HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/07/26 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY
JULY 26, 1995
7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
IlL
IV.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Barker
Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Lumpp
Commissioner Melcher
Commissioner Tolstoy
Announcements
Approval of Minutes
May 10, 1995, Adjourned Meeting
May 31, 1995, Adjourned Meeting
July 12, 1995, Adjourned Meeting
Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. lf anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion.
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13316 - L. D. KING - The
design review of conceptual building pads and typical single story house
products for a recorded tract consisting of 123 lots in the Very Low Residential
District, located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street -
APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21, 1074-591-01 through
16, 1074461-04 through 21, 1046-601-01 through 14, 1074-611-01 through 16,
1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through 16.
VI. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the relatedproject. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and
address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be
limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-17 - T1NG - 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.
(Continued from July 12, 1995)
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. (Continued from July 12, 1995)
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 95-01 AND INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
- Consideration of adding Chapter 9.28 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code establishing definitions and regulations pertaining to convenience stores;
and related amendments to the Development Code and the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, establishing a 1-foot candle minimum lighting standard for
commercial/industrial development.
VII. Director's Reports
NORTHEAST PARK - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Concept design
for future park located on the east side of East Avenue, approximately 500 feet
north of Summit Avenue.
VIII. 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.
IX. Commission Business
X. 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.
1. Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certi)52 that
a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda wasposted on duly 20, 1995, at least 72 hoursprior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54954. 2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
VICINITY MAP
· k CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
July 26, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13316 - L. D. KING - The
design review of conceptual building pads and typical single story house
products for a recorded tract consisting of 123 lots in the Very Low
Residential District, located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of
Carrari Street - APN: 1074-061-15 through 27, 1074-041-08 through 21,
1074-591-01 through 16, 1074-461-04 through 21, 1046-601-01 through 14,
1074-611-01 through 16, 1074-021-02 through 26, and 1074-051-09 through
16.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site Characteristics: The site slopes from the northwest to the southeast at a 10 to
15 percent gradient. The elevation difference across the site is approximately 269
feet. There are two natural perennial streams that cross the site in a north/south
direction. The stream channel has very steep slopes varying from 25 to 30 percent
gradient. The two streams channel the drainage from the north, through the property
and out to the southern edge of the site. Vegetation on the site is in its natural state
with a heavy cover of scrub brushes and grasses. There is a cluster of three mature
eucalyptus trees and one mature oak tree.
Project Description: The applicant requests approval of the grading for the site that
includes the public improvements, such as debris basin, streets, trails, etc. The
approval will also establish the building pads and the use of single-story house
products for the 123 lots. The applicant intends to grade the entire site, install all
public improvements, and sell the lots to commercial builders. Each commercial
builder will be required to submit separate Design Review applications for the single-
story house products.
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR FOR TR 13316 - L.D. KING
July 26, 1995
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Background: On March 27, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
87-38 approving, with conditions, the subdivision and design review of homes for the
site. Because of an appeal by some residents that live close by, the City Council
reviewed the application on May 6, 1987. The City Council adopted Resolution No.
87-242 affirming the Commission's decision and approving the application with
modifications. Subsequently, the Commission granted two 1 -year time extensions for
the application. On June 1, 1990, the applicant, Fdedman Homes, recorded the tract
map but did not receive building permits for the homes. The approval for the Design
Review has lapseal and the property has reverted to the lender, Chino Valley Bank.
Chino Valley Bank submitted a new Design Review application in 1993 which is now
subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance. The Commission conducted two
workshops on August 11 and December 8, 1993, to determine the appropriate
grading scheme that would best meet the hillside standards since the design of the
subdivision was appreved before the adoption ofthe Ordinance. At the workshop on
December 8, 1993, the Commission provided direction to staff and the applicant as
follows: develop a house product to fit the site; if two-story house products are used,
the pads shall be stepped with a minimum of 4 or 5 feet for each step; if single-story
house products are used, fiat pads are acceptable; and corrals with grading concept
shall be shown on the designated lots. Based on this direction, the applicant chose
the single-story house product, revised the development plans accordingly, and
resubmitted the plans. A detailed chronology of events is attached (see Exhibit "F").
Design Review Committee: On September20, 1994, the Design Review Committee
(Melcher, Lumpp, and Coleman) reviewed the project. The Committee directed the
applicant to revise the development plans to address staffs comments listed in the
Design Review report and the recommendations from the Technical and Grading
Review Committees. The Committee stated that the project can be forwarded to the
Planning Commission for review and approval when staff determined that the revised
development plans have addressed all the Committees' comments and
recommendations. A copy of the September 20, 1994, Design Review Committee
minutes are attached to this report (see Exhibit "G").
Grading and Technical Review Committees: On September 20 and 21, 1994, the
Grading and Technical Review Committees reviewed the project. The Committees
provided comments and recommendations to the applicant to revise the development
plans consistent with City codes and regulations. Between the months of October
1994 and March 1995, the applicant has worked diligently to revise the development
plans with additional guidance from staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR FOR TR 13316 - L.D. KING
July 26, 1995
Page 3
On March 7, 1995, the applicant submitted revised development plans. The
Technical Review Committee reviewed the revised development plans on May 3,
1995, and determined that the project, together with the recommended
improvements, can be forwarded to the Commission for review and approval. On
May 2, 1995, the Grading Committee reviewed the revised grading plans and
recommended further revisions to address hillside standards and other grading
regulations. The applicant submitted the revised grading plans on July 10, 1995. The
Committee reviewed the revised plans on July 18, 1995, and found the proposed
grading scheme employs many of the techniques listed in the Hillside Ordinance. For
example, contours have rounded appearance, slopes have undulation, terraced walls
are used to break up and soften the height of the slopes, etc. The Committee
recommended approval with conditions.
Tree Removal Permit 95-12: The development of this site will require the removal of
three mature eucalyptus trees. The trees are located within a future public street. The
Commission did approve the removal of the trees when the subdivision was approved
in 1987. The mature oak tree is to be preserved in place, Appropriate conditions of
approval are placed in the attached Resolution of Approval,
Environmental Assessment: On March 27, 1987, the Planning Commission issued
a mitigated Negative Declaration for Tract 13316. The environmental review is for the
subdivision-and the design review of homes for the 123 lots. The proposed project
is in substantial conformance with this previous project, therefore, additional
environmental review is not necessary.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Design Review for Tract 13316
through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions.
Brad Buller
City Planner
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
EXhibit "C"
EXhibit "D"
EXhibit "E'
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
- Site Utilization Map
- Tract Map
- Conceptual Site and Grading Plan
- Conceptual Corral Plan
- Conceptua! Landscape Plan
- Project Chronology
- Design Review Committee Minutes
Exhibit "H" - Tree Removal Permit 95-12
Resolution of Approval ~ 3
TRACT
NO.
1331'6
~,~"""62 i 5ii 51 "'= ALMOND STREL='T
I 63 ~ 45 36 ~,5:54 33 ~2 31 29
! ~ UEADOilOOD 39 75 7
~/., 64 '6768 ~' 28
~ 65 66 69 70 7i 72 DRIVE
76 27
~ ~ .. so3 so4 sos"' '~6
*
~ 87 86 85 84 8:5 82 81\ 80 79 78 77
$UMIIERHtLL
88 89 90 91 92 93 940 95 96 97 98
123 IZ2 IZI IZO ll,~ lIE 117~ 116 !l~ 114 113
i
.... HIDDEN FARM ROAD
-I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13
14
' 8IIDSOKG PLACE
-B
CARRARI STREET
CONCEPTUAL GRADING
FOR
TFtACT NO 13316
INDEX MAP
COMMUNITY TRAIL
ARCHIBALD AVENUE
PLAN
VICINITY MAP
COMMUNITY TRAIL
CARRARI STREET
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
I'
\\
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING/SITE PLAN
TRACT 13316
F
TRACT 13:~16
iI -
N
SEE
SHEET
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING/SITEPLAN
TRACT '~6
I
¢X
96
N
CONCEPTUAL
ADING/SITE PLAN
_SECTION "A-A"
SECTION 'B-B ·
SECTION "C-C"
SECTION "D-D"
SECTIONS AND
SECTI0~N
DETAILS
TypICAL PRIVATE DRIVEWAy DETAIL
TYPICAL PRIVATE DRfi/EWAY DETAIL
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING/SITE pLAN
TRACT 1:~316
HORSE CORRAL PLAN
TRACT NO. 13316
TYPICAL STREET SECT/OAt
TYPICAL STREET SET/ON
'='
TYPICAL $TIIE'ET $tCTIOAt
PRIVATE INTERIOR'TRAIL
.... s,zrr, ... I "~ ' '
CARRAil STREET
VICINITY MAP
(D
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HORSE CORRAL PLAN
'-, I
'I
TRACT |3316
g
S
X
8
,,: J
114
HORSE CORRAL PLAN
TRACT 13;5J6
'I
TRACT 13316
N
D
SEE
SHEET
115
8
'1
N
IHORSE CORRAL PLAN
TRACT 13316
TRACT NO. 13316
'/ICINITY MAP
RANCHO CUCA,MONGA TR.0CT NO 13316
PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEET 4
+
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TRACT NO, 13316
PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEET 5
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TR.0L*~ NO. 13316
PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEET 6
EXHIBIT "F"
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13316
A CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATION
DATE
April7,1993
May4,1993
June 8,1993
August11,1993
December 8, 1993
April, 1994
July 27, 1994
September 7, 1994
September 20, 1994
September 21, 1994
COMMENTS/STATUS
City received a new Design Review application for the tract.
Staff notified the applicant that the project is incomplete.
Staff reviewed the incompleteness items and discussed the
requirements of the hillside standards with the applicant.
Because of inherent conflict between the Hillside Ordinance
and the Equestrian Policy, staff scheduled the project for a
Commission workshop to review alternate grading schemes for
the site.
At this workshop, the Commission directed the applicant to
look into a grading concept that could accommodate corrals for
some lots.
The Commission held a second workshop to review the
grading concept and provided directions to the applicant so
that he could prepare the development plans.
Staff met with the applicant twice and clarified to him those
development and hillside standards that affect the grading
concept of the project, and provided directions to help him
prepare the development plans complete for the next step of
the review process.
Applicant submitted revised development plans.
Staff scheduled the project for the 9/20/94 Design Review
(DRC) and Grading Committees' review, and 9/21/94
Technical Review Committee (TRC) review.
The DRC directed the applicant to revise the development
plans to address the design comments listed in the staff report
and the recommendations from Grading and Technical
Review Committees. The Grading Committee gave the
applicant a list of grading issues and recommended that the
revised plans be submitted for further review.
The TRC gave the applicant a list of technical issues and
recommended that the revised plans be submitted for further
review.
March 7, 1995
May 2 & 3, 1995
May 9, 1995
May 17, 1995
June 6,1995
June 17, 1995
June 20, 1995
July 10 & 13, 1995
July 18,1995
July 26,1995
Applicant submitted revised development plans for Grading
and Technical Committees' review.
The Grading Committee found the revised plans have
addressed some hillside grading standards but need further
revisions to address other hillside and grading regulations.
The TRC determined that the project, with the recommended
improvements, could be forwarded for Commission review and
approval.
Staff went over the comments and recommendations from the
Grading and Technical Review Committees with the applicant.
Staff informed him that if the project is to be on the 5~24~95
Commission meeting, the following requirements and
deadlines must be met: submit revised grading plans by
5/11/95 to be on the 5/16/95 Grading Committee meeting, and
submit final development plans by 5/17/95.
Applicant informed staff that he needs more time to revise the
development plans and could not meet the deadlines for the
5/24/95 Commission meeting.
Staff gave the following deadline for the 6/28/95 Commission
meeting to the applicant: revised grading plans and final
development plans must be received by 6/12/95 to be on the
June 20, 1995 Grading Committee meeting.
Applicant informed staff that Chino Valley Bank gave the
landscape architect approval to revise the landscape plans,
therefore the final development plans would not be ready for
the 6/28/95 Commission meeting.
Staff gave the following deadlines for the 7/28/95 Commission
meeting to the applicant: revised grading plans must be
received by 7/10/95 to be on the 7/18/95 Grading Committee
meeting and the final revised development plans must be
received by 7/13/95.
Applicant submitted revised grading plans and final
development plans.
Grading Committee reviewed the revised grading plans and
recommended approval to the Commission with conditions.
Commission meeting.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:40 p.m.
Nancy Fong
September 20, 1994
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13316 - L.D. KING - The design review of conceptual
building pads and typical single story house products for 123 lots of a recorded tract
in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on
the east side of Archibald Avenue, north of Carrari Street - APN: 1076-061-15 to 27.
1076-041-8 to 21, 1076-591-1 to 16, 1076-461-4 to 21, 1076-601-1 to 14. 1076-611-1 to 16,
1076-021-2 to 27.
BACKGROUND
Since the subdivision was approved before the adoption of the Hillside Ordinance, the
Planning Commission conducted a workshop on December 8, 1993 to determine the
appropriate grading scheme that should be applied to the tract. The Commission
provided the following directions to staff and the applicant:
1. Develop a house product that fits the site.
2. If two-story house product are used, the pads shall be stepped with a minimum of
4 or 5 feet for each step.
3. If one-story house products are used, fiat pads are acceptable.
4. Corrals with grading concept shall be shown on the designated lots.
Based on the directions, the applicant has chosen to use single story house products,
revised his development plans accordingly and resubmitted to the City on July 27,
1994. Attached for the Committee reference is a copy of the December 8, 1993
Commission staff report and minutes. A set of the development plans were distributed
to the Committee on September 9, 1994.
STAFF COMMENTS
The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Major Issues. The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee
discussion regarding this project:
l. Grading concept. Because fiat pads are acceptable if single story house products
are proposed, the grading concept for the tract is basically terraced pads with
huge 2 to 1 slopes. Does this concept meet the intent of the Commission's
direction?
would be hard for the homeowners to get to the equestrian trail or other parts of
the yard. Access to the rear yard for slopes over 10 feet high should be provided
as shown in previously approved plans. In addition, the design of the access
should be consistent with the action comments of the February 8, 1990 Design
Review Committee (DRC) meeting, i.e. footpaths instead of stairway for aesthetic
and maintenance reasons. (See attached action comments)
3. The debris basin should be landscaped with trees and shrubs in addition to the
ground cover. Fence material and gates along the perimeter of the debris basin
should be of decorative material instead of chain link. Walls at the southern
perimeter of the debris basin should be of decorative material.
4. The spillway located south of the tract (within lots 14 and 13 of Tract 9590)
should be treated with a curved end for a more natural look, consistent with the
action comments of the February 8, 1990 DRC meeting.
Secondary lssues. Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time
permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. With huge 2 to I slopes, future homeowners may wish to put in high retaining
walls. According to the Hillside Ordinance, 2 to I slopes can be softened with
terracing, cribs wall and other appropriate techniques. Typical details should be
developed for the homeowners and to be incorporated in the C.C. and R's for the
tract.
2. The 6 foot high slump stone wall at the northwest side of lot 37 should be moved
to follow the alignment of the trail so that a triangle piece of land will not
become a no man's land. A lot line adjustment can be done to move this
triangular piece of land to lot 40, which will become pan of the front yard.
3. All 2.1 to 1 slopes should be landscaped according to the 2 to 1 slopes landscaped
standards.
Policy
policy
I.
2.
3.
Issues. The following items are a matter of Planning Commission
and should be incorporated into the project dcsigu without discussion.
Taper driveways so as to meet the maximum width of 24 feet.
Provide a 15 foot usable yard for lot 49.
Provide a decorative cap to all slump stone wails.
Design Review Committee Action:
Mcmbcrs Present: John Mclchcr, Heinz Lumpp,
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
Dan Coleman
The Committee stated that the Conceptual Grading Plan should be revised to address
the above comments as well as the recommendations from the Technical and Grading
Review Committees. Once staff determines that the revised Conceptual Grading Plan
has addressed all the comments and recommendations, then the project can be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
~ 9099~8:648 Rancho Cucanonga 02
City of Tree Removal Permit
Rancho Cucamonga DEVELOPMENT
~ FOR EMO bd ~~p
~'~.m'~s~'~'~;~.- ..'.~,.. ~ ~ .........} ...
inchee or more (measur~ twBnty. four (24) inches frnm Ornund IAv~l), without first obtslnlng a Tree
Removal Petit from the City.
, ELEPHON'EOFAPPLICANT: L. D. King, Inc,, Attn: Carla Bera~d
2~5~ Eas~ "O" Street, 5%e. 1005 Ontario, Ca 91764 (909) 988-5492
NA~E, ADDRESB. TELEPHONE OF PROPERT~OWN~U~Ot~ertnan~ppIIOant): Chi no Valley Bank
701 N. Haven Avenue, 5te. 350 Ontario, Ca 9C176f~ Attn' Vince Breitenberge~
R AL(6ttschnecess~sheets): on icts wi im ~ove~ents ro ose
pep Trac~ 13316, a 123 lot single family su ivision
PRO~SED M~HOD OF REMOVAL: ........ DATE ~~
APPLICANTSSIGNATURE/~~/
Th{~ 6ppl{c~tlon ~hsll Include a plot pl6n Indicating location of all {;~i to b~ r~moved ~ rstiined.
~ APPROVED ~ DENIED
By: Beesons:
Date:
The I~ermit shsll be valid for a Oeriod of ninety (90) days. unless an extension Is requested fourteen
days I~rlor to the expiration of 1he permit.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF T~E PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~E CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFOREIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT
13316, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL BUILDING PADS AND
TYPICAL SINGLE STORY HOUSE PRODUCTS FOR 123 LOTS, LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHIB/~LD AVE~FU'E, NORTH OF CA~3~ARI STREET, IN
THE VERy LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN:
1074-061-15 THROUGH 27, 1074-041-08 TF~ROUGH 21, 1074-591-01
THROUGH 16, 1074-461-04 THROUGH 21, 1074-601-01 THROUGH 14,
1074-611-01 THROUGH 16, 1074-021-02 THROUGH 26, ~
1074-051-09 THROUGH 16.
1. L.D. King, Incorporated has filed an application for the approval of
the Design Review for Tract NO. 13315, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request
is referred to as "the application."
2. On July 26, 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced meeting on July 26, 1995, including written and
oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of
the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the
Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located; and
c. That the proposed design, together with the conditions of
approval, is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code; and
d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable
thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 2
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1
2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each
every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, atta
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1)
This approval is for establishing the gradi and
building pads for a single-story house product Any
changes to the grading concept or the type house
product will require a new Design Review app] and
compliance with the Hillside Development
2) Any production single-storyhouses shall
Design Review application.
separate
3)
Provide access to the back yard
wood steps to lots that have 2 to
feet in height. Show drainage for
the design of the foot path for
approval prior to the
Install the foot paths prior t(
a foot path with
slopes exceeding 8
foot path. Submit
Planner review and
of grading permits.
~ of occupancy.
4)
Use slump stone or other dec, material for splash
wall within the tract. the wall to accommodate a
6-foot high garden wall, ect to City Planner review
and approval prior to the .ssuance of grading permits.
5)
Use decorative for the splash wall along
Archibald Avenue, sub to City Planner review and
approval.
6)
Slopes on comer s
vertical height.
vertical height,
soften the
in the Hill
the terraced
approval.
yards shall not exceed 8 feet in
Where the slopes exceed 8-feet in
terraced walls to break up and
the slopes according to the examples
e. Use decorative material for
subject to City Planner review and
7)
Provide
spillway
City P
rock treatment to the concrete basin
Lot A for aesthetics and to prevent the
!rom being used as a skateboard ramp, subject to
and City Engineer review and approval.
o
trees, shrubs, and ground cover to the inside and
slopes of the debris basin, to the satisfaction
City Planner and City Engineer. Use a decorative
fence material, instead of chain link, for the
and gates along the perimeter of the basin.
Use decorative material, such as split face block, for
the retaining wall at the sides of the basin spillway at
Lot A and the screen walls for the drainage channel
PI3~NNING CON~4ISSION RESOLLTTION
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 2
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and
2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and
every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
l)
This approval is for establishing the grading and
building pads for a single-story house product only. Any
changes to the grading concept or the type of house
product will require a new Design Review application and
compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance .
2)
Any production The design o2 single-story hcuzcz house
products shall require separate Design Review
application.
3)
Provide access to the back yard with a foot path with
wood steps to lots that have 2 to 1 slopes exceeding 8
feet in height. Show drainage for the foot path. Submit
the design of the foot path for City Planner review and
approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Install the foot paths prior to release of occupancy.
4)
Use slump stone or other decorative material for splash
wall within the tract. Design the wall to accommodate a
6-foot high garden wall, subject to City Planner review
and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
5)
Use decorative material for the splash wall along
Archibald Avenue, subject to City Planner review and
approval.
6)
Slopes on corner side yards shall not exceed 8 feet in
vertical height. Where the slopes exceed 8-feet in
vertical height, use terraced walls to break up and
soften the height of the slopes according to the examples
in the Hillside Ordinance. Use decorative material for
the terraced walls, subject to City Planner review and
approval.
7)
Provide river rock treatment to the concrete basin
spillway at Lot A for aesthetics and to prevent the
spillway from being used as a skateboard ramp, subject. to
City Planner and City Engineer review and approval.
8)
Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover to the inside and
outside slopes of the debris basin, to the satisfaction
of the City Planner and City Engineer. Use a decorative
metal fence material, instead of chain link, for the
fence and gates along the perimeter of the basin.
9}
Use decorative material, such as split face block, for
the retaining wall at the sides of the basin spillway at
Lot A and the screen walls for the drainage channel
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
JUly 26, 1995
Page 3
ii)
12)
i3)
14)
i6)
17)
between Lots 9 and 10, subject to City Planner and City
Engineer review and approval.
Provide a more natural design (a curved end) for the
arrangement of the river rocks on the river rock treated
spillway located south of the tract boundary at Lots 13
and 14 of Tract 9590. Also, provide this treatment for
the smaller spillway outlet at the most eastern end of
Lot 14 of Tract 9590.
Provide a permanent irrigation system and a landscape
buffer for the spillway and screen wall at Lots 9 and 10,
to the satisfaction of City Planner and City Engineer.
The landscape buffer and the irrigation system shall be
completed and inspected prior to City's acceptance of the
drainage channel
Install the perimeter slump stone block wall for the
tract with the installation of public improvements.
All slopes 5 to 1 or greater and between 5 feet and 8
feet in vertical height shall have a permanent irrigation
system and be landscaped with the following: one 15-
gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of
slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each
100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate ground
cover with the density of 12 inches on center.
All slopes 5 to 1 or greater, and exceeding 8 feet in
vertical height, shall have a permanent irrigation system
and be landscaped with the following: one 15-gallon or
larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area,
one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 square feet
of slope area, one 5-gallon size shrub per each 100
square feet of slope area, and appropriate ground cover
with the density of 12 inches on center.
use jute netting or other equivalent material for slopes
4 to 1 or greater and exceeding 8 feet in vertical
height.
Install the landscaping and irrigation system for all
slopes including terraced slopes with retaining and/or
decorative wall, to the satisfaction of the City Planner
and prior to City's acceptance of the grading for the
tract.
Provide an equestrian bridge across the spillway on Lot
C located between Lots 9 and 10. Use the same design
for the existing equestrian bridge at the City's Heritage
Park, subject to City Planner and City Engineer review
and approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 4
i9)
20)
2i)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
NOtify the property owners of Lots 13 and 14 of Tract
9590, prior to commencement of any work for the drainage
channel and spillway. Submit a copy of the notice to the
City Planner prior to commencement of work.
Use low maintenance and native plant materials for the.
slopes, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Standard design for fences for the yards, the use of
decks in the yards, the terracing of slopes, terraced
walls, standards to regulate the installation of tennis
courts, pool, patios, other accessory structures,
satellite dish, etc., shall be developed and submitted
for City Planner review prior to the approval of the
first Design Review application for the production
houses. The approved standards shall be incorporated
into the CC&R'S. The developer/applicant, or his agent,
shall disclose and give a copy of the approved standards
to each prospective buyer of a lot/home.
Two-story or second-story addition is prohibited. This
standard shall be incorporated into the CC&R's. The
developer/applicant, or his agent, shall disclose and
give a copy of this standard to each prospective buyer of
a lot/home.
The developer/applicant, or his agent, shall provide each
prospective buyer of Lots 44, 57, 58, and 59 written
notice of the Cucamonga Fault Zone in a standard format
as determined by the City Planner. A copy of the written
notice shall be submitted and filed with the City.
The CC&R'S shall prohibit alterations to the block wall
on the south side of Lots 1 through 8 unless written
authorization is obtained from the City.
Tree Removal Permit 95-12 is approved subject to
replacement with street trees.
The existing Oak tree on Lot 44 shall be preserved and
protected according to the requirements of Municipal Code
Section 19.08.110.
Large rocks and boulders unearthed on site through
grading activity shall be retained and used on site.
Construct small wooden horse bridges across any 'V'
gutters separating the rear yard corral area from the
trail.
Submit final landscape design and decorative wall plans
along the south side of Lots 1 through 8 for City Planner
and City Engineer review and approval. Install the
PLA/qNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 5
landscaping and the decorative wall with the installation
of the public improvements on Carrari Street.
29)
Submit a phasing plan for City Planner, City Engineer,
and Building Official review and approval prior to the
issuance of any permits. The phasing plan shall include
the phased improvements of grading, public facilities,
lOtS, etc.
3o)
Local Feeder Trail Design: Install drive approaches and
provide vehicle gates with side access, per Standard
Drawing 1006-C wherever trails intersect with streets.
Gate locks shall be p~ovided by developer and master keys
provided to all lot owners.
Engineerinq Division
1) Overhead Utilities:
a)
Archibald Avenue - The existing overhead utilities
(telecommunications and electrical) on the project
side of Archibald Avenue shall be undergrounded from
the first pole on the south side of Carrari Street
to the first pole south of the north tract boundary
prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy,
whichever occurs first. Reimbursement of one-half
the adopted cost of undergrounding from future
development as it occurs on the opposite side of the
street is not feasible, because the property is
presently developed.
b)
Almond Street - An in-lieu fee as contribution to
the future undergrounding of the existing overhead
utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the
opposite side of Almond Street shall be paid to the
City prior to occupancy or final inspection,
whichever occurs last. The fee shall be one-half
the City adopted unit amount times the length of the
project frontage.
2) All lot line adjustments shall be recorded prior to the
issuance of building permits.
3)
All public improvement plans for streets, trails, and the
storm drainage system shall be completed and signed by
the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
grading permits.
a) A complete plan check resubmittal shall be made,
including plan check fees.
b)
Street grades greater than 12 percent are subject to
approval of the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 5
landscaping and the decorative wall with the installation
of the public improvements on Carrari Street.
29)
Submit a phasing plan for City Planner, City Engineer,
and Building Official review and approval prior to the
issuance of any permits. The phasing plan shall include
the phased improvements of grading, public facilities,
lots, etc.
30)
Local Feeder Trail Design: Install drive approaches and
provide vehicle gates with side access, per Standard
Drawing 1006-C wherever trails intersect with streets.
Gate locks shall be provided by developer and master
provided to all lot owners.
Enuinserin~ Division
1) Overhead Utilities:
a)
Archibald Avenue - The existing
(telecommunications and electrical)
side of Archibald Avenue shall be
the first pole on the south
to the first pole south of the
prior to public improvement ac.
whichever occurs first. Re
the adopted cost of
development as it occurs
street is not feasible
presently developed.
utilities
the project
from
Carrari Street
tract boundary
or occupancy,
of one-half
from future
opposite side of the
because the property is
oc rs last.shall be one- alf
proj[t yf to g%. it amount .mes the length of the
2) All lot line/adjustments shall be recorded prior to the
issuance of/building permits.
3) All publi/improvement plans for streets, trails, and the
storm d/ainage system shall be completed and signed by
t~C~ty Engineer prior to the issuance of building
·/
p ~ts.
a) A complete plan check resubmittal shall be made,
/~ncluding plan Check fees.
b) Street grades greater than 12 percent are subject to
approval of the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 6
c)
Public maintenance of Lot "A" (debris basin) shall
not extend into Lots 57, 58, and 59. Landscape
maintenance plans previously submitted shall be
revised.
d)
Show the property line between Lot "C" (City owned)
and the landscape easement (City maintenance across
multiple private lots) on the north side of Carrari
Street on the landscape maintenance plans.
4) Improvement Phasing:
a)
The debris basin and all related storm drainage
improvements, including Huntswood Place street
improvements, shall be installed prior to the
issuance of building permits for Phase I
development.
b)
One through street connection from Archibald Avenue
to Almond Street shall be installed full width,
including street lights and related storm drains,
with Phase I development.
c)
Erosion protection measures for rough graded phases
shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for proper
channelization to the storm drain system.
5) Community Trail Design:
a)
Install drive approaches and provide vehicle gates
with side access, per Standard Drawing 1006-A, for
Lot "C" at Carrari Street and Birdsong Place and for
Lot "B" at Almond Street and Birdsong Place.
b)
The equestrian bridge within Lot "C," which crosses
the channel south of Huntswood Place between Lots 9
and 10, shall be designed to accommodate City
maintenance vehicles, including a concrete slab.
c)
Provide gated access to the Community Trail on Lot
"C", from lot 14 Of Tract 9590 to the south on both
sides of the channel which crosses that parcel.
City maintenance vehicle access to the channel
facility shall be secured.
d)
Gates from lots onto Community Trails shall
accommodate horses and pedestrians, but not
vehicular traffic. Gates shall be shown on the
landscape plans for the Community Trails, including
Lots 60 through 64 along the Archibald Avenue trail
and Lots 9 through 30 along Lots "B" and "C."
pLAi~NING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page
6)
7)
8)
9)
lo)
e)
Trail fencing for the Archibald Community Trail
shall not block the lines-of-sight for the four
Archibald Avenue intersections. Curve the trail
closer to the perimeter wall at intersections so the
fence can be extended as far as possible.
f)
Where trail gradients exceed 4 percent,. drainage
diversion devices shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner.
g) Concentrated drainage shall cross the trail in
underground facilities.
h) Manhole covers ~hall be designed to accommodate
equestrian traffic.
i)
Install step-through posts, 18 inches apart, across
the entrance to any local feeder trail easements.
Drive approaches on Lots 1, 65, and 88 shall be located
as far from the intersection BCR for Archibald Avenue as
possible.
The grade break between a standard drive approach ramp
and the on site driveway shall not exceed 14 percent on
any lot. Driveway grades on site are subject to review
by the Building and Safety Division.
Aesthetic treatment of storm drain spillways shall be to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner.
All offsite easements necessary for the installation of
storm drainage facilities and slopes adjacent to street
or public trail improvements shall be recorded prior to
the issuance of ~ui!din~ grading permits:
a)
A drainage acceptance agreement shall be obtained
from the property owner downstream of the Birdsong
Place terminus and interim measures installed to
accommodate concentrated runoff which may bypass the
catch basins, so as to not dataage private property
or the community trail, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
b)
Drainage acceptance and measures to accommodate
concentrated runoff downstream of the interim slope
and trail drain discharge at the south corner of Lot
18 shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
and Building Official.
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
~"=~=" greding permit issuance.
PL~/qNING COb~4ISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 7
e)
Trail fencing for the Archibald Community Trail
shall not block the lines-of-sight for the four
Archibald Avenue intersections. Curve the trail
closer to the perimeter wall at intersections so the
fence can be extended as far as possible.
f) Where trail gradients exceed 4 percent, drainage
diversion devices shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Planner.
g) Concentrated drainage shall cross the trail in
underground facilities.
h) Manhole covers shall be designed to accommodate
equestrian traffic. /
i) Install step-through posts, 18 inches apart, acrois
the entrance to any local feeder trail easementsI.
6) Drive approaches on Lots 1, 65, and 88 shall be cared
as for from the ~ntersect~on BCR for Azch~bald enue as
7)possible. ' ' '
The grade break between a standard drive pproach ramp
and the on site driveway shall not excee 14 percent on
any lot. Driveway grades on site are ject to review
....
the satisfaction of the City Engi ~er and City Planner.
9) All offsite easements necessar for the installation of
storm drainage facilities an slopes adjacent to street
or public trail improvement shall be recorded prior to
the issuance of building p rmits:
a) A drainage accepta ce agreement shall be obtained
from the propertx owner downstream of the Birdsong
Place terminus nd interim measures installed to
accommodate con entrated runoff which may bypass the
catch basins, so as to not damage private property
b) Drainag/acceptance and measures to accommodate
concentrated runoff downstream of the interim slope
a~Building Official.
10) A on-~nrefurldable deposit shall be paid to the City,
g the estimated cost of operating all street
lights during the first six months of operation, prior to
building permit issuance.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 8
Buildin~ and Safetv/Gradin~ and D~aina~e
1)
The grading of the site shall not exceed 30 percent of
the gross site area at any one phased improvements,
subject to Building Official review and approval.
2)
The drainage at the end of Birdsong Place shall be
directed back within the tract boundary, or another way
which is acceptable to the Building Official.
3)
The "rip-rap" located outside the tract boundary, on the
southeast side of Lot 18, shall be directed to the outlet
described in Condition No. 4.
4)
Provide a pipe culvert or improved channel to a point of
acceptance, that is, a flood channel or a basin located
below the tract boundary. Obtain the necessary easements
for the drainage facility prior to the issuance of
grading permits.
Buildin~ and Safety/Fire Unit Division
1)
The tract is within a High Fire Hazard Zone. All
provisions of the San Bernardino County Fire Safety
Overlay District shall apply. A Fuel
Modification/Management Plan shall be submitted for Fire
Chief and City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of grading permits.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TR 13316
July 26, 1995
Page 9
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
,1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
12 LOTS
L. z>.
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
Approval shall expire unless extended by the Planning Commission ff building permits are
not issued or appmved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be appmved prior to / / ,
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No.
is granted subject to the approval of
Comp|cdon Date
__./ /
__/ /
._J /
so- 1o/94
The developer shall commence, participate in, and co nsummate or cause to be commenced,
participated in, or consummated, a Melio-Roos Community Fadlities 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 speciticallons of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
District's properly upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordatlon of the finel map occurs.
Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever cernes
first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello~Roos
Community Facilities District lot the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, ff any school district has previously established Such a Community
Fadlities Distrial, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordatlon of the final map
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, it the affected school
district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of approval Of Ihe project and prior to Ihe eecordalion of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shaft be deemed null and void.
1
~ /
,__/ /
This condition shall be waived it the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
.school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
~rnpacts as a result of this project.
· 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
districtwithin90dayspriortofinal mapapprovalinthecaseofsubdivisionorpriortoissuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
Completion Date:
..__/ /
B. Site Development
.__~1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the alPproved plans which
include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations.
~ecifif F'k~r, .,,J
/___/
2. Prior to any use of lhe project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all _.J /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. OccupencYoftbefacilityshallnotcommenceuntilsuchtirneasallUniformBuildingCedeand
State Fire Marshairs regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Ranche Cucarnonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance pdor to
occupancy.
_.J /
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and streat 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 comas first.
/~6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Developmant
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the tima of Building Permit issuance.
Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be J /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
J /
~ /
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and
Sheriff's Departmaht (9896611 ) pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height, and mathod of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
__/ /
8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pid<-up shall be for individual units _._/ /
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shell maet City standards. The final design, locations, ---/ /
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances sjch as transformere, AC condensers, etc., shall
be located out of public view and adequately screemld through the use of a Combination of
concrete or masonry walls, penning, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Plann.r. ~ ~ ~
sc - lo/~ 2
.__/ /
Completion Date:
11. Street names shall be sdbmitted 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. clear arid concise manner, __J /
including pmber illumination.
~,,./~13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes. physical condit ons, fencing, and _._/.__J
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and ab~omval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior
V//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. Th.e Covenants, Conditions and Restfictions (CC&Rs) shall net prohibit the keeping of equine /.__/
am mals where zoning requirements for t he keeping of said animals have been met. I ndMdu al
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appearing to boards of directors or homoowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&RS.
5. 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.
All perkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained bythe property J /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated forthe purpose of assuming that each lot or
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
!he subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordatlon of the final map or
msuance of permits, whichever comas 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 Developmare Code Sealion 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and
maintained in accordance with Iha Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect lho exterior of the buiidings or structures, re meval of landmark
trees, demolition, reiocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alleration 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
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemantad with solar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submittad for City Planner review and abpmval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
se- 10/~4
All dwellings shall have the fronl, side and rear elevations upgraded with amhitectural
treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
.__/ /
_J /
.__/ /
/ /
D. Parking
Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
All roof appurtenances, including air conditiorieis and other roof moused equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound beffe red 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 satistaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in buitding plans.
and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building plans)
/__U
/__J
All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall __/ /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
/._._/
Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be
provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,
entrances, and exits shall be striped par City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers ff driveways are less than 18 feet in
depth from back of sidewalk.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shell restrio~ the storage of recreational vehicles
on this site unless they am the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking 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 Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuance of building
pan'nits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, mfer to Section N.)
/_,_/
/__/
_.J /
sc - 1o/~4
.A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- _._/ /
Jng in the case of residential development, shell be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval I:NiortO the issuance of be ilding
pan'nits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision,
.Existing trees required to be preserved in place shell be protected with a construction barrier __/ /
m accordance with the Mu nicipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
s hall be shown on the dotai led landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborlsrs
recommendations regarding preservstlon, transplanting and trimming methods.
A minimum of trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger,
__ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15--gallon, and % - 5 gallon.
A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees -
24-inch box or larger.
5. Wrthin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-galion tree for every three
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area st solar noon on August 21.
.._/ /
__/ /
J /
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
me per 30 linear feet of building.
AIIPrivatesldpebanks5feetorlessinverticalheightandof5:l orgreaterslope, butlessthan .__/ /
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
V(8. sYstem to be installed bY the developer ' ' ~11
AIIprivateslopesinexcessofSfeet, butlessthan8 feet inverticalheightandof2:l orgreater --J /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developeer ~
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
ms sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy forthese units, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
condition.
10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respen-
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shell receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, deed, diseased, or
decaying plant matedal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
.__/ /
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Developmaht Code and/or j /
· This requirement shell be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
~,./~12. The final design of the perimeter perkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be ..._/ /
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coordinated Iorconsistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander-
ing sidewalks (with horizontal chenge), and intensified landscaping, is required along
__.'~,,~__/14.14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on
the pealmater of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
~ r/'' 15. All walls shell be provided with decorative treatment. ff located in public maintenance areas,
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance cnteha shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These chteita shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
.I
.andscaping and irrigation shall be designed to consewe water through the principles of
Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucaroonga Municipal Code.
J /
__/ /
J /
J /
/ /
sc- 1o/94 5
F, SIgns
1. Thesignsindicatedonthesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartofthisapproval.
Any signs proposed for thiS development shall comply with t~qe Sign Ordinance and shall
re. quire separate application and approval by the Planning Division priorto nsta ation of any
s~gns.
Completion Date:
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes
prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning
Division pdor to issuance of building porTnits.
_J /
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and J /.
approval prior to issuance of building portoits.
J /
G. Environmental
The deveiopar shall provide each prospedive buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard fon'nat as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any proparty.
The developor shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted
Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any proporty.
The developor shell provide each pmspoctive 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 proporty.
,A final acoustical report shell be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building portoits. The final report shell discuss the level of interior noiSe
attenuationtobelow45CNELthebuiidingmateriaisand constructiontechniquesprovided,
and ff appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
_._/ /
_J /
.__/ /
/ /
/Pmte~n Dim~ Sa~ar~.
~2, Em~e~a~sss~ll~mv~,mimena~fmea~c~ar, aminimmof26feetw~e / /
~ all rims ~d~ ~n in a~ffia~ ~h Ra~ C~m~a Fire Pmt~n
D~t~ r~uimmn~.
Pr' to is~a~ of ~i~i~ ~s for ~sti~ ~tm~n, e~de~e shall ~ J /
bm~ to t~ Ra~ ~mn~ Rm Pmt~n D~ t~t te~raW water m~ for
fire pmt~n ~ avai~i, ~i~ ~t~n of r~uir~ fire pmt~n s~tem.
~~l~m s~ll ~ t~ U. S. Po~ ~ to ~te~i~ t~ ~mpdate ~ a~ / /
~t~n of rail ~xes. Mu~fmily res~emial deve~mms s~ll mvl a ~lid ovemead
mm~ure for rail ~x~ w~h rome I~i~. ~e final ~n of t~ rail ~xes and t~
des~n of t~ ove~ad m~re ~all ~ ~ to C~ P~n~r mv~ a~ a~roval p~r
to t~ ~a~ of ~i~ing ~s.
sc- ~o/~
5. For projects using septic tank facilities: written certification of acceptability, including all / /
supportive intormatlon, shell be obtained from the San Bernan:line County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to iSsuance of building pormits.
6
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Completion Date:
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
ppL/2. p2. ppdo icable handouts.
r to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition ---J /
toexistingunit(s),lheaPplicantshallpaydeveiopmentfeesattheestablishedrate. Such fees
may include, but am not limited to: City Beautitication 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 commemial or industrial development or ..__/ /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shell pay development fees at the
V~4.:::ablished rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, SChool Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
eet addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation .__/ /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for !he property line clearances
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for
the intended use or the building shell be demolished.
Existing sewage disposal facilities shell be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for
building permit application.
Grading of the subject property shell be in accordance with the Unffomq Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial contormance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of Calffomia to
parform such work.
The development is located within the soil erosion control beundades; a Soil Disturbance
Permit is requirad. Please contact San Bemardino County Department of Agricuitu re at (714)
387-2111 for permit applicatlon. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
__/ /
__/ /
J /
J /
__/ /
J /
J /
4. A geological report shell be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at J /
the time of application for grading plan check.
5. Thefina~gradingp~anssha~~bec~mp~etedandappr~vedpri~rt~issuance~fbui~dingpermits~ / /
sc- ~o/9~ 7
6. As a CUstom-lit subdivision, the following requirements shall be met:
a. Surety Shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site
drainage facilities necessary for alewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division priorto final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for alewatering and protecting the subdivided
proparties, are to be installed pdor to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
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 parmRs. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
e. All slope benks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shell be seeded with native grasses
or planted wit h ground cover for erosion control upon complet ion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control Shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a parmanant irrigation system Shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17,08.040 1 ol the Development Code.
Completion Date:
/__J
~ /
/__/
~ /
~ /
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 shell be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, .--/ /
commanay trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage. local feeder trails, etc.) Shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the padmeter streets ----/ /
(measured from street contedina):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total leet on
3. An irrevocabieofferofdedicatlonfor __./ /
for all private streets or drives,
4. Non-vehicular access shell be dedicated to the City for the following streets: __/ /
-foot wide roadway easement shall be made
5. Reciprocal access easements shell be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs
or by deeds and shell be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of
ilding where no map is in. iv...
sc - lo/~4 8
~ /
6. Private drainage easements for cross-lit drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated
or noted on the final map.
7. The lillt map shai cleady dellsate a 10-foot minimum building restriction area on the
neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language:
"l/we hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the fight to prohibit the
construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated
on the map as building restriction areas."
A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the
CC&R's.
8. A~~ex~st~ngeasements~y~ngwithinfuturerights-~f-wayshal~hequitc~aimed~rde~ineated~n
the final map.
9. Easements for bubtio sidewalks and/or street Irees placed outside the public right-of-way
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private properly.
10. Additional street right-of-way shell 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 aling the right
turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall he provided.
11. The developer shall make a good faith effod to acquire the required off-site prope fly interests
necessary to construst the required public improvements, and ff he/she should fail to de 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 Govemment Code Sestlon
66462 atsuchtimeastheCitYacquiresthepropertyinterestsrequiredfortheimprovements.
Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site proparty interests required in connection with the subdivision. Secudty
for a portion of these costs shell be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the deveicber, at developacs cost. The appraiser shall here
been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
M. Street Improvements
~/1. All public improveroehts (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos,
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shell be constructed Io
City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and
3.'gutter, AC pavement, ddve approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
A minimum o126- foot wide pavement, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be
constructed for all hell-section streets.
3. Construct the following padmeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
BII~5
TRAIL
Pmicct .No.:'T~
Complcdon Date:
.__/ /
__/ /
__/ /
J /
__J /
.__/ /
.._/ /
J /
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ovedays will be determined during plan check. (c) ff so marked, side-
Improvement plans and construction:
Street improvement plans including street trees and street li a regis-
tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Eng
shall be posted and an agreement execute~
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or street improve-
ments, priorto *~',~" "ie ~ · '"' .... e ,.' '/~ mr s s s_~.-
Prior to any work being performed
construction pormit shall be obtained fmm the Cit
other permits required.
paid and a
in addition to any
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name s
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City
and interconnect conduit
Signal conduit with
of major, secondan/or coiledor streets
collector streets for future traffic ,,
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR ~
new conetraction or reconstruction
secondan/or
placed on beth sides of the
other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) All pull boxes shall be
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch
specified by the City Engineer.
pollrope.
e. Wheel chair ramps
installed on all four comere of intersections per City
by the City Engineer.
Existing City
refunded a
requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
i construction. A street closure permit may be required. A cash
provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Conce~
insta
Under sidewalk drains shall be
Standards, except for single family lots.
access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer.
Street names shall be approveq by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for
review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to arty work being performed on the pri-
vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City
~/6. Sngineer's Office in addition to any other permits required.
treet trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
__/ /
__J /
~/ /
__J /
,_d /
_U /
__d /
/
/
/
_.J /
sc - ~o/~4
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on mater. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and oreflays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) If so marked, side-
Improvement plans and construction:
a. Streei improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- J · /
feted Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and appmved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreemant executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improve-
ments, priorto I; , ._ the issuance o 'f~i~rmitse~A
tel.
b. Prior to any work being performed ir~ public rigM-of-way, fees shall be paid and a ---/ /
constnJctidn permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street nama signing, and interconnect conduit .__/ /
' shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signelconduitwithpollbexesshallbeinstailedonanynewconstructionorreconstructidn ___/ /
of major ~ secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for Mum traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BC R, EC R or any other locet ions approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) All pull boxes shall be No, 6 unless otha~vise specified by lhe City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
~ /
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all four comers of intersections per City _LJ /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City macIs requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with J /
adequate petours dudng 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, Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer.
~ /
i. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
5. Street improvemant plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for
review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pri-
vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City
Vlff/6 Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required.
· Sireel trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be inslailed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's streel tree program.
__/ /
_J /
~ /
sc- 10/94
7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conforrnance with
adopted policy.
a. On coiledlot or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotled for all project intersections,
· includln~ d~'tveway~: 'Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be alproved 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.
eroicc~
__/ /
___/ /
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way; J /
9. All poblio improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the ----/ /
issuance of building ben'nits:
shal/be subm' ' Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval
or ss,.anoe,hichaverfi . fo, ng
Landscape Maintenance District:
join and/orform t~ a~e ~ a~ LigMi~ J /
Dist~ s~ll ~ fil~ w~h t~ C~ E~i~r p~r to fill ~ ~val or image of ~ iMi~
~s whoever ~m fi~. ~n ~m s~ll ~ ~m ~ t~ d~e~r.
~, AIIr~ir~i~~i~nsyle~ s~l~i~s~mimain~bytM ~ /
deve~r umil ~ ~ the C~.
Pa~ay la~ on t~ fol~i~ street(s) sMII ~No~ to ~e m~s of the res~Ne J /
O. Dralrmge and Flood Control
._~. The project (or prmfons thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood
protection measures shal be pmvk:led as ceelffied by a registered Civil Engineer and
a,opmved by the City Engineer.'
2. It shall be the developers res0onsibilily to have the current FIRM Zone /4~
designation removed from the project area. The deveiopefs engineer shall prepimre all
necessary reports, plane, and hydrologic/hydraultc calculations. A Conditional Letter
ofMapRevi ' O ) shall be obtalned from FEMA prior to final map al:1)roval or
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A finel drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final
map al:~mval or the issuance of building bern'its, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
,_/ /
~ /
/ /
.sc - ZO/~,, 11
7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy.
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections,
including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by
moving the 2 +/* close st street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street
tree easemont.
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the foliowinl
__/ /
_J /
__/ /
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be oporatlonalt,
issuance of building permits:
the ---/ /
N. Public ~ntenance Areas
~;~/1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering I Standards
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval f: '--r~F . J
Irissuanceofbuiidingpermits,-."l'..'v~__l~,.t. Thefolparkways,
medians, paseos, easements, trails, annexed into the
.and=apaMainte.aneeD f, : b,
Districts shell be filed with
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs
3. All requireS public landscaping and irdgatien
· ,;.developer until accepteS by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping
Beautificalion Master Plan:
~ appropriate Landscape and Lighting
issuance of building
by the developer.
~ /
shall be continuously maintained bythe .__/ /
shall conform Io the results of the respective ~ /
O. Drainage and Flood Comml
protection meam
I/approved by the Cit
2. It shall be 1
desig
of Map Revisior
issuance of
be
is locateS within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood /---/
s certifieS by a registereS Civil Engineer and
i to have the current FIRM Zone ,a~' / /
project area. The deveioper's engineer shall prepare all
L~lations. A Conditional Letter
shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
permits, whichever occurs first. A Lelter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
sc- ~0/94
__ 3. r shall be submitteS to and approveS by the City Engineer prior to final
lha issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by Iha City Engineer.
11
~ /
4. A perrail from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way.
5. Trees are pmblbifed within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from Ihe outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey ovedlows in the event of a
blockage in a sump Catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
V/'I. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, ..._/ /
gas, electric power, telephone, and Cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
V'/~.CThe developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as neCessary. .__/ /
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the ---/ /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1.Theseparatepercelscontainedwithin theprojectboundariesshallpelegallycombined into ~ /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint use driveway shell be provided prior to final map approval or -.J /
issuance of building pertnits, whichever occurs first, for:
3. Phor to approval of the final map a deposit shag 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 shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if
no map is involved.
__/ /
,__/ /
5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agenolas for work within their right-of-way: .__/ /
6.A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or lorm the Law Entomement Community __/ /
Fadlities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation Costs shall be berne by the
/Deveioper.
~/7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, suffident improvement plans shall be corn- ~ /
pieted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown
on the approved tentalive map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DNISION, (909) 987-6405, FOR COMPUANCE
WITH THE FOLLOINING CONDITIONS:
1. Mello Roos Community Fadlitlas District requirements shall apply to this project.
~ /
Fire flow requirement shall be !7~0 gallons per minute.
A previous fire flow, conducted
gpm available at 20 psi.
revealed
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire
department personnel prior to water plan approval.
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site
hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire
department personnel after ccnstructlen and prior to occupancy.
~3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building mate rials o n site (i .e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shell be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4, Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
it any, will be determined by this department. Fire District standards require a 6" deer with a
4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Su batandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact
the Fire Safely Division for specifications on approveq brands and model numbers.
__/ /
~ /
~. Pdor to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction,evidence shall be /.__/
submitted to the Fire District thet temporary water supply for fire pmtectldn is available, pending
completion of required fire protection system.
.6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shell be required for all' hydrar~S~nd installed prior to /----J
,f.final inspactldn.
7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: /---/
Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
X other 1,1o.
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodwo rking,
plastics manufacudng, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact
Fire Safety Division to determine it sprinkler system is adequate Ior proposed operations.
8. Sprinkler system manitodng shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion .---/ /
of sprinkler system.
9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: J /
Per Rancho Cucamenga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
Calitomia Code Regulations Tffie 24.
NFPA 101.
Other
Vl0.fRoao'ways within project shall comply with the Fire Dietriots fire lane standards, as noted: ---/ /
roadways.
Other
11. Fire department access shall be amended to facilitate emergency apparatus.
12, Emergency secondary access shell be provided in accordance with Fire District standards.
13. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide
at all times during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
V/'/14, All trees planted in any median shall be kept tdmmed a minimum of 1,~'6" from ground up so
as not to impede fire apparatus.
15. A building directory shall be required, as noted below:
Lighted director within 20 leer of main entrance(s).
Standard Directory in main lobby.
Other
6. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
.17.Gat~~vrestrictedentry(s)requ~reinstailati~n~~aKnoxrapidentrykeysystem.ContacttheFire
Safety Division for specitis details and ordering information.
18. A tenant use letter shall be submitted prior Io final building plan approval.
19. Plan check fees in of $
^na..itiona,.sheilbepaid:
/P r
V' rio to water plan approval.
.~Prior to final plan approval.
heve been paid.
Note: Separate plan check fees for f re prolectbn systems (sprinklere, hood systems, alarms,
etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
20. Special parrnits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below:
A. General Use Permit shell be required for any activity or oparatidn not specifically
described below, which in the judgement of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions
hazardous to life or property.
B. Storage of readily combustible material.
Places of assembly (except churches, schools and other non-profit organizations)
Bowling alley and pin refinishing.
E. Cellulose Nitrate plaslic (Pyroxylin).
F. Combustible fibera storage and hendling exceeding 100 cubic feet.
G. Garages
Motor vehicle repair (H-4)
sc - 10/94
Lumber yards (over 100,000 beard feet).
I. '~re rebuilding plants.
J. Auto wrecking yarris.
Junk or waste matedal handling plants.
K. Flammable finishes.
Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanIs, electrostatic apparatus,
automobile undercoating, pewtier coating and organic peroxides and riual com-
penent coatings (per spray booth).
L. Magnesium (more tha 10 pounds per day).
M. Oil burning equipment operations.
N. Ovens (industrial baking and drying).
O. Mechanical refrigeration (over 20 pounts of refrigemnt).
P. Compressed gases (more, handle or use exceeding 100 cubic feet).
Q. Cryogenic fluids (storage, handling or use).
R. Dust-producing processes and equipment.
S. Flammable and combustible liquids (storage, handling or use).
T. High piled combustibk~ stock.
U. Liquified petroleum gas (store. handle, transport or use more than 120 gallons).
. V. Matches (more than 60 Matchrnan's gross).
W. Welding and cutting operations: to conduct welding and/or cutting operations in
any occupancy.
sc - lo/~4
T H E C I T Y O F
DA qCHO CUCAHO qCA
July 26. 1995
FAX TRANSMITTAL (310) 820-4833
Mr. Stewart Ting
1103 Gretna Green Way
Los Angeles, CA 90049
SUBJECT: CUP 95-17 - 6029 VINEYARD
Dear Mr. Ting:
This letter is in response to your July 26 letter requesting information and clarification regarding the staff report for your
Conditional Use Permit request.
If you had artended the July 12 public hearing for your request you would have heard many of the area residents testify
about their concern that the location of the proposed structure would infringe upon neighbor's equestrian rights. The
City's Development Code requires that horses be kept at least 70 feet away from any neighbor's dwelling unit. Exhibit
"F" of the staff report graphically shows how your proposed second dwelling unit would prohibit the keeping of horses
on a significant amount of the neighbors property to the north and east.
Copies of the General Plan and Development Code policies regarding compatibility and maintaining privacy are
attached.
There have been no detached second dwelling units approved by the City within the Very Low Residential District within
the past five years. Only one such application was filed during that time within the Very Low Residential District which
was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant before we could process it.
In their review of a request for any Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the Planning Commission must consider all of the
information presented to them, including the oral and written staff reports, correspondence, public testimony, as well
as the application itself. TheCUP process is intended to provide preper review of certain uses, which because oftheir
unique site development requirements and operating characteristics, require special consideration in order to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses. To accomplish this, the process affords the opportunity for public review and
comment. Although there may be similadties between individual CUP requests, each request is reviewed on the basis
of its own merits and the unique site and design characteristics. The findings and action of the Planning Commission
are embodied in the Resolution they adopt which includes, by reference, all of this information. Therefore, it is
impossible for the City to provide assurances that the same findings would be made regarding future second dwelling
unit requests.
If you should have any further questions, please call me at (909) 989-1861.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DE OPMENT DEPARTMENT
P NG DIV
Principal Planner
Attachments
Mayor William J. Alexander
Mayor Pro-Tern Rex Gutierrez
Jack Lam, AICR Cily Manager
Councilmember Paul Biane
Councilmember James V. Curatalo
Councilmember Diane Willlares
· (909) 989-1851 · FAX (909) 987-6499
SEction 17.Oe.090
General Design G~deHnes
Intent, The intent of the guidefines is to assist the developer in understanding and
co"~ying with the Ctty's s~ancla~s for building and site deign. The guidelines are
based upon corn muntty design goals as expressed tn the General Plan, and encourage
the o~erly end harmonious appearance of StrdCtureS and property along with
associated facilities, such as signs, landscaping, parktrig areas, and streelm. The
guidelines establish a high stanier~ for deign quality but a~e flexible enough to
a)low individual expression and imefinative solutions,
Applicability. The provisions of rids section shall apply to ell development within
ale r~mdentlal dtSlMCt$ unless otherwise specified herein. Any addition
qmodeling, r~locatlon ~r con~tJ-dction qqutHng e building permit within
residential district sul~ect to DevelopmenVOesign Review pursuant to Chapter
17.06 shaft adhn to t~ef4 guidefines where applicable,
C. Site Plan Design
1. Existing Site Con~ltfon~ NatjJrT1 features Should be u~d ~ an adva~ge as
demgn eleme~; mcn as, ma~ vege~on, lani~rms, .d~tnage COUPS,
gra~ng, ~k ou~p~n; a~ ~ew~ Conv~ly, unde~rable ~ feasts
, can De m~m~zed ~ugh p~per ~ plan~ng and ~ng o~en~on.
-2, B~n OHe~on. Placement of ~e b~dtn~ shall be done ~n a i The
~compa~gie w~ ~un~ng ex~ng and planned uHs 4n~ bmq~ngs.
se~ack ~m s~eU an~ a~acent p~p~es Should qla~ ~ ~e ~ale of ~ne
p~poHd b~ng. Laqer bmq~ng$ ~q~R mo~ H;aCk a~a for a ~alance
Lof scale and compatibfiity with adjacent uses. Buildings should be oriented
along a north-south axis, as much as possible to encourage energy
conservation. For multi-family development, e~hed dwellings should be
provided rlth relief and a sense of variety. This could be achieved by
rtaggerin9 the units, The placement of buildings should relate to one another
and cr~ai~ a variety of v~ew orientation for increased intereft and openness.
Tt~s could be achieved by skewing or angling the bufidings. Buildings should
be cluster around common factlitle~
Access/Circulation. The access and circulation should be designed to provide
a safe and efficient system for vehicles and pedestrians. Points of access
shall comply with city access regulations and shall not conflict with other
planned or existing access points. Two points of access shall be provided for
all but the smallest residential development~ The circulation system should
be designed to reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
minimize impacts on a~acent properties, combine access where possible, and
provide adequate maneuvering area,- Curvtlinear sl=~ets are encouraged
whenever possible. Vehicular and pedesUtan traffic shall be separated, to the
extent possible, through the use of a continuous system of public and private
sidewalk``
Parking Areas. Parking areas should be designed m minimize visual
d~sruptqon of the overall project design, Parking a~eas should be ~creened
fro m sl:~eets through co m binattons of m oundtng, landscaping, low profile walls
and grade separations. The design of parking areas should also minimize auto
3e ·
Architecture. The architecture should consider compatibility with
surrounding character, including harmonious building st.vie, form, size, color.
material and roof line. Individual dwelling units should be distinguishable
from one another and have separate entrances. Shadow patterns created b.v
architectural elements such as overhanls, projection or recession of stories,
balconies, reveals, and awninp contribute to a buiXding's character while
aidtrig in elimate control Further, changes in the roof level or planes provide
arehiteetural interest. In partieuIar, Low-Medium density and multi-famUy
residential development should be designed with upSfaded architecture
through increased delineation o{ surface treatment and architectural
details. The architectural concept should also complement the padtrig and
topography of the site.
· Scale. The mass and scale of the building should be proportionate to the site,
open spaces, street locations and surroundin~ developments. Setbacks and
overall heights should provide an element ot openness and human scale.
:Vlultiple family product type (i.e., apartment, eondominium, townhouse) is
discouraged immediately adjacent to lower density single family areas.
attached projects adjacent to existing one-story single family developments
shah be one story, unless the impeat of two-story structures on the existing
one-story neighborhood is fully mitigated with emphasis on privacy, views,
and general compatibility. Buildinls slmuld emphasize horizontal as well as
vertie&l NN:em"anee. ThLs could be meNeyed by the nse of projectiota or
reeemiora of stories, balconies, windows end dooe~ and ehan(es in roof leveb
and planes. In pm'tieular for multiple rEaDy product type, buildings over
three stoHas should conside~ stet~inE back.
MateriB and Colors. Colors, textures and materials shsll be coordinated to
achieve total compatibility of design. The miterimaM and colors chosen shotLid
complement the building mete.
Signing. Every building shall be designed with a precise concept for adequate
signing. Provisions rot sign placement; sip scale in relationship with building
and readability shall be considered in developing the signing concept. While
providing the most effective signing, it shall also be highly onmpatibte with
the building and site design relative to color, material and placement.
Equipment Sereeninl~. Any equipment, whether on the roof, side of building,
or pound, shall be screened. The method of screening shaft De
architecturally compatible in terms of material, color, shape, and size. The
screening design shaU blend ·with the building design. Where individual
equipment is provided, a continuous screen is desirable.
Planned Communities: Objectives
Plan. The developer must use the base
residential density as shown on the City's
General Plan but is able to detail the land use
plan more precisely.
The City continues to review otherdevelopment
applicationsfortheplannedcommUnitieswhich
support the steadily increasing growth. The
Victoda Community is located west of the
community of Etiwanda. It is approximately
2,150 acres and includes a regional shopping
complex and office center, vadous housing
types totaling approximately 9,800 dwelling
units, several schools, parks and neighborhood
shopping comers. The Terre Vista Planned
Community occupies 1,300 acres east of
Haven Avenue roughly between Base Line
Road and Foothill Boulevard. This project
includes a major community shopping center,
areas for office use, vadous housing types for
over 9,300 dwelling units and parks and
school sites· Both Victoria and Terra Vista
OBJE(~TIVES:
The objectives enumerated below are aimed
at creating a City that functions efficiently, is
exciting to live in, and makes the best use of its
vadous resources·
Create opportunities wherein a population
diverse in terms of age, occupation, race,
lifestyle, values, interest and religion may
interact, exchange ideas, and realize
common goals.
Promote land use patterns which make
sustainable use of the land, plant and
animal, water, energy, and air resoumes
available to the City beth within and outside
its boundaries.
Permit development only when consistent
with the availability and adequacy of public
services and fadlities.
Perm it development at a rate which enables
the integration of new residents and new
structures into the existing social and
physical fabdc of the City.
Encourage opportunities to mix different,
but compatible, land uses and activities.
Provide commercial facilities to meet the
retail and service needs of the community
and, where feasible, such facilities should
be conveniently accessible by bicycle and
by foot, as well as by automobile.
· · · . * OrganiZe land use to/avoi2-creating
the Vi~oda Communi~ ~een Banyan
Street and Highland Avenue, and Milliken and
Rochester Avenues. Caryn is approximately
245 acres and will contain 900 plus dwelling
units, the majodty being single family.
Regionally oriented uses should be located
in close proximity to the regional
transportation network.
Provide recreational, cultural, and
///*7
peculiar to their location.
The specific plan forthe Etiwanda area
aids in preserving the windrows,
reducing fire dsks, maintaining the open
character, and avoiding unnecessary
conversion of pdme agricultural lands.
- Inthe unincorporated area, the intent is
to ensure that topographic. s, geologic,
flood and fire hazards, and natural
resource considerations are addressed
and that the design of the development
is responsive to those conditions.
::.:::.
In the n~n portion of the City
and the unincorporated areas to the Commercial:
north, the intent is to preserve open
space and to ensure that development °
can accommodate equestrian activi '
In other areas, the intent is to ensure
that the development is co mpatible with
the surrounding land uses and does
not cause deleterious impacts.
III- 11
The City shall promote infilling and
appropriate use of vacant residentially-
zoned land within the City.
Areas where small lots and higher den-
sities would not be with the surrounding
neighborhood character shall be
considered for lower densities.
Medium residential densities shall be
designated, wherever possible, along
transit mutes and thoroughfares and
near activities centers such as
recreational areas, libraries, shopping
centers and entertainment areas.
Developments should be designed to
allow densities of at least 8 dwelling
units per gross acre within 1,000 feet of
a transit corridor. This ensures that
residents are within a comfortable
walking distance from public transit
and that there wi II be a sufficient nu tuber
of people along the corridor to support
transit.
Proposed development shall conform to
the building intensity (density range) shown
on the Land Use Plan, Figure III;1. The
overall base density of the proposed
development shall not exceed the
maximum density permitted forthe site nor
be lessthanthe minimum density permitted.
The density indicated excludes rights-of-
way necessary for secondary or major
artedals.
Five commemial land uses shall be
established to meet the City's need for
retail establishments and assorted personal
services. The commercial land use plan
designations include Neighborhood
Commercial, General Commercial,
Community Commercial, Regional
SITING AND BUILDING DESIGN
The design of individual structures, especially
in the residential areas of the City, is probably
themostimportantaspectofcommunitydesign
· for residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Buildings
represent the living and working environment
of most people.
A building's design is ~mportant not only from
the perspective of its inhabitants but also as it
interrelates with the natural environment and
with other elements of built form to create the
overall character of the City.
OBJECTIVE:
The objective below and the subsequent
policies, in conjunction with those expressed
in the Housing and Energy Elements, shall
provide guidance for improving the design of
the buildings and their relationship to the
surrounding environment.
Design buildings to emphasize overall
design goals and to minimize adverse
environment impacts and resource
consumption,
POLICIES:
Hillside development should minimize
alteration of'the natural landform and
provide visual access to the natural areas
for residents. (Hillside development is
covered in greater detail in "Land
Resources", Chapter IV.)
Residential units along hillside roads
should be clustered to reduce road
length and thus the extent of disruption.
Extensive regrading of sites and the
creation of "pads" for housing units
should be avoided. Instead, units
should be fitted to the land and grading
limited to portions of the site covered by
the structure.
Structures should be sited to retain
outward views from each unit. Special
attention should be given to the design
of roofs and the selection of roofing
materials when they can be seen from
adjacent residences or public spaces.
StructUres and siteSshould be designed to
provide for both privacy and social
interaction.
Minimize slopes between lots to
preserve privacy and reduce the L
maintenance burden on homeowners.
Where slopes cannot be minimized,
mitigate concernsthrough othermeans
- landscaping, fencing, etc.
Natural space heating, cooling, ventilation
and daylight illumination should be provided
through siting, building design, and
landscaping. Building siding should be
determined by:
A private indoor and outdoor zone
should be provided for each dwelling
unit in which inhabitants have minimal
visual and auditory contact with
neighbors..~,. ,. ~ ~
A semi~private outdoor space between
the dwelling unit and public open space
should be provided in which eye contact
and face-to-face social contact can be
initiated when desired.
Sunlight orientation to take advantage
of and maximize the potential for
daylight illumination.
Public areas adjacent to dwellings
should be provided overwhich residents
have visual and auditory supervision.
Direction of prevailing breezes to take
advantage of natural cooling and
ventilation effects.
Locating buildings adjacent to existing
trees to make use of afternoon shade
to cool the building and outdoor
activities.
Architectural design should exhibit quality
innovation in form and function. Innovation
and quality design is exemplified by the
following:
Use of trees and large shrubs to buffer
wind sensitive areas from strong Santa
Ana winds,
All building elevations should be given
equalattentiontodetailforatotaldesign
concept.
II1-101
'95-07-Z6 10:~1 STEb]F~RT TI~i~ 8ZO4E]~ P.Z
S~EWART TING, ARCHITECT
1103 GRETNA GREEN WAY
LG6 ANGFLES, CA 90049
RECEIVED
JUL it6 1995
Gily el RanchO Cucam0nga
July 1~Iapnir!!91~vjsion
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
By Facsimile
To: The Planning Commission
Re: Application for Conditional Use Permit. 95-17-TING
Upon reviewing the latest Staff Report and propose~J Regolutlon, i have cJetGrmined
that the Commission is going to deny the application without prejudice to
resubmission. However, i have three concerns that I wo,jid iike to have addressed
at this evening's hearing, so that a resubmlssion will not run into slmitar
difficulties.
First, I would like to request greater specificity as to statements in the proposed
Resolution: (1) exactly how' would the proposed second dwelling unit infringe upon
neighPore' equestrian rights; (2) and exactly which provisions of the General Plan,
the Development Code, and the general purposes of the district are in conflict with
the proposed second dwelling unit.
Second, I would like information as to how many detaGhed second dwelling units
have been approved in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in Very Low Residential
Districts ("VLRDs"), within the past five years.
Third, as it seems to me that the findings of the Commission as set forth in the
proposed Resolution would have to apply to all detached second dwelling units,
would like some assurance in the form of a letter, a resolution, or otherwise, that
no other detached second dwelling units will be built in VLRD's elsewhere
Rancho Cucamonga in the future, i.e., that the same criteria applied to my Olan
be applied to other plans in the future, if the Resolution is adopted.
Sincerely,
Stewart Ting, Architect
'95-07-Z6 ~5:~9 STEN~RT TZNG 8~04833
STEWART TING, ARCHITECT
1103 GRETNA GRI~Ji'N WAY
L(~ ANGF. IJ~.~, CA 900~9
(310) 82O-.4833
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Bv Facsimile
RECEIVED
JUl. le 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
To: The Planning Commission, Mr. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Re: Application for Conditional Use Permit. 95-17-TING
July 26, 1995
Dear Mr. Coleman:
Thank you very much for your prompt and courteous response to the issues
addressed in my letter to you. Please pass along my concerns and your responses
to the concerned neighbors.
I will not be attending this evening's meeting, but I will await word of the official
result after tonight.
Sincerely,
Stewart ~ng, Archwtect
E. David Barker
Chairman, Planning Commision
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RECEIVED
JUL 2 6 1995
city ot Rancho Cucamon9a
planning Division
James H. Phillips
Jacquie J. Phillips
6039 Zircon Ave.
Aha Loma, CA 91701
July 24, 1995
Dear Mr. Barker,
It has come to our attention that a Stewart Ting has requested a Condition-
al Use Pern-dt, 95-17 to build a rental unit dwelling at 6029 Vineyard,
which is the street directly to the west of our home on Zircon.
We object strenuously to this use of the property for the following reasons.
1. A second dwelling unit, whether a rental or not, would seriously com-
promise the very low density, horse property character of this quiet
neighborhood.
2. Re: Staff Report of 7/12/95, Item D, Analysis F. 2, and Exhibit F.
This reveiw is incorrect in stating that the 70' corral setback wouldn't
preclude neighbors from keeping horses. The ELWOOD and MARZOCCO
properties would be dramatically precluded. The only workable areas for
corrals would be eliminated, leaving only their patio or pool areas avail-
able for corral use. The effect of this would be to destroy the horse
property value of their lots.
3. Re: D6, Exhibit C. Proposed unit is not a 2 bedroom. In actuality it is
a 3 bedroom. See closet in what is referred to as a "den".
4. Re: DS, Exhibit B. Stewart Ting/A.R.T. Design indicates on his plot plan
that the equestrian trail is an "Alley". An alley infers vehicular traffic,
as in an access road for the proposed rental unit.
5. Re: Proposed driveway. Four mature specimen trees would have to be
taken down to put in the driveway, changing the bucolic nature' of the cul-
de-sac.
Sincerely yours,
0
F'
X 1709.
ELW~O1)
x ~7c~, 0
CITY OF R/~N~ AMONGTAA~:~r,~ Petit [sA~b Title: 7o'
PLAN~ON Exhibit: F Date:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 26, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA
STAFF REPORT
Brad Buller, City Planner
Dan Coleman, Pdncipal Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-17 - TING - A request to construct a 1,189 square foot
second dwelling unit in the Very Low Residential Distdct (less than 2 dwelling units/acre),
located at 6029 Vineyard Avenue - APN: 1062-281-31. (Continued from July 12, 1995)
BACKGROUND: On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and received
testimony. The Commission continued the hearing for two weeks at the request of the applicant. The
public hearing was left open to allow for further testimony this evening. The applicant has not submitted
any new information.
The attached Resolution of Denial, which was presented to the Commission at the last meeting, cites four
reasons for denial: inadequate lot area for a second septic system, conflict with General Plan policy
regarding protecting the privacy of the neighbors, incompatibility of two-story structure with the rural
character of the area, and conflict with horse keeping potential on adjoining lots. Staff believes that any
one of these reasons would be sufficient grounds for denial.
CORRESPONDENCE: New notices regarding tonights meeting were mailed as requested by the
Planning Commission. We have continued to receive calls and letters opposed to the project.
Correspondence received to date is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice to re~le,
the proposed use through adoption of the attached Resolution.
City Planner
BB:DC/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" July 12, 1995 Planning Commission Addendum Staff Report
Exhibit "B" July 12, 1995 Planning Commission Staff Report
Exhibit "C" Additional Correspondence from Neighbors
Exhibit "D" Letter from Applicanrs Daughter
Resolution of Denial
,J
ITEH B
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
ANALYSIS: 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 tack of sewage
disposal capacity.
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 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny, without prejudice
to re~le, the proposed use through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Principal Planner
DC:SR:gs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Santa Aria Regional Water Quality Control Board Regulations
Additional Correspondence from Neighbors (as of July 11, 1995)
Resolution of Denial
J
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN, SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN (8)
SUPPLEMENT ~ CHAPTER 4~ IMPLEMENTATION
Minimum l~ot Size Requirements and
Developments ~sin~ On-site
Leaching/Percolat~on systems
Exemptio~ Cr~.ter~a foI New
SePtiC Tan~'-Subzurface
On October 13, 1989, the Regional B~ard adopted Resolution No. 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 leacht~g/percolation systems regionwide.
Certain exemptions from the minimum lot size requirement were
specified in Resolution No. 89-157. On December 7, I990, the
Regional Board adopted Resolution No. 90-158, which revised the
exemption criteria. However, on June 7, 1991, the Regional Board
adopted Resolution No. 91-51, rescinding Resolution No. 9~-15a and
revising the exemption .criteria in Reso!uti~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 DeW developments in the
Region using on-site septic tank-subsurface
leaching/percol~tion systems.
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. In the
calculation of the average lot size, areas set aside
forstreets~ curbs~ commons~ greenbelts, and.other
easements may be included.
A "new" development is defined as a proposed tract,
parcel, industrial or commercial ~evelopment that
has not Been granted one or more of the fo~!owing
on or prior to September'?, ~959:
Conditional approval or approval of a tentative
parcel or tract map by the local agency such
as the county/city Planning Com~isslon, City
Council, or the Board of Supervisors,
A conditional use permit.
Conditional approval or approval by the San
Bernardino County Department of Environmental
Health-Services, Riverside County' Department
of Health, Orange County Health Care Agency,
or other local agency·
June 29, 1995
RECEIVED
JUL 0 6 1995
City ot Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Planning Commission
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, two 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 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,
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 of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P.O. BoX 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RECEIVED
JUL 10 1995
RE: Conditional Use Permit#95-17-TING
Dear Planning Commission Members:
City of h]ancho Cucamonga
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 converted 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 cul-de-sac street where parking is already
limited.
5. The plans and the planning department 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
OZlready been put in. The homes surrounding 6029 Vineyard would now have to remove pools and
edo landscaping causing an unnecessary hardship to them.
7. The staff report states that additional landscaping could be used to screen the structure and drive-
way. The lot is too narrow in front to screen the 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 are 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 reasons.
9. We strongly object to the Planning Commission Resolution No CUP 95-17 - TING dated July 12,
1995. This resolution calls for approving the structure 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, Bobble J. Rice, and Lame L. Rice
6073 Vineyard Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
(909) 989-6977
Daytime Phone # (909) 985°9785
cO:
concemed neighbors
City Council-members
ZENECA
Pharmaceuticals
A Business Unit of Zeneca Inc.
1800 Concord Pike
PO Box 15437
Wilmington, DE 19850-5437
Robert J. and Christina E. Perez
6058 Vineyard Ave.
Aha Loma, CA 91701
July 10, 1995
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comm
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re~ Conditional Use Permit 95-17-TING
RECEIVED
JUL 10 1995
City ol Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Dear Commissioners:
We would like to express our opposition to the proposed Conditional Use Permit 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 front 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.
After 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 dif~cult to
assume that, by building a freestanding 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 #95-1 7-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. ffyou have any questions, feel flee to contact us
at (909) 481-7574.
Regards,
Robert J. Perez ~
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 1 Z 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Re: Conditional Use Permit ~35-17-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 others that will or
have commented. I have also given my proxy to our sales agent, Mrs. Sharon Kobold
who will be attending the meeting in our place.
I am extremely angry with the cities 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 effected by this type of structure. I
find the city to be negligent in this matter.
My home backs to the property in question. Upon reviewing the cities policy, it is
clearly understood that should this (duplex), be allowed I will loose my horse properly
status as the structure will be within 75 feet of my property. Other 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
driveway access to the rear. This will be unsightly for us as our home will have to view
vehicles parked in the rear. This will pose another problem, as I have observed, with
another addition of this nature the city has allowed in the immediate area. And that is,
we will have to put up with additional vehicles driving up and down our bridle paths.
From speaking with adjoining neighbors, I find that there may be great difficulty in
access for emergency vehicles, fire, police and medical.
6028 Zircon Avenue - Rancho Cucamonga, Cal,fornia 91701 - (909) 980-9322 - Fax (909) 941-1955
State LicenseeS012352
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 America. 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 there 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 permit.
I would like to be advised on the status of this action. I will enclose my current
mailing address in Idaho.
James & Leticia 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
Sta~e License # AL012352
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RECEIVED
JUL 1 ! 1995
July 5, 1995
To Whom It May Concern,
City ot Ranct~o 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. CurTently, 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 concerned 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 neighborhood 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 Owen
cc.
Mayor Bill Alexander
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
~L,~ LL~,~,,v,,,,,,
Dawn Owen
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA1VIONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
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 property. Single family homes surround the site on all sides.
ANALYSIS:
Aoplicable 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.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-17 o TING
July 12, 1995
Page 2
General: The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,189 square foot second dwelling
unit in the northern corner 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.
Corresoondence: 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 written. 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
horses?
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.
DR~ ectf~"~emanubmitt~
Principal Planner
BB:SR:sp
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan
Exhibit"D"- Elevations
Exhibit "E" - Photo of Existing Home
Exhibit "F" - 70-foot Corral Setbacks
Correspondence Received from Neighbors (as of July 5, 1995)
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
J
g:'d~ D? C.L~. O~. LgSD:'
A.R.T. DESIGN & ENGINEERING INC.
""""':"~;::~?";;:'~';~:;"::'"'~l'*
\
o
,~, PIll
6
OF R~~AMONGA
CITYPLAN~!~[~US~O"
Project: CL) F
Title: PAok&,,f/,
Exhibit: Date: //q~'
O
'7'/,v~
;ZX
x ~7c ~
~PoTeNrun* Colduu, Lou~t,oNS
Project: CUP c1~-1'7
Title: '7o' C_,orr, e,.J
Exhibit:
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 Cucamonga
Planning DivisIon
Subject: Conditional Use Permit # 95- 1 7-TING
Dear Members of the Planning 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 # 95-17-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 waffle 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.
We 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
he converted 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 # 95-17-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
June 23, 1995
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. B~x 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Ref: Conditional Use Permit 95-17-TING
Commissioners:
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 (25it 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 recommendation 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 ppllution 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 30it) 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 neighbouts". 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 6f 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,
Richard J. Marzocco
May D. Marzoc~c~o '~ (4
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Planning Commission
City of ~ancho 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 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 Co=mnission
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 tvo-storeyed home
would have on the neighbourin8 properties.
S incere3~y,
Michael G. Rademaker
President
June 21, 1995
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
3ity Ot ~ancho 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 , Prol:)erry Management
1425 W. Foothill Blvd.. Suite 200, UDland, California 91786
Office: 909/981-4466 ,, Fax: 9091981-6267
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 extreme 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 ;nultiple family
living in one of Rancho 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
cc: Concerned Neighbors
Michael G. Rademaker
President
June 26, 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, 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 cede 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 law 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
tlow.
Commercial Brokerage * Residential Real Estate o ProDeny Management
1425 W. Foothdl Blvd. Suite 200. UiDland, Cahforn~a 91786
Office: 909/981-4466 , Fax: 909/981-6261
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 Cucamonga 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 I/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 1/2-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 enforeable 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 properW 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 l/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 axe 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 axea?
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
property 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?
I seem to have more and more questions each day and I am hopeful that the City will establish
a clean policy to prevent misunderstanding.
Since re l y,
MOR:cp
cc: Concerned Neighbors
~r pl.t r~orded ~n Sock Jl~ ~ Ms~, Nee /~ ~d/7 ~ t~O~=
Su~lv~dtd inte re~iden~l~ lotel ~d
--~.
WH~:HFjAS~ ~,~ Id ~er desires %o establish a geeeft1 plN~ ~ ~elo~eat
.
tract for ~nident~3 ~r~Ae~ which w~11 blAd ~d ~q %o the b~erit d the
~r:, ~u;~:~, ~aid ~aer hereby c~rtfflea ~ ~ d~l~es ,t~t
xnd doe~ hereby est~b3 tab the general plan re: the ~eeti~ or ~
~d Mn f~ud ~d does hereby f~ the ~otectlve conditions ~d restrLetlcne
~nd subject to whlc~ ~1 lots and plots of 1aq~ denerl~ ~h~v, -~11 be held, -'
le;ts,.d. ~ ~1~ ~d/or conveyed by it as ~u~h ~cr. and of each ~e= ther~nr
f~r th~ henef~ of . d*t pru~r~y ~d ~ach and every 1~- and g~13 apply to
but ~1 l~vatorle5 or e.o~le~n ~M~I be built In the ln~rtcz of ~ul141ngs
thereon, ~nd a'h&ll be cSnneCted w~h a 8,p~ic 't~k. I
...
~. ~nd~captqg m'jr,~ b~ Rt&rt~ ~thlr, ~ty (60) flays from oloee or
RE~ ~ OFF~L
That no billb~Fd~ or Q~a o~ ~y k~d ..........................
~ll ~xvo the r~ht to 81. splay
c - C~?;~ *~;ov~[o~ .............................. ,-*.
U,x thl~ .~,fi _. ~l~lv ,'~' June , :9.7_7, h~.~forc fnc~ the u~er~hl, ncd, a .....
N~,~.t,'y r'~,l lc In ~.~d ~"~'{~"~OUnt~ .~ml ~cntC, perseriaL1)' appea~ed
~ .~_ ..................................... ~' · ~ '~-
~ On this __~..._day ~f _~.e ..... , 19.7~, hufore me. the ,inder~IWe~ed.
........ nf _ ~ ,~ CG~S~]~C0rRra~le~ ..... the fnrpnratten Lhat exe~u~ea the .....
h~.lne knn~ to me ~n be ~n,' of the Jn .,c v,.ntt~m'~,rl nf _~o~ltrqc~e~,c.~_
bT?Nl,:~5 By )s~mltJ ns~d rifttel;el aea]. ~ ......
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
KANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECEIVED
JUL 0 3 1995
c,~y of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing 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.
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 uiiits/acre), located al 6G29 Vineyard Avenue - APN: I062-281-3 l.
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 CHA-I.I .ENGE ANY OF THE FOREGOING ACTIONS IN COURT, YOU MAY BE
LIMitED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT
THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FINAL ACTION DESCRmED IN 'liltiS NOTICE, OR IN
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT,
OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
June 21. 1995
Date
RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 27, 1995
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730
RECEIVED
JUL 0 3 1995
To Whom It May Concern: City ot Rancbo 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 Alta Loma,
four years ago when we decided to "move up" we chose our present
residence because we pemeived 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 rights of property owners to make additions to their
property. However, when such an addition is likely to have profound effects
on neighboring preperty, we no longer believe in those rights. 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
property values of our neighborhood. Therefore, we respectfully request
that you deny the request for a permit to construct this dwelling.
Sincerely,
Tim and Pat McCandless
Planning Division
Rancho Cucamonga,
PO Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91729
ATTN: Steven Ross.
Mr/Mrs John V. Spangler
7562 Belpine Place
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Tel: (909) 987-4326
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,
~/~s~o~V~.~Spangler
RECEIVED
JUN 2 8 1995
City of Ranc~no 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 establishment of our neighbourhood, we have become
both emotionally stressed and dismayed at the notification of a request
to build an additional 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 2it 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 this 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
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 damage 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 =hat 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 induces any action -
the landscaping is a bog and adjacent shrubs on our property have been
damaged.
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.
oct ~
STEVE TOPOR. JR. · POST OFFICE BOX 998 · ALTA LOMA. CALIFORNIA col701
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 17 1995
City o~ Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Diwslol~
Dear Mr. Coleman:
Please be advised that 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 cars in the main garage? I
do not think they will 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
difference between this "den" and bedroom #2! What is being
proposed is a three bedroom home disguised 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,
to Granting this
proposed.
and other more emotional leasons, I am opposed
Conditional Use Permit as it is currently
Sincere=yT--
Steve Topor., Jr.
8945 Sunflower Street
Alta Loma, CA 91701-0998
RECEIVED
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUL 8 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Comrnission will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on July
26, 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.
CONDITIONAl. USE PERM/T 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.
(Continued from July 12, 1995)
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
meeung 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 Cucarnonga, P. O. Box 807, Rancho
Cucamonga, CA 91729.
!l~ YOU C~I I .~NGE ANY OF I'~tE FOREGOING ACTIONS IN COURT, YOU MAY BE
I.IMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT
THE PUBLIC BEARING FOR FINAL ACTION DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN
Wlu t'I'EN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT,
OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING.
· July 13. 1995
Date
RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Michael G. Rademaker
President
July 13, 1995
RECEIVED
JUL 3-7 1995
Steve Ross
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
City ot Rancho Cucarnonga
Planning Division
RE: Conditional Use Permit #95-17-TING
Dear Steve:
In order to allow me to properly research all the potential items of concern with regard to the
continuance of CUP #95- 17-TlNG, I am requesting at this time the following information from
the City of Rancho Cucamonga:
1. Original terms and conditions of the subdivision of this property including both
Vineyard and Zircon Streets.
2. Copies of any equestrian overlay envelopes that were established for these particular
24 houses.
3. Any conditions of approval set for the original structures on all of these properties
having anything to do with the setbacks, maximum size, and minimum front and side yard
landscap i ng.
4. Copies of the septic tank installation plan including location, size, and length of leach
field lines.
5. Copies of all city codes or ordinances established to deal with the development
of second structures, granny units, guest homes, and additions.
6. Current city code with regard to establishing a development in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga which falls under horse property, equestrian areas, and the basic conditions for
improvement including setbacks, rights of surrounding property owners, location of bridal trails,
and requirements for minimum size of specific areas set aside from houses.
7. Curb, gutter and sidewalk requirements for all developments in which there are
more than one structure per l/2-acre.
8. Minimum width requirements as established by the Fire Department and Building
& Safety for the establishment of access to rear structures.
Commercml Brokerage · Residentml Real Estate · Property Management
%,,%%%';;:.%;' 2.00'
Steve Ross
July 13, 1995
Page 2
9. Environmenmlimpactrequiremen~for all develop~en~asto when theyare and
are not required.
10. Any City codes with regard to maximum height requirements of single family
structures within the city.
11. Copy of current City code with regard to the removal and/or replacement of any
trees along with the requirement for size of replacement of said trees.
12. Copies of the rules and regulations on how to request that an ordinance be
established to deal specifically with a second structure unit. How would someone go about
getting this established and who should be contacted?
13. Copy of the City's procedure for abating bridal trails in their entirety both in a
given neighborhood and citywide.
14. Name, address and phone number of any registered horse associations, club, or
supply company in the City and/or how this information can be obtained.
15. Copy of the original request for CUP 95-17-TING.
I realize that the information that I am requesting will require the cooperation of many agencies
including, but not limited to, Planning, Building & Safety, Engineering, Fire and, possibly,
special interest groups. However, without the availability of this information it will make it
almost impossible for me to do the required research to properly discuss the legal issues as to
whether or not this development should be completed. Your anticipated cooperation in
providing this information within five days will, hopefully, eliminate the possibility of asking
for a continuance if this research information cannot be obtained easily. When this information
is available or when you've directed me to the right area to get this information, I will be more
than happy to come down in person.
After I've had a chance to research this information, I would like the opportunity to meet with
various City departments to discuss what could and should be areas of concern to all parties.
I await your phone call and, if I do not hear from you, I will give you a call five days.
Sincer I ,
~c el G. emaker
CC:
Building Dept
City Mayor
LISA LEE
6029 Vineyarcl Avenue
Alta Loma, CA 91701
14 July 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Code Enforcement Bureau
(Arm: Officer Barnett #23)
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Officer Barnett:
I am in receipt of a form issued by you requesting that I comply with City code in regards
to running a business from my residence. This Sir, is preposterous. There is no business
conducted from my residence other than receiving call forwarding from by Ontano
business location after working hours, and the installation of a personal fax, which is of
no concern to the city of Rancho Cucamonga.
I take offense to this complaint and would like to be informed as to who has asserted this
false statement. Recently I have applied for and have been granted a construction permit
to build a second residence on our property site. This has unfortunately created upset
neighbors, who I believe would levy a complaint about anything on my property in order
to delay or reverse the planning commissions decision to approve my proposed
conslxuction.
I am the Vice President and one of ffie principal operaling officers of a multi-million
dollar corporation in thet'Pty of Ontario. Our corporation utilizes two full size
warehouses for distribution of our product from China and Taiwan. Our corporate
offices are located at: 301 S. Dupont Ave, Ontario, CA. 91761. All of our customers visit
oar Ontario locations to place and to pick-up merchandise shipped from our warehouses.
You are welcome to visit our corporate offices to verify my assertions. Please contact me
at 390-1566 if you haye any further quesUons concerning this matter, otherwise 1
consider this matter ctsccL
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFOR/~IA, DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 95-17 FOR A SECOND DWELLING UNIT'LOCATED ON .59
ACRES OF LA/qD IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1062-281-31.
A. Recitals.
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.
Said hearing was continued to July 26, 1995, at which time the hearing was
concluded.
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 hearings on July 12 and July 26, 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 a 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 zoned Very Low Residential and are improved with two-story single family
homes; and
c. The application proposes the construction of a two-story 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 immediate vicinity of the subject site for reasons
as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-17 - TING
July 26, 1995
Page 2
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
per septic system requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board for a new development; 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 ~nd upon the specific findings of facts set
forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Cor~nission hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the
objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located.
b. 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 Development 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 Comanission hereby denies the application without prejudice to
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-17 - TING
JUly 26, 1995
Page 3
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
r~Premiere Forms, Inc.
<)310 JEi~SEY BOULEVARD * RANCHO CUCAMONC-A, CA 91730
(909) g41-0202 · FAX: (90q) g41-t 103
DATE
PLEASE
REPLY
r0TN, p A~IES W/COVER
VIA
[] PHONE [] REGULAR MAiL
III
~0'8 S9~08~6
Ol
NO~ N~88:~0 S66~-9~-~0
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 26, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Scoff 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.
(Continued from July 12, 1995.)
BACKGROUND: On July 12, 1995, the Planning Commission continued the application to allow
the applicant the opportunity to contact the Santa Aria Regional Water Quality Control Board about
their requirements for septic systems serving dwelling units. At this time, the applicant has been
unsuccessful in obtaining Water Board approval. As a result, 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:sp
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - July 12, 1995, Planning Commission Addendure Staff Report
Exhibit "B' - July 12, 1995, Planning Commission Staff Report
Resolution of Denial
,y
ITEH C
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 Aria Regional Water Quality Control Board Regulations
Resolution of Denial
J
WATER {2UALITY CONTROL PLAN, SANTA A~A RIVER BASkN (8)
SUPPLEMENT TO C~AFT~R 4: IMPLEMENTATION
Minimum Lot Size Requirements and
Developmen[s Using ' On-site
Leaching/Percolation systems
Exemption Criteria for New
EeP~ic Ta~k~Sub~urface
On October 13, 1989, the Regional ~oard adopted Resolu=io~ No. 89-
157, amending the Water Quality Control Plan to add a one-half acre
minimum lot size requirement for new developments u~ing on-site
septic tank-subsurface leaohing/percolation systems regionwide,
Certain exemptions from the minimum lot size requirement Were
specified in Resolution No. 89-157. On December 7, Ygg0,. the
Regional Board adopted Resolution No. 90-158, which revised the
exemption criteria. However, on June ?, 1991, the Regional 8card
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 De~ developments in the
Region using on-site septic tank-subsurface
leaching/percolation systems.
The tam "one-half acre" specified as the minimum
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 may be Included.
A "new" development is defined as a proposed tract,
parcel, industrial or commercial ~evelopment that
has not been granted one or more of the foI!owing
on or prior to September' 7, 1989~
Conditional approval or approval of a tentative
parcel or tract map by the local agency such
as the county/city Planning Commission, City
Council, or the Board o£ Supervisors.
A conditional use permit.
Conditional approval or approval by the San
Bernardino County Department of Environmental
Health' services, Riverside County' Department
of Health, orange County Health Care Agency,
or other local agency. ~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA '
STAFF ltF, PORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 12, 1995
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:
South -
East
West -
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single family residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre)
Single family residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre)
Single family residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units
per acre)
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
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
property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet.
F. Neighborhood Concems: 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.
subm~
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
/2
I0
16
, 300&eAD uS ~ ®
12 2-
/,~,/
ROAD
P-ADI~JS/Y~,p ~
IF= TOOf
~ ~-/. ~.5" I'.=1001
·
MR. & MRS. JOEL MESTER
8455 HILLSIDE ROAD
ALTA LOMA, CA 91701
/,
_,Y
L-I
SIDE
· . '1
OWNER & ADORESS:
MR. & MRS. JOEL MESTER
8455 HILLSIDE ROAD
ALTA LOMA. CA 91701
TEL.: 9091 g48-2340
SITE PLAN
1" = 20'
PROJECT & LOCATION:
PROPOSED SECOND
DWELLING UNIT
8455 HILLSIDE ROAD
ALTA LOMA, CA 91710
,~Y,/,/IN/T II"
"' IET~.-U~.~I. ~".-r~,T'~f '." I I . ~
-"" · I . '
. :.- ~ _ .
"'T/AG" ~'~ ~ ~' ' " '
~.' ~, ~.~.~' . .-.., ....
" ....... ' " .... ~ .... '..'1 ·
~ ~) .... · · ~"' I'--: ..... :.~'
:. , . .-
~T~ '.
-41HILAp~.
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
hereina~er 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- provided
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-
Section 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 heroin, 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 heroin.
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 heroin 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
later 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 Cucemonga 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 proper~y 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 subject 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.
Section 6. 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:
To CITY:
Joel A. Mester
8455 Hillside Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10700 Civic Center Drive
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Attention: City Planner
Section 7. Extension.
The terms of this Agreement may be extended by the City Planner in conjunction
with Conditional Use Permit 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
parties 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
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729
RECEIVED
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
RESOLLFfION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO~4ISSION OF T~E CITY OF ~ANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 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, E MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 1061-701-10.
A. Recitals.
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.
Said hearing was continued to July 26, 1995, at which time the hearing was
concluded.
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 hearings on July 12, and July 26, 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:
1) The proposed structure will require a second septic tank-
su13surface 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 Aria Regional Water Quality Control
Board for new development. C~O
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-04 - MESTER
July 26, 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, 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 26TH DAY OF JULY 1995.
PLANNING CO~4ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCBO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City Of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
July 26, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 95-01 AND INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
Consideration of adding Chapter 9.28 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishing definitions and regulations pertaining to convenience stores; and related
amendments to the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
establishing a 1-foot candle minimum lighting standard for commercialfindustrial
development.
BACKGROUND: On May 17, 1995, the City Council approved the reconunendations of their ad
hoe committee and staff to prevent convenience store robberies. The Council directed the proposed
ordinance to the Planning Commission for their action (see Exhibit "A"). In addition, Council
directed staff to review our current Development Code standards regarding parking lot lighting to
see if they could be adjusted to help enhance public safety.
ANALYSIS: The addition of Chapter 9.28 to the City Municipal Code will establish definitions
of a "Convenience Food Store," "Owner," and "Employee." The other provision of the proposed
chapter is the requirement for the installation of a security camera (see Exhibit "B"). Other
provisions that were discussed by the City Council will be included in a City published
recommended guidelines book (see Exhibit "C").
The Development Code requires parking lot lighting but sets no minimum standards for the lighting
level required. Section 17.10.060 states that "enough lighting should be provided to ensure a safe
environment while at the same not cause areas of intense light or glare." The Police Department
typically recommends a minimum of 1-foot candle lighting for commemial parking lots because of
the nighttime use.
j
ITEM D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 95-01 & IASPA 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 26, 1995
Page 2
Staff surveyed lighting standards in our neighboring cities and several other communities in the
region (see Table I). Of the eight cities surveyed, four have adopted minimum lighting standards,
including Montelair, Ontario, Upland, and San Bemardino. All four of these cities use a 1 -foot
candle minimum for retail parking lots. None of these cities have adopted more intense lighting for
convenience food stores.
TABLE 1
Retail Lighting Survey
CITY FOOT CANDLES
Montclair
Ontario No
Anaheim No
Upland No
RANCHO CUCAMONGA No minimum No
lrvine No minimum No
Yorba Linda No minimum No
La Verne No minimum No
From dusk to close of business l-foot candle
minimum; .25-foot candle minimum after close
of business
l-foot candle minimum
No minimum
Exterior doors shall provide a minimum of
1 -foot candle of light at floor level. Open
parking lots shall provide a minimum of l-foot
candle on the parking surface from dusk until
termination of business every operating flay.
1-foot candle minimum
San Bemardino
NO
Environmental Assessment: The proposed Amendments are categorically exempt under Section
15301, Class 1 (a) and (f) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 95-01 & IASPA 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 26, 1995
Page 3
FACTS FOR FINDING:
These Amendments do not conflict with the Land Use policies of the General Plan and will
provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
with related uses; and
2. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and
The proposed Amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
4. The proposed Amendments will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan or the
Development Code.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Dally Bulletin with an
1/8 page ad. In addition, notification was mailed to convenience store owners, the Chamber of
Commerce, and convenience store industry representatives.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the amendments to the City Council through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:LH:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - City Council Minutes - May 17, 1995
Exhibit "B" - Proposed Ordinance Establishing Chapter 9.28
Exhibit "C" - City Council Staff Report - May 17, 1995
Resolution of Approval
Draft Ordinance - Development Code Amendment 95-01
Draft Ordinance - Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 95-03
City Council Minutes
May 17, 1995
Page 8
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to waive full reading of Ordinance No. 540 and includefie
¢hanges as stated above and set second reading for june 7 Mt~f;,,,~,r,,,,;~uudnlinOUSly, 5_0'
H. CITY ~ANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
H1. CONSIDERATION OF REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES TO HELP PREVENT CONVENIENCE
STORE ROBBERIES Staff report presented by Duane Baker, Assistant to fie City Manager.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing fie City Council was:
Gan/Chds~an, Chamber of Commerce, stated he enjoyed partidpating in this project and commended
fie City for fie recommendation. He thanked fie City for allowing fie Chamber to give input on fiis
project.
Councilmember Biane asked Duane Baker to comment on what he has heard from store owners about fiis
ordinance,
Duane Baker, Assistant to fie City Manager, stated they are concerned about how this will be enforced. He
stated they have been cooperative in helping fie City accomplish something.
Councilmember Willjams asked what it would cost to retrofit for this.
Duane Baker, Assis~nt to fie City Manager, stated about $500 for fie camera, which would go up in cost if they
wanted to enhance fie equipment.
Councilmember Williams asked if insurance companies will give a cost break if a business does have a
camera°
Duane Baker, A~stant to fie City Manager, stated he would follow up and find out about fist.
Councilmember Willjams stated fiere are a lot of other types of stores fiat are open late at night and asked
if fie City was going to do the same type of program for them. She felt fie Chamber might be able to pass
out information to fie small businesses.
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to approve staffs recommendation. Motion carded
unanimously. 5-0.
Mayor Alexander asked fiat California Grocers also be contacted.
I. COUNCIL BUSINE.eJ
I1. UPDATE FROM ROUTE 30 AD HOC Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City
Engineer.
Mayor Alexander stated he has
.cooperatively on this project.
Input was closed.
by fie City of Upland regarding Highland to I~y to work
ms any input from fie public. There being no response, public
ACTION: Re
and filed.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW
CHAPTER 9.28 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND Ri=GULATIONS
PERTAINING TO CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES.
A. Recitals.
1. The purpose of this Ordinance is to reduce the number of homicides and robberies at
Convenience Food Stores. This Council hereby declares its intent:
a. To establish an environment that will minimize or eliminate a significant number
of incidents of homicide and/or robbery; and
b. To promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the employees and customers
of Convenience Food Stores.
2. On August 23, 1994, a public workshop was conducted to obtain public input.
3. On July 26, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted and concluded a duly noticed
public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the Municipal Code.
4. On , the City Council conducted and concluded a duly noticed public headn9
concerning the subject amendment to the Municipal Code.
5. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new
Chapter 9.28, to read, in words and figures, as follows:
Chapter 9.28
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES,
Sections:
9.28.010 Definitions.
9.28.020 Regulations.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES
Page 2
9,28.010 Definitions. The following terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter,
shall have the meanings ascdbed to them in this Section, except where the context clearly
indicates a different meaning:
A. "Convenience Food Store" is a business establishment that:
1. Derives 50 percent or more of its gross income, excluding motor fuels,
from the sale of goods, merchandise, or other articles of value in their odginal containers;
and
2. Offers a limited quantity and variety of food, household, and sundry
items; and
3. Operates at any time between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m.; and
4. Does not sell or have for sale prescription drug items.
B. "Owner' is the person, corporation, partnership, joint venture, or other group
enterprise having lawful possession of the premises upon which the Convenience Food
Store is operated.
C. "Employee" is the person, corporation, partnership, joint venture, or group
enterprise legally responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Convenience Store.
9.28.020 Regulations. All Convenience Food Stores shall comply with the following
regulations:
A. Install a security camera of a type and number approved by the City Manager
or his designee. Said camera must be capable of producing a retrievable image on film
or tape that can be made a permanent record and that can be enlarged through projection
or other means. Cameras meeting the requirements of this section shall be maintained
in proper working order at all times and shall be subject to periodic inspection by the City
Manager or his designee. Convenience Food Stores open as of the date of adoption of
this Ordinance have twelve months from the adoption of this Ordinance to comply with this
section,
SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would
have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same
to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Vallev Daily Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontado, California, and circulated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
DATE;
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
May 17, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
PROPOSED GUtDELINES AND REGULATIONS
CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERB:-~
The City Council ad hoc committee has met on this subject and considered the
proposed ordinance in view of the comments received from the business
community and the goals of enhancing public safety. After discussing this
matter at length, the ad hoc committee decided to recommend the attached
ordinance.
The ordinance as presented would require that all convenience stores have
security cameras. Security cameras would have to meet minimum criteria
established by the police department to insure their effectiveness. ALl new
stores would be required to have them before they opened and all existing
stores would have one year to install them. Of 26 stores surveyed in the City, 10
did not have security cameras.
In addition to requiring security cameras, the City would establish
recommended guidelines that stores could follow to enhance their safety.
These guidelines include the following:
Locate any signs posted in the windows so as to provide a clear
and unobstructed view of the cash register and sales area.
Locate the sales area so that the clerk. and customer arc fully
visible from the street at the time of the sales transaction.
Post a conspicuous sign, not exceeding 2 square feet in area, i n
the window which states that the cash register contains $50.00 o r
less and that there is a safe in the store and that it is not
accessible to the employees.
Have no more than $50.00 cash available and readily accessible to
employees.
F_
Maintain a drop-safe or time release safe which is bolted to the
floor or weighs at least 500 pounds.
To help publicize these guidelines and other crime prevention information,
the City will develop a resource book that will be distributed to all convenience
stores.
PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE ORD.
City Council Meeting
May 17, 1995
Page 2
Along with the resource book and the suggested guidelines, the City would also
use the existing Sign Ordinance as a toot to seek compliance with the visibility
guidelines listed above. The resource book would show stores the right and
wrong use of signs and how they can be in compliance with our sign
ordinance.
Finally, the ad hoc committee felt that the Planning Division should examine
our current Development Code standards regarding parking lot lighting to see
if they could be adjusted to help enhance public safety.
Because this ordinance would place a requirement on new development,
namely convenience stores, the City Attorney's Office has stated that this
ordinance must fffst be reviewed and recommended by the Planning
Commission before it can be adopted by the City Council. With this in mind, it
is recommended that the City Council send this proposed ordinance to the
Planning Commission for their action. It is also recommended that the City
Council direct staff to prepare a robbery prevention resource book and that
the Planning staff be directed to look at possible adjustments to our lighting
standards.
With the above actions, the City Council will be working cooperatively with
the business community to help achieve our CommOn goal Of enhancing
public safety.
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF TRE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PJ~NCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 95-01 AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-03, ADDING CHAPTER 9.28 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO CONVENIENCE STORES; AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN,
ESTABLISHING A 1-FOOT CANDLE MINIMUM LIGHTING STANDARD FOR
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
1. The City Of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development
code Amendment No. 95-01 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-03, and
the adding of Chapter 9.28 to the Municipal Code as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code
Amendment and the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the
application."
2. On the 26th 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, TREREFORE, 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 26, 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 within the City; and
b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the
environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set
forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. That this amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a
manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and
b. That this amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DCA 95-01 & IASPA 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 26, 1995
Page 2
c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity; and
d. That the subject application is consistent with the objectives the
Development Code; and
Plan.
e. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and
reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically
finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant
effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, Class 1 (a) and (f).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code
Amendment No. 95-01 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-03 and adding
Chapter 9.28 to the Municipal Code by the adoption of the attached City Council
Ordinances.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF J~JLY 1995.
PLANNING CO~4ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day
of July 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 95-01, AMENDING
THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 17.12 PARKING
REGULATIONS.
A. Recitals.
1. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to increase public safety through adoption
of a minimum lighting standard for parking lots.
2. On the 26th day of July 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the above-referenced
Development Code Amendment, and following conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution
No. , recommending that the City Council adopt these amendments.
3. On , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public headrig concerning the subject amendments to the
Development Code.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that this
amendment is established and adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, morals,
comfort, convenience, and welfare; and more padicularly:
1. To implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
2. To protect the physical, social, and economic stability of commercial, office, and
other land uses within the City to assure its orderly and beneficial development;
3. To reduce hazards to the public resulting from the inappropriate location, use,
or design of buildings and other improvements; and
4. To attain the physical, social, and economic advantages resulting from
comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that the project
has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that,
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DCA 95-01 - CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Page 2
based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is not a possibility that the
proposed Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed
Ordinance is exempt; pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class l(a) and (f).
SECTION 4: Section 17.12.030A.8 is hereby amended to read as shown in bold text in
Exhibit 1 attached hereto for reference.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion
ofthis Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would
have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6: Publicetion. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause
the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
10.
EXHIBIT 1 Section 17.12.030
Lighting: Parking areas shall have lighting capable of providing adequate
illumination for security and safety. The minimum requirement is I foot candle,
maintained across the surface of the parking area. Lights provided to illuminate any
parking facility or paved area shall be designed to reflect away from residential use and
motorists. It is the intent to maintain light standards in a low profile design and to be
compatible to the architectural design. Light standards shall not exceed 15 feet in overall
height from finished grade of the parking facility. No !ighting shall create illumination on
adjacent properties which exceeds five (5) foot candles.
Noise: Areas used for primary circulation for frequent idling of vehicle
engines, or for loading activities shall be designed and located to minimize
impacts on adjoining properties, including provisions for screening or sound
baffling.
Sereening: Unenclosed off-street parking areas shall be screened from view
from pubHe streets and adjacent more restrictive land uses. Screening may
consist of one or any eombination of the following methods:
(a)
Wall~: Low profile w~lh, not exceeding 3 1/2 feet in height, shall
consist of concrete, stone, brick, or similar types of solid masonry
materials.
(b)
Fences, solid: A solid fenee not to exceed 3 1/2 feet shall be
constructed of wood, or wood and masonry or other materials to form
an opaque screen.
(e)
Fences, open: An open weave, mesh-type or wroughi iron fence not
to exceed 3 1/2 feet shall be oombined with plant materials to form
an opaque screen.
(d)
Planting: Plant materials, when used as a screen, shall eonsist of
oompaet evergreen plants. They shall be of a kind, or used in such a
manner, so as to provide screening, have a minimum height of two
feet, within eighteen (18) months after initial installation, or
screening as per a, b, or e above shall be installed.
(e) Berms: Berms, including grass or plant materials.
-120-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-03, AMENDING
PART III, SUBSECTION IV DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
A. Recitals.
1. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to increase public safety through adoption of
a minimum lighting standard for parking lots.
2. On the 26th day of July 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the above-referenced Industrial Area Specific
Plan Amendment, and following conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No.
recommending that the City Council adopt these amendments.
3. On , the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendments to the
Development Code.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that this
amendment is established and adopted to protect and promote the public health, safety, morals,
comfort, convenience, and welfare; and more particularly:
1. To implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan.
2. To protect the physical, social, and economic stability of commercial, office, and
other land uses within the City to assure its orderly and beneficial development;
3. To reduce hazards to the public resulting from the inappropriate location. use, or
design of buildings and other improvements; and
4. To attain the physical, social, and economic advantages resulting from
comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that the project
has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder. and further, specifically finds that,
based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is not a possibility that the
proposed Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, the proposed
Ordinance is exempt; pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class l(a) and (f).
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ISPA 95-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Page 2
SECTION 4: Part III, Subsection IV Development Standards, General Provisions A.4, shown
in bold text in Exhibit 1, and attached hereto for reference.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would
have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6: Publication. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause
the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Vallev Daily
Bulletiq, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California and
circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Condition of Uses
Signs
Lighting
General Provisions
The purpose of standards within General Provisions is to
establish minimum standards regulating specific details
in the development of any project within the Industrial
Area. The standards set forth in this section shall
apply either within the entire Industrial area or where
stated by the Land Use category.
A.1.
All business and manufacturing operations shall
be conducted within an enclosed building unless
specifically permitted and adequately screened
from public view pursuant to this Section.
A.2
Signs shall be used for the purpose of
identification and direction. The design of
permitted signs shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design. Submittal
of preliminary design concepts during the
development review process is encouraged. The
design of signs including location, materials,
colors, copy, size, and construction details are
all set forth in the City Sign Ordinance (Chapter
14 of the Municipal Code).
A.3.
A coordinated Uniform Sign Program may be
required for any development, including wall and
monument signs, to encourage design
compatibility.
A,4.
Lighting shall be used for the purpose of
providing illumination for the security and
safety of on-site areas such as parking, loading,
shipping and receiving, pathways, and working
areas. The following standards shall apply in
all areas.
The minimum illumination requirement is one
(1) foot candle, maintained across the
entire surface of the parking area.
The design of light fixtures and its
structural support shall be architecturally
compatible with the surrounding buildings.
Free standing light standards shall not
exceed 25' or the height of the shortest
on-site building.
Equipment Screening
A.5.
Security lighting fixtures are not to
project above the fascia or roof line of
the building.
All lighting is to be shielded to confine
light spread within the site boundaries.
Particular concern shall be for lighting
adjacent to residential areas.
The purpose of Equipment Screening standards
shall be to allow for the use of equipment while
preserving the architectural character and
integrity of the surrounding environment.
Equipment is deemed to include exterior
mechanical or electrical equipment, such as A/C
units, fans, duct work, cyclone blowers. cranes,
storage tanks. and satellite dish antennas. The
following standards shall apply according to Land
Use category:
All roof. wall and ground mounted equipment
shall be screened from all sides within all
land use categories except Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial and Heavy Industrial.
Wherever possible, all roof, wall and
ground mounted equipment shall be screened
on all sides within the Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial and heavy industrial
categories.
All screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and
where possible a roof parapet wall shall be
used to screen roof or wall mounted
equipment. Where roof-mounted mechanical
equipment and/or duct work projects
vertically more than one and one-half (1-
1/2) feet above the roof or roof parapet it
shall be screened by an architecturally
designed enclosure which exhibits a
permanent nature with the building design
and is detailed consistent with building.
Where roof-mounted mechanical equipment
and/or duct work projects one and one-half
(1-1/2) feet or less above the roof or roof
parapet it shall be painted consistent with
the color scheme of the building in all
cases.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
STAFF RF, PORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
July 26, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner
NORTHEAST PARK - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Concept design
for future park located on the east side of East Avenue, approximately 500
feet north of Summit Avenue.
BACKGROUND: This item is scheduled for the City Council meeting of August 2, 1995.
Consistent with park development guidelines, the subject concept and phasing plan is
attached for your review, comment, and recommendation to the City Council. Also
attached for your review are the July 19, 1995, Trails Advisory Committee comments and
the June 29, 1995, Park and Recreation Staff Report.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:MB/jfs
ITEH E
TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COMMENT SHEET
JULY 19, 1995
IL
NEW BUSINESS
B. NORTHEAST PARK: Concept site and phasing plan for future 26 acre park located on
the east side of East Avenue and approximately 500 feet north of Summit Avenue.
Attached for review is the Concept Plan for Northeast Park and the staff report for the June 29, 1995,
meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission. At that meeting, the Park and Recreation
Commission reviewed the plan, heard public testimony, and recommended approval of the Concept
Plan and Phase I construction to the City Council. Park Development Guidelines state that plans for
a new perk should also be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the Northeast Park
item has been placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for July 26, 1995.
Desion Comments: The western portion of the site is tallow agricultural land bounded on the north
and south by mature eucalyptus windrows. It is bounded by tallow agricultural land to the north,
developed Etiwanda School Distdct tacilities to the south, and tallow agricultural land to the west. This
western portion of the site is recommended for the first phase development of the park, including
active sports, passive recreation, and pedestrian trails.
The eastem portion of the site is vacant and covered with native alluvial tan vegetation associated
with the Etiwanda Creek drainage. This portion of the site is bounded by Flood Control levees to the
north, alluvial tan scrub to the south, and Flood Control levees to the east. Summit Avenue bisects
the eastern third of the site. but is planned to be relocated in the future. The eastem portion of the
site is conceptually planned, except for the trail system. Pedestrian trails are proposed throughout the
eastern as well as the western portions of the site as part of the first phase of construction.
The County Flood Control District plans major changes to the existing Etiwanda Creek levees which
adjoin the site to the north and the east. Proposed changes include construction of a debds basin
north of 24th Street (Witson Avenue), removal of existing levees, and channelization of Etiwanda
Creek south of the debds basin. Design for the flood control tacilities will not be finalized until funding
is available for construction.
Staff Comments: The purpose of this meeting is to consider the trail requirements for the project,
including planned trails throughout the park site and future linkages to the community trails system
adopted in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. (See attached.)
The Phase I trails within the park site are designated "multi-purpose". For Phase I they are designed
primarily for pedestrian use and will be constructed of decomposed granite. In future phases, the trail
system within the park will be upgraded to Community Trail status.
Issue: The main issue to be considered is the north-south alignment of the future Community trail
indicated on the Etiwanda Specific Plan trails map. The attached Concept Plan indicates links with
the north-south trail along the Etiwanda Creek west levee. There is also a north-south "trail" through
the center of the Park site. Staff recommends that both locations be designed so that it will be
possible to upgrade one or both to Community Trail standards. Flexibility is important in order to
respond to the future design of Flood Control Facilities and development of the surrounding land.
Attachments
Staff Planner: Miki Bratt
ACTION:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
June 29, 1995
Members of the Park and Recreation Commission
W. Joe O~eil, City Engineer
Lucinda E. HackeR, Associate Engineer
NORTHEAST PARK
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the Northeast Park project
consu'uction plan for 10 to 12 acres and recommend approval to City Council. A potential future
plan for information purposes is provided for the remainder of the park site consisting of 26 to 28
acres.
BACKGROUND/ANALySiS:
The Northeast Park site is located on approximately 38 acres offand on the east side of Enst Avenue,
northofSummitAvenue. CitY C°uncil aPPr°ved the acquisition ofthe park site in October of1988.
Per the City's General Plan, this facility will provide amenities similar in nature to those found at
Red Hill and Heritage Community Parks.
The City has received grant money from the State in the amount of $522250.00 to formulate the
project improvements. However, the City is obligated to begin spending the grant money prior to
the expiration date of June 30, 1996. In addition, $442,000.00 is available from Landscape
Maintenance District No. 7 Capital Improvement funds and funding for bike and pedestrian trails
is available through the Air Quality Improvement GranL Due to funding limitations, the
construction of the project area may have to occur in two or more phases. The current funding
avm.'lable which is approximately $8~/2,000.00 will facilitate the construction of the first phase of the
project area.
RJM Design Group, Inc. was awarded the contact to develop comu'uction plans for the project area
from a potential future concept plan. Two public workshops were conducted by the staff and the
design consultant to obtain Input from the residents and sports groups. The first group of invitees
consisted of the property owners within Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 and the second group
of invitees consisted of all other residents within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Representatives
of each of the sports groups were included in both workshops. There were an average of 17 residents
at each workshop. The workshop included discussions of the recreational needs of the area, a walk
of the park site, small group discussions. ending with a final consensus of what amenities should be
in the park. Although the turn out was small. those who attended found the workshop a positive
experience.
On May 23, 1995 the Northeast Park Committee met (the committee is made up of the participants
of each workshop) to review and discuss the proposed plan of the park developed from the consensus
of the two Saturday workshops. The comments from the meeting were taken into consideration and
a final plan was developed. This is the plan that is being presented to the.Commission for approval.
Project improvements will encompass the westerly 8 to 12 acres of the site (depending on funding).
These improvements will consist of a tot lot, picnic areas, two soccer/football fields without lighting,
an open space passive area, multi-purpose trail and a parking lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
Tierra Madre Consultants has been hired to investigate the biological resources of the Northeast Park
site and assess the potential impacts to determine significance as defined by the Califorma
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Of particular concem is the Califomia Gnatcatcher and special
status plants that include the Slender-Horned Spineflower, Santa Arm River Woollystar and the
Person's Spring Beauty. If any species are identified on the site, mitigation measures that would
reduce impacts to below a level of significance as defined by CEQA will have to be addressed. If
none of these species are found on the site a Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report will
be filed for the entire park site.
Respectfully Submitted,
.~t~-r-rW. Joe O~eil City Engineer
Attachments
CONNECTION TO REGIONAL
m
NORTHEAST PARK
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
1
:i
'2
El"
II
CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMOIA
NORTHEAST PAR K
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
VICINITY
· "' ........i ..................-'t' .......i ..........Y'" ........Ti""
3 ~ --Bike Lane* or Bike Route*
,,,v,~MmtltwAV~- ~ _
. /,~
(On Pavement Shoulder)
-=== Bike Path (In Parkway)
Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan
E ~ REVISED 4/1/92
///l. O0111a.~~/' J · COnBUR Trail Implementltlon Plln
/
,~title figure
....
REVISED 917168
To ~gi~ Staffoff
LEGEND
~ ~ Regional Trail
eeeeeeeeee Community Equestrian Trill
· ReO0nwnefideCJ UnderDB~
OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS PLAN
II-33
ADOPTED 4/1/92.
EXHINT 11
~tiwanda NorthTM
Specific Plan
City of