HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/01/08 - Agenda Packet CITY OF
PLANNING COMMI I
AGENDA
1977
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 8, 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 Chitlea Commissioner Tolstoy
Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Vallette
Commissioner Melcher
III. Announcements
IV. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected
to be routine and non-controversial. They will be
acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT
13280 - LUSK COMPANY - A request for a time
extension of the design review for building
elevations and detailed site plan for a
recorded tract map consisting of 145 single
family lots o2n 23.9 acres of land in the Low
Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units
per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community,
located at the northeast corner of Base Line
Road and Ellena West - APN: 227-081-06.
Related files: Minor Exceptions 89-21 and
90-02. (Continued from December 17, 1991.)
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF TRACT
10035 - PACIFIC FIRST BANK - A request for a
time extension of the design review of building
elevations and detailed site plan for Lots 1
through 21 of a previously approved tract
consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7
acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2 - 4 dwelling units per acre), located south
and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south
of Calle Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 through 11
and 207-641-01 through 10. Related file:
Variance 89-12.
V. 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.
C. 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 December 17,
1991.)
D. 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
December 17, 1991.)
E. 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 Aven'ue (State Route 30), south of the
San Bernardino National Forest, west of the
City of Fontana, and east of Milliken Avenue.
(Continued from December 17, 1991.)
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 91-20 - SHELL OIL - 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.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration. Related file: Tentative Parcel
Map 13987. (Continued from December 17, 1991)
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 13987 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The
creation of a single 1.31 acre parcel for the
Development of a gas station, mini-market, and
car wash 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. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Related file: Conditional Use Permit 91-20.
(Continued from December 17, 1991)
H. VARIANCE 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD. -
A request to construct a solid 6-foot
decorative block wall within the required front
yard setback along 19th Street for a proposed
custom lot residence in the Low Medium
Residential District (4 - 8 dwelling units per
acre), located at the the southwest corner of
19th Street and Inyo Place - APN: 1076-381-17.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The
development of 51.8 acres of an industrial
master plan consisting of 30 industrial
buildings totaling 703,193 square feet in three
phases in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located on the southeast corner of Arrow
Route and White Oak Avenue - APN:
209-142-06. Related files: Parcel Map 12959
and Conditional Use Permit 91-26. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND PARCEL MAP 12959 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - A subdivision oI
51.8 acres of land into 22 parcels in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the
southeast corner of Arrow Route and White Oak
Avenue - APN: 209-142-06. Related files:
Development Review 91-08 and Conditional Use
Permit 91-26. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
K. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND
ASSOCIATES - The request to establish two
office use buildings (administrative,
professional design services, finance,
insurance and real estate services, medical
services, and personal services) within a
proposed industrial master plan on 51.8 acres
of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow
Route and White Oak Avenue - APN:
209-142-06. Related files: Development Review
91-08 and Parcel Map 12959. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 89-13 - HWANG - The development of a
148-room hotel totaling 92,351 square feet and
a master plan proposing the development of two
restaurants totaling 11,000 square feet, and
two office buildings totaling 43,000 square
feet on 8.32 acres of land in the Office
District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue -
APN: 227-151-18 and 31. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 89-03 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION -
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.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration. Related file: Environmental
Assessment and Vesting Tentative Tract 14211.
(Continued from December 17, 1991.)
VI. Director's Reports
N. TREE PLANTING DETAILS
VII. COmmiSSiOn Business
VIII. 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.
IX. 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
'k CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Steve Ross, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 - LUSK
COMPANY - A request for a time extension of the design review
for building elevations and detailed site plan for a recorded
tract map consisting of 145 single family lots on 23.9 acres
of land in the Low Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at
the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West - APN:
227-081-06. Related files: Minor Exceptions 89-21 and
90-02. (Continued from December 17, 1991)
BACKGROUND: On December 5, 1991, the Design Review Committee
recommended approval of the proposed architectural modifications. The
Committee also suggested that the applicant explore the possibility of
including single story homes in the tract to meet alternative housing
needs and to break-up the massing of the streetscape.
On December 17, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this item at the
request of the applicant to allow more time to address Design Review
Committee's question about a single-story plan- The applicant has
reviewed the matter and does not believe that there is a market for a
single-story plan in the tract. However, he will be available to
respond to this issue at the January 8, 1992, meeting. Attached for
your consideration is the staff report and Resolution for the time
extension-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a
one-year Time Extension for the Design Review for Tract 13280 through
adoption of the attached Resolution.
Respe ly su ed
ler
City Planner
BB:SR:js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter Addressing Single Story Issue
Exhibit "B" - Staff Report dated December 11, 1991
Resolution of Approval
ITEM A
,-, ~VE[; "-
pLANNING DIVIS ~N
THE LUSK COMPANY
Writ®~$ Direct Dml Numl~er
December 31, 1991 m,>3~4-
City of Rancho Cuca~nga
10500 CIvic Center Drive
Rancho Cucaeonga, CA 91729
Attn: Nr. Steven Ross
Assistant Planner
Re: Design Review for Tr. 13280
Victoria Do~s
Dear Steve:
Please consider this letter as a ~11ow up to the Design
~vtewmeettng scheduled for January 8, 1992.
As the Board requested, our Narkettng hparteent has
revtewed the Nsstbtltty of providing a stngle story plan
wtthtn the Victoria Downs project. However, it is not
perceived that there is a eer~t for a stngle stow plan in
the tract.
Please be advised on January 8, 1992we wtll request to
Review eeettng.
Thank you for your continued c~peratton. If ou have any
questions or coeeents, please feel free to cal~me.
Sincerely,
Project Coordinator
AS:bh/a:asl
cc: Rob Johnson
Ernte Stuckt
1, CYP
3741 Memed Dr. , Suite H , Riverside, CA 92503
(714) 354-7700 · FAX (714) 354~619
t~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 11, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280 - LUSK
COMPANY - A request for a time extension of the design review
for building elevations and detailed site plan for a recorded
tract map consisting of 145 single family lots on 23.9 acres
of land in the Low Medium Residential District- (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) of the Victoria Planned Community, located at
the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Ellena West -
APN: 227-081-06. Related Files: Minor Exceptions 89-21 and
90-02-
BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 13280 was approved by the Planning
Co~-~_ission on December 9, 1987, and has since been recorded- The Design
Review for the Tract was approved on December 13, 1989, for a period of
two years, as allowed by the Development Code- Extensions may be
granted in 12-month increments for up to 36 months from the original
approval date.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: Tract 13280 is located in the Vineyards South portion of
the Victoria Planned Community- It consists of 145 lots which
range in size from 4,000 to 9,000 square feet. The average lot
size is 5,165 square feet and typical lot dimensions are 45 by 90
feet- Required property line setbacks are 5 feet on the sides, 20
feet in front, and 15 feet in the rear.
The approved design review consists of five floor plans, each
having four different elevations. Additionally, enhanced
elevations will be provided on all of the lots which side-on to a
trail or street- This occurs on 25 percent of the lots. The
smallest floor plan size is 2,212 square feet, while the largest is
2,628 square feet, excluding the garages, which are approximately
550 square feet each.
B. Development Standards: The development standards which apply to
this project have not changed since it was approved. Although
current development standards require a combined 15-foot side yard
setback, the design review was approved with 5-foot sldeyards
because the tract, approved prior to the revised standards, was
designed and approved for a unit prototype utilizing 5-foot
setbacks-
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TE FOR Tf 13280 - LUSK COMPANY
December 11, 199 1
Page 2
C- Architectural Modifications: The applicant has proposed a number
of architectural modifications to the elevations- The changes will
be reviewed by the Design Review Committee on December 5, 1991.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must make all of the following
findings in order to approve this application:
A. There have been no significant changes in the Land Use Element 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.
B. The granting of an extension would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a
one-year time extension for the Design Review for Tract 13280 through
adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval-
BB:SR/jfs
Attachm&nts: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Location Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Typical Elevations
Resolution of Approval for Time Extension
THE LUSK CU31PANY
INLAND EMPIRE DIVISION
October 16, 1991
W~e~$ O|r~t D~I Num~
~14) 3~
Mr. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807
RE: Victoria Downs
Case Extensions
Dear Mr. Ross:
Enclosed is Check 430128 in the amount of $685 to extend the
Minor Exception 89-21 and Design Review DR 90-1027 in the
following amounts:
Design Review $549
Minor Exception 136
$685
Per our telephone conversation on September 17, 1991, my
understanding is that you will look into incorporating the Minor
Exception under the Design Review case.
/"" Thank you for your time and cooperation in assisting me with the
Victoria Project.
Sincerely,
THE LUSK COMPANY CITY OF
OCT Z 1 1991
Anna Suttner AM
Project Coordinator
Inland Empire Division ~JBIgl~i~l~/ll~JBJ~[~16
AS:cm
Enclosure
c: Rob Johnson w/o enc.
File: 184-Case Extensions
A240
37.41 MemM O~ · Sure H · RI~t~, CA 92503
~14) 354-77~ · F~ (7'14) 354.0619
EXHIBIT: ~ SCALE:
I
LM
fit l""'l'l
CITY OF": ~:NCF/O:CUCAMONGA ITEM: ~ O -----
PLANNING"'DBrISION i,[TLE: L0CJ~0~3 ~AP -~' 1~ ~
· EXHIBIT: I~. SCAT-TE: ~ ~ '~ · '
-~ -
PLANNING' DIVISION 'tTrLF..: 5, T~ P~4,~n
CITY OP'~ '-IlA:NCH0-'CL!CAMONGA ITEM: D ~ ~32 ~0
pLAN.NIN'G"DIVIS'ION TrrLE: 5.'rs
.... G ~ EXHIBIT: SCALE:
I
EXHZBZT D ~)/.~lt t C., TyPI(,AL
i
I
EXHIBIT D
!
i
EXHIBIT
·
· e- ·
· d
~ -
~ ·
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
·
EXHIBIT D t)u~,l ~C T~m~,^L
EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION
FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13280, LOCATED WITHIN THE
VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
BASE LINE ROAD AND ELLENA WEST IN THE LOW-MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-081-06.
WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the
above-described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.100.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the
above-described Design Review for Tract 13280.
WHEREAS, Minor Exceptions 89-21 and 90-02 will be granted extensions
by the City Planner.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
following findings:
A. That prevailing economic conditions have caused a
distressed market climate for development of the
project.
B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory
conditions make it unreasonable to develop the
project at this time.
C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of
approval regarding expirations would not be
consistent with the intent of the Development Code.
D. That the granting of said time extension will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a
time extension for:
Project Applicant Expiration
Design Review Lusk Company December 13, 1992
for Tract 13280
~ECTION 3: The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the
adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 13280 - LUSK COMPANY
January 8, 1992
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH 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 8th day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO.- Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DESIG~ REVIEW FOR TRACT 10035 -
PACIFIC FIRST BANK - A request for a time extension of the
design review of building elevations and detailed site plan
for Lot s 1 through 21 of a previous ly approved tract
consisting of 38 single family lots on 15.7 acres of land in
the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre),
located south and east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south
of Calls Corazon - APN: 207-631-01 through 11 and 207-641-01
through 10. Related file= Variance 89-12.
BACkgROUND: Tentative Tract 10035 was approved by the Planning
Commission March 25, 1981. At a subsequent hearing for the time
extension of the Tentative Map, the Commission was concerned with the
appropriateness of the project design relative to the sha~e and
topography of the site. The Commission recognized Red Hill as a
landform having city-wide significance and projects shall be designed to
minimize alteration to this natural landform, according to the General
Plan and Development Code. The Commission was concerned that the
proposed design of the subdivision was more condusive to a standard
"flat land" subdivision rather than the development being designed to
fit the hillside nature of the property. Another. concern was the
severity of the slopel extensive cut and fill of the site might subject
the area to potential slope failure. At that time, the applicant
assured the Commission that the intent of the subdivision was for custom
homes sensitively designed to the physical constraints of the site. As
a method to ensure sensitive development of the site, the Co~nission
conditioned that any proposal of the development of the tract would be
subject to Design Review approval.
Since that time, the Planning Commission has approved the site plans and
building elevations for all the lots within this tract. Lots 36, 37,
and 38 were approved by the Planning Commission on May 28, 1986 and the
remaining 35 lots were approved by the Planning co~ission on
January 28, 1987. Subsequently, the property on the south side of
Camino Predera (Lots 1 through 21) was sold and a new applicant received
Design Review approval for a new site plan and building elevations on
January 24, 1990. The proposed time extension would grant the current
owner an addiZional year (to January 24, 1993) to obtain approval of the
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 10035 - PACIFIC FIRST BANK
January 8, 1992
Page 2
detailed construction drawings for the previously approved residences
for Lots 1 through 21. The Development Code Section 17.02.100 allows
three possible time extensions in twelve month increments not to exceed
a total of five years from the original date of approval for all
projects approved by the Planning Co-~ission.
ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension request and
has compared the proposal with the current development criteria as
outlined in the Development Code. Of particular concern in staff's
analysis is the issue of conformance with the current Hillside
Development Standards- At the time this Design Review was approved, the
City had not yet adopted its Hillside Regulations; hence, the project
was not subject to specific technical requirements within the current
Hillside Ordinance. However, the applicant made every effort to design
the residences to meet the purpose and intent of the Hillside
Ordinance. Specifically, units were designed to use interior walls as
retaining walls in order to minimize the grading necessary on each lot
and "inverted plans" (i.e-, living area on top floors and bedrooms
below) were proposed to take further advantage of viewshed
opportunities- Finally, garages were given a "floating" designation in
order to minimize the obtrusiveness in the streetscape and to reduce the
blockage of views to the valley floor below (refer to Exhibit
In conjunction with the Design Review request, the applicant also
obtained approval of a variance to allow reduced front yard setbacks on
8 of the 21 lots, an overall reduction of the required minimum average
front setback for all lots, an extension above the required height
limits on 3 lots, and a reduced accessory structure setback on 1 lot for
the general purposes of reducing the apparent height of structures and
opening viewsheds to the lower elevations (refer to Exhibit "M").
To summarize, staff has determined that the project still meets the
· basic standards for development in the Low Residential District and the
general purposes and intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance-
Therefore, this project still remains consistent with all code
requirements of the City.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following
findings in order to approve this application:
A. There have been no significant changes in the land use element of
the General Plan or Development Code or character of the area in
which this project is located that would cause the approved project
to become inconsistent or non-conforming-
B. The granting of an extention would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements of the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 10035 - PACIFIC FIRST BANK
January 8, 1992
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a
one-year time extension for the Design Review for Lots 1 through 21 of
Tract 10035 through adoption of the attached Resolution-
Respec ly submitted,
er
BB:SH:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Individual Lot Site Plans
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plans
Exhibit "E" - Site Features Map
Exhibit "F" - Slope Zone Analysis
Exhibit "G" - Floor Plans
Exhibit sHE - Detailed Typical Building Elevations
Exhibit "I" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "J" - Typical Sections
Exhibit "Ks - General Variance Justifications
Exhibit "L" - General Tract Information
Exhibit "M" - Letter from Applicant
Resolutions of Approval Nos- 90-15, 90-15A and 90-16
Resolution of Approval
'\ ./ / .' '~,, / '
.
El~l'l:IY l, lVi],
LOWER LEVEls:
/ :'~" X"V~,-,,,4 ~ LOW~:I LEVEL:
,,
Ct70)
LOWE~ ~
I,ClWIB:I!.Bt!~
ENTRY I_E'VEL.
ENTRY LEVEL
EHT'F:iYLEVEL
! \
ENTRY LEVEL
B
A
T
I
I'
I
I
1
I
LOINER LEVEL :l~t4gl I
L--'r
I
I
I
',
11014
LO~E~ LEVEL 152(I
....... JiLl_ ....
EN11:IV lEVEL 164~
~ ELEVATICII
~ !~.~'VA'I'!ON ~
EAST ~ e:VATla~
NC)I:~TH ELEVATION
® LoT ~
SOUTH ELEVATION
VeEWr'e;VATION
i
I
I
I
NORTH ELEVATION
PLAN I LOT 6
EAST ELEVATION
ELEV&TION
PLAN 2, , LOT 5
~ ~,,~,.-
~ NO: 11014
·
~T
PLAN 2 LOT t6
(~ SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATI(3N ,.,-, !~;
EAST ELEVATN3N
ELEVATION
PLAN 3 LOT I
,JOI ~ II0"14
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST
NORTH ELEVATION
~C~3C5
·
N~Lblrll tllllillOll
~ W.L~ATION
~ ~A'TmN
irE:
~ NO: leO14
l'
SECTION UNIT I
SECTION UNIT 2
SECTION UNrF 3
VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION
The Arbors on Redhill is a very real attempt to design hillside adaptable
housing utilizing standard plans plotted as though each lot were to
receive a custom home. Indeed, much of the adaptive design features are
taken from the vocabulary of custom homes and are rarely found
production housing.
The attached project description and plans discuss and illustrate the
extreme variety of site conditions found among the 21 lots. Host
critical of all site features is the very steep drop in elevation in the
25' front setback experienced by half the lots. In these cases, a 50~
slope condition exists which makes it impossible to meet both setback and
height restrictions.
Our analysis indicate the following lots require variances in order to be
properly developed.
Lot 2: Reduce front setback to allow side entry garage.
Lot 3: Permit exception to height limit. Allow 10' front setback.
Lots 4, 5, 6, 9, 14 & 15: Permit exception to height limit. Allow 5'
front setback.
Lots 7 & 8: Allow 5' front setback.
These lots are 10 of the I1 that exhibit the steep drop off from the
street. In addition, several of these lots have narrow frontage (Lots 2
through 7), which forces the house further back on the lot which
exacerbates the height problem. Several of these lots i2, 3 and 14) also
exhibit severe cross slope conditions which also intensifies the height
problems.
Every effort has been made to adapt the architecture to the hillside
each of these lots. The minimum split from garage to entry level is
the maxlmum ls 9'
On Lot 2, a detached side entry garage has been employed to further
reduce the street impact of garages and place the residence on the most
appropriate portion of the lot.
Even when a 5' setback is requested, the residence is much further back
and drops down the hill from 5' to 9' The City Engineer has expressed
support for the 5' setback as opposed to a 10' setback which is felt
would encourage apron parking with the resulting blockage of the public
sidewalk. Only on Lot 3 have we used a 10' setback. There the severe
cross slope requires a minimum of 10' to warp the driveway apron. At a
20' setback, the floor of the garage wou2d be 25' out of grade. The 10'
setback is necessary to alleviate the lslmcte of the cross slope and the
extremely steep do~nslope (60X in the setback area).
Placing the garages ~nd residences 25t b~ck (or more with a~5"~'vmriation
in setback) wall result in either a much greater split from garage to
entry which wall make the homes unmarketable or they wall rise much
further out of grade at the rear with the resulting skirt walls .becoming
objectionable.
SUNNARY
The severity of the downhill elope conditions on the subject
combined with different lot geometries (frontages vary from 62' to 80')
and cross slope conditions all create the required findings for the
granting of a variance. None of the resulting plottinge will be
objectionable, none will create a nuisance and all will be compatible
with both other lots in this development as well as with adjacent
properties. Without the granting of the variances, these lots beome
virtually undevelopable.
TBB ARBORS ON REDHILL
PROJECT D~SCRIPTION
THE SITE
The site Is a series of 21 lots of record zoned "L" (Low Residential
DIstrict) wlth a minimum lot area of 7,200 s.f. and a maxlmum density of
4 du/ac. There are no corner lots, flag lots or other restricted access
lot configurations. The 21 lots are all hillside lots In a downhill
setting with extraordinary offsite view capture possibilities. The 21
lots are part of a larger 38 lot subdivision which has been partially
developed by various other entitles. The remaining 17 lots are all
uphill lots on the north side of Camins Predate and are not a part of
this development proposal.
The site is a generally south facing slope of Redhill stretching for
1,600' along the south side of Cumlno Predera. All 21 lots front Camins
Predate and are contiguous to one another. Lot 1 is the highest and most
westerly at elevation 1,365 with lot 21 being the lowest and most
easterly at elevation 1,274.
Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of the site is the extreme variation
in individual lot characteristics. In order to ~ully understand The
planning and design parameters inherent in the diversity of
characteristics we conducted several overall as well aS individual site
analyses. The results are summarized below:
A. Individual sites vary in frontage width from a minimum of 62' to a
maximum of 109' 10 lots are approximately 60' wide and another 6
are approximately 65' wide.
B. Eleven lots drop 12' or more within the first 25' (which is also the
approximate front setback line). This represents a 50X slope
condition on half the lots.
C. 13 lots have more than 70~ of their site area in slopes 20~ or
greater. Two more lots meet this criteria if shallow areas near the
lowest part of the lot are discounted due to Inaccessibility from
the street.
D. Lots 1, 2, 3, 13 and 14 also exhibit moderate to severe cross slope
conditions ranging from 9~ to 26~.
R. Four lots (10, 11, 12 and 13) are Impacted by a knoll that was left
Intact during the tract grading process which rises as much as 9'
above curb grade Just inside the front property line of the subject
lots. Access to each lot will always be located on the lower side
of the knoll but some grading is inevitable. To .the extent
possible, the shape of the knoll will be left intact or ragFaded to
appear natural.
F. The site An general enjoys extraordinary view capture potential,
particularly from the upper portion of each lot. The lower one
drops on the lots, the closer one gets to adverse conditions
presented by the adjacent service road and railroad. Additionally,
adjacent and on-site trees block view capture on the lower portion
of some lots.
SUN~ARY
The 21 lots exhibit extreme diversity in their combination of specific
attributes in these categories:
(1) Lot frontage
(2) Cross slope
(3) Extremely steep setbacks
(4) Lot area devoted to 20~ or greater elopee
(5) Land form diversity (knolls, cross slope, undulations, plateaus)
The result is the necessity to view each lot as a distinct site and
locate the home accordingly, t.e., each lot is custom designed to receive
the house designed for
THE PRODUCT
Early in the design process several critical decisions were made based
upon the site analysis and marketing criteria. First, three plans were
determined to meet both market demand and site conditions. Second, the
unit plans were each specified as "inverted plans" with living areas on
the upper level and bedrooms below. This provides easiest access from
the garage to living levels, assures generous volume ceilings in living
areas and maximizes view capture opportunities. Third, garage to living
level elevation changes were to be designed to accommodate a variety of
topographic conditions and not to exceed 8' Plan I has a 6.5' split
from garage down to the entry. Plan 2 has a detached garage which can
Mfloat" with topo changes. Plan 3 has an attached garage that has seven
split conditions from 1.5' to 9'
In addition to providing for topographically adaptable designs, garages
have been turned 90 degrees to the street where possible which provides
minimum visual impact, adds apron parking area and creates architectural
variety.
Plotting has taken place to respect the topography by canring the
dwelling with respect to the street and placing it parallel to the
natural contours.
On a number of lots the topography te so steep that front setbacks were
reduced to 5' to keep the garage and dwelling as close to natural grade
as possible. There are conditions where the dwelling sits at grade on
the uphill side and is several feet out of grade at the rear or downhill
side. Variances are required for this reduction in front setbacks and
requests for such accompany this application. Lot 3 exhibits such a
severe combination of cross slope and very steep downslope conditions
that a 10' setback has been utilized..
Helght ltmlts are also challenged by the steepest lots where even with a
5' setback the garage cannot be constructed wlthout violating the 35'
limit. For these lots a variance is also requested.
UNIT DESIGNS
The three unit plans are all designed for the move-up market of mature
families who can make use of well zoned interior space, ample private
outdoor living area, oversized two and three car garages, formal living
and dining rooms complemented by large kitchens with nooks and family
rooms. Virtually every living area of each home, including bedrooms are
view oriented, a design criteria which resulted in wide, shallow
footprints that stretch across each lot parallel with the natural
contours.
PLAN 1 (plotted on 4 lots)
3 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath, formal living/dining° island kitchen, nook and
family room. 2,548 s.f. living area, 759 s.f. decks (additional patio
areas provided as site conditions allow), attached garage (6 1/2'
downhill split).
PLAN 2 (plotted on 8 lots)
3 bedroom, bedroom 4/retreat, 3 1/2 bath, sunken living, raised dining,
island kitchen, nook and family room. 2,891 s.f. living area, 752 s.f.
decks, (additional decks/patios as site conditions allow), detached
garage.
PLAN 3 (plotted on 9 lots)
4 bedroom, 3 1/2 bath, formal den, raised dining, formal living room,
Island kitchen, nook and family, 3,169 s.f. living area, 715 s.f. decks
sad screen porch, front court at entry/den, attached garage (splits from
I 1/2' tO g~).
9449 Balboa Avenue, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92123
(619) 492-9000
November 21, 1991
Mr. Steve Hayes
Engineering - Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. BoxSO~
R~mcho ~~s, CA 91729
REF: DES~6N ~: Trsct 1003S, LoSs 1 - 21
Desr S~v~,
P~r our r~ce=t tei~phon~ conv~rs~ion, ~nclos~d herewith is s check in th~ smount of $S40.00 for psyment of
all fees as necessary to extend Design Review Approval of the subject Tract to January 24, 1992.
As soon as available, please send me a copy of the recorded extension agreement for our records.
Thank yon for your cooperation and assistance on this matter.
Yours truly,
Ed Willisms
Vice President
cc: Gary Oiilin~
Kevin McCsnn
Mike Ripling
RESOLUTION NO. 90-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COee4ISSION
APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND
DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR TRACT NO. 10035, LOTS 1 THROUGH
21, A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRACT MAP CONSISTING OF 38
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF RED HILL
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SOUTH OF CALLE CORAZON AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 207-631-01 through 11
and 207-641-01 through 10
A. Recitals.
(i) CALPROP CORPORATION has filed an application for the approval of
the Design Review of lots'l-21 of Tract No. 1003B as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review
request is referred to as "the application".
(ii) On January 24, lggO, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
(tii) 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 Conm~ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Conmission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recital s, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Comission during
the above-referenced meeting on January 24, lg90, including written and oral
staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of
the General Plan; and
b) That the proposed design is in accord with the objective of the
Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located; and
c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code; and
d) That the proposed design, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and
2 above, this Conm~ission hereby approves the application subject to each an~
every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
PLANNING COI~ISSIO~. ~SOLUTION NO. 90-15
TR 10035 DR - CALPROP
January 24, 1990
Page 2
Planning Division:
1) Return walls and combination retaining/block walls shall
be designed in such a way as not to be an obtrusive
element in the overall conceptual -architectural and
landscape design of the project.
2) All garage elevations facing streets shall be upgraded to
include architectural detail that is consistent with the
high level of architectural detail presented on the
proposed residences.
3) The deck underlay for the driveway on Lot 2 shall
incorporate exterior elements provided on the Lot 2
residence.
4) All pertinent conditions from the previous tract approval
contained in Resolution No. 81-34 shall apply.
5) All pertinent conditions from the two previous design
review approvals, within Resolution Nos. 86-76 and 87-11
shall apply.
6) Approval of this Design Review is contingent upon approval
of the related Variance No. 89-12.
7) A revised color board, which incorporates more muted color
samples for the accent features (i.e., chimney caps,
guardrails) shall be reviewed by the City Planner.
8) Landscaping shall be planted as to soften the appearance
of all retaining walls and escarpments and reduce the
steep appearance of the slope as sen from Foothill
Boulevard. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall
be approved by the Design Review Committee on a consent
calendar basis prior to the issuance of building permits.
Engineering Division:
1) It appears (by scaling) that part of the structure on lot
21 encroaches onto the City storm drain easement. The
encroaching portion of the structure shall be removed from
the easement or a request to vacate a portion of the
t
easement shall be f led and approved prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
2) All driveways shall be a maximum of 24 feet wide per City
Standard No. 305.
3) Those driveways subject to potential drainage overflow
shall have a street overflow deflector curb conforming to
C~t Standard No. 316 as determined in the plan check
p ~ess.
0
· PLANNING CO~ISSi RESOLUTION NO. 90-15
TR 10035 DR - CALPROP
January 24, 1990
Page 3
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
and 3 above, this Conmission hereby approves the application subject to each
and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
5. The Secretary to this Conmission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
/LoPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1990.
PUNNING C01~4 SION OF THE CITY OF RANCND CUCAMONGA
BY: ~ ' ~. '
ATTEST:
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucaeonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Conmission of the
City' of Rancho Cucaeonga, at a regular eeeting of the Planning Conmission held
on the 24th day of January 1990, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COIeqISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, HCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CORRISSXONERS: NONE
r,,r
,.._ ;~. i:~4 ~i;~ ' -= :~ ; :,
i'=l; ~:"" ~'i :-;'~
i .L=- ,,.~I- -.'
.
.,..,, .., ,.. ,,,: .,:,i ,.
:-;i, {i ,l! !i;-' ~,1'-' ',i ;ji
i,,,'i:.,...,,,. ,,. ,,,
,iii' ili i" ""' "';'!
1
RESOLUTION NO. 90-15A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND
DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR TRACT NO. 10035, LOTS I THROUGH
21, A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRACT MAP CONSISTING OF 38
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF RED HILL
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, SOUTH OF CALLE CORAZON, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-631-01 THROUGH 11
AND 207-641-01 THROUGH 10
A. Recital s.
(i) On January 24, 1990, the Planning Co~m~tsston adopted Resolution
No. 90-15, thereby approving, subject to specified conditions, the Design
Review of Lots 1-21 of Tract No. 10035 as described in the title of this
resolution.
{ii) On September 13, 1990 a request was filed by Warkentin Wraight
for Calprop to modify the condition of approval requiring that driveways not
exceed 24 feet in width.
(iii) On December 12, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
(iv) All legal prerequisites prior 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. Thts Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitalst Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the alive-referenced hearing on December 12, 1990, including written
and oral staff riportso together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
(a)' That it is necessary to exceed 24 feet for the width of the
driveways on some of the lots due to the steep terrain of the site.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced hearing and upon the specific findings of facts
set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this C~mmission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION R. ,LUTION NO. 90-15A
TR 10035 - CALPROP
DECEMBER 12, 1990
PAGE 2
(a) That the proposed project is consistent with the
objectives of the General Plan; and
{b) That the proposed design is in accord with the
objective of the Development Code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located; and
(c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each
of the applicable provisions of the Development
Code; and
(d) That the proposed destgn, together with the
conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public heal th, safety, or wel fare
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 modifies Resolution No. 90-15 by
adding Planning Division Condition No. (9) and changing Engineering Division
Condition No. {2) to read as follows:
Planninq Division
(9) For all driveways that exceed 24 feet in width, decorative
paving materials (i.e., colored textured concrete, brick
banding) shall be utilized to break up large expanses of
concrete, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Enqineering Division
(2) The width of all driveways shall be the minimum necessary
to provide convenient access to the garages as approved by
the City Planner and City Engineer.
5. The Secretary to this COmmission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVE/) AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY 'OF DECEMBER 1990.
PLANNING C SSxON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: F ' __
A
PLANNING COMMISSION :SOLUTION N0.90-15A
TR 10035 - CALPROP
DECEMBER 12, 1990
PAGE 3
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 12th day of December 1990, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL. MELCHER. T()LSTOY. VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO. 90-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 89-12, A REQUEST TO ALLOW REDUCED
FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON 8 LOTS, A REDUCED MINIMUM AVERAGE
FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR ALL LOTS, HEIGHT EXTENSIONS ABOVE
35 FEET ON 3 LOTS, AND A REDUCED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
SETBACK ON LOT 2, FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRACT MAP
CONSISTING OF 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND
IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE), LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB
DRIVE, SOUTH OF CALLE CORAZON, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 207-631-01 through 23 and
207-641-01 through 15.
A. Recitals.
{i) CALPROP CORPORATION has filed an application for the issuance
of the Variance No. 8g-12 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as
"the application".
(ii) On January 24, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application
and concluded said hearing on that date.
{iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution..
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on January 24, lg90, including
written a~ oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
{a) The application applies to property located south and east
of Red Hill Country Club Drive, south of Calle Corazon with a street frontage
of 1585.91 feet and lot depths ranging from 117.51 feet to 305.B4 feet and is
presently improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk; and
{b) The property to the north of the subject site is single
family residential, the property to the south of that site consists of vacant
commercial land; the property to the east is a railroad and vacant; and the
property to the west is mUlti-family residential; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-16
VA 89-12 - CALPRO!
January 24, 1990
Page 2
(c} Reduced front yard setbacks would provide a more
aesthetically pleasing atmosphere than extended stem walls on the rear
elevation of houses, facing Foothill Boulevard; and
{d) Due to the excessive slope on the front portion of many
lots, driveway construction with a slope of more than twenty (20) percent for
extended distances would exist if the houses were constructed at or behind the
required front property lines; and
(e) The property has the following unusual topographic
characteristics:
(1} Eleven lots drop 12 feet or more within the first 25
feet (which is also the approximate front setback line) which represents a 50
percent slope gradient; and
(2) Thirteen lots have more than 70 percent of their
site area in slopes with a 20 percent or steeper gradient; and
{3) Five of the lots exhibit cross slope conditions
ranging from g percent to 25 percent.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Conm~ission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Conm~ission hereby finds and
concludes as fol lows:
(a} That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.
(b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district.
(c) That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by the owners of other properties in the same district.
{d) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a
grant for special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same zone.
{e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental
to the public heal th, safety, or wel fare, or material ly 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 Conm~ission hereby approves the application.
· PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-16
VA 89-12 - CALPR(
January 24, 1990
Page 3
5. The Secretary to this Commission'shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1990.
PLANNING COMM:'~SION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
· LarrX T. McNiel, Chairnin~
ATTEST:/ · Larryy~
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregotng Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission o~ the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning CommissiOn held
on the 24th day of January, 1990, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION
FOR DESIGN REVIEW OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10035, LOTS 1
THROUGH 21, A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRACT MAP CONSISTING OF
38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 15.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ( 2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ),
LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE,
SOUTH OF CALLE CORAZON, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 207-631-01 through 11 and 207-641-01
through 10 ·
A- Recitals
(i) Pacific First Bank has filed an application for the extension of
the design'review for lots 1 through 21 of Tract No. 10035 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 January 24, 1990, this Commission adopted its ResOlution
Nos. 90-15 and 90-16 thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and
time limits, the design review of lots 1 through 21 of Tract No. 10035 and
Variance 89-12, respectively-
(iii) On December 12, 1990, this Commission adopted its Resolution
No. 90-15A, thereby approving a modification to conditions regarding driveway
approach widths and the use of decorative driveway treatments for the
application.
(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 Rencho 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 Design Review is in substantial
compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances,
plans, codes, and policies; and
(b) The extension of the Design Review will not cause
significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans,
ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and
(c) The extension of the Design Review is not likely to cause
public health and safety probleM; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR TRACT 10035 - PACIFIC FIRST BANK
January 8, 1992
Page 2
(d) The extension is within the time limits prescribed by
local ordinance.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1 and 2 above, this Co=mission hereby grants a Time Extension for:
Tract Applicant Expiration
DR for Tract Pacific First Bank January 24, 1993
10035 (lots 1-21)
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH 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 Comission 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 Co~nission held
on the 8th day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIOMERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 90- 01 AND
GENERAL pLAN AMENDMENT 90-03B - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A
public hearing to co~nent 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 December 11, 1991. )
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to recommend approval of the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan, prezoning 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,~12 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 December 11, ~991. )
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND G~NERAL 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 December 11, 1991. )
ITEMS C, D, & E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SPECIFIC PLAN 90-01 - CITY OF R.C.
January 8, 1992
Page 2
ABSTRACT: Staff requests continuance of this item to January 22, 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,
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 ~ablic for review, staff recommends
continuance of the public hearing on the subject items to January 22,
1992.
Respe y su 'tted,
er
BB:MB/jfs
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 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 OIL - A request to establish a gas station, mini-
market, and car wash on a 1.3~ acre parcel in the Medium
Residential designation (8-~4 dwelling units per acre) of the
Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southwest
corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-~51-
17. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map 13987. (Continued
from December 17, 199~)
BACKGROUND: On December 17, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing to receive testimony on the proposed service station
facility- After receiving all testimony, the Planning Commission
directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the
application- The attached Resolution of Approval contains conditions
previously discussed by the Planning Commission. In addition, the
Resolution contains conditions not previously discussed that the
Planning Commission may wish to discuss further. These items include:
1. Limiting the hours of operation of the mini-market
(Planning Condition No. 7).
2- The prohibition of pay telephones (Planning Condition
No. 8).
3. The requirement for video surveillance cameras to be
installed around the site for security (Planning
Condition No. 12).
4- Provisions for graffiti and trash removal (Planning
Condition Nos- 4 and 5).
RECOMMENDATION: After receiving all public' testimony on the proposed
application and Resolution, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 91-20 and issue a Negative
Declaration.
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL
January 8, 1992
Page 2
Respe ly su ted,
er
BB:SM:ns
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Revised Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - Revised Landscape Plan
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
/
0
0
I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 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-~4 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-~7
A. Recitals.
(i) Shell Oil has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-20 as described in the title of this
Resolution- Hereafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit
shall be referred to as "the application."
(ii) On October 9, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application
and continued said hearing to allow the development plans to be resubmitted
for additional review by the Design Review Committee.
(iii) On December ~7, 1991, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to receive written and oral testimony on the proposed
application. Said public hearing was continued to January 8, ~992-
(iv) On January 8, 1992, the Planning Commission received additional
public testimony on said application and concluded the public hearing on this
date-
(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:
~. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct-
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above referenced public hearings on October 9, 1991, 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
January S, 1992
Page 2
(b) The property to the north and east are zoned for and being
developed with single family residences. The property to the south and west
is zoned for multi-family units and is vacant; and
(c) Under the Terra Vista Community Plan, service stations and
related uses (mini-markets and car washes ) are defined as "Community
Facilities" and are permitted in any zoning designation along the major
arterials (Base Line, Rochester, Milliken, and Foothill) subject to the review
and approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
(d) The proposal, with the recommended conditions of approval,
is in conformance with the minimum standards of the Terra Vista Community
Plan, the Development Code, and the General Plan for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga ·
3- Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearings and upon the specific findings of
fact 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 Tetra Vista Community Plan and 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 Terra Vista Community Plan and 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 ~970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a 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 by this reference.
Planning Division
1 ) A 50-foot, non-buildable easement shall be
recorded on the adjacent property to the south
and west- The easement shall prohibit the
placement of residential (habitable) units
within the e~'sement area. Accessory structures
('i · e · detached garages, kiosks, etc · ) may be
permitted within the easement area · The
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL
January 8, 1992
Page 3
easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance
of building permits for either project site.
2) A minimum 25-foot landscape setback shall be
provided along the south and west boundaries
within the residential property. The plans
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission at the time of review of the related
project.
3) Revised architectural plans shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Design Review
Committee prior to the issuance of building
permits- At a minimum, the plans shall include
the following:
a- The canopy columns shall be redesigned to
be in proportion with the canopy.
b. The gable pop-out roof elements shall be
redesigned to provide a more integrated
roof design.
c. The storefront elevation shall be
redesigned to eliminate the glass at the
bottom portion of the elevation to screen
merchandise that may be stacked against the
window.
d. A more durable material (i.e-, ceramic
tile) shall be used at the base of the
columns to minimize damage-
e- The building shall be designed with
sufficient roof overhang or gutters to
prevent water from running down the side of
the building and staining the walls.
4) Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
5) The entire site shall be kept free from trash
and debris at all times and, in no event, shall
trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours.
6) All trash enclosures and receptacles shall be
designed to incorporate the following design
features to the satisfaction of the City
Planner:
a- Architecturally integrated into the design
of the service station-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL
January 8, 1992
Page 4
b- For the large enclosure, separate
pedestrian access, including a self-closing
door, that does not require opening of the
main doors.
c- Roll-up overhead door.
d. Trash bin with counter-weighted lid.
e- Architecturally .integrated overhead
trellis-
f. Chain link screen on top of the enclosure
to prevent trash from blowing out of the
enclosure. The chain link shall be hidden
from view-
7) The hours of operation for the mini-market shall
be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p-m., seven
days a week.
8) Pay telephones shall be prohibited within the
site.
9) A final lighting plan shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Planner and
Police Department prior to the issuance of
building permits- The plan shall identify
footcandle illumination within the site and on
adjacent properties. The overspill onto
adjacent properties shall not exceed five
footcandles- Additionally, the lighting shall
be designed to minimize glare 'onto adjacent
properties through the type and design of light
fixtures and/or alterations to the building
design to project light down onto the sight
rather than out onto adjoining properties.
10) The vacuums shall be relocated away from the
south and west property line- The final
location shall be approved by the City Planner
prior to the issuance of building permits.
11) The final landscape and irrigation plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Planner
prior to the issuance of building permits and
shall include the following:
a. Extensive landscaping shall be provided
along the west and south property
boundaries to buffer the service station
from the potential residential units-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL
January 8, 1992
Page 5
b. Extensive landscaping shall be provided
along the Base Line and Rochester street
frontages to screen the pump islands and
car wash drive aisles from public view.
12) Video surveillance cameras shall be installed
around the site to provide security for the
facility.
13) A comprehensive signage program shall be
prepared for the service station in compliance
with the Rancho Cucamonga Sign Ordinance. The
program shall provide for the design and
location of permanent signs and any potential
temporary signs- The program shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Planner prior to the
issuance of building permits-
En~ineerin~ Division
1) Overhead Utilities
a. Base Line Road. An in-lieu fee as a
contribution to the previously
undergrounded utilities (electrical and
telecommunication) on the opposite side of
Base Line shall be paid to the City prior
to the issuance of building permits- The
fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit
amount times the length from the center of
Rochester Avenue to the west project
boundary.
b. Rochester Avenue- An in-lieu fee as a
contribution to the future undergrounding
of existing overhead utilities (electrical
and telecommunications except for 66 K.V.
electrical) on the opposite side of
Rochester Avenue shall be paid to the City
prior to issuance of a building permit.
The fee shall be one-half the City adopted
unit amount times the length from the
center of Base Line Road to the south
project boundary-
2) Acquire necessary right-of-way and construct
Rochester Avenue full width from Base Line Road
to Church Street. Off-site sidewalk and street
trees may be deferred until the development of
the adjacent properties- The developer may
request a reimbursement agreement to recover the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-20 - SHELL OIL
January 8, 1992
Page 6
cost of constructing off-site street
improvements from future development as it
occurs.
3) Construct the portion of the Terra Vista
Community Master Planned Storm Drain System
No. 6 (lines 6 and 6-1) from this site to Day
Creek Channel. If the project is to be
constructed prior to the completion of the Day
Creek Channel, provide a retention facility to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4) The Terra Vista Community entry monument, if
constructed, shall be maintained by the
developer.
5) Install the Base Line Road median landscaping
from Milliken Avenue to Rochester Avenue-
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY ~992.
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 8th day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
/
Those items checked are Conditions of Approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (714) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time LImits .QazdmmJ}s~
v/' 1. AI;1)roval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are / /
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to I / . / / ..
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of / /
4. Thedeveiopershallcoommence, participate in, and consurrdTtate or cause to be commenced' / /
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Rooe Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
Oistrict's property upon completion. The equilxnent shag be selected by the Distdct in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable 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 recordation of the final map or the issuance of building panTrile, whichever comes / /
first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and rnaintenarlce of racessan/school
facilities. However, if any school district has ;xeviously established such a Community
Fadlities 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 recordmion of the final map
or the issuartce of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, it the affected school
district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shell be deemed null and void.
SC- 2/91 I of 12
~_,~ .~o.:/~.,,~ ~/.~-~
~ ~Rion shall ~ waN~ ff the C~ r~eNes noti~ thin the a~l~nt a~ all a~
~1 d~s Mve emer~ into an agreeram to p~me~ a~m~dme any a~ all ~1
i~s ~ a rem~ of this ~.
6. P~r to m~r~t~n of the final m~ or p~r to ~sua~ of ~ildi~ ~s when ~ mp is / /
imolved, w~en ~dff~t~n from the aff~ wmer dii~ thin ad~uate s~er and wmer
facilRies are or will ~ avail~i to se~ the ~s~ pmj~ shall ~ sub~ to the
Departmere of Commn~y Deve~pmem. ~ i~er mm have ~en ~su~ by the water
dim~ w~ bin ~ days ~r to fi~ ~ a~val in t~ ~e ~ su~is~n or p~ r to issua~e
of ~ms in the ~se'of all other reslmial ~j~.
B. S~ Deve~em
1. ~e s~e sMII ~ deve~ a~ main~ in a~~ w~h ~e ~mv~ ~ns wh~h
i~de ~e ~a~. a~e~ural eleva~,,e~e~r ~e~ls a~ ~m, la~~, s~n
prOram, a~ grMi~ on fil in t~ Planni~ D~in, ~e ~MRi~ ~mai~ ~rein,
Deve~em ~e r~lm~, a~
Plann~ Co~un~.
2. Pr~r to any use of the pmj~ s~e or ~si~ ~ ~i~ ~mm~d ther~n, all J / .
Co~io~ of ~oval s~l ~ ~m~t~ to t~ g~n of t~ C~ P~mr.
3. ~~oft~fadl~s~l~t~mm~umil~htim~allUn~o~i~i~a~ / /
State Rm Mam~ll's r~lm~ ~ ~en ~~ dh. P~r to ~~. ~ sh~l
~ ~m~ to m Ram~ ~m~a Fire P~~ D~ a~ ~ ~i~i~ a~ SafeW
DNis~n m ~ ~i~. T~ ~i~ ~1 ~ i~~ for ~i~ ~r to
4. Revis~ s~e ~ns a~ ~i~ elevm~ i~m~ ag ~~ of ~N Shall ~ /
subm~ for C~ Plan~r reve ~ ;vl ~r ~ i~a~ of ~i~i~ ~s.
/ 5. All s~e, gradi~, la~, ilt~n, aM mret i~emm ~a~ sMII M ~ffiinat~ for J /
~istemy p~rto ma~ d a~ ~ (~ a gr~i~, ~e remval, e~achmem,
~i~i~, etc.), or ~r to fi~ ~ ;v~ in tM ~ ol a ~mom ~t s~~n, or
;~d use Ms ~mm~, ~m~r ~m8 tim.
/ 6. ~al of ~ r~ffi sll mt wane ~ ~ il ~m of tM ~e~mm / /
~, all offer a~i C~ ~iM~, ~ a~ ~mmn~ PI~ ~ ~
Pla~ in eff~ m tM tim of ~i~1~ Pe~R
/ 7. A ~tail~ on~Re I~Mi~ ~ sMH N ~iw~ ~ ;~ ~ tM C~ Pin~r a~ / /
SM~s ~mm (~11 ) p~r ~ tM ma~ of ~i~i~ ~. ~h ~an shall
i~e ~e, illumi~in, ~n, N~M, ~ mt~ d shlti~ ~ ~ ~t to ~emely
8. If m cem~ tr~ ~~H am ~, a~ ~h ~p s~ll N for i~i~al unRs J
wRh all r~ffim ~ from ~ vW.
~ 9. Tr.h r~i(s) am r~ ~ s~H m~ C~ ~. ~ fi~ ~, ~t~ / /
a~ me m~r d tr.h ~~ s~ll ~ ~ to C~ Pmr mv~ ~ ~val
~r to issuan~ of ~iMi~ ~Rs.
/ 10. All gm~-~m~ util~ ~h as tmndo~m, AC ~e~, etc., shall / · /
~ ~t~ ~t of pu~ vi~ a~ ad~uate~ ~me~ th~h t~ u~ d a ~nmion of
~rete or m~n~ walls, ~i~, an~or ~~i~ to the ~tMa~n of the CRy
Planner. ~_ J ~
~- 2/91 2 of 12
11. Street names shall be submitt6d 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 priorto 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 sulxlivlsions 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 Incorpormion of the J /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval 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.
y/ 16. All parkways, open area, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / /
owner, homeowners' association, or other mains 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 lit or .J /
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 recordation 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 objects, pursuant to Developmere Code Section 17.08.060-C-~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 rnoditicatlons to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, ramoval of landmark
trees, dernolitlin, relocatlon, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site
shall require a rnoditicatlon to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Histodc
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Dellgn
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 system are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
tim of initial development shall be sulaplemanted with sow 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 su~ect to City 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 / /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
__ 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditionere and other roof mounted equipment and/or / / ..
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D, Parking and Vehicular Acces~ (Indicate detatle on building plenl)
v'/ 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall · .J
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
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.
v'/ 3. All parking apac, es shall be double striped per City mandan:Is and all driveway aisles, / ·
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City mandam.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if drivewaYs are less than18 feet in J /
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles .J
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation tor the owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
6. Plans for any security gates shell be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and / /-
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval priori issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for pul:)llcly maintained landm:~pe Irm, rtl~r to Section N.)
v/ 1 A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including sloPe planting and rn°del home landscap- .J /
I
ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed andscape
architect and submitted for City Rannat review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existingtreesr~quir~dt~bepreserved~np~~ceshal~bepr~t~c~edw~thac~nstructionbarrler / J'
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 follow all of the art~dst's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods.
3. Aminimumof treespergrossacre,compdsedofthefollowlngsizes, shell be Provlded ''/ /
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger. % - 36- inch box or larger,
% - 24- inch box or larger, __ % - 15-gallon, and . % - 5 gallon.
v/ 4. A minimum of ~z~ % of trees planted within the Ixoject shall be specimen size trees- ---/ Y
24-inch box or larger.
v'/ 5. W'~hin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three .J /_
parking malls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
SC - 2191 4 of t2
!
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building. / /
7. AIiprivateslopebanks5feetorlessinverticalheightandof5:l orgmaterslope, butlessthan / /
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. AII private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but lessthan8 feet in vertical height and of2: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. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shell 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 contim- / /
ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Ranntng Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon- / /
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shell receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, deed, diseased, or
decaying plant rnatedal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of darnage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or / /
· This requirement shell be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
v// 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be / /
included in the required landscape plans and shall be sul:;~ict to City Planner review and
approval and coordinated !or consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
v// 13. Specia~ landscape features such as rn~unding~ alluvia~ r~ck. specimen size trees. meander- / / '
sidewalks (with horizontal nge), and intensified landscaping, is required along
ing ~ ~horizonlN ng~~..
~/ ~ 4. Landscaping ~ inkion syslems required Io be installed within the public rigid-of-way on / / ..
~he perimeler of INs pmjecl arel stroll be continuously rn~intsined ~ tha developer.
15. All walis shall he provided wilh decoraitve lrealment. If loc~led in l:ablic n~intenance areas / /
lha design ~ he coon:linked wi~ lha F. ngineering Divts~n.
~ 8. Tree n~imenance crited~ shall be developed and submilled for Ci~ Planar review and / /
~:>val p{ior to issuance of building permils. These cr~eda shall encourage ll~e n~tural
9rowffi ct~ar~,"~eristics of the selecled Iree species.
~/' 17. Landscaping and irrig~lion sf~ll be designed Io consewe water through fhe principles of / /
Xeri~ as defined in Cl'~oler 19.1 ~ of ~ RancrK> Cuc~mong~ Municil~l Code.
SC - 2/9 1 5 of ~2
F. Signs
1. The si~ns indicated on the sul~nitted plans are conce~ual onlY ancl not a Part of thisal~r°val' / / '
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate al~ication and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
2. AUniformSignprogramforthisclevelopmentshallbesubmittedforCitYPlanner 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 shell require separate apfMtcatlon and approval by the Pinning
Division prior to issuance of building panTtitS.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shell provide each prospective lauyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / / ..
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prlorto accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shell provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted --J /
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 shell provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway / /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the / /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuse the level of interior noise
attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided,
and if appropriate, verily 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. EmergencysecondatyaccesssrtallbeprovldedinaccordancewithRanch°Cucam°ngaFire /
Protection District Standards.
2. Emergency access shall be provlded, rnalntenance lree and clear, a minimum of 261eet wide / /
at all limes during constnjction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Rotection
District requirements.
3. Prior to issuance of building penTtits for coml3ustibie construction. evidence shall be / J
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that tefnlxxa~/water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
4. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and · /
location of mail boxes. Muiti-farnily residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mall boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be sul:tiect 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/-
sul:qaortive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official I)rior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building parmite.
F-t
sc - 2/91 e of 12
I
c~ D.,~:
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. SIte Development
/ 1. The applicant shell cornply with the latest adopted Un~orm Building Code, Uniform Mechani- / /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electrk: Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the tim of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
apl~icable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition / /
to existing unit(s), the al:~icant 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
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
v// 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or ./ /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shell pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
v// 4. Street addresses shell be provided by the Building Official, altertract/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 shell be made to cornply with correct building and zoning regulations for / /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existing sewage disposal radiities shall be removed, filed and/or capped to comply with the ---/ /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for / /
building permit a;pllcation.
K. Grading
/ 1. Grading ol the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / /
Grading Standards, and accefXed grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
V// 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ---/ /
v// 3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance / /
Permit is required. Please contact San Berrmrdmo County Department of Agriculture at (714)
387-2111 for permit appiication. Documentation of such permit shall be submittad to the City
prior to the issuance ol rough grading pern~.
4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at / / .
the time of application for grading plan check.
v// 5. Thefin~~~radingpiansshal~becompletedanda~Pr~vedPriort~issuance~fbuildingpermits~ / / "
sc- :z/9 t 7 of ta
6. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be poetad and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site / /
drainage facilities necessary for dewatedng all parcels to the satistactlon of the Building
and Safaty Division prior to final map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for alewatering and protecting the subdivided / /
properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving. or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety / /
Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses J /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other
aitemative method of erosion control shall be compiated to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 1 ol the Development Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (714)981-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L Dedication m~l Vehicular Acce~
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, I /
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
fadlities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
V/ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets · J
(measured from street centerline):
tote ,eet
total feet on
tote feet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made /--J
for all private streets or ddves.
/_.._.J
4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: ,
5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs · / ·
or by deeds and shall be recon:led concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of
building permits, where no map is involved. 2~'' ! ~
8of t
SC - 2/9 t
1 I
6. P~ale drainage ea~nts [or cwss-~t d~ainage s~a$$ ~ ~ov~ a~ s~a$l 5e de$ineal~
or ~t~ on the final m~.
7. ~e fi~$ ~ shall c~a~ ~iineate a ~ O-boi mini~m b~i~i~ ~e~n area on the
neig~d~ ~l ~ini~ t~ zero ~t line wall a~ ~ain the fol~wi~ la~age:
'~e Mmby dN~te to tM C~ of Ram~ Cu~m~a tM fight to mhb~ t~
mnstN~bn of (ms~ential) ~i~i~ (or o~r s~ms) wffhin ~se areas desiOnat~
on the m~ as ~iUi~ mst~n areas.'
A maintena~ agreemere ~all al~ N graN~ from e~h ~ to the ad~ ~t thmgh the
CC&R's.
8. All exi~i~ easemems ~i~ w~hin f~ure ~Ms~f-way sMII N ~cli~ or ~lineated on
tN final ~.
9. Easemems for ~bl~ s~ewa~s a~or ~reet tres pi~d o~e the ~bl~ ~M~f-way
s~l N ~Qt~ to the C~ wMrever ~y emm~ omo ~me ~.
10. A~nal ~reet ~M~f-way shll ~ ~t~ a~ ~M ~m in.. to ~v/a ~nimm
of 7 feet ma~r~ from tN fae of ~. ff ~ ~D~ s~ak ~ u~ a~ tN dgM
tum la~, a ~ralll ~reet ~ee ~mename ea.~m s~l N ~v~.
11. ~e ~ve~r sMII m~e a ~ f~h e~o~ l ~im t~ r~ir~ off-s~e ~ imerests
n~sB~ to ~n~m~ ~e r~uir~ ~ i~ve~, aM ff ~sN s~M f~l to ~ ~
the deve~r shaH, a lea 120 days ~r ~ ~NI ~ tN finn ~ for ~val, enter
imo an agreeram to ~Ite tM i~vemms ~am ~ ~vem~m ~ S~n
~2 t ~h U~ as t~ C~ a~uires tN p~ iNer~ r~uir~ for ~ i~vemeNs.
S~h agreeram sMII pm~ for ~y~ ~ ~ ~elrof all ~ i~ ~ the C~y
to a~uire t~ off-s~e ~ imem~s r~k~ in ~nn~n w~ ~ ~i~n. ~
for a ~n of ~ ~s sMII N ~ tM fo~ of a ~ ~e in tN ;uN gNen in an
~ai.l r~ ~ain~ by tM ~e~r, ~ ~e~fs ~i. ~ ~aer ~1 have
~en ~ov~ by t~ C~ ~r to ~~ of ~ ~m~.
M. St~ Imp~mml
1. All ~ i~vemems (iNe~r ira, dm~ l~lls, ~n~ t~s, ~s,
lam~ area, etc.) m ~ N ~a~ ~or tm~ ~ ~ N ~mm~ to
C~ Sm~ffis. linear ~rffi t~v~ms s~ ~, ~ m ~ ~ to, mm a~
~er, AC ~mm, d~ ~, s~, ~ ~l, ~ tree trees.
2. A ~nimm d 2~ f~ ~ ~emm, w~ a ~ 4~ ~ ~e ~f-way ~all ~
~n~m~ for ~1 hd~ ~.
/ 3. ~~ ~ fd~ ~er mr~ i~mm ~~, ~ m ~ to:
C,~,,d=do,, D~:
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and oredays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) tl so marked, side-
wak shall be curvilinear per TD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall
be provided for this item. ~'~,4'~,v~y'c'
V/ 4. Improvernem 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 posted and an egreemant executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of me public and/or private street irnlxove-
merits, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first.
b. Prior to any work being pedonned in public right-ol-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Offioe in addition to any
other permits required. ,
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit .J /
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed on arty new construction or reconstructionI I .
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 BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: / /'
(1) NI pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherw~"me specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
/ /
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all four corners of intersections per City
Sindam or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction sham remain open to traffic at all times with I /
adequate detours during construction. A Street closure permit may be required. A cash
deposit shall be ptovided to cover the coet of grading and peving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewaks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / /
inetalMd to City Standida, except for single family lots.
h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer. / ...J
i. Street names shall be approved by the CttY Planner Prior to subrnittal f°r first plan check' / / .
5. Street improvemere plans per City Standards for al pdvme streets shai be provided for .-/ / '-
review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any wod~ being performed on me pri-
vate Streets, fees she~ be paid and cortmmction petals shall be obtained from the City
Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required.
v/ 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-.galion size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / /-
accordance with the City's street tree program.
q~de.o,, 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.
v'/' 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: / J
~_r_r~./~,- ~ v~.
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be oporaticnally complete prior to the -.J /
issuance of building permits:
N, Public Mslnter~nce 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, peseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
V/ 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map apl}coval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs rwst. 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.
v// 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shell conform to the rasuits of the respective Beautitication Master Ran:
· O. Drelrmge and Flood Control
~/' 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood J J
protection maretea shall be provided as colrifled by a registered Civil Engineer and
approvecl by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the developeta responeibilily to have the current FIRM Zone / / .
designation removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydrologtc/hydraulic cak}ulatione. A Cortditionai Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shell be obtained from FEMA prior to final map al:}Fovai or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
v/ 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final --J / -
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
SC- 2/91 l I o~ 12
'v/ 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way.
/ /
5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree tank. · /
6.Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a
blockage in a surnp catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
v// 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water,
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
v'/ 2.The developer shall be responsible for the reiocation of existing utilities as necessary. ---/--
3.Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into
one parcel prior to issuance of building parrnits.
2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or / /
issuance of building parrnits, 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.
4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan --/ /
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map al:q:roval or prior to building permit issuance ff
no map is involved.
5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies tor work within their right-of-way: / /
6. A signed consent and waiver form to Join and/or torm the Law Erdorcement Community---//
Fadllties DIstrict shal be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be corn- /----/
pieted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secor,:iry access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown
on the approved tentalive map.
SC - 2/9 1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Barrye R. Hans. on, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP 13987- LEWIS
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 1.31 acre parcel fo~
the development of'a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the
Medium Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of
the Terra Vista Planned Conmnunity, located at the southwest corner
of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file:
Conditional Use Permit 91-20 (continued from December 11, 1991).
The Planning Commission continued Tentative Parcel Map 13987 to the meeting of
january 8, 1992, to allow a resolution of approval to be prepared for the
related project, CUP 91-20.
Attached is the December 11, 1991, staff report and an updated resolution for
approval of the Tentative Parcel Map.
Respectful 1 y submitted,
Barrye R. Hanson
Senior Civil Engineer
BRH:BK:sd
Attachment
ITEM G
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December 11, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Barbara Kral'l, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONI~ENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 13987- LEWIS
DEVELOPtiNT COf~PANY - The creation of a single 1.31 acre parcel for
the development of a gas station, mini-market, and car wash in the
Nedlure Residential designation (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of
the Terra Vista Planned Corn, unity, located at the southwest corner
of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-17. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file:
Conditional Use Permit 91-20. Continued from October 9, 1991)
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Action Re uested: ~Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Hap as
A* ~
B. Parcel Size:
1.31 acres
C. Existing Zoning:
Medium Density (4-14 du/ac) District of the Terra Vista Co, mnunity
P1 an
D. Surroundi n9 Land Use:
North - Single Family Under Construction
South - Vacant
East - Existing Single Family
West- Vacant
E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Dest(inations:
North - Medium (4-14 du/ac) Density, Victoria Planned Co, munity
South -Low medium (4-8 du/ac) District, Terra Vista Planned
Conm,uni ty
East - Low (2-4 du/ac) District
West -Low Medium (4-8 du/ac) District, Terra Vista Planned
· ' Conmunity
F. Site Characteristics:
The site is vacant and slopes gently from north to south.
II. ANALYSIS:
The purpose of this Parcel Map is to create a single parcel for the
development of a gas station, mini-market and car wash. Approval of the
Tentative Parcel Map is dependent upon approval of CUP 91-20 which is
also on tonight's agenda.
Both the CUP and the Parcel Map were discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting of October 9, 1991. As a result of the discussion, the developer
has expanded the site southerly to incorporate the driveway and landscape
areas within the gas station parcel.
There are two other issues remaining:
1. Offsite Rochester Avenue Street Improvements - Staff is requiring
that the project construct the west half of Rochester Avenue from
Base Line Road to Church Street (the east half exists)· This
requirement is consistent with the attached Tetra Vista Planned
tree
Community S t Improvement Implementation Pol icy, which was
approved by the City Council on September 6, 1989. Because the
P1 ann ng Commi ssi
policy was approved by the City Council, the i on
can not modify its requirements. However you can reconmnend
exceptions to the COuncil for their constderati'on if the applicant
appeal s the requirement.
The applicant asserts that the policy was tntented for larger
projects and not a small gas station site. Staff does not recall
any discussion about limiting improvement requirements based upon
small project size during the formulation and approval of the
pol icy.
2 Offsite Storm Drain Itm~rovements - Similar to the preceding issue,
· 1 off-s e drainage
staff is requiring at the"'proJect tnstal it
improvements in accordance with Tetra Vista Planned Conmnunity
Drainage Improvement Implementation Policy (copy attached) which
was al so approved by the City Council on September 6, 1989.
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 Publtc 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. RECONNENDATION: It is reconmnended that the Planning Conmnission consider
all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Hap 13987 and 'related file
CUP 91-20. If after such consideration, the C~mission can rec~mnend
approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a
Negative Declaration would be appropriate.
Respectful 1 y submitted,
Barrye R. Hanson
Senior Civil Engineer
BRH:BK:dlw
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Nap
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Nap
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Street Improvement Implementation Pol icy
Drainage Improvement Implementatton Pol icy
Applicant' s Letter
Resolution and Conditions of Approval
\ /
CXTV OF ramcliO cur, Mas&
T'/dUiA VISTA ~ CO leelITY
S111fXT lllmlOlt~rdIT DIq.E)tMTATXOM PaLICY
Projects wtthtn Tetra Vtsts shell be required to construct street Improvements
a s fo 11 ows:
A. Streets adjacent to projects shall be constructeU full w~d'cl~ to tnclu~e
cur~ on the oppostte sties.
B.Streets sl~all be extended (full vtdU) off-st~e far enough to prov~e
mllnS of access.
C. Projects wtthtn the Individual Development Areas shown on the map below
shall construct the spectftc street segments designated as follws:
AREA STREET SEGI(NT,
1 Footht11 - Haven to Spruce and Haven - Foo~htll ~o Town Center
2 Footht11 - Haven to Mtlltken
3 Footht11 - Haven to Rochester
4 Rochester - Foothi 11 to Pop1 mr
5 Rochester - Foothi 11 to Church
6 Rochester - Church to Base Ltne
7 6use L~ne - 141111ken to Rochester
8 Base L~ne - Ntlltken to Piountatn
9 Same as adjacent area depending upon ere access ts taken.
~O Nt111ken -Foothtll ~o hse Ltne
:LZ Spruce - Foothill to
~2 leost of thts area ts alredy condtttoned or developed.
L3 Haven - Church t,O hse Ltne
Note: Pro3ects that cress am boundaries (at, corners ~n Hrttcular)
shall construct all segments requtred for each affected
8431 L/IVl
i Area
e~ Aria
'
1" · 2OOO' '7~
CITY G. ~UkNCHO CUCA!qONGA - ENGINEERING .VISION
?ERRA VISTA P~NNED CO~NITY
~I~ I~~T I~L~TATI~ P~ICY
Projects within the individual Development Areas shown on the map below shall
construct the specific drainage faci 1 ities designated as fol lows:
AREA FACILITY
1 Portions of Master Plan Systm 3 and 4 from the site to
Deer Creek Channel.
2 Portions of Master Plan System 1 and Z from the site to
Deer Creek Channel.
3 Portions of Master Plan System 1, 2 and 5 from the site to
Deer Creek Channel Including adequate retention facilities.
4 Same as Area 3, except no development approvals until park
basin stztng resolved.
5 Sane as Area 3.
6 Portions of Master Plan System 6 from the site to Day Creek
Channel. If prior to comelitton of Day Creek Chmnnet Phase
III, provide one retention fmctltty for the entire area.
7 Same ms Arem 6. Use Area 6 retention fmctltty Increased to
acceeodate all of Area 7.
Note: 1. All developBent shill provtde protection from upstream
drainage.
2. Offsite street extensions sly be exempt from this
policy ms aleproved by the City Engineer.
LEEEND
I Aria Boundary.
~, Area Member
Lewis Homes Management Corp.
1156 Narih Moirerain Avesue / P.O. Box 670 / Up~M. Cal~/orr~a 9~785-0670
714/98~-0971 FAX: 71,V949-6700
July 18, 1991
Mr. Wm. Joe O'Nail
City Engineer
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Cen~er Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Proposed Shell S~a~ion - Base Line and Rochester
Offsi~e Improvements
Dear Joe: ...
Recently we were informed by Shell tha~ ~he Conditions of
Approval for its proposed service s~ation include significan~
offsite improvements- An inves~iga~ion revealed tha~ the basis
for ~hose conditions is the Tetra Vista S=ree~ and Drainage
Improvement Implementation Policy adopted in September, 1989
(i.e., the "Polic~"). .
On July 10, 1991, we met wi~h staff and the Shell
rep~esentative, Ms. Kathy Lucian, to discuss the intent of ~he
Policy and address its application to a one-acre commercial
project. S~affs' initial reaction was that the Policy should
be applied to any development.
We disagree and request that the City consider the original
in=ant and obJec~cive of~hePolicT, i. e., to provide necessar~
~raffic and drainage mitigation in the contex~ of large
residen~ial developments. Those considerations do not apply
to this one-acre commercial development:
1. ~/~ Staff has acknowledged that the drainage
impact associated with this development is not of the
magnitude that was contemplated by ~he Policy. We
understand and agree that there are minor drainage
considerations which will be addressed. However, ~he
installation of ~he entire storm drain system from Base
Line to Foo~/1ill or the development of a retention
facility'to accommodate hundreds of acres is
appropriate.
2. Street ImerovSmen~s: We understand the intent of the
Policy. Specifically, we notethat=he line between Area
#6 and Area #7 (see attached graphic) was drawn so ~hat
a "Project" at the corner of Base Line and Rochester.
Mr. Wm. Joe O'Sell
July 18, 1991
Page 2
would trigger the construction of appropriate segments
However, we submi~ =ha~ ~he Policy was es~ablished wi~h
a large residential proJec= in mind. This is evidenced
by the underlying land use designa~ion (i.e.,
(medium-densi=Y)) shown on ~he graphio- The possibili~y
of a one-acre gas s~a~ion developmen=--wi~h no
significan= traffic impact on ~he Area e6 segment of
Rochester Avenue--was not contemplated-
ConsequentlY, we request that ~he site be considered
be within Area #7, (see attached graphic) which' requires
~he completion of all Base Line Road Improvements~
provided ~hat appropriate impr~vements, including
transitions, would be made at ~he adjacent Rochester
frontage-
Perhaps a favorable administrative interpretation of~he Policy
would suffice for bo~h ~he drainage and street improvement
issues. Staff indicated ~hat taxe street improvement issue
would be more problematic in this regard.
Therefore, we respectfully request · review by City Council of
the proposed modifications ~o t/le PclicT- We defer ~o you to ·
identify ~he scope of ~hat review.
we sincerely apprecia~e your assistance-
very ~ruly yours,
Jo ph
Vice President
Senior Pro~ec~ Manager
JMO: ksk
cc: Ms. Ma~hy Lucian, Shell 0il
Rick Mager, Lewis
Ken Cotban, Lewis Homes
Don Thompson, Lewis H~ses
Mike Lasley, Lewis Homes
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13987, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-17
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 13987, submitted by Lewis
Development Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into I parcel,
the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 227-151-17, located at
the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, and continued to December 17, 1991, and
January 8, 1992, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing
for the above-described map.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 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 compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970; and further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 13987 is hereby approved
subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special
Conditions:
1. Overhead Utilities
a. Base Line Road - An in-lieu fee as a
contribution to the previously undergrounded
utilities (electrical and telecommunication) on
the opposite aide of Base Line shall be paid to
the City prior to issuance of building permits
or final map approval, whichever occurs first.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENT. P.M. 13987 - LEWIS DEV. CO.
January 8, 1992
Page 2
The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit
amount times the length from the center of
Rochester Avenue to the west project boundary.
b. Rochester Avenue - An in-lieu fee as
contribution to the future undergrounding of
existing overhead utilities (electrical and
telecommunication, except for 66 K.V.
electrical) on the opposite side of Rochester
Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to
issuance of a building permit or final map
approval, whichever occurs first. The fee shall
be one-half the City adopted unit amount times
the length from the center of Base Line Road to
the south project boundary.
2. Acquire necessary right-of-way and construct
Rochester Avenue full width from Base Line Road to
Church Street. Offsite sidewalk and street trees
may be deferred until the development of the
adjacent properties. The developer may request a
reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of
constructing offsite street improvements from future
development as it occurs.
3. Remove and replace portion of the curb and gutter on
Base Line Road to construct a right turn lane for
the project driveway.
4. Construct a combination bus bay and right turn lane
on Rochester Avenue north of the project driveway.
5. Construct the portion of the Tetra Vista Community
Master Planned Storm Drain System #6 (lines 6 and
6-1) from this site to Day Creek Channel. If the
project is to be constructed prior to the completion
of the Day Creek Channel, provide a retention
facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6. The Tetra Vista Community entry monument, if
constructed, shall be maintained by the developer.
7. Install the Base Line Road median landscaping from
Milliken Avenue to Rochester Avenue.
8. Final Parcel Map lot lines shall conform to the
approved site plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TENT. P.M. 13987 - LEWIS DEV. CO.
January 8, 1992
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH 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 8th day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD. - A request to
construct a solid 6-foot decorative block wall within the
required front yard setback along 19th Street for a proposed
custom lot residence in the Low Medium Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest
corner of 19th Street and Inyo Place - APN: 1076-381-17.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a variance to construct
a solid 6-foot block wall within the required front yard setback.
B. Surroundin~ Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single family residential; Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
South - Single family residential; Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
East - Single family residential; Low Medium Residential
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
West - Single family residential; Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Low Medium Residential
North - Low Residential
South - Low Residential
East - Low Medium Residential
West - Low Residential
D. Site Characteristics: The site is a former model home sales
parking lot for Tract 12952, by Glenfed Development- A large
asphalt parking area remains in the center portion of the site. A
number of mature trees exist on the property, primarily along the
west property line. Also, a decorative wrought iron fence with
pilasters exists along the north and east property lines- The site
is void of any structures and slopes gently from north to south at
roughly 2 percent.
ITEM H
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD.
January 8, 1992
Page 2
BACKGROUND: This lot was previously utilized as a model home sales
parking lot for Tract 12952 during the construction of that project.
Following completion of the tract, this lot was sold for the purposes of
developing a custom residence on the lot.
During the processing of Tract 12952, staff required that a conceptual
master plan for future development of this lot be provided to ensure
that a logical development concept could occur (see Exhibit "D"). The
house layout and driveway location proposed by this applicant is
essentially the same as the conceptual master plan reviewed with Tract
12952. However, it appears that the wall situation for this lot was not
addressed at that time, hence, the need for a variance request-
Building permits for the custom residence have not been issued as of
this writing but are expected to be issued in January 1992.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: As part of the overall development plan for this site,
the applicant intends to remove the existing wrought iron fence and
construct a solid 6-foot decorative block wall along the 19th
Street and Inyo Place frontages. The variance is only needed for
the portion of wall in its proposed location, along the 19th Street
frontage, which is an average of 17 feet from the face of the
19th Street curb, instead of the required minimum of 27 feet-
The applicant contends, and staff agrees, that the variance is
justified for two reasons:
1. The Driveway Policies of the Engineering Division would not
allow an additional driveway approach along this front
property line (19th Street); and
2. That granting the variance would allow a logical continuation
of the wall and landscape treatment already established along
19th Street.
For the record, the wall is proposed to wrap around the Inyo Place
frontage and return to the residence- The average wall setback
along Inyo Place is 23 feet, 6 inches from the face of curb, which
meets the minimum corner side wall setback established by the
Development Code-
B. Technical Background: The Development Code Section 17.02.140
states that a front lot line is "a lot line paralleling the street
on a corner lot. The shorter lot line abutting a street or the
line designated as the front lot line by subdivision or parcel
map." Since the 19th Street frontage is shorter than the Inyo
Place frontage, and the final map for Tract 12952 did not designate
otherwise, the 19th Street lot line is considered the front lot
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD.
January 8, 1992
Page 3
line. Therefore, structures, walls in excess of 3 feet in height
or landscaping that blocks views for safe ingress/egress, cannot be
located in a required front yard area, per Section 17.08.060-J1 of
the Development Code-
In the Low Medium Residential District, the minimum front yard
setback in which structures, including 6-foot solid walls, could be
constructed is 27 feet from the face of curb- Again, the current
site plan ( see Exhibit "E" ) shows the wall at the minimum of
12 feet from the face of the 19th Street curb (at the northwest
corner of the site) transitioning back to 17 feet for a majority of
the 19th Street frontage. The proposed wall transition allows for
a 5-foot landscape area behind the sidewalk.
C · Compatibility Issues: In reviewing the proposed variance, the
issue of compatibility of the 19th Street streetscape treatment
should be an important consideration- Currently, a precision block
wall that lacks any offsets or architectural enhancement exists
along the back of the idewalk for the length of the project west
of the site. The balance of the adjacent 19th Street frontage was
improved as part of Tract 12952, including a slumpstone block wall
with pilasters, decorative cap, wall offsets, and corner
transitions for landscaping between the back of the sidewalk and
the wall- The lots to the east of the subject property back-up to
Inyo Place; hence, a slumpstone block wall faces the subject
property- Given that a majority of the 19th Street/Inyo Place
intersection area includes the upgraded treatment provided with
Tract 12952, staff advised the applicant to design the wall with
consistent treatments, offsets, and a landscape palette similar to
that provided by the developer of Tract 12952, while providing a
logical transition with the older precision block wall to the
west- The current site plan, (see Exhibit "E" ) indicates the
proposed wall location only; conditions to ensure consistent wall
treatments and landscape palette are included within the attached
Resolution of Approval. In staffs opinion, the current proposal
with the attached condition will provide a logical continuation of
the streetscape along 19th Street.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order to approve the proposed Variance, the
Planning Commission must determine facts to support the following
findings. Any findings in the negative would preclude approval of the
Variance request:
A. That strict or literal interpretation enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unncessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the' objectives of this code-
B. That exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the
property~ do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zone ·
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD.
January 8, 1992
Page 4
C. That strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone.
D- That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same zone-
E- That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in
the Inland Valle~ Dail~ Bulletin newspaper, the property has been
posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners within
300 feet of the project-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Comission approve
Variance 91-12 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval.
· su ' ed
Respe, ~
~?lanner
BB:SH:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization
Exhibit "C" - Approved Tentative Tract Map 12952
Exhibit "D" - Master Site Plan for Tract 12952
Exhibit "E" - Proposed Site Plan
Resolution of Approval
SOUTHWEST
DESIGN GROUP LIMITED
-- RECEIVED
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLA~'I"nNG O'V!S;ON
October 24, 1991 0C,1' ~,,~ 1991
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
RE: 2152 Square Foot Custom Residence
6700 Inyo Place
Variance File No. 91-12
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCEKN:
Wc are filing for a variance On the above-referenced project.
The varxance is being applied to allow a 'decorative, 6'0" high
block wall' to encroach on to 19th Street (front yard) set back
from 27'0"+ to 16'0"+.
If you should have any questions or require additional
informacion, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP LTD.
Alan g., S~IZh
PLANNING-- DMSION ' " '~_
:' "" ': ! EXHIBIT: ':,4" SCALE: -/
.... . ..... :~:'. TITLE: 5' ,-+'~ t°l ~ .-,
PLANIV1NG' DMSION
EXHIBIT: ~ SCALE:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. 91-12 FOR A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SOLID 6-FOOT
DECORATIVE BLOCK WALL WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD
SETBACK ALONG 19TH STREET FOR A PROPOSED CUSTOM LOT
RESIDENCE IN THE LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF 19TH STREET AND INYO PLACE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1076-381-17.
A. Recitals.
(i) Southwest Design Group, Ltd. has filed an application for the
issuance of a Variance No. 91-12 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is
referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 8th 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 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 19th Street and Inyo Place with a 19th Street frontage of
approximately 50 feet and an Inyo Place frontage of approximately 140 feet and
presently includes a model home parking lot, several mature trees, a wrought
iron fence with pilasters along the street property lines and curb, sidewalk
and gutter; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is single
family residential, the property to the south of that site consists of an
existing single family residential subdivision, the property to the east is
single family residential, and the property to the west is single family
residential; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD-
January 8, 1992
Page 2
(c) The project contemplates the elimination of the existing
wrought iron fence and the construction of a solid 6-foot decorative block
wall at an average setback of 17 feet from the fence of the 19th Street curb,
which encroaches into the required front yard setback by an average of
10 feet; and
(d) A master plan for the development of this lot was
considered at the time of processing for Tract 12952, of which the lot in
question is part- The master plan indicated unit and driveway plotting
essentially the same as the current proposal, but did not consider wall
locations; and
(e) The north (19th Street) property line is considered the
front property line, per Section 17.02.140 of the Development Code; and
(f) The Engineering Driveway Policies would not allow this
property a driveway approach along the front (19th Street) property line,
requiring the driveway to be placed within the corner side yard, along Inyo
Place; and
(g) The project as proposed, with all applicable conditions
enforced, will continue the existing streetscape treatments utilized in the
immediate area by providing upgraded wall and landscape treatments; and
(h) The 19tb Street and Inyo Place frontages surrounding the
subject property are developed with slumpblock walls; and
(i) The subject property is the only corner lot which is
oriented toward Inyo Place; and
(j) The proposed wall would be a logical continuation of the
existing 19th Street streetscape treatment-
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 strict or literal. interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code-
(b) That exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district.
(c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD.
January 8, 1992
Page 3
(d) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
(e) That the granting of the Variance will not 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 approves the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below:
Planninq Division
1) The specific wall design (material treatments,
location, and transition detail) and landscape
design for the 19th Street and Inyo Place
streetscape areas shall be designed to match
the treatment used by the adjacent Tract
12952.
2) The specific design shall be shown on the
detailed landscape/irrigation plans and/or
street improvement plans, as applicable, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner and City Engineer, prior to issuance
of building permits for the wall.
3) To ensure material consistency with the
adjacent existing walls, a material sample of
the proposed slumpstone shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Division prior to the
issuance of building permits for the wall.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 91-12 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP, LTD.
January 8, 1992
Page 4
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 8th day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The development of 51.8 acres of
an industrial master plan consisting of 30 industrial
buildings totaling 703,193 square feet in three phases in the
General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located on the southeast corner of Arrow
Route and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-142-06- Staff
recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration-
Related Files: Conditional Use Permit 91-26 and Parcel Map
12959-
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: Approval of the conceptual master plan, grading
plan, landscape plan, and building elevations for Phase I and
issuance of a Negative Declaration.
B- Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Existing Multi-Tenant Industrial Park and Post Office;
Industrial Park District, Subare 7, Industrial Area
Specific Plan
South - Vacant and Existing Industrial Buildings; Minimum Impact
Heavy Industrial, Subarea 9, Industrial Area Specific
Plan
East - Vacant; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial and Light
Industrial, Subarea 9, Industrial Area Specific Plan
West - Existing Industrial Buildings; General Industrial,
Subarea 8, Industrial Area Specific Plan
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North - Industrial Park and General Industrial
South - Heavy Industrial
East - General Industrial
West - General Industrial
D. Site Characteristics: The project site slopes gently to the south
at approximately 2 percent. There are no geologic structures or
rock outcroppings- There are no special, cultural, historical or
scenic resources on-site. In addition, there are no existing trees
on-site-
ITEM
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 2
E- Parking Calculations:
Square Parking Parking Parking
Footage Ratio Required Provided
Office 169,071 1/250 676 848
Manufacturing 331,344 1/500 662 662
Wholesale/Storage 199,658
& Distribution 1/1000 20 20
1/2000 10 10
1/4000 40 40
TOTAL: 1,408 1,580
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The intent of this Master Plan is to serve as a guideline
for future development through establishing driveway access,
overall circulation system, drainage patterns, and architectural
design concepts- The applicant is proposing a 52-acre industrial
master plan to be subdivided into 22 lots for general industrial,
office (see related file CUP 91-26), and business support service
uses- Parking has been provided on each parcel for the intended
uses and conceptual treatment of all plaza areas within the project
have been identified on the conceptual landscape plans- The
development of Phase I of the project, as part of this review,
encompasses the development of 7 of the 30 proposed buildings. All
public infrastructure and perimeter landscaping shall be provided
with Phase I for the project, per the recommended conditions of
approval-
The site is identified in the Industrial Specific Plan as a
proposed rail service site with spur lines along its eastern and
southern boundary lines. Due to grading and topographic conditions
along the east boundary of the site, the applicant is only
proposing rail service to Parcels 19, 20, and 21 along the southern
project boundary- Buildings or Parcels 19, 20, and 21 will be
designed for rail service potential. The Design Review Committee
conceptually approved the proposed rail service at its meeting on
October 3, 1991.
B. Design Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel, Chitlea, Kroutil)
reviewed the proposal on October 3, 1991, and directed the
applicant to revise the entry designs of the proposed buildings and
return to the Design Review Committee for further review. On
November 21, 1991, the Committee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil)
reviewed the revisions and conceptually approved the project
subject to final City Planner approval of the following
revisions:
PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 91-08 - CAFELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 3
1. Buildings 5A and 5B:
a. The vertical brick soldier course should be extended up
to the reveal line along the front elevation and wrap
onto the side and rear elevations to provide better
definition and articulation to the building entrances-
STAFF COIe!ENT: The elevations haVe been modified as
2. Building 6:
a · The column elements at the entry should be "tied"
together with the use of the brick material to strengthen
building articulation.
b. The north elevation should contain more articulation due
to its visibility from the street-
c. The columns should contain "depth" and movement instead
of appearing as plant-ons.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has redesigned Buila4-g 6
to address the above identified issue- Staff feels that
the revisions adequately address those concerns expressed
by the Committee - The revised architecture again
utilizes the brick and sandblast treatment, with
additional articulation to the mallions with the use of a
horizontal sandblast shelf, proviatng a strong
architoctural statement at the entrance.
3 - Building 7:
a. The glass/brick columns should either be all glass or all
brick-
b. A brick base should be carried across the bottom as a
"structural support element."
STAFF COIe(M~T: The elevations have been modified as
suggested ·
4. Building 8:
a. The sandblasted column/element should be redesigned to be
proportionate to the roof plane directly above it.
b. The plaza area should contain additional brick detailing
along the seat wall to break-up the elevation and add
articulation to the view from the east-
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 4
STAFF CO!!~MNT: The elevations have bee modified as
suggested ·
5. The aluminum window frames should be painted to blend in with
the glass color on all buildings-
STAFF COMMENT: See C~dition X.
C. Discussion: The project has received conceptual approval from the
Grading, Technical, and Design Review Committees- Future reviews
by the Commission will occur with the Development Review processes
of Phases II and III.
D. En'vironmental Assessment: Staff has completed the Environmental
Checklist and has found no significant adverse environmental
impacts as a result of this project- Concern has been expressed
about the amount of surface runoff and the ability of the existing
storm drain to handle the flows. As a result, on-site retention
basins have been provided to monitor the runoff · Issues were
brought up regarding the proposed on-site retention for the project
and the amount of surface runoff that would be generated.
Conditions have been placed on the project to mitigate all possible
negative impacts, i.e., limiting the amount of surface runoff to be
consistent with the capacity of the existing public storm drain,
additional catch basins and minimizing on-site retention-
Therefore, staff has determined that no significant impacts will
occur to the existing drainage facilities- If the Planning
Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative
Declaration would be appropriate.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve
this proposed Master Plan, facts supporting the following findings must
be made:
1. That the proposed project is consistent with objectives of the
General Plan and the Industrial Specific Plan; and
2. That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the
Industrial Specific Plan and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located; and
3 · That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the
applicable provisions of the Industrial Specific Plan and the
Development Code; and
4. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 5
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in the Inland Valley
Dail~ Bulletin newspaper as a public hearing. The property has been
posted and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of
the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Development Review 91-08 through issuance of the attached Resolution and
issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration.
BB:ALH:js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Master Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "E" - Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Landscape Plan
Resolution of Approval
'~- ~. ~ ""' N2;I/ ,'7-"7/;"J :t, " ~
~ ~,~o, ~ez
/ . ,--.
~ I'I
-, .... \,7,, i', ~ ,-,
/tl ~
~:. t "' ' "\
" -, .
',,,~
..,~ · ~
,,,, ',/~e,, .-.
-%.
........ \, o--
Z
~. : ..........;.:._e
,~ g-, ,, ,
-
[
It: d lj
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 91-08, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
WHITE OAK AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE IN THE GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, SUBAREA 8, OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 209-142-06, AND RELATED FILES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
91-26 AND PARCEL MAP 12959.
A. Recitals.
(i) Capellino and Associates has filed an application for the
approval of Development Review No. 91-08 as described in the title of this
Resolution- Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review
request is referred to as "the application-"
(ii) On the of 8th of January 1992, the Planning Commissi6n 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 8, 1992, including
written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at the
southwest corner of White Oak Avenue and Arrow Route, with a street frontage
of 2,081.61 feet and a lot depth of 1,040.77 feet and is presently vacant; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is existing
Industrial Park; the property to the south consists of vacant and existing
Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial; the property to the east is Light
Manufacturing and vacant, Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial; and the property to
the west is existing General 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:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 2.
(a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives
of the General Plan; and
(b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of
the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located; and
(c) That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code; and
(d) 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.
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 s~bject
to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference-
PLANNING DIVISION:
Master Plan:
The Master Plan is approved in concept only and
future development for each phase/parcel shall be
subject to the Development/Design Review process for
Planning Commission approval.
2) Modifications to the master plan shall be subject to
Planning Commission review and approval.
3) Office uses within the project for Buildings 2 and 3
are subject to Planning Commission approval of CUP
91-26.
4) The final map shall reflect the street name change
from Vincent Avenue to White Oak Avenue-
Phase I:
1) This approval includes the development of Phase I,
which encompasses a total of 7 buildings - 5A, 5B, 6,
7, 8, 9, and 10, as indicated on the approved site
plan, totaling 253,543 square feet-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 3
2) The buildings shall be consistent with the approved
site plan, grading plan, landscape plan, and building
elevations on file with the Planning Division.
3) Roof drain and down spouts shall not be located on
the outside of the building.
4) Details of the corner treatments for all brick veneer
shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building
permits-
5) All trash enclosures shall have separate pedestrian
access and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of building permits-
6) All pedestrian and plaza furniture shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Planner prior to the
issuance of building permits.
7) Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided within
the project in accordance with City Council Ordinance
Nos. 480 and 481. Final design and location of the
facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner-
8) A landscape planter shall be provided along the south
boundary of Parcel 21, on the south side of the rail
easement, and shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner prior to the issuance of building
permits.
9) All aluminum window frames shall be painted to blend
with the glass color of the building.
ENGINEERING:
Special Conditions:
The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications
and electrical) on the project side of Arrow Route
shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the
west side of White Oak Avenue to the first pole off-
site east of the railroad spur east of the eastern
project boundary, prior to public improvement
acceptance, or occupancy, whichever occurs first-
The developer is eligible for reimbursement from fees
previously paid by two developments on the north side
of Arrow Route and may request a reimbursement
agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost
for undergrounding from the balance of future
development as it occurs.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 4
2) A lot line adjustment to incorporate Lot "A" with the
parcel to the west, APN: 204-144-09, shall be
recorded prior to or concurrently with Parcel Map
12959.
3) Construct White Oak Avenue full width from the south
project boundary to and including a complete
intersection with Arrow Route- Off-site sidewalk and
street trees on the west side may be deferred until
development (redevelopment) of the adjacent
properties- The developer may request a
reimbursement agreement for improvements west of the
centerline from future development (redevelopment) as
it occurs on the west side of the street.
4) Complete the south half of Arrow Route from the
existing terminus west of White Oak Avenue to the
existing terminus east of the railroad tracks along
the east project boundary.
5) Install the traffic signal at White Oak Avenue and
Arrow Route with the development phase at which
warrants are met. If installed by a developer, that
developer shall be eligible for fee credits and
reimbursement of costs in excess of Transportation
Development Fee, in conformance with City policy.
6) The developer shall obtain a license agreement from
the AT&SF Railroad and construct the railroad grade
crossing within Arrow Route at the east project
boundary. The construction shall include crossing
guard gates and flasher lights, raised median, and
rubberized pads- The Arrow Route pavement shall be
widened to its ultimate width on both sides of the
grade crossing, with a transition to existing
pavement on the north side of Arrow Route to the
satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer- The
developer shall be eligible' for fee credits toward
and reimbursement of costs in excess of the
Transportation Development Fee, in conformance with
City policy.
7) Drainage/flood protection facilities shall be
provided for the project area to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer as follows:
a) The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed
the capacity of the existing public storm drain
system to the south. The amount of on-site
retention shall be based on a proration of
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 5
available capacity on a per acre basis for the
area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south
end of Vincent Avenue, just north of the AT&SF
Railroad main line.
b) In an effort to minimize on-site retention and
possibly eliminate the underground retention
structure, the final drainage study shall
analyze whether ponding at the south end of the
Vincent Avenue cul-de-sac can be used, with some
street capacity, in addition to the available
pipe capacity. Determine the effects on
existing facilities upstream and downstream-
Ponding shall not impact adjacent buildings and
shall be contained within the street right-of-
way.
c) Easements shall be delineated and inundation
rights dedicated on the Final Parcel Map.
d) No public water shall be tributary directly to
the inundation areas.
e) In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering
areas, ponding depths shall not exceed 12 inches
and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not
exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours-
f) The proposed retention basin at the southeast
corner of Parcel 22 shall be secured by a 6-foot
high fence. A method to guarantee the
maintenance of the basin shall be provided as
approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney-
8) Provide catch basins in Arrow Route on the east sides
of "B" Street and White Oak (Vincent) Avenue, so that
cross gutters can be eliminated or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
9) Provide catch basins in "A" Street near the "B"
Street knuckle, to reduce nuisance water.
10) The developer shall reimburse Daon Corporation for
previously completed improvements to Arrow Route in
conformance with the existing agreement to that
effect (O.R. 85-322765).
11) All 35-foot wide driveways to be used by trucks shall
have 20-fobt curb return radii and the 35-foot width
shall extend to 25 feet behind the face of curbs or
as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 91-08 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 6
12) Attention shall be paid to the line-of-sight designs
between the two driveways on the inside of the White
Oak (Vincent) Avenue curve, on Parcels 14 and 16.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH 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 Rencho
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 8th day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
c.,, o, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #:
SUBJECT: I/f1
APPUCANT:
Those items checked are Conditions of Approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (714) 98~-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time LImits ~am;dmgLDmr,
V//1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are I'
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months Irom the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to I / . / /
3. A;:1:H~val of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the aplxoval of / /
V/74. The deveioper shall commence, partiotpatein, and consunvnme or cause to be comrnenced / /
participated in, or consummated, a Melfo-Roo8 Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection DtsUtcl to finance construction and/or maintenance of ,
a fire station to serve the developrnem. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rwtcho Cucamonga Fee Protection District, and shall become the
Districts property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the Distdct in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and reINilk:ms. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordalion of the final map occurs.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes ·
first, the applicant shall consent to, or particil:~te in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Comrnunify Facilities District lor the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, ~ any school district has previously established such a Community
Fadlitles District, the applicant shag, in the alternative, conseN to the annexation of the
project site imo the territory of such existing District I:)dor to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance ol building permits, whichever comes lirsL Further, if the affected school
district has not formed a Melio-Roos Corrwnunlty Facilities District within tweive 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 - 2/9! l, of' 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
irTq)a~s 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 J /
involved, wdtten certfficmion from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities am 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
dimrid 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 pevelopment
~/' 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which /---J
include site plans, architectural elevations, exte~or mmerlafs and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and ~
Specific Plan .imel
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all / J
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the fadlity shall not comrnence until such time as all Uniform Building C°de and · /
State Fire Marshairs regulations have been cornplied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancbd Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show cornpllnce. The building shall be inspected for cornpllnce prior to
~/' 4. Revised site pins and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prk)r to issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans sham be coordinated for J J
consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree rernovai, encroachmere,
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. Al:q~roval of this request shall not waive compllnce with all sections of the Development / J
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and al~ Community Plane or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
~///7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and appmved by the City Pinner and J J
Sheriffs I:)epamTmnt (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 tm~h pick-up shall be for individual units J.__-/ ..
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 Irash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and al)provai
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 ~he use of a combin;t'ion of
concrete or masonry walls, befitting, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner. ~ 3 --~
sc - 2/9~ 2 or n
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, fenring, and / .J
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 upgrade 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 of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' assoclatiop. s for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
V//15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the / /
Homeowners' Association am subject to the apl:roval of the Pinning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shell be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall
// provided to the City Engineer.
V/ 16. Allparkways, openareas, and landscaping shell be perrnanently 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 puq)ose 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 recordation of the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation, structure, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-Ct.2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and . J /
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site inducting but not llrnited to, exterior alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect the exterior of t~t~ buildings or structures, ramoval of landmark
trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structure, or changes to the site.
shall require a rnodif't.,ation to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Bullcling Deign
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units ---/ ..7 ..
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other aMmatlve energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. NI swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be sul:q)lemanted with solar heatirlg. 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 City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
sc - 2/91 3 or 12
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. 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 proparties 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. PTIng and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on I~ullding plane)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimeP4ion of 6 feet and shall / /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the pa~dng stall (including
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be /---/
provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/
// plazas/recreational uses.
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped par 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 ir~/ /
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles---J /
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in desi0nated visitor parking areas.
6. Plans for any security gales shall be submitted for the CRY Planner, City Engineer, and / /--
Rancho CucamonOa Fire Protection District review and aplxovai prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. Land ping (for pul)llcly maintained landscape areas, reIN' to Section N.)
~I.A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, inckadtn0 slope planting and model home landscap- / /
ing in the case of residential deveiolxnenl, ~ be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for CRy Planner review and approval pdorto the issuance ot building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom kX sulxlivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place stall be protected web 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 preserved in place and new Ioc~ for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The ;Ipplicant shall follow all of the artx)rist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and tdmmlng methods.
3. Aminimumof tree~pergrossacre.cornprleedofthefollowingsizes, shallbePr°vided / / "'
within the projack: . % - 4~- inch box or larger. % - :36- inch box or larger,
% - 24.. inch box or larger, % - 15-galon. 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-galfon 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
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate ol one ~
tree per 30 linear feet of building. / / '*'
7. AII private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5: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.
8. AII private 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. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or gmater 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
occupancy.
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- / /
ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing 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 non-residential development, proparty 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 tree 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 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 requiremaN shall be in addition to the required
////1 street trees and slope planting.
2. The final design of the padmater parkways, wadis, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be / ...J
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- / J
ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensltted landscaping, is required along
14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed withtn the Public dght-of-wayon ._./ ./
the perimeter oe this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
V/" 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 submitted for City Planner review and / /
approval prior to issuance ol building pannits. These criteria shall encourage the natural
V/// growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / .J
Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Munici0al Code.
SC - 2/9| 5ol' 12
Pre~,ect
F. S~/1. The signs indic, ated 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.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitled for City Planner review and / /
approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condorninium, ortownhomes / /
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 forrnm 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, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the / /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise
attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building rnateriais and construction techniclues provided,
and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conforrnance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H, Other Agencies
V/ 1. ErnergencysecondaryaccessshailbeprovldedinaccordancewithRanchoCucam°ngaFire J /
jProtection District Standards.
2. Emergency access shail be provldad, rnaintenance free and clear, a minirnum of 261eet wide / /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for cornl3ustibie construction. evidence shall be J /
submittad to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District thal temporary water supply for
V// fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
4. The apecam shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and//
Iocmion of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final Iocaion of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all / .J
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submittad to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
2/91 6of 12~'''
pro,met No.:
Comtle.~on Dart:
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
. plicant shall cornply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Un~orm 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 Beautificatlon Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
V// Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or / /.-
addition to an existing development, the applicant shell pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
4.Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Cheddng 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 cornply with correct building and zoning regulations for / /
the intended use or the building shell be demolished. '
3. Existing sewage disposal fadlitles shell be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the / /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be kx',ated and shown on building runs summed for/ /
building permit ;application.
K. G~I' Grading of the subject pmf~rty shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City /
Grading Standards. and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shell be in
.substantial conlorrnance with the af)proved grading
3.A soils report shah be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /.--
pedorm such work.
The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance / /
Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardino County Departmerit of Agriculture at (714)
387-2111 lot permit application. Documentation of such permit shah be.submitted to the City
prior to the marice of rough grading permit.
4. A geological repofl shell be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at / /
the time of application for grading plan check.
v//5. Thefina~gradingplanssha~~becom~letedandappr~vedpriort~issuance~fbuildingpermifs. /
sc- 2/9s 7 or ~2
6. As a custom-lit sulcx:livis~on, the following requirements Shall be met:
a. Surety shall De posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing comOletlin of all on-site
Orainage facilities necessary tor clewatenng all parcels to the satistaction of me Building
and Safety Division priorto linal ma,o al:~roval and pr~orto the issuance ot grading permits.
b. A,opropnate easements for safe {3isposal of drainage water that am conducted onto / /
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and retort:led to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division p{ior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessan/for dewatenng and protecting the sulxlivided / /
properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be suDject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading p~ans for each parcel are to be submitted to me Building and Safety ~ /-
Division for approval I:xiof to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composts Oasis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical heigm ShNI be seeded with native grasses --/ /
or planted with ground cover for erosion Control upon Coml:)letion of gracling or soma other
alternative method of erosion Control ellall be Cornl}leted to the sltisliction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system sitall be provided. This requirement
clots not release the apl:}iicant/clevelof~r from Compliance with the siol~ planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 1 ol tl'~e Develof)ment Code. -.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (714) 1tl-1812, FOR COt~I, IANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L Dedication Ir~l VenV, umr Accea ..
yfff 1. RigNs-of-way and easerrems shag be dedlcaed to thee Cey for il ireriot INl311c streets.
Cornmun~ trails, tNblic paseos, iNt~lic landecal~ ateae, street tree~, att;i iNl:41c drainage
factlilies as shown on the pillll Incl/of tenlllM mlp. P, vme easements for non-pu~c
facililie$ (cross-lot clrlinlge, local feeder Irlill, etc.) II1M be ~ 18 Illowll on ills plans
ancl/or fentalNe map.
V/~ 2. Declicalion snail be mlci of the lolowing riglll-ot*wly on IIll I~N' ireell
(measured from slreot cenlefine):
~:) tollMelon ~
,._ Iota fIN on ,
3, An irree offer of dedlca~n lot -loot ~ maclw=y eaefrtenl i I~ rnacle
for all private street= or drtve~.
V/ 4. Non-vehicular access sl~l be dedicated to N CIty tv me lolowing areere:
V/ 5. Reciprocal access easements srtal~ be provided ensuring acc~$ to all p,mrcels W CC&Rs
or Oy cleKis and strait be reco~ed Cortcur~rmy wlffi the ~ or Ixtot to the issuance of
bu,KlinO Nrmit$, wr~re no rn&o ~s Invoked. ~ ~
,~ - 2/9t sot ~2
6.Private drainage easements for cross-tot clrainage snail be provK:led and sr~all De ~ehneate,'j
or noted on the final real3.
7. The final ma,o shall cleady delineate a 10-foot minimum t~uilcling restriction area on the /__.'__
neighl:K)nng lOt adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain trte fOllOwing language:
'l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga tl~e ngfit to Drohibit the
construction of (residential) Duiidir~s (or orner structures) within those areas designated
on the rn~o as Duitdir~ restriction areas.'
A maintenance agreement shall also I~e granted lrom each lOt to the adjacent lOt through the
CC&R's.
8. All existing easements lying within future rigffis.-ot-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on / /
the final maC}.
9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way / /
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they err. roach onto private property.
10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right tum lanes. to provide a minimum / /
of 7 feet measured from the face of curt)s. ff curt3 editcent sidewalk is used along the right
rum lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be pmvk:le~.
V'/11~ThedevelOp~rsha~m~keag~dfaithe~rttO~:~uir~therequired~-sit~t~pertyinterests / '/
necessary to construct the required pul3tio improvementS. and it ha/she shoukl fail to do so.
the develoC~r shall, at least 120 days I:N'lor to sulDmlttil Of the final map for lpproval, enter
into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Govemmant Code Section
66462 at such time as the City acquires the properly interests reojuired for the improvements.
Such agreement shall provide for paymenl by the developer of all COsts incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security
for a l)ortlon of these costs shell be in the form ola cllrt ~lq3olit in the ~mount given in an
a,op'aisil refx)d ot3tained by the ~leve~r. st {livetOperS cost. The Ipptlis~r shall have
been aCq:~roved by the City prior to commencement ol the alertjail.
M. Street Improvementl
Vf/1. All I~JI31iC imlxovements (interior streett. dremtge faclllet, community tr·lls. paseos, ._J / ...
landscapt~t arets, etc.) shown on me pltrt tneor tentttive mtp shtll M constructed to
City Stant~ras. ~nterlor street improvements ¢ttl inctu~. liut tre nm limited to. cure and
gutter. AC pavement. etve approaches. ti=lewtl~. street ligl~. ancl street trees.
2. A minimum ol 26- foot wkle ptvemenl. wthln · 40 4eel wk~ reed rigid-of-way shall be /
construcled fOr III hlll-leClk~ strlltl.
3. Cortstruct the folowing peltmeter street in13~vement~ incltKllng. ~ not firtired to: _.j /
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaOin4g and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconStruCtion and overlays will 13e determined dunng plan check. (c) If so marked. SK3e-
walk snail be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked. an m-lieu of construction fee snail
be provided for this item.
4. ImOrovement plans and construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- / /
tered Civil Engineer, shall be suIomitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be I:x)sted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public anti/or pdvate street irnDrove-
roehis, prior to final map approval or the issuance of buiiding 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 or)tattled from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street nsma signing, and interoonnect conduit / /
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signa~conduitwith;:xJ~~b~xessh~llbeinstalled~n~nyrtew~ortetruc~i~n~rreC~n~truction / /
of major, secondary or collector streets which if~ersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for future traffic signsis. Pull boxes shall be piacecl on both sides of the
street at 3 feel outside of BCR, ECR or any other iccatione Ipptoved by the City Engineer.
Notes: /
( 1 ) NI pull boxes Shall be No. 6 unless otherwise spedled by the CIty Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch gllvanized steel wtlh puln3pl.
e. Wheel chair reml~ shall be tnetalled on al four comers of inlersectionl per City / /
Stamlarcls or as directed by the City En;nee.
f. Existing Clly roads requiring conmnaci~ abel remein open to traffic at all times with / /
mate {letours eating comtmction. A mreet ctHurs pem~l may be required. A cash
depoMshanbepmvkled to cover me c:oat of grmllng ancl pav~ng,
refunded ulxm conIMetion of the conmftx:lion to the Illlflclion of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated (t'ljnlgl flows 11111 not ¢313¢1 sidewlltl. Urdlr lldewll~ drinl shBII I:)e / /
instaae<l to C,,ly Sandant, except k~, singe farney acts.
I1. HaM= roll ramp design shll be II 84:lecillld Ix/the Cty Englreer. / /--
i. StreetnlmellhalbeaRxovedtWtheCityPinnefprtortom4xnltNfor~rstlNBncheck. --J
5. Street ~ INInl pM CIty Stln(inl for III pityat® mreets Shall be pmvk:led for /-
review aftd aD¢le:wll I:)y the Cily Engineer. Prkx to Ilqy work I:)eing pedoffned on the pri-
vate mreetS, fees Shall be paid and conatft~ion pafmls shall be obtlned ftorn the City
Engineer's Office in addition to any other patmitl required.
V/'6. Sirlet trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, i be intoBled par City Startclams in _
accon:lance with the City's street tree program.
SC - 2/91 IOof 12
7. Intersection line of site cles~gns snail be reviewed t3y the Cily Engineer lor conformance wrtn
aOopted policy.
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of s~rrt shall be plotted for all projecl intersections,
including driveways. Walls, s~gns, and slopes shall be k>cated outside me lines of SKJht.
Landscaping and other oDstructions within the lines of sight snail t:}e approved Dy the City
Engineer.
I:}. Local residential street interSections shall have their noticeaDility improved, usually I:}y .__/ /
moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street
free easement.
8. A pen'nit shall be o~ained from CALTRANS for any work within the lollowing rigffi-of-way: ---J /
9. All public irTqDrovements on the following streets shall be operationairy complete pdor to the / /-
issuance of building perrnktS:
N. Public Maintenance Artll
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards ./ /
shall .be suPmilled to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final rna; approval
or issuance of I:)uilding permits, whichever occurs fiflt. The following lifl(:lscape perkways,
medians, peseos, easements, trails, or other areas are Sired to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/orform the alX}ropriate Landscape and Lighting / /
Districts Shall be filed with the City Engineer priorto final map aplxovNor issuance of I)uiiding
permits whidqever occurs first. Formalion costs Shall be i}ome by the developer.
3. Allre<luiredpulDiiclandscapingarKlirrlgationlYstemS IhaHbecontffiuouslymNntainedbythe / ./
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landsclpi~ on the IOtlowing Itreet(s) ~ conlorm fo the results of the respective / /
Beautification Mamer I:q~
O. Drainage and Fioogl Control
/
1: The prOjeCt (or portions tlllflot) is lOCalell within a 11oo(I HIZlfi:I Zone; theretore, flood ---~ --
protection meamarel ~ pe Ixoviclecl as cenllled by a registerm:l Civil Engineer and
ag~nfove~ I~/me CIty Englner.
2. It shall be the devek ers resmnsiUity tO have the curtin FIRM Zone '
designation removea from the project area. The eveepe's enginee' shNI prepare all
necessah/repon., plane, ana hyeoioglcn~lraullc calculatione. A C.,utaltional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) Shll be oOtlinea from FEMA peer to finn roll) approval or
issuance of building permits, wttt, hever oocurs rnt. A Lette ol Map Revimon (LOMR) shatl
De issued Oy FEMA prior to occupency or improvement NDcelXance, whichever occurs first
3. A final drainage study Shall be sul)mitled to and appmved by the City Engineer prior to fina~
mad a;q:m~val or the issuance of I~uik:ling perruns, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities Shall be installed as required IDy the City Engineer.
SC - 2/9t It ol' t2
4. A permit from the County Flood Control Distr~ct is required for work w~tnin ds ngnt-ot-way.
5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of tlne outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge ol a mature tree trunk. /--
6. Public ston'n drain easements snail be graded to convey ovedlows in the event of a /
blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcet including sanitary sewerage system, water,/ /
gas, eleclrK: power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The deveioper 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 / /...
Cucarnonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs firSt.
Q. General Requ|rement~ and Al~rovsls
1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into
one parcel Ic:Nior to issuance of I~ilding permits.
2. An easement for a joint use driveway sl~lll be provided Ixior to final mad approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurS first, for:
among the newly created parcels.
4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional MainJoe, Secondmy Regional, and Master Pan
Drainage Fees shall be I:klk:l prior to final map al:)pmval or i:Nior to building permit issuance if
no map is involved.
5. · .... rtght-of-way:
P '~haliermss~ ~ from the ~o 'ng sgers:Ss ~or work within their
6. A sagnell consift Ind wilyre' form to join In6/or form the IJw Enlomlment Commjnlty
Fadleas Oilfficl ~ be fill4 with the Cty Engineer Ixior to ~rtll mID liq3mvll or the
issuance ot liuikling permits. whichever o{3:urs tim. Formslion coils shll be m 13y the
Developer.
7. Prior tO finllizltlon of shy develo;mer~ prtlse. sufficient iml~m~lene~ pins shill be corn-
pieted I~yond the I~tss$130undlf~s to assure Ncort~fy access an6 drsins~ protection to
the satSfsction of the CI~ Engineer. Phase Ix~jn~mfWs shsl cerrespoM to lot lines Shown
on me s,opmved tentslive map.
2/9 1 t2 o( 12
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~_~:~ '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Betty Mill er, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12959 - CAPELLINO
AND ASSOCIATES - A subdivision 'of 51.8 acres of land into 22
parcels in the General Industrial District of the Industrial
Specific Plan, Subarea 8, located on the southeast corner of Arrow
Route and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-142-06. Staff recommends
issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related files: Development
Review 91-08 and Conditional Use Permit 91-26
I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Re uested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as
shown on ~xhibit "B"
B. Parcel Size:
Parcel i 1.89 Parcel 12 1.02
Parcel 2 1.81 Parcel 13 1.08
Parcel 3 2.17 Parcel 14 0.91
Parcel 4 1.89 Parcel 15 0.68
Parcel 5 5.89 Parcel 16 0.71
Parcel 6 0.62 Parcel 17 1.23
Parcel 7 0.78 Parcel 18 1.16
Parcel 8 1.40 Parcel lg 2.49
Parcel g 1.26 Parcel 20 4.70
Parcel 10 1.02 Parcel 21 3.82
Parcel 11 1.09 Parcel 22 7.39
Total: 45.01 acres net
C. Existing Zoning: General Industrial, Industrial Specific Plan,
Subarea 8
D. Surrounding Land Use:
North - Mul U-tenant Industrial Park and Post Office
South - Partially vacant; one industrial building
ITEM J
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12959 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
january 8, 1992
Page 2
East - Vacant
West - Industrial Warehouse
E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations:
North - Gen. Industrial (subarea 8) and Industrial Park (subarea 7)
South - Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9)
East - Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9)
West - General Industrial (Subarea 8)
F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes to the south
at 2 percent. Arrow Route, which forms the northern boundary, has
been widened on the north side. An AT&SF railroad spur forms the
east boundary with a partial spur defining the south boundary.
Unimproved Vincent Avenue will be extended and curved to align with
White Oak Avenue on the west side.
II. ANALYSIS:
The purpose of this parcel map is to create 22 parcels corresponding to
the industrial master plan being considered as Development Review 91-08
on tonight's agenda. The tentative map is shown in Exhibit "B" and the
detailed site plan for DR 91-08, with parcel lines highlighted, has been
included as Exhibit "C."
This development will complete Arrow Route from the west project
boundary to east of the at-grade railroad crossing. White Oak Avenue
(formerly Vincent Avenue) will be realigned to provide a 4-way
intersection at Arrow Route, with a traffic signal, and Lot "A" will be
deeded to the adjacent property owner on the west. Due to the limited
capacity of downstream drainage facilities, private on-site retention
(underground facility and parking areas) will be necessary. Public
storm drains will be provided in White Oak Avenue and "A" Street; the
system in Arrow Route already exists.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12959 -
CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 3
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 al so been completed.
V. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider
all input and'elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 12959. 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.
Respectful 1 y submitted,
Senior Civil Engineer
BRH:BM:ly
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map
Exhibit "C" - DR 91-08 Site Plan
Resol ution 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 12959, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND WHITE OAK AVENUE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-142-06
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 12959, submitted by Capellino
and Associates, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 22 parcels, the
real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN 209-142-06, located on the
southeast corner of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 1992, the Planning Commission held a duly
advertised public hearing for the above-described map-
NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 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 affects on abutting
properties.
SECTION 2: This Commission finds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970; and further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 12959 is hereby approved
subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special
Conditions:
1. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and
electrical) on the project side of Arrow Route shall be
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12959
January 8, 1992
Page 2
undergrounded from the first pole on the west side of White Oak
Avenue to the first pole off-site east of the railroad spur east
of the eastern project boundary, prior to public improvement
acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first- The developer
is eligible for reimbursement from fees previously paid by two
developments on the north side of Arrow Route and may request a
reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted
cost for undergrounding from the balance of future development
as it occurs.
2. A lot line adjustment to incorporate Lot "A" with the parcel to
the west, APN 204-144-09, shall be recorded prior to or
concurrently with Parcel Map 12959.
3. Construct White Oak Avenue full width from the south project
boundary to and including a complete intersection with Arrow
Route. Off-site sidewalk and street trees on the west side may
be deferred until development (redevelopment) of the adjacent
properties. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement
for improvements west of the centerline from future development
(redevelopment) as it occurs on the west side of the street.
4. Complete the south half of Arrow Route from the existing
terminus west of White Oak Avenue to the existing terminus east
of the railroad tracks along the eastern project boundary.
5- Install the traffic signal at White Oak and Arrow Route with the
development phase at which warrants are met- If installed by a
developer, that developer shall be eligible for fee credits
toward and reimbursement of costs in excess of the
Transportation Development Fee, in conformance with City policy.
6- The developer shall obtain a license agreement from the AT&SF.
Railroad and construct the railroad grade crossing within Arrow
Route at the eastern project boundary- The construction shall
include crossing guard gates and flasher lights, a raised
median, and rubberized pads. The Arrow Route pavement shall be
widened to its ultimate width on both sides of the grade
crossing, with a transition to existing pavement on the north
side of Arrow Route to the satisfaction of the City Traffic
Engineer. The developer shall be eligible for fee credits
toward and reimbursement of costs in excess of the
Transportation Development Fee, in conformance with City policy.
7- Drainage/flood protection facilities shall be provided for the
project area to the satisfaction of the City' Engineer as
follows:
a. The runoff (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12959
January 8, 1992
Page 3
capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the
south. The amount of on-site retention shall be based on a
proration of available capacity on a per acre basis for the
area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of
Vincent Avenue, just north of the AT&SF Railroad main line-
b- In an effort to minimize on-site retention and possibly.
eliminate the underground retention structure, the final
drainage study shall analyze whether ponding at the south
end of the Vincent Avenue cul-de-sac can be used, with some
street capacity, in addition to the available pipe
capacity. Determine the effects on existing facilities
upstream and downstream. Ponding shall not impact adjacent
buildings and shall be contained within the street
right-of-way.
c- Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights
dedicated on the Final Parcel Map.
d- No public water shall be tributary directly to the
inundation areas.
e. In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas,
ponding depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches,
respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4
hours-
f. The proposed retention basin at the southeast corner of
parcel 22 shall be secured by a 6-foot high fence. A
method to guarantee the maintenance of the basin shall be
provided as approved by the City Engineer and City
Attorney.
8- Provide catch basins in Arrow Route on the east sides of "B"
Street and White Oak (Vincent) Avenue, so that cross gutters can
be eliminated or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
9- Provide catch basins in "A" Street near the "B" Street knuckle,
to reduce nuisance water-
10. The developer shall reimburse Daon Corporation for previously
completed improvements to Arrow Route in conformance with the
existing agreement to that effect (O-R- 85-322765).
11. All 35-foot wide driveways to be used by trucks shall have 20-
foot curb return radii and the 35-foot width shall extend to 25
feet behind the face of curb or as otherwise approved by the
City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12959
January 8, 1992
Page 4
12. Intersection line-of-sight designs shall be reviewed by the City
Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. 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 line-of-sight shall be approved by
the City Engineer. Attention shall be paid to the line-of-sight
designs between the two driveways on the inside of the White Oak
(Vincent) Avenue curve, on parcels 14 and 16.
13. Parkway landscaping on Arrow Route shall conform to the results
of the Arrow Route Beautification Master Plan.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, ~992.
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 8th day of January, 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NQES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES - The
request to establish two office use buildings
(administrative, professional design services, finance,
insurance and real estate services, medical services, and
personal services) within a proposed industrial master plan
on 51.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at
the southeast corner of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue -
APN: 209-142-06- Related files: Development Review 91-08
and Parcel Map 12959. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration-
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a non-construction
Conditional Use Permit 91-26 to allow Office/Professional Medical
and Personal Service uses in a General Industrial Master Plan-
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Existing multi-tenant Industrial Park and Post Office,
Industrial Park District, Subarea 7 Industrial area
Specific Plan;
South - Vacant and existing Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial,
Subarea 9, Industrial Area Specific Plan
East - Vacant, Minimum Impact Heavy and existing Light
Manufacturing Industrial, Subarea 9, Industrial Area
Specific Plan
West - Existing General Industrial, Subarea 8, Industrial Area
Specific Plan
C- General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North - General Industrial
South - Heavy Industrial
East - General Industrial
west - General Industrial
ITEM K
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 2
GENERAL AND ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant desires to obtain approval of a Conditional
Use Permit for anticipated users for two buildings within a master
planned industrial complex (see related staff report DR 91-08). The
applicant's intent is to facilitate leasing of the two buildings,
which are designed for office-type users, by obtaining a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) at this time for all anticipated uses rather than
having to process separate CUP applications as each potential tenant
becomes known. The buildings (nos. 2 and 3, see attached Site Plan
Exhibit "C") are located along the north project boundary along
Arrow Route. Both buildings are to be built with Phase III of the
Master Plan and will be formally reviewed by the Planning Co~nission
at a later date. Buildings 2 and 3 are proposed to be 2-story with
the conceptual footprints of 28,416 square feet and 31,162 square
feet, respectively- The area surrounding the proposed Master Plan
consists of Office directly north and a Post Office to the
northwest- Because the buildings are conceptually designed to
relate to other surrounding buildings and uses along this portion of
Arrow Highway, staff finds the proposed use request consistent with
surrounding land uses.
B. Land Use Issues: The applicant is requesting approval of the
following uses which may be conditionally permitted within Subarea
8: Administrative and Office; Professional/Design Services;
Financial; Insurance and Real Estate Services; Medical/Health Care
Service; and Personal Services. These uses are service oriented,
rather than manufacturing oriented; hence, the Industrial Area
Specific Plan requires a Conditional Use Permit review. Subarea 8
is an area intended for General Industrial activities and to assure
for a proper transition from the Heavy Industrial category south of
this area to the Industrial Park category north of this area.
Permitted industrial uses within Subarea 8 include Custom and Light
Manufacturing, and Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution.
Examples of other service-oriented uses permitted within Subarea 8
include Business Supply Retail Sales and Services; Business Support
Services; Research Services; and Administrative Civic Services.
Since the proposed uses are confined to their own freestanding
buildings, staff does not anticipate land use conflicts, such as
noise or vibration, to occur.
The issue of granting this Conditional Use Permit, versus reviewing
each prospective tenant on an individual basis, deserves careful
consideration- In the past, the Planning Commission has been
cautious in granting such requests; however, it is not without
precedent. The Industrial Specific Plan establishes that selected
uses in each district are only allowed subject to the granting of a
CUP because of their unique site development requirements and
operating characteristics. The Conditional Use Permit process is
intended .to afford an opportunity for broad public review and
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 3
evaluation of these requirements and characteristics, to provide
adequate mitigation of any potentially adverse impacts, and to
ensure that all site development regulations and performance
standards are provided- Staff feels that the site development
requirements can be adequately addressed through the review of the
Master Plan. However, granting the CUP up-front would preclude
analysis of unique operating characteristics on a case-by-case
basis, as well as preclude the public hearing process-
C. Parking: More than any other compatibility issue, parking has the
potential for the greatest land use conflict. A total of 253
parking spaces have been provided for Buildings No. 2 and 3. The
City's parking requirement would be 238 spaces, assuming an office
parking ratio of 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area.
However, the applicant is proposing a range of other uses besides
Office, Design, Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Services. Both
Medical and Personal Services ( such as day care facilities and
computer training classes) have more intensive parking requirements
than Office- Parcel 3 has provided 15 additional parking stalls
which would provide some flexibility in allowing Health Care or
Personal Service uses to locate within the project.
Staff could support a defined amount of Medical/Health Care Services
based upon the extra 15 parking spaces. For example, if Building
No. 3 was devoted entirely to Medical/Health Care Services, the
required parking would equal the parking provided ( 155 spaces ) ·
Assuming then that reciprocal parking is provided between Parcels 2
and 3, a total of 31,162 square feet of Medical/Health Care Service
uses could be accommodated in Buildings No. 2 and 3.
The calculation of Personal Services parking requirements is not as
simple because it would depend on the specific land use proposed.
Personal Services include instructional schools (i.e., computers,
driving ), as well as day care facilities · Instructional schools
require one parking space for each three students, plus one for each
instructor or employee ( a ratio that staff feels is, in itself,
inadequate). Day care facilities require parking based upon the
number of children (one per five children) and staff (one per one
staff). Therefore, it is impossible to determine how much Personal
Service use could be accommodated within the proposed development;
hence, staff cannot support this portion of the request · Staff
recommends that Personal Services be deleted from any approval and
reviewed on an individual CUP basis-
D. Sheriff ' s Department and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District: Both the Sheriff's Department and the Rancho Cucamonga
Fire Protection District have been notified of the proposed uses-
The Sheriff's Department has expressed no concern over the
proposal- The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District will
require plan check prior to occupancy.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 4
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 accordance with the General Plan,
the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of
the Industrial 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 Specific Plan-
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in
the Inland Valle~ Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and
notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project
site-
RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission can support the concept of
granting a CUP at this time, then approval may be granted through
adoption of the attached Resolution with conditions. If the Planning
Comission feels that each prospective tenant should be reviewed on an
individual basis, then the request should be denied and staff should be
directed to prepare a Resolution with findings for adoption on your next
consent calendar-
City Planner
BB:ALH:sp
Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Extended Project Use Description from
Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Fire District Comments
Resolution of Approval
C_.,ityof~Cucamonga P/M:l"rl
Uniform Aplalieation
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The overall project consists of 30 buildings to be completed in three (3) phases. These
buildings are in the GI-8 Land Use Area. Buildings #2 & #3 of Phase III are proposed as
Arlmini~trative & office; Professional/Design Services; Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate
Services; Medical, Health Care Services; and Personal Services which will require a CUP.
A development of this magnitude would benefit by having the Office/Professional etc. as
part of allowed use. These two buildings are planned as part of Phase III and would be
available as the project nears completion. It is felt that this type of use will be very
compatible with the quality of the development being proposed and be within the intent of
the sub-area land use criteria.
: ....carbonless
Z~;~~7,~o~7(~,"--~/77 TRIP
~TO~ F ~ ~-
R
MEIBA~E
!REPLY
4
~ DATE
~~. 45 4~ pm ~ ~ M ~ ~ mY.
RESOLUTION NO-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-26 FOR BUILDINGS 2 AND
3 OF AN INDUSTRIAL MASTER PLAN, LOCATED IN SUBAREA 8
OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-142-06
A. Recitals-
(i) Capellino & Associates has filed an application for the issuance
of the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-26 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 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-
(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:
~. 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 8, 1992, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to proposed Buildings No. 2 and 3
within a master-planned industrial complex on 5~.8 acres of land in the
southeast corner of White Oak and Arrow Route, with a street frontage of
2,081.61 feet and lot depth of 1,040.77 feet and is presently vacant; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is an
existing industrial park, the property to the south of that site consists of
vacant minimum impact heavy industrial and existing light manufacturing, the
property to the east is vacant, minimum impact heavy industrial, and the
property to the west is existing general industrial; and
(c) The application contemplates the use of Buildings No. 2
and 3 for Administrative and Office; Professional/Design Services; Financial;
Insurance and Real Estate Services; Medical/Health Care Services; and Personal
Services; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 2
(d) The proposed master planned industrial complex (DR 91-08)
proposed a total of 253 parking spaces for Buildings No. 2 and 3 which would
accommodate up to 31,162 square feet of Medical/Health Care uses.
(e) The Development Code requires that Personal Services of an
instructional nature provide parking at a rate of one parking space for each
three students, plus one for each staff employee. Further, the Development
Code requires that day care facilities, which are considered a Personal
Service, provide parking at a rate of one parking space for each five
children, plus one for each staff employee; and
(f) The application contemplates the establishment of
schools and day care facilities of an indeterminate number of students and
staff; hence, the amount of parking required cannot be determined-
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, except for Personal Services, 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, except for Personal Services,
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, except for Personal Services,
complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code.
4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative
Declaration.
5. Based upon the 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.
1) Approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-26 is
granted subject to approval of Development
Review 91-08.
2) This approval is granted only for the following
uses: Administrative and Office;
Professional/Design Services; Financial;
Insurance and Real Estate Services; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 3
Medical/Health Care Services in Buildings 2 and
3 of the master plan for the site-
3) Medical/Health Care Service uses shall be
limited to up to 31,162 square feet of gross
floor area within Buildings 2 and 3, based upon
a combined total parking availability of 253
spaces.
4) Personal Services are not approved by this
permit and shall require a separate Conditional
Use Permit application on an individual basis-
5) Approval shall expire, unless extended by the
Planning Commission, if approved use has not
commenced within 24 months from the date of
approval.
6) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all other sections of the
Development Code, applicable City Ordinances,
or the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
7) 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-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 91-26 - CAPELLINO AND ASSOCIATES
January 8, 1992
Page 4
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH 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 Co-~ission held
on the 8th day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING CO~IISSION
HOTEL PROJECT
ROCHESTER AT FOOTHILL BLVD.
ENCLOSED LIST OF
RESIDENTS LETTERS
SUPPORTING HOTEL PROJECT
SUBMITTED BY RICHARD DAHL, CONSULTANT
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST W]ESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS ./ ~
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
~ \
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SVPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
nc!rth east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST ~ESTERN ROYAL HOTEL ANI) RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Btvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMQNGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
~TREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPURT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
'~"TcRE~T ADDRES~ /
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
·/2,~Z-L5 ~/~,~d/ ~ >/
sTrEET ADp~ESS ~,/
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST JfESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Bird. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill B!vd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
/r~ m,/~' C/-/;'V r' [ ~ r'
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF E~UPPORT
TO .THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd, and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
· - .~. ,
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
S ADDRESS J/'
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
/r,r '/
STREET KDDRESS ' '~>3 ~ '
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREE~ ~DDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
Thi's letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
· , :~i '>., . · ' :', ',
, LETTER OF SUPPORT
.="TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPc'RT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be lo'Tated
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET' ADDRE S ' "'
S
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
,~.TO.THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
/ J
STREET gPRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT'to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed prc/ject.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be :ocated
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
! I ',
/,¢,o J--neF r:' 0 RD
STREET ADDRESS
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL
LETTER OF SUPPORT
TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA:
This letter represents our SUPPORT for the proposed
BEST WESTERN ROYAL HOTEL AND RESTAURANT to be located
north east corner of Foothill Blvd. and Rochester Street.
Our home is within 600 feet of the proposed project.
S~RE.ET ADDR SS ' '[/~. ~1~
E
"REvCIVE} _
' !TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONC~
~LANNING biVlS~ON
JAN 0 8
Su~anne C~itiea
Larry McNiel
John Melcher
Peter Tolstoy
Wendy Vallette
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cormnission and Staff
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Staff and Cormnission members,
We the undersigned residents of the 11900 and 12000 blocks of Chervil
Street, in reference to the proposed development of a 148-room hotel and
two dining establishments and two office k~ildings tentatively totalling
146,351 square feet on the approximately 8.32 acres at the northeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (APN: 227-151-18 and
31) hereby register our concerns regarding the following issues:
* The need for adequate buffering between the project site and the
existing residential neighborbDod to the project slte's immediate north;
* The level (i.e. helgbt) to ~ich the propcsed structures will be built
and the degree to which this will intrude upon the privacy of those
residing on the south side of Chervil St.;
* The degree to which the proposed development will result in an
increased nc.ise level in the general area;
* The potential placement of a service road, alleyway or access corridor
behind (i.e., north of) the stzuctures which will subject nearby
residents to koth noise and exhaust fumes from idling delivery vehicles;
* The potential extension of Fennel Ct. south to Foothill Blvd. and the
extent te which this additional ingress to the. Rochester trect will
result in increased traffic and traffic hazards to our residential
neighborhood;
* The increased traffic flow into our residential neigh]x,rhcod that in
any case will inevitably result from the proposed development and the
increased hazard this represents;
* The inexactitude in the project descriptlon's reference to a "hotel",
which, under greater scrutiny, could be more accurately described as a
"motel";
* The potential that either the City or the project developer or both
will fail to live up to earlier provided assurances that the project
will proceed only in accordance with "the~ highest dev61opment
standards";
* The potential for an unregulated "hotel" or "motel" complex to decline
into a magnet for a host of illicit activities, including prostitution
and drug dealing, all of which represent a threat to the health and
safety of nearby residents;
* The loss of the existing southward panorama which includes historic
Route 66, the Abagozotti vineyards and the more distant Cleveland
National Forest;
* The discrepancy between the site's long standing and current zoning
for office-professional use and the proposed use, which appears to be
mainly commercial in nature;
* The general incompatibility of the planned usage on the site and the
already existing residential proF=erty to tke north; and
* Any and all incompatibilities not now foreseen nor hereiD listed but
which may at some future date become evident.
As citizens of Rancko Cuc~monga, we trust that you will be mindful of
cur legit]mate concerns as pertain to the environment in which we live
and are raising cur families, and will use youz' position of public trust
and authority to ensure our full rights under the law.
ResFectfully submitted
/ 6'r~,~,~1 ' :,~ , ,~ : .... -, ,,
~..~..,,.,. :.. ,~ ': ,-,,,
.::.~ i( 2.7 '~~ ~
~ ~. "'~ ~..... ( ....-. , , ....~ .:~ .,<.,.. , :,., ~
"~ t j ~ ~'~ L ,-'~ ,- ~' i 5,7` ~' '>
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-13 -
HWANG - The development of a 148-room hotel totaling 92,351
square feet and a master plan proposing the development of
two restaurants totaling 11,000 square feet, and two office
buildings totaling 43,000 square feet on 8.32 acres of land
in the Office District (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 31.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of the concept Master
Plan, Detailed Site Plan, Grading Plan, Landscape Plan, building
elevations and issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration.
B. Surroundin~ Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single family residential; Low residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
South - Single family residential, vacant; Industrial Park
District (Subare 7) Industrial Area Specific Plan
East - Utility corridor, flood control channels Flood Control
West - Vacant; MOC District (Mixed Uses, Commercial, Office,
Residential) Tetra Vista CoMity Plan
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Office
North - Low Residential
South - Industrial Park
East - Flood Control/Utility Corridor
West - Medium Residential
D. Site Characteristics: The project site is currently vacant and
vegetation consists of native grass and weeds. The grade is
relatively flat with the slope ranging from approximately 1 to 2
percent fr~n north to south- Street improvements have recently
been completed at the adjacent intersection providing both an
expanded right-of-way and a signalized intersection-
ITEM L
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 2
E- Parking Calculations:
Number of Number of
Building Square Parking Spaces Spaces
Number Foota~e Ratio Required · Provided
Hotel 1/Unit 148 148
2/Mgr. 2 2
Restaurant 5,000 1/100 50 50
Restaurant 6,000 1/100 60 60
Office 43,000 1/250 172 172
432 432
F. Applicable Regulations: Hotel uses are permitted within the Office
District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan ( Subarea 4 )
subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit · The height
limitation is 40 feet; greater than 40 feet may be approved through
a Conditional Use Permit. The building is approximately 42 feet in
height (60 feet on tower).
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The application proposes the development of a four-story
148-room hotel totaling 92,351 square feet. The hotel building
itself contains neither a restaurant nor bar; however, it does
contain a pantry to be used for room service · There is a
conference room located on the first floor that may be used by
either patrons of the hotel or rented out for business or community
meetings ·
B. Design Review Committee: On April 4, 1991, the Design Review
Committee (Melcher, Vallette, Kroutil) reviewed the project but did
not recommend approval because of concerns regarding the following
design and site planning issues:
1. The location of the Phase I restaurant is acceptable as it
complies with current development standards. However, since
the activity center development standards for the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan "Missing Link" will likely be in place
prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant should
provide an alternate site design for the restaurant that shows
compliance with possible development standards-
2. Consider deleting designs of the Phase I restaurant until such
time a tenant is determined and specific design elements can
be established-
3 · Redesign the internal circulation along the major drive
aisle. This should include relocating parking spaces that
back up into the drive aisle and locating the drive aisle
further south so that parking spaces to be provided for the
office building can be located directly south of the
buildings ·
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 3
4. The location of the hotel is acceptable; however, the building
design should be revised. Provide for changes in building
mass through movement in the walls. This can be accomplished
by terracing the building plane and through the addition of
balconies and architectural projections.
5- Reduce width of the drive approached from 50 feet to 35 feet.
6. Redesign the northwest corner of the site to reduce the amount
of paving and minimize circulation conflicts-
7. Parking lot landscape fingers should be provided to break up
long uninterrupted rows of parking spaces-
The applicant revised the project based upon Committee
recommendation and submitted for additional review. On October 3,
1991, the Design Review Committee (Chitiea, McNiel, Kroutil)
reviewed the project and recommended approval with the following
modifications:
1. Provide additional landscape fingers to breakup long
uninterrupted rows of parking spaces.
2. Expand the use of decorative paving (below the porte cochere)
on both the handicapped ramp and adjacent parking spaces.
3. Decorative paving should be revised as follows:
a- Use interlocking pavers along all pedestrian circulation
paths and at both driveways.
b. Use texturized paving along the main drive aisle. The
texturized paving should include an exposed large
aggregate finish bordered by a colored concrete band.
4- The restaurant pad at the corner of Foothill and Rochester
should be relocated to the minimum building setback of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Activity Center- Identify a
logical phasing line for a boundary to the hardscape and
landscape improvements installed at this location.
5. Provide additional architectural elements to breakup large
expanses of stucco on all elevations.
6- Provide either a cornice or corbel below all balcony
projections to present the appearance of physical support.
7. Provide arched openings in the dome element-
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 4
8- Provide glass in the openings in the dome.
9. Provide an additional reveal line below the arched cornice at
the top of the dome.
10. The columns above the first floor arcade should tie into the
exterior walls of the first floor, either extend the columns
to the ground or to the separation walls between the private
balconies-
11. Provide a base element to the columns of the porte cochere-
12. Provide a decorative S-curve wrought iron at all balconies.
The applicant submitted revised exhibits to reflect recommendations
of the Design Review Comittee. The revisions generally address
the Committee's concerns; however, specific conditions have been
added where it was felt further clarification was necessary.
C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee
reviewed the project on April 3 and October 2, 1991, and determined
that with the conditions of approval, the project is consistent
with all applicable standards and conditions.
D. Environmental Assessment: The applicant completed Part I of the
Initial Study- Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study
and the Environmental Checklist and found that the project could
have significant adverse environmental impacts in terms of traffic,
noise, light and glare, and hydrology. However, staff has
determined that the project will not have a significant adverse
effect because of the mitigation measures included in the project
design and conditions of approval-
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following
findings before approving this application:
A. That the proposed project is in accordance with the General Plan,
the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan subarea in which the project is
located; and
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. The proposed project complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 5
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 a 300-foot
radius of the project site as well as all the property owners within the
"Rochester Tract" between Foothill and Church Street. A neighborhood
meeting was conducted by the applicant on October 23, 1991, which
several residents attended-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit
89-13 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and
issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration-
BB:TG:js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Detailed Site Plan/Master Plan
Exhibit "B" - Grading Plan
Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "E" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "F" - Lighting Plan
Exhibit "G" - Truck Circulation Plan
Resolution of Approval
=, !..-=...,.= .............. ,..i- =: EXHiBiT: ~- SCALE:
PLANI~'NG--:DMSION ~, ~V~
~ .-:. ....................%...i , !~XHIBIT: SCALi:-:
i . .-! :"
t I ~0
~l ~ijliil .
SECO~ FLOOR PLAN
~/~..,'.,* ~, _
- +.+.
................ ~E: ~( ~ N =
p~~'NG-. :D~SION t, ,,
; ::' :~."": ........... "E' ~ E~~: SCALE: ~ . ~ ~=
; .... ~:..: : ,
FOURTH FLOOR Pt. AN
~ I
/,/,- ....... .~
:.~ ~.-:',.... ........... :..,:. :: E~ff: C L: '
: ..... A E ,
~" A L~
~ _,~ TYPICAL
-~ , ROOM LAY~T~
' '1 r '
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO- 89-13, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 148-ROOM HOTEL
TOTALING 92,351 SQUARE FEET AND A MASTER PLAN PROPOSING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO RESTAURANTS TOTALING 11,000 SQUARE
FEET AND TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 43,000 SQUARE FEET
ON 8-32 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE IN THE OFFICE
DISTRICT (SUBAREA 4) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC
PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-
151-18 AND 31-
A. Recitals.
(i) Jung Hwang has filed an application for the issuance of the
Conditional Use Permit No. 89-13 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 8th 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 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
northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue with a street
frontage of approximately 906 feet along Foothill Boulevard and a street
frontage of approximately 399 feet along Rochester Avenue; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 2
(b) The property to the north contains a tract of single
family homes, the property to the south contains a single family home and
vacant land, the property to the east is a Southern California Edison right-
of-way, and the property to the west is vacant; and
(c) The development of a hotel and the associated restaurant
and office master plan is permitted under the provisions of the Office
District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan-
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 Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan Subarea 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 of the Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard 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
l, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference-
Planning Division
The Master Plan is approved in concept only and
future development for each building within Phase II
shall be subject to the Development/Design Review
process for Planning Commission approval.
2) Modifications to the Master Plan shall be subject to
Planning Commission review and approval.
3) This approval includes the development of Phase I of
the project which encompasses the hotel building and
related parking and access, as shown on the approved
site plan-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO-
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 3
4) Roof drains and downspouts shall not be located on
the building exterior.
5) All pedestrian and plaza furniture shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Planner prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6) Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided in
accordance with City Council Ordinance No. 480-
Final design and location of the facilities shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits-
7) All exterior lighting, including wall mounted lights,
shall be properly designed to prevent glare onto
adjoining single family residential properties-
8) Interlocking pavers shall be provided at both
driveways, consistent with those used along
pedestrian circulation paths, to the satisfaction of
the City Planner- Material samples shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior
to issuance of building permits-
9) Perimeter walls shall be constructed along the north
and east property lines and shall include a
decorative finish and cap. The wall design shall be
subject to City Planner review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits- The perimeter wall
around the entire north and east property lines shall
be built with Phase 1-
10) All landscape and hardscape features proposed along
Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue shall be in
conformance with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
design guidelines- The proposed landscaping shall be
shown on the Landscape and Irrigation Plan and shall
be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to issuance of building permits- These plans shall
be coordinated with the Street Improvement Landscape
Plan for design consistency-
11) All ground-mounted equipment 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 issuance of
building permits.
pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 4
12) Those areas left undeveloped (Phase II) shall be
provided 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 and shall be
subject to City Planner review and approval prior to
issuance of building permits-
13) Tree maintenance criteria to encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species
shall be developed and submitted for City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
En~ineerin~ Division
1) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications
and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on
the project side of Rochester Avenue shall be
undergrounded from the first pole on the south side
of Foothill Boulevard to the first pole offsite north
of the north project boundary, prior to public
improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs
first. The developer may request a reimbursement
agreement to recover one-half of the City adopted
cost for undergrounding from future development as it
occurs on the opposite side of the street.
2) There shall be no occupancy released until the Day
Creek Channel (Phase III B) mainline channel and the
storm drain in Foothill Boulevard are operationally
complete.
3) Permits for Foothill Boulevard street improvements
shall not be issued until the storm drain
improvements are completed by the City or this
development-
4) All public improvements shall be completed with Phase
I of the project.
5) Install a local storm drain in Chervil Street from
the west side of Fennel Street to the future City
storm drain in Hyssop Street, including adequate
catch basin capacity as determined by the final
drainage study to minimize Q100 flows in Chervil
Street from entering Fennel Street-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 4
13 ) Tree maintenance criteria to encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species
shall be developed and submitted for City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
14) The site plan and landscape plan shall be revised to
meet all Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
requirements as contained in Ordinance 13. The
Landscape Plan shall be subject to review and
approval by the Fire District to ensure that tree
plantinge will not interfere with apparatus
accessibility.
Enqineerinq Division
1) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications
and electrical, except for the 66 KV electrical) on
the project side of Rochester Avenue shall be
undergrounded from the first pole on the south side
of Foothill Boulevard to the first pole off-site
north of the north project boundary, prior to public
improvement acceptante or occupancy, whichever occurs
first. The developer may request a reimbursement
agreement to recover one-half of the City adopted
cost for undergrounding from future development as it
occurs on the opposite side of the street.
2) There shall be no occupancy released until the Day
Creek Channel (Phase III B) mainline channel and the
storm drain in Foothill Boulevard are operationally
complete.
3 ) Permits for Foothill Boulevard street improvements
shall not be issued until the storm drain
improvements are completed by the City or this
development.
4) All public improvements shall be completed with Phase
I of the project.
5) Install a local storm drain in Chervil Street from
the west side of Fennel Street to the future City
storm drain in Hyssop Street, including adequate
catch basin capacity as determined by the final
drainage study to minimize Q100 flows in Chervil
Street from entering Fennel Street.
6 ) Construc.t a reduced radius cul-de-sac within the
existing Fennel Street right-of-way, per City
Standard No. 206. Reconstruct the two existing drive
approaches and provide undersidewalk drains to the
project site.
L
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 5
6) Construct a reduced radius cul-de-sac within the
existing Fennel Street right-of-way, per City
Standard No. 206- Reconstruct the two existing drive
approaches and provide undersidewalk drains to the
project site-
7) Provide a Drainage Acceptance Agreement for the
public drainage from Fennel Street to the project
site.
8) Foothill Boulevard shall be constructed as follows,
subject to additions by and approval of Caltrans:
a. Full improvements on the north side from the end
of the Day Creek Channel project street
improvements (approximately 44 feet east of the
east property line) to Rochester Avenue including
a 425-foot right turn lane with a 90-foot
transition for the Rochester intersection and a
230-foot right turn lane (90-foot transition) for
the driveway;
b. A landscaped median from Rochester Avenue to the
centerline of Day Creek Channel with left turn
lanes to the satisfaction of the City Traffic
Engineer;
c. Thirty-two feet of pavement on the south side of
the median from Rochester Avenue to meet the Day
Creek Channel street improvements;
d. A catch basin at the low point on the north side
of Foothill Boulevard, sized per the final
drainage study, with a lateral to the manhole
constructed with the Foothill Boulevard Storm
Drain (Day Creek Channel project);
e. A 24-inch lateral to the southside of Foothill
Boulevard with an interim inlet facility to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans;
f. Public sidewalk and landscaping on the north side
of Foothill Boulevard from Rochester Avenue to
the centerline of Day Creek Channel; and
g. The developer shall be eligible for fee credits
against and reimbursement for costs in excess of
the fee amount from the Transportation
Development Fee for any portion of the backbone
system he constructs, in conformance with City
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 6
Policy. The developer may request a
reimbursement agreement for additional permanent
improvements south of the centerline, including
half of the landscaped median costs, from future
development as it occurs on the south side of the
street-
9) Right-of-way shall be obtained from Southern
California Edison for parkway improvements along the
right turn lane for the project driveway on Foothill
Boulevard (13 feet measured from curb)-
10) Pachester Avenue shall be constructed as follows:
a. Full improvements on the east side, including a
220-foot right turn lane (60 foot transition) for
the driveway;
b. Additional pavement west of the centerline,
sufficient to provide a continuous left turn lane
plus one through lane, along the project frontage
from Foothill Boulevard to a point north of the
driveway centerline sufficient to provide left
turn stacking and deceleration to the
satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer, with a
10:1 taper thereafter to meet existing pavement;
and
c. The developer may request a reimbursement
agreement for permanent improvements west of the
centerline from future development as it .occurs
on the west side of the street-
Driveways shall conform to City Standard No. 306-
The 35-foot minimum width shall extend 40 feet back
from the face of curb for the through lane before
narrowing to accommodate truck turns.
~2) Right-of-way lines shall parallel the right turn
lane curb lines to provide a minimum parkway width
of:
a- Thirteen feet on Foothill Boulevard; and
b. Seven feet on Rochester Avenue.
13) The Rochester Avenue street tree concept shall be
consistent with the beautification project north of
the project site, as approved by the City Engineer.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 89-13 - HWANG
January 8, 1992
Page 7
14) Any special features within the public right-of-way,
such as pavers in Foothill Boulevard, shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
15) The design of the Foothill Boulevard median, as shown
on the plans, is not approved- The final design
shall be approved by the City Engineer-
16) Install a traffic signal at the Foothill Boulevard
median break. If Caltrans refuses to allow the
installation at this time, the developer shall pay an
in-lieu fee for half the cost of a future traffic
signal installation- The developer may request
Caltrans reimbursement and/or a reimbursement
agreement to recover half the costs not covered by
Caltrans from future development as it occurs on the
south side of the street.
6- The Secretary to this Comatission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH 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 8th Day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Those items ch~ are ~ns of ~val.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time Llmlte
/ 1. 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 shell be approved prior to I /
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of
/ 4. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be cornrnenced / / -
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Ranche Cucarnonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance o!
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shell cornply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shell be formed by the Distrtct and the developer
by the time recordatlon of the final map occurs.
5. Prior to recordatlon of the final map or the issuance ol building permits, whichever comes / /
first, the applicant shell consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Melk>-Roos
Community Facilities District lot the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, ff any school district has previously established such a Community
Fadlities District, the applicant shell, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordatlon of the final map
or the issuance o! building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school
district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilities 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 ! of' 12
This condition shall be waned it the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
impacts as a result of this project.
/ 6. Prior TO recordation of the final map or prior to issuance ol I:.jilding permits when no map is / /
involved, wnt~en certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be availal}le to serve the proposed project shall be sul~mitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued I~y the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in ffe case of sulxlivision or prior to issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential proiects.
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
Development Code regulations, and
Specific Plan.
2: ......LJI
J 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.
Y 3. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and __J---J--
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be /_._J
submitted for City Planner review and apl;xoval prior to issuance of building permits.
/ 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ----/ J ·
consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case ol a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
Y 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections o! the Development ---/ /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and al:q)licabie Community Plans or Specilic
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and appmved by the City Planner and -.--/ J -
Sheriffs Department (989-6611 ) p~tor 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 unitsJ /
with all receptacles shielded from publio view.
,// 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City starKlards. The final design, locations, ----/ /
and the nunter of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and ap0roval
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transtormers, AC condensers,' etc., Shall /----J--
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, herruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction o! the City
Planner.
SC- 2/9 ! 2 o1'
11. Street nams shall ~ submffi~ for C~y Planner review a~ approval in a~rda~e w~h ~
the a~ ~reet Nami~ Pol~y pr~r to ~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 iliuminruSh.
13. A detailed plan ind~mi~ trail w~ths, ~imm s~pes, phys~al ~ns, fendS, a~ J
we~ ~mml, in a~a~e wRh Ci~ Mmer Trail draings, shall ~ ~bm~ for C~y
Planner m~ a~ a~mval p~rto ~val a~ mm~m~n of the Final Tra~ Map a~ p~r
to ~mval of street improvemere a~ gr~l~ ~ans. Deve~r shall u~r~e
all tmi~, i~ding fe~ing and dmina~ ~v~s, in ~n~bn wRh mint improvements.
14. The ~venants, ~~ a~ Remd~ns (CC&Rs) s~ ~t ~oh~ t~ ke~ of ~uine
animls where zoni~ r~uiremms forthe keep~ of ~ animls have b~n met. I~i~dual
~t ownera in su~Nis~ns shall have the o~n ol k~ sa~ animl w~m t~ n~essRy
of ~ealing to ~a~s of dirffiors or ~m~wnem' as~b~ for amndmms to the
CC&Rs.
15. ~e ~venams, ~ions, a~ Re~ns (CC&Rs) a~ Ad~es of I~ration of the
Hom~wners' As~imbn am su~ to t~ ~v/of t~ Pi~i~ a~ E~ineeri~
DWisbns and t~ C~ A~o~y. They shall ~ r~ ~nm~emly dh t~ R~I M~ or
p~r to the issua~e of ~i~i~ ~s, whoever ~m tim. A r~ ~Y shall
pmv~ed to t~ CiW Engi~er.
16. Nlpa~ays, o~nare~,a~~sMII ~~m~mimain~ ~t~prope~
ow~r, ~m~m' as~im~n, or ot~r ma~ a~t~M to t~ C~. Pmf of this
land~ maimena~e sMII N mb~ for C~ Plan~r a~ C~ E~i~er mviw
~mval p~r to ~sua~ of buiMi~ ~.
17. ~lar ~ess easemems sMII ~ ~~ for tN ~ of a~mi~ thin e~h ~t or
~elli~ unit shall have the ~ t0 r~Ne ~nl~M ~ ~m ~s or unRs for use of
a ~lar ene~ system. ~e easerams my ~ ~mai~ in a ~im~n of Rest~ns for
t~ su~ivis~n wh~h sMII N m~ffi~ ~m~ ~ m r~~n of tN final m~ or
issuame of ~s, wh~mer ~ms f~. h erarams mall ~h~ ~e Mining of
shins by v~em~n, m~ums, f~r~ or a~ omr ~, ex~ for mil~ wires a~
similr ~s, ~muam to ~vemm ~ ~n 17.~.~2.
18. The ~j~ ~mai~ a ~s~ Hi~o~ ~m~. ~ s~e sMII
maimai~d in ~ffia~e web tM Himo~ La~ Aeem~ Pete
. Any fun~r ~ff~m to tN see i~ ~ ~ lime~ to, e~e~r aRerat~ a~or
ime~r a~erat~ wh~ ~ tN e~e~r of t~ ~i~iV or t~um, mmv~ of i~ma~
trees, ~mlR~n, re~n, r~~n of ~i~ or ~m~Ur., or ~es to the s~e
s~ll rlim a ~ff~n t ~ H/to~ ~Mm~ ARerain Pe~ ~bj~ to Histodc
Prese~m~n Comiss~n r~e aM ~val.
C. Building iign
1. An a~emtNe e~ symem · r~imd to ~vl ~mm~ ~t wmer for all ~elli~ un~s
a~ for ~ati~ a~ ~im~ ~1 M ~, unlss otNr aCeroe eM~ syme~ are
dem~tr~ to ~ of ~iva~m ~ ~ eff~. NI ~m~ ~m i~al~ m the
time of inRil devemm s~ll ~ ~~m~ ~ ~ ~mi~. ~tmls s~ll
i~d~ in t~ ~i~i~ ~a~ a~ s~ll ~ ~m~ for CRy Ran~r rev~ a~ ~mval
p~r to t~ ~sua~e of ~i~i~ ~s.
2. All ~elli~s shall have t~ front, sl a~ rear eMvat~ns u~r~ w~h amh~ural
tramram, detaili~ a~ imreas~ ~li~men of ~d~ tremmm ~ffi~ to C~ Planner
rev~ a~ ~mval pdor to ~sua~ of ~i~i~ ~Rs.
~ - 2/9s 3 or z2
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. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or ---/ J
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Acces~ (Indicate dills on building plans)
f 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall / /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
/"/ 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be / J
provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
/ 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, .J ·
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City starKlards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in .J J--
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 Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval priorto issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly rnalntalned landscape areas, refer to Section N,}
1 A detailed landscal)e and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model hOme landscap- ---/ J
I
ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed andscape
architect and submitted for City RanMr review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot sulxlivislon.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a cortstruction barrier ---/ ·
in accordance with the Mu nicipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the afoodst's
recomrnendatibns regarding preservation, transplanting and trimming methods.
3. Aminirnumof treesPergrossacre,conlyiseCI of the f°ll°wing sLzes' shall be provided J / '
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 - /---J
24-inch box or larger.
5. W'Rhin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three / /w-.
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solsr noon on August 21.
SC - 2/9 1 4 of 12
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
7. Aiiprivateslopebanks5feetorlessinverticalheightandofS: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.
8. AIIprivateslopesinexcessof5feet,butlessthan8 feet invertical height and of 2:l orgreater I /
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 scl. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shell also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
plamed 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 contim- / /
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
shell be conducted by the Ranning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
10. For rnulti-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon- / /
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All lartdscapKI 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 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 requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
12. The final design ol the perimeter perkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be / ./
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coordinated Ior 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- .-/ /
14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on__/ /
the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
15. All walis shall be provlded with decorative treatment. If iocated tnpublio maintenance areas, _._/
the design shall be coordinated wire the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and / / .
approval prior to issuance of building permits. 'These criteria shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
17. Landscaping and irrigation shall 'be designed to conserve water through the principles of ---J /
Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamenga Municipal Code.
SC - 2/9 1 5 of 12
F. Signs
J 1. Thesignsindicatedonthesubrni~edplansareconceptualonlYandnotaPartofthisaPPr°val' / /
Any signs proposed for this development shall cornl~ly with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
Y2. A Uniform Sign Program fo? 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 J /
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 / /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the J /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuse the level of interior noise
attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided,
and if 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. EmergencysecondaryaccessshallbeprovldedinaccordancewithRanc, hoCucam°ngaFire / /
Protection District Sandam.
/"2. Ernergencyaccessshailbeprovlded, rnaintenancefreeandclaar, a minirnumof26feetwide / ./
at all times dudng construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be /----/
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Rre Protection District that temlx}rary water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
/" 4. The applicant shah contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and / J .
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for rnae boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all ---j /-
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Semardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Otliclal prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building parrnits.
SC - 2/91 6 of 12
~O~M~N~ ~ ~ ~O~OWIN~ ~ON~TION~
I. S~e ~ve~ent
/ 1. ~e ~~ shall ~y w~h the liest a~pt~ UnHo~ Bui~i~ C~, Un~o~ M~hani- / /
cal ~e, UnHo~ P~i~ ~, Nailhal Elffi~ ~e, a~ all ot~r a~li~ ~des,
ordinates, a~ r~lat~ns in eff~ i t~ ti~ of ~a~ of reltNe ~s. Please
~ma~ the Bui~i~ a~ Safe~ D~is~n for ~es of t~ ~e ~n O~ina~e a~
~l~e handle.
2. P~r to ~sua~ of ~i~i~ ~s for a n~ r.i~l ~elli~ unR(s) or mawr a~R~n / / -
to ex~ti~ uriC(s), t~ ~m ~all pay ~ve~mnt f~s m t~ emli~ rote. ~ fees
may i~e, ~ am ~t limR~to: C~ ~t~n F., Pare FH, Drain~e Fee, Symems
~ve~em Fee, Pe~R a~ P~ Ch~i~ FHs, a~ ~1 Fees.
3. P~r to ima~ of ~i~i~ ~Rs for a ~ ~mll or i~mdal ~vemm or / /
a~n to an eximi~ deve~pmm, t~ ~m s~ll Hy ~vemm fees ~ the
e~lis~d rme. ~h fees my i~e, ~ ~e ~t li~ to: Syme~ Devemnt Fee,
Drainage Fee, ~ol Fees, Pe~ a~ Pin Ch~ Fees.
~ 4. Street a~resses shall ~ pm~ by t~ ~i~i~ ~, ~ertra~Hml ~ r~ffiat~n
a~ p~r to imams of ~i~i~ ~.
J. Exlmlng ~um
1. Prov~e ~liame w~h t~ Unffo~ ~i~i~ ~ for ~e ~ li~ clara~es / /
~d~ use, area, ~ ~m-resi~Ne~. of ex~i~ ~i~s.
2. ~imi~ ~i~in~ s~ll ~ ~e to ~ ~ ~ff~ ~i~i~ a~ zoni~ r~ult~ for / /
t~ ime~ use or t~ ~i~i~ shall ~ ~ml~.
3. Ex~i~ s~ di~sal fadlRm s~l ~ remv~, f~ a~or ~ to ~y with the J /
Unffo~ P~mi~ ~ a~ Un~o~ ~i~ ~e.
4. U~mu~ om~e ~il~m am to N ~ a~ s~ on ~i~ ~s mm~ for / / .
K. GrMIng
/ 1. Gradi~ of t~ ~ ~ ell M ~ m~ wNh t~ Un~ ~i~i~ ~, C~ J J
Grai~ Sam, aM ~~ gr~ ~ms. ~ li~l g~ ~n s~ll ~ in
su~ii ~om~ dh t~ mv~ ~a~ ~.
/ 2. A ~iis r~ S~ ~ ~~ ~ a ~alif~ e~r I~ ~ t~ Stme of California to J~--
~do~ ~ ~m.
/ 3. ~e ~vemm · ~ wRhin t~ ~ em~n ~ ~m; a ~il D~me J /
Pe~ · rlirH. Pim ~m~ San ~~ ~ ~amm of ~Rure ~ (714)
~7-2111 for ~ ~tln. ~m~n of m~ ~i s~ M ~mt~ to t~ CRy
~r m t~ ~a~ of ~h grai~ H~R.
/ 4. A ~~1 r~d s~ll ~ ~r~ ~ a qual~ e~r or g~m a~ ~mm~ at J /
t~ tim of ~l~n for grai~ ~an c~.
/ 5. ~efi~lgrai~ns~all~~t~a~~v~rtoma~of~i~i~Rs' / /~
6. As a custom-lot sulxlivislon, the following requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site ] /
drainage facilities necessary for alewatering all parcels to the satistactlon of the Building
and Safety Division pdorto final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage wafer that are conducted onto / / -
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatedng and protecting the subdivided
properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety /. /
Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or cornposite basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses / /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon conl}letlon of grading or soma other
aitemative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 1 of the Development Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (714) i89-1862, 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. Private easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets ] /
(measured from Street centerline):
total feet on
total leet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made J /
for all private streets or drives.
4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following Streets: J .J
5. Reciprocal 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 permits, where no map is involved. L. ~ ~
SC - 2/9 ! 8 o~ 12
· 6. private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be Provlded andshallbe delineated / /
or noted on the final map.
7. The final map shall clearly delineate a I O-foot minimum building restriction area on the __ /
neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language:
"/A/lie hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the fight to prohibit the
construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated
on the map as building restriction areas."
A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the
CC&R's.
/ 8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shell be quitclaimed or delineated on / /~
the final map.
Z 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way J /
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property.
Z 10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum / /
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. ff curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement Shall be provided.
11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests / /
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements.
Such agreement shall.provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security
for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developer's cost. The miser shall have
been approved by the City prior to cornrnencemont ol the appraisal.
M. Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, ___/ .J
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the I~ans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to
City Standards. Interior street iml:movements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and
gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A rninimurn of 26- foot wide pavement, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be / J
constructed for all half-section streets.
/" 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / /
/- //
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and ove~ays will be determined cludng plan check. (c) If so marked, side-
/ 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 posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction ot the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or pdvate street improve-
ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits. whichever occurs
first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public fight-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing. and interconnect conduit / /
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed on any new construction or reconstruction / /
of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for Mure traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: "/
(1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specil~ by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
/ /
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all tour comers of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / /
adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may be Sired. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of gracing and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construcllon to the satlslaclion of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage f'-~vws shall not cross sidewaks. Under sidewalk drains shall be /-.-J
installed to City Standards, except ~or single family lots.
h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the CIty Engineer. / /
i. StreetnamesshallbeappmvedbytheCitYPlannerlxlortosul3mittalf°r~rstPiancheck' / / "
5. Street imlxovement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for /
review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the pri-
vete streets. fees shall be paid and conetn~ion permits Shall be oMained from the City
Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required.
6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gatlon size or larger. shall be installed per City Standards in / / .*
accordance with ,the City's street tree program.
SC - 2/91 lOof 12
//7. Inlerse~ion line ot s~e des~ sh~ll ~ review~ by lhe C~ E~ineer tor conlor~n~ w~h
. e~pted ~1~. / /
i /
s 8. On ~ll~or or 18r~er ~reets, lines ol s~ ~hall ~ plo~ lor ml pro]~ ime~e~ion$, --
~ i~ludi~ d~ays. Walls, s~ns, a~ s~s shall ~ ~at~ outs~e the lines of s~ht.
La~i~ a~ other o~tm~ns w~hin the lines of sight shall ~ ~rov~ by the C~y
E~ineer.
b. L~I res~emial ~reet imem~ shall have t~ir ~t~e~il~y improve, u~al~ by .J /
mvi~ the 2 +/- cb~m street trees on each s~e ~ay from the mmet a~ plac~ in a street
tree e~emm.
/ ..
, Ape ' s II ~ o ~i~mm CALTRANS for ~ w~hin the lol~wing ~f-way:
9. All ~blic i~mvemms on the tol~i~ struts shall ~ o~ral~l~ ~te p~or to the / /
issua~e of bui~i~
N. Pt~bllc Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irri~ation plans per Er~ineering Public Works Standards / /
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval p~or to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways,
medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Y 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting /
! Districtsshallbe filedwith the City Engineer priortofinalrnapappmvalor issuance of buik:ling
! permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shell be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shell be continuously maintained by the J /
developer until accepted by the C,,ity.
/~//4. Parkway landscaping on the following mr t(s) shell conform to ' / /
O. D~'alnage and Flood ~rol
i 1. The project (of portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood / /
protection meamres shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engkller.
2. It shall be the developers rasix)nsibility to have the current FIRM Zone J .J
designation removed from the project area. The deveiopar's engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydmiogic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOM R) shell be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs tirm. 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 shell 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 - t=/gl 11 of t=
, 4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required lor work within its right-ol-way.
/ /
// 5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. / /
J 6. Pubtic 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 TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
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 Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
//'/ 1. 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 issuance of building perTnits, whichever occurs tirst, for:.
3. Prior to approval of the final map a depose shall be posted with the City covering the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under AssessmeN District
among the newly created parcels.
4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map apl;xoval or prior to building permit issuance ff
no map is involved.
5. Permits shall be obtained from the tollowing agencies for work within their right-of-way:
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or Iorm the Law Enforcement Community
Fadlities District shall he filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance ot building parrnits, whichever _oc~_jrs first. Formation costs shall be berne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient irnl:tovement plans shall be com-
pleted 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 appmved tentalive map.
SC - 2/91 12 of l:l
Development Standards Comparison (LM & M Zones - Basic Standards)
Etiwanda S.P. Development Code Victoria Terra Vista
LM M LM M LM M LM M
Lot Area:
minimum average 10,000 10,000 6,000 N/R 5,600 4,000 5,600 4,000
(in square feet)
minimum 7,200 7,200 5,000 10,000 5,000 3,600 5,000 3,600
(in square feet)
Lot Dimensions:
minimum depth 100' 100' 90' 100' 90' N/R N/R N/R
minimum width 60' 60' 50' avg. 80' 50' N/R 60' N/R
(at required from
setback)
minimum frontage 40' 40' 30' 60' N/R N/R 20' 20'
(at front p.I.)
Setbacks:
front (from curb 25' 25' 32' avg. 37' avg. 10' 10' 20' 20'
unless noted) (from p/I) i(from p/I) (from p/I) (from p/I)
side (street) 15' 25' 22' 27' 17' 17' 5' 5'
(from curb unless noted) (from p/I):(from p/I) (from p/I) (from p/I)
side 15' total 15' total 5./10' 10' 5./10' 5' 5'/10' 5'/10'
rear 20' 20' 15' 10' 15' 10' 15' 15'
Lot Coverage: 40% 40% ,50% 60% ,50% Per req. 60% Per req.
(maximum %) setbacks! setbacks
Straetside landscaping: Required Required N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R
Height Limitations: 35' 35' 35' 35" 35" 35" 35" 35'
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
89-03 - U.S- HOME CORPORATION - 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-
On December 17, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this item to
allow further discussion on the proposed amendments- Attached for your
consideration is the previous Staff Report and the Resolution of
Approval.
RECOMMENDATION: After considering all public testimony, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 and issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
BB:SH:mlg
Attachments: Staff Report (Dated December 11, 1991)
Planning Commission Resolution of Approval
Draft City Council Ordinance
ITEM M
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i~:'(~'g~2~'
STAFF REPORT
DATE = December I 1, 199 1
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~nission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
89-03 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION - 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.
Related File: Environmental Assessment and Vesting Tentative
Tract 14211.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of these amendments is to allow -conventional"
single family detached residential development with lot sizes comparable
to the Low Residential zone of the Development Code within the Low
Medium and Medium Residential zones of the Etiwanda Specific Plan-
The applicant (U.S- Home Corporation) formally submitted this
application concurrently with their application for Vesting Tentative
Tract 14211. It has been the intent of staff to process this request
concurrently with the proposed proJect~ hence, the application has never
been reviewed by the Planning Commission since the tentative map
application was just recently deemed complete.
On November 20, 1991, the City Council recommended that all of the
property owned by U-S. Home Corporation be designated Low-Medium
Residential, hence, making parts 1 and 3 from the amendment description
above independent of the related tentative map proposal; only part 2
from the above description is relative to their subdivision proposal-
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ESPA 89-03 - U.S- HOME CORPORATION
December 11, 199 1
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. General The applicant is requesting three amendments to the
Etiwanda Specific Plan as described above (see Exhibit "A")-
Specifically, the amendments would allow this applicant to process
a 226 lot single family detached subdivision (Vesting Tentative
Tract 14211) on 81.2 acres of land with an average lot size of
approximately 8,685 square feet and a net density of 2.8 dwelling
units per acre. The tentative map has been designed to comply with
the proposed amendments · The three specific facets of the
amendment are analyzed as follows:
1. Allowing single family detached development in the Medium
Residential District, Basic Development Standards:
Currently, single family detached dwellings and duplexes are
onlX allowed in this zone when utilizing the Optional
Development Standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan (see
Exhibit "B"). The intent of the Optional Development
Standards is to allow development at the upper end of the
density ranges with minimal lot size and dimension
restrictions in trade for usable, common open space areas that
will benefit the residents within a particular project.
However, the Etiwanda Specific Plan Development standards as
currently written do not allow the developer the option of
incorporating the required open space exclusively in private
yards in the Medium Residential zone for single family or any
type of development; minimum of 30 percent common open space
and 40' percent total open space is required under the Optional
Development Standards in the Medium Residential zone- The
applicant contends, and staff agrees, that single family
development with common open space facilities, which are
typically maintained by a Homeowners Association and require
written Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&R's) is not
desirable to all potential homeowners in the anticipated price
range- In addition, many homeowners prefer to have larger
private yards for their individual use and enjoyment-
Therefore, the applicant concludes that the option to build
under the Basic Development Standards should be allowed in the
Medium Residential development district. Staff agrees that
the standards should be more flexible to allow the developer
the option of building a conventional single family
subdivision under basic standards or a smaller lot subdivision
with common open space under optional standards.
If this portion of the amendment request is recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission, then Part 3 of this
amendment request should be considered in conjunction with
this recommendation. Again, this portion of the request is
now independent of the related project.
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ESPA 89-03 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION
December 11, 199 1
Page 3
2. Reducing the minimum average lot size from 10,000 to 8,900
square feet within the Low Medium Residential District, Basic
Development Standards:
In keeping with the goals and objectives for a more rural and
sensitively planned atmosphere within the Etiwanda Specific
Plan area, the adopted Basic Development Standards are
intended to allow development in the lower half of each
density range- Specifically, the established minimum average
lot size of 10,000 square feet in the Low Medium District
yields a maximum density of 4.36 dwelling units per acre for
conventional single family residential development (see
Exhibit "C") with a Low-Medium Residential density range of
4-8 dwelling units per acre. If the minimum average lot size
were reduced to 8,900 square feet in this zone, then the
maximum density would rise to 4.89 dwelling units per acre for
this type of development; still well within the lower half of
the density range. Also, it should be noted that the Basic
Development Standards within the Development Code have been
established with a much smaller minimum average lot size in
the Low Medium Residential District (refer to Exhibit "D"),
6,000 square feet. For comparison, a maximum density of 7.26
dwelling units per acre could be generated in areas governed
by the Development Code, significantly higher than the
proposed Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment maximum of 4.89
dwelling units per acre. Therefore, if this portion of the
amendment were recommend for approval as proposed, the general
intent for lower densities and a less suburban atmosphere
would, in staffs opinion, still be intact.
Please note that the applicant's request was designed to meet
the needs of their specific project prior to the City
Council's action of November 20, 1991. Now that the entire
site is designated Low-Medium Residential, the applicant would
need to have the minimum average lot size reduced to 8,685
square feet or lower. If the Commission feels that an even
smaller minimum average lot size is appropriate (example:
8,500 square foot minimum average may allow a maximum of 5.12
units per acre, 8,000 square feet, 5.45 units per acre), then
the Resolution for this amendment may be revised
accordingly- It is staff's opinion that an 8,500 square foot
minimum average lot size is appropriate in keeping with the
general intent of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and will allow a
slightly higher density, yet well below the mid-point for
established range.
3. Reducing the minimum average lot size from 10,000 square feet
to 8,500 s~uare feet within the Medium Residential D~strict,
Basic Development Standards:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ESPA 89-03 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION
December 11, 199 1
Page 4
Assuming single family development under Basic Development
Standards in the Medium Residential District is recommended,
(see item 1 ) there would be potential density of 4.36 dwelling
units per acre with the current lot size standards, well below
the Medium Residential District density range of 8-14 dwelling
units per acre (see Exhibit "C"). If the applicant's request
for a minimum average lot size of 8,500 square feet was
recommended, a maximum density of 5.12 dwelling units per acre
is possible, still well below the minimum density for this
zone. Conversely, density of 8 units per acre would yield an
average lot size of approximately 5,445 square feet · In
staff ' s opinion, it would not be appropriate to allow
5,445 average square foot lots in the Etiwanda Area for the
purposes of allowing "conventional" single family subdivisions
at 8 units per acre since the density range for the Medium
Residential District was established for multiple family
development ( condominiums, townhouses ) or small lot single
family development with ample common open space;
"conventional" single family subdivisions were not anticipated
since property owners typically prefer to maximize density.
An 8,000 square foot minimum average, which would generate a
potential maximum density of 5 · 45 units per acre, is
appropriate because it would allow more conventional single
family development at a density that meets the intent and
purposes of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Again, this portion of the amendment request is now
independent of the related tentative map, based on the action
of the City Council on November 20, 199~.
B. Cumulative Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study
has been completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II
of the Environmental Checklist and found no significant adverse
environmental impacts will occur as a result of these 'amendments.
The issue for consideration is an anticipated reduction of the
proposed land use intensity; therefore, staff believes the impact
of the type of development allowed under the revised standards
should not be more significant than originally described in the
environmental review for the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General
Plan. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a
Negative Declaration would be in order.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the
proposed amendments, the following facts for findings must be made:
A. The proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on the
environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the
Initial Study Part II.
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ESPA 89-03 - U.S- HOME CORPORATION
December 11, 199 1
Page 5
B. The proposed amendments will promote and further implement the
goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by helping to
preserve the unique historical nature of the Etiwanda area through
lower densities-
C. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and General Plan.
D. The proposed amendments would not be materially injurious or
detrimental to adjacent properties ·
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in
the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted,
and notices have been sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the
project site-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 89-03 and issuance of a
Negative Declaration to the City Council-
/
BB:SH:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letters from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.22,201
(Residential Land Uses)
Exhibit "C" - Etiwanda Specific Plan Figure 5-2
(Basic Development Standards)
Exhibit "D" - Table 17.08.040-B (Basic Development
Standards)
Exhibit "E" - Development District Map of the Etiwanda
Area
Resolution of Approval for Etiwanda Specific Plan
Amendment 89-03
Draft City Council Ordinance of Approval for Etiwanda
Specific Plan Amendment 89-03
L A WAINSC01'r & ASSOCIATES, INC.
L..".,",~.,.,CO..PE ' RECEIVED --
Jonn A. Slar~. PE Ke~lh S Dagoslmo. P E
Ga~ O Neal. L.S. CITY OF RANC~ CUCAMO~
T~O~ A N~zn. C.FO PLANNING DIVISION
Er~ D P~
AU~St 13, 1991 AU~ Ig ill
Mr. Steve Hayes
Associate' Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: Tentative Tract No. 14211 .
Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan ~
Dear Steve:
In accordance with your request, we are providing this letter
regarding average lot areas with respect to our request for an
Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan. We are requesting an
Amendment to the Basic Development Standards to allow minimum
average lot area of 8,500 square feet in the current M Zone, and
8,900 square feet in the LM Zone. We have checked these area
calculations and believe they reflect the approximate average areas
for our Tentative Tract Map.
Please refer to U.S. Home Corporation letter to you of July 5,
-1991, for additional comments regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
Keith Dagostino, P.E-
Project Manager
KD:mh/51809E /
cc: Dallas Paulsen, U.S. Home Corporation
CIVIL ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
21881 BARTON ROAD GRAND ERRACE CALIFORNIA 92324
(714) 824-1775 FAX: (714)
U.So HOME CORPORATION
WESTERN LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
1400 E, Southern · Suite 700 · Tempe, Arizona 85282 · (602) 838-4178
July 5, 1991
Mr. Steve Hayes
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Tentative Tract No. 14211 - Amendment to the Etiwanda
Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Hayes:
U.S. Home Corporation on behalf of the Etiwanda Development
Corporation provides this letter as an update regarding our
letter of August 16, 1989, requesting an Amendment to the
Etiwanda Specific Plan.
Our request regarding single family dwellings in the M Zone,
Item No. 1 in the August 16 letter is the same. Regarding Item
No. 2, we are requesting an Amendment to the Specific Plan to
allow an overall minimum average lot area of 8600 square feet
for Tentative Tract No. 14211. We are making this request in
consideration of the upscaling of development in the M Zone, and
the loss of usable land created by the requirement to provide a
regional detention basins for the entire Etiwanda Specific Plan
area.
Please note tha~ development density for this project is
only 2.8 d~li ts per acre. Significantly less than the
allowable 4-81=dwelll~ per acre range for the LM Zone, and 8-14
dwellings p~r acre range for the M Zone, as outlined in the
specific Pla~ "~
Page 2
Mr. Steve Hayes
City of Rancho Cucamonga ,.
July 5, 1991
Attached for your reference is a copy of the August 16, 1989
letter. If you need additional information to process this
request, please call me at (602} 838-4178.
Sincerely,
U.S. HOME CORPORATION
Dallas D. Paulsen
Executive Vice President-Project Manager
DDP/rc
cc: K. Dagostino
L.A. Wainscott & Associates, Inc.
LISTED ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
AugUSt 16, 1989
Mr. Dan Coleman
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. O. Box 707
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RE: Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Coleman:
U.S. Home Corporation on behalf of the Etiwanda Development Corp.
request that an amendment be made to the Etiwanda Specific Plan
on .the following items:
1. The footnote on page 5-5 be amended to allow
single family dwelling in the Medium Zone.
Very little M zone exist in the Etiwanda
Specific Plan and the.areas that are within
this zone are surrounded by single family
homes. We feel that this change would serve
to compliment existing surrounding zones.
2. The Basis Development Standards table be amended
lot area from 10,000
to reduce the minmum average
s.q- feet to 8,200 square feet. This would not
reduce the minimum lot size but would allow a
smaller average than that on the LM zone.
Enclosed to process this amendment is a check in the amount of
$3,247.40 and a copy of the project and surrounding areas
detailing current zoing.
If additional information is necessary to process this amendment
to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, please call me at (714) 944-0761-
cerel, . ~.~
Mi~nsleY ~
Vice president
Western Land Development
enclosures
RIVERSIDE DIVISION
.201 Residential Uses:
us , D STRICT
El1
Single Family Dwellings ............P P P P ~+~ ~( ·
Duplexes .......................P P P P P* ·
Tri & Fou~plexes .................P*
Multiple Family Dwellings ...........P* P*
.Z02 Other Uses:
Temporary subdivision sales offices and
temporm'y s~uctu~es subject to the
provisions of the Development Code . .. p p p p p
Group Care facilities for seven or more
persons subject to the provisioas of the
Development Code ................... C C
Nursery schools ..................... C C
Churches ........................ C C C C
Cllnies, hospitals, sanitariums, and
nursing homes ...................... C C
Parochial and private schools ......... C C C C
4
Private, nonprofit libraries, art galleries,
and museums ....................... C C
Private, noncommercial clubs and lodges C C C C C
Publjc utility and puMic service
structures and installations'. ......... C C C C C
Home occupations ................ P P P P P
Family care facilities for six persons or
less ........................... P P P P P
Incidental and accessory structures and
uses for the exclusive use of residents of
the site and their guests ............ p P P P P
Keeping of horses for personal use on
lots of 21/2 acre or more ............ P P P P -
Note: Symbol * indicates uses permitted in conjunction with optional development
standards only. I"Q- }}
5-5
ER VL L LM M
,~ot Area:
minimum average 40,000 25,000 15,000
(in square feet)
minimum 30,000 20,000 10,000 7,200 7,200
(in square feet)
Number of DL~s 1/40,000 1/20,000 1/10,000 1/7,200 1/5,000
(per lot area in 2 max/lot 2 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot
square feet)
Lot Dimensions:
minimum depth 135' 135' 100' 100' 100'
minimum width 1~-0' 90' 80' 60' 60'
(at required
front setback)
minimum frontage 60' 40' 40' 40' 40'
(at front p.l.)
Setbacks:
front 40' 30' 25' 25' 25'
side (street) 25' 25' 15' 25' 25'
side 20/20 10/20 .0'/20 0'/15 0'/15
Total 20' Total 15' Total 15'
rear 40' 30' 25' 20' 20'
Lot Coverage 20% 25% 30% 40% 40%
(maximum %)
On-site Windrows1 lO0'/ae 50'/at N/R N/R N/R
(in lin. feet/at)
Streetside N/R Required Required Required Required
Landscaping
(prior to occupancy)%
Height Limitations 35' 35' 35' 35' 35'
* O lot line not to be used at project boundary
1 Existing lots of record of 1 acre or less may be exempted from this requirement.
2 Custom lot subdivisions may be exempted from this requirement.
BASIC
DEVELOPMENT ST AND ARDS Fig. 5-
~ x HI /~ {'T' '/d.
B. Basic Development Standards. The following table, Table 17.08,040-B sets forth
minimum development standards for residential development projeeLs filed up to
the mid-point of the permitted density range.
TABI, K 17.08.M0 - B BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(NfR = NOT REQUIRED) VL L LM M MH
LOT AREA: ·
M~qMUM NET AVERAGE 22, 500 8, 000 6000 N/R N/R N/R
MINIMUM ~ 20, 000 7, 200 5, GO0 10, 000 N/R
NUMBEROI:DW~I-r~G UN1T3 (A) UPTO2 UPTO4 UPTO6 UPTO 11 UPTO 19 UPTO27
(P2RMrrr~Pi~AC:~)
MINIMUM DW~-LLING UNIT SIZE: CD
SINGLE FAMILY A~rACHED AND 1,000 SQ. Ft. (H) REG~ OF
DETACH]~ DV/~'~ I
MULTIPI~ FAMILY DW~-t-r~G3 (J)
THREE OR MORE BF. DROOMS 950 SQ. Ft. REGARIX.ES3 OF Dk~-~ICT
LOT DIMENSIONS:
MINIMUM W~TH (O 90 AV(}. 6~ AV(]. 50 AV(}. 80 N/R N/R
REQUIREDFRONT SETBACK) VARY ~-/- 10 VARY ~-/-5 VARY
MIN. CORNER LOT WIDTH 100 70 50 35 N/R
MINIMUM DEFFH 150 100 90 100 N/R N/R
MINIMUM FRONTAGE ~0 40 30 60 N/R N/R
(@ FRONT PRoPietY ~
MIN. FLAG LOT FRO~rrAGE 30 20 20 30 N/R N
(~ FRONT PROP~TY ~
SETBAC!~S: (B)
FRONT YARD (C,E) 42 AVO. 37 AVO. 12 AVO. 37 AVG. N/R N/R
VARY +/-5 VARY +/-~ VARY ~.1-5 VARY
CORNER SlD~ YARD 27 27 22 27 N/R N/R
INTERIOR SIDE YARD 10115 5/I0 3/10 10 N/R N/R
REAR YARD 30 20 1~ l0 NIR N/R
(D)
AT INTERIOR 3rr~ BOUNDARY 30/~ 20/~ 15/5 15/5 151~
(DW~ _T -tNG UNrr ACCE33ORY ( D) ( D) (D)
BLDG.)
-76-
VICTORIA STREET
VL .........
LM
/
IEtiwenda Specific Ptan
Amendments 91-03
|
Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan
Amendments 91-02
LM
LM - District Designation
~ PROPERTIES CURRENTLY
DESIGNATED MEDIUM
.o.,..., .o.,,o. ~,,~.,~,t~,,...0%~.
CONSIDERATION IOR REDES G ATION
IN
TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
(44 DIELLING UNIT] PER ACRE)
OP
}ortion ; 1 - ESPA Subarea Nos.
= ~ - FSPA Subarea Nos.
.b~ ~J.$. ~o~mc~
Subarea amended parcels
i
JTE]Vi: ESPA 91-03, FSPA 91-02
CI.n~' OF 1D-.PuNCHO CUCA-MONGA TFFLE:specinc p,.- A~..d. Lo.,~o-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL 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 duly noticed public
hearings 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
Rencho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application
and concluded said hearing on this date-
(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 11, 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; and
(b) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in
a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and
(c) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the
Land Use element; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ESPA 89-03 - U.S. HOME CORPORATION
January 8, 1992
Page 2
(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 as evidenced by the findings
listed in Part II of the Initial Study; and
(e) This amendment will continue to maintain the basic goals
and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting larger lot single
family development than allowed by the standards within the same development
districts of the Development Code; and
(f) This amendment will continue to promote densities at the
lower end of the density ranges for the Low Medium and Medium Residential
District, as is the intent of the Basic Development Standards-
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 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That the proposed application promotes the goals and
policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
(b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant
impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and
(c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the
General Plan-
4. This Commission specifically finds and determines that a
Negative Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and, further, this Commission finds and determines
that, based upon the findings set forth in paragraphs l, 2, and 3 above, that
no significant adverse environmental impacts will occur. The Planning
Commission thereby recommends that the City Council so certify and find-
5. The Planning Commission finds that the facts supporting the
above-specified findings are contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
report, and exhibits, and the information provided to this Commission during
the public hearing, and therefore, this Commission hereby recommends that the
City Council approve the Negative Declaration.
6. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, this Commission hereby resolves that the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval on the
8th day of January 1992, of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 89-03.
7- 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 8, 1992
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH 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 8th day of January 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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
Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan
Amendment is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On December ~l, and continued to December 17, 1991, and January
8, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
duly noticed public hearings on the application- Following the conclusion of
said public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. __
thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Etiwanda Specific Plan
Amendment 89-03.
(iii) On , the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing
on that date-
(iv) All legal prerequisites prior to ~he adoption of this Ordinance
have occurred.
B. Ordinance-
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does 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 correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during
the above-referenced public hearing on , including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council 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; and
(b) This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in
a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and
(c) This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the
Land Use Element; and
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ESPA 89-03 - U.S- HOME CORPORATION
Page 2
(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 as evidenced by the findings
listed in Part II of the Initial Study; and
(e) This amendment will continue to maintain the basic goals
and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan by promoting larger lot single
family development than allowed by the standards within the same development
districts of the Development Code; and
(f) This amendment will continue to promote densities at the
lower end of the density ranges for the Low-Medium and Medium Residential
District, as is the intent of the Basic Development Standards-
3- Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That the proposed application promotes the goals and
policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and
(b) That the proposed amendment would not have significant
impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and
(c) That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the
General Plan.
4. This Council specifically finds and determines that a Negative
Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and, further, this Council finds and determines that,
based upon the findings set forth in paragraphs l, 2, and 3 above, that no
significant adverse environmental impacts will occur.
5- This Council finds that the facts supporting the above-specified
findings are contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff report, and
exhibits, and the information provided to this Council during the public
hearing; and therefore, this Council hereby authorizes the issuance of a
Negative Declaration.
6. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, this Council hereby ordains that the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment
No. 89-03 as attached in Exhibits "A & B."
7. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once
in the Inland Valley DailT'Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation
published in the. City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California-
L~I,/~-,~
minimum average 40,000 25,000 15,000 ~
(in square feet)
minimum 30,000 20,000 10,000 7,200 7,200
(in square feet)
Number of DI~s 1/40,000 1/20,000 1/10,000 1/7,200 1/5,000
(per lot area in 2 max/lot 2 max/lot 4 max/lot' 4 max/lot 4 max/lot
square feet)
I~ot Dimensions:
minimum depth 1:$5' 135' 100' 100' 100'
minimum width 120' 90' 80' 60' 60'
(at required
front setback)
minimum frontage 80' 40' 40' 40' 40'
(at front p.1.)
front 40' 30' 25' 25' 25'
side (street) 25' 25' 15' 25' 25'
side 20/20 10/20 .0*/20 0'/15 0'/15
Total 20' Total 15' Total 15'
rear 40' 30' 25' 20' 20'
Lot Coverage 20% 25% ':$0% 40% 4096
(maximum %)
On-site Will(Irons1 100'/sac 50'/ae N/R N/R N/R
(in lin. feet/ae)
b'treetsi6s N/R Required Required Required Required
(prior to occupancy)2
liei~ht Limitations :$5' 35' :$5' 35' 35'
* O lot line not to be used at project boundary
1 Existing lots of reeorcl of 1 aore or less may be exempted from this requirement.
2 Custom lot subdivisions may be exempted from this requirement.
BASIC m
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. 5-2
//
I IT jc
.201 Residential Uses:
Single Family Dwellings · · · P P P P
.........
P P P P P*
Duplexes .......................
Tri & Fo~plexes ................. P* P* P P P
Multiple Family Dwe~n~. P* P* P* P* P
..........
.201 Othe~ Uses:
Tem~rary subdivision s~es offices and
tempor~y s~uet~es ~bjeet to the
provisio~ of the Development Code . .. P P P P P
Group C~e facilities fo~ seven or more
persons subject to t~ provisio~ of the
_ - C C
Development Code .................
_ - C C
Ninety seh~ ...................
Ch~ehes ........................ C C C C
Clinics, hospitals, sanitariums, and
_ - C
nursing homes ....................
Parochial and private schools ........ - C C C C
Private, nonprofit libraries, art galleries,
_ - C C
and mUSeUmS .....................
Private, noncommercial clubs and lodges C C C C C
Public utility and public service
structures and installations'. ......... C C C C C
Home occupations ................ P P P P P
Family care facilities for six persons or
less ........................... P P P P P
Incidental and accessory structures and
uses for the exclusive use of residents of
the site and their guests ............ P P P P P
Keeping of horses for personal use on
1 P P P P '
lots of 2/2 acre or more ............
Note: Symbol * indicates uses permitted in conjunction with optional development
standards only.
5-5
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 8, 1991
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
SUBJECT: TREE PLANTING DETAILS
BACKGROUND
At the November 13, 1991, Planning Commission Meeting, Commissioner
Vallette requested that this item be placed on the Planning Commission
agenda for discussion purposes. The Community and Parks Development
staff has assembled the attached engineering standards which apply to
street tree selection, placement, and installation. It should also be
noted that these standards affect trees within the right-of-way and
other areas that are publicly maintained.
To assist the Planning Commission in your discussion of this matter,
staff has highlighted several of the key elements of the standards
currently in place-
A. Approved Street Tree List:: This list reflects those trees which
have demonstrated reliable performance in the area in and around
Rancho Cucamonga. Trees which in the past have done poorly in the
wind or have demonstrated root problem have been omitted from the
list.
B. Tree Placement Standards: Standards have been established to avoid
tree. planting where it may conflict with utilities or interfere
with sight distance. This was done to avoid the necessity of
removing trees as they mature.
C- Double Staked Trees (Within 5 feet of Hardscape): This detail
applies to probably 90 percent of all trees because of their common
locations between curbs and sidewalks. The gavel surrounding the
barrier hastens water movement to the root zone, thereby, promoting
deep rooting-
D. Double Staked Tree (No Root Barrier): This detail is employed
where there is ample planting area (with no potential for root
damaged hardscape within 5 feet). Note, that there is a perforated
pipe filled with gavel to encourage deep rooting. We are studying
the effectiveness of this requirement, and it may not be required
in the future-
ITEM N
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TREE PLANTING DETAILS
January 8, 1991
Page 2
Common to both of these double staked tree planting details is a
specified staking orientation which, combined with the flexible
tree ties, allows for tree movement between the stakes (not against
them)- It is our policy to remove staking as soon as the trees can
support themselves-
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Co~ission review the materials submitted on
the tree planting details. If further investigations are necessary,
staff should be directed to bring this matter back along with the
Planning Division's work program for consideration of setting
priorities-
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:GS
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Street Tree List
Exhibit "B" - Tree Placement Standard Drawing
Exhibit "C" - Standard for Double Staked Tree (Within 5
Feet of Hardscape
Exhibit "D" - Standard for Double Staked Tree (No Root
Barrier)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAJqONGA
STREET TREE LIST
Suggested
Minimum Minimum
Botanical Name Conmnon Name O.C. Spacing. Parkway Size
Albizia julibrissin 'Rosea' Silk Tree 35'
B rachychi ton aceri fol i us Austral i an F1 ame Tree 30' 5'
Brachychi ton popul neus Bottle Tree 25' 5'
Cel ti s austral i s European Hackberry 30'
Celtis sinensis Chinese Hackberry 30' 8'
C eri s ocl i dental i s Western Redbud 20"
Cinamomum camphora Camphor Tree 30' 8'
Eucalyptus camal dul ensis Red Gum 30' 8'
*Eucalyptus macul ata Spotted Eucalyptus 8' 8'
Eucalyptus ni chol i i Wi 11 ow-1 eafed Peppermint 25' 5'
Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver Dol 1 ar Gum 30' 5'
Eucalyptus rudis Swamp Gum 35' 5'
Eucalyptus si deroxyl on Red Ironbark 35 ' 5'
Gei J era parvi flora Austral i an Wi 11 ow 20' 5'
Ginkgo biloba 'Fairmont' Maidenhair Tree 35' 5'
v, oel reuteri a bi pi nnata Chinese F1 ame Tree 35' 5'
Koel reuteri a pani cul ata Golden Rain Tree 35' 5'
Lagerstroemia i ndica Crape Myrtle 20' 3'
Li qui dambar styraci fl ua Ameri can Sweet Gum 25 ' B'
Magnolia grandi flora Southern Magnolia 30'
Magnol i a grandi flora No Conmnon name 20' 5'
' St. Mary'
Mel al euca 1 i nari i fol i a F1 ax1 eaf Paperbark 30' 5'
Mel al euca nesophil a Pink Mel al euca 20' 5'
Mel al euca qui nquenervi a CaJeput Tree 25'
Pinus canariensis · Canary Island Pine 25'
Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 30' 5'
Platanus aceriflola London Plane Tree 30' 8'
P1 atanus racemosa Cali forni a Sycamore 35 ' 8'
Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Bradford Pear 20~ 3'
Quercus ilex Holly Oak 40'
Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak 40' 8'
,thus 1 ancea African Sumac 20' 5'
Sophora Japonica Japanese Pagoda Tree 30' 5'
, Windrow Replacement Only hU/.~ ~
city of rancho cucamongaSTANDARD
DRAWING
21'-
ee.
Ceeea, IQem.
NOTES
· SEe tree list for proper spacing.
C~NTIIN(I Pl:OI
ST~Zl ~ $8S[~VAT~QN
(2) Ci~H TIES
Z" OZA. ~O~ POLE PiNE STIES 8' LO~
~ZTN i~O PRE$[~ATZV[ STAIN,
STME A NINZ~ ~ 12" INTO U~ZS~EO APIIQVCD TIEI
SOIL ~ ~I~ STIES 0~$I~ ~T B~L, (Z) P(R
--6" OIl. ~C/IIFOIAT~D tltt - 1/2" ~l$~O CI~HID
LENGTH 0F F[9[ (L0~T[ El' FR~ TIUNK)
DEEP 10OT OI EI)UN. CONTIalX
22-29-11 ~e(ll RIQVIISD 0R
· " keliOVtD EQUAL.
'P-JOII-IKNII"
~UFACTUIEI' $ ItCOlqtle0&T
C)55(RVATTON I)I.IRII0S(S.
'k4AtN TitleINK
(Z) CTNCH T~E:$ SPACED Z4' AlPART IrQt
CZT'Y $TllSrr
12' .SXlr",.,N A'ff',a,.Ci.4 WiTH
TO 8'
Z." D[A. f.~OGE ;OL[ ;'[NE STAKES 8'
i~[TFI Id000~ PlIESERVATIV[
, - (Z) lain SPtC:FtCATT, QR$
-- G" 9|A. PVC PElFGRAY(I:) PIPE - FII.L.
X/Z' WASI.(O ClUSH[O AGGREGATE tASE ryt. I.
LENGTH OF PIPE (t. CICATE ~8' FRON
3' l(la4 TO rOllN OIPIESSED t. iAT[ITNG
IA$IN !'01 GIOUlfO C:OVTI AIr. AS ANO
CONTAIN[I lOOT IAl.,t.
I~NUIrACTUI(II' $
;. IK/JrlLL, NIX
e,, NAT|Vt .IOIL
~ PIT TO I( El} TT.vIS T~I:
VIOTN glt THE lOOT
ODOUE3L. E ST KED' TREE