HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/01/22 - Agenda Packet ~ CITY OF
~ RANEI-D CUCAMO~A
PLANNING COMMI I
AGENDA
1977
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 22, 1992 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO 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
December 17, 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91-20 - SHELL OIL - Resolution of denial
of a request to establish a gas station, mini-
market, and car wash on a 1.31 acre parcel in
the Medium Residential designation, (8-14
dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista
Planned Community, located at the southwest
corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue -
APN: 227-151-17. (Continued from January 8,
1992.)
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION -
Resolution of denial of a request to amend
certain development standards within the
Etiwanda Specific Plan as described below:
1) To allow single family detached residential
development within the Medium Residential
District (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
utilizing Basic Development Standards; and
2) To reduce the minimum average lot size from
10,000 square feet to 8,900 square feet
within the= Low Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) under Basic
Development Standards; and
3) To reduce the minimum average lot size from
10,000 square feet to 8,500 square feet
within the Medium Residential District (8-
14 dwelling units per acre) under Basic
Development Standards.
(Continued fro~m January 8, 1992.)
C. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13835 -
HOMESTEAD - A request for a time extension for
a residential subdivision of 78 single family
lots on 25 acres of land in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located
at the northeast corner of Highland and
Rochester - APN: 225-152-01 through 04 and 18.
D. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 -
MODERN CORPORATION - A request for a time
extension for a 3-lot subdivision and design
review of 115 condominium units on 10.27 acres
of land in the Medium Residential District (8-
14 dwelling units per acre), located north of
Arrow Highway and east of Baker Avenue - APN:
207-201-32 and 12.
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.
E. 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 January 8,
1992.) (TO BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 26, 1992.)
F. 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
January 8, 1992. ) (TO BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY
26, 1992.)
G. 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 from January 8, 1992.) (TO BE
CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 26, 1992.)
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - The development of Fire
Station No. 4, Phase II, consisting of a 24,030
square foot maintenance and training facility,
a 3,432 square foot training tower, a 120
square foot pump test enclosure, and an
emergency helispot on 7.08 acres of land in the
Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District
(Subarea 9) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at the southwest corner of Jersey
Boulevard amid Milliken Avenue - APN:
229-111-23. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. (Continued from December
17, 1991.)
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 90-16 (GOVERNMENT REFERRAL 89-08) -
CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - A
request to establish a wastewater treatment
plant on 32.5 acres of land in the Heavy
Industrial District (Subarea 15) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the
southwest corner of 6th Street and Etiwanda
Avenue - APN: 229-283-62.
J. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-14 -
RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER - A request to modify
an approved 18.42 acre master plan by
eliminating Building "G" and replacing it with
parking spaces in the General Industrial
District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner
of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue - APN:
209-021-16, 17, and 05. Related file:
Tentative Parcel Map 13961.
K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 13961 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER - The
subdivision of 18.42 acres of land into 5
parcels in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at the northwest corner of 9th
Street and Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-021-16,
17, and 5. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. Related file:
Conditional Use Permit 85-14.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A
proposal to amend Figure III-7, Master Plan of
Trails, regarding certain trail locations.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend Figure II-7 and
Figures IV-1 through IV-19 regarding certain
trail locations. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration.
N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
- A proposal to amend Figure 5-18 and Figures
5-20 through 5-40 regarding certain trail
locations and to amend Article 5.33.200
regarding Community Trails. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
VII. Director's Reports
O. LETTER FROM LA}eY YOUNG REGARDING ORDINANCE NO.
398, CAR WASHES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS
VIII. CommisSiOn Business
P. CROSS LOT OR THROUGH LOT DRAINAGE POLICY
Q. UPDATE ON STATUS OF REGIONAL MALL - (Oral
report)
R. DISCUSSION OF DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES
S. DISCUSSION OF AGENDA EXHIBITS - (Oral report)
IX. 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.
X. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment
time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be
heard only with the consent of the Commission.
VICINITY MAP
,sir CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-20 -
SHELL 0IL - Resolution of Denial of a request to establish a
gas station, mini-market, and car wash on a 1.31 acre parcel
in the Medium Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at
the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue -
APN: 227-151-17.
After concluding the public hearing on January 8, 1992, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for the
application because of the incompatibility of the proposed use with the
residential area.
Attached for your adoption is the Resolution of Denial for Conditional
Use Permit 91-20.
BB:SM/jfs
Attachment: Resolution of Denial
IT]~4 A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 91-20, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A GAS STATION,
MINI-MARKET, AND CAR WASH ON A 1.31 ACRE PARCEL IN THE
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ROCHESTER
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
227-151-17.
A. Recitals.
(i) Shell Oil Company has filed an application for the issuance of
the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-20 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 October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing and continued said public hearing to allow the
development plans to be resubmitted to the Design Review Committee.
(iii) On the 17th day of December 1991, the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application and continued said hearing to January 8, 1992.
(iv) On the 8th day of January' 1992, 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. The Planning Commission
directed that a Resolution of Denial be prepared for the January 22, 1992,
meeting.
(v) 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 December 17, 1991, and January
8, 1992, 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
southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue with a street frontage
of 250 feet along Base Line Road and 174 feet along Rochester Avenue. The
parcel is presently vacant; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL COMPANY
January 22, 1992
Page 2
(b) The properties to the north and east are zoned for and
being developed with single family residences. The properties to the south
and west are zoned for multi-family units and are vacant; and
(c) Under the Tetra Vista Community Plan, service stations and
related uses (mini-market and car wash) are defined as "Community Facilities"
and are permitted in any zoning designation along the major arterials (Base
Line, Milliken, or Rochester) subject to review and approval of a Conditional
Use Permit; and
(d) The application contemplates the 24-hour operation of a
gas station, mini-market, and car wash; and
(e) Under the Terra Vista Community Plan, an adequate
separation shall be provided between a service station and residential areas
in the form of a street, additional landscape setback, or other "buffer" of
non-residential use satisfactory to the Planning Commission. As proposed,
insufficient buffering exists to ~dequately mitigate the impacts of ~he
proposed operation on the adjoining residentially zoned areas; and
(f) Under the Terra Vista Community Plan, the appropriateness
of the locations of service stations, including car washes and convenience
retail (mini-marts), shall be determined by the Planning Commission during the
Conditional Use Permit process; and
(g) The proposed 24-hour a day operation of the gas station,
car wash, and mini-market will result in excessive vehicular traffic, vehicles
left running, radios playing, etc., creating excessive noise, air emissions,
and an intensity of use which is incompatible with the residential area.
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 proposed use is not in accord with the General
Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed use will be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL COMPANY
January 22, 1992
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
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 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: '
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22 1992 ~
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ~( ~
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 -
U.S. HOME CORPORATION - A Resolution for the denial for a request to
amend certain development standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan
as described below:
1) To allow single family detached residential development within
the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
utilizing Basic Development Standards; and
2)To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet
to 8,900 square feet within the Low Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units pe~ acre) under Basic Development
Standards; and
3) To reduce the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet
to 8,500 square feet within the Medium Residential District (8-
14 dwelling units per acre) under Basic Development Standards.
Related File: Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract
14211.
BACKGROUND: On December 17, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the
above-referenced amendment and the related Vesting Tentative Map. At that
meeting, the Commission continued the amen~tment to allow further discussion and
denied the related Vesting Tentative Map. One of the findings for denial of the
map was its inconsistency with the current Etiwanda Specific Plan Development
Standards-
The Commission again reviewed this item on January 8, 1992, and recommended
denial to the City Council. Also, the Comission directed staff to initiate a
series of workshops to discuss the Development Standards within the Etiwanda
area as they relate to the basic goals and policies of the Etiwanda Specific
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolution of Denial for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03.
BB:SH:mlg
Attachments: Resolution of Denial for Etiwanda Specific Plan
Amendment 89-03
ITEM B
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03, A REQUEST TO
AMEND CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE ETIWANDA
SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) U.S. Home Corporation has filed an application for Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendment No. 89-03 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific
Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On December 11, and continued to December 17, 1991, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the application. The Planning Commission continued the application
to January 8, 1992.
(iii) On January 8, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application
and concluded said hearing on this date. The Planning Commission directed
that a Resolution of Denial be prepared for the January 22, 1992, meeting.
(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
during the above-referenced public hearings on December 17, 1991, and
January 8, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to all properties located within
the Low Medium and Medium Residential Development Districts within the area
governed by the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
(b) The Development Code permits detached single family
residences only utilizing the optional development standards, as currently
does the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
(c) The amendment does conflict with the goals and policies of
the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General Plan for reasons as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ESPA 89-03 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION
January 22, 1992
Page 2
1) The amendment to allow single family residences in
the Medium Residential zone under basic standards
would reduce the amount of common open space within
individual projects, which is inconsistent with the
policy for providing ample usable open space within
the Specific Plan Area; and
2) The amendment would discourage the potential for
project "clustering" for the purpose of preservation
of open space; and
3) The amendment would not support the Etiwanda Specific
Plan policy of creating a "country or rural
atmosphere" by integrating natural areas with urban
areas through a system of linear open spaces.
(d) This amendment will reduce the incentive to utilize the
Optional Development Standards due to'the proposed smaller minimum average lot
size and thus allow higher densities for "conventional" projects utilizing
Basic Development Standards in the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts
of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which contradicts the general intent of the plan
for providing a generally more rural atmosphere and strengthening the sense of
community identity within the Etiwanda area.
(e) The amendment does not take into consideration other
interrelated development standards (lot coverage, setbacks, etc.) which may
directly influence the character of projects and reduce the ability to meet
the basic goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the General
Plan.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearings 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 proposed application does not promote the goals
and policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
(b) That the proposed amendment would have significant impacts
on the environment or the surrounding properties; and
(c) That the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the
General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ESPA 89-03 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION
January 22, 1992
Page 3 '
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 19~2.
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 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13835 - HOMESTEAD - A
request for a time extension for a residential subdivision of
78 single family lots on 25 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at
the northeast corner of Highland and Rochester - APN:
225-152-01 through 04 and 18.
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 13835 was approved by the County of San
Bernardino Board of Supervisors on December 19, 1988, and was granted a
three-year approval at that time. In addition, an Annexation and
Development Agreement as well as a Development District Amendment was
approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council on October 18, 1989.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code (Section 17.02.100 B)
provides for time extensions in twelve-month increments, not to exceed
five years from the original date of approval.
ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the proposed time extension request and
compared the proposal with development criteria outlined in the
Development Code as well as the Development and Annexation Agreements.
Based upon this review, staff determined. that the project meets the
Basic Development Standards of the Low Residential District and the
provisions of the Development and Annexation Agreements.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Coumission 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, or character of the area within
which the project is located, that would cause the approved project
to become inconsistent or non-conforming; and
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.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TE FOR TT 13835 - HOMESTEAD
January 22, 1952
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a one-year Time Extension
for Tentative Tract 13835 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval.
~r a~se Hl~
·
City Planner
BB:BN/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - San Bernardino County Conditions of
Approval
Resolution of Approval
HOMESTEAD SAVINGS
a Federal Savings & Loan Association. SINCE 1887
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Tentative Map Extension
Tract 13835
Rancho Cucamong~, CA
Dear Planning Staff:
Please accept this letter as Homestead's decision to proceed with the process
of obtaining a one year extension of Tentative Tract Map 13835. I have
enclosed your fee of $549.00.
Should you have any questions regsrdjmg this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Leskowski
Director, Real Estate Owned
<:jTB B~OADW AY ,' f',41LLBRAF, CALIFORNIA ~4030-198~ · (.~15) 6~2-B9.~0
5LA~KMON MOMES PAGE 1 OF
5~B/87-~I0/Wllg-~2/TR 1383S
Conditions of Approval 12-1~88
GENE~L REO~RE~NT~
I. All lots shall have a minimum a=ee of 7,=00 s~are feet, a
minimum depth of one hundred (100) fee= and a minimum width
of 60 feet, (70 fee= on corner lots). In addition, each
on a cul-de-sac or on a cu~ed street where the side
lines =hereof are diverging from =he front =o rear of
lo=, shall have a width of no= less =hen sixty (60) fee=
measured a= =he building so=back line as delineated on the
composi=e development plan.
2. ~ere lots occur on =he bulb of m cul-de-mau, a minimum
depth of ninety (90) fee= will be pe~i==ed. If the proposed
depth is less =hen ninety (90) fee=, a plot plan mus=
submitted to demons=rate =ha= a buildable lo= area is possible
and =o justify =he lesser dept.
3. Roads within this development shall be entered into the
Counny Main=ained Road System.
4. The water pU~eyo: shall be Cucam~ga Co~=y Wa~er
5. Sewage disposal shall be by co~ec~ien =e ~ceonga
water Dis=rio=.
THE FOL~WIN~ CO~XTION8 S~L BN ~T P~XO~ ~ ~~ATION OP' THE
FINAL ~P:
OFFICE OF BUILDING ~D SAFETY
e. A prelimina~ soil repel, u~plying with ~e provisions of
Ordinance 2815 shall be filed with and approved b~
Building Official prior =o reco~a~ion of ~e final map.
7. A geolo~ repo~, prepared by a li~ens~ ge~logis=, shall be
filed with ~d approv~ by ~e Building Official prior to
records=ion. A deposit =~ c~ez ~e ccm~s cf =he review
shall be s~l~=~ wl~ ~e re~. ~ additional
may be re~ze~ ~= a refund is~ ~en ~e ccm~s do
ma~ch ~e d~~. ~e review costs shall be paid in full
prior ~o r~~lon of ~e final ~p.
DEPAR~M O~ ~~AL HrAL~
e. The foll~ing are ~e s~epm ~a= mus~ be completed =o mee~
=he retirements for installation and/or finance of
on-si=e/off-sl~e water sym~ and/or sewer sysEemz
· NON-STANDARD CONDITION ( S )
· *ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES
BLACK~OM HOMES
SUB/87-110/W119-62/TR 13835 ~AGE 2 C[
Condi=iOns Of Approval 12-19-88
A. Wh~re =he sys=em is =o be ins=alled prior =o
The wa=er sys=em, fare hydran=s, and/or sewer
shall be ins=alled in accordance wi=h requiremen=s of
=he S=a=e Heal=h and Safe=y Code, and in accordance
plans approved by =he wa=er and/or sewsring u=ili~y and
=he governing fire pro=so=ion au=hori=y. The plans
shall be reviewed by a Civil Engineer,=egis=ered in
S=a=e of California, and con=ain required cer=ifica=es
and approval signanures. I= is =he developer's
bili=y =o submi= =o =he OFFICE OF SURVEYOR° LA~D
DEVELOPMENT SECTION, a copy of =he approved plan and a
signed sEa=amen= from =he u=ili=y of Jurisdic=ion
confirming =ha= =he improvemen= has been ins=alled and
accep=ed.
B. Where a bond is =o be pos=ed in lieu of ins=alia=ion of
=he improvemen=:
1. The domes=ic wa=er plan and/or sewer plan which
mee=s =he requiremanEs of =he S=a=e Heal=h and
Safe=y Code shall be revimwe~l by a Civil Engineer,
regis=ered in =he S=a=e of California, and approved
by =~e wa=er or sewsring uEili=~[ and =he governing
fire pro=so=ion au=hori=y. The plans shall
con=ain =he required car=if ice=as and approval
signaEures. A cop~r of =he approved plan shall
submi==ed =o =he OFFICE OF SURVEYOR. LAND DEVE~_0p
MENT SECTION.
2. Said engineer shall de~ermine =he amoun= of bond
necessaz7 =o ins=all =he improvemen=s.
a. This amoun= plus =an percan= shall be pos=ed
wit/% r_he Coun=y of San Bernardinc. A
signed by =he engineer s=a~ing =ha=
arecurt= of bond recommended is adequa=e =o cover
=he cos= of ins=alle~lon of =he improvemen=
shell be included wi=h =he es=ima=e and
subml==ed =o =he OFFTC! OF SURVEYOR. LAND
DWVELOPMENT SECTION.
b. Or, in oases where =he wa=er aqency or
sewsring agency is · governmen=el subdivision,
r. he bond in =he aloun= of 110 percan= of
cos= of ins=ells=ion of =he improvemen= ma~
be placed wi~h tale agent/. A signed
from =he= agenc~ s=a=ing =ha= financial
NON-STANDARD CONDITION ( S }
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES
S~.ACKr~ON HOMES PAGE 3
SUB/87-110/W119-62/TR i383S
Co=all=ions of Approval 12-19-88
arEa=gems=as have been comple=ed shall
submi==ed =o ~he OFFICE OF SURVEYOR. LA~O
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION.
3. Prior =o release of =he bond for =he improvemen=,
=he u=ili=y of Jurisdic=lon shall submi= a signed
s=a=emen= co=f ironing =ha= =he improvemen= has been
ins=tiled and mesas =he requireme=as of all
appropria=e S=aZe and Coun=y laws per=mining
such improvemen=. I= is =he developer's responsi-
billay =ha= such signed era=amen= is filed wi=h
=he OFFICE OF S~TRVEYOR. LAND DE~LOPMENT SECTION.
..9. An acousUical s=ud~ shall be performed =o assess noise
levels a= =he developmen= and shall be reviewed and approved
by =he Depar=men= of Environmen=al Heal=h Services prior
recordtrio=. Prior =o issuance of building permits a report
s=a=ing =ha= =he recommended mi=iga=ion measures have been
implemented shall be submiz=ed =o the Depar=men= of Environ-
mennal Healab Services.
COUNTY FIRE AGENCY
.
10. The developmen= and each phase =hereof shall have =wo poin=s
of vehicular access for fire and or_her emergency equipmen=,
and for rou=es of escape which will safely handle evacut=ions
as required in =he Developmen= Code.
11. Wa=er sys=ems designed =o met= ~he required fire flow of
this developmen= shall be apprcved by =he Fire Agency. The
developer shell furnish r~he Fire Agency wi=h =wo copies of
the we=st eye=am improvemen= plans for signtruEs and a
letter from =he We=st Purveyor s=a~ing ~he availablli~y of
the required fire flow prior =o reccrda~ion. wa~er sys=ems
shall be operario=el and approved by ~he Fire Agency or
bonded for prior ~o re¢orda~ion. Prior =o any above grade
cons=ruc=ion occurring, wa=er for fire
operario=el and approved by =he Fire Agency.
12. Six (G") lnra mains shall be required.
-13. Due =0 the project being in high halted ~errain, hydrants
mus= ~e spaced at 400 foot intervals.
014. Due =0 =he project being in high halted ~errain, =he fire
flow shall be · minimum of 1S00 gallons per minute.
NOTE: H~drant spacing say be increased end fire flow reduced,
* NON-STANDARD CONDITION
*eENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES
8LACK~ON HOMES
SUB/OT-110/W119-62/TR 13835 PAGE 4 CF ~5
Conditions of Approval 12-19-88
shouldTM the developer decide to install automatic fire
sprinklers in all the residences.
**15. Developer shall commence, participate in and consummate, or
cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for Foothill Fire
Protection District, to finance a fire station to serve the
development, including land facilities, equipment and
operations and maintenance. The station shall be located,
designed and built to all specifications of the Foothill
Fire Protection Dis=rio=, and shall become the District,s
property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected
by the District in accordance with its needs. In any
building of the sEa=ion, Developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by
District and Developer by the time of recordorion of the
final map. ·
OFFICE OF SURVEYOR
LAND DEVELOPMENTVDRAINAGE SECTIO~
16. Flowage easements or San Bernardina County Drainage Easements
shall be obtained where diversion or con=In=ration o~ runo~f
from the site or drainage facilities dewarera on=o private
proper=y.
17. Adequate rolls shall be provided on =he entrance roads to
the site a= Rochester =o minimize ~he possibility of street
flow entering =he site.
18. Adequate provisions shall be made =o intercept and conduct
=he off-site =ribu=ar~ drainage flow around or. through the
sine in a manner which will no= adversely af=ec= adjacent or
downs=ream proper~ies,
19. Adequate San Bernardino County Drainage Easements (minimum
15 fee= wide) shall be provided over =he natural drainage
courses and/or drainage facilities, The easements shall be
designed =o contain =he 100-year frequency s~orm flow plus
bulking and freeb~erd per County S~andard Criteria.
20. In addition ~o ~he Drainage Requiremen~s stated heroin,
other son-el~esor -off,sites improvemen~s may be required
which ~e~m6t be de~ersined from =en~a~ive plane at ~his time
and would have ~o be reviewed after more complete improvement
plans and profiles have been su~mi=Eed =o ~a~ls office.
· NON-STANDARD CONDITION(S) ~ '
*sENVIRONMENTAL MZTIGATIVE MEASURES
SUB/ST-L10/Wllg-62/TR 1~835
Condi~ions o~ Approval
· 20a, Provid~ a S=orm dra~n ~oe from ~he s~a ~o Dav c~eek
or Day Creek Channel ~o c~nnac~ ~o ~he caryn oro~ec~ dra~naq-
A~ed~y S.O.S. system. The connec=ion ~o ~he Caryn pro~ac~ dra~naqe system
~-88 could ~e su~leo: ~o paymen~ of rei~_~ursemen= for oversiz~nq~
to =he developer of =ha=
-21. Approval shall be ob=ained from =he San Bernardino Coun=y
Flood Con=rol Dis=rio= =ha= =he sire is adsqua=ely pro=ec=ed
from =he 100-year design s=orm in accordance wi=h Federal
Emergency Hansgems== Agency (FEMA) regularions and
Coun=y Developmen= Code.
· 22. The developer~s engineer shall oh=sin or provide =he necessary
engineering informs=ion =0 forward =0 FE~ in order =o have
=he sire removed from =he flood plain. This informs=ion
shall co=sis= of copies of =he plans of flood facili=ies now
under cons=ruc=ion, and =he hydroloqic/hydraulic calcula=ions
pun in=o =he forms= accep=able =0 FEMA (Hec 1, 2).
· 23. The applican= shall con=ribu=e his fair share =0 =he Day
Creek Channel ProJet=. The. amoun= shall be dare=mined
=he Flood ConErol Dis=rio=, based'6= acreage.
· 23a. The =rac= shall no= be released for occupan~7 un=il Phase
ded~S.O.S. IIA of Da~ Creek Channel ~s comple=e en~ opera=it=el.
OFFICE OF SURVEYOR
r. AND DEVELOI~rENT/ROADS SECTION
24. Road sac=ions wl=hin and/or bordering =he =rac~ shall
designed and cons=ruc=ed =o Valley Road $=andards and was=
valley Foo=hllls C~mmuni~y Plan s=andards of San Bernardino
Coun=y, and =o =he policies and requiremen~s of =he Coun=y
Transpor~a=ion and Flo~d Con=rol Depar~aen= in accordance
wi=h =he ~as=er Plan of Highways.
25. Any grading wi=hin =he road right-of-way prior to the
signing of ~he improvemen= plans shall be aooomplished under
=he direorion ~f a Soils Tes~in~ Engineer. Compao~i~n
of em~= ~as~ruc~ion, =ranch bacMflll, and all subgrades
shall be ~ezforsed a~ no cos= =o Sen kznardino Coun=y and a
wri==eai re~r~ shall be su~i==ed ~o Tats Con=rac~s Division
of ~ Trsuts~r~a~lon and Flo~Mi Control Departmen=, prior
any plainsmen= of base sa~erials and/or paving.
26. Final plans and profiles shell indicate ~he looa=lon of any
axisring uElli y faoili=y which woul~ iffec= conl~ruc=ion.
· NON-STANDARD CONDITION ( S )
* sENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES
conditions of Approval ~2-19-B8
27. Slope rights shall be dedicated on the final tract map where
necessary.
28. A thorough evaluation of the structural road section,
include parkway improvemen=s, from a qualified materials
engineer, shall be submitted =o the Transportation and Flood
Control Department.
29. Existing County roads which will require reconstruction
shall remain open for traffic a= all times, with adequate
detours, during actual construction. A cash deposit shall
made to cover the cost of grading and paving prior to recorde-
rich of the tract map. Upon completion of the grading and
paving to the satisfaction of the Transportation and Flood
Control Department, the cash deposit may be refunded.
30. vehicular access rights shall be dedicated on Highland
Avenue, Future State Highway 30, Rochester Avenue, Vintage
Drive, and along the rear of double frontage lots.
· 31. Future State Highway 30 right. of way, including
interchanges or grade separations," shall be reserved along
the project frontage and shown on the map as per =he Cal Trans
letter of August 18, 1988.
32. All road names shall be coordinated with the County Transpor-
tation and Flood Control Department, Traffic Division.
33. Road improvement plane for Highland Avenue-State Highway 30
shall be su~mitted to the State Depar=men= of Transportation
by a registered civil engineer.
34. Dedication shall be granted on Highland Avenue-State Highway
30
as necessary =o cent: with ~e MasSe= Plan ef Highways.
This dedica=i~n Is ~0 be coo~ina~ed wig=he S=a~e Department
of T:anspo~a=i~n.
35. An approved =~e wall ~r barrier shall be re~ir~ along the
rear of do~le frontage lo~s, and shall be cons~mcEed outside
o f p~l l~ righ~f-wa~.
36. All re~ir~ road and drainage improvemen=s shall be bonded
in accordance wi~h =he C~un=y Developmen= Code, unless
cons=~~ ud mppr~ved pri~r =~ rec~rda=i~n ~f =he Final
Map.
37. ~rn arounds a= dead end s~ree~s shall be in acu~rdance
=he re~iremen=s of Ehe C~un~y Trmnsp~r=a=i~n and Flo~
· NON-STUD~D CONDITION(S)
· *E~IRO~NTAL MITIGATI~
S/,ACK2(OM HO~(ZS PAGE 7 OF
$UB/ST-110/Wllg-62/TR 13835
Con~iCions of Approval
Control: Depar=menC, and =he Fc=esC~ an~ Fire War~en
men=,
38. Existing uCiliCV poles shall ~e sho~ on =he improvemen=
~lans an~ relocaCed as necessar~ wi=hou= cos= =o =he Coun=y,
39, The developer shall make a go~ faith error= =o attire ~he
retired off-site proper=~ interests and if he or she should
fail =o do so, =he developer shall a= leas= 120 da~s prior
=o submi==al of =he final map, en=er into an agreement
complete =he improvemen=s ~ursuan= =o Government Code
Section 66462 a= such =ime as Coun=~ attires =he
interests required for =he improvemen=s. Such ag=eemen=
shall provide for paten= b~ developer of all cos=s incurred
by CounC~ =o attire =he offsite proplay ln=eres=s retired
in connection wi=h =he s~division. Securi=~ for a
of =hess cos=s shall be in =he fore of a cash ~eposi= in
amount given in an appraisal repor= ob~aine~ b~ developer,
aC developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
by county prior =o co~encemen= of ~he appraisal.
40. RighC-of-va~ and improvemen=s '.(including off-si=e)
transition traffic and drainage flows from prop~se~
existing, shall be-re~ire~ as netessay.
41. Trees, irriga=ion s~sCemsJ lan~scaping re~ire~ ~0
insCalle~ on public right of way wi=hin ~is =rau= area
shall be mainCaine~ b~ ~Cher =hat =he Co~=~ Trans~or=a-
=ion/Flood Control Depa~enC, an~ shall ~e as specified in
County TransporCaCion/Fl~o~ Control s~andards for
planting. Maintenance procedures accep~le Co Tramspot=s-
cion/Flood C~nCrol DepamenC shall be insCiCu=ed prior
recordsCion.
**42. Prior Co recG~aClon, =he applicant shell cGn~ribu~e his fair
share Coward ~e future si~alizaCiDn Df Highland Avenue
Rochester Avenue. His fair share is ee=i~C~ as $14,400.00
based ~n a Traffiu Repoz= submi~=ed by the applican='s
Trafflu
OFFICE OF
43. Co~i~= ~11 be obtainS, in ~l~ing, from ~e severing
the ca~Cy ~0 ~milh I~er sluice ~o ~e s~Jec= project,
and ~a~ al~ necella~ arreng~en~s have been ~de wi=h
agency =o supply such se~lces. A GO~ of ~e conicmen=
shall be filH wi~ the Office of. Pla~i~.
, NON-ST~D~ CONDITION(S) ~ '
**E~IRO~NTAL MITIGATX~
C//
8LACK~O~ HOlmES ~AGE ~
SUB/OT-L10/~lg-G2/TR
Condi=ions o~ Approval ~-Z~88
44.Developer shell provide ~or s=rse= l~gh=~ng ~i=hin =he
as
A. Low in=ensi=~, energy-efficien= s=ree= ligh=s a~ all
infersac=ions;
S. Ins=all underground condui= wl=h a pull cord (for
fu=ure ins=alia=ion of addi=ional ligh=s) =hrough
C. Deposi= monies wi=h =he Special Dis=ric=s Depot=men=
cover all ins=alia=ion and connec=ion charges for
addi=ional s=ree= liqh=s per adop=ed'Coun=~ policy
regarding ligh= pole spacing and loca=ion.
D. Prior =o recordorion, =he =race shall be annexed
appropria=e disEric= =o provide s=ree= ligh= main=enance.
45. Subdivider shall presen= evidence =o =he Coun=y Surveyor~s
OffiCe =ha= he has fried =o ob=ain a non-in=erference
from any u=lli=y company =ha= may have righ=s of easemen=
wi=hin =he properry boundaries. ..
46. Easemen=s of record no= shown on =he fen=afire map shall
relinquished or reloca=ed. Lo=s affec=ed by proposed
easemen=s or easemen=s of record which cannQ= be relinquished
or reloca=ed, shall be redssigned.
47. The following building set3~ack lines shall be dellneared on
=he composi=e developmen= planz
A. A variable front yard building as=back line of a= leas=
22 fee= and averaging at leas= aS fee=.
B. A side yard building seta~ack line of at leas=
adJacen= ta side streets an comer
48. Four (4) copies af 8 Landscaping Plan she11 be submi==ed for
Office of PlaneinS review and approval. Said Landscape Plan
shall include tam fall~wings
A. The requizlt slaps planting. Slope plan~ing shall be
re~uired far t4~e surface of all cur elapse mare =hen
five (S) feet in heigh~ and fill slopes mare t_hen =brae
(3) feet in heigh=. Said elapse shell be
against damage by erosion by plan~ing wita~ grass or
graund ceveZ plants. Slopes exceeding fifteen (lS) fee=
in vertical height shall ale6 be pianist wit/% shrubs,
spaced at nat ta exceed ten (10) feet an cen~ers~ or
· NON-STANDARD CONDITION(S)
**ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATIVE MEASURES
8LACK~ON HO~ES PAGE 9 OF
SUB/87-110/W119-62/TR 1383S
Condi=ions of Approval 12-1~88
=tees,. spaced a= no= =o exceed =wen=~ (20) =ee= on
cen=ers~ or a com~ina=ion of shahs and =tees as cover
plan=s. The plan=s selec=ed and plan=lag me=hods used
shall be suiUa~le for =he soil and clima=ic condi=ions
of =he si=e.
Trees 10% 15 gel. ~ 40% S gel. ~ 50% 1 gel.
Shrubs 20% 5 gel. ~ 80t 1 gel. ~
Groundcover 100% coverage.
~. The retired s=ree= =tees.
C. All required walls. All decors=lye walls shall
designed and cons=nc=ed =o inco~ora=e design fee=urea
such as =tee plan=st wells, variable setback, spli=
block face, colons, or o=her such fee=urea =o provide
visual and physical relief along =he ~all face.
D. Any exis=ing =tees. =0 remain on si~e. An~ exis=inq
eucalyp=us =tees =o be reEained shell be
=hir=y (30) fee=, =riued along ~e lower
feeE, and cleared of all dead' leaves and branches. '
*E. Parkway treaEments for-Rochester and VintaGe Avenuel
shall be desloned to ~tch auurov~ plans within the
City of Rancho ~cwsonoa~s Ca~ Development
Said plans shall be reviewed and auuTov~ by the Cit
of Ran~6 ~csmonoa prior ~o reeo~a~ion of ~he
49. Four (4) gopies of an irriga~ion plan shall be
Of El~ of Pll~g review and appr ll wh~ slope plan~inq
is r~l~. SlOe re~lr~ =o be pl~ s~ll be provided
wi=h an a~r~ sys~ of lrriga=lon, deei~ ~o cover all
pot=ions of ~e slo~. A f~c=ional =as= of ~e
be re~ir~. ~e Min~en~ce of grad~ slo~s end landscaped
areas shall be ~e res~nsibili=y o~ ~he develo~r un=il ~he
e NON-ST~D~D CONDITION ( S )
esE~IRO~~AL MITIGATI~
MGAC.~CMON HOMES ~AGE
SUM/87-110/Wllg-62/TR 13835
Conditions of Approval 12-19-88
transfe~ to individual o~ership o: until the maintenance
officially assumed by a County Semite Area. All irriga-
tion systems, where required, shall be designe~ on an
individual lo= basis unless commonly main=aine~ in an
approved manner.
50. A minimum number of one (1) inch cali~er/15 gallon,
multi-branched trees shall be planted on the
=he street right-of-way for each of =he following =~es of
lots:
A. Cul-de-sac lo= - !
B. Interior lo= - 2 trees;
C. Corner !o= - 3 trees.
The variety of tree =o be provided is s~Jec= =o Coun=y
approval and to be maintained by the prope~y o~er.
51. All landscaping and irrigation sho~ on the approved landscape
and irrigation plans and all retired wells shell be completed
or suitable bonds posted for =heir completion.
*51a. A revised master plan showin~ =he new suMivision as
relates =o =he adjacent proper=lee =o =he east indica=ln
d~ ~y S.O.$. circularion and access points for future develepmen~ shal}
~-8S be submitted =o and ap roved by =he Cl=~ of Ranc~o Cucamon~a
prior =o recorda=i~n o~ =he ~nal tract map.
*51b. The "A" Street connection ~e Roches~er Avenue shall
redesi~ned as a cul-ae-sac wl~ emergency access connection
~ ~y S O 5 =o Rochester Avenue. In aaa~Elon, sa~a assign or an
' ' ' alternative des~n snal~ ~e revuewaG and approves
19-88 the cl=y of Rancne cucamen~a ana =no ~oe~i~ ~re
,~lc. This ~rac= ma have =o be m~ifie~ =o Fr~ide an extension
of "E' S=ree~ =o =~e a~ scene areas Eo =no eat=. such
~-88 upon review an~ a prova~ or a =evxs~ m~s=er p~an or
ad~ a~en= area. ~aXo review ano an reoes~gn snali
re~lr~ prior ~o reco=aa~on or ~ne g~a~ =rat= map.
*~ld. Prior ~o recorda~lon, an annexa~ion/develepmen= agreement
d Uy ' ' ' RanchO
~88
* NON-STANDARD CONDITION ( S )
**ENVIRONMENTAL MZTIGATIVE MEASURES
6
ELACKMO~r ~OMZS ~E :I ~F
PErilS 8~ ~ BI ZNSUID ~XL TM~ ~OL~WXNG CO~XTXON8
~FF~E ~F R~LD~ ~D SAFETY
~ be subml~ad ~o and app:ovad ~ ~hm O~icm o~
and
Ob~ain a damo~i~ion pa~i~ ~o: an~ bui~dinq ~o be demolished.
Underground s~ruc~urms mus~ be brokmn in, bacK-~i~ad and
inspected before covering.
Submi~ p~ans and obtain building pa~i~s ~or any
wa~s.
~5. ~ erosion and sadimmn~ con~:o~ p~sn shm~ be s~mi~ad
:mviav and approvm% by ~hm Building O~icia~ p~ior ~o an~
~and dim~urbancm between October ~5~h and Apri~
5~. A ~:aa :mmova% p%an, pa~i~ and prmconm~nc~ion inmpac~ion
in comp%ianca vi~ ~ha Coun~y's plmn~ pro~mc~ad and manaqammn~
ordinanca shal~ be rapproved pri~ ~o any ~and
and/or :mmova% o~ any pro~a~ad ~r~am or plan~m.
CO~Y FrRR AG~C~
,57. A~% :ooZing ma~arimlm usH in ~his pro~ac~ sha~ be
non-co~us~ib%a ma~aria%. Trma~ad ma~aria~m oZ a ~ampora~
nature vi~% no~ be accepted.
OFFICE OF S~YOR
,SS. A pe~i=. shall be ob~ain~ from =he Ci=y ~= ~ncho
for work necessa~ wi~in ~e ci=y s=ree=s, such
drain co~eu=ions.
OFFICE OF
59. An en~roeu~~ peniS, or au~oriz~ clearanus, shall
ob ain from ~he Co~Cy Trans~a=ion and Flo~ Control
Safe y.
60. An en~ToachmeA~ pe l= shall be retired from s a=e
Depar=men= of TTBAI~a=iOA prlO= ~o any COAI=~C~iOA wi=hiA
* NON-ST~D~ CONDITION(S)
**E~IRO~AL MITIGATI~
·
Condi~ions of Approval 12-1~88
· ~1. ProJec{s s~Je~= =o a building pemit shall have all retired
on an~ off-si~e improvemenns, require~ for each phase,
completed and approved prior to =inal inspe~tion of any
buildings or s=mc=ures. The
mean =he following: "The block
less than the w~ole project" or "A plan o= building
construction which indicates blocks of constmc=ion of less
=hen =he whole project". In each phase, the installation
any on or off-site improvements shall be sufficiently
completed so as =o assure protection from atom or drainage
run off, a safe and ~riveable access =or fire an~ safety,
and the ordinary and intende~ use
s=mc=ures. The Building O=ficial, with the concurrence
the Office of the Su~eyor, may approve any plan or a~prove
a change =o an approved plan, which complies with the intent
of Ehis policy.
OFFICE OF P~ING
· 62. Prior to issuance of building petite the developer shall
provide ce~ificati~n from the a~propriate school district
as retired by California Gove~en= Code Section 53080 (b)
that any fee, charge, dedication or other fo~ or re~lremeht
levied by the governing board of the district pursuant to
Governant Code Sec~ion 53080(a) has been satisfied.
63. A final grading plan shall be retired. Said grading plan
shall be s~mit=ed to the Office of Building and Safety for
review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
A. Be limited =o a maxim~ slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a
maxim~ ve~ical height of thirt~ (30) feet. Setbacks
from top and b~t~om of slopes shall
one-half the slope height.
S. Be con~6ur-graded t~ blend with existing natural
co~t~r8.
C. Be a pert ~f ~e dD~ill
· 64. Rec~~ ~~ heights for manufau~ur~ slGpe banks are
l~.sCed below. Vertical height shall be ~he measurement
includin re aining walls. ~e nature1 slope =or grading
purposes shell ~ de=shined on a parcel by parcel basis,
using =he high and 1~ eleva=i~n o~ =he area ~o be graded.
Maximum heights shall
NON-ST~D~D CONDITION
· eE~IRO~~AL MITIGATI~
SUB/S7-110/Wllg-62/TR ~3S3~
C~ndi~i~ns o~ Approval
d,si~ns ~ha~ would :aduc, slop, h,~qh~s at, pr,~,r~,d, Any
shal~ have vari~le gradients.
A. The maxim~ slope height where =he natural ~er=ain
ten (10%) percent or less, is ten (10) fee~.
B. The maxim~ slope height where =he natural terrain is
greater ~an ten (10%) percent but less than or e~al
to fifteen (15%) percent, is fifteen (15) feet.
C. The maximum slope height where the natural
exceeds fifteen (15%) percent, is ~i~y (30)
,65. During construction, measures shall be taken =o control
mnoff from constmction sites. Filter fabric fences, hea~
plastic each covers, gravel be~s or lines of straw bales
are a few of the =ec~i~es which shoul~ be ~onsi~ere~.
,66. Gra~ing shall ~e phase~ so that prompt revegetatien
const~ction can c~ntrol erosion. '~ere possible, only ~o~e
areas whi~ will later be resurrect, landscap~ or built
should be disturbed. Resurfleing of parking lots and
roadways should t~e place Is soon as prlctic~le,
=he completion of const~c~ion.
67. A copy of ~e final gilding plan, approv~ by Building and
Safety, shall be s~mittH to ~e Office of Planning when
graded cut slopes exceed five (5) feet in height and fill
slopes exceed three (3) feet in height.
SUIJlCT P~OPIITY SMALL NOT II OCCUPZID UMTZ~ TXl FOLLOWING
CO~IT/ONI ~ II~
CO~Y FI~
68. Address n~e~lS e~11 be · minim~ of f~ inches in height
on a con~ast~ M~~d, and' shell M viable from
street. ~W ~ h~zs of diresee ~ey s~11 be inSsmelly
ill~~. (8~~ NO. 133).
EI~ Q~ ~ In conJ~c~ion wi~ any fireplace or any
hel~ e~ll~ ~ ~l~ solid or livid hal Is used shell
be uin~in~ wi2 an appr~ spark arras=or as id~ified
in =he Unif6~ Fire C~e (8~a~ N~e= 131).
· NON-STANDARD CONDITION
eeENVIRONMENTAL NITIGATIVE
SUB/87-110/Wllg-62/TR 13835
Conall=ions of AIDprove1 12-19-88
OFFICE OF SURVEYOR
LAND DEVELOi~MENT/ROADS SECT'ION
s.O.5. ~70 Rochester Avenue shall be cons=~c~e~ half wi~h ~o C~Y ~
12-!9-~8 ' Rancho Cucamonua Snandards for a colleG=or roa~. wi~h a
minimum of 26 fee= of Davemen= on a mipimum 40 fe%~ o=
riuh=-of-wav. The ver=iGal an~ horizo~=%~ allunman= shall
conform =o =he aDDroved plans fo= =~e Ci=y of Rancho
Cuca~nua. includinq app~o~ria=e =ransi=~ens ~o ali~n w~=h a
major at=trial on =he sou=h si~e of Hlqhlan~ Avenue.
~7[J//~~/~~/~~/~/~~~/~~/~X~/ ~
~ / ~ ~~ / ~~/ ~~~ /
~evis~ Uy
~.O.S. ~71. ~i~hland Avenue shell be improve4 ~0 s~an~ar~s established
2-19-88 in a develo men= a~reemen= ~e~ween =he developer and
Ci= of RaneKe ~c~e, a. This ondl~lon ls s~ ec~ =0 ~e
=0 recover =he cos= of cons~rua=ln~ =~e pe~anen=
improvemen=s from fu=ure developmen= as i= occurs on ~e
sou=h side of Highland Avenuer on =ens mu=ually accep=able
=0 =he Cl=y and =he developer.
, ~///~i/~6~l/~ / ~i~~i~/~~/~~~/~ /
vis~ oy
o.s. ,72. In=trim rich= =um decelera=i~n and accelera~ion lanes
-19-88 wes=~oun~ =raffia shall be aons~ma=e~ on ~he nom si~e of
Hi~lan~ Avenue~ wi=h ~rens~lons ~ mee~ =he
pavemen= 8= bo~ endIf =o ~e sa=lsfic~l~n of ~he
Rancho ~camonql.
73. All retired ~ad and drainage impr~v~en=s shall be ins=tiled
OFFICE OF
74. Sidml~ s~11 be pr~vid~ ~hroughou= =he ~rac~, incl~dinq
all Nripherel s~ree=s.
75. u=ili~y lines shall be placed unde~r~und in accordance
Ehe re~iremen=s of Co~=y Ordinance.
· NON-ST~D~D CONDITION(S)
· ,E~IRO~NTAL NITIGATI~
SVa/87-1~O/~lg-(2/TR Z3835
Cond~C~ons o~ APproval ~2-~-~8
76. All re.quired landscapin~ and walls, as per ~he approved
landscape plan, shall be ins=alled prior =o occupancy.
NON-STANDARD CONDXTZON(S)
**ENVIRONMXNTAL MITXGATXVB MEASUP. F~
Exhtblt "C"
Condttlons of Approval
Street Zmpr~veemnt$ on Rochester and Htghland Avenues
A. Rochester Avenue shall be constructed full wtdth f~m Htghland
Avenue ~o the north project boundary. The verttcal and horizontal
el fgnment shill confore ~ the Ctty's app~vH stmt plans,
fncludlng/pp~prta~ transitions ~ a11gn w~ ~ ~Jor arteft/1 on
the sou~ s1N of Hfghland Avenue. ~e hvelopeP shall ~v~se the
app~ved plans ~ (nclude ~e east s(de of R~hesteP Avenue,
satisfaction of the C~ EngtnHr, prtor ~ tssuance of an
enc~ach~nt petit. The Developer sMll ~ ~t~ f~ actual
audftH co$~ for constructing those t~vmn~ sho~ ~ the
approv~ street plans for Parcel ~p 9192 (5~ 3 and 4 of Orawtng
No. Z2Z5) f~ funds on depostt fop the ulttm~
8. Hfghland Avenue shall be construc~ full wtd~ (~ fHt of
pavmnt) for t~ entt~ l eng~ of t~ p~3Kt f~n~ and for
feet ~st of ~ centerllne of ~ tn~rs~tton of Htgh]and and
~chester Av~ues wt~ app~prta~ transitions ~ t~ extsttng
payrant bey~d ~ose Hfnts., ~e hveloHr dll
~fi~t ~t ~ ~over ~ cost of c~str~ttng t~ full
wtdth pennant street t~vmts f~ fu~ ~velomnt as tt
occu~ on t~ sou~ si~ of Htghland Avenue,
C. Znterfm r~ght ~ ~elerltton ~d acceleration lanes for ~s~und
traffic shall ~ constr~ ~ tM no~ stl of Htghland Av~ue,
wfth transltf~s ~ mt W Hm~nt pav~t at ~th
confo~nce wf~ W Cf~'s a~vH plans. The hveloHr sM11
~f8~ fw ac~al audt ~ costs for c~str~tt ng ~ose
t~v~ts sh~ ~ W a~vH strat plans for Pa~el Ip 9t92
(Sheet ~7 of Draw$ng ~. %2~5) f~ ful m ~Hstt for the
ul tta~ f~v~tS.
SI,FIm~P, jMEjiT TO C01,~ C~iI~(T1QiI8 Of~ ~AL
ANNEXATION 89-03 EXHIBIT 'C'
TEXI'ATIVE TILICT 13835
MCHITECTIlJM. AIm D[SIGII QUID(LIlIES
EXHIBIT 'E"
Z. ARCHITECTURAL All) DESIGN GUIDELINES
A. Intent
Zt is the fntent of this arttcle to provtde guidelines for
the design of structures or elements which reinforce and
establ t sh the charactoP of North Et~wanda Footh~ 11 Area,
Zt (s also the (ntent to assure that new development be
designed ~n a manner that Is seqs~ttve to, and compatible
wtth, the character of VIctoria, Caryn, Ettwanda and the
Etlwanda $pecI ft c Pl an Area.
1~'o3ects whtch tn the optnton of the Oestgn Revtew
Carat tree do not meet the _-t ntent of thts arttcle shall not
be recommended for approval,
B. General Gut de1 tnes
1. Pro;lect des1 gn shal 1 be gut dod by st te-spect ft c
factors such as vtws, meturs vegeUtton, topography,
surround1 ng devel opmnt, and sl st 1 ar
considerations. The use of destgns and st~e plans
prWared for another st te shall not be pemtt~ed
unless successfully iodtfted to local conditions.
2. ArcM tactur, l and des1 gn el merits whtch re1 ate to the
ext st1 ng and des1 red' character of North
EUwandaYToothtlls am are best describes as:
-rural. rather than urban
- tnforml, rather than form1
- traditional. rather ~han contmporary
- rusttc. rather l~an ~11shed
- lo, proftle. rather than insshe
- relattng to perle, rather than autombtles
ANNEXATION 89-03 EXHI81T 'E'
C. :Specific Standards
Excessive repetition of stngle fsrlly st~JctuPes ~tth
t dent1 ca1 floor plans and el ever1 ons shal 1 be
discouraged. Footprints and elevations shall be
dt scouraged. Footprtnts and el evatt ons shal I be
vatted per Ffgure 3-1.
FIGURE 3-1 FGal'?RIMT/ELEVATIOI REI}UTREIIXT$
I~ntmee nmber
Neeer of stngle Ntntm~e number of elevations
faro11~ d~el 1 t n~ of f~tprt nts* per f~tprt nt*
5 -10 3 2
11'~0 4 3
21 -~ 5 ~ 3
41~ 6 4
~ 7 4
81 -I~ 8 4
~er Z00 I edittonal 4
for e~h ~
~el 1 ~ ng untts
over 1~
* A revere f~tprtnt of a fl~r plan vtll cwnt as an a~ttonal
f~tpHnt. A stN~ ~t~ ~ra~ ~t~ an el~ d~vw~ vtll
c~nt as an a~ttoM1 f~t~tnt..
2. ~el ear shal 1 p~t ~ at 1 eat S~ of al 11 ors be
s~ gira~ ~er, a ~tt~ tn ~ts
~mnt, in 'St ~tton 1~~~, ~ to a
~nte of ~ of all ~ra~ ~tn st~le f~ly
tr~ for sf~ entr~es ee~ an a~Uo~l fl~r
plan HP ech 5S ~t~ ~s p tde and tf
~ ~ra~ a ~t~tiel strut 14fie v4~ garage
f~.
3. ~tvi~ ~all not e~m ZS fat tn vt~ ~~
~e ~l~c vMr~ f~ng; on lob less ~ln
7S fat in ~. 7
~ l o~ S fat of g~aMr t n
~ d~, d~ vwl~ shal 1 Mt excm 24 fat, vt ~ a
482 4l
smooth transition p~ovtded to the ult4mate dr4veway
wtdth wtthtn a depth equal to the parkway depth.
4. Two-story structures should not be planned for corner
parcel so un} ass st deyard setbacks of 25 feet or
greater are used. However, the Pqanntng Commission
may constrict extsttng one-story porttons of ~wo-story
structures not exceeding 12 feet maybe allowed a
maxlmm 15 foot street s~deyard setback.
5. The project shall be destgned tn a manner that ts not
only sensitive to, and compatible wtth the characters
of the Wctorta, Caryn and Et~wanda Co~,untttes, but
also ternforces that character through an Integrated
des1 gn and a~cht tectural theme.
6. khtle no spectffc a~chttectural style 4s required,
the Integrated theme sel acted she11 refl act the
trad4ttonal architectural styles found tn V~ctorta,
Caryn and Et4wanda, Including but not 1trotted to
those 11sted belw, Any one of the follwtng themes
may be utt 1 t zeal as dora1 n~nt theme or they may be
4nterspersed. Both one and t~o story buildings art
appropriate to the following categories.
a. W ctortan
Character4 st1 cs:
-ft el dstone foundations
- stee~ gab1 es and roofl tne
- po~chel and verandas
- bly wtnd~s
- verttcal ~tndovs
- roun~l~a~sd windows
- cl apboePd and f~t a
- board end barton sidtng
- 1 arge roof pr~4ecttons
b. Calt fornt a Bungal me
Charscraft st1 cs:
- hip or gable roof/geetly sloptng front
- porches/verandas, enriched foundations
c. California Ranch
Character1 st1 cs:
- 1 ow, ram~l tng
- rusttc, Informal, front porches/verandas
d. !~edt terranean
Character1 st1 cs:
- vertt ca1 ] tnes, a~cht ng ~t nd~s and
entrtes, ~ ttle
- stucco st~ng
e. any offie~ tn~gra~d d~t~ sty3e vht~ tn ~e
optnton of ~e ~stgn Revt~ ~t~ ~ets ~e
fn~nt of ~ts a~tc~e.
sha~ ~ be cons1 s~nt wt ffi ~e ~t ~ ~m. "$~o
s~ne' p~cts ~ be us~ ~ c~ s~ effK~,
exc~t whe~ rtver ~k ~cu~, ~t~ shall be nattve
s~ne. ~ever, tf a~ s~ne p~ts a~ us~, s~
~rtton of ~e untts ~all t~1u~ ~ttve s~ne.
8. Along mJor (co11K~ o~ a~ve) st~ts and ~e
st~t st ~ of co~er l o~ e~a~ mson~ shal 1 be
p~t ~, sN extol es ~ pa~ 6. A~ 1 o~er fenctng
wtffitn ~e ~r a~ st~ards ~all be p~v ~ at
~t o~ton of ~l butler. sub~t ~ CIty ~vtw and
epmvll of ~e ~lga a~ cmst~ctton.
9. Strut stl ll~Kelq a~ trrt~tton shall ~
~;~ pr4or a ~cupl~y.
hid II~KIH l~ lrrl~tte levihis shill
fi~t ~ IpF~H tn plan fore by ~t ~ Rlvtw
~tm prtor a ~ tssa~e of any butl~ng
N~ U · ~ee plaa ~111 cmUl n ~e fol 1 ~ ng
elgU:
I. ~t ~ral ly at g~ at 1 ~ ,t ~ ~ ~
color ~hl tl CUItI~ wl~ ~t i1111q
units p~i for ~ hWll by ~t bu41der.
i e~le m page 7.
b. Enhanced dr1 vway and front entry wa]k
treatments, utt ] tzt ng decorat1 ve pavecents and
,~ de wal kways.
c. Zn addttton to the standard parlc~ay trees, at
1 east three 15 gal 1 on trees per house would be
planted by the builder no later than occupancy
of the home. also. accent trees of at least 15
gallons in size will be provided in nanbets
sufficient to equal one tree per corner for each
intersection within the tracts. This tree
planting is to be designed in a manner to
relieve any monotony of the streetscape. perhaps
by cluster planting between the homes.
d. Irrigated and ruffed areas shall be provided for
each front and corner street side lot.
e. Paseo at the end of the 'A" street cul-de-sac
shall be provided, landscaped and annexed to a
landscape maintenance dt s~rtct.
I ~ CONCRETE
I:mILASTERS OCCUR EVERY
t
[ -- ~- --- S(~ TO 10(~ D.C.
HEIGHT VARIES 5'-6'- 6'-6'
~.- ~ CUT STONE VENEER
·
~"':a r STUCCO WALL
r'l IC FINISH GRADE
AT PRIMARY A) PERIMETEP,
ENTRY MONUMENT SITE BOUNOARY
TUBULAR STEEL FENCE
WITH 518' PICKETTB
~ 5' D.C.-BEIGE COLOR
Iq, ASTERS LOCATED AT
I:HqOeERTY
· t',IEK3HT VARIES FROM
5'66 TO 6'6'
GRADE
vIEW FENCE
.jl~""'"' lefi",A TER8 ~
~, N)" "~ 100" O.C, EVERY
HEIGHT VARIES FROM 5'6' TO
','. m_
~ · ORICIC VENEER
~:~ STUCCO WALL
"*' ~~ FINISH GRAOE
c
TYPICAL FENCE/WALL TREATMEN1
18" 18' STANDARD RURAL MAILBOXES
2'x5' GRAB SUPPORTS WITH
CHAMFERED ENOS
5'x5' POST WITH A CHAMFERED
TOP AND ROUTED GROOVE
RIVER ROCK BASE
FINISH GRADE
TYPICAL MAILBOX STAND ~1
18'
STANOARO RURAL MAILBOXES
2'x5' GRAB SUPPORTS WITH
CHAMFERED ENOS
5'x5' POST WITH A CHAMFEREO
TOP AND ROUTED GROOVE
BRICK BASE
FINISH GRADE
TYPICAL MAILBOX STAND
11' 11· STANOARO RURAL MAILBOXES
2'xS' ORAl 8UIqeORTS WITH
CHAMFEREl) ENOS
·
S'xB' POST WITH A CHAMFEREO
TOP ANO ROUTED GROOVE
SI'ONI 8ASI
SH GRAOI
NOTE: EACH ALTERNATIVE iS
TYPICAL MAILBOX STjIN~) ~3 SU.IJICT TO ACCEPTANCE
BY U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
TYPICAL MAIL BOX TREATMENTS
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIN~ COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13835, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
OF 78 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 25 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE),
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND
ROCHESTER, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 225-152-01 THROUGH 04 AND 18.
A. Recitals
(i) Homestead Savings has filed an application for a time extension
for Tentative Tract No. 13835 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 July 26, 1989, this Commission approved Development Agreement
89-03, and Development Districts Amendment (Pre-Zone) 89-02.
(iii) On October 18, 1989, the City Council approved Development
Agreement 89-03 and Development Districts Amendment 89-02 as well as
Annexation Agreement 89-03.
(iv) On December 19, 1988, the County of San Bernardino Board of
Supervisors approved Tentative Tract 13835.
(v) 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, and policies; and
(c) The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public
health and safety problems; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE FOR TT 13835 - HOMESTEAD
January 22, 1992
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:
Tract Applicant Expiration
13835 Homestead Savings December 19, 1992
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
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 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
'AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~nission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION
- A request for a time extension for a 3-lot subdivision and
design review of 115 condominium units on 10.27 acres of land
in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre ), located north of Arrow Highway and east of Baker
Avenue - APN: 207-201-32 and 12.
BACKGROUND: Tract 14055 was originally approved by the Planning
Commission on February 8, 1989. A one year time extension was granted
extending the map and related Design Review to February 8, 1992.
The applicant is currently requesting a one year time extension to
expire on February 8, 1993. 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 applicant may request two
additional time extensions to extend the map until February 8, 1994.
ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed the proposed time extension request and
compared the proposal with development criteria outlined in the
Development Code. Based upon this review, staff determined that the
project meets basic development standards of the Medium Residential
District- The provisions of Ordinance No. 465, the new multi-family
Development Standards, do not apply to time extension requests-
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, or the
character of the area wit]hin which the project is located
that would cause the approved project to become inconsistent
or non-conforming; and
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-
IT]~4 D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION
January 22, 1992
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the time extension request
for Tentative Tract 14055 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval.
Res y subm' ,
nner
BB:BN:jS
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Resolution 89-26
Exhibit "G" - Resolution 89-26A
Exhibit "H" - Resolution 89-27
Resolution of Approval
MODElIN CO!IPORAT!ON
TEL (818) 9~5-26~8
PUENTE HILLS BUSINESS CENTER FAX (818) 965-2268
17700 CASTLETON ST., SUITE 268
CITY OF INDUSTRY. CALIFORNIA 91748
December 10, 1991
Ms. Beverly Nisscn
Cil)' of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Dept.
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: Time Extension for Tentative Tract #14055
Dear Beverly:
This letter hereby serves as my request for a one (1) year dine extension for the above
referenced tentative tract. My records indicate that the map is scheduled to expire on
March :27, 1992 unless it is recorded prior to that date. Although it is my intention to
record the map and construct the project at the earliest possible date, the current
economic recession makes proceeding with the project difficult at this time. I have
expended a great deal of time and made a substantial financial commitment to this
project, and will move toward completion as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
jfTv 3F
;'~, ' ~"'A
DEC I i 199'1
E~"/.,-.HI~t"F
3 2 ~ 4 4
RB4T Pl. Ni LIIs'T
4 IN 2
411 s. all 4
~ B,EYATIQ~ AT a
4
I
4 311 2 414
CHY OF ITEM:"F'T 14o~.6'
....... ...... · !: !:.~:.: TITLE: 15~b~Mr% ~.UEV.
PLANNING-, DMSION
·
EXHIBIT: ~-,2. SCALE:
I ~11 2 2R 2
FRONT B. EVAl12N
TY~. S-~LE.X(W/I~TCXIY)
ITEM:T'T 14'O~ff TI~,L r,~vr'-
~ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLE: DU~D~Nr~ P.~_.V. ~'~:~.,X ~ '
PLANNING DMSION --
EXHIBIT:~ ~ SCALE: ~ ~ ~=
TTLE
4 311 2 31t 2
F!ICWr B. EVATION
,. .... . ,. .... .:: ::.,.., TITLE:
PLANNING,. DMSION =
.. i
EXHIB1T:,F,,-4.. SCALE: . ~_ _,'
RESOLUTION NO. 89-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COHHISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14055,
THE DEVELOPI~NT OF 115 TOWNHOUSE UNITS ON 10.27 ACRES OF
LAke), LOCATED NORTH OF ARROW HIGHWAY AND EAST OF BAKER
AVENUE IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF. APN: 207-201-32 AND 12
A. Rect ta 1 s.
(i ) Avaness Industries has filed an application for the approval
of Tentati ve Tract Map No. 14055 a s descrt bed t n the tt tl e of thts
Resolution. Herefnafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map
request is referred to as "the application".
(if) On the 8th of February, 1989, the Planning Conntsston of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application and concluded said hearing on that date.
(ili) 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 Conntssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as folloNs:
1. This Conntsston 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 Coantssion
during the above-referenced public hearing on February 8, 1989, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located north of Arrow
Highway and east of Baker Avenue with a street frontage of 132 feet along
Arrow Highway and 198 feet along Baker Avenue and is presently vacant, except
for two unimproved dtrt roads; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is in the
Low-~dt~n Residential District and is developed with a mbtle home park, the
property to the south of that site consists of older single fa~rily residences
in the Median Residential District, the property to the east is vacant, and
the property to the west is Baker Avenue, with single family residences beyond
in the Madturn Density Restdentlal District.
ExH F - I
PLANNING CO!~MISI~N 'SOLUTION NO. 89-26
TT 14055 - AVANESS .~USTRIES
February 8, 1989
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Co~antsston
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the spectfic findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, thts Conmntssion hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That tentatfve tract is consistent with the
General Plan, Development Code, and specffic
plans; and
(b) The destgn or improvements of the tentative
tract ls consistent with the General Plan,
Oevel opment Code, and spect ft c plans; and
(c) The site ts physically suttable for the type of
development proposed; and
(d) The design of the subdivision is not 11kely to
cause subsrant1 al envt tonmental damage and
avoidable In;lury to humans and wtldltfe or
thetr habitat; and
(e)The tentative tract is not likely to cause
sertous public health problems; and
(f) The design of the tentative tract wtll not
confllct with any easement acqutred by the
public at large, now of record, for access
through or use of the property wtthtn the
proposed subdivision.
4. Thts Commission hereby ftnds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental
Qualtty Act of 1970 and, further, thts ConB]sston hereby issues a Negatfve
Dec1 arati on.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth In paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard
Conditions attached hereto and Incorporated heretn by this reference:
Tentative Tract 14055
1. Some type of tntertm access between the mobile home park to the
northeast and Arrow Highway and/or Baker Avenue shall be
provtded at all ttmes during gradtrig and construction of the
project. Prior to occupancy, automatic sltdtng gates shall be
Installed at the lwo access potnts into the mobile home park and
gate keys, cards or some other appropriate device shall be
tssued to residents of the mobile home park only. Access shall
be restricted for residents of the proposed pro~Jec~ through the
PLANNING COI~4ISISO' .'ESOLUTION NO. 89-26
l'F 14055 - AVANESS .OUSTRIES
February 8, 1989
Page 3
mobile home park. ?he CC&Rs of the townhouse project shall
require the consistent maintenance of the gates. Any necessary
repairs shal 1 be the responsi bi 1 i ty of the Homeowners'
Associ ati on and shal 1 be so noted i n the CC&Rs. A11 operational
costs shall be borne by the Homeowners' Association of the
townhouse project and shall be so noted in the CC&Rs.
2. Any walls within the proposed project which are to be greater
than 6 feet in height, but 8 feet in height or less, shall
require a Minor Exception prior to issuance of permits.
3. Grading, construction, and the servicing and maintenance of
construction equipment shall not occur on Saturdays or Sundays
and shall not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
on weekdays.
4. Any unresol ved property 1 i ne confl i cts shal 1 be resol veal pri or
to issuance of bui 1 ding permits.
5. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of
the exi sting overhead uti 1 i ties ( tel ecomnuni cati on and
electrical) on the project side of Baker Avenue shall be paid to
the City prior to the approval of the Final Map. The fee sh-all
be the full City adopted unit amount times the length of the
project frontage.
6. The following reimbursements shall be paid prior to approval ~f
the Final Map.
a. Arrow Route - For the constructi on of al 1 street
improvements along the property frontage, including the
cost for undergrounding the overhead utilities; and
b. Baker Avenue - For the constructt on of al 1 street
improvements along the property frontage.
7. Access shall be provided through this project in favor of the
existing mobile home park adjacent to the northeast to the
satisfaction of the mobile home park owner. It is not the
intent that this be reciprocal access to allow traffic flow from
this tract to or through the project to the north. The access
shall be resolved and the existing blanket easement quit claimed
prior to the issuance of any permits or approval of the Final
Map, whichever occurs first. The access as shown on the
Tentative Map is acceptable to the City.
8. In order to maintain two means of access for the existing mobile
home park adjacent to the northwest, an additional driveway or
emergency only access shall be provided onto Baker Avenue within
the mobile home park frontage. This condition shall be waived
if the access is not agreeable to the mobile home park owners.
PLANNING COFeJlSI~N R LUTION NO. 89-26
TT 14055 - AVANESS INDUSTRIES
February 8, 1989
Page 4
9. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written
notice of the access easements granted by the tract map to the
residents of the mobile home park to the northeast. The terms
of this easement shall be noted in the CC&Rs of the Homeowners'
Association of the townhouse project.
10. Site directory (monument) sign(s) shall be provided prior to
occupancy at each vehi cul ar entrance to the project i n
conformance with the Sign Ordinance.
11. Permanent dust control measures shall be required and shall
include, bot not be limited to, the provision of sprinklers,
soil binders, and cover crops. The above noted provisions shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the
issuance of grading permits.
6. The Secretary to this Conmission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AIO ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989.
PLANNING CONNISSION OF THE CITY OF PANCliO CUCANDNGA
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Banning Conmission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Conmission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Conmission held
on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EIqERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COIeMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 89-26A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RA~CHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 14055, THE DEVELOPMENT OF 115 UNITS ON
10.27 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED NORTH OF ARROW
HIGHWAY AND EAST OF BAKER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN~ 207-201-32 AND 12.
A. Recitals.
(i) On February 8, 1989, the Planning Cc~mnission adopted its
Resolution No. 89-26, approving Tentative Trac~ 14055, a one-lot subdivision
for condominium purposes, consisting of 115 units.
(ii) On September 13, 1990, a modification request was filed by
Modern Corporation to change the map from a one-lot subdivision to a three-lot
subdivision for financing purposes.
(iii) On December 12~ 1990, and continued to February 13, March 13,
and March 27, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said
hearing on March 27,.1991.
(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, Par~ A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearings including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows=
(a) The application applies to proper~y located north of Arrow
Highway and east of Baker Avenue with a street frontage of 132 feet along
Arrow Highway and 198 feet along Baker Avenue and is presently vacant, except
for two unimproved dirt roads$ and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is in
Low-Medium Residential District and is developed with a mobile home park, the
property to the south of the site consists of older single family residences
in the Medium Residential District, the property to the east is vacant with a
designation of Medium Residential, and the property to the west is Baker
Avenue, with single family residences beyond in the Medium Residential
District.
PLANNING COMMISSION RL_~LUTION NO. 89-26A
TT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION
March 27, 1991
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) The Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan and
the Development Code; and
(b) The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract are
consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code; and
(c} The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed; and
(d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife
or their habitat; and
(e) The Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public
health problems; and
(f) The design of the Tentative Tract will not conflict with
any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access
through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision.
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, that a Negative Declaration was issued on
February 9, 1989.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby modifies the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below and incorporated herein by this
reference.
plannina Division
1) All Conditions of Approval as contained in
Resolution No. 89-26 shall apply, except as may
be modified herein.
2) Each phase shall maintain two points of
access. The loop driveway shall be completely
constructed with Phase I.
3) Construction shall be in accordance with the
phasing plan. In particular, the main
(westerly) recreation area and pool shall be.
constructed with Phase I.
PLANNING COMMISSIO[..~SOLUTION NO. 89-26A
TT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION
March 27, 1991
Page 3
4) Automatic sliding gates shall be installed at
the'two access points into the mobile home park
and gate keys, cards, or some other appropriate
device shall be issued to the residents of the
Mobile Home Park only. This shall be completed
with Phase I.
5) Prior to the 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 pertaining
to the project site to provide, in conjunction
with the applicable School District, for the
construction and maintenance of necessary
school facilities. However, if any School
District has previously established such a
Community Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the
annexation of the project site into the
territory of such existing District prior to
the recordation of the final map or the
issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first.
Further, if the affected School District has
not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District within 12 months of the date of
approval of the time extension and prior to the
recordation of the final map or issuance of
building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
Further, should the District and the developer
reach an agreement prior to recordation of the
map, this condition shall be deemed null and
void.
6) Installation of landscaping and irrigation in
the parkway along Arrow (between sidewalk and
curb) shall be completed with Phase I.
1) A reciprocal easement for a Joint use driveway
shall be provided prior to recordation of the
Final Map in favor of the properties to the
west on Arrow Route.
PLANNING COMMISSION ._~QLUTION NO. 89-26A
TT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION
March 27, 1991
Page 4
2) If the project is constructed in phases, the
first phase shall construct: a) the drive
aisle connecting from Baker Avenue to Arrow
Route to provide two means of access; b) the
drive aisle connecting to the two access points
into the mobile home park; and c) the automatic
sliding gates for the two access points into
the mobile home park.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 1991.
PLANNING CO ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
f .
BYz ' ~
cNiel, Chairman
ATTEST=
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Co~mission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby cer~cify 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 27th day of March 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES= COMMISSIONERS= CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES= COMMISSIONERS z NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSz NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 89-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCANONGA PLANNING COI~qISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT NO. 14055 LOCATED NORTH
Or ARROW HIGHWAY AND EAST OF BAKER AVENUE IN THE MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOr. APN: 207-201-32 AND
12
A. Recital s.
(i) Avaness Industries has filed an application for the Design
Review of Tract No. 14055 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the
application".
(it) On February 8, 1989, the Planning Conmission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
(ttt) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resol uti on.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Conmission 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 thts Conrot ssi on
during the above-referenced meeting on February 8, 1989, including written and
oral staff reports, this Conmission hereby specifically finds as follows:
1. That the proposed project is consistent with the
objectives of the General Plan; and
2. That the proposed design is in accord with the
objective of the Development Code and the purposes
of the di strtct t n which the site i s 1 ocated; and
3. That the proposed design is in compliance with each
of the applicable provisions of the Development
Code; and
4. That the proposed design, . together with the
conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the pub1 t c heal th, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements' in the vicinity.
PLANNING CC3t~ISSIC 'ESOLUTION NO. 89-27
DRT 14055 - AVANES~ ~NDUSTRIES
February 8, 1989
Page 2
3. Based upon the ftndtngs and conclusions set roach tn paragraphs
1 and 2 above, thts Commtssfon hereby approves the application subject to each
and every condition set forth below and tn the attached Standard Conditions
attached he~eto and incorporated heretn by thts reference.
1. The Baker Avenue and Arro~ Highway frontages and the side
elevation of the unit at the Baker Avenue entry shall be
upgraded to be conslstont w]th the level of detail provided on
all front elevations. Upgradfng shall tnclude multl-paned
wtndows, fasci a trt m, etc.
2. The Arrow Htghway entry shall be significantly upgraded wtth
some type of decorative treatment stadlar to that provided at
the Baker Avenue entry. Some type of low planter wall may be
tncorporated.
3. The wall along the Baker Avenue frontage shall not be st x feet
tn hetght, but three feet tnstead. 14fought tron, up to three
feet In hetght, may be used on top, tf destred for securtty
purposes. The wal 1 shal 1 be stucco, pat nted to match -the
exterfor of the extsttng untts and shall be upgraded wtth a
decorative cap and/or some type of ttle detatl.
4. The second stdewalk along Baker Avenue, wtthtn the tntertoP of
the project, shall be deleted.
5. Additional trees shall be provtded along the Arrow Htghway
frontage.
4. The Secretary to thfs Commission shall certtfy to the adoptton
of thfs Resolutfon.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1989.
PLANNING CO SSXON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCNRONGA
BY:
ATTEST:
PLANNING COHHISSIO* r. SOLUTION NO. 89-27
DRT 14055 - AVANESs ,NDUSTRIES
February 8, 1989
Page 3
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Conmission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Conmission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Conmission held
on the 8th day of February, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: 'CONNISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, ENERICK, HCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COI~qISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CONHI SSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TIME
EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14055, AND DESIGN REVIEW
THEREOF, A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION OF 115 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON
10.27 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED NORTH OF ARROW
HIGHWAY AND EAST OF BAKER AVENUE - APN: 207-201-32 AND
12.
A. Recitals
(i) Modern Corporation has filed an application for the extension of
Tentative Tract No' 14055 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 February 8, 1989, this Commission adopted its Resolution No.
89-26 and 89-27, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time
limits, Tentative Tract No. 14055 and Design Review for Tentative Tract 14055.
(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,
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, and policies; and
(c) The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause
public health and safety problems; and
(d) The extension is within the time limits prescFibed by state
law and local ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 14055 - MODERN CORPORATION
January 22, 1992
Page 2
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a Time Extension for:
Tract Applicant Expiration
TT 14055 Modern Corporation February 8, 1993
Design Review Modern Corporation February 8, 1993
for TT 14055
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
PLANNING COMM'ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR~ 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 January 8, 1992.)
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 January 8, 1992.)
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 from January 8, 1992.)
ITEMS E, F, & G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF R.C.
January 22, 1992
Page 2
ABSTRACT: Staff requests continuance of this item to February 26, 1992,
for the purpose of providing additional time for "good faith"
negotiations on the City's University/Crest lawsuit.
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the subject items at
their September 11, October 9, November 13, and December 11, 1991, and
January 8, 1992, 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.
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 February 26,
1992.
Respe~ ~~
lanner
BB:MB/jfs
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22, 1992 ~j
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ~
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - The development of
Fire Station No. 4, Phase II, consisting of a 24,030 square foot
maintenance and training facility, a 3,432 square foot training
tower, a 120 square foot pump test enclosure, and an emergency
helispot on 7.08 acres of land in the Minimum Impact Heavy
Industrial District ( Subarea 9 ) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at the southwest corner of Jersey Boulevard and
Milliken Avenue - APN: 229-111-23.
BACKGROUND: This application was continued from the December 17, 1991,'
Planning Commission meeting to allow the architect sufficient time to modify
the application and address Commiss~on's questions pertaining to the
establishment of a household hazardous waste collection site and the design of
the central plaza.
These items are scheduled for review by the Design Review Committee on January
16, 1992. An oral report on the outcome of the Design Review Committee
meeting will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS: Station No. 4 will operate their household hazardous waste
collection facility similar to current operational activities at Station No.
3. Proposed hours of operation are on Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.,
however, the District wants the ability to modify the hours of operation
depending upon the needs of the facility and the public. The current facility
is manned by the shift of firemen on duty at the station. City maintenance
workers will be trained by the San Bernardino Environmental Health Services
Department to operate the facility in conjunction with the Fire District.
This will consist of approximately two maintenance workers per shift. The
types of materials accepted are household wastes and are predominantly
automobile oil, but also include paint, pesticides, and other chemicals.
Res ully it ,
City Planner
BB:TG/jfs
Attachments: Staff Report dated December 11, 1991
Resolution of Approval
IT~4 H
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 11, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission !i~
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - The
development of Fire Station No. 4, Phase II, consisting of a
24,030 square foot maintenance and training facility, a 3,432
square foot training tower, a 120 square foot pump test
enclosure, and an emergency helispot on 7.08 acres of land in
the Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southwest
corner of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue - APN:
229-111-23.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit, detailed
site plan, grading plan, landscape plan, and building elevations and
the issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration.
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Vacant; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9)
South - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 10)
East - Industrial building; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial
(Subarea 9)
West - Industrial building; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial
(Subarea 9)
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Heavy Industrial
North - Heavy Industrial
South - General Industrial
East - Heavy Industrial
West - Heavy Industrial
D. Site Characteristics: The project site is currently under
construction for Phase I of Fire Station No. 4. Phase I
improvements include an 18,128 square foot fire station, service
station, and carport buildings.
E. Parking Calculations: Parking requirements for Phase I were based
upon a twenty-four hour shift consisting of twelve firefighters and
one Battalion Chief. Parking requirements for Phase II were based
upon staffing and anticipated instructional uses- The training
PLANNING COMMISSION ~TAFF REPORT
CUP 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RDA
December 11, 1991
Page 2
center and maintenance facility will have a total of twelve staff
members. Class sizes of the training center may occasionally exceed
the number of designated on-site parking spaces. The detailed site
plan (see Exhibit "B") identifies an area that may be used as the
designated area for overflow parking. Based upon this information,
there should be significant parking on-site to accommodate all uses
of the facility.
Phase I Phase II TOTAL
Visitor 12 0 12
Personnel 24 23* 47
TOTAL 36 23 59
*This figure does not include seven truck parking spaces
located directly north of the maintenance center.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The Phase II proposal consists of a 24,030 square foot
training center and maintenance facility, a 3,432 square foot
training tower, a 120 square foot pump test enclosure building, and
an emergency hellspot. The training center will contain office
space and three classrooms to allow for the training of district
personnel; this facility may be leased to other agencies. The
maintenance center will be for the repair of district vehicles and
the pump test enclosure building will be used to test the draw of
pump units on the engines- The construction of these buildings may
be broken down into two additional phases with the maintenance
center and pump test enclosure in the first phase and the training
center and training tower in the second phase.
The architectural style, form, and building mass of the proposed
buildings are consistent with the fire station building currently
under construction. The buildings will be constructed of red brick
blocks (4 X 8 X 12-inch block size) with gray accent color bands.
Architectural features include utilizing saw tooth roofs,
contrasting brick lintels, translucent roofing material (when
applicable ), and accentuating metal work. Two of the three
buildings in the training tower will use the same form and
materials; one of the training tower buildings wil 1 be concrete
tilt-up. Each of the training tower buildings contain decorative
metal work on their roofs (to be .painted one of the three primary
colors ).
The plaza area located behind the monument sign (between the fire
station, maintenance center, and training center) continues to be a
major design issue. The examples presented on the site plan (see
Exhibit "B" ) follow a design approach previously established by
continuing the brick paving element used in the driveways. This
design was reviewed by the Design Review Committee, however, final
acceptance of the plaza design was deferred to the full Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION ~TAFF REPORT
CUP 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RDA
December 11, 1991
Page 3
B. Emergency Hellspot: The project was designed to accommodate the
landing of helicopters in emergency situations. The landing zone is
located at the south end of the project site directly south of the
training tower. The Planning Commission has the ability to approve-
in-concept emergency landing zones and the Fire District may
establish emergency landing zones under the provisions of the
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Landing Sites, which are exempt
from the state permitting process. However, use of the helispot for
non-medical emergencies, both public and private, requires approval
by the California Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics. Conditions of approval reflect that if the district
anticipates use of the helispot for non-medical emergencies or by
other agencies, permits from all applicable governmental agencies
(i.e., Caltrans and/or the Federal Aviation Administration) shall be
submitted to the City Planner prior to the establishment of such
emergency helispot use.
C. Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site: Fire Station No. 4 is
the newly designated location for the collection of household
hazardous waste (i.e., automotive oil, paint, pesticides, etc)- The
facility for the collection of these materials is currently located
at the temporary Fire Station No- 3 where the material is contained
in 55-gallon drums stored in a roll-away dumpster. The collection
of these materials is subject to approval by the San Bernardino
County Environmental Health Services Department. Upon submittal of
a "Business Plan" to the Environmental Health Services Department, a
permit will be issued to allow for the operation of the facility.
The purpose of the permit process is to notify the Environmental
Health Services Department what materials are stored in case of an
accidental spill, to allow for proper clean up of the collection
site once the use has been discontinued, and to provide public
information on permitted collection sites. The Environmental Health
Services Department will make annual, or as needed, inspections of
the facility. Receipts from the hazardous materials handler should
be provided to verify proper removal of the material. The
conditions of approval require approval by the Environmental Health
Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits for
the storage facility. The exact location or design, either
permanent or temporary, has not yet been established; so conditions
were tailored to allow the placement of the collection site subject
to Design Review Committee review and approval.
D. Design Review Committee: On February 7, 1991, staff conducted a
Planning Commission Workshop allowing all Commissioners the
opportunity to comment on design and site planning issues prior to
the applicant's submission of a formal application. On August 8,
1991, the Design Review Committee (Melcher, Vallette, Buller)
reviewed the project and recommended approval with the following
modifications:
PLANNING COMMISSION ~TAFF REPORT
CUP 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RDA
December 11, 199 1
Page 4
1. The design of the metal column on the northeast and northwest
elevations should be revised. The architect proposed either a
brushed or anodized aluminum finish.
2. The design of the pump test enclosure building fascia was
considered acceptable and will remain a painted metal finish.
3. Review of the plaza design was deferred to the Planning
Commission. The Committee suggested removal of the proposed
palm trees and replacement with large canopy shade trees.
The exhibits included within the staff repert have been revised
based upon Design Review Ces~ittee comaents.
E. Environmental Assessment: The applicant has completed Part I of the
Initial Study. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental
Checklist and determined that the emergency hellspot and the
collection of household hazard6us waste may have significant effects
on the environment.
The designation of an emergency helispot may have a significant
effect on the environment due to increased noise levels. As the
noise impact issue depends upon frequency of use, public health and
safety concerns override noise level concerns as the helispot will
only be used for emergency situations. To provide a legal emergency
hellspot, the project is conditioned to obtain approval permits for
operation of the facility prior to issuance of building permits.
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.02.120.E. exempts
emergency equipment/vehicles from the City's noise standards because
of the overriding need to promote the health, safety, and welfare of
the general public.
The collection of household hazardous waste may have a significant
effect on the environment if not stored or disposed of in a correct
manner. As a mitigation measure, the project is conditioned to
submit a "Business Plan" to and obtain a permit from the San
Bernardino County Environmental Health Services Department for the
establishment of a hazardous waste collection facility. The
Environmental Health Services Department will inspect the facility
for proper storage and verify that the material is disposed of
properly.
Because of broad general welfare concerns, staff believes that
neither of the uses will have a significant effect on the
environment and recommends that the Planning Commission issue a
mitigated Negative Declaration-
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following
findings before approving this application:
PLANNING COMMISSION bTAFF REPORT
CUP 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RDA
December 11, 199 1
Page 5
A. ~hat the proposed project is in accordance with the General Plan,
the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan subarea in which the project is
located;
B. That the proposed project 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 project complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific
Plan.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in
the Inland ValleX Dail~ Bulletin newspaper, the property has been
posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within a 300-foot
radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Modification to
Conditional Use Permit 89-23 through adoption of the attached Resolution
of Approval and issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration.
Respec ly su d,
BB:TG/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Plaza Landscape Plan
Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations
Resolution of Approval
//
~.4
~ sO.O~ AC 4
,
I
I
~ ~0~-3~-7~ N0.23
EIGHTH STREET
"" ' ' '~ c
~/ ,, ....
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
FIRE D~T
~INTEN~E/~AI~ //
CENTER /
24.030~ ,
/
~ /
~ /
,
/
~- ,/
. /
/
/
, //
~-~ /
'~ /
~ -~/
/
/
, /
/
',~ /
~ /
~ //
/, . ...... ? '~'~
CI~ Or ~~'~O:'.,~UC~ONGA "
P~~'NG-. D~SION ~l[ ~
"' ~ ~~ E~~: SCALE:
JERSEY BLVD,
/
·
~,,
{~ARY AC~NT TREE
EVE~N VE~AL TREE
~TER T~E
~C~S VERT~AL TREE
~Y ~D, STREET TREE
5'-6'~
' ~ tAVE ~
/
//
P~~'NG':'. ;D~SION ~E: ~
. ......... ... :. E~ff: ~ ~ SCALE: ~
RESOLUTION NO. 89-125A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE MODIFICATION
TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-23 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FIRE STATION NO. 4, PHASE II, CONSISTING OF A 24,030
SQUARE FOOT MAINTENANCE AND TRAINING FACILITY, A 3,432
SQUARE FOOT TRAINING TOWER, A 120 SQUARE FOOT PUMP TEST
ENCLOSURE BUILDING, AND AN EMERGENCY HELISPOT ON 7.08
ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JERSEY
BOULEVARD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, IN THE MINIMUM IMPACT
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 9) OF THE INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 229-111-23
A. Recitals.
( i ) The Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency has filed an
application for the Modification t'o Conditional Use Permit No. 89-23 as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Modification to Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as
"the application."
(ii) On the llth day of December 1991, and continued to the 17th day
of December 1991 and the 22nd day of January 1992, the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the
application and concluded said hearings 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 December 17, 1991, and January
22, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located on Parcel 8 of
Parcel Map 11891, with a street frontage of 600 feet along Jersey Boulevard
and 835 feet along Milliken Avenue. The project site contains Fire Station
No. 4 which is currently under construction; and
(b) The properties to the north and south of the subject site
are vacant and the properties to the east and west contain existing industrial
buildings; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-125A
CUP 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RDA
January 22, 1992
Page 2
(c) The development of a fire station maintenance and training
center is permitted under the provisions of the Minimum Impact Heavy
Industrial District of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and
(d) The noise generated by such use is exempted from the noise
standards for the district by Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section
17.02.120.E.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts as set forth in paragraphs i 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 Industrial
Area Specific Plan subarea 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 us6 complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
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 mitigated
Negative Declaration.
5. Based.upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1) All pertinent conditions of approval as contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-125 shall
apply.
2) The hellspot is approved-in-concept for use as an
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Landing Site as
provided in the California Department of
Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Title 21.
If the Fire District anticipates use of the hellspot
for non-medical emergencies by public (i.e., Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Department, Rancho Cucamonga Police
Department, California Department of Forestry, etc.)
or private agencies, a Site Approval Permit from the
Division of Aeronautics and the Federal Aviation
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-125A
CUP 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RDA
January 22, 1992
Page 3
Administration (if applicable), shall be submitted to
the City Planner prior to the establishment of such
emergency helispot use.
3) The applicant shall submit a "Business Plan" to the
San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services
Department for approval of a household hazardous
waste collection site. The "Business Plan" approval
shall be submitted to the City Planner prior to the
issuance of building permits for the collection
site. The applicant shall submit a Minor Development
Review application for the construction of a
household hazardous waste collection site which shall
be subject to Design Review Committee review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
4) The metal column on the northeast and northwest
elevations shall have either a brushed or anodized
aluminum finish.
5) The block used in the building elevations shall be a
4 X 8 X 12-inch brick block in a color consistent
with the fire station building.
6) All equipment shall be ground mounted and shall be
adequately screened by landscaping and low decorative
walls. Any landscape screening shall be shown on the
landscape and irrigation plan and shall be subject to
City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
7) If construction of this project is divided into
additional phases, those areas left undeveloped shall
be provided with landscaping and irrigation for
erosion and dust control to the satisfaction of the
City Planner. The temporary landscaping shall be
shown on the Landscape and Irrigation Plan which
shall be submitted for City Planner review and
approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
Enqineerina Division
1) Conditions for Conditional Use Permit 89-23, as
approved by Planning Commission Resolution No.
89-125, shall apply.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-125A
CUP 89-23 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA RDA
January 22, 1992
Page 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THI~ 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
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 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
o, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. TIme LImits
,/'/ 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Pinning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review s1181( be 8,oproved prior to / / ,
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of
/ 4. Thedeveiopershallcomrnence, participate in, and consurnmate or cause to be commenced, / /
participated in, or consummated, a Melio-Roos Community Facilities Dislrict (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prolecllon Dist~:l Io finance conslruction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to sewe the development. The station shall be located, designed, and buill to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prolection District, and shall become the
Districrs pmpe~y upon compietlon. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with ils needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulalions. The CFD shall be Iormed by the District and the deveiopor
by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permils, whichever comas / /.__
first, lhe applicant shall consent to, or particil)ale in, the estabiishmant of a Melk>-Roos
Community Facilifles District lor the construction and maintenance of necessaW SChool
facilifies. However, if any sct~ol district has previously established such a Community
Facilities Disfrict, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent Io the annexation of the
project site into the lerritory Of such existing District prior to the recordation of lhe fina~ map
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comas first. Further, if the affected SCtx~ol
district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of approval of the pmiect and prior to the recorclation of the final map or issuance
of. building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
SC - 2/9l I
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
sctx>ol districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all scIz~ol
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 certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance
of porrnits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
PIning D' isio th ndltlons contained herein,
Developmere Cede regulations, and G4A'
Specific Plan.~q~l-,
/ 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. OccupancyofthefadlityshallnotcomrnenceuntilsuchtirneasallUniformBuiidingCodeand
State Fire Marshairs 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.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development
Code, all other applicable Cily Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and
Sheriff's Department (989-6611 ) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, herruing, and/or.~,::~ing to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
~ - 2/9! 2
Co~pieuo~
. 11. Street na~s shall ~ subm~ for C~y Planner review a~ approval in a~rda~e w~h / /.__
the a~ ~reet Nami~ Pol~y p~r to a~mval of the final m~.
/ 12. All ~i~i~ num~m a~ i~iv~ual un~s shall ~ ~entffi~ in a clear a~ ~ise manner, / /.__
i~ludi~ pm~r iiluminatbn.
13. A delailed plan ind~ali~ trail w~ths, ~i~m s~pes, phys~al m~bns, fendS, a~ / /
we~ ~mml, in a~rda~e w~h C~ Master Trail drawings, shall ~ ~bm~ for C~y
Planner review a~ a~mval p~rto ~pmval a~ mmffiation of the Final Tra~ Map a~r~r
to ~mval of street improvemere a~ gradi~ plans. ~ve~r shall u~r~e a~ ~n~m~
all trails. i~luding fe~ing and drainage ~v~s, in ~n~n w~h street improvements.
14. T~ ~venams, ~ns a~ Restd~bns (CC&Rs) s~ll ~t mh~ t~ keepi~ of ~ine / /
animls where zoni~ r~uiremems brthe kee~ of a~ anim~ have been met. I~ividual
bt ownera in su~isbns shall have the o~bn of ke~ sa~ anima~ w~ t~ n~ess~y
of ~ealing to ~a~s of dir~ors or ~m~wne~' as~tbns for a~nd~ms to the
CC&Rs.
15. ~e ~venants, ~ions, a~ Re~ns (CC&Rs) a~ An~es of In~ration of the /
Hom~wners' As~iat~n are subj~ to t~ ~val of t~ Pinni~ a~ E~ineeri~
D~is~ns and the C~y A~o~y. They shall ~ re~ ~ffemly w~h the R~i M~ or
pmr to t~ issua~e of ~i~i~ ~Rs. whoever ~m limt. A r~ffi~ ~py shall ~
pmv~ed to t~ CiW Engineer.
16. ~1 pa~ays, o~n areas. a~ la~~ shall ~ ~~m~ mimain~ by the prope~ / /
~ner, hornowners' ashlatin, or ot~r ma~ a~ll to t~ C~. Pmf of this
land~ maimena~e s~ll ~ mb~ for C~ Plan~r a~ C~ E~ineer review a~
~roval p~r to issua~ of bui~i~ ~Rs.
17. ~lar ~ess easerams shall ~ d~ for t~ ~ of a~umi~ that each lot or / /
~elli~ unit shall have the r~ffi to r~e~e ~nl~N ~mB ~m ~ts or unRs for use of
a ~lar ene~ system. ~e easerams may ~ ~mai~ in a ~Irm~n of Rest~ns for
t~ su~ivis~n wh~h shall ~ m~ffi~ ~ffem~ with ~ r~t~n of the linal m~ or
is~a~ of ~s, whoever ~ms tim. h erarams ~all ~h~ the ~ting of
shins by v~tat~n, m~ures, fmr~ or a~ omr ~, ex~ for mil~ wires a~
similar ~e~s. ~muant to ~vemm ~ ~n 17.~ .~2.
18. T~ pm~ ~mai~ a ~s~m~ Hi~o~l ~m~. T~ s~e s~ll ~ deve~ a~ / /
mimai~d in ~ffia~e w~h t~ Himo~ La~m~ ~em~n Pe~ ~.
. Any lunar md~ to t~ sRe i~i~, ~ ~ lim~ to, e~e~r a~erat~ns a~or
ime~r aRera~ ~h ~e~ t~ e~e~r of t~ ~i~i~ or ~ur~. mmval of ~mam
trees, demlR~n, re~t~n, r~nst~n of ~i~i~s or ~m~ures. or c~es to the s~e
shall r~im a ~ff~n ~ ~e Histo~ La~m~ ARerm~n Pemt ~bj~ to Historic
Prese~m~n Comiss~n r~ a~ ~val.
C. Building ilgn
1. An aRemarie e~rgy symem ~ r~imd to ~vl ~m~ ~t water for all ~elli~ un~s /
a~ for ~ating a~ ~im~ ~1 or ~. unlss ot~r aRe~ve e~ syme~ are
dem~trmed to ~ of ~ivalm ~ a~ eff~i~. ~1 ~im~ ~t i~al~ at the
tim of in~ial deve~pmem shall ~ ~~m~ wffi ~ir ~ati~. Details shall ~
i~d~ in t~ ~i~i~ ~ans a~ shall ~ sum~ for C~y Plan~r rev~ a~ ~roval
p~r to the ~sua~e of ~i~ing ~Rs.
2. All ~elli~s shall have the front, s~ a~ rear e~vat~ns u~rad~ w~h archit~tu ral /
treatram. detaili~ a~ i~reas~ deli~at~n of sud~ treatram ~ to C~ Planner
revi~ a~ a~mval pdor to issua~ of ~i '~~)s.
~ - 2/9~ 3
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. A~~r~~fappurtenances~indudingairc~nditi~nersand~therr~~frn~untedequiprnentand/~r
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 Access (Indicate detNla on building plans)
1. AII parking iot landscape islands shall have a minirreum 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 dwe Ilings/units/buildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers ff driveways are less than 18 feet in
depth from back of sidewalk.
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 submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and
Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District review and aperoyal prior to issuance of buiiding
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly mNntNnecl landscape arm, refer to Section N.)
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, irr, kading slope planting and model home landscap-
ing in the case of residential development, Shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier
in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall foeow all of the arbodsrs
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods.
3. Aminimumof trees per gross acre , comprised of the following sizes, shall be Provided
within the project: % - 4,8- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger,
__ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15-galion, and __ % - 5 gallon.
4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees -
24-inch box or larger.
5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gatlon tree for every three
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
SC - 2/91 4
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one C°mded°nD'"':
tree per 30 linear feet of building. / /
7. A~~privates~~pebanks5feet~r~essinvertica~heightand~f5:1~rgreaters~~pe~but~essthan / /.__
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to de installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
8. AII private slopas in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet inverticalheightandof2:l orgreater / /-
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15.gallon or larger size tree par each 150 eq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub par each 100 sq. ft. of siopa area, and appropciate ground cover. In addition, slope
hanks 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 par each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- / /
ously maintained in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to re leasing occupancy for those u nits, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Ranning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
10. For multi-family residential and ncn-resldential development, property owners are respen- / /
sible for the continual rnaintenence of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or / /
· This requimrnem shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
,/' 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be / /
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13.Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- /
ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along
14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of*way on / /
the pedrneter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
/ 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatrnent. fflocated in public malntenance areas / /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and / /
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteda shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
17. Landscaping and irrigation Shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / /
Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
sc- 2/9 x 5
c~e,o~ O.,-:
F. SIgns
1. Thesignsindicatedonthesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartofthisal~roval. / /
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this clevelopmen~ shall De subrnRled for Cily Planner review and/ /
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monumenf sign(s) shall be provided for Rl:~rtmerR, condominium, or townhomes / /
prior to occupancy and shall require separme applic~ion and ~:~mval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building parmils.
G. Environmenial
1. The deveicpar shall provide each prospective buyer w~en notice of the Fourth Street Roc~ / /
Crusher projed in a standard forram as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a
cash deposil on any properly.
2. The developer shall provide each pmspeclive buyer writlen notice ol the City Adopted / /
Special S!udies Zone for the Bed Hill Faull, in a s~ancl~rcl forrr~ as determined by the City
Planner, prior to ~::cepting a cesh deposit on any property.
3. The developer sr~ll provide each proepeclive buyer wri~en notice of the Foolhill Freeway / /
projec~ in a slancl~rcl forrn~ ~s delermined by lhe C~ Planner, prior Io ~ccepting a c~sh
deposjl on any properly.
4. A finBI acouslic~l report sr~ll be subrnil~ed for Cily Planner review ~ ~opmval prior to the / /
issuance of building parmils. The final report sl'~ll discuss the level of inlerior noise
a~enumion to beiow 45 CNEL, the building rr~eri~ls ~xl cons~ruclion techniques provided,
and if ~ppropriale, verify the ~leqq.~-'y of the milig~ion rne~sures. The Ixlilding plans will be
checked for conforrr~nce with lhe mi~igation measures confained in the fir~l report.
H. C~her Agencies
/' 1. Emergencyseoondary~ccesssr~llbeprovldedinaccord~ncewjlhl:t~r~,hoCuc~mongaFire /
Proteclion Di~ricl
/'/2. Emergency~cx:esesr~llbeprovlded, rn~inlermncefree~xlclear, aminimumof261eetwide / /
· 1 all limes ckirjng coflslruclion in ~ccorcl~ce will~ Ft~ncl~o Cuc~mong~ Fire Proteclion
Dislr~ requimmenls.
//3. Prior to issu~,e ol building permils for combumibie conmruc~ton, evidence sh~ll be / /
submitlecl to lhe Fh~.,ho Cuc~mong~ Fire. Proleclion Dislricl tl~ lemporary wmer supply for
fire prolecllon is ~vail~ble, pending completion of required fire protection system.
4. The ~oplic~nf sh~ll corm~ me U. S. Postal ,Service to cle~ermine the ~pmprime Wpe ~ / /
Ioc~ion of meil boxes. Muilkfamify resldenfial developmenle $1~11 provide a solid overhead
mruc~ure for rn~il boxes with ~clume ligl~tng. The fjn~il Ioc~ion of ~ rr~il boxee and the
design of the overhead slruc~ure stlall be subiec~ to City Planner review and ~}lxoval prior
to lhe issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities. written certification of acceptability. including all/ /
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardi'no County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building pe/~,~::;(/,:;;~ Z/
SC - 2/9 ! 6
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
~,OMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
1. The applicant shall cornply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- / /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition / /
to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee. Drainage Fee, Systems
Developmere Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
,-'/'/ 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial deveh:q:H'nent or / /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
,,/ 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation / /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J, Existing Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances / /
considering use, area, .and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to cornply with correct building and zoning regulations for / /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existing sewage disposal fadlitles shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the /
Uniform Plumping Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for / /
building permit application.
K. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / /.-
Grading Startdafds, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the al3xoved grading plan.
2. A soils report shah be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the Stme of California to / /
perform such work.
.// 3. The development is located within the soil erosion conlrol boundaries; a Soil Disturbance / /.-
Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardino County Department of Agriculture at (714)
387-2111 for permit agqc)lication. Documentation of such permit shaft be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
,,,/ 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at / /
the time of application for grading plan check.
/ 5. Thefinalgradingpiansshallbecomptetedandappmvedpriortoissuanceofbuildingpermits. / /
SC- 2/9 ], 7
/' ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-16
(GOVERNMENT REFERRAL 89-08} - CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT - A request to establish a wastewater treatment
plant on 32.5 acres of land in the Heavy Industrial District
(Subarea 15) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at
the southwest comer of 6t~ Street and Etiwanda Avenue -
APN: 229-283-62.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the operation of a wastewater treatment plant.
B- Applicable Regulations: Extensive Impact Utility Facilities are
permitted within Subarea 15 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Southern California Edison Power Plant; Heavy Industrial,
Subarea 15, Industrial Area Specific Plan
South - West Valley Detention Center; Heavy Industrial, Subarea
15, Industrial Area Specific Plan
East - Electrical Transmission Lines and Kaiser Steel Plant;
Heavy Industrial, San Bernardino County
West - Warehouse; Heavy Industrial, Subarea 15, Industrial Area
Specific Plan
D. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Heavy Industrial
North - Heavy Industrial
South - Heavy Industrial
East - Heavy Industrial
West - Heavy Industrial
E. Site Characteristics: The project site is covered with gapevines,
as it was previously the location of the Etiwanda Grape Products
Winery.
ITeM I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 90-16 - CBMWD
January 22, 1992
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The Chino Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) is
proposing to construct a wastewater reclamation plant on the west
side of Etiwanda Avenue between 6th Street and the West Valley
Detention Center. The service area for the 32.5 acre plant will
encompass a 35 square mile region which includes portions of Rancho
Cucamonga, Fontana, and some presently unincorporated territory.
The project phasing plan calls for the construction of four
expansion increments of 7 million gallons per day (mgd) each, for
an ultimate plant capacity of 28 mgd when it is scheduled to be
completed in 2007. The maximum number of employees at the plant
during any of the three shifts will be 26. A total of 37 parking
spaces have been provided at the Operations Building. The
Development Code requires 22 spaces for the 5,300 square foot
building.
In addition to various buildings, numerous tanks and basins are
required elements of the operation. Please refer to the attached
site plan (Exhibit "C") for the locations of these structures. The
design of the project has been primarily dictated by the functional
requirements of the plant facilities. Exterior building walls will
be constructed using a combination of split-face and fluted
concrete block and a stucco-type material referred to as
cementitious coating. A metal roof will be used on several of the
buildings.
Because of the nature of the project, the City is concerned with
the design of the streetscape. The perimeter of the site will be
surrounded by a decorative 8-foot high block wall located at the
required setbacks. Raised planters will be incorporated into the
design of the wall. Drought tolerant, low-maintenance landscaping
will be provided in front of the wall to add interest to the
streetscape and to screen the interior of the site from public
view.
B- Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed this
project on June 6, and November 14, 1991. At the November meeting,
the Committee recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Raised planters should be incorporated into the perimeter
wall.
2. Vines should be planted along the perimeter wall.
3- The applicant should work with staff to add interest to the
corner of 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue. Specimen size trees
should be added.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 90-16 - CBMWD
January 22, 1992
Page 3
These comments have been incorporated as conditions in the attached
Resolution of Approval.
C- Technical Review Committee: The Committee has reviewed the project
and recommended approval based on the conditions which have been
incorporated in the Resolution of Approval.
D. Environmental Assessment: The Chino Basin Municipal Water District
(CBMWD), acting as the lead agency, has prepared an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to address the potential impacts created by the
project- On November 28, 1990, the Planning Commission held a
joint meeting with the CBMWD and received comments on the Draft EIR
during the public hearing. The: comments from the meeting were
incorporated into the Final EIR which was certified by the CBMWD on
April 3, 1991.
The site was once part of the Etiwanda Grape Products Winery and
was designated a "local point of historical interest." The
demolition of the winery buildings was approved by the City in
anticipation of this project- As a mitigation measure, the CBMWD
will install a monument and plaque on the site to commemorate the
winery. The location, design, and text of the monument and plaque
will be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior
construction of the plant-
The conclusion of the EIR was that although changes, alterations,
or conditions have been incorporated into the project approval
which will avoid or significantly lessen all the significant
environmental effects of the project, a potential cumulative
traffic impact may exist due to the Inland Empire Commerce Center
project under consideration by the City of Fontana for the property
to the east- However, Rancho Cucamonga's Engineering Division is
satisfied that the proposed street dimensions will be sufficient to
meet future circulation demands.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must make all of the following
findings in order to approve this application:
A. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the
objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan subarea in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed use 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 Industrial Area. Specific Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 90-16 - CBMWD
January 22, 1992
Page 4
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in
the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been
posted, and notices were sent to adjacent property owners within 300
feet of the project.
One letter of opposition was received from the owners of the existing
warehouse west of the proposed project (see Exhibit "H"). The letter
states that the warehouse's proximity to the proposed treatment plant
was making it difficult to lease the building. In a phone conversation
with staff, the author stated that he had received notification of the
preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, but did not comment at
that time-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit 90-16 through adoption of the attached Resolution
of Approval.
r
epla~Respe lly su ' ted,
BB:SR/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Cover Sheet/Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Aerial Photograph
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "G" - EIR's Impact/Mitigation Table
Exhibit "H" - Letter of Opposition
Resolution of Approval
I,
~ ~ 3F1N3A V YC!NV/~II3
:l~
-----.---- " i ,~!,i
.
............. :.- . -_ ....... - ........... : .... i ~
..... ; ..... /// L. '~--./" -""<: .... ,,"'<"' ;.~x._
.........
....----- ..... ' ......... '..-.-" '!
, ',:~
' ~ , "'.... .. ..." .*~ : / '
,,iX
. ~ :-',m~.'~ ~:.~-..,~.:.~,.~, .... -lm:-,---
-, ....... : ...... ::
..
:,._.-...-..:_..: .... !) -
.
/' .~ :- .--~'. _~ .
· -,
· ': :. - .._ ..... .~ -..- .~
I
I I
2., I
: ~,,,,~,,
S~NNAI~y |NPACT/NITZGATICN TAELE
ISSUE POTI~NT[AL INPACTS H~T~GATTCN H~ASU~ES C~NE4T~
Earth Res~rces No significant, ~erse Pre~re gr~jng plan Project design features
~cts antici~t~. ~or~rati~ site- a~ re~utato~
,. s~cjfic g~technicaL
investjgacj~. precL~e -significant
i~cts.
UCit[ze steward erosi~
c~trot ~ract~ces
~ s ite ~eveto~fit.
Voter Res~rces l~reas~ ft~ c~trot Oeveto~ inter-ege~y Z~ct r~c~
facilities mintage provisi~ rich S~ significant LeveL.
(a~cic grov:h). 8er~rdim ~ Riversi~
C~cy Ft~ Control
Districts for j~reas~
Air Quality T~rary missi~s of UtiLize
dust Curi~ r~ir~ ~ S~ch Coast signagitate.
cons=~c=i~. AGNO Mute ~03. ~c~
'to Level of
s i gni f i
~ork ui=h ~es~
g esource C~serva~ i on
0isrric~ to determine
~h~s
erosi~,
Spread soil bi~ers
Nrking 8reas,
ONra~e s~ree~ succors
~ ~v~ ro~s aOjacen~
to si~e.
Mees~a~t ish grogcover
~ c~str~tion site
thr~gh se~ing
watering.
T~ra~ ~issi~ frm C~fifure c~truction Short-term
c~scr~ctj~ traffic ~rking to minimize ccnstruc~ion-re~ac~
c~gesti~, traffic interfere~e: i~ts r~uc~
minimize o~Cr~ion of of non-significa~e.
thr~gh-trafffc tones;
ftagMrs~ to
e~ure safety
c~sCr~ti~ site
ne~,
C~;~sri~ ~issicns Amiy excess BACT for BACT guideline
frm digester gas ~rn~ NOx; 8ACT for
in engine-generator ~ tucan~s,
set.~ $ignificonce.
m AC~40 Rule 431.! may be changed to re~ce attcwable sutfur ~n fuel,
of digester gas ~fore c~sci~.
P~
S~MMARY ZMPACT/I~ZT! CAT| CII' TABLE
'~ |S$'CE I POTENTIAL I)¢P&CTS I NTTTCATTCN HEASURES l
.
AiF ~tity (c~C.) C~Ci~ of diesel A~ Limits h~rs of No significant air
f~t in ~ck-~ ~raci~ to 12S ~r quality i~ct. In the
ge~rators. year. Limit ~n~ty of even~ that ~rati~ in
"' f~ ~rn~. excess of 125 h~rs
year is r~uir~,
would r~es~
variance fp~
AC~ could assess
· ' fj~nciat
~ors fr~ treac~t UtiLize cover~ s~tm. No ~or pr~t~ exce==
processes. Provide r~anc during ~ssibLe
critical ~i~c. infr~en~
outa~e or brea~ jn
Use cheicat injection cover integrity for
am air scr~ing ~jntena~e.
toyera.
Stri~ing TACks during Use micro~Lers. No a~verse i~cc.
air ~Lo~ing.
ChLorine spitts or ChLorine contai~. C~tiance with San
t~a~s. ChLorine ~reat~nt. Bernaroino C~y Fire
SpiLL contingency plan. Oe~r=~n~ C~e
RioLogicaL Res~rces No significant, a~erse No miCigaci~ r~ir~. Issue determin~ by
f i~cts an~jci~[~. Initial St~ am
sccOjng ~r~ess ~t
~ significant for
EZ~. The project site
is ~s~ty cevoi~ of
bio=ic res~rces; ~
sensitive sNcies
~ imac~.
~oise Shor~-term c~=~=i~ Limit hours of No significa~e,
~ui~n~ ~ise~ ccnst~:i~.
Engine ge~rator exhi~t Face 8way frm eo~ty No significa~e.
Nasa. jaiL.
Najor ~-site ~ise N~se in cLos~ ~itding No
ge~ra:ing ~i~n~. desig~ for
-- c~rot.
LiSht a~ GLare No significant, ~erse No miC~Saticn r~ir~. Project design features
j~cCS ancici~C~. a~ City of
Cuca~nga L i ~h ~ ~ n~
s~a~arCs ~j t t Dr~t~e
significan~
Projec~ Lighting cesign
revie~ a~ a~rovsl '
through ~he City of
~a~no
C=~i=ionaL Use
, Drocess.
· ,
S/.~UqAIIy IXPACT/XITZGATICki TABLE
IS$1.:E POTEHTIAL TNPICT$ N~TZC__,__~AT[C~ NEASURES
Larg~ Use No jffqaacts exlaected. NO mitjgati~ r~ir~. AgHcutcura{ ta~
"' i~tr~aL ~e,
aLth~n existing
vi~yar~ ~ project
site is in state of
neglect a~
deterioraci~.
to ~ consistent
r~uir~nts of Cfty of
Rancho C~nga
I~stria~ Area
$Ncific Ptan.
~rt~aLty detemi~
scaoing ~rocess ~C
~ significant for this
EIR, Proje=t
to the C~iti~aL ~se
Permit Dr~ess uith the
City of Ra~o
~acura[ Resources ~o significant, a~erse ~o mitigation r~ir~. Issue detemin~ ~g
~ significant ~or this
E!~, Project uiLt
cans~ any ~uraL
resources other than
ccnstruc~i~ ~teria[s
a~ e~ec~r~c~ty.
Po~tac~on ~o si;nif~cant, a~erse No mit~gati~ r~ir~. Issue determin~ by
i~=ts antici~t~.
* !nitiat Sc~ a~
SeeDing ;r~ess ~
~ s~;nificant for this
EZR. Project is
desi;n~ to acc~:e
pLa~ growth in the
RP-~ service area.
Pro~ect ~etermin~
h in conformity
Ptan.
Heusin9 No significant, a~erse No mitigati~ r~ir~. Issue detemin~ ~y
f~cts anciciNte.
Initial $t~ a~
scoping pr~ess ~t
~ significant for this
EIR. Project ~itt
~&oy an esti~t~
~xi~ of 26 Morkers
at c~teti~, a~
t~at ~orkers ~itt
~toy~ for ptant
constructi~.
. Page
~d~I~ARy IN:PACT/NITICvI, TZCN TABLE
ISle ~TE~TTAL [NPlCT$ i M/TTCAT[C~ NEASU~ES ~
Traffjc/Clr~u[atim No significant, ~erse No mjtigatj~ r~irM. ~ss~ ~te~i~ ~t to
i~cts antjoiNtS. ~ significant for
Eta. Proj~t wilt
Serrate a ~xi~ af
1ZO ~aity tr~p ~
during fuel
~s~ u) 8 wor~er
c~L~nt of 3~
~rsn.
traffic ~Ld ~ of
t~ran ~ra t i ~.
Public Services No significant, ~erse No mitigati~ r~ir~. Iss~ dete~in~ ~t
i~cts anticiNtO, ~ significant for this
EIR. Plan~ will
very fe~ vor~ers I~
~s ~ Local
infrastructure.
Risk of U~et PLant ccnstructj~ R~ire contractors ~ Project ~esi~n
accidents. s~'c~tractors to features, safety
c~ty with CSHA, Col- pratttees, a~
QSHA, a~ city ~rmic$. re~uLatory r~ir)cs
will mitigate ~c~t~aL
i~cts to a EeveL of
Limit ~blic access to
' the c~str~t~on site. ~n-significa~e.
E~toy
traffic c~troL ~asures
as a~r~v~ by t~e city.
S~;e spill Res~ to spill ~ The C~ ~ra:es its
N(ify~ a;e~ies am facilities in
tra~ferri~ sL~;e to acc=rca~e with the
other cLas~ c~tai~rs prov~si~s of its
a~ =teani~ ~p the Oreinane ~o,
spill site. Safety Ordinate, ~hich
detai LS certain safety
' Hazardous Nter(at Na~te chmicaLs in regulations am
spiLL or ~eak (chLorine, actorcaNe with OeNrt- practices to ~ usN at
sutfur dioxide) ~nt of EnvironteL its faci L i ties,
HeaLth Services (DEHS)/ i~&~ing the prc~s~
CaLifornia HeaLth am RP'~ facility. These
Safety C~e re~uLati~. re~utati~s, together
Res~ to spiLL by with those of the
~tifyi4 DEHS am City OeNr~nt of
E~rge~y Cxrad~s Trans~rta: (on a~
C~ter. C&ean ~ 0SHA, regulate worker
spiLt~ NterimL a~ practices aN mitigate
spiLL site. ~tentiak i~cts at
~P'~ to a (eveL of ~-
si~ni fica~e.
SUNHAI~T |NPACT/MZTZGATZCH TAiiL, E
f$~E ~TE~TI~L ~PXCT$ ~IT~CAT~C~ ~EA~UR~ C~uE~T~
Risk of U~et ~toriN ~itdi~
(c~ti~) to Unifom 8uiLdi~ C~
CUBC) m~ to vi
~i~ vith tee~
~TKtQrS a~ 8tam,
sc~i~ s~tm, a~
~i~e sysTm.
Prate .R i sk
(RNPP) in eccor~e
vi ch A8)~ am
i~or~race timings
into aesign a~
faci t i
CS~ to pre~re am
i~t~nt E~rge~y
Pre~r~ess Ptan (EPP
a~ trBin ~toyees.
Dipester ~ture or Digester c~str~t~ to Potential ~=~s* are
expLosi~ UEC; utilize vac~ miti~at~ ~o · ~-
systm in ev~t of siSnlficant LeveL.
spitt. E;toy safety
pr~res ~ring
;re,re a~
EPP for RP-~ fac~ [ i ty
aN train ~lovees.
Energy Ut~tities ~o s~;nif~cant, ~erse ~o mitigation r~ir~. An a~uate ~r~y
i~cts anticiViC. uti t i t~ es
infrastr~ture exis:s
to serv(ce t~e
a~ e~r~y ut~ t
c~nies i~ica:e ~a;
present a~ future
energy sullies ~iLt
suffi:~ent.
Aesthetics io si;nificant, ~erse ~o miti~ati~ r~ir~. issue determ~ ~
i~ctS ant~te. ~ s~gnificant for ~is
EZR. Ptant site
Eti,a~a Av~e a~
$ix~ Street ~ high
uatt a~ ext~ive
[a~scaDi~ c~s~
,{th the/~str~aL
Area S~cif~c Ptan of
Rancho Cuca=na.
Page:
.. I
*S~,~41(ART [NPACTII~ITZC~kT|C,M TAiiLE
~$~E t POTENTTAL ~NPICT$ ~ NIT[CATTC~ MEASURES' t C~N~4TS
N~M Ne~&~h Nazar~ ~teriat s~itt S~ mitiga:i~ ~asures
or Le~K (ch&ori~, a~ c~n:s
su&fur dioxi~) in "Ris~ of
Pmthogen ~ra~issi~ St~e ~itt ~ Project ~sign a~
t~ans~r~ in cover~ reguta~o~
c~:ai~rs ~o dis~sat r~e
or re-~e facilities. i~c~s ~o a Level of
Ter~ia~ ~rea~ n~-si gni f ica~e.
efft~ ~iL{ ~et TitLe
22 r~i r~n~s.
Gro~ater Ter~ia~ treat~ Projec~ desi;n a~
ccn~am~i~ efft~n~ ~itt ~ regutaco~ r~ir~s
~icrifi~ to a tare[ r~uce ~c~cia[
to ~c ~iscnar~e i~c~s co a Lave[ of
s~amards. TOS teve{ in ~'siSnifica~e.
effl~r ~ill ~ in
c~fo~e vith NPOES
~mi c t imi Is.
Toxic ~L tucants i~ CS~ ti { [ c~Nrate Re~uLato~ ~forc~t
sL~;e vith cities of F~ta~ a~ ;rojecT ~esi~n
a~ C~a~n~3 CoyLy r~ce ~cen~ia~
Vater Oistric~/Cj~y of i~c=s to a Level of
ea~ho Cuc;a in non-si~ni fica~e.
enforcing the
- Nati~t Pre-treat~t
Prcgr~.
~ni~o~inq of st~e.
RecreaCi~ No siSnificanC, ~erse No miCiSati~ r~irffi. Issue Ce~ermin~
i~ccs ancici~t~.. initial Sc~ a~
scc;ing pr~ess ~t
~ significant for this
EI~. Project wiLL
alter or r~ve any
recreati~ ares,
create a ~ for
recreati~L
: ' c)rTun?t~es.
CuLtura{ Resgurces No si;nificant, a~erse No mitigaticn r~ir~. VirtuaLLy the entire
i~cTs anticiNtN. site is extensively
distur~ with
agricuLturaL uses.
CBH~ ~iLL erect
on pro~rty identt fyin9
it as for~r site of
Etiwa~ Gra~ Pr~ts
U(nery.
BERENDO PROPERTY
8222 ~_.lrose Avenue, Suite L;~32 - Los Angeles, California 9OO~ .. I~ [ C E I V E D --
C~TY OF ltANaN~. C, UgAMONGA
PI.ANNiN~I ~IVI~ION
Tel: (213) 65~
F~: (213) 65~575
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cuc~onga, CA 91729
RE: Environmental Assessment and Conditional Use Pemit 90-16
{Gover~ent Referral 89-08) Chino Basin Municipal ~ater
District
Dear Sirs:
Recently I received notice of a public hearing regarding the
Chino Basin Municipal Water District's request to establish
a waste water treatment plant on :32.5 acres of land located
at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Etiwanda Avenue
in Rancho Cuc~onga. Our c~pany owns the warehouse facility
located immediately adjacent to the site for the proposed
wastewater treatment plant. Our structure is a 410,000 square
foot industrial distribution building that we purchased in
1986 for a purchase price of $13,250,000.
Construction of a wastewater treatment plant of the type
proposed would make it very difficult, if not impossible,
to lease our property in the 'future. Prospective tenants
would be very reluctant to occupy a facility located in such
close proximity to a wastewater treatment plant. These
difficulties would ~ the cause of seri6us. ffnancial losses
to our company. Therefore, we strongly oppose and object to
the construction of a wastewater trea~ent plant on the
proposed site.
Should you have any questions or require any other info~ation,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 653-2000.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 90-16 FOR A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ON 32.5
ACRES OF LAND IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA
15) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-283-62
A. Recitals.
(i) The Chino Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) has filed an
application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-16 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 22nd day of January 1992, 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 January 22, 1992, 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
southwest corner of 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of
±1,000 feet along 6th Street and ~1,600 feet along Etiwanda Avenue and is
presently unimproved; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant,
the property to the south of the site ,consists of the West Valley Detention
Center, the property to the east has transmission towers, and the property to
the west has a warehouse.
(c) The plant is necessary to meet the needs of the planned
population growth approved by the City of Fontana, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, and the West Foothills region of San Bernardino County of the
proposed service area through the year 2020.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 90-16 - CBMWD
January 22, 1992
Page 2
(d) The present CBMWD wastewater treatment system is rapidly
reaching a state of maximum capacity beyond which a serious environmental and
health problem could result.
(e) The CBMWD has certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act.
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 ~inds 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 the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
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 an Environmental'Impact Report was certified by the
Chino Basin Municipal Water District on April 3, 1991.
5. Based upon he findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, th' Commission hereby approves the application subject
and every co~di on set forth below and in the Standard Conditions
attached heret d herean by this reference
1 i
.~e applicant shall revise the wall and landscape
I.~ design/Jalong 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue to
". incorporate raised planters along the wall and add
. terest to the corner. Vines shall be planted
\
\ alOng the length of the wall and specimen size
trees shall be planted at the corner of 6th Street
and Etiwanda Avenue. The plans shall be approved
by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the
issuance of any permits.
) A free-standing historical monument and plaque
shall be installed- on-site to commemorate the
Etiwanda Grape Products Winery, a local poin~ of
historical interest. The location, design, and
text of the monument shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance
of any permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 90-16 - CBMWD
January 22, 1992
Page 2
(e) The CBMWD has certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act.
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 the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
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 an Environmental Impact Report was certified by the
Chino Basin Municipal Water District on April 3, 1991, and specifically finds
as follows:
(a) That changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects as identified in the final Environmental
Impact Report.
(b) That such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency
making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninq Division
1) The applicant shall revise the wall and landscape
design along 6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue to
incorporate raised planters along the wall and add
interest to the corner. Vines shall be planted
along the length of the wall and specimen size
trees shall be planted at the corner of 6th Street
and Etiwanda Avenue. The plans shall be approved
by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the
issuance of any permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 90-16 - CBMWD
January 22, 1992
Page 3
2) A free-standing historical monument and plaque
shall be installed on-site to commemorate the
Etiwanda Grape Products Winery, a local point of
historical interest. The location, design, and
text of the monument shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance
of any permits.
3) Pursuant to provisions of California Public
Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application
shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will
building permits be issued or a map recorded,
until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD)
regarding the associated environmental action is
filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and
(2) any and all required filing fees assessed
pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section
711.4, together with any required handling
charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the
County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall
provide the Planning Department with a stamped and
conformed copy of the NOD together with a receipt
showing that all fees have been paid.
In the event this application is determined exempt
from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions
of the California Fish and Game Code, or the
guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for
payment of any required handling charge for filing
a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition
shall be deemed null .and void.
Enqineerinq Division
1) Obtain necessary right-of-way and construct
improvements for the north half of 6th Street from
the west project boundary to Etiwanda Avenue
including the curb return. Construction of the
north parkway, except for street lights, may be
deferred.
2) Construct Etiwanda Avenue from 6th Street to the
south project boundary, including full
improvements on the west half, a continuous left
turn lane, and two north bound travel lanes.
3) Construct the Master Planned storm drain lines in
6th Street and Etiwanda Avenue to 4th Street or
connect to an existing portion if constructed by
others.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 90-16 - CBMWD
January 22, 1992
Page 4
4) Obtain necessary easements and construct the
interim detention basin necessary to mitigate
flows into the lower Etiwanda Regional Channel or
provide proof to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer that the additional run-off caused by the
development can be mitigated on-site.
5) Construct local storm drain lines in 6th Street as
determined necessary by a final drainage report
approved by the City Engineer.
6) The entire project shall drain easterly as shown
in the Etiwanda Master Plan of Drainage.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
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 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: C.~(.,) )~ (~ (D '"' ~' ~:>
APPLICANT: C-,l~t,l~lb
LOCATION: ~jC ~I ~~~
~ose items che~ are ~ns of ~val.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, {114) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time Limits
v~l. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be alproved prior to / /
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of
4. The developer shell commence, partictpatein, andconsummateorcausetobecommenced, / /
participated in, or consummated, a Mello..Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection Distrk:l to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the REncho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
Districrs property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the Distdct in
accordance with its naeclll. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
al;~ic, able laws and regulations, The CFD shell be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
5. Prior to recordatlon of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes / /
first, the applicant shall consent to, or particil)ate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District Ior the construction End maintenance of necessary school
fadlities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
Fadlities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation ol the
project site imo the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes lirsl. Further, it the affected school
district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilifles District within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordatlon of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shell be deemed null and void.
SC - 2/91 '~ ~ I I of 12
~ ~R~n shall ~ ~a~ ~ the C~ r~e~es noti~ thai the a~l~ant a~ all
~l a~.~s ~ve e~er~ i~ an a~me~ to O~ate~ a~m~Oate an~ a~ all ~l
i~S as a m~ of this ~.
I /6. P~r to remffiation of the final m~ or p~r to issua~ of ~ildi~ ~s when ~ mp is
' i~olved, w~en cedff~t~n from the aff~ water dtm~ that ad~uate s~er and water
facil~ies am or will ~ avail~le to sewe the m~s~ ~j~ s~ll ~ submi~ to the
DeBnmem of Commn~y Deve~pmem. Such t~er mm have ~en issu~ by t~ wmer
dimr~ w~ bin 90 days pr~r to final m~ a~mval in t~ ~se of su~Nis~n or pr~r to ~sua~e
of ~ms in the ~se of all other mslmial mj~s.
B. SRe Develmm
/ 1. ~e sRe shall ~ deve~ a~ maintai~ in a~~ w~h ~e ~mved ~ns wh~h
i~de ~e ~a~, a~Re~uml elevm~, e~e~r ~e~ls a~ ~im, la~~, s~n
p~ram, a~ gradi~ on fil in t~ ~~ ~mat~ herein,
Deve~em C~e r~ulm~, a~
.S~ff~ Plan &~
2. Pr~r to any use of the pm~ s~e or ~si~ a~i~ ~i~ ~mm~d t~r~n, all
Co~ions of ~roval s~ll ~ ~m~t~ to t~ ~t~n of t~ C~ Pm~r.
3. ~B~ofthefadl~shall~t~mm~umil=htim~allUnffo~iMi~ea~
Stme Fire Mamhall's r~lm~ ~ve ~en ~~ w~h. P~r to ~~, ~ shall
~ sumt~ to t~ Ram~ C~m~a Rm Pmt~ D~ a~ t~ ~iti~ a~ SafeW
D~is~n to ~w ~/~. T~ ~i~i~ mini ~ ~~ for ~i~ p~r to
~~y.
~ 4. Revis~ s~e plans a~ ~i~i~ e~evm~ t~rmi~ aB ~~ ~ ~v~ shall ~ sum~ for C~ Planner rev~ ~ ~v~ ~r ~ i~a~ of ~i~i~ ~ms.
5. All sRe, grading, la~m, i~t~n, a~ s~Ht i~emm ~a~ ~11 ~ ~ffii~t~ for
~te~y p~r to isua~ of any H~ (m~ ~ gr~, tr~ mmv~, e~hmem
~i~i~, etc.), or ~r to fi~ ~ ~v~ in t~ ~ of a ~mom ~t ~~n, or
~d use ~s ~mm~, wh~r ~ tim.
/ 6. ~val ~ m~ rim sll ~ wane ~m ~ il ~m of t~ ~ve~mm
~, all other a~M C~ ~~, ~ a~ ~n~ PI~ ~
P~ns in eff~ m t~ tim of ~iMl~ Pe~ m~.
/ 7. A ~ ~Re ~i~ ~ sMB ~ miw~ ~ ~~ ~ t~ C~ Pin~r a~
S~s ~am~ (~11 ) p~r to t~ ma~ of ~i~ H~. ~h pan shall
i~e ~e, illumi~n, ~n, ~M, a~ ~ d shiMi~ ~ M ~t to ~e~ely
8. If ~ cemrm~ truh ~m~es am m~, aU ~ah ~ s~ll ~ for i~al unRs
wRh all r~~s mi~ from ~ vN.
/9. Tmshr~i(s)amri~s~ll~C~~. hfi~i~,mt~
a~ me m~r of tr~h ~Ms s~ll ~ ~ to C~ ~r mN ~
~r to issuan~ of ~i~i~ ~.
~0. All gm~-~m~ util~ a~ne~s ~ as tmn~o~m, AC ~e~, etc., shall
~ ~t~ out of pu~ view a~ ~ume~ ~me~ th~h t~ u~ of a ~nmion of
~rete or m~n~ walls, ~i~, a~or i~i~ to the sm~a~n of the C~y
Planner.
11. Street names shall be submitted tor City Planner review and approval in accordance with
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
v~12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans· Developer shall upgrado and construct
all trails. including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shell not prohibit the keeping of equine ---/
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping ol said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option ol keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations lot amendments to the
CC&Rs.
15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval ot the Pinning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shell be permanently maintained bythe property
owner, homeowners' association, or other means aoceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shell be dedicated for the. purpose of assuming that each lot or
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restriclions tor
the subdivision which shell be recorded concurrently with the recoilion of the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation, structures, lixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or slructures, removal of landmark
frees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Histodc
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Design
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural
treatment, detailing and increased delineation of sudace treatment subject to City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance ot building permits.
SC-2/9! 3ofi2
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for / /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
b~4. AII roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or / /
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent propedies and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plane.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building planl)
/'/" 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).
c--" 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.
~. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, / /
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers it driveways are less than 18 feet in / /
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. The Covenants, Conditione and Restrictlone shall restrict the storage of recreatbnal 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.
L-""'6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and / /
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and al31xoval prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publlcty maintained landmmpe araa% ratmr to Section N.)
/
1. A detailed lartdscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- / /--
ing in the case of residential development. shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier / /
in accordance with the Municipal Code Saclion 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be primed in place and new locations for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape pins. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation. transplanting and trimming methods.
3. Aminimumof treespergrossacre.compdsedofthefollowingsizes, shatl be provided / /
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger. % - 36- inch box or larger,
__ % - 24- inch box or larger. __ % - 15-gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon.
4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees- / /__
24-inch box or larger.
~ Within parking lots. trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three j /
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
SC - 2/9 1 4 of 12 ~' ~ 4
J_,/48. Trees shall be planted in areas of public; view adjacent to and along structures at a rate ot one cc~_deuo~
tree per 30 linear lest of building. /
/./7. AII private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of5:l orgreaterslope, but less than / /
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
v/8. AIIprivate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but lessthan8 feet invertical height andof2:l orgreater / /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15.gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. It. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:.1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- / /
ously maintained in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy for those units. an inspection
shall be conducled by the Planning Division to {~etermine that they are in satistactory
10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respen- / /
sibie for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy ~and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning. fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, deed, diseased, or
decaying plant matedal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
11. From yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or /
. This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls. landscaping, and sidewalks shall be / /
included in the required landscape plans and shall be mjbiq~ct to City Planner review and
approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping I~an which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as mourN:ling, alluvial rock, specimen size trees. meander- / /---
ing s' waifs (with hodz~itled ~, is required along
14. Landscaping and Irrigation systems required to be installed within the pubic right-of-way on /
the perimeter of this project area shall be cominuously maintained by the developer.
15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. ff located in public maintenance areas, /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and mjl:)mitted for City Planner review and /
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These c, dteda still encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
17.Landscaping and irrigation shall'be designed to conserve water through the principles of /
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
F. Signs
4-//"' 1. The signs inclicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of thisapproval. / /
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
j 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and / /.-
approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes /
prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / /.__
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted / /
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault. in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway /
projecl in a standard format as determined by the Cib/Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shell be submitted for City Planner review and a,opmval prior to the / /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise
attenuatlon to below 45 CNEL. the building materlals and construction techniques provlded,
and if appropriate, verify the edecluacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conforrnance with the mitigation measures contained in the final repod.
H. Other Agencies
/ 1. ErnergencysecondaryaccessshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucarnongaFire / /
Protection District Standards.
2. Ernergency access shall be provided, rnaintenance free and clear, a minirnum of 26feet wide / /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
/ 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for coml~stible construction, evidence shall be / /
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Rre Protection District that temporary water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
/
4. The al~icanl shal contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the aplxoprlate type and /
Iocmion of mac boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
stnjcture for mall boxes with adequale lighting. The final location of the mall boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building penTtits.
APPLICANTS SHALL~C~T('i~AC~DING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
. Site DevelopmeN
v//1. The applicant shall cornply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Cede, Uniform Mechani-
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition
to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but am not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Deveioprnent Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
""""' 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordation
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
1. ProVide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existing sewage disposal fadlilies shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the
Uniform Plumping Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Unclesground on-site utilities are to be locate and shown on building plans summed for
K. Grading
t/"' 1. Grading ol the subjec~ property shall be in accordance with the UnHorm Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial oo41tonltance with the al:)proved grading plan.
/2. A soils repm't shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform each work.
t./"' 3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance
Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardtno County Depa~ of Agrk~lture at (714)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance ol rough grading perrNI.
4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualitiecl engineer or geologist and submittad at
the time of application for grading plan check.
t,--""5. The inalgradingplansshallbecompletedandapprovedpriortoissuanceofbuildingPermits. f
SC-2/91 70r12 '~ ~7
~. As ~ cu~o~l su~is~n, lhe followi~ r~uire~s sh~ll ~ reel:
a. Sure~ shall be ~st~ aM an agree~nt ex~t~ guarameei~ m~t~n of all on-s~e /
~rainage facilities n~essa~ tor d~ated~ all parcels to the satisfa~n of the Bui~i~
aM Safety Divis~n p~rto final m~ ~mval a~ ~rto the issua~e of gradi~ pe~its.
b. ~pmpdate easemems for safe dis~sal of drainage water that are ~M~ onto / /
or over adjacem pamels, am to M ~iinem~ aM r~ to the smi~a~n of the
Bui~i~ a~ Safe~ Divis~n ~r to i~a~ of grMt~ aM ~i~i~ pe~its.
c. On-site drainage immve~ms, n~essa~ for ~atedng a~ pmt~i~ the su~N~ / /
pm~n~s, are to M in~all~ pdor to i~a~ of ~i~i~ ~ for ~nstm~n u~n
any Nrcel that my M subj~ to drai~ge f~s emetiC, leavi~, or w~hin a pamel
reltNe to which a ~i~i~ ~ is r~em~.
d. Final gmdi~ ~ans for e~h N~I are to M ~b~ to the ~i~i~ and S~e~ / /---
DNis~n for ~mval ~rto issua~e of ~i~i~ aM grMi~ ~. (~is my ~ on an
i~remmal or ~site Msis.)
e. All s~ ~s in excess of 5 feet in ve~l ~M s~l ~ ~ wRh n~ive grasses /
or plam~ w~h gmu~ ~ver for ems~n ~mml u~n ~t~n of gmdi~ or ~me other
a~emi~e ~t~ of ems~n ~mml ~all N ~t~ to ~e ~~n of the ~i~i~
~ial. In ~ion a ~a~m irwin sy~em ~il N ~v~. ~is rliremem
~es ~t release t~ ~~ve~r from ~ia~ w~h tN s~e plami~
r~im~ms of S~ion 17.~.0~ I of tN Deve~m ~.
APPUCANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (714) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets. / /
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Fhlvate easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc,) shall be rr'~erved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
/ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets / /
(measured from street centeffine):
4" ~ total feet on ~' r kz~,,~
total feet on
total feet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made / /'-
for all private streets or drives.
4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: , / /
5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensudng access to all parcels by CC&Rs __' /-
or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of
building permits, where no map is involved.
SC-2/91 8of12 '~52~t
.6. P~ate OminaOe entails for cros$-~l drainage shall ~ prov~ a~ shill be delineal~
or ~I~ on the final m~. / /
7. ~e flail ~ shall clet~ delineate a ~ O-fool minimum bui~i~ m~n area on the / /
neiO~fl~ ~I ~ini~ lhe zero lot line wall a~ ~tin the fol~wi~ lan~age:
'~e hereby ~te to t~ C~ of Ra~ Cu~a t~ Hght to ~hi~ the
mnstma~n of (ms~nt~l) ~i~i~s (or o~r s~res) w~hin ~se areas designat~
on the m~ as ~i~i~ re~n areas.'
A maintena~e agreeram ~all al~ ~ grant~ from e~h ~t to the a6~m ~t thmgh the
CC&R's.
~ 8. Allexi~i~easeme~s~i~w~hinf~ure~s~f-ways~ll~c~im~or delineation /
t~ final ~,
/ 9. Easeme~s for ~bl~ s~ewa~ a~or ~reet trees ~ o~s~e t~ ~bl~ ~M~f-way / /
s~ll N ~d~ to the C~ w~rever t~y emm~h omo ~ae ~.
10. A~nal ~reet ~N~f-way shall ~ ~~ a~ ~M tum In., to ~v~ a ~nimm / /
of 7 feet ma~r~ from tN fae of ~. ~ ~ MJD~ s~at ~ u~ a~ t~ ~M
rum la~. a ~mlll ~reet tree maimename ea~nt s~l N ~vld.
11.~e~ve~rshallm~ea~fa~heffo. to~iret~r~ir~off-s~e~imerests / '/
~s~ to ~~ ~e r~uir~ ~ i;mve~, a~ e ~sM s~ fail to ~ ~,
the ~ve~r shall, at le~ 120 days ~rto ~al of tN fin~ ~ for ~val, emer
imo an agree~m to ~ite t~ i~ve~ms ~mam to ~vem~m ~ S~n
~2 t ~h ti~. tN C~ a~uires t~ p~ ~er~ r~uir~ for ~ i~vemems.
S~ agmmm sMII pm~ for ~y~m ~ ~ Nve~r of all ~ i~n~ ~ t~ C~y
to a~uire t~ off-see ~ imem~s r~k~ in ~nn~n ~ ~ ~~n. ~
for a ~a~n of ~ ~s s~l N in IM fo~ of a ~h ~s~ ~ IM ~uN g~en in an
~ai~l r~n ~ain~ by tN ~ve~r, t ~ve~fs ~. ~e ~a~er ~all have
Nen ~ov~ by t~ C~ ~r to ~u~ d ~ ~m~l.
M. St~ Imp~~l
1. All ~ i~vemNs (iNcUr ~ret, dm~ f~, ~n~ trails, ~s, / /
la~~ areas, etc.) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~or tem~ ~ ~ N ~m~ t0
C~ Sta~. Ime~r ~ret i~ve~ms s~ i~, ~ am ~ Ii~ to, ~ a~
~er, AC ~n~m. d~ ~m, s~, ~ ~s, ~ ~met trees.
2. A ~ni~m ~ 2~ f~ ~ Mve~m, w~ a ~ -f~ ~ ~~ ~~ay ~ail ~ / /
~m~ f~ all h~i~ ~t.
/3. ~~ N f~ ~er ir~ i~n~ ~~, ~ ~ Ii~ to: / /
SC-2/91 9of12
com_dcuo, D,~:
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ovedays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) If so marked, side-
walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall
be provided for this item.
~ 4. Improvement plans and construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- / /
tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be pestlid and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Altomy guaranteeing completion of the pubtio and/or pdvate street inqxove-
ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first.
b. Prior to any work being pedormecl in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit / /
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signalconduitwithpullboxesshallbeinetalledonanynewconstruclionorreconstruction / /
of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BC R, EC R or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: / /__
(1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specilled by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inCh galvanized steel with pulrope.
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all four comers of intersections par City / /
Sindam or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring conmnJcljon shall remain open to traffic at all times with / /
adequate detours during construction. A street cloeure paffnll may be required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of fadk~ and laving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satlslm:licn of the Cly Engineer.
g. Concentrated dr/nage flows shall not croM sidewaks. Under sidewalk drains shall be /
insraCed to City ~, except for single farnay
h. Handicap accee~ ramp design shall be as specified by the Cly Engineer. / /
i. Slreet names ~hall be il)proved by the City Planner prior to m/)mltal for first plin check. / /
5. Street im~ plans per Cly Standarcl for all private streets shall be provided for /
review and approval by the Ciy Engineer. Prior to any work being pedormed on the pri-
vate streets, fees shal be paid and construction permits ~ be obtined from the City
Engineef's Office in addition to any other parrhis required.
v"/"6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-ga!ion size or larger, shall be inalalled par City Standards in / /
accordance with the City's street tree program.
2/9 1 10 or 12
V'/ 7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with C,q~e.o- D,~c:
adopted policy. / /--
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, / /
including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approveel by the City
Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by / /
moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street
tree easement.
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: / /---
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete pdor to the / /
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards / /
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape perkways,
medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer priorto final map al;q}coval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Paffcway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective
Beautification Master Ran:
O. Drainage and Fkxxl Control
v"'/1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore. flood
protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
appmved by the CRy Engineer.
2. It shall be the devaloper'8 responslbllRy to have the current FIRM Zone
designation removed from the project area. The deveioper's engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hy(:lro~raulic calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuance of I:}uiiding permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the CRy Engineer prior to final
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. AJI drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
SC - 2/9 ! 11 of 12 _~/""////
Cored,no,,
4. A pe~ f~m the ~u~ F~ ~o~rol Dist~ is r~uired for wo~ w~hin Rs~ht-of-way.
/ /
5. Trees are ~hi~ wflhin 5 feet of the outs~e dia~ter of any pubi~ sto~ drain
measur~ from the outer ~e of a mature tree t~nk. / /
6. Publ~ ~o~ drain easemems shall ~ grad~ to ~ey oved~ws in t~ eve~ of a / /
b~age in a su~ ~tch ~in on the ~bi~ ~reet.
P. ~llit~S
/ 1. P~v~e Hparate ~ili~ se~es to each ~1 i~di~ sanRa~ s~er~e sy~em, water, / /
;as, e~ ~wer, telep~ne, a~ ~ ~ (all u~e~n~) in a~au w~h the Util~
Statues. Ease~ms shall ~ pmv~ as
/ 2. ~e deve~r shall ~ res~nsible for the re__ion of existi~ utiiRies u ne~Ha~. / /
/ 3. Wmer a~ s~er p~ shall ~ des~n~ a~ ~n~ to ~t ~e r~im~s of the /. /--
Cu~m~ ~u~ Water D~ (CCWD), Ra~ C~m~a Fire Pmtffi~n Dim~,
a~ the En~mnmmal Heath D~mm of t~ C~ ~ hn Be~i~. A ~er of
~ia~e from t~ CCWD S r~i~ p~r to final ~ ~vi or ~a~ of ~s,
whoever ~m fi~.
Q. General Reclulrementa and Approvals
1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into / /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or Y /
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for:
3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covedng the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created parcels.
v''/' 4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline. Secondary Regional. and Master Plan / /
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map appoval or prior to building permit issuance if
no map is involved.
5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: / /
6. A sigriecl consent and waive form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement ComfTajnity / /
Fadlities Diltricl shall be filed with the City Engineer Ixior to final map aplxovai or the
issuance of building permils, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shah be borne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finallzation of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be com-
pleted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondan/access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown
on the alXxoved tentalive map.
SC - 2/91 12of 12 ~'~Z,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-14 - RANCHO
TECHNOLOGY CENTER - A request to modify an approved 18.42
acre master plan by eliminating Building "G" and replacing it
with parking spaces in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at
the northwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue -
APN: 209-021-16, 17, and 05.
Related File: Parcel Map 13961
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested by Applicant: ~pproval of a Modification to the
Conditional Use Permit by eliminating the building pad area for
Building G and replacing it with parking spaces.
B. Surroundin~ Land Use and Zoning:
North - Industrial and Business Park; General Industrial (Subarea
3)
South - Vacant, Industrial; General Industrial (Subarea 3)
East - School, Residential; L~ Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre), Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre)
West - Industrial; General Industrial (Subarea 3)
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North - General Industrial
South - General Industrial
East - Low and Medium Residential
West - General Industrial
D. Site Characteristics: The site contains the existing Inspiron
Manufacturing warehouse building (147,938 square feet) on proposed
Parcel 3. Existing Building A on proposed Parcel 1 consists of
68,152 square feet, existing Building F on proposed Parcel 4
consists of 12,620 square feet, and existing Building E on proposed
Parcel 5 consists of 20,469 square= feet.
ITE~ J
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 85-14 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER
January 22, 1992
Page 2
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into five parcels
with the following lot sizes:
Parcel 1: 3.78 acres
Parcel 2: 2.96 acres
Parcel 3: 8.65 acres
Parcel 4: 1.68 acres
Parcel 5: 1-35 acres
All street improvements have been completed along both Archibald
Avenue and 9th Street.
E. Parking Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaye Ratio Required Provided
Parcel 1
Building A:
Office 35,071 1:250 140
Warehouse 33,081 1:1,000 20 247
1:2,000 7
Parcel 3
Building
Warehouse 52,708 1:1,000 20
1:2,000 10
1:4,000 3
Manufacturing 59,598 1:500 119 297
Office 35,632 1:250' 143
Parcel 4
Building F:
Office 20,469 1:250 82 82
Parcel 5
Building E:
Office 12,620 1:250 50 52
TOTAL 594 678
ANALYSIS:
A- General: On September 11, 1985, the Planning Commission approved
an 18.42 acre Master Plan for the development of three office
buildings totaling 53,226 square feet and four industrial buildings
totaling 159,704 square feet. Phase I, consisting of Buildings A,
E, and F was completed in mid-1987. On May 28, 1986, the Planning
Commission granted Design Review approval for Phase II consisting
of Buildings B, C, D, and G (see Exhibit "J").
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 85-14 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER
January 22, 1992
Page 3
On June 24, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a Modification
to the Conditional Use Permit which eliminated Buildings C and D
and replaced them with parking spaces (see Exhibit "D").
At this time, the applicant is proposing that Building G be deleted
from the Master Plan and replaced with parking spaces (see Exhibit
"E"). In addition, the applicant is requesting that the site be
subdivided into five parcels. Required parking for each building
is located on their own individual parcel- The applicant is
proposing to parcel the site so that individual parcels may be
sold. Each building will now have= the required parking on its own
parcel, which the applicant feels will be more desirable for
potential buyers. Building G is ]being deleted since it would not
be feasible to locate required parking on its own parcel.
B. Technical Review Committee: ~e Technical Review Committee
reviewed and approved the proposal on November 20, 1991, subject to
the conditions stated in the Resolution of Approval and the
attached Standard Conditions.
C. Grading Committee: The Grading CoTmmittee reviewed and approved the
proposal on November 19, 1991.
D. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration was issued for
the approved Master Plan on Septe~r 11, 1985.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve
this Modification to the Conditional Use Permit, the following findings
must be made:
A. That the proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the
General Plan, the Development Code, and the Industrial Area
Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located; and
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; and
C- That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions in the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Development
Code.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in
the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been
posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners within 300
feet of the project-
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 85-14 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER
January 22, 1992
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the
Modification to the Conditional Use Permit 85-14. A Resolution of
Approval for the Modification to the Conditional Use Permit has been
attached for your review-
Respe sub ' ted,
er
BB:BN/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Originally Approved Master Plan
Exhibit "D" - Modified Master Plan
Exhibit "E" - Proposed Modified Master Plan
Exhibit "F" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "G" - Proposed Modified Landscape Plan
Exhibit "H" - North Elevation of Building F
Exhibit "I" - Proposed Parcel Map
Exhibit "J" - Phasing Plan
Resolution 85-131 (Approving Original Master Plan)
Resolution 87-100 (Approving First Modification)
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Bus
subarea
C''~v OF ~C~:~:'~UCAMONGA ITEM: ~O COP ~5/~-IZ~
P~~'NG,. D~SION
~: ":f~ ....... ~ ~ E~B~: A SCALE:
RESOLUTION NO. 85-131
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-14 FOR A MASTER
PLAN AND PHASE I OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF 3 OFFICE BUILDINGS
TOTALING 53,226 SQUARE FEET AND 4 INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
TOTALING 159,704 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 9TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE IN THE GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on the 21st day of June, 1985, a complete application was
filed by the Muller Company for review of the above-described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 11th day of September, 1985, the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the above-described
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, the objectives of the Industrial Specific
Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located.
2. 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.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific
Plan and City Standards.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment based upon the mitigation measures required for flood protection
and that a Negative Declaration is issued on September 11, 1985.
SECTION 3: That Conditional Use Permit No. 85-14 is approved
subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. The Master Plan is approved in concept only and
future development of subsequent phases shall be
subject to Development Review process for Planning
Conmnission approval. Modifications to the Master
Nan shall be subject to Planning Commission
approval.
Resolution No.
CUP 85-14 - Muller
September 11, 1985
Page 2
2. The parking area and circulation south of Building D
shall be redesigned as shown in Exhibit "F".
3. The projects landscaping shall have a unifying
theme, including special landscaping treatment at
the corner of gth Street and Archibald Avenue, the
driveway entrance on gth Street, and along Archibald
Avenue. The special landscape treatment shall be
designed to accentuate architecture of the project.
4. Undulating mounding per Industrial Specific Plan
standards shall be provided along Archibald Avenue
to soften the look of the required 2 foot flood
wall. Details of the mounding shall be reflected in
the grading plan and detailed landscape plan.
5. Landscaping islands with a minimum outside dimension
of 6 feet shall be provided every seven stalls for
shading of pavement areas.
6. The existing manufacturing/warehouse building -
Inspiron Facility, shall be repainted to compliment
the new color scheme, an~ screening for the roof
mounted equipment shall be provided.
7. The development shall provide additional screening
for all existing tanks. Detailed plans shall be
submitted for review and approval with Phase II
Development Review process.
8. The plaza area shall be provided with pedestrian
amenities such as shaded seating areas, kiosks,
benches, trash receptacles, and other street
furniture.
g. Existing trees shall be preserved in place wherever
possible or shall be relocated elsewhere on-site for
preservation. A written report from a qualified
landscape architect or tree arborist shall verify
the details of preservation or relocation. Any
trees that cannot be transplanted shall be'replaced
in kind with mature specimens. The written report
shall be submitted together with a Tree Removal
Permit pursuant to Ordinance 37 and a detailed plan
showing existing trees and relocation/replacement.
10. All trees to be saved shall beenclosed by a chain
link fence prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permit and prior to commencement of work.
Fences are to remain in place during all phases of
construction and cannot be removed without the
written consent of the City Planner until
construction is complete.
Resolution No~
CUP 85-14 - Muller
September 11, 1985
Page 3
ENGINEERING DIVISION
1. One driveway will be allowed on Archibald Avenue.
It shall be designed with the existing school
driveway as shown on the revised site plan.
2. A lot merger to combine the existing parcels on the
site into one parcel shall be completed prior to the
issuance of building permits.
3. Notice of Intent to join the proposed median island
landscape district shall be filed with City Council
prior to building permit issuance.
4. The existing drive approach on Archibald Avenue
shall be removed.
5. Flood protection measures shall be provided along
Archibald Avenue generally' as shown on the revised
grading plan. The actual design shall be based on
final flooding report as approved by the City
Engineer.
6. A hydrology study on 9th Street and Archibald Avenue
shall be provided and submitted to Engineering
Division for review and approval prior to issuance
of Building permits.
7. Meandering sidewalk shall be provided within the
right-of-way along Archibald Avenue. Landscaping
shall be provided between the meandering sidewalk
and the required flood wall.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1985.
Jac'l( Lam, Tecretary
Resolution No.
CUP 85-14 - Muller
September 11, 1985
Page 4
I, Jack Lam, 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 11th day of September, 1985, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: REMPEL, CHITIEA, BARKER, STOUT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MC NIEL
RESOLUTION NO. 87-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-
14 FOR ELIMINATING BUILDINGS C & D AND REPLACING WITH
PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 9TH
STREET & ARCHIBALD IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT -
APN 209-021-16, 17, 05.
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of May, 1987, a complete application was
filed by The Muller Company for review of the above-described project; and
WHEREAS, on the 24th day of june 1987, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Conm~ission held a public hearing to consider the above-described project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Conm, ission resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings can be met:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General
Plan, the objectives of the Industrial Specific
Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located. _
2. 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.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific
Plan.
SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration has been issued on September 11,
1985 for the Master Plan.
SECTION 3: That Modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 85-14 is
approved subject to the following conditions:
PLANNING DIVISION
1. All pertinent Standard Conditions and Special Conditions of
Resolution No. 87-57, Resolution No. 86-75, and Resolution No.
85-131 shall apply.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Conditional Use Permit 85-14 - Muller
june 24, 1987
Page 2
2. Modifications to the Master Plan shall be subject to Planning
Conmnission review and approval.
3. Convenient pedestrian connection from the new parking area to
Buildings A, B, and H shall be provided.
4. Sufficient landscaping to shade the new parking area shall be
provided.
5. The new parking area shall be completed prior to release of
occupancy for the new tenant in Building H.
6. The design of the parking area and loading area along the west
and north elevation of Building H shall be subjected to City
Planner review and approval at the time of tenant improvement
plan submittal and prior to issuance of such permits.
7. The detailed design of the plazaarea located at the northeast
side of Building A shall b,e subjected to Design Review Committee
review and approval and shall be completed prior to release of
occupancy for the tenants in Building 4.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 1987.
PLANNING COI~ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ATTEST:y/'
~d Bull~f, De~puty Secretary
I, Brad Buller, 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 24th day of June, 1987, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COI~ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COI~ISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMI SS I ONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 85-14 FOR ELIMINATING BUILDING
"G" AND REPLACING IT WITH PARKING SPACES, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF 9TH STREET AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE IN
THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3), AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-021-16, 17, AND
05.
A. Recitals.
(i) Rancho Technology Center has filed an application for the
Modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 85-14 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 22nd day of January 1992, 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 January 22, 1992, 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
northwest corner of 9th Street and Archibald Avenue with a street frontage of
1,270 feet along 9th Street and 612 feet along Archibald Avenue and is
presently improved with two office buildings, a warehouse building, and an
office/warehouse building; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is an
industrial/business park, the property to the south of that site is vacant,
the property to the east is a school, and the property to the west is
industrial.
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:
,:r
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 85-14 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER
January 22, 1992
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 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.
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, a Negative Declaration was issued on
September 11, 1985.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1) All pertinent conditions of Resolution Nos.
87-57, 86-75 and 85-131 shall apply.
2)All new parking stalls shall be striped at the
new standard of 9 feet by 18 feet.
3) The new parking area shall be landscaped per
the standards in the Industrial Area Specific
Plan and the approved landscape plan. The
landscape and irrigation plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Pla'nner prior to the
issuance of grading permits for the parking
area.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 85-14 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER
January 22, 1992
Page 3
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolutio~ 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 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
~se items c~ m ~~ of ~val.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (714) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. TIme Limits
/
' 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are
not issued or appmved use has not commenced within 24 months from the die of approval.
2. Developrent/Design Review shell be approved prior to / I .
3. ApFoval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of
4. The developer shell commence, participate in, and consumrnate or cause to be commenced,
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications ot the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
Districts property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shell cornply with all
applicable laws and mgulstion8. The CFD shell be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation of the finel map occurs.
5. Prior to recordation. of the final map or the issuance of building paiTrdtS, whichever comes
first, the al~licant shell consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
Fadlities District, the applicant shell, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site imo the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance of building parTnits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school
district has not formed a Mello-Ro0s Community Fscilitles District within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
SC-2/91 1ot'12 .,~"~ [
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
~/ impacts as a result of this projed.
6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is / /
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter mum have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B, SIte Developmere
'~ ,/1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which /
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, 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 fadlity shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and / /
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Pdor 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
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
~//5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for / /
consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree ramoval, encroachment.
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lit subdivision, or
.~// approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. ~val of this request shall not waive comp~lane with an sections of the Development /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
V//7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and / /
Sherfff's Department (989-6611 ) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding sO as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
8. If no centralized trash receptacles am provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units / /
with all receptacles shielded from pubic view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards, The final design, Iocatlins / / -.
and the number of trash receptacles shall be sul:~ct to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
10, All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall /
be licated out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
SC-2/91 2of|2 -,.~~
Prmea No.:
Compl~Uon Da~e:
11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with / /
·/ the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
~ 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, /
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and / /
weed control. in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine / /
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option ol keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing 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 app~ovai of the Pinning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
16. Allparkways, openareas, andlandscapingshall be permanently maintained by the property / /
owner. homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
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 for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordatlon of the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation. structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar ol:~s. pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.080-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and / /
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark
trees, demolition, reloCation, reconstruction of buildings or stnJclures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmad~ Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Destgn
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units / /
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other altemative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be sul:~lemented with solar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural /
treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to C~ Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for t /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners 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 lhe satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular A¢ces~ (Indicate details on building plans)
All/~c;t.~)
'~1. {(c~arking 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 palesthan pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be / /
provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/ouiidtngs with open spaces'
plazas/recreational uses.
3. AIl'~arking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, / /__
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in / /
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles / /
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and / /
Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. La~flscaplng (for publlcty maintained landscape areas, raler to Section N.)
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- / /--
ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Ranner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier / /
in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on lhe grading plans.
The location ot those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the delailed landscal~ plans. The applicant shall lollow all of the arbodst's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and Irimming methods.
3. Aminirnumof treespergroseacre,comprisedofthefollowingsizes, shall be provided / /
within the project: % - 4,8- 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-in¢1~ box or larger.
5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-galion tree for every ,three / /
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
SC - 2/9 1 4 of 12 ,,~/--/Z
_/6Com~eU~ Daub:
· Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building./~jC~ '~ ~ -'.~-t d-~' ~.: ~ · / /
~//7. AII private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical heighl and of 5:l orgreaterslope. but less than / J
2:1 slope. shell be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
8. AIIprivatesiopesinexcessof5feet. butlessthan8 feet inverticalheightandof2:l orgreater / /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree par each 150 sq. ft. of slope area. 1-gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In acldition, siopa
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater siopa shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting requked 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- / /
ously maintained in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy forthose units, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Ranning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
10. For multi-family residential and norbresldential development, property owners are respon- / /
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right. of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning. fertilizing. mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead. diseased, or
decaying plant matefill shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the r)evelopment Code and/or / /
· This requirement shell be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
12. The final design of the pealmater parkways. walls. landscaping. and sidewalks shell be / /
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. 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 lffigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on / /
the perimeter of this projecl area shell be continuously maintained by the developer.
15. All walls shell be provided with decorative tmatmant. If located in public maintenance areas, / /__
the design shah be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
/16. Tree maintenance criteria shell be developed and submitted for City Planner review and / /
aplyoval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
__ 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / /--
Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
F. SIgns co~=~
~. The~ignsindiemeclonthesubmiXedplarmarecor~eptualonlyandnotal:~r~of this~c~roval. / /
Any signs proposed for this development shall cornl~ly with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require sel~rate lq:~>lication and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation ol any
Signs.
2. AUniformSignProgramforthisdevelopmentshallbesubrnittedforCityPlanner reviewand / /
approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes /
prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / /
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The deveiopa r shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted / /
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a atanclard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway / /
project in a standard format as .determined by the City Planner, pclor to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shell be submitted for Ci~/Planner review and apeoval prior to the / /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise
attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building matedais and construction techniques provided,
and it appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
1. EmergencysecondaryaccessshallbeprovldedinaccordancewithRarrJx~CucamongaFire /
Protection District Standards.
2. Emergencyaccessshallbepmvlded, maintenance free and clear, a minimumof261eetwide /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction. evidence shall be / /
submittad to the Rancho Cucamonga Rre Protection District that ternpora~ water supply for
fire protection is available, pending cornpletlon of required fire protection system.
4. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and /
location of mall boxes. Multi-family residential developntents shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be su~ect to City Planner review and al;txoval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, includirig all
supl~rtive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
SC - 2/91
Co~r't~c~.4cm Dat~:
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. SIte Devetopmem
1. The applicant shall cornply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Unitorrn Mechani- / /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition / /
to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but am not limited to: City Beautitication Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or / /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are riot limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordation / /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Exlst~/~g Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances / /
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existing sewage disposal radiities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the / /
Uniform Plumping Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for / /
building permit apiolication.
K. G~gl. Grading of the subject ~ shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / /
Grading Standarc/, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the al~xoved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to /
perform such work.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance / /
Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardino County Departmentof Agriculture at (714)
387-2111 for permit al:)plication. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
4.A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitled at / /
the time of application for grading plan check.
5. The final greding plans shall be completed and approved priorto issuance rrnifs. /
5C-2/91 70fl2
,-
~'~'~ -"'°*:
6. ~ a ~~t su~is~n, the followi~ r~uire~s shall ~ met:
a. SureW ~all be ~st~ a~ an agme~nt ex~t~ guarameei~ ~letbn of all on-s~e / /
dmin~ f~il~ies n~essa~ for dewated~ all ~rcels to the sai~a~n of the Bui~i~
a~ SaleW D~n p~rto final m~ ~mval a~ ~rto the issua~ of gradi~ peaits.
b. ~pmpdae eBemems for sMe d~sal of dmi~ wmer tha am ~~ onto / /
or over ~m par~is, am to ~ delinea~ ~ r~ffi~ to t~ smisf~bn of the
Bui~i~ a~ SafeW D~n p~r to i~a~ of gr~i~ a~ ~i~i~ peaits.
c. ~-site dmi~ge i~ove~ms, n~essa~ for ~atedng a~ ~ot~i~ the su~N~ / /--
~adis, are to ~ inmall~ pdor to isma~ of ~i~i~ ~ br ~nstm~bn u~n
any ~mel mat may ~ subj~ to dmi~e f~ emed~, tavi~, or w~hin a pamel
re~e to which a ~i~i~ ~R ~ r~em~.
d. Fill gmdi~ ~ans for e~h ~1 are to ~ ~b~ to ~e ~i~i~ a~ SMeW / /
D~n for ~mval ~r to is~a~e of ~i~i~ ~ gr~i~ ~. (~is my ~ on an
imremmal or ~~e ~sis.)
e. All s~ ~s in excess of 5 feet in ve~l ~ s~l ~ ~ ~h n~ive grosses /
or ~m~ w~h gmu~ ~ver for ems~n ~ml u~n ~t~n of gmdt~ or ~ other
a~e~e ~t~ of ems~n ~ml ~NI ~ ~t~ ~ me ~i~bn of ~e ~i~i~
~1. In a~n a ~anem i~bn sy~em ~all M ~v~. ~is r~iremem
~s ml re~ase t~ ~~~r from ~ia~ w~h ~ s~e plami~
r~im~ms of ~n 17.~.040 1 ol t~ Devemm ~.
APPUCAffi ~ALL CONTA~ THE ENGINEERING DNIS~N, ~14)~1 ~2, F~ ~ILIANCE
~ ~E FO~OWlNG CONDfflONS:
L i~lon aM Veh~ir ~
1. R~Ns~f-way ~ ea~nts sMII N ~~ l IN C~ for all ime~r ~bl~ streets. /
~m~n~ trail, ~bl~ ~s~s, ~bl~ i~ ~ea, ~ret Ires, aN ~bl~ dmiMge
f~l~ ~ s~wn on t~ Nns a~or tema~e ~. ~ae ea~ms for ~bl~
f~ilais (~ss-bt dmi~e, ~1 f~rtmi~, etc.) ~1N re~w~ B s~ on the plans
a~or tenure ~.
2. ~t~n s~ll ~ ~ of ~ folei~ ~Ms~f-way on ~ Nd~ter streets / /.--
(~r~ ~m =r~ MmediM):
INN let on
torn fet on
I~ fet on
Iota fet on
3. An i~e offer of d~t~n for -f~t ~ m~ay e~e~ s~l N made /
for all p~ae stme~ or ddves.
4. ~n-veh~ir ~ sMII N ~t~ to tN C~ lor ~ lol~ ~mets:. / /
5. Recilxocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs /
or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of
building pelTnitS, where no map iS involved.
SC - 2/91 8 of 12 ~"3 ~
tio~D
6. Private drain8ge ea~s for cmss-~t ~rainage shall ~ pmv~ a~ shall be delineat~
or ~t~ on the final m~. / /
7. ~e fill m~ shall c~a~ delineate a I O-foot minimum ~i~i~ m~n area on the ~ /
~ig~d~ ~t ~ini~ t~ zero lot line wall a~ ~main ~e fol~wi~ language:
"~e Mmby ~te to the C~ of Ra~ Cu~m~a t~ fig~ to inhibit
mnstN~bn of (ms~nt~l) ~i~i~s (or o~r s~ms) w~hin ~se areas desig~t~
on the m~ as ~i~i~ re~bn areas."
A maintena~e agreeram ~all al~ ~ grant~ from e~ ~t to the adj~m ~t thmgh the
CC&R's.
8.All exiffii~ easeme~s ~i~ w~hin Mure ~Ms~f-'way s~ll
t~ fill m~.
9. Easemems for ~ s~ewa~ a~or fleet tr~s ~d o~e t~ ~bl~ ~M~f-way / /
s~ll ~ ~d~ to the C~ w~mver t~y e~ omo ~ie ~.
10. ~n~ ~reet ~M~f-way s~ll ~ ~~ a~ ~ tum Ines, to ~vl a ~nimm / /
of 7 feet ma~r~ from t~ fa~ of ~. ff
tum In, a ~iMl ~t flee ~mename salem s~l ~ ~.
11. ~e ~ve~r s~ll ~e a ~ fa~h efton to ~ire t~ r~k~ off-s~e ~ ~erests / /
n~sBff to
t~ deve~r shall, t lea~ 120 days ~r to ~1 of t~ ~n~ ~ ~r ~val, emer
i~o ~ ~ree~ to ~e t~ i~ve~ffis ~am to ~vem~m ~ S~n
~2 ~ ~h ~ ~ t~ C~ a~uires t~ p~ iffie~ r~uk~ for ~ ~veme~s.
S~h agr~m s~ll pm~ ~r ~y~m ~ ~ ~ve~r of aB ~ ~ff~ by t~ C~y
to a~uire t~ off-s~e ~ i~emffis rlk~ in ~nn~n w~ ~ ~M~n. S~
for a ~n of ~ ~ s~ll ~ ~ t~ fo~ ~ · lh d~ ~ t~ ~um g~en in an
~a~l r~ ~ain~ by t~ ~e~r, i ~e~ts mffi. ~ ~ier ~ have
~en ~v~ ~ t~ C~ ~r to ~~ of ~ ~m~.
M. St~ Imp~~
1. All ~ i~vemms (ime~r ~r~, dm~ f~lRis, ~n~ trails, ~s, /
la~~ area, etc.) s~ ~ ~ ~ ~or tm~ ~ i ~ ~m~ to
C~ Sta~. linear lr~t i~ve~ms s~l ~, ~ mmt ~ to, ~m a~
~er, AC ~~, d~ ~, s~. ffffi I~s, ~ ~m~ trees.
2. A ~m
~ 3. ~~ ~ f~ ~er mr~ I~e~a ~~. ~ mt ~ to: / /
SC - 2/91 9 of 12 ,~ ~
Notes: (a) Median island ir~iucles lancl~Gaping and i~rigation on rtl~ter. (ID) Pavemere
reconstruction and ovedays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) ff so marked, side-
wak shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) ff so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall
~ pmvlded for this item. (~ ~f,fifi~rr'u/~r ~,(-~.~ F}^v'D'~ n-~ ~:n
· ' ' ' I I
4. Improvement plans and construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- / /
tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and aiDproved by the City Engineer. Security
shatl be posted and an agreement executed to the sateaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranleeing completion ol the public and/or private street Improve-
ments, prior to final map approval or tha issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees mall be paid and a /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
olher permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit / /
shall be installed to the satisfaction of me City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be in~alled on any new consiruction or reconsiruction / /
of major, secondary or collector street, which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both slclee of the
street at 3 feet outside of BC R, EC R or any other kx-,,alione appmved by lhe City Engineer.
Notes: / /.__
(1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless olherwtse specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with puBrope.
e. Wheel chair rampe shall be irmtalled or1 all four comers of Intersections per City / /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring consira shal remain open Io traffic al all times with / /
adequate detours during construction. A street cloeure permit may be requtnld. A CaSh
deposit shall be provided to cover the coal of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the salisfaaton of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrmed drainage flows shall not cross sidewake. Under sidewalk drains shall be//
instamed to Cly Standarm, except for single farnty ~
h. Handicap access ramp deeign shall be as specified by the Cty Engineer. / /
i. Street .na.mes atml be appmved by the City Planner pdorto submllal forfim plan check.//
5. Street imlxoveme~l I~ne per City Standards for all palvale meets shall be provided for//-
review and approval by the Cly Engineer. Prior to any worn being performed on the prl-
vale sireels, feee shall be paid and oonsiruclion permile shall be oblained from the City
Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required.
~ 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed par Cly Standards in / /
accordance with the City's simet tree program.
SC - 2/9 1 10 of 12 ,~0
ComoicUo~ Date:
7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with '
adopted policy. /
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, /
including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by / /
moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street
tree easement.
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: / /
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the / /
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards / /
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways,
medians, IDasees, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Lanclscapa and Lighting / /
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer priorto final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be beme by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation system shall be continuously maintained by the / /.-
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) Shall conform to the results of the respective / /
Beautification Master Ran:
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Rood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood / /-
protection rnea~ms shall be Ixovided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
appmved by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the deelts responsib,'llty to have the current FIRM Zone / /
designation removed from the project area. The deveiopets engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydrologlc/h~lraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtairNK:l from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuance of building parmils, Whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvemaN acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage .study shall be sUbmitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final /
map approval or the issuance of building parrnits,. whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
SC - 2/91 11 of
~ 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. corn_de.on D.tc:
' / /
5. Trees am prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. / /
i 6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a /
blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system. water, / /
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
. L/// Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
i 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. / /
; ~'/3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / /...
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvall
, 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into / /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
, 2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map appmvai or / /
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs tirst, for:
/
, 3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covedng the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created parcels.
4. EtiwandNSan Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan / /
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map apl}rovel or prior to building permit issuance if
no map is involved.
, 5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: /
i 6. A signed consent and waiver form to Join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community
Fadlities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building perrre'ls, whichever occurs tirst. Formation costs shall be berne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, suffidenf improven~nt plans shall be com-
pieted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown
on the approved lentalive map.
SC - 2t9 1 12 of 12 ~Y'~s~2,,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAF F REPORT ; "?i
DATE: January 22, 1992 '!i~i!~! !~
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13961- Rancho
Technolog~ ~enter - A subdivision of 18.42 acres of land 'into 5
n the General Industr a
parcels i 1 District, Subarea 3 of the
Industrial Area Specfic Plan 1 ocated at the Northwest corner of 9th
Street and Archibald Avenue. (APN: 209-021-16,17 & 5). Staff
recommends issuance of a N~:gative Declaration. Related file:
Modification of CUP 85-14.
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
II B fi
B. Parcel Size:
Parcel s range in size from 1.36 acres to 8.66 acres.
C. Existing Zoning:
General Industrial, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Specific Plan.
D. Surrounding Land Use:
North - Existing Industrial Bull dings
South - Existing Industrial Buildings
East - Existing El ementry School
West- Existing Industrial Buildings
E. Surrounding) General Plan and Development Code Designations:
North - General Industrial, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Specfic
P1 an
South - General Industrial, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Specfic
P1 an
ITE~ K
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TENT. PM 13961 - LEWIS HOMES
JANUARY 22, 1992
PAGE 2
East - Low (2-4 DU/AC) Devlopment District
West -General Industrial, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Specfic
P1 an
F. Site Characteristics: There is an existing Industrial building on
all the proposed'parc~ s except for Parcel 2 which is constructed
as a parking lot.
II. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Parcel Map is to subdivide 18.42 acres of
land into 5 parcels to create separate parcels for the four existing
buildings and one vacant parcel for ~uture development of CUP 85-14,
which is on tonight's agenda for a modification.
The street improvements are existing with the exception of a portion of
sidewalk adjacent to Parcel 2 which will be constructed upon recordation
of the Parcel Map. In addition, missing street trees and street lights
are to be installed. ~ so, the existing overhead utilities on the
project side of Ninth Street are to be undergounded and a one-half in-
lieu fee paid for those on the opposite (east) side of Archibald Avenue.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial
Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of
the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are
anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative
Declaration is appropriate.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding
property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting
at the site has also been completed.
V. RECO~ENDATION: It is recommended that the P1 anning Commission consider
all input and ~ ements of the Tentative Parcel Map 13961. If after such
consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption
of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would
be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Senior Civil Engineer
BRH:BK:jh
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map
Resolution and
Recommended Conditions of Approval
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13961, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 9TH STREET, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-021-5, 16,
AND 17
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 13961, submitted by Rancho
Technology Center, applicant, for the! purpose of subdividing into five
parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of
San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 209-021-5, 16 & 17,
located at the Northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and 9th Street; and
WHEREAS, on January 22, 1992, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUC~MONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES 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 site 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
properties.
" SECTION 2: This Commission finds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in complia~nce with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970; and further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 13961 is hereby approved
subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special
Conditions:
Enqineerinq Division:
1. Existing overhead Utilities;
a. 9th Street - T]he existing overhead' utilities
(telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of
9th Street shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENT. PARCEL MAP 13961 - RANCHO TECHNOLOGY CENTER
January 22, 1992
Page 2
east side of Archibald Avenue to the first pole off-site
west of the west project boundary prior to public
improvement acceptance. The developer may request a
reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City
developed cost for undergrounding from future development
(redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the
street.
b. An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding
of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and
electrical) on the opposite side of Archibald Avenue shall
be paid to the City prior to approval of the final map. The
fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the
length from the center of Archibald Avenue to the north
project boundary.
2. Easements for joint use driveways ensuring access to all parcels
shall be provided.
3. Construct missing portion of sidewalk on 9th Street to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4. Relocate the third driveway west of Archibald Avenue westerly to
align with the existing driveway on the opposite (south) side of
9th Street as shown on the site plan for the modification of
Conditional Use Permit 85-14.
Buildinq and Safety Division:
1. A Covenant and Agreement regarding maintenance of yard easements
granted to Parcel 3 (8600 Archibald Avenue) from Parcels 4 (8632
Archibald Avenue) and 5 (8678 Archibald Avenue) of Parcel Map
13961 shall be approved by the Building Official prior to final
map approval and recorded in the San Bernardino County
Recorder's office concurrent with the recordati0n of the parcel
map.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22nd DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENT. PARCEL MAP 13961 - RANCHO TECHNOL~;Y CENTER
January 22, 1992
Page 3
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF RE P O RT
DATE: January 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01 -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend Figure III-7,
Master Plan of Trails, regarding certain trail locations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to
amend Figure II-7, and Figures IV-1 through IV-19, regarding
certain trail locations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend Figure
5-18 and Figures 5-20 through 5-40 regarding certain trail
locations and to amend Article 5.33.200 regarding Community
Trails.
ABSTRACT: The proposed amendments would make the trail alignments shown
in the General Plan, Industrial Area Specific Plan, and Etiwanda
Specific Plan consistent with those contained within the Trails
Implementation Plan approved by the City Council on October 16, 1991.
ANALYSIS: The Trails Implementation Plan established precise alignments
for hiking, riding, and biking trail routes (see attached Figures 2 and
7). These trail routes were selected[ based upon a number of criteria
including safety, feasibility, functionality, traditional trail routes,
aesthetics, traffic speed and volume, etc.
The Master Plan of Trails contained in the General Plan, which was the
basis for the trail alignments shown in the Industrial Area Specific
Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan, indicates only general trail
alignments. For example, the Master Plan of Trails does not indicate
which side of the street the Community Trails should follow. In
addition, since the adoption of the General Plan in 1981, changes have
occurred in the community ( i. e ·, development patterns, street
classifications, and traffic volumes) which necessitated rethinking the
trail routes. Through the developm~;nt of the Trails Implementation
Plan, all trail routes were re-evaluated based upon the aforementioned
criteria. Trails have been added to certain streets, such as the Bike
Lane on Base Line Road. Trails were deleted along some streets due to
inadequate width or other criteria. In some instances, the trail
classification was changed, such as from a Bike Lane to a Bike Route.
ITEMS L, M, & N
AMENDMENTS
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
January 22, 1992
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In reviewing the environmental issues
connected with the proposed amendments, staff notes that the amendments
will provide consistency between the General Plan, Industrial Area
Specific Plan, and Etiwanda Specific Plan. In addition, the amendments
will not be detrimental to the public health or safety or cause
nuisances or significant adverse environmental impacts.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolutions recommending approval to the City Council.
BB:DC:js
Attachments: Figure 2 - Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan
Figure 7 - General Bikeways Plan
Resolution Recommending Approval of GPA 92-01
Resolution Recommending Approval of ISPA 92-01
Resolution Recommending Approval of ESPA 92-01
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-01, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN MASTER PLAN OF TRAILS (FIGURE III-7)
REGARDING CERTAIN TRAIL ROUTES WITHIN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for
General Plan Amendment No. 92-01 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan
Amendment is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On January 22, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
(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 January 22, 1992, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The amendment pertains to the incorporated area and sphere-
of-influence area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
(b) This amendment does not conflict with the Trail Policies of
the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a
manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and
(c) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the
Public Facilities Element; and
(d) This amendment would not be materially injurious or
detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact
on the environment nor the surrounding properties and that issuance of a
Negative Declaration is recommended.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
January 22, 1992
Page 3
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That the proposed amendment would not have significant
impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and
(b) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the
General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed
and considered for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows:
(a) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve and adopt General Plan Amendment No. 92-01, modifying Figure
III-7 as shown in the attached Exhibits A and B.
(b) That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the
City Council.
6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
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 22nd day of January 1992, 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, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-01,
ENDING FIGURE II-7, AND FIGURES IV-1 THROUGH IV-19,
REGARDING CERTAIN TRAIL ROUTES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application for
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 92-01 as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Amendment is
referred to as "the application."
(ii) On January 22, 1992, 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 healring on January 22, 1992, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application pertains to the area included in the
Industrial Area Specific Plan; and
(b) This aumenchnent will modify certain trail routes for
consistency with the Trails Implementation Plan; and
(c) This amendment will provide consistency with the General
Plan Master Plan of Trails.
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 amendment .will provide for development of a
comprehensively planned urban community within the district that is superior
to the development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
January 22, 1992
Page 2
(b) That the amendment will provide for development within the
district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related
development and growth management policies of the City; and
(c) That the amendment will provide for the construction,
improvement, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and
public services required by development within the district.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed
and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows:
(a) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve and adopt Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 92-01,
modifying Figure II-7 as shown in the attached Exhibit "A"; and modifying the
related Subarea maps Figures IV-1 through IV-19 accordingly.
(b) That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the
City Council.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
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 22nd day of January 1992, 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, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 92-01, AMENDING
FIGURE 5-18 AND FIGURES 5-20 THROUGH 5-40 REGARDING
CERTAIN TRAIL ROUTES AND AMENDING ARTICLE 5.33.200
REGARDING COMMUNITY TRAILS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has initiated an application for
Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 92-.01 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Amendment is
referred to as "the application."
(ii) On January 22, 1992, 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 January 22, 1992, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application pertains to the area included in the
Etiwanda Area Specific Plan; and
(b) This amendment will modify certain trail routes for
consistency with the Trails Implementation Plan; and
(c) This amendment will provide consistency with the General
Plan Master Plan of Trails.
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 amendment will provide for development of a
comprehensively, planned urban community within the district that is superior
to the development otherwise allowable under alternate regulations; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ESPA 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
January 22, 1992
Page 2
(b) That the amendment will provide for development within the
district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related
development and growth management policies of the City~ and
(c) That the amendment will provide for the construction,
improvement, or extension of transportation facilities, public utilities, and
public services required by development within the district.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed
and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows=
(a) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council approve and adopt Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 92-01,
modifying Figure 5-18 as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", modifying the
related street cross sections Figures 5-20 through 5-40 accordingly and
modifying Article 5.33,200 as shown in the attached Exhibit
(b) That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related
material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the
City Council.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
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 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
~ Bike Lane* or Bike Route*
(On Pavement Shoulder)
..,....-Bike Path (In Parkway)
~:~:~::~ Foothill Boulevard
i~!!::~?~ii~i! Specific Plan
:
* a~nlull Trill Impl~mtnlltion Plan
/ ~itl~ fi~ur~
COMMUNITY 5-18
" T~AIL$
IIII
5.33 TRAILS AND WALKWAYS
.100 Intent
It is the intent of this article to provide appropriate standards
for the development of an integrated and continuous system
of pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian trails and walkways
consisting of:
- Community maintained Community Trailsy
- Privately maintained Feeder Trails and
Greenways,, and
- Publicly maintained Public Sidewalks.
.200 Community TraiLs
.201 Community Equestrian Trails shall be developed in
locations specified in Figure 5-18. Design Standards
shall be consistent with Citywide standards as
contained in the Trail Implementation Plan.
.202 Community Bicycle Trail Improvements shall be
developed in locations specified in Figure 5-18. Such
bicycle trail improvements shall be consistent with
street cross-sections, Fig. 5-20 through 5-40. Design
Standards shall be consistent with Ci.tywide standards
as contained in the Trail Implementation Plan,
.203 Community Hiking Trail Improvements shall be
provided in locations specified in Figure 5-19. Design
Standards shall be consistent with Citywide standards
as contained in the Trail Implementation Plan. No
hiking trail improvements shall be necessary where
used in conjunction with equestrian trail
improvements.
Article 5.33 - Trails & Walkways
.300 Feeder Trails
.301 Feeder Trails:
Feeder trails for equestrian use shall be required as a
condition of project approval in the EQ/OL D~striet.
Such trails shall be located within easements, and
shall be designed to provide access to each lot or site
intended for equestrian use.
.302 Design Criteria:
At a minimum, each development should provide at
least one connection across the project site, with the
intention of providing a continuous system of
equestrian Feeder Trails. The design of such trails
shall be based on Citywide Feeder Trail standards,
provided that such trails may be combined with
optional provisions for bicycle and pedestrian use, per
Section .4[ 0 below.
5-34
CiTY GF: 'I' T~CA
November 27, DEC 091991
Planning Commission
City o£ ~ancho Cucamonga
9320 Baseline ~oa~
~ancho Cacamonga, CA 91730
~: gNg~G~NC¥ O~DI~ANC~ NO. 398.
Dear Planning Commission Nembe~s:
As members o£ the I.C.A. International Ca~wash Association,
it has come to oar attention abo~t an ordinance'in you~ City
that we ~eel is not necessary an~ is extremely an~usti~ie~.
In reviewing yoar ordinance, we have notice~ a series o£ issues
that shoal~ be rea~dresse~ at this time becaase there is no
emergency as before. ~he language o£ the ordinance appears
to be hastily drafted an~ withoat merit on certain issues.
~e a=e especially concerned. becaase your ordinance was
specifically generate~ £or one situation, an~ it is now being
ase~ to ~i=scriminate throughout. your City. Pos~sibly, unbe-
~nown to the Planning Commission and the City Council itsel£.
· be ordinance was originally ~ra£te~ in response to a
Conditional Use Permit on a property at ~.emon and Baven,
the language within ~he ordinance is too speci£ic to ~hat one
property, and not well thought o~t within the realm o~ sel~
service carwashes in gene~al.
Speci£ically, "Section I: (c) An on site attendant shall
be p~ovi~e~ at all times daring basiness hoa~s to con~=ol noise,
1itter, an~ other n~isances." ~his statement within the
ordinance was a response to a specific agreement between the
propose~ 6eveloper an~ the property owners, an~ shoal~ not be
the language within the ordinance. It enti=ely restricts the
basic concept o£ basic sel£ service carwashes.
the meaning o~ sel~ serve itse].~ clearly states the obvious,
that an attendant need not be p~esen~ to wash the car or to
assist. ~hile this reg~irement: is common practice in an a~o-
matic carwash or in a conveyo~ ca~wash, it is seldom the
policy o~ a sel~ service carwash to have a ~al1 time attendant.
~e £eel this section was a ca=ryover £rom the individual
case that was being =eriewed at the time an~ sho~l~ be
examine~ at this time.
ITE~ 0
Section I: (d) Specifically, hours of operation should
be dealt within the Conditional Use Permit not within the
ordinance. Clearly, this was an exact carryover from the
individual case again, where the developer had agreed to
operate within specific hours of operation to appease this
specific neighborhood- Hours of operation within the ordin-
ance restricts trade without showing just cause, if cause
exists- For example~ if the neighbors complain, let the
conditional process establish the fair operational hours
if the concerns cannot be mitigated by the site development
itself.
Section I: (e) Minimum lot area within the ordinance
is entirely without support in comparing it with any other
city within the Southern California area. To require i Acre
is entirely without justification- Based on the average
size of a self service carwash, it is typically less than 1/3
of an acre. We feel the ordinance should address the issue
of tangency with 1 Acre parcels and not 1 Acre by itself.
The City Planning Department should do research now to study
the sizes of self service carwashes in the industry throughout
Southern California and come up with a more realistic lot
size than 1 Acre.
The ordinance was drafted hastily and without a great
deal of research, and ~t shows very clearly These issues
that we have pointed Out clearly are trying to restrict
development of self service carwashes within neighborhood
commercial zones.
We are sure that the City wants self service carwashes, and
the Community wants them. They save water. They are energy
efficient, and they provide a service necessary in the Commun-
ity.
We formally request a hearing to discuss Emergency
Ordinance 398 before the Planning Commission, so the ordinance
can be discussed and potentially modified.
Sincerely,
Autowash Concepts, Inc.
Larry Young
ORDINANCE NO. 398
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CAR WASHES WITHIN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.S
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain
as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 17.10.030.F.6 is added to Chapter 17.10.030 to
read as follows:
6. Car Washes {Neighborhood Commercial District). To ensure that
the goals and objectives of the General Plan are implemented, a Conditional
Use Permit shall be required for car washes within Neighborhood Con~nercial
District. Car washes shall comply with t)he following criteria:
{a} Such business shall be located at least 200 feet from any
residential district.
{b) Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be ~creened from public
view.
(c} An on-site attendant :;hall be provided at all times during
business hours to control noise, litter, and other nuisances.
{d) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m., unless otherwise specifically established as a condition of approval.
Automatic shut-off of water and electrical systems, except for security and
fire protection, shall be provided during non-business hours.
(e} Minimum site/lot area for car wash shall be 1 acre,
provided it is contiguous to, or a part of, an approved or existing
neighborhood shopping center.
SECTION 2: This Council finds that this amendment will not adversely
effect the environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration.
SECTION 3: The City Council declares that, should any provision,
section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared
invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by
reason of any peemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections,
paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15} days after its
passage at least once in The Daily Report_, a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Ordinance No. 398
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 1989.
AYES: Alexander, Brown, Stout, Wright
NOES: None
ABSENT: Buquet ~
Dennis L. Stout, Mayor
ATTEST:
A
Debr~ J. d4ims, City C1 erk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a
regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd
day of August, 1989, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16th day of August, 1989.
Executed this 17th day of August, 1989 at Rancho Cucamonga,
Cal i fornia.
Debra J. A~ms, City Clerk
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 2, 1989
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONRENTAL ASSESSMENT ANO DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 89-01
- CXTY OF RANCHU CUI;/UqUNGA - EstaDllsnment of crlterla for
car washes wltnln NelgnDorliood Conmercial Districts.
I. RECOteqENDATXON: ?he Planning Commission reconmends approval of the
~ttacned Ordinance.
IZ. BACKGROU!O: The City's existing zoning regulations define a car
wash as a Conditional Use within the office and commercial zones.
This is a land use activity that is not permitted by right, but one
which requires a special permit (Conditional Use Permit).
At a recent City Council meeting, a resident requested that the
Ctty's codes be modified to prohibit car washes altogether in the
Neighborhood Comerctal District.. This request came about as a
result of public concern involving a design review application for
a "coin-op car wash at Lemon and Yaven.
The basic premtse of all zoning is to distinguish between
appropriate and inappropriate uses of land in a given area. In a
Neighborhood Comerctal District, some uses, such as retailing, are
clearly appropriate and are permitted by right. Other uses, such
as manufacturing, would not be considered appropriate and are
prohi bi ted.
However, some uses, because of the nature of their business
activity, cannet be so neatly defined as appropriate or
inappropriate for a given district. These are uses that require
special consideration in order t.o operate in a manner compatible
with a surrounding neighborhood.. Automobile service stations,
churches, or day care facilities .are uses that would typically not
be permitted by right within any district, but would require
special review and consideration.
The Conditional Use remit (CUP) is the process used in most cities
in California to determine if an activity is compatible with
surrounding uses. The CUP process is intended to afford an
opportunity for broad public review and evaluation, and to provide
mitigation of any potentially adverse impacts.
CITY COUNCIL ST/ucF REPORT
RE: DCA 89-01
August 2, 1989
Page 2
The City Council and Planntng Comtsston felt that car washes
should continue to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis under the
Conditional Use Penntt process. The Council also determined that
standards were necessary to form a basts for reviewing car washes,
and directed staff to prepare such an Ordinance. SImilarly, the
City has fn the past established crfterla for the revtew of
shopping centers, gas stations, arcades, and fast food drtve-thru
restaurants.
The Neighborhood Conmnercfal Dtstrtct is tntended to provtde areas
for fnanedtate day-to-day convenience shopping and servtces for the
residents of the tnmnedtate neighborhood. Typtcal uses would
include such activities as, food stores and supermarkets, general
retatl (clothing, flortst, beauty shops), pharmacies, offices and
banks. Coin-operated car washes and automatic car washes fall
under the category of automot1 ve servtces i n the zont ng
regulations. Other auto-related uses tnclude, gas stations, repatr
shops, and parts sales. All automotive service uses requtre a CUP
withtn the Neighborhood Conmarcia] Dtstrtct except for sales of
parts and supplies. '
A major consideration fn reviewing the ccwapatfb~ltty of a car wash
wfth surroundfng resfdentfal land uses ts locatton and orlentatton
to the nefghboffi~d. More intense uses, such as a car wash, can be
"buffered" fr~wm less triterise uses th~u~ a c~tnatton of
elements, including setback, butld~ng orientation, screenfng by
other butldln~, screen walls, and heavy landscaping.
Fast food/drtve-thru restaurant fs another land use that re~tres a
CUP. In lg88, bKause of ~e n~er and frequency of new
applications, ~e Iqannfng C~ssfon established crtterta for fast
f~d restaurants which address c~attbflfty wftll 1:lie surrounding
netghboffiood. ~ese gutdellnes may provtde some assistance in
addressing ~e c~attbflfty of car washes wtth residential areas.
IZI. ANALYSIS: The attached Ordinance would establish ~he following
criteria for developing car washes within Neighborhood Conmarcia1
DIstricts:
A. Locatton - Car washes shall be located at least 200 feet away
from any residential district. Requiring an Increased setback
for ~he-more ~ntense car wash use from residential areas
provides a phystcal separation whtch addresses nulsance tssues
associated wtth car washes. These nuisances tnclude notse,
vtsual, trash, atr pollution from car exhaust, and traffic.
Th~s 200-foot setback ~s adapted from the fast food drtve-thru
pol ~ cy whtch was developed t n response to these same
net ghborhood compat( bl 1 tty tssues. The 200-foot setback al so
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
RE: DCA 89-01
August 2, 198-9
Page 3
encourages other types of retail buildings to be placed as a
buffer between residences and car washes.
B. Site Planntng/Butldtn9 Orientation - Wash bays and vacuum areas
snell be screened from puDllC view. This criteria is intended
to address the visual appearance of the car wash activity and
minimize impact upon the character of residential areas. The
City has a similar policy regarding screening of automotive
service bays. All new automotive service stations are required
to orient the service bays away from the primary street
frontage.
C. Supervision - One on-site attendant shall be provided during
buslness hours. The purpose of this requirement is to provide
adequate supervision and management of a car wash facility to
control noise, litter, loitering, and other nuisances.
D. Hours of Operation - Hours shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to
1U:LN3 P.M., unless otherwise spectflcally established as a
Conditional Use Permit Condition of Approval. This criteria
would prohibit car washes from operating in residential areas
during sleeping hours. During the eventrig and early morning
hours, ambient sound levels decrease; therefore, any noise
associated with a car wash use would be perceived as much
1 ouder.
E. Site Area - The mintm~ site area within the Neighborhood
Conmercial District is 5 acres. The proposed Ordinance would
require a minim~ site/lot area for a car wash of 1 acre,
provided it is contiguous to, or a part of, an approved or
exi sting neighborhood shopping center. This s i te area
requirement is intended to 1) encourage car washes to locate
within neighborhood shopping centers, and 2) encourage car
washes to be combined with related facilities.
The proposed Ordinance would apply to both automated and coin-
operated car washes only within the Neighborhood Conm~ercial
Districts. The attached Exhibit "A' shows the location of all
Neighborhood Commercial Centers. There are six centers which have
not yet been constructed or approved for development.
IV. PLANNING COMMXSSION: The Planning Comisston conducted a public
nearing on duly Zb regarding the proposed Ordinance. A n~nber of
concerned residents spoke in favor of the proposed Ordinance.
Jerry Gruebel, applicant for a car wash at Lemon and Haven, and his
architects, spoke against the proposed Ordinance. One tenant
within th.e adjoining retail center spoke against the proposed
Ordinance. After considering the public testimony and staff
report, the Planning Conm~isston w~ted unanimously in favor of the
proposed Ordinance (see attached Resolution).
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
RE: DCA 89-01
August 2, 198~
Page 4
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed the Environmental
Checklist and has determined that the approval of this Amendment
will not cause significant adverse impacts. If the City Council
concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration
would be appropriate.
BB:DC:ko
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location of Neighborhood Conmercial
Centers
Resolution of Support from Planning Commission
Ordinance
RESOLUTION NO. 89-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COI~ISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCliO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOHHENOING APPROVAL OF
OEVELOPHENT COOE AHENOHENT 89-01, AHENOING TITLE 17 OF
THE RANCliO CUCAHONGA HUNICIPAL COOE REGAROING CAR WASHES
WITHIN NEIGHBORHO00 COfq~ERCIAL OISTRICTS, AND HAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
WHEREAS, on the 26th day of July, 1989, the Planning
Commission held a duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section
65864 of the California Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Plann!ng Conmission has made
the fol low~ngs:
1. That the Amendment will provide for development of
a comprehensively planned urban community within
the District that is superior to development
otherwise allowable under alternate regulations;
and
2. That the Amendment will provide for development
within the District in a manner consistent with the
General Plan and with related development and
growth management policies of the City; and
3. That the Amendment wi 11 provide for the
construction, improvement, or extension of
transportation facilities, public utilities, and
public services required with the District.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucanmnga Planning Conmission has found
that this amendment will not create a significant adverse effect on the
environment and hereby reconmnends to City Council the issuance of a
Negative Decl aratlon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That. pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 of the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
reco~nds approval of Development Code Amendment
89-01.
2. The Planning Conmission hereby recomnends that the
City Council approve and adopt Development Code
A~nendment 89-01 to modify the Hunicipal Code per
the attached Ordinance.
~LANNING SjMMISS.~J'' ~ESOL"JT~0N N0. Sg-:.j5
DCA 89-01
July 26, 1989
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 1989.
· v Ltrry . cN t~, ;~airman
A~EST: ~ ~
/a~r) y S~retary
/
I, Brad Bullet, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Co~ission of the City
of Rancho Cucamo~a, do hereby certify that the for~oi~ Resolution was
duly a~ regularly introduced, passed, a~ adopted by the Planning
Co~ission of the City of Ra~ho ~camonga, at a r~ular ~eting of the
Planning Co~ission held on the 26~h day of July, lgBg, by the following
vote-to-wit:
AYES: COM!~ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER
NOES: COIt~ISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CROSS LOT OR THROUGH LOT DRAINAGE POLICY
BACKGROUND: On November 13, 1991, the Planning Commission discussed
current City grading policies.regarding cross lot drainage (see attached
staff report and minutes). The Planning Commission took the following
actions:
1. Reaffirmed their position on cross lot drainage.
2. Clarified "gross over design." as meaning 12-inch minimum pipe
size.
3. Affirmed the Grading Committee's application of these policies
on a citywide basis.
Further, the Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate these
policies into a written format suitable for handout to the development
community.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolution establishing a written policy regarding cross lot
drainage.
Respe lly s itted,
uller
BB :DC/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - November 13, 1991, Staff Report
Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes dated
November 13, 1991
Resolution of Approval
IT~ P
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/PEIVATE SYSTEMS -
Discussion on City policy
BACKGROUND: Recently the Planning Division received the attached letter
from Bob Yoder of Hix Development requesting Planning Commission review
and discussion of the current grading policies regarding cross lot
drainage. Therefore, this matter is before the Commission 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 Hix project.
ANALYSIS: Loyd Goolsby, Principal Plans Examiner - Land Development/
Grading and member 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.
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, th~ requiring imediate 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 system 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 avail. able 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
Commission 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
L]r PA %,;:~i0
PLAe,NING DIVISIO,~
HIX DEVELOPMENT CORE OCT 1
Members of the Planning Commission
c/o Brad Buller
City Planner
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, 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) 592-5010
Ea~]~l~_~/. 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.
HELLMAN AVENUE
EXHIBIT 2 - LOTS 26 & 27, TRACT 14192-2
SIDE BY SIDE 12w
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
ONYX
AVENUE
ORDINANCE NO. 118
~ ORDINANCE OF ~tE CI.'~f OF RANCHO CUCAM. GNGA ESTABLISHING
A GRADING C~'JTTEE, PROVIDING FOR DEVELCPMENT OF GRADING
STAI~ARDS AND ESTABLISEING POLICIES FOR REVIEW OF G~DING
PLANS.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain
as f~llows:
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 Co~ittee 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 m~intained easement.
(c) To limit the impact of slopes on adjacent developed
properties 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 SRADING PLE]. Grading plans conforming to the
provisions of Section 5 of this Ordinance.
(b) FINAL GRADING PLAIN is a plan showing all detailed drainage
information, grade elevations, building locations and floor elevations.
(c) PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN a plan sho~tng building pad
elevations, typical drainage methods to be utilized, and similar generalized
information, usually excluding finish floor elevations, building locations,
and specific drainage details.
SECTI~ 5: ESTABLISKMENT OF GRADING COMMITTEE
~ere is hereby established a Grading Co~ittee, 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 othersfeatures or functions necessary to accomplish the purposes
/ x-
~age 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. Pro-',rty limits and accurate contours of existing
ground 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 Geological 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.
P/a
Ordinance No. 118
Page 3
The submitted information shall be reviewed by the Grading
Committee during pertinent review process. The G~ading Co~mnittee 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 Community Development Director may waive any or all of the
requirements of Section 6 of this Ordinance if he datenines 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 personny, within 14 days after 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 Kancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 1980.
AYES: Frost, Mikels, Palombo, Bridge, Schlosser
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
/Phill~ D. Schloss~er, Mayor
AI~rES T:
Lauren M. Wassedan, City Clerk
8:40 P.M. - Planning Commission Reconvened
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 14139 - AHMANSON - A
residentia) 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 al 1 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 1B-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
p/ ~, ~TX /.> /,ft F "~ "
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 hea;'ing.
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 e. ast 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 Commission Minutes -10- Jul. y 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. Buller stated that if the Con~nission provided direction regarding which
option to follow, the applicant would like to proceed.
Hearing no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Comnissioner Chitlea 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 Conmnission 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
cons i derat i on.
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 foot 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.
Commissioner Chitiea 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 thm~- 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.
Barrye 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 Chitiea 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 eno.ugh 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 communities. 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
swa 1 e.
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 g~ading 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. Goolsby stated the southerly tract would probably come in with
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 Commission 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 the're 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 Con~nission give direction to staff to work with
the applicant at less than 12 feet.
Mr. Maguire stated that this 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 Commission 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
Con~nissioner Chitlea stated the Con~nission needed to address the trail
connection at Etiwanda Avenue. She felt it was appropriate to support the
Design Review Comnittee 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 Chitlea felt if partial fencing were provided it would help
al leviate 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 inl~ortant not to block the view corridor with
landscaping, 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 Conmmunity Trail fencing would go down Etiwanda.
Mr. Maguire stated the trail fencing would ultimately be on the east side of
Etiwanda.
Mr. Bullet 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
approving Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract 14139, with
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 17.52 '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 repqrt.
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.
s~fr~llrfr
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 Commis6ion Minutes -16- July 12, 1989
'~AOnA ~ved by valle:~e, seconded by~v~-~ch;;, to u~hc!d ~-~'a a=~=~_ _
an any the appeal on Minor Development Review 91-23. MOtion ca by the
~NERS. CHITIEA, MCNIEL, ME R, TOLSTOY VALLETTE
NoEs: coMMIss o RL- ONE /
ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: ~ ~\~ -carried
Chairman McNi suggested that the Commission skip to I L and M and then
adjourn to conference room to conduct a workshop on Item K. He said I~em K
would to discuss the architecture only, not the site plan or u
COMMISSION ~USINESS
L. CROSS LOT OR THROUGH LOT DRAINAGE/PRIVATE SYSTE~ - Discussion on City
policy.
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report.
Chairman McNiel invited public comment.
Bob Yoder, Mix Development Corporation, 437 South Cataract Avenue, #3, San
Dimes, felt that strict application of the basic policy developed during the
hearing for Tract 14139, is unfair and costly when not in the hillside area.
He thought that in the absence of an ordinance, any sound engineering solution
should be considered. He felt that if alternate means of drainage in case of
failure of the pipe is provided, drainage should be permitted to be installed
at capacity, even if it meant a 6- or 8-inch pipe. He discussed Lots 26 and
27 of Tract 14192-2 and objected to the requirement to provide two side-by-
side 12-inch pipes for drainage to Onyx Avenue. Me felt that because only
half of each of ~he two lots would be &sing the drain and one 8-inch pipe
should handle the flow, they should be permitted to utilize only one 12-inch
pipe and that would still constitute gross over design.
Chairman McNlel asked what the alternate means of drainage would be if the one
12-inch pipe were to become.clogged.
Mr. Yoder said in that case the water would flow to the wall and work its way
through any weep holes. He believed that in the worst case scenario the wa~er
would have to go back to the street before flooding the house. Me felt ~he
liklihood of failure to be minimal.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- November 13, 1991
Chairman McNiel asked what study indicated only an 8-inch pipe would be
necessary.
Mr. Yoder replied that 8 inches was a conservative guess based on the slope.
He said their engineer indicated both lots would generate only 1/2 CFS.
Chairman McNiel asked if the calculations were based on a 100-year storm.
Mr. Yoder responded affirmatively. He said the City's design was based on
1-1/2 to 2 CFS per lot with a total area of 15 to 20 CFS.
Ernest Mix, Hix Development Corporation, 437 South Cateract Avenue, #3, San
Dimas, said that if the one pipe that they wished to install for Lots 26 and
27 of Tract 14192-2 were to break, the water would flow into an alternate
catch basin and flow out. Me said the, two 12-inch pipes actually join and
enter the curb as one pipe. Me said the projected 100-year storm is .6 CFS
for the two lots and one 12-inch pipe would handle 2 CFS.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated it appeared the developer was trying to appeal
specific conditions of approval for a specific tract rather than merely
questioning the City's standards.
Mr. Hix stated the conditions were imposed with a conceptual grading plan. Me
said that as the finished grading plan is fine tuned changes may be made. He
said they were not trying to appeal every condition. He stated staff had
indicated the policy calls for a 12-inch pipe and when pressed for details it
was learned there is no written policy but rather staff has used the
parameters utilized for the Ahmanson tract. Me said the Ahmanson tract has
not yet been built and it is a hillside project, whereas their project is not
hillside. He commented that the Ahmanson design did not have alternate
methods of draining the water. Me said the Ahmanson tract also included
surface drainage. He reported that Mix Development is currently finishing up
a project they purchased from another developer. He said that project does
not utilize a 12-inch pipe even though it has cross lot drainage, sometimes
across several lots. He did not feel the 12-inch pipe should apply to their
project.
Mr. Yoder said that there is no ordinance.
Commissioner Tolstoy responded there is a policy.
Mr. Yoder felt that in the absence of an ordinance, any sound engineering
solutions should be considered. He said the examples were merely to show that
the policy may not be applicable.
Mr. Bullet stated that when the issue came up it was project specific, but Mr.
Yoder had made it clear that their appeal was not project-specific. He said
the Commission was not being asked to reconsider absolute conditions. Me
reported that the developer has expressed a feeling that staff has not been
given any guidance to grant any leeway. Me said the developer felt staff
should be given discretion to look at other options.
Planning Commission Minutes -12-- November 13, 1991
Mr. Hix stated they have three different situations. He said they have an
historical house with a 12-inch pipe designed to drain from it. He said in
other situations they were being asked to place two 12-inch pipes side-by-side
and they felt that was overkill. He commented that in some situations they
have other means of drainage (i.e., concrete swale along the back). He said
he would feel more comfortable if easements were placed on the lots so that
the swale could not be blocked by a wall without leaving an opening at the
bottom to allow for flow through the swale.
Loyd Goolsby, Principal Plans Examiner, stated he was available to answer
questions.
Chairman McNiel asked if the 12-inch pipe requirement is a realistic
application.
Mr. Goolsby responded affirmatively. He said a lot of time and thought went
into making the decisions on the Ahmanson tract. He stated the previous City
Engineer had indicated that he had only seen rear lot drainage allowed where
pipes were grossly overdesigned. He said the motivation of bringing the
Ahmanson project to the Commission was an inordinate amount of staff time was
being spent on custom designed systems.. He said battery drainage along the
backs of lots had been previously discussed in the Ahmanson case and it was
determined it was not a viable solution. He indicated the safety valve
mentioned by Mr. Hix had previously been considered on lots with potential for
overflow directly to a parallel acceptable point such as a street. He said
the City has allowed downsizing of pipes on an individual lots to 8 inches on
one tract, but every lot on the tract had direct access to Etiwanda Avenue.
He felt that maintenance would be an issue in the Hix proposal. He did not
feel two lots should be permitted to drain in a combined pipe. He said in the
Ahmanson tract it was discussed that in the upper lots' ultimate Q (cfs) once
built with pool, slabs, barns, outbuildings, etc. could increase to a certain
Mount. He said that was causing a great difference in quantity emanating
from the two tracts. Me stated the sizing was specifically discussed and
conditioned in Grading Committee. He said the application made by Hix
Development Corporation was for conduit drainage and those conditions were
available at the time the tract came through.
Chairman McNiel commented that it appeared that Mr. Goolsby felt that the
current policy is sound from an engineering point of view.
Mr. Goolsby stated he felt- strongly that the Commission made the correct
decision on the Ahmanson tract. He said time will show if it was a correct
decision after a project is built under those criteria. He said if any
changes are required as a result of the functioning he thought it may be to
increase the size, rather than decrease it. He said a greater slope of the
ground would mean higher velocities achieved and would mean the pipe would not
run as full or as slow as it would on more level ground.
There were no further public comments.
Planning Commission Minutes -13- November 13, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he is always opposed to cross lot drainage because
it causes problems in the future. He said it is too common for a homeowner to
move into a house and reconfigure the yard without considering the effects of
a rainy season. He felt each lot should have its own separate drainage system
so that one property owner could not jeopardize the drainage of any other
owners. He felt that in Mr. Yoder's example of the drainage from Ledig Drive
down to Onyx Avenue through existing lots., it would be critical to look at the
existing residences to the south. He thought each drainage system should be
so designed so that it would not affect any other lot. Me did not feel the
12-inch pipe size to be excessive because it would become clogged by leaves or
silt over several years of use. He said it is much easier to clean a large
pipe than a smaller one. He agreed with the conditions of approval on the
particular project.
Commissioner Chitiea felt the applicant's arguments sounded good, but she felt
that Mr. Goolsby and Commissioner Tolstoy's arguments were compelling and she
deferred to the wisdom of the City's professional staff, stating she was not
an engineer.
Chairman McNiel stated that he was involved in previous years when it was
necessary to sandbag everything that was freestanding in an attempt to salvage
houses. He did not feel the polic~ requirements are excessive but felt it
would be better to be excessive, than not enough. He did not recommend any
changes to the policy.
Commissioner Vallette stated she had lived in an area 'with cross lot drainage
and she understood the problems. She supported the past decisions.
Commissioner Melcher stated he lives on a lot which shares cross lot drainage
with several other lots. He did not feel cross lot drainage is an altogether
satisfactory solution and thought it is not understood by many property
owners. Me said he had recently consulted with two engineering firms while
trying to solve a nuisance on-site water problem and they both advised that he
should not consider anything smaller than a 12-inch pipe because pipes
generally are not maintained properly. He supported the policy and felt the
policy should be a written one.
Mr. Bullet said the policy is a reflection of the minutes of the action on a
previous project. He said the policy could be returned to the Commission as a
formal policy statement if the Commission so desired.
Commissioner Melcher stated that unwritten policies are extremely difficult
for developers to deal with.
Chairman McNiel suggested that the Commission accept staff'e recommendation
from the staff report. He asked if that would be sufficient for staff to
develop a written policy.
Mr. Bullet said staff could formulate a written policy and it could also be
added to the residential guidelines. He said he understood the Commission's
direction to avoid cross lot drainage wherever possible. He reported that
staff's general direction to developers is to avoid cross lot drainage.
Planning Commission Minutes -14- November 13, 1991
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the most bitter conflagration he had ever
seen was between two neighbors who had cross lot drainage when one person's
house and yard were inundated with water.
It was the unanimous consensus of the Commission to reaffirm their current
policy on cross lot drainage, that 12-inch pipe would be the minimum size, and
that the policy should be applied on a City-wide basis.
-,~,. .~L~XING ST~LL D~N~i~[r~'- Oral Report
Bra Buller, City Planner stated that Co~issioner Melcher had raised
issue d asked that it be placed on the agenda. He said a~ the Nove~&r 6,
1991, c council meeting, the Council had t~led second readin~.'~f the
ordinance allow t~e for a field test to consider both an 8-1/2..f~ot and a
9 foot parki stall width. He said ~he field test was scheduled~or Nove~er
22, 1991.
Copiesloner Chit~ stated that she noticed that all of~he parking lots
selected in the pas~ ~ended to be in ~he planned co~u~y areas and not in
the C~ty where ~ople wit~ larger vehicles are
congregated because therT more semi-agricultural
Copiesloner Melcher stated ~ had gone to the N~er 6 City Council meeting
because he did no~ realize at their fir~ reading they had changed the
size which had been by ~he Pl~ning Copiesion. He fel~ the
Planning Comiesion's recover had bee~ based on hours of staff work and
inpu~ from ~he developers. He felt ha~:the 8-1/2 foot width deserved a
before being discarded. He thought ~he 9 foot wide space were adopted
perhaps a nattower space could be con for long tam parking situations,
such as employee parking lo~s. He ~id Loyee parking lots generally do not
involve a lot of in-and-out parking nor it~s and ca~s being used to
load items into or out of the y~icles. He that would allow for some
efficiency of land use.
Comissioner Tolstoy was ~ concerned tha~ sta allowing smaller spaces
would be adopted for a~~ industrial area and thl the use would change
co~ercial business, ~ch as the indoor swap meet. :ated in the industrial
area. He fel~ i= wo~d be difficul~ ~o datemine whe he l~ller size would
be appropriate. ~ thought it might be considered .he hea~ industrial
approac ~he City and indicate their office areas would · designed for
little p tr ·
tr~
pub 1 i c d b
smaller S%all would be appropriate.
Co~ sioner Melcher agreed =ha~ =hey were valid concerns.
Planning Commission Minutes -15- November 13, 1991
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING POLICY
REGARDING DRAINAGE FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted their Ordinance No. 118 which among
other things, directs the Grading Committee to develop guidelines and
standards relating to drainage structures which shall be approved by this
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the installation of cross-lot drainage has inherent
deficiencies, including, but not limited to, lack of maintenance causing
problems for downstream properties, unsightly appearance, and neighbor-to-
neighbor conflicts; and
WHEREAS, it is the experience of the Grading Committee that the
majority of property owners are not knowledgeable about the purpose and intent
of their drainage systems and do not recognize the need for, or provide,
periodic cooperative maintenance which has resulted in system failure during
rainstorms, thus resulting in property damage and requiring immediate
emergency response; and
WHEREAS, development guidelines are needed to accomplish the purposes
of Ordinance No. 118 in order to protect the public health and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE]) that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission does hereby establish policies for drainage from single family lot
development as follows:
Section 1: Goal Statement
The intent of the guidelines is to encourage improved drainage from
lots directly to a street or storm drain or through a public or privately
maintained easement and to protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
Section 2: Single Family Lot Drainage Policies
1. Whenever possible, drainage from single family lots shall flow
directly to a street.
2. If it should be determined necessary to allow offsite drainage
to flow through a single family lot (to preserve down lot views, esthetics,
accept flow from offsite property, etc.), the following shall apply:
a. Drainage from only one lot shall flow through only one
other lot.
b. A drainage easement shall be provided/obtained over the lot
accepting the drainage.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
SINGLE FAMILY LOT DRAINAGE - CITY OF R.C.
January 22, 1992
Page 2
c. The drainage shall be contained within either a
concrete/rock lined swale or a reinforced concrete pipe.
d. The drainage facility shall be designed with excess
capacity to account for the probable lack of necessary maintenance.
Therefore, it shall be designed to convey two times the runoff from a 100 year
storm with the minimum diameter for a pipe being 12 inches.
Section 3: Applicability
These policies and guidelines shall apply citywide.
Section 4: The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify to
the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 22nd day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 14, 1992
TO: Brad Buller, City Planner
FROM: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner yC
SUBJECT: NEW DESIGN POLICIES
This memo is in response to Commissioner Melcher's inquiry as to how new
design policies are established. In the past, staff did not consider a
DRC comment to be precedent-setting in terms of establishing new policy
direction until it had been consistently raised and applied by the
Committee on at least several projects. Commissioners were encouraged
to raise their new concerns to the full Planning Con~nission on the
appropriate project example. If the ]Planning Commission discussion and
conditions of approval supported the stated design concern, then it was
then considered to be a policy of the full Commission-
I have reviewed the DRC Action Agendas since May 1991 and listed those
comments which may present a new policy direction or modification to
existing policy. The following comments raise policy issues for DRC and
are not currently written down as policy or as a guideline:
RESIDENTIAL
Minimize the number of back yard-to-back yard buildings in condominium/
townhome projects- (~T 15289 1/2/92)
Provide rear yard landscaping for all backyards along the perimeter of
multi-family projects- (~f 15289 1/2/92)
A minimum of 15 percent of the lots should be designated as RV
accessible. (TT 13759 1/2/92)
Each plan should have three elevations- (TT 14407-1 & TT 14365 12/19/91)
Dual glazing should be provided for all windows to mitigate noise from
adjacent properties- (TT 14407-1 & TT 14365 12/19/91; TR 13280 12/5/91)
All windows on the zero lot-line side should be fixed and utilize non-
vision glass- (TT 14407-1 & TT 14365 12/19/91)
Avoid awkward side yard-to-rear yard relationships in lot layouts.
(TT 14211 11/21/91)
/
ITEM R
MEMO/BRAD
NEW DESIGN POLICIES
January 14, 1992
Page 2
Twosstory units should be avoided on all corner lots (if a one-story
floorplan is available). (TT 14211 11/21/91)
Homes facing perimeter streets and interior streets (corner side yard)
should be oriented so that the flat wall (non-entry or garage side) does
not face the street. (TT 14211 11/21/91)
Accent paving (i-e., brick pavers, stamped concrete, etc.) should be
provided within three car driveways. (TT 14509 11/21/91)
Provide uniform patio cover designs for condominium and townhome
projects (VTT 15289 10/3/91)
All return fencing should be set back approximately 10 feet from the
front elevation (TT 14476 8/22/91)
Replace chain link fence with decorative fencing (i.e., wrought iron or
masonry) along flood control channels. (TT 14858 8/8/91)
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
A loading/delivery parking space should be provided. (DR 91-15 1/2/92)
Larger letter height is allowed for signs with upper and lower case
letters, including the downstrokes for the lower case letters. (CUP
89-18 11/7/91)
Where two lines of copy are used in a sign, the space between lines
should be equal to one-third the height of the smaller letter. (CUP
89-18 11/7/91)
Do not highlight doors and downspouts with accent color. (DR 89-22
11/7/91)
For master-planned industrial projects, streetscape landscaping should
be installed with Phase I. (DR 90-20 8/8/91)
For office developments, rain gutters, drains, vents, and scuppers
should be internalized (i.e., not visible on exterior). (DR 90-20
8/8/91)
DC:js