HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/07/12 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY
JULY 12, 1995
7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
II.
III.
IV.
Roll Call
Chairman Barker
Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Lumpp
Commissioner Meleher __
Commissioner Tolstoy
Announcements
Approval of Minutes
May 30, 1995, Adjourned Joint Meeting with the City Council
June 28, 1995
Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their
opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the
Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shah be limited to 5 minutes
per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-01 CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - Consideration of a revision to the Sign Ordinance to allow
additional wail signs for industrial uses.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-04 - MESTER - A request to provide a
temporary modular unit as a second dwelling unit in the Very Low residential
designation (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8455 Hillside Road -
APN: 1061-701-10.
VII.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
14786 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision of 10.2 acres of land into two
parcels in the Low Medium Residential Development District (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the north side
of East Elm Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Church Street
APN: 1077-421-26 and 27. Staff recommends issuerace of a Negative
Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-17 - TING - A request to construct a 1,189
square foot second dwelling unit in the Very Low Residential District (less than
2 dwelling units/acre), located at 6029 Vineyard Avenue - APN: 1062-281-31.
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02 CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to
allow signs for service club organizations.
Director's Reports
WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to consider initiation of text changes
to add Commercial uses and standards for Commercial uses in conjunction with
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 for parcels located on the south
side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues in Subarea 7.
Public Comments
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be
discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
Commission Business
G. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
H. DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS
I. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M.
adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of
the Commission.
The Planning Commission will adjoum to a workshop immediately following in the
De Anza Room regarding Design Review Process and Philosophy.
I,, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby
certi~ that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 6, 1995, at least
72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUC,~d~,IONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission,
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Consideration of a revision to the Sign Ordinance to allow additional wall signs for
industrial uses.
Background:
On March 22, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed a Variance request submitted by B.H.P.
Steel, U.S.A., requesting approval of three wall signs for their facility on Arrow Route. Under the
Sign Ordinance, single tenant industrial users are permitted one wall sign per building elevation with
a maximum of two wall signs. The applicant proposed three wall signs on the new building addition
housing the zincalume production line (see Exhibit "A"). The applicant suggested that the facility was
actually a multi-tenant site with B.H.P. Steel Coating, Inc., and B.H.P. Steel, U.S.A., operating as
independent corporations within the same building; therefore, four wall signs for the two businesses
should be allowed. The Commission did not support this interpretation
During the public hearing the Planning Commission felt that there may be situations that arise where
a third sign is appropriate given the size of the building and/or the size of the site. The Planning
Commission directed staff to work with the applicant and return to the Commission with an
amendment to the Sign Ordinance.
In considering various alternatives to the Sign Ordinance, staff has developed criteria that would give
the City Planner discretion to approve a third sign for single tenant industrial users. The following
criteria would be used as the basis for any approval of a third sign where the size of the building, the
site, and the street frontage is sufficient to support such a request:
1. The site shall have a minimum street frontage of 600 feet, and
2. The minimum parcel size shall be 10 acres, and
3. The minimum building square footage shall be 200,000 square feet.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SOA 95-01 ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 12, 1995
Page 2
These criteria were based on several factors. The Sign Ordinance allows larger signs for future tenant
identification signs where the site is 10 acres or more. These signs would be allowed every 600 lineal
feet of street frontage. The shopping center criteria allows a larger monument sign if the centers have
at least 500 lineal feet of street frontage. These sites were considered to be of sufficient size to
warrant larger signs than if the building size was not based on any existing regulations of the Sign
Ordinance. Staff feels the 200,000 square foot minimum is appropriate to allow those larger users
the opportunity for a third sign.
Recommendation: If the criteria suggested is consistent with the Planning Commission direction, a
recommendation of approval of the Sign Ordinance amendment should be for-warded to the City
Council through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval.
Principal Planner
DC:SM:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - B.H.P. Building Elevations
Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes of March 22, 1995
Resolution Recommending Approval of Sign Ordinance Amendment
['I[ i]LIi~jJ LIII .LIIIjIt~t]L_[I_I.UIlT17fII~' ~
] t_1_1 I. I I 1i 11117 ._~uj,ll[l FFFI II_~]TFL12
PUBLIC RRAiRINGS
VARIANCE 9S-02 - BRP STEEL U.S.A.. INC. - A request to exceed the maximum
number of wall signs allowed for a manufacturing building in the General
Industrial designation (Subares 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
located at 11200 Arrow Route - APN= 208-961-26.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Pete Pitsssi, Peter Pitassi Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue, #105, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated he was representing BHP Corporation. He requested the Planning
C~,..ission review the Sign Ordinance to see if it could interpret the ordinance
in a way which would all~ his client to have the requested signs or direct staff
to work with them on a compromise. He conceded that there are no grounds for a
variance from a technical standpoint, but he thought the ordinance could be more
widely interpreted. He showed slides of the original drawings which the
Commission had seen in April 1994 and some of the facility as it currently
exists. He noted the facility is under construction and should be completed in
June. He stated that staff had classified the use as a single-parcel,
single-tenant facility as described in the Sign ordinance under industrial uses.
He said two separate companies Operate out of the facility, one operating a paint
line and the other operating a zincalums line. He observed they are independent
corporations with different management and employees, but having the same parent
company. He said they had remarked to staff that if the property line between
the two former buildings had not been removed, they would be entitled to four
wall signs. He thought the signs should be considered business identification
multi-tenant sites. He said BHP has chosen not to identify the two companies
individually, but rather to identify the parent corporation. He thought the Sign
Ordinance does not dictate that the signs must identify the individual
corporations rather than the parent company. He felt the signs are consistent
Planning Commission ~inutes
-10~
March 22, 1995
with the design of the building. He said they would be willing to agree to a
continuance if the Commission felt the matter could be worked out or to withdraw
their variance application if the Con~nission agreed with their interpretation of
the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner McHiel asked if the two entities process the same material~ i.e.,
did the zincalums coated coils go to the other entity to be painted.
Gary Scharnagle, BHP Steel, 11200 Arrow Route, Ranthe cucamonga, replied that the
zincalume coated coils are sometimes sold to the other entity in order to be
painted.
Commissioner Eumpp observed that Mr. Pitassi had requested an interpretation of
the Sign Ordinance and a willingness to withdraw the variance application. He
asked if the applicant would file for an amendment to the Sign Ordinance in order
to process the request.
Mr. Pitassi did not feel an amendment would be necessary, but rather the
C~l..ission could interpret their facility is a multi-tenant industrial building
which would permit two signs per business. He said that such an interpretation
would void the need for a variance. He thought the Sign Ordinance should leave
room for staff to make value judgemen=. He felt the industrial category in the
Sign Ordinance was set up for distribution buildings and multi-tenant industrial
parks, not manufacturing buildings.
Con~nissioner Melcher asked the maximum number of signs that could be seen from
any one vantage point in the City if all three signs were permitted on the
building.
Mr. Pitassi replied a maximum of two would be visible from any one location.
Con~iseioner McNiel asked how significant the logo is to BHP Steel.
Mr. Pltaeei replled that it is very significant because it is the symbol that is
consistent among all the products and services they provide and recognized in the
industry.
Mr. Murphy stated that staff had no problems with the size of the proposed sign.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McNlel stated this was a problem the City has been grappling with
for quite a while. He thought the City needs to revisit the Sign Ordinance
because he felt similar requests will be forthcoming from locations with two to
three tenants per building, each requesting their own signs. He noted the
Commission would be considering an amendment to a sign program later in the
agenda for a similar situation within a commercial project. He agreed with
Pitseel that the sign would not be detrimental to the project in terms of
cluttering up the building, but he felt it would set a dangerous precedent if
there is no position in place in the Ordinance. He noted that markets such as
Smiths have several sub-tenants and such requests will soon be multiplying. He
thought the Commission needs to deal with the issue by laying ground rules of
when such sis=age would be appropriate. He did not support the variance request
even though he felt the sign would complement the building.
Ccelnissioner Tolstoy felt this is a problem that will continue to grow within the
commercial area whenever there is one large user who subleases space to other
Planning Commission Minutes
-1 -
March 22, 1995
commercial entities as each sub-tenant will ask for =heir own identification.
He stated that in the industrial area, there will be large corpora=ions who will
sell various products fran different companies under one roof. He observed that
a monument sign identifies the property from the south and he felt a sign on the
east elevation and another on the west would be sufficient when'combined with the
monument sign. He did not support the request.
Chairman Barker noted that in this case, the applicant was stating =here is more
than one company in the building, but they want to use o~ly one corporate logo.
He noted that if the applicant had wanted to name each company separately, they
would have been enti=lod to four signs. He observed the applicant is requesting
fewer signs than the two separate companies would be entitled
Commissioner McNiel asked what =here would be to preclude someone from
manufacturing three separate elements and creating three separate corporations.
He said he knows individuals who are incorporated under three separate names.
He stated that Barton Development Company would have been entitled to numerous
signs if that criteria were used.
Commissioner Melcher noted that BHP Steel brought a major new investment to the
city, constructed an extremely handsome industrial building, and brought the
entire complex undeE a single color scheme. He thought that when the Sign
Ordinance was written, lit was not anticipated that buildings would be of this
scale or there would be a tower that is half again as tall as any of its plan
dimensions. He also felt there had been no anticipation of companies wishing to
use a corporate identity. He thought the sign is handsome and an important
design element on the tower. Me suggested that staff and the applicant work
together to develop provisions to enable the sign.
Cammissioner Lumpp felt staff had considered all of the issues and had tried to
make it work, but had been faced with no recourse other than to suggest a
variance. He noted that the applicant had affirmed that the findings can not be
made to support the variance request. He suggested the Commission take action
and then work with staff to modify the Sign Ordinance. He said that if the
Commission wants to permit such signage, it will be necessary to redefine the
definitions or create a special provision for this type of situation. He
remarked that if the Sign Ordinance is subsequently modified to permit such a
sign, the applicant could then install the sign.
Chairman Barker felt the Commission has previously been placed in situations
where it believes itself forced to approve things that are not attractive but
that this was just the opposite. He concurred with staff's conclusion that the
findings cannot be found to support the variance. He agreed the Commission
should revisit the ordinance to determine if such situations had been considered
at the time the ordinance was written. He noted that the applicant was proposing
fewer signs than what may be requested in other situations. He suggested the
applicant withdraw the application and the Commission form a subcommittee to
revisit the ordinance.
commissioner McMiel noted that if the request for the variance is continued to
the point when the Sign Ordinance is revisited, there may no longer bee need for
a variance.
Mr. Murphy stated that if the variance request was continued and the Sign
Ordinance is revised eo that a third sign would be permitted, then the variance
would not be needed and the applicant could then withdraw the variance without
returning to the Commission.
Planning Commission Hinutes
March 22, 1995
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated staff had attempted to find a way to permit the
third sign without setting a precedent. He noted there are many companies who
identify themselves under differen~ corporate name. He said staff could try to
develop a measure within the Sign Ordinance that would allow more than the
standard number of signs when certain conditions exist. Me noted that the
Con~nission's policy has been that signs are to identify, not to advertise.
Chairman Barker agreed that the Commission was not saying that it would like
seven or eight companies identified on a building.
Mr. Buller said that although ~he Commission finds the BHP logo to be attractive,
the company could change it in the future to a different color or a different
logo. He suggested the matter be continued for a long enough time to consider
the ramifications.
Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Pitassi etated it seems unfortunate that ordinances are created that tie
staff's hands. He felt there should be room for value judgements to be made.
Me thought it is impossible to legislate good design and he did not think
everything can be reduced to a rule. He felt an interpretation could be made
that this is a multi-tenant site because that term is not defined in the
ordinance.
Chairman Barker felt the rules should be modified to avoid problems in the
future.
Mr. Pitassi said they would be willing to continue the matter with the hope of
ultimately withdrawing the variance application. He thought the revision of the
ordinance would take some time, as it would ultimately need to be approved by the
city council.
Ccra~issioner McNlel recalled that past considerations of the Sign Ordinance had
involved input from many sources and he hoped =hose o~her sign issues would not
need to be revisited at this time.
Mr. Buller observed the cavenission had previously made cc~mnitmants to the Chamber
of Co~w~erce to address other pending issues. He thought the question will come
up as to why this issue should be addressed without addressing those previous
concerns.
Commissioner Lumpp asked what the benefit would be to the applicant to agree to
a continuance.
Mr. Pitassi said they want to cooperate with the City in looking for a solution.
He said he heard the Commission's comments that the applicant's situation is
Justification for taking another look at the ordinance.
Commissioner McNiel stated the object of revisiting the Sign Ordinance is to
correct the problem of this request as well as to address requests the C~Mmnission
is receiving from sc~e of the retail establishments with multiple subleases. He
thought that to give the additional sign to BHP Steel as a discretionary action
would open the door for the C~mmnission to fight the same battle in the cmrcial
area. He agreed that the sign would be an asset to the building and felt the
Commission wanted to do what is best for the building.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 22, 1995
Mr. Pitseel etated he realized the design review process does not address signs
end that is made clear to applicants as they go through the process. However,
he felt it would be helpful to have staff make ca~nents regarding signs that are
submitted on preliminary designs, so that architects would know concerns up
front.
Mr. Bullet suggested the matter no~ be continued to a specific date but rather
have staff readvertise the matter.
Motionr Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melther, to continue Variance 95-02.
Motion carried by the following voter
AYESr COMMISSIONERS=
NOES= LUMPP
ABSENT: NONE
BARKER, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOy
- carried
Camnissioner Lumpp stated he voted no because he felt action should be taken on
the variance request and the Commission should direct staff to work on an
amendment to t~e Ordinance.
Mr. Murphy observed that sign permits have already been issued for the east and
west building faces.'
Mr. Bullet asked if the applicant was willing to waive statutor~ time limits on
taking action on the variance. He said State law dictates that action must be
taken within six months of the time the application is deemed complete, unless
the applicant waives those time limits.
Chairman Barker and C~wiesioner McNiel felt the matter could be addressed before
the six months had passed.
Mr. Pltasei replied they would not waive that time limit.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 22, 1995
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECON~MENDINGAPpROVAL OF SIGN ORDINANCE
ANENDMENT 95-01, ENDING TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHERFj~S, on the 12th day of July 1995, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65864 of the California Government
code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following
findings:
1. That the Amendment will provide for the development of a comprehensively
planned urban community within the District that is superior to development
otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and
2. That the amendment will provide for development within the District in
a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth
management policies o~ the City.
SECTION ~: The Cor~nission finds and determines that the project identified
above in this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment 95-01
to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Cor~Passion 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 12th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT 95-01, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE.
A. Recitals
1. On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Sign Ordinance
Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. , thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Sign
Ordinance Amendment No. 95-01.
2. On ,1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucemonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of
this ordinance.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this ordinance have occurred.
Ordinance
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14.20.11 O, Subsection 1. Business identificat on (single parcel),
is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2: The Council finds and determines that the project identified above in this
Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3: The mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the
same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California, and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
14.20.110 Permitted signs - Industrial zones. The following signs may be permitted in the industrial zones subject to the provisions listed:
Class
1. Business
identification
(Single
parcel)
Sign Type
Wall
and
Monument
Maximum Number
One per building
face not to exceed
2 per business (*)
One per street
frontage
Maximum Sign Area
10% of the building
face not to exceed
150 square feet
24 square feet
Maximum Height
Not to project above
the roof line or
parapet
Up to 8 feet
Remarks
a. Wall signs shall be limited to
identification of business and
to be placed on buildings
only. No sign may be placed
on other structures such as
silos or towers.
b. A combination of wall and
monument signs may be
used; however such signs
shall not exceed 3 per
business (**)
(*) A third wall sign may be allowed by the City Planner if all of the following criteria are met:
1. The minimum parcel size shall be 10 acres, and
2. The site shall have a minimum street frontage of 600 feet, and
3. The minimum building size shall be 200,000 square feet.
(**) If the City Planner approves an additional wall sign (3 total), the combination of monument and walls signs shall not exceed 4 per busit~ss
Premlere Forms, Inc.
93'10 JERSEY BOULEVARD · i~ANCHO CUCAMC)NGA, CA 91730
(90~) 941-0202 · FAX: (90~) 94'i-1103
COMP,~NY
~-c ?l~-'-,",>- ~--
svsj~C'T (._.)
DATE
VIA
[] PHONE [] REGULAR MAIL
r-1 FAX []
c qc-rp r.
MESSAGE END
EOL L L'P'6 606 SH~0-~ 3~J~Iv43~d HO~'4
HdS~:OL SE6L-LL-L
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
1WF, MORANDU1VI
DATE: JULY 11, 1995
TO:
FROM:
DAN COLEMAN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PHIL K. MOSLEY, JR., COUNTER PLANS EXAMINER /~/~'
SUBJECT:
CUP 95-04 AND CUP 95-17 FOR PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DWELLING
UNITS ON 1/2 ACRE LOTS WITH EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
D~,YELLINGS
On October 13, 1989 the Santa Ann River Basin Water Quality Contxol Board adopted
Resolution Number 89-157, amending the Water Quality Control Plan to add a one-half acre
minimum lot size requirement for new developments using on-site septic tank-subsurface
leaching/percolation systems. In Resolution Number 89-157 as amended by Resolution Number
91-51, the term"one-halfacm" specified as the minimum lot size requirement means an average
gross area of land of one-half acre per dwelling unit.
On July 11, 1995 1 contacted Mark Adelson (Chief of the Enfomement Section of the Santa Ann
Region Water Quality Control Board) regarding Water Quality Control Board Resolution
Number 89-157 and its applicability to the above referenced project. Mr. Adelson stated that
because these projects were subject to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Conditional Use Permit
review process, the Water Quality Control Board considers these projects to be new
developments and therefor are subject to the requirements of Resolution Number 89-157.
Section 1101 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1991 Edition requires that every building in which
plumbing fixtures are installed, shall have a connection to a public or private sever, or a private
sewage disposal systeln. Because. these properties are not served by a public or private sewer,
and Water Quality Control Board regulations prohibit the installation of a private sewage
disposal system serving a single family dwelling on a lot with less than one-half acre of land per
dwelling unit Section 1101 of the Uniform Plumbing Code would prohibit the issuance of
building permits for either of these projects by the Building and Safety Division.
If you need further information regarding this matter, please call me at ext. 2209.
CC:
William Makshanoff, Building Official
Jim Maxtin, Plan Check Coordinator
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner
ADDENDUM REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-04 - MESTER
ANALYSIS: The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board informed staff this week that
the proposed project cannot meet their requirements for new development - a minimum of 1/2 acre
per septic system (see Exhibit "A"). The existing residence uses a septic system. The Water Quality
Control Plan adopted by the Board would require a second septic system be installed to serve the
proposed second dwelling unit. Since the subject property is only 1/2 acre in size, the applicant will
not be allowed to provide the necessary septic system to serve the second dwelling unit.
Therefore, staff does not believe that the requisite findings can be made to approve the proposed use
at this location. Staff finds that the proposed use would be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or general welfare.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice
to refile, the proposed use through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Principal Planner
DC:SM:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Regulations
Resolution of Denial
WATER QUALITY CONTROt PLAN, SANTA A/~A RIVER 8ASkN (8)
SUPPLEMENT ~X) C~FTER 4t ~J4PLEMENTATION
Minimum Lot Size Requirements and ExemPtion Criteria
Developments Usifig" On-site Sep~t~
~aching/Fercolation systems
On ~tober 13,' 1989, ~e Regional ~ard adopt~ Resolu=ic~ No. 89-
157, amending the Water ~uality Control Plan to add a one-half acre
minimum lot size retirement for new developments using on-site
septic tank-subsurfa~ leachi~g/~r~lation systems
Certain exemptions from the minimum lot size retirement Were
specified fn Resolution Ho. 89-15~. O~ Decoder ?, ]fP~O,. the
Regional ~ard adopted Resolutio~ No. 90-158, which revised
exemption criterfa. However, on June 7, 1991, the R~ional
adopted Resolution No. 91-51, res~lnding Resolution ~o. 9~-15a
revising the exem~tion .criteria in ResoIutl~n No. 89-157.
Resolution No. 89-157, as amende~ by Resolution No. 91-51,
stipulates the followlng=
A minimum lot size of one-halg acre (~verage gross) per
dwelling unit Is re~ired for new developments in the
Region usi~ on-site septic tank-subsurface
leaching/percolation syste~s.
a. The tom "one-hal~ ale" specified as the minimum
lot size requirement means an average gross 'area of
land of one-half acre per dvelling unit. In the
ca!culation of the average lot size, areas set aside
for'streets, curbs~ commons~ greenbelts~ and.other
easements m~y be included.
A "new" development is defined as a proposed tract,
parcel, industrial or commercial development that
has not been granted one or more of the foI!owing
on or prior to september. ?, 1989~
· '1. Conditional approval or approval of a tentative
parcel or tract ~ap by the local agency such
as the county/city Planning Conisslcn, City
Council, or the Board of Supervisors..
A conditional use permit.
Conditional approval or approval by the San
Bernardino County Department of Environmental
Health' Ssrvices, RiVerside County' Department
of ~ealth, Orange County Health Care Agency,
or other local agency·
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PJ&NCH~!'
CUCAMONGA, C~J~IFORNIA, DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 95-04, A REQUEST TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARy MODULAR
UNIT AS A SECOND DWELLING UNIT IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL
DESIGNATION (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT
8455 HILLSIDE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 1061-701-10.
A. Recitals.
1. Joel Mester has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use
Pealnit No. 95-04, as described in the title of this Resolution. Nereinafter in
this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 12th day of July 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing On that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Eased upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on July 12, 1995, including written and oral
staff reports, ,together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 8455 Hillside Road
with a street frontage of 103 feet and lot depth of 198 feet and is presently
improved with a single family residence served by a septic tank-subsurface sewage
disposal system; and
b. The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the subject
site are zoned and developed with single family residences; and
c. The application contemplates an 813 square foot modular second
dwelling unit to be located in the rear yard and occupied by the parents of the
applicant; and
d. The application as proposed would be materially detrimental to the
persons and properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject site for reasons
as follows:
i. The proposed structure will require a second septic tank-
subsurface sewage disposal system to be constructed on the subject site. The
site is inadequate to accommodate such a system based upon the minimum 1/2 acre
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-04 - MESTER
July 12, 1995
Page 2
per septic system requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board for a new development.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set
forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto,
will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties Or improvements in the vicinity.
b. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
c. The evidence presented to this Commission has identified potential
adverse effects of the applied-for use.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
and 3 above, this commission hereby denies the application without prejudice to
refile.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 12th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA '
STAFF REPORT
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-04 - MESTER - A request to provide a
temporary modular unit as a second dwelling unit in the Very Low Residential
designation (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 8455 Hillside
Road - APN: 1061-701-10.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single family residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre)
8outh - Single family residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre)
East - Single family residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre)
West - Single family residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre)
Site Characteristics: The site is currently developed with a single family residence
containing a 2-car garage. The north-south lot is generally graded into two relatively
fiat areas - the area of the house and the southern portion of the site proposed for the
second dwelling unit. The area immediately south of the house is a swimming pool.
A local equestrian trail parallels the southern property line.
ANALYSIS:
Background: On April 12, 1995, the Planning Commission considered a Variance
request submitted by the applicant to delete the requirement for a 2-car garage for the
second dwelling unit. Because the applicanrs in-laws did not drive, the applicant
suggested that any additional on-site parking be provided within the driveway, which
could handle up to four cars. The Commission determined that the request was
inconsistent with the Development Code and denied the application.
.j
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-04 - MESTER
July 12, 1995
Page 2
General: During the April 12, 1995, hearing, staff informed the Planning Commission
that the current provisions of the second dwelling unit allow the use of "temporary"
units with one additional parking space being provided on-site. The Development
Code does not specify whether the parking space must be covered (e.g. garage or
carport). The applicant has modified the plans from the Variance request to provide
a temporary, modular unit that will serve as the second dwelling unit. The applicant
is proposing a two-bedroom, two-bath structure totaling 813 square feet. The single-
story unit will be located at the southern portion of the site, 10 feet from the rear
property line. The building will be designed with hardwood siding, painted to match
the existing house, and composition shingles to match the house. The additional
parking space (open space) is provided on the side of the garage.
Temporary Structure: The Development Code permits the use of
temporary/removable structures, provided they are located in the rear yard and
screened from public view from the street. In the past, temporary structures have
been proposed for industrial or church sites as temporary offices/classrooms until
permanent facilities could be constructed. The biggest concern with temporary
structures is their removal within a reasonable time period, typically five years. The
City has used agreements recorded against the property to provide additional
assurances that the structures will be removed.
The use of a temporary modular as a second dwelling unit poses some unique
. challenges different from industrial or church applications. First, no permanent plans
of construction are anticipated. The applicant is proposing to use the second dwelling
unit for his in-laws, ages 71 and 73, so they will be closer to the family. Second, the
normal five year time frame may not be adequate. The City does not want to be in
a position of requiring the applicant to remove the second dwelling unit if one or both
of the in-laws are able to use the facility. The Development Code does not provide
a maximum length of time that the structure may remain other than to say it shall be
removed when "the designated time period, activity, or use for which the temporary
structure was erected has ceased."
To address these issues, staff recommends that an agreement similar to the
agreement used for other temporary structures (see Exhibit" E") be recorded with the
property. The agreement should establish an initial time period of five years for the
structure to remain. Extensions may be approved by the City Planner beyond the
initial five years. The agreement should also contain a clause requiring removal of
the structure upon sale of the property. The recording of the agreement will alert
future buyers of the requirement to remove the structure.
Environmental Assessment: The request to provide the second dwelling unit is
categorically exempt under Section 15303, new construction or conversion of small
structures, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-04 - MESTER
July 12, 1995
Page 3
E=
Correspondence: This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the
properly was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet.
F. Neighborhood Concerns: Staff has received a letter from a nearby resident opposing
the modular structure (see Exhibit "F").
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
CUP 95-04 through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Dan Coleman
Principal Planner
DC:SM:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" -
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Exhibit "D" -
Exhibit "E" -
Exhibit "F" -
Location Map
Site Plan
Building Elevations
Floor Plan
Proposed Agreement
Letter from Nearby Resident
Resolution of Approval
K04
L( IJ
.Q'Htpn-" A
1,~/. ~7
~""
, PR OJ let
i
@
12 2.
I"=100r
y .¢ ,.¢~.
ROAD
12 ' IUJ
" UJ
MR. & MRS. JOEL MESTER
8455 HILLSIDE ROAD
ALTALOMA, CA 91701
"I'FI · 0/1~11
/
1~' /
i()//
/
I e~-r,, I ~) c~c.
OWNER & ADORES,S:
MR. & MRS. JOEL MESTER
8455 HILLSIDE ROAD
ALTA LOMA, CA 91701
TEL.: 9091 948-2340
SITE PLAN
1" = 20'
PROJECT & LOCATION:
PROPOSED SECOND
DWELLING UNIT
8455 HILLSIDE ROAD
ALTA LOMA, CA 91710
= e
FLn'~-;-- >"'
t~rl' ¢~be
tEN J R O0 ~ _ _ _ J KITCHEN ~ DINING
,.~ r
BEDROOM-2//
MASTER
BEDROOM
LrvlNC ROOM & DINE.
16'-0"'
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA ("CITY" hereina~er) and JOEL A. MESTER, an individual ("APPLICANT"
hereina~er).
WITNESSETH
A. Recitals.
(i) The APPLICANT is the owner of that certain real property within the CITY
hereinafter referred to as the "subject property," located at 8455 Hillside Road and
described as follows:
Lot 10 of Tract 7176 - Assessor's Parcel No. 1061-701-10.
(ii) The subject property is currently improved with an existing single family
residence occupied by the APPLICANT. It is the intention of the APPLICANT to locate on
his property a second dwelling unit for senior citizen parents. To meet this need, the
APPLICANT submitted Conditional Use Permit No. 95-04, an application to authorize the
placement of one temporary modular unit on the subject property.
(iii) On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application of the APPLICANT
and, upon conclusion of said public hearing, adopted their Resolution No. 95- , thereby
approving Conditional Use Permit 95-04 to allow the placement of one temporary modular
unit on the subject property.
-1-
(iv)
as follows:
Condition No. 1 ) of Paragraph No. B.5 of said Resolution No. 95- 3rovided
1) The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
City to ensure removal of the modular unit. The final
wording of the agreement shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner and the City Attorney and
shall be recorded by the applicant prior to the
installation of the unit. The terms of the agreement
shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) The approval is granted for an initial time period
of five years. Extensions may be granted by the
City Planner, upon written request by the
applicant, in one-year increments.
b) The second dwelling unit shall be removed prior
to the sale/transfer of ownership of the property."
B. Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and the APPLICANT do hereby agree as follows:
Section 1. Authorization.
Upon the execution and recordation of this Agreement, the APPLICANT may install
and occupy the temporary modular unit on the subject property in accordance with the
terms of Resolution No. 95- and this Agreement.
-2-
~ection 2. Term and Termination.
The term of the privilege to maintain and occupy said one temporary modular unit
on the subject property shall be governed by the terms of Condition No. 1 ) of Paragraph
No. B.5 of Resolution No. 95- Upon the conclusion of the term as referenced in
Resolution No. 95- and herein, the APPLICANT shall, without prior notice from the CITY
and at the APPLICANT's sole cost and expense, immediately remove the temporary
modular unit from the subject property then owned by the APPLICANT.
This Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon
permanent removal of the temporary modular unit from the subject property owned by the
APPLICANT, regardless of whether this removal occurs prior to or after the conclusion of
the authorized term herein.
Section 3. Default and Enforcement.
If the APPLICANT defaults in the performance or observance of any portion of this
Agreement, and if any such default remains uncured for a period of ten days after notice
to the APPLICANT, the CITY may bring any action or proceeding at law or in equity to
require the APPLICANT to perform its obligations under the terms of this Agreement. The
remedies proscribed herein shall be cumulative and the use of any one or more of such
remedies by the CITY shall not bar the use of any other remedy available to the CITY for
the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Agreement or said Resolution No. 95-
In the event that CITY brings an action or proceeding to enforce the provisions of
this Agreement, the CITY shall recover from the APPLICANT, as part of a successful
judgment, any and all costs and attorneys' fees as deemed reasonable by the Court.
-3-
No delay in the enforcement of the provisions hereof as to any default in
performance shall impair, damage, or waive the right of CITY to enforce the same at any
hater time.
Section 4. Covenants to Run With the Land.
The APPLICANT hereby subjects the property described herein to the covenants
and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. The CITY and the APPLICANT hereby
declare their specific intent that the covenants and restrictions as set forth herein shall be
deemed during the term of this Agreement to be covenants running with the land and shall
pass to and be binding upon the APPLICANT's successors and assigns in title or interest
to the subject property. CITY and APPLICANT hereby declare their understanding and
intent that the benefit and burden of the covenants and restrictions as set forth herein
touch and concern the subject property in that the APPLICANT's legal interest is rendered
less valuable while the benefit is enjoyed by the general public by furthering the public
purposes for which the development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga have
been adopted.
Each and every contract, deed, or instrument executed during the term of this
Agreement which purports to cover or convey the subject property shall be conclusively
held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject the covenants and
restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants and
restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.
Section 5. Recording and Filing.
As a specific condition prior to the installation and occupancy of the temporary
modular unit, the APPLICANT shall cause this Agreement and any amendments or
-4-
supplements thereto to be recorded and filed in conjunction with the subjsct property in the
office of the County Recorder, County of San Bernardino. The APPLICANT shall pay all
fees and charges incurred in connection with such recording and filing. Additionally, the
APPLICANT shall provide to the CITY a conformed copy of this Agreement as recorded
prior to the installation and occupancy of the temporary modular unit.
~. Notice.
Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided
by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address of the respective parties as
specified below or at any other such address as may be later specified by the parties
hereto:
To APPLICANT:
Joel A. Mester
8455 Hillside Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
To CITY:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10700 Civic Center Drive
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Attention: City Planner
Section 7. ~.
The terms of this Agreement may be extended by the City Planner in conjunction
with Conditional Use Perm t 95-04, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02.100. B,
Section 8. Amendments.
This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by the
~arties hereto.
-5-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and the APPLICANT have executed this
Agreement as of the dates set opposite their signatures.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Dated:
By:
William J. Alexander, Mayor
APPLICANT
Dated: By:
Joel A. Mester
-6-
June 27, 1995
RECEIVED
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729
JUN 2 8 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
RE: Conditional Use Permit 95-04 Mester
APN# 1061-701-10
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am very strongly opposed to the above mentioned proposed permit.
As.a homeowner in the neighborhood, it is my opinion that allowing
one modular structure would only open the door to unlimited
requests from other area residents.
One of the reasons I moved to this area and paid above market for
my home is that this sort of thing was not allowed. Allowing this
type of structure will further decrease the value of my home.
My neighbors and I could not prevent the real estate market crash
which depleted equity for some and put the rest of us in an
"upside down,, situation. I only hope we can prevent this "modular
unit permit" as it is less than beneficial to any of us.
Donna Thompson
5487 Sard St.
Alta Loma, Ca. 91701
909-989-1001 Residence
909-980-9599 Business
El,vla, r 'F"
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 95-04, A REQUEST TO PROVIDE A TEMPORARy MODULAR UNIT
AS A SECOND DWELLING UNIT IN THE VERy LOW RESIDENTIAL
DESIGNATION (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT
8455 HILLSIDE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 1061-701-10.
1. Joel Mester has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use
Permit No. 95-04~ as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in
this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 12th day of July 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on July 12, 1995, including written and oral
staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 8455 Hillside Road
with a street frontage of 103 feet and lot depth of 198 feet and is presently
improved with a single family residence; and
b. The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the subject
site are zoned and developed with single family residences; and
c. The development of the second dwelling unit is consistent with the
Very Low Residential designation of the General Plan and the Development Code;
and
d. The proposed use complies with the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
e. The application contemplates a modular second dwelling unit to be
located in the rear yard and occupied by the parents of the applicant.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-04 - MESTER
July 12, 1995
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 Conunission hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan,. the objectives
of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto,
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions
of the Development Code.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project
identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each
and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1)
The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City
to ensure removal of the modular unit. The final wording
of the agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner and the City Attorney and shall be recorded
by the applicant prior to the installation of the unit.
The terms of the agreement shall include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a)
The approval is granted for an initial time period
of five years. Extensions may be granted by the
City Planner, upon written request by the applicant,
in one-year increments.
2)
b) The second dwelling unit shall be removed prior to
the sale/transfer of ownership of the property.
Landscaping shall be provided on the south and west sides
of the structure to soften the appearance from adjacent
properties. The final plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner prior to the installation of
the unit.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
Resolution.
of this
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-04 - }{ESTER
July 12, 1995
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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
Cocamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAI~ONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14786 -
LEWIS DEVELOPMENT - A subdivision of 10.2 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low
Medium Residential Development District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista
Planned Community, located on the north side of East Elm Avenue between Spruce Avenue
and Church Street - APN: 1077-421-26 and 27. Staff recommends issuance of aNegative
Declaration.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". Adoption
of a Negative Declaration.
B. ~: Parcel I 3.34 acres
Parcel 2 6,156 acres
Total 10.2 anres
C. Existing Zoning: Low Medium Residential
D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - West Greenway Corridor and single family residential
East - Coyote Canyon School
Southwest - Vacant, approved multifamily residential tract
E. Surrounding General Plan and Development CodeDesignations:
North - Medium Density Residential
East - Elementary School
Southwest - Medium Density Residential
Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes to the south at less than 3 percent. It is bordered by
Coyote Canyon Elementary School on the east, West Greenway Corridor on the north, and East Elm
Avenue street improvements are in place along the south boundary.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PM 14786 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT
July 12, 1995
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of this parcel map is to create a lot adjacent to Coyote Canyon School which will accommodate
a proposed parking lot (Exhibit "C"), which Central School Dislxict hopes to have constructed by September
of 1995, as well as possible future expansion of the school or administrative services. The balance of the
undeveloped Low Medium Residential development district (Exhibit "A"), which currently has two assessors
parcel numbers, will become Parcel 2. Exhibit "C" shows one possible master plan for Parcel 2, as a single
family residential tract. Approval of the parcel map does not mean approval of the future residential master
plan.
Central School District is proceeding with installation of a parking lot to solve existing school-related traffic
problems along East Elm Avenue. Lewis Development will be installing a storm drain to accommodate
private cross lot drainage from Parcel 2 through Pamel 1. Since the storm drain may be used to drain a future
public street, its design will be approved by both the City Ehgineer and the Building Official We are also
requiring completion of the sidewalk connection between Coyote Canyon School and the West Greenway
Corridor with the parking lot on Parcel 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part
II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this project.
Therefore, adoption of a Negative Declaration is appropriate.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel
Map 14786. If after such consideration, the Commission deems approval appropriate, then adoption of the
attached Resolution would be in order.
Respectfully submitted,
Senior Civil Engineer
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval
O~~
I. M LM M NC M
M ~ . ~ ~
LM
M
M
OP
MH
JrH ~
H
P
M LM
M
MH
M
P
MH
CC
CITY OF
CC
H
P
6,S ACRES OF H
MHO
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
M M
LM
F
LM
M
H
M
LM
MOC
189 ACRES OF MH
e,9 ACRES OF M
ITK'M-. Pf~I~tEL M ~P 1"179/,,,
fl'M_J: VI/'$MITY /vl/:lP
I;
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
/
| "~,'*_*'*~
I
I ":
N
ITRM~ PFtRPEL
TITI.R? TENTATIVE
iv7ab
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1371 .\
TETI.R~ SITE P L R AJ
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NUMBER 14786, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST ELM
AVENUE BETWEEN SPRUCE AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-26 AND 27.
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 14786, has been submitted by Lewis
Development company, applicant, for the purpose Of subdividing into 2 parcels,
the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN 1077-421-26 and 27, located
on the north side of East Elm Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Church Street; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised
public hearing for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE,! THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION l: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent
with the General Plan.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed
development.
That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage or public health problems or
have adverse effects On abutting properties.
SECTION 2: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed
Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the
environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that
there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings
as follows:
That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;
that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning
Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been
incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse
environmental effects will occur.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
PM 14786 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT
July 12, 1995
Page 2
PUrsuant to the provisions of Section 753.5{c) of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission
finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there
is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential
for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat
upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial
evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the
Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning
Co~:nission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as
set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the
Califorhia Code of Regulations.
SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 14786 is hereby approved subject to
the attached Standard conditions and the following Special Conditions:
Enoineerinu Division
East Elm Avenue sidewalk shall be installed across both parcel
frontages, so that it is continuous between the school and the
West Greenway corridor, upon development of either parcel.
Upon development of Parcel 1, driveways shall align or be
offset at least 150 feet from the approved future driveway
location for Tract 13717 on the south side of East Elm Avenue,
which is centered on the parcel line between Lots i and 11.
Prior to or concurrent with final parcel map approval, a
disclosure statement regarding the potential for a future
public street along the north boundary of Parcel i shall be
recorded. The disclosure statement shall also indicate the
parkway landscaping of said street along the north boundary of
Parcel i shall be maintained by the owner of Parcel 1,
consistent with City policy.
East Elm Avenue frontage shall be posted "No Parking".
A public storm drain is not required until a public street is
installed on Parcel 2. If the developer wishes to install the
pipe upon development of Parcel 1, the drainage system shall
be privately maintained until such time as public maintenance
is warranted. Any system which will ultimately be publicly
maintained shall be installed in conformance with City
Standards, but will not be accepted by the City until it
receives public waters. Two easements are needed: private
cross lot drainage for the interim condition and a public
storm drain easement offer with the map, which we will
recommend be rejected by the City Council.
The final drainage study shall determine pipe size based on
the "worst case" developed condition, a multi family
development on Parcel 2 without public streets, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official.
PL~_NNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
PM 14786 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT
July 12, 1995
Page 3
Pipes less than 60 inches in diameter only require a 12-foot
public storm drain easement. Since there is a potential sump
catch basin condition, the final drainage study shall
determine the additional easement width required to
accommodate Q100 surface overflows in the event of blockage in
that catch basin.
Building and Safety Division
All drainage from Parcel 2 shall be collected and discharged
to improved public facilities in a manner acceptable to the
Building Official.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucemonga, 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 12th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
Those items checked are Conditions of Approval.
A. Dedications and Vehicular access
1. Rights -of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the
City for all interior public streets, community trails, public
paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private
easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local
feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or
tentative map.
__ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way
for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
6. Reciprocal access easements ensuring access to all
parcels shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel
map.
7. Reciprocal access easements ensuring access to all
parcels shall be provided by CC&R's or deeds and shall be
recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map.
8. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way
are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the final parcel map per
City's Engineer's requirements.
9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed
outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City·
10 "
·Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be
provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final parcel map.
3. Anirrevocableofferofdedicationforroadwaypurposes
shall be made for the private streets.
4. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City
Standards.
5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for
the following streets, except for the following streets, except for
approved openings:
__ 11. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along
fight turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the
face ofcarbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree easement shall be provided.
__ 12. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire
the required off-site property interests necessary to construct the
required public improvements and, if he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final
parcel map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the
improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at
such time as the City acquires the property interests required for
the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-
site property interests required in connection with the subdivision.
Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash
deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the
developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
This condition applies in particular, but not limited, to:
Street Name =urb & A C
Gutter Pvmt
Stre
et Uomm. Vledian Bike )ther
Trees Trail Island Trail
Side- Drive Street
walk Appr. Lights
Notes: (a) Median Isllnd includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction
lad overlays will b~ determined during plan check. (c) If so markcd, sidewalk will bc curvilincar per
STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item.
Street Improvements
I. 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 impmvemems shall include, but are not
limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches,
sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A minimum or 26- foot wide pavement within a 40- foot
wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-
section streets.
V"' 3. Construct the following missing perimeter street
improvements including, but not limited to:
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees and
street lights, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall
be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
b. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-
of- way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall
be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to
any other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name
signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed on
any new construction or reconstruction of' major,
secondary or collector streets which intersect with other
major, secondary or collector streets for future signals.
Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3
feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations
approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: (I) All pull boxes shall be No, 6 unless otherwise spcci~ed by the City
Engineer. (2) Conduit shah be 3- inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all
comers 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. A street closure permit may be required.
A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of
grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon
completion of the construction to 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 lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner
prior to submittal for first plan check.
5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all
private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the
City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private
streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be
obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other
permits required.
V/ 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger shall
be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street
tree program.
V/ 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the
City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy.
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be
plotted for all project intersections, including driveways.
walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines
of sight. Landscaping and other obstructions within the
lines of sight shall be approved by the City Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their
noticeability improved, usually by moving the 2+/-
closest street trees on each side away from the street and
placed in a street tree easement.
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any
work within the following right-of-way.
__ 9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be
operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits.
Public Maintenance Areas
__ 1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per
Engineering Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the
City Engineer for review and approval prior to final parcel map
approval. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos,
easements, trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
. V/ 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the
appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with
the City Engineer prior to final map approval. Formation costs
shall be bome by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and inigation systems
shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted
by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall
conform to the results of the respective Beauti~cation Master Plan:
D. Drainage and Flood Control
2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the
current FIRM Zone. designation removed from the Project
area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports,
plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA,
prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs
first.
V/3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved
by the City Engineer prior to final parcel approval. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
V/ 4. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and
disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent
areas.
5. A permit from the County Flood Control District is
required for work within it's right-of-way.
I//6. 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.
V/7. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey
overflows in the event of blockage in a sump condition.
I. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood
Hazard Zone: therefore, flood protection measures shall be
provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer.
4
E. Improvement Completion
V'/I. 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: ~.,~_~sd.~_ U/~_~.&~az--
___ 2. If the required public improvements are not completed
prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement
certificate shall be placed upon the Final Map stating that they will
be completed upon development for:
F~ Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including
sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone and
cable TV (all underground) in accordance with ~tlie Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
V/2. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed
to meet requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District
(CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San
Bernardino.
3. 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.
4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of
existing utilities as necessary.
G. General Requirements and Approvals
1. The tentative map approval is valid for the 24 month
period following the approval date. Time extensions may be
granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the
expiration date.
2. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by
the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading
permits.
3. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
(C.C.&R.'s) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to
approval of the final map
4. An easement for ajoint use driveway shall be provided
prior to final parcel map approval for:
__ 5. Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall
be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning
the assessments under the Assessment District among the newly
created parcels.
__ 6. EtiwandaJSan Sevaine Area Regional Mainline,
Secondary, Regional and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid
prior to final parcel map approval.
7. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for
work within their right-of-way.
8. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the
Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with
the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation
costs shall be borne by the developer.
9. Prior to ~nalization of any development phase, sufficient
improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase
boundaries to assare secondary access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall
correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map.
V"' 10. Pursuant to provisions of California Resources Code
Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or
final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until
(1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated
environmental action is filed and posted with Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and
all required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the
County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the
Engineering Department with a stamped and copy of the NOD
together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid.
In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing
fees pursuant to the provision of the California Code, or the
guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of any
required handing charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption,
this condition shall be deemed null and void.
1 I. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant
shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-
Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and
maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school
district has previously established such a Community Facilities
District, the applicant shall, in the alternative consent to the
annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing
district prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Further, if
the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date
of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final
parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and
void.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the
applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an
agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as
a result of this project.
12. The developer shall commence, participate in, and
consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or
consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance
construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the
development. The station shall be located, designed, and:built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District, and shall become the District's property upon completion.
The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with
it's needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply
with all application laws and regulations. The CFD Shall be
formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final parcel map occurs.
13. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City,
covering the estimated cost of operating all street lights during the
first six months of operation, prior to final parcel map approval.
6 Rev. 5/17/95
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Steve Ross, Planner
ADDENDUM REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-17 - TING
ANAl ,YSIS: Surrounding residents have submitted new information to staff regarding the possible
adverse impact of the use on the neighborhood. Staff has received many calls and letters, all in
opposition to the proposed use. To summarize, area residents have raised concerns with
incompatibility with surrounding neighborhood, loss of horse keeping potential, and lack of sewage
disposal Capacity.
The Santa Aria Regional Water Quality Control Board informed staff this week that the proposed
project cannot meet their requirements for new development: a minimum of 1/2 acre per septic
system (see Exhibit "A"). The existing residence is on a septic tank-subsurface system. The Water
Quality Control Plan adopted by the Board would require that a second septic system be installed
to serve the proposed second dwelling unit. Since the subject parcel is only 1/2 acre in size, the
applicant cannot provide the necessary septic system.
Therefore, staff does not believe that the requisite findings can be made to approve the proposed use
at this location. The findings that staff cannot make is that the proposed use would not have an
adverse effect on surrounding property and that the use would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or general welfare.
RI~COMIv~,NDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice
to refile, the proposed use through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Principal Planner
DC:SR:gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Santa Ann Regional Water Quality Control Board Regulations
Additional Correspondence ~'om Neighbors (as of July 11, 1995)
Resolution of Denial
,/
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN, SANTA ANA RIVER BASkN (8)
SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPT~ 4t IHPLEMENTATION
Minimum Lot Size Requirements and Exemption Criter~ ~ for New
Developments ~sin~' On-site SeDtl~ Ta~Sub~rface
~aching/Percolation sVstems
On0ctober 13, 1989, the Regional ZoaMadopte~ Resolu=tan No. 89-
157, amending the Water ~uality Control Plan to add a one-half acre
minimum lot size requiremen~ for new developments using on-site
septic tank-subsurface leacht~g/percolatio~ systems regionwide,
Certain exemptions from the minimum lo~ size requirement Were
specified in Resolution No. 89-157. On Decembe~ ?, ~9~0,. the
Regional Board adopted Resolution No. 90-158, which revised the
exemption criteria. }{owevet, on June ~, 1991, the Regional ~oar~
adopted Resolution No. 91-51, rescinding Resolution No. 9~-15a and
revising the exemption .criteria in Resoluti~n No. 89-157.
Resolution No. 89-157, as amended by Resolution No, 91-51,
stipulates the following:
A mlnimdm lot size of one-half acre (average gross) per
dwelling unit is required for new developments in the
Region using on-site septic tank-subsurface
leaching/percolation systems.
The term "one-half ac~a" specified as the minimun
lot size requirement means an average gross'area of
land of one-half acre per dwelling unit. In the
calculation of the average lot size, areas set aside
for'streets, curbs# commons, greenbeltS, and.other
easements m~y be included.
A anew" development is defined as a proposed tract,
~arcel, industrial or commercial development that
has not been granted one or more of the foI!ow~ng
on or prior to September' ?, 1989~
1. Conditional approval or approval of a tentative
parcel or tract map by the local agency such
as the county/city lanning Com~isslcn, City
Council, or the Board o{ $upervisor~,
A conditional use permit.
Conditional approval or approval by the San
Bernardino County Department of Environmental
~eelth' sm~vices, Riverside Count~' Oepartment
o~ Bealth, Orange County ~eelth Care ~genc~,
or other local agency.
June 29, 1995
RECEIVED
JUL 0 6 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
planning Division
Planning Comm4ssion
City of Rancho Cucamonga,
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729.
Sirs,
We have taken note of the notices erected on Vineyard Ave to
notify residents of the proposed Permit 95-17-TING. The proposed
erection of a two-storeyed, tx~o bedroom one garage structure on
the property at 6029 Vineyard.
We would like to declare our objections to this proposal. The
new structure will be visible from the street, the new driveway
and house will radically change the appearance of the neighbourhood.
We would question the need for a completely self-contained unit
with garage and additional driveway to be placed on this property.
At any date this unit could be used to violate the Bye-Laws and
be used as a Rental Unit. If the City Planning Connnission
approves these plans it could set a precedent and permit like
structures on adjacent properties.
An additional residence on a street with only twelve existing homes
will cause additional noise of both vehicles and occupants. We
feel it infringes on our rights as property owners to have the
neighbourhood retain its present status as a neighbourhood of fine
homes in a rural setting. We would question the placement of a
septic system on the property at 6029 with an area large enough to
handle the additional dwelling.
All homes on Vineyard Ave are owner occupied with the exception of
6029 vhose owner is a Chinese National residing in China. This
owner has visited this property on only one occasion and therefore
has no regard for the impact such an additional Two-storeyed home
would have on the neighbouring properties.
Sincere]ly,
co:
Dennis L. Stout, Mayor
Charles J. Bugult, II, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jack Lam, City Manager
William J. Alexander, Council Member
Rex Gutierrez, Council Member
Diane Williams, Council Member
July 7,1995
City ofRancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P.O. BoX 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RECEIVED
JUL 10 1995
RE: Conditional Use Permit #95-17-T1NG
Dear Planning Commission Members:
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
Planning Division
We strongly object to granting the above conditional use permit for the following reasons:
1. We live in a designated "very low residential district". According to this designation, there
are to be less than two dwelling units per acre. The lots in our neighborhood are not acre lots and
6029 Vineyard is not an acre lot. However, even if they had an acre lot, according to your designa-
tion it would still violate the zoning since it is designated "less than two dwelling units per acre"
not up to two.
2. Your staff report refers to applicable laws without naming said laws. You do not cite the section
and code numbers where the laws are found. According to your summary of laws, the state has
adopted laws encouraging second dwelling units, this does not mean that the state mandates
them.
3. This structure still violates local zoning. Our CC & R's prohibit second dwellings on the prop-
erty. We signed these CC & R's in good faith that the builder and the city would uphold them.
Were we purposely mislead by the builder and the city?
4. The staff report under Parking states that 6029 Vineyard has a three car garage. This house, in
fact, has a four car garage,although one of the garage spaces appears to have been convened to a
room. Viewing the existing driveway and the plans for the second driveway, it appears that if cars
are parked in the existing driveway that the second driveway. will be blocked from use. Since there
is little space for pa(king in front of 6029 Vineyard, residents and visitors of 6029 Vineyard would
be forced to park in front of other residences on this cut-de-sac street where parking is already
limited.
5. The plans and the planning depazhaent refers to this structure as a two bedroom structure. The
plans show two bedroom upstairs and a den (same dimensions as bedroom upstairs) with a closet
downstairs, in other words, a bedroom. This structure is, in reality, a three bedroom structure. This
would add even more traffic to the area.
6. The staff report says that this second dwelling would not preclude any neighbors from having
horses. This is incorrect. We are not in a brand new neighborhood. Landscaping and pools have
already been put in. The homes surrounding 6029 Vineyard would now have to remove pools and
redo landscaping causing an unnecessary hardship to them.
7. The staff report ~tates that additional landscaping could be used to screen the structure and drive-
way. The lot is too'n~rrow in front to screen th~ driveway unless plants were placed on the adjoin-
ing lot. No mention is made of the necessity of removing the large trees on 6029 Vineyard to allow
the driveway to be put in. There is also no mention made of replacing these trees which we under-
stand is required by the city for trees of this size.
8. The staff report states that two-story structures are common in the neighborhood and says that
requiring a single story would place too great a burden on the applicant. Two story structures are
common because all the homes are two story. There arc no two story buildings built in the back-
yards of these homes. To put a two story structure in the backyard of this lot is highly objectionable
for esthetic reasorts.
9. We strongly object to the Planning Commission Resolution No CUP 95-17 - TING dated July 12,
1995. This resolution calls for approving the smacture on 6029 Vineyard. This resolution has been
drafted, in advance, prior to the public hearing It appears that the planning commission has already
made their decision and are not responsive to neighboring homeowners. We understood that a
public hearing would be held and neighboring residents would be allowed to air complaints and
concerns and that only then a decision would be made. It appears to us that a decision has been
made and that our concerns do not matter to the Planning Commission~
Sincerely,
Larry L. Rice, Bob J.
6073 Vineyard Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
(909) 989-6977
Daytime Phone # (909) 985-9785
CC;
concerned neighbors
City Council-memben
ZENECA
Pharmaceuticals
A Business Unit of Zeneca inc.
1800 Concord Pike
PO Box 1,5437
Wilmington, DE 19850-5437
Robert J. and Christina E. Perez
6058 Vineyard Ave.
Alta Loma, CA 91701
July 10, 1995
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comm.
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Ref.' Conditional Use 'Peat 95-17-TING
RECEIVED
JUL 10 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Dear Commissioners:
We would like to express our opposition to the proposed Conditional Use Pe~ n~t to
construct an additional two bedroom residential structure on the lot at 6029 Vineyard
Ave., Rancho Cucamonga.
As new homeowners in Alta Loma, one of the primary reasons for our purchase of a home
on this street was the spacious from yards that all of the homes offered. I had no
knowledge at the time that we purchased our home that one of the dwellings, only two
homes away from ours, could potentially be used for a rental property consisting of more
than one family. This information would certainly have been a factor in our decision to
purchase a home in Alta Loma, since home appreciation was one of the factors used in our
decision.
Atter reviewing the permit, it is apparent that the proposed structure will be visible from
the street, and the appearance of the neighborhood will be significantly altered. All of the
homes on our street are owner occupied with the exception of the property in which this
structure is being planned. We realize that the current permit calls for the structure to be
used for additional family members and not as a rental unit. However, it is not difficult to
assume that, by building a fleestanding unit with separate entrances, the potential for this
unit to be used as rental property, by this owner or subsequent owners, will be .substantial.
I am also concerned about the precedent that the approval of this permit will set. Since all
of the properties in our neighborhood are over 1/2 acre, what will prevent other non-
resident owners from building free standing structures that could potentially be used for
rental units or other income producing ventures that would deteriorate the neighborhood.
Obviously, the motivation of people who do not occupy the home is different from those
of us that are concerned about our long term property values, as well as the current
sanctity of the neighborhood in which we will raise our children.
Once again, we strongly urge you to deny Conditional Use Permit ~95-17-TING. The
addition of this property to the neighborhood would be unfair to all of us who bought
homes on this street under the assumption that it would remain a quiet, single family
neighborhood.
Thank you for your help with this matter. If you have any questions, feel ~'ee to contact us
at (909) 481-7574.
Regards,
Christina E. Perez
Jim Elwood Appraising
Independent Fee Appraiser
July 5, 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91729
James & Leticia Elwood
6028 Zircon Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701
RECEIVED
JUL I ! 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Re: Conditional Use Permit fffi5-17-Ting
Dear Sirs,
I am the current owner of 6028 Zircon Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. I have had
to take a job out of state and have been gone since March 1, 1995. I was contacted in
regards to the above conditional use permit that is under review with your department
as of this date. I find that due to my work schedule, and living in Boise, Idaho I will not
be able to attend the scheduled meeting on July 12, 1995. I would like to comment on
the above permit, and would like to have my letter included in with othm's that will or
have commented. I have also given my proxy to cur sales agent, Mrs. Sharon Kobold
who will be attending the meeting in our place.
I am extremely angry with the titles attempt to hide this attempted conditional
use permit. We were advised by one of the neighbors on Vineyard, as our street was
given no notice. I find the city to be acting sneaky in this matter. I can not believe that
the city would not notify all residents that could be elfacted by this type of structure. I
find the dty to be negligent in this matter.
My home backs to the property in question. Upon reviewing the cities policy, it is
cleady understood that should this (duplex), be allowed I will loose my horse property
status as the struc~re will be within 75 feet of my property. Offer properties will also
be affected. We purchased our home in a neighborhood like this so as not to be
encroached upon by neighbors. We have been advised and have viewed blue prints of
the proposed addition and observed the additional structure to have a garage and
ddveway access to the rear. This will be unsightly for us as our home will have to view
vehicles perked in the rear. This will pose another problem, as I have observed, with
another addition of this nature the dry has allowed in the immediate area. And that is,
we will have to put up with additional vehicles ddving up and down our bridle paths.
From speaking with adjoining neighbors, I find that there may be great difficulty in
access for emergency vehicles, tire, police and medical.
6028 Zircon Avenue - Rancho CucamonSla, California 91701 · (909) 980-9322 · Fax (909) 941-1955
State License # AL012352
Jim Elwood Appraising
Independent Fee Appraiser'
I have been advised that the structure is proposed as a two story. This will
further take away my privacy, as again my home backs to the property in question.
I have personally spoken with the daughter of the owner. She has advised me
that her father lives mostly in China, and he uses the home to board alien Chinese that
come to Amedca. He further plans on using the storage area as his business and to
run a full scale business from that portion of the property. There will be an influx of
people to the home, as well as vehicles to contend with.
I am at this time completely against this permit being granted. I feel that if it is
granted, it will have a permanent negative affect on the value of my home. I, like all of
my neighbors want to keep the integrity of our neighborhood and don't want any
additions of this nature within the area. If thera were some major changes to the
existing plan I would like to see same, and if they were appropriate I would weigh their
effect at that time.
For the record, I am aoainst this conditional use oermit .
I would like to be advised on the status of this action. I will enclose my current
mailing address in Idaho.
James & Letida Elwood
204 S. Mark Street
Boise, Idaho 83705
(208) 336-7492
Sincerely,
James L. Elwood
6028 Zircon Avenue - Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701 · (909) 980-9322 · Fax (909) 941-1955
State License # AL012352
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamo_nga, CA 91729
RECEIVED
JUL :]. 3. 1995
July 5, 1995
To Whom It May Concem,
City ot nancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Please accept this letter as a statement of our strong objection to the proposed
construction of a second dwelling unit at 6029 Vineyard Avenue (Conditional Use
Permit 95-17-TING). We have been residents of this neighborhood since 1987. We
purchased our home located at 6042 Vineyard based on the aesthetics of the area and
the limited number of residences that were constructed which we believed would insure
minimal traffic and low noise levels. Currently, the occupants of the existing structure
located at 6029 Vineyard frequently compromise the serenity of the neighborhood due
to the number of automobiles and trucks they operate in and out of that location. It
appears that this residence supports some kind of business activity and a consistent
flow of transient persons. We are very concamed that the second structure that has
been proposed for 6029 Vineyard will magnify the already unacceptible situation that
has developed as a consequence of the factors referenced above.
We strongly request that the Planning Commission disapprove the proposal in question
out of respect for the right of those of us who live in the neighborhoed to enjoy the low
levels of traffic and noise that we sought when we made the significant investment
necessary to live in this location. We would be happy to provide any additional
information the Commission may deem appropriate. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom (:)wen
Mayor Bill Alexander
Rancho Cucamonga City Coundl
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING, WITHOUT'PREJUDICE, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 95-17 FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT LOCATED ON .59
ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW HESIDENTIALDISTRICT, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1062-281-31.
1. Stewart Ting has filed an application for the issuance of conditional
Use permit No. 95-17, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter
in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 12th day of July 1995, the Planning commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
3~ All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
Occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on July 12, 1995, including written and oral
staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 6029 Vineyard Avenue
with e street frontage of 60 feet and average lot depth of 195 feet and is
presently improved with a single family residence served by a septic tank-
subsurface sewage disposal system; and
b. The property to the north, south, east, and west of the subject
site are zoneKl Very Low Residential and are improved with two-story single family
homes; and
c. The application proposes the construction of a twoSstory second
dwelling unit of 1,189 square feet; and
d. There is significant community concern regarding the potential
adverse effects of the proposed use; and
e. The application as proposed would be materially detrimental to the
persons and properties in the inmediate vicinity of the subject site for reasons
as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-17 - TING
July 12, 1995
Page 2
i. The proposed structure wilI require a second septic tank-
subsurface sewage disposal system to be constructed on the subject site. The
site is inadequate to accommodate such a system based upon the minimum 1/2 acre
per septic system requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board for a new developments and
ii. The application as proposed contemplates the construction of
a two-story structure, 22 feet in height, located 10 feet from the interior side
property line. The structure is designed with bedroom windows and a balcony
facing the interior side property line which will intrude upon the privacy and
views of neighboring properties contrary to the General Plan policies to provide
private indoor and outdoor areas for each dwelling in which inhabitants have
minimal visual and auditory contact with neighbors; and
iii. None Of the properties in the neighborhood have constructed
detached two-story accessory structures. The presence of such a structure would
be inconsistent with the low-intensity rural character of the uses immediately
surrounding the subject site; and
iv. Evidence has been submitted that development of the proposed
second dwelling unit would be in conflict with the equestrian use intended for
the larger lots common to the Very Low Residential District by severely
restricting or prohibiting the keeping of horses on adjoining properties as
allowed under the zoning regulations; and
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set
forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Co~wnission hereby finds and concludes as
fnllows:
a. The. proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the
objectives of the Develolmnent Code, and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto,
will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Developsent code.
d. The applied-for use will not be compatible with the intended rural
residential character of the area.
e. The evidence presented to this Commission has identified potential
adverse effects of the applied-for use.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
and 3 above, this Ccrmnission hereby denies the application without prejudice to
refile.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-17 - TING
July 12, 1995
Page 3
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall .certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Colenan, Acting Secretary of the Planning Cc~wnission 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 12th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
STEVE TOPOR, jR.,. POST OFFICE E~OX 998. ALTA LoM^. CALIFORNIA g1701
JUly 11, 1995
Mr. Dan Coleman
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Conditional USe Permit 95-17 - Ting
RECEIVED
JUL 12 1995
City of Rancho Cucarnon
Planning Division ga
Dear Mr. Coleman:
Please be advised theit I intend to attend the Planning Commission
meeting this Wednesday in opposition to granting the above
referenced Conditional Use Permit.
Granting this permit will cause hardship and possible loss of value
to the surrounding properties, including my own.
If the Conditional Use Permit is approved and the second dwelling
is constructed, the property to the west will be restricted from
stabling horses within 70 feet of the new dwelling (Exhibit "F").
This restriction on the neighbor to the west will be caused by an
act the applicant caused by building the new structure. Why should
existing owners have additional restrictions placed on the use of
their property because an adjoining property owner wants to build
additional housing space?
The staff report mentions that the new dwelling may be rented but
not sold. I would strongly suggest that the primary purpose this
second dwelling is being proposed is for rental.
The staff report states that the parking requirement for the new
structure be within a garage and have two spaces. The report
concludes that since the existing home has three covered parking
spaces, one of these existing spaces could be counted as parking
for the new dwelling unit. If the unit is rented as I suggest it
will be, how likely will it be that the owners or tenants of the
existing house will allow one or more oars in the main garage?
do not think they wi].l allow such access. Why should they?
In addition, if you look at Exhibit "C", you will note the plans
show the proposed dwelling as a two bedroom and a den. However,
the den has a closet just like Bedroom #2. Please explain the
~IX ~EUELOPMENT CORP TEL No.909-592-5010 3ul 11,95 11:39 No.O02 P.02
difference between this "den" and bedroom #2! What ie bein~
proposed is ~ three bedroom home ~lsgulse~ as a two bedroom and a
den but with only one accessible parking space. Where will the
tenants park when the owners rent out the other bedrooms? I would
think the answer is they will end up parking on the street.
For these reasons, and other more emotional reasons, I am opposed
to Granting this Conditional Use Permit as it is ourrently
proposed.
Steve Topor4.-~Jr.
8945 Sunflower Street
Alto Loma, CA 91701-..0998
STEWART TING, ARCHITECT
1103 GRETNA GREEN WAY
LOB ANG~-LE~, CA 90049
{3ZO) 820-4833
July 12, 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P]~nning Cornmission
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Facsimile
8ECEIVED
JUL 12 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
To: The Planning Commission
Re: ADplication for Conditional Use Permit. 95-17-TING
According to the Staff Report/Addendum of ,July 12, 1995 on the above-entitled
matter. the Planning Cornmission intends to deny the permit without prejudice
to refiling, based on the Santa Aria Regional Water Quality Control Board's
Water Quality Control Plan.
I have not yet had an opporhlnity to study the implications of the Plan as it
may pertain to this application, as I only received the repert late yesterday
afternoon. Therefore, I do not intend to appear at the hearilxg scheduled for this
evening.
Sincerely,
Stewart Ting, Architect
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MF MORANDUM
DATE: JULY 11, 1995
TO:
FROM:
DAN COLEMAN, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
PHIL K. MOSLEY, JR., COLINTER PLANS EXAMINER
SUBJECT:
CUP 95-04 AND CUP 95-17 FOR PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DWELLING
UNITS ON 1/2 ACRE LOTS WITH EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS
On October 13, 1989 the Santa Aria River Basin Water Quality Control Board adopted
Resolution Number 89-157, amending the Water Quality Control Plan to add a one-half acre
minimum lot size requirement for new developments using on-site septic tank-subsurface
leaching/percolation systems. In Resolution Number 89-157 as amended by Resolution Number
91-51, the term"one-half acre" specified as the minimum lot size requirement means an average
gross area of land of one-half acre per dwelling unit.
On July I 1, 1995 1 contacted Mark Adelson (Chief of the Enforcement Section of the Santa Ana
Region Water Quality Control Board) regarding Water Quality Control Board Resolution
Number 89-157 and its applicability to the above referenced project. Mr. Adelson stated that
because these projects were subject to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Conditional Use Permit
review process, the Water Quality Control Board considers these projects to be new
developments and therefor are subject to the requirements of Resolution Number 89-157.
Section 1101 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1991 Edition requires that every building in which
plumbing fixtures are installed, shall have a connection to a public or private sever, or a private
sewage disposal system. Because these properties are not served by a public or private sewer,
and Water Quality Control Board regulations prohibit the installation of a private sewage
disposal system serving a single family dwelling on a lot with less than one-half acre of land per
dwelling unit Section 1101 of the Uniform Plumbing Code would prohibit the issuance of
building permits for either of these projects by the Building and Safety Division.
If you need further information regarding this matter, please call me at ext. 2209.
CC:
William Makshanoff, Building Official
Jim Martin, Plan Check Coordinator
Mr & Mrs Robert G. Olari
9637 Manzanita Drive
Alta Loma, CA 91737
July 11, 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucaxnonga, CA 91701
Dear Commission Members,
RECEIVED
JUL 1 g 1995
City oi Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
It has been our pleasure to reside in the City ofRancho Cucamonga since 1978. Our
move to a one-half acre property over eight years ago allowed us to begin participating in the
enjoyable equestrian environment this city has promoted north of Banyan Street for many years.
The news we received this week concerning Conditional Use Permit 95- 1 7-Ting has troubled us,
as it could lead to the demise of that same equestrian environment. We purchased our "Dream
Home" in this community as we felt our investment was protected by the zoning laws already in
effect here.
Allowing this type of multiple dwelling construction for the purpose of creating rental
units in our neighborhood will lead not only to the devaluation of property values and the
equestrian lifestyle that has been promoted here, but it will certainly create overcrowding
conditions on our streets, schools and parks as well. All that has been carefully designed by our
city fathers will be gone for good.
Your citing of Applicable Laws of the State of California do not take into consideration
the laws of the City of Rancho Cucamonga regarding the placement of horses 70' from adjacent
dwellings. This dwelling will in fact preclude some neighbors from having horses unless they
spend large sums of money to reposition existing property improvements (swimming pools, etc. )
so they may have horses. Placing rental units in a community like ours most certainly could not
have been the intent of the law cited. This will only help line the pockas of one absentee
landlord.
Once again the City ofRancho Cucamonga staff has bowed to the threats of the few at
the expense of the majority. Please reconsider this most damaging precedent and disallow the
construction of this dwelling.
Respectfully,
Robert G. Otari
Mr. & Mrs. Gary T. Startton
8760 Golden Street
Alta Loma, CA. 91701
RECEIVED
July 10, 1995
JUL 1 1995
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Center
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-17-TING
6029 Vineyard Avenue
APN 1062-281-31
Dear Sirs:
My husband and I are concerned about the above mentioned issue because we very much
disapprove of the possibility that "low density" zoned property can get approval from City
Planning Department to construct a second dwelling on any property that has not been subdivided
according to City Code north of Banyan.
We purchased our home in 1979 and chose a location north of Banyan because of the rural
equestrian environment. flapproved this petition will make 6029 V'meyard out of scale and
architecturally incompatible with the existing neighborhood.
Referring to Planning Commission Staff Report dated CVP 95-1 7-TING dated July 12, 1995
Page 2, F-2. We disagree with your analysis that future construction of horse corrals in adjoining
neighbor's properties: We purchased our daughter's first horse in 1987, at that time I called the
Planning Commission to apply for a permit. I was told that there is not a permit required for open
corrals. We built our corrals; which are white wood corrals - at a cost of over $2,700. Our
neighbor to the west of us complained to the County Health Department. They cited us and
forced us to dismantle our corrals and reconstruct them in a different location at a substantial
additional cost. The southwest comer of our corral had to he 70 feet from the northeast comer of
adjacent west neighbors house. I do not remember the health code number but it does exist as a
San Bernardino Health Code. I think if you survey these properties you will find corrals would
not he allowed. Our house was 8 years old when we had this catastrophe happen to us. By
approving this permit your subject future owners of these three properties to legal battles.
Page I of 2
We have two houses in our Gary Miller tract of homes that have built rooms inside the three-car
garage area. Owners at 8807 Cocoa and 5994 Moonstone were both forced by the City Planning
Commission to remove their enclosures. I understand that one of the garages at 6029 Vineyard
is converted to a room. WHY IS THIS ALLOWED? How did this house get a permit for this
type of construction when others could not get a permit and were forced in lieu of heavy fines to
remove their construction?
We wish to address and ask Council and the Planning Commission what possible status Mr. Ting
has in this community that he receives preferential treatment???
Res ectfully,
Page 2 of 2
Rufus & Yvonne Downs
6057 Vineyard Avenue
Alta Loma, CA 91701
RECEIVED
July 11, 1995
JUL 12 1995
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 95-17 - Ting
Dear Chairman and Members:
We're writing to oppose the construction of a second dwelling located at 6029 Vineyard
Avenue. When purchasing our home, we prided ourselves in buying on a street that is quiet,
limited traffic, neat, clean, and with unobstructed views of mountain areas..
By building this construction, it will negatively impact the residents of this street and adjacent
streets and specifically Zircon, as follows:
· The flow of traffic will increase.
· The mountain view will be obstructed/distorted for all residents south of the location.
· Privacy and view for the neighbors east and west will be hindered.
Privacy for the neighbors east looking west will be drastically reduced with the planned
structure closer to the horse trail.
There is no guarantee that the only residents will be the senior citizens, students, family
members, or for that matter, the number of occupants utilizing this dwelling. There is a
possibility that transient traffic would occupy this new dwelling.
Present owners are out of the state and country, therefore, no guarantees of enforcemeut
of any and all restrictions can be adhered to.
Planning Division
July 10, 1995
Page 2
After reading the analysis of Dan Coleman, one would think that the planner and/or his staff
approved this application without actually viewing the property. Its apparent that no one
checked the building plans. If they had, they should have noted and realized that all the homes
on the block have 4-car garage. It appears that Mr. Coleman and his staffs main purpose for
approving this construction is for the monetary benefit of the city and county. It is apparent from
the review of this report that no consideration is being afforded the existing homeowners who
now live on this block, as well as, those individuals on adjacent communities.
Contingent issues of this analysis are as follows:
The applicant states he has a 3-car garage. If his staff had come out to view the property,
they would have realized that all the homes on this block have a 4-car garage. If the
property owner has converted this to living guarters without a permit, the owner is in
violation.
Environmental Assessment
He states that the property is exempt under Section 15303, New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures... - what is Code 15303? And does not this section
address and protect the rights of currentdestablished property owners.
Septic Tank
Location and assessability of the existing septic tank (it appears that the existing septic
tank may be covered by a paved driveway on the north side of the primary resident
leading to the proposed secondary location), for maintenance, would not this present a
potential health hazard?
The proposed construction along with the 70 foot distance required between an adjacent
home and a corral will unduly restrict the homeowners on either side of the property.
Although originally purchased with the latitude of optional horse corrals and
landscaping, the new construction will now limit these plans for the sole purpose of
accommodating the desires of a non-resident property owner.
Correspondence ..
Supposedly, all residences within 300 feet of the concerned property were mailed notices
regarding the proposal. This is not true. If I had not called the planning department
inquiring about a rumor I had heard regarding future construction on our street, I would
not have known. It was incumbent upon me to request a copy of the proposal at that
time.
Planning Division
July 10, 1995
Page 3
Neighborhood Concerns
I join the other residents of this street and the residents of adjoining areas in opposing any
plans of construction on the proposed site and the future value on those properties.
f~indm~
It appears that Dan Coleman's concems favor only the applicant who not only does not
live within the city, state, or country. No consideration is being given the property
owners who currently to date, live on their property and their implied fights that were
afforded them upon their initial purchase in the community. In fact, it appears that Mr.
Coleman and his staff have sided with a non-resident owner and has taken a careless
attitude toward current residents of this community. City, County, and State laws are for
the benefit o. fall and should be for the protection of all. It will be the neighbors, not the
applicant, that the burden will now be placed upon. It seems he's more concemed about
the applicant being burdened more so than the homeowners surrounding the construction.
We recommend that the Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit 95-17.
Sincerely,
Rufus and Yvo~e Downs
Petition Against Conditional Us~ 9 5-17-TING
(~ity ot Rancho Cucamonga
We, the undersigned, oppose granting Conditional Use Pet~xt 9~.~l~,n
allowing the building of a second dwelling at 6029 Vineyard Avenue.
name (please print) address signature
~C 2. '~ 2t'/2~c oM
,~a ,, /t//'
/~- 7~ Z?
Petition Against Conditional Use Permit
RECEIVED
95-17-TING
JUL 1 I~ 1995
We, the undersigned, oppose granting Conditional Use Perm?it~),%~cT~..~nre°riga
allowing the building of a second dwelling at 6029 Vineyard Avenue.
address
&Og'7 21ccon tQ~uc,
Petition Against Conditional Use Permit
95-17-TING
We, the undersigned, oppose granting Conditional Use Permit 95-17-TING,
allowing the building of a second dwelling at 6029 Vineyard Avenue.
address signature
RRCPlVFD
y7~
JUL 1 ~ 1995
Gity vl Ranbtiv Cucamonga
Planning Division
~"2 34~
Petition Against Conditional Use Permit
95-17-TING
We, the undersigned, oppose granting Conditional Use Permit 95-17-TING,
allowing the building of a second dwelling at 6029 Vineyard Avenue.
name (please print) address signature
RECEIVED
5o.
5~. JUL,12 1995
52.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
53.
54.
Petition Against Conditional Use Permit
95-17-TING
We, the undersigned, oppose granting Conditional Use Pefnfit 95-17-TING,
allowing the building of a second dwelling at 6029 Vineyard Avenue.
name (please print)
38. L-~.~,,~_
40.
43.
address . ~ature
RECEIVI=D
JUL i ~ 1995
46.
47.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
51.
52.
53.
54.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA
STAFF REPORT
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Steven Ross, Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-17 - TING - A request to construct a
1,189 square foot second dwelling unit in the Very Low Residential District
(less than 2 dwelling units/acre), located at 6029 Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 1062-281-31.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is located at the north end of the
cul~de-sac and is developed with a single family home. A previously graded area exists
on the north side of the lot where the unit is proposed. Equestrian trails run along the north
and east sides of the properly. Single family homes surround the site on all sides.
ANALYSIS:
Applicable Laws: The State of California has adopted laws encouraging second
dwelling units as a "valuable form of housing" for family members, students, the
elderly, disabled, and others at below market prices within existing neighborhoods.
The State has established criteria for the construction of second dwelling units,
including, but not limited to, the following:
1. The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
2. The lot contains an existing single family residence.
3. The square footage shall not exceed 1,200 square feet in area, excluding
garage space.
The structure shall conform to zoning requirements generally applicable to
residential construction (e.g. setbacks, height, lot coverage, parking, design,
etc.).
Any second dwelling unit that conforms to these criteria must be granted a
Conditional Use Permit. Also, the second dwelling unit shall not be considered
to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which it is located and shall be
deemed a residential use consistent with the General Plan.
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-17 - TING
July 12, 1995
Page 2
B=
Fm
General: The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,189 square foot second dwelling
unit in the northern comer of the lot, behind the existing residence (see Exhibit "B").
A driveway will wrap around the front of the house, and along the north side yard
area, to serve the unit. The two-story unit meets all of the code requirements.
Parking: The Development Code requires conventional single-family detached
dwellings to have two parking spaces within a garage. Because the existing home has
a three-car garage, and a one-car garage is proposed for the second dwelling unit,
staff has determined that the proposal complies with the parking requirements.
Environmental Assessment: Staff has reviewed the application and determined that
the construction of the second dwelling unit is categorically exempt under Section
15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Correspondence: This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the
property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet.
Neighborhood Concerns: Staff has received several calls, visits, and letters (see
attached correspondence) from neighbors expressing their concerns about the
project. Some of these concerns are addressed below, and additional issues were
still being researched when this report was wdtten. Staff will provide the Planning
'Commission with an update at the hearing.
1. Would two units on the lot exceed the capacity of the septic tank and leech fields
and pose a heath hazard?
No. With an additional septic tank, the additional waste water needs will be met.
Would construction of the second dwelling unit preclude a neighbor from having
homes?
No. The Development Code requires that stables and corrals be at least 70 feet
from ad!acent dwellings. Staff has reviewed the site plan and found that
construction of the additional unit would not preclude any neighbors from having
horses if they wished (see Exhibit "F").
Can the Planning Commission require the applicant to eliminate windows or
make the unit a single story structure in order to preserve the privacy of the
neighbors?
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-17 - TING
July 12, 1995
Page 3
Yes. The Planning Commission may place reasonable conditions on the
approval of the application. Additional landscaping can be required to screen
the structure, and the placement of windows could be modified somewhat, but
requiring the unit to be a single story structure may place too great a burden on
the applicant. Two-story structures are common in the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit 95-17 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with
conditions.
=
Z~//~ubmitte~
Principal Planner
BB:SR:sp
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" -
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Exhibit "D" -
Exhibit "E" -
Exhibit "F" -
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Floor Plan
Elevations
Photo of Existing Home
70-foot Corral Setbacks
Correspondence Received from Neighbors (as of July 5, 1995)
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
vista Dr. ~~. v,st. ~, ~ Caballero' Drive 'rT~ ! Almond '
~ . ~ Hidden Farm ~ ~ St Almond St.
~a~ Road ~ ~ Hidden Farm Clarion Court e ~ o ~ Hidden~
'- ~ "7~ Cher~ Ln. "'- ~- · Y CL ~ ~; irlaway~
~ .= · ~ . .~ ~ . ' '~ -- , · - .....
O Chard ~ Rancho St. s
Carrari_..~,~_~ Ct.
Rancho IE .c: illsi ·
~ c m ~ ~ ~ ~e Am~t A~ ~ Lemon ~ m
o':-::"7 ' ' ""'-=='
Mignonella ~ -, ~ '6 ~ N ~ I ~ c ~m. SL = n(
~ ...... . ~ ~ ~ , _ ,
'~ Llben~
CITY OF R~O,MONGA
PLA N
,
Project: CUP cJS-]'?
Title: Vlc,,,,rv M ~r
Exhibit: A Date:
'TIN&
,./'
x ../,///
A.R.T. DESIGN & ENGINEERING INC.
Beewed Ting, Pdndpel Architect
1 f03 Gretne Gxeen Way, Los Angelee, GelIronic 80043
(310) e20~1933
Ob, II, JEF~,= ~,HAO-"'r'iI-J LILI t · ·
..,-_ ..
(~) No f~,,,-'r H E L-"'E.,
(~) 50LI'TH E L .E..
EXHIBIT
CITY OF R AMONGA
PLAN '~ N
Title: PAo~ ,,via o{ I-to~,s~~
Exhibit: ~ Date: //q~---
X
J
X 1709
7'/~/~
x 17c lt~
~I~OTEm'~ Couju, L~t,o,s
Project: CUP q5-1'7
Title: "70' Cort~,l 5~-Jrl:~l,ck,~
Exhibit: F Date:
June 22, 1995
RECEIVED
JUN 26 1995
City Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
Planning Division
Subject: Conditional Use Permit # 95-1 7-TING
Dear Members of the Plap~in,'g Committee:
After reviewing the proposed plans for the second dwelling to be built at 6029 Vineyard Avenue, we
strongly urge the planning committee to deny conditional use permit # 95-1 7-TING. We feel that the
proposed dwelling would be an improper usage of this lot. We are concerned with keeping our neigh-
borhood esthetically pleasing to the eye and protecting the property value of the homes. While a small
guest house might fit in with the neighborhood, we are concerned about this proposed building for the
following reasons:
1. We feel that building a two story second dwelling on this lot would obstruct the view of those homes
adjoining the property. Since we all purchased these homes for the spectacular view and this access to a
beautiful view increases our property value, this building would negatively effect the property value and
esthetics of our neighborhood.
2. Our street is a quiet, small cul-de-sac. Putting a second home and allowing multiple families to dwell
on this one lot would increase traffic and noise on our street.
3. The front yard at 6029 Vineyard is too small for the proposed second driveway. It appears that the
existing trees would have to be removed and there would be insufficient room'for proper landscaping.
Wc also feel that if this proposed building is indeed a guest house for friends and relatives a second
driveway as well as the proposed garage are unnecessary. This home already has a four car garage and
wide driveway. This should be sufficient for use by guests. Putting in a second driveway and garage
only invites use of this dwelling as a rental property which we would strongly object to. We feel it
would be impossible to police future use of this property and there would be nothing to prevent the
present or future owners from using this as rental property.
4. If you check on our developments CC & R's, page 2 - item 7, we think you will find that they state
that this developments homes are to be single family residences and can not have a second dwelling as a
rental property.
5. This home is owned by an absentee owner who does not appear to care about the negative affect his
future plans and present actions might have on the neighborhood. Shortly after this owner purchased the
home, he convened part of the four car garage into a room or rooms. We have also seen trucks both
unloading and loading boxes from this garage which makes it appear that this residential garage is
possibly being used as a warehouse for a business which increases traffic on our street and is an im-
proper usage of this residental property. In addition, he seems to have a steady stream of temporary
residents, who are not relatives, already coming and going at this home. These people appear to be new
immigrants who are using this house as a temporary dwelling until they can get established in this
country. One or two people occasionally staying at this home would not be a problem but we are con-
cerned that a large volume of people, with the resulting increase in traffic and noise, would be the result
of adding a second dwelling to this property.
Once again, we strongly urge you to deny conditional use permit # 95-1 7-TING. We ask that you help
us protect the quiet environment and property value of our neighborhood by denying this permit.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Our day time phone number is (909) 985-9785.
Sincerely, -~ ~
Larry and Bobbie Rice
6073 Vineyard Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
(909) 989-6977
Richard J & May D Marzocco
6021 Vineyard Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701-2747
Planning Conmission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. B~ 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Ref: Conditional Use Permit 95-17-TING
Commissioners:
June 23, 1995
RECEIVED
JUN 26 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
We would voice our strong objections to the proposed Conditional
Use Permit to construct an additional residence of two bedrooms plus
one garage - two storeyed (25ft ht), structure on the lot at 6029
Vineyard Ave., Rancho Cucamonga.
As occupants of the adjoining property (6021), we will feel the
impact of this proposed structure more than anyone. It will in fact
be visible through more windows of our home than those of the 6029
residence. The driveway will be constructed parallel to our property.
We will have the headlights of vehicles shine directly into our
windows - a change in our present environment. When this property is
in use foot traffic and vehicles will pass no more than seven feet
from our property. Clear viewing through our windows (one a bedroom)
will be easily attained from this access pathway to the said property.
Our privacy will be violated and we will have justifiable reason for
concern for the safety of ourselves and our property. During the
construction of walls to our property we regarded the concern of the
original owner of 6029 and did not build a wall to screen these
windows as this would cause a wall in front of his property. Would
the Commission now suggest heavy covering of these windows for
screening? This would deny us our right to natural light.
The proposed structure will be built only ten feet from the property
line of 6021. The Driveway will be a maximum of seven feet away.
The notation of the City Plan states "adjacent property heavily land-
scaped" - was it also noted these "screening" plants are deciduous
and therefore bare in winter? The notation of recon~nendation of "not
parking in the driveway" and "abundant landscaping recommended" are
totally unfeasible and unenforceable. Who would possibly monitor
this? Also how abundant can landscaping be considering the minimal
amount of space left after construction of said driveway? What type
of planting will screen and still allow us daylight into our home?
Of concern are the safety hazards of "screening shrubs". How often
are we made aware of the insecurity of our environment, especially
with such cover provided.
Please note the property at 6021 faces the existing driveway of 6029.
We will be environmentally impacted by all traffic on the proposed
additional driveway which will face our home and be so close that
noise level and other pollution will alter our environment drastically.
It is our understanding the City has some rules about removal of trees
over a certain size. We believe the Floss Silk Tree (approx 3Oft) and
the Three Palms at the corner of the property at 6029 come into that
category. The Floss. Silk Tree not showing on the tendered map must be
an oversight as it would seem to sit in the center of the proposed drive.
-2 -
We and others bought our homes in this subsection bearing in mind
the space between house and the views from our lots. With the
exception of the Owner of 6029 we are all occupants of our houses.
That Owner is a Chinese National who lives in Mainland China and
apparently has only visited this property on one very short occasion.
6029 houses an employee, Lisa Lee an adult female and two daughters
of the Owner. In fact one of these teenage daughters visited us
yesterday and tendered her personal apologies for what "Father and
Lisa Lee are to do to such nice neighbours". We have had a polite
relationship over the years.
The property at 6029 has a heavy traffic in visitors from the Orient,
bearing excessive amounts of baggage. It is noted that on occasion
a portion of the garage is used for storage of packages with vans of
employee-type delivering or collecting. We have a concern-that the
additional structure will house some of these persons and we will
feel a little as if we are living next door to a 'Motel', with the
new garage convenient for extra storage. This again incorporating
much movement of traffic and persons unknown, in such close proximity
to our residence as to make us uncertain to our safety.
The new proposed dwelling is to be only ten feet from our property
line, will this impact our rights as Owners of Horse Property to use
those rights in that portion of our property which is outside the 70ft
now required from a neighbouring residence. This would greatly
affect any future sale of our property including those rights we have
to decide at any time we wish to have horses on said ground. It would
appear the proposed structure will be erected on the leach field of
6029 and 6021. Where will the septic tank and leach field for this
property go as the new driveway crosses directly over the existing
septic tank for 6029 already. What kind of hazard is this to the
environment?
The City of Rancho Cucamonga have been commended for their concerns
for all endangered species, i.e., Sage Wren, Burrowing Owl, Kangaroo
Rat, we now would request they consider the environmental rights of
each of their homeowners.
The proposed building and driveway will be a poor addition to a
neighbourhood of lovely homes. Will infringe on the adjacent properties
with noise of both vehicles and occupants, totally changing existing
quiet conditions and views of surrounding properties.
Thank you,
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 1995
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
Planning Division
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga,
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729.
John & Elaine Romanick
6022'Vineyard Ave
Alta Loma, CA 91701
June 22, 1995.
Sirs,
We have taken note of the notices erected on Vineyard Ave to
notify residents of the proposed Permit 95-17-TING. The proposed
erection of a two-storeyed, two bedroom one garage structure on
the property at 6029 Vineyard.
We would like to declare our objections Co this proposal. The
new structure will be visible from the street, the new driveway
and house will radically change the appearance of the neighbourhood.
We would question the need for a completely self-contained unit
with garage and additional driveway to be placed on this property.
At any date this unit could be used to violate the Bye-Laws and
be used as a Rental Unit. If the City Planning Commission
approves these plans it could set a precedent and permit like
structures on adjacent properties.
An additional residence on a street with only twelve existing homes
will cause additional noise of both vehicles and occupants. We
feel it infringes on our rights as property owners to have the
neighbourhood retain its present status as a neighbourhood of fine
homes in a rural setting. We would question the placement of a
septic system on the property at 6029 with an area large enough to
handle the additional dwelling.
All homes on Vineyard Ave are owner occupied with the exception of
6029 whose owner is a Chinese National residing in China. This
owner has visited this property on only one occasion and therefore
has no regard for the impact such an additional two-storeyed home
would have on the neighbouring properties.
Sincerely,
MGR
Services, Inc.
[vs,,..-,~el G. Rademaker
President
RECEIVED
June 21, 1995
JUN 2 2 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Civ. y ol Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
RE: Conditional Use Permit #95-17-TING
Dear Planning Department:
It has recently come to my attention that the above Conditional Use Permit was posted on June
21, 1995, on Vineyard Avenue. My name is Michael G. Rademaker and I am currently the
owner of the property at 6020 Zircon Avenue on the street directly East of the posted property.
I understand and appreciate the desire to improve a property, but as an adjacent property owner
looking off into their yard from my gazebo and pool area, I do have some concern. My biggest
concern is not the development of the proposed dwelling but of the drive-way and attached rear
garage.
By installing a complete and separate entrance area to the property with its own private garage,
this dwelling will lend itself to become a separate, isolated living quarters including ingress and
egress and storage of vehicles.
By doing this, I believe we are diminishing the intention of a second dwelling unit for family
members whereas it would not be necessary for them to get to the property without at least being
seen by the family. This second drive-way and garage will, in my opinion, at some point in
time establish this dwelling as a rental unit. Even though the current occupants' intention is not
to have this as a rental unit, somebody at some time in the future, if the circumstances were
right, would rent this unit before the end of our lifetime and violate the conditions of the permit.
In an effort to eliminate the required policing and unfavorable appearance of this dwelling unit,
I would firmly request that the City accept the second proposed dwelling unit as designed with
the removal of the drive-way and the attached garage.
I realize that you are concerned about parking but, since this house currently has a four-car
garage which is far above current code, there is more than sufficient coverage.
Commercial Brokerage · Residential Real Estate · Property Management
1425 W. Foothill Blvd., Suite 200, Uptand, California 91786
Office: 909/981-4466 · Fax: 909/981-6267
City of Rancho Cucamonga
June 21, 1995
Page 2
If it is deemed necessary for them to build additional parking, I would recommend tandem
parking on the ex~eme right side of their garage which would stay consistent with the
appearance of the neighborhood and maintain the second structure with the integrity it has for
a family member who communicates with the primary house.
I would. like to state my concerns about this and hope that, if this plan is approved, it is
approved without the garage and the dirve-way to prevent the possibility of multiple family
living in one of Raneho Cucamonga's finest community.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss this with me prior to the meeting, please feel free
to call.
Sincerely,
MGR Services, Inc.
Mi~cael~.hdemaker
President
MGR:cp
co: Concerned Neighbors
MGR
Services, Inc.
Michael G. Rademaker
President
June 26, 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamong,a, CA 91729
RE: Conditional Use Permit #95-17-TING
Revised Letter of Concern
Dear Planning Department:
As you are aware, I recently wrote a letter dated 6/21/95 expressing some of my concerns about
the proposed development. At the time I wrote that letter, I had spoken to Steve Hayes in the
Planning Department who had indicated to me that this was for a secondard guest house/living
quarters and was not to be designed for a potential rental unit. On subsequent conversations
with Steve Ross, it has come to my attention that that is not the case.
On further research it now appears that the wording of a second dwelling is to create two
separate living residences in which one, either, or both could become rental units. Based on this
new information, I am adamantly opposed to the conversion of property types and uses in our
neighborhood.
I am familiar with government code section 65852 with regard to uniformity of zoning
regulations. Under this section, and more specifically under section 65852.2, is the area in
which the applicant is stressing the need to comply. I do agree that it is important that we be
in compliance but I also agree that we should be in full compliance with the letter, spirit, and
intent of the law. On researching this matter there seems to be several items that need to be
addressed in their entirety in order to ascertain what is fair and required in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. I will address my concerns in numbered format for easier points of reference at
future meetings and in correspondence.
1. In the taw it clearly states that any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for
the creation of second units in single family and multi-residential zones. It also states that these
may be designated areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be
permitted. This designation of areas may be based on criteria which may include, but are not
limited to, the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of the second unit on traffic
Commercial Brokerage · Re~/~e I Estate · Property Management
1425 W, Foothill Blvd, Suite 2~and, California 91786
Office: 909/981-4466 · Fax: 9091981-6267
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit
June 26, 1995
Page 2
On researching this matter, it appears that we should be consistent with the intent of this rule
and establish what areas we will allow this within the City and what impact it will have on the
community as a whole.
2. Based on this statement of fact, I think it is important that the City move forward
immediately on establishing and adopting an ordinance within the prescribed 120 days of the
receipt of the initial application to better define and establish the rules and procedures with
which the City will proceed. There are several issues that must be addressed with regard to this
and a blanket approval could have damaging effects on our sewer, water, health, safety and
educational programs.
3. The Master Plan of Rancho Cucamonga on 1/2 acre horse properties take into
consideration many different things. The addition of another dwelling unit on each and every
1/2 acre property in the City of Rancho Cucarnonga could have devastating effects on the ability
of the City to perform services to the level to we've become accustomed.
4. Sewer versus septic as defined by the City of Rancho Cucamonga requires that
any new single famiy home developemnt is required to have a minimum of 1/2 acre in size per
structure in order to have a septic tank. I realize that since this development was created prior
to 1989, it may not be included in this ordinance. However, it must be amended taking into
consideration that at the time there was no way for us to know that people would be adding a
second unit to each prior existing l/2-acre lot. Therefore, I request that the logic used in
mandating one septic tank per structure per 1/2 acre on new developements in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga be incorporated to apply to any second dwelling unit on an existing l/2-acre
lot that can be used for rental.
5. CC&R restrictions are not necessarily an issue or enforeable according to the City
of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. Even though the City establishes that CC&R's are
not enforcable by them, in the event of a conditional use permit or variance to establish second
dwelling units in a residential community, I am requesting that the Board consider compliance
with CC&R's.
6. Compliance with Master Plan. This community has established specific areas in
which horse properties would be and must be allowed. On the development of these sites, it has
become extremely difficult for the developers to comply with setback requirements, bridle trail
easements, and maintenance by the new homeowners. By establishing secondary dwelling units,
you very well could be infringing on the legal rights of the surrounding property owners who
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit
June 26, 1995
Page 3
maintain horses currently or at any time in the future. I am requesting that any secondary
dwelling structures fall into full compliance with horse property setbacks taking into full
consideration the rights and priveleges of all adjacent property owners so that their rights are
not mitigated by the rights of another without their written consent.
7. Horse Trails. If the City establishes that property can eliminate the surrounding
property owners rights to have horses by virtue of health and safety setbacks, does the City
propose to eliminate the bridle trails in that area, give the adjacent property owner his property
back, move the fences, and pay the associated cost with this or should this be an issue dealt with
by an individual?
I realize that these are just a few of the points of concern that I have with regard to conditions
of approval, but I think it is also important to deal with what was the intent of this original law
and what areas are most affected. According to this, it was designed so we would not hinder
development. The Rancho Cucamonga and surrounding areas have an abundancy of available
land and development is not hard to do. With sagging real estate prices, massive availabilities,
and reduced interest rates, this is not a matter of affordability as much as it is profitability by
building a second house.
The people living in these higher end, horse property 1/2-acre lots paid a premium for this
lifestyle. Now it is rapidly coming to our attention that these things not only have suffered
greatly in our recent recession in the Inland Empire, but now it will be furthered hampered by
the possibility of multi-family living.
My letter of June 21, 1995, expressed my immediate concerns about a second guest house family
structure. That still applies, but I now have a variety of questions that I would like answered
if the above items are not addressed:
1. If the property is going to be allowed to have a narrow drive-way protruding over
the front of the property, where is the location of the current septic tank?
2. Do the leach field lines meet the minimum County health and safety setback of
five feet from property lines, drive-ways, or structures?
3. Will the septic tank, soil and environmental issues allow for the use of two
primary residences in a more dense area?
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Conditional Use Permit
June 26, 1995
Page 4
4. Will access be sufficient to allow the people at the back of the property to service
the septic tank if it is under the drive-way?
5. If emergency vehicles are required to get to the back of the property, can a fire
truck negotiate the winding road to get there in order to preserve health and safety to all parties
involved?
6. Does the addition of this property impact the availability of any adjacent property
owners, currently or at any point in the future, having horses and complying with the setback
requirement of 75 feet
7. With the addition of the said structure, I will assume that it will be required for
them to install a fire sprinkler system in the second dwelling unit. If this is the case, and they
are doing a major improvement to a primary piece of property, are they required to retrofit the
entire structure for sprinklers since it would be a second home?
8. Has the local health officer issued in writing that this abundancy of raw sewage
into the ground will not have any effect if it became city-wide?
9. Does the City of Rancho Cucamonga have an approved landscape plan on this
properly when it was developed with a minimum amount required front yard landscaping? If
so, is it in compliance?
10. Are all parties aware that this proposed development is in direct violation with the
recorded CC&R's with this property? (See attached)
11. Is the legal owner of the property occupying the property which can be a
requirement according to section 65852.2?
! seem to have more and more questions each day and I am hopeful that the City will establish
a clean policy to prevent misunderstanding.
Sincerely,
MGR:cp
cc: Concerned Neighbors
, a +
trsct fro' x*e~tdent~a) purl)~ses which will bind emd lnurn to the b~sftt ~ the
m~d C~untym C~nty of ~ Be~om S~te of ~1~o~m vhioh ~e been
......
VH)SHEAS: ~,~ SM ~er d~ires to establish a Senere pl~ f~ ~elo~ent of aald +. ....
a and aReign~ of each Of maid lute Dr po~kimms thereof, ..... ~
J .... ~r:er hereby c~rt~iea ~ ! dNl~es ,~t it t~a ea~bliehe~
&nd ~0es her~y est~l tab the Eener~Z ~n For the ~ctt~ or ~ we~ ~
.... i"'
o4~d h~n taxed and does hereby ti.x the pr.tec&lve conditions and remtriOticne upon
· nd Subject to which ~1 lots and plots of laqH de-crl~ ah-vp ,hall be heldm
lea~,.d. ~ Snl~ ~d/or conveyed by It a.~ ~uch ~er, and of each ~er thereof ~n~
~ar th~ kenerie of · d.' pruFer~y ~d .ach ~nd every 1~ and ~13 apply to ~d
bind ~he venp,ctlve slcce~sors In ~ter.s. ol the ~es~t ~ets t~re~. ~d
are an4 ~,~ch th-~.p,' ic i~ed u~ s:Aid realty &s a servitude ~ rarer or satd
~ro.~rty ~ each and every lot or ~'!Ot ~ land aa dom~t t.nememt or tenements.
· ·
but ~ll 1,xvatories or toilets shall be built In the lnt4rior of bul141nS8 e~eted
thereon, and a~,~l ~ c~nnocted wl~h a septic '~nk, I
...
3. ~ndScaptng re'Jr,% be ~t~rt~ ~thir, R~ty (60) dayR from close or
~. TMt any ~ildXng erected u. any o? ~id lute vhiCh Mm be~ completed m~ll be
RE~ ~ OFF~L
upon ~i4 trnot, ~.~ s,jah e~"n-* and nff~aeG
~. ~,t no n~xtnuA ~ nrfen~ve tr~.te shall ~e c~et o~ u~ any ~ l~tm nor
th~ n,,i~h~O?hOCd- ' ..... "
-
rotordee p1~t. In ~n)' nven~ ~r:. h~ild~ ehell bm located ~ ~ny 1.~ ne~eT (hmn -'
....................
l~. ~hs~ e~eh ~y.q~n~. of '~ ],,t i~ s~d trar% ~ree'S for h~meelr snd his'&~e~ns
...~ ......... eva:It of Je~t.h or rent~t',on of ~y-mmm~r. of' .the ~m~.l~.~ ~ Za~g mmm~,~ ~
· ~.~1 .~ve full authority to denimate ~ suecease. ~eith~. the msmb,~ ~ the ~
nn~y upon ~ ~u~Jec~ to t~.~ e~res~ conditions, prcvis&~8, r~strlct~e
covenants, hmrel~ r-feted to and snail bin~ the ~e8 hersto and ~hst~ he~a,
for successive r~l~ or ten year~ ~l~ss the o.~er. of fl~ty-~$ ~rcmnt
cemmittce, nor its desi~ste~ rep~ebentative, shall be entitled to any.cdmpsnaatien
for s~rv~c~ ~ffc, rs~d ~mrsu~t to th~a coven~. At ~y ti~e, the t~n ~a~ ..... ' ~'
e~,.rs of a ~Jor~%~ of the lots s~ll have the ~r tH~c~h ~ duly reco~ed "" ~-
~ XS [~D~R~ ~D ~R~FD THAT eve~7 conveyance e~ aatd ~o~z~ Aa and a~ll here
&c%S~ f~ lnJ,Jnc~on to ~even~ ~he vlol~t~ the~e~e ~ ~ l~l~
of ~.~d ~otn 1~ ~al~ tract for ~he mu~l benefl~ of %he subsequent ~er c~ ~ers
t~..reor ~ +.heir ~ccelscr~ ~F~lng'-h~eve~:'' t~ no
~ ~he ~ or ~ln~t C~ns~ct~h, a joln~ vents, or xny of ~he
or ~mplp~nes or 811d JoJ,t venture by zeas~ of ~y .v~31atl~ .~ t~el/~t or .........
~ny o~ th~ ~ov~on~ here~ got forth, In ~d~ce ~lth the ~oregot~
.
)
r'mlrNl'V nK. Riverside .........)
o,, t~,~..ZS_. ,t;,.,. ~!' _ .......~y....e. ....;~.7_/. h~r,,~ ~c, th~ ..~.r~,.cd. o. _.
Nut.l;y P'ml, lh' In njd ~or ~ld Count)' and So.to, persnnREl)' appea~eH
vLLhln ln~tumP~t~, ~n~d p~r~,,n~"bet~E~;~'~h'"n ....... vho'
to be thc perwonB
be[~ ka,,~,, ~,, m~ t,, Ur <,-~' .r the j~lnt
.irATE OF CAX. TKURNIA )
) emm.
cn,.~'rv n~_....Ri_v~r.~!d.e ._.)
On tilts __?~..._dny of ~D.e ..... , 19.7.~, hutore me, the ,|n~erslR,med. n
Notary Puhlt,: ~n and rot R4id Cvunty and State, persnnnll)' appaared
~ S.L. PrGud __ n.d ...........
~ t~;{; ............... Presldcnt..a~-~
....... ~f _ .Pr__qu~.COO$~UCtJ~.CO~ra~(eq .... the rnrpnrattnn that executed the
bt, ln~ knn~ tram morn be ~nm. ,mr the Jn ..c v,-nru,'erm of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA
PLANNING COM/VfiSSION
RECEIVED
JUL 0 3 1995
Cizy of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public heating at 7:00 p.m. on July
12, 1995, at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, Council Chamber, located at 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, to consider the following described project.
CONDITIONAT. USE PERMIT 95-17 - TING - A request to construct a 1,189
square fo~t second dwelling unit in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2
dwelling units/acre), located a~, 6G29 Vineym'd Avenue - AFN: 1062-281-31.
Anyone having concerns. or questions or wishing to review or comment on the foregoing item is
welcome to contact the City Planning Division at (909) 989-1861 or visit the offices located at 10500
Civic Center Drive, Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Also, anyone objecting to or in favor of the above, may appear in person at the above-described
meeting or may submit their concerns in writing to the City prior to said meeting. Written comments
should be addressed to the Planning Division, City ofRancho Cucamonga, P. O. Box 807, Rancho
Cucamonga, CA 91729.
IF YOU CHALLENGE ANY OF ~ FOREGOING ACTIONS IN COURT, YOU MAY BE
[JMJ.'IED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FINAL ACTION DESCRmED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN
WRITFEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO ~ PLANNING COMMISSION AT,
OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
June 21. 1995
Date
KANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 1995
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
RECEIVED
JUL 0 ~ 1995
To Whom It May Concem: city ot Ranclqo Cucamonga
Planning Division
We are greatly concerned and opposed to granting Permit number
95-17-TING to construct a second dwelling at 6029 Vineyard Ave. -
APN: 1062-281-31.
We are a family of four residing at 6074 Vineyard Ave. The residence
where the construction would take place is several houses up the street
from us.
Though we were already residents of the community of Alia Loma,
four years ago when we decided to "move up" we chose our present
residence because we perceived its location and neighborhood to be not
only a great place to live, but a solid investment. Like many homeowners, it
has been difficult to deal with the eroding property value these past four
years.
· We respect the dghts of property owners to make additions to their
property. However, when such an addition is likely to have profound effects
on neighboring property, we no longer believe in those dghts. Were this
"second dwelling" designed and intended as a sort of "mother-in-law"
quarters it would be more difficult to oppose. However, our suspicions,
based on the dwelling design and plans for a separate vehicular entrance
from the street, give us great concern that this dwelling is intended for other
purposes. We fear this will affect the quality of life and the already suffering
properbJ values of our neighborhood. Therefore, we respectfully request
that you deny the request for a permit to construct this dwelling.
Sincerely,
~m and Pat McCandless
Planning Division
Rancho Cucamonga,
PO Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91729
ATTN: Steven Ross.
Mr/Mrs John V. Spangler O7 J(/~ ~i~70Pe~)
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9173~o/. e~c ~$
Tel: (909) 987-4326 ~/~. oO,
2s June 199
Dear Mr. Ross,
This is to protest the projected building of a second
building on the site of 6029 Vineyard Ave, (Condition 95-17-
Ting), which is adjacent to the property of our life long
friends, Mr and Mrs Richard Marzocco, at 6021 Vineyard Ave.
It is difficult for us and their friends and neighbors to
comprehend the approval of this two story building which will be
used for rental of transient or relocating friends and relatives
of Mr and Mrs. Ting.
Today's real estate environment in Southern California, and
in. most other parts of the country, has been in a downward spiral
and with it the dreams of a lifetime for families struggling to
achieve a comfortable life for themselves in their senior years.
California was, and still is to some degree, the place for
establishing family roots and to realize that often sought after
"American Dream".
The approval of this building on the property of 6029
Vineyard Ave will certainly have a negative effect of the value
of not only the property of our friends but on several other
properties in the vicinity, and maybe, even on the perceived
value of the neighborhood. This will signal to others seeking to
live in the beautiful area known as Alto Loma that the area is
becoming an upscale rental site and not one to be considered for
raising children, projecting civic pride and to enjoy the fruits
of a lifetime of working.
If this building is approved, do you think this will be the
only one to be built in the area. Think of what you are doing to
the. entire city and the properties with sufficient land to do
exactly the same thing and the signal it sends to the current
residents and potential residents.
The Ting property has been an eyesore for that neighborhood
for some time. Obviously, in order to bring their property and
its "curb appeal" up the standards of the rest of the area, they
have been advised to clean up their act. I commend the councilman
who is advising them of this strategy, it is for the enjoyment of
all the residents.
It is difficult for us to imagine the approval of this
building and the obvious impact it will have on the fragile value
of property. We ask you to reconsider and disapprove this
building.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and please
reconsider.
Sincerely yours,
~~V/.~Spangler'
RECEIVED
JUN 2 8 1995
city of Rancho Cucamonga
planning Division
City Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729.
Richard J. Marzocco
6021 Vineyard Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
June 26, 1993.
Ref: Conditional Use Permit 95-17-TING - 6029 Vineyard Ave.
Dear Members,
As the original homeowners who have maintained the above property and
enjoyed watching the estabiishment of our neighbourhood, we have become
both emotionally stressed and dismayed at the notification of a request
to build an additionaI residential dwelling on the designated single
family property next door.
1. This plan is in violation of our CC & R's (page 2 - item 7), stating
the properties in this development are to be single family residences and
can not have a second dwelling as a rental property.
2. Should this project be approved for an additional dwelling to be
erected on this odd-shaped corner lot, it will seriously alter our environs.
3. This street of twelve homes will have additional noise and pollution
brought about by the additional residence.
4. Property values will be lowered both by the aesthetics of this new
structure and by the usage as Rental Property.
5. The planned driveway will require removal of a 30+ ft Silk Floss Tree
and at least one or two mature Palms. At least twenty feet of 2 x 2ft of
stucco and brick surround will have to be removed from the facia of 6029.
Additional landscaping to that property will have to be removed also to
accommodate ~his driveway.
6. Because this is a pie-shaped lot, said driveway will pass w~thin 25ft
of our home and will be oriented so that vehicles will turn directly with
headlights beaming into our bedroom windows.
7. The ensuing noise and pollution of these vehicles and other traffic, i.e.,
solicitors to this home, residents, visitors, etc will cause great concern.
Viewing into our home will easily be attained from this access path.
8. The notation by the City Planning Office that "abundant landscaping be
done to screen this driveway" is ridiculous given the small area left in
the front of 6029 for such a use after construction of a driveway. As is
also the "driveway not be used for parked vehicles" notation by that office.
9. 6029 will have to place additional lighting which will r~flect onto our
property. The sharp bend of this driveway will be very difficult to
navigate without lights.
10. The proposed driveway will pass directly on top of the septic tank
for 6029.
11. Both driveway and new structure will be on the leach fields for
6029 and 6021.
12. The installation of a twenty five foot tall, two-storeyed plus one
garage, thirty foot wide structure within ten feet of the wall of my
property will d~m~ge my environment. Both environmentally and economically.
13. Our entire patio and pool area and.master bedroom balcony will be
no longer privately screened from our neighbours. The house is to be
built in that area our landscaping had given consideration to retaining the
views of San Gorgonio and sunrise and moonrise.
14. We will have additional lighting from the new structure shining into
our environs.
15. The placement of this residence ten feet from our wall will eliminate
ourselves and any future owners of this property from keeping horses in a
60ft semi-circle of our yard. In that very area we had left for that use.
16. The horsetrail edging our property is kept free of weeds, glass, etc.
this is not true of our neighbouring lot at 6029.
17. The residence at 6029 is owned by an absentee landlord who resides in
China, having no regard for the aesthetics of either his lot or that of his
neighbouts. The home is occupied by an agent Lisa Lee and his daughters.
Additional users of the home are many Chinese visitors who come and go for
various lengths of time.
We believe the request for the building of an additional residence on this
property is caused by the desire to have accommodations free of the main
house in which to house the numerous visitors to this property. We also
believe the occupant Lisa Lee has good cause to wish this as she at one
time had to change all locks to the house in fear of her safety after the
eviction of one of these visitors. Should the use of this additional
building be to house "friends and relatives" why not then an additional
area be built on to the main house?
It is unfeasible for the Planning Commission to recommend any usage of this
structure to these people. The garage is often incorporated as a storage
area for the family business. One portion of the garage has been converted
into an additional room. A trash can sits at the end of the driveway seven
days a week. Additional trash is left so haphazardly as to be distributed
by crows or animals onto neighbouring property most weeks. Christmas lights
erected years ago have been lit once but still hang from the caves of 6029.
No amount of requests that watering of lawns be reduced ind,,oes any action -
the landscaping is a bog and adjacent shrubs on our property have been
d~m~ged.
Should the City Planning Commission allow the erection of this additional
dwelling on the lot at 6029 Vineyard Ave (with additional driveway) and
its use as a Rental Property either at this time or in the future; a
precedent could be set which would impact hundreds of other homeowners.
Within the 6000 blocks of Vineyard, Zircon and adjacent streets live
homeowners who take pride in their property, who purchased their homes
on large lots to enjoy the separation from the homes of their neighbours.
This additional dwelling in our neighbourhood would change this in the
most negative manner, impacting the view of neighbouring lots on other
streets and the view from Vineyard Ave. We believe in fact creating a
general nuisance.
In response to the. declaration of the City Planning Office that State Law
enforces them to approve this second structure on this lot designated
by the C C & R as "single family residence only", we would quote:
State Code #6582.15. Findings, declarations, and intent; second units.
"It is the intent of the Legislature that any second-unit
ordinances adopted by local agencies have the effect of providing
for the creation of second units and that provisions in these
ordinances relating to matters including unit size, parking, fees
and other requirements, are not so arbitrary, excessive, or
burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners
to create second units in zones in which they are authorized by
local ordinance."
If in fact as the City Planning Office informs us, the State could supersede
local ordinance then the City is guilty of derelection of duty in informing
its citizens, property owners, real estate purchasers that the City Code
for very low density property which says "2 dwellings only per Acre", is
in fact superseded by a State Code rendering the City Code useless. This
would constitute non-disclosure on the part of the City in that the City is
guilty of hiding the facts and not informing potential buyers and therefore
causing a violation of citizens civil rights.
We would request the Commission grant the wishes of every other homeowner
in this neighbourhood that no additional dwelling be built upon the property
at 6029.
Thank you.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCNO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 95-17 FOR A 1,189 SQUARE FOOT SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT
6029 VINEYARD AVENUE, LOCATED IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
APN: 1062-281-31.
1. Mr. Stewart Ting has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 95-17, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is
referred to as "the application."
2. On the 12thday of July 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Co=~ission during the
above-referenced public hearing on July 12 1995, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 6029 Vineyard Avenue
and is presently improved with a single family home; and
b. The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the subject
site are zoned Very Low Residential and are occupied with single family homes;
and
c. The development of the second dwelling unit is consistent with the
Very Low Residential designation of the Development Code and the General Plan;
and
d. The application, with the attached conditions of approval, will
comply with all applicable standards of the Development code; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-17 - TING
July 12, 1995
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 use is in accord with the General Plan, the Objectives
Of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto,
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each Of the applicable provisions
of the Development Code.
4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified
above in the Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of CEQA of
1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15303 of the State CEQA guidelines.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs l, 2,
3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each
and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Plannino Division
1)
New paving in the front yard area shall be reduced to the
minimum necessary to access the second dwelling unit, and
additional landscaping shall be provided to screen the
driveway.
2)
Trees shall be planted along the north, west, and east
sides of the second unit to buffer the structure from
adjacent properties. The quantity, species, and spacing
of the trees shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Planner.
3)
A landscape plan addressing these conditions shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Planner
prior to building permit issuance. Landscaping shall be
installed prior to release of occupancy.
4) Exterior materials and colors shall match the existing
residence.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-17 - TING
July 12, 1995
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 12th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#, U P - 17
su EcT:
APPLICANT: (jTE'IJAI?.,T
LOCATION:
Those items Checked are Conditions of Approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time LImits
v/'' 1. Appmva shall exPire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to / /
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of
4. The deveioPer shall commence, participate in, and consummate orcause to be commenoed,
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Rcos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Ranoho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a mation, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
5, Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes firm. Further, if the affected school
district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of aDp4'oval of the project and prior to Ibe fecordalion of the linal map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
__/ /
__/ /
_J /
~ /
_._/ /
This condition shall be waived it the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
~chool districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
rompacts as a result of this project.
6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or priorto issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
Comt~ietion Dare:
__/ /
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which
include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sieyr
pr. eey. em, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and
PJ"nnsd
e/4.
""'6.
__/ /
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all ___/ /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
J /
Occupancy of the fact lity shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance pdor to
occupancy.
Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior Io issuance of building permits.
/ /
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency pdorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
Approval of this request shell not waive compliance with all sections of the Development
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
/ /
A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and
Sheritf's Department (989-6611) 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.
/ /
8. If no centralized Irash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
/ /
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shell meet City standards. The final design, locations,
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
/ /
sc- 10/94
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
/ /
Completion Date:
11. Sireel names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with ~ /
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in 'a clear and con~:ise manner, ._J /
including proper illumination.
13. A delailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and /.__J
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordalion of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) sha I not prohibit the keeping of equine ._J J
ammals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option ol keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing Io boards of directors or homeowners' associalions for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homoowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent Iols or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Deolaration of Restrictions for
.!he subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordalidn of the linal map or
~seuance of permits, whichever comos first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to. exterior alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect the extedorof the buildings or structures, removal of landmark
trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, orchanges to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Design
An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other aitemative energy systems are
demonstraled to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemonted with solar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
,SS2- xo/e4
Aif dwellings shaW have lha fronl, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural
tre?tment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatmont subject to City Planner
rev+ew and approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
.__/ /
._./ /
__/ /
/..__/
__/ /
.__/ /
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building pen'nits.
4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof rnoumed equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satistactldn of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate detatls on building plans)
Completion Date:
Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be
provided throughout the development to connect dwe llings/unitsrou tidings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
__/ /
.__/ /
All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall J /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (inCluding curb).
J /
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,
entranCes, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in
depth from back of sidewalk.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restdct the storage of recreational vehicles
on this site unless they are the prinCipal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
perking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
Plans for any security gates shell be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and
RanCho Cucamenga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuanCe of building
permits.
J /
J /
J /
_,J /
E. Landscaping (for publicly malmalned landscag~ ares, refer to Section N .)
1..AdetailedlandscaPeandirrigationplan, includingslopeplantingandmodelhome landscap- ---/ /
~ng in the case of residential development, shell be prepered by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
t,,/ 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier .__./ /
~n accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place andnewiocationsfortrensplantedtrees
shall be shown on the detai led landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arbodst's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods.
3. Aminimumof treespergressacre,compdsedoflhelolldwingsizes, shall be provided .__/ /
within the project: % - 48- inCh box or larger, % - 36- inCh box or larger,
__ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15-gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon.
4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees -
24-inch box or larger.
5. Within perking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for even/three
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
J /
._J /
sc- 10/94
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
AII Private slopes in excessofSfeet, but lessthan8 feet invertical height andof2:l orgreater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
fo. llows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
s~ze shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
benks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size free per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu-
ously maintained in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those u n its. an inspection
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
condition.
10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon-
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debds and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Cede and/or
· This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
12. The final design of Ihe pealmater parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval andcoordinatedlorconsistencywithanyparkway landscapingplanwhich maybe
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander-
ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and infensilied landscaping, is required along
/.__J
L__J
.__/ /..
__/ /
__/ /
! /
._J /
14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on
the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural
,growth characteristics of the selected tree species
17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
J /
J /
_J t
sc - 1o/94
F. Signs
1. ThesignsindloatedonthesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartofthisapprovaL
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
Proi~ct N'o: C_t/l0 t~g
Completaon Date:
.__/ /
2. A Unitorm Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and __/ /_
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
.__/ /
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provlded for apartment, condominium, ortownhomes
prior to occupancy and shall require separate applloatlon and approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher proje_ct-in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdorto accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any propady.
The developer shell provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash
deposit on any propany.
4. A final acoustical repad shall he submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise
attenuationto below45CNEL, the building materials and constructiontechniquesprovided,
and ff appropriate, verity the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
1. EmergencYsecondaryaccesssheitbeprovldeqinaccordancewithRancheCucamengaFire
Protection District Standards.
5
Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide
at all times dudng construction in accordance with Ranche Cucamenga Fire Protection
District requirements.
Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamenga Fire Protection District that temporary water suppty for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
The applicant shall contact the U. S, Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a seiid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
.._/ /
__/ /
/ /.
/ /
._./ /
__/ /
.._/ /
~ /
sc - 10194
For projects using septic tank facilities, wdtten certiticatlon of acceptability, including all
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official pdor to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Proie=L ,','o: CU F 't~" I '7
Site Development
/
1. TheaPPlicantshallcomPlywiththelatestadoptedUniformBuildingCode, UniformMechani. .__/ /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
I,""" 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition .--/ /.
to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but arc not limited to: City Beautifioation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or _._/ /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shell pay development fees at the
established rate. Such lees may include, but arc not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordation ~ /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances
considering use, area, and firc-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existingsewagedisp~sa~~a~i~itiessha~~beremoved~fi~~edand/~rcappedt~complywi~hthe
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for
building permit application.
K. Grading
1.
Grading ol the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial ¢ontorrnance with the approved grading plan.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
The development is located within the soil erosion control beundades; a Soil Disturbance
Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardino County Department of Agriouiture at (714)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
5. Thefinalgradingp~anssha~~be~~mp~etedandapprovedpriort~issuance~fbuildingpermits.
J /
/J
/J
/J
__J /
_J !
J /
4. A geological report shall be prcpared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at J /
the time of application for grading plan check.
/ /
SC- 10194
Completion
As a custom-lit subdivision, the tollowing requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site ---/ /
drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division priorto final map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permits.
b. Apprepdale easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto .-J /
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatedng and protecting the subdivided ---J /
properties, are to be installed pdor to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage fliws entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested,
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety ---/ /
Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an
sncremental or composite basis.)
e. All slipe banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses
or planted with grcu Pal cover for erosion control upon completion of grading o r some oth e r
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slipe planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Develipment Code.
/ /
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicaled to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails, public peseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the folliwing rights-of-way on the perimeter streets
(measured from street centedine):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
3. An irrevocableofferofdedicatlinfor
for all private streets or ddves,
-foot wide roadway easement shall be made
4, Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets:
/ /
/ /
5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensudng access to all parcels by CC&Rs
or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of
sc - 1o/94 building permits, where no map is involvc~l..~l~L ~
/ /
6. Private drainage easements forcross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated
or noted on the final map.
7. The final maP shall clearly delineate a l 0-foot minimum building restrictlon area on the
neighboring lot adjoining the zero I01 line wall and contain the following language:
"l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the
construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated
on the map as building restr~tion areas."
A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the
CC&R's.
8. A~~existingeasements~yingwithin~u~urerights-~f~waysha~~bequitc~aimed~rde~ineated~n
the final map.
9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property.
10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum
of 7 feet measured from the face of Curbs. If Curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary to COnstruct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreement to COmplete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 atsuchtimeastheCityacquiresthepropertyinterestsrequiredfortheirnprovements.
Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all COsts incurred by the City
to acquire the offisite property interests required in COnnection with the subdivision. Security
for a perilon of these costs shall be in the form of a Cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer. at developers COst. The appraiser shall have
been approved by the City prior to COmmencement of the appraisal.
M. Street Improvernents
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, COmmunity trails, paseos,
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be COnstructed to
City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, Curb and
gutter, AC pavement, ddve approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Aminimum of 26- fCOt wide pavement. within a40-fool wide dedioated dght.of.way shall be
COnstructed for all half-section streets.
3. Construct the lollowing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited
STREET NAME CURB & A.C. StO~- DRIVE STREET S111EET CQMM MEDIAN BIK~
GUTTER PVMT WALK APPR, LIGHTS 11tEES TRAIL ISLAND 11qAIL
__/ /
.__J /
,__/ /
__/ /
.__/ /
J /
J /
to: j /
OTHER
sc- ~0/~4
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, side-
walk shall be curvilinear par STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall
be provided for this item.
P,oi~:t>,-o.: Ct/I~
CornDletion Date:
4. Improvement plans and construction:
Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis-
tered Civil Engineer, 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 improve-
ments, priorto final map approval orthe issuance of building parmits, whichever occurs
first.
Prior to any work being pedormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction parmit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
/.__J
c. Pavement striping, .marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit .__J /
shall be installeq to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signalconduitwithpullbexesshallbeinstalledonanynewconstructionorreconstruction __.j /
of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on beth sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BC R, EC R or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: .__/ /
(1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise spacitied by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullmpa.
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all tour comere of intersections per City ~ /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain opan to traffic at all times with / /
adequate dsloure during construction. A street closure parmit may be required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving. which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to 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 lots.
h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer. .__/ /
i. Street names shall be approveq by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. .__/ /
5. Street improvement plans par City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for __/ /
review and approval by the City Engineer. Priorto any work being periormed on the pri-
vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction parmits shall be obtained from the City
Engineers Office in addition to any other parmits required.
6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed par City Standards in __/ /
accordance with the City's street tree program.
sc- 10194
7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy.
a. On co ector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections,
inCluding driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstructions within the fines of sight shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by
moving the 2 +1- cid sest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street
tree easerneht.
__J /
__J /
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: .__J'.___/
9. All public improvements on the following streets shell be operationally complete pdor to the J-----/
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final mop approval
or issuance of buiiding permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways,
medians, paseos. easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape MaintenanCe District:
~ /
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the amprime Landscape and Lighting
DiStricts shall be filed with the City Enginee r prior to finel mop approval or issuance of buiiding
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be berne by the developer.
~ /
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shell conform to the results of the respective
Beautitloatlon Master Ran:
3. AIIrequiredpubllolandscapingandintgatlonsystemo shallbecontinuouslymaintainedbythe .J /
developer until accepted by the City.
.__/ /
O. Dmlrmge and Flood Control
1. The project (Or penions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore. flood ---/ /
protection measures shell be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the developers responsibility to heve the ¢urreht FIRM Zone
designation removed from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plane, and bydroleglo/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Lelter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shell be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuanCe of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Lalter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior Io occupancy or improvemoht acceptanCe, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shell be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drsinag.e
facilities shall he installed as required by the City Engineer.
/ /
sc- IO/94
4. A permit from the County Flood Control Districl is required for work within its right-of-way.
5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk,
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a
blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water,
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as requireq.
2,The developer shell be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary,
V/ 3, Water and sewer plans shell be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucarnonga County Water Distdct (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardinc. A letter of
compliance Irom the CCWD is reduimd pdor to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
P~i~,~,'o,: CUP qf'll
__/ /
/___J
__/ /
_._/ /
__/ /
__/ /
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1, The separate parcels contained within the project beundades shall be legally combined into ---/ /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint use d~iveway shell be provided prior to finel map approval or .--./ /
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, Ior:
3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shell be posted with the City covedng the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created parcels.
.4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline. Secondary Regional, and Master Plan
Drainage Fees shell be paid prior to final map approval or pc'ior to building permit issuance it
no map is involved.
_.J /
.__/ /
5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: / /
6. A signed consera and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community
Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building parrnits, whichever occurs first. FonTtatbn costs shell be pome by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, suffident improvement plans shell be com-
pleted beyond the phase boundaries to as~jre secondary access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall conespond to lot lines shown
on the approved tentative map.
/ /
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DNISION, (909) 987-6405, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shell apply to this project.
SC- lO/94 ~ LI~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Danielle Frazier, Planning Intern
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02 CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to
allow signSfor service club organizations.
ABSTRACT: The Rotary Club is requesting that they be allowed to permanently display
their Rotary Sign on the front lawn of Socorro's restaurant. In response to their request,
staff pursued direction from the Planning Commission on June 14, 1995. This report
presents an ordinance for your consideration based upon the discussion at that meeting.
ANALYSIS: The Sign Ordinance does not address signs for community or service
organizations, such as Kiwanis International and the Rotary Club. Staff surveyed
neighboring cities to find out if they have such regulations. As shown in Exhibit "E," a
summary of the survey, none of the cities have regulations that allow permanent service
club signs. Some cities, like Rancho Cucamonga, treat them as temporary signs subject
to their temporary sign regulations. For example, Chino considers these signs "banner
signs," allowing them to be displayed for a maximum of 56 days per year. Upland and
Yorba Linda allow them to be placed on the day of the meeting and must be removed
afterward. The cities contacted indicated that they are not presently enforcing their
regulations.
OPTIONS: The following are options which should be considered. If approved, the
ordinance will be sent to the City Council for final adoption.
Temporary Signs. Their meetings could be considered a temporary special event.
This would be consistent with their request for a sign "establishing our meeting
place and time..." This sign would be permitted for up to 45 days per year and
could be placed on a wall, in a window, or ground mounted. This would also include
banners. The maximum sign area would be 50 square feet. This could result in up
to two temporary signs per site. This could be allowed, without an amendment, if
the Planning Commission so determines by minute action.
,j
ITEM E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SOA 95-02 - CITY OF R.C.
July 12, 1995
Page 2
Exempt Wall Sign. The sign would be placed on a wall on a permanent basis, with
a maximum area of 3 square feet. The service club sign would be exempt from
obtaining a Sign Permit because of its small size. The number of service club signs
will be limited to one sign per property.
Permanent Ground Sign. The sign may be placed in the ground or attached to an
existing monument sign, with a maximum area of 3 square feet. The service club
would require a Sign Permit because of the need to review sight lines and
modifications to existing signs erected under a permit. One service club sign per
property will be allowed for this option also. This option is consistent with the Rotary
Club's request.
Service Club Signs will be allowed for non-profit service clubs and organizations that
provide community service.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of
exempt wall signs and permanent ground signs for the service clubs to the City Council
through adoption of the attached Resolution.
:~:ubmitte~~~tv//
Principal Planner
DC:DF/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Letter from the Rotary Club
Exhibit "B" - Rotary Club of Rancho Cucamonga Sundze pamphlet
Exhibit "C" - Photo of Proposed Rotary Club Sign Location
Exhibit "D" - Photos of existing Rotary Signs in Other Cities
Exhibit "E" - Table 1 Service Club Regulation Survey
Resolution Recommending Approval of Sign Ordinance Amendment 95-02
Draft Ordinance
ROTARY CLUB
RECEIVED
APR 2 7 1995
Cily of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SU~/RIZE
9350 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE A, ALTA LOMA, CALIFORNIA 91701
DON SMITH, PRESIDENT
Mr. Brad Buller
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Mr. Buller,
Thank you for the time you have given me to discuss the
matter of the Rotary International sign I have requested be
allowed in front of Socorro's restaurant. The Rancho Cucamonga
Rotary Sunrize Club is strictly a volunteer service club that
has as its function to better the community both locally and
worldwide. It is important to note that the citizens of the
local community have a relatively strong recognition of who
we are, and a sign establishing our meeting place and a time
of that meeting is a sure step towards strengthening that
acknowledgment.
The Owners of Socorro's have given their approval to place
the standard 18" metal rotary sign appropriately on their front
lawn. We ask that an amendment to the sign ordinance be made
to allow for this. Most other cities allow this minor sign
to establish "the place" to meet other Rotarians.
I have enclosed pictures of other restaurants in neighboring
cities displaying service club signs. I have also marked a
possible place for the sign to be displayed in front of
Socorro's. The exact placement of the sign is not crucial so
long as it can be easily seen by passing traffic.
Please advise me of your decision at your earliest convenience.
The easiest way I can be contacted is through my voice mail
~(909)-604-1283.
Sincerely,
Don Smith
encl.
Meeting: Tuesday's, 7:00-8:30 a.m. at Soc0rro's Restai 276 Fo0thi]] Boulevard, Raucho Cucamonga
TIlE OBJECT OF ROTARY
]'he objcc! of Rotary is to encourage and fos!er
the ideals of service as a basis of worthy
enterprise and. m particular. to encourage and
FinS, ~he dcvclopmcm of acquaimance as an
-opportunity for service.
Second, high etlUcal standards in busine"~ and
professions; the recognition of the worthiness of
all useful occupations; and the dignifying by each
Rotarian of their occupation as an opportunity to
serve society.
Third, the application of the ideals of sen'ice by
each Rotman to their personal, business and
community life.
Fourth, the advancement of international
understanding, goodwill and peace duough a
world fellowship of business and professional
pcopin trailed iu the ideals of service.
AVENUES OF SERVICE
Our Rotmy Club provides opportunities for
service in projects in each of Ihe following areas:
Club Service -
Mcmlx.,.rship & Development Programs
Public Relations
Fellowship
Ftmd Raising
Community Service -
Rotmy Youth Leadership Awards
Preserve Planet Earth
Organ Donor Program
Christmas Basket Program
Drab Abuse Prevention
I landicapped & I fumeless Progxam
Vocali.nal Service -
Mini Grants Program
Classroom Visits
Dan Stovct Music Contest
4 - Way Speech Contest
Community Service Awards
International Service -
Group Study Exchanges
International Youth Exchanges
World Aid Projects
SeholarsInps
ROTARY CLUB
OF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
SUNRIZE ·
"Service Above Self"
The FOUR-WAY TEST of
the things we think, say and do.
I. ls it the TRUT!I?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL
and BETTER FRIENDS!lIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to
all concerned?
WIIAT :OTARY CLUB?
1'he original Rola~y Club was ~ganized in Chicago, lllbmis
by Paul P. Ilan-b. · lawyer. I! first met February 23. 1905. The
Name "ReVery" was cho~..a because Ihe Club met in re,dice at
each menbe~s pl,ce of boat·ca.
From Ihe begbming. the Roee~ idea of Friendship,
fellowship end ~rvke Io olhe~ h&s spread Io six coeltb~nts.
Our Club wee chartered March. 1988 and we meet eadl
TuesdaystSe~:~,~,'s~omT:0OAM toS:30AM
WHAT ARE ROTARIANS?
TbeYmepeq~lev/noloekbe'/cmd0t. mselvatolhch.
c,,,,,~,--nlty, nalion andthe wedd. They Mch~hem~th;theylel
fair·ca loves their relatiomhig,; they endeavor to build
goadwill and ballet ~iem~hipe; ~ sirire to benefit all in evewy
~n=latinnlhil~ In dNxt, they put0etvlce abve selt
Rola~'l Mollo: 'Stake Al~,e Sell"
HOW DOES ONE BECOME A MEMBER OF
THIS ROTARY CLUB?.
WHAT IS EXPECTED OF A MEMBER?
Roeat7 is built upeo fellowlhip and Enidship which
&'1~eubulmabeinBatlhemeelinBs- ARoutianiseqx. ctedto
attend the meetings. Ilisundersloodthatamongbu~/people·
prddem of·fie·dance may arise. Ira member mimes a meeting.
~ ate ~ivileged to "make-up" at another Rotary Chib. ~
are RoUr~ Clube in ever/nation of lhe free world 120.000+) and
thetimeandplaceofebuemeetingsarelistedinlheOelcial
Ead~ make-up dTords the Re~tinn · splendid op~ty to
bmaaen their acquaintance and bring back l· their Club
infonnalioaandideuilmcanimlrovetheirClub'sq~atimsand
programs.
[fa rnernbet misses four consecutive meetings Ibey are
aulomailcallytrminated. Eachmembefwrmstal/end60%ofUm
meetings. 30% of which must be ·fibair heme club meeting
duringead~halfyear. unlene~.kkvudforgoed~easonbythe
Club's Board of Direclors.
TIlE ROTARIAN AND "SERVICE"
The empbesi~ of Rolar/is upon creating wilhin
individual the IDEAL OF SERVICE. TIt/ant erecur·gad and
supported in their ler~ml adi Htie, in dvlc. yomh service and
public u=vlce orgm~izatiom. II is flora Iheir club that
menbnl draw Ihe volumeer~ let wo~y m. vlce activiliet
l~e club undertake a wide variety ·faeryice activities in
vocalice·l, ,C~4m,,uniey and immu~eeml Immmllom of goodwill
YMCA
Aid to Senior Cilizera
Aid to the Hsndicalq~ed
City Buutifiatiee
Youth Sevka
~h0hinhlp and Educalioa
CateerA,.,are~eaProgranu
F~ Pm, mlim
F. mhqu~ehq,eedum
PolioPrevmfienPmpama
r-'--;...~.. Re:qnitinn
Teadir Mini Cirunu
WHAT 19 THE COST OF BELONGING?
OurlnifiatlonretbSlOO. QdddsprovMaforldn.
Idaqu.. Mnden. etc.
Arereal due, ee Sl0~ (BIBed
· suhudpUon le Ihe "Reead,n" meelldy Roeu7 Maladne.
Bh-dd'a~s m S7.00. SeDke t'enldbet~m: Mereben m
"find*; · humattain devke mployed
Ihe Indhldud RNaHaa retolwdUon of their adde,emena
ehe bed eml blerneUonal communley. end for Ihdr
contribution bs Mnke to their C!zb. The emo,ent of~he fine
b pndeterndned by agrtemest w~k fir member.
THE ROTARY [qlUNI)A'FION: ROFARIANS are as, kcd
volunlalily to consider suppnl of Ihe Irt~undati.n's ptojecls
by becoming Sustaining Members with an annu. I gill I,f
$1CJ(). When Ihe cumulalive amount tcachrs $1.(NNI. Ihey
become a "Paul Ilat~s Fellow" Ahem·lively. they may sup-
pofl Ihe Foundation by naming the Foundalil~n as a Ix-nc~+
ciary, for $ I .(XR), in their will or life insurance.
BENEFITS OF MEMBERSI!IP
They broaden their circle of ftic~b and
ecqueinlances.
They am 'in touch' with the mains.earn of
communiP/life and the people w~ch make il 'tick'.
They ·brain inctcsscd knowledge of busin·r· and
p~ofcssions beyond their own and a sympethelie
uncle·In·ding of the problems of other businesses.
They aequim the oppomanily to seek eounsd
olhor bust·an leadre.
The,/develop their ~le~ts and eapucities in roles of
leadership and suh,~1.
They pin tr. oSnition for them·tire. and their
Imsiucu and profession for perticipafin8 in an
o~anizetion dedicated to sen'ice to vocation.
emnmunity and to intenmtional 8oodwill and
understanding
The3, are enebl~ to exp~ss in a practical way those
nobler dcsi~s Found in everyone who wanes to make
their cent~bulion to the betlennem of rectory.
They No·den their social life and thai of their spouse.
They find new noUees fm their 8nods and scrvicet
.They find individuals with whom to sham Ihc~r hobby
microsea.
They develop contacts in evcP/business and
profession rcprnemed in their club tnembenhip.
They increase their knowledge of world affairs:
receiving a kcencr appreciation of the customs end
character ofolhcr peoples.
They acquire a friendly contact and a warm welcome
in almost even/impodanl cily of Ihc Free World.
TABLE 1
SERVICE CLUB SIGN SURVEY
CITY
Chino
Irvine
La Veme
Rancho Cueamonga
Upland
Yorba Linda
PRESENT REGULATIONS
None addressing service clubs.
None addressing service clubs.
None addressing service clubs.
None addressing service clubs.
None addressing service clubs.
None addressing service clubs.
ALLOWED ON A
PERMANENT BASIS
No
No
No
No
No
ALLOWED ON A
TEMPORARY BASIS
Yes, the sign is considered a
"banner sign;" it may hung for a
maximum of 56 days per year for
that business.
Yes, but there are no specific
regulations. A service club may
place their sign in the window or
hang a banner periodically.
Yes, but the sign cannot be
"lacked on."
Yes, the sign isconsidered a
"special event sign."
No
Yes, the sign is considered an
"other special sign."
COMMENTS
Normally a service club will place
their sign outside 1/2 hour prior
to the meeting and will remove it
following the end of the meeting.
Pending Planning Commission
recommendations to lake further
action.
Service c[ubs are allowed to place
their sign on the day of the
meeting and must remove it
following the end of the meeting.
A sign or banner is placed out
front prior U~ the meeting and is
removed following the end of the
meeting.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PI3~NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT NO. 95-02, ~a4ENDING TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE.
W~EREAS, on the 12th day of July, 1995, the Plannin~ Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65864 of the California Government
Code.
~: The Rancho cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following
findings:
1. That the Amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively
planned urban community within the District that is superior to development
otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and
2. That the Amendment will provide for development within the District in
a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth
management policies of the City.
f~: The Commission finds and determines that the project identified
above in this Resolution is exempt from the requirements Of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
reco~nends that the City Council approve and adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment 95-02
to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance.
The Acting Secretary to this commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
I, Dan Coleman, Acting 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 12th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCENO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANGHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 95-02, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF
THE RANGHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE.
A. Recitals
1. On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Sign
Ordinance Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. , thereby recommending that the City Council
adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 95-02.
2. On ,1995, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption
of this Ordinance.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14.08.325 is hereby added to Chapter 14.08 to read as follows
14.08.325 Service club sign. "Service club sign" means a sign to
identify a non-profit organization that provides community service.
SECTION 2: Section 14.16.010.R. is hereby added to Chapter 14.16 to read as
follows:
R. Service club signs, not exceeding 3 square feet, may be attached
to a building wall; one sign per site to identify the name of the service
club or logo and the day and time of the meeting. Signs shall be
non- illuminated.
SECTION 3: Section 14.20.030 is hereby added to Chapter 14.16 to read as follows:
14.20.030 Service club signs. Service club signs may be permitted
in commercial and industrial zoning districts subject to the following
provisions:
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
SOA 95-02
Page 2
A. No more than one service club sign shall be permitted per
site, and shall be either a wall sign, ground sign, or attached to
existing monument sign.
B. Service club signs shall be a maximum of 3 square feet in
area and shall not exceed 4 feet in height from the final grade.
C. Service club signs shall not be internally illuminated.
D. Signs may identify the name of the service club and/or logo,
the day and time of the meeting.
SECTION 4: The Council finds and determines that the project identified above in
this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 5: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the
same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California,
and cimulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA -
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner
WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to consider initiation of text
changes to add Commercial uses and standards for Commercial uses in
conjunction with Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 for parcels
located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm
Avenues in Subarea 7.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Wohl/Rancho Partners, is requesting a
Community Commercial use designation within the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP).
(See attached justification and map of surrounding uses.) A Community Commercial
designation requires a General Plan Land Use Amendment, as well as an Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment. The ISP amendment would require text changes to add
commercial uses and development standards for commercial development. Specific Plan
text changes can only be initiated by the City Council or the Planning Commission. The
General Plan and ISP amendment applications will be considered by the Planning
Commission at a future meeting.
ANALYSIS: At the direction of the Planning Commission, staff will research and
recommend commercial uses and appropriate development standards for the site as part
of the request for land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial within
Subarea 7 of the ISP.
To determine the most appropriate uses and development standards, staff will review
existing commercial designations, including the "General Commercial" designation in the
Development Code, the "Community Commemiar' designation in the Terra Vista Planned
Community, and the "Community Commercial" designation in the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan. A comparative analysis of these designations will be forwarded to the
Commission under separate cover.
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
July 12, 1995
Page 2
Limited commercial uses are currently allowed within Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan. For example, business supply retail, hotel/motel, and restaurants serving
beer and wine are permitted uses. Conditionally permitted uses include automotive sales
and leasing, automotive service court, automotive service station, convenience sales,
entertainment/theaters, fast food sales, food and beverage sales, specialty building supply
and home improvement, and restaurants with bar and entertainment. The applicant
desires the broader range of goods and services allowed under the Community
Commercial category, consistent with Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square.
Also, a Master Plaq-for the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park has been approved for the
subject site and adjoining areas within Subarea 7, which incorporates commercial uses.
General Commercial uses are addressed by the following text under the Industrial Area
Specific Plan Subarea 7 (p. IV-52):
On the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Arrow Highway, Development
Code provisions for the General Commercial District shall apply to K-mart
and the adjoining northerly building. Development and use of satellite
buildings in the K-mart Center are subject to provision of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan.
At the direction of the Planning Commission the aforementioned text would also be
reviewed for adequacy and considered for change in light of the impending closure of
K-mart.
ACTION: Staff requests that Planning Commission comment and direction be given on
commercial uses and development standards for a Community Commercial designation
within the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Any change in land use will be considered under applications for General Plan Amendment
and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment which will come before the Commission at
a future date.
Principal Planner
DC:MB/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Justification and Map of Surrounding Uses
Description of Proposed Project and Supporting Information.
FOOTHILL COURTYARD
(south side of Foothill Blvd. between Spruce & Elm)
An Amendment to the General Plan is requested by Wohl/Rancho Parmers changing the land
use designation for the subject parcels from Industrial to Community Commercial.
Simultaneously, an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan is requested allowing uses
permitted under the Community Commercial designation as defined in the Foothill BIrd.
Specific Plan to be located on the subject parcels.
These amendmen~ are requested in order to allow the developmere of a community shopping
center which will include a diverse group of retail tenants. The project consists of
approximately 133,500 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space of which approximately 16,500 sq.
ft. is designated for food service uses. As shown in the attached site plan and elevations, the
center has been designed to provide convenient shopping and restaurant services with easy
access to and visibility from Foothill Blvd. The project elevations will compliment the
existing design elements on the south side of Foothill Blvd. while not being at odds with the
Tetra Vista cente~'s to the north. More than the required parking has been provided in a well
landscaped common area.
The project will be built in two phases. The first phase will consist of a 20,250 sq. ft. "The
Good Guys!" electronics store which is shown as building A on the attached site plan. This
store will be built as soon as the GPA, ISPA and building permits can be obtained. Phase
two will include the development of the remainder of the shopping center which will take
place under a separate building permit. The second phase construction will commence either
at the same time or shortly following the first phase construction.
There are three primary factors which support this change from Industrial to Community
Commercial. First, the physical location and configuration of this site indicate the highest
and best use as being retail development. Foothill Blvd. east of Haven is becoming a
regional draw with the retaile~ locating in the existing and proposed projects on both the
north and south sides of the boulevard. The subject property, with over 1450 feet of
frontage and an average depth of less that 400 feet, is best suited for a retail use which can
benefit from this configuration. With convenient ingress and egress from two signalized
intersections and tremendous visibility, this site is ideal for the development of a community
oriented shopping center which can add both aesthetically and financially to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
Second, the need for retail zoning is evidenced by the tremendous demand on our site from
large national chain tenants. In many cases their decision has been to locate on Foothill
BIrd, between Haven and the 1-15 or open in one of the several new planned developments
in the City of Ontario. Their preference for Rancho Cucamonga in general and the subject
property in particular is based on the following factors: (1)'critical mass" of retailers that
have recently been locating in and between the Tetra Vista development and the new
development at the intersection of Foothill and the 1-15; (2) excellent demographics in Rancho
Cucamonga and surrounding communities; (3) high traffic counts on Foothill Blvd. and excellent
ingress/egress and traffic circulation from Foothill to the subject property; (4) a site
configuration (i.e. shallow depth between Foothill Blvd. and Eucalyptus) that promotes visibility
directly from Foothill Blvd. attracting more impulse shoppers and convenience oriented
businesses; and (5) the lack of any other sites which provide all of the above features. Other
commercially zoned sites within Rancho Cucamonga have been passed over by these retailers
because they are not located along this corridor east of Haven or because they do not provide
good visibility from the boulevard. We have been overwhelmed with the interest level shown
by the real estate experts at these large national chains whose internal market studies strongly
support the development we are proposing.
The third factor which was touched on above is the need to satisfy consumer demand for an
aesthetically appealing community center with tenant signage visible from Foothill Blvd. and
easy ingress and egress. Our plan will cater to convenience and impulse buy oriented retailers
and food users. This will include both a fast food and sitdown restaurant as well as a common
"food p]aT~" with outdoor seating around a fountain element. As shown in the attached
conceptual elevation, this food plaza will draw the attention of passing motorists with its visual
warmth and human scale amenities. Tables with umbrellas will be scattered among attractive
deciduous trees, park benches and trellis landscape features. A fountain will highlight the center
of this seating area and will be lit at night. A "European Style" coffee house wffi make a
convenient stopping point for morning commuters. The retail tenants will benefit from signage
visible from Foothill attracting the commuter who is passing through Rancho Cucamonga and
who doesn't have time to stop in the more destination/regional oriented centers in the area.
The appwvai of our application to Amend the General Plan for this location will also benefit the
city through increased property and sales tax revenues, and increased jobs, both during the
construction prcx:ess and upon completion of the project.
In support of the application, previous market surveys from other developers have suggested the
need for additional retail development. The Realty Development Research, Inc. (RDR) market
survey prepared for the Western Land Company (Nov., 1993) indicates that although "there is
sufficient acreage zoned commercial in Ranclio Cucamonga to meet demand until approximately
the year 2000, several factors reduce the aforementioned time frame and strengthan the need for
additional zoned commercial property at this lhne". In particular retail zoning.
RDR contends that net exports of retail to other cities and the relatively limited number of
parcels available which are sized appropriately for the development of major retail facilities most
substantiate their argument. They indicate a minimum of approximately 10-16 acres is needed
for community scale development. The RDR survey concludes that considerable retail demand
will also remain available to other key commercial developments in this immediate vicinity.
Assuming the planning commission and the city councils support of the Western Land
Companies development indicates that the survey was interpreted as relevant and valid, our
project, similar in nature, meets the same eligibility requirements.
Review of the RDR market analysis was conducted per the city's planning department request
by Urban Research Associates (URA) (Apr, 1994). URA studies further support approval of
our application, which is similar in nature to the application reviewed. Although the URA
review presents a rebuttal to some of the RDR findings, their research indicates that "Rancho
does indeed suffer economically from sales leakage of net exports, which can be reduced in
selected merchandise lines." In particular. URA indicates sales leakages in "home furnishings
and appliance lines, electronic equipment, quality restaurants, and such specialty groups as toys,
books, sporting goods, and music." As our application indicates, we are requesting a general
plan amendment for a shopping center which will meet the needs of the community and conform
to the indicated lines which sales leakages in the city are experienced.
In addition prior research findings, we funher contend that the major consideration in examining
our application should not be a question of whether there is already enough existing retail zoning
in the city to support the commtmity, but whether the current retail zoning is located in the most
strategic retail locations for both tenants and consumers. Through contact with major tenants
we have found that Foothill Boulevard east of Haven is the location where they want to be.
Sales figures of existing tenants in close proximity to our location indicate that the consumer
demand exists to support additional retail usage.
The primary objective of planning is to ultimately benefit the citizens of the community. This
proposal fulfills this requirement and in addition provides economic development for the city.
The development will enhance the community through greater convenience shopping for goods
and services, more choices for consumers, as well as competitive prices from large retail
economies of scale.
I'ER~A VISTA TOWN CENI~R
/94,[X~ Square Feel
Mixed-Use Commercial Oetlol~nent
LAUREL/ASPeN
EXECUTIVE
OFfiCE MEDICAl.
PARK c~
Rancho / San Antonio
Nledical Cen;ef
,~ ·
::::':i:!:!:: . '
· :1'"' ,.
II~R~A ~I:STA
financlcsl
Restaurants
Residential
Vacant
Light Industrial/
Office
CITY OF RANCHO CUC?dvIONGA '
MEMORANDU1XI
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 6, 1995
Chairman and Me bers of the Planning Commission
:;,
Miki Br sociate Planner
TRANSMI'iTAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR DIRECTOR'S
REPORT: WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS JULY 12 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
Attached are three tables which will be used for comparing commercial uses and districts: the
General Commercial District of the Development Code, the Community Commercial District of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, the Community Commercial District of the Terra Vista Specific
Plan, and Commercial use categories of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
These tables were prepared to assist the Commission's consideration of the request for text changes
to the ISP to include commercial development on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Elm
and Spruce Avenues.
The tables are:
· COMPARISON OF USES
· COMPARISON OF COMMERCIAL DISTRICT DEFINITIONS
· COMPARISON OF SETBACKS
Attachments
_d
COMPARISON OF USES - GENERAL COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, ISP COMMERCIAL
USES*
GENERAL COMMUNITY COMMUNITY ISP ISP
COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL SUBAREA USE
FOOTHILL TERRA VISTA 7 CATEGORY
Offices and Related
1. Admin/exec P P p p
2.Art/Photo Studio P P P C
3. Clerical/Professional P p p p
'IV. Employment Agency P p
4. Financial servicer~nst p
a. without ddve-thru P P P p
b. with ddve-thru P C P P
F. Intedor Decorating P P
5. Medical, Dental, etc. P P P P
F. Optician/Optical Sale P P P P
6. Pharmacies P p
7. Public building P C
8. Public utility office P C
9. Public safety facility C C
F. Real Estate Escrow P P p
B. General Commercial
1. Antique shops P P
2. Adult Business A
3. Animal Care
a. Intedor only P C
b, Extedor kennels C
4, Apparel stores P P P
5. Ad,Music,Photo supply P P P
F. Art Gallery P
6. Appliance sale/repair P P P
7. Arcades C C C
8. Athletic clubs, etc. P P P C
9. Automotive services
a. sales C C (ancillary use) C
b. rentals C C (ancillap/use) ' C
c. repairs C C (minor)
d. coin-op wash C C C
e. automatic wash C C C C
f. gasoline/minor repair P C C C
g. parts/supplies P p
h. tires/service C (andllary use)
10. Bakedes (retail) P P p C
11. Barber/beauty P P P C
12. Bicycle P P
13. Blueprint/photocopy P P p
14. Boat/camper sal/srv C C
15. Booldgift/stationary P P p p
16. Candy/confectionary P P p
17. Catedng P ' P C
18. Cleaners P · P p
19. Carpenter/cabinet P p
20. Cocktail lounge
a. no restaurant C C
b. accessory to restaur. C C C
21. Com. redtheaters
a. indoor P C P C
b. outdoor C
ProfessionahAdmin/Office
Comm:Personal Services
Comm:Business Support
Comm:Business Support
Comm:Financial Services
Comm:Finandal Services
Comm:Financial Services
Comm:Professional/Design
Comm:Medical Services
Comm: Medical Services
Comm:Convenienca Sales/Serv
Civic:Administration
Civic:Public Utility
Civic:Public Safety
Comm:Financial/Reat Estate
Adult (not/Foothill Boulevard)
Comm:Anirnal Care
Comm:Animal Care
Comm*.~nimal Care
Comm:Entertalnment
Comrn:Recreational Fadlities
Comm:Automotive Sales/Serv
Comm~utomotive Sales
Comm'~,utomotive Sales/Lease
Comrn:Automotive Repair
Comm:Automotjve Repair
Comm:Automotive Sen/Station
Cornre:Food/Beverage Sales
Comm:Convenienca Sales/Serv
Comm:Businese Support
Comm:Automotive Sales/Lease
Cornre:Convenience Sales
Comm:Convenience Sales
Cornre:Food/Beverage Sales
Comm:Convenience Services
Mfg:Custom Manufacturing
Comm:Recreation-Entertainment
Comm:Entedalnrnent
Comm:Extensive Impact Comm.
COMPARISON OF USES - GENERAL COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, ISP COMMERCIAL
USES*
GENERAL COMMUNITY COMMUNI'r¥ ISP
COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL SUBAREA
FOOTHILL TERRA: VISTA 7
22. Contractor/yards C
F. Convalescent Hosp
F. Curtain/Drapery
23 Dairy store P
F. Day Care
F. Delicatessen
24. Department store P
25. Ddve-in business C
26. Drug store P
27. Equipment rental C
28. Fast-Food P
29. Feed/Tack P
30. Flodst P
31. Food/supermarkets P
F. Floor Covedng
32. Fumiturermc repair P
33. General retail P
34. Hardware P
TV. Home Furnishing
35. Home improvement
a. Indoor P
b. w/outdoor storage C
F. Hobby Shops
36. Hotel/motel P
F. Ice Cream/Soda Ftn
37. Ice Machine/outdoor C
O;':;serv,supp,y P
39. Jewelry P
TV. Lighting
40. Laundry coin-op P
F. Leather/Luggage
41. Liquor C
42. Kiosk/in parking lot C
43. Locksmith P
F. Messenger/Wire Serv
F. Music/Dance/MartialAd
44. Mini-storage/indoor C
45. Morturay/cametary C
46. Motorcycle sale/sew C '
47. Newspaper pub/pmt P
48. Nusery/garden supply P
49. Office/bus machine P
'IV. Outlet/Off pdce
F. Paint/Glass[VVallpapr ~
50. Parking for fee P '
51. Political/Philanthropic P
52. Pet P
53. Plumbing/supplies P
54. Photocopy P
55. Pdnt shop P
F. Record/Tape/CD
56. Restaruant
a. w/entertainment/liquor P
b. w/beer & wine P
57. RV storage yard C
8. Shoo, sales/repair P
59. Second-hand/pawn P
C
P
C
P
P (service)
P
P
P P
C
P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
C C
C
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P ,-
P
C
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
C
P
P
C
P
C
P
P
C
P
ISP :
USE
CATEGORY
Comm:Contractor OffiCe/Yard
Comm:Mediool/Health Services
Comm:Bldg. Supply/Home Imp
Comm:Food/Beverage: Sales
Comm:Personal Servervice
Cornre:Eating/Drinking Est.
Comm:Convenience Sales
Comm:Bldg/Ught Equip Supp/Sale
Comm:Fast Fo6t Sales
Cornre:Convenience Sales
Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp
Cornre:Repair Services
Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp
!
Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp
Comm:Bldg Supply/HOme imp
Comm:HoteUM0tel ['
Comm:Fast Food Sales
Comm:Bldg. Maint. Service
Comm:Bldg SUpply/Home Imp
Comm:Food/Beverage Sales
Cornre:Convenience Sale/Service
Comm:Communicetions Service
Storage:Public' Storag~
Cornre: AutomOtive Sales/Lease
Mfg: Ught Manufacturing
Comm:Nursury. SupplylService
Comm:Bus. Supply Retail
Comm:lndoor WholesalNRetail
Comm:Bldg SUpply/Home Imp
ProfessiOnal: Admin ,
Comm:Bldg/Supply/H0me Imp
Cornre:Bus. Support Service
Comm:Bus. Suppod Service
Comm:Eating/Ortnkin~ Estab
Cornre:Eating/Drinking
Comm:Eating/Drinldng
Wholesale:PublicStdrag.e
COMPARISON OF USES - GENERAL COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, ISP COMMERCIAL
USES*
GENERAL COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL
FOOTHILL
COMMUNITY ISP ISP
COMMERCIAL SUBAREA USE
TERRAVISTA -7 CATEGORY =-.-.
60. Shopping canter C C
TV. Showroom/Cat'log P
F. Specialty retail C
61. Spiritualist, etc P
62. Sporting goods P P P
63. Stamp/coin P
64. Swim pool supplies P P
65. Tailor P P
66, Taxidermist P
67. TV, radio, electronic P P P
68. Tire/sales, service C
69. Toy P P
70. Travel agency P P P
71. Transit depots C
72. Truck trailer/rent,etc C
F. Yardage P
73. Variety P P P
74. Vehicle towing/stor C
F. Watch/Clock repair P
TV. Wholesale Bus.' C
C
P
(Subarea 7: K-mad exception)
Comm:lndoor Who[esaleJRetail
Comm:Bldg Supply/Home Imp
Comm:Convenience Sewice
Comm:Peraonal Service
Civic: Extensive Impact
Comm:Heavy Equip Sale/Rent
Wholesale: Heavy Storage
Comm:lndoor Wholesale/Retail
*Note: "Uses" o Numerical listing = Development Code; TV = Terra Vista SP; F = Foothill Blvd SP; and
ISP Uses are orgar ized by categories
COMPARISON OF COMMERCIAL DISTRICT DEFINITIONS
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN: SUBAREA 7
On the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Arrow Highway, Development Code provisions
for the General Commercial District shall apply to K-mart and the adjoining northerly
building. Development and use of the satellite buildings in the K-mart Center are subject to
provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT:
This district is intended for general commemial activities and services of a morn intensive
nature. These uses would be located primarily along major transportation routes and would
include major shopping facilities, major service-oriented uses, major financial and corporate
headquarters which are designed to serve the City or the region as a whole.
TERRA VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAl,
The Community Commercial parcel at the comer of Foothill Blvd. and Haven Ave. can
accommodate department store development, numerous tenant stores arranged around wither
an open or enclosed pedestrian mall, and community-oriented service establishments such as
drug stores, supermarkets, financial institutions, and other functions. In addition the
Community Commercial center can have enteminment facilities and/or restaurants. The
intent is that the Community Commercial parcel will cater to a mix of uses that will make the
development lively well into the night, to function as an active "people place" in service to the
residents of Terra Vista and the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
This land use district includes a wide variety of uses which typically include drag stores,
supermarkets, apparel shops, variety stores, and commercial recreation uses. In general,
Community Commercial Districts function to promote the establishment of neighborhood/
district level commercial goods and services. Typically, large community commercial
complexes are designed to accommodate the needs of more than one neighborhood or subarea
and include one or more major tenants accompanied by a variety of multi-tenant uses.
Smaller, stand along community commercial facilities are also permitted within various CC
dislricts, located on smaller existing parcels, designed to accommodate smaller satellite land
uses°
COMPARISON OF SETBACKS - INDUSTRIAL. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. AND
GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
INDUSTRIAL SP
FOOTHILL BLVD.
LOCAL STREET
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
FOOTHILL BLVD.
LOCAL STREET
TERRA VISTA SP
FOOTHILL BLVD.
LOCAL STREET
FOOTHILL BLVD. SP
FOOTHILL BLVD.
LOCAL STREET
LANDSCAPE
PARKING
45' 25' 45'
25' 15' 25'
45' 30' 45'
25'min/35'avg 25' 35'
B~LD~G
45' 28'min/43'avg 38'min/43'avg
25'min/35'avg 25' 35'
45' 45'
25'min/35'avg 25'
Note: 15% of net lot area must be landscaped in all districts.
25'1 st.~/50'2nd.~
35'
HER TAGE
INDEPENDENTLY OWNED & OPERATED
July 12, 1995
Mr. David Barker
Planning Commission
City of. Rancho Cucamonga
Re: WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS
Dear Mr. Barker,
We have anxiously been waiting for development of the land on the southeast parcel of Spruce
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard directly in front of The Best Westem Heritage Inn. We are the
only major hotel in Rancho Cucamonga and look forward to offedng additional goods and
services to our guests.
We feel that the new tenant directly at the comer should complement the hotel. This would be
best suited by a restaurant, sports bar and gdll or other form of entertainment.
The Best Westem Heritage Inn has welcomed over 21,000 guests this year. The impact of their
buying power is evident in the food/beverage, retail and entertainment interest.
Please understand that we are not opposed to the "Good Guys" electronic store as part of the
project. However, their location may be best suited at another parcel of this plan.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
GR~ HOTELS, CORP
Leonard J. Ramos
Vice President, Operations
8179 SPRUCE AVE., RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 · 909o466-1111 ,, 1 800-682-STAY
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission Administrative Regulations provide for election of
Chairman and Vice Chairman at the first regular meeting in July of each year.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman
to serve for one-year terms.
Re ubmitted,
Principal Planner
DC:GS/gs
ITEM G
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS
BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission Meeting held on May 24, 1995, it was requested
that the Design Awards nominations be placed on this agenda for consideration by the Commission.
Following is a listing of projects which were completed during the 1994 calendar year.
Best Buy (NWC Foothill & Elm)
Discovery Zone (NEC Foothill & Haven)
Men's Wearhouse (NEC Foothill & Haven)
Weinerschnitzel (Foothill Marketplace)
Food 4 Less (Foothill Marketplace)
Petsmart (Foothill Marketplace)
Michaels (Foothill Marketplace)
Office Depot (Foothill Marketplace)
Sports Chalet (Foothill Marketplace)
Circuit City (Foothill Marketplace)
Claimjumper (Foothill Marketplace)
Metrolink Station
Schools:
Surnnait Middle School (NEC Summit & East)
Ruth Musser Middle School (E/s Tetra Vista Parkway, N/o Church)
Terra Vista Elementary School (NEC Tetra Vista Parkway & Mountain View Drive)
Lightfoot Elementary School (SEC Victoria Park Lane & Kenyon Way)
Tarbell Realty (Central Park Plaza)
Centex Homes Tract 13280 (N/s Base Line, E/o Milliken)
RECOMMENDATION:
whether to proceed with the program.
The Commission should consider the nominations and direct staff on
Dan Coleman
Principal Planner
ITEM H
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND: When appointments were made to the Design Review Committee in December
1994, the Commission indicated membership should be reviewed in six months.
The current membership is as follows:
COMMITTEE
Heinz Lumpp
Larry McNiel
ALTERNATES (in order)
Peter Tolstoy
Dave Barker
John Meleher
A history of Design Review Committee membership since February 1991 is attached as Exhibit "A."
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for
the Design Review Committee.
Brad Buller
City Planner
DC:GS/gs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Design Review Committee Membership History
ITEM I
DESIGN REV~IEW COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
February 1991 to present
Februarv1991 -Ju/v 1991:
July 1991 - July ~992:
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Suzanne Chitiea
Wendy Vallette
Alternate:
Suzanne Chitiea
Larry McNiel
Alternate:
RESIDENTIAL
Larry McNiel
Peter Tolstoy
John Melcher
Peter Tolstoy
Wendy Vallette
John Melcher
July 1992 - October 1~992:
October 1992 - January 1993:
Januarv1993 - October 1993:
October 1993 - December 1993:
December 1993 - June 1994:
June 1994 - December 1994:
December 1994 - Dresent:
COMMITTEE
Larry McNiel
WendyVallette
Larry McNiel
John Melcher
John Melcher
WendyVallette
Larry McNiel
John Melcher
Larry McNiel
John Melcher
Heinz Lumpp
John Melcher
Heinz Lumpp
Larry McNiel
~LTERN/~TES (in order)
Peter Tolstoy
Suzanne Chitlea
john Melcher
Peter Tolstoy
Wendyvallette
Suzanne Chitiea
Peter Tolstoy
Suzanne Chitiea
Larry McNiel
Peter Tolstoy
Suzanne Chitiea
Wendy Vallette
Peter Tolstoy
Heinz Lumpp
Dave Barker
Peter Tolstoy
Larry McNiel
Dave Barker
Peter Tolstoy
Dave Barker
John Melcher
Exhibit A