the Historic Preservation Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2016.
'HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION 16-02
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2016-00180 — GFR HOMES
April 27, 2016
Page 4
BY:
Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candy Burnett, cretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission for 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 27th day of
April 2016, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Conditions of Approval
CUCAMONGA
gA Community Development Department
MON
Project#: DRC2016-00180 CEQA2016-00002
Project Name: Ernst Muller House-Certificate of Appropriateness
Location: 6563 EAST AVE - 022707117-0000
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness CEQA Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. The design of the proposed freestanding garage for the Ernst Mueller House shall be subject to
Design Review Committee approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The garage design
shall match the design, materials, proportion, scale, and colors of the Ernst Mueller House.
Standard Conditions of Approval
2. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees,
for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate
at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve
applicant of his obligations under this condition.
3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of
Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s)
are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not
required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
4. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of
Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,260.25. All checks are to be
made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission
Secretary prior to public hearing.
5. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced
within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
6. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and
occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
7. Existing trees in close proximity to the Ernst Mueller House, except for the Eucalyptus windrow to
the north, shall be preserved in place and shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans.
The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation,
transplanting, and trimming methods.
8. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code and Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees
and slope planting.
WN^/J.CItyofRC.us
Pnnted:4/19/2016
Project#: DRC2016-00180 CEQA2016-00002
Project Name: Ernst Muller House- Certificate of Appropriateness
Location: 6563 EAST AVE - 022707117-0000
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness CEQA Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
9. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in
the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the
development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development
occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by
Fire Construction Services.
10. 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.
11. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and
approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth
characteristics of the selected tree species.
12. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.
13, Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water
efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82.
14. New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required. The size, spacing,
staking, and irrigation of these trees shall be in conformance with, the City's Development Code
Chapter 17.80.
15, The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of
mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of
Building Permits.
16. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in
effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
17. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than
wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency.
18. 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 Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code
regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
19. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California 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 Services
Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final
acceptance granted prior to occupancy.
w .CityofRC.us
Printed:4/19/2016 Page 2 of 3
Project#: DRC2016-00180 CEQA2016-00002
Project Name: Ernst Muller House- Certificate of Appropriateness
Location: 6563 EAST AVE - 022707117-0000
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness CEQA Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
20. Six-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 effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter.
21. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
22. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
23. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map
www.CilyofRC.us
Printed:4/79/2016 Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 16-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2015-00989, A REQUEST
TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL PORCH ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
THOMAS WINERY BUILDING IN THE SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL (SC)
DISTRICT,AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
AND VINEYARD AVENUE,.LOCATED AT 8916 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD;
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 0208-101-23.
A. Recitals.
1. Heather Perry filed an application for the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness
DRC2015-00989, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Certificate of Appropriateness request is referred to as "the application."
2. On February 10, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Historic Preservation
Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 10, 2016, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard and is
presently improved with the Thomas Winery Building and surrounding shopping center; and
b. The property to the north, east, and west of the project site are developed with a
commercial shopping center; the property to the south is developed with commercial buildings;
and
C. The Cucamonga Rancho Winery (Thomas Vineyard Company Winery), on the
property of the proposed application, was designated as an Historic Landmark by the City Council
on December 19, 1979; and
d. The proposed project will install a wood porch that matches the elevations, floor
plan, materials and massing, of the existing wood porch on the south side of the Thomas Winery
Building.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION 16=01'
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2015-00989— HEATHER PERRY
February 10, 2016
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Historic Preservation
Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts
set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed project will install a wood porch that matches the elevations, floor
plan, materials and massing, of the existing wood porch on the south side of the Thomas Winery
Building. Therefore, the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a Historic Resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality
Act; and
b. The proposed project is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 17.18 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code; the proposal meets requirements of Section 17.18.040
because the proposed improvements are compatible with the historic representation of the
Thomas Winery Building; will protect important features of the original building, and will enhance
the value of the structure and property; and
C. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. The proposed, in that the improvements are appropriate to the era of significance
and the reconstructed property, will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic
property in materials, design, color, and texture.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fort in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, the
Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2015-
00989, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
5. The Secretary to the Historic;Preservation Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Raven I Wimberly, Chairman
-
ATTEST: bll 1
Candige Burnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission for 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 1 Oth day of
February 2016,by the following vote-to-wit:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION 16-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2015-00989 — HEATHER PERRY
February 10, 2016
Page 3
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OAXACA
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Conditions of Approval
RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Development Department
Project#: DRC2015-00989
Project Name: Certificate of Appropriateness
Location: 8916 FOOTHILL BLVD K1 -020810123-0000
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Plannina Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Approval is for a request to add an additional porch on the south side of the Thomas Winery
Building in the Specialty Commercial (SC) District, at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Vineyard Avenue, located at 8916 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 020810123
2. The proposed porch shall match the existing porch in terms of design, materials, massing,
proportion, color, and scale.
Standard Conditions of Approval
3. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees,
for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate
at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve
applicant of his obligations under this condition.
4. Copies of the signed Historic Preservation Commission Resolution of Approval and Conditions of
Approval shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties
involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a
licensed Engineer/Architect.
5. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of
Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the
Board Supervisors and submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission Secretary prior to public
hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval.
6. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced
within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
State Fire Marshall's regulations, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community,
Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
8. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
Site Plans, architectural elevations, and exterior materials and colors on file in the Planning
Department, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations.
Printed:2/1/2016 w .CityofRC.us
Project#: DRC2015-00989
Project Name: Certificate of Appropriateness
Location: 8916 FOOTHILL BLVD K1 -020810123-0000,
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
9. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained
in accordance with the Cucamonga Rancho Winery (Thomas Vineyard Company Winery)
Designated Local Landmark No. 2. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to,
exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of 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 Certificate of Appropriateness subject to
Historic Preservation Commission review and approval.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:2/1/2016 Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 15-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2013-00789, FOR PHASE 2
AND 3 IMPROVEMENTS AT THE CUCAMONGA GAS STATION LOCATED
AT 9670 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 0208-153-05.
A. Recitals.
1. Route 66 Inland Empire California (IECA), applicant and property owner, filed an
application for the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2013-00789 for Phase 1 and 2
improvements to the Cucamonga Gas Station, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Certificate of Appropriateness request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 22nd day of July 2015, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on July 22, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard, presently
developed with the Cucamonga Gas Station. Route 66 IECA acquired the property in February 2013
and is proposing to restore the property in phases.
b. The Cucamonga Gas Station was designated as a Historic Landmark by the City
Council on April 15, 2009. Route 66 IECA proposes to restore the property in three (3) phases:
Phase 1 improvements included sandblasting and re-painting the existing building as well as
installing a new"Richfield"sign. Phase 2 includes improvements that will allow the front building to
be open to the public, including interior improvements, temporary parking lot improvements, and
installation of temporary exterior restrooms. Phase 3 includes the reconstruction of the rear 1,882
square foot service garage that will include an office, conference room, garage museum, permanent
public restrooms, and permanent parking facilities; and
C. The properties to the north are developed with single-family residences,to the east
are commercial uses and a public alley,to the south are existing commercial uses, and to the west
is vacant land, which currently is pending a new commercial development; and
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 15-02
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2013-00789 (Phase 2 & 3) - ROUTE 66 IECA
July 22, 2015
Page 2
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 project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Historic Resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.The rehabilitation
of the remaining original front building and reconstruction of the rear building is consistent with the
City's General Plan goals identified to protect historic resources, such as Goal LU-16: Protect
historic resources; and Goal LU-21: Preserve and interpret Historic Route 66 for residents,visitors,
and business owners.
b. The project is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 17.18. The proposal meets
requirements of Section 17.18.040 be the proposed improvements are compatible with the
historic representation of the structure;will protect important features of the original building,and will
enhance the value of the structure and property.
C. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, in that the improvements are appropriate to the era of significance
and the reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in
materials, design, color, and texture. Also, the reconstruction will be clearly identified as a
contemporary re-creation, as to not confuse the public understanding.
4. Prior to any action being taken on this entitlement, the Planning Department Staff
determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 31 (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15331) exemption which covers historical resource restoration/reconstruction.
The scope of the project includes the restoration of an existing historic building and the
reconstruction of a historic building that used to exist. Staff finds that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Historic Preservation
Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its
own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fort in paragraphs 1, 2,3 and 4 above,This
Commission hereby approves Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2013-00789 for Phases 2 and 3
improvements to the Cucamonga Gas Station, subject to each and every condition attached and
included herein by this reference.
6. . The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2015.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
B .
Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman
ATTEST:
ands p Burnett, Secretary
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 15-02
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2013-00789 (Phase 2 & 3) - ROUTE 66 IECA
July 22, 2015
Page 3
I, Candyce Burnett, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 22nd day of July, 2015, by
the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MUNOZ
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Conditions of Approval
RANCHO Community Development Department
CUCAMONGA
Project#: DRC2013-00789 DRC2013-00790, DRC2015-00667
Project Name: Historic Cucamonga Gas Station
Location: 9670 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020815305-0000
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness Variance, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. All special events outside of normal business operations shall be permitted only through a
Temporary Use Permit as approved by the Planning Department.
2. Approval is for the use of the property as a museum and offices for business meeting purposes.
3. Phase 2 and 3 improvements shall be done in accordance with the plans received by the Planning
Department on June 17, 2015.
4. The front building shall not be open to the public until all improvements for Phase 2 have passed
final inspection.
5. The rear building shall not be open to the public until all improvements for Phase 3 have passed
final inspection.
6. Signage shall be erected to clearly identify that the rear building is a contemporary re-creation, as to
not confuse the public understanding.
Standard Conditions of Approval
7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in
effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
8. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained
in accordance with Certificate of Appropriateness No. DRC2013-00789. Any further modifications to
the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the
exterior of 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
Certificate of Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval.
9. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California 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 Services
Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final
acceptance granted prior to occupancy.
10. 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.
11. 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 Planning Director.
w .CityofRC.us
Printed:7/15/2015
Project#: DRC2013-00789 DRC2013-00790, DRC2015-00667
Project Name: Historic Cucamonga Gas Station
Location: 9670 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020815305-0000
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness Variance, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
12. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the
number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning ,Director review and approval prior to the
issuance of Building Permits.
13. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a
curb stop).
14. Changes to plans for security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of Building
Permits.
15. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and
exits shall be striped per City standards.
16. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees,
for any Court costs and, attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate
at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve
applicant of his obligations under this condition.
17. Copies of the signed Historic Preservation Commission Resolution of Approval, Conditions of
Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s)
are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not
required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
18. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of
Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the
Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or
within 5 days of the date of project approval.
19. The entitlement shall expire if Phase 3 improvements have not passed final inspection within 5
years from the date of approval unless a time extension has been,granted.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
1. Developer is dedicating street right of way consistent with the requirements of the General Plan.
Widening of Foothill Boulevard is subject to future decision of the City. While the site plans and
proposed site improvements within this dedication are acceptable (except consideration of fencing is
subject to line of sight study); no WQMP facilities or significant other improvements shall be placed
within this dedication.
2. Prior to issuance of building permit for construction of the building on the north side of the site;
provide an irrevocable offer of 10 feet dedication for Foothill Boulevard.
3. Future driveway to the west will provide access to this site. Upon completion of the future driveway,
this property shall take access from that driveway.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/15/2015 1 Page 2 of 4
Project#: DRC2013-00789 DRC2013-00790, DRC2015-00667
Project Name: Historic Cucamonga Gas Station
Location: 9670 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020815305-0000
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness Variance, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
Engineering Services Department
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. With the approval of the planning Department B&S will allow the use of temporary ADA accessible
restroom facilities for the first phase of the project until the permanet facilities are constructed and
functional. Conditions for the location of the restroom building and or screening will be established
by the Planning Department. The facility shall not open for business until the restroom facilities are
installed inspected and granted final approval. The restroom facility shall have a compliant ADA
path of travel from the building
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of energy conservation calculations, and a soils
report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal.
3. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following:
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
c. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of
service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste
diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning;
and
g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc.) clearly
identified on the outside of all plans
4. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to
the City prior to permit issuance.
5. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls.
6. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the
Building and Safety Services Department.
7. Upon plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed.
8. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC . A parapet
wall is required when the building exceeds 1,000 sq feet and the wall parallel to the property line is
required to be fire rated; please reference the current edition of the CBC for requirements and /or
alternatives.
9. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering
use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
10. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations.
11. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed:7/15/2015 Page 3 of 4
Project#: DRC2013-00789 DRC2013-00790, DRC2015-00667
Project Name: Historic Cucamonga Gas Station
Location: 9670 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020815305-0000
Project Type: Certificate of Appropriateness Variance, Variance
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Building and Safety Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
12. Roofing materials shall be Class "A."
13. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions.
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his
designee, a final project specific water quality management plan for review and approval, and shall
have said document recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office.
Printed:7/15/2015 www.CityofRC.us
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 15-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2013-00789, FOR PHASE 1
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE CUCAMONGA GAS STATION LOCATED AT
9670 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 0208-153-05.
A. Recitals.
1. Route 66 Inland Empire California (IECA), applicant and property owner, filed an
application for the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2013-00789 for Phase 1
improvements to the Cucamonga Gas Station, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Certificate of Appropriateness request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 14th day of January, 2015, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on January 14, 2015, including written and oral staff reports,together with
public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard, presently
developed with the Cucamonga Gas Station. Route 66 IECA acquired the property in February 2013
and is proposing to restore the property in phases.
b. The Cucamonga Gas Station was designated as a Historic Landmark by the City
Council on April 15, 2009. Route 66 IECA proposes to restore the property in three (3) phases:
Phase 1 improvements include sandblasting and re-painting the existing building as well as
installing a new"Richfield" sign. Phase 2 includes improvements that will allow the front building to
be open to the public, including interior improvements, parking lot improvements, and installation of
temporary exterior restrooms. Phase 3 includes the reconstruction of the rear 2,391 square foot
service garage that will include permanent, public restrooms; and
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 15-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2013-00789 - ROUTE 66 IECA
January 14,2015
Page 2
C. The properties to the north are developed with single-familyresidences,to the east
are commercial uses and a public alley, to the south are existing commercial uses, and to the west
is vacant land, which currently is pending a new commercial development; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Historic Resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. The painting and
installation of the sign as an architectural feature are considered cosmetic improvements and will
not disrupt the integrity of the historic resource.As such,the activity is categorically exempt pursuant
to Section 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines; and
b. The project is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 17.18. The proposal meets
requirements of Section 17.18.040 because the.proposed paint colors and vintage sign style are
compatible with the historic representation of the structure;they will not harm.any important features
of the original building, and will enhance the value of the structure and property; and
C. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, in that the paint colors and sign style and placement are
appropriate to the era of significance of the structure and replicate improvements that have
previously existed on the site.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fort in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, This
Commission hereby approves Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2013-00789 for Phase 1
improvements to the Cucamonga Gas Station including 1) sandblasting, and repainting the existing
buildings and 2) installing a "Richfield" sign, subject to each and every condition set forth below.
Planning Department
1) The Phase 1 improvements shall be done in accordance with the plans
and materials received by the Planning Department.
2) The applicant shall obtain a building permit for the sign prior to
installation.
3) Phases 2 and 3 will be subject to separate review and consideration by
the Historic Preservation Commission.
4) The front building shall not be open to the public until approval of
Phase 2.
5) Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or
approved use has not commenced within 1 year from the date of
approval or a time extension has been granted..
HPC RESOLUTION NO. 15-01
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2013-00789 - ROUTE 66 IECA
January 14, 2015
Page 3
6) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action
brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of
the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such
approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its
agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a
result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at
its own expense in the defense of any such action but such
participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this
condition.
7) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshall's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
"Roavenel Wimberly, Chair an
ATTEST:
Candyck Blimett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 14th day of January, 2015,
by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: PLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OAXACA, WIMBERLY
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 14-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2014-00769,.
DESIGNATING THE JAMISON HOUSE A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED
AT 8204 ARCHIBALD AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 0208-877-14.
A. Recitals.
1. Jason and Julie Leonard, filed an application for a Landmark as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the
application."
2. On October 8, 2014, 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,
Part 'A" of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately 0.28-acre of land, basically a
rectangular-shaped configuration, located at 8204 Archibald Avenue.
1 Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on October 8, 2014, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga.
Municipal Code, this Commission hereby makes the following findings and facts:
A. Historical and Cultural Significance:
Finding 1: It is or was once associated with events that made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local,or regional history or the
cultural heritage of California or the United States.
FacUs The property is a prime example of the local agricultural.economy,
which was an important part of early Cucamonga.
Finding 2: It is or was once associated with persons important to local,
California, or national history.
Facts: The property is associated with'the Jamisons, who were an early
family that grew deciduous fruit trees, an important part of the local
produce supply of the area.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-02
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2014-00769 - JASON AND JULIE LEONARD
October 8, 2014
Page 2
Finding 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction.
Facts: The dwelling is a good example of Craftsman architecture and has
been well-maintained.
Finding 4: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Fact/s: The structure and property has potential to yield information about
the local agricultural economy.
B. Integrity
Finding 1: Historic Landmarks must retain integrity from their period of
significance with respect to location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these
factors. A proposed landmark need not retain all such original
aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic,
cultural, or architectural significance. Neither the deferred
maintenance of a proposed landmark, nor its dilapidated condition
shall, on its own, be equated with a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be
judged with reference to the particular characteristics that support the
eligibility of the property.
Facts: According to the DPR 523 record form completed by Chattel
Architecture as part of the General Plan Update in 2010, the
proposed landmark retains high integrity from their period of
significance with respect to setting, location, materials,workmanship,
association, design and feeling. It retains sufficient integrity to
convey its historic, cultural, or architectural significance.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1'970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder. The Council finds that this Landmark Designation is exempt
under CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, as a Class 31 exemption
(Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby resolves that, pursuant to Section 17.18.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval of Landmark Designation on the 8th day of October, 2014.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-02
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2014-00769 - JASON AND JULIE LEONARD
October 8, 2014
Page 3
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman
ATTEST: 0,-2
Candyce u nett,Secretary
1, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission for the City of
Rancho Cucamonga,do hereby certifythat 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 8th day of October 2014, by the
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 14-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2014-00419, FOR
ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SAM AND ALFREDA MALOOF
COMPOUND GUEST HOUSE LOCATED AT 5131 CARNELIAN STREET,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1061-281-29.
A. Recitals.
1. Sam and Alfreda Maloof Foundation for Arts and Crafts filed an application for the
approval of Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2014-00419, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Certificate of Appropriateness request is
referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of July, 2014, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on July 9, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 17.18.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 5131 Carnelian Street, presently
the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Compound.
b. The properties to the north, east, south,.and west are developed with single-family
residences; and
C. The Sam and Alfreda Maloof Compound, on the property of the proposed
application, was designated as an Historic Landmark by the City Council on May 15, 1996, and is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places on November 9, 2010; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Historic Resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.The improvements
are necessary for the Americans with Disabilities Act and the least disruptive to the historic
resource; and
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 14-01
DRC2014-00419—SAM AND ALFREDA MALOOF FOUNDATION FOR ARTS AND CRAFTS
July 9, 2014
Page 2
b. The,project is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 17.18. The proposal meets
the requirements of Section 17.18.040 because the style, design, and materials are compatible with
the existing structure and with the wooden plank walkway and deck; it does not harm important
features of the original building, and it enhances the livability and value of the structure and
compound. All edges of the walls will be constructed to match the appearance of the existing
cyclopean wall and the Arroyo-stone wall. The three trees proposed for removal shall be relocated
on-site; and
C. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties, in that the accessibility improvements minimize the impact on the
historic building and its site, such as compatible ramps and paths.Character-defining features of the
guesthouse such as the wooden deck and building itself are preserved.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in;Paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above,This
Commission hereby approves Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2014-00419,subject to each and
every condition set forth below.
Planning Department
1) The ADA improvements shall be done in accordance with plans
received by the Planning Department on June 10, 2014.
2) The three Jacaranda trees shall be replaced on a one for one basis.
All other trees shall be retained in place.
3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshall's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2014.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candy I
ur et , Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 9th day of July, 2014, by the
following vote-to-wit:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RESOLUTION 14-01
DRC2014-00419— SAM AND ALFREDA MALOOF FOUNDATION FOR ARTS AND CRAFTS
July 9, 2014
Page 3
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF POINT OF HISTORIC INTEREST DESIGNATION DRC2011-
00851, DESIGNATING THE DEBERARD RANCH AS A POINT OF HISTORIC
INTEREST, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET
AND ARC,HIBALD AVENUE-APN: 0210-062-08;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The Lewis Operating Corporation filed an application for a Point of Historic Interest
Designation as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject
Landmark is referred to as "the application.
2. On September 14, 2011, 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 bythe 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,
Part"A," of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to the 18 acre site, located on the southwest corner of Sixth
Street and Archibald Avenue, as shown on Attachment A.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on September 14, 2011, including written and oral staff reports,
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. Historic, Cultural. and/or Architectural Siqnificance:
Finding 1: It is or was once associated with events that made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or
the United States.
Factts: At the time prohibition was repealed in 1933, DeBerard and other prominent local
vintners formed the first co-operative in Cucamonga. He was part of an important
group that formed the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association.This association
purchased the California Wine Association W ineryfrom Garrett and Company and
became the first co-operative in Cucamonga to own and operate its own winery.
This was the period when wine making boomed and the wine-making industry
shifted from small to large-scale production operations. "In order to compete with
large-scale wineries, small-scale wineries joined with one another to form
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-06
DRC2011-00851 - LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION
September 14, 2011
Page 2
cooperatives such as the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association (formed
1934), which allowed association members to pool fruit and share revenue on a
percentage basis determined by the quantity of fruit contributed by each grower.
Operating out of a winery located east of Haven Avenue,just north of the Santa Fe
Railway(demolished),the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association is described
as, `Cucamonga Valley's first mutual marketing group of grape growers.'
Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association focused heavily on pricing and
marketing of its products, responding to the Depression Era need of grape growers
to-turn a profit and take advantage of the renewed, post-Prohibition market for
alcohol products.. Also benefitting cooperative grape growers at the time,
cooperative associations received exemption from federal income tax, with
individuals rather than the association required to pay tax on their portion of the
profit. Improvements in the handling and transportation of wine grapes that came
about upon the repeal of Prohibition also facilitated recovery and success of the
winemaking industry in the Cucamonga Valley,which continued to flourish until the
early 1950s" (Chattel Architecture, Rancho Cucamonga Historic Context
Statement,2010, pg. 13).As part of the post-prohibition era, Mr. DeBerard and his
18-acre property has made a significant contribution to the cultural heritage of
California, which was wine-making.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder. The Commission ,finds that this Point of Historic Interest
Designation is exempt under CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15308,as a Class.
8 exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby resolves that, pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval of Point of Historic Interest Designation on the 14th day of September 2011.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS-14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER'2011.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY.
Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman
ATTEST: _/" g- d'.
Ja R. Troyer, AI P, ecretary
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-06
DRC2011-00851 - LEWIS OPERATING CORPORATION
September 14, 2011
Page 3
I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga,do hereby car*that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
passed,and adopted'by the Historic Preservation Commission of-the Cityof Rancho Cucamonga,ata
regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held onthe 14th day of September,2011,by
the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHBR; HOWDYSHELL., MUNOZ, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OAXACA
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
�aY _
,;°� ` � '�"tea j '��. �� • *�
d _
LL r
.a i h w j
�w «
oo
KI
I N yDl'•h yr ��Q6r
RESOLUTION NO. 11-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2010-00905,
DESIGNATING THE HELLMAN AVENUE STREET TREES AS A HISTORIC
LANDMARK, LOCATED ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF
HELLMAN AVENUE,SOUTH OF 19TH STREET TO BASE LINE ROAD;AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for a Landmark Designation as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is
referred to as"the application."
2. On August 10, 2011, 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,
Part"A,"of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to a total of 61 Eucalyptus and palm trees, located on the public
right-of-way on the west side of Hellman Avenue,south of 19th Street to Base Line Road as shown
on Attachment A.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on August 10, 2011, including written and oral staff reports,
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. Historic. Cultural', and/or Architectural Significance:
Finding: It is or was once associated with events that made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the
cultural heritage of California or the United States.
FacUs: The Hellman Avenue Street Trees serve as a historic link to the City's
agricultural past. The windbreak is representative of a historic period
(agriculture), region (City of Rancho Cucamonga and neighboring
agricultural communities), and way of life (agricultural community).
The Eucalyptus windrows were generally planted in the late 180vs
throughout the City to serve as a windbreak to protect crops,
structures; and field plantings from severe winds. Additionally, the
historic windbreaks are disappearing throughout the community.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-05
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2010-00905—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 10, 2011
Page 2
b. Intend
Finding: Historic Landmarks must retain integrity from their period of
significance with respect to its location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, association, or any combination of these
factors. A proposed Landmark need not retain all such original
aspects, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic,
cultural, or architectural significance. Neither the deferred
maintenance of a proposed Landmark, nor its dilapidated condition
shall,on its own, be equated with a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be
judged with reference to the particular characteristics that supportthe
eligibility of the property,
Fact1s: The trees,as they stand today,create an aesthetic landscape forthe
Alta Loma area. They are in their original location and still create a
feeling and understanding of the historic culture that was once
present. They are a reminder of the agricultural past and are one of
the last natural remaining stands of windbreaks in the Alta Loma
community and materially 'benefit the historic character of the
neighborhood'.
Such trees are worthy of protection to preserve scenic beauty,
prevent soil erosion, provide shade, wind protection, screening and
counteract air pollution. In particular,the Eucalyptus windrows area
unique inheritance whose cumulative value as a windbreak system is
a resource.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder: The Commission finds that this Landmark Designation is
exempt under CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15308,as a Class 8 exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3,and 4 above,
this Commission hereby resolves that, pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval of Landmark Designation on the 1 Oth day of August, 2011.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011.
HISTORIC PRES TIO COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Luis Munoz, Jr., Cha' am
ATTEST: 641�0-z)
JameyR, Troyer, AICP, Secretary
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11.05
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2010-00905—CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 10, 2011
Page 3
I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga,do hereby certifythat 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 Historic preservation Commission held on the 10th day of August,2011,bythe
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER; HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACAp WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
NV HE
F,
I 9d
• �J',Y ? � ' fiWY
1®®li
Wr:,. .1 ,
RESOLUTION NO.11-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL
CODE AMENDMENT DRC2008-00158, A REQUEST TO DELETE
CHAPTER 2.24, TITLE 2 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPLACE IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Municipal Code Amendment No.
DRC2008-00158, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 25, 2007,the Historic Preservation Commission approved a request to initiate a
Municipal Code Amendment.
3. On the 25th day of May 2011, 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.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is herebyfound, determined, and resolved bythe 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on May 25, 2011, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment;
and
C. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and is in conformance with the General Plan; and
d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code
by implementing the policies of the General Plan, protecting the stability of land uses, and attaining
the advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly land Use and resource planning; and
e. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
3. The Planning Department staff has prepared an Initial Study pursuant to the California
HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESOLUTION NO. 11-04
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
May 25, 2011
Page 2
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). As indicated in the Initial Study,there is no substantial evidence
that the project would have a significant affect on the environment;thus, a Negative Declaration has
been prepared and circulated to specific agencies and interested parties as well as a public hearing
notice. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's
determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's
determination of exemption.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,this
Commission hereby recommends approval of Municipal Code Amendment No. DRC2008-00158
through the adoption of the attached Draft City Council Ordinance.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY 2011.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman
ATTEST: rkrU4 �- "VWJ
Jana, R. Troyer, AICP, Secr tary
I, James R. Troyer,AICP, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 25th day of May 2011, by the
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER. HOWDYSHELL; MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT DRC2008-00158, A REQUEST TO DELETE
CHAPTER 2.24, TITLE 2 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPLACE IT IN ITS
ENTIRETY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Municipal Code Amendment
No. DRC2008-00158, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as "the application."
1. On April 25, 2007, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a request to
initiate a Municipal Code Amendment.
2. On May 25, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced
amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its .Resolution No. 11-04,
recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said amendment.
3. On , 2011, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a
duly noticed public hearing on the amendment.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the
above-referenced public hearing on , 2011, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the
environment; and
C. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General
Plan and is in conformance with the General Plan; and
d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development
Code by implementing the policies of the General Plan, protecting the stability of land uses, and
attaining the advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly land use and resource
planning; and
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 2
e. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
f. The Planning Department staff has prepared an Initial Study pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As indicated on the attached Initial Study, there is
no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant affect on the environment; thus,
a Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated to specific agencies and interested
parties as well as a public hearing notice. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed
the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent
judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption.
SECTION 3: Chapter 2.24 (Historic Preservation) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as shown on Attachment A.
SECTION 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this
Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of
any court of competent jurisdiction or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or
legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless
of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might
subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation.
SECTION 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
Chapter 2.24
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
2.24.010 Purpose.
It is found that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of districts, sites, and
structures of historic, cultural, and architectural significance, located within the City of Rancho
Cucamonga are of aesthetic and economic value to the City. It is further found that cultural and
Historic Resources contribute to the City's character, atmosphere, and reputation, and that
respecting the heritage of the City will enhance its economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing.
Therefore, it is imperative that the City safeguards these irreplaceable resources for the welfare,
enjoyment, and education of the present and future community.
The purpose of this Chapter is to:
A. Provide a mechanism to identify, designate, protect, preserve, enhance, and
perpetuate those historic sites, structures, and objects that embody and reflect the City's
aesthetic, cultural, architectural, and historic heritage;
B. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments represented by the City's
Historic Landmarks and distinctive neighborhoods and recognize these resources as economic
assets;
C. Encourage the protection, enhancement, appreciation, and use of structures of
historical, cultural, architectural, community, or aesthetic value that have not been designated
as historical resources but are deserving of recognition;
D. Enhance the quality of life and promote future economic development within the
City by stabilizing and improving the aesthetic and economic value of such districts, sites,
structures, and objects;
E. Encourage adaptive reuse of the City's Historic Resources by promoting public
awareness of the value of rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of existing buildings as a
means to conserve reusable material and energy resources;
F. Integrate historic preservation within the City's comprehensive development plan;
G. Promote and encourage historic preservation through continued private
ownership and utilization of such sites, buildings, and other structures now so owned and used,
to the extent that the objectives listed above can be attained under such policy.
2.24.020 Definitions.
The following terms when used in this Chapter shall have the meaning set forth in this
Section, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context:
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
12011
Page 4
"Alteration" means any act or process that modifies a Historic Landmark or Contributing
Resource that either: (1) requires a building permit and changes one or more of the features of
a landscape or structure including, without limitation, the erection, construction, reconstruction,
or relocation of any structure or any part of a structure; or (2) significantly changes any feature
of a landscape or exterior of a structure that relates to its status as a Historic Landmark or
Contributing Resource, regardless of whether such act or process requires a building permit.
"Commission" means the City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission.
"Conservation District" means an area of the City designated as a Conservation District
pursuant to this Chapter.
"Contributing Resource" means any site, sign, structure, building, landscape, object,
area, place, or feature within a Conservation District that is either a separately designated
Historic Landmark or designated as a resource that contributes to the district's historic, cultural,
or architectural significance.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
"Demolition" means any act or process that destroys, in whole or in part, a building,
structure, or site or permanently impairs its structural integrity.
"Historic Landmark" means any structure any site, sign, structure, building, landscape,
object, area, place, or feature designated as a Historic Landmark pursuant to this Chapter.
"Inventory of Historic Resources" means the inventory adopted by the Commission of
potentially historic sites, structures, buildings, landscapes, areas, and places in the City.
"Ordinary maintenance and repair" means any work for which a building permit is not
required by law the purpose and effect of which is to correct any deterioration of or damage to
an improvement or natural feature or any part thereof and to restore the same to its condition
prior to the occurrence of such deterioration or damage.
"Planning Director" means the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga or his
or her designee.
"Point of Historic Interest" means a location designated as a Point of Historic Interest
pursuant to this Chapter.
"Register of Historic Resources" means the inventory adopted by the Commission of
Historic Landmarks, Points of Historic Interest, and Conservation Districts designated pursuant
to this Chapter.
"Rehabilitation" means the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a
property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features
which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural significance.
"Restoration" means the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and
character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
2011
Page 5
features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the
restoration period, which may include the limited and sensitive upgrade of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make the property functional.
"Secretary's Standards" means the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
adopted by the United States Secretary of the Interior, and all guidelines adopted for the
implementation of the same.
"Small Business" means any office-type use that does not exceed 2,500 square feet,
with no more than 5 employees.
"State Historical Building Code" means California Health & Safety Code, Section 18950
et seq. and the California Historical Building Code, codified at Part 8, Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations, as either of these may be amended from time to time.
2.24.030 Historic Preservation Commission.
A. There is created the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
B. Powers and Duties: The Commission shall have the following powers and duties
in addition to any other duties specified in this Chapter:
1. Administer the provisions of this Chapter.
2. Advise the Council in all matters pertaining to historic preservation.
3. Maintain a current register of designated Historic Resources for public
use and information.
4. Maintain a current inventory of potentially Historic Resources for public
use and information.
5. Recommend the designation of historical resources, as hereinafter
provided by this Chapter.
6. Review and hold public hearings on applications for Certificates of
Appropriateness, as hereinafter provided.
7. Review and comment on the decisions and documents, including but not
limited to environmental assessments, Environmental Impact Reports, and Environmental
Impact Statements, prepared by other public agencies when such decisions or documents might
affect designated or potential historical resources within the City.
8. Participate in, promote, and conduct public informational, educational,
and interpretive programs pertaining to historical resources.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 —CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
2011
Page 6
9. Recommend and encourage the protection, enhancement, appreciation,
and use of structures of historical, cultural, architectural, community or aesthetic value that have
not been designated as historical resources but are deserving of recognition.
10. Consider requests by property owners for non-technical advice on
proposed work on historical landmarks and Contributing Resources.
11. Perform any other functions that may be designated by resolution or
action of the Council.
C. Membership — Appointment and Terms. The Commission shall consist of 5
voting members who shall each be residents of the City and appointed by the Council.
1. Each member shall serve a term of 4 years, except that two (2) of the
members first appointed shall be designated to serve a term of 2 years, and three (3) of the
members for a term of four (4) years, so as to provide a continuity of membership on the
Commission. Thereafter, the term for each voting member shall be 4 years. An appointment to
fill an unexpired term shall be for the remainder of such unexpired term. Three members of the
Commission shall constitute a quorum.
2. Commission members shall be appointed to terms commencing on the
first day of January next succeeding each regular municipal election scheduled to occur in
November of even-number years.
D. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson — Appointment and Term. The Mayor, with
the approval of the Council, shall appoint the first chairperson from among the members of the
Commission. The term of office of the chairperson shall be for the calendar year or that portion
remaining after the chairperson is appointed or elected. Thereafter, when there is a vacancy in
the office of the Chairperson, the Commission shall elect a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
each year in the month of July from among its members. The same individual shall not hold the
position of Chairman for more than three years in a row.
E. Assignment of Duties by Council:
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the Council may, by
resolution, designate the Planning Commission as the Historic Preservation Commission and
vest all functions, rights, powers, and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission in the
Planning Commission. In the event the Council so designates the Planning Commission, the
membership, terms of office and officers of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be the
same as that set forth for the Planning Commission.
2. If, on the effective date of this Section, the Planning Commission is then
acting as the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to the Council's previous designation,
such designation shall continue in effect and the Planning Commission shall continue to act as
the Historic Preservation Commission subject to the requirements and terms of this Chapter.
F. Secretary: The Planning Director shall act as Secretary to the Commission and
shall be custodian of its records, conduct official correspondence, and generally coordinate the
clerical and technical work of the Commission in administering this Chapter.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
12011
Page 7
2.24.040 Designation of Historic Landmarks, Points of Historic Interest, and
Conservation Districts.
A. Automatic Designation. Any property within the City that is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources is automatically
designated as a Landmark for purposes of this Chapter.
B. Prior Designations. Any Historic Landmark or Point of Historic Interest previously
designated as such by the City on or before the effective date of this Chapter shall continue to
be a Historic Landmark or Point of Historic Interest as previously designated for purposes of this
Chapter and shall be subject to all provisions herein.
C. New Designations. The Council may designate any structure, property, .or
properties as a Historic Landmark, Point of Historic Interest, or Contributing Resource subject to
the criteria and procedures set forth in this Chapter.
D. Amendment or Rescission. The Council may amend or rescind the designation
of any Historic Landmark, Point of Historic Interest, Historic District, or Conservation District for
purposes of this. Chapter, subject to the same procedures required for their designation,
including without limitation hearing and recommendation of the Commission.
2.24.050 Designation Criteria for Historic Landmarks.
A. The Council may designate a property as a Historic Landmark if it meets the
requirements of both paragraphs B and C of this Section.
B. Historic Landmarks must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. It is or was once associated with events that made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California
or the United States.
2. It is or was once associated with persons important to local, California, or
national history.
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction.
4. It represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic values, or
represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction.
5. It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
C. Historic Landmarks must retain integrity from their period of significance with
respect to its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, or any
combination of these factors. A proposed landmark need not retain all such original aspects,
but must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic,, cultural, or architectural significance.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 8
Neither the deferred maintenance of a proposed landmark nor its dilapidated condition shall, on
its own, be equated with a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be judged with reference to the
particular characteristics that support the property's eligibility.
2.24.060 Designation Criteria for Points of Historic Interest.
A. The Council may designate a property as a Point of Historic Interest, if it meets
the requirements applicable to Historic Landmarks under paragraph B of Section 2.24.050.
Points of Historic Interest shall not be required to retain integrity from their periods of
significance.
B. Designated Points of Historic Interest shall not be subject to the same restrictions
applicable to designated Historic Landmarks and Contributing Resources.
C. Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting or foreclosing analysis of
the impacts of a proposed project on a Point of Historic Interest under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
D. The Commission shall maintain a current register of Points of Historic Interest for
public use and information.
2.24.070 Designation Criteria for Historic Districts and Conservation Districts.
A. The Council may designate a property or collection of properties as a Historic
District if the proposed district meets the requirements of both paragraphs B and C of this
paragraph Section.
B. Historic Districts must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1. It has an identifiable, clear, and distinct boundary that possesses a
significant concentration of structures sharing common historical, visual, aesthetical, cultural,
archaeological, or architectural plan or physical development; or
2. It demonstrates character, interest, or value as part of the development,
heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state, or country; or
3. It is the site of a significant local, state, or national event; or
4. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, state, or
national history; or
5. It is identifiable as the work of a master builder, designer, architect, artist,
or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the community,
county, state, or country.
C. Historic Districts must retain integrity from their period of significance with respect
to its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Not all
properties or structures in a proposed district need to retain all such original aspects, but a
substantial number of such properties and structures must retain sufficient integrity to convey
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 9
the historic, cultural, or architectural significance of the district. Neither deferred maintenance
within a proposed district nor the dilapidated condition of its constituent buildings and
landscapes shall, on its own, be equated with a loss of integrity. Integrity shall be judged with
reference to the particular characteristics that support the district's eligibility.
D. Conservation Districts: The Council may -designate a property or collection of
properties that do not qualify as a Historic District as a Conservation District if the proposed
district has either:
1. A distinctive; cohesive, and identifiable setting, character, or association
that make it unique and an integral part of the City's identity; or
2. A recognized neighborhood identity and a definable physical character
and either high artistic value or a relationship to urban centers or'Historic Districts that makes
conservation of the proposed Conservation District essential to the City's history or function.
2.24.080 Owner Consent.
Owner consent is not required for a structure or property to be designated as a Point of
Historic Interest, Historic Landmark, or a Contributing Resource. However, a structure or
property cannot be designated as either a Historic Landmark or a Contributing Resource over
the owner's objection unless the Council makes all of the following findings:
A. The structure or property is on the City's historical inventory;
B. The structure or property possesses exceptional architectural, historical,
aesthetic, or cultural qualities;
C. Designation will preserve or protect the exceptional qualities of the structure or
property.
2.24.090 Designation Procedures — Historic Landmarks and Points of Historic
Interest.
A. Application. The City Council, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning
Director, or the owners of the subject property or their authorized agents may apply for a
Historic Landmark or Point of Historic Interest designation. A third party who believes that a
property or structure should be designated may submit a writtenrequest for the Commission to
initiate an application. In the event the Council or Commission initiates the application, the
Planning Director shall complete the required application. All applications shall be made on a
form prescribed by the Planning Director and shall include the following data:
1. The assessor's parcel number and legal description of site;
2. A description of the Historic Landmark or Point of Historic Interest;
including its current condition and its special aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering
interest, or value of a historic nature;
1 Sketches, drawings, photographs, or other descriptive material;
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-001,58 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 10
4. The signature of the property owner or the authorized agents. (See also
Section C: Owner Consent);
5. Such other information as requested by the Planning Director.
B. Except as necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition pursuant to
Section 2.24.190, it shall be unlawful for any person to carry out or cause to be carried out any
activity requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness on a proposed Historic Landmark for which an
application has been filed until the Council has taken final action denying the application.
C. Survey. Within 45 days of when a designation application is deemed complete,
the Planning Director shall conduct a survey to document all potentially historic features of the
subject property and prepare a report to the Commission.
D. Commission Review and Recommendation. The Commission shall conduct a
public hearing on the application. After the close of the public hearing, the Commission shall
adopt a resolution recommending to the Council the approval, conditional approval, or denial of
the application. ,
E. Council Determination. After receiving .the Commission's recommendation, the
Council shall conduct a public hearing on the application; excepting that an application for the
designation of a Point of Historic Interest may be approved via the consent calendar without
public hearing. The Council shall adopt a resolution approving, conditionally approving, or
denying the application. If the Council has not taken action on the application within 180 days of
the Commission's recommendation, then the application shall be deemed denied.
F. The Planning Director shall forward a copy of the resolution approving the
designation of a Historic Landmark or Point of Historic interest to any department or agency that
the Planning Director deems appropriate.
G. Upon designation by the Council, the Planning Director shall record the location,
characteristics, and significance of the Historic Landmark or Point of Historic Interest on a
California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory Form 523, and
include therewith a description of the particular features that are to be preserved and,the legal
description of the Historic Resource.
H. A designated Historic Landmark or Point of Historic Interest may be identified by
an approved City marker, but such a marker is not required.
2.24.100 Designation Procedures— Historic Districts and Conservation Districts.
A. Procedures for the application and designation of Historic Districts and
Conservation Districts shall be the same as those applicable to Historic Landmarks and Points
of Historic Interest except as modified by this section.
B. Applications: In addition to all other information and materials required by
Section 2.27.090(A), all applications for designation of Historic Districts and Conservation
Districts shall include the following:
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
12011
Page 11
1. A petition in support of the application that is signed by at least 51 percent
of the owners of the properties within the proposed district. For purposes of the petition
requirement, only one signature shall be allowed per parcel.
2. A depiction of the district that includes a clear and distinct description of
its boundaries and an inventory of all contributing and non-Contributing Resources within the
district.
3. A proposed conservation plan to regulate the manner in which the
preservation objectives of the district will be attained.
C. Except as necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition pursuant to
Section 2.24.190, it shall be unlawful for any person to carry out or cause to be carried out any
activity requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness for any property within the boundaries of a
proposed historic or Conservation District for which an application is;pending.
D. Whenever the Council designates a Historic District or Conservation District, it
shall also adopt: (1) a written description and clear depiction of the district boundaries; (2) an
inventory that identifies and describes Contributing Resources for the district; and (3) a
conservation plan to regulate the manner in which the preservation objectives of the district will
be attained.
2.24.110 Maintenance of Historic Landmarks and Contributing Resources.
A. The owner, occupant, or other person having legal custody and control of a
Historic Landmark or Contributing Resource shall keep in good repair all exterior portions
thereof, all interior portions thereof regulated by the applicable designation statement or
adopted conservation plan, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to
prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature.
B. The owner, occupant or other person having legal custody and control of a
Historic Landmark or Contributing Resource shall promptly repair such building or structure
consistent with all other applicable local, State, and Federal laws, if it is found to have any of the
following defects:
1. Building elements in danger of falling and injuring persons or property.
2. Deteriorated or inadequate foundation.
3. Defective or deteriorated flooring.
4. Walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that split, lean, list, buckle, or
are otherwise failing due to defective material or deterioration.
5. Ceilings, roofs, ceiling, roof supports, or other horizontal members that
sag, split, buckle, or are otherwise failing due to defective materials or deterioration.
6. Fireplaces or chimneys that list, bulge, settle, or are otherwise failing due
to defective material or deterioration.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
2011
Page 12
7. Deteriorated, crumbling or loose exterior plaster.
8. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs,
foundations or floors; including, but not limited to broken windows or doors.
9. Defective or insufficient weather protection for exterior wall coverings,
including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering.
10. Any fault, defect, or deterioration in the building that renders it structurally
unsafe or insufficiently watertight.
C. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of a
Historic Landmark or a Contributing Resource because of the failure of the owner to comply with
the provisions of this section.
2.24.120 Commission Advisory Function.
The Commission may, upon request of the property owner, render non-technical advice
on proposed work on a Historic Landmark or to a Contributing Resource. In rendering such
advice and guidance, the Commission shall be guided by the purposes and criteria in this
Chapter. This Section shall not be construed to impose any regulation or controls upon any
property.
2.24.130 Certificates of Appropriateness— Requirement.
A. No person shall carry out or cause to be carried out any alteration, restoration,
rehabilitation, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition of any Historic Landmark or
Contributing Resource unless the City has first issued a Certificate of Appropriateness in
accordance with the requirements of this Chapter.
B. Exceptions. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be required for any of the
following actions.
1. Ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature that
does not involve a change in design, material, or external appearance of a Historic Landmark or
Contributing Resource.
2. Alterations previously identified in an adopted conservation plan for a
Historic District or Conservation District and designated in such conservation plan for review
through the design review procedures set forth in Section 17.06.010 of the Development Code
and approved accordingly.
3. Alterations that comply with the State Historical Building Code.
4. Alterations or actions for which a Certificate of Economic Hardship has
been approved.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 13
2.24.140 Certificate of Appropriateness — Procedures.
A. Application. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be filed with
the Planning Department upon the prescribed form and shall contain the following data:
1. A description of the proposed work and an explanation of how it is
compatible with the historical nature of the resource.
2. Plans describing the size, height, and appearance of the proposed work.
3. A site plan showing all existing buildings and structures and the
relationship of the proposed work to the surrounding environment.
4. Relationship to the existing scale, massing, architectural style, site and
streetscape, landscaping and signage, for new construction in Historic Districts.
5. If the application is for demolition, an explanation why the demolition is
necessary and an economic feasibility report.
6. Other information deemed necessary by the Planning Director.
B. Commission Review. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the
application, after which it shall adopt a resolution approving, conditionally approving, or denying
the application.
C. Planning Director Review. Notwithstanding the previous paragraph, the Planning
Director shall review, and after conducting a public hearing, shall deny, approve, or conditionally
approve any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for any of the following types of
alterations:
1. Repair or replacement of deteriorated materials with applications or
materials of the same kind, type, and texture already in use for roofs, windows, siding material,
chimneys and fireplaces, accessory structures, or fencing.
2. Addition or deletion of awnings, shutters, canopies, and similar incidental
appurtenances.
D. Upon approval, copies of the Certificate of Appropriateness shall be forwarded to
the applicant, the Building Official, the Planning Director, and any other department or agency
that requests one.
E. No Certificate of Appropriateness shall become effective until the time to appeal
its approval has expired.
2.24.150 Certificate of Appropriateness— Findings.
A. Standard Findings. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be approved
unless the Commission or Planning director, as appropriate, makes all of the following findings:
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 14
1. The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an Historic Resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
2. The project is consistent with the purposes of this Chapter.
3. The project is consistent with the Secretary's Standards.
B. Additional Findings for Demolitions: In the case of a Certificate of
Appropriateness to allow demolition of part or all of a Historic Landmark or Contributing
Resource, all of the following additional findings must be made.
1. All efforts to restore, rehabilitate, or relocate the resource have been
exhausted.
2. Restoration or rehabilitation would require extensive alterations that
would render the resource unworthy of preservation.
3. Failure to demolish the resource would adversely affect or detract from
the character of the neighborhood.
C. Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Section, an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may be approved if the Commission
finds the project is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the subject
property that was not caused by a failure to maintain the property as required by this Chapter.
2.24.160 Certificate of Economic Hardship.
A. The Commission may issue a Certificate of Economic Hardship to allow
alteration or demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Resource where denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness would create an undue hardship upon the owner.
B. Applications. An application for a Certificate of Economic Hardship shall be
made on the prescribed form and shall be accompanied by all of the following information if
requested by the Planning Director:
1. The estimated market value of the property in its current condition.
2. The estimated market value of the property after completion of the
proposed alteration or demolition.
3. Estimates of the costs of proposed alteration or demolition.
4. In the case of demolition, the estimated market value of the property after
renovation of the existing property for continued use and an estimate from an architect,
developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate professional with experience in
rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on
the property.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
2011
Page 15
5. A rehabilitation report from a licensed engineer or architect with expertise
in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their
suitability for rehabilitation.
6. For income-producing properties, information on annual gross income,
operating and maintenance expenses, tax deductions for depreciation, and annual cash flow
after debt service, current property value appraisals, assessed property valuations, and real
estate taxes.
7. Remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the
property and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two (2) years.
8. All appraisals obtained within the previous two (2) years by the owner or
applicant in connection with the purchase, financing, or ownership of the property.
9. The amount paid for the property if purchased within the previous thirty
six (36) months, the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased, including a
description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person
from whom the property was purchased, and any terms of financing between the seller and
buyer.
10. Any listing of the property for sale, rent, prices asked, and offers received,
if any within the previous two (2) years.
11. Any other information the Planning Director may reasonably require to
determine whether or not the property does or may yield a reasonable return to the owners.
C. The Commission shall hold a public hearing on all applications for a Certificate of
Economic Hardship; after which it may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application.
Such hearing may be held concurrently with any related application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
D. The Commission shall not approve any Certificate of Economic Hardship unless
it makes all of the following findings:
1. Denial of the application would decrease the value of the subject property
so as to leave no substantial value.
2. Sale or rental of the property is not financially feasible, when looking at
the cost of holding such property for uses permitted in this zone.
3. Adaptive reuse of the property for lawful purposes is prohibited or
impractical.
4. Denial of the application would damage the owner of the property
unreasonably in comparison to the benefit conferred on the community.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 16
E. Upon approval, copies of the Certificate of Economic Hardship shall be
forwarded to the applicant, the Building Official, the Planning Director, and any other department
or agency that requests one.
F. No Certificate of Economic Hardship shall become effective until the time to
appeal its approval has expired.
2.24.170 Mitigation/Conditions of Approval.
Whenever any decision under this Chapter by the Council,, Commission, or Planning
Director to approve an application has the potential to diminish or destroy the historic, cultural,
or architectural value of a Historic Landmark or Contributing, Resource, the Commission or
Planning Director may impose conditions to mitigate the loss of a Historic Landmark or
Contributing Resource. Such conditions may include, but not be limited to the following:
A. Documentation of the historic features of the property including, but not limited to,
site plans, floor plans; elevations, detailed drawings of character defining features, photographic
records of the exterior, interior, and any character defining features, title deed of the original
owners, any historical information of person and events associated with the site.
B. Requiring salvage, relocation, donation, or adaptive reuse of significant items or
features within or on the property.
2.24.180 Demolition of Potential Historic Resources.
A. No permit for the demolition of any structure more than 50 years old or located
on a property listed in the inventory of Historic Resources shall.be issued unless the provisions
of this Section have been satisfied.
B. Within 30 days of when an application for such a permit is deemed complete, the
Planning Director shall review the historic significance of the property to determine whether the
property meets the criteria for a Historic Landmark. If the Planning Director finds the property
meets the criteria, he or she shall immediately initiate a Historic Landmark Application and
provide written notice of the decision to the property owner.
C. If the Planning Director initiates a Historic Landmark Application, no demolition
permit shall issue until final action of the Council, denying the proposed designation, except as
otherwise provided in Section 2.24.190.
D. If the Planning Director does not initiate a Historic Landmark Application, within
the 30 days specified by this section, the hold on the permit for demolition shall be released.
2.24.190 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions.
A. None of the provisions of this Chapter shall be construed to prevent any
construction, alteration, removal, demolition or relocation of a Historic Landmark or Contributing
Resource necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous conditions of any structure, or feature,
or part thereof, where the Building & Safety Official has declared such condition unsafe or
dangerous and the proposed construction, alteration, removal, demolition or relocation
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 17
necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition. Only such work as is necessary to
correct the unsafe or dangerous condition may be performed pursuant to this Section.
B. The Building & Safety Official shall inform the Commission prior to authorizing
any work pursuant to this Section unless he or she determines that such work is immediately
necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition; in which case, the Building and Safety
Official shall report his or her actions to the Commission at its next regular meeting.
C. If work authorized by the Building & Safety official pursuant to his Section is not
immediately necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition, the Commission may
advise the Building & Safety Official of the historic significance of the building and recommend a
reasonable period of postponement for the purpose of arranging for rehabilitation, relocation, or
salvage of the Historic Resource or Contributing Resource. Notwithstanding the forgoing, if no
arrangements have been made for rehabilitation, relocation, or salvage within sixty days of an
order to abate a nuisance, the Building & Safety Official may proceed with the abatement action.
2.24.200 Environmental Review.
If any action required or taken pursuant to this Chapter is subject to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the time in which such action must be taken shall be
extended in order to allow time to comply with said Act, provided, however, that such action is
taken within the time limits imposed by the Permit Streamlining Act.
2.24.210 Appeals.
Any interested party may appeal any decision by the Commission or Planning Director
under this Chapter pursuant to the limitations and procedures in Section 17.02.080 of the
Municipal Code. Appeals must be filed within ten calendar days of the hearing body's decision.
All appeals brought under this section shall be accompanied by a filing fee established by the
Council. This Section shall not apply to decisions by the Planning Director whether to initiate a
Historic Landmark designation application in accordance with Section 2.24.180.6, above.
2.24.220 Historic Preservation Fund.
A. The Historic Preservation Fund is established to provide funding for historic
preservation efforts such as surveys, development of design guidelines, public education, and
incentive programs. All funds deposited into the Historic Preservation Fund shall be used solely
for the conservation, preservation, restoration, or rehabilitation of Historic Resources.
B. The Commission shall advise the Council regarding the use and expenditure of
funds from the Historic Preservation Fund and shall recommend activities or actions necessary
to fulfill the objectives of the Historic Preservation Fund.
C. No money from the Historic Preservation Fund shall be used for the sole benefit
of any property unless it has been designated a Historic Landmark, a Point of Historic Interest,
or a Contributing Resource.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 18
2.24.230 Preservation Incentives.
To encourage owners to designate, maintain, preserve, rehabilitate, and improve
Historic Landmarks and Contributing Resources, the City provides the incentives set forth in this
Section. Only properties designated as Historic Landmarks or Contributing Resources are
potentially eligible to apply for preservation incentives.
A. Mills Act Contracts. Pursuant to and consistent with California Government
Code, Section 50280, the Council may enter into Mills Act contracts with the owner of a Historic
Landmark for the purpose of preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of designated
Historic Resources, which shall allow the owner to receive a reduction in property taxes in
exchange for a commitment to specific repair, restoration, or rehabilitation improvements and
satisfactory maintenance of the property. The agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the
contract provisions required under State law, and shall extend for a minimum period of 10 years,
renewed annually, until and unless a notice of non-renewal or cancellation is filed. The
application process, review procedures, and required contract provisions for Mills Act
Agreements shall be established at the sole discretion of the Council based on the
recommendations of the Commission in a form to be approved by the City Attorney. The
program shall be implemented by the Planning Director or his designee.
B. Public Recognition: The Commission may establish a program to publicly
recognize Historic Resources, Points of Historic Interest, Historic Districts, and Conservation
Districts with plaques, signage, and other appropriate forms of recognition.
C. State Historical Building Code: Any alteration made for preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration or relocation of Historic Resources may be made according to the
requirements of the State Historical Building Code.
D. Nonconforming Parking: Single-family residences designated as Historic
Resources that are nonconforming due to substandard parking shall not be required to provide
parking according to current standards provided that additional floor area does not exceed 50%
of the existing floor area in any 24-month period. Multiple-family developed properties
designated as Historic Resources that are nonconforming, due to substandard parking shall not
be required to bring the existing parking into compliance with current parking requirements due
to the addition of new units provided that parking for the new units meets the current zoning
standards.
E. Fee Relief and Waivers: Historic Landmarks and Contributing Resources are
eligible for the following fee waivers, refunds, and reductions:
1. A 50% refund of applicable building permit fees at time of issuance for
projects found to be in compliance with the Secretary's Standards.
2. A 50% refund of applicable planning fees, not including applications made
pursuant to this Chapter, at the time of issuance for projects found to be in compliance with the
Secretary's Standards.
3. Waiver of application fees to operate a Large Family Day Care if the
proposed location is a Historic Landmark or Contributing Resource. A Large Family Day Care
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008-00158 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 19
means twelve children are being cared for in a private residence and up to fourteen children if
two of the children are at least six years of age.
F. Preservation Easements: The City may agree to acquire preservation
easements on the facades of buildings designated as Historic Landmarks, or acquire such on
the City's behalf, by a nonprofit group designated by the City through purchase, donation, or
condemnation pursuant to California Civil Code 815.
G. Alternative Conditional Use Permit Procedures. Where a proposed conditionally
permitted use involving a Historic Landmark or Contributing Resource is small in scale and
neither intensifies the use of the subject property nor disrupts any adjacent uses or
neighborhood, the Planning Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
application in the same manner and subject to the same procedural requirements as a non-
construction Conditional, Use Permit pursuant to Section 17.04.035 of the Development Code.
Applications approved by the Planning Director under this paragraph shall only be for small
scale uses; including, but not limited to, boarding houses,, bed and breakfasts, inns, small
offices, boutiques, antique shops, bookstores, or florists. If in the opinion of the Planning
Director, the application involves unusual requirements or raises questions of land use policy
substantially more significant than generally .pertain to such application, the Planning. Director
may refer the application to the Planning Commission for consideration. Approval of a
Conditional Use Permit under this paragraph shall neither waive any requirement of this Chapter
nor excuse any performance required by this Chapter; including but not limited to the need for a
Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic Hardship.
2.24.240 Permit Application Filing Fees.
Before accepting for filing any application described in this Chapter, the Planning
Director shall charge and collect such administrative fees as may be set by resolution of:the
Council.
2.24.250 Public Hearings - Notice and Conduct.
A. Whenever a public hearing is required by this Chapter, it shall be noticed and
held in accordance with Section 17.02.110 of the Municipal Code.
B. The Planning Director shall maintain a list of parties; including local historical
organizations, who have asked for notice of public hearings regarding matters that affect
designated or potential Historic Landmarks, Points of Historic Interest, Historic Districts,
Conservation Districts, and Contributing Resources. The Planning Director shall provide as a
courtesy to all persons and organizations on the list copies of all notices required by this
Chapter. No action or inaction by the Council, Commission, the Planning Commission, or the
Planning Director, shall be held void or invalid or be set aside by any Court due to failure to
provide notice to any person or organization on the list pursuant to this paragraph.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DRC2008=00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 2011
Page 20
2.24.260 Enforcement Authority.
It shall be the duty. of the Planning Director and the Building & Safety Official to
administer and enforce the provisions of this Chapter with the assistance of other City
departments when deemed necessary.
2.24.270 Violations and Remedies.
A. It is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to violate any
provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter. Each such person,
firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every
day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is
committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation.
B. Causing, permitting, aiding, abetting or concealing a violation of any provision of
this Chapter is prohibited.
C. Violations of this Chapter are subject to criminal misdemeanor penalties and civil
penalties pursuant to Chapter 1-12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, in addition to
any penalties and remedies specified or available under this Chapter. The penalties and
remedies ;provided for in this Section are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies
available at law or in equity. The City may seek to remedy any violation of this Chapter by a
civil action, including, without limitation, administrative or judicial nuisance abatement
proceedings, civil or criminal code enforcement proceedings, and suits for injunctive relief.
D. A violation of this Chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated
by the City through the administrative procedures specified in Chapter 8.23 or through civil
process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other
manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance. Abatement remedies may include
but shall not be limited to reconstructing or restoring the property to its condition before the
performance of work in violation of this Chapter, or in the case of a failure to maintain a Historic
Landmark or Contributing Resource, by completing the work as required to stabilize and arrest
further deterioration of the property.
E. If a Violation occurs in the absence of an approved development project, or while
an application for a building permit or discretionary development approval is pending for the
property upon which the Historic Landmark or Contributing Resource is located, the Planning
Director or Building & Safety Official may issue a stop work order halting all development activity
on the parcel to allow the City to determine appropriate mitigation measures, if any, and to
ensure such measures are incorporated into any future or.pending development approvals for
the property. Mitigation measures may be imposed as a condition of any subsequent permits
for development on the subject property.
t
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 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Public Review Period Closes: May 25, 2011
Project Name: Project Applicant: James R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Project.Description: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
DRC2008-00158 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposed amendment to the Historic
Preservation Ordinance deleting Chapter 2.24,Title 2 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code and replacing it in its entirety. Staff has prepared a negative declaration of environmental
impact for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
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 indicates.that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be
required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial Study.
The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Department 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.
May 25 2011
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO. 11-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT DRC2011-00090, FOR ALTERATIONS
AT THE HISTORIC GOERLITZ PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6558 HERMOSA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 1076-051-02.
A. Recitals.
1. Solid Ground Brethren Church filed an application for the approval of Landmark
Alteration Permit DRC2011-00090, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Landmark Alteration Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the April 13, 2011, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on April 13,2011, including written and oral staff reports,together
with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.120.G of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 6558 Hermosa Avenue, presently
improved with the historic Goerlitz House.
b. The property to the north of the subject site is the 210 Freeway; the property to the
south is developed with single-family residential; the property to the east is developed with
single-family residential; and the property to the west is developed with condominiums; and
C. The Goerlitz House, on the property of the proposed application,was designated
as a Historic Landmark by the City Council on 2003; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed alteration 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; and
b. The proposed Landmark Alteration Permit will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-03
DRC2011-00090 —SOLID GROUND BRETHREN CHURCH
April 13, 2011
Page 2
C. The proposed project will have no significant adverse environmental effects.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fort in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2011-00090, subject to each and
every condition set forth below.
Planning Department
1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshall's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2011.
HISTORIC PRESE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman
l"
ATTEST �J ��Ja e . Troyer, AICP, Secretary
I, James R.Troyer, AICP, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 13th day of April 2011,by the
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER; MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HOWDYSHELL
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 'RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2011-00040,
DESIGNATING THE PEARSON HOUSE A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED
AT 6956 ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 1089-081-18.
A. Recitals.
1. Rosio Sosa filed an application for a Landmark as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application."
2. On February 23, 2011, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately 0.38 acre of land, basically a rectangular
configuration, located at 6956 Etiwanda Avenue,
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on February 23, 2011, including written and oral staff reports,
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:
Finding 1: The proposed Landmark is particularly a representative of a historical
period, type, style, region, or way of life.
Fact/s: The property is an example of early life in Etiwanda. Most residents
here were associated with growing citrus and/or vineyards and lived
near their work. There are vineyard plantings that surround the
home. The property, being near the Pacific Electric Trail, made it
convenient for the owners to live and work in the same area as part
of the fruit industry.
Finding 2: The proposed Landmark is an example of a type of building, which
was once common, but now is rare.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-02
DRC2011-00040 — ROSIO SOSA
February 23, 2011
Page 2
Fact/s: Craftsman-style homes were common throughout 1905-1930, but are
now rare, especially ones that retain most of its original material.
Many homes significant to Etiwanda possess earlier styles, which
makes this Craftsman unique to the specific area.
Finding 3: The proposed Landmark is of greater age than most of its kind.
Fact/s: The dwelling was built approximately in 1920, which makes it
91 years old. Although it is not as old as the other landmarked
structures in the nearby area, it is a good example of 1920s housing
in Etiwanda.
Finding 4: The proposed Landmark was connected with someone who was
renowned, important, or a local personality.
Fact/s: The Johnston-Pearson family is deeply associated with the cultural
fabric of Etiwanda history. George Johnston first came to settle in
the Etiwanda area in 1888.
B. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting:
Finding 1: The proposed Landmark materially benefits the historic character of
the neighborhood.
Fact/s: The proposed Landmark contributes to the character of the historic
Etiwanda neighborhood with its frontage facing along
Etiwanda Avenue. This structure is a contributor to the Etiwanda
Neighborhood Character Area as identified in the General Plan.
Finding 2: The proposed Landmark in its location represents an established and
familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City.
Fact/s: This home has been a familiar visual feature in the Etiwanda
neighborhood since 1920. It retains a high level of integrity regarding
setting, location, materials, workmanship, and design.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder. The Commission finds that this Landmark Designation is
exempt under CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, as a Class 31 Exemption
(Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby resolves that, pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval of Landmark Designation on the 23rd day of February, 2011.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-02
DRC2011-00040— ROSIO SOSA
February 23, 2011
Page 3
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Luis Munoz Jr., Chairm
ATTEST: ' " . r
Ja I
s R. Troyer, AICP, Secr tary
I, James R. Troyer, AICP, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 23rd day of February 2011, bythe
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOX, OAXACA
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WIMBERLY
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMITDRC2010-00852, FORALTERATIONS'
AT THE HISTORIC HIPPARD RANCHO RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT
13181 VICTORIA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF-APN: 0227-121-22.
A. Recitals.
1. Jim Banks filed an application for the approval of Landmark Alteration 'Permit
DRC2010-00852, as described in the title of this Resolution 'Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Landmark Alteration Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 12th day of January 2011, 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,
Part.A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on January 12, 2011, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.120.G of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 13181 Victoria Avenue, with a
street frontage of 300 feet and a lot depth of approximately 660 feet and is presently improved with
the historic Hippard Rancho Residence.
b. The property to the north of the subject site is single-family residential;the property
to the south is a vineyard;the property to the east is developed with single-family residential; and the
property to the west is a school; and.
C. The Hippard Rancho Residence, on the property of the proposed application,was
designated as a Historic Landmark by the City Council in 1989; and
3. Based, upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and'2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed alteration 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; and
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-01
DRC2010-00852—JIM BANKS
January 12, 2011
Page 2
b. The proposed Landmark Alteration Permit will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. The proposed project will have no significant adverse environmental effects.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fort in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above. This
Commission hereby approves Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2010-00852, subject to each and
every condition set forth below.
Planning Department.
1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshall's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
.APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: .2 �
Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairman
ATTEST:
Jar` R. Troyer, AIC , Secr tary'
I, James R. Troyer,AICP, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 12th day of January 2011, by
the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER; HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, .WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 10-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES, AND A HISTORIC CONTEXT
STATEMENT
A. Recitals.
1. On May 19, 2010, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive
update to its General Plan (the "General Plan"), which recognizes the growing importance of
historic preservation in this City as part of the General Plan's Land Use Element.
2. Policy LU-15.4 of the General Plan calls on the Commission to define a Local
Register of Historic Resources (the "Local Register of Historic Resources" or "Register") that
includes designated local historic resources. The City's most current list of designated historic
resources is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3. Policy LU-15.1 of the General Plan calls for a comprehensive survey of potential
historic resources and its adoption as the Rancho Cucamonga Inventory of Historic Resources
(the "Rancho Cucamonga Inventory of Historic Resources" or"Inventory") to describe buildings,
structures, objects, sites, and districts found to be potentially eligible for listing in the Register.
The General Plan states the Inventory shall be maintained separate and apart from the
Register. As part of the General Plan update, Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation,
Inc. ("Chattel") surveyed potential historic resources in the City. A copy of the survey results is
attached hereto as Exhibit B to this Resolution.
4. Policy LU-15.1 of the General Plan calls for the adoption of an official Historic
Context Statement (the "Historic Context Statement"), which is intended to be a tool for
evaluating historic resources. As part of the 2010 General Plan Update, Chattel prepared a
draft historic context statement for the City, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C to
this Resolution.
5. Policy LU-15.1 of the General Plan states that the Historic Context Statement,
the Register, and the Inventory will be updated regularly.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
1. All facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Commission hereby adopts Exhibit A to this resolution, which is hereby
incorporated as though set forth in full, as the City's official "Local Register of Historic
Resources."
3. The Commission hereby adopts Exhibit B to this resolution, which is hereby
incorporated as though set forth in full, as the official "Rancho Cucamonga Inventory of Historic
Resources."
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-01
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT, LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AND
LOCAL INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
September 22, 2010
Page 2
4. The Commission hereby adopts Exhibit C to this resolution, which is hereby
incorporated as though set forth in full, as the City's official "Historic Context Statement."
5. The Secretary to this Commission, or his or her designee, shall be responsible
for maintaining the Register and the Inventory and shall update them when warranted by the
change in the status of any property. The Planning Director shall promptly inform the
Commission of any changes made to either the Register or the Inventory.
6. The Secretary to this Commission, or his or her designee, shall from time to time
review the Historic Context Statement and recommend changes to the Commission when
warranted by new information.
7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
9�
■Y:-e�f �
Luis Munoz, Jr., Chairm
ATTEST: R• &""/
JamVerArIOCIP,
er, AIC , Secr tary
I, James R. T 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the
22nd day of September 2010, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
LANDMARKS
1. Adams House - 7914 Alta Cuesta Drive
2. Albert House - 10323 19th Street
3. Alderfer (Becker) Residence - 8308 Baker Avenue
4. Alta Loma Fire Hall - 7125 Amethyst Avenue
5. Alta Loma Honor Roll - 7172 Amethyst Avenue
6. Alta Loma School & Site- 9488 19th Street
7. Bartholow Residence - 12920 Bartholow Drive
8. Beckley House - 6729 Hermosa Avenue
9. Beverly Hills House - 9786 Arrow Route
10. Buehler House - 9650 San Bernardino Road
11. Canyon Live Oak Tree (Q. Vercus Chrysolepis) - 12194 Base Line Road
12. Casa de Rancho Cucamonga (Rains House) - 8810 Hemlock Street
13. Central Public School (Sweeten Hall) - 9324 San Bernardino Road
14. Chaffey-Garcia House - 7150 Etiwanda Avenue
15. Chaffey-Isle House - 7086 Etiwanda Avenue
16. Charles E. Smith House - 9385 Lomita Avenue
17. Charles Stoebe Home - 6710 Beryl Street
18. Cherbak Family Home (Cherbak-Stowe) - 9983 Hillside Road
19. China Town House - 9591 San Bernardino Road
20. Cour House - 7567 Etiwanda Avenue
21. Croswell House - 9874 Arrow Route
22. Cucamonga Rancho Winery (Thomas Vineyard Company Winery) - 8916 Foothill Boulevard
23. Cucamonga Rock Church - 7690 Archibald Avenue
24. Cucamonga Service Station - 9670 Foothill Boulevard
25. Demens-Tolstoy House - 9686 Hillside Road
26. Dorothy Finley House - 7920 Valle Vista Drive
27. Ellena/Regina Winery (Filippi Winery) - 12467 Baseline Road
28. Emery House - 7403 Archibald Avenue
29. Emory Allen House - 9441 Lomita Drive
30. Ernst Mueller House - 6563 East Avenue
I
EXHIBIT A
31. Etiwanda Congregational Church - 7126 Etiwanda Avenue
32.• Etiwanda Metate - 6925 Etiwanda Avenue
33. Etiwanda Railway Station - 7089 Etiwanda Avenue
34. Etiwanda Telephone Switching Station &Water Tank - 13103 Victoria Street
35. Garrett & Co. Winery (Virginia Dare Winery) - 10470 Foothill Boulevard
36. G. Edgar Frost House - 7082 East Avenue
37. George Cherbak House - 9953 Hillside Avenue
38. Goerlitz House - 6156 Hellman Avenue
39. G.P. Ledig House - 5759 Hellman Avenue
40. Grandma Issak House - 9611 Hillside Road
41. Guidera Winery House - 9081 Main Street
42. H.D. Cousins House (Christmas House) - 9240 Archibald Avenue
43. Henry Albert Building - 7136 Amethyst Street
44. Herbert-Goerlitz House - 6558 Hermosa Avenue
45. Hickcox Residence - 6862 Etiwanda Avenue
46. Highland Avenue Street Trees - Highland Avenue between Etiwanda & East Avenue
47. Hippard Ranch Vineyards - 13100 Victoria Street
48. Hippard Rancho - 13181 Victoria Street
49. Hogancamp Residence - 9475 La Vine Street
50. Hoppe House - 6155 East Avenue
51. Huber Ranch/Kalbach House - 5991 Hellman Avenue
52. Kincaid Ranch House - 9449 Ninth Street
53. Klusman House - 8841 Foothill Boulevard
54. Koch House - 7491 Etiwanda Avenue
55. Ledig House & Barn - 9404 La Vine Street
56. Isaac Lord House - 6797 Hellman Avenue
57. Magic Lamp Restaurant- 8189 Foothill Boulevard
58. Maloof Residence & Workshops - 5131 Carnelian Street
59. Minor House - 10089 Eagle Ridge Court
60. Mitchell Family Residence - 10213 Foothill Boulevard
61. Neil D. & Emma S. Hickcox Residence & Garage - 6878 Etiwanda Avenue
62. Nesbit-McCorkle House - 7608 Hellman Avenue
63, Night Blooming Cereus (cactus) - 7850 Valle Vista Drive
64. Norton-Fisher House - 7165 Etiwanda Avenue
65. Nosenzo/Smiderle House - 8068 Archibald Avenue
66. Palmer Ranch - 5708 Hellman Avenue
67. Roth's Store & Post Office (Ernie's Place) - 7157 Amethyst Avenue
68. Schowalter House - 5495 Hermosa Avenue
69. Statom-Bingham House- 6743 Amethyst Avenue
70. Statue of Oso Bear- 8318 Foothill Boulevard
71. Stegmeier House - 7050 Etiwanda Avenue
72. Thorpe House - 9588 Wilson Avenue
73. Toews Family Residence - 9681 Hillside Road
74. Victoria Avenue Street Trees - Victoria Avenue between Etiwanda & East Avenue
75, Walnut Trees -,Lining Beryl Street, N. of Hillside Road, S. of Carrari Court
76. Warren/Thorpe House - 6112 Hellman Avenue
POINTS OF,INTEREST
1. Aggazzotti Winery - 11929 Foothill Boulevard
2. Alta Loma Heights Citrus Association Packing House - 7125 Amethyst Avenue
3. Alta Loma Pacific Electric Railway Station Site - 7188 Amethyst Street
4. Blessent House - 9317 6th Street
5. Campanella, Guidera and DiCarlo Homes & Vineyards - 12573-12881 Foothill,Boulevard
6. Charles N. Ross House - 6527 Etiwanda Avenue
7. Cucamonga Labor Camp -Arrow Route to Foothill Boulevard, East of Baker Avenue
8. Cucamonga Pioneer Winery - 8812 Haven Avenue
9. Cucamonga Post Office Site - 8030 Vineyard Avenue
10. Etivista Winery - 12742-12774 Foothill Boulevard
11. Four Craftsman Residences - 9618-9642 Foothill Boulevard
12. George and Jessie Johnston Home -6998 Etiwanda Avenue
13. Haven Avenue Beautification Project- Originally, Haven Avenue median
14. Hellman Avenue Windrow-West side of Hellman Avenue, 250 feet north of Baseline Road
15. H.W. Minor House - 7567 Etiwanda Avenue
16. Kemp Residence - 13151 Highland Avenue
17. La Fourcade Store - 11871 Foothill Boulevard
18. Logia Felipe Angeles, Inc. Theater- 10071 Feron Boulevard
19. Milliken Rancho House Site - 8798 Haven Avenue
20. Multiple Residences at Foothill Boulevard - 9424, 9434, 9456, 9474, 9482, 9494 Foothill
Boulevard
21. - Pearson Filling Station and Garage - 12912 Foothill Boulevard
22. Sacred Heart Catholic Church and T. Ingvaldsen and Sons Store/ Regina Restaurant -
12704 Foothill Boulevard
23. Santa-Fe Cucamonga Depot Site - Eight Street, East of Archibald Avenue
24. Schowalter Grove Site - 8297 Baker Avenue
25. Schowalter Rock Pile Site - 660 feet east of Hermosa Avenue and south of Vista Grove
Street
26. Sedge Bog Ecological Area - Day Creek Canyon
27. Sycamore Inn - 8318 Foothill Boulevard
28. Site of the Etiwanda Grape Products Company - 9370 Etiwanda Avenue
29. Tapia Adobe Site - Top of Red Hill
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
M Page 1of10 March 24' 2010
Street Street Number APN Other Identifier Year Updated Status Previous Status Photo No.
^�o�
1360
Compound 2000
Foothill BI railroad overcrossing 20710139 Southern Pacific Overcrossing 1929 3CS PNR 3504
1433
1492, 1493
Church St 10270 107727103 Stone House unknown 3CS sus 1496, 1497
liSI:.Inifyiddal.property the
�mmm
` -
O D D D v 'D yy D D ; g g D r r r r r r r r r r D D D
p1 3 3 3 0 0 g 3 3 3 0 0 0 o g o o d o 0 o d o d
5 :: o 0 0 0
fn N s s S s � � s m m m fD s � mCD 0
+ y m y u O O d O O O a O .�'. 9"' N O
❑ D D D o o
m d m m D l D
N N m ? N N N N: N N N 0N N l N N
n
Ea£ o
C.✓ N
N) G
O
fC€ CD
Q+ CO
QO V J V fD 0J J j mtp tD tD fD Of tp tD (O '.t0 00lD fp J fD f0 V N 0 :m�: C y O O N N N gq qq N N tp Ut m N (n ao W W A A W W A O A A O
O O m �w W 0N N =
die' N
N
01
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N h?
0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a
m N o o m rn m rn m w � m � � w w w w � oo ro w a m ro a oo J J � � w N ��•`i
Oo N N N V'W N Vt ut W W A A W O N N O O Vt (p 0 N W W N N ;d fi
0
0,
O W A
0 o d m o
fD 0, N m S O m
A :N
N O n
CO 0 o
og
m 2 2
.- — — -- — — - — - ao
N N O f0 � W N N N W f0 V1 J N O N w Vt m D7 V W b D7 A V O) V 07 � Tt"'F9,
y µF:tiT
lk
�b
z..,
5 .
fo fT N N (T N N U N U O N fN fN N O N (T w 0 0 N fo N N N to N N fT
co co co N N N co co N co N N N co N coN N N N N N N N co co co N N N co N
2 � n
N N y -a V V V '0 V N .00 V N N N .0 V N N N N C cnlC V cor;<:
!2 co — r Ir' r r r Ir" r y r a- r ch (A cnn r r W (CO y Cl)C r CA Co F VCl
` C7
J
A a s A Co J
tp N W
A A V V V A A V V O) J J V V V 0 O� ywy T m m m m p; p) m A (wi+ N i' � N C»l
O N
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 3 of 16 March 24, 2010
Camino Sur 8456 20706207 unknown 5S3 SUS _ 1552
Calls Casino - 7839 20707112 1948 5S3 SUS 1559, 1560,1561
Camino Sur 8373 20707201 1946 5S3 PLL 1555,1556
Alta Cuesta Dr 7862 20707208 1952 5S3 SUS 3509-3511
Calls Casino 7895 20707211 - 1935 5S3 PLL 1558
Valle Vista Dr 7894 20708122 1942 5S3 SUS 1547,0692
Valle Vista Dr 7850 20708131 Smith House 1931 5S3 PLL 1542
Valle Vista Dr 7897 20708214- Castellini 1935 est. 5S3 SUS 1545,1546
Foothill BI 8161 20711311 El Tarasco Meat Market 1945 est. 5S3 SUS 3448-3455
Baker Ave 8619 20713253 Stone House 1916• 5S3 PLL 1216, 1217,1218
Arrow Rte 8186 20717128 1936 5S3 SUS 0623
Grove Ave 8681 20723101 1925 5S3 SUS 1300-05
9th St 8151 20724115 1937 5S3 SUS 3519-3521
Calaveras Ave 8734 20724116 Ynostroza House 1936:est. - 5S3 - SUS -1296-99
Grove Ave 8725 20724130 est. 1925 5S3 PLL 3517-3618
Sierra Madre Ave 8764 20724317 - - 1948 5S3 SUS 0620
9th St 8649 20726218 Cask.and Cleaver 1945 5S3 PLL 1252-54;3483-3495
9th St 8607 - 20727119 1905 est. 5S3 SUS 1198,1199
Vineyard Ave 8810 20727123 est.1930 5S3 SUS '1269-71;3479-3482
9th St 8725 20727128 1925 5S3 SUS 1193-1195;3525-
3526
9th St 8847 20727149 - Funco warehouse for cannery 1940 5S3 SUS 1186, 1187
Arrow Rte 8213 20734213/ Eckman House 1926 553 PLL 3528-3525
20734246
9th St 8308 20738110 Winter-Brubaker House 1913 est. 5S3 PLL;5S2 3522-3524
San Bernardino Rd 9398 20811118 1927 est. 5S3 SUS 0637-38
San Bernardino Rd 9346 20811125 = 1915 5S3 not previously 1327-30
surveyed
San Bernardino Rd 9666 20813110 Rahn-Whiting House pre 1913 5S3 PLL UNAVAILABLE
San Bernardino Rd 9658 20813111 - Noel]-Blankenship preI913 5S3 PLL 1352
San Bernardino Rd 9650 20813112 Buehler House 1916 5S3 DLL 1353, 1354
San Bernardino Rd 9638 20813113 Noell House 1913 est. 5S3 " PLL 1350,1351
San Bernardino Rd 9395 20814131 Weber House 1911 5S3 1331-33
Hellman Ave 8001 20814141 1940 5S3- not previously 1311-1317
surveyed
Rancho Cucamonga 2069 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 4 of 16 March 24, 2010
Foothill Bl 9612 20815312 Tapparo 1946 5S3 PLL 1391
Estacia Ct 9605 20815314 George Klusman 1926 est. 5S3 SUS 1361
Estacia Ct 9611 20815315 George Klusman 1925-26 5S3 Sus 1362,1363
Estacia Ct 9619 . 20815316 1927 est. 5S3 SUS 1364, 1365
Estacia Ct 9627 20815317 c.1925 5S3 SUS 1366, 1367,
Hellman Ave 7508 20816228 Vaughn House 1924 est. _5S3 SUS 3882,3883,
Vineyard Ave 8405- 20825112 unknown 5S3 SUS 3530-3532
Archibald Ave 8204 20837714 Jamison House - 1926 5S3 PLL;5S2 3470-3471
San Bernardino Rd - 9498 20852301 Brand House 1916 est. „ - 5S3 SUS 0640-41
Archibald Ave 8847 20906122 La Paloma Market 1915 5S3 PLL 1405, 1406
Feron BI - - 9797 20906128 Iglesia Del Nazareno(Nazarene 1920 est. 5S3 PLL 1408, 1409
Church)
Archibald Ave 8987 20919101 1915 5S3 not previously 1415, 1416
_ - surveyed 7
8th St 9747 20919109 Danner•s Market 1915 est. - 5S3 PLL;6Y 1438, 1439
Belmont Ave 8933 - 20919206 1925 5S3 not previously 1412
surveyed
8thSt 10079 20920104 Lady of Mt Carmel Church 1916 est. SS3 SUS 1446-1453
Center Ave 8925 20924107 1930 5S3 SUS 1461, 1462
23rd St 12966 22512216 1924 5S3 not previously 1842, 1843, 1844
surveyed
Banyan St 13284 22512284 1934 5S3 not previously 1877. 1878, 1883
surveyed _
East Ave - - 6261 22519128 Etiwanda Dairy/Johnson 1888 est. 5S3 SUS 1927-1931
Residence _
Etiwanda Ave 6293 22520130 John Scott 1932 est. 5S3 -PLL 3399-3402
Etiwanda Ave 6892 22704110 Frost 1918 est - 5S3 PLL 1890, 1891, 1892
Etiwanda Ave 6898 22704117 Frost est.1918 5S3 PLL 1893, 1894
Victoria Ave 12996 22706164 John Frost 1915 est. 5S3 PLL - 1906, 1907
Etiwanda Ave 6956 22710108 Pearson 1921 est. 5S3 PLL 1898
Victoria Ave 13325 - 22714129 Fultz House unknown 5S3 PLL 1916, 1917
Victoria Ave 13483 22714143 E.T.Myer - - 1915 est. 5S3 PLL UNavailable
Highland Ave 12583 22741175 Etiwanda Road House, 1926 est. 5S3 - PLL 3392-3395
Etiwanda Ave 6658 22748123 Price House 1893 5$3 PLL 1882, 1884
Hellman Ave _ 5968 - 106222103 lWally Grass House 1931 est. 5S3 SUS- 3534-3536
Hillside Rd - 9926 1107419101 ICherbak 11916 est. 5S3 PLL 1792, 1793, 1794
Hermosa Ave 5510 1107421133 11916 est. 5S3 PLL 3407-3413
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 5 of 16 March 24, 2010
Filkins 6958 107626136 Unknown Approx 1910 5S3 PLL 3887-3889
Hermosa Ave 7609 107728144. Kincaid House 1895 5S3 PLL 1494, 1495
Archibald Ave 7671 107732106 Forster 1916 est. 5S3 SUS 1476
Archibald Ave 7639 107732109 Rehm_ 1916 est. 5S3 SUS 1483, 1478
Archibald Ave 7613 - 107732111 - 1916 est. 5S3 = SUS 1480,1481
Estacia Ct 9664 20815214 Horsch unknown 5S3 PLL 1379;3473,3472
Estacia Ct 9648. 20815206 unknown 5S3 not previously 1380
surveyed
Archibald Ave 9677 unknown - 5S3 not previously 1423,1424, 1425,
surveyed 1426,1427
Madrone Ave WA 20726267 Russian Village est.1920s 5S3 not previously 12551264;3496-
_ surveyed 3503
Wilson Ave 10241 unknown 5S3 not previously 1824-1832
surveyed
Summit Ave(Banyan St) 13008 22512231 Stephens House - 1907 583 PLL 1863, 1864
Etiwanda Ave 6688 - unknown 5S3 not previously 188E
surveyed
East Ave - - 6962 unknown 5S3 not previously 1923, 1924,1925
surveyed
8th St 10147 20922105 - ca. 1935 5S3 not previously 3464-3466
surveyed
Foothill 111929 122902308 Aggazzolti Winery 1938 5S3 IDPIJ 3417,3418
6DQ`Individual properly identifiod through a survey process as a non contnbutorto a,potential local historic district o rs'located wrthm a6Q,arealpe ghbo}hood may'warrant
spe�craltconsideratioil=foglocal-planrrng•r,:��;'." o ... „�;' _ "' .�., -, k'� ., � `� .,v.4 ,:'��' ,. , ���," °`_ � � 3 �.�,
Archibald Ave 6097 20125125 Perdew-Van Fleet 1935 est. - 6DQ SU
S 3539
19th St - 9332 20147409 1930 est. 6DQ SUS 1777
La Vine St 9358 20207102 Perdew 1931 - 6DQ PLL - 1674
La Vine St 9378 20207103 Schmutz 1940 6DQ SUS 1675
La Vine St 9392 20207105 1937 est. 6DQ SUS 1676
La Vine St 9347 20207206 - 1930 6DQ SUS 1673
La Vine St - _ 9403- - 20207212 Bradshaw House 1928 6DQ PLL 1677
La Vine St - 9413 - 20207213 Casterline/Aeschlimann House 1928 6DQ PLL - 1678
s
La Vine St - 9421 20207214 Hamms House 1928 6DQ PLL- 1679
La Vine St 9429 20207215 Wilson House 1929 est. 6DQ SUS 1680
La Vine St - 9437 20207216 Wylie.House 1928 - 6DQ PLL - - 1681
La Vine St 9445 20207217 Bauer House 1928 6DQ - PLL 1682
La Vine St 19461 120207219 11928 6DQj SUSI 1683
D D D r r D r r r r r r r _a r r D r _0 ;u
m �i m m o m m m uri w 3 m u7 y
GI Q A A A A L) L) t7 m < o
N N N `G t N N '� Ot N N D(Di N N N S N N N d N N N N Ol N d Cf N S O CD O
( - < G .�'.. m w. m O O O m w m O 0 0 ^, o ❑ o ❑ o o ❑ o o `c N ,O) S
ui a n a a a a n a n ao O
N O
y y y m N 'N N y W y y coy CA y (A y < ..a G
m W O
N
0
O
O
t0
D7
N
O
O
f0
t0 t0 t0 CA V J (D �O V (O a0 A 4 wW (O W
CA OI fn Oe N N A A '.N A A A_ A A O A N V O� N O N J Oo A W A N tT N N Oo t0 N (n O N N tT V a0 Oi Z O N O) V CA O W O J (O W i W W CA W N N O Ol m J O CP O A N O O N O O fD (D
Vt �
(D
y
C
V1
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N
A N N + O A W t00 AO. W m w OV Ol A V O (T A N W N A W W O A V Of Ut A N O) O
v D m < ; y
EL s s
f o 0 0a
a 2 s y R n
D O N N
(p O
y m
m
0
l0 l0 f0 tp (O (D C1 (O l0 t0 (O � O f0 t0 {p f0 � � fp (O t0 1p (O (O f0 (D tD 'fD t0 f0 f0 tD N O Vt O Vt A � A W OI O) + V. W IO tp J O J Oo A O 0i OI t0 po t0 W po pp p�
O
m m pO AO A0 p0 AOof AOy AOm p0 AOW pOW AOA Aa O 0 O O O 0 O OCA 0 Om Oy OT ' 0 OW 0 0 OCA a Om 0 aAm A Ap 0
0 0A A pm
A p A p A A p p p A A A p p
o
cn
N D N 9 V
2 Z Z
C C C (�- r C C C C C V V y V y c co m y y
y y y
y y r y r r y Mn r y y y (CA a r W N N aZ (CA (Ci) d W a r (CA rr- (CA
n
Ol
N N
°D n D
U O) .W
W N -V O A (O W W O '•�"A 'A .. "(O Vt O tp m N "A T CA O CA O� Vt Ut (� ro O C
W N
O N
m W w w m m m (nw r g D 3 9 g 9 9 9 g g g g .�
�' �' s w m w w 0 o 3 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N
obi fn W (n m w w C 3 m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (O 7
c�D N j N N m N N N N N N N N N tD N N N N N N A (D o
r 0 d d Cr < w < 5 < ''-5 S < < < < S < < < < < < < < 5 < o 0
4i N N N N N » 4' N N 4! .Nn f/1 N N .Nn N N N
< 6 ¢ w w w w w w w w N N w w w w w m w w N N w
-j' a N m co (n m m (n (n(n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n m m w w
m (C1
N
a a 0
0
ra
N
O
O
m a m so m co m m m m m o m m (o �0 so �0 m m �o co m m m (0 so m m co c
J vt o o_ J m rn w w w v, m vt 0+ v, u, u, v, rn m rn m rn rn rn rn rn m m rn m rn
O W W Uf A N (D 0 O1 W W A W J J W W A N O) W W b OJ OD V fli W N
U W A O J U W N N A O O J W (O V W N fT J tp W O A m A W (D
w
C
N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Ol O Vt Vt A QD - - W W W W W .Wa - - - — .W.
O O O O N � A N W V Vt N O A A A A A W W W W W W W N N N N
A tp W fn W O W (O O N O W J m Ut N (p OD W Vt ' W N A W N O J N
W c m 0
o w °1 w Q w o w w m c 3 m m
a 3
= O p 6 n z a W
m d m x w y -
c
N m x 0
� o
f0 J fD (O fm (O f0 N fD f0 (O (O f0 lD (O (O l0 fD f0 (D (O f0 (O l0 f0 N (O f0 (O 10 tD tD
O 0 Ut O N O � Vt W A W W m A A Ol W A m A OI Vt N mt Vt Ut W OI
F N W Imll N N
O
N
rn rn rn m rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn m m m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m m rn rn m
A A O A A A A O D p 0 p 0 0 0 A MC p MC p p p p 0 0 O p 0 0 0 D A
o 0 0
N a N a w 9 m 9 N 9
C C C c m (n 0 m � � m (n m (n CO fn "0 V N co N N N .� N N (n (n w 0 � w 0
m N m N m N m N c c c CH. N c c c C C C r r C c C C C
a r a 7 a� a Q d) (n (n (n a�c (n CO (n (n (n (n r r CO (n (n (n (n r N y y y N CO r COC N
n
w
A � �
� W N M m 0) CD
�
zr
w
W N Ad � . A W W .A OOi m J V J N V ..J N JV V J V J J J A V V V V J J N n
O_
t0 t0 t0 U V A O Of 0) O O O N Vt V N U N tD J W W (T J m N t0 W O N
0 (D
k
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 8 of 16 March 24, 2b10
Etiwanda Ave 7009 22712148 Spense House 1923 est. 6DQ PLL 3396-3398
Etiwanda Ave 6770 108950102 1935 6DQ not previously 1886, 1887, 1888
Archibald Ave 8889 - Owen Electric unknown 6DQ not previously 1428-25
surveyed
Archibald Ave 8943 unknown 6DQ not previously 1422
surveyed
San Bernardino Rd 9389 20814130 1936 6DQ not previously 1334
surveyed
San Bernardino 9378 est.1915-1920 6DQ not previously 0635
surveyed
6Q, Deteripmed Ineligible for local listing or,d signation as.a¢istonc distnct through a sprvey.,process,`may warrant`specral.eonsr ieretrop forlocal piamm�g�" ,.a
Effen St, Dorset St,Stafford St, Multiple N/A Tract No.5591,5593,8892 1957 6Q Not previously 0658-77;.1498-1512
Hermosa Ave;Center Ave, surveyed
Ashford St,Norwick St,Kinlock
Ave
Hellman Ave,San Bernardino Multiple N/A Cucamonga Vineyard Tract Sub 1957 : 6Q Not previously 0627-34;1322-26
Rd,Harvard St,Montara Ave, B,Tract No.5576 surveyed
Selma Ave - -
fiZ Found7nelr�Ible' r NR CR orloeal desr patron tArou`h su a ,evaluation ` '� �� ° , ' x �` 'Liberty 9757 20125156 _ Perdew 1919 est. 6Z .4 SUS Unavailable
Haven Ave 6422 20126230 1924 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
Amethyst Ave 6714 20206115 1924 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
La Grande St 9316 20207201 1955 6Z not previously 1639
surveyed
La Grande St 9446 20207232 1925 - 6Z SDI 1654
La Grande St 9382 20207240 1923 6Z not previously 1645
surveyed
La Grande St 9374-- _-- 20207241 1946 - 6Z not previously - 1646
surveyed
La Grande St - 9396 20207247 1953 6Z not previously 1651
surveyed
Hellman Ave 7087 20207253 1954 6Z not previously 1673
surveyed
La Grande St - 9349 20208104 1948 6Z not previously 1642
surveyed V.
La Grande St 9355 20208105 - 1949 6Z not previously 1643
surveyed
La Grande St 9367 20208106 - 1949 6Z not previously 1644
surveyed
La Grande St 9377 20208107 - 1950 6Z not previously- Unavailable
surveyed
La Grande St 9415 20208111 1950 1 not previously 1652
surveyed
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 9 of 16 March 24, 2010
La Grande St 9475 20208116 1960 6Z not previously 1656
surveyed
Lomita Dr - 9382 20208123 1951 6Z not previously 1618
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9338 20208126 1928 6Z not previously 1607
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9328 - 20208127 - 1950 - 6Z not previously 1605 -
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9318 20208128 1948 6Z not previously 1603
surveyed
La Grande St 9321 20208130 1953 6Z not previously - 1641
surveyed
La Grande St 9431 20208137 1956 6Z not previously 1653
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9430 20208140 Wilson House 1928 est. 6Z SUS 1630
Lomita Dr 9420 = 20208141 1956 6Z not previously 1627
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9410 20208148 1948 6Z not previously 1625
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9375 20208206 1950 6Z not previously 1617
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9397 20208209 1921 6Z SDI 1622
Lomita Dr 9417 20208211 _ 1949 6Z not previously - 1626
surveyed
La Mesa Dr 9376 20208223 1960 6Z not previously 1598
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9353 20208226 Dishman 1937 est. 6Z SUS 1610
Lomita Dr 9333 20208228 Dishman 1937 est. 6Z SUS 1606
La Mesa Dr 9356 20208232 - 1952 _ - 6Z not previously 1595
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9323 20208235 1951 6Z not previously 1604
surveyed
Lomita Dr 9453 20208315 1954 6Z not previously - 1632. 1633
surveyed
La Mesa Dr- 9309 20209126 1950 _ 6Z not previously unavailable
surveyed
La Mesa Dr 9339 20209132 1963 6Z not previously _1596, 1597
surveyed
Amethyst Ave - 6953 20213103 Pilgrim Church - _ 1922 6Z SUS 1771,17,72
11
- Monte Vista St 9522 20213106 1955 6Z not previously 1718
surveyed
Monte Vista St 9532 20213107 1965 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
c gl F d �. °—' m y d d. 3 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N
3 m 0 3 3 m o 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 O
A ;o ^ $ CD 0
d N NNyCD
N N 0 d
m O m m m m m m m m an d m. d m d d O C
p O d (A (A fn f/) '(A f/) fA CO y N .� 0
O) 3
O
7
Dl
N
O
O
O
OD W W W W V Q7 J V J W + J V (O (O fD (O O O O N t0 fD fp (O t0 G O} .tit O) V t0 W Vt V W V N V A W N A W O Vt O1 t0 V1 A dt O N Vt O O fD W W O N A UI t0 N A N fT V OD W OD O CD
W
X
CD
N
C
N
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O 0 0 0 , 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
FL
Ol W N A O � fT N N W Vt O f0 . W {O O V O fD O) N J 0 N W
N O
N
O' y.
ry N
;fl O
S C
O N
d
co
d
2
N
m
O
!O l0 f0 J j {O J fD fD f0 N_ (O fD f0 fD t0 tp l0 (O f0 (D fD lD f0 f0 f0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N . N N N N NN N . N N N N N N
m2c.0�H m2c 0�y. rn c2 � rC • �2c N<_ �C2 N`5. -�cz cN< N �z '0Og ,2N� O05'.�2acm cmc c CO c -
Nam =
N W a K (n co r p) co r co r'.n Z 2� 6�C co 6� G.� d� O O.�G N
n
I
N
O N
t N N o0i 'w a Ut � w o0i V O N S CD
0..,
N ' N N "N ' O V1 NQ Q ' WW
V N d d V Oo A O N N O f0 ' ut W A W m N C) �
O N
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 11 of 16 March 24, 2010
Arrow Rte 8598 20720107 1949 6Z not previously 1224
surveyed
Arrow Rte 8307 20722208 1917 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
Grove Ave 8581,8681 20722201 1954 6Z SUS 1306-08
9th St 8193 20724211 Morales House 1928 est. 6Z SUS 0625
Sierra Madre.Ave 8754 20724316 1950 6Z SUS 0621
Sierra Madre Ave 8745 20724406 1940 est. 6ZI PLL 0616
Sierra Madre Ave 8733 20724407 Milliken House 1932 est. 6Z PLL 0615
Madrone Ave - 8551 20726203 1946 6Z SUS 1230, 1231
Madrone Ave 8535 20726204 - 1946 6Z not previously 1229
surveyed
Arrow Rte 8643 20726238 1946 6Z not previously 1228
' surveyed '
Arrow Rte 8653 20726239. 1959 . 6Z not previously 1226, 1227
surveyed
Baker Ave 8735 20727105 1952 6Z not previously 1210
surveyed
Baker Ave 8723 20727106 - 1952 6Z - not previously - _ 1211
surveyed
Baker Ave 8719 20727107 1954 6Z not previously 1213, 1214
surveyed
9th St 8521 20727108 1952 6Z not.previously 1215
surveyed
8th St 8880 _ 20727133 Stevie Dee's Cafe and Bertino 1961 6Z not previously 123943
Auto Service surveyed
Baker Ave 8817 20727139 1954. 6Z not previously 1249
surveyed
Carnelian St 7412 20749102 1920's est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
9th St 8427 20753128 - 1953 6Z not previously 0600
surveyed
9th St 8431 20753129 1956 6Z not previously 0599
surveyed
9th St 8395 - 20753172 1936 6Z not previously 0602
surveyed ,
Baker Ave 8466 20759127 1957 - 6Z not previously 0610
surveyed
Arrow Rte 8488 20759129 - 1954 6Z not previously 0609
surveyed
Arrow Rte 8432 20759133 1952 6Z not previously - 0608
surveyed
Arrow Rte 8420 20759134 - 1955 6Z not previously 0607
surveyed
m0
WT W;s:i Ol>•; ' O]..•
M � � M � Q M � � M M M M m m m M � •_
"• d• O) N j m � > � N Ni n _ N (7 tf1 �(j � �
(0 ap
� � M
m
L
m T.a 'J (n (n m (n
O v Q d IL d 1 y LL O O O O d O O T c T O T O T O T O T O O T d 7 (n W
O O O O d O m O m O d O m O m m O m m m m m
'� � m � 'S 2 •-> 2. > 2 '> 2 -> 2 •g 2 `> 2 •> 2 > 2 •> 2. •9, 2 �> 2 ].
y $ n n a 0-
o
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
C
O O O O •O O m m � m m m m
rn m m rn m m m rn m m m rn rn rn � m m rn rn
2
N c
m
o E
3 2 g d
m m m 0 M Q Q O m N m m N A m A N m O N M aD a m m 0 A A m m m ' m m ''W 00 a0. W W m m m ro W Op W OD W m W aD N N' W am0 m
7
N
a
71 O m A A
L N N A m m T Q A m m m M O N Q Q M A M N m m W O M r r A r m M M M M M m O O O m m m m O O Q
m m A r r r n r m rn rn m rn m m rn m m m m rn. rn m r m rn m
co
0
O
N
(0
m
c
0'
a
m m
U O O
m 'm W m c m m m m
U O > > > > > v a > > > m >
m. m Q Q Q Q Q m m Q Q Q > Q
L m m fL m m m w m m, m
m 5 'c m a a a .E •a •� E t 3 a
O O OOOO
OO O O O O mC G L2mO Q L ,W.AN. W.mm. W.mm.. Wd CC m m O Ot
U
2 LL Q Q
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 13 of 16 March 24, 2010
Beryl Ave 7411 20892101 - unknown 6Z PLL 3514-3515
Center Ave 8807 20912201 Market 1920 6Z PLL Unavailable
Hellman Ave 9022 20915129 unknown 6Z SUS Unavailable
Hellman Ave 9024 20915130 unknown 6Z SUS Unavailable
Archibald Ave 8981 20919102 1940 6Z not previously 1417
surveyed
Archibald Ave 8971 20919103 1930 6Z ,not previously 1418
surveyed
Archibald Ave _ 8959 20919104 1945 6Z not previously 1419
surveyed
Belmont Ave 8930 20919110 - 1920 .6Z not.previously 14�10
surveyed
Belmont Ave 8938 20919111 1930 6Z not previously . -1411
surveyed
Belmont Ave 8944 20919112 1925 6Z not previously 1413
surveyed
8th St - 9725 - 20919116 1952 - 6Z SUS Unavailable
Belmont Ave 8949 20919204 1925 6Z not previously 1414
surveyed
8th St 9797 20919212 Stipe 1916 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
Hermosa Ave 9212 20921141 1916 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
Center Ave 8933 20924106 1920 6Z SUS Unavailable
Center Ave _ 9007 20925106 1926 6Z not previously 1463
surveyed
Etiwanda Ave 6084 22511105. Grover Henderson 1932 est 6Z PLL Unavailable
Etiwanda Ave 5938 22511112 " Fred Henderson 1921est 6Z PLL Unavailable
Etiwanda Ave 5992 22511136 - 1960 - 6Z not previously 1861
surveyed
23rd St 12946 22512217 1950 6Z not previously 1841
surveyed
23rd St - 12922 22512219 1965 6Z not previously 1840
surveyed
Etwanda Ave 5913 22512220 Perdew 1916 est.,1936 6Z PLL 1858, 1860
Etiwanda Ave 5927 22512221 - Perdew 1895 est. - 6Z PLL 1859
Etiwanda Ave 5939 22512222 1961 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
23rd St 12983 22512225 E.Clark 1897 est. - 6Z 7N(applies to weir 1849,1850, 1851,
box only) 1852
Etiwanda Ave 5995 22512228 Walter Henderson 1955 6Z PLL - 186,
Summit Ave 6060 22512235 1964 6Z not previously 187'I
surveyed
a
i
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 14 of 16 March 24, 2010
t
Summit Ave 13066 22512237 1962 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
Summit Ave 6061 22612251 1964 6Z not previously 1867
surveyed
Etiwanda Ave 5959 22512259 Raymond Henderson 1934 est 6Z PLL Unavailable
- Summit Ave 6081 22512278 1960 6Z not previously 1865
surveyed
Summit Ave 13100 22512279 1960 6Z not previously 1872
surveyed
Summit Ave 6071 22512280 - 1937 6Z not previously 1866
surveyed
Summit Ave 6051 22512287 1963 6Z not previously 1868
surveyed
Highland Ave 12710 22517118 1923 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
Highland Ave 13151 22705106 Kemp 1932 est. 6Z DPI/DEM Unavailable
Etiwanda Ave 6655 22705110 1955 6Z not previously 1881
surveyed
Etiwanda Ave 6795 22706101 1946 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
Etiwanda Ave 6893 22706113 Segan 1953 6Z SDI 1895, 1896
Victoria Ave 12952 22706122 1956 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
Victoria Ave 12930 22706124 1956 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
Etiwanda Ave 6771 22706131 1954 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
Etiwanda Ave 6781 22706136 1953 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
Victoria Ave 13132 22706176 Allen 1915 est. 6Z PLL 1913
Etiwanda Ave 7066 22710109 Huber-Harne 1958 est. 6Z PLL 1903, 1904
Etiwanda Ave 7256 22711110 Johanning/Johnston 1900 est. 6Z PLL Unavailable
East Ave 6990 22712136 Jones - unknown 6Z PLL 1922
Baseline Rd 12906 22713117 Gas Station 1915 est. 6Z PLL Unavailable
Etiwanda Ave 7257 22713119 Gardner 1917 est. 6Z SUS 1932
Victoria Ave 13537 22714144 Donnelly 1923 est. - 6Z PLL 3387-3389
Baseline Rd 12659 22717119 Malpasuto 1938 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
Baseline Rd 12951 22718120 1915 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
Miller Ave 13104 22718123 est. 1965 6Z SUS 3386
Etiwanda Ave 8062 22722114 Ingvaldsen Home Approx. 1915 6Z PLUDEM Unavailable
Foothill BI 12854 22722126 Ingvaldsen unknown 6Z SUS/DEM Unavailable
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 15 of 16 March 24, 2010
Highland Ave 13719 22801118 Tibbets 1937 est. 6Z SUS Unavailable
Rochester 8171 22902131 unknown 6Z SUS Unavailable
Pecan Ave 8692 22915111 1946 6Z not previously 1934, 1935, 1939
surveyed
Hellman Ave 5454 106138104 1962 6Z not previously 3884-3885
surveyed
Hillside Rd 9292 106138106 1957 6Z not previously 1796
surveyed
Hillside Rd 9280 106138107 = 1964 6Z not previously 1797
surveyed
Banyan St 9655 106240106 - unknown 6Z SUS - 3886
Archibald Ave 7663 107732107 Mathis 1916 est. 6Z SUS 1474
Archibald Ave - 7649 107732108 Carman 1916 est. 6Z SUS 1477
Archibald Ave 7627 107732110 Beakman House - 1916 est. 6Z SUS 1479
Foothill BI 10385 20833124-26 HH Thomas&.Milliken 1912 6Z SUS 7 SBR- Unavailable
10,329H
9th St - 8810 20726235 Nick's House unknown 6Z - not previously 1189,1190, 1191
surveyed
8th St 8738 20726228 unknown 6Z not previously 1192
surveyed
8th St 8593 20727118 unknown 6Z not previously 1201, 1202
surveyed
8th St 8581 20727117 unknown 6Z not previously 1203, 1204, 1205
surveyed
8th St 8553 20727110 unknown - 6Z not previously Unavailable
surveyed
Baker Ave 8743 20727104 unknown 6Z not previously 1212
surveyed =i
Arrow Rte 8380 unknown 6Z not previously 1280
surveyed
Arrow Rte 8368 unknown 6Z not previously - 1281
surveyed Jli
Vinmar Ave 8742 20724215 1934 6Z SUS 1295
Church St,Arroyo Vista Ave, Multiple WA Cucamonga Vineyard Tract Sub. est. 1957. 6Z Not previously 0678-87;1519-28;
Sacramento Ave,.San Diego Ave, C,,Tract No.6968 surveyed t;
Vineyard Ave,Camelian Ave
Tryon St,Archibald Ave, Multiple N/A - Tract No.7072,5017 est. 1957 6Z Not previously 0650-57;1464-73
Malachite Ave,Leucite Ave,
surveyed
Klusman Ave,Jadeite Ave
9th and Vineyard SW comer 120727152 JjAuto Service junknown - 6ZI SDI 1233-38
Grove Ave 8591 20722227 est.1920 6ZI SUS Unavailable
7R Identifiedmrecgnoaissance`level suryey:,Not evaluated
Rancho Cucamonga 2009 Survey Results Chattel Architecture
Page 16 of 16 March 24, 2010
Hermosa Ave 7802 0 unknown 7R PLL 3478
La Vine St(7033 Hellman) 9311 20207203/ 1934 7R SUS 1671
20207122
La Vine St 9339 20207205 1948 7R SUS 1672
Ramona 7124 20218118 Wagner 1915 est. 7R PLL Unavailable
Valle Vista Dr 7751 20706217 1935 7R SUS 1551
Archibald Ave 7404 20803117 1916 est. 7R SUS Unavailable
Archibald Ave 7602 20804110 Beattie 1916 est. 7R SUS Unavailable
San Bernardino Rd 9630 20813114 Morris-Gakle House 1913 est. 7R PLL;3S 1345
Hellman Ave 7137 20839301 Billings House 1928 7R PLL - 1319-1321
Hellman Ave 7984 20839301 Earl&Stella Ledig House 1927 est. 7R SUS 3477
Beryl Ave 7431 20892102 unknown 7R SUS 3516
Archibald Ave 9524 21006210 Lucas Ranch House 1910 7R PLUPNR Unavailable
23rd St 13005 22512233 1930 7R 1854, 1855
Etiwanda Ave, 5949 22512233 Perdew/Fetrow/Orr 1930 7R PLL 3404
Banyan Ave 13108 22512239 Allen Hickcox 1921 est. 7R SUS 1873, 1874, 1875,
1876
23rd St 13149 22512242 1904 7R Unavailable
Victoria Ave 13106 22706169 Allen 1899 est. 7R PLL Unavailable
Baseline Rd 13104 22713134 Brownless unknown '7R SUS 3856-3877
Baseline Rd 12481 22746117 Ironbark,Fillipi Winery Site unknown 7R SUS 3385
Highland Ave/see 6558 9893 107605102 Goerlitz House(Herbert& 1926 _ 7R PNR(DLL) Unavailable
Hermosa Evelyn)
Hermosa Ave/see 9893 6558 107605102,03 Herbert Goerlitz House unknown 7R PNR(DLL) 3414
Highland
9th St Southern Pacific Railroad Trestle unknown 7R PLL Unavailalle
8th St 8705 20727114 unknown 7R 1196,1197
East Ave 16956 1 1unknown 7RI 1921
Archibald Ave 15647 unknown 7RI 3547
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Historic Context Statement
Prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
Revised March 24, 2010
EXHIBIT C --- �
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction...................................................................:............................................................
.3
Context: Early Settlement (1811-1876).....................:.................................................................3
Context: Acquisition of Land and Water (1877-1946)..................................................................4
Theme: Acquisition of Land and Water(1877-1946) ......................................................4
Theme: Chinese Immigrant Workers (1880-1900)..........................................................6
Theme: Flood Control(1862-1976)................................................................................7
Context: Railroad Development and the Agriculture Industry (1887-1970)... ..............................7
Theme: Town Development: Cucamonga, Alta Loma, and Etiwanda (1887-1945).......... 7
Theme: High Winds'(1877-1960) ...................................................................................9
Theme: Winemaking (1858-1970)................................................................................. 10
Context: Route 66 (1926-1970) ................................................................................................ 11
Context: Postwar Development (1945-1977) ............................................................................ 12
Context: Consolidation and Incorporation (1977-2010)............................................................. 13
References............................................................................................................................... 14
Page 2 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Historic Context Statement for the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
INTRODUCTION
Situated at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in San Bernardino County, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga is a bustling metropolis located approximately 45 miles east of Los Angeles and 40 miles
northeast of Orange County. It was incorporated in 1977, consolidating the three towns of Cucamonga,
Alta Loma and Etiwanda into one municipality. Given its fertile soil, temperate climate, and access to
an ample supply of water, agriculture developed as the main industry in Rancho Cucamonga beginning
in the latter half of the 19th century, when farmers and vintners began producing a variety of crops,
particularly citrus fruits and grapes for wine-making. Although the local agriculture industry has
changed over time.due to a variety of factors, including technological advancement and transportation
improvements, agriculture remains a recognizable, although fading, feature of Rancho Cucamonga's
physical landscape.
Having recently undergone the rapid population growth characteristic of many cities in the Inland
Empire, Rancho Cucamonga's population grew about 10 percent, or, 15,000 people, between 2003 and
2005;1 as of January 2009, it boasted a population of 177,736. While the rate of population increase
has lessened somewhat in recent years, it is predicted that the number of people living in San
Bernardino County will increase by approximately one million people by the year 2030.2 Reflecting this
trend, the rapidly expanding urban environment has consumed much of the agricultural land that once
characterized the area. As it is a goal'of the General Plan to determine the best path for future growth,
it is appropriate to consider how the City's significant historic resources, including non-architectural
resources such as historic landscapes, will be preserved in the face of urban growth and change. The
following narrative contains a developmental history of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, organized by
significant historic contexts and themes. It is not meant to be the definitive history of the City but rather
a tool for evaluation of historic resources.
CONTEXT: EARLY SETTLEMENT(1811-1876)
Originally inhabited by Indian tribes, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been a center of land
development opportunity since Franciscan priests and Spanish soldiers entered and began their
occupation of the area in the late 18th century. The name "Cucamonga," a Shoshone word for "sandy
place," first appeared in a written record of the San Gabriel Mission dated 1811. As a result of the
secularization of the missions in 1831, the land owned by the missions was divided into land grants;
including the 13;000 acre Rancho Cucamonga, granted to Los Angeles City Council president and
businessman Tiburcio Tapia in 1839. The Rancho Cucamonga was defined by El Camino Real on its
southern border, the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, the San Antonio Creek to the west and
present-day Etiwanda Avenue to the east. Tapia built his home on the top of visually prominent Red
Hill, planted some of Rancho Cucamonga's first vineyards, and built a small winery, which would later
be enlarged and reestablished as the Thomas Winery in 1933 and then again as.the Filippi"Vineyards
winery in 1967.3 Portions of the historic winery buildings, located at the northeast corner of Foothill
t The County population increased:by only 5.74 percent during the same time(2008 Regional Transportation Plan Growth Forecast,
Southern California Association of Government(SCAG).
P Ibid.
3 Donald L.Clucas. Light Over the Mountain. Upland:California Family House Publishers, 1979,70.
Page 3 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, are currently being reused for commercial purposes.
Upon the death of Tapia in 1845, Tapia's daughter, Maria Merced Tapia de Prudhomme, became the
sole heir of the Rancho Cucamonga. Maria Merced's husband, Leon Victor Prudhomme, assumed
control of the rancho and eventually sold it to John Rains in 1858. Rains significantly expanded the
vineyards, planting approximately 125,000 to 150,000 vines. He was found murdered in 1862 and soon
after his death, his widow, Dona Maria Merced Williams de Rains, inherited the ranch property. She
encountered financial problems and the property fell into foreclosure, ultimately marking the close of the
rancho way of life in the Cucamonga region.
.CONTEXT: ACQUISITION OF LAND AND WATER(1877-1946)
Theme: Acquisition of Land and Water(1877-1946)
Development of the three towns of Cucamonga, Alta Loma, and Etiwanda began in the late 1870s and
1880s as a direct result of acquisition and distribution of land and water and the availability of rail transit
through the region. Following Native American occupation of the Cucamonga Valley, the earliest
documented use of local water sources was by Tiburcio Tapia at his winery, utilizing water from
Cucamonga Creek around the year 1839. By the 1880s, large-scale efforts to distribute a reliable
supply of water to Rancho Cucamonga lands were underway. As described in detail below, several
individuals were particularly instrumental in bringing water to Rancho Cucamonga, including Isaias
Hellman, largely responsible for bringing water to Cucamonga in 1887, Adolph Petsch, involved in early
acquisition of land and distribution of water throughout Alta Loma beginning in,1881, and George and
William Chaffey (Chaffey Brothers), who implemented an innovative irrigation system in Etiwanda in the
early 1880s.
9
LM1
i M1 I
Figure 1:View of Cucamonga Valley vineyards looking north, 1942(Los Angeles Public Library)
Cucamonga: In 1870, Jewish immigrant Isaias Hellman, a prominent Los Angeles businessman and
one of the original 23 founders of the Farmers and Merchants Bank in Downtown Los Angeles, along
with several of his associates, came into ownership of the Rancho Cucamonga at a cost of
approximately $50,000° They immediately sold a small amount of the land, turning a quick profit, and
°Sources differ slightly in their descriptions of how Hellman obtained the rancho. Stoebe states that as president of the Fanners
and Merchants Bank in Los Angeles,Isaias W.Hellman had given the Rains Family their mortgage on the rancho property and that Hellman
ultimately foreclosed on the mortgage and obtained title to the entire property on May 9, 1871 (Martha Gaines Stcebe. History of Alta Loma,
California, 1880-1980. Rancho Cucamonga:City of Rancho Cucamonga,2001,3). Clucas,on the other hand,simply states that Hellman
purchased the ranch for$49,000 in 1871 (Clucas,48). Also differing slightly,Dinkenspiel writes that the rancho was sold in a sheriffs auction
Page 4 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
kept the remaining 8,000 acres. Under a newly-formed partnership, Cucamonga Company,5 Hellman
and his associates subdivided the residual acreage and oversaw restoration of the local vineyards
(originally planted by John Rains) and winery, later to become the site of the Thomas Winery a The
result of this effort made Cucamonga Valley,"the biggest winemaking estate in California.i7 Some
Cucamonga Company lands were sold, ultimately comprising portions of Alta Loma and Etiwanda. In
order to obtain and bring water to Cucamonga lands, Isaias Hellman and his associates oversaw a
dramatic effort tunneling horizontally into Cucamonga Canyon in the San Gabriel Mountains to the
north to access water from natural mountain springs. Local Chinese immigrants served as the majority
of the labor force for this project. Water was delivered to Cucamonga in 1887 and land in the area
began to sell quickly.8 In 1895, the Cucamonga Company became the Cucamonga Vineyard
Company, incorporated and controlled solely by Isaias Hellman, who continued to manage vineyard
and winemaking operations.
Etiwanda: The first European settlers came to the Etiwanda Colony, located in the eastern portion of
Rancho Cucamonga, in the early 1860s.9 Having made his fortune in the California gold mines,
Captain Joseph S. Garcia (1823-1902) of the Azores Islands (located off the coast of Lisbon, Portugal),
purchased a large amount of land in the Cucamonga Valley and, in 1881, sold off much of the land
comprising Etiwanda-560 acres—to brothers George and William Chaffey for $30,000. This purchase
included Garcia's house and the water rights to local water sources, including.Day Canyon and a creek
to the east.10 The Chaffeys made other land purchases in the Etiwanda area over time, eventually
creating a tract of over 7,500 acres.11 They named the colony "Etiwanda" after an Indian chief who had
been a friend of their uncle.12
The Chaffeys implemented an innovative system of gravity irrigation by subdividing their land into 10-
acre blocks and creating a network of cement pipes that distributed water evenly to each land parcel
(figs 14-15). They created the Mutual Water Company in 1882 (later renamed the Etiwanda Water
Company) organized around the notion that company members share equally in available water,
allowing land owners furthest from the local water source to retain a share of water equal to that of land
owners nearest the water source. The Chaffeys' system of�ravity irrigation and equal access to water
was revolutionary for its time and their land sold quickly. 3 The brothers went on to successfully
develop similar irrigation systems in the neighboring community of Ontario and then in areas of
Australia in the mid-to late-1 880s.14
Alta Loma: In 1880, Pasadena-based horticultural land developer Adolph Petsch and a group of
associates purchased 160,acres of land in northern Alta Loma from a man named Henry Reed"5 and
named the land Hermosa. They also purchased the water rights to, nearby Deer and Adler Canyons
in 1870 and that Isaias purchased the land for$49,8% He does not directly state that Isaias purchased the land at the auction,only that the
land was purchased at an auction(Frances Dinkenspiel. Towers of Gold:How One Jewish Immigrant Named Isaias Hellman Created
California. New York:St.Martin's Press,2008, 102).
5 James D.Hofer, Cucamonga tines and Vines.,A History of the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association,Master of Arts thesis,
Claremont Graduate School,30 March 1983,53;20.
°Hofer,54.
Dinkelspiel, 102.
aClucas,61.
°Etiwanda:The First 100 Years,3.
10 Edwanda:The First 100 Years,5.
11 Etiwanda:The First 100 Years,5.
12 Clucas,203. The Indian chief appears to have been from the Michigan area.
13 Clucas,208-209..
16 Clucas,209.
15 In 1875,,Mr.Henry Reed,a settler from Missouri,purchased the 160 acres of land and water rights to Deer Canyon and its
tributaries(later sold to Adolph Petsch)from Mr.William Whitfield,a'settler who came to California at an unknown date(in the mid-1800s),
settling in Etiwanda prior to Isaias Hellman's purchase of land in the Cucamonga area. After settling in Etiwanda,Whitfield purchased the
same 160 acres of land(later sold to Petsch),becoming the first settler in the area to purchase land from the Cucamonga Homestead
'Association(Stoebe,3-4).
Page 5 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
and formed the Hermosa Land and Water Company in 1881. In 1883, they purchased more land in
present-day Alta Loma establishing the "Iowa Tract' on.500 acres. The 'Iowa Tract was joined with
Hermosa in 1887 and the entire area was renamed loamosa. The Hermosa Land and Water Company
was incorporated in the same year to handle the consolidated land holdings, which mounted to over
700 acres. Petsch and the Hermosa Land and Water Company were able to sell lands quickly because
of their ability to supply each parcel with a dependable supply of water, using a method of irrigation
similar to that which was being used in Etiwanda. The Alta Loma area produced high quantities of
citrus fruits, including.lemons, oranges, and grapefruit beginning in the 1880s and continued to grow
citrus on a large scale for the next 60 years.16 loamosa was renamed Alta Loma when colonists
determined that a new town should be built along the incoming Pacific Electric Railway in 1913.
Theme: Chinese Immicirarit Workers 0880-1900)
M0-19 century immigrants to the United States became an essential component of the labor force
throughout the country and in California in particular.17 Chinese immigrants comprised a significant—
and essential—portion of the working class in many American cities, working as railroad,builders,
laborers, merchants, servants, miners, waiters, .and more.18 While the Gold Rush of 1848 was the
initial force that drew Chinese immigrants to California, the need for laborers to build railroads and dig
tunnels for water created an ample supply of work that kept Chinese immigrants in the area for the
latter half of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th century.19 In 1885, the local agriculture
industry in Rancho Cucamonga began to require greater investment in securing local water sources
and Chinese workers became the primary labor force responsible for dredging and constructing tunnels
(still in use today) under stream beds to access water.20. Approximately 700 Chinese immigrants
resided in Rancho Cucamonga by 1890,21 living together in a settlement known locally as "Chinatown,"
which consisted of 12 houses clustered together along the south side,of San Bernardino Road between
Hellman Avenue and what is now Klusman Avenue (figs 6, 7 and 10)22 The majority of the Chinese
left Rancho Cucamonga after 1890 and had almost entirely vacated the region by about 1920.23 The
United States Census reports approximately 57 Chinese living in Cucamonga in 1900 and almost no
Chinese living in either Cucamonga or Etiwanda by 1930, although these figures do not include
residents of Alta Loma.24
Theme: Flood Control (1862-1976)
Given its location in an alluvial fan at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, Rancho Cucamonga has
historically been prone to flooding from water rushing down the hillside. Major flooding in the City is
recorded as occurring in the years 1862, 1914, 1927, 1938, 1943, and 1969, although the first
measurement for Cucamonga Creek and its floods did not occur until 1927 25 Early flood control
strategies included construction of storm drains, and formation of a storm water district to include the
whole of Cucamonga Valley. As a result of the 1.914 flood, the earliest noted flood control works on
Cucamonga Creek took place and included an interception ditch constructed by local ranchers to catch
'0 Stoebe;24.
17 Richard A.Walker. California's Golden Road to Riches.,Natural Resources and Regional Capitalism, 1848-1940,Annals of the
Association of American Geographers,Vol.91,No. 1 (Mar.,2001), 167-199, 180.
18 In his book on Chinese agricultural workers in California in 1860-1910,author Sucheng Chan summarizes,"Though the Chinese
who earned a living in agriculture on a regular basis never numbered more than six or seven thousand and represented only 10 to 15 percent
of the total Chinese population in the state,even at the height of their prosperity in the last two decades of the nineteenth century,they played
an important role in the development of California agriculture,and the nature of that involvement,in turn, influenced the evolution of Chinese
communities in rural California"(Sucheng Chan. This Bittersweet Soil:The Chinese in California Agriculture, 1860-1910. Berkeley: University
of California press, 1986, 1-2.).
"Bernice Conley. Pages from the Past. "Nationalities abound Locally,"July 27, 1980.
20 Clucas,61.
21 Conley,"Nationalities abound.Locally,"July 27, 1980.
22 Clucas,84.
21 Conley,"Nationalities abound Locally,"July 27, 1980.
2 Chan, 1-2. Note:population figures for Chinese may be understated.
25 San Bernardino County Flood Control District,"Cucamonga Creek, 1776-1976,After 200 Years,"8.
Page 6 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
the overflow streams of Cucamonga Creek and carry them easterly to the main channel above 19th
Street.,26 High stone curbs have also historically been used throughout the City as a flood control
mechanism. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, a series of walls and structures were built in
the foothills above the City by unemployed young men working at a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)
camp as part of a Works Progress Administration (WPA) project. The 1969 flood caused an estimated
$13.5 million in damages.27 In 1976, construction of a permanent flood control project for the
confinement and control of Cucamonga Creek began and the estimated cost at the time of construction
was $100 million.28
Figure 2: View from water channel in San Gabriel Mountains south into Cucamonga Valley, 2009 (Chattel Architecture)
CONTEXT: RAILROAD AND AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT (1887-1970)
Theme: Town Development: Cucamonga, Alta Loma, and Etiwanda (1887-1945)
Construction of railroads through the Cucamonga Valley allowed for tremendous growth of the local
agriculture industry, the success of land sales, and subsequent development of the towns of
Cucamonga (including the North Town neighborhood), Alta Loma and Etiwanda. Similar to other
Southern California boomtowns,29 construction of railroads through the region created a rapid increase
in local development, enabling both people and goods to move in and out of Rancho Cucamonga at
what was for the time an unprecedented speed, which dramatically increased agricultural production
and sales. From the early 1900s to the 1950s, the northern portion of the Cit�'s landscape consisted of
mostly citrus groves while the southern portion was dominated by vineyards.3
Cucamonga: The Town of Cucamonga has been identified as a boomtown built in anticipation of the
Santa Fe Railway,31 completed through the region in 1887. The availability of rail transit created a
dramatic increase in the price of land sold in Cucamonga. The Cucamonga Fruit Land Company sold
off parcels of land at high profit margins, selling parcels that in 1886 had been selling for $70 per acre
for$150-$250 dollars per acre just one year later in 1887.32 Subsequently, the local agriculture industry
flourished during this time, with huge varieties of crops grown, including grapes, citrus, apricots, pears,
21 San Bernardino County Flood Control District,"Cucamonga Creek, 1776-1976,After 200 Years," 10.
27 San Bernardino County Flood Control District,"Cucamonga Creek, 1776-1976,After 200 Years,"22.
29 San Bernardino County Flood Control District,"Cucamonga Creek, 1776-1976,After 200 Years,"22.
2°Rail lines built in Southern California created a huge population boom in the region. The City of Los Angeles grew from 6,000 to
over 50,000 people in the 20 year period from 1870 to 1890. The majority of cities incorporated in the Los Angeles area in the late 1800s
experienced early growth due to availability of railways. (David Brodsly. "L.A. Freeway,An Appreciative Essay." Berkeley:University of
California Press, 1981,63;68-69).
30 Bob Hickcox. Rancho Cucamonga Oral History Project, Interview by Knox Mellon,13 Dec 1991,Introduction.
" Brodsly,67-68.
92 The Cucamonga Fruit Land Company was created in 1886 and in 1887 it purchased all previously unsold land of the Cucamonga
Rancho(approximately 9,000 acres)(Clucas, 51;60).
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
peaches, olives, figs, walnuts, chestnuts, almonds, hay grain, and potatoes.33 A flurry of commercial
development followed, including the opening of the North Cucamonga Hotel in 1889, with construction
centered on what is today San Bernardino Road west of Archibald Avenue.34
Figure 3: Citrus packing house on Santa Fe Railway, looking toward Archibald Avenue from 8`°'Street,d: 1920(Donald
Clucas, Light Over the Mountain:A History of the Rancho Cucamonga Area. Upland:California Family House, 1979,77).
Cucamonga developed in the 1880s as an agricultural community (figs 1-5) with a small commercial
core centered on Archibald Avenue, connected the center of Cucamonga to the Santa Fe Railway and
community of North Town to the south (figs 6-9). Estacia Court, located one block south of San
Bernardino Road, between Klusman and Archibald Avenues, was developed with modest single-family
Craftsman and Wood-Frame Vernacular bungalows, .the majority of which were constructed by 1929,
with at least five constructed prior to 1915 (fig 12). The nearby portion of Foothill Boulevard to the
south was also initially developed with mostly residential properties, including modest single-family
residences constructed around the same time as those on Estacia Court, although many of these
homes have been demolished or significantly altered. Available records indicate that the Klusman
Brothers (John, George and Henry) developed the majority of the residences on Estacia Court and
sections of Foothill Boulevard from the early 1910s through the 1930s. Each brother also made
significant contributions to local development citywide.
John Klusman was cofounder of the Mission Winery (later renamed Virginia Dare Winery), developer of
the Sycamore Inn on Foothill Boulevard and First National Bank of Cucamonga (later became Bank of
America) and president of the Cucamonga Water District for years.35 He developed numerous
properties throughout the City.36 Klusman Avenue was named after John, who requested the road be
constructed to connect San Bernardino Road to Foothill Boulevard, providing convenient access from
his office at the Water District (located at the southeast corner of San Bernardino Road and Klusman
Avenue).37 George Klusman was president of the First National Bank of Cucamonga and was also
president of the Cucamonga Citrus Association and 'one of the most noted potato producers in all of
Southern California.i38 Henry Klusman planted vineyards and grew citrus, was involved in concrete
irrigation system construction, and developed buildings throughout the City39 including the Alta Loma
33 Clucas,63.
Clucas,53. ..
35 Clucas, 108.
3B John Klusman's House,constructed in 1928 and designed by Los Angeles-based fine Allison&Allison,is currently extant at 8841
Foothill Boulevard,located just east of Vineyard Avenue. (City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmarks and Points of Interest,May 2006,
21,52;Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of area, 1929).
31 Clucas,108.
33 Clucas,108;City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic Landmark Designation for 9113 Foothill Boulevard(George
Klusman House),prepared by Maxine Strane,January 1987.
39 Clucas, 107.
Page 8 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
School in 1921, located at 9488 19th Street (extensively remodeled in the 1960s and restored to its
original appearance in the 1990s)40
Between 1916 and 1927, John Klusman developed at least four bungalows on Foothill Boulevard in
the historic Cucamonga town center, located 9618-9642 Foothill (all four were demolished in 1993,
currently site of vacant lot west of the historic Richfield Oil Station). George and Henry Klusman were
responsible for construction of at least six bungalows (located at 9424-9494 Foothill Boulevard) on this
stretch of Foothill Boulevard in or around 1934, all of which were demolished 2004-200541 This
collection of development has been referred to as the "Klusman Trak.i42 Two additional historic
bungalows on this segment of Foothill Boulevard are extant, located at 9612 Foothill Boulevard
(constructed c. 1946) and northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Klusman Avenue, In addition,
approximately six similar bungalows (developer'unknown) constructed in the 1930s and 1940s are
located just east of Hellman Avenue and west of the "Main Street at Route 66" development, although
these bungalows as a group tend to lack architectural integrity and several have been significantly
altered and converted to commercial use. Available records indicate that the Klusmans are responsible
for construction of at least two bungalows on Estacia Court, likely more.43
As early as 1887, San Bernardino Road acted as an important road linking Cucamonga with the
neighboring community of Ontario to the west, terminating at Euclid Avenue in Ontario and ending near
present-day Milliken Avenue to the east. Important community buildings, including a post office, school
(extant, fig 13), rooming house for migrant workers (extant, fig 11) and hotel, were located on San
Bernardino Road between Vineyard and Archibald Avenues. Cucamonga Water Company reservoir
(not extant) and office buildings (currently site of Chino Basin.Watermaster office, located at 9641 San
Bernardino Road) were located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and present-day
Klusman Avenue by at least 1913 (A map of Cucamonga dated c. 1886 indicates a reservoir was
present on the site as early as1886 (figs 4, 6, 7 and 9).
A group of homes housing Chinese immigrant workers, known locally as "Chinatown," was located at
the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and present-day Klusman Avenue in the late 1880s.
Only one building associated with the early Chinese community in Rancho Cucamonga remains,
constructed c. 1919. This site may yield significant archaeological resources. San Bernardino was
terminated at Archibald Avenue to the east as early as 1913 (fig 6); either the Pacific Electric Railway,
built through Rancho Cucamonga in 1914, or the channelized Cucamonga Creek, both of which
intersect San Bernardino Road, appear to have severed San Bernardino Road to the west. San
Bernardino Road retains a collection of important historic resources, including single-family Craftsman
and wood-frame vernacular homes extant from the early 1900s.
North Town: Named for its position to the township of Guasti (a self-contained wine company town) to
the south 44 and situated directly on the Santa Fe Railway south of the historic Cucamonga town center
(figs 31-38), North Town developed in the early 1900s as a neighborhood for agricultural workers (figs
39-42). By the 1930s it had become a community of Mexican immigrants who had moved to the region
looking for work during the Great Depression, eagerly answering the demand for agricultural laborers to
pick grapes, maintain vineyards and work picking and packing citrus45 The community was for a time a
`0 City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmarks and Points of Interest,May 2006,29.
41 City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic,Landmarks and Points of Interest,May 2006,52.
"California Department of Parks and Recreation'523a survey forth for 9474 Foothill Boulevard;by Lynn Merrill,September 1987.
"City of Rancho Cucamonga Application for Historic Landmark and Point of Interest Designation fors for 9506 and9611 Estacia
Court,comgleted:by Arlene Banks,March 1988.
Max van Balgooy. "North Town:A.Disregarded Community,A focus on the 1930s,"Paper for Dr.Carlos Cortes,Chicano Studies
2, 1980.2 Dec 1980,1.
45 Balgooy,2-3.
Page 9 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
distinctly defined land area surrounded by vineyards, orchards, and empty fields on all sides.46 In the
early 1900s, several other Latino neighborhoods were located throughout the City, including a
neighborhood on Monte Vista Street in Alta Loma and one on Base Line Avenue in Etiwanda, where
the 1-1.5 Freeway now passes through the City 47 Mexican immigrants also lived in Guasti.
The 1930s-era worker housing in North Town tended to be small in size, containing only one or two
bedrooms, one outhouse, and sometimes a garage or additional outbuilding (figs 39-40).48 North Town
was connected to Cucamonga by commercial development along Archibald Avenue and is treated as
part of Cucamonga. In a map of the area dated ca. 1886, a rectangular area located northeast of the
intersection of Archibald and the Santa Fe Railway is identified as "Town Site" and contains markers
identifying the site of a hotel and the "Cucamonga Station," indicating that the core of the area currently
referred to as "North Town" historically served as a sort of secondary town center for Cucamonga (fig
30). North Town contains a collection of railroad-oriented industrial, institutional, commercial, and
residential properties. The majority of extant buildings associated with early neighborhood
development were constructed by the mid-1940s.
Etiwanda: The completion of the Santa Fe Railway through the Cucamonga Valley in 1887 created
enhanced opportunities for agriculture in early Etiwanda. Although residents of Etiwanda were
frustrated that the Santa Fe depot was established three-quarters of a mile east of their town, improved
transportation throughout the region still offered greater ease of transporting agricultural goods via
railway and the agriculture industry in Etiwanda flourished in the late 1880s. Etiwanda farmers
produced a variety of crops, including grape vines, oranges, lemons, apricots, peaches, and pears49
Following its initial boom in agriculture, the Etiwanda Colony grew and began to have needs of a small
town. The Chaffey brothers oversaw the building of the first school in the Colony, located at the corner
of Base Line and East Avenues, in 1883 (fig 16). A second, larger school building was erected in 1890
at the corner of Victoria and Etiwanda Avenues, replaced in 1912 by a larger red brick structure and
replaced once more in 1938 with a fourth school building, a,portion of which remains today.50 The first
church, initially named the Congregational Church of Etiwanda and later renamed the Etiwanda
Community Church, was founded in the late 1880s or early 1890s (exact date unknown).51 Reflecting
the growing prosperity of the region, the first electric light to be illuminated in Southern California was
turned on at the Garcia home in Etiwanda in 1882. Soon after, the Chaffey's began to install electric
lights on posts lining Euclid Avenue in neighboring Ontario, each spaced one mile apart.52 In the same
year, the Chaffeys' installed a telephone line to San Bernardino.53' The first telephone switching station
in the area was built in Etiwanda in the early 1930s orr the property of the Norton-Fisher House, located
at 7165 Etiwanda Avneue. The station housed the automatic telephone dialing system for the Etiwanda
area, remaining in use until 1953.54
While Cucamonga and Alta Loma town centers developed small commercial cores,'Etiwanda
developed in a more spread out, rural fashion, with cultural landscape features, such as windrows,
stone curbs, vineyards and citrus groves, and open space defining the character of the town (figs 19-
21). From the late 1880s through the 1960s, the most common property type in Etiwanda was single
Nacho Gracia. Interview,5 June 2001,Rancho Cucamonga Oral History Project,2.
<l Gracia,5.
4e Gracia,3.
ao Clucas,211.
so Clucas,212-213.
s'Clucas,212. '
52 Clucas,216.
ss Robert L.Hickcox. A History of Etiwanda. Etiwanda Historical Society, 1995,6.
Etiwanda Telephone Switching Station,State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record.(DPR 523a form),
Recorded by Lori Shriver,Planning Aide,City of Rancho Cucamonga, 16 July 2003.
Page 10 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
family homes,the majority of which lined Etiwanda and East Avenues, but were also present in
residential enclaves adjacent to Pecan Avenue and Victoria Street, as well as scattered, tucked away
within expanses of agricultural land, making single-family residence situated within a historic orchard or
vineyard a significant property type. Etiwanda Avenue also contains several historic homes that have
been moved from their original locations to make room for new development. While original agricultural
land has largely been replaced by postwar residential tracts, many of the Chaffey's early land
subdivisions are evident today in the layouts of these later residential communities, which have clearly
been inserted into the Chaffey's land subdivisions (fig 17). Etiwanda has retained its alignment and
association with the Pacific Electric Railway right-of-way and contains the only surviving train depot in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Etiwanda Railway Station (1914), a local historic landmark
located at 7089 Etiwanda Avenue(fig 18), is currently undergoing rehabilitation for reuse as a museum
or community facility. Other important property types in early Etiwanda include wineries, citrus packing
houses, canneries, water acquisition and storage facilities, early electricity and telephone-related
stations, and railroad-oriented buildings. The majority of extant buildings associated with early town
center development had been constructed by the mid-1940s.
Pacific Electric Railway (PE Railway): The San Bernardino Line of the PE Railway, with stations in
Claremont, Upland, Alta Loma, Etiwanda, Fontana, and Rialto, was the Pacific Electric's longest line,
completed through Rancho Cucamonga via stations at Alta Loma and Etiwanda in July. 1914, offering
competition to the older Santa Fe Railway to the south. Initially, the PE Railway was mostly used to
transport citrus, although it carried a variety of freight.
Alta Loma: The loamosa Colony obtained its current name, Alta Loma, around the year 1913 when
colonists determined that a new town should be built along the incoming PE Railway in order to take
advantage of opportunities associated with proximity to a major rail line, which would pass through
loamosa and on to neighboring Etiwanda. Captain Peter A. Demens, along with a committee of
loamosa colonists, worked hard to encourage development of a rail line, declaring that the railroad
should come through loamosa, as opposed to other neighboring communities, because a significant
portion (over two-thirds) of citrus crops in Rancho Cucamonga were being grown in loamosa,
distinguishing loamosa from Cucamonga and Etiwanda, which grew mostly- grapes." Once
constructed, a boom in development occurred along the PE Railway in Alta Loma. Four packing
houses, loamosa Foothill Building, Alta Loma Warehouse, Hillside Groves Packinghouse, and
American Fruit Growers Packinghouse were quickly erected following completion of the railway.56
The San Bernardino Line of the PE Railway used a diesel-electric locomotive in 1951, converting the
original trolley activated-Direct Current system to low voltage track circuit operation, a change which
transitioned the Railway from a high-speed inter-urban operation to a low-speed diesel freight lines?
Demand for freight service on the San Bernardino Line declined after the 1950s, and in the early 1990s
the portion of the right-of-way in San Bernardino County was assigned to the San Bernardino
Associated Governments (SANBAG). While SANBAG has,adopted policies preserving the right-of-way
for future rail transit, in 2000, a master plan was developed for conversion of the right-of-way into a 21-
mile multi-use trail stretching from Claremont to Rialto.6e
As the town of Alta Loma developed surrounding the Pacific Electric right-of-way, with the majority of its
commercial and residential buildings are located on and immediately adjacent to Amethyst Avenue,
which runs north-south,through Alta Loma (figs 22-30). Alta Loma also retains a concentration of
historic houses with arroyo/field stone construction and/or detailing, a common construction technique
ss Clucas,179.
se Clucas, 161.
57
PaciriaElectric Inland Empire Trail Master Plan,Adopted Nov 2000,5.
se Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail Master Plan,Adopted Nov 2000,6.
Page 11 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
in Rancho Cucamonga because of the ample supply of stone in the area (fig 30). Many of the extant
historic stone homes in the City are located in Alta Loma, with a concentration on Hillside Road. The
Demens-Tolstoy House (1890), located at 9686 Hillside Road in Alta Loma, is an exemplary
representations of local stone architecture. Alta Loma also contains significant cultural landscape
features, such as windrows, stone curbs, vineyards and citrus groves, and open space that contribute
to the character of the town. As a result,,preservation of these cultural landscape features should be
integral to preservation of this area. To this end, the City has already designated as a local landmark
historic walnut trees, planted in the 1930s and 1940s, lining Beryl Street north of Hillside Road in Alta
Loma (Parcel No. 1061-371-26, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 40). The majority of extant buildings associated
with early town center development had been constructed by the mid-1940s.
Theme: Hiah Winds (1877-1960)
Strong winds blowing through the Cucamonga Valley have historically posed a threat, causing
structural damage to buildings and disrupting the top soil needed intact for agricultural production. To
negotiate the force of the winds, tree windbreaks have historically been planted in high wind areas. A
variety of plant species, including Eucalyptus and.Sycamore tree varieties have served as windbreaks,
remaining a visually prominent feature of the local landscape.
Themes Winemakina (1868-1970)
Granted the 13,000 acre Rancho Cucamonga in 1839, Tiburcio Tapia planted a small vineyard from
vine clippings likely obtained from the neighboring San Gabriel Mission, established by Franciscan
priests in 1771,59 and also formed a small-scale winery.80 Tapia's original vineyard passed through the
hands of Tapia's son-in-law, Leon V.. Prudhomme'61 before being sold to John Rains in 1858, who
added greatly to the original vineyard, doubling it in size. "As a result of this effort, Cucamonga became
the most important business point between San Bernardino and Los Angeles, and shortly thereafter,
the wines produced here became known far and wide."62 Following Rains' death, the vineyard was
taken over by Pierre and Jean Louis Sansevain, who also improved the vineyards'63 but the vineyards
were later destroyed, falling victim to locust infestation.84
Despite the loss of Tapia's original vineyard, the winemaking industry continued to develop and flourish
in the Cucamonga Valley, moving from modestly sized wine making operations to larger-scale wine
production facilities. Secondo Guasti's Italian Vineyard Company, established in 1883, was among the
first production-oriented wine-making companies in the region, covering over 5,000 acres with wine-
producing grapes by the early 1900s. By comparison, the entire Cucamonga Valley contained over
16,000 acres of wine grapes by 1919.65
In 1919, the le Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed, establishing nation-wide
prohibition of the "sale, manufacturing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages." It lasted
approximately 15 years and had a pronounced effect on the local wine-making industry in Rancho
Cucamonga. While many wineries were forced to close down operations, others conceived of creative
ways to keep their businesses open despite Prohibition. Some wineries continued to harvest grapes,
using their facilities to produce a variety of products including table grapes, grape juice, grape and wine
5B Dinkelspiel, 101.
66 James Hofer. "A short history of grape growing in the Cucamonga Valley,"Cucamonga Valley,an area with a vibrant past—and
present, California Historian,Conference of California Historical Societies,Vol.53,No.4,2007,23.
3'Clucas,65.
Clucas,65-68. Grapes varieties grown in Cucamonga Valley primarily produced sweet.wines.
03 Clucas,65.
"Clucas implies,although does not explicitly state,that the vineyards were destroyed by locust infestation prior to 1920(Clucas,
70).
65Hofer,23.
Page 12 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
jellies, and beef and liver additives.66 As taking wine with meals was an important custom for Italian
immigrants in particular, home winemaking was allowed at a maximum quantity of 200 gallons per year
for family use s7 Despite the hardships placed on grape growers during prohibition, the amount of land
used for vineyards continued to grow in the Cucamonga region, increasing from 16,000 acres in 1919
to 21,000 acres in 1930.68
J
Figure 4: Garrett&Company vineyard, 1929(Los Angeles Public Library)
Prohibition was repealed in December of 1933 and many United States wineries restarted operation.
During this time, the wine-making industry largely shifted from small- to large-scale production
operations. In order to compete with large-scale wineries, small-scale wineries joined with one another
to form cooperatives such as the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association (formed 1934), which
allowed association members to pool fruit and share revenue on a percentage basis determined by the
quantity of fruit contributed by each grower.69 Cucamonga Vintage Company, the first local cooperative
formed in the Cucamonga Valley, was organized in 1911, operating out of a winery building leased from
the Lucas Ranch (currently known as the Biane Winery, formerly Padre Winery), located on east Eighth
Street near Turner Avenue, adjacent to the Santa Fe Railway (extant). Many original members of the
Cucamonga Vintage Company later became members of the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard
Association, which addressed specific needs of Depression Era grape growers. Operating out of a
winery located east of Haven Avenue, just north of the Santa Fe Railway (demolished), the Cucamonga
Pioneer Vineyard Association is described as, "Cucamonga Valley's first mutual marketing group of
grape growers.i70 Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association focused heavily on pricing and marketing
of its products, responding to the Depression Era need of grape growers to turn a profit and take
advantage of the renewed, post-Prohibition market for alcohol products.71 Also benefitting cooperative
grape growers at the time, cooperative associations received exemption from federal income tax, with
individuals rather than the association required to pay tax on their portion of the profit.72 Improvements
in the handling and transportation of wine grapes that came about upon the repeal of Prohibition also
e One particularly innovative approach to keeping wineries alive was the selling of Wine Grower's Brick,a non-alcoholic"brick"of
grape juice containing a recipe for how to not make wine with the addition of a specific list of ingredients one should not mix with the"brick"
(i.e.,"do not add six cups of sugar,do not add this special yeast that we have provided,do not add this much water, because if you do you will
be in violation of the Prohibition act as a manufacturer of wine"). After several years of successful Wine Grower's Brick sales,the government
discovered the"brick"and outlawed sale of such items(Hofer,23).
B7 Hofer,23.
ee Hofer,23.
60 Hofer,24.
70 James D.Hofer,James D.Hofer,Cucamonga Wines and Vines:A History of the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard Association,
Master of Arts thesis,Claremont Graduate School,30 March 1983,97.
71 Hofer,96.
Hofer,98.
Page 13 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
facilitated recovery and success of the winemaking industry in the Cucamonga Valley, which continued
to flourish until the early 1950s.73
The postwar alteration of Cucamonga Valley's rural landscape began in 1947 with construction -of
Henry J. Kaiser's large steel mill in Fontana. Then, in 1951, the City of Ontario removed a vineyard
purchased 11 years earlier for expansion of its airport; the city continued to acquire more vineyards as
the airport grew. Meanwhile, tastes in wine were changing, and sweet wines traditionally produced in
the Cucamonga Valley were losing market share to drier varietal wines produced in Northern California.
Bad weather conditions in the early 1950s led to poor harvests. Suburban sprawl sent real estate
prices and property taxes soaring, and increased air pollution adversely affected agriculture. In 1950,
20 wineries were operating in the Rancho Cucamonga area. By 1970, only five remained.74
CONTEXT: ROUTE 66 (1926-1970)
Completed across the United States in the late 1930s, United States Highway 66 (Route 66) resulted
from a nation-wide effort to create a highway linking small towns and larger cities from Chicago to Los
Angeles. Route 66 is located along Foothill Boulevard running east-west through Rancho Cucamonga
and contains historic resources significant for their association with Route 66, such as the locally
designated Richfield Oil Station, located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard, and the Magic Lamp Inn, located at
8189 Foothill Boulevard. Aided by the financial backing and large-scale organization of the Federal Aid
Road Act of 1916 and the Federal Highway Act of 1921, Route 66 (also referred to as "The Mother
Road") was commissioned in 1926. Nationwide prosperity following WWII afforded many people the
opportunity to travel for leisure and automobile excursions west on Route 66 quickly evolved into a
cultural phenomenon. It attracted a multitude of tourists anxious to see the West.and visit the
interesting roadside businesses that had sprung up alongside Route 66, appealing to the tourist market
with an array of food and refreshment options, trading posts, references to Native American culture,
and more obscure sources of entertainment, such as snake pits, petting zoos, and exotic carnival
games.75 The popularity of Route 66 indirectly led to its demise and ultimately to its decommissioning
in 1985.76 Experiencing heavy traffic during WWII by tourists and the trucking industry, it became
crowded and fell into disrepair. 7 In addition, beginning in the 1950s, modern highways and interstate
systems were built throughout the nation, often bypassing small towns that had grown dependent on
Route 66 travelers for business. Despite the dramatic.decline in traffic, some Route 66 businesses
endured, developing a cult following of travelers anxious to experience the mystic Route 66 as it once
was.78 ,
The section of Route 66 running through Rancho Cucamonga contains a small collection of scattered
historic resources potentially significant for their association with Route 66. However, modern
developments on Foothill Boulevard have interrupted the continuity and sense of time and place
necessary for designation of a Route 66 historic district in the City, although a small cluster of historic
resources, including the Magic Lamp Inn, is located in the Bear Gulch area along Foothill Boulevard in
the western portion of the City (figs 55-56). Other local historic resources potentially significant for their
association with Route 66 tend to be scattered and include single-family homes and small commercial
establishments (figs 57-58).
"Hofer,23.
"Historical Assessment and Artifacts Inventory of the Ellena Brothers Winery/Regina Grape Products Co.(Regina Winery),
Prepared for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga;Prepared by Chattel Construction Corporation/Mellon&
Associates Oct 1997,11-3.
'$Rapp,Thomas Arthur. Route 66:The Romance of the West. Lynnwood:Mock Turtle Press,2002,9.
16 Michael Cassity. Route 66 Corridor National Historic Context Study,National Park Service,.2004,vi.
n Cassity,236.
19 Cassity,VI.
Page 14 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
CONTEXT: POSTWAR DEVELOPMENT (1945-1977)
Following World War II, Rancho Cucamonga's landscape began to shift from a rural to suburban
environment, reflecting the nation-wide trend toward decentralization of the city. Driven by rapid
highway construction, increasing automobile ownership, availability of modern building technologies,
and the Baby Boom, the postwar period brought about an increase in housing demand and rising land
values, spawning development of tract housing and light industry in Rancho Cucamonga on land
previously used for agriculture.79 After-World War II and prior to incorporation in 1977, the City
"experienced uncontrolled growth.i80 It ultimately became a sprawling suburb, with tract housing,
neighborhood-scale shopping centers, office parks, and surface parking proliferating throughout the
City, aiming to meet the needs of nearby residents while accommodating automobiles. Underscoring
the dramatic increase in local development occurring postwar, in 1979, prominent local developer Lewis
Homes (founded 1955 by Ralph and Goldy Lewis), announced sales of 533 single-family Inland Empire
homes in the first nine months of the year,not including sales of commercial and multi-family
developments.81
Historic aerial photographs of the City indicate that postwar tract housing was frequently inserted into
plots of land formerly used for agriculture (fig 44).82 Many such tracts represent the curvilinear
residential suburb model that had become the nationwide standard for neighborhood design by the late
1940s (fig 43).83 Characterized by curving streets as opposed to an orthogonal grid, this model was
ideally interspersed with neighborhood parks, landscaping, and trails, with a small handful of housing
models repeated throughout the tract. Standardization and large-scale production of housing.stock
allowed many homes to be built quickly and rat a low cost, meeting the postwar demand for Veteran
housing and accommodations to meet the needs of the continually growing population. ,As lands once
occupied by agricultural uses were needed to accommodate this new pattern of development, the citrus
groves and vineyards that had once characterized rural local landscape in Rancho Cucamonga
eventually gave way almost entirely to suburbanization. Rising land values, coupled with pressure from
realtors to sell land for residential,development made it increasingly difficult for farmers to continue
using their land for agriculture when it was worth more developed with housing.84
While a survey of all postwar housing in Rancho Cucamonga has yet to be performed, the City is home
to several early postwar tracts, some of which retain a strong sense of time and place and as such
should be considered for their historic significance as an intact grouping of postwar homes. For
example, the housing tract located northwest of the historic town center of Cucamonga, bounded by
Hellman Avenue to east and San Bernardino Road to the South, centering on Selma Avenue, Harvard
Street and Montara Avenue (Cucamonga Vineyard Tract Subdivision B, Tract No. 5576„figs 43-48; see
figs 49-51 for additional examples) appears to be a relatively intact example of postwar tract housing,
with the majority of the houses in the tract organized along curvilinear streets culminating in cul-de-
sacs, retaining original Swiss Chalet architectural features, street set-backs, and general sense of time
and place as a collection of early postwar'housing.
'Although tract housing was not beginning to be developed on a large scale in Rancho Cucamonga until
the 1950s, development of housing tracts on local agricultural lands was sparked as early as 1942,
'B David.L.Ames and Linda Flint McClelland. Historic Residential Suburbs:Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the
National Register of Historic Places. U.S..Department of the Interior,National Park Service,Sept 2002,25.
eo City of Rancho Cucamonga,"Rancho Cucamonga;A Tradition of Vision;brochure p 5.
81"Lewis Homes Hits$52.6 Million in.Sales,"Los Angeles Times, 13 Oct 1979,OC C8.
Robert DeBerard,Personal Interview,Rancho Cucamonga Oral History Project, Interviewers:Margo McBane and Margaret
Finnegan,7 June 2001,Transcript p 13;29.
83 Ames and McClelland,51.
Ames and McClelland,51. -
Page 15 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC'CONTEXT STATEMENT
when Kaiser Steel Mill began operations in nearby Fontana.85 Initially producing steel to aid the war
effort, Kaiser Steel Mill was the ninth-largest steel production facility in the country by the late 1950s,
employing 7,700 workers at its peak in production.86 This new industry helped spark regional growth,
necessitating an increase in local housing stock for Steel Mill workers. Farmers received pressure to
sell agricultural land from realtors who wanted to develop ]and for much needed Steel Mill worker
housing.87 Kaiser Community Homes, one of the many successful enterprises started by Henry J.
Kaiser, developed many postwar housing tracts in the Inland Empire and nationwide.88 In 1946, Henry
Kaiser announced that his company would build more than 10,000 low-cost homes throughout the
nation, beginning in Southern California and working towards the east coast.
While competition from imported steel suppliers and stricter air quality regulations gradually crippled
Kaiser Steel Mill's business, closing,operations in the 1980s, availability of low cost land throughout the
Inland Empire continued to attract development to the area.a9 By 1995, the Inland Empire had become
an attractive location for large warehouse construction, with large-scale "big box" retailers such as
Home Depot and Wal-Mart setting up warehouses and distribution centers throughout the area at a
much cheaper rate than would have been available in Los Angeles. Warehouses for manufacturing
and metal fabrication also proliferated throughout the region, further enhancing need for large quantities
of affordable housing in Rancho Cucamonga, although the majority of warehouses were constructed in
Mira Loma, Rialto and Fontana.90
Also important in influencing postwar suburbanization in Rancho Cucamonga was increasing
employment and transportation options offered by expansion of the nearby Ontario International Airport
(originally Ontario Airport), In 1942 the United States government allocated Works Progress
Administration funding to improve the existing dirt runway at the Ontario Airport to two paved runway for
Army and Army Air Corps operations. At close of the war in 1945, airport operations lessened fora
time, although the airport became Ontario International Airport in,1946. In 1949 airlines began offering
regular passenger service into and out of the airport. Beginning in 1951, military operations at the
airport resumed, using the airport for California Air National Guard operations for the Korean War.
Various airport improvements and runway extensions took place through 1962. Airport traffic increased
steadily over the years and in 1998 new terminals opened. By 2000, the airport had 6.7 million annual
passengers, generating more than 55,000 jobs in the region.91
CONTEXT: CONSOLIDATION AND INCORPORATION (1977-2010)
Encouraged by the initial boom in land values and development, Rancho Cucamonga colonists began
discussing the possibility of incorporating the three towns of Cucamonga, Alta Loma and Etiwanda as
early as 1887. Despite attempts at consolidation over the years, it was not until much later that this
dream was realized. The City of Rancho Cucamonga was finally incorporated in 1977, consolidating
05 Kaiser Steel was one of many successful businesses started by Henry J.Kaiser,"a prominent Los Angeles industrialist[who]
established Kaiser-Pennanente medical services in Los Angeles in the 1930s and founded Kaiser Industries. Kaiser Industries owned and
operated'a number of subsidiary raw.materials plants,including Kaiser Metal Products,Kaiser Steel,Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical,and the
Permanents Cement Company. Kaiser had earlier experience in large-scale low-cost housing,.having participated in the construction of 800
units surrounding.the Kaiser steel plant in Fontana. He also experimented with prefabricated Kaisercraft homes. [Fritz B.]Burns,[a
successful Los Angeles developer]combined his expertise in land development and community building with:Kaisers corporate assets and
access to raw materials to establish Kaiser Community Homes."(Historic Resources Group,California Department of Parks and Recreation
523d district record,Panorama City Historic District,20 May 2002,5.)
N Rob Leicester Wagner,Sleeping Giant:An Illustrated History of Southern California's Inland Empire,Las Vegas:Stephens Press,
2005, 111.
a'Robert DeBerard,Transcript p28.
ee DeBerard,24..
ee Wagner, 111.
eo Wagner, 113. -
er Wagner, 137.
Page 16 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Cucamonga, Alta Loma, and Etiwanda into one municipality, reaching a milestone sought after by local
residents for nearly one hundred years. Incorporation halted the uncontrolled growth that had been
occurring in the area and provided numerous other benefits, including increased park and recreation
opportunities, improvements to existing neighborhoods, construction of new neighborhoods, and
advances in local economic development. The three historic towns became part of the larger whole,
providing opportunities for growth and improvement but also absorbing the character of each town
center. As a result, the City has before it the opportunity to plan for the benefit of the City at-large while
also continuing to recognize the historic communities from which it came.
Page 17 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT `
REFERENCES
Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation
and Documentation for the National Resister of Historic Places. U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Sept 2002.
Balgooy, Max van. "North Town: A Disregarded Community, A focus on the 1930's,"Paper for Dr.
Carlos Cortes, Chicano Studies 2, 1980.
Brodsly, David. L.A. Freeway.An Appreciative Essay, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
Cassity, Michael, Ph.D. Route 66 National Historic Context Study. Santa Fe: National Trails System
Office— Intermountain Region, National Park Service, 2004.
Chan, Suchent, This Bittersweet Soil: The Chinese in California Agriculture, 1860-1910. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1986.
Clucas, Donald L. Light Over the Mountain:A History of the Rancho Cucamonga Area. Upland:
California Family House, 1979.
Conley, Bernice. Pages from the Past(collection of reprints from the column entitled ''Pages from the
Past" which appeared,in The Daily Report from 9/9/1979 through 91511982)
Dinkelspiel, Frances. Towers of Gold: How One Jewish Immigrant Names Isaias Hellman Created
California. New York: Saint Martin's Press, 2008.
Etiwanda Telephone Switching Station, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary
Record (DPR 523a form), Recorded by Lori Shriver, Planning Aide, City of Rancho Cucamonga,
16 July 2003.Etiwanda: The First 100 Years. 1982.
Hickcox; Robert L. A History of Etiwanda. Etiwanda Historical Society, 1995.
Historical Assessment and Artifacts Inventory of the Ellena Brothers Winery/ Regina Grape Products
Co. (Regina Winery), Prepared for Redevelopment,Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
Prepared by Chattel Construction Corporation I Mellon &Associates, Oct 1997, 11-3.
Hofer, James. "A short history of grape growing in the Cucamonga Valley", Cucamonga Valley, an
area with a vibrant past—and present, California Historian, Conference of California Historical
Societies, Vol. 53, No. 4.
Hofer, James D. Cucamonga Wines and Vines:A History of the Cucamonga Pioneer Vineyard
Association. Master of Arts thesis, Claremont Graduate School, 30 March 1983.
Repp, Thomas Arthur. Route 66. The Romance of the West. Lynnwood: Mock Turtle Press, 2002.
Stoebe, Martha Gaines. The History of Alta Loma, California, 1880-1980. Rancho Cucamonga: City of
Rancho Cucamonga, 2001.
Walker, Richard A. California's Golden Road to Riches: Natural Resources and Regional Capitalism,
1848-1940,Annals of the Association of American Geographers,Vol. 91, No. 1 (Mar.; 2001), 167-
199, 180.
White, Beverly, Phillys Jeanne Clark, Robert L. Hickcox, Chester Frost, and Dr. Robert Davis.
Etiwanda: The First 100 Years. 1982.
Page 18 of 19
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Government Documents
Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail Master Plan, Adopted Nov 2000, 5.
San Bernardino County Flood Control District, "Cucamonga Creek, 1776-1976, After 200 Years."
2008 Regional Transportation Plan Growth Forecast, Southern California Association of Governments.
(SCAG), 2008.
Oral Histories
Hickcox, Bob, Oral Interview (Interviewer: Knox Mellon), Rancho Cucamonga Oral History Project, 13
Dec 1991.
Gracia, Nacho, Oral Interview (Interviewers: Margo McBane and Margaret Finnegan), Rancho
Cucamonga Oral History Project, 5 June 2001.
Page 19 of 19
I �
RESOLUTION NO. 09-02.
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2009-00679,
DESIGNATING THE G. EDGAR FROST HOUSE A HISTORIC LANDMARK,
LOCATED AT 7082 EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 0227-092-03.
A. Recitals.
1. Cindy Hampton filed an application for a Landmark as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as"the application."
2. On October 14, 2009, 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 bythe 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,
Part 'A" of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately .45 acre of land, basically a rectangular
configuration, located at 7082 East Avenue.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on October 14, 2009, including written and oral staff reports,
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:
Finding 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of a historical
period, type, style, region, or way of life.
Fact/s: The property is an example of life in early Etiwanda. Most residents
here were associated with growing citrus and/or vineyards and lived
nearby their work. This is a grove house that was surrounded by
orchards and vineyards. The property, 'being adjacent to the
Pacific Electric Trail, made it convenient for the owners to live and
work in the same area as part of the fruit industry.
Finding 2: The proposed landmark is an example of a type of building which
was once common but now rare.
1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-02
DRC2009-00679—CINDY HAMPTON
October 14, 2009
Page 2
Fact/s: Grove houses were once common in Etiwanda but are now rare.
This was predominately a citrus/vineyard area, but new development
has encroached around the grove houses or has been built on what
were once citrus groves and vineyards.
Finding 3: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind.
Fact/s: The dwelling was built in 1918, which makes it 91 years old.
Finding 4: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or
important or a local personality.
Facts: G Edgar Frost was the son of George Frost who was prominent in
the Etiwanda community. G. Edgar Frost was a citrus farmer/clerk
with the citrus association, the area constable, and also was a
member of the Etiwanda Service Club.
B. Neighborhood-and Geographic Setting:
Finding 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of
the neighborhood.
Facts` The proposed landmark contributes to the character of the historic
neighborhood as a grove house which once was amidst acres of
orchards and vineyards. It represents the history of Etiwanda's
agricultural past.
Finding 2: The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and
familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or City.
Fact/s: The proposed landmark was in close proximity to the Pacific Electric
railway, packing houses, and village on Etiwanda Avenue. Based on
its location to the rail-line and street, it has been a familiar visual
feature irrthe Etiwanda neighborhood since 1918.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder. The Council finds that this Landmark Designation is exempt
under CEQA, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, as a Class 31 exemption
(Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby resolves that, pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval of Landmark Designation on the 14th day of October, 2009.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
1 1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-02
DRC2009-00679—CINDY HAMPTON
October 14, 2009
Page 3
2 �—
BY: v
Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman
ATTEST: nG�
James Troyer, AICP, Secreta
I, James R. Troyer, AICP, 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,ata
regular meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held on the 14th day of October2009,by the
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 09-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2009-00069, DESIGNATING THE
CUCAMONGA SERVICE STATION A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED AT
9670 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF-
APN: 0208-153-05.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Landmark Designation DRC2009-00069
as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Landmark Designation
is referred to as "the application."
2. On February 25, 2009, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued the hearing to March 11,2009,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, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately 0.2-acre of land, a rectangular-shaped configuration,
located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced
public hearing on March 11,2009, including written and oral staff reports,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:
Finding 1: The proposed Landmark is particularly representative of an historic period,
type, style, region, or way of life.
Fact1s: It is the only surviving gas station ,reminiscent of roadside architecture in
Rancho Cucamonga today. The style and type of this building was popular
during auto mobilization. It is a great example of Mission-style architecture.
Finding 2: The proposed Landmark is an example of a type of building that was once
common but is now rare.
Fact1s: It is the only building left of its type in Rancho Cucamonga that was once
common, but now rare. There was a gas station on the corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue(Pearson Filling Station&Garage)in
a similar-style, which was demolished in the 1990's.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-01
DRC2009-00069—THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
March 11, 2009
Page 2
Finding 3: The proposed Landmark is of greater age than most of its kind.
Facts: The approximated construction date is 1915, which would make it at least
93 years old.
Finding 4: The proposed Landmark was connected with someone renowned or important
or a local personality.
Facts: Ancil Morris and Arvid Lewis were both locally involved with the community.
According to a Daily Bulletin article dated February 15, 1994, Mr. Lewis was
the first full-time fire chief of the Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
Finding 5: The proposed Landmark is connected with a business or use,which was once
common but is now rare.
Facts: Route 66 runs through eight states: Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Servicing automobiles for
travelers utilizing the road was once a very popular practice throughout these
states.
Finding 6: The architect or builder was important.
Facts: Henry Klusman built the structure. He and his brother were well known in the
Cucamonga area and were responsible for building many important structures
including reservoirs, houses, and the Virginia Dare Winery. .
b. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance:
Finding 1: The overall effect of the design of the proposed Landmark is beautiful, or its
details and materials are beautiful or unusual.
Facts: As it stands today, this is the only Mission-style gas station that survives in
Rancho Cucamonga from its period of significance,which makes the structure
unusual and unique.
C. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting:
Finding 1: The proposed Landmark materially benefits the historic character of the
neighborhood.
Facts: The gas station creates more visual interest to the surrounding area. Under
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, this area is designated Specialty
Commercial due to the area's ties to early Cucamonga. Although much of it is
no longer present, the presence of the gas station is a firm reminder of early
auto mobilization and Cucamonga's Route 66 history.
Finding 2: The proposed Landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar
visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city.
Facts: This gas station undoubtedly brings back familiar memories of the Route 66
phenomenon.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-01
DRC2009-00069—THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
March 11, 2009
Page 3
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)of 1970,as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder. The Council finds that this Landmark Designation is exempt under CEQA, pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, as a Class 8 exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this
Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,the
Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of
Landmark Designation DRC2009-00069.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2O09.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: ( �
Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman
ATTEST: i -JAI�
Jam 6
R. Troyer, AICP, Secr tary
I, James R. Troyer, AICP, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 11th day of March 2009, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART', WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 08-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT DRC2008-00591 TO RELOCATE THE
HISTORIC ARTIFACTS AT THE THOMAS WINERY PLAZA IN THE
'SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
DISTRICTS (SUBAREA 2), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE; AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0208-101-22, 23, 24, 25.
A. Recitals.
1. Legg Mason Real Estate Investors, Inc.filed an application'forthe approval of Landmark
Alteration Permit DRC2008-00591, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Landmark Alteration Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 22nd day of October 2008, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on October 22, 2008, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.120.G of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code; this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to 4 parcels located at the northeast corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue south of San Bernardino Road, an overall area of about
11.6 acres with a street frontage along Foothill Boulevard, Vineyard Avenue, and San Bernardino
Road of about 500 feet, 580 feet and 500 feet, respectively, and is presently improved with the
historic Thomas Winery artifacts; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is single-family residential;the property
to the south consists of commercial buildings comprised of a gas station and a food establishment;
the property to the east is an older shopping plaza; and the property to the west is a recent
shopping plaza called Vineyard Gateway; and
C. The Thomas Winery, on the property of the proposed application, was designated
as an Historic Landmark by the City Council on December 19, 1979, and
d. The application proposes to rearrange the Thomas Winery artifacts that are
currently dispersed throughout the plaza.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-01
DRC2008-00591
October 22, 2008
Page 2
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 alteration is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
b. The action proposed a structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural,
architectural, or engineering interest or value of an historic nature.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fort in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2008-00591, subject to each and
every condition set forth below.
Planning Department
1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshall's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
2) The project must be completed as per Site Plan "D5 Historic Artifacts
Site Layout."
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2008.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman
ATTEST:
Ja es R. Troyer, Secretary
I, James R. Troyer, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 22nd day of October 2008,
by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HOWDYSHELL
RESOLUTION NO. 07-03
A RESOLUTION OFTHE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OFTHE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2005-00776 DESIGNATING THE
ROBERDS HOUSE A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED AT 7201 AMETHYST
AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0202-161-04.
A. Recitals.
1. Robert Bathish filed an application for Landmark Designation DRC2005-00776 as described in the
title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Landmark Designation is referred to as"the
application."
2. On April 25, 2007, 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, Part A,
of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately 0.93 acre of land, basically an L-shaped
configuration, located at 7201 Amethyst Avenue.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced
public hearing on April 25, 2007, including written and oral staff reports,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:
Finding 1: The proposed Landmark is particularly representative of an historic
period, type, style, region, or way of life.
FacUs: The Roberds House is representative of the Craftsman Bungalow. It is
also an early example of adaptive reuse.
Finding 2: The proposed Landmark is of greater age than most of its kind.
Factls: The Roberds House was originally constructed circa 1910 as the
Nazarene Church. Circa 1920, the house was converted into a
residence.
Finding 3: The proposed Landmark was connected with someone renowned or
important or a local personality.
FacUs: The Roberds House is connected with the Roberds family. Harry
Roberds built the first house in the Alta Loma townsite. Rilla Roberds is
the daughter of Douglas W. Stephens, a Cucamonga pioneer.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-03
DRC2005-00776— ROBERT BATHISH
April 25, 2005
Page 2
b. 'Neighborhood and Geographic Setting:
Finding 1: The proposed Landmark materially benefits the historic character of the
neighborhood.
Facts: The Roberds House is one of the few remaining historic buildings
representing Old Alta Loma. As the first house built in the Alta Loma
townsite, it was,along with the construction of the rail,the catalyst for the
development of Alta Loma.
Finding 2: The proposed Landmark in its location represents an established and
familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city.
Facts: The Roberds House is located on the site of the first house in the Alta
Loma townsite. It was in close proximity to the railroad tracks, the
packing house, and the first fire station in Alta Loma. The Roberds'
telephone was used for fire calls.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder. The Council finds that this Landmark Designation is exempt under CEQA, pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, as a Class 31 exemption (historical resource
restoration/rehabilitation).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this
Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,the
Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of
Landmark Designation DRC2005-00776.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2007.
HISTORIC P ERVATIIO/N COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: 41 Div
Pa ewart, Chairman
ATTEST: C / V
JamesUR. Troyer, AICP, Secre ry
I, James R. Troyer, AICP, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 25th day of April 2007, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, MUNOZ, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 07-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
OFTHE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING
LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT DRC2007-00116 FOR
ALTERATIONS TO THE HISTORIC ADAMS HOUSE LOCATED AT
7914 ALTA CUESTA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF—APN: 0207-073-09.
A. Recitals.
1. Michael and Margaret Vizio filed an application for the approval of Landmark Alteration
Permit DRC2007-00116, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Landmark Alteration Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On April 11, 2007, 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 herebyfound,determined,and resolved bythe 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on April 11,2007, including written and oral staff reports,together
with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.120.G of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 7914 Alta Cuesta Drive with a
street frontage of 156 feet and lot depth of approximately 202 feet and is presently improved with the
historic Adams House; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is a golf course, zoned single-family
residential, Low Density; the property to the south is single-family residential, Low Density; the
property to the east is also single-family residential, Low Density,and the property to the west is the
continuance of the golf course, zoned, single-family residential, Low Density; and
C. The Adams House, on the property of the proposed application,was designated as
an Historic Landmark by the City Council on April 7, 1988; and
d. A Mills Act Agreement (MA-90) for th4 property was approved in 1990.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of the facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION 07-02
DRC2007-00116 — MICHAEL AND MARGARET VIZIO
April 11, 2007
Page 2
a. The proposed landmark alteration 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. The
proposed project is consistent with the land uses allowed in the underlying residential zoning district
in which the home is located and design objectives of Development'Code; and
b. The proposed use, together with the Landmark Alteration Permit, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or the
improvements in the vicinity. All applicable zoning and building codes will be incorporated into the
project; and
C. The application,which contemplates operation of the proposed use, complies with
each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed building additions will
not alter the use of the property as a home and will meet all required setbacks and lot coverage
standards of the underlying Low Density residential district; and
d. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the
proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fort in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,this
Commission hereby approves the Landmark Alteration Permit DRC2007-00116,subject to each and
every condition set forth below.
Planninq Department
1) Approval is for two small building additions adding approximately
136 square feet to the rear of the existing residence at
7914 Alta Cuesta Drive as depicted on plans approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission and on file with the Planning Department.
Any changes to the approved plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Planning Director.
2) All exterior materials, finishes and colors shall match the same as
found on the existing residence. Any changes to the exterior
materials/finishes shall be subject to City review and approval.
3) The property owners shall comply with all the provisions of the Mills Act
Agreement approved for the subject site.
4) The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all requirements of the
Building and Safety Department including the requirement to obtain
building permits for the project.
5) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshall's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
6) Prior to the final of the building permits issued for the project, the
applicants shall request an inspection by the Planning Department.
i ®4
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION 07-02
DRC2007-001 1 6— MICHAEL AND MARGARET VIZIO
April 11, 2007
Page 3
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2007.
HISTORIC P ERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Pa tewart, Chairman
ATTEST:
mes R. Troyer, AIC , Secretary
I, James R.Troyer, AICP, 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 11 th day of April 2007,by the
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MUNOZ, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS
RESOLUTION NO. 06-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVIEWING HISTORIC AND
CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE IN RESPONSETO PROPOSED DEMOLITION
OF STRUCTURES AT 8247 ROCHESTER AVENUE ON AN 7.24-ACRE
PARCEL IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT(SUBAREA 7), LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND GENERALLY
SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0229-021-39.
A. Recitals.
1. Karish Architects, Inc. proposes a master planned development(Development Review
DRC2006-00127 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17866)that would propose the demolition of all
existing structures on the property, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Consideration of Demolition is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of December 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on December 13,2006, including written and oral staff reports,together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located atthe east side Rochester Avenue
generally south of Foothill Boulevard. The parcel is primarily vacant with a small palm nursery,
affiliated with Desighscape Inc., small out buildings, and a residence. The modest house was
constructed in 1932 and was the family home for the Sebastian and Jennie Masi family from 1937
to 1943; and
b. A Cultural Resource Study prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. Environmental
Consultants dated September 15, 2006, concluded that the'structures should not be deemed a
historic resource for the following reasons: first, the vernacular of the buildings and structures on
the property do not embody distinctive characteristics or represent the works of a master; second,
are not associated with significant events in local, state, regional, or national history; third, are not
associated with persons significant in local,state, regional, or national history;and,fourth, have no
unique information to yield in local, state, regional, or national history.
HISTORICA PRESERVATION RESOLUTION NO. 06-03
CONSIDERATION OF DEMOLITION — KARISH ARCHITECTS, INC.
December 13, 2006
Page 2
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 application is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan;and
b The proposed application is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
c. The proposed application is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of
the Development Code; and
d. The proposed application,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.
4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA
Guidelines, City staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project
qualifies under as a Class 1 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(I)(1)
(Demolition and removal of individual small structures)and there is no substantial evidence that the
project may have a significant effect on the environment.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby determines that the structures located at 8247 Rochester Avenue are not
historically or culturally significant and do not qualify for local historic landmark status.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
if. t.� —"
BY: e4,1.VY1
Pam Stewart, Chairman
ATTEST: T
Q
Ja s R. Troyer, AICP, 8ecretary
I,James R.Troyer,AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 13th day of December 2006, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 06-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
CHANGING THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION FROM A LOCAL HISTORIC
LANDMARK (90-067) TO HISTORIC POINT OF INTEREST DRC2006-00551 FOR
THE SANTA FE CUCAMONGA DEPOT, LOCATED AT 8TH STREET AND
ARCHIBALD AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 0209-062-04.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has requested a Historic Point of Interest designation as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Point of Historic Interest
referred to as "the application."
2. On August 9, 2006, 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, Part"A"of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately 1.22-acre of land, basically a narrow rectangular
configuration, located on 8th street and Archibald Avenue.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced
public hearing on August 9, 2006, including written and oral staff reports,togetherwith 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:
Finding 1: The proposed• Historic Point of Interest is particularly representative of a
historic period,type, style, region, or way of life.
Fact/s: The Depot was originally built in 1887 and was rebuilt in 1945. The new
"Art Moderne" depot, an architectural rarity in Rancho Cucamonga,
incorporated part of the original 1887 structure. The building was linked to the
railway that was important to life 'in Rancho Cucamonga. The depot was
destroyed by a fire in 1991 and was consequently demolished.
Finding 3: The proposed Historic Point of Interest is connected with a business or use,
which was once common, but is now rare.
Fact/s: It enabled citrus, orchard crops, 'and grapes to be shipped all over the United
States.
Finding 4: The site is the location of an important or historic building.
Facts: It was the location of the original 1887 depot.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-02
DRC2006-00551 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 9, 2006
Page 2
b. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting:
Finding 1: The proposed Historic Point of Interest materially benefits the historic
character of the neighborhood.
Finding 2: The proposed Historic Point of Interest in its location represents an
established and familiarvisual feature of the neighborhood, community,orcity.
FacUs: Although demolished, the simple building which displayed a significant
"Art Moderne" style, a rarity in Rancho Cucamonga, contributed to the
architectural diversity of the City. Its prominent location along the south side of
the Santa Fe Railroad track made it a dominant part of the neighborhood
character.
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. The Council finds that this Historic Point of Interest is exempt under CEQA, pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, as a Class 8 exemption.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this
Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,that
the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the
9th day of August, 2006, of Historic Point of Interest Designation DRC2006-00551.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2006.
HISTOzz �A*X-f- -
ERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Pa wart, Chairman
ATTEST: Jambs R. Troyer, AICP, Se etary
I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary Planning Director of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga,do hereby certifythat the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,passed,
and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the Cityof Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of
the Historic Preservation Commission held on the 9th day of August 2006, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACMAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
l
y
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAMATION
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public,review in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17919
Public Review Period Closes: August 9, 2006
Project Name: Project Applicant: ELBA INC.
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northwest comer of Miller and East
Avenues-APN: 1100-081-03, 04 and 06.
Project Description: A request to subdivide 9.85 acres of land into 50 lots in the Low-Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Reportwill not
be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial
Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive(909)477-2750 or Fax(909)477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review
period.
August 9, 2006
Date of Determination Adbliied By
RESOLUTION NO. 06-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT DRC2006-00226, TO ALTER THE
HISTORIC STOEBE HOUSE TO INCLUDE AN EXTERIOR STAIRCASE
FOR FIRE ACCESSBILITY ON THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING
HOME, LOCATED AT 6710'BERYL STREET;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0202-461.65.
A. Recitals.
1. Mr. Jack Hall filed an application for the approval of Landmark Alteration Permit
DRC2006-00226, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Landmark Alteration Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 26th day of April 2006, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced duly noticed hearing on April 26, 2006, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony,this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located at 6710 Beryl Street with a street
frontage of 245 feet and lot depth of approximately 260 feet and is presently improved with the
historic Stoebe House that includes a historic residence, with the addition of a rear access exterior
stairway along the Beryl Street frontage.
b. The,property to the north of the subject site is residential;the property to the south
is residential; the property to the east is developed with a church; and the property to the west is
vacant; and
C. The Stoebe House on the property of the proposed application was designated as
a Historic Landmark by the City Council on August 15, 1964; and
d. The application proposes using an office building,which is described further in the
Conditional Use Permit Application and will include an exterior stairway for access on the rear
elevation of the home.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-01
LANDMARK ALTERATION DRC2006-00226 -JACK HALL
April 26, 2006
Page 2
e. The owner has requested approval to make an exterior change to the, Stoebe
House in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit DRC2004-01173 for office use of the historic
home. According to Fire Code exiting standards, the conversion from a residence to an office
occupancy requires adding a staircase to the second floor, which meets Fire Department
requirements. The owner has submitted.plans for the staircase to be added to the exterior west
elevation of the home. The owner is proposing wood construction,to match the existing materials.
Lastly, an ADA;ramp must also be installed to the first floor entry door on west elevation.
f. The proposed location of the staircase and ADA ramp at the rear of building is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation which states, in
part,that"new additions should be designed and constructed so that the character-defining features
of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured,damaged, or destroyed in the process of
rehabilitation. New design should always be clearly differentiated so that the addition does not
appearto be part of the historic resource." Adding the staircase inside the homewould have altered
character-defining interior spaces.
3. Based upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, and the
substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on
April 26, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant
to Section 2.24.120.G of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,this Commission hereby makes
the following findings and facts:
FACTS FOR FINDING: Landmark Alteration
Finding: The action proposed is consistent with the purpose of this ordinance.
Facts: The landmark alteration, as presented,will promote the continued use of the
Stoebe House.
Finding: The action proposed will not be detrimental to a structure or feature of
significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest of value
of a historic nature.
Facts: The proposed addition of an exterior stairway, to gain additional access on
the rear elevation of the Stoebe House, is compatible and will enhance the
continued use of the Stoebe House.
4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies
under Section 14 California Code Regulations Sections 15303, conversion of an existing small
structure and 15332, in-fill development project. The Commission has reviewed the Planning
Department's determination of exemption, and based upon its own independent judgment, hereby
concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. Additionally,the Commission makes the following
findings in support of the exemption determination:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations
(with the approved conditional use permit). Specifically, this property is within the 'Residential'
general plan designation, and within Development District R-3; the property is currently zoned for
residential use. In accord with Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.08.030(E)(7)(a),the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-01
LANDMARK ALTERATION DRC2006-00226 - JACK HALL
April 26, 2006
Page 3
proposed small-scale, non-residential use will be lawful with the approval of the Conditional Use
Permit.
b. The proposed development occurs within City limits on a,project site of no more
than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. Specifically, the project is located at the
corner of 19th Street and Beryl Street, which is within the City limits. The project is surrounded by
urban uses, including a church and residential development. The gross project site area is 1.4 acre.
C. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened
species. The project site is already graded and developed with an historic structure, and the project
simply proposes a change in the use of that structure. As the site is already developed, it does not
have any value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
d. Approval of this project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality. The proposed project will allow a small-scale, office use on the
site. This change from residential to non-residential use will not produce a significant increase in
traffic because of the small-scale nature of the office use, and the fact that the project site is located
next to two fully developed and operational through streets (19th Street and Beryl Street). Further,
the project will not result in any significant noise impacts, as the proposed use is a small-scale office
environment and thus the non-residential use itself will not produce noise impacts. Additionally,
given the small size of the proposed parking lot and the existence of two fully developed streets
(19th Street and Beryl Street) which surround the project site, there is not expected to be any
significant traffic-related noise caused by the project. Moreover, the project will not result in
significant, adverse air quality impacts, because of both to its type of use (office) and small-scale
nature. Finally, the project will not create significant water quality impacts, as the project site is not
located near a body of water, and proposed office use will not disturb the water table.
e. The project site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. First, because of the small-scale nature of the project, there is not expected to be any
significant demand for public services. Second,the project site is located next to two developed and
operational streets (19th Street and Beryl Avenue), both of which could provide access for any
necessary public services. Finally, as the project site is already developed with a residence, utilities
are currently in place and in service.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions setforth in paragraphs 1,2,3 and 4 above,this
Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24.of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, that the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
approves on the 26th day of April 2006, Landmark Designation DRC2006-00226 during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1,2,3 and 4
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
Planning Department
1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections
of the Development Code, State Fire Marshall's regulations, Uniform
Building Code, or any other City Ordinances.
2) Any modifications to the conceptually approved design of the stairway
by the Design Review Committee will be cause for the modifications to
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-01
LANDMARK ALTERATION DRC2006-00226 - JACK HALL
April 26, 2006
Page 4
be brought back and reviewed and approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission.
3) The design of the stairway should be similar in material and
architecture to the existing historic Stoebe house.
4) Approval of Landmark Alteration DRC2006-00226 is granted subjectto
the approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2004-01173.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2006.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
a ewart, Cha'
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 Historic Preservation Commission held on the 26th day of April 2006, by the
following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: DRC2006-00226
SUBJECT: LANDMARK ALTERATION
APPLICANT: JACK HALL
LOCATION: 6710 BERYL STREET—SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 19 STREET AND BERYL STREET
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements completion Dace
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/—i—
agents,officers,or employees,because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole
discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
B. Site Development.
1. 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.
2. 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
Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
3. 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 the
time of building permit issuance.
SC-1-05 1
Project No.DRC2006-00226
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT,(909)477-2710,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S)
Conditions for Building and Safety Department have been deferred to plan check.
SC-1-05
2