HomeMy WebLinkAbout491 - Ordinances - No action NO ACTION
ORDINANCE NO. 491
AN CSDINANCE OF ~{E CITY CCEMCIL OF ~{E CITY OF RANCHO
CIEAM3qGA, ~, ~ ETIWANER SPSCIFIC PLAN
AM~q[I~qT 89-03, A RK~3Eg[ IO AMBiqD ~E MINIMa4 AVerAGE
LOT SIZE ~ ~ 10,000 TO 8,500 SQUARE FEET FCR
81.2 ACRES OF IAND ZfleD I33W-M~DILM RESID~qTIAL ~
LOfRTE) BEIWEBN ~ AND EAST AV~rtTES, NCi~H OF
KXYlF~L BO~LEVASD AND EAST OF ETIWANDA AV~qUE, NCS~{ OF
MAKING FIND~qGS IN SUPPOSt ~{BRSOF- APN: 1100-041-09,
1100-O81-12, 1100-171-01 AND 13, 1100-181-01, 1100-141-01
AND 02, AND 1100-191-01
A. Recitals.
(i) U.S. Hcme Ccrpcratic~ has filed an applicatic~ for Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendmelt No. 89-03 as described in the title of tb~-~ 0rdina~De.
~inafter in this Ordinance, the subject Etiwanda ~mcific Plan ~a~nt is
referred to as "the applicaticm."
(ii) (m ~D~T~}~-r 11, and ccrrtirsaed to ~Dec~.~r 17, 1991, and
JarEBry 8, 1992, the P~ Cc~mlissic~l of the City of Rar~lo C~c8~rFrJa
c~clusim of said public hearings, the Planni~ Ommissim ~ its
Resolutim No. 92-0% thereby rec~eUi~ that the City C~ncil ad~t
Etiwaraa Specific Plan/~ra~nt 89-03.
(iii) On March 18, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rarrb33
Cucamon~a corr]ucted a duly noticed public hearing c~ the applicatim. At that
meeting, the City Ommcil directed staff to prepare an Ordinance of Approv~
for the applicatic~ for the April 1, 1992, meeting.
(iv) On April 1, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancb~
(v) A~i legal prerequisites Wior to the ~~ of th~-~ Ordinance
B. OMinam~.
NOW, ~CeE, the City Council of the City of Ra.~o ~ doM
hereby ordain as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and ccrrect.
the above-~~ public heerings c~ March 18 ar~ April 1, 1992, incl~i]lg
hereby specifically finds as follc~s:
OrdinanceNo. 491
Page2
(a) ~e applicatic~ applies to properties located south and
east of the Dev~e Freeway c~ properties described above in the Low-Medium
Residential Development District within the area governea~_ by the Etiwam~a
Specific Plan; and
(b) ~ amerament does not cunflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for develop, within the district, in
a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and
(c) ~Us ~eMment do~ m~ote the go~s a~ objectiv~ of the
(d) ~ amendment would not be materially injurious or
detrimental to the adjacent properties and wuuld not have a significant impact
listed in Part II of the Initial Study; and
(e) ~ amendment will c~ti. ue to maintain the ~sic
and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by prmoting larger lot single
family development than allowed by the standards within the same development
district of the DeveloEmmnt Code; and
(f) ~ amendment will continue to prceote densities at the
lower end of the density ranges for the Low-Medium Residential District, as is
the intent of the Basic Develo~Bnt Standards.
during the above-referen~d public h~rin~ and u~n the specific findin~ of
facts set forth in paragra~hs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and
concludes as follM:
(a) ~at the proposed applicati~ pr~otes the goals and
policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
(b) Ihat the proposed ~mendment would not have significant
(c) Ihat the proposed amendment is in ccnfcr~nce with the
General Plan.
4. ~ Council specifically finds and determines that a Negative
Declaratim for this project has been prepared in cumpliance with the
California Envik~a-.~,~al Quality Act of 1970, as amended, ar~ the guidelines
based upon the find/rr/s set forth in paragra.~hs 1, 2, and 3 abo~e, that no
5. ~b~-~ Council finds that the facts su~f~rtim~ the above-specified
findings are c~ined in the Negative Declaration, the staff re~xt, and
exhibits, and the infcrmatic~ pk-ovided to tb{-~ Council during the public
hearing; and therefurB, tb~-~ Council hereb~ authorizes the issuance of a
Negative Declarati~.
~ No. 491
6. Based u[x3n the findings and ce3clusi~ns set forth in paragr~
1, 2, 3, 4, ar~ 5 above, this Council hereby ordains that the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamorr3~ hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
No. 89-03 as attached in Emhibits "A & B."
7. ~he Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least c~ce
in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a ~ of general circu/atic~
published in the City of Ontario, C~lif~ia, a~ circulated in the City of
Orr]~ No. 491
-.--?.
///
~ ia ..../
.,.
S~eclal Studies
~,' Overlay District
(lelamic)
Overlay District
' ' ~ Equestrian
Overlay District
,/
/./ Foothill blvd. S.P.
.
//~ jt ~title figure
OVERLAY 5-4
DISTRICTS
Ord~ No. 491
Page5
ER VL L LM M
Lot krea:
:n:nimum average 40,000 25,000 i5,000 :~ 10,000
(in square feet) C~
m~nimum 30,000 20,000 10,000 ?,200 T,200
(in square feet)
Number of DUb 1/40,000 1/20,000 1/10,000 1/7,200 i."5,000
(per lot area in 2 max/lot 2 max/for 4 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot
square feet)
Lot Dimension:
minimum depth 135' 135' I00' 100' 100'
minimum ;vidtn 120' 90' 80' 60' 60'
(at required
front setOacl<)
ininirnum frontage 60' 40' 40' 40' 40'
(at front p.i.)
Setbacks:
front 40' 30' 25' 25'
side {street) '25' 25' i5' 25' 25'
site 20/20 l 0/20 0'/20 0=/15 0' 15
Total 20' Total !5' Total
rear 40' 30' 25' 20' 20'
Lot Ggvera~e 20% 25',t 30% 40% 40%
(maximum %)
On-site Windrows 1 100'/me 50'/ac N/R N/R N/R
(in fin. feet/ae)
Streetside N/R Required Required Required Required
(prior to occupancy)2
Height Limitations 35' 35' 35' 35' 35'
· O lot line not to be used at project boundary
I ExistinS lots ot record ot 1 sere or les~ mav ~e exempted from this requirement.
2 Custom lot subdivisions rosy be exempted from th~ requirement.
BASIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. 5-2