No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/01/13 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 13, 1999 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman McNiel __ Vice Chairman Macias __ Com. Mannerino __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy __ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 9, 1998, Adjourned Meeting November 10, 1998, Adjourned Meeting December 9. 1998 IV. CONSENTCALENDAR 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, VACATION OF A PORTION OF CARNELIAN STREET AND ACQUISITION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARNELIAN STREET o A request to vacate a portion of Carnelian Street along with the acquisition of street right-of-way for Carnelian Street in conjunction with the proposed realignment project from Vivero Street to 1,000 feet southerly. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concemed 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15207 - JERALD B. LAIRD - A subdivision of 5.5 acres of land into one parcel and a remainder parcel in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue at San Marino Drive - APN: 229-321-01. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15234 - JOY'S FOR US, INC. - A subdivision of 11.2 acres of land into two parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of 7th Street between Utica Avenue and Toronto Avenue - APN: 209401-21. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 o ALLARD ENGINEERING - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07 and 55 through 57. Staff recommends preparation of a Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14875 - MODERN CORPORATION - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map and design review for the development of 36 condominium units on 3.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street -APN: 1077-332-26. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. STREET NAME CHANGE 98-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The proposed renaming of portions of the existing Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and the 1-15 freeway. Page 2 f VI. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS G, REVISION TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAMS FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE - LEWIS HOMES - A proposed modification to the existing sign programs for both Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square, The existing developments are located along Foothill Boulevard between Haven and Elm Avenues. DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of a request to change the location of placing the La Fourcade arch on Building 5 - APN: 0229-011-39. o Oral report VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the genera/public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed hare are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS I. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITFEE MEMBERSHIP 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. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM REGARDING PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-12 - SACRED HEART CHURCH, PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-10 - WILLIAM LYON HOMES, AND PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-11 - CATELLUS I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 7, 1999. at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Page 3 VICINITY MAP CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCtlO CIJCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: January 13, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF A PORTION OF CARNELIAN STREET AND ACOUISITION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARNELIAN STREET - A request to vacate a portion of Carnelian Street along with the acquisition of street fight-of-way for Carnelian Street in conjunction with the proposed realignment project from Vivero Street to 1000 feet southerly. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Engineering Division is currently working on a project to improve the safety of Carnelian Street south of Vivero Street. The project will increase the radius of an existing curve. This realignment requires the acquisition of a small amount of right.of. way from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). In return, the City will vacate a small surplus amount of right-of-way to SBCFCD. The properties are shown on the attached sketch. State law requires that such right-of- way transactions be determined to be consistent with the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding that both the subject street vacation and right-of-way acquisition conform with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer BH:JAD: Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Carnelian Street right-of-way Plat Map (Exhibit "B") ITE)'4 A EXHIBIT "A" Foo~lBoul~rd ~ PROJECT LOCATION N.T~. VICINITY MAP I VIVEROQ_STREET LOT ,3 M8 21/]2 AREA 0.13 ACRES (DEDICATION TO CITY) AREA 0.03 ACRES- (VACATION TO FLOOD CONTROL) PLL,~ Vl~ 1" iO' LOT 4 MB 21/33 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARNELIAN ST. / CUCAMONGA CHANNEL PLAT MAP - EXHIBIT B DAT~ 12/23/98 FIL~NO. DWG. NO. DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 13, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15207 - JERALD B. LAIRD - A subdivision of 5.5 acres of land into one parcel and a remainder parcel in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Specific Plan, located on the east side of Charles Smith Avenue at San Madno Drive - APN: 229-321-01. Shaftrecommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related files: None PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". B. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 1.0 acre Remainder 4.5 acres Total 5.5 acres (net) C. Existing Zoning: General Industrial, ISP Subarea 13 D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - South - East West General Industrial AutoNation Project I-15 Freeway Industrial Park E. Surrounding General Plan and Developments Code Designations: North - South - East West ISP Subarea 13, General Industrial ISP Subarea 12, Industrial Park 1-15 Freeway ISP Subarea 13, General Industrial y ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PM 15207 Januar-j 13, 1999 Page 2 Site Characteristics: The site was once a vineyard but is now fallow with no structures existing onsite. The site slopes to the south at 1 '/2 percent. No natural drainage courses exist on site as it drains in a sheet flow manner. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to create a one acre lot for sale and possible development as an unattended fueling facility (City File: PR 98-10). The most southerly portion is a 4.5 acre remainder portion for future subdivision and industrial development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. The project is located in an area identified as potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. As a result, a habitat-based evaluation report was required to determine potential impacts, particularly to the federally listed Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF). The results of the habitat-based survey indicate that the subject site does not support extensive areas of high quality or optimal DSF habitat. The report concluded that due to the prevalence of relative dense non-native vegetation, exposure to active grape cultivation, and comparative isolation from undisturbed or native habitats, this development will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF or its habitat. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Heating have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 15207. If after such consideration, the Commission deems appropriate, then the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:PV:sd Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval Initial Study Part II 6 ~.O FOOTHILL IOULEVARD CHARLES SMITH 4TH STREET VICINITY'. MAP NOT TO SCALE CITY OF R,4aN'CHO CUCA~ViONGA ENG~G DIVISION ~ I'AI~,CEL MAI' 1521)7~ rlTl'r[ ,~z V icinity Map STATE H|GHWAY ROUTE N.T.S. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION 1ITEM: 'I'E-NiTATIVE MAP' TITLR: PFA 152_-O'7- City, of Rancho Cucantonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORNI INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Parcel Map 15207 2. Related Files: None Description of Project: remainder parcel. A subdivision of 5.5 acres of land into one industrial parcel with a Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jerald B. Laird 9460 Lucas Rancho Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-5797 General Plan Designation: General Industrial Zoning: General Industrial District (Subarea 13)ofthc Industrial Specific Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Property to the noah is general industrial use. To the west is a developed industrial park. To the east is the 1-15 Freeway. To the south is the AutoNation project and the Ontario Mills Project. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer (909) 477-2740, extension 2319 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Stud.'.' for Teatati,.e Parcel Map 15207 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 ENVIRON~%IENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potential [y affected b.', this project, involving at least one inlpact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant hnpact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [.and Us'.: and Planning Population and Ilousing Geological Problems Water Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation (x) Biological Rcsourct:s ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) 1 lazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Signillcancc Public Scr'.'iccs Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation DETERNIINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because thc mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant cffcct on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment. but at least one effect I ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Un less Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVI RONM ENTAL I M PACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects I ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier El R pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Assistant Engineer November 4, 1998 Initial Stud``" tbr Tentative Parcel ,',,lap 15207 City ofRancho Cucamonga Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRON.MENTAL IMt'ACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Call fornia Environmental Qua[ ity Act Guidelines, an explanation is required tBr ull "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Wouht theproposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or poIicies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? () () (x) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) POPULATION AND HOUSING. tt/ould the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. ~gottlcl the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts invoh'ing: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? (15 ? () () () (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Stud.'.' tbr Tentative Parcel :",lap 15207 City ofRancho Cucamonga Page 4 c) Seismic ground hilure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Suiche hazards? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) 0 Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill'? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface v.'ater runof~.. ( ) b) Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface '.vater quality (e.g., temperature. dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents. or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) O Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow ofgroundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount ofgroundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) () (x) ( ) (x) () (x) () (x) Initial Stud>' for Tentati;'e Parcel Map 15207 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 AIR QUALITY. }lzould the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to poHutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. I~'ould the proposal result in.' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)7 g) Rail or air traffic impacts? () () () () () () () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) initial Stud.,,' for Tentati,,e Parcel ,",lap 15207 City ofRancho Cucamonga Page 6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ~Voukltheproposalresuh in itnpacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? b) () () () () () () (x) () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) Comments: a) The property is located in an area recently identified by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Sen'ice as a potential habitat for endangered or threatened species. Habitat assessment and biological surveys were required to dctermine potential habitat value and any potential impacts, particularly to the federally-listed Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly. Habitat assessment and protocol surveys were conducted by Impact Sciences, consulting biologists permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The results of the surveys indicate that the subject site does not support substantial areas of high quality or optimal DSF habitat. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Usc non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mincral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the Statc? () (x) () (x) ( ) (x) Initial Stud.'.' for Temative Parcel Map 15207 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 HAZARDS. t~'buht the proposal involve.' a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including. but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) 10. NOISE. tgill the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () () () () () (x) (x) I1. PUBLIC SERVICES. If/ould the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) C) d) e) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) initial Stud.',' for Tentative Parcel Map 15207 City ofRancho Cucamonga Page 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTENIS. ~Vouht the proposal resttit in a need for new ~J,'stents or supplies or sttbstantial alterations to the follo wing tttilities.' a) b) C) d) f) g) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? () () (/ () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x~ (x) (x) 13. AESTHETICS. WouM the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? () () () () (> () () (> (> (x) (x) (x) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. IYouldtheproposah a) Disturb palcontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical or cultural resources7 d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? c) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x> Initial Stud.'.' for Tentati,.e Parcel Map 15207 City ofRancho Cucamonga Page 9 15. RECREATION. $Vould the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prohistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the Future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects &past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) (x) (x) Initial Stud)' for Tentative Parcel Map 15207 City of R,'mcho Cucamonga Page I 0 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used ,.~here. pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section i5063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the follov.'ing earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects ~.,ere addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Division offices, I0500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certi fled January 4, 1989) (x) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) () Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, EIR (SCH #93102055, certified June 15, 1994) () Victoria Planned Comnmnity EIR (Certified May 20, 1981) () Terra Vista Planned Community EIR (SCH #81082808, certified February 16, 1983) () Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan EIR (SCH t/87021615, certified September 16, 1987) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6. 1983) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR (SCH #89012314, certified April I, 1992) Other: Other: APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Print Name and Title: Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quafity Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Tentative Parcel Map 15207 Public Review Period Closes: 1/I 3/99 Project Name: Tentative Parcel Map 15207 Project Applicant: Jerald B. Laird Project Location (also see attached map): East side of Chades Smith Avenue at San Madno Drive. Project Description: A subdivision of 5.5 acres offand into one parcel and a remainder parcel in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13) of the Industrial Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Im pact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 13, 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15207, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CHARLES SMITH AVENUE AT SAN MARlNO DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-321-01 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15072, submitted by Jerald B. Laird, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into one parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, identified as APN: 229-321-01, located on the east side of Chades Smith Avenue at San Marino Ddve; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1999, 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. 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: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 15207 - LAIRD January 13, 1999 Page 2 follows: In considering the record as a whole. the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15072 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Planning Division The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. On projects which abut the I-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the freeway right-of-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu of construction cash deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with Caltrans and City Standards through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to the release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation is not complete at that time, the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping at the Caltrans right-of-way. The remainder Parcel shall not be sold, leased, or financed until all improvements which are required have been constructed or the in-lieu fees have been paid, orthe subdivider has entered into an agreement with the City providing for the construction of such improvements at the subdividers expense, within a period of 12 months after the recordation of the map pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 16.14.070. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 15207-LAIRD January 13,1999 Page 3 Engineedna Division Public right-of-way improvements along Chades Smith Avenue fronting Parcel one shall be constructed. If the required improvements are not completed pdor to approval of the final map, an improvement certificate shall be placed on the final parcel map stating that they will be completed upon development of Parcel one prior to issuance of a building permit. Fire Division Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operahie pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 15207 Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. A. Dedications and Vehicular Access 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, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance 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 resetwed as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. X.X_ 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way for the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 33 total feet on Charles Smith Avenue total feet on total feet on total feet on An irrevocable offer of dedication for roadway purposes shall be made for the private streets. 4. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 5. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: 6. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by C C & R's or by deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the f'mal parcel map. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by C C & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final parcel map. 8. All existing easements lying within future right-of-way are to be quitclaimed or delineated on the fmal parcel map per the City Engineer's requirements. 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 10. Privatedrainageeasementsfurcr~ss~l~tdrainageshal~bepr~videdandshallbedelineated~rn~ted~nthe final parcel map. 11. 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. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right rum lane, a parallel street tree easement shall be provided. 12. 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 parcel 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 appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: B. Street Imorovements X All public improvements, (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc. ) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. A minimum, of 26-foot wide pavement within a 40- foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-section streets. 3. Construct the following missing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb AC Side- Drive Street Street Comm. Median Bike Other & Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Gutter Charles Smith Avcnue X (b) X X X X Notes: (a) Median Island includes landscaping and irrigation on mctcr. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so maxked, sidewalk will b¢ curvilinear per STD. # 1 t4. (d) |fso marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall bc provided for this item. X X 4. X Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans including street trees, street lights and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final parcel map approval. b. Prior to any work being performed in the public right-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 signing, sweet name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. 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: (l) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections), or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pullrope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all comers of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street improvement 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 private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. Street trees, a minimum of 15 - gallon size or larger shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger street, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. L~ca~residentia~streetintersecti~nsandc~mmercia~~rindustria~drivewaysmayhave~ines of sight plotted as required. 8. A Permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: 1-15 Freeway All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of building permits. Public Maintenance Areas 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 parcel map approval. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas ( %) of monared cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces. 3. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. 5. Parkway~andscaping~nthef~l~~wingstreet(s)sha~~c~nf~rmt~theresu~ts~ftherespectiveBeauti~catinn Master Plan: Drainal~e and Flood Control 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone designation removed from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA, prior to final parcel map approval. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs farst. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 4. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 5. A permit from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District is required for work within it's fight-of- way. 6. 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. 7. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin on a public street. Improvement Completion If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for: The remainder parcel X If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement certificate shall be placed upon the final parcel map, stating that they will be completed upon development for: Parcel No. 1 X X G. X Utilities 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. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet requirements of the C ucamonga 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 CCWD is required prior m final parcel map approval. Such letter must have been issued by the Water District within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 3. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the fmal parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. 4. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. General Recluirements and Approvals 1. The tentative map approval is valid for a three-year period following the approval date. Time extensions may be granted by the Planning Commission, if requested prior to the expiration date. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers or employees, for any court costs and attomey's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligation under this condition. 3. Final grading plans for each parcel shall be as required by the Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading permits. 4. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C C & R's) approved by the City Attorney is required prior to approval of the final parcel map. 5. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final parcel map approval for: X Prior to approval of the final parcel map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District , among the newly created parcels. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City. covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first 6 months of operation, prior to the issuance of building permits for development of Parcel 1. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final parcel map approval. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way. X ll. 12. 13. 14. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final parcel map approval. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessapj school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing district prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Further, if 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 parcel map for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District shall apply to this project. Pursuant to provisions of California 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 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with a stamped 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 provision of the California 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. Revised 9/8/98 6 ~'~ ~ DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 13, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15234 - JOY'S FOR US. INC. - A subdivision of 11.2 acres of land into two parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the north side of 7th Street between Utica Avenue and Toronto Avenue - APN: 209-401-21. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B". B. Parcel Size: Parcel 1 3.2 Parcel 2 8.0 Total 11.2 C. Existing Zoning: General Industrial, ISP Subarea 10 D. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning,: North - South - East West Industrial Buildings Industrial Buildings Industrial Buildings Industrial Park Buildings E. Surrounding General Plan and Developments Code Designations: North South - East West ISP Subarea 10, General Industrial ISP Subarea 11, General Industrial ISP Subarea 18, General Dynamics Specific Plan 93-01 ISP Subarea 6, Industrial Park ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORT PM15234 Januaq13.1999 Page 2 F. Site Characteristics: The westerly portion adjacent to Utica Avenue is fully developed with a one-story tilt-up building, on-site parking areas and landscaping. The easterly portion is vacant. The vacant portion was graded to an approved grading plan of the original subdivision PM 6191 recorded in July 1981, and it slopes to the south. The westerly portion has approved drainage with on-site collection. Street improvements are in place on all three street frontages. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to split the existing 11.2 acre parcel into two (2) parcels. Parcel I will include the existing building on 3.2 acres. Parcel 2 will be a vacant 8.0 acre site which may be developed in the future. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Pan II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this map. Therefore, issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has also been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 15234. If after such consideration, the Commission deems appropriate, then the adoption of the attached Resolution would be in order. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer DJ:PV:sd Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Tentative Map (Exhibit "B") Resolution FOOTHILL BLVD ACACIA 4th STREET ONTARIO MILLS (Z~SAN BERNARDtNO FRWY. VICINITY MAP N.T,S, CITY OF tL~NCHO CUC.4avIONGA ENG~G DIVISION C~ lrTFMt Ft~ tr Z '1 a...' .. d YOLLfi City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKI,IST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART lI BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Tentative Parcel Map 15234 2. Related Files: None 3. Description of Project: A subdivision of l l.2 acres into two parcels of 3.2 and 8. 0 acres each Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Joy's For Us, Inc. 623 Doubleday Avenue Ontario, CA 91764 General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial, Subarea 10 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existing industrial buildings on three sides, north, east and south. Existing industrial park buildings on the west. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucarnonga Engineering Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer (909) 477-2740, extension 2319 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Phillip ~erbera Assistant Engineer December 1, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND c) d) USE AND PLANNING. WouM the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) () ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) POPULATION AND HOUSING. WouM the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c7 () () () () () () No Impact (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 4 c) d) e) g) h) i) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?. ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) () () (x) () () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 5 AIR QUALITY. WouM the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors7 No () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? () () () (x) () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? No () () () (x) C, ct Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 6 b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. WouMthe proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Potentially Significant Impact () () () (x) () () () (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) HAZARDS. Wouldtheproposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pestleides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? NO () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 7 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? No () () () (x) () () () (x) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. ff'ould the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas.' a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Other governmental services? () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. WouM the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) g) Power and natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () No (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucarnonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 8 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? NO () () () (x) () () () (x) () () () (x) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. WouM the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () () () () () () () () () () (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () () () () () () NO (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 9 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? () (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Page 10 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Print Name and Title: Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Project Name: Tentative Parcel Map 15234 Project Location (also see attached map): Avenue - APN: 209-401-21 Project Description: A subdivision of 11.2 acres of land into two parcels in the General Industrial District (Subarea 10) of the Industdal Area Specific Plan. Public Review Period Closes: 1/13/99 Project Applicant: Joy's For Us, Inc. The north side of 7~ Street between Utica Avenue and Toronto FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 13, 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 15234, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 7TH STREET BETWEEN UTICA AVENUE AND TORONTO AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 209-401-21 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 15234, submitted by Joy's For Us, Inc., applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into two parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN 209-401-21. located on the north side of 7th Street between Utica Avenue and Toronto Avenue; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1999 the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public headng 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. 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: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 15234 January 13,1999 Page 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration. the staff reports and exhibits. and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 15234 is hereby approved subject to the following Special Conditions: Eneineednq Division A signed Consent and Waiver form to join the appropriate landscape and lighting districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pdor to final parcel map approval. Install street lighting on Utica Avenue and 7th Street in accordance with City Standards, and post both frontages with R26 "No Parking Any Time" signs. Traffic stdping shall be repainted on both streets as required. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel. Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:  1'o: Planning Commissioners Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner Sul~ject: VTT 14475 Time Extension Request I~ate: January 13, 1999 Please find additional documents for your consideration at tonight's hearing: I. Department of Fish and Game letter dated April 2, 1998 refei'enced in the January 13, 1999 Staff Report ', 2. "Final" Biological ~sessment Report for VTT 14475 received.on January II, 1999. Neighborhood petition in opposition to the proposed time extension received on January I 1, 1999. 4. Letter from Gerald Braden received on January 12, 1999. i84/13/1998 18:19 S~5~4~019 ~EYER DEPARTMENT OF FiSH AND GAME http://www.dfg.ca.gov Eastern Sierra - Inland Deserts Region 330 Golden Sh~re, Suite 50 Long Beach, California 90802 (502) 590-5113 Apdl 2, lgg8 PAGE 83 Mr. Brad Bullet City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 1500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Dear Mr. Brad Buller: Project Planning for Sensitive Habitats in tha City of Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) is writing to follow up on biological resource issues raised at our recent meeting with your office. As you are aware, the Depadment, the United States Fish and W].ldlife Seevice, and others, are very concerned about continued losses of sensitive habitats located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and neighboring areas, Habitats of particular concam include Riversideart Ailuvial Fan Sago Scrub, (state-ranked S1.1 rated, very threatened natural community), Alluvial Chapanal, Riversidean Coastal Sage Scrub (state-ranked S2.1, very threatened), and various riparian communities, Conversion of ruderal grasslands and areas of past agricurtural use to urban uses is also a concern. These habitats support an array of sensitive plant end animal species. Faderally listed animals known to occupy these areas include the threatened Califomia gnatcatcher (faderally listed on 3/30/g3), endangered San Bemardino Mer~am's kangaroo rat (emergency listed on 01/27/e8), and endangered least Bell's vireo (f~-~Jerally listed 5/2/86; state listed 10r2fS.0). As many as twenty-five sensitive species of plants and animals, may occur in these habitats. Sensil~ve rodent and reptile species also occur In ruderal grassland and agricultural areas, and these sites are important foraging and nesting areas for numerous raptors and rare species of bats. Where riparian and aquatic habitats are found sensitive/]isted spccics of riparian birds and amphibians may be present. ~4/13/199~ 18:19 S85~48~019 ~HEYER PAGE Mr. Brad Bullet Apdl 2, 1998 Page Two These listed and/or sensitive species generally meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definitions of rare and endangered species. CEQA Guidelines, § 15380 requires that impacts to these species be addressed in an environmental document and significant Impacts to them be mitigated. Further, where a project may have a signfficant Impact on such species and habitats by reducing their numbers or range, CEQA Guidelines, § 15065 Mandatory Finding of Signfficance requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Department is very concerned about continued, unmitigated .losses of these habitats and sensitive species populations. We are part cularly concarried about projects gaing fenNard without current biological surveys and adequate BEQA compliance. On several recent occasions. projects that have been dormant for a number of years are now going forward utilizing old CEQA documentation, including Negative Declarations. Generally, reliance upon the use of environmental approvals more ~an five years old raise serious questions regarding their adequacy and compliance with CEQA requirements. It is important to note that biological survey information is generally only valid for a three year period at the maximum. Changes In habitat conditions, site use, and species listing status are common. Additionally, several large preserves in the North Etiwanda area have been establishled over the last few years. and protection of habitat connectivity and wildlife movement between these areas Is currently a crit/cel planning issue. The Department often finds that these older environmental documents do not adequately address current biological resource concerns and fail to address cumulative impacts to these resources. For approved projects more than three years old, the Department advises the City of Rancho Cucamonga that substantial changes have occurred with respect to biological resource values in many of the undeveloped portions of the City's sphere. CEQA Guidelines, §15182 directs that the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent environmental document, where new information of substantial Importance comes to light that indicates: a) one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration could occur; b) substantially Impacts are more severe than previously shown; or c) mPJgation measures or alternatives different from those previously analyzed would substantially [educe impacts. These changed conditions also create additional CEQA compliance responsibilitjo3 for the Department. CEQA Gu!delines, §15381 states that '...the term · responsible agency" includes all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the projecL" The Department, therefore, Is a responsible agency where a project requires issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish and Game Code §1603) or a California Endangered Species Act ~4/13/199g 18:19 885~0G019 ~EYER PA~ 05 Mr. Brad Buller Apdl 2, 1998 Page Three Permit (Fish and Game Code § 2081), Consequently, the Department may be required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(e), to prepare a subsequent environmental document where the Lead Agency does not prepare one. It is important to note that the City of Rancho CuCamQnga is signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding for development of the San Bemardino Valley-wide Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Unfortunately, progress toward development of this plan has been slow. This planning effort provides for interim review of projects and requires evaluation of cumulative impacts to specJes and their habitats. The recent need for emergency listing of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service occurred, in part, due to continued habitat loss and a number of CECIA projects which are imminently close to approval and do not currently have adequate project mitigation. If the MSHCP effort is to be successful, and if we are to avoid the need for future species listings. it is critical that we have sufficient flexibility to develop a meaningful conservation strategy and effective reserve system. As piecemeal development projects eliminate more habitat and remaining areas are fragmented, it may become difficult to achieve lhis goal, therefore, we ask for your support In implementing the afore-mentioned measures for projects that arc more than three years old, The Department is available to work with the City to ensure that projects comply with CEQA, CESA and Fish and Game Code § 1603 and to develop appropriate mitigation for any Impacts to the biological resources. We are also available to assist in ensuring that any issues pertaining to the older proposed projects are incorporated Into the MSHCP effort where appropriate. The D~partment recommends that the City contact us to set up a meeting as action resumes on the older project'.. We request that you provide us with a few weeks notice so as to coordinate the appropriate Department staff that needs to pasljclpate in the meeting. The Department appreciates the effort the City has shown in looking at interim project planning issues. Your support in moving ahead on the valley-wide MSHCP ts important. Should you have any questions please direct them to Ms. Mary Meyer, Plant Ecologist at (805) 840-8019; Mr. RaOl Rodriguez, Fishery Biologist at (909) 597-9823, or Mr. Liam Davis, Natural Communities Conservation Planning at (760) 467-4207. copy: see attached list Glenn Black, Supervisor Natural Heritage TRACT MAP 14475 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT January& 1999 Prepared for.' Allard Engineering 6101 Cherry Avenue Fontana CA 92336 Prepared by.' LSA Associates, Inc. 3403 117h Street, Suite 520 Riverside, California 92501 (909) 781-9310 LSA Project #~trFL830 RECEIVED JAN i 1 1999 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Planning Division L£4.4ssociutes. bit. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ......................................... I METHODS ............................................. VEGETATION ..................................... 2 CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER ......................... 2 SAN BERNARDINO MERRIAM'S KANGAROO RAT ........... 3 LANDSCAPE-LEVEL AND REGIONAL IMPACTS ............ 4 PROJECT IMPACTS ....................................... 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................. 4 MITIGATION MEASURES .................................. 6 LITERATURE CITED ...................................... 7 APPENDICES A - SPECIES LIST B - SENSITIVE SPECIES TABLE I/g/99((R:\wtlgJ0\~nal_rcpoilocomplctc)> jj TRACT MAP 14475 BIOLOGICAL ASSESS~IENT REPORT INTRODUCTION LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is conducting a biological assessment for proposed Tentative Tract 14475 as an update to the biological report previously prepared for the project. The l l3.2-acre site is located in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, at the northwestern edge of the city in the community of San Antonio Heights. The mouth of Cucamonga Creek transects the western half of the site as it exits the foothills on the southern edge of the San Gabriel Mountains. The northern border of the site abuts the Angeles National Forest. Topography on site is hilly and extremely steep in spots (especially along the flanks of the creek), but is mostly chaiacterized by a rather flat bench above the east side of creek. ' The biological assessment of the Rancho Cucamonga site included focused surveys for sensitive species. an analysis of landscape-level and regional issues related to the proposed project, qualitative descriptions of vegetation, and a compilation of a list of species detected. The previous biological assessment and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project by Michael Brandman Associates was used as a basis for the current evaluation of project impacts. METHODS LSA conducted focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califontica californica) and the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), performed a general biological assessment, and reviewed available literature pertaining to the site (including a review of soil types and of past site assessments). Surveys for the California gnatcatcher were conducted by Michael A. Patten. They were started near sunrise and lasted as late as 1110 PDT. Surveys were conducted during good weather conditions (e.g., no high winds, no rain) every other week from August through December 1998. They took between 4 and 4~/i hours to complete. Surveys for this threatened bird species involved carefully checking available coastal sage scrub habitat while listening and watching for any sign of the species. Surveys for the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat were conducted by Richard A. Erickson in September 1998. Surveys consisted of setting 300 Sherman live traps in a grid throughout available alluvial scrub habitat along Cucamonga Creek on five consecutive nights. All animals captured were identified to species, sexed, measured. and released at the site of capture. Focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat were performed under authority of U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit #PRT777965. 1/8/99((R:\wl1830Xfinal_n:porl-compl¢tc>> List of all plant and wildlife species observed are included in Appendix A. Sensitive species known from the region are addressed in Appendix B. VEGETATION The Rancho Cucamonga site supports three vegetation con'~munities. chaparral, coastal sage scrub. and alluvial scrub. There are also small patches of non-native, weedy vegetation of slightly disturbed nature scattered throughout the site, mostly along existing roadways. This ruderal vegetation is characterized by non-native annual grass species, such as red brome (Bromus madritensis), foxtail rescue (Vtdpia rttyuros), ripgut grass (B. diandrus), and oats (Arena spp.). There is also a preyale.nee of weedy forbs, such as telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandi~ora) and short.~pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). ~ Both chaparral and coastal sage scrub on site are vegetation types dominated by shrubs, but they differ dramatically in structure and ~oristic composition. In particular, chaparral has a higher degree of ground cover by shrubs, consists of taller plants, and supports a substantially higher proportion of chamise (Adenosto,ta fasciculatum). a shrub species nearly synonymous with chaparral in the California ~oristic province. By contrast, coastal sage scrub supports shrubs lower in stature. It is a more open vegetation type that supports a higher percentage of gr,ass cover and a higher ground cover of California buckwheat (Eriogonumfasciculatum). white sage (Salvia apiana), California sagebrush (Artimesia californica), pine-bush (Ericameria pinifolia), and black sage (S. mellifera). five species characteristic o~ this habitat throughout southern California. Alluvial scrub is similar to coastal sage scrub in ~oristic composition, but occurs only on alluvial fans or in washes with a periodic flood regime. Alluvial scrub on site supports much California buckwheat and California sagebrush. It is even more open than coastal sage scrub and additionally supports Scalebroom (Lepidospartum squarealum), a shrub species nearly diagnostic of alluvial scrub in southern California. CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER The nominate subspecies of the California gnatcatcher is a small, drably-colored insectivorous songbird endemic to cismontane southern California (Mellink and Rea 1994, cf. Atwood 1988. 1991). This species occurs almost exclusively in coastal sage scrub habitat (Woods 1949, Atwood 1980, Roach 1989, Mock et al. 1990, Bontrager 1991), generally below 2,000 feet in altitude (Atwood and Bolsinger 1992). Because of the small population size. estimated at around 2,000 pairs in southern California (Atwood 1980, 1990), and limited extent of remaining coastal sage scrub habitat (Atwood 1990, 1993), the California Gnatcatcher recently was listed as Endangered by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Satata 1993). Coastal sage scrub supporting California gnatcatchers in western Riverside and soutltwestern San Bernardino counties (M. A. Patten pets. obs.) is typically dominated by California sagebrush. California buckwheat, brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), white sage, and 1/8/99((R:~wtlg30',~nal_rcport-complcteD 2 yellow bush-penstemon (Keckellia atttirrhinoides). Furthermore. they tend to occur in areas of modest slope and with few rock outcrops (M. A. Patten pets. obs.). Coastal sage scrub habitat on the Rancho Cucamonga site is marginally suitable for the California Gnatcatcher in terms of both physiognomy and floristic composition. If anything, this habitat on site is too dense for the gnatcatcher, and is perhaps at too high an elevation (Atwood and Bolsinger 1992). The dense coastal sage scrub dominated by buckwheat, sagebrush. sage, and pine-bush on the flat bench occupying the bulk of the southeastern portion of the site is perhaps the best available habitat. Recent records for southwestern San Bernardino County are scarce (Davis et al. 1998), with the closest geographically being at the Etiwanda fan in Rancho Cucamonga in 1994. Gnatcatchers at that site occupied dense coastal sage scrub below 2,300 feet. Focused gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in the fall following breeding activities (Woods 1949, Atwood 1990, Patten and Campbell 1994), so any California gnatcatchers present should have been fairly easy to detect (M. A. Patten pets. obs.). Two species of "sensitive" Emberizid sparrow species were detected on site, the Ashy rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ru~ceps canescens) and the Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belh), both of which are typical of coastal sage scrub in western Riverside County and southwestern San Bernardino County. However, no California gnatcatchers were detected on the Rancho Cucamonga site. Thus, the California gnatcatcher is currently absent from the Rancho Cucamonga project site. SAN BERNARDINO MERRIAM'S KANGAROO RAT The San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat was recently Emergency Listed as Endangered by the USFWS. Its range is nearly confined to southwestern San Bernardino County, where it shows an especially high affinity for alluvial scrub habitat (McKernan 1993), and particularly sites with modest vegetation cover and open, sandy areas for foraging (M. A. Patten pets. obs.). The population size of this species is unknown, but it probably numbers fewer than 2,000 individuals. So far as known. it is active year-round although it may show reduced activity (or even partial hiberna- tion) during periods of extreme cold weather. Alluvial scrub habitat on site is suitable for this species, especially along the lower reaches of Cucamonga Creek just north of the southerly project boundary where the vegetation is dense enough and there is much open sand. Trapping efforts for this species were focused in that area. No Merriam's kangaroo rats were trapped during any of the surveys. The nearest known recent occurrence is in alluvial scrub in the Day Creek channel in 1996 (R. L. McKernan pets. comm.). several miles to the east on the eastern edge of Rancho Cucamonga. This species is currently considered absent from the Rancho Cucamonga project site. I/8/99((R:\wtlg30~final_report-complctc)) 3 LANDSCAPE-LEVEL AND REGIONAL I, tlPACTS The project site adjoins tile Angeles National Forest. and thus a substantial amount of basically unspoiled open space. Although there is a significant amount of relatively undisturbed vegetation on the site, it is bordered to the south by extensive suburban development, with some of this development also encroaching to the east. Thus. it is unlikely that this peninsula of habitat on the southeastern bench will be an effective refugium or corridor for wildlife movement. The Cucamonga Creek drainage provides the only realistic wildlife movement corridor on the site, as it travels from the national forest in the north through suburbia to various islands of natural vegetation in the south. Although much of the creek is channelized or otherwise developed throughout its length, it likely still functions as an effective corridor. Much of the Rancho Cucamonga region. as with elsewhere in the Inland Empire .and indeed throughout cismontane southern California, Ins experienced extensive development and concomitant habitat fragmemation. Developmentofthisprojectsite will contribute to this cumulative effect. further reducing the amount of natural habitat available to our native flora and fauna. PROJECT IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Significance criteria, reflecting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines are important for the clear identification of potential project impacts. CEQA identifies project impacts that constitute significant effects on the environment. With respect to biological resources, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies the following impacts that are normally considered to be significant: Impacts that substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. Impacts that interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. · Impacts that substantially diminish habitat for fish. wildlife. or plants. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines provides a definition of rare or endangered species that is summarized as follows: "Species" as used in this subsection means a species or subspecies of animal or plant or a variety of plant. Plants or animals already listed by a government agency (California Depart- merit of Fish and Game and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) as being rare. threatened, or endangered shall he presumed rare or endangered for purposes 118199((R:\wtlg30~nal_repon-complctc)) 4 of CEQA. The section also provides that a plant or animal may be treated as rare or endangered even if it has not been listed by a government agency if it can be shown that the species meets the criteria for such listing. Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the following definition: "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentialIy substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The previous biological assessment concluded that the project would result in the loss of 58 acres of coastal sage scrub and 23 acres of chaparral that woul~l be directly impacted by project construction or by modifications within individu41 lots subse- quently made by project residents. It was concluded that tilere would be no adverse impacts to sensitive plants and that impacts to the San Diego horned lizard would include an incremental, but not significant. loss of potential habitat. It was concluded that other sensitive species potentially occurring within Cucamonga Wash would not be impacted by the project (as Cucamonga Wash would be retained intact). Since the proposed project is essentially unchanged from that analyzed in.the previous biological assessment report, the extent of impacts are also unchanged. About 58 acres of coastal sage scrub and 23 acres of chaparral will be removed during project construction, alluvial scrub habitat within Cucamonga Wash will be preserved intact. Focused surveys to date have found no listed threatened or endangered species on the site and none are expected to be present. Cucamonga Creek is a potential wildlife corridor (or habitat linkage) and it is expected that this value will be retained under tile proposed project. For the purposes of specifically assessing project impacts in the context of the significance criteria identified above: The project will not substantially affect a rare [threatened] or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. This conclusion is based on the results of focused biological surveys that have determined that neither the California gnatcatcher nor the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are present on the site nor does either species use the habitat of the site. Further, other sensitive species either do not meet the definition (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380) of a rare or endangered species or, are considered to have such a low potential for occurrence on the site that the project would not be expected to result in impacts to the species. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. With the exception of Cucamonga Creek, habitat on the site is essentially a peninsula and thus, is not an effective wildlife movement corridor. Cucamonga Creek may function as a movement corridor and will be retained intact. Project impacts to coastal sage scrub (loss of 58 acres) may be considered significant as this loss may substantially diminish habitat for wildlife and plants. Ahhough no listed species are present on the site, coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive habitat l/8/99((R:\wt1830\final_rcporl-complcte>) 5 type. Further, as is reflected by the attached species list and sensitive species table. the site supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants and is. therefore. considered to be high quality habitat. Thus, impacts of the proposed project to habitat (i.e., coastal sage scrub) may be considered significant. MITIGATION MEASURES The CEQA Guidelines require mitigation only for impacts considered to be significant. Therefore, mitigation measures may be necessary only for potential project impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat. Mitigation for impacts to coastal sage scrub could be accomplished through one, or a combination of, the following measure,s. Avoid impacts to coastal sage scrub. This measure would require p~reserving all coastal sage scrub on site. Given the scope of the proposed project, !his measure would probably not be feasible. Minimize impacts to coastal sage scrub. This measure would require preserving a substantial portion of the coastal sage scrub on site. Given the scope of the proposed project, this measure would also probably not be feasible. Provide alternate or substitute resources. This measure could include pr~:servation of other habitats on the site (i.e., the alluvial fan scrub within Cucamonga Creek and coastal sage scrub and chaparral on the adjoining banks) and off-sitei purchase of habitat to replace impacted coastal sage scrub habitat. Suitable locations'for purchase may be within the North Etiwanda Preserve area. An appropriate replacement ratio for mitigation would depend on the value of the potential replacement site. It could be appropriate to acquire mitigation lands at a less than 1:1 ratio if the replacement lands are high value coastal sage scrub, support sensitive species, and are in a location that would facilitate management for associated habitat values (i.e.. adjoining an existing preserve or linking preserved but disjunct habitat areas). As an alternative to direct purchase of lands, project impacts could be mitigated through a contribution towards regional multi-species habitat conservation efforts. l/8/99((R:\wt1830\finaI_tcpotl-complctcD 6 LITERATURE CITED American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-List of North American Birds, 7th edn. Am. Ornithol. Union, Lawrence, Kansas. Atwood, J.L. 1980. The United States distribution of the California Black-tailed Gnatcatcher. West. Birds 11:65-78. Atwood, J.L. 1988. Speciation and geographic variation in black-tailed gnatcatchers. Ornithol. Monogr. 42. Atwood, J.L. 1990. Status review of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Manomet Bird Observatory, P. O. Box 1770, Manomet, Mass. 02345. Atwood, J.L. 1991. Subspecies limits and geographic patterns of morphological variations in California Gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica). Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 90:118-133. Atwood, J.L. 1992. A maximum estimate of the California Gnatcatcher's population size in the United States. West. Birds 23: l-9. Atwood, J.L. 1993. California Gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub: The biological basis for endangered species listing. Pp. 149-169 in Keeley, J.C., ed. Interface between ecology and land development in southern California. South. Calif. Acad. Sci., Los Angeles. Atwood, J.L., and J.S. Bolsinger. 1992. Elevational distribution of California Gnatcatchers in the United States. J. Field Ornithol. 63: 159-168. Beauchamp, R.M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County. Sweetwater Press. National City, Calif. Bontrager, D.R. 1991. Habitat requirements, home range and breeding biology of the California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) in south Orange County, California. Unpubl. rep.; copy in Van Tyne Library, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109. Davis, L. H., R. L. McKernan, and J. S. Burns. 1998. History and status of the California Gnatcatcher in San Bernardino County, California. West. Birds 29:361-365. Hicksnan, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher plants of California. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. Laudenslayer, W.F., Jr., W.E. Grenfell, Jr., and D.C. Zeiner. 1991. A check-list of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of California. Calif. Fish and Game 77: 109-141. l/gF}9((R:\wtlg30\final_rcport-complctc)) 7 McKernan, R. L. 1993. San Bernardino Merfiam's Kangaroo Rat. in Brylski. P.. ed. Biology and management of southern California rodents. San Bernardino Co. Museum, Redlands, Calif. Ivtellink, E., and A.M. Rea. 1994. Taxonomic status of the Caliti~rnia Gnatcatchers of northwestern Baja California, Mexico. West. Birds 25:50-62. Mock, P.J., B.L. Jones, M. Grishaver, J. Konecny, and D. King. 1990. Home range size and habitat preferences of the California Gnatcatcher in San Diego County. Abstract, Am. Ornithol. Union/Cooper Ornithol. Soc. joint meeting, Univ. Calif., Los Angeles, 25-30 June 1990. Patten, M.A., and K.F. Campbell. 1994. Late nesting of the California Gnatcatcher. West. Birds 25:110-111. Roach, J.D. 1989. The influence of vegetation structure and arthropod abundance on the reproductive success of California Black-tailed Gnatcatchers Polioprila californica californica. M.Sc. Thesis, San Diego State Univ., San Diego. Salata, L. 1993. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; determination of Threatened status for the coastal California Gnatcatcher. Fed. Reg. 58: 16742- 16757. Woods, R.S. 1949. Polioptila melanura californica Brewster: Black-tailed Gnatcatcher. Pp. 374-381 in Bent, A .C.. ed. Life histories of North American thrushes, kinglets. and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 196. l/8/99((R:\v, l1830\~nal_report-clm~plclc:.) 8 APPENDIX A - SPECIES LIST APPENDIX A - SPECIES LIST The following list includes all plant and animal species detected on tile Rancho Cucamonga project site during field surveys by LSA Associates. Taxonomy and nomenclature for plant species follows Hickman (1993), with many of tile common names taken from Beauchamp (1986). Taxonomy and nomenclature for vertebrate species follows Laudenslayer et al. (1991), as updated for birds by the American Ornithologists' Union (1998). An asterisk indicates that a species is not native to California. DICOT FLOWERING PLANTS Amaranthaceae * Amaranthus albus Anacardiaceae Malosma laurina Rhus ovata Toxicodendron diversilobum Anlaranths White Tumblex~eed Laural Sumac Sugar Bush Poison Oak Asclepiadaceae Asclepias californica Milkweeds California Milkiveed Asteraceae Ambrosia acanthacarpa Ambrosia psilostachya Anemisia califontica Anemisia douglasii Artemisia dracunculus Baccharis salictfolia * Centaurea melitensis Cirsium occidentalius * Cirsium vulgare Conyza bonariensis Conyza canadensis Encelia farinosa Ericameria palmeri Ericameria pinifolia Eriophyllum conferti~orum Hazardia squarrosa Helianthus annuus Helianthus gracilentis Heterotheca grandifiora Lessingia ~laginifolia Malacothrix caltfornica Stephanomeria virgata * Xantbium stntmarium Sunflowers Burweed Western Ragweed California Sagebrush Mugwort Taragon Mulefat Tocalote Western Thistle Bull Thistle Prostrate Conyza Mare's Tail Brittlebush Palmer's Goldenbush Pine-Bush Golden Yarrow Saw-tooth Goldenbush Western Sunflower Hispid Sunflower Telegraph Weed Cudweed Aster Dandelion Twiggy Wreathplant Cocklebur 118/99({R:\wllg30\tinal,rcpurl.comptctc>> A- I Boraginaceae Amsinckia menz. iesii Heliotropium curassavicum Borages Rancher's Fiddleneck Salt Heliotrope Brassicaceae * HirschfeMia it,cana * Sisymbrium altissimunt Caprifoliaceae Sambucus mexicana Chenopodiaceae Atriplex canescens * Chenopodium album Chenopdium californicum * Salsola tragus Convolvulaceae Calystegia macrostegia Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita foetidissima Marah macrocarpus Euphorbiaceae Chantaesyce albomarginata Croton californicus Eremocarpus setigerus Fabaceae Lotus scoparius Lupinus excubitus * Medicago hispida * Melilott~ iltdicl~ Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia Geraniaceae * Erodium cicutarium Hydrophyllaceae Eriodictyon trichocalyx Phacelia ramosissima t~lustards Short-pod Mustard Tumble Mustard tloneysucldes Mexican Elderberry Saltbushs Four-winged Saltbush Lamb's Quarters California Chenopod Russian Thistle Morning-glories Finger-leaf Morning-glory Gourds, Melons Coyote Melon Wild Cucumber Spurges Rattlesnake Weed California Croton Doveweed Peas Deerweed Bush Lupine Bur-Clover White Sweet-Clover Oaks Coast Live Oak Geraniums Red-stemmed Filaree Waterleafs Yerba Santa Branching Phacelia l/8/99((R:\wt1830\llnal_reporl<omplctc>} A-2 Lamiaceae * Marntbium vulgare Salvia apiana Salvia mellifera Trichostema lanceolatum Malvaceae Malacothamnus fasciculatus * Malva parvifiora Myrtaceae * Eucalyptus camaldulensis Nyctaginaceae Mirabilis californica Onagraceae Catnissonia cahfornica Polygonaceae Eriogonum elongatum Eriogonum fasciculatum Portulacaeae * Protulaca oleracea Rhamnaceae Rhamnta crocea Rhamnus ilicifolia Rosaceae Adenostoma fasciculatum Heteromeles arbutifolia Scrophulariaceae Mimulus aurantiacus Solanaceae Datura wrightii * Nicotiana glauca Solanum doaglasii Sterculiaceae Fremontidendron califontica Mints, Sages Horehound White Sage Black Sage Vinegar Weed Mallows Chaparral Bush Mallow Cheeseweed Myrtles River Red Gum Four O'Clocks California Wishbone Bush Evening Primroses California Suncup Buckwheats, Doc'ks Long-stemmed Buckwheat California Buckwheat Putslanes Common Putslane Buckthorns Redberry Chaparral Redberry Roses Chamise Toyon Figworts, Monkeyflowers Bush Monkeyflower Nightshades, Tabaccoes JimsonWeed Tree Tobacco Douglas' Nightshade Cacaos Flannel Bush l/8/99((Px;\wt1830\~nal_rcpt~rl-complclc>> A-3 MONOCOT FLO~,VERING PLANTS Liliaceae Yucca whipplei Poaceae * Anindo dona. r * Avena barbara * Avena fatua * Bromus diandrus * BrothIllS hordeaceus * Bromtts ntadritensis * Hordellttt tllltrinunt * Lamarckia aurea Leymus condensatus * Schismus barbatus * Vulpia myuros Ai~IPHIBIANS Hylidae Hyla regilla REPTILES Iguanidae Sceloponts occidentalis Uta stansburiana Teiidae Cnemidophorus tigris Colubridae Masticophis ~agellum Pituophis melanoleucus BIRDS Ardeidae Ardea herodias Ardea alba Cathartidae Cathartes attra Accipitridae Circus cyaneus Accipiter cooperi Buteo lineatu5 Buteo jamaicensis Aqtdla chrysateos Falconidae Falco sparverius Lilies, Yuccas Spanish Bayonet Grasses Giant Reed Slender Wild Oat Wild Oat Ripgut Grass Smooth Brome Red Brome Barley Goldentop Giant Wild Ryd Abu-mashi Foxtail Fescue Treefrogs Pacific Treefrog Iguanid Lizards Western Fence Lizard Side-blotched Lizard ~Vhiptails Western Whiptail Colubrid Snakes Coachwhip Gopher Snake Herons Great Blue Heron Great Egret New World Vultures Turkey Vulture Kites, Hawks, Eagles Northern Harrier Cooper's Hawk Red-shouldered Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Golden Eagle Falcons American Kestrel 1/S/99((R:\wf1830\lhlal_rcpon-complctc)) A-4 Phasianidae Callipepla californica Columbidae Zenaida nmcroura Cuculidae Geococcyx californiamrs Apodidae A eronautes so. ratalis Trochilidae Calypte anna Calypte costae Hcidae Melanerpes formicivorus Picoides nuttallii Colapies auratus cafer Tyrannidae Contopus sordidulus Sayornis nigdcans Sayornis saya Myiarchus cinerascens Tyratmus verticalis Laniidae Lanius ludovicianus Vireonidae Vireo gilvus Corvidae Aphelocoma californica Corvus brancyrhynchos Corvus corer Alaudidae Eretnophilus alpestris Hirundinidae Tachycineta bicolor Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Hirundo rusHca Paridae Baelophus inontatus Aegithalidae Psaltripants minimus Pheasants. Grouse, Quail California Quail Pigeons, Doves Mourning Dove Cuckoos, Roadrunners Greater Roadrunner SwiRs Wbite-throated .Swift tlununingbirds Anna's Hummipgbird Costa's Hummingbird Woodpeckers Acorn Woodpecker Nuttall's Woodpecker Red-shafted Flicker Tyrant Flycatcher$ Western Wood-Pewee Black Phoebe , Say's Phoebe t Ash-tbroated Flycatcher Western Kingbird Shrikes Loggerhead Shrike Vireos Warbling Vireo Jays, Crows, Ravens Western Scrub-Jay American Crow Common Raven Larks Horned Lark SwaHows Tree Swallow Cliff Swallow Barn Swallow Chickadees and Titmice Oak Titmouse Bushtits Bushtit 1/S/99((R:\wtlSJ0\linal_rcport-complctcD A-5 Troglodytidae Salpinctes obsoletus Thryomanes bewickii Troglodytes aedon Regulidae Regtdus calendula Sylviliidae Polioptila caertdea Turdidae Sialia mexicana Catharus guttatus Turdus migratorius Timaliidae Chamaea fasciata Mhnidae Mimus polyglotlos Toxostoma redivivum Ptilogonatidae Phainopepla nitens Sturnidae * Sturnus vtdgads Parulidae Vermivora celata Dendroica petechia Dendroica coronata attduboni Dendroica nigHcans Geothlypis trichas Wilsonia pusilia Emberizidae Pipilo maculatus Pipilo crissalis Aimophila rt~ceps Passerculus sandwhichensis Amphispiza belli Melospiza melodia Melospiza lincolnii Zonotrichia leucophrys gantbelii Cardinalidae Pheucticus melanocephahts Passedna antoena Wrens Rock Wren Bewick's Wren House Wren Kinglets Ruby-crowned Kinglet Old World Warblers Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Thrushes Western Bluebird Hermit Thrush American Robin Babblers Wrentit Thrashers Northern Mockingbird California Thrasher Silky Flycatchers Phainopepla Starlings European Starling New World Warblers Orange-crowned Warbler Yellow Warbler Audubon's Warbler Black-throated Gray Warbler Common Yellowthroat Wilson's Warbler New World Sparrows Spotted Towbee California Towbee Rufous-crowned Sparrow Savannah Sparrow Sage Sparrow Song Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow Gambel's White-crowned Sparrow CardinaLs, Grosbeaks, Buntings Black-headed Grosbeak Lazuli Bunting 1/8/99(<R:\wt1830\~nal_rcport-¢omp[ctc)) A-6 Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus Euphagus cyanocephahts Molotl, rus ater lcterus bullockii Icterus parisorum Fringillidae Carpodacus me. ricanus Carduelis psaltHa MAMMALS Leporidae Lepus californicus Sylvilagus audubonii Sciuridae Spermophilus beecheyi Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Heteromyidae Dipodomys agilis Cricetidae Reithrodontomys ntegalotis Perontyscus eremicus Peromyscus maniculatus Peromyscus californicus Neotoma lepida Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus Canis latrans Procyonidae Procyon lotor Mustelidae Mephitis mephitis Felidae Fells rufi,s Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus Blackbirds and Orioles Red-winged Blackbird Brewer's Blackbird Brown-headed Cowbird Bullock's Oriole Scott's Oriole Finches House Finch Lesser Goldfinch Rabbits, Hares Black-tailed Jackrabbit Audubon's Cottontail Squirrels California Ground Squirrel Pocket Gophers Botta's Pocket Gopher Pocket Mice, Kangaroo Rats Pacific Kangaroo Rat Mice, WoodraB, Voles Western Harvest Mouse Cactus Mouse Deer Mouse California Mouse Desert Woodrat Dogs, Wolves, Foxes Gray Fox Coyote Raccoons Raccoon Weasels, Skunks, Badgers Striped Skunk Cats Bobcat Elk, Deer, Caribou Mule Deer 1/8199((R:\wfi830\llnal_rcporl-complctc)> A-7 APPENDIX B - SENSITIVE SPECIES TABLE RECEIVED JAN 11 1999 City of Rancho Cucamongli Planning Division I/g/gQ((R:\wd830\final_rcport-contplcl¢)) APPENDIX B - SENSITIVE SPECIES TABLE Sensitive species are those plants and animals occurring or potentially occurring on the project site that are endangered or rare. as those terms are used by CEQA and its Guidelines, or are of current local. regional or State concern. Plant communities are considered to be sensitive biological resources based on 1) federal. State or local laws regulating their development, 2) limited distributions, and/or 3) the habitat requireme!~ts of sensitive plants or animals occurring on the site. Legal protection for sensitive species varies widely, from the relatively conlprehensive protection extended to listed threatened/endangered species to no legal status at present. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), local agencies, and special interest groups such as. the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) publish watch lists of declining species; these lists often describe the general nature and perceived severity of the decline. In addition, recently published findings and preliminaiy results of ongoing research provide a basis for consideration of species that are candidates for State and/or federal listing. Finally, species that are clearly not rare or threatened statewide or regionally, but whose local p6pulations are sparse, rapidly dwindling or otherwise unstable, may be considered to be of "local interest." The following table provides a summary of information regarding the species identified from literature sources as occurring in the project vicinity. ACTIVITY STATUS SPECIES IIABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION PERIOD DESIGNATION OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY PLANTS Plummer's mar- Dry. rocky places, often in brush. May - July US: * Moderate: Suitable habitat exists iposa lily below 5.000 feet elevation. Usually CA: ND oil site. none detected during sub on granitic soils. Found in grassland. CNPS: List IB veys. Calochorttt.~ chaparral, coastal sage scrub, yellow plununerae pine forest. Santa Monica Mrs to San Jacinto Mrs. Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Ventura Cos. Sandy openings in coastal sage scrub April - June US: and chaparral. 900 to 3.500 feet ele- CA: ND vation: east Los Angeles County to CNPS: List 3 San Goreohio Pass and west River- side County. ChoriZanthe parryi var. parryi Slender-horned spineflower Dodecahema Many-stennned dudlcya Dudleya multicaulis Sandy and gravelly soils of floodplains often on alluvial fans; 500 to 2,000 feet elevation. Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Often on clay soils also around gra- nitic outcrops in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland; below 2,500 feet elevation. Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bcrnardino, and San Diego counties. April - June May - July US: END CA: END CNPS: List IB US: * CA: ND CNPS: List IB Moderate. Loose. sandy soils are on the site in coastal sage scrub. Very Low. Habitat on site (within Cucamonga Creek channel) may be suitable. nearest known locations are about 15 miles away; a spring survey would be necessary for a conclusive determination. Ahsent. Clay soils are not present and no granitic rock c, utcrops oil site. 118/99((P,:\v, tlg30\tinal_rcport-complcte)> B- ] SPECIES IIABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION Santa Ana River woolly star denstfolium vat. Pious daisy Erigeron breweri Pringle's monardella Monardella pringlei California spine flower Mucronea californica California muhly ~hddenbergia caifornica Perennial sub-shrub found in alluvial fan sage scrub and coastal sage scrub habitats on alluvial deposits along the Santa Ann River, San Bernardb~o County. AUTIVITY STATUS PERIOD DESIGNATION Year-round US: END CA: END CNPS: List IB Euphydryas etitha quino Delhi sands flower-loving fly Chaparra[ and lower conili~ruus for- May - US: * cst of tbe San Gabriel and San September CA: ND Bernardino mounts:ins: this subspc- CNPS: List IB cies known only from Los Angeles and San Bernardino coooties; open dry slopes and washes; 1,0t30 to 4.500 feet elevation. Presumed extinct. Previously known May - June US: * from only two locations in vicinity CA: ND of Colton: habitat requirements are CNPS: List 1A described as sandy places in coastal sage scrub. Sandy soils in coastal sage scrub and March - US: ND chaparral, below 4,500 feet eleva- August CA: ND lion; central western and southwest- CNPS: List 4 ero California July- US: * September CA: ND CNPS: List IB Streambanks. canyons. and other moist sites in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, coniferous forest, and mead- ows; 500 to 6,000 feet elevation; San Gabriel, San Bernardino. and San Jacinto mountains INVERTEBRATES Quino Meadows or openings within coastal January - US: END checkerspot but- sage scrub or chaparral where foot late April CA: ND ter~y plants (Plantago erecta and/or Orthocarpus purpurascens) are pres- eat. Historically known from Santa Monica Mountains to northwest Baja California; currently known only from southwestern Riverside County, southern San Diego County. and northern Baja California. Fine. sandy soils, often with wholly Above- US: END or partially consolidated dunes. ground CA: ND These soil types are generally classi- emergence fled as the 'Delhi' series (primarily August and Delhi fine sand). Restricted to west- Sept. Not era Riverside and San Bemardinc, visible dur- counties. lag the rest of tbe year OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY Absent. No suitable habitat and outside known range. Absent. No suitable cltaparral hab- itat: on lower edge of clcvational range. Very low. Loose soils are found on site, but no individuals of this species were noted. Low: Habitat on site may have ap- pears suitable no known records of species fi'om within five-mile ra- dius of sile. Very Low: No suitable moist bobl- Ing exists on site. Absent. Site is outside known range of species. Allsent. No Delhi sands habitat is present on site. I/g/q9((R:Xwt1830\final_rcpo~-comptetO> B-2 SPECIES REPTILES San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegoln$ abbouii San Diego horned lizard Orange-throated whiptail Cnemidophorta hypenhrus beMingi Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra Coastal Rosy boa Lichanura trivirgata rosafirsts Coast patch- nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea BIRDS Swainson's hawk Burro swainsoni Western bur- rowing owl Athene cunlcularia hypugea HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY PERIOD STATUS DESIGNATION Often associated with rocks. Coastal Nocturnal. US: * sage scrub and chaparral, most often April - CA: CSC on granite or rocky outcrops in these October. habitats. Interior Venturn Co. south. Wide variety of habitats including April - July US: * coastal sage scrub, grassland, ripar- with re- CA: CSC inn woodland; typically on or near duccd loose sandy soils; coastal and ioland activity areas from Venturn County to Baja August - California. October Floodplains and terraces with peren- Marcit - US: * nial plants and open areas nearby; July with CA: CSC sea level to 3,000 feet elevation; in- reduced land and coastal valleys of River- activity side, Orange, and San Diego coun- August - ties (all records from south of Santa October Ann River) to Baja California. Mountain ranges and coastal slope of US: * southern California and northwest CA: CSC Baja California; southern Sierra Ne- vada; and some desert-edge Iocali- ties. Year-ruund with ooly brief peri- ods of win- ter inactiv- ity. Active noc- turnally throughout most of the year. US: · CA: ND Rocky shrub land areas of desert, chaparral and coastal sage habitats. Attracted to water sources such as permanent and intermittent streams, but does not require permanent wa- ter. Restricted to southwestern Cali- fornia and northern Baja California. Coastal chaparral. washes, sandy flats and rocky areas. Widely dis- tributcd throughout lowlands, up to 7,000 feet of Southern California from coast to the eastern border. Active US: * diurnaliy CA: CSC throughout most of the year Grassland and agricultural areas; Spring & US: * large trees for nesting. Breeds and Fall (in CA: THR nests in western North America: migration) winters in South America; in Cali- foruia restricted to Central Valley. Modoc Plateau, and Great Basin. Grasslands and rangelands. usually Year-round US: * occupying ground squirrel burrows. CA: CSC Resident over most of Southern Cali- fornia. Found in agricultural crop land areas. OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY Moderate. Project site has rocks and rock piles oo tile suffice; spe- cies was not observed duriog tile survey. IIigh. Ilabitat oil site appears suit- able. Absent: Site is outside known range of species; nearest known record is about 12 miles south of site. Low. Loose soil found on site in Cucamonga Creek. Low. Mafgioal habitat exists on site Moderate. Habitat exists on site Low. Species passes through re- gion during migration: could forage on site. Allsent: Not detected during fi~- cused survey fur avian species. 1/8199(tR:\wt1830\~nal_report-eomplete>) B-3 SPECIES Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi California yel- low warbler Dendroica pete- chia morcomi; includes D.p. brewsteri California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia California gnatcatcher Poliop~la californica californica Loggerhead shrike Lanius htdovicianus iBhy rufous- Aimophila ru~ceps canescens Bell's sage spar- Amphispiza belli belli IIABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY STATUS PERIOD DESIGNATION Transient throughout Southern Call- Spring and US: * fornia. Can occur almost every- fall CA: CSC where. Riparian woodlands of coastal low- Year-round US: * land and foothill canyons and across diurnal CA: CSC (nest- the foothills of the Transverse activity. ing habitat) ranges. Riparian areas are exclu- Ntx:turnal sirely used for nesting. Migrants migrant are widespread and common. Patchily distributed throughout Southern California. Open grasslands and fields, agricul- Year-round US: * rural area. open montane grasslands, interior (in- CA: CSC Southern California common rest- land areas) dent in interior, common transient and winter visitant along coast, com- mon summer resident. Coastal sage scrub; occurs only Year-round US: THR cismontane southwestern California CA: CSC and Baja California in low- lying foothills and valleys, Open fields with scattered trees. open woodland. scrub. Fairly com- mon resident throughout Southern California Year-round US: * CA: CSC Steep. rocky coastal sage scrub and Year-round open chaparral habitats. particularly diurnal ac- scrubby areas mixed with grass- tivity lands. From Santa Barbara County to northwestern Baja California. Uncommon to fairly common but Year-round local resident in dense, dry chaparral diurna[ ac- in interior foothills along the coast. tivity Breeds in low dense chamisai chap- arral and in coastal sage scrub. US: * CA: CSC US: * CA: CSC OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY lligh. Probably occurs as a mi- grant. but no suitable breeding hab- itat occurs. Absent: Suitable breeding habitat (riparian woodland) is not present on site. Low. Gra~lands on site are not extensive. but occasional birds may forage on site. (Absent). Not detected on site dur- ing 8 focused survey visits to date. one addtion,al survey visit to oom- plete survey~ effort. High. S t.able habitat exists on site. Present: Observed in coastal sage scrub habitat exists on site. Pr~ent: Observed in coastal sage scrub habitat exists on site. I/8/99((R:\wt1830\final_rcport-complet¢)> B-4 SPECIES MA~ISlALS California mas- tiff bat Eumop$ perotis californicu$ California leaf-nosed bat btacrotus californicta San Diego black-tailed jackrabblt californicta bennettii Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longiraembris brevinasus Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaewdippus fallax fallax San Bernardino Merriam's kan- garoo rat Dipodomys merriarai pan, us tIABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY PERIOD STATUS DESIGNATION Historically from north-central Call- US: * fornia south to northern Baja Call- CA: CSC fornia, eastward across the south- western United States, and north- western Mexico to west Texas and Coabuila. In California, most re- cords are from rocky areas at low elevations where roosting occurs primarily in crevices. Occurs from northern Nevada, Nocturnal, US: * Southern California. and western active year- CA: CSC Arizona south to southern Baja Call- round fornia and Sonora. In California pri- marily occupies low-lying desert areas roosting in caves. mines, and old buildings. Historic records ex- tend west to near Chatsworth. Los Angeles County. but most popula- tions from the California coastal has- ins are not believed to have disap- peared. Variety of habitats including grass- Year-round US: * land. scrub, open forest. and chapar- diurnal. and CA: CSC ral. Most common in relatively open crepuscular habits. Restricted to southern Call- activity fornia. from the coast to the Santa Monies. San Gabriel. San Bernardtrio. and Santa Rosa moun- rain ranges. Prefers sandy soil for burrowing. but Nocturnal. US: * has been found on gravel washes and Active late CA: CSC stony soils. Found in coastal scrub. spring to Los Angeles. Riverside. and San early fall. Bernardino counties. Sandy herbaceous areas, usually Nocturnal. US: ' with rocks or coarse gravel. Arid active year- CA: CSC coastal areas in grassland, coastal round. scrub and chaparral. San Diego, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Riverside counties. Gravelly and sandy soils of alluvial Nocturnal. US: C fans, braided river channels, active active year- CA: CSC channels and sandy terraces; San round Bernardtrio Valley (San Bernardtrio County) and San Jacinto Valley (Riverside County). OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY Low. Potential foraging habitat may be present in cliff face adja- cent to Cucamonga Creek; few number of crevices makes this habi- tat marginal. Low. Potential foraging habitat may be present in cliff face adja- cent to Cucamonga Creek; few number of crevices makes this habi- tat marginal.' Present: Thi~ species was observed during the field surveys; uses all habitats present on the site. Absent. Not captured on site dur- ing focused trapping survey. 1/8/99<(R:\wtt830\~nal_rcport-complet¢>) 13-5 SPECIES Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia American badger Taxidea taxus ACTIVITY HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION PERIOD Arid habitats. especially scrub habi- Nocturnal, US: * tats with friable soils. Coastal active year- CA: CSC scrub, mixed chaparral. sagebrush, round low sage and binerbmsh habitats. Arid portions of Southern Callfor- nia. Frequents poorly vegeutcd arid Year-round US: * lands and is especially associated mainly CA: CSC with cactus patches. Occurs along nocturnal the Pacific slope from about San Luis Obispo to northwestern Baja California. Occurs throughout California and the US: * United SPies. Primary habitat re- CA: SA quiremerits seem to be sufficient food and friable soils in relatively open uncultivated ground in grass- STATUS DESIGNATION OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY Low. Soils on site are suitable for use by this species. Low. Suitable habitat is present on the project site. No individuals were observed and no dens were noted. Stattts Designation Def'mitions US: FederalClassifications END THR Prop END Prop THR Taxa listed as Endangered. Taxa listed as Threatened. Taxa proposed to be listed as Endan- gered. Taxa proposed to be listed as Threat- ened. C Candidate for listing. Refers to taxa for which the USFV'/S has sufficient information to support a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened, issuance of the proposal(s) is anticipated but, precluded at this time. Formerly designated as "Category 2 Candi- date for listing.' The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has officially discontinued the multi- tiered candidate designations in favor of the single 'Candidate for listing' designation (see following definition) and, as a result, elimi- hated these species from candidate status. However, some Fish and Wildlife Service offices are using the unofficial designation "species of concern' for former Category 2 Candidates. ND Not designated as a sensitive species. CA: State Classifications END Taxa State-listed as Endangered. THR Taxa State-listed as Threatened. C E State candidate (Endangered). C T State candidate (Threatened). CSC California Species of Special Concern. Refers to taxa with populations declining seriously or that are otherwise highly ruinera- bit to human developments. SA Special Animal. Refers to taxa of concern to the Natural Diversity Data Base regardless of their legal or protection status. ND Not designated as a sensitive species. CNPS: California Native Plant Soclety Classifications IB 2 List of plants considered by CNPS to be rare or endangered in California and elsewhere. List of plants considered by CNPS to be rare. threatened or endangered in California, but which are more common elsewhere. Review list of plants suggested by CNPS for consideration as endangered but about which more information is needed. Watch list of plants of limited distribution, whose status should be monitored. 1/8/99((R:\wt1830\~nal~repo,-complete)) B-6 To: City ofRancho Cucamonga Planning Commission From: The Undersigned Residents of Rancho Cucamonga Subject: The Proposed Extension of Tract 14475 RECEIVED JAN 11 1999 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division We, the undersigned residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, are opposed to the approval of a time extension for tentative Tract 14475. Our opposition is voiced for the following reasons: 1. This proposed development will significantly impact one of the most beautiful scenic vistas in the area; 2. The construction of a one million gallon reservoir on or near a known earthquake fault will endanger life and property; 3. This area is a critical wildlife corridor; 4. This proposed development does not comply with the City's General Plan Land Use Plan which states that an open space district is limited to one residence per 40 acres (The Northeastern quadrant of the site lies in an open space district); 5. The proposed development does not comply with the Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) of which the City of Rancho Cucamonga is a participating agency; 6. This site is comprised of roughly 60 acres of irreplaceable and pristine coastal sage scrub; 7. This property abuts the San Bernardino National Forest and the Cucamonga Wilderness and is a critical buffer to these protected lands; 8. This property is potential habitat for currently listed and proposed endangered species including the San Bernardifi'o Kangaroo Rat, the Coastal Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checker Spot Butterfly (listed in 1993), and the Santa Ana Sucker (about to be listed); and 9. The developer's own draft Biological Assessment Report prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. states "the site supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants and is, therefore, considered to be high quality habitat. Thus, impacts of the project to habitat (i.e. coastal sage scrub) may be considered significant." There are many environmental questions and issues left unanswered by both the City's study and the developer's Biological Assessment Report. We further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. ce2.,CbqaCb CFc ':~-\-x,, i A \ "Xc,- Lc'_,~-'r-'C~ , C. A q FIGI VtDo S,q ,r4EzlcA/ RECEIVED JAN 11 1999 further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. RECEIVED JAN 11 1999 City.ol Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfuliy request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. ~-LT'~ L°mA' C, . RECEIVED JAN 11 1999 /26D City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval aria must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request tha2fie extension of Tract 14475 be denied. further believe that many new environmental concems have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. RECEIVED JAN 11 1999 City of RanCho Cucamonga Planning Division further believe that many new environmental concerns have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. Lomo,.} CA -ql'70/ 8 / P/ &/TTI O r',/ 5 o 7 3 d ,C ~-~ rt,,' / d-zn2 ,,~L. ~lr"tz, _E_,-,s,o,~_~,~_,~i,,,oc' F~ I t-q LG,-~ q, Cce. % f 7d / 6 o 73 ~f~E~rv, E.~ fL /gL 7"~ ZO,,,tA-, (4-. f/7o/ further believe that many new environmental concems have arisen since the project's initial approval and must be adequately addressed. We respectfully request that the extension of Tract 14475 be denied. R E CL~)V E D JAN rl 1999 Cty ol Rancho Cucamonga planning Div sion JP~-12-1999 11:38 P.(]I January 12, 1999 To: Rebecca Van Buren "'. City ofRancho Cucamonga Planning Commissio~Sf~~~ Frank From:: Schiavone : 8060 Crestview Court :..: AIm Loma, CA 91701 Subje.ct: Tentative Tract 14475 As requested, I am faxing you Gerald Braden's letter disputing the findings of LSA's Biological Assessment Report. Also, I would Strongly urge that the City review the State of Califomia's Natural Communities Conservation Planning Program that was enacted by the NCCPP Act. This legislation prohibits the destract. ion of "high .quality habitat". RECEIVED JAN 1 '2 1999 ~ O~vision 4 '7 7 - :z q 7 JP, N-12-1999 11:38 DEpAR:TMENTOF COMMU I AND CULTURAL RESOURCES· ~ aER~A~DINO COU~ MUSEUM 202a Orea~re~ Line · R~i~CA 9237'4, (909] 307-2659 ~ '.. hx (909) 387.0539 Ci~* Of~ Cu=on~ ~ ~.0.9ox 8~ · ' :~ncho Cu~n~ CA 9~ : :.. '.D~ ~eslon P.,JE~2 PAGe: 02 COUNTY OF SAIl OERI(AROINO PUILIC $ERIFICES GROUP 11 January., 1999 . AS 'yOu may }maw, the Sin Bcrnardino County L~4u~tam BioJogy Scctioq maintains a .reSearch stalToE'proressionaJ .research biologists and fief</technicians acdvefy involved in sciontiRe !rrve~tigations of the flora and farina of the Southwestern United States and especially San ;Bernardit'to amt ~vessicte Countle~. The Museurn's studies and expetlises include deserL :rn0unlcahtr. riparian~ 8rasslamd~ ,CoL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~al $aOe scrub, and Fan sage .,scrub habitats and ecosystems in ;and around the San Bernardino Valley. Some of the Muscum's on going research includes life- . .'history and habitat relafionshjp$ Of'the f'cdcrally threatened CaJifornja Gnatcatcher (Pnlinpfiln ':(n[.l~r, ltll/c,q ca/i/arnica) and ~e faderally endangered Sen 1~ernardblo [Ctngaroo Pat (I)ip~lnm. v.~ ' rn crHGral parvtn). ~ 'The giolo~t Section of tbc San Bcmardhto Coun~ Museum is also the techntcaJ :biolOgical lead for the San Benqardino Valley Multj-Spcd~,J Habitat Conservation Plan, also ' i knoWn as the Va]lr/~uhj-spcei~ Plan. of'which P, ancho Cucarnonga is a signatory. , ' ' As a pro~'euionH blo}o~, =arch dircdor and field superheat for the Biolo~** Section ~offfie San Berrtlrdino County Museum. and senior research scientist For the collection and ': artaJ.vsis of*biological data for ~¢ Vall. ey Multi-*speciu Plan, ! respectfully submit the following !commentS'on the biolo~caJ aMassmerit report °'Tenlal. h/e Tract 14475 DraR 9iologica] : Assessment/1,apart" ~ated I S December, 1999" b.y LSA Associates. These comments arc ! submitted to ustst the P,P, ncho C_:ucamonga Planning Commission in there asscssrncnt of potential :: bio!pgica] bnpacts fi*orn the proposed project and in rna~ng ]and use planning decisions within ~ their jurisdiction. so" rdl.o Ka.g. ro.o ; The ,S~ Bemardino Kangaroo Rat (Dfl,,odomy3. rnerriarntpnrw~) ('SBKR) is afr. dcrally ¢n~/angcred sub-sp~-ics off, ferdam's kangaroo rat. ,c;8KP- is not a rat bu'g a . ~ hc~crorr/id: rodent rdated tO the: pock~ mouse. S~Ic~ is restricted to the alluvial fans, w~hes. · end. scrub habitats o~the San 'Bcmardlno Valley and arnaJl po~ons of'Riverside'County : (McKerrtan 1997). The pSpulation size, preenant di~dtn~rion, and historic dis~lNfinn of,SBKR Is · i a Fraction at'its former ran/F due to stream b~d a|terndons and development of'the alluvial fans of : : E :, RECEIV D .., JAN !999::' ! City at RancSo. CucamOhga planning Division I ! the S~ Bernardeno Valley. For these reasons, the Ion8 term survlva~ and recovery of the SBK. R · ~ i~ a major component oft.he Valley Muhi-spccics Plan. · The proposed project is wltl~ the Iraowe and histodc distributions oFSBKR, The -* :d c,~iptlon Of' appropriate SBK3P, babltat in the biolo~ceJ report is vagus and incons;stcnt with "rvfuseum research on zhe ~pegcs. :Spccffica~ the occurrence of sandy soil iS not a,pre:cqulskc . for occupancy, as SJEIKjP, are known to occur across a wide variety ot'substratc types found within ~ .. alluvied r/stem3, such as occurs on the proposed prpjcct site. The description O[sltable reSeteden cover For SBKR is similarly vague and irmccurete. ~ '. Specificsally, the term "modest vep_~tton cover" in peJ'agraph three of page four is contradicted. ..'by the ~crm"..,where the vegetation is dense enough..." in paragnph four. Museum research on · SBI(R has found that specffic amounts of vegetation cover are not prerequisite to occupation by SBKR are known to exist in ihe D~ Cre~ ChanneJ, as meted ~n the rap.art However the , repo~t does not mention that S1K3R. are 8Jso known to persis~ several miles to the west in San Anto~o 'w~h ~c'ar J3ascline avenue and that curr~t ~udie~ by the Museum continue to capture SBKR:on study plots throughout theEtlwanda Fan, Therefore, although the~ biological report indicaLcs that trapping sessions were conducted, vague and pote~tiaJly ndsleadlng sr.~eme~ts of SBKR biology. along with out of date information on cmTendy known SgrJ~, distributions !eav~J the results o[ thc trapping scssjons susr. ct. C~t|iforu;e Gltatr, atdacr ·: The hiolog~ceJ report states On the top of page three that ~e Coastal Sage Scrub h~hltat · · nn the site is mar~neJly suhebie in te~'ns of both physiognomy and floristic composition. This is simply not correct. Studies by the Mu~curn .(Bradcn ct el. 1997) have Found that fieHattie cOmpo~tion is ,o~: a factor in habitat 8u}tability for the CaliFornia LLnalcetcher within cossial sage scn~b habiMts. The same study aJso found that, contrm'y. Io statements in the biological habitat ~Jitab{Ht), 63r CaliForrt/a Gnatca/chef increases with increa.,~.d habitat densin/and structural Complex;by; The re$~ort ~T~piies Or~ p_~3e_ three, .~-c-ond paragraph, that CaliFornia Gnatcatcher detection is higher outside orthc breeding season This too is incorred ASajn, studies by th~ Mu~um (BraZen and.Woulrg 199.5a end t99~h). on which the current USFWS ~rvcy. p.mtocol is based, .: indicate that .CaJ!~'o,rpje Gutcatcher arc Iru. de~ecttble out,~idc of'the brewing season. That is the · - ' ' 'prim:ar~. roesea that .non-breeding season ~urveys require nine aun/ey days while b3:ecdln5 sca~on · · su~ey5 br, Jy req~re six ~rvey days and also the reason the surve~ prQtocoi f'u r C. ali f'ornl a .; ': (3natcatcher was upped from thrce:a-~. .: The ~xnt dan statc~ that the most rccem report of Califon~a Gnatcatcher wa~* on the · Biwanda fan bt P, ancho Cucemong~ in 1994, This is incorrect.. The most recent sighting was on '.' the 3B, tiWLqda Fan in the 1998 breeding season. ...The roped suggests that the elc'v~,tion of the proposed project arc3 project arcs may he · ' too high for C~irOrnk Onetr. etchcr.' Thi~ is jacob'oct. The dcvaliond study by A~ and · Rolsir~er(|992) did not include m4~st ereas n[ San Bernardinn Calmly nor does the study P. e3 P~,---~ 03 => R CUCAMONGA CQM OEV; #4 conclu;de tb~t devat~on ia an ~iuto~ ot'habjt~t ~tabi~;~ Pot the spe~es. Fu~he~r~ , ~ ~u~ Cdi~a ~a~r s~ ~ done on t~ propo~ prqi~t 91~. tn~ ~ on h~i~ s~iiW, o~ of dEe rdE~c~ on lhe most rec~t oc~m~ o~e ~u, ~d · lack of~a~li~ ~ put ud feint p~r r~ewe~ scientific QainO (Zheckenpot ']hd/erfiy: ... The proposed project s~te is widdn the historic d3stn'butkm o~the Qulno Checkerspot Butterfly (Occt'dr/n~ td/lhn qu/ao), a fedorally endangered nympharid butteally zndcmlc to San gernUdino, Los Angeles, P, iverslde, and San Diego Countlea. The type specimen rot the Quino Chcckerrpot 35utter~y wu collected near Little Mountain near California State Univcrslty San l~crnardiao on aoil types as occur on the project ~ Quino surveys need to bc performed. as per IjSFWS .tutvcy protocol, before potcndal aclvase impaus um be as__,es_sed. : Although reference is made to a previous biological assessment, no report is cit~. So, the adequacy and e~uraq of pre~ous pinfit Fjrveys cannot be addressed. No recent plant ..mn, eys appeued to h&ve been conducted. The fact that Gnatc2tcher and SBJC.R survey work was done in the f,/I and early w~ntcr precludes the pogs'bility that ~e~itive plants that flower during spring and summer ~,-~ ;nc;clenta/]y observed. Absem · precise accounting ofthe effort cxpcndcd ~ventoqin8 m:mjdve ptant species and the time of year survcy. s wen: conducted one c.:nnot eKfequately auu4 or so[dress ~mpacts to r, cns~dve pian t spec~e~. . .~ '. . P.O4 04 ~ The bioXogiUl repo~ does not 9tett~- dmt probable occurrence of the Lo. Angdcs pockc~ Mou~ (Perognatb~x longimemb~x bre~,lr~,~) on the proposed si~e. Suitable habitat ia not undrstood ~br t]~S species. Tapping for L.A.. Pocket Mouse is complicated due to the fact that the animal Is seasonlily azxl facultatlvcly irm:dve. L.A. Pocket Mo~sc wouM nol Ilkely have been active wh~ rodent ,;-p~n8 su~tc-p wcrc done on the project s~te. ...': The Mu~um tl currently involved in a long term study to define the cuffcut distdbutlon, . habitat m, and ~uonal inactivity periods for this species throughout the San Bernardinn Valley..A hii}l demstt-j oIL.A. Pocket Mou~c oc~ut s on the Etiw6ndt fan, 6pproxlmatcly five miles cut of~')e propmad project ~te (M'cKerne. n 1994,% !.~.4b). Thq n~nd tro~plnB window for · the L: A.: Pocket Mou~e wfil not a r, cur unl~l rrdd to ;ate iprin8 1999.. 3 RECEIVED: J1::1,4--12-1999 11:32 ~> R CUCAMONG/~ COM DEV; #5 .c.~,~ 5~t~ co H'jSEL~ · '= . · The::~outhcrn Gra.~hoppcz' Mouse (Onychom.),s ton'idles re'mona) is not easily caught ., during standard rodent tryping surveys. This is because the Southern C~'asshopper Mouse is . :. :~ .primadly c, arnlvorou~ and net ea~'ly capturcd with the bait used to capture hcrblvorous rodents. . Thus. the'rodent tllpphlg survr/s for SBKR would be very urdikely to capture the Southern · Grasshopper Mouse {fit Occirred on s(te. Sou(hem Qrasshopper Mouse are known to occur On the Et)wanda ran habitat five milu east of the proposed project CMcKeman 1994a}. . With l Few exceptlone, the presence or absence of ,-,cn.sitive herpetofautia can only be 6ctCrmjned.tbou~h pusivepitfall tr~oping atth~appropriettc dme r~ry~r. Apparently. thcre wa~ no pitfall tral~ping on the Fopo~ project slte nor were there any nocturnal surveys. Thus. potemial impacts to scottire herpetor~urm cannot be uIdressed. The next ~crlve period for nearly : "i all herpctorau~a Will not occur tmtil early spring 1999. ; The 'Celif0rltie Legless tl,~rd (,lnle/la pulchra) is a rossorial lizard that inhabits the top '. 'inches ofsoils rich in leafliter&nd org~mic matedal. TheleSle~lizard rafcly. i~,~r, move-~on the Surface of the tog. tl~s the ~s o~'observln8 the animal by vimel aunteye are infinkely $mitli N.rverthdcM. file bloloLlical report sups the aajmal is not present on .tbe proposed project ~e.' ' . .Thi~:Coast Pllch-~olsed Snake (,5'a/~:/zfora hertzrapier Wrg~dtea) i,~ a/:re~Jscuhr/nocturnai . ~nakc that preys on small rode~.l .nil arthropods. Daytime surveys have sllm to no chance of ob.~ervin8 th~ imima[ if'it were prerdmt on the projed. ii~ea. The Coastal Patch-nosed Snake is known t~ ~ in sh'ailar balltat on the Etjwanda Fen,/lye miles east orthe proposea project site ~feKciimn 1994a). ~osy ~o~ (ljchanurg trtvtrgatn ro3afit. sca) is Iraown to occur in the area based on road .kilis, and alpo occur ecro~e ~e ~uvial ins of Son Bemard~o County. Neve, thelc,~s. the biolbgical repOrt ratc~ the |ikelgtood of the Rosy Boa occurring on site as low. Once again. herpetoeetumt catmot be adequately survcyt. d absellt focused trapphis efforts at th~ correct time or :year ~it/xxltl set~ herl:,:tortmna that could occur on the proposed project site, but were not eddre.qiet in the bloloSjul report include Western Spadefoot Toad, Western Sklnk. Western Whl1~l, S0ulhem Alligator l.,tZard, Two-striped Garter Snake, NiLzht Snake. and Ring-necked Snake.. - · . Cor/~r '. ~ Atltmal movements ate cOnstrained by seasonal processes, such a,j realinS, diapers61, ~s well as by:,thc dmc orday. Thus, a~jmal movements a~d therefore conidor functions cannot be assesse~t by a'fcw vt~ita to a site. Perhaps the b~t initial estimates of the value or an area a.~ a corrtdoir cln be obtained. by talkins to the residenee in the area. Betause residents, by definition. live in theme they are the best hnitlai ~nurce ofinr~rmation for nnctumal movements orlarge P.e5 PJE)6 ,S~.I 9~40 CO NL_'SEUN Pr.,,':,~ 86 ! ~nirtuth, su~.h .cOyote 'and bobcat, through ~n =ca. Nevertheless: the biologica[ repor~ states = that ~e prOpoSed pioject ~te is not a ~ncdona/wildlife ~rfidor. based o~' looking at a map, rather than' spexfin8 tim¢ at Iij6Jlt on the .~te durlr~8 the HBht time of year, or a( ]east talkin6 to local reside. ~8 .~im=l movemama through a~ area and i'he area's value a.~ a co, rldor Simply camqot.be accurately eocomplJshed by a few casual visits to a ~te. :. . . .: ! ' Negative impacu to tile proposed Valley ~fulti-species Plan ere not mentioned Jn the · BiO|o~ced.report for the prop~:[ project. Ofth~ 53 animaJ species included in the Valley ':. ip.~clcs pIm% ?9%' (42 epcclc~) are known to occur on the alluvia] fans jn Rancho Cucamon2~l, · P, ilto. aZKj FomamL Sbcty4our pement (34 spades) are known to breed in these same areas. .$iSna~ries to. the VaJlq' Plea arc best advised to consider the fact that the acceptab;Jity ofthe V|ill~ Multj-speeie~ Pbm to st~e end federal regulatofy agonies wfi[ u|timatcly de. pond on ability ofthe pbLq to successfuUy provide Io~8 term preservation of Coastal Sage and AJluvial Fan S~lte Scrub habitats, is occur on the propose~J project site Developing a successful mu|tt-species plin i~ becoming more pr0blem~Ic due to the fact that thc~c and. other critical habitats ~c steadily be~n8 Io~t~ orm proje~ at a t~me. A successCul Valley Plan depends on I|1 signatories recqgnlz~n8 ~d rul6lltglS rhea' responsibility to conserve critical habitat,, wildlife corridors-. and Functioning ecosystems witbit3 their jurisdictional boundaries. A successful VaHe), Multi-species Plan will have obvious berte6ts ~n reducing cottt]ic~ between the ern~ronmcm VCT~Ua development while reducin~ the need for fccL-,ral and state involvement ~ local isles. T-Towcvcr. a VatIcy tvfulti-specles Plan wi]J not be suct. css~u| unJess all s~gnatories diliLzendy pursue their responsibilities. .: [n'mmsmary. a renew ofthe blolo_~cal report by the Biology Section of the San BL'Tnardmo Count7 M'us~m fi~ds the report in~l~c;ent end itmdcquate to usasi the potent: b~0ZoglcaJ impacts from the proposed project. The m}sleadin8 and incomplete bjologjcal informatio~ could |c~ to thc~.t~e of endangered u~d/or threatened spc~lca, the loss o 'a; ~,T~cent b~olol~eal resqurces~ lind d.arnage to the development oFa successful Valley Multi- species Plan, As professional m~T.,h bioloOists,. the BioloOy Section of the San Rcmardlno : County.Museam respecd~y erlcouraSe the Rancho CucamonOa P~anfljn8 Commission to ~ consider these issues. - : .: COp{es ofother lilc~ature dted in'this cod'esp~nd¢flce will be providcd upon rcquest. '. ·ttie Museum can be of further usislance to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission in r,¢Oanls to the proposed d,~v~opmenL issues pert,sinin8 to the propS.seal Valley Mulri~sp¢cles Plan. of- any other biolo~csl issues, plc~se do not hes~te'to contact the rcscarch staff.of the 13 ology. Section at the San Brnardino County Museum. RECEZVEO: e~/lZ/~99~ L~: 40 ~e93e7es~9 p,v',~ e7 d 3'P,"4-12-1999 11:34 .: :~.. · : : . :. L~~ L'I ~ ~D ; N~ for tho Cali~{8 ~at~tc~ (Po/i~fila ~l~rnica ~l~otwf~). Un~bli~ ; . ~ ~ ~pt ~b~ 1o Wenera ~mide County Multi Spies M~aBemenl . .; . L~ Bra4~, O. Y. ~d M. B. Wo~;~ I995b. Ob~ons on non-br~ing 5cuon d~tabil~ ~d : ~* ~or the C~if~s ~tcatch~ (Folfo~/n ~]~o~ca ~l~n~l~). Unpublished ·: ~ ~~ ~d fi~s compacts ofC~ifomla ~at~tc~, Auk ~M~e~, R. L. ~?. S~ms ~d ~o~ di~b~on ofl~ S= B~no Kanttoo Rat (DI~ m~i ~): Pield 5n~s ~nduaed b~w~n 1987 ~d 1996. acpon pr~ ~r ~ U.S. ~ ~d ~ldllfe S~. ~r~ ~ield Office. September. P.~8 p,a~---~ ee · McKeman, ILL. 199.4a. Sensitive biological resources of the North Etiwanda Open Space " : PrOgram Area. Rcpoll by the San Benlardino Couo.ty Museum to the San Bemardlno : : CountyBosrdofSupcrvisors. Febmar/. i MCKCrns.q: B, L, 1994b, Sensitive mammals oFtbe San Sevaine Creek Project. Report by the Biological Sciences Division, San Bernardino County Museum to Southwestern Field BioloBist_s, Tucsoaf Arizona..l'uzw. 7 TOTPL P. 0~ 81/13/1999 15:52 8056488819 htEYER PAGE 81 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 5'~ old.f,,,, 5k.~-.~ ~+e 5'o E& ->+--r, wxe ~L-be-4,dtcrrl provides 81/13/1999 15:52 885648881B Fg~EYER pAGE t4,~, IS,'5~0 - 81/13/1999 15:52 8856468819 MMEYER PAGE 83 CG; "01;13,'99 17:04 FAI 760 431 5901 ES FISlt .I~;D WILDLIE Unit,:d Staes Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Erelogical Service~ Ce~rtsbad Fish and WHdlif~ Ofltc~ 2730 Lokcr Archue West -' Carlshad, C, atiXomia 92008 JAN 13 1999 Brad Bullet, City planner CRy of Rancho C"ucamonga plan~ing Dcpartme~xt 10500 Civic Ccntcr Drlvc ; R~ncho Cucamonga, ~alit:n'nia, 91727 Re: Enviro~'~tal As:~ssme-nt ~d TIme Extension for Vesting Tent~' ive Tract 14475, Allard Engineering We ~c in receipt of the biologi~l ~,mac~ report dated Jn~ 8, on ~c a~vc ~f~d pwj~ ~lo wc ~ ~ ~ on: ~ 11, 1999, ~d a ~ horouEh ~, ~ ~em ~ ~d ~vc ~ Hffie ~e for ~~ ~on ~s ~- ~s pmj~ con~ ~labl; b~bi~t for ~e fddY ~ co~ ~o~ (poZioptilIa califo~ea cdifo~ca) ~ mY con~ ~ble hbi~t for ~ fd~Y cD~g~ed S~ ~i~ ~' ~ (C-~do~ me~t ~). Bo~ of ~'.~ ~cs sh~ ~o Au~ 1~1 ~b~ucat ~m~ imp~t ~a for ~ l: m~ ~e propo~ ~j~t po'.~ ~ ~uc for m~d-~cies ~s~ desig '- ~e prope~ ~ppom S~B~ H~o~ F:~. ~ Ci~ of ~ on ~ Edw~da F~m Compl~ ~ ~e ~e ~ ~e ~cho ~onga si~ a M~o~ ofU~c~g ~0~ t: ~s ~lo~cut of ~e MSI iCP ~ J~e 1995, md ~si~cd ~ MOU in D ~'~m~ 1997. dc~ ~o~ for ~ ~CP. ~ ~l~e ~n md ;~'~ ~e ~;,~ ~d ~e~don o~om for pro~s~ ~v~ speci~ (~cl-d~ng · ~d for ~ablc cond~tm ~e d~i~ ~uSh ~t ~s ~vc not ~ l~ed s~xes, ~b~ ~t r~~tn~ ~ ~n~fit ~ese ~ccics ~ ~c Iong-~. ~cs~: ~ to ~ rc~o~ p~g of~bi~t p;~cs, ~ ~ ~blc long-~ ~ m sd~ely sdd~. · 01/13/99 17:04 FA_X 760 431 5901 US FISH ~ ~ILDLIFE h~003 In uccordnncc with the MOLT, we zu-pport the P!~nln8 Stsff rccommendal )n to dcny this v:quest~'d time ex~enslon- If you taave any questions, please contmzt Scott :!.libson ofthls office at (760)~31-9440. S~cercly, ~J'~A, Baxtcl . Assistant l:idd gul~' ,i~or 01/13/1999 18:02 5267449931 ESA NETWORK PAGE 82 City of~m.~o RE: 'rf 1447J, EA andTkne Exlemslon Wcm~also in s~-smamlwi~z fi~nn~t cow~as zsised by fim ntnts, GefddT. Bngka, P-tssr~ Dinn~orfFidd Supsvisor oflh~ San Bessdim> Cotny Musema sod also ~os~ ofdw U.$- Fis~ sad W~dlif~ m~ ~ 50 sdj~mt ~ !m~ stS~d s p~illos I~s' in oppoii/cs. Wh~ a projsct is CEQAnxlui~s~ummEIRb~pmpsut *,, wall as fo, cst s~alti,c specie. Such inform,,6ou im:iudcs scientific dam mt ~ fmdcndly li__,~t'd__ Co4~ml Califomla Gm~ aud San B~o kamSaroo-rM, m well m Stat~ wad Federal ood~ md reSdMiom dam ti~cCitym~dC~m~ty~mv~u~h~d.AB~ur~i~f~mmt~npt.6vi~udymb~t~t~M~Cityf~po~ The SaSe Cmmcil has reviewed dae pxvjoct propoucnts Enviro~ Oasddis~ Form Initial Study Pro1 Hmd has found it inadequate and midcading to ~he ~ and ~ public. Coff~ous .,hould b~ m_**de by the paxq~__madCitymfo!lov~ I. LaudU~madPlmut~ a) -d) ahould be changed to r~flcct that dac~ would be a "Potentially Significant 2Co) almmldb~toreflecItbattttmmwouldbca'*Pot~SLmmificautl.mPact" 3. (a) should b~ c!~ to ~efiect ~ ~ would be a "Potenti~ Si~,.i~. In~ b). shouldbcchsngcdtott~lectttanhetewouldbea"PotcntidlYSigni~cantlmPacC e) dtottld be ~ to tcficct flust fitere would be a "po,,~6s,y Signitkant h.p,acC RECEIVED: 1-13-99; 5;IIPM; 0267449931 "> R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; #3 81/13/1999 18:82 826744~931 ESA NE~ PAGE City oflL,-~h_o RE: TI' 144~5, I~R: Spin'toftt~Se~e, oeocil 3. f) dxmldbcchangedto~,~eathatlhetewouldbca"Po~s~_'~/Signi~camln~ g) shoddbed~totd~cllhatlSc~wouldbea"Potn~iallySignlficant~.,,,pscC h) should be chat~ to reflect that Iher~ would be · "po,mdi,,lly Signi~1~iil ~ Odmuldbechangcdtot~fiecnhattha=wouldbea"Pot~SLani6c~In~ 4. ~-! should be cSmled to raftcot ~ there would bca "Potentially Significant Impna" 6a-cshonldbechanSedmrefiectOmt~haewouldbea"Potentiall,/SiSnificamlmpacf' should be cl-,-Eed to reflect that them woidd be a "Potemhdly Significant hnpact" 7. 04 should Ix: changed t~ reflect fhat ~ would be a "po~enially Significant $andg. sho~ldb~c~mf~edtorefi~nhattbcrcwouldbea"Poten~Sig~Lfiontlmpact" 12. c-e mds sho~ld be chm~ed to reflect thM there would be s"Potentially St~cant lmpac~' 13. s-csbouldbecJumgedtore~ectthsnizn:wouldbea"Potmtlslly,~i~iScsntfm.nscf' 14. ~-~ T~p~ectsit~cany~n~nd~i~ni~"Cucam~ng(n)~a~n.ebjst~icvi~geg~c~c~h~dm~e~bridin~ Nstioa, a C~.romis Misslcu Tribe. The City md Rsndso of ~n)a rmins the name of origin of tt~ ~dt~vi~Thcpt~jcctsitcis~sacred~andsoftheShosh~e(hbrie~in~Nationashssprevi~us/y~ klmfi~ed by Chief Ya'Atma Vc~a ROeha. rite Sage Council and San Bemardino Se~c Friend~ incimfing ;~wious OrplLiZlli~ knoval tS Yaleads Of the yoofhille laid iS ill Ih~ Cily'$ files 0sl thc Ssh211a [ROjeCt Chief ya'Amm ¥auRochsislhe$tateofCalif~'m"MostLitdy~fos'~-Shosho~(htbridi2mandi"~ iS. a-b should bc ~-k,-,eed to rdlea that the~ would be s "Potemiall,/Si&~cant Impsct' 16. c. dxouW bc cLanSod fo rc~,~ dmt lhere world be s "PofentiaHy SiZnific4~ Impa~ RECEIVEO: 1-13-99; 5:12PM; 8267449931 => R CUCAMONGA COM OEV; #4 __. 83:./1_3./~.9.9_<~. 18:82 '6267449931 ES~ kl~ PAGE 84 City of Rznd~o RE: TT 14475. EA and Time ExXon PE~:SpirltotlbeSaBeCo,-,,'~! l~sge Poet In eJo~,~ the SaBe Council r~fit~b the City d~ our non-Fo6t or~nizati~ ~f~i~w~de~o~~~mj~c~~ w~a~of~~.~~~~~~m~d~ve ~~~d~, L~x~na Klippszein Con.~ProgtanuDirectot Spiritofti~,q~eCouncil Charles oseph Associates PUBLIC/PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES January 13, 1999 Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 Dear Mr. Buller: As you are well aware, our firm was retained last week for the purpose of facilitation of favorable approval of the referenced time extension. During our discussions and meetings with your office and the City Attorney this past week, we determined there are a number of perceptions concerning project issues that may warrant follow-up and clarification as may be appropriate, as part of a good faith effort by the respective parties of interest. As suggested last week. please consider this our formal request for a 90 day time extension of Tract 14475. Our purpose and intent for this extension is to obtain sufficient time that will be necessary to properly address and attempt to mitigate concerns that City staff, Fish and Wildlife and neighboring property owners may currently have with the time extension before the Planning Commission. Our client has agreed that as a condition of granting the 90 day extension, they will not final the map at issue. This additional time period will be solely for the purpose of facilitating public review and input necessary for City consideration of a subsequent time extension that would include appropriate mitigation determined as part of that process. Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter. Should you have any questions or need of additional information, please contact me at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Chades J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates Office 909.481 · 1822 800,240. 1822 Fax 909-481 · 1824 City Center- 10681 Foodfill BIrd., Suite 395' Rancho Cucamonga. CA' 91730 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION -- ...,t'.:';') _ OF R,~:iCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION Arthur H. Bridge 8715 Banyan Street Alta Loma~ California 91701 April 1~ 1992 Larry McNeil, Chairman Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 RE: TT 14475: Sahama Investments, Inc. Dear Mr. McNeil and Members of the Commission, Sahama Investments (TT 14475) is expected to come before the Planning Com- mission on April 8, 1998 for a hearing to consider action on its Environmental Impact Report. It is stated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of this EIR. It is reported that this certification will be granted on grounds of in- vestment of time and money in the process so far. If this approval indeed takes place~ we as owners of the property directly south of this project, wish to suggest several design considerations: I. The equestrian trail on the southern boundary of the project site is elevated to some degree above our property on the south. This elevation will infringe on the privacy of future property owners on the south~ even if future development there provides for a six foot wall along the northern perimeter. Suitable irregated landscaping outside the trail fencing would help to mitigate this problem. In addition, an open view of the backyards of Lots I to 5 from future home owners on the south is far from desirable. Homeowners on these lots can be ex- pected to erect a variety of walls and barriers north of the trail fencing. Could this become the eyesore experienced in other locations? For large, expen- sive homes such as these are projected to be, would not a meandering trail, walled on the north and andscaped on both sides be a true amenity to the entire tract? 2.' A dirt utility road continues north from the Cucamonga County Water District reservoir 5A (just north of the western terminus of Almond Street) to the southeast corner of TT 14475 (at Lot 5). This has been used in recent years by both dirt bikers and horse riders. A strong barrier should be estab- lished at this point to prevent trespassing down this road from the equestrian trail. Perhaps CCWD should be consulted on this point. 3. The drainage from Lots 17 to 5 flows directly down a pipe into the Cucamonga Wash just above this point within TT 14475. Adequate safeguards should be provided at this point to protect children, (adults?), animals, rocks, trash, etc. from dropping down the pipe to the floor oF the Wash. 4. The "Seismic Exclusion Zone" (pSO) shows an earthquake fault from east to west which ends at Lot D. (Does it go underground?) A geological study made by Moore and Taber for the property to the south shows this same fault line; however, it does not end. Rather, the fault line continues in a straight line to the south west, through Lots 83, 88, 81, 5, and 6 and across the northwest corner of the southern property. The Moore & Taber study included siesmological soundings while the Sahama study used only trenching. In addition, Moore and Tabor identified these faults during a seismological study for the Cuoamonga County Water District and again by a subsequent study for ourselves. As a mat- ter of the safety of future home owners of those lots, should not this dis- crepancy be seriously analyzed? 5. As the US Forest Service letter suggested, street lights and lights in open spaces should be adequately screened not only within the tract but also from surrounding properties. 6. Structures should take advantage of the outstanding view both to the north and to the south. Buildings should be planned to avoid obstructing this view, not only within the property but also to surrounding properties. We ap- preciate the fact that the heights of the homes has been reduced to twenty- eight feet. 7. The homeowners' association agreements should make strong provisions for high quality trail and open space maintenance and for continuous fire protection practices. The response time for the Fire District is stated to be seven minutes. In high wind periods, the District could be too busy. Perhaps internal fire protection measures could be included in the homeowners agree- ments. TT 14475 is in an exceptionally beautiful location. The architectural designs are foF spacious and expensive homes. This site promises to be a choice place to live. It will be a nice tract and a nice neighborhood. On the other hand, it could be so much more -- a true jewel in the crown of Rancho Cucamonga. Each of the Planning Commissioners have become aware of our hopes for the twenty acre parcel to the south. Our original plans were for four lots of five acres each. As we became aware of the increasing off-site im- provements we would be required to provide because of the traffic projections based on the density projections of two homes per acre, we had to increase den- sity on our plan to ten lots in order to cover the increased on and off-site cequirements the City has added. Thus we have asked for a density of one home per two acres; we would prefer a ratio of one to three. We are extremely disappointed that the City has not seen the opportunity in its master planning to plan and protect this extcemely fragile and beautiful mesa. There are on going, expensive but laudable attempts to preserve the City's historic homes. However, it is regretable that the rare opportunities for the creation of unique land use designs have not been pursued while they were possible. We hope the City in the near future will protect with higher standards the few remaining developable areas along the foothills in Rancho Cucamonga. Sincerely yours, Arthur H. Bridge /i3 /qc~ Chris Kenny James Kenny Jallllal) 13. 1999 Cil) of Rancbo Cncalnonga City Plammlg Commission Dear Connoission Members: S,b. jccl: Tracl #14475 / Requesl for Extcnsio, of Tracl Mal~ I live in a residence located approximnlcly 35(1+/- li2cl snulh ol'lract #14475. My husbaud and I have obseo.'cd the Kmt on our property last spring on p, vo difii2rc,I occasions. I first observed the Krat. [asl sprillg. when one c:mlc o,I o[a lieel) watering pipe for sortie nc',',l.~ i'fiaillcd box ,'cos. The second lime was ;vhcn ;vc clcarcrt a p;irl i:llly dclcrioraling pallet of sod and found a ncsl of Kr;lls v, ilh 3 babies. Fortunately, the babies vcrc old cuough to I~,~llo;v morn ;laid we Icl thcul travel sali:ly Io a ,cv, local io,. I ]lave Illso observed the Ca[ifor,ia Consial G$1alc;llchcr on nly I~ropcrly near soule of nly bird [12odors ant. I also ou the subject property (tracl #14475). For flirtbet reference, I have obscn'cd Ihc fo[lov mg aummls either on or :lear tile snbjccl propert>'. Moulllaiu liou (once), bobcats (Iwice). deer (nmncrons lilncs). coyotes (nuulerous times). hawks. falcous. owls. and mauy olber song birds, not to nlcntiou a fcv,, ri,llcs,akcs along Ihc way. TIle parcel snppons a hcahhy aud di',ergcnl plant life. lfeel that lhis parccl oFkmd has a, ab,ndauceorprinlc habilat which shonld bc prcservcd. [t is also exlremcly valuable beca,sc il ablllls Ihe Ranch C,c;mlmiga creek. as well as Federal aod Slate open spaces. This parlicnlar piece of land is not lilt ish,ld snrro,ndcd b) llrb:llii.<aliou. The "dm~' biological report from LSA dalccl Dcccnlbcr 15. 1998 slates: Project impacts to coo.vital sa. qe scr,I1 (h~.~'.~' q/'.i.%' ac're.~) mt(v be considered .¥ign~cant as thi.v loss may substtt, lia[~v di,li, ish ht~hitat.~,' I,.ihllifi, atnl plants. · lithough no listed species are present ,n the xite. coaxtal .wtge scrub is considered a seasitive habitat type. I;~arther. as is rc:flected l~v tht. atlached.V~ecies li.vt and sensitive .V~ecies table. the site .vtq~llorts a divetwe tl.vsl'llthhi.~.lc ~f wihllifi' and plants aml is. therefore. considc, red to be hi.k, h q,ali(v hahittH. 'lTntx. impactv t~f the propased lmoject to habitat (i. e. coastal sage scrtth) HItI. V bc c,ltsidt'rc'd stgn#~cant. TIle California Depanmcnl of Fish and Ganlc. in letters. has sl;llcd thai Ibcy bare panicnlar couccrn I'or projccls Ihat have been dormanl for years ,.;hich ;Ire ,ow bci,g rcaclivalcd utiliziug old CEQA documcutation. The Dcpanumnl has gone on the record making know, real couccrus ,.', ith the nnmitigated loss or habilals and scnsiti,:c species populations using envirom,cnlal rcporls more [h;m 5 years old. TIffs project fits the Dcparlmcnfs prolilt o1' concern, Due to the Ichglb of tinlc thai this project has laid dorarant il could lead to tile illegal take or cnd:lngcrcd andJot threatened species, along xxilb Ibe less of prime protected habitat. I do not believe that the cib' has been proviclccl with enough ilfformation. Further, tile environnlcnl:d rcporls prepared back in 1992 are obsolete. current cnviromncntal prolocols Imvc not ~en done to prox idc sullicicnt itffonnation to enable Ihe Plmming Commission Io makc an informed dccision given current taws and significant changes in circmslances wiucc 1992, Compliance xxilb the ci~"s reqoe~ for a new CEQA and the bHrdcu of proof of negative impact within the required lime was on the develo~r. the develo~r was gi%en sullicicnt and timely noffma~ou by the cil> Io comply. The developer's lime extension expired on Novcmbcr 18, 1998, the platoring commission requcslcd a CEQA report doe to significanl changes, Since il is not feasible to complete the CEQA review within applicant's tenraining time constraints, Iherc appears Io be no allcrnative but to deny the reqoestcd tram cxlcnsion Therefore, m.x hosband and I ~llly support Ihe slaffs rccomn~cndalioa to the Planning Comnlission. Below please find a lisl items and/or violations, in addition Io the foregoiug, that my busbai~d and m~,sclf bclic,,c nccd to be considered regarding said i~ropcrly: 1. The dcveloper's time to bring said tract into comlMi;mcc has expired 2. There have been significanl changes since this prqiccl's SEIT certification 3. Timely notice to adjacent properly oxx ncr's wilh rcquisilc lime for public review may nol ha%c bccn done properly with ample response lime. 4. The Gnatcatcher has been added to the cadangered list. 5. The San Bernardino Mettiaras K;mgaroo ral has been added to the endangered list. 6. 4 & 5 above am associated willl coasl;~l sage scrub Imbilal which is preseot on the site. 7. Qoino Checkerspot Butterfly is on the cndaugcrcd lisl, 8. Possibili~ of presence of othcr II~rcalcncd and/or cadangered wildlife. 9, NPDES 10. MSHCP Mnlti species habital was crcalcd and the City of Rancho Cucamouga signed and agreed to parlicil~atc iu it io 1995 and again signed the MSHCP iu 1998. this pr~iccts' success depends on projecls such as Imcl 14475 that are not islands wilhia urbanizalion. Io be parlially or completely included AI the least to be evaluated under the MSHCP guidelines Ibr ils complete and total valae. I 1. Proposition 2 I g lindts LMD, ctc, (lhlallcial itllplicaliolzs should cause the City to rcc',;ihl;llc Iong-lcrm cosIs, and maintenance el'publicly mailHnincd areas such as conmmnily trails, slopes, tic.) 12. Density & Design Although the proposed developmeal apl}ears on Ihe surface Io comply with the maximran densily or mo tmilcs per net buildable acre, it is iucousislcnl wilb Ihc cily's gcacral plan policies related to open space aad grading. Tbc intent ofthe general plau is to limil developmeal in scnsilive euvironn~enlal areas and to preserve the n;Hural order to preserve the iulegrily of Ibe hillside. minimize disrulllion of the natural grinrod form and should concerHralcd to preserve opcu spaces alld sceldc Furlher, the size, heigbl aud dcsigu of the i~roposcd homes, also appcars to not conform to cnrrcnl gHidelincs and policies for hillside silc residence. 13. Sensitive Habita~ There is a large coastal sage scrub and Alluvial faa sage scrub ecos~'stem on this parcel. This parlictdar t3 pc of sage is honte to the Califoruia Gnalcalchcr aud more Ihal~ 90 threatcued or endangered species m the Slillc of(';llifonfia. According to the Coastal Sage Scrub Scieutific Review panel (SRP). approxinlatel) IOo species {pl;Itlts aud ammals) considered rare, sensilive, Ihrealclled. or cadangered by Federal and State resource agencies arc associaled with co~tal ~qge scrub, [ believe this is tbc I) l}c of highl) sensitive habilat which curreal laxxs xxcre designed Io protect. 14. Functional wildIll:: corridor It appears that this parcel of laad functions nol oaly a possible hmne for breeding and feeding of many scnsilivc and or threatened species. bnt it is also a corridor for olher aretunis. It ~lnctions as a passagc'.'.a.', for ofi~cr large animals as they have been obsep, cd oil said parcel ellher mr, cling to or from the creek. Deer have beeIt observed laying the shade of the trees on the properly. I bcl ic'.e from fi~c nnmber and types of animals l ha~c seen late at oight. that this parcel is a functional algol could be a critical ~ildlife corridor. 15. Poblic SafeB,' Pnblic Safety is at risk. Ingress and egress for tilts prc~jccl is insufficienl and would create a scrions problcut shmdd tilere be a fire. earlhqnakc or other disasler ncccssilatiug rapid evacuation of the site and other already occupied adjacent homes. The County of San Bernardino SherifFs Dcparl mcnl is concerned abonl tile potentially serious i)roblcms vdfich could arise ffaccess iuto Rancho Ctlc;mtonga Canymt is muted through the proposed residential Iracl. I live in the residential tract through x~hich Big Tree Road rafttic carrently travels and my neighbors and mysclfcaa tell you that weekend recrealioual tnlffic is heavy. Manly accidents occur along Big Tree Road duc to excessive speeds and drank drivers, The ShetilTs Dcparlmcnl will concur with tilts, mad intenml reports regardtag the same. Due to road configuralion and [ol sizes. xxc arc nmmnally effected. hot present coufiguralion ol'Tracl 14475 would be sedonsly cffeclcd and woukl i)ut small chihlrcn aad pets at risk. How can yon ill gOOd conscience allow the tr,~c of Big Tree Road go through a residential neighborhood with the density suggested for TrHcl 14475'? 16. Proposition 218 and Public S;Ifcly Trail at top ofbh~ffbchind the homes alul bc.x ond Ihc minimum 150'scl back could be coasidcrcd an ";ittr;icljx c Inijscicllce". Worse 3el il could bc come tile biggcsl liability the City cotlid have. ihnagiac sin;ill children ~x;llkiag the path and lossing rocks mcr Ihc edge. (The hikers ;nat water departnmnt employees bclm~ could be seriously hurl. the chihlrcn could slip mid fall either Io bc scrionsly hnrl or worse yorktiled Nmv Icls go one hotter. Imagine a horseback rider comes UpOH ;I snake and Ihc horse and rider go over the, side). The mill needs to be mlocatcd in front the edge ol'lhc lop oF the bhlff Io a sali: dislance aud thereby reduce Ihe dcplh ol'thc lear ?,ards. The engineers suggest that Illis shmlhl bc ;Ipproxinl;itcly 150' as Ihc caayons cliffsrolnffs arc subjoel Io motemeat and sloughing dae to cmsiou from the ~mv of Ihc slrc:ml below. 17. Water Quality Some of tile proposed residences have a 151)' non-bnitdablc zone behind their homes. This does not provide for aay improvements oil some of Ihcsc lois inclnding but nol linfited to placement ofspctics aod leach lines, ~fthisset~backistrulysnsp~ct~r~simlandslidingth~nas~pliclaakandleach~inesl~ca~dwithiuthis 15o' c;iscmenl could themselves be snbjecl Io crosiou aod sliding thereby jeopardizing the water quality of the sl ream below, 18. Papadan Habitat Damage Io tile stream below duc Io gradtrig, dcvclopmcnl or erosion sloughing could bc a violaliou of tim Rilmri;m Habital laws. 19. Hydrology hindequate hydrolokS' rcporl. The cxisl iHg coaccnlralcd runoff form the slmets ia Iract #102 lit dirccll,v below the proposed tract #14475 is already nusal~. Often small children, small aoimals and pets am caoght in the clccl~ and ~st moving gutter walcr. nol Io mcutiou fnll trash c;ms arc offca washed away in the rapid moving xxalcr). The intersection of Crcslvicw Place and hxspimliot~ floods badly. The maoff fronl this project ~ould ouly is:crease the nmoffaod ~ding. makiag Ihc cnrrcully dangcrons silnalioa more tr~cherous. I am also concerned ;flmul the erosion from this amoanl of rimoff 21). Water tanks 8dor Rcscn'oirs oa Earlhquakc Fanlls Water lanks and or resen'oirs being buill withiu subice{ Iract are proposed to be built on an existtag c;Nrlluluakc fault. This is not only oaacccl~lablc. it is irresponsible and m direct coofilet with the City's gcncml pI;ul. 21. Fire This is an ex?eme fire hazard area. [ do nol bclicvc thai Ihc original plaa addressed the qnesliou x~hethcr Ihc onc-nlillion gallon water reservoir ncccssat)_ to serve the x~alcr and fir protection needs of this project xxas li:asibly on an em'thquake fatfit. There does not appear to be a CEQA for this and no data as to tile size of a conlamment area or what types of impact this might bave oa tract #14475 or other surrounding tract. Some surfminding tracts are now built and occnpicd. ranch differcut tbau '~.`hea originally proposed. I believe that economic developmcnl and cnviromncnlal protection can and indeed must go hand in hand There shotrid be a degree of certainly, prcdiclabilily and rationality to development. but that argument works to the public's benefit also. We need Io knoxx with ccrlainl:,. prediclability and rationality that there is a point when a Icnlalive tract map is so old and the CEQA so out of dale the permit ','.ill expire. due to the significanl changcs Ihal Ila.`c lakeu place in the law and/or building code. The public needs to know thai Illere is a vehicle .`s hcrcb) the lead agency can require a project be rcdcsigncd Io conform x~ith the curtcat needs, safety and benefit of Ihc pnblic it scrxcs. This thinking was ~rlher supporlcd by CSS on march 25.1993, when it went on the record staling: "only those prr!/ects apprrn'c'd /1.1' ( '1)1"(; am/[;%'l.'lt;%' prior to March 5. 1993 aml explicitly mceti,.~ the rcqttiremeats of the Endangered .%;,~ecies ..let shotthl bc, cxc:htrlc'd./i'om the baseline. " This parcel does not qnality! Reducing urban sprawl. iucreasiug opeu space aad improving lhe "qualily of life" has bccontc bolh nation and stale wide goals. Rancho Cucanlonga is Itsled as one of tile safcsl and most desirable cities in America. · 'Qnality of Life" is a big ticket item liere. So Icls send the developer back to design review and prcscn'c the quaIll.,, of life. No one is saying be shonldn '1 develop Ihc land. only Ihal it needs Io be done willfin Ihc guidelines o1' Ihc currenl laws. nmre specifically the envimmncnlal one and olher curtcut cily hillside ordinances. TIle lower nlcs~l is nowhere as sensitive as Ihc npper h:llf of Ihc properly. A dcnial of the rcqucsl lbr cxlcnsion of lime could imssibl.x hclp prolcct endangered spccics and prevent Ihcir depletion and possible illegal lakiag. My husband and nlysclf urge yon to follow the law, your slalFs advise and Ih;a of the San Bernardino CounLv Museum Biologisls ;hid dcn.x Ihe request for extension so lhis prqjccl can be rc-xxorkcd to be one that serves bolh illall and nalurc ill Ihc bcsl possible .`.`fly. Thank you for your time and cousidcralion. Arthur H. Bridge 8715 Banyan St. Alia Loma. CA 91701 January13,1999 Mr. Larry McNeil Chairman, Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Re: Tract 14475, Alta Loma Dear Mr. McNeil and Members of the Planning Commission, Tonight, the Planning Commission, City of Rancho Cucamonga will Near a request by Allard Engineering to approve an extension of the plan for Tract No. 14475 i6 Alia Loma. As owners of twenty undeveloped acres lying just south of the project under discussion and north of Almond Street at Turquoise we support the recommendation of denial of this request by the Planning Staff for several reasons: -- The unanswered environmental concerns in light of recent State laws; -- the concentrated pattern of the residential lots unrelieved by internal open spaces; -- the recording of 66 lots on 113 acres with a claim to a density of "less than two per acre, ~vhen a large percent of those unbuildable acres lie over the Cucamonga5 Wash. Where lie the environmental issues of sage and wildlife? There or on the mesa? : -- the inattention of the owners to their permit issued in 1992 -- over six years ago; -- the resulting unequal treatment in improving Turqoise. Today our property would have to support of street improvements for about one mile on at least one side of Turquoise Street. We do not own any property on either side of Turquoise. We increased the density of our proposed plan to 10 homes on 20 acres to pay for Almond St. improvements. Thus the traffic generated by our 10 homes is today assumed to be equal to that of 66 homes plus the other tracts in the area.. In our opinion, the area requires a new master plan. The exceptional beauty of the mesa offers unique planning opportunities. Views of the mountains and valley should be featured, open corridors, horse trails and paths could be brought throughout the tract with concerns for endangered species, while garages and streets could take second (third?) place in residential designs. As many have pointed out, this site could be so much more -- another jewel in the crown of Rancho Cucamonga. In 1992, we wrote the Planning Commission, "We have been very disappointed that the City has not grasped the opportunity in its master planning to protect this fragile and beautiful mesa. On one hand. there have been laudable but expensive attempts to preserve the City's historic homes. On the other, rare opportunities for the creation of unique land use designs in this location have not been pursued while they were possible. We hope the City in the near future will protect with higher standards the few remaining undeveloped areas along the foothills in Rancho Cucamonga." We hold that hope today. Sincerely, CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 13,1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07 and 55 through 57. BACKGROUND: On November18, 1992, theCity Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract14475 and certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). Since that time, the State granted two automatic time extensions and the City granted a one-year time extension which ultimately extended the approval until November 18, 1998. In February of 1998, the Planning Division notified the applicant that the subject property is within habitat which may be affected by federally listed endangered or threatened species. Therefore, a request for a time extension would be a discretionary action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would require a new Initial Study including a habitat assessment of the project site by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant submitted a request for a time extension on October 26, 1998, prior to the November 18, 1998, expiration of the map; however, biological protocol surveys were not completed until mid- December. The final biological report was not available at the time of preparation of the Initial Study and the noticing of the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Since 1992, substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. Two species have been listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act which are associated with coastal sage scrub habitat present on the site (threatened California gnatcatcher and endangered San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat). The California gnatcatcher occurs almost exclusively in coastal sage scrub habitat. The small population size remaining is estimated at around 2,000 pairs in Southern California. The project site consists of 113 acres, ofwhich 58 acres are coastal sage scrub habitat. The project will result in the loss of essentially all of the coastal sage scrub habitat and 23 acres of chaparral due to development and fire mitigation. The coastal sage scrub habitat on this site differs from other sites in that it has potential linkage value, compared with the isolated pockets of lesser quality Y ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VT'T 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING January 13, 1999 Page 2 habitats amidst urbanized areas in the City. The habitat on the project site is connected with permanent open space land in the National Forest and Cucamonga Canyon. In fact, 24 acres of the site are in the Open Space District itself. The site also contains part of Cucamonga Creek, a natural source of water which makes the coastal sage scrub habitat nearby more valuable for wildlife resources. Few sites include such proximity to permanent open space and a natural water element. The "draft" biological report (LSA, December 15, 1998) states: Project impacts to coastal sage scrub (loss of 58 acres)may be considered significant as this loss may substantially diminish habitat for wildlife and plants. Although no listed species are present on the site, coastal sage scrub is considered a sensitive habitat type. Further, as is reflected by the attached species list and sensitive species table, the site supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants and is, therefore, considered to be high quality habitat. Thus, impacts of the proposed project to habitat (i.e. coastal sage scrub) may be considered significant. In an April 2, 1998, letter regarding sensitive habitats in the City, the California Department of Fish and Game stated it is very concerned with continued, unmitigated loss of habitats and sensitive species populations. This is a particular concern with projects that have been dormant for years which are being reactivated utilizing old CEQA documentation. The Department of Fish and Game feels reliance upon the use of environmental approvals more than five years old raises serious questions regarding their adequacy and compliance with CEQA due to a number of factors: · Biological survey information is generally only valid for one to three years. · Changes in habitat conditions, site use, and species listing status is common. a A large preserve in the Etiwanda area was established with the Route 30 freeway project, which provides mitigation opportunities that were not available several years ago (expansion of this preserve). Since a "final" biological report was not available, staff, the Department of Fish and Game, and the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service have not had the opportunity to review updated biological information. A meeting has been scheduled for January 5, 1999, to obtain comments from these agencies. An oral update of this meeting will be provided at the Planning Commission hearing. Staff feels it is imperative we provide the responsible agencies an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances. In completing the Initial Study Part II, staff recommends a Supplemental EIR be required for the project to comply with provisions of CEQA. ANALYSIS: The State Subdivision Map Act provides that a tentative map is automatically extended for 60 days or until the application for a time extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the City, whichever occurs first. The 60-day time period on this project expires on January 17, 1999. The City Attorney's office advised Staff there is no means to extend this map approval beyond the 60-day period without CEQA review. In other words, the map will expire long before a Supplemental EIR can be completed and reviewed by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VTT' 14475 - ALLARD ENGINEERING January 13, 1999 Page 3 Staff considered the possibility of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. However, during the preparation of the Initial Study, the final biological study was not available and there were too many unknowns to write habitat mitigation measures. CEQA requires mitigation measures be clearly identified and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. It is not known what habitat lands are available and what replacement ratio is warranted for the project. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any mitigation proposals for consideration. Even if the applicant were to propose mitigation at this time, there is still insufficient time to carry out the 20-day public review and comment period of the Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration before the map expires. Since it is not feasible to complete the CEQA review within the applicant's time constraints, there appears to be no alternative but to deny the requested time extension. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. On January 4, 1999, the Planning Division received correspondence from a resident adjoining the subject property expressing concerns regarding biological issues (Exhibit "H"). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the time extension request for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial. City Planner BB:RVB/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Resolution - Letter from Applicant dated October 20, 1998 - Notice of Endangered or Threatened Species dated February 9, 1998 - Local Vicinity Map - Project Location Map - Site Utilization Natural Features Map (from 1992 SEIR) - Vegetation Map (from 1992 SEIR) - Initial Study Part II - Correspondence Received of Denial - Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 Time Extension ALLARD ENGINEERING Civil Engineering Surveying Land Planning October 20, i998 Dan Coleman City. of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Tentative Tract 14475 - Recmest for Extension VIA FACShMILE (909) 477-2849 Dan: As the duly authorized agent of the owners of the above tract (see enclosed letter of authorization), I am wTiting to request a one year extension of the Tentative Tract No. 14475 for the property located directly north of Almond Avenue between Crestview Place and skyline Drive. The partnership is nearly under contract to sell this,property and the purchasers are currently processing the map but will not have the approvals by the time this current map expires. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you need any additional information please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Raymond J. Allard, P.E. Principal cc: Prakash Sakraney 6101 Cherry Avenue Fontana, CA 92336 (909)899~5011 FAX (909)899-5014 February 9. 1998 CUC Y O F ;\b'[ O N G Prakash Sakramey Sahama Development Watanmal (UK) Ltd. 53A George Street Richmond, Surrey 'FW9 1HJ United Kingdom SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - NOTICE OF ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES - PROJECT EXPIRATION Dear Mr. Sakramey: Your property is within habitat which may be affected by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) listing of the following endangered or threatened species: California Gnatcatcher and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat What does the federal listing mean? Under the listing, the habitat is protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" of any fedorally listed species. "Taking" not only means killing or disturbing. but also means disturbance of habitat, including but not limited to, grading, mowing, discing, trenching, and other construction activities, "Habitat" may also include areas which have been graded or discod and which left undisturbed, could revert back to its natural state, or which could be restored to its natural state. Take of endangered species may be authorized by one of two procedures. The Service may issue an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act. Alternatively, the Service may determine, based upon an adequate biological survey, that the property does not fall within their definition of habitat. The goal of these procedures is to protect the natural environment by ensuring that-projects are adequately mitigated and that avoidance, minimization, or mitigation be used to reduce all biological impacts to a level below significance. For further information about federal listing and the take permit process, contact the Service's Cadsbad Field Office at (760) 431-9440. How does this affect my project? Your project. TT 14475, wilt expire on November 18, 1998, unless extended by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Time extensions and modifications to the approved project plans are discretionary a:t~ons subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. To request a time extension of your .:roject. you must submit a written request at le,,~ll~ys prior to expiration. a $549 extension fee. PROJECT EXPh,:RATION N..,, ICE TF 14475 - SA..HAMA DEVELOPMENT Februap/9, 1998 Page 2 a completed Initial Study Part.. I (including a habitat assessmere~ of the project si'.e). and a S225 - $22!acre initial Study fee. Modification of your approved development plans, such as changing significantly, the square footage or rearranging buildings, will require submittal of full development plans with fees, and a new Initial Study and fees (including habitat assessment of the project site). Development of your project, including grading, wilt require an incidental take permit from the Service unless it has been previously determined that the site is not habitat based upon an adequate biological survey. Sincerely. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Planner BB:DC:taa ~ Habitat Assessment must be prepared by a biologist of [he soils, vegetation. and species composition on the site+ Biologist shall be permitted by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to perform such surveys and the permit number listed on the cover of the report. The biologist should prepare an evaluation determining whether the soil and vegetation provide Local Vicinity Map l.l. 14475 Subsequent EIR ~)~ 07~8TM01 1/91 ............ 0 1000 2000 Feet Exhibi~ 2 CIT'~ tZ$ IT 11 b.M: //7-~/.~',.~'~;' 111 L..E: Z_o,'/._,~/~ ~/v' Pd~p EXHIBIT: ~/~ SCALE: E~HiBIT "E" City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 Time Extension Related Files: Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 and Tentative Tract 12376 (denied 1985). On November 18, 1992, the City Council certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. The SEI R and Mitigation Monitoring Program are used as earlier analysis in completing this initial study. Description of Project: A request for an extension of a previously approved vesting tentative tract map including design review for the development of 66 single family lots on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and the Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07and 55 through 57. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Prakash Sakraney, Watanmul (UK) Ltd, 53a George Street, Richmond, Surrey TW9 1H J, United Kingdom. Project Sponsor's Contact Person: Raymond Allard, Allard Engineering 6101 Cherry Avenue, Fontana CA 92336 (909) 899-5011 General Plan Designation: Project Site: Open Space and Hillside Residential North: San Bernardino National Forest South: Hillside Residential East: County of San Bernardino (West Foothills Planned Development) West: County of San Bernardino (Cucamonga Canyon Wash) Zoning: Project Site: Open Space and Hillside Residential North: San Bernardino National Forest South: Hillside Residential East: County of San Bernardino Zoning: WF/PD-1/10 (West Foothills Planned Development one dwelling unit per 10 acres) West: County of San Bernardino (Cucamonga Canyon Wash) Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located at the northwest corner of the City, with the City limits line on three sides. It is bounded to the north by the San Bernardino National Forest, to the west by the Cucamonga Canyon Wash, to the east by a U.S. Forest Service access road and vacant land in the unincorporated County beyond, and to the south by a partially-constructed single family hillside residential tract. The site is the last developable parcel before entering the San Bernardino National Forest. Initial Study for VTT 14475 Time Extension City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 The property slopes to the south/southwest, as evidenced by the on-site elevations that range from a high of 2,910 feet in the nodheastern corner to a low of 2,160 feet in the southwestern corner (a 750 foot elevation difference). Cucamonga Wash is a significant drainage area running north-south through the western portion of the site that represents a major landform feature. The bottom of the Cucamonga Wash is approximately 150 feet below the top banks. The canyon walls are nearly vertical. Another distinctive feature of the site is the escarpment that runs from north to south through the project. Probably created by activity on the Cucamonga Fault, this escarpment divides the site into a lower and an upper mesa. Prevailing ground slopes on the lower mesa range from 6 to 10 percent between the top of the Cucamonga Canyon wall and the escarpment. East of the escarpment, on the upper mesa, the prevailing slopes range from 10 to 30 percent, with the slopes approaching 100 percent at the site's northeast corner. The site is located on an alluvial fan in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Three plant communities dominate the site, including coastal sage scrub (52 percent of the site, roughly 58 acres), chaparral (30 percent of the site, 34 acres), and alluvial scrub (5 percent of the site, 6 acres). An abandoned citrus orchard and Eucalyptus windrow make up the balance of the site. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service Cucamonga County Water District California Regional Water Quality Control Board Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga V I I 14475 Time Extension Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentlaity Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (X) Land Use and Planning (X) Population and Housing (X) Geological Problems (X) Water ( ) Air Quality (X) Transportation/Circulation (X) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (X) Hazards ( ) Noise (X) Mandatory Findings of Significance (X) Public Services (X) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics (X) Cultural Resources (X) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. (x) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 ) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner December 22, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga V I I 14475 Time Extension Page 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND a) b) c) d) Potenhally Signd~cant Impact Less PotentiaEly Unless Than Significant M~tigation Signr~icant NO USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) (X) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) (X) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) (X) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) () () () (x) a) The General Plan Land Use Plan indicates the upper third of the project site is Open Space, where approximately 15 residential lots are plotted on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) states: The project is generally consistent with the land uses shown for this parcel in the adopted General Plan. However, it may conflict in terms of the defined boundary between open space and hillside residential uses. A review of the City's General Plan Land Use Plan indicates that development in the open space district is limited to one residence per 40 acres. The northeastern quadrant of the site lies appears (on the Land Use Element map) to be in the open space district, and is also shown (on the Public Health and Safety Policy Map) to have high development constraints due to the combined influences of slope instability, fire hazards and flood hazard. The General Plan discourages but does not prohibit development of areas included within this designation, subject to mitigations that can reduce public health risks to an acceptable level. (SEIR, p. 37) b) Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, SEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring program were approved in 1992. Subsequently, in 1995, the City of Rancho Cucamonga became a participating agency in a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) being prepared by the County of San Bernardino based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the County, the California Department of Fish and Game, participating cities, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The intent is to develop a MSHCP that is consistent with the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Initial Study for VTT 14475 Time Extension City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 5 Endangered Species Act, and the Natural Community Conservation Planning program, and ensure conservation and protection of currently listed, proposed and candidate species, and species of concern and their habitats within the designated plan area. Correspondence received from the California Department of Fish and Game on April 2, 1998, states that habitats of particular concern include Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (state-ranked S1.1 rated, very threatened natural community). The proposed tentative tract map involves loss of approximately 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat which supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants, identified in a "draft" biological report dated December 15, 1998, by LSA Associates. The coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site is high quality and connected with permanent open space land associated with the National Forest and the Cucamonga Creekwash area which is in the Open Space District. The coastal sage scrub habitat on this site is unique in that it is good quality and has potential linkage value, compared with the isolated pockets of lesser quality habitats amidst urbanized areas in the City. The elimination and uncompensated loss of this habitat area may preclude preservation strategies contemplated in a MSHCP. Additional information regarding the significance of the coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site, its potential role in a MSHCP, and identification of potential mitigation measures is necessary to determine if the loss of the habitat is a significant impact which can be mitigated or avoided. Additional information which is necessary as a part of CEQA review of the proposed time extension includes a "final" biological study indicating the presence or absence of listed threatened or endangered species, consultation and comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and County of San Bernardino pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding adopted for the MSHCP project. c) The SEIR identifies potential land use incompatibilities associated with residential developments abutting the National Forest. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address conflicts between residential and recreational interests. In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide the U.S. Forest Service an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. Potentially issues and Supporllng Inforrnabon Sources: SLgn~flcant Impact POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) Pment4ally Signrficant Impact Less Unless Than M~tigabon Significant IncorporatedImpact ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT' 14475 Time Extension Page 6 b) c) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) () () () (x) Comments: b) The proposed project provides two stub-out street connections to the property east of the site, which is in the unincorporated County. The County General Plan and Zoning allow for residential development in this area pursuant to its West Foothills Planned Development. As a result, the implementation of this project may facilitate development and induce growth in the unincorporated land east of the project. Issues and Supporting Informabort Sources: GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Fault rupture? Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Subsidence of the land? Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than Signdicant Mitigation Significant No (x) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () (x) ( ) (x) (x) () (x) () () () () () () () (x) ) ) ) (x) ) Comments: a-g) The project site is located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for sessmic activity (Cucamonga Fault). The project contains a seismic exclusion zone in which human-occupied structures are prohibited. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address seismic conditions with the project site. A water storage reservoir (CCWD Reservoir 6A, with a I million gallon capacity), is anticipated within or adjacent to the seismic exclusion zone to serve the project. The Initial Study for VTT 14475 Time Extension City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 SEIR indicates a separate review and approval of the water storage reservoir will be conducted at the time it is proposed by the Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide CCWD an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable miti9ation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. e&i) The project site includes significant landforms including the Cucamonga Canyon Wash and central site escarpment. The elevation of the project site ranges from 2, 160 to 2,910 feet above sea level (a 750 foot difference). The Cucamonga Creek is a major water course conveying drainage originating in the mountainous area north of the site. The creek is unimproved and subject to sloughing and erosion of the banks, including potential landslides. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address geologic conditions. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) g) h) i) Potentially S~gnrficant Impact Less PolentlallyUnless Than SignfficantMLtigabon S~gnrficantNo Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact ) ( ) (x) ( ) ) (x) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) () (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 8 Comments; a) The project involves development of currently vacant land into a residential subdivision on approximately 80 acres of the 113 acre project site. The absorption rate will be altered because of the paving and hardscape proposed. All runoff will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. This impact is not considered to be significant. b) The project site includes land area within the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. The Cucamonga Creek is a major water course conveying drainage originating in the mountainous area north of the site. The creek is unimproved and subject to sloughing and erosion of the banks as well as on-site debris and deposition during major storm events. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address hydrology issues, including a 150 building setback along the Cucamonga Canyon Wash. Lot A encompasses Cucamonga Creek, which is a special flood hazard area (Zone A) subject to canyon flows. Building setback requirements have been established by San Bernardino County Flood Control District. Since portions of the site are located in an area for which flood hazards are undetermined, a condition of approval requires the developer to prepare the necessary studies to have the current Zone D designation removed from the project area. With such mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. A water storage reservoir (CCWD Reservoir 6A, with a 1 million gallon capacity), is anticipated within or adjacent to the seismic exclusion zone to serve the project. In the event of seismic activity which exceeds the construction design of the reservoir and its containment area, people may be exposed to water related hazards. The SEI R indicates a separate review and approval of the water storage reservoir will be conducted at the time it is proposed. In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide the CCWD an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. e) The project will not alter the course or direction of water movements. Surface runoff currently reaching the site from off site areas will be conveyed to approved drainage facilities which have been designed to handle the flows. m AIR QUALITY. a) b) Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Petentlajly S~gnl~cant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 9 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Comments: a-d) The SEIR provides an explanation for the no impact response regarding air quality on page 7 of the Executive Summary. issues and Supporting Information Sources: TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail or air traffic impacts? Potentially Sign~cant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Signd~cant M~tigation Signrficant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impacl ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) () (x) (x) (x) (x) Comments: a) The project will not increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion in excess of projections for the adopted land use, for which the street widths were evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will be required to pay Transportation Development Fees. This impact is not considered to be significant. b) The circulation design features conform to our Street Design, Driveway and Intersection Line of Sight policies. A condition of approval requires 30 mph stopping distance for all vertical curves. With such mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for VTT 14475 Time Extension City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 c) The project did not have adequate emergency access at the time of approval. The conditions of approval require the construction of off-site street improvements on Almond and Turquoise Streets. With such mitigation, the impact is not considered significant. The conditions of approval also include mitigation measures to modify the location and improvement status of U.S. Forest Service Road 1 N34 (Big Tree Road), which exists along the eastern boundary of the project site. e) The required frontage improvements include sidewalks on one side of streets. BIOLOGICAL RESOURGES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (X) b) Locally designated species(e.g, heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? (X) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (X) () (x) () () () (x) () a,c,&e) The original project (V'FI' 14475) was approved in 1992. Since that time, there have been changes in species listings and habitat status pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project involves the elimination of 58 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat, which comprises nearly all of the coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site. Federally listed animals known to occupy coastal sage scrub habitat include the threatened California gnatcatcher (federally listed on 3/30/93), endangered San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat (emergency listed on 1/27198), and endangered least Bell's vireo (federally listed 5/2/86; state listed 10/2/80). (Source: Mary Meyer, CA Department Fish and Game, letter dated April 2, 1998). At the time of writing of this initial study, a "final" biological report, including the findings of protocol surveys, was not received by this office. Under the listings, the habitat is protected under the federal ESA. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" of any federally listed species. "Taking" not only means killing or disturbing, but also means disturbance of. habitat, including grading, mowing, discing, trenching, and other construction Initial Study for VTT 14475 Time Extension City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 11 activities. The elimination of this habitat may have a potentially significant impact. Additional information regarding the presence or absence of listed species on the project site, the implications and significance of the coastal sage scrub habitat on the project site, its potential role in a MSHCP, and identification of potential mitigation measures is necessary to determine if the loss of the habitat is a significant impact which can be mitigated or avoided. Additional information which is necessary as a part of CEQA review of the proposed time extension includes a "final" biological study, consultation and comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife SeNice, California Department of Fish and Game, and County of San Bernardino pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding adopted for the aforementioned MSHCP project. b) The project involves removal of 34 Eucalyptus trees located along the base of the escarpment. In 1992, the trees were determined to be in poor physical condition and located in line with street and Community Trail improvements. Replacement trees are required on a one-for-one basis in the conditions of approval. d) The Cucamonga Canyon is within the Open Space District and is not proposed to be developed or altered. Issues and SuppoM~ng Information Sources: Potentially Significant Impact Less Potenbatly Unless Than ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (x) (x) (x) Issues and Suppealing Inforrnat~on Sources: HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Potentially Sign~cant Impact Less Potent.allyUnless Than ( ) (). ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 12 c) d) e) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? () () (x) () () () ( ) (x) ( ) (x) () () Comments: e) The SEIR indicates the project site is located in an area of known high-to-extreme fire hazard. The project approval will add to the cumulative demand placed on fire protection agencies responsible for this area, will increase the potential for brush fires, and will place residents and property in a recognized high-to-extreme fire hazard area. This represents a significant, unavoidable adverse impact that would be associated with the project if approved. Additionally, the response time to this site may exceed the Fire District's standard. The conditions of approval included mitigation measures to address fire protection including retention of a wildland fire consultant during project design, compliance with structural fire protection standards in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, fire protection water systems and fire hydrants, deed restrictions and CC&R requirements, emergency vehicle turn-around diameters at dead-end streets, completion of a Phase Two Wildland Fire Safety Report prior to final map recordation, installation of a helipad for use by the U.S Forest Service, and a 100 by 100-foot safety zone with no fiammable vegetation. Even with these measures, the potential adverse impact associated with placement in an area of high-to-extreme fire hazard may remain significant. In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide the U.S. Forest Service and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. In the Phase One Conceptual Wildland Fire Safety Report, which was adopted by reference as a part of the mitigation measures for the project, the helipad and safety zone are required, but their location is not determined. The Report generally references a possible site in the northeast portion of the project, but the tract map indicates this area contains steep slope conditions. Another possible site referenced is on Lot F, subject to water tank location; this lot is adjacent to residential dwellings. The potential impacts of necessary fire-protection installations, such as the helipad, safety zone, and water reservoir should be identified and discussed as part of CEQA review of the project. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 13 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) Commellts: a-b) The SEIR provides a basis for the no impact response regarding nmse of the Executive Summary. ) (x) ) (x) on page 7 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo~owing areas.' a) b) C) d) e) Potentially Signdlcant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than S~gn~flcantMrtigat~on Significant Fire protection? ( ) (X) ( ) Police protection? ( ) (X) ( ) Schools? ( ) (X) ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) (X) ( ) Other governmental services? ( ) (X) ( ) No Impact () () () () () Comments: a) The SEIR indicates the project site is located in an area of known high-to-extreme fire hazard. The project approval will add to the cumulative demand placed on fire protection agencies responsible for this area, will increase the potential for brush fires, and will place residents and property in a recognized high-to-extreme fire hazard area. This represents a significant, unavoidable adverse impact that would be associated with the project if approved. Additionally, the response time to this site may exceed the Fire District's standard. The conditions of approval included mitigation measures to address fire protection including retention of a wildland fire consultant during project design, compliance with structural fire protection standards in the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, fire protection water systems and fire hydrants, deed restrictions and CC&R requirements, emergency vehicle turn-around diameters at dead-end streets, completion of a Phase Two Wildland Fire Safety Report prior to final map recordation, installation of a helipad for use by the U.S Forest Service, and a 100 by 100-foot safety zone with no fiammable vegetation. Even with these measures, the potential adverse impact associated with placement in an area of high-to-extreme fire hazard may remain significant. Initial Study for VTT 14475 Time Extension City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 14 In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide the U.S. Forest Service and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. In the Phase One Conceptual Wildland Fire Safety Report, which was adopted by reference as a part of the mitigation measures forthe project, the helipad and safety zone are required, but their location is not determined. The Report generally references a possible site in the northeast portion of the project, but the tract map indicates this area contains steep slope conditions. Another possible site referenced is on Lot F, subject to water tank location; this lot is adjacent to residential dwellings. The potential impacts of necessary fire-protection installations, such as the helipad, safety zone, and water reservoir should be identified and discussed as part of CEQA review of the project. b) The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address impacts on police services including consultation with the appropriate police agency to assess the need for additional department personnel and equipment, and to obtain information on crime prevention measures that can be incorporated into project design. c) The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address school impacts. Prior to recordation of the map, a meeting shall be held between the City, school district officials, and the applicant to determine whether additional assistance will be required to serve students generated by the project. Such measures, if needed, could include supplemental funding agreements or participation in a community_ facilities district. d) The project includes a 20-foot wide community trail system which will be the responsibility of the City to maintain. The trail will be located adjacent to the steep banks of the Cucamonga Creek Wash, with a minimum 25-foot setback from the edge of cliff. The banks of the wash are subject to erosion and sloughing in storms. The conditions of approval acknowledge the banks may change over time due to erosion, landslides, or other natural forces of nature, and establish a 150-foot building setback from the banks of the cliff. In order to provide for the continued existence of the trail in the event of damage due to channel wall failure, the conditions of approval also establish a "blanket easement" to relocate the trail on private property within this designated building setback. Failure to adequately maintain trail against erosion may contribute to erosion of private rear yard areas. The financial implications of Proposition 218 has caused the City to reevaluate long- term costs and maintenance responsibilities of publicly-maintained areas, including Community Trails. The potential impacts of Community Trail maintenance within the project site should be identified and discussed as part of CEQA review of the project. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 15 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities.' a) b) c) d) f) g) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ) ( ) (x) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ( ) ( ) (x) ( (x) ( ) ( ) Comments: d) The project proposes use of septic systems for all residential lots. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to require review and approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. This review will require the applicant to perform percolation tests to establish the suitability of on-site soils for septic leaching, and to determine if potential water quality impacts would result from use of an on-site septic tank system. e) Storm drain improvements will be necessary to accommodate the project. This does not result in substantial alterations to the master plan of storm drainage. This impact is not considered significant. g) A water storage reservoir (CCWD Reservoir 6A, with a 1 million gallon capacity), is anticipated within the project site to serve the project. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to provide water storage and distribution facilities in accordance with CCWD requirements and the requirements of the Phase Two Wildland Fire Safety Report, and to provide on-site pump and pressure tank systems for several lots to ensure adequate water pressures for fire safety. In order to comply with provisions of CEQA, it will be necessary to provide CCWD an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the prior mitigation measures and to recommend any revisions necessary to reflect changed circumstances, including the need to provide fully enforceable mitigation measures through permit conditions, agreements, or other means. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 16 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potemlal~y Significant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than (x) (x) (x) Comments: a-c) The SEIR provides a basis for the no impact response regarding aesthetics on page 7 of the Executive Summary. 14. Issues and SupportLng Information Sources CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposak a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical or cultural resources? , d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Commen~: b) Potentially Sign~hcant Impact Less Potentrally Unless Than Significant M~igat~on Signrficant NO ) ( ) ) (x) ) (x) ) ( ) ) ) ) (x) ) ) ) (x) ) ) ) (x) The conditions of approval include mitigation measures which require a qualified archaeologist to monitor clearing and grading operations in the northwest portion of the site. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potemlally Signscant Impact Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Sign~fFcanl No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page 17 Comments: a) Conditions of approval include a standard condition regarding payment of park fees to offset impacts on park facilities prior to issuance of building permits for new residential dwelling units. This impact is not considered to be significant. b) The project involves development of residential use abutting a national forest. The conditions of approval include mitigation measures to address conflicts between residential and recreational interests. Mitigation measures include maintaining the connection to Big Tree Road (the forest access road) and posting "No Recreational Vehicle Parking" signs within TT 14475 where necessary. 16. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Signsscant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantM~t~gat~on SsgnfficantNo Impact Incorporate~impact impact MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (X) ( ) ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga VTT 14475 Time Extension Page t8 Comments: a) Based upon the responses contained in the Sections on Land Use and Planning and Biological Resources, there is insufficient information to refute that the project will NOT substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. d) Based upon the response contained in the Section on Geologic Problems, Water Hazards 9(e), Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, there is insufficient information to refute that the project will NOT have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly due to potential geologic, water, or fire hazards. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately anatyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (x) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (x) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (x) Tentative Tract 14475 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH #90021132, certified Novera ber 18, 1992) (x) Tentative Tract 12376 & Conceptual Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (Certified January 23, 1985) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would OCCUr. Signature: Print Name and Title: I:\FINAL\PLNGCQMM\ENVDOC\VTT14475.Wpd Date: Local Vicinity Map T.T. 14475 Subsequent EIR 0768TM01 1/91 .... 0 1000 2000 Feel' I'I'EM: titLE: ~c~C/P//~/,./ EXEHIBFF: SCALE: December 30, 1998 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Proposed Extension of Tract #14475 Dear Sirs and Madam: RECEIVED J~,N 0 & 1999 City ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division I am writing to you to express several concerns I have with the proposed development of 66 single-family homes on 113 acres of alluvial sage in Cucamonga Canyon. Several arguments could be put forth against this project, not the least of which are: · This area is critical habitat for wildlife (including the San Bemardino Kangaroo Rat and quite possibly the Coastal Gnatcatcher) and, therefore, is subject to the Endangered Species Act; · This area has important historical significance; · This area provides watershed for the westem portion of the City; · The canyon is an important water source for the City and, as such, this proposed development may be subject to the Clean Water Act; · This area is a critical buffer to the Cucamonga Wilderness that is home to a rare and endangered population of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep; and · The project will certainly impact water pressure in the area. (Water pressure in Skyline Estates is currently only 45-501bs at the street). But I think the most compelling reason to reconsider this project is this: The rugged beauty of this canyon is unmatched in the area. It is a rare and priceless gem that should be a source of pride to our community. It should be conserved for our children and for future residents of the City. My prayer is that future generations will look back to this time and be grateful that our leaders had the foresight and the courage to save it from encroaching and relentless development. I implore you not to put the desires of this developer ahead of our children's legacy and the public's interest. I would ask each of you, before making your final decision, to personally visit the area being proposed for development and reflect on the beauty of this creation. If you are untouched, then at least consider scaling this project down or rethinking it entirely. An altemate proposal might be to develop the area immediately behind Skyline Estates (roughly 60 acres), but leave the plateau and virgin sage just west of Big Tree road as permanent open space. The area behind Skyline was at one time a ranch and does not have the same ecological and aesthetic significance as the upper plateau. This proposal is consistent with a map we have of the City that shows Crestview Place continuing in a northeastern direction with two small cutdesacs branching off. Thank you for your careful consideration. I would be happy to speak to you in more detail about this proposed project. I may be reached at (323) 889- 2994 on weekdays. Frank Schiavone 8060 Crestview Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Larry McNeil, Chairperson Rich Macias, Vice-chairperson Pam Stewart John Mannedno Peter Tolstoy RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14475, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 66 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 113 ACRES OF LAND IN THE HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS, LOCATED NORTH OF ALMOND AVENUE BETWEEN SAPPHIRE AND TURQUOISE STREETS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 200-051-07 AND 55 THROUGH 57. A. Recitals. 1. On November 18, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution 92-288, thereby certifying the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14475. 2. On November 18, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution 92-290, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. 3. On March 30, 1993, the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) was listed as a threatened species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). 4. On January 27, 1998, the San Bemardino Merdam's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) was emergency listed as an endangered species pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). 5. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14475 was eligible for and received State-granted time extensions pursuant to SB 428 and AB 771 which automatically extended the expiration date of the map until November 18, 1997. 6. On August 6, 1997, the City Planner granted a one-year time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14475, which extended the expiration date of the map until November 18, 1998. 7. Ray Allard, as the duly authorized agent of the owner of the subject property, filed an application on October 26, 1998, for the extension of the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 14475, as described in the title of this Resolution. Herainafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 8. On January 13, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded the headng on that date. 9. All legal prerequisites pdor 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VTT14475-ALLARD ENGINEERING January 13,1999 Page 2 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on January 13, 1999, including the information contained in the Environmental Initial Study Part II, wdtten and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The federally-listed California gnatcatcher and federally-listed San Bernardino Merdam's kangaroo rat are associated with, and rely upon, coastal sage scrub habitat. b. Federally-listed species and their habitats are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended); and habitat; and The project site consists of 113 acres, of which 58 acres are coastal sage scrub d. The project will result in the loss of essentially all of the coastal sage scrub habitat and 23 acres of chaparral due to development and fire mitigation. e. The Califomia Department of Fish and Game submitted a letter to the City dated Apdl 2, 1998, which indicates it is very concamed with continued, unmitigated loss of habitats and sensitive species populations. The concern includes projects that have been dormant for years which am being reactivated utilizing old CEQA documentation. The Department feels reliance upon the use of environmental approvals more than five years old raises serious questions regarding their adequacy and compliance with CEQA due to a number of factors including (1) biological survey information is generally only valid for one to three years; (2) changes in habitat conditions, site use, and species listing status is common; and (3) a large preserve in the Etiwanda area was recently established which provides mitigation opportunities that were not available several years ago. f. The Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program which were approved in 1992 are more than five years old. g. At the time of preparation of the Initial Study Part II and the noticing of the public headrig, a final biological report was not available to provide evidence to indicate the presence or absence of the aforementioned federally-listed species and to render conclusions on the significance of the coastal sage scrub habitat on site. Further, a "draft" biological report indicated the project impacts to coastal sage scrub (loss of 58 acres) may be considered significant as this loss may substantially diminish habitat for wildlife and plants. h. There is potential fiat significant effects previously examined may be substantially more severe than shown in the SEIR. i. The Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth provisions to require Subsequent and Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports when, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the projectwill be undertaken which may cause a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and j. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that based upon the information in the Initial Study Part II, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the project is required to analyze biological impacts identified in the Initial Study. Also indicated in the Initial Study, responsible agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VII 14475-ALLARD ENGINEERING January 13,1999 Page 3 Cucamonga County Water District, may be aware of changed circumstances since 1992 which impact the project. Responsible agencies would be provided an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of pdor mitigation measures and, if applicable, recommend expanding the scope of analysis, in a Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The decision-makers and the public are entitled to the completion of the environmental review of a project pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act prior to the rendering of a decision in favor of the project. b. A Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has not been prepared nor made available for public review for the project. Therefore, the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act has not been completed for the project. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the requested time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. The Vesting Tentative Tract is therefore deemed expired by its own terms. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'~I'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-03A TT14875- MODERN CORPORATION January 13,1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for, Tentative Tract MaD Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 14875 Modern Corporation January 9, 2000 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 91-03 and the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows: Plannincl Division 1) Prior to the retardation of the final map or the issuance of building pc,,,,its, whichever co,,,es first, the applicant shall cansent to, or participate in, the establishn~cnt of a Mella-Roos Cart,, nunity Facilities District pertaining to the projoel site to provide in conjunction ~ith the applicable C, chool District for the construction and ~Y, aintenance of nccessary school facilities. I lowever, if any School District has previously established such 8 Catn,~unity Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alte,,,ative, consent to the enncxetion of the projcct site into the territory of such existing District prior to the retardation of the final map or the issuance of building pc,~,,its, whichever tonics first. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 91-03A TT14875- MODERN CORPORATION January 13,1999 Page 3 Further, if the affected Gchool District has not f~n,,ed · Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve n,onths of the date of approval of the project and prior to the rccordation of the final map or issuance of building pc,,,,its for said project, this condition shell be deemed null and void. If the developer end all effect. cd school districts reach a private ogreenfant, this condition shall be deemed null end void. 1) 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 Count 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 Bemardino. 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. 2) Landscaping along the east side of Archibald Avenue shall conform to the Archibald Avenue Beautification Master Plan subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. 3) Codes, Covenants, and Restfictions shall require regular cleaning of the clear sound attenuation barrier. The Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. Enqineednq Division 1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to future Undergrounding of existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical) on the opposite side of Church Street shall be paid to the City prior to recordation of the Final Map of issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the portion of project frontage from the project's eastedy boundary to the terminus pole on the east side of Archibald Avenue. 2) Landscaping within "limited use areas" for all project driveways shall be approved by the City Engineer. Environmental Miticlation Measures: 1) A final acoustical analysis shall be required to identify necessary mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels within the residences below 45 CNEL. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to issuance of building permits. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 13,1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14875 - MODERN CORPORATION - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map and design review for the development of 36 condominium units on 3.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-332-26. BACKGROUND: On January 9, 1991, the Planning Commission approved the project with a two- year time limit. Since that time, the City has granted three years of time extensions. In addition, the State granted three more years of automatic time extensions during the recession. Prior to the expiration, the applicant filed an extension request on November 25, 1998 requesting a twelve- month extension to expire on January 9, 2000. On January 6, 1999, the City Council amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to increase time extensions to five years, which is the maximum allowed under the State Subdivision Map Act Section 66452.6(e). The Planning Commission may extend this project in twelve month increments for up to three more years (until January 9, 2002). ANALYSIS: The Planning Division has reviewed the approved project design and noted the following inconsistencies with current development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. These inconsistencies are primarily the result of the adoption of Ordinance 465, which included major changes to the multi-family development standards by the City Council in 1991, after the project was approved. A, Setbacks: The project does not meet the 15-foot minimum setback between buildings and curb face as required by Development Code Table 17.08.040-E (see Exhibit "K"). Specifically, units 9, 16, 17, and 36 have a building setback of 12 feet or less as shown on the enclosed copy of the approved Site Plan (see Exhibit "C"). Because of the small size and narrow shape of the property, the project has been designed at the minimum setbacks along the street and interior site boundary. These buildings can be moved to provide greater setback, such that only their corners would have a setback of less than the 15 feet required. Y ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14875 - MODERN CORPORATION January 13, 1999 Page 2 Recreational Amenities: The project does not provide the required six recreational amenities as required by Development Code Section 17.08.040-C (see Exhibit "J"). Projects with 31 to 100 units must provide at least six recreational amenities, or their equivalent, as approved by the Planning Commission, from the following list: 1. Large open lawn area, one of the dimensions shall be a minimum of 50 feet. 2. Enclosed tot lot with multiple play equipment. 3. Spa or pool. 4. Barbecue facility equipped with gritl, picnic benches, etc. The project has five recreational amenities: 1 ) large open lawn area between Buildings 4 and 5, 2) tot lot, 3) spa, 4) pool, and 5) barbecue facility. The project could be redesigned to include the required sixth recreational amenity, most probably a second barbecue facility or spa. Compact Parkin<~ Spaces: Four of the visitor parking spaces are compact (8 feet by 16 feet), The City no longer allows compact parking spaces and requires a minimum 9-foot by 18-foot stall. The project could be redesigned to provide the required stall size. Patio Setback: The project does not meet the minimum 15-foot setback for patio fences between Buildings 13-16 and 17-20 as required by Development Code Table 17.08,040-E (see Exhibit "K"). The project was approved with a 12-foot setback, If the patio areas were reduced in size, the project could provide the required 15-foot setback. PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORITY: The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny a time extension request. The Planning Commission may add conditions, and modify or delete any of the conditions of approval, except conditions required by City Ordinance or by the City Engineer, related to public health and safety or standards approved by the City Engineer. Staff recommends adoption of revised conditions of approval (see attached Resolution) consistent with current City requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant. Staff had completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist, and determined thatthe project could have a significant impact in drainage, geology, noise, and schools, Special studies were previously prepared to address mitigation measures for drainage, geology, and noise. The developer has entered into mitigation agreements with the affected school districts. With the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study Part II made as conditions of approval, the potential impact is reduced to a level not significant. Staff recommends issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. FACTS FOR FINDING: In appreving or conditionally appreving the time extension, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission must deny the time extension if it makes any of the following findings: A. That the proposed map is not consistent with General Plan. B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan. C, That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 14875 - MODERN CORPORATION January 13, 1999 Page 3 D. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density or development. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish orwildlife ortheir habitat. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission should determine whether the non-conformities make the project not physically suitable forthe type of development or proposed density. Staff believes that the project can be revised through the recommended conditions of approval to meet all current standards of the City. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for the subdivision map and related design review, subject to revised conditions of approval, through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respec Ily submitted, BB:DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Exhibit "J" Exhibit "K" Exhibit "L" Resolution Resolution - Letter from Applicant - Location Map - Site Plan - Landscape Plan - Elevations - Floor Plans - Grading Plan - Wall Elevations - Non-Conformities - Development Code Section 17,08.040-C - Development Code Table 17.08,040-E - Initial Study Part II of Approval - Tentative Tract Time Extension of Approval - Design Review Time Extension MODEILX CORPORATION RECEIVED Nov. 24,1998 Mr. Brad Buller Director of Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9 1729 NOV g 5 1998 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Re: Tentative Tract No. 14875 Dear Mr. Buller, Per our conversation on Nov. 24, 1998, we would like to request a one year extension to January 9, 2000 for Tentative Tract No. 14875. We are enclosing a check for the extension fee of $ 549.00. Thank you very much for your continued assistance. If you have any question, please call us at (626)965-2668. Very truly yours, HOW?~,~ End: Check DUPLICATE ~C~IH DUPLICATE ECEIPT CI~ OF R~ffi:~O CUC~'~OM6~ 9eg-,k77.-~Te9 DEPOTliNT 1613 ~I~ ~ES TTl~75 ~I~D H1-3~I-TE~9~ T~ IIHSe ~T~ I~TRY C~ ~ECK: s549. TOT~ ~OE~ s54~.6~ ~ ~E se. ee DUPLICATE RECEIPT ~Pt. ICATE RECEIPT j,.. TENT~ TIVE TRACT NO. 14875 P.U.D. IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMQNGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNAR~INO STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF ~ARCEL: OF PARCEL MAP NO 4761 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 47, PAGES 687, RECOROS OF SAiD COUNTY '1 , ....., "" :::::::::::: tI EE] l I- S.F. ATTACHED E.G.M. DEVELOPMENT MAN G ttTERLOCI(I~G PAVERS DIRECTORy TYPICAL PRIVATE pATIO SIREEl TREE THEME I I _I ""~. '"A.,.~, ..OJL~I ,O SOU'" .~ ~3It]'Oi~C ,,:~. S.E AITACHED E.G.M. DEVELOPMENT 6-0- MASONRY WALLS TypICAL MEARNDERiNG WALK MOllHDED IURF · B.II,Q AREA WiTH WOOD TRELLIS TOT LOT WOOD BENCH 1.- ! E.G.M. DEVELOPMENT GATE ACCESS r~WROUGHT IRON PERIMETER FENCE ./ w,~.l.ffo..~ .,LAs,E.s ,T E,G.M. DEVELOPMENT Second UNIT A UNIT B SUMMARY SUMMARY FIRST FLOOR 630 SF. FIRST FLOOR 695 S.F. SECOND FLOOR 790 SF SECOND FLOOR 920 SF. TOTAL 1,420 SF. TOIAL t,615 S.F, E.G.M. DEVELOPMENT E.G,M. DEVELOPMENT 605? ~ELLA AVENUE RANCtO CJCAMONGA CA 91701 " 1':] .......... ~ .... SECTION O t SECTION A- A' S.F. ATTACHED E.G.M. DEVELOPMENT 6051 OELLA AVENUE ~t~ttCHO CUCAMONGA. CA 9tlOI SIGNAGE WALL .... ,~, ENTRY ELEVATION .... · ~~T~. C~LC~ S.F. ATTACHED E.G.M. DEVELOPMENT DELLA AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 9 170 I ELEVATION C - C' ,-,,. S.F. ATTACHF, D E.G.M. DEVELOPMENT DELLA AVENUE Rancho Czlcamonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 040 Optional Development Standards. The following table, Table 17.08.040-C sets forth minimum development standards for residential development projects filed up to the maximum densit,/ permitted by the density range. Table 17.08.040-C - Optional Development Standards L LM Minimum Site Area 5 ac 5 ac (Gross) Lot Area Variation fi~ (Minimum Net Average) Required Number of Dwelling UnitsrA~ (Permitted Per Acre) Up to 4 Up to 8 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size:u~ Single Family Attached and Detached Dwelling Multiple Family Dwellings~K) N/R Efficiency/Studio One Bedroom N/R Two Bedroom N/R Three or More Bedrooms N/R Lot Dimensions Variation r,~ Minimum Width (@ Required Required Front Setback) Minimum Depth M MH H 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac Variation 5 ac 5 ac Required Up to 14 Up to 24 Up to 30 1,000 sq. Ft.(G) Regardless of district 550 sq. ft. Regardless of district 650 sq. fiE. Regardless of district 800 sq. fiE. Regardless of district 950 sq. fiE. Regardless of district Variation N/R Required Variation Required in Single Family Revisions Setbacks:re~ 42 Avg. Local Street Vary +/- 5 Private Street or Driveway N/R 32 Avg. 15 Avg. Vary +/- Vary +/- 5 5fE~ 42 Avg. 42 Avg. Vary +/- 5 Vary +/- 5 Corner Side Yard 17~e Interior Side Yard 5/10rH~ At Interior Site Boundary (Dwelling Unit/Accessory 20/5 Building) 5(E~ 10rE~ 5~e N/R fi~ 10~°~ f~ N/R N/R N/R 47 Avg. Vary +/- 5 5{E} N/R N/R 15/5 20/5~D~ 20/5(07 20/5rD~ N/R = Not Required 17.08-13 3/96 Rancho Cucamonga De~'elopment Code Section 17. 08. 040 Residential Building Separations Front to Front L 25 L. '" I M. I H 25 Required Per Section 17.08.040-E Other 10 Height Limitations'~ 35 Other Space Required Private Open Space (Ground Floor/Upper Story Unit) Common Open Space® 5% (Minimum Percent) Usable Open Space~AJ 60% (Private and Common) Recreation Area/Facility N/R Landscaping ~ Front Yard Landscaping Energy Conservation N/R Amenities N/R 10 Required Per Section 17.08,040-E 35 35rc~ 40fc~ 55rc~ 1,000 / N/R 300/150 225/150 150/100 150/100 10% 35% 35% 35% 45% 40% 40% 40% Required Per Section 17.08.040-H Required Per Section 17.08.040-G Required Per Section 17.08,040-F Required Per Section 17.08.040-1 N/R ~ Required Per Section 17.08.040-R N/R = Not Required Notes.' (A) Excluding land necessary for secondary streets and a,terials and in hillside areas shall be dependent on the stbpe/capacity factor contained in Section 17. 24.080-B. (B) As measured frem the ultimate curb face on pubftc and private streets. Refer to Table17. 08.040-D for additional setback information, (C) Limit one story within 100 feet of VL or L district for multiple family dwellings. (D) Add l O feet if adjacent to VL, L, or LM district. (E) Less than 18 feet from back of sidewalk within condominium, townhouse, or apartment requires automatic garage door openers. Garage setback is 10 feet minimum if side entry garages are used pursuant to Section 17. 08. 040-M within single family detached/semi-detached development. (F) Perimeter landscaping and interior street trees. (G) A single family detached dwelling less than gO0 square feet will require the approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 17. 08. 03G (H) Zero lot line dwellings permitted pursuant to Section 17. 08. 040-P. (I) Referto Table 17.08.040-C-1 and Table 17.08.040-C-2. (J) Senior citizens projects are exempted from this requiremenL (K) To assure that smaller units are not concentrated in any one area or project, the following percentage limitations of the total number of units shall apply: 10 percent for efficiency/studio and 35 percent for one bedroom or up to 35 percent combined. Subject to a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission may authorize a greater ratio of efficiency or one-bedroom units when a development exhibits innovative design qualities and a balance mix of unit sizes and types, (L) In hillside areas, heights shall be limited to 30 feet as specified in Section 17. 24, 070-D, 1. 17.08-14 3/96 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 040 Buildin¢l Separations. Where required in Table 17.08.040-B and C, this section sets forth minimum requirements for building separation and setback standards. Table 17.08.040-E - Building Separation and Setback Standards Building Separation and Setback® (in feet) Building to building® 1, Front to front a. No patio or 30 recessed patio b Between patio fence/wall less than 5 ft. in height® without sidewalk® 10 with sidewalk® 15 c. Between patio fence/wall more 20 than 5 ft. in height d. Between balconies above patio 20 fence/wall more than 5 ft in height e. Between a patio fence/wall and a 20 building wall f. W~th common patio 30 fence/wall 2. Other 15 Building to one-story detached garage/carport or other accessory 15 structures® Building to curb® 15® Building to curb at project entry (patio wall or fence shall not 20 project into the setback area) Districts 30 H(c) 3O 10 10 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 15 15 15 15 15® 15I°~ 20 25 17.08-18 3/96 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17. 08. 040 Notes.' (A) Building shall mean dwelling units. (B) Building separation standards for building to building shall be for two-story development only. (C) Add 10 feet for each fieor/story above the second floorlstory for three- Or more-story buildings. (D) Add 5 feet for each floor/story above the second floor/story up to a maximum of 25 feet for throe- or more-story buildings. (E) Patio waft/fence and pedestrian walkway may project into the setback area provided a minimum 1 O-foot area shall be maintained free and clear for landscaping. (F) Between balconies, add 5 feet. I I # I I I I No Patio or Recessed Patio/Balcony Between Patio Walls (5 Feet or Tafier) - 20 Feet Between Balconies - 20 Feet 17.08-19 3~96 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14875 and design review thereof 2. Related Files: Design Review for Tentative Tract 14875 Description of Project: 36 condominiums on 3.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-332-26. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Modern Corporation 17700 Castelton Street, Suite 268, City of Industry, CA 91748 5. General Plan Designation: Medium Residential 6. Zoning: Medium Residential Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North - Single family residential and a church South ~ Apartments West - Single family residential East - Condominiums Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: NoRe Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Archibald Garden Villas Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing ~ Geological Problems (X) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transportation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (X) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance (X) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (x) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () Signed: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envi~'onment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigati~.~ures th are imposed upon the proposed project. Dan Coleman Principal Planner December 22, 1998 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Archibald Garden Villas Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially impact Less Potentielly Unless Than LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: Project is consistent with Medium Residential land use and zoning designations. This is a small in-fill site surrounded on two sides by public streets and shares common property lines with similar density existing multi-family residential and condominium complexes. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Archibald Garden Villas Page 4 CommeR~: Project is last remaining vacant developable land at this intersection. The small scale of the project will not induce substantial growth or cumulatively exceed projected population. Issues and Supporting Information Sources GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche hazards? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? Comments: Potefitialry Slgn~ican[ Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) The site is not located in an area of any known geologic problems. A Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was prepared (ICG, July 10, 1990) which concluded that the project was feasible. The existing on-site fill soils are generally loose and are predominantly non-expansive. The recommendations of the report shall be implemented during planning, design, and construction. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into su~ace water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g, temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? Potentially Signrficant Impact Less PotentiallyUnless Than SignificantMit~gahon SignfficantNo Impact Incorporated~ml~act Irnl~ac~ (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Archibald Garden Villas Page 5 d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? () () f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) () () (x) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) Comments: a) The project will increase surface runoff due to construction of impervious surfaces. The conceptual grading plan is designed to collect storm water into concrete swales and pipes which discharge into an existing drainage easement on surface streets through the adjoining property to the southeast into an existing detention basin. A hydrology report was prepared to assess drainage impacts (Giron, October 26, 1990). The report concluded that a) the existing street through the adjoining project can safely handle storm water from both projects, b) the existing catch basins in Stafford Way are undersized, c) the inletJoutlet structure in the detention basin may be undersized, d) the small drainage pipe which drains the detention basin was not functioning at full capacity because of disrepair and may be undersized, and e) development of Tentative Tract 14875 will not affect the adjoining project and its facilities. The project will require construction of off-site drainage improvements. A final drainage report must be submitted prior to recordation of the final map. b) The project site is vulnerable to flooding along Archibald Avenue. The project will require construction of a 6-inch high concrete curb along the easterly right-of-way line of Archibald Avenue for flood protection. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Archibald Garden Villas Page 6 Potentially b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) () () No (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) Potemially Significant Impact Less Unless Than ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) () () () () () (x) (x) (x (x) (x) Potgntla~ly Sign~cant Impact BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) () () () () () () No (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Archibald Garden Villas Page 7 d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? NO Impact ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) m ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Po~ent~aily Signfficant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation S~gnlficant No ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) (x) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The c~reation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees? Potentially S~gnfficant Impac~ Pomntial~y Signdicant Impact Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant IncorPoratedImpact ) ( ) ( ) (x) ) ( ) ( ) (x) ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Archibald Garden Villas Page 8 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () ( ( ) (x) ( No (x) () Comments: a) The proposed residential use will not significantly increase existing noise levels. b) The site is located along Archibald Avenue, a major arterial street, which the General Plan estimates noise levels greater than the 65Ldn standard. An acoustical report was prepared (Bricken, May 29, 1990) to determine suitable mitigation. The report concluded that a 7.5-foot high sound barrier must be constructed around the perimeter of all buildings, and a 5-foot high sound wall around balconies along Archibald Avenue to mitigate noise to a level not significant. 11. Potentially Signr~cant Impacl Less PotentiallyUnless Than Signr(icantMit~gat~on Signr~icant NO PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) (X) ( ) ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Cornmerits: c) The elementary and high school districts are currently impacted. Both affected school districts have entered into mitigation agreements with the developer. The developer will be required to pay school fees or participate in Mello-Roos Districts as determined by the affected school districts. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Archibald Garden Villas Page 9 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' Potentially Slgnrficant Impact a) Power or natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13. Potentially $ignfficant Impact AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) Potentially Impact Unless () () () () () () No Impact (x) (x) (x) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) Impact () () () () () No (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) Initial Study for Archibald Garden Villas 15. Issues and Supporldng {nforrnation Sources RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 10 ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) ( ) (x) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): Dec 18 98 04:57a Pre-installed User 626-965-8287 p.2 Initial Study for Archibald Garden Vdlas (X) General Plan EIR tCedi~ed Apnl 6, 1981} City ol Rancho Cucamonga Page (X) Master Environmental ASsessment foe' the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH W88020115, certified January 4, 1989) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I cedify that I am the applicant fu the 10rojecl d~.scribed in this Initial Study. I acknowledge thai I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans De' proposals and/or hereby agree Io the proposed mitigabo~ measures Io avoid the effects or mihgale Iha effects to a point where dearly no significant environmental effects would Occur. Signatu[e. cle/~C ~: n Print Name and Titte: ~Ioo.cPo at'to , Garden V~.l. ias r.'rD i ~DANVa14875 wpd Date: Decnmher 23, 1998 GeneraI Partner, Archibald City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Time Extension Tentative Tract 14875 Public Review Period Closes: January 13, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Modem Corporation Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southeast comer of Archibald Avenue and Church Street - APN: 1077-332-26. Project Description: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14875 - MODERN CORPORATION - A request for an extension of a previously approved subdivision and design review for the development of 36 condom inium units on 3.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential Oistdct (8-14 dwelling units per acre). FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 471-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 13, 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. 91-03A a RESOLUTION Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14875, AND MODIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THEREOF, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 36 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 3.56 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-332-26. A. Recitals. 1. Modern Corporation has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14875, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 9, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-03, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 14875. 3. On the 13th day of January 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headrig on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 headng on January 13, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously appreved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and ordinance. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-03A 'i'r14875- MODERN CORPORATION January 13,1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated therounder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5c of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, thero is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headrig, the Planning Commission heroby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c~1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Tentative Tract MaD Applicant Expiration Tentative Tract 14875 Modern Corporation January 9. 2000 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission heroby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 91-03 and the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herain by this reference, to road as follows: Plannine Division 1) Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdct pertaining to the project site to provide in conjunction with the applicable School Distdct for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any School Distdct has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing Distdct pdor to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-03A TT14875- MODERN CORPORATION January 13,1999 Page 3 Further, if the affected School Distdct has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdct within twelve months of the date of approval of the project and pdor to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. If the developer and all affected school districts reach a pdvate agreement, this condition shall be deemed null and void. 2) Pursuant to prowsions 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 Count of San Bemardino; 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 Bemardino. 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. 3) Landscaping along the east side of Archibald Avenue shall conform to the Archibald Avenue Beautification Master Plan subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. 4) Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions shall require regular cleaning of the clear sound attenuation barder. The Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. En~3ineedncl Division 1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to future undergrounding of existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical) on the opposite side of Church Street shall be paid to the City pdor to recordation of the Final Map of issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the portion of project frontage from the project's eastedy boundary to the terminus pole on the east side of Archibald Avenue. 2) Landscaping within "limited use areas" for all project driveways shall be approved by the City Engineer. Environmental Mitiqation Measures: 1) A final acoustical analysis shall be required to identify necessary mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels within the residences below 45 CNEL. The report shall be reviewed and appreved by the City Planner, pdor to issuance of building permits, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-03A TT14875- MODERN CORPORATION January 13,1999 Page 4 2) A 7.5-foot high sound bardeC as required by the acoustical analysis, shall be installed adjacent to the units fronting Archibald Avenue and a 5-foot high dear lexan sound panel around balconies. The final design of the barder shall be shown on the construction documents subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. 3) The following drainage improvements shall be constructed per the project's drainage report or as otherwise required by the City Engineer as justified by a final drainage report: a) A catch basin shall be constructed on the south side of Stafford Way adjacent to the existing detention basin. Also, a connector pipe shall be installed between the catch basin and the outlet structure. b) The existing inlet/outlet structure located in the detention basin shall be removed and upgraded. c) A 6-inch high concrete curb shall be constructed on the easterly right-of-way line of Archibald Avenue. 4) The project shall implement the recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnicat Investigation including, but not limited to, removal of loose on-site fill soil and compaction. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT 14875 AND THE DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF 36 CONDOMINIUM UNITS MODERN CORPORATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: General Requirements The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. Completion Date The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga 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 shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school d istrict has previously established such a Commun ity Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Plan ner's letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Site Development , The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors. landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shaft be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal 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 buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code. aH other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) 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. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction ofthe City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 12 All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 14. For residential development, patio walls shall be decorative masonry. 15. For multiple family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the Development Code. 16. For multiple family development, a minimum of 125 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage space shall be provided. 17. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the Development Code. C. Building Design Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across cimulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. Project No TT 14875 Completion Date All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 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. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. E. Landscaping A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. A minimum of 45 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the project: 10% - 36-inch box or larger, 10% - 24- inch box or larger, and 80% - 15-gallon. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 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. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, 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. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater 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. tic. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible 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 healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Archibald Avenue per the Beautification Master Plan. 10. 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 Homeowners' Association. 11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division, 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, F. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. 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. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided forapartment, condominium, or town homes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 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 materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy ofthe mitigation measures. The buildin9 plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. + Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicantshall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered 9rounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. Completion Date H. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements. 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. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include. but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee. Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Build ing Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. J. New Structures Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). + Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. K. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4 The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, {909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 50 total feet on Archibald Avenue 44 tota1 feet on Church Street 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 3. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Archibald Avenue and Church Street. 4. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 5. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 6. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or deftheated on the final map. 7 Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. M. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: street Name Archibald Ave. Church Street Curb & A.C, Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail C X X X X X X SC-8127f98 Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 2, Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements. prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-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. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. 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 ) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 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. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. O. Drainage and Flood Control Completion Date A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. Utilities 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. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 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 Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Q. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,750 gallons per minute. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hyd rants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be u pgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. + Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6 Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 7. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. 8. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. 9. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 10. A building directory shall be required, as noted below: X Lighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s}. 11. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 12. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 13. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1 -foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal secudty lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all ent~ways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3, Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. T. Security Hardware 1, A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. Ifwindows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass o~ a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. .,,,,.. t0E-H7 Completion Date 3 All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices+ Security Fencing When Utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. Windows All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. W. Building Numbering Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department, At the entrances of complex, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with vandal-resistant cover, The directory shall not contain names of tenants, but only address numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. North shall be at the top and so indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance. including an application for a Sign Permit and approval by the Planning Division. All developments shall submit a 8 %" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant developments to the Police Department. Project NO FT i4~75 Completion Date RESOLUTION NO. 91-04A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14875, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 36 CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 3.56 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-332-26. A. Recitals. 1. Modem Corporation has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Design Review for Tentative Tract Map No. 14875, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Design Review Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 9. 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-04, thereby approving. subject to specific conditions and time limits, the Design Review for Tentative Tract No. 14875. 3. On the 13th day of January 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 dudng the above- referenced meeting on January 13, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a 3.56 acre infill property in the Medium Residential Distdct with a street frontage of 250 feet on Archibald Avenue and 613 feet on Church Street; as duplexes; The application contemplates the construction of 36 condominium units arranged PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-04A DR FOR TT14875- MODERN CORPORATION January 13,1999 Page 2 c. The project does not comply with all current minimum development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: i. Setbacks: The project does not meet the 15-foot minimum setback between buildings and curb face as required by Development Code Table 17.08.040-E. Specifically, Units 9, 16, 17, and 36 have a building setback of 12 feet or less. ii. Recreational Amenities: The project does not provide the required six recreational amenities as required by Development Code Section 17.08.040-C. The project has five recreational amenities: 1) large open lawn area between Buildings 4 and 5, 2) tot lot, 3) spa, 4) pool, and 5) barbecue facility. iii. Compact ParkinQ Spaces: Four of the visitor parking spaces are compact (8 feet by 16 feet), which is contrary to the minimum 9 feet by 18 feet stall required by Development Code Section 17.12.030 .A. 1. iv. Patio Setback: The project does not meet the minimum 15-foot setback for patio fences between Buildings 13-16 and 17-20 as required by Development Code Table 17.08.040-E. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on January 13, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The previously approved Design Review, with recommended conditions of approval, 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 approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plan, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and c. The extension of the Design Review approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and ordinance. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Project Applicant Expiration Design Review for Tentative Tract 14875 Modern Corporation January 9,2000 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-04A DR FOR TT 14875 - MODERN CORPORATION January 13, 1999 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 91-04 and the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows: Plannin¢l Division 1) The project shall be redesigned to meet, wherever possible and to the extent feasible, the 15-foot minimum setback between buildings and curb face. 2) The project shall be redesigned to provide six recreational amenities. 3) The project shall be redesigned to eliminate compact parking and provide the required 9 feet by 18 feet parking stall size. 4) The project shall be redesigned to provide the required 15-foot setback for patio fences. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1999. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT( STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT 14875 AND THE DESIGN REVIEW THEREOF 36 CONDOMINIUM UNITS MODERN CORPORATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its __/__ __ agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga 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 shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, / the applicant shall consent to. or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However. if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and SC 6127198 prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planner's etter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Site Development Completion Date The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 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. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal 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 buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prier to the issuance of building permits. 10. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) 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. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11 The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first+ A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Division a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 12. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 14. For residential development, patio walls shall be decorative masonry. 15. For multiple family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the Development Code. 16. For multiple family development, a minimum of 125 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage space shall be provided. 17. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the Development Code. C. Building Design Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. O. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts a building, wall. support column. or other obstruction. the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. Completion Date All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 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. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than l 0 units. Minimumspacesequalto~vepercentoftherequired automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 25 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. E. Landscaping + A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom tot subdivision, A minimum of 45 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within the project: 10% - 36-inch box or larger, 10% - 24- inch box or larger, and 80% - 15-gallon. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. 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. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, 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. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater 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 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted Compeetion Date areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, ordecaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. + Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Archibald Avenue per the Beautification Master Plan. 10. 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 Homeowners' Association. 11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. F. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. 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. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or town homes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 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 materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy ofthe mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicantshall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits, Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. Completion Date H. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, 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. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 am. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. J. New Structures Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph, K. Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits, APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L. Dedication and Vehicular Access Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 50 total feet on Archibald Avenue 44 total feet on Church Street 2 Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 3. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for approved openings: Archibald Avenue and Church Street. 4. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits, where no map is involved. 5. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 6. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. 7. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. M. Street Improvements 1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: street Comm Median Bike Other Trees Trail Island Trail Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Archibald Ave. C X Church Street X X X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 2. Improvement Plans and Construction: Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be Project NO TT 1487~ Completion Date posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits. whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-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. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. 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 ) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets. a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 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. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. O. Drainage and Flood Control A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. Utilities Provide separate utility services to each pamel 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. , The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 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 ofthe County of San Bernard/no. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. Q. General Requirements and Approvals A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: R. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,750 gallons per minute. a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. F~rthepurp~se~ffina~acceptance~anadditi~na~firefl~wtest~fthe~n-sitehydrantssha~~ be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 2 Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed, and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. 3. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Projec~ NO ~ 14,87~ Completion Date 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. 5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. 6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. 7. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. 8. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. 9. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. 10, A building directory shall be required, as noted below: X Lighted directory within 20 feet of main entrance(s). 11. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection, Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 12. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 13. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: S. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be righted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2 All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. T. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. Ifwindows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. U. Security Fencing When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. Windows All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. W. Building Numbering Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. At the entrances of complex, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with vandal-resistant cover. The directory shall not contain names of tenants, but only address numbers, street names, and their locations in the complex. North shall be at the top and so indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign Permit and approval by the Planning Division. All developments shall submit a 8 %" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant developments to the Police Department, Proloot NO TT 14975 Completion Date sc -e12719a 11 CFFY OF RANCt~O CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 13, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner STREET NAME CHANGE 98-01 - The proposed renaming of portions of the existing Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and the I-15 freeway. BACKGROUND: The development of the Route 30 Freeway and related improvements will result in a need to revise the current design and location of Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway. Immediately east of Etiwanda Avenue, the Highland Avenue redesign will S-curve to the southeast connecting with East Avenue south of Catalpa Street. Between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue, the existing portion of Highland Avenue will be modified into a cul-de-sac. Between East Avenue and the I-15 Freeway, the existing portion of Highland Avenue will terminate after its connection to Starstone Place, which will be extended from the south. The revised street alignment is shown in Exhibit "A." ANALYSIS: The redesign of Highland Avenue is necessary to accommodate street improvements associated with the development of the Route 30 Freeway. Consistent with the goals of the City's Street Naming Ordinance, the proposed name change is necessary to eliminate the potential for confusion caused by the associated improvements. The naming of the proposed streets follows the guidelines established by the Street Naming Ordinance. The following requirements were observed in establishing potential names: a) streets which are continuous shall be extended in accordance with the present street name whenever possible and feasible, b) courts with the same name as the preceding street should be avoided, c) any cul-de-sac or dead end street with a turn-around which cannot be reasonably extended shall be designated "Court," and d) East-west streets, parallel to, but between named streets and limited to one neighborhood or tract, shall be designated "Drive." The Street Naming Ordinance encourages the use of historically si9nificant place and family names. When reviewing the selection of potential street names for consideration, two historic family names associated with the Etiwanda area were selected: Mueller and Fisher. Recommended street names are as follows, the existing portion of Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue to be named Mueller Court, and the existing portion of Highland Avenue between East Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway to be named Fisher Drive. There are several residences located along the existing portions of Highland Avenue that will be affected by the name change. Consistent with the notification requirements of the Street Naming Ordinance, these property owners were notified of the impending name change and given the opportunity to comment on the proposal. The Fire Department and Police Department both support the proposed name change. y ITEH F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT STREET NAME CHANGE 98-01 January 13, 1999 Page 2 EFFECTIVE DATE: The Planning Commission is required to establish the date upon which the street name will become effective. The date must be at least 60 days after their action approving a street name change. The attached Resolution of Approval suggests that the name change become effective on April 1, 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Section 12.12.060oftheMunicipalCodedeterminesthatthe changing of street names has no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment and therefore, such an action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3). CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the affected streets posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners along Highland Avenue affected by the name change. One letter of opposition has been received and is attached as Exhibit "B". RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Street Name Change 98-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:TG:Is Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Location Map Exhibit "B"- Correspondence dated January 5, 1999 Resolution of Approval EXISTING Highland Avenue > UJ · ~ Catalpa St UJ Route 30 Freeway Right-Of-Way Smokestone Street FUTURE Route 30 Freeway Mueller Court IIe Fisher Drive Catalpa ;at  ~' t~ Smokestone Street ~ e Future Alignment CITY OF R~~CAMONGA PLAN* I ,~IS;ION Project: ek~O fib- 0 Tit,e: Exhibit: '~A" Date: Planning Division Cit? of Rancho Cucamonga P. O, Box 807 Rancho Cucamnnga, CA 91720 Dear Sirs, RECEIVED j~,~ O 5 1999 City o~ p, anct3o Cucamonga ptanning Division I received a notice regarding a public hearing to be held on January 13th to consider a street name change for portions of Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and the 1-15 freeway. As one of the residents afl;ccted by the name change, I feel that you should be made aware of some of my concerns regarding both the name change and the rerouting of traffic away from Highland Avenue. The effort involved in notifying everyone I deal with through the mail, the utility companies, the DMV, the public schools, etc., of my new address, will be time consuming and expensive. While I understand that the number of residents on Highland Avenue is small, it is still quite an imposition on those of us that live here. The post office will ti3rward mail with the old address for a time, but when the forwarding notice expires, incorrectly addressed mail will be returned to the sender. I suggest that you retain the name of the existing Highland Avenue, and give the new portion a different name. The existing Highland could be clearly marked "NOT A THROUGH STREET" and the through route to East Avenue also clearly indicated with a sign. I am employed as a teacher at Etiwanda l ligh School. The traffic at the beginning of the '98299 school year was much worse than the previous school year, mainly duc to the construction work being done at the intersection of Highland and Etiwanda Avenues, closing that intersection. Police ;vcrc available most mornings and after school to direct traffic until the intersection was reopened, greatly improving the traffic flow. I feel that when the new Route 30 freeway (or is it the 2107) is complete, the traffic will flow smoothly as all the through traffic will be on the frccway. At this time, many of the students bound for Etiwanda High travel Highland Avenue, to Cherry Avenue, then south to Victoria Avenue. When Highland is blocked off for the freeway interchange at Cherry Avenue, additional traffic will be forced onto East Avenue, all school traffic converging at Victoria, just west of Etiwanda High. Unless the City plans to assign police officers to traffic duty at Victoria and East Avenues. both before and after school, until the time when the new freeway is completed, I feel that some street improvements should be completed before any more traffic is routed along East Avenue. East Avenue should be widened to two lanes between Catalpa Oust south of Highland) and Baseline Avenue, and a signal installed at the intersection with Victoria I plan to attend the hearing on January 13th. I am interested in learning more about the plans for 1 lighland Ave. Sincerely, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING STREET NAME CHANGE 98-01 TO RENAME PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING HIGHLAND AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND THE 1-15 FREEWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The design and ultimate development of the Route 30 Freeway make it necessary to effect a Street Name Change for portions of the existing Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Street Name Change is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 13th day of January 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng for the above-mentioned street rename proposal, Street Name Change 98-01, pursuant to the City Municipal Code, Chapter 12.12. 3. The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division prepared a report which addressed the justification for the change. recommended a street naming plan, provided replacement names, and discussed the impacts of the recommended change. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on January 13, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The City's Street Naming Ordinance establishes that streets which are continuous are to be extended in accordance with the present street name whenever possible and feasible. b. Any cul-de-sacs or dead end streets with a turn-around which cannot be reasonably extended shall be designated "Court." The existing portion of Highland Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue will terminate in a cul-de-sac and will be named accordingly. c. East-west streets, parallel to, but between named streets and limited to one neighborhood or tract, shall be designated "Ddve." The existing portion of Highland Avenue between East Avenue and the I-15 Freeway will terminate at the extension of Starstone Place and will be named accordingly. d. Theuseofhistodcallysignificantplaceandfamilynamesisexpresslyencouraged by the Street Naming Ordinance. The proposed street names (Mueller Court and Fisher Drive) were selected because of their historical ties to the Etiwanda area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. SNC -98-01 January 13,1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed change is not in conflict with the goals, policies, and standards of the general plan. b. That the proposed change is consistent with the adopted master plan of streets and highways or adopted circulation element. c. That the proposed change will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment. d. That the proposed change is deemed necessary to ~rotect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. 4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves Street Name Change 98-01. 6. The street name change shall become official on April 1, 1999. The City Planner shall send wdtten notices of the change to the Post Office. County Clerk, Fire District, Shedffs Department, and applicable utility companies at least 60 days pdor to the effective date of the change. 7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLDG. SIZE COLORS STYLE SIZE & SO. FT. TRADEMARK NUMBER BLDG. SIZE COLORS STYLE SIZE & SO. FT. TRADEMARK NUMBER TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER + 50,000 Open Open 4'3' X 50' - 176 sq. ~.. max area Yes I at Main Entry, 2 at Secondary Entry at 60% TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER 5,000-50,000 Red, White, Blue, Green Individual Letters 24' X 24' - 48 sq. It max area Yes 1 per Entry, Max. 3 ANCHOR/MAJOR TOWN CENTER SQUARE +50,000 Open Open 11'X 17' - 198 sq. ft. max area Yes I at Main Entry SUB-MAJOR TOWN CENTER SQUARE 5,000.49,900 Red + 10% Blue, White, Green, Yellow Individual Letters 24' X 70% or 25' Yes NEW PROGRAM +35,000 Open subject to City Design Review Open subject to City Design Review 300 sq. ft. max. Architecturally Controlled Yes NEW PROGRAM 7,000-34,999 Red, Blue, White, Green, Yellow (Regional RestaurantJEntertainment open subject to City Design Review) Individual Letters 36" X 70% or 25' - 75 sq. ft. max area BLDG. SIZE COLORS STYLE S~E&SQ. FT. TRADEMARK NUMBER BLDG. SIZE COLORS STYLE SIZE & SQ. FT. TRADEMARK NUMBER TENANTS OVER 4,000 SQUARE FEET TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER N/A Red, VVhite, Blue, Green Individual Letters 24" X 20' - 50 sq. ft. max. area TOWN CENTER SQUARE N/A Red + 10% Blue, White, Green, Yellow Individual Letters 24" X 25' - 60 sq. ~t. max. area NEW PROGRAM Over 4,000 sq. ft. Red, Blue. White. Green, Yellow (Regional Restaurant/Entertainment open subject to City Design Review) Individual Letters 24" X 70% or 25' - 50 sq. ft. max area Yes Yes Yes 1 plus monument Or 2 wall 2 wall plus Monument or 3 wall TENANTS UNDER 4,000 S TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER TOWN CENTER SQUARE NEW PROGRAM Under 5,000 sq. Red, White, Blue, Green Individual Letters 18' x 60% or 15' - 30 sq. ft. max. Yes 1 + 1 on corner Under 5.000 sq. ft. Under 4,000 sq. ft, Red + 10% Blue, White, Green, Yellow Red, Blue, White, Green, Yellow (Regional Restaurant/Entertainment open subject to City Design Review) Individual Letters Individual Letters 18" X 70% or 25 ...... 18" X 75% or 20' - 30 sq. ft. max area Yes 1 + 1 on corner Yes Monument All metal surfaces shall be primed and painted to match colors specified in design drawings. Individual letter styles are allowed, provided that design, color and spacing of letters have been approved in writing by Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A trademark/logo may be combined with letters if trademark/logo is registered or regionally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within allowable size requirements. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet. The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Promotional or special event signs, banners or flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by l-ar, dlord prior to submission to the City. SUB MAIOR TF..NANT BUTI.DING SIGNAGE-(7,E>E>E) to 34,999 aq. ft.) Tenant shall be allowed one (1) sign per building elevation up to a maximum of three (3) signs per business as illustrated on page 17-19. However, if the building elevation that faces Foothill BIrd. has more than one entxy, the Tenant shall be allowed one (1) sign per entry facing Foothill BIrd. In no event shall the total number of signs allowed per building exceed three (3). The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom. Sub Majors can be identified on up to two (2) faces of Monument signs at the discretion of the Landlord. Sub Major Users that desire larger sign area, height or length, must submit specifications and d )vi. Dgs composed.,op th~ ilding elevation, to the City of Rancho Cucamon s, ev|ew omm itte or approval. t 1. Two-line signs shall not exc ht including the space between the line and no individual line shall be more than 24" in height. The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 36" in overall height, including downstrokes. 3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 36" in height. Page3 IV. AI .1. TENANTS FROM 4,f)6~) TO 6,999 sq._ft.. A. maximum of two (2) signs if the tenant is on the comer. Single User Pad Tenants shall be allowed one (1) new double sided monument sign along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the Pad (monument sign design is open subject to Landlord and Rancho Cucamonga Design Review Committee approval ), and two (2) wail-mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building face. As an option, each Single User Pad Tenant may be allowed a maximum of three (3) wall-mounted identification signs, one (l) sign per elevation or · ' face. A combination o't"~monument and'wall signs may be us ,e~ ~maximum of three (3) signs may be used to identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein. Wall Mounted Signs - Sign area shall be the entire area within a perimeter defined by a continuous line composed of right angles which enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark or other graphic representation. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom and shall not exceed the following guidelines: Two line signs shall not exceed 24" in total height, including space between lines, and no individual line shall be more than 18" in height. The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter. b. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 24" including downstrokes. c. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 24". Length of sign shall not exceed 70% of shop frontage, or twenty-five feet (259, which ever is less. Maximum sq. ft. shall not exceed 50. Signing shall be in accordance with the criteria contained within this program, unless, in the opinion of the landlord and, the design contributes to the unique benefit of the complex and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A registered trademark/logo, without adjacent individual letters may be included within the calculated sign area provided the allowable sign area for the trademark/logo letters is reduced to fifty percent (5096) of the allowable area and that the logo may not exceed six feet in any dimension. Logo sign shall also be sLzed to be in proportion to the building face to which it is attached. This sign '~ also subject to appr pal by the Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamong~ A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is a "registered" or regionally recognized trademark with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements. A sign shall consist of internally illuminated individual letters. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel letters/logo, two (2) neon illumination, three (3) plastic face, and four (4) trim cap. F. Channel letters/logo shall be made of 22 gauge steel metal, 5~t deep, sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia G. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformer shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways re prohibited. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. Tenants shall choose one of the following Plexiglas colors: Red #2793, Blue #2214, White #7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal.. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4 trim cap medium bronze to match letter returns. Sign copy shall contain legally-registered name only. No other services or. product advertising will be allowed. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl letter (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Each restaurant may also display one (1) menu provided it is contained within the display area shown on page 23. k Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the City. V, ~I .I. TE. NA~J~f~O_.sq,..ft- A. In-Hne_Shop_T. enants shall be allowed one (1) sign per building frontage as age ~,. ot~' (1J of tr~e'!xisting monument signs along Foothill Boulevard ff Pad Shop Tenants. at Landlords discretion, shall be allowed signage on one (D monument sign along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the Pad, and two (2) wall- mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building face. As an option, each tenant may have three (3) wall-mounted identification signs, one (1) sign per elevation or building face. A combination of monument and wall signs may be used; however, only a maximum of three (3) signs may be used to identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom and shall not exceed the following guidelines: Two line signs shall not exceed 18" including the space between the lines in total height and no individual line shall be more than 14" in height. The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of the smallest letter. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 18" in height including downstrokes. 3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 18" in height. The length of sign shall not exceed 75% of Shop frontage, or 20 feet (20'), whichever is less. Per sign sq. ft. shall not exceed 30. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimension. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is "registered" or regionally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements, subject to City of Rancho Cucamonga review and approval. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated. individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel illumination, three (:3) face, and four (4) trim cap. Internally illuminated letters, two (2) neon Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, S" deep (minimum), sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. n~edividual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All non ~tau~ant/Enterta. i:nme~Shop Tenants shall be limited to one of the following PIexiglas colors: Red #2793, Blue #2214, White #7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Page 7 Plastic faces shall be h-immed with a 3/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match letter returns. Sign copy shall contain Tenant's trade name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenan~Ys trade name without I nndlord's prior consent. K. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium leRer style) to provide store name and hours information as shown on page 23. The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. : L. Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shall be in cbnformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by the Landlord prior ' ' the City. VI. RFSTAURANT/E~qTFJH'AI~',~.'TTF. NANTS: Regionally recognized Restaurant and ~T~t~Tenants with six or more open stores whether they be In-Ijne, Single or Multi-user Pad, hive specific and uni.que graphic, co. lor and signage style need?. Therefore, ~Colors a lesw' Ibe oD~demark and size requirement, as defined by the Tenant's square footage, regardless of shopplng center location. The use of brand names or brand logos, shields or crests will not be allowed on the sign unless specifically -~BpFoved in writing by the landlord and subject to A. General Requirements: Each Tenant shall submit to the Landlord for written approval before fabrication. not less than three (3) copies of detailed drawings of the Tenant's proposed signs indicating the location, size. layout, design, materials and color graphics. Such drawings shall be submitted concurrently with architectural drawings, sufficient in Landlord's opinion, to show the exact relationship with the store design. Tenant's store location on site and the dimensions of the building frontage. Prior to fabrication, detailed drawings of all signs shall be submitted to the City of Raneho Cucamonga Planning Division for review and approval. These drawings must be signed and stamped as approved by the Landlord prior to submittal to the City. EQ. I L..EA.S__~_H_OL_D~ FR~qr,(TA__G.E OR V~DTH OF UN/BROKE L SECTION ~' FRONTaGe- ~.chever is letHs EQ. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE ............ .I..B.. Ea. :7. · STOREFRONT ELEVATION A'/V'MNG FEATURE PA(~E 20 3.0 IN-LINE TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10.22.98 LEASEHOLD FRONTAGE OR W1DTH OF UNBROKEN WALL SECTION },ta, XJMUM 20' ot 75% OF LEASEHOLD EQ. I FRO_N'rAGE- (Whichever Is less) I EQ. Maxir~jm area 40 S<1, FL .................. EQ STOREFRONT ELEVATION ,k, LIPIE: TEPIAIIT TYPE 2 PA(;;E 3.1 IN-LINE TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 1022.98 CITY OF RANCHO CI_rCA~IONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 13,1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad BulleL City Planner Debra Meier, Contract Planner Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner REVISION TO THE UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAMS FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE - LEWIS HOMES - A proposed modification to the existing sign programs for both Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square. The existing developments are located along Foothill Boulevard between Haven and Elm Avenues. BACKGROUND: Because of the varying degree of issues associated with the original proposal, the revisions to the Uniform Sign Program have previously been reviewed by Commission members McNeil, Tolstoy, and Macias in Workshop format. Workshops were conducted July 8, July 22, and September 9, 1998. Minutes from these workshops are provided for your information and for the convenience of the new Commission members (Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS: The Uniform Sign Program for Terra Vista Phases 1/11 (Town Center and Town Center Square) is an attempt to combine and provide greater degree of consistency between the Town Center and Town Center Square complexes. In addition. the existing programs are now over ten years old and the applicant, Lewis Homes Commercial Development, indicates that current standards and expectations of "Imaging" and "Branding" has become a more critical component of retail marketing. As a result of the three workshops with the Commission, the Uniform Sign Program has been modified to include the many issues considered and discussed during these workshops. The primary components of the Uniform Sign Program include the following: Monument Signage - The program proposes, in most cases, to modify (retrofit) the existing monument identification signage throughout both centers. Sign Types 6.0, 6.1,6.2, 7.0, and 7.1 (as referenced in the attached Sign Program) are all existing monument signs that will be retrofitted with new project logo and redesigned tenant identification. The locations of these signs are shown on Page 40, and illustrated on Pages 25 through 34 of the Sign Program. The existing monument sign located at the Foothill Boulevard entrance to Town Center Square (Sign Type 7.2) will be demolished and replaced as shown in the Sign Program (illustrated on Page 35). In addition, the existing theater marquees at both Haven Avenue/Town Center Drive and ITEr,I G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT- LEWIS HOMES January 13,1999 Page 2 Foothill Boulevard will be replaced; however, the design of these signs is not included with this application. The details and design issues associated with the marquee signage will be included in the theater expansion application, the submittal of which is forthcoming. The proposed revisions to the monument signage will provide an overall coordinated sign approach for the entire stretch of Foothill Boulevard between Haven and Elm Avenues. The proposed revisions increase the readability of the existing sign text due to modified placement of text on the sign face, and in some cases, raising the sign height to allow the text to be placed above the existing landscape material. In response to Workshop discussion, all monument signage at primary project entries feature a single letter color (red), with an appropriate combination of letter size and placement to provide balance to the sign face, while permitting the featured tenants to choose the font style. These sign types are illustrated in the Sign Program on Pages 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34. The locations of the monument signage is indicated on Page 40. The monument signs placed at secondary project entries, and used on-site as directional signs also feature a single letter color (red); however, the font style is the same for all tenants featured on the sign, as shown in the Sign Program on Pages 24, 30, and 35; the location of the directional signs are indicated on Page 39. All other monument sign locations are indicated on Page 40. Wall-Mounted Signs - The sign type and illumination as currently exists will not change, and in most cases, the sign placement is largely controlled by architectural elements which are addressed in the Sign Program. Wall-mounted signs are controlled by criteria developed by tenant size: USE Major Tenant Sub-Major Tenant Single Pad Users and Pad tenants In-line shop tenants and Pad tenants RestaurantJEntertainment tenants SIGN CRITERIA 35,000 square feet and over 7,000 to 34,999 square feet over 4,000 & up to 7,000 square feet under 4,000 square feet The attached Table (Exhibit "B") provides a comparison of existing criteria for Town Center and Town Center Square to the modified and consolidated Program. Included in the Table are such specific items as color, style, and size of wall-mounted signage. As proposed, tenants will have the choice of one of five colors (red, white, blue, yellow, and green). Letter height for sub-major and in-line tenants would range from 18 to 36 inches. Signs for Major Tenants, as well as some restaurant and other entertainment uses, would be allowed some design flexibility, subject to Design Review Committee approval. The critical element to the success of these centers is that all signage be proportionate to the respective sign area, architectural features, and constraints of each individual tenants location in the given center. The proposed revisions to the sign program will reduce the number of modifications to, or "variances," currently requested from the existing program. This will enable staff to more efficiently implement the Sign Program requirements, as well as meeting the needs of PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT - LEWIS HOMES January 13, 1999 Page 3 franchised tenants and Major Tenants who typically have specific signage expectations. The proposed revisions will result in consistent signage requirements for both Town Center and Town Center Square. Directional Signs - Seven new Directional Signs are proposed throughout the project (locations shown on Page 38 of the Sign Program). These signs will be internally illuminated and provide on-site direction to selected tenants. This new sign type (Sign Type 5.0) is illustrated on Page 24 of the Sign Program. The new directional signs are of consistent size, style, and design with other monument signage. The directional signs are intended in enhance identification and location of tenants once a customer is within the shopping center. RECOMMENDATION: All modifications to the Sign Program, as previously suggested by the Commission at the workshops, have been incorporated by the applicant; therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amendments to, and consolidation of, the Sign Programs for Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square through minute action. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:DM:NF/jfs Attachments: Exhibit"A"- Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - P.C. Workshop Minutes dated July 8, July 22, & September 9, 1998 Table COmparing Old and New Sign Criteria Proposed Sign Program CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting July 8, 1998 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, William Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Debra Meier, Contract Planner NEW BUSINESS REVISION TO PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE - A proposed modification to existing sign programs for both Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square. The existing development is located along Foothill Boulevard between Haven Avenue and Elm Avenue, developed and managed by Lewis Homes Commercial Development Division. Representatives from Lewis Homes Commercial Division, including Gary Bauer, Richard Reinhardt, and Greg Hoxworth, presented the Sign Program changes and the objectives of the company. They said there are four basic reasons for requesting the sign program revision at this time: 1. Make the sign program more consistent across all Foothill Boulevard centers, including Town Center, Town Center Square, and Promenade. 2. Improve image of the centers and make them more competitive as well as visually interesting. 3. Improve signage for theater and food court 4. Improve directional signage within each center and between centers. Debra Meier, Contract Planner, provided a description of the applicant's request, and provided comparisons to the existing sign programs, Ms. Meier identified the issues that had been expressed by the Design Review Committee, and identified the portions of the revised sign program that warranted particular Commission discussion and attention. Commission discussion began with the consideration of the "historical" view of signage within the City as having been primarily for business identification, not for advertising. The Commission was not comfortable proceeding with a discussion of details of the Terra Vista Sign Program, without first discussing the global picture of signage issues throughout the community. Commissioner Macias expressed concern that the entire sign program should be further evaluated within the context of the architecture and design of the entire center. He expressed concern for the use of neon; however, felt that within a specific context, some neon may be appropriate. Commissioner Bethel stated that the use of neon is not acceptable. He expressed a desire to maintain a hierarchy of tenant usage of signage (i.e. major, sub-major, iraline, etc.). He thought the use of additional colors within the sign program is generally acceptable, and the use of directional signage is desirable, especially from the major thoroughfares, Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the food court zone needs additional identification and excitement. He suggested that the use of trademark signs may be acceptable; however, felt size is often an issue. He thought additional identification along Foothill Boulevard is desirable. He believed the use of neon may be acceptable in the context of the food court concept. He stressed that all signage must be designed to complement the building architecture and the assigned sign area. He suggested that the use of digital technology could improve the sign review and approval process. He felt arcade signage at the pedestrian level is a good idea. Commissioner McNiel expressed his opinion that the food court needs to be a "destination" in order to create success in that part of the center. He expressed the opinion that the issues being brought to light by the proposed revision to the Terra Vista Sign Program would impact decisions City wide. The Commission concurred that this issue warranted further discussion and the workshop was continued to July 22, 1998, to continue the sign program discussion based on the issues identified this evening. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary July 8, 1998 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting July 22, 1998 Vice Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: William Bethel, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: David Barker STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Debra Meier, Contract Planner OLD BUSINESS REVISION TO PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND TOWN CENTER SQUARE - A proposed modification to existing sign programs for both Terra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square. The existing development is located along Foothill Boulevard between Haven Avenue and Elm Avenue, developed and managed by Lewis Homes Commercial Development Division. Debra Meier, Contract Planner, indicated that tonight's discussion would incorporate the overall discussion of signage expressed by each Commissioner on July 8, and relate back to the request by Lewis Homes to revise the sign programs for Town Center and Town Center Square; therefore, tonight's discussion would focus on vadous components of the sign program, beginning with the monument signs (including all perimeter street signage, on-site directional signs, and the arcade signs). She turned the presentation of the monument sign revisions over to the applicant. Representatives of Lewis Homes, Greg Hoxw0rth and Richard Reinhardt, illustrated the monument signage through a slide presentation. The applicants stated that a purpose for the revision to the sign program was to provide more signage to the Anchor Tenants. They also indicated that the name of the center was not important for marketing or identification of the project; for example, the general public typically refers to this center as "The Target Center' or simply Terra Vista. Sicln Type 7.0 - Modification to Existing Sign Wall The applicants presented three sign layout options for consideration. Option 1 included four tenant names with various colors and fonts Option 2 included four tenant names with varying fonts but only one sign color Option 3 included three tenant names, various fonts, using only one color, the text was balanced in a pyramid fashion. The Commission preferred the Option 3 layout but felt criteria would need to be developed within the sign program to maintain the sense of balance portrayed in the example. It suggested incorporating the logo panel into the columns. Commissioner McNiel expressed concern that all the revisions had to be incorporated into taller signs, He was not comfortable increasing the height of all the perimeter monument signs. Siqn Type 7.2 - Monument Sign in Median Island Entry on Foothill Boulevard (Town Center Square) The Commissioners did not like the idea of replacing the existing sign. They thought the proposed sign design does not contain architectural quality which is reflected in the existing sign. The Commissioners concurred that maintaining the existing sign was preferred, however, the following details could be incorporated by the applicant: Raise the side wing-panels to within 6" of the street facing panel which will allow the three sign panels to be raised from the ground level. Consider replacing the street-facing sign area with the center's logo design using tile, a backlit stained-glass effect. or other alternatives, The Commission requested that the applicant prepare detailed plans that better: illustrate the proposed changes to the monument sign. Siqn Type 7.3 - Monument Sign for Multi-tenant Freestanding Pad Buildings The Commission discussed the overall height and general consistency of materials and detail elements. Based on discussion of this and previous signs, the Commission felt further consideration to the design should be provided by the applicant. Siqn Type 6.0 - Primary Entry Monument with Theater Marquee The Commission concurred that a Theater Marquee facing Foothill Boulevard is necessary. Some additional design consideration was requested from that which was presented; for example, the entire central panel of the sign could be raised and capped consistent with the Entry Island Sign. In addition it was suggested that the column elements of all the signs could be used to inset a "stained-glass" type logo. Siqn Type 62 - Major/Sub-Major Tenant Identification The Commission discussed the overall height and general consistency of materials and detail elements. Based on discussion of the other signs, the Commission thought further consideration to the design should be provided by the applicant. Siqn Type 6.3 - Haven Avenue Marquee The Commission concurred that the existing marquee needs to be modified to be effective. As noted above, additional attention to sign details needs to be considered by the applicant. Wall Siqnaqe Upon conclusion of discussion of the monument signage, the applicants introduced a discussion of wall sign issues for consideration. The applicants presented digitally enhanced representations -2- July 22, 1998 F,c Adiourned Min-tes C_,,- "7 of Town Center and Town Center Square illustrating various sign colors and patterns, specifically for the in-line tenants. The applicant's requested a maximum 24oinch letter height (existing maximum height is 18 inches), and the use of six colors (blue, red, green, yellow, black, white). They reported that Town Center Square currently allows five colors (black not presently included). The applicants indicated that color is extremely important to the prospective tenants, more so than size. The Commission generally concurred that because of the regional size and nature of the Center in question, the use of six colors may be appropriate. However, the Commission felt uncomfortable in allowing more colors for neighborhood shopping centers. The Commission concurred with the idea of making both centers consistent in terms of design details and the use of color. The adjourned meeting was continued, pending the submittal of additional information by Lewis Homes. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-05 - LENNAR COMMUNITIES - The proposed subdivision of 123.4 acres of land into 390 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east and west sides of Wardman Bullock Road, north and south of Summit Avenue -APN: 226-102-17. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated that the applicant had requested that Pre-Application Review 98-05 be continued to August 12, 1998. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue the item to August 12, 1998. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT ThePlanningCommissionadjournedat9:50p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes G <:~3- July 22, 1998 CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting September 9, 1998 Chairman McNiel called the Adjoumed Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room.~2the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Ddve, Rancho Cucamo~,r~.a, Cal~F~ia. ROLL CALL ~,~p ' ' COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias, Larry M eter Tolstoy ABSENT: David Barker ~' ~,., STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Nancy Fong;:,Senior Planner?'!:=5~a Meier, Contract Planner. "'." ,,,. .. OLD BUSINESS A, REVISION TO PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER AND .T_O__W_N CENTER SQUARE - A proposed n'odi~cat~on to existing sign programs for both Tetra Vista Town Center and Town Center Square2 The existing development is located along Foothill Boulevard between Hevef~ Avenue and Elm Avenue. developed and managed by Lewis Homes Commercial Development Division. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner~ indicated the.ili~vould be a continuation of the discussion regarding si~ge within the T~ri~ Vista T~r and Town Center Square which was carded forward from'ffie dy 8 and~;Jrjly 22. 1998 The discussion began with the monumentSignag~i: specificall: ~ that was erected at Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue.:::,;:::;;i.:~'.'7~ ", . ..:~:~, 2:. ..... .:,!...:.:.: ,, Gary Bauer.,.~iS' 'photographs the pres~ of mock-up sign and requested the Commission'~ '~p(nion"~f lt~'~ign cS~cept. .. Commis's~oner Tolstoy stated ll't~t the overall sign concept and design was acceptable; however, he dd' not like the font!.~ir'lt~/le of the "Mervyn's California" corporate logo. He felt that the Mervyn's font was d~ffi '?rt to read and presented a cluttered appearance on the sign face. ..,.,,. = · .... , g options to the Mervyn's fonf style. including eliminating the "Cahfornia" portion of the text; using the corporate style in occasions where the sign face is large enough to enhance readability; or the fact that allowing the "California" text would encourage other tenants to add prefixes or suffixes, such as Ross, "dress for less." Mr. Bauer indicated that approximately seven monument signs of similar design and style would be located along the perimeter of Town Center and Town Center Square. He stated that some signs are approximately 2 feet taller and would provide a slightly larger sign area where some flexibility in signage may be an option. The Commission then inquired about the design of the Theater Marquees, both at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. Mr. Bauer commented that the marquee signage would be brought forward concurrently with a future request to expand the Edwards Cinemas. He presented a digitally enhanced slide presentation of Town Center and Town Center Square illustrating the various sign colors and font sizes for the in-line tenants. He stated that Lewis Homes is generally requesting a maximum 24- inch letter height (existing maximum height is 18 inches) and the use of six colors (blue, red, green, yellow, black, and white). Mr. Bauer indicated that color is extremely important to prospective tenants. ~,,~.col ors used for Chairman McNiel expressed concern with respect to the increase in th ' storefront signage He stated that typically multi-color sig~lage de the architectural elements rather than enhancing !he building. He further .rem.~iixled the epplicam!,that the ~'eai~e architecture is the intended focal point of the center arid ~ignage ~h'ould remain in the context of "business identification." and should not replace arch~tec~re,aj:tRe dominant focal element. Commissioner Tolstoy indicated that an increase in sign ~ze.~y. ~e acceptable. but that sn all cases, sign area should be determined by the architeotural.eleenl~/constraints at each store front. ',' ' Commissioner Macias agreed that an increased lei~'~'ght may b'~ ~cep~able, given the proper sign area and architectural context He also added that multi-color si~}e does not typically add value to the appearance of storefronts or shopping centera. "'.. . Chairman McNiel agreed to consider an.i~creasa.|r~ font ~ize..but only in context to architectural features. ,.~?"': .~" ..:",/ d,s ,, i .." ~~ '~ ued~ b a of ..... , ~,..'.'.~:!:;i:"?',;.:~- "':'~ .;"'~';' ii"'.~,i,,!;'~::.ii:'!.~."' The~ .n.o.:::l~lts."'~ AD adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes ~ ((b.2. September 9, 1998 BLDG. SIZE COLORS STYLE SIZE & SQ. FT. TRADEMARK NUMBER BLDG. SIZE COLORS STYLE SIZE & SQ. FT. TRADEMARK NUMBER TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER + 50.000 Open Open 4'3" X 50' - 176 sq. ft. max area Yes 1 at Main Entp/, 2 at Secondary Entry at 60% TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER 5,000-50,000 Red, White. Blue, Green Individual Letters 24" X 24' - 48 sq. ft. max area Yes 1 per Entry, Max. 3 ANCHOR/MAJOR TOWN CENTER SQUARE +50,000 Open Open 11'X 17'- 198sq. ft. max area Yes I at Main Entry SUB-MAJOR TOWN CENTER SQUARE 5.000--49,900 Red + 10% Blue, White, Green, Yellow Individual Letters 24" X 70% or 25' Yes 3 NEW PROGRAM +35,000 Open subject to City Design Review Open subject to City Design Review 300 sq. ft. max. Architecturally Controlled Yes 1 Per Elevation + 2 Monument, Max 3 NEW PROGRAM 7,000-34,999 Red, Blue, White, Green, Yellow (Regional Restaurant/Entertainment open subject to City Design Review) Individual Letters 36" X 70% or 25' - 75 sq. ~. max area Yes 1 Per Elevation + 1 Monument, Max. 3 BLDG, SIZE COLORS ST~E SIZE&SQ.F~ TRADEMARK NUMBER BLDG. SIZE COLORS STYLE SIZE& SQ.F~ TRADEMARK NUMBER TENANTS OVER 4,000 SQUARE FEET TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER N/A Red, White, Blue, Green Individual Letters 24" X 20' - 50 sq. ft. max. area Yes 1 plus monument or 2 wall TOWN CENTER SQUARE N/A Red + 10% Blue, White, Green, Yellow Individual Letters 24" X 25' - 60 sq. ft. max. area Yes 2 wall plus Monument or 3 wall NEW PROGRAM Over 4,000 sq. ft. Red, Blue, White, Green, Yellow (Regional Restaurant/Entertainment open subject to City Design Review) Individual Letters 24" X 70% or 25' - 50 sq. ft. max area Yes 1 Per Elevation + 1 Monument, Max. 3 TENANTS UNDER 4,000 SQUARE FEET TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER Under 5.000 sq. ft. Red. White, Blue, Green Individual Letters 18" x 60% or 15' - 30 sq. ft. max. Yes 1 + 1 on corner TOWN CENTER SQUARE Under 5,000 sq. ft. Red + 10% Blue, White, Green, Yellow Individual Letters 18"X 70% or25' Yes 1 + 1 on corner NEW PROGRAM Under4.000 sq. ft. Red. Blue, White, Green, Yellow (Regional Restaurant/Entertainment open subject to City Design Review) Individual Letters 18" X 75% or 20' - 30 sq. ft. max area Yes In-line. 1 Per Elevation 2 Max. Pad, 1 Per Elevation + 1 Monument, Max. 3 TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER SIGN PROGRAM WESTERN LAND PROPERTIES DATE: OCTOBER 22,1998 PREPARED BY: LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORR. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91786 (909) 985-0971 ,& -RECEIVED- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVI~IO~I JAN '~ "" I~Q9 AM PM TARI,E OF COINTENTS Page Name VII. VIII. IX. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE MAJOR TENANT BUTT .DING SIGNAGE (Major Tenant 35,000 s.f. plus) SUB MAJORTENANT BUII.DING SIGNAGE (Sub Major Tenant 7,000 to 34,999 s.f.) AT ,T , TENANTS (From 4,000 to 6,999 s.f.) AT .T . TENANTS (Under 4,000 s.f.) RESTAURANT/ENTERTAINMENT GENERAL GUIDELINES MISCET .T ANEOUS SIGNS SIGN TYPE (1) MAJORTENANT SIGN TYPE (2) SUB-MAJOR SIGN TYPE (3) IN-LINETENANTS SIGN TYPE (4) ENTRY GRAPHICS SIGN TYPE (5') DIRECTIONAL MONUMENT SIGN TYPE (6,7) SIGNW/XT .I , MONUMENTS SIGN DETAIls HANGING ARCADE SIGNS (8) LOCATION PIANS Page Number 5 6 8 9 12 13-16 17-19 20-22 23 24 25-35 36-37 38 3940 ALl metal surfaces shall be primed and painted to match colors specified in design drawings. Individual letter styles are allowed, provided that design, color and spacing of letters have been approved in writing by I andlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga- A trademark/logo may be combined with letters Lf trademark/logo is registered or regionally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within allowable size requirements. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours kLformation as specified on attached detail sheet. The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Promotional or special event signs, banners or flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the City. SUB MAJOR 'FF, NAN'!' BUTI',D1NG SIGNAGE -(7,/~ to 34,999 sq. ft.) Tenant shall be allowed one (1) sign per building elevation up to a maximum of three (3) signs per business as illustrated on page 17-19. However, ff the building elevation that faces Foothill Blvd. has more than one entry, the Tenant shall be allowed one (1) sign per entry facing Foothill Blvd. In no event shall the total number of signs allowed per building exceed three (3). The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom. Sub Majors can be identified on up to two faces of Monument signs at the discretion of the Landlord. Sub Major Users that desire larger sign area, height or length, must submit sign specifications and drawings composed on the building elevation, to the City of Rancho Cucamongn Planning Commission for review and approval. Two-line signs shall not exceed 36" in total height including the space between the line and no individual line shall be more than 24" in height. The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 36" in overall height, including downstrokes. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 36" in height. Page 3 col7 Length of sign shall not exceed 70% of shop frontage, or twenty-five feet (25'), whichever is less. Per sign sq. ft shall not exceed 75. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimensions. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is t~registered~ or regionally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated letters. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel letters, two (2) neon illumination, three (3) plastic face, and four (4) trim cap. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5TM deep (minimum), sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia, Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All sub-major user Tenants shall be limited to one of the following Plexigias colors: Red # 2793, Blue # 2214, White # 7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4~ trim cap (medium bronze) to match letter faces. Sign copy shall contain Tenants trade name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenant's nationally registered trademark or logo name, subject to Landlord and City of Rancho Cucamonga reviews and approval. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheets. The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Promotional or special event signs shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the City. Page 4 c 12 AI .1, TI~,NANTS FROM 4,t~ee TO 6,999 sq. ft. Each tenant shall be allowed one (1) double sided monument sign along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the Pad and two (2) wall-mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building fac~ As an option, each tenant may be allowed a maximum of three ('3) wall-mounted identification signs, one (1) sign per elevation or building face. A combination of monument and wall signs may be used; however, only a maximum of three (3) signs may be used to identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein. Wall Mounted Signs - Sign area shall be the entire area within a perimeter defined by a continuous line composed of fight angles which enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark or other graphic representation. The height of each sign shall be measured from top to bottom and shall not exceed the foilowing guidelines: Two line signs shall not exceed 24" in total height, including space between lines, and no individual line shall be more than 18" in height, The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 24" including downstrokes. c. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 24". Length of sign shall not exceed 7(F,6 of shop frontage, or twenty-five feet (259, which ever is less. Maximum sq. ft. shall not exceed 50. Signing shall be in accordance with the criteria contained within this program, unless, in the opinion of the landlord and, the design contributes to the unique benefit of the complex and the Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga. A registered trademark/logo, without adjacent individual letters may be included within the calculated sign area provided the allowable sign area for the trademark/logo letters is reduced to filty percent (50%) of the allowable area and that the logo may not exceed six feet in any dimension. Logo sign shall also be sized to be in proportion to the building face to which it is attached. This sign is also subiect to approval by the Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamong~ Page 5 A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is a "registered" or regionally recognized trademark with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements. A sign shall consist of internally illuminated individual letters. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel letters/logo, two (2) neon illumination, three (3) plastic face, and four (4) trim cap. Channel letters/logo shall be made of 22 gauge steel metal, 5" deep, sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. Letters shall be internalhr illuminated via neon lighting. Transformer shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways re prohibited. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. Tenants shall choose one of the following Ple,,dgias colors: Red #2793, Blue #2214, White #7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal. Plastic faces shall be ~irnmed with a 3/4 trim cap medium bronze to match letter returns. Sign copy shall contain legally registered name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl letter (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet. The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Each restaurant may also display one (1) menu provided it is contained within the display area shown on page 23. Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior to submission to the CiW. AI]. TI~.NANTS LTNDF. R 4,~) sq. fl:. In-Line Shop Tenants shall be allowed one (1) sign per building frontage as shown on page 20-22, with a maximum of two (2) signs allowed if the tenant is on the corner. Page 6 Pad Shop Tenants, at Landlords discretion, shall be allowed signage on one (1) monument sign along Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the Pad, and two (2) wall- mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building face. As an option, each tenant may have three (3) wall-mounted identification signs, one (1) sign per elevation or building face. A combination of monument and wall signs may be used; however, only a maximum of three (3) signs may be used to identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein. The height of each sign shall be measured fi'om top to bottom and shall not exceed the following guidelines: Two line signs shall not exceed 18" including the space between the lines in total height and no individual line shall be more than 14" in height. The space between lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of the smallest letter. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 18" in height including downstrokes. 3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 18" in height. The length of sign shall not exceed 75% of Shop frontage, or 20 feet (20'), whichever is less. Per sign sq. ft. shall not exceed 30. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront dimension. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said trademark/logo is "registered" or regionally recognized with at least six (6) open stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements, subject to City of Rancho Cucamonga review and approval. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated. Internally illuminated individual letters shall consist of one (1) channel letters, two (2) neon illumination, three (3) face, and four (4) trim cap. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimUm), sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be centered on the sign fascia. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are prohibited. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All non-restaurant Shop Tenants shall be llmited to one of the following Plexiglas colors: Red #2793, Blue #2214, White #7328, Green #2108 and Yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal Page 7 I. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match letter returns. Sign copy shall contain Tenant's trade name only. No other services or product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenant's trade name without Landlord's prior consenL In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name and hours information as shown on page 23. The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shall be in conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by the landlord prior to submission to the City. VI. RFSTAUPANT/RNTER~AINMI~.NTTENANTS: Regionally recognized Restaurant and Entertainment Tenants with six or more open stores whether they be In-Line, Single or Multi-user Pad, have specific and unique graphic, color and signage style needs. Therefore, colors and styles will be open, subject to the approval of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Signs will be limited to the restaurant user's name, regionally recognized Trademark and size requirement, as defined by the Tenant's square footage regardless of shopping center location. The use of brand names or brand logos, shields or crests will not be allowed on the sign unless specifically approved in writing by the landlord and subject to City of Rancho Cucamonga review and approval. VII. GR~F,I~T, GUI~F,T.I~'FS: A. General Requirements: Each Tenant shall submit to the Landlord for written approval before fabrication, not less than three (3) copies of detailed drawings of' the Tenant's proposed signs indicating the location, size, layout, design, materials and color graphics. Such drawings shall be submitted concurrently with architectural drawings, sufficient in Landlord's opinion, to show the exact relationship with the store design, Tenanfs store location on site and the dimensions of the building frontage. Prior to fabrication, detailed drawings of all signs shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division for review and approval. These drawings must be signed and stamped as approved by the Landlord prior to submittal to the City. Page 8 11. 12. 13. Tenant shall obtain and pay the entire cost of all permits, and approvals, construction, installation and maintenance of its respective sign. No sign shall be installed until all required approvals and permits have been obtained. Tenant shall be responsible for fulfillment of all of these Sign Criteria to the extent applicable. No Tenant shall affix or maintain upon any glass or other material on the storefront of within twenty-four inches (24") of any window, any signs unless such signs or materials have received the written approval of the Landlord, and comply with this Sign Criteria All primary identification of Tenant shall be internally illuminated. Secondary Signage may be non-illuminated if total allowable sign area is not exceeded in height and width. Two lines of copy may be used as long as the total height of sign does not exceed maximum sign height for the applicable type of Signage and the design is approved by the Landlord and the City ofRancho Cucamonga. Sign shall center on the storefront unless prior written approval is obtained from the Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamongn. No sandblasted or painted wood signs will be allowed. Tenant shall be solely responsible for the installation and maintenance of its own signs. Tenant's sign contractor shall repair any damage to the premises or other property in the Shopping Center caused by the contractor's work. Should Tenant's contractor fail to adequately repair such damage, Landlord may, but shall not be required to, repair such damage at the tenant expense. Tenant shall be fully responsible for the actions of Tenant's Sign contractor. Electrical service to Tenanes signs wili be connected to Tenanfs meter and shall be connected to a time clock supplied by Tenant Time clock hours shall be subject to Landlord approval. Page 9 B. Construction Requirements l~ndlord's construction superintendent shall be given adequate notice prior to installation of all signs. Failure to notify l~ndlord may result in removal of sign to inspect penetration in building face. 2. All signs shall be fabricated and installed per UL and City standards. Letter fastening and clips are to be concealed and be of galvanized, stainless, aluminum, brass, or bronze metals. No labels will be permitted on the exposed surface of the signs, except those required by local ordinance, which shall be placed in an inconspicuous location. Tenants shall have identification signs designed in a manner compatible with and complimentary to adjacent and facing storefronts and the overall design concept of the Shopping Center. Design, layout and materials for Tenant signs shall conform in all respects with the sign design drawings included in this criteria. The maximum heights for letters in the body of the sign shall be as indicated in these criteria. All penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation shall be sealed in a watertight condition and shall be patched to match adjacent finish to Landlord's satisfaction. 8. No wood backed letter material will be allowed. C. Sign Installation All work to fabricate, erect, or install signs (including connection to electrical junction box) shall be contracted and paid for by Tenant and subject to approval by Landlord. All signs shall be designed, constructed and installed in accordance with local codes and ordinances. All permits shall be obtained by Tenant's sign contractor, at Tenant's sole expense. Signs not installed in strict accordance with previously approved plans and specifications shall be immediately corrected by Tenant, at Tenant's cost and expense, upon demand by Landlord. If not corrected within fifteen (15) days, sign may be removed or corrected by Landlord at Tenant's expense. Page 10 Erection of any sign shall be promptly and safely effected with as little disruption to business and traffic as possible and with minimum of inconvenience to the Landlord and to the other Tenants. Upon removing any sign, Tenant shall, at its own expense, repair any damage created by such removal and shall return the area from which the sign was removed back to its original condition. All debris from removal shall be promptly removed from its site. D. Protection of Property: Tenanfs sign contractor shall design, install, or erect Tenant's sign in such a manner that it will not over-stress, deface, or damage any portion of the building or grounds. Any sign, temporary or permanent, capable of exerting damaging pressures on the building due to its size, weight or design shall have its design examined by a structural engineer. Prior to installation of such sign, Tenant shall submit to Landlord such engineer's written approval verifying that no unsafe condition will be imposed upon the building or other structure to which the sign will be attached. All exposed parts of any sign or sign support subject to corrosion or other similar damage shall be protected in a manner acceptable to Landlord. Any sign on which stains or rust appear, or which becomes damaged in any way, or which in any manner whatsoever is not maintained properly, shall be promptly repaired by Tenant l~ndlord may remove and store, at Tenant's expense, any signs not maintained properly or not in accordance with sign program. F. Restrictions: All users are subject to the followingn 1. No animated, revolving, flashing, audible, or odor producing signs will be allowed. 2. No vehicle signs will be ailowed. 3. No formed plastics or injection-molded plastic signs will be permitted. No exposed raceways, cross-overs or conduits will be permitted to be visible. Page ll 5. No other types of signs except those specifically mentioned within this criteria will be allowed. Tenant will be required to remove any sign considered to be in bad taste or that does not contribute positively to the overall design of the center. Miscellaneous Signs: It is understood that there may be the need for additional signs for information and directional purposes. These signs will be reviewed by Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucarnonga Planning Department for consistency of design with the Shopping Center. City, State, and Federally required signs shall be installed as required by the governing agency. Page 12 EQ. Maximum area 300 SqFt, EQ STOREFRONT ELEVATION AT ENTRANCE MAJOR TENANT Maximum area 300 SqFt. TO BE DETERMINED BY EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AS APPROVED BY CITY DRC. CONTROLLED BY LANDLORD DISCRETION, Signage shall be proportionate and visually balanced within the architectural elemenls. PA(~E 13 1.0 MAJOR TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10.22.98 STOREFRONT ELEVATION AT ENTRANCE MAJOR TENANT PAGE 14 atr!. 1.1 MAJOR TENANT PLANNED SIGRNEvPll;oR22AgMa TO BE DETERMINED BY EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND CON~'ROLLED BY LANDLORD DISCRETION I 3'-0" Min. MA,IOR TENANTi l 3::[ T j.~" ,,. .... ""'Ik.: I .., .. '... STOREFRONT ELEVATION ADJACENT TO ENTRANCE MAJOR TENANT Note: This sign location is intended for situations where architectural features at entry tower locations does not allow room for signs. PAGE 15 MAJOR TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 102298 3"0" Min. Maximum area 300 Sq,FL TO BE DETERMINED BY EXISTING ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND APPROVED BY CITY DRC. CONTROLLED BY LANDLORD DISCRETION, Maximum erea 300 Rq rl STOREFRONT ELEVATION ADJACENT TO ENTRANCE MAJOR TENANT Note: This sign location is intended for situations where architectural features at entry tower locations does not allow room for signs. PAGE i,, - 1.3 MAJOR TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM MAXIMUM 25' OR 70% OF LEASEHOLD FRONTAGE (VVHICHEVER IS LESS) EQ. Maximum alea 75 Sq. F! EQ. S'UB;lYlA'JO tENANT STOREFRONT ELEVATION AT ENTRANCE SUB-MAJOR TENANT PAGE 17 2,0 SUB-MAJOR TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 1022.98 MAXIMUM 25 OR 70% OF I EASEHOLD FRONTAGE (WHICHEVER IS LESS) I ~-,3'*o" Min. .-I- STOREFRONT ELEVATION ADJACENT TO ENTRANCE SUB-MAJOR TENANT PAGE 18 2.1 SUB-MAJOR TENANT MAXIMUM 25' OR 70% OF LEASEHOLD FRONTAGE (WHICHEVER IS LESS) STOREFRONT ELEVATION ADJACENT TO ENTRANCE SUB-MAJOR TENANT PAGE 19 ,I, r, 2.2 SUB-MAJOR TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10 22,98 LEASEHOLD FRONTAGE OR WIDTH OF UNBROKEN WALL SECTION MAXIMUM 20' or 75% OF LEASEHOLD EQ, FRONTAGE- (V~nicheve[ is less Maxin~m area 40 Sq Ft. EQ --ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE EQ. ~*~:- ..........!N_'_'_'L!NE;;__.T_.,ENA~::;~: '"' :, .'r.,.;,, · AWNING FEATURE STOREFRONT ELEVATION IN-LINE TENANT - TYPE 1 pAGE 2.0 3.0 IN-LINE TENANT__ PLANNED SIGN PROG~21~2~ REVISED 10 2 LEASEHOLD FRONTAGE + ............... OR WID FI~)~U~OKEN WALL SECTION EQ, MAXIMUM 20' or 75% OF LEASEHOLD FRONTAGE- (V~hichever is less) Maximum area 40 Sq, Ft. EQ. E?, ................iN_',_EiNE;;TEN EQ STOREFRONT ELEVATION IN-LINE TENANT - TYPE 2 PAGE ITEM 3.1 IN-LINE TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10 2298 L_EASEHOLD FRONTAGE OR WtD1 H OF UNBROKEN WALL SECTION MAXIMUM 20' or 75% OF LEASEHOLD EQ. FRONTAGE- 0/Vhichever Is less) ~ EQ. Maximum area 40 Sq. Ft !N __MNET. ..................... 18' Ma . EQ r ......................... ~ ...... STOREFRONT ELEVATION IN*LINE TENANT - TYPE 3 PA(~E 2~. ITEM 3,2 IN-LINE TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 102298 .! STOREFRONT MULLIONS STORE NAME AT 2-1/2" HIGH, MAX STORE HOURS, SECURITY PHONE NUMBER AT3/4" HIGH, MAX STORE ADDRESS NUMBERS AT 2~1/2" HIGH, MAX STOREFRONT ELEVATION ENTRY GRAPHICS SUITE IDENTIFICATION / HOURS GRAPHICS ABOVE TO BE FIRST-SURFACE HIGtl PERFORMANCE V~tITE VINYL, APPLIED TO STOREFRONT GLASS. PAGE23 4.0 ALL TENANTS PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 1022 98 --+ ~FI~ENANT NAME~/ TENANT NAME }TENANT NAME tl Max. DIRECTIONAL MONUMENT MULTIPLE LOCATIONS 1. FREESTANDING MONUMENT DIRECTIONAL SIGN. SINGLE OR DOUBLE- SIDED, FABRICATED FROM ALUMINUM WI TEXCOTE FINISH TOPPED WITH BULLNOSED END CAP, CONCRETE SIMULATED. MAXIMUM (3) REMOVABLE & PANELS. 2. ROUTED LETTERS AND ARROWS BACKED-UP W/#2793 RED ACRYLIC. TYPICAL LETTER STYLE AS SHOWN. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY FLUORESCENT LAMPS. 3. LOGO ELEMENT IS 3/4" PUSH-THRU CLEAR ACRYLIC WtTH VtNYL GRAPHICS (SECOND SURFACE TRANSLUCENT COLORS PER LOGO SCHEME WITH WHITE ACRYLIC BACKER,) PAGE 2,4, DIRECTIONAL PLANNED SIGN )GRAM 102298 tein/ ar · (FUTUR[ TENANT} (FU~'URE TENANt:: MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXISTING SIGNWALL LEGEND: 1 EXISTING CMU S~GN WALL COVER EXISTING RECESSED PANEL AND LETTERS REPAINT ALL OF WALLS AND CAPS OFF- WHITE TIM FRA~ZEE 487 'SWISS COFFEE' 2 INS'~ALL NEW 5" DE EP RED #2793 PLEX- FACED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS FLUSH MOUNT TO WALL MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 18' FOR TOP LINE TENAN'[ MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 9" FOR BOTTOM LINE TENANT CLEAR RED NEON ILLUMINATION. RED TRIM CAPS AND RETURNS RACEWAY REQUIRED ON BACKSIDE OF WALL ENCLOSING ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, PAINTED-OUT T/M WALL COLOR LETTERSTYLE OPEN TO TENANT. SUSJECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL 3 LOGO ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED OF 314' CLEAR ACRYLIC W1TH APPLIED 1 ST SURFACE FILM GRAPHICS · Red letters · Font open PAGE 25 6.0a MAIN ENTRY WALLS PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 102298 (FUTURE TENAN (----) NOTE TENANT NAMES SHOWN ARE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXIST1NG SIGNWALL LEGEND: I EXISTING CMU SIGN WALL COVER EXISTING RECESSED PANEL AND LETTERS REPAINT ALL OF WALLS AND CAPS OFF- WHITE Trk,~ ERAZEE 487 'SIfilSS COFFEE' 2 INSTALL NEW 5' DEEP RED #2793 PLEX- FACED PAN CHANNEL LETfERS FLUSH MOUNT TO WALL MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 18' FOR TOP LINE TENANT. MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 9' FOR BOTTOM LINE TENANT CLEAR RED NEON ILLUMINATION. RED TRIM CAPS AND RETURNS RACEWAY REQUIRED ON BACKSIDE OF WALL ENCLOSING ALL ELECTRICAL COMPGNENTS, PAINTED-OUT TrM WALL COLOR LETTERSTYLE OPEr,I TO TENANT, SUB,IECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL 3 LOGO ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED OF 314' CLEAR ACRYLIC VV1TH ~opLIED 1ST SURFACE FILM GRAPHICS PAGE 26 60b MAIN ENTRY WALLS PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10.22.98 ~ Eq,Equal Equal I~;:.: ', SteinMar- ROS<:; ...... :' MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXISTING SIGNWALL LEGEND: 1. EXISTING CMU SIGN WALL COVER EXtSTING RECESSED PANEL AND LETTERS. REPAINT ALL OF WALLS AND CAPS OFF- WHITE TIM FRAZEE 487 "SWISS COFFEE" 2. INSTALL NEW 5" DEEP RED #2793 PLEX- FACED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS FLUSH MOUNT TO WALL MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 18" FOR TOP LINE TENANT CLEAR RED NEON ILLUMINATION, RED TRiM CAPS AND RETURNS RACEWAY REQUIRED ON BACKSIDE OF WALL ENCLOSING ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, PAiNTED-OUT TIM WALL COLOR· LETTERSTYLE OPEN TO TENANT, SUBJECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL 3. LOGO ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED OF 3/4" CLEAR ACRYLIC WITH APPLIED 1 ST SURFACE FILM GRAPHICS · Red letters · Font open PAGE27 PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 102298 RACEWAY - ~M WALL PLAN VIEW 120' ".. .~'--~ :,~ "'-. / / // 16'-0" Equal WARDS Equa~ Eq E~ :FUTURE TEAANT: " ' 'm MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXISTING SIGNWALL LEGEND: 1. EXISTfNG CMU SIGN WALL. COVER EXISTING RECESSED PANEL AND LETTERS, REPAINT ALL OF WALLS AND CAPS OFF- WHITE T/M FRAZEE 487 'SWISS COFFEE". 2. INSTALL NEW 5' DEEP RED fr2793 PLEX~ FACED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS FLUSH MOUNT TO WALL. MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 18' FOR TOP LINE TENANT. CLEAR RED NEON ILLUMINATION. RED TRIM CAPS AND RETURNS. RACEWAY REQUIRED ON BACKSIDE OF WALL ENCLOSING ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS. PAINTED-OUT TIM WALL COLOR LETTERSTYLE OPEN TO TENANT. SUBJECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL. LOGO ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED OF 314" CLEAR ACRYLIC WITH APPLIED 1ST SURFACE FILM GRAPHICS · Red letters · Font open PAGE 28 ~ ~., 6.1b MAIN ENTRY WALLS PI_ANNED 8'GRN~vPi,~o~I~2~ PLAN VIEW / / / / 16'-0' Eq ttervymfs Equal TARG -'T MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXISTING SIGNWALL Equal · Red letters · Font open I(Iv'm. 18") 2'-11' PAGE 29 6.'1C MAIN ENTRY WALLS PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10.22.98 I I NEW MAJOR & SUB-MAJOR TENANT MONUMENT SIGN PLACED AT SECONDARY ENTRANCES INTO PROJECT TENANT NAk E TENANT NAME TENANT NAME ............. I I MONUMENT (7) SEVEN LOCATIONS (see sile plan page 39) FREESTANDING MONUMENT DIRECTIONAL SIGN, SINGLE OR DOUBLE- SIDED. FABRICATED FROM ALUMINUM WI TEXCOTE FINISH TOPPED WITH BULLNOSED END CAP, CONCRETE SIMULATED. MAXIMUM (3) REMOVABLE & PANELS. ROUTED LETTERS BACKED-UP W/#2793 RED ACRYLIC. TYPICAL LETTER STYLE AS SHOWN. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY FLUORESCENT LAMPS. LOGO ELEMENT tS 314" PUSH-THRU CLEAR ACRYLIC WITH VINYL GRAPHICS (SECOND SURFACE TRANSLUCENT COLORS PER LOGO SCHEME WITH WHITE ACRYLIC BACKER.) · Red letters · Font as shown PA(~E 30 6.2 MONUMENT PLANNED S'%NEVPi~o,2P~2.gMB _~RACEWAY - ~TM WALL 120:' - ' //. ' PLAN VIEW elemeflt MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXISTING SIGNWALL [] LEGEND: 1. EXISTING CMU SIGN WALL COVER EXISTING RECESSED PANEL AND LETTERS. REPAINT ALL OF WALLS AND CAPS OFF- WHITE T/M FRAZEE 487 'SWISS COFFEE'. 2. INSTALL NEW 5' DEEP RED #2793 PLEX~ FACED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS FLUSH MOUNT TO WALL. MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 18' FOR TOP LINE TENANT. MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 9" FOR BOTTOM LINE TENANT CLEAR RED NEON ILLUMINATION, RED TRIM CAPS AND RETURNS RACEWAY REQUIRED ON BACKSIDE OF WALL ENCLOSING ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS, PAINTED-OUT TIM WALL COLOR LETTERSTYLE OPEN TO TENANT, SUBJECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL. 3 LOGO ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED OF 3/4" CLEAR ACRYLIC WITH APPLIED 1ST SURFACE FILM GRAPHICS · Red letters · Font open PAGE 31 7.0a MONUMENT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10,22.98 'I PLAN VIEW 24'~' .............. --~-~Z, _~_ ~:~,:~ '~ 'ZF-~' ~.__~ ............. Z:T,Z ~ ~ ~ _ ,J~ :~_ BEST Office Max (FUTURm TmN I .... · Red letters · Font open PA~E3~2 7.0b MONUMENT MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXISTING SIGNWALL LEGEND: 1. EXISTING CMU SIGN WALL. COVER EXISTING RECESSED PANEL AND LETTERS. REPAINT ALL OF WALLS AND CAPS OFF- WHITE TIM FRAZEE 487 'SWISS COFFEE". 2. INSTALL NEW 5" DEEP RED #2793 PLEX- FACED PAN CHANNEL LETTERS FLUSH MOUNT TO WALL. MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 18' FOR TOP LINE TENANT, MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 9' FOR BOTTOM LINE TENANT CLEAR RED NEON ILLUMINATtON, RED TRIM CAPS AND RETURNS. RACEWAY REQUIRED ON BACKSIDE OF WALL ENCLOSING ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS. PAiNTED-OUT TIM WALL COLOR. LETTERSTYLE OPEN TO TENANT, SUBJECT TO LANDLORD APPROVAL 3. LOGO ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED OF 314" CLEAR ACRYLIC WITH APPLIED 1ST SURFACE FILM GRAPHICS PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM Equa| RACEWAY - PTM WALL .,~ PLAN V, Ew ._~ " Equal ,Equal : Equal / m I E , :FUTURE TENANT) MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXISTING SIGNWALL ,1 II ..... III · Red letters · Font open PAGE 33 7.1a MONUMENT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10.22,98 RACEWAY - PTM WALL .-~ ........... L .......... imsl PLAN VIEW ,'~' "-°~,, ~ (FUTURE TENANT' 'FUTU IE TENANT) MODIFICATION SCHEME TO EXISTING SIGNWALL 3. LOGO ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED OF 3/4' CLEAR ACRYLIC WITH APPLIED 1ST SURFACE FILM GRAPHICS · Red letters · Font open PAGE 34 7.1b t~f'~ MONUMENT PI.~ANNED SIGRN~I?o.2P~z~ TI.;,NAN"I" NAIvi I!, "I'F, NAN'I' NAMI;, TI,,'NAN'I' NAMF, ~W NEW MAJOR & SUB-MAJOR TENANT MONUMENT SIGN PLACED AT PRIMARY ENTRANCE INTO PROJECT MONUMENT ONE LOCATION (Foothill Blvd.) TENANT ~~i.Z TENANT NAM~ ' TENANT · Red letters · Font as shown 1. FREESTANDING MONUMENTDIRECTIONAL SIGN, SINGLE ORDOUBLE- SIDED. FABRICATED FROM'/~UMINUM W! TEXCOTE FINISH TOPPED WITH BULLNOSED END CAP, CONCRETE SIMULATED. MAXIMUM (3) REMOVABLE & PANELS. 2. ROUTED LETrERS BACKED-UP W/12793 RED ACRYLIC. TYPICAL LETTER STYLE AS SHOWN. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY FLUORESCENT LAMPS. 3. LOGO ELEMENT IS 3~4" PUSH-THRU CLEAR ACRYLIC WITH VINYL GRAPHICS (SECOND SURFACE TRANSLUCENT COLORS PER LOGO SCHEME WITH WHITE ACRYLIC BACKER.) pA~E MONUMENT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 1022.98 16", eyp, Holly Green 3630-76 ..... ~\,~ Sunflower Yellow 3630-25 Orange 3630-44 Teal 3630-246. Light Tomato Red 3630-43 LOGO DETAIL LOGO ELEMENTS CONSTRUCTED OF 3/4" CLEAR ACRYUC VVITH APPLIED 1ST SURFACE FILM GRAPHICS PAGE 36 L_c~go.,..D._e_t.ai.I ......... ® ® ® @ @ Channel Letter Section Detail NTS, ELECTRO BIT ®CUSTOM FAB. CHANNEL LETTER FROM .04o ALUMINUM WITH AUTOMOTIVE PAINTED RETURNS. FULLY WELDED AND CAULKEE SEAMS TO ELIMINATE LIGHT LEAKS. SOLID ALUMINUM BACK. 1/4' WEEP HOLES AT BOTTOMS OF LETTERS, (2) PER LETTER. @3/4" TRIMCAP RETAINER W/#8 X ¼" ALUMINUM SCREWS. @ 1/8" ACRYLIC FACE. @13-15 MM NEON. @ BONDING JUMPER (MIN #14 COPPER) @ELECTRO BIT HIGH VOLTAGE SS3/5, U.L APPROVED CON. ®%" DtAM. METAL FLEXIBLE CONDUIT. ~GALVANIZED TRANSFORMER BOX IN REMOTE LOCATION. ® NEON TUBE STAND. ® ( 1 )30MA TRANSFORM ER WITH DISCONNECT SWITCH. 15,000V, 3.75 AMP. r~#3830 GTO SLEEVING @ GTO CABLE @ FASTENER TO WALL (2-5 PER LETTER) - SIGN MUST BE U.L LISTED. - SIGN TO BE ON ITS OWN CIRCUIT. * TRANSFORMER(S) MUST BE ACCESSIBLE AND HAVE A WORK SPACE OF AT LEAST 3' X 3'. PAGE 37 Letter Detail MAJOR TENANT PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVISED 10.22.98 -- 1" steel sq. Tubes (2), painted black ," Store Name Vinyl overlay letters -.- Layered panels from 1/4" thick sintra PVC sheet, painted and affixed to either side of vertical supports PAGE 38 ,/~o TVP~ ARCADE SIGN PLANNED SIG~vP' ~o~ KEY: 50: NEW DIRECTIONAL MONUMENT SIGNS WITHIN PROJECT, PLANNEDSIGi~R~'I~ KEY: 8o; MAJOR ENTRY WALL MODIFICATION (2). 6.1: SECOr,~DARy ENTRY WALL MODIFICATION (3). 62: NEW MONUMENT SIGN AT SECONDARy ENTRANCES. 63~ FUTURE THEATRE REMODEL MARQUEE SIGNS 70~ SECONDARy CORNER WALL MODIFICATION (2) 7 I~ SECONDARy CORNER WALL MODIFICATION (2). ? 2: NEW 'V SHAPED ISLAND SIGN Ill SITE PLAN PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM()NGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 13, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet City Planner Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND: The Commission normally reviews Design Review Committee membership approximately every six months. It is now time to review Committee membership. The Commission may also wish to reconsider the meeting time and day for Committee meetings. Currently meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday evenings of the week prior to Planning Commission meetings. Currently Chairman McNiel and Vice Chairman Macias are currently on the Committee. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership for the Design Review Committee and determine if the meeting time and day should be changed. City Planner BB:GS/gs ITEH I