HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/11/13 - Agenda Packet RA~ CUCA~
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
1977
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 13, 1991 7:00 P.M.
RANOHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy
Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Vallette
Commissioner Melcher
III. Announcements
IV. Approval of Minutes
Adjourned Meeting of September 19, 1991
Adjourned Meeting of September 25, 1991
October 9, 1991
Adjourned Meeting of October 16, 1991
October 23, 1991
V. 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. If anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11067 - BENNETT
CONSOLIDATED - A subdivision of 40 acres of
land into 18 parcels in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Hermosa Avenue, to the north and south of 7th
Street - APN: 209-211-13, 17, 30, and 31.
Related file Development Review 87-49.
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10
- HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a
time extension to the master plan for a church
consisting of a sanctuary, administration
building, education/nursery building, and
family center totaling 11,520 square feet on
8.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District located on the west side of Haven
Avenue north. of Hillside Road - APN:
1074-271-01.
C. ALLEY VACATION - PAT VERNOLA - A request to
vacate an alley located between Foothill
Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, east of Red
Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-113-18
through 24.
VI. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which
concerned individuals may voice their opinion of
the related project. Please wait to be recognized
by the Chairman and address the Commission by
stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for
each project. Please sign in after speaking.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN
90-01 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing to
comment on the draft final environmental impact
report prepared for the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-03B to
prezone approximately 6,840 acres of territory
in the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to
provide for 3,613 single family dwelling units
on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of
neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5
parks, an equestrian center, and preservation
of 4,112 acres of open space generally located
north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30),
south of the San Bernardino National Forest,
west of the City of Fontana, and east of
Milliken Avenue. (Continued from October 9,
1991.)
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to
recommend approval of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840
acres of territory in the Rancho Cucamonga
sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single
family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant
land, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial use,
4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian center, and
preservation of 4,112 acres of open space
generally located north of Highland Avenue
(State Route 30), south of the San Bernardino
National Forest, west of the City of Fontana,
and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from
October 9, 1991.)
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A
request to recommend approval of a General Plan
Amendment to provide consistency with the draft
Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning
approximately 6,840 acres of territory in the
Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide
for 3,613 single family dwelling units on 2,473
acres of vacant land, 28 acres of neighborhood
commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an
equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112
acres of open space generally located north of
Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the
San Bernardino National Forest, west of the
City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue.
(Continued fro~m October 9, 1991.)
G. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 -
SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A request to modify a
previously approved conditional use permit
(Siam Garden Restaurant) to allow for the
expansion of a restaurant and bar from 2,160 to
3,240 square feet and to permit live
entertainment in conjunction with the
restaurant and bar located within a commercial
center in the Community Commercial District
(Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite
S - APN: 1077-621-34. Related file:
Entertainment Permit 91-03. (Continued from
October 23, 1991)
H. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - SKIPPER'S GRILL &
BAR - A request to conduct live music and
entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant
and bar (formerly Siam Garden Restaurant)
within a commercial center in the Community
Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9950
Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN:
1077-621-34. Related file: Conditional Use
Permit 88-45. (Continued from October 23,
1991)
VII. New Business
I. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 91-34 - LARSON - An appeal
of staff's decision to deny a tree removal
permit for the removal of two Liquidamber
styraciflua within the public right-of-way,
located at 7208 Marine Avenue - APN:
1076-321-09.
J. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-23 - MBWJ
PROPERTIES - An appeal of certain conditions of
approval for the reconfiguration of a parking
lot within the Neighborhood Commercial
District, located at the northeast corner of
Base Line Road and Carnelian Avenue - APN:
202-381-36.
VIii. Director's Reports
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - The development of 40
buildings totaling approximately 280,857 square
feet and comprised of a mix of industrial,
multi-tenant, office, and restaurant uses in
the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the
southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21,
26, 27, and 28.
IX. Commission Business
L. CROSS LOT OR THROUGH LOT DRAINAGE/PRIVATE
SYSTEMS - Discussion on City policy.
M. PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS - Oral Report
X. Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public
to address the Commission. Items to be discussed
here are those which do not already appear on this
agenda.
XI. 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.
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 13, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11067 - BENNETT CONSOLIDATED -
A subdivision of 40 acres of land into 18 parcels in the
General Industrial District (Subare 5) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of Hermosa
Avenue, to the north and south of 7th Street - APN: 209-211-
13, 17, 30 and 31. Related File: Development Review 87-49 -
Bennett Consolidated.
BACKGROUND: On October 11, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the
Environmental Assessment for Development Review 87-49 and Parcel Map
11067 (see Exhibit "D"). On October 16, 1989, the City Planner approved
Development Review 87-49 (see Exhibit "C"). The applicant is currently
requesting a one-year time extension to expire on October 11, 1992.
Provisions of the Development Code allow for time extensions in twelve-
month increments, not to exceed five years from the original date of
approval.
The master plan application was originally approved by the City Planner,
and therefore, was not included within this time extension request.
Following approval of the parcel map time extension by the Planning
Commission, staff will prepare a letter, for City Planner signature,
approving the time extension for Development Review 87-49.
ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the proposed time extension requests and
compared the proposal with the development criteria outlined in the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan- Based upon this
review, staff determined the project meets the development standards of
the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following
findings before approving this application:
A. There have been no significant changes in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, Development Code, Industrial
Area Specific Plan, or character of the area within which
the project is located, that would case the approved project
to become inconsistent or non-conforming; and
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TIME EXTENSION PM 11067 - BENNETT
NOVEMBER 13, 1991
Page 2
B. The granting of an extension will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the time extension request
for Parcel Map 11067 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval.
Respe lly s 't d,
BB:TG:js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from applicant
Exhibit "B" - Location Map
Exhibit "C" - Master Plan
Exhibit "D" - Parcel Map 11067
Exhibit "E" - City Planner Approval Letter
Exhibit "F" - Resolution No. 89-127
Resolution of Approval
BENNETT
CONSOLIDATED
CITY OF
SEP 0 9 1991
September 6, 1991
Brad Buller
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission/Planning Dept.
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Planning Commission:
We respectfully request an extension of the approval of our Tentative Map, file #11067
and Master Plan, file #DR 87-49.
This extension is necessary given the economic: climate and the general lack of financing
available to begin such a project. We request that the extension be for the maximum
time allowable by statute to provide enough time to effectuate the project.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely
. , W
cc: Delbert C. Bennett
Bennett Consolidaled (415) 820-6677
2333 San Ramon x,~lley Boulevard (800) 858-6677 California
Suite 450 f8001 752-8222 U.S.
t..~an Ramon, California 94583
/ ?:,':":.- .-::ii::,",~ '::!-
!!.:::...:!....i:..:.::.::!:: !.:~:,:,. >:...:...~:ITEM: d~fLl.~
CITY OF ~CHO~'-CUC~ONGA ~u~
P~NI'NG.'. DmS~ON ~:-
E~IB~:
i:-::'.-..,='!;':%=~:;:.~: :::..:..~izTE~4: 7~u ~ ~Ai~, tOV'l
T'Y OF RANC:HO.:.CUCAMONGATrn,E:~'f,v'
PLANNING. DMSION ' a I' '
EXt
-lIBIT:'6 SCALE:
' "":""" ~,1 I/~e,f, I.~.0~'7 '
i:'::'''':!''''''. !~!.:7':"F:"':~
CiTY Or ~CRO::::CUC.~V~ONaATm.S:"t~.~,~Vgt"~'~:
PLANNING. DMSION i~ ~ I =
EXHIBIT: SCALE: ~ · ,_
~_~ --
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r'~-.t office Bo,,. 507 Rancho CucamonSa. California ~1729, .7141 c~'~-i.'~l
October 16, 1989
Mr. Michael L. Smith, President
Bennett Properties, Inc.
2333 San Ramon Valley Boulevard, #450
San Ramon, California 94583
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87-49 - BENNETT CONSOLIDATED MASTER PLAN
Dear Mr. Smith:
The development/design review for the Bennett Consolidated Master Plan has
been successfully completed and approval granted based on the following
findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the General
Plan.
2. That the proposed use is in accordance with the
objectives of the Development Code and the Industrial
Specific Plan and the purpose of the district in which
the site is located.
3. That the proposed use together with the applicable
conditions will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
4. That the proposed use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code and
Industrial Specific Plan.
Conditions:
Planning Division:
1. This approval is for the Conceptual Master Plan and
related design guidelines. Development plans for each
lot within the Master Plan, including street improvement
plans, site plans, architecture, landscaping, signs,
lighting and site amenities shall be in conformance with
the approved plans and design guidelines for the Master
Plan on file in the Planning Division. q
vta~o, William J. Alexander Charles J. Buquet [I C~tv Mana~'e,
Dennas L. Stout Deborah N. Brown,~ 7 Pamela J. Wnght Jack Lain, AICP
LETTER TO: MICHAF 'MITH
RE: DR 87-49 - BE. ,TT CONSOLIDATED
October 16, 1989
Page 2
2. That proposed development for each lot shall be subject
to development/design review and City Planner approval.
3. Landscape planters shall be incorporated on the front,
sides, and rear of buildings, wherever possible, for
plants to soften the base of walls and silhouette the
sides of the buildings.
4. Large, minimum 48-inch, box trees shall be provided,
flanking the project entries.
5. Trash enclosures shall be located away from employee
plazas, be accessible at all times and constructed per
the City Standard.
6. The Master Plan and all proposed development on the
subject property shall conform to the attached
applicable standard conditions.
Engineerinq:
1. The project shall be subject to the conditions of Parcel
Map 11067.
Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain prior or work
prior to issuance of building permits.
If you should have any questions concerning specific conditions, please feel
free to contact Bruce Abbott at {714) 989-1861.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BB:BA:ko
Attachment: Standard Conditions
Staff Report - Environmental Assessment for DR B7-49
cc: Dan McDavid, Gilbert Aja Associates
Todd Can~u, Bennett Properties
I I I I II 11
'; ~q-I '~
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 89-127
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO~ISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 11067, LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE, NORTH AND SOUTH OF 7TH STREET -
APN: 209-211-13, 17, 30 AND 31)
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 11067, submitted by Bennett
Properties, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 18 parcels, the
real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN{s} 209-211-13, 17, 30 and
31, located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue, north and south of 7th Street;
and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 1989, the Planning Comnission held a duly
advertised public hearing for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVED AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan.
2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with the General Plan.
3.That the ~ite is physically suitable for the
proposed development.
4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will
not cause substantial environmental damage or public
health problems or have adverse effects on abutting
property.
SECTION 2: This Conmission finds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in conl~liance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Conmission hereby issues a Negative
dec 1 arat i on.
SECTION 3: That Tentative Parcel Map No. 11067 is hereby approved
subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special
Conditions:
PLANNING COMMISSIOi -'SOLUTION NO. 89-127
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11067 - BENNETT CONSOLIDATED
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PAGE 2
1. The existing overhead utilities (electrical and telecom~ication}
on the project side of Hermosa Avenue shall be undergrounded
from the first pole south of the south project boundary to the
first pole north of the north project boundary, prior to public
improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first.
The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover
one-half the City adopted amount for undergrounding from the
future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite
side of the street.
2. The Developer shall obtain a license agreement from the
A.T. & S.F. Railroad and construct the railroad grade crossing
within 7th Street at the west project boundary to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Developer may request
reimbursement agreements to recover one-half the cost of the
grade crossing from the properties on the west side of the spur
upon their development (redevelopment).
3. A Final Flood report shall be submitted and approved prior to
final Parcel Map approval. All necessary flood improvements
shal 1 be constructed with the Parcel Map improvements.
4. Drainage easements and rights-of-entry shall be provided in
favor of the property to the north. The easements shall extend
from each cul-de-sac street and along the project's westerly
boundary.
5. Storm drainage facilities shall be provided as determined
necessary by the final drainage study. The portion of those
facilities to be designated as City Master Plan facilities will
be as approved by the City Engineer.
6. Extend the storm drain in 7th Street to the west side of the
railroad spur line to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
7. Parkway improvements (landscaping and sidewalks) may be deferred
until development of the adjacent parcels.
8. Easements for Joint use driveways shall be provided to the
parcels north and south of the project along Hermesa Avenue.
g. Secondary access shall be provided for each parcel upon its
development as approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District.
10. A permit from Metropolitan Water District is required for work
within their right-of-way.
11. The south~st corner of the site shall be drained to the east or
offsite easements shall be obtained to drain the area southerly.
PLANNING COMMISSIOI ~SOLUTION NO. 89--127
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11067 - BENNETT CONSOLIDATED
OCTOBER 11, 1989
PAGE 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS llTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1989.
PLANNING CON~4ISSION OF THE CIl~f OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA
ATTEST~/xBrad ~/p~ .~,..~.~ary T
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Convnission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that tl~e foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Con~nission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Conmnission held
on the 11th day of October, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COb$4ISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CO~44ISSIONERS: WEINBERGER
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION
FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11067 LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF HERMOSA AVENUE, TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF 7TH STREET,
IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 5) OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-211-]L3, 17, 30 AND 31.
A. Recitals
(i) Bennett Consolidated has filed an application for the extension
of Tentative Parcel Map 11067 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred
to as "the application."
(ii) On October 11, 1989, this Commission issued a Negative
Declaration and adopted its Resolution No. 89-127, thereby approving, subject
to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Parcel Map 11067.
(iii) On September 6, 1991, the applicant filed a request for a
12-month Time Extension.
(iv) 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,
including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows:
(a) The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial
compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances,
plans, codes, and policies; and
(b) The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause
significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans,
ordinances, plans, codes, pnd Policies; and
(c) The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause
public health and safety problems; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TIME EXTENSION PM 11067 - BENNETT
November 13, 1991
Page 2
(d) The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state
law and local ordinance.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a Time Extension for:
Parcel Map Applicant Expiration
11067 Bennett Consolidated October 11, 1992
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1991.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, 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 13th day of November 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE: November 13, 1.1 STAFF REPORT
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner
BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 - HILLSIDE
COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a time extension to the master
plan for a church consisting of a sanctuary, administration
building, education/nursery building, and family center totaling
11,520 square feet on 8.5 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District located on the west side of Haven Avenue north of Hillside
Road - APN: 1074-271-01.
BACKGROUND: The Hillside Community Church was originally approved by the
Planning Commission on February 9, 1983, (Conditional Use Permit 82-29) and
expired 18 months later since building permits for Phase I were not issued
during this time period. Three temporary modular buildings were also approved
under the original Conditional Use Permit, along with the construction of
Parking Lot A. A fourth modular building was approved under Conditional Use
Permit 88-38 in 1988. In addition, a Variance was approved with the project
which allowed for a 50-foot height limit on the sanctuary building.
The project was resubmitted in 1988 and given a new project number
(Conditional Use Permit 88-10) since the original approval had lapsed. The
project, as submitted in 2988, was identical to the originally approved
project; however, it was modified through the design review process.
Modifications made during the design review process included the following:
1. The height of the sanctuary was lowered from 50 to 35 feet and it
was significantly redesigned. (This height reduction eliminated the
need for a Variance.)
2. The roof material was changed from copper-colored seamed metal to
tile.
The revised Conditional Use Permit 88~-10 was approved by the Planning
Commission on September 28, 1988.
ANALYSIS:
A. Time Extension: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and has
compared the proposal with the current development criteria outlined in
the Development Code. Based upon this review, staff has determined that
the project meets the development criteria of the Very Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre). In addition, there have been no
significant changes in the character of the area that would cause the
project to be inconsistent with its ~surroundings.
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 88-10 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH
November 13, 1991
Page 2
Conditional Use Permit 88-10 was originally approved on September 28,
1988, with a two-year time limit. A one-year time extension was granted
on November 28, 1990, which extended the expiration date to September 28,
1991. The applicant is, at this time requesting an additional one-year
time extension to September 28, 1992.
The applicant still intends to construct the project in the phases which
were originally approved. The Family Center building and ball fields are
the only portions remaining to be built for Phase I, which also includes
the existing Parking Lot A and the four modular buildings. The three
original modular buildings are to be removed by September 28, 1993, or
upon completion of the Family Center building, whichever occurs first.
The classroom modular building (Conditional Use Permit 88-38) shall also
be removed by September 28, 1993, or upon issuance of building permits
for the Administration building (Phase III), whichever occurs first.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must make all of the following findings in
order to approve this application:
A. There have been no significant changes in the Land Use Element,
Development Code, or character of the area within which the project is
located that would cause the approved project to become inconsistent or
non-conforming.
B. The granting of an extension should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, r welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements i the vicinity.
RECOMME N: taff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-
year ime xte i . An appropriate Resolution is attached for your
cons' deratio . ;'
Otto Krout 1
Deputy Ci y Plan~er
O: :
Attaehments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "F" - Modular Site Plan (informational only)
Exhibit "G" - Modular Elevations (informational only)
Resolution of Approval 88-198 (CUP 88-10)
Modified Resolution of Approval 88-198A (CUP 88-10)
Resolution Approving Time Extension for CUP 88-10
c hs mdueit '
AirC ~2mO Cohforr',o 01
'~,~4' 080 2~ All pit
Dr. David H. Bums
Senior Pastor
September 5, 1991
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Bey ~issan
Dear Commission:
We are writing to request an extension of our master plan
C.U.P. #88-10. It is our understanding that it expires on
September 28, 1991.
We are continuing to grow in numbers, having added additional
staff to facilitate further growth, and have secured the
services of an architect to pursue building a permanent
structure in nhe future.
Enclosed is a $62 check for the extension fee.
If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully,
Dr. David H. Burns
Enclosure
DHB:sr
[ f_,x~l ~lT "A:b:' 3
t
'..,,. LoT.A.
.................... ~o~ ~ ~ ~N.
//~,:,,:,,,/'~51~
P~NIN6-. :D~SION T~E: ~~ ~W ~
-..../:- , ..; ~ ~
E~~: SCALE: ~ ~-
~TY OF UCAMONGA '
PLANBI]NG,. DMSION .....
EXHIBIT: e-"'/ SCALE:
.,_,.-,
:2
I
PLANNING--DMSION
· .. , · .
~-x,amrr: C-4 SCAL~-:
'\--'!'-'±: : ,!in ~-
RESOLUTION NO. 88-198
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAHONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-10, AND DESIGN
REVIEW THEREOF, FOR HILLSIDE COHHUNITY CHURCH LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE BETWEEN HILLSIDE AND
CARRARI IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) APN: 201-101-25
A. Recital s.
(i) Hillside Community Church has filed an application for the
issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 88-10 as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this. Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application".
(ii) On the 28th of September, 1988, 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.
(iii) All legal prerequisites 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 substantiall evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on September 28, 1988, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds ares follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at 5354 Haven
~venue with a street frontage of 660 feet and lot depth of 675 feet and is
presently improved with 3 temporary buildings, a parking lot and Community and
local equestrian trails; and
(b) The property to 'the north of the subject site is vacant,
the property to the south of that site consists of single family residential
dwellings, the property to the east is Haven Avenue, and single family
residential beyond, and the property to the west is vacant and designated for
single family residential.
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 paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Conmeission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSI 1ESOLUTION NO. a~-198
CONDITIONAL USE PE...,,IT 88-10
September 28, 1988
Page 2
(a) That the proposed use is in accord with the
General Plan, the objectives of the Development
Code, and the purposes of the district in which
the site i s 1 ocated.
( b ) That the proposed use, together with the
conditions applicable thereto, wil 1 not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.
4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative
Declaration.
5. Based upon the i~indings and conclusions set forth in paragraph
1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard
Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1. Tile roof material shall be provided. Revised elevations of all
buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior
to the issuance of building permits.
2. A11 wal 1 s wi thin publ i c view shal 1 be constructed of a
decorative masonry material.
3. The three existing modulars shall be removed within two years or
upon completion of Phase I, whichever occurs first.
4. The proposed modular shall be removed within two years or upon
issuance of building permits for the Administration building, whichever occurs
first.
S. Natural stone shall be used in all instances where stone is
cal 1 ed for.
6. Final design and materials of the ball field parking area shall
be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee.
Engineering Division
1. The exi sting Conmuni ty Trai 1 on Haven Avenue shal 1 he
reconstructed to current standards. Revised parkway improvement plans shall
be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
PLANNING CO~4ISSIr IESOLUTION NO. 88-1~8
CONDITIONAL USE PE,...,IT 8B-lO
September 28, 1988
Page 3
2. Parkway improvements along Haven Avenue shall conform to the
results of the Haven Beautification Study.
3. The sduthern most driveway on Haven Avenue shall have a 50 foot
stacking depth to the first parking stall.
4. The northern most driveway on Haven Avenue shall be removed and
either:
a.) reconstructed to align with Ridge Canyon Road, or
b. ) replaced with curb, gutter and parkway improvements.
6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1988.
PLANNING CO~4ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
La~Py/T. Mc ' , Chair
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Comission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do he~by certify that t,~ fo~going Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comission of the
City of Rancho Cuca~nga, at a ~gular ~eting of the Planning Co~ission held
on the 28th day of Septe~er, 1988, by t~ following vote-to-wit:
AYES: CO)ISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: CO)ISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: C)ISSIONERS: EMERICK
RESOLUTION NO. 88-198A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-10 FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR A
CHURCH CONSISTING OF SANCTUARY, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
EDUCATION/NURSERY BUILDING, AND FAMILY CENTER TOTALING
11,520 SQUARE FEET ON 8.5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN
AVENUE NORTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-271-01.
A. Recital s.
(i) Hillside Community Church has filed an application for the
modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-10 as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 28th of November, 1990, 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.
(iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on November 28, 1990, 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 5354 Haven
Avenue with a street frontage of 660 feet and lot depth of 675 feet and is
presently improved with four temporary buildings, a parking lot, and community
and local equestrian trails; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant,
the property to the south of that site consists of single family residential
dwellings, the property to the east is Haven Avenue and single family
residential beyond, and the property to the west consists of single family
residential dwel 1 ings.
PLANNING COMMISSION r ~LUTION NO. 88-198A
CUP 88-10 - HILLSIDE ~dMMUNITY CHURCH
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
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) That the proposed modifications to conditions of approval
are in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code,
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
(b) That the proposed modifications will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity; and
(c) That the proposed modifications comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 'and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies certain conditions as
contained in Resolution 88-198 to read as follows:
Planning Division:
3 ) The three ori gi hal modul ars shal 1 be removed by
September 28, 1993 or upon completion of the Family Center,
whichever occurs first.
4) The 60 foot x 144 foot classroom modular shall be removed
by September 28, 1993, or upon issuance of building permits
for the Administration building, whichever occurs first.
5) A 5-foot high decorative masonry wall shall be constructed
along the westerly property line with Phase I. The final
design of said wall shall be approved by the City Planner
or his designee prior to issuance of building permits for
the wal 1.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1990.
PLANNING COM SION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
' :' '. ' , hai rman
ATTEST: :~
Ott5 KFroutil, Deputy Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION iOLUTION NO. 88-198A
CUP 88-10 - HILLSIDe. ,.OMMUNITY CHURCH
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
Page 3
I, Otto Kroutil, Deputy 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 28th day of November 1990 by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TIME
EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 LOCATED AT
5354 HAVEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN: 1074-271-01.
WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the
above-described project, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02,100.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the
above-described project on September 28, 1988.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission granted a one-year time extension in
1990 causing the project to expire on Se~.tember 28, 1991.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a
distressed market climate for development of the
project.
B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory
conditions make it unreasonable to develop the
project at this time.
C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of
approval regarding expirations would not be
consistent with the intent of the Development Code.
D. That the granting of said time extension will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a
time extension for:
Pro~ect Applicant Expiration
CUP 88-10 Hillside Community September 28, 1992
Church
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1991.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 88-10 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH
November 13, 1991
Page 2
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, 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 Comission held
on the 13th day of November 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 13, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Conmnission
FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: ALLEY VACATION - PAT VERNOLA A request to vacate an alley
located between Foothill .... B'6blevard and San Bernardino Road,
east of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN: 207-113-18 through
24
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Mr. Pat Vernola, the owner of the Magic Lamp
Restaurant, i s requesting that the City vacate the 20 foot wi de
unimproved alley which extends diagonally from Red Hill Country Club
Drive through his property to San Bernardino Road as shown on the
attached Exhibit "B". Mr. Vernola owns all of the property bounded by
Foothill Boulevard, Red Hill Country Club Drive, San Bernardino Road and
the Vince's Spaghetti Restaurant property except for the liquor store at
the northwest corner of the block.
The alley is not constructed to City Standards and the diagonal portion
is currently used as a part of the Magic Lamp parking lot. The
north/south portion connecting to San Bernardino Road is used to access
the delivery dock for Vince's Restaurant and an existing house located on
the same property. The portion of the all ey adjacent to the 1 iquor store
is used for access to the rear of the store.
If the alley is vacated, half the width (10 feet) will revert to the
adjacent lots. This leaves only a 10 foot wide access to the Vince's
Restaurant property which is inadequate for ingress and egress to the
dock area. In order to provide proper access to the property containing
Vince's Restaurant, Mr. Vernola will provide a 26 foot wide easement from
San Bernardino Road to Foothill Boulevard as shown on Exhibit "C". A
similar easement will be provided for access over that portion of the
alley used by the 1 iquor store. Both property owners have been contacted
and are in agreement with the proposed vacation.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ALLEY VACATION - PAT VERNOLA
November 13, 1991
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the P1 anning Commission make the
finding through minute action that the proposed vacation conforms with
the City's General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City
Council for further processing and final approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Barrye R. Hanson
Senior Civil Engineer
BRH:BK:dlw
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Proposed Easement
I
I"=~~
N
CITY OF rrn~: ALLEY %/RS:iTIDO V-056
:RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrrLg: VICI Y ITY M/'4,D
II II
]~TGD~P,,~G DZV/8/O~ ~_ ~ ,~XI-Tn~fi':
22 "'.
,, 21
me' 20
4,7
~9
17
4g
--r--- ~: ~,
50 51 52 53 54 55 ~k~ ,,,me!~
I": IC~
N
CITY OF ~T,M:RLLEY VN,qTIDN V-0.58
RANCHO CUCAMONGA WrLF; _% IT F_ PLaN
ENG~G DIVISION EXHIBIT: PA
S'
HIGH COIVC. DOCK
5,~ ~18ERA/,4 RIP/NO ROA O
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 13, 199 1
TO: Chairman and Members of the P]anning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing
to comment on the draft final. environmental impact report prepared
for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment 90-
03B to prezone approximately 5,840 acres of territory in the Rancho
Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,613 single family
dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28 acres of
neighborhood commercia~ use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an equestrian
center, and preservation of 4, 112 acres of open space generally
located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south of the San
Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana, and east
of Milliken Avenue- (Continued from September 11, 1991. )
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, prezoning app~:oximately 6,840 acres of territory in
the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,6
single family dwelling units on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28
acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an
equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space
generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south
of the San Bernardino National Forest, west of the City of Fontana,
and east of Milliken Avenue- (Continued from September 11, 1991. )
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of a General
Plan Amendment to provide consistency with the draft Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, prezoning approximately 6,840 acres of territory in
the Rancho Cucamonga sphere of influence to provide for 3,6 13
single family dwelling unites on 2,473 acres of vacant land, 28
acres of neighborhood commercial use, 4 schools, 5 parks, an
equestrian center, and preservation of 4,112 acres of open space
generally located north of Highland Avenue (State Route 30), south
of the San Bernardino NationaL1 Forest, west of the City of Fontana,
and east of Milliken Avenue. (Continued from September 11, 1991. )
ABSTRACT: Staff requests continuance of this item to December '11, 1991, for
the purpose of providing additional time for "good faith" negotiations on the
City's University/Crest lawsuit- Correspondence received after preparation of
the October 9, 1991, Staff Report is attached for your information, as well as
staff's response.
ITEMS D, E, & F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SP 90-01, GPA 90-03B, - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
November 13, 199 1
Page 2
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the subject items at their
October 9 and September 11, 1991, meetings. The purpose was to provide time
for mandatory "good faith" negotiations between the County, the applicants,
and the City, a step in the City's lawsuit. The lawsuit was based on adequacy
of the California Environmental Quality Act review of the County's University
Crest project approval-
CORRESPONDENCE: Additional written correspondence has been received and is
attached for your review together with staff discussion. (See Correspondence,
November 13, 1991, and attached Letters AA, BB, and CC-)
CONCLUSION: Although all the necessary documents for decision making on the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan have been prepared and made available to the
Planning Commission and the public for review, staff recommends continuance of
the public hearing on the subject items to December 11, 1991.
~lanne~
BB:MB/jfs
Attachments: Correspondence of November 13, 1991
C~)I~RESI~]NI)ENCE
Nov~m~r 13,, 1991
I~tters ~, ~BB, CC
Three letters have been received since preparation of the October 9,
1991, Staff Report (see attached)- Staff discussion of the
aforementioned letters follows:
AA. Richard Douglas, Landmark Land Company, September 18, 1991.
Comment
Draft Final EIR is incomplete-
Response
The draft Final EIR consists of Part I (draft EIR, May 1991) and Part II
(draft Final EIR, September 5, 1991). For consideration of
certification, the draft final EIR is complete in all respects required
by the California Environmental Quality Act. Upon certification by the
City Council, the. word "draft" will be dropped, the minutes from
Planning Commission and City Council public hearings will be added to
Part II, and a new cover will be attached adding "Final" and the date of
Certification.
Comment
The purpose of the plan appears to be to point out alleged deficiencies
in other plans.
Response
In the spirit of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the Industrial Specific
Plan, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, the City Council
requested staff to prepare a Specific Plan for the Etiwanda North
area- When adopted, the plan will serve several purposes:
* The subject plan is a pre-zoning document which together with
environmental review is a prerequisite required by the Local
Agency Formation Commission to annexation. To date there have
been five completed piecemeal annexations in the plan area.
(See attached "Status Report for Sphere Projects-")
* The subject plan will provide comprehensive development
guidelines for the Etiwanda North area. Also, the subject plan
will serve to focus staff review and comments on applications
routinely referred to the City by the County. In addition to
the Consortium's Etiwanda North Specific Plan, there are six
development applications within the plan area pending in the
County. (See attached "Status Report for Sphere Projects.")
* The subject plan provides a clear statement of the City's vision
for the Etiwanda North area in the face of intense development
pressure. Three of the six pending County applications,
including the Landmark application, request amendments to the
County's General Plan to increase density allowable in the
County.
* The subject plan will provide a basis for negotiations with the
County for adoption of a joint City-County Etiwanda North
Specific Plan- Joint planning for Spheres-of-Influence is a
County General Plan Land Use Policy (Section LU-9).
Comment
Hydrological studies for the bog are incomplete and inadequate.
Response
It should be pointed out that CEQA does not require exhaustive study of
an impact. In general, a reasonable analysis of an impact is considered
adequate. Specific to the bog, as indicated in the "Response to
Comments on the draft EIR," the level of environmental discussion
identifying the bog is adequate for a program level EIR. Additional
hydrological studies would be needed at the project level of development
if development is proposed adjoining or north of the bog- The Etiwanda
North Specific Plan does not propose residential development adjoining
or north of the bog.
CC. Dan Koninq, September 24, 1991
Comment
Opposes housing tracts in Etiwanda North Specific Plan area-
Response
The City and County General Plans indicate a mix of open space and very
low density residential development in the area under consideration-
The goal of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is to identify and preserve
open space which can be maintained as wildlife habitat for the long
term.
Comment
Supports preservation of sage habitat-
Response
The goal of the City's Plan is to identify and preserve significant
areas of alluvial fan scrub habitat. Because alluvial fan scrub habitat
requires periodic flooding, only limited areas have a potential for
preservation for the long term. In the Specific Plan, identified areas
include San Sevaine Wash, Etiwanda Wash, Day Creek Wash, and the area
north of the northern branch of the Cucamonga Fault.
Correspondence - November 13, 1991
Conlment
Concern expressed regarding fault rupture hazard.
Response
Fault rupture is a concern where such ruptures have historically
occurred. The plan requires that a minimum 50-foot development setback
be identified for all seismic faults and that the resulting 100-foot
wide area be dedicated as project open space. North of the LADWP
utility corridor, the plan requires that buildable areas be identified,
that density be calculated only for buildable areas, and that
residential development be limited to hillside and estate residential
densities, a maximum of 2 units per buildable acre and 1 unit per
buildable acre, respectively. Development north of the northern branch
of the Cucamonga Fault is discouraged through designation as open space.
Comment
Concern expressed regarding brush fire hazard.
Response
Brushfires will be a continuing hazard for the area because of its
interface with the National Forest and with slopes too steep for
development found above the LADWP utility corridor. Therefore, strict
fire defense measures will be required., including the requirement that
each applicant for development prepare and implement a fire defense
plan.
CC. Anita Trevino McZeal, Land Plan Design Group, October 7,' 1991
Comment"
Requests continuance until after the mandate hearing in the City's
lawsuit or until negotiations have been terminated, whichever is later
of the two.
Response
Because a useful purpose was being served, the Planning Commission has
continued this matter for eight weeks.
Comment
Contends that the response to the comment letter by Land Plan Design was
not adequate.
Response
It is noted again that CEQA does not require exhaustive analysis of an
impact. In general, a reasonable analysis is considered adequate. No
further comment is required other than that provided in the Response to
Comments.
Correspondence - November 13, 1991
Comment
Further clarification is requested regarding the City's parks
requirement.
Response
The General Plan goal is for 5 acres of park per thousand population.
the Specific Plan goal is for 5 acres of unencumbered neighborhood park
per thousand population.
Correspondence - November 13, 1991
September 18, 1991 .A~ SEP Z 7 7991
Buller
Ci~ Planner
Ci~' of ~ncho Cucamonga
105~ Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
~ncho Cucamonga, CA 9~ 729
RE: Planning Commission Hearing of September 11, 1991 on subjects; Staff report and associated
exhibits for ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
Dear Brad,
This letter is a follow up to the above referenced hea~ring and the correspondence delivered by us at
that meeting.
It is important to restate our comments made at the hearing as a result of the staff report given by
Associate Planner Mikki Bratt. The record should indicate that the written staff report provided to
the commission as well as in conjunction with the mailed notice of the public hearing recommended
the project(s) be approved that night by the planning commission. However, it later became clear
that the Environmental Impact Report associated with the planning documents had not been
completed. Discussion between the staff and commission also revealed that several technical
appenmces to the ~ziK naa not veen compietec, nor rccen, c~ oy me can~n'l...-.~i~:n prior ~o ,he n~eetn,g.
Another unusual aspect of this meeting was the information you provided prior to the hearing
concerning the litigation between the city and the County of San Bernard~no. You stated because of
negotiations which were ongoing at that time it wou3Ld not be appropriate for the commission to take
action on the project. This action would have presumably been to approve the project since you also
stated that it would be questionable for the city to approve a plan dealing with the same areas
which were subject to litigation.
No where in your comments, or after questions from members of your planning commission was there
any discussion about the propriety of aVproving a complex ~nd controversial project without
finalized environmental documentation. The important point to be made here i.~ not to comment on
LAND/,AARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., P.O. Box 645, Calimesa, Ci~liforni~ 9c23~0 714-795-8941
the failure to provide timely assembly and presentation of these materials to the city's advisory
committee's and decision makers. The point is to emphasize what appears to be a rushed attempt
on the city's part to arrive at a specific plan of its own, flawed though it may be. The purpose of
the city's plan now appears mainly to point out alleged deficiencies in other previously crafted
plans and to establish a contrasting set of documents to any which may be crafted in the future.
It was most propitious for Mr. James des Lauriers, professor at Chaffey Junior College, to provide his
comments at the meeting. In his written and oral statements, professor des Lauriers sustained our
previously made comments that no detailed or authoritative hydrological studies had been
performed which ascertain the origin of the marsh currently present on our site. What professor des
Lauriers mistakenly perceives as our failure to recognize existing studies and documentation
associated with our property is instead the disposition of our professional duties to pdint out to the
city that such information is not cited in the EIR. What the EIR does provide are opinions and
reference to studies which are not included as appendices.
We compliment Professor des Lauriers for providing the information in his correspondence. We have
previously made provision in our land plans for access to the marsh area for potential future study.
Most importantly, it is apparent by professor des Lauriers coming forward that the city has failed
to provide excerpts from the references he has cited. The fact that these references are neither
exhaustive nor accompanied by authoritative consensus is what catalyzed our comments in the first
place. It is also what provides the starkest evidence that the city has failed to consider the entire
range of issues prior to embarking on a radical land use reclassification on our property without
articulated means of support or compensation.
I am proud of the cordial relationship we have shared in the past and feel that discussion of these
serious issues would probably be well served by a face to face meeting prior to the planning
commission's consideration of the project. I will be in touch with you to see if a mutually convenient
time can be established for such a meeting.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Douglass, AICP
Landmark Land Company of California, Inc.
c.c. Mike Kerney
LETTER 'AA'
R~n~ho Cucamonga CA 91729 ~~
semi-rural atmosphere that I believe Rancho Cucamonga wishes to maintain,
2.) the area supports one of the last remaining flat sagebrush wildlife
habitat in the valley, 3.) a major fault zone crosses the region, an~ 4.)
the land offers a buffer from brush fires.
First, I believe that having undeveloped parcels of land on the city's
borders preserves the semi-rural atmosphere that many citizens of Rancho
Cucamonga use and enjoy. Instead of wall-to-wall houses, this flat acreage
at the foot of the San Gabriel mountains could provide an unique playground
for the residents below. The land could be utilized as a sagebrush park,
containing trails for horseback riding, biking, and walking.
Second, the land below Day Canyon furnishes some of the last remaining
flat sagebrush wildlife habitat lef~ in the valley. Certain animal species
depend on this particular kind of habitat for their survival. For example,
jackrabbits, quai], and roadrunners dwell here; and deer and coyote prefer
sage to the mountain chaparral. Also, because the land's flatness and
sparse sage allows for easier sighting and diving, golden eagles glean most
of their prey from level sagebrush land. During the past ten years, I have
observed all these animals in this area north of Etiwanda. Please allow
them to remain.
Third, the area at the foot of Day Canyon has experienced intense
earthquake activity in the recent past. The presence of two prominent fault
scarps in the alluvium testify to the active Cucamonga fault zone. Being
only around a thousand years old, these scarps were formed by thrusting
action due to the Peninsular Range ramming against the San Gabriel
Mountains. As a geology student of UC Riverside, I feel that to build a
housing tract close to these scarps is very unwise. Alluvium is unstable
and can shift and migrate. Therefore, no one can say with certainty that
the next tectonic upheaval in the area will be defined or limited to the
present scarp systems.
Fourth, the sage should provide a buffer from the intense wildfires
that periodically roar down the mountains during Santa Arias (like the ones
of 1970 and 1988). Sage should not burn as "hot" as the denset and more
oily buckthorn and manzanita of the mountains. Consequently, burning sage
should be less of a threat to expensive homes below. In addition, several
fireroads cross this flat sagebrush land. This broad belt of sagebrush
with its fireroads should provide precious time for firefighters to
establish a fireline against any oncoming inferno. In contrast, if homes
hug the base of the mountain slopes (where the denset and more oily brush
tends to grow) firefighters stand a much reduced chance of warding off any
fires before they create extensive property damage. It should be remembered
that the southward movement of the fires of 1970 and 1988 was stopped in
this sagebrush region.
LETTER 'BB'
Planni.g Commi-~-~ion of the City of .a~c~o Cuc~mong~ OgT 16~91
P.O Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 ~J N
Dear Planning Commission:
On October 9, 1991, the city held a public hearing that pertained
to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan 90-01 and General Plan
Amendment 90-03B. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend. I
would, however, like to know if the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan and General Plan Amendment was approved. Also, wher~ will
the 4,112 acres that this Plan designates as open space be
located? Finally, may the public view a zone map related to
this Plan?
Thank you,
Dan
6729 Hermosa Ave.
Alta Loma, CA 91701
LETTER "BB"
LAND.PLAN
DESIGN - _
GROUP °'
PLANNING DIvI~IiJN
..... ........ 0 1 1991
October ?,
Chairman Larry McNiel
& Members of the Planning Commission
CA3 Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: P. esponse to City Etiwanda North Draft Specific Plan Jt~b No.: NES 876.6
& (Draft) Final EIR
Dear Chairman McNiel:
The C. aryn Company, University of Califomia, and Etiwanda Highlands LTD. continue to believe
it is inappropriate to act on this project while the City and owners of the University Crest project,
which is located within the boundaries of Etiwanda North, remain engaged in good faith settlement
negotiations on the City's CEQA lawsuit. For reasons stated previously in our letter of August 14,
1991, we again urge the Planning Commission defer' any further consideration of the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan until after the mandate hearing in the City's lawsuit or until negotiations have
been terminated, whichever is latter of the two.
Please refer to our earlier letter on the draft Specific Plan and EIR dated June 26, 1991. In this
letter we commented on several significant items which should have been responded to by City
staff and the .City EIR consultant. As we reviewed the draft Final EIR including the Response to
Comments, we found the majority of our concems had not been adequately responded to. In most
cases, although answers were given, they were either partial answers or not at all applicable to the
identified concern. We therefore find the Final EIR still inadquate and are resubmitting our earlier
letter in hope that we can anticipate a proper response f?om staff.
In addition, we request clarification of the City's current position with respect to park
requirements. It appea.'~ the Plan is still requiring 5 acres of improved park per 1000 population.
What remains unclear in the revision of the documents is whether a portion of the c a-/~ 0on pop.
.,J ,kd · ..,~
is allowed to be encumbered park. We would appreciate any assistance staff can give us in
understanding more precisely the parks proposals citywide and of Etiwanda North.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and reserve the right to do so again at a later date.
e ou ,
cc: Joe Dilorio
Deborah Rosenthai LETTER "CC"
corr
oct,^,r..~Br..mm.o.., !475" Plaza Dnve Suste A, Tustln Cahforn~a ~2680 · (7~ .:'t 832-4300 · FAX: (714/832-2025
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
VA~E: No,~ember 4. 1~1 Subject: Status Report for Sphere Projects
TO: Distribution List (see p.3)
· FROM: Advanced Planning Etiwanda North Page
Project Applicant Acres DU*s Density Average/ Status / Lead Planner
Name ~mstsd Mi~in~Um
[ 1 ] 1.49 Varies specffic Plan 90-O 1: Draft Final EIR and re~sed
drai~ Specific Plan avails_hie 9/5/91; Planning
ETBVANDA City 2112 per area conunlssion hearing 9/11 continued to 10/9; and
NORTH Specific Rcs. continued to 11/13; City Conneff hearLug 12/4
SPECIFIC Plan Acres (tentathrc).
PLAN/LRF_J~ Hcndcrson/Bratt
[2*] University of County Referral 88 * 05: Project approvcd BOS
Calff./Caryn 3.0] 7,200 6/24/91; City lawsuit filed for CEQA inadequacy
University Tracts 410.87 Sq ft IIl111. 7/24 (settlement negotiations in progress)
Crest 14422, Rcs.
14423, Acres
14493-98,
14605-146 12 [Stangl] Bratt
[3*] Landmark 10,890 County Referral 89 - 03: Landmark r~quests
Land 2.34 Sq ft avg. tlrnc to find financing under new FedcFal Savings
and Loan regulations; EIR contract approval on
Oak Devlpmt. 325 10,000 hold.
Summit Co. Rcs. sq ff rain.
Acres
[Fahle] Bratt
[4*] Etiwanda 4.54 7,000 County Referral 90 - 02: Request to County to
Heights 91.9 Sq i~ amend General Plan from flood control to
Dev. Corp./ residential dcvclopmenL County Planning
San Cheng RES. Commission public hearing 10/3/91; County
Sevaine Acres staff recommends denial; City staff concurs
[Stafford] Bmtt
[5'] Chang 4.35 10,000 County Referral 90 - 133: APPLICATION WITH-
Mln. DRAWN-
[6*] Etlwanda 3.93 not County Referral 90-O7: Application for County
General Plan Amendment, etc. submitted 9/6/91: EIR
No Heights 40 avail. required; County Development REview Committee l 1 /
Title Dev. Corp. / Res. 91; Applicant appealing EIR requirement. Env. Review
Cheng Acres committee 12/91. N~xt DRC review 1/92
[FahieI Bratt
[7*] Tralg CRgl-Ol: Parcel Map, staff comments mailed
3/21/91.
[8*] Land Owner 6261 3595 2.29 varies A~pile~,- a~gottsting wtthdrswsl of appllestion.
Consort/urn 1569.6 per area
s~i~l~l w~st Vsllel F~thlll's sr~ mn~ger. Drdt
Spedtic Res. e~ i=p, et ,~pon t~mdiq i~f~tr~t~ p~u~tug
Plan Acres ph= to be e~mp~etml.
[Johnson/Fable] Bratt
*Number refers to map key, see attached s~.
Note: Items 2-7 included in Etlwanda North Specffic Plan;
City Plan includes annexed areas s~.
,j ,) November 4, S~xus Rgpon
City of Rancho Cucamonga Subject: Status Report for Sphere Projects
Date: November 4, 1991 Completed Annexations ENSP Area Page 2
Lot Size
Project Applicant Acres DU's Gross Average/ Status / Lead Planner
Name Density Minimum
[A*] Caryn/ LAFCO Cenificasion
Etiwanda Standard January 30, 1989
Highlands Tracts Pacific 303 546 2.0 Development Agreement
(13564/13565) et. al. Oral 379, Adopted 12/7/88
Nissen
LAFCO Certification
[B*] Watt September 21, 1988
Tract 13527 Inland 96 252 2.6 Development Agreement
Ord 365, Adopted 8/3/88
Empire Nissen
LAFOD Certification
[C*] January 30, 1989
Tract 14139 Ahmanson 53 131 ~2.25 Development Agreement
Ord 377, Adopted 12/7/88
Nissen
Watt LAFCO Certification
[D*] Inland 53 110 2.26 November 14, 1989
Tract 13812 Grahn
Empire
Blackman/ LAFCO Certification
[E*] Homestead/ 25 78 3.12 :Ianuary 5, 1990
Development Agreement
Tract 13835 Remington Ord400, Adopted 10/18/89
Nissen
Annexed
Area
~da Nth 530 1117 2.45
SubtOtals
(aDorot)
Annex # 1
Caryn Caryn/ LAFCO Cert 4/5/85
Planned K & B 248 946 3.99 Dev Agree 2/20/85
Community ~ Ord 248 Adopted 2/20/85
Amended Ord 288 2/5/86
Annexed
Area 778 2063
Total
*Letter refers to map key, see attached
Status Report for Slitere Projects
City of Rancho Cucamonga Subject: Status Report for Sphere
Date: November 4, 1991 Alta Loma North
Lot Size
Project Applicant Acres DU's Gross Average/ Status / Lead Planner
Name Density Minimum
[a*] CR 90-09 Transportation Plan
Snow Drop County Section Approved COSOS
Road 14 [Olsen] Henderson/Bratt
[b*] To Be Not Not CR 91-07 RFP sent out
Deer Creek County Unknown
Determined Available Available
Golf Course [Tim Johnson] Henderson/Bran
[C*] CR 91-13 Presentation to Park
Deer Creek/ and Recreation Commission
DayCreek Not Not
Regional Park County Unknown None
Applicable Applicable
Plan (Formerly
Chaffey Regional
Park) [Tim Johnson] Tarry Smith/Bratt
[d*] 5 CR 9-10 Denied w/o prejudice
Not Not 8/30/91
LAL (Section 3
Applicable Applicable
Parcel Map 14) [Stangl] Bratt
[e*] 26.26 To Be Minimum CR 91-06
Comes (Section 24 Deter- 20,000
14) mined square feet [Hyke] Bratt
*Letter refers to map key, see attached Distribution:
City Council Joe Schultz Supvr. Jon Mikels
Planning Commission Karen Emery
Jack Lain Joe O'Niel
Jerry Fulwood Paul Rougeau [County Planning Staff]
Rick Gomez Betty Miller (714) 387-4165
Brad Buller Ingrid Blair
City Planning Staff Laura Bonaccorsi
(714) 989-1861
Status Report for Sphere Projeca
a . ~ .... . 1."r
i-' ~: . ~::~::::: :z~.':::,.'~
~ . :..:.:..
.,~.,o, ~ .: ~.:L'~ ~~ ~::::~::::~::', ~4
~ ~ a ;" ' FOC
- . .,, ,
, ~ ¢,,,c, _. .... ...,.. ~...
All ~l I
-
,
I ( d d 8
* ' 'I I,r
" i =
'' man ~ ~.,memd 5mss~ rv ' '
LHOH~I SP~C PLAN ~1 ~A~A NOR~ ~ ~TA LOMA NORTH
s SNOW DROP RO~
2 ~~ OF C~O~C~'~ b DR O~RK ~LF CO~SH
3 ~~K DH~. CO. c DE~AV ~K ~OlON~
4 C~O S~ SBV~ d ~C r~ ~
S C~G e ~S ~
6 ~O ~E
7
CO~L~D ~XA~ONS: A ~ C~. B: WA~ ~,
C: ~SON, D ~ WA~ ~
E: BLA~~O~S~~GTON
~G ~ SP~ OF ~U~
, ]EM: STATUS FOR SPHERE
C~ OF ~CHO CUC~ONGA ~: ~C~Y MAP
P~NG D~SION ]E~~: 'A' SC~E: NONE
City Of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
Larry McNiel Chairman
John Mecher
Peter Tolstoy I:U~/I '~ 't'731
Suzanne Chitlea ~ ~.~.~.
Wendy Vallette
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca., 91729
November 8, 1991
Dear Commissioners:
On Wednesday, November 13th, you will be asked to decide the approval or disapproval of our
modification to conditional use permit 88-45, as well as a request for an entertainment permit 91-03.
Your decision could have a definite impact on the future success or failure of our now existing
restaurant-bar business.
A little more then 4 years ago, we opened Siam Garden, offering a Thai and Chinese menu at
affordable prices. Our food and elegant dining room was well received by the community during the
first year of operation. But as time went on, more and more oriental restaurants typened in the area,
most of which cut quality and price to compete with one another. In fact, 16 more oriental food
establishments and countless other types of restaurants have opened in Rancho Cucamonga since we
opened on July 9, 1987. This fact, with the faltering economy, has brought our business to the brink
of disaster.
We can no longer compete with the cheapie fast food, low quality oriental restaurants that have
opened up. With our investment, overhead and high quality ambience we cannot lower our
standards and compete.
And that is why. we need to change our direction. We need to expand the size of the restaurant and
put in a bar with extended hours with entertainment and we need to expand our menu by offering
American dishes and seafood.
We consider our restaurant to be a fine dining establishment and one of the nicest ambiences in the
city. We have been serving alcohol drinks to our customers since we started. Up until now, we
have dispensed alcohol from a service bar in the kitchen to the customers table. The addition of a bar
to our restaurant only means adding in reality a piece of furniture.
In making your decision, please remember, we will still be operating with a primary emphasis on
serving food
In your last meeting on October 23rd, Commissioners Vallette and Chitlea, voiced objections to our
location abutting a residential apartment project. May we point out, as we said above, we already
sell alcohol beverages and there are 12 other ~od establishments selling alcohol beverages that have
their business abutting up to a residential neighborhoods and two, next to pre-schools.
To deny us to expand, would not only be a complete, contradiction to exsiting business approvals, but
gross discrimination. Discrimination against us compared to other businesses and discrimination to
us as operators. The current approved General Plan allows ~r restaurant-bar and entertainment type
businesses. It is interesting to point out, while Commissioners Vallette and Chitiea disapprove the
consumption of alcohol within the confines of the walls of our restaurant, yet they apparently think it
is all right to allow the Chuckie Cheese business to serve beer and wine while toddlers, pre-teen and
teens make up the biggest part of their customer base.
Apparently, there is a feeling on their part, that a disabled person such as myself and my minority
Asian born wife are not capable to run a bar business like the other restaurant-bar businesses that
already are allowed to operate in this city. We find this not only offensive, but discriminatory.
Our tract record of 4 years plus without any incidents of trouble speaks for itself of our capability.
The other issue here, is that Commissioners Vallette and Chitlea, must be trying to judge the moral's
value of people who own restaurants with bars and the people who patronize them. We feel
it is illegal ~r anyone to judge other people's morals. To do so, would be a violation of
consitutional rights and would certainly exceed the authority of a Commissioner.
It was tinfortunate, that in our first hearing on October 23rd, we were blatantly and falsely accused of
playing loud music at 1:30 A.M. by the apartment project manager, when in fact the loud music did
not come from our place. We t~el that this false accusation has caused some members of the.
Commission unneeded concern.
With reference to extended hours to 2 A.M, The length of time a business is open in any given day
has absolutely no bearing on the amount of problems a drinking establishment could cause a
community. If a bar operator doesn't run the operation with good business sense and allows
customers to get rowdy and drunk it could happen at 11 A.M just as well as any other time of the
day.
There are two reasons ~r the request of extended hc,urs. First, all people don't have 8 to 5 jobs.
Peoples days vary and their available hours to socialize vary. Secondly, in providing entertainment
after a dining time of 9 P.M. it is economically impossible to pay entertainers their fee and to make
a profit if the approved closing time is only 1 l P.M.
In addition, noise and violent crime could happen anywhere including, as it did, in front of City Hall
a short time back when a man was killed. This incidtent happend in the middle of day and was not at
a place where alcohol was being consumed.
If our location on Foothill Blvd is not an appropiate place for a restaurant-bar with entertainment why
d~s the City General Plan allow the Zoning fi~r it'? Apparently, Pepper's Bar while surrounded by
residential development on three sides makes an ideal location.
Almost every shopping center in this city has either a major grocery store, liquor store or mini
market selling alcohol pnxlucts. They all butt up to residential living areas and they all allow
children in their businesses. More then once, we have seen customers go into these type of stores,
purchase alcohol and consume them in the parking lot. Our business allows for the consumption only
within the confines of the building.
With reference to noise if entertainment was allowed, it must be pointed out, our facility is a
modern, well constructed building. The exterior walls are 8" x 8" x 16" concrete block. Item #5 in
the City Staff Report provides a condition we as operators have to abide to. We hope to offer as
entertainment, singles to srhall combos and we donst expect to have the UCLA Marching Band.
The present recession has and is taking a toll on businesses large and small. Empy store fronts are in
almost every shopping area in the city. It is No Longer business as usual, what ever the traffic will
bear. Developers,contractors and business people are not standing ten deep at the city civic center
counter.
Rancho Cucamonga and California will be going thru! dramatic adjustments in the 90's.
It is our hope as business people, you will view our applications with an open heart and mind. Give
us the benefit of any doubt you may have and vote yes, November 13th on our applications.
Government and bnsiness people will have to give and take for things to go smoother in the 90's.
Give us the chance and we'll live up to the conditions set forth in the City Staff Report.
Sincerely,,
Skip Nelson
Urai S. Nelson
Siam Garden Owners
cc:McNiel
cc:Melcher
cc:Tdstoy
cc:Chitiea
cc:Vallette
cc:Buller
cc:Buckingham
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 13, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Bruce Buckingham, Planning 'Technician
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 - SKIPPER ' S
GRILL & BAR - A request to modify a previous ly approved
conditional use permit (Siam Garden Restaurant) to allow for
the expansion of a restau~:ant and bar from 2,160 to 3,240
square feet and to permit live entertainment in conjunction
with the restaurant and bar located within a commercial
center in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9950
Foothi 11 Boulevard, Suite S - APN: 1077-621 - 34 · Related
file: Entertainment Permit 91-03 (Continued from October 23,
1991. )
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - SK/PPER' S GEILL & BAR - A
request to conduct live music and entertainment in
conjunction with a restaurant and bar (formerly Siam Garden
Restaurant ) within a co-~nercial center in the Community
Commercial District ( Subarea 3 ) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S -
APN: 1077-621-34- Related file: Conditional Use Permit 88-
45. ( Continued from October 23, 1991. )
This item was continued from the October 23, 1991 Planning Con~nission
meeting to allow further review by the full Commission.
Draft of the October 23, 1991 minute:s are provided separately in the
Commission packet-
BB:BB:js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - October 23, 1991 Staff Report
Resolution of Approval to Modify CUP 88-45
Resolution of APproval for Entertainment Permit 91-03
ITEM G & h
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 23, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITION$~ USE PERMIT 88-45 - SKIPPER'S
GRILL & BAR - A request to modify a previously approved
conditional use permit (Siam Garden Restaurant) to allow for
the expansion of a restaurant and bar from 2,160 to 3,240
square feet and to permit live entertainment in conjunction
with the restaurant and bar located within a commercial
center in the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 9950
Foothill Boulevard, Suite S - APN: 1077-621-34. Related
file: Entertainment Permit 91-03.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-021 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR - A
request to conduct live music and entertainment in
conjunction with a restaurant and bar (formerly Siam Garden
Restaurant) within a co-maercial center in the Community
Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S -
APN: 1077-621-34. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 88-
45.
ABSTRACT: The applicant is requesting a modification to an existing
Conditional Use Permit and approval of an Entertainment Permit to allow
for a 1,080 square foot expansion and to provide live entertainment.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The owners of the business, Fred and Urai Nelson, have
been operating the Siam Gardens Restaurant at 9950 Foothill Blvd.,
Suite S, since July 1987. In December 1988, the Planning
Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the serving
of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the restaurant between
the hours of 11:00 a.m. and '|1:00 p.m. The owners are' now
proposing to expand the restaurant/bar from 2,160 to 3,240 square
feet, an increase of 1,080 square feet (See Exhibit "B") and expand
the hours alcohol is served until 2:00 a.m. The expansion will
include a bar area since the existing floor plan does not have one
as drinks are presently mixed in the kitchen (See Exhibit "C"). In
conjunction with this, they are proposing entertainment consisting
of live music, disc jockeys, and. stand up comedians (See Exhibit
"F"). The applicant is proposing up to six musicians at one
time. A stage area of 8 feet by 12 feet will be provided. for the
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 88-45, EP 91~03 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR
October 23, 1991
Page 2
entertainers with adjoining dance floor no larger than 150 square
feet. Section 5.12.130 of the Municipal Code requires that a
security guard be present if the dance area exceeds 150 square
feet; therefore, no security is proposed. The proposed hours of
entertainment are from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven days a week.
Admission will vary from free to whatever is necessary to cover the
costs associated with the entertainment.
Mr- and Mrs. Nelson will be responsible for the management of the
entertainment. In accordance with Section 5.12.040 of the
Municipal Code, the applicants have indicated that within the last
ten years neither has been convicted of a crime nor have the
applicants ever had any permit or license in conjunction with the
sale of alcohol or the provision of entertainment revoked.
B. Issues:
1. Parking: The commercial center has adequate parking for the
proposed expansion (See Exhibit "D"). In addition, many of
the retail users will be closed before 8:00 p.m-, thus
creating additional parking. The Wherehouse music/video store
and an ice cream parlor are open late in the evening a~d are
located at the western end of the same building- Therefore,
staff does not anticipate any parking conflicts.
2. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses: Although there have been
some enforcement probl~m~ with bar/entertainment uses in
neighborhood shopping centers, staff believes the
circumstances are different for this request as described
below. The proposed site is within the Community Commercial
District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan which is
intended for more intense commercial land uses. The site has
a variety of retail and food users and a majority of the
existing users close prior to 8:00 p.m- (See Exhibit "D").
There is a take-out pizza tenant next door to the west and a
toy store to the east. Staff does not foresee any conflicts
among the existing tenants.
The commercial center is adjacent to an existing apartment
complex (See Exhibit "B"). The closest apartment building is
approximately 110 feet from the rear of the commercial
building- The area between the commercial and residential
buildings is buffered by a grade separation, parking aisle and
row of parking spaces in the rear of the coz~nercial site, a
landscape planter, a six foot high masonry wall and a long row
of detached garages with an adjacent drive aisle. Staff
recommends that parking in the rear of the building be limited
to employees only and the two rear exits be used only in the
case of an emergency, in an effort to eliminate any loitering
in the rear parking lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 88-45, EP 91-03 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR
October 23, 1991
Page 3
The building is of norma2L construction with no special
provisions made for sound attenuation- The surrounding
businesses and residents are not likely to be affected as long
as all performance standards for noise levels are maintained
and all doors remain closed during hours of entertainment-
C- Police and Fire Department Con~nents: Upon review of the
application, the Police Department had no comment. The Fire
District conditioned that plans be submitted for their review and
approval prior to occupancy to ensure compliance with all State
Fire Marshall regulations including but not limited to fire
sprinklers, alarm systems and occupancy.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following
findings in order to approve Entertainment Permit 91-03:
A. The conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application
would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or
welfare; or
B. The premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an
illegal, improper, or disorderly manner; or
C. The applicant or any other person associated with him as principal
or partner, or in a position or capacity involving partial or total
control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is
sought to be issued, has not been convicted in a~y court of
competent jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude, or
has not had any approval, permit, or license issued in conjunction
with the sale of alcohol or the provision of entertainment revoked
within the preceding five years; or
D. The granting the application would not create a public nuisance; or
E. The normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the
peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood or
commercial business; or
F. The applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent
statement of material fact in the required application.
(Ord- 290 Sl(part), 1986).
To the best of staff's knowledge, there is no information to indicate
anything contrary to these findings-
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in
the Inland Valley Dail~ Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and
notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project
and all businesses within the commercial site. In addition, all tenants
of the apartment complex to the north were mailed notices of the Public
Hearing-
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 88-45, EP 91-03 - SKIPPER'S GRILL & BAR
October 23, 1991
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
the modification to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 to allow for the
expansion of the ~:tiness and provide live entertainment and approve
Entertainm Pe 91-03 through the adoption of the attached
Resolutio
Resp / .tte~~_~
Brad Bulle
City Pla
/
/
BB: BB: js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Area Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "D" - Parking Calculations
Exhibit "E" - Resolution No- 88-242 Approving CUP 88-45
Exhibit "F" - Entertainment Permit Application
Resolution of Approval to Modify CUP 88-45
Resolution of Approval for Entertainment Permit 91-03
x 12~1.0
~ x 121o.~
1204.9
X 1206.7
1204.4
X 203.3
EXHIBIT "D"
Parking Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided
Flower Shop 2,212 1/250 9
Toy Store 10,097 1/250 40
Pizza (take-out) 1,080 1/250 4
Record Store 6,790 1/250 27
Cleaners 2,040 1/250 8
Ice Cream Shop 1,700 1/250 7
Clothing Store 1,500 1/250 6
Restaurant 2,720 1/100 27
Beauty Supply 540 1/250 2
Donut Shop 1,080 1/250 4
Market 2,200 1/250 9
Vacant 8,370 1/250 33
Skippers Grill & Bar 3,240 1/100 32
43,569 208 215
RESOLUTION NO. 88-242
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COI~ISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FOR THE SALE
OF HARD LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN AN ~ISTING
2,160 ~UARE FEET RESTAURANT ON 4.05 ACRES OF LAND IN THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND RAMONA AVENUE
IN THE COf~UNITY COI~ERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF. - APN: 1077-621-34
A. Recitals.
(i) Siam Garden Restaurant has filed an application for the
issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application".
(ii) On the 14th of December, 1988, the Planning Conmnission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application and concluded said hearing on that date.
(iii) All legal prerequisites. 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 Conmnission 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 December 14, lgB8, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at the
northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue with a street
frontage of 632.22 feet and 1 ot depth of 280.96 feet and is presently improved
with a Conmnercial/Retail Center; and
(b) The application is for the incidental sales of alcoholic
beverages as menu items in conjunction with the sales of food.
(c) The property 'to the north of the subject site is
residential, the property to the south of that site consists of a mobile home
park, the property to the east is conm~ercial, and the property to the west is
commercial.
PLANNING COI~qISSIO ESOLUTION NO. 88-242
CUP 88-45 - SIAN GARDEN RESTAURANT
December 14, 1988
Page 2
(d) The application comtemplates the addition of cocktails to
the existing restaurant menu of oriental cuisine and beer/wine.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Conmnission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Conm~ission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That the proposed use is in accord with the
General P1 an, the obj ecti ves of the Development
Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and
the purposes of the district in which the site
is 1 ocated.
( b } That the proposed use, together with the
conditions appl icabl e thereto, wil 1 not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code
and the Foothi 11 Boulevard Speci fi c P1 an.
4. This Conmnission hereby finds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Conm~ission hereby issues a Negative
Declaration.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph
1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below.
Plannin9 Division
1. This approval shall apply to the serving of alcoholic beverages
only.
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all
sections of the Foothill Specific Plan, all applicable City
Ordinances, Foothill Fire District requirements and Public
Heal th codes.
3. Any modification, expansion or other change in operation will
require a revision to the Conditional Use Permit.
4. A11 signage shal 1 be designed in conformance with the
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and applicable Uniform Sign Program
and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division.
PLANNING COI~ISSIO~' SOLUTION NO. 88-242
CUP 88-45 - SIAM GAkuEN RESTAURANT
December 14, 1988
Page 3
5. The serving of alcoholic beverages must be in conjunction with
restaurant usage and the availability of full listed menu
items. The sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease
when such menu items are not available to customers.
6. The serving of alcohol in conjunction with restaurant usage may
operate between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1988.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: ~ CC ~ ~,~.c
LarTy 1~. Mc ' ~ Cha' a~ ~_
ATTEST'
I, B he Planning C~nission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Con~ission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of December, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MC NIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COI~4ISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
Applicants for entertainment permits shall complete the following questionaire:
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
A. The name and permanent address of applicant:
_~f_~.__~. ~- _L_C&-..d____~__B_'~L~,___,~ ___
Name
Permanent Address
B. The name, proposed and current, if any, and business address of the applicant:
z~'_,~.._~___~.__.~_~, _~_~.-~ ,~_,-~_~_~
Name (Current and Proposed)
Business Address
--_ ~ e',-cE-'__ ~--,_~_. /_/___w./,_~,~ ¢,~..s .,,_~__~ ~., j, ~- _ (-'c,..,.~ ,...,,,.~
C. A detailed description of the proposed entertainment, including type of
entertainment, and number of persons engaged in the entertainment (may attach
soporate sheets Lf necessary):
___-/ .........
-Z".-~--+~ .,,-~.:--- .2_.,.__~._,/~__~E,. ~__:,,~.,_-Z~__~_%,__
7' --
--~-~=-d~/~_~_c_.~.,~d2~-~_~_ g_z/__x/, ~, ~ __,~__~ ,,--/b-_ ~_~__
__~,~-, .~ .o ,,.,--,,..,.d __z~..dc~..~-o-~___; .......
D. The date or day-of-week, hours and location of entertainment (attach floorplan),
and the admission fee, ff any, to be charged:
-; ,,,. -~ ,~:-~--,-,-L - _ d~,_~_ ,_ _ _ ~- ~ ~- _ ,~ - ~_.:._~._~ .... 27_ ~7 ~- '
_ -,~L ,,~ ,c~ ~-~--' ,-tj- _ -L~ ~ ',-,~ ,- __ ="-~-2___~-,-7~,-~-.~__~-c,
.
E. The name(s) of the person(s) responsible for the management or supervision of
applica.nt's business and of any entertainment:
....
F. A statement of the nature and character of applicant's business, if any, to be
carried on in conjunction with such entertairLment, including whether or not
alcohol will be served as part of such business:
- - - : - - -,-l-z.-.,,. , .; _,, ,. /
G. Whether or not the applicant or any persc,n responsible for the management or
supervision of applicant's business have been, within the previous ten years,
convicted of a crime, the nature of such offense, and the sentence received therefor
including cortditions of parole or probation, Lf any:
.....
H. Whether or not applicant has ever had any permit or license issued in
conjunction with the sale of alcohol or provision of entertainment revoked,
including the date thereof and name of the revoking agency:
..... /l~"f'~t~--- .........................
Any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required
application shall be grounds for denial of the application for an entertainment
permit.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
RESTAURANT AND BAR FROM 2,160 TO 3,240 SQUARE FEET,
MODIFICATION OF THE HOURS OF OPERATION, AND TO PERMIT
LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANT AND
BAR LOCATED WITHIN A COMMERCIAl. CENTER IS THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITES
R & S, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
1077-621-34.
A. Recitals.
(i) Fred and Urai Nelson have filed an application for a
modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the modification to the
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 23rd day of October 1991, and continued to November 13,
1991, 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.
(iii) 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 October 23, 1991, and November
13, 1991, 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 9950
Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of 278
feet and is presently improved with one multi-tenant commercial building; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is
apartments, the property to the south of the site consists of a mobile home
park, the property to the east is a conm~ercial building, and the property to
the west is a service station.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A
CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER'S BAR & GRILL
November 13, 1991
Page 2
(c) The application applies to the expansion of an existing
restaurant, "Siam Garden," to be renamed "Skipper's Grill and Bar," and the
serving of alcoholic beverages from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
(d) The application contemplates the expansion of the
restaurant and bar from 2,160 to 3,240 square feet including construction of a
bar, stage and dance floor.
(e) The application proposes to conduct live entertainment,
consisting of small band, disc jockey, and comedians, from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00
a.m., seven days a week.
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 the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan,
the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below:
Conditions:
l) The serving of alcoholic beverages must be in
conjunction with restaurant usage and the
availability of full listed menu items. The
sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall
cease when such menu items are not available to
customers.
2) The serving of alcohol. in conjunction with
restaurant usage may operate between the hours
of ll:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.
3) All doors shall remain closed during
entertainment for noise attenuation purposes.
The rear (north) doors shall be used only for
emergencies from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A
CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER'S BAR & GRILL
November 13, 1991
Page 3
4) All customers shall use the front (south)
entrance/exit, and use of the rear (north)
parking lot shall be limited to employees.
5) All entertainment activities shall not create
any noise that would exceed an exterior noise
level of 60 dB during' the hours of 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
6) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all ~3ections of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific P].an, all applicable City
Ordinances, Foothill Fire District
requirements, and Public Health codes.
7) Any modification, expansion, or other change in
operation will requ~Lre a revision to the
Conditional Use Permit.
8) All signage shall be designed in conformance
with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and
applicable Uniform Sign Program and shall
require review and a.pproval by the Planning
Division.
9) The dance floor maximum square footage shall
not exceed 150 square feet.
10) If operation of the facility causes adverse
effects upon adjacent businesses or operations,
the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought
before the Planlying Commission for
consideration and possible termination of the
use.
11) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence
until such time as all Uniform Building Code
and Uniform Fire Code regulations have been
complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted ~o the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building
shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A
CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER'S BAR & GRILL
November 13, 1991
Page 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1991.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
.BY:
Larry T. McNiel, 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 13th day of November 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT
PERNIT NO. 91-03 TO OPERATE AND CONDUCT LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING FOR SKIPPER'S GRILL AND BAR
LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITES R & S, WITHIN
A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
(SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEPa:OF - APN: 1077-621-34.
A. Recitals.
(i) Fred and Urai Nelson has filed application for the issuance of
Entertainment Permit No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is
referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 23rd of October 1991, and continued to November 13, 1991,
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.
(iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on October 23, 1991, and November
13, 1991, 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 9950
Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of 278
feet and is presently improved with one multi-tenant commercial building; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is
apartments, the property to the south of the site consists of a mobile home
park, the property to the east is a conm~ercial building, and the property to
the west is a service station.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP NO. 91-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
November 13, 1991
Page 2
(c) Skipper's Grill & Bar is a full service restaurant serving
alcoholic beverages. The proposed entertainment will be conducted indoors,
Sunday through Saturday from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of
the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or
welfare; and
(b) That the premises or establishment are not likely to be
operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner; and
(c) That the applicant has not had any approval, permit, or
license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provision of
entertainment revoked within the preceding ten years; and
(d} That granting the application would not create a public
nuisance; and
(e) That the normal operation of the premises would not
interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding residential uses and the
community commercial center; and
(f) The applicant has not made any false, misleading, or
fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below:
Conditions;
1) This approval is for small bands, disc jockey,
and stand-up comedian.
2)Dancing is permitted on a dance floor area
which shall not exceed 150 square feet.
3) If the operation of this Entertainment Permit
causes any adverse effects upon adjacent
businesses or operations or residential uses,
the Entertainment Permit shall be brought
before the Planning Commission for the
consideration and possible suspension or
revocation of the permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP NO. 91-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
November 13, 1991
Page 3
4) All doors shall remain closed when
entertainment is being conducted for noise
attenuation purposes. The rear (north) doors
shall be used only for emergencies from
8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
5) Hours of operation of the entertainment use
shall be limited to Sunday through Saturday,
from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
6) Entertainment shall be conducted inside the
building.
7) The Entertainment Permit shall not commence
until such time as all Uniform Building Code
and State Fire Marshall's regulations have been
complied with. Plans shall be submitted to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and
the Building and Safety Division for review and
approval prior to commencement of any
entertainment activity.
.. 8) All customers shall use the front (south)
entrance/exit, and use of the rear (north)
parking lot shall be limited to employees.
9) All entertainment activities shall not create
any noise that would exceed an exterior noise
level of 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, all applicable City
Ordinances, Foothill Fire District
requirements, and Public Health codes.
11) Any modification, expansion, or other change in
operation will require a revision to the
Conditional Use Permit.
12) All signage shall be designed in conformance
with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and
applicable Uniform Sign Program and shall
require review and approval by the Planning
Division.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP NO. 91-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
November 13, 1991
Page 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1991.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
-BY:
Larry T. McNiel, 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 13th day of November 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 13, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 91-34 - LARSON - An appeal of staff's
decision to deny a tree removal permit for the removal of two
Liquidamber styraciflua within the public right-of-way,
located at 7208 Marine Avenue - APN: 1076-321-09.
BACKGROUND: On September 13, 1991, the applicant submitted a Tree
Removal Permit to remove two Liquidamber styraciflua from the front yard
within the public right-of-way- The reasons for removal were the
uplifting of the sidewalk and personal safety. On September 20, 1991,
staff denied the applicant's request (see Exhibit "A"). Subsequently,
the applicant appealed staff's decision on September 30, 1991 (see
Exhibit "B").
ANALYSIS: The two trees are street trees located 5 feet behind the
sidewalk. The sidewalk in this neighborhood is curb adjacent with the
public right-of-way extending into the applicant's front yard area. The
street is lined with mature Liquidamber street trees approximately 30
feet tall.
Liquidamber styraciflua are one of the most widely used trees in
Southern California due to their aesthetic qualities. Currently, the
City of Rancho Cucamonga has over 5,000 planted in our parks and along
our streets. Their columnar shape, branch structure, and deciduous
qualities make them well suited for the Santa Aria winds and their use is
very successful within this City- Also, they are one of the few trees
to display fall colors in our area.
The purpose of street trees is to enhance the scenic beauty of our
neighborhoods, prevent soil erosion, provide shade and wind protective
screening, and counteract air pollution- Marine Avenue is a good
example of the benefits that can be reaped by street trees and to remove
any trees from this street would have a negative impact on its aesthetic
beauty-
The applicant stresses that the trees in question pose a health hazard
due to the fruit pods that are produced and dropped from the trees.
However, all trees, including Liquidambers, possess some negative
qualities- Wet leaves on pavement; messy blossoms and fruit; and fallen
twigs, branches, and seed balls all create slippery or potentially
hazardous conditions during certain times of the year- The bes~
ITEM I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TRP 91-34 - LARSON
November 13, 1991
Page 2
solution for maintaining safe yards is by clearing them of debris as
much as possible by sweeping and raking at those times of the year in
which the trees are at their worst. If tree species were chosen by
homeowners on an individual basis and not as a community resource, trees
would often be replaced before reaching maturity. Trees on the whole
are an invaluable asset to the community and have made Rancho Cucamonga
a Tree City USA because of the City's commitment to trees and their
positive aesthetic impacts.
In response to the applicant's concerns, the Planning Division requested
an inspection by the City's Tree Maintenance Division. The inspection
indicated that there was no evidence of the sidewalk being uplifted near
the trees. Further, the inspection confirmed Planning's earlier
assessment that the trees were in good health and condition. The City's
policy is that if damage does occur to sidewalks, the trees will be
preserved and repairs done to the sidewalks as needed.
Staff believes that this is the first time the Planning Commission has
heard an appeal to remove a street tree for safety reasons associated
with inherent litter produced by a tree. Therefore, it should be noted
that if the Commission were to overturn staff's decision, a precedent
could be set allowing removal of trees for safety reasons based on the
natural production of tree litter.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold
staff's denial of Tree Removal Permit 91-34.
BB: BB/j fs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Staff's Denial Letter
Exhibit "B" - Appeal Letter
Exhibit "C" - Location Map
Exhibit "D" - Plot Plan
September 20, 1991
Mr. L. Chris Larson
7208 Marine Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 91-34 - 7208 MARINE AVENUE
Dear Mr. Larson:
The Planning Division has denied your request for the removal of two (2) Liquidamber
styraciflua trees within the public right-of-way adjacent to your front property
line. The trees are considered heritage trees as defined in the Tree Preservation
Ordinance No. 276, Section 19.08.030 of the Municipal Code. Based on this review, the
following findings have been made:
1. The trees are located within the public right-of-way and were planted
as "street trees" to enhance the scenic beauty of the neighborhood,
prevent soil erosion, provide shade, wind protective screening and
counteract air pollution.
2. The trees are healthy and do not appear to be diseased or in danger of
collapse.
3. The trees are part of a significant parkway planting creating a
windrow effect on both sides of the street.
4- The trees have caused no damage to public improvements and no sidewalk
deflection (uplifting) is evident.
Therefore, the request for removal of the trees has been denied. This decision is
final unless appealed within ten (10) calendar days from the date of this letter.
Such appeals must be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission, in writing,
together with a $62.00 appeal fee-
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Bruce Buckingham, the project
planner at (714) 989-1861.
Sincerely,
LOPME DEPARTMENT
Principal Planner
DC:BB:mlg
Mayor Dennis L Stout Counc,lmember D~ane Williams
Mayor ProTein W,Illam J Alexander .. Counc~lmemDer Pamela J Wrghf
-,tC VED
CITY OF RANCHO GUCAMONGA
September 30, 1991 '
$gp a 0 991
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
Rancho Cucamonga [~i~IHI:I
Community Development Dept
Planning Division
RE: Tree Removal permit 93-3~ - 7208 Marine Avenue
Dear Mr. Coleman:
This a letter of appeal in response to the decision that the permit
be denied. I have very strong reasons for wanting to replace the
liquid amber trees primary among my concerns is the personal safety
of my family.
In April 1990 my wife, Wauleah, slipped on a seed pod from the
liquid amber tree in front of our house, shattering her left foot.
As of this date her foot still causes her pain and she still has a
bad limp. My wife and daughter have a congenital bone disease,
osteogenesis imperfecta or brittle bones. This causes their bones
to break easily under any trauma. While I can't eliminate all
danger to them, I can minimize the risks.
I would like to replace these trees with another variety that does
not have these dangerous round seed pods. These new trees will
still enhance the beauty of the street, prevent soil erosion,
provide shade, wind protection screening and counteract pollution.
Also the liquid amber trees are noWin the process of damaging the
sidewalks. The sidewalk by the driveway has been lifted 3/~" and
in another area has lifted it 1/2" The sidewalk is now hazardous
to neighborhood children if th~ trip over the uplift when they are
running, roller skating or riding skateboards on the sidewalk.
This uplifting by the trees will only continue to get worse with
time causing further damage to the sidewalks and increasing the
risk of injury. The new trees should be planted with root barriers
to alleviate the problem of uplift.
We like living in our neighborhood and want to keep it looking
nice. However I also must keep our yard as safe as possible for my
family. This can be accomplished by planting different trees, a
possibility being a Navajo or Hankow Willow. In the years to come
we'll have beautiful trees with minimal problems.
Thank you in advance for your reconsideration.
L. Chris Larson
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 13, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Bruce Buckingham, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-23 - MBWJ PROPERTIES - An appeal
of certain conditions of approval for the reconfiguration of
a parking lot within the Neighborhood Commercial District,
located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Carnelian Avenue - APN: 202-381-36.
ABSTRACT: The applicant proposes to reconfigure the parking lot of the
Alta Loma Country Village commercial center (Stater Bros. ). The project
was approved by the City Planner on September 25, 1991, subject to five
conditions ( see Exhibit "A" ). On October 3, 1991, the applicant
appealed Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the Planning Commission (see
Exhibit "B" ).
BACKGROUND: This commercial center was built prior to incorporation and
is approximately 16 years old. In 1989, Conditional Use Permit No.
84-34A was approved to modify the site and storefronts. However,
construction was suspended following legal challenges by Stater Bros.
and it is unlikely to be completed. In addition, in August of 1991 the
property owner obtained approval to repaint the entire center.
ANALYSIS: The existing center is non-conforming to current Development
Code Standards and Planning Commission policies, including but not
limited to, the following: the amount of landscaping for the center,
number of trees in the parking lot, number of trees planted adjacent to
the building, screening of drive-thru areas, landscape planters to
break-up long rows of parking, and buffering from residential areas.
The following is the list of conditions that were appealed and staff's
justification for them.
Condition la: A landscape planter shall be added to the southeast
corner of Carl's Jr. to separate 9arking spaces
perpendicular to each other.
The existing row of parking spaces along the south
and east sides of Carl's Jr. overlap. This creates a
potential hazard between the driver getting in and
out of the car in the parking space furthest south in '
the east row of parking and cars pulling into the
parking spaces on the far east side of the south row
ITEM J
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MDR 91-23 - MBWJ PROPERTIES
November 13, 1991
Page 2
(see Exhibit "E"). A landscape planter would
separate the two rows of parking and add additional
landscaping adjacent to the building.
Condition lb: A landscape planter should be added in the middle of
the parking row parallel with the main building to
break-up the long row of parking.
This row of parking has 25 spaces and is 225 feet
long. The applicant proposed two small half planters
to protect the existing light standards. However,
staff conditioned the relocation of the light poles
(see Condition No. 3)- Therefore, staff conditioned
a planter be added in the middle of the row (see
Exhibit "F"). This is in keeping with the Planning
Commission's policy requiring long rows of parking
have planters to break them up. In addition, the
planter with trees creates more shaded parking areas
consistent with Development Code requirements-
Condition lc: A landscape planter should be added at the ends of
all parking rows in the rear of the building.
The applicant proposed striping an area at the end of
the parking rows. Planning Commission policy
requires all parking rows have planters at the ends
to separate parking aisles from drive aisles and
provide shade- Further, there is no landscape buffer
between the existing apartment complex to the north
and the rear of the building. These planters, as the
trees mature, would add some relief to the
unsightliness of the rear building area-
Condition 2: The light standards in the rear of the building shall
be relocated to the new planter at the end of the
parking row-
The light standard, if left in its current location,
would be in conflict with parking spaces. Planning
Commission policy is to always locate light standards
in landscape planters or at the intersection of four
parking spaces (see Exhibit "G").
Condition 3: The two light standards in the main parking lot
(north of Carl's Jr.) that are located in the middle
of parking spaces due to the recenfiguration of the
parking lot, shall be relocated to the adjacent
proposed landscape planters (see Exhibit 'F=)-
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MDR 91-23 - MBWJ PROPERTIES
November 13, 1991
Page 3
The existing light standards are located at the
intersection of four parking spaces. The redesign of
the parking lot put the lights in the middle of
proposed parking spaces. The applicant proposed
leaving the lights in place and constructing a
planter around them. Based on past design standards,
staff believes the appropriate placement would be to
relocate the light standard on the west side of the
existing planter 50 feet to the west of the planner
created by Condition lb. The existing light standard
to the east could be moved to the proposed planter 15
feet to the east.
In reviewing the MDR, it should be noted that staff did not require the
applicant to screen the existing ground mounted equipment and
appurtenances, upgrade the existing trash enclosures to current design
guidelines or install landscaping along the rear of the building or
adjacent to the rear property line. Also, it has come to staff's
attention that an existing fire hydrant not shown on the plans will
interfere with the proposed parking in the rear of the building. Staff
believes it should also have a landscape planter with six-inch curb
installed around it or relocated to a more appropriate location. (See
Exhibit "E".)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold
Conditions No- 1, 2, and 3 of Minor Development Review 91-23-
Respec ly subm' tted,
BB:BB/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Staff's Approval Letter
Exhibit "B" - Appeal Letter
Exhibit "C" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "D" - Site Plan
Exhibit "E" - Site Plan - Partial
Exhibit "F" - Site Plan - Partial
Exhibit "G" - Site Plan- Partial
September 25, 1991
Ms. Sally Forster Jones
MBWJ Properties
16000 Ventura Blvd. ~409
Encino, CA 91436
SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-23
Dear Ms. Jones:
The 'Development Review process for the above-described project has been successfully
completed and approval has been granted based upon the following findings and
conditions. Thank you for your participation and cooperation during this review
process. We sincerely hope that this process has been a positive experience for all
involved.
Findings
A. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
B- That the proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the
Development Code, the purpose of the district in which the site is
located.
C. That the proposed project, together with the conditions applicable
thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
D. That the proposed project will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
Conditions
This project is approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Landscape planters should be added to the following
areas:
a.The southeast comer of Carl's Jr. to separate
parking spaces perpendicular to each other.
b. In the middle of the parking row parallel with the
main building to break up the long row of parking.
Mcvor Zenn,S _ Stout COunCdrnerntDef Drone vV,II~QmS
'~l~.~:r PrO--'~.r"", ,', :,Ore .:,,e~ar. aef :. C. DunCllmernlDer bOrnGiG] _ ,"Tr,,.]r'~
.3'7. _3~ -' CD C "v %"'or..ager ~ I ~":uncmlmemOer ,C"CJJ,~S . ~juLoue,
. · .-. :-:: ..-.-.: ........
MS. Sally Forster Jones
Minor Development Review 91-23
September 25, 1991
Page 2
c. At the end of all parking rows in the rear of the
building.
2. The light standard in the rear of the building shall be
relocated to the new planter at the end of the parking
row.
3. The two light standards in the main parking lot (north of
Carl's Jr.), that are located in the middle of parking
spaces due to the reconfiquration of the parking lot,
shall be relocated to the adjacent existing or proposed
landscape planters-
4. All dead or missing plant materials shall be replaced.
Two shade trees shall be planted in the planter islands
at the end of each parking row.
5. An irrigation and landscape plan, signed and stamped by a
licensed landscape architect, should be submitted for all
the proposed planter areas and existing planters to be
replanted. All landscaping shall comply with Xeriscape
Ordinance (19.16 RCMC).
Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or work prior to
issuance of building permits.
This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning with the date
of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Comission
Secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $62 appeal fee.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Bruce Buckingham at
(714) 989-1861.
BB:BB:ds
Attachment: Standard Conditions
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#:
SU~EGT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Those lieins che~ are ~bns of ~val.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (714) 98~..1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. TIme Limits
V'/ 1. Al~roval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are / /-
not issued or approved use has not cortyT~nced within 24 months from the date of al~roval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be appmved prior to / / , / /
3. Al~roval of Tentative Tract No. is grlnted subject to the aplxoval of /
4. The deveioper shall comrnence, participate in, and consurrtrtme or cause to be commenced, / /
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The stlion shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
District's property upon coml:Retion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a sllm, the developer shall comply with all
appl~ laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the DistriCt and the developer
by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permitS, whichever comes / /
first. the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the consmjctlon and mmntenance of necessary School
facilities. However, it any school district has previously estal~ished such a Community
Facilities Distrio1, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final maC}
or the issuance ol building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected School
districl has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Dislnct within twelve months from
tt~e date of al~roval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance
of Dusk:ling pertmrs for said project, this condifion shall be deemed null and void.
sc - 2/91 t or 12
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all atfec'led
school clismcts have entered into an agreernem to privately accommodate any and all school
impacts as a result of this project.
6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is / / ._
involved, written cerlification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be av~iilable to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map al:~roval in the case of sul:}division or priorto issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the ap~roved plans which / /
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Pinning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and
.Specific Plan and
Planned Community.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all / /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and / /
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
V"'/ 4. Revised site plans ~:--~ L,.;, ....:':=;::;,-: incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / /.
submitted for City Planner review and aplxoval prior to ~: - ...... ~"' ...... 7,,,;,~',:'~s.
5- All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / /--
consislency prior to issuance of any permils (su~ as grading. tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to fir~l map approval in the case of a custom lot sul:}division, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes firsl.
t,''/' 6. ~val of this request shall not waive cornl}liance with all sections ol the Development / /__
Code, all other applic.,aDle City Ordinances, and apt)lioal}le Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effecl at the time of Building Permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plltt shall be reviewed and al)t)mved by the City Planner and / /.--
Shertff's Department (989-6611) prior to the issuance of I:}uilding perrrits. Such plan Shall
indicate style, illumination, Ioclion, height. and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
8. If no centralized trash recel:~cles are provided, all trash pick. up shall be for individual units /
with all receptacles shielded from pul:}lic view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City starK:lards. The final i:lesign, locations, / /
and the numt}er of Irash rece~acies shall be sul:)jecl to City Planner review and
pnor to issuance of building permits.
__ 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as tranStormers, AC condensers, etc., shall --" --
be located out of public view and adequatety screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, herruing, an~or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
,5c - 2/91 2 o1' ].2
11. Street names shall be suDmitted for C~ty Planner review and approval in accordance wrtn
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
' 12. All building numbers and individual units snail be identified in a clear and concise manner. /
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicatingtrail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and /__/__
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be Submitted for City
Planner review and al:koroval priorto aplDroval and recordatlon ol the Final Tract Map and prior
to aJo;roval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of eclu ine / /
animals wl~ere zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have beert met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the plation of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&RS.
15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the / /__
Homeowners' Association are subject to the apf:.'oval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final MaD or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
prov~ed to the City Engineer.
16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the prolDerty __J /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof ol this
landscape maintenance shall be Submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or / /
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units lor use of
a solar energy system. The easemahts may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
the sul:x:livision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordalion of the linal map or
, issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows Dy vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and / /-
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit 1%10.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect lhe exterior ol the buildings or structures, removal of landmark
trees, demolition, reiocalion, reconstruction ol buildings or structures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification I0 the Histom Landrnam Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Cornmission review and al:q:N'oval.
C. Building Design
1. An alternative energy system is rKluirecl to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. NI swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be sul:q~lemented with solar healing. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Ranner review and a:~roval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations uOgraded with architectural
treatment. detailing and increased delineation of surtece treatment subject to C~ Planner
review and alc~roval pnor to issuance ot building pen'nits.
sc - 2/91 3 o1' 12
3.Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall De submitted for
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building pertorts.
4. All roof alX~urtenances, including air conditionere and other roof mounted equipment and/or / /-
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from 'adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Acces~ (Indicate details on liulldlng plans)
v'/ 1. All parking lOt landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall / /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be / /
provided throughout the development to connect dwellings'units/buildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
//3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, __/ /
entrances, and exits shall be stdped per City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 leet in / /'-
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles / /
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
6. Plans for any security gates shall be suDmitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and / /--
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval priorto issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly malmalned landscape arm, refer to Section N .)
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- / /--
ing in the case of residential deveiofrnent, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits or prior finel map apCN'oval in the case of a custom lot sulxlivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction bamer .._.J /
in accorclance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape plane. The applicant shall follow all of the aroorisr s
recomrnendatlons regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods.
3. Aminimumof treespergrossacre,conIxtsedolthefollowingsizes, shall be provided
within the project: % - ,18- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger,
__ %- 24- inch box or larger, __ %- 15-gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon.
4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - /__ __
24-inct~ I~ox or larger.
L///5. Within parking lotS, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
SC - 2/9t 4 of 12
6.Trees shall be planted in areas of public vlew adjacent to and atong structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
7. AIIprivateslopebanksSfeetorlessinverl~calheighlandof5:l orgreaterslope, butlesstl~an ~../'
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irngated and landscal:>ed with appropnate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this see'lion sl~all include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by ,the developer prior to occupancy.
8. AIIprivateslopesinexcessof5feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:l orgreater / /
slope shall be landscal:~d and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per eacl~ 150 sq, ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 scl. ft. of slope area, and al~ro~iate ground cover. In ac~:lition, 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 ~ane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- /
ousty maintained in a healthy and !hdving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sok:t and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for thole units, an inspection
shall be conducted by lhe Planning Division to determine that lhey are in satistactory
10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon- / /
sibte for the continual rnaintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public rigffi-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept .free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and tnmming. Any damaged, dead, 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 [:)evelopmant Code and/or / /__
· This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
12. The final design of the perimeter parkwayS, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be / /.__
included in the required landscape plans and Shall be subject to City Planner review and
apOmval and coorclinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as rnounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- /
ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along
14. Landscaping and imgation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on / /_
the perimeter of this project area Shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,: /__ __
the design Shall be coordinated with the Engineenng Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and sumitled for City Planner review and /__
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These chtena Shall encourage the natural ~
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
V'/ 17. Landscaping and irngation shall be designed tO conserve water through the pnnciples of -- -
xenscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucarnonga Municipal Code.
2/91 5of 12
~',8 ]95 ~7~7 FAX 3!i
- -- 2EC,',.;',:,'-L
"..',T( O;' Pt'!r'~'O ,%i;r'A~!C'
Ref. 110. 939
VIA ~PRESS OVERNIGHT MAIL
October 2, 1991
The City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Attn: Gail Sanchez,
Planning Commission Secretary
RE: Minor Development Review 91-23
Country Village Shopping Center
Dear Ms. Sanchez:
We are in receipt of Brad Buller's letter of September 25, 1991
regarding the conditions that have been outlined for our project
to be approved. We are requesting to appeal conditions one, two
and three and our check in the amount of sixty-two dollars
($62.00) is enclosed. We are basing our appeal on the fact that
these conditions would cause undue financial hardship for the
scope of the project.
Very truly yours,
MBWJ PROPERTIE2
Sally Forster Jones
General Partner
SFJ/sl
Enc: (1)
Cc: Garth Sheriff
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 13, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~nission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24
- MASI - The development of 40. buildings totaling
approximately 280,857 square feet and comprised of a mix
of industrial, multi-tenant, office, and restaurant uses
in the Industrial Park category (Subarea 7} of the
Industrial Area Specific: Plan, located at the southwest
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN:
229-011-10, 19, 21, 26, 27, and 28. (Courtesy Review)
Although this application is still substantially incomplete, the
Planning Commission conducted preliminary courtesy workshops on the
above project on August 8, September 5, and September 25, 1991. The
Commission discussed various aspects of architectural and site design at
t~ese meetings. After the third workshop, a subcommittee of the
Planning Commission (John Melcher and Larry McNiel) was designated to
assist the applicant in resolving the outstanding issues.
The subcommittee and staff met with the applicant's representatives on
October 10, 1991, and again on October 30, 1991. At the final meeting,
two architectural concepts were presented by the applicant. Both of
these concepts will be presented to the full Commission this evening.
The Commission should provide informal feedback to the applicant and
staff as to the two design schemes- After receiving feedback from the
Commission, the applicant will choose one scheme and will next submit.
the project for completeness review-
The submittal should include the full plan package as required, and
should address both the comments made by the Planning Commission and the
technical and completeness issues outlined in staff's letter of October
11, 1991.
If the applicant also desires to pursue changes to the Industrial
Specific Plan, an application to amend the plan should be filed
concurrently.
City Planner
BB:BN:js
ITEM K
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 13, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
SUBJECT: CROSS LOT OR THROUGH LOT DRAINAGE/PRIVATE SYSTEMS -
Discussion on City policy
BACKGROUND: Recently the Planning Division received the attached letter
from Bob Yoder of Hix Development requesting Planning Comission review
and discussion of the current grading policies regarding cross lot
drainage. Therefore, this matter is before the Comission for
discussion only. Should further action be desired, the necessary legal
notices, if required, would be made and the matter set for hearing.
Although Mr. Yoder uses an existing Hix project as an example, the
intent of his request is for general Planning Commission discussion of
the policy of cross lot drainage as it applies to all projects and not
specifically the referenced Mix project.
ANALYSIS: Loyd Goolsby, Principal Plans Examiner - Land Development/
Grading and membe~ of the City's Grading Committee, has reviewed the
position of Mr. Yoder and offers the following in support of the
existing cross lot drainage policy.
On August 20, 1980, 'Ordinance #118, known as the Grading Committee
Ordinance, was adopted by the City Council. Among other things the
Committee is directed to address by this ordinance, one major item is
the development of guidelines and standards relating to drainage
structures. These items are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and approved by City Council. Generally speaking, cross lot drainage of
any kind was discouraged prior to July 12, 1989, because of the inherent
deficiencies associated with such installations; i.e., lack of
maintenance causing problems for downstream properties, unsightly
appearance, neighbor to neighbor conflicts, etc-
As development progressed in the City during the 1980s, it became
apparent to the Grading Committee that almost each and every project
required an inordinate amount of time and effort to develop a "custom"
drainage scheme for the project that would accomplish the intended
purpose of adequate drainage with little or no impact on adjacent
properties.
Basically, only one development in the city was approved with one-on-one
cross lot drainage during the early 1980s, the Deer Creek project? The
intended scheme was to sheet flow across lower properties which is an
extension of the old County application.
ITEM L
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CROSS LOT DRAINAGE
November 13, 1991
Page 2
Other solutions were tried and it became very apparent that no system
would work for very long without maintenance. Further, it is our
experience that the majority of homeowners are not knowledgeable about
the purpose and intent of the systems and do not recognize the need for
periodic cooperative maintenance. The need is not obvious until the
system fails during a rainstorm, thus requiring immediate emergency
response.
Along with this goes all of the finger pointing and fault finding for
the property damage that has and will occur from the singular act of not
maintaining these facilities. "Custom" designed systems were and are a
failure, not just in this jurisdiction, but wherever they occur.
As a result of the foregoing, during the review of Tentative Tract
14139, the Grading Committee members, with the cooperation of the
applicant, elected to bring to the Planning Commission the drainage
design as a whole. This project had examples of most of the major
issues the committee and the Planning Commission had faced through the
years; i.e., battery drainage, no available front lot drainage, required
"custom" designs for particular situations, etc.
The committee felt that the development of city wide drainage standards
and policies needed to be discussed in this forum as required by the
Grading Committee Ordinance where the options could be explored by all
interested parties.
A. Planning Commission action of July 12, .1989.
After a lengthy and thorough discussion of the identified issues,
the Planning Commission took the following actions:
1. Approved the concept of one-on-one through lot drainage.
2. Approved the use of grossly over designed (12-inch or larger)
conduit systems for one-on-one-
3. Rejected "Battery" drainage as a concept without guaranteed
maintenance.
4. Stated that drainage is an overriding consideration.
5. Stated that aesthetics are an attendant consideration.
Note: Staff did then, and continues to now, agree completely with
the five stated considerations.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CROSS LOT DRAINAGE
November 13, 1991
Page 3
B. Subsequent Planning Commission action in further support of the
foregoing policies:
As is pointed out in the minutes of July 12, 1989, the Hillside
Development Standards were then under consideration by staff and the
Planning Commission. The standards were approved by the Planning
Co~m~ission and subsequently adopted by the City Council in January
1990. All of the concepts and policies that grew out of the
Planning Commission discussion of July 12, 1989, are contained
almost verbatim in the Hillside Development Standards as adopted.
C. Extension of policies to areas not considered hillside.
As was stated in the Planning Commission discussion of July 12,
1989, staff believed that the "...direction taken would probably be
a policy setting trend regarding acceptable methods of drainage."
The Grading Committee as a body has subsequently applied the
foregoing policies to projects not defined as hillside because the
general tone of the discussion was not restricted to hillside
projects. To date, not one appeal of this interpretation has been
processed, either directed at Grading Committee or Planning
CommisSion decisions or actions- Also, as of this date, no projects
have been constructed using these design criteria-
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That the Planning Commission reaffirm their position on cross lot
drainage as previously stated under A.
B. That the Planning Commission clarify "Gross over design" as meaning
12-inch minimum pipe size.
3- That the Planning Commission affirm the Grading Committee's
application of the policies on a City-wide basis.
Resp lly itt ,
BB: js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Hix Development Corp-
Exhibit "B" - Grading Committee Ordinance #118
Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1989
HIX DEVELOPMENT CORE OCT 16 ~J¢jl
Members of the Planning Commission $ft8
c/o Brad Bullet %8tat t | lt%8 |
city Planner
10500 civic center Drive ~
nancho Cncamonga, CA 91729
RE: Grading Policy
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We request your review of grading policy for conditions of rear lot
drainage through adjacent parcels.
The basic policy, as it is now being enforced by the Building
Department has been derived from the review hearing for Tract 14139
(Ahmanson project) on July 12, 1989. It was sited at the review by
both staff and the commission that the decision on this project
would establish a policy setting trend with respect to acceptable
methods of drainage for similar situations.
Upon review it was decided that:
1. One to one lot drainage be observed, and
2. A minimum pipe size of 12" be established to provide
"gross overdesign" in order to withstand years of
neglect.
The purpose of both decisions was to render the risk of damage due
to failure of the system to a "negligible level".
Our Heritage Estates project, Tract 14192, offers examples where
strict application of this policy results in unreasonable design
and unnecessary costs. We propose the following modifications to
the adopted policy:
1. Where alternative relief from possible failure can be
demonstrated there is no further need for oversizing - and
therefore required pipe size should correspond to capacity
required.
2. Where two lots may be draining through one or more additional
lots, and capacity permits, a single 12" pipe may be utilized
to convey the water. In many cases, a single 12" pipe still
constitutes "overdesign", even if the drainage of more than
one lot is allowed to be combined in one pipe.
Examples from our project will be used to clarify the requested
modifications.
437 South Cataract Avenue ® Suite 3 · San Dimas, California 91773 · (714) 599-8461 · FAX (714) 592-501i~
Example ~1. Exhibit 1 attached shows the approved drainage for
lots 1-7 of Tract 14192-1. In this case, contrary to the Ahmanson
tract reviewed, there is an alternate means of drainage in the case
of failure of one of the pipes running through lots 3 through 6.
For example, if the pipe on lot 4 clogged due to neglect, the water
would simply flow down the swale to the next available outlet, or
in a worst case scenario, to the street to the east.
Example ~2. Exhibit 2 attached shows the conceptually approved
drainage for lots 26 and 27 through the adjacent property to the
south. Presently the plan calls for two side by side 12" pipes
through the adjacent owners lot. Only a portion of the drainage
for lots 26 and 27 is being conveyed, and the calculated capacity
would be handled by a single 8" pipe. We suggest that a single 12"
pipe still provides "gross overdesign" and to provide two separate
12" pipes is inefficient and unreasonable.
In addition, all inlet grates are secured to minimize the
possibility of large debris entering the system - one of the
primary reasons for the need to oversize.
There are some important differences from the case used to
establish the policy and, for example, our particular project:
1. It is a hillside condition with slopes in the 20 to 25%
range (versus 3 to 5% for our project).
2. The drainage problem was created by the development,
whereas in our case we are attempting to preserve
drainage to properties that rear drain presently.
3. A relatively high volume of water, 15 to 20 cubic feet
per second, was routed through an adjoining tract to the
south.
Even as modified by our proposals, we feel the policy would render
the risk of damage due to failure of the system to a "negligible
level", and thus accommodate the goal and intention of the
commission.
Your review of this matter at the earliest opportunity will be
greatly appreciated.
si_~~r~ly,
HELLNAN AVENUE
EXHIBIT 2 - LOTS 26 & 27, TRACT 14192-2
27 I 26
. _v_ -
SIDE BY SIDE 12" PIFI~
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
ONYX
AVENUE
L-? /1
ORDINANCE NO. 118
~; ORDINA/4CE OF ~{E CITY OF ~.~/qCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING
A GRADING CO!eqTTEE, PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GRADING
STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES FOR REVIEW OF Gt~!NG
PLANS.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: TITLE
This ordinance shall be known and referred to as the Grading
Review procedure of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
SECTION 2: SCOPE
This ordinance establishes regulations for submittal and
review of Conceptual grading plans in connection with proposed development,
establishes a Grading Committee for review of grading plans, and provides
for establishment of standards and guidelines to be utilized by the
Grading ComMittee and other City agencies in review of such plans.
SECTION 3: PURPOSE
The purposes of this ordinance are:
(a) To minimize the effects of grading by discouraging mass
grading and excessive slopes to ensure that the natural character of
terrain is retained.
(b) To preserve significant topographic features, including
rock outcroppings, native plant materials and natural hydrology while
also encouraging improved drainage from lots directly to a street, storm
drain, or through public or privately maintained easement.
(c) To limit the impact of slopes on adjacent developed
pr6perties and limit construction on identified seismic or geologic
hazard areas.
(d) To encourage the use of a variety of housing styles,
splitlevel grading techniques, varied lot sizes, site design densities,
maintenance of views and arrangement and spacing to accomplish grading
policies.
SECTION 4: DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this chapter the definitions listed hereunder
shall be construed as specified in this section.
(a) CONCEPTJAL G~ADING PL4aL Grading plans conforming to the
provisions of Section 5 of t~is Ordinance.
(b) FINAL GRADING PLAN is a F!an showing all detailed drainage
information, grade elevations, building locations and floor elevations.
(c) PRELIMINARY GRADIMG PLAN a plan sho~lng building pad
elevations, typical drainage methods to be utilized, and similar generalized
information, usually excluding finish floor elevations, building locations,
and specific drainage details.
SECTION 5: ESTABLISEMENT OF GRADING COMMITTEE
There is hereby established a Grading Committee, comprised of
one representative from the Building Division, one representative from
the Engineering Division, and one representative from the Planning
Division.
The Grading Committee shall:
(a) review all grading plans submitted under Section 6 of
this ordinance;
(b) compile standards and guidelines relating to grading
practices including, but not limited to, topography, drainage structures,
slopes, irrigation, planting, building pad differential heights, accessibility
and such other features or functions necessary to accomplish the purposes
Ordinance No. [[o
Page 2
of this ordinance. Such standards and guidelines shall be reviewed by
the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. When approved,
the standards and guidelines shall be utilized in review of all grading
plans submitted to city agencies for checking; and
(c) act as an initial reviewing body in the event that practical
difficulty or undue hardship is created as a result of application of
the standards or guidelines, or in the event difference of opinion
arises as to their application. The findings of the Grading Committee
are final unless modified by the Planning Commission at a regularly
scheduled site plan review hearing or through appeal, as set forth in
Section 9 of this ordinance, when plans are not subject to review by the
Planning Commission.
SECTION 6: GRADING REVIEW PROCEDURES
At the time of submittal of a Tentative Tract Map, Tentative
Parcel Map, or Site Plan for Development Review, the applicant shall
also submit the following information:
(a) A Natural Features Map which shall identify all slope
banks, ridgelines, natural drainage courses, rock outcroppings, existing
vegetation worthy of consideration for preservation. Also depicted
shall be noted for its visual significance, environmental function, or
both.
(b) A Conceptual Grading Plan including information necessary
to determine the proposed grading concepts, elevation of pads, and
natural features to be preserved. The following specific information
shall be depicted:
1. Areas to be left natural.
2. Areas of proposed cut and fill in contrasting colors,
with areas where cut and fill exceed depths established
in the hillside development guidelines clearly
shown.
3. Contours shall be shown for existing natural land
conditions and proposed work. The proposed final
grades shall indicate clearly all cuts, fills, and
slopes. Contours shall be shown according to
the following schedule:
Natural Slope Maximum Interval~ Feet
2% or less 2
Over 2% & up to 9% 5
Over 9% 10
4. A conceptual drainage and flood control facilities
describing planned drainage improvements.
5. Conceptual landscape treatment plan depicting proposed
erosion control measures.
6.General vicinity of the proposed site.
7. Prc~ rty limits and accurate contours of existing
grou~d and detail of terrain and area drainage.
8. Limiting dimensions, elevations, or finished
contours to be achieved by the grading, and proposed
drainage channels, retaining walls, and related
construction shown by contour map, cross-sections,
or other means.
9. Location of any existing buildings or structures
on the property where the work is to be performed
and the approximate location and size of any building
pads proposed on the land. Adjacent parcels within
50 feet of the property or which may be affected by
the proposed grading shall also be shown.
(c) A GeoloMical and Soils Report, prepared by an approved
soils engineering firm and in sufficient detail to substantiate and
support the design concepts presented in the preparation as submitted.
(d) A Topographic Model, as determined necessary by the
Director of Community Development for clarification of the proposed
grading plan. The scale must be sufficient to delineate details.
Ordinance No. 218
Page 3
The submitted informa'tion shall be reviewed by the Grading
Committee during pertinent review process· The ~rading Committee shall
not approve a conceptual grading plan unless it is found to conform with
the policies, standards, and guidelines, established by or pursuant to
this ordinance. The approved conceptual grading plan shall provide the
basis for preliminary and/or final grading plan approval under other
city regulations.
SECTION 7
The Co~nunity Development Director may waive any or all of the
requirements of Section 6 of this Ordinance if he determines that any
proposed waiver will have no significant effect upon topography, drainage,
and/or natural features.
SECTION 8
No Tentative Tract Map, Tentative Parcel Map, or Site Plan
submitted for Development Review shall be approved until a conceptual
grading plan has been approved or has been waived.
SECTION 9
Any interested person may, within 14 days afte~ a decision by
the Grading Committee, appeal said decision in writing to the Planning
Commission pursuant to appeal procedures outlined in the zoning ordinance.
SECTION 10
The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall
· attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published
within fifteen (15) days after its passage, at least once in The Daily Report,
a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario,
California and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California·
PASSED, APpROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 1980.
AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Phlll~ D. Schlosser, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lauren M. Wasserman, City Clerk
8:40 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A
residential subdivision of 119 single family lots on 54 acres of land in
the Low Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre),
located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street -
APN: 225-082-01.
Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and revised
Exhibits A and B depicting revised paseo configuration at north and west tract
boundaries.
Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the Resolution be modified to reflect
that Planning Condition 7 would be waived if the City receives notice that
the applicant and the affected School District have entered' into an agreement
to accommodate any and all school impacts.
Chairman McNiel asked for more information on grading and drainage issues.
Loyd Goolsby, Senior Plan Checker, stated that on the southerly tier lots
there are 10-13 lots that would drain west to east to Etiwanda to outlet,
thereby having multiple lots in a battery drainage concept. As there might be
as much as 5 acres of land involved in a rear-lot drainage configuration, it
would mean 15-20 second feet of water, which could, if the facilities are not
maintained, enter the tract to the south and provide substantial damage to any
structures that it would pass through. He showed three alternatives:
A. A rear drainage configuration utilizing an 18-foot maintenance access road
and a facility of approximately 6 feet in width to accommodate the
drainage. He felt a secured method of maintenance was critical to avoid
future problems. He said a Homeowners' Association could be responsible,
but there might be benign neglect. If the maintenance were assumed by the
public, the burden of financing could be great.
B. Have the majority of the lots drain to the front of the streets, leaving
only a residual area of 1/2-3/4 acre on the slopes, which would mean 1-1/2
to 2 second feet of water. In the absence of maintenance, if the water
encroached on the southerly tract, the amount of water could, in most
instances, be carried through the normal house swales.
C. A relocation of the property line off the existing boundary to the top of
the slope, thereby giving the slope to the lower property. The lower
property owners would then be subjected to the waters generated on their
own property and they would also be responsible for the maintenance to
protect against damage from the runoff on their own slope.
He felt the situation would occur frequently as tracts abut against each other
in the Etiwanda area. He felt the direction taken would probably be a policy-
setting trend regarding acceptable heights of slopes and acceptable methods of
drainage. He indicated the 18 foot width mentioned in Alternative A was taken
from the draft Hillside Development Ordinance, currently being reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- July 12, 1989
~x/> ~/r "c"
Chairman McNiel asked from an engineering perspective, which of the three
alternatives would be most likely to allow the least amount of damage.
Mr. Goolsby felt option C would be the most acceptable from the standpoint of
legality, but would result in a front-lot draining tract, resulting in a 16-18
foot high slope on the. tract boundary. The tract coming in to the south would
probably depress another 6-8 feet in the ground to achieve workable gradient
across their tract, therefore, resulting in 24-26 feet high slopes that all
belong to the lower property owner. Mitigating measures would be necessary to
give relief to this situation from an aesthetic standpoint, such as tiered
retaining walls and dense planting. The existing ground grade of 8% or more
would trigger the draft Hillside Development Ordinance standards, and he felt
the decision on this project would influence the ordinance. He suggested it
might be possible to look at one-on-one through lot drainage into the lower
tract, but the lower tract is not finalized in design and that would require
drainage acceptance letters and incorporation of that design into their
development. The tracts would then have to have lot line alignments and
outlets would be required in the curb for every lot width, approximately every
130 feet. The question of open vs. closed drainage devices would have to be
considered, and the maintenance of closed drainage devices is frequently
neglected because they are out of sight.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Craig Page, Ahmanson Development, stated' that the project had been annexed to
the City and during the annexation process a tentative map layout was
considered by the City. He said Ahmanson had redesigned the tract at the
City's direction to add a paseo system. He indicated Ahmanson would follow
the Commission's direction regarding opening or closing the connection of the
paseo trail to Etiwanda Avenue. He stated the proposed school impaction
condition was acceptable with the additional language. He stated Ahmanson had
a recorded agreement with the developer to the south allowing reciprocal
grading, drainage, and road improvement opportunities on the others' property
if one develops before the other. He stated the agreement had a clause which
addressed the lack of a preliminary grading plan on the southerly tract and
the grading at the boundary to provide for relocation of property lines to the
top of the slope. He stated the size of the Ahmanson lots would be reduced,
but they would still meet the minimum lot size constraints. He said they
would like to address how best to grade the lots so that the padded portion of
their lots drains to the street before pouring over the slope. They proposed
increasing the rear yard slope heights from 12 feet to 16 feet for
approximately 8 lots on the southeast corner of the project. They proposed
dropping the pads at the north end and increasing the slope height from 8 feet
to 12 feet. In the interior of the tract 10 to 15 lots would have rear yard
slopes increasing from 12 feet to 16 feet maximum in order to have them drain
to the street instead of from one lot to one other lot. The side yard slopes
on the two central cul-de-sacs on the east side would be increased from the
City-maximum of 4 feet to 4-7 feet. He stated they preferred to have the lots
drain to the street, but they could handle having them drain to the rear in
the center of the tract, because it would be only one lot draining onto one
other lot before going to a street.
Planning Con~aission Minutes -10- July 12, 1989
Chairman McNiel asked if a catch basin had been considered to control the
water.
Mr. Page stated they considered a paved swale with catch basins and an
underneath pipe and having a Homeowners' Association maintain it, but they
felt that would lead to problems in the future because the debris could not be
seen.
Chairman McNiel asked how much grading would be done on each lot.
Mr. Page stated all lots will be graded for 5% sloping pads, but the whole
project would move only approximately 200,000 yards of dirt. He stated it
would not be possible to have the natural grades and keep the street grades
and site distances that are required. He said they had discussed the grading
change with staff and suggested grading changes be shown in the grading plan
stage, rather than preparing a new conceptual plan.
Mr. Bullet stated that if the Commission provided direction regarding which
option to follow, the applicant would like to proceed.
Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chitiea felt it makes a lot of sense to place the property line
at the top of the slope, because the homeowner at the bottom has to look at
the slope, so he should have the opportunity to landscape it, and it leads to
better maintenance. She was concerned about building up the rear of lots to
provide for drainage to the street. She stated that at Sapphire and Hillside
there was an area with a nice slope, and the slope was replaced by mounds of
dirt when they graded for building pads. She stated the Con~nission had
difficult choices.
Commissioner Blakesley agreed that it was a difficult problem. He favored
minimal grading. He concurred that the property line should be at the top of
the slope. He felt it was necessary to be practical and there were likely to
be problems if minimum grading were used with drainage structures, which may
not be maintained. He felt drainage would have to be the overriding
consideration.
Chairman McNiel agreed that precedent would be set with respect to slope
heights.
Commissioner Chitlea stated they were trying to create a hillside area which
would roughly emulate the natural topography.
Chairman McNiel stated that in order to build, the slope would be disrupted,
and it was important to allow the water to drain without causing problems. He
felt undergrounding some of the drainage might be a partial solution to the
reduction of chopping up the hillside.
Commissioner Weinberger asked staff's opinion of the applicant's solution.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- July 12, 1989
Mr. Goolsby stated that the applicant has been cooperative in providing
information needed to assess the impacts. He said current, existing grading
standards were essentially designed for flat land. He felt the overriding
factor was the safety of the people purchasing homes in the vicinity. He felt
that undergrounding without some form of public maintenance or gross
overdesign to allow for possible neglect would be remiss. He stated the
solutions presented by the applicant were alternatives which could be
considered. He said the possible solutions were to (1) raise the lots up and
drain to the street; (2) leave them down and go through a complicated design,
which in the absence of public maintenance may function for a period of time,
· or the Commission could provide for public maintenance but they must consider
if they were overburdening the City's maintenance forces; or to (3) grossly
overdesign to a factor of 4 or 5 times the required facilities to allow the
facilities to withstand years of neglect. He said that if Option A were
utilized and no public entity would be involved and the 18 foot strip at the
bottom were left for a Homeowners' Association to maintain and a 3 foat high
flood wall, the area of available drainage way would be probably 30 times that
which is really required; so that even in a situation of neglect it could
probably go years without maintenance being required. He stated that Option B
also was grossly overdesigned.
Conxnissioner Chitlea stated that with either Option A or B, the homeowner
would have to construct another wall to enclose their lot, and that would
leave either an 18 foot or a 6 foot corridor, which could become a trash
collector and eyesore.
Chairman McNiel felt it was important to get the right solution because of
potential flood waters. He felt the solution might be expensive, but
necessary. He concurred that property lines should be at the top of the
hill. He felt it would be necessary to have the drainage arrangement connect
to the project to the south. He felt one-to-one drainage through the project
and Option C, would be the best.
Ba~rye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, stated there were two possible offshoots
from Option C - either back lot drainage or front lot drainage, which would
affect the allowable slope height.
Commissioner Chitlea stated that in the area with equestrian lots with a large
slope between the lots, the equestrian trail is stepped down and separates the
lots at the rear, and this allows for drainage. The lots are then stepped
down or up to allow use of the lower or upper yard. She felt these lots were
probably not large enough to support that configuration, but felt it could be
another solution in areas with large enough lots.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing to ask if terraced lots had been
considered within the framework of each lot.
Mr. Page stated it had been considered but the lots were so small that it
chopped them up. He stated they tried to observe the topography and keep the
grading to a minimum and they are sloping the pad sideways, as well as front
to back. He said with a continual sloping pad rather than a stepped, flat pad
Planning Commission Minutes -12- July 12, 1989
it would give more flexibility in the siting of the homes and retain the slope
of the land without creating large bulges of cut and fill.
Chairman McNiel felt that with the lot line at the top of the slope, they
could drain to the street, but that creates a taller slope for some of the
lots.
Mr. Page stated that along the southern boundary there would be 8 or 9 lots
and approximately 10 or 15 internal lots that would exceed the maximum 12 foot
height.
Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that if Option C were chosen and graded
backwards with drainage going on a single-lot to single-lot basis through the
downhill property to the street, a 12-15 inch pipe could possibly be
considered grossly oversized. Even though the land would all be graded, this
would more closely approximate the characteristic look of the original
slope. It would necessitate more curb drainage outlets, but he felt that is a
necessity in hillside con~nunities. He said that at the back of the lot it
would be necessary to divert the water to the corner of the lot via berm,
swale, etc. with a catch basin inlet to a 12-15 inch pipe running alongside
the property line transitioning out through the curb through one of the
parkway culverts. He said that would require fairly simple maintenance, and
if something goes wrong, because its only a one-on-one basis, there is not a
significant amount of water. It would alleviate the necessity of swale after
swale.
Mr. Hanson stated it might be a little difficult to accomplish because it is
not known where the' lower lots will be on the southerly project and the pipes
need to be terminated in the interim.
Mr. Maguire stated it may be necessary to have Ahmanson build the entire
street in order to build their lower tier lots.
Chairman McNiel felt that would probably be the best solution. He did not
feel a lot of swales would be appropriate.
Mr. Page felt that was a solution that could be implemented with the
cooperation of the adjacent property owner, who at' present does not have a
preliminary grading plan.
Mr. Goolsby stated that a maximum slope height should be established for use
at the south boundary. He felt the applicant should have a guideline to work
with. He felt the 8-foot maximum would not work in this instance.
Mr. Maguire stated that in discussing overall height, cumulative height needs
to be addressed taking into account the future tract to the south.
Mr. Gool sby stated the southerly tract wou 1 d probably come i n w i th
approximately a 6-8 foot depression from the existing ground at their
northerly boundary. He felt the side splits should also be addressed and
stated Ahmanson was talking about approximately 7 feet. He said he had not
Planning Con~ission Minutes -13- July 12, 1989
seen any drawings which would indicate whether they were taking advantage of
all the methodology which would allow a reduction, .such as grading away from
houses at the maximum percentages allowed, and lowering the slopes between
houses not carrying a flat pad.
Mr. Page stated the pads would slope in their entirety at about 5% and then
there would be a two-to-one slope down to the next pad, which would also
slope. He said none of the pads were split with two flat pads and a slope in
between. He said it would end up with 7 foot slopes on side yard areas if
they were to try to raise some of the pads to drain only to the street, rather
than cross lot. He felt that if they could drain cross lot on a one-to-one
basis, they should be able to maintain a 4-foot maximum in the side yard
slopes in the tract. He felt relief from the maximums might be required only
at the boundaries.
Commissioner Blakesley felt it was necessary to address the 8-foot maximum and
how to mitigate the slopes because there would be times when the applicant
would not have the opportunity for cooperation of the southerly property
owner.
Chairman McNiel stated he would be agreeable to allowing Engineering and
Planning to establish the number based on this evening's discussions and the
draft Hillside Ordinance.
Commissioner Chitiea felt that the scenario depicted by Mr. Maguire would give
the least damaging overall view of the hillside and curb cuts and putting the
water underground was preferable to a swale approach.
Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission give direction to staff to work with
the applicant at less than 12 feet.
Mr. Maguire stated that thfs development is at the lower end of the hillside
grades and as development advances up the hills with 25-30% slopes, the
maximum slope would probably be higher. He said it was important for the
product to fit the terrain.
Mr. Page stated he had talked with their engineer and they felt they could
live with a 12 foot requirement at the boundary.
Chairman McNiel stated that 12 feet should be the maximum, but 8-9 feet was
more the optimum.
Mr. Page stated they would strive for 8-9 feet, and would accept a 12 foot
maximum. He said if they found that to be a problem, they would return to the
Planning Conmnission for a modification.
· Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Buller stated that staff was working with the applicant to set criteria
for planting and possible retaining walls to help the buyers maintain the
downslope property.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- July 12, 1989
Commissioner Chitiea stated the Commission needed to address the trail
connection at Etiwanda Avenue. She felt it was appropriate to support the
Design Review Committee proposal to provide a connection.
Commissioners Blakesley and Weinberger agreed it should open to Etiwanda.
Mr. Buller stated that the current design shows the walkway going out to the
curb, and they could create a landscape buffer.
Commissioner Blakesley felt that would be appropriate.
Chairman McNiel felt it should invite people in from the street.
Commissioner Chitiea stated it should not provide for easy access to the
street because it was mid-block.
Commissioner Blakesley agreed that he would rather have people come out from
the trail and go one way or the other to the crossing.
Chairman McNiel stated he wanted a view corridor and trail fencing would be
satisfactory. He felt then the Sheriffs could drive by and see down the
corridor.
Mr. Buller suggested the sidewalk could be pulled up as close as possible to
the entry area to create a wider area which then could direct an individual to
go to the left or right as opposed to up over a low-mounded groundcover
area. He said it would not have to be screened with shrubbery.
Commissioner Chitiea felt if partial fencing were provided it would help
alleviate some of the concerns of residents who might feel someone would park
on Etiwanda and enter through the rear and burglarize homes.
Chairman McNiel felt it was important not to block the view corridor with
lahdscaping, but that a wrought iron fence would be acceptable.
Mr. Maguire suggested that any phasing should not be split down the paseos, so
that people would move in at the same time with the paseo already in place and
not blocked off.
Commissioner Chitlea asked if Con~nunity Trail fencing would go down Etiwanda.
Mr. Maguire stated the trail fencing would ultimately be on the east side of
Etiwanda.
Mr. Buller stated that the Commission might wish to have the greenbelt paseo
lots dedicated for annexation into the Landscape Lighting District.
Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution
approvi ng Environmental As sessment and Tentat i ve Tract 14139, w i th
modifications to provide for redesign of the grading to utilize through-lot
conduit drainage on a single-lot to single-lot basis with the southerly
Planning Commission Minutes -15- July 12, 1989
boundary being limited to a maximum height of 12 feet, annexation of the
paseos to the Landscape Maintenance District, and addition of the suggested
language regarding the school impaction issue. Motion carried by the
following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
I. AMENDMENT TO THE CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE - An amendment to
Chapter 17.22 of the Municipal Code,' modifying parking requirements for
condominium conversions to be consistent with Development Code parking
requirements.
Vince Bertoni, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Blakesley stated that it made sense to require the same parking
for both condominiums and apartments, but he felt in the future they might
consider requiring garages instead of carports.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Hearing no testimony, he closed
the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by Weinberger, seconded by Blakesley, to adopt the Resolution
recommending approval of the Amendment to the Condominium Conversion
Ordinance. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
9:55 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed.
10:05 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened.
J. VARIANCE 89-08 - GENESIS REAL ESTATE - A request to reduce the minimum
building setback, the minimum parking setback, and the average landscaping
depth requirements for a 50,000 office facility on 4.6 acres of land in
the Industrial Park District (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Specific Plan,
located on the southeast corner of Milliken Avenue and 6th Street - APN:
229-341-02 and 04. Related file Development Review 89-10.
Planning Commission Minutes -16- July 12, 1989